The Democrats squealed like stuck pigs after President Bush gave his "appeasement" address before the Knesset during Israel's 60th birthday celebration. Here, in part, is what Bush told the Israeli parliament: "The fight against terror and extremism is the defining challenge of our time. .. Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator (William Borah, R-Idaho) declared: ‘Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.’ We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
Bush must have touched a real sore spot because the Democrats went ballistic. Although Bush did not mention anyone by name, Obama and his fellow dems apparently believed he was the target of Bush's appeasement remarks. Even though Obama had said he would meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Islamist President of Iran, WITHOUT PRE-CONDITIONS, it was more likely that Bush directed his comments at Jimmy Carter because the former president met last month with Hamas despite State Department requests that he not do so.
Obama was quick to take offense to Bush's remarks, calling the President a liar and claiming that he never said he would talk with terrorists. Hillary Clinton, who had previously criticized Obama's pledge to meet with Ahmadinejad, said, "President Bush's comparison of any Democrat to Nazi appeasers is both offensive and outrageous on the face of it."
Senator Joe Biden really went ape, saying: "This is bullshit. This is malarkey. Outrageous for the president of the United States to ................. make this kind of ridiculous statement." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Bush "has fired yet another reckless and reprehensible round." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, "I think what the president did in that regard is beneath the dignity of the office of president ................ ."
The problem Democrats have is that President Bush was absolutely right when he characterized diplomatic meetings with terrorists and radicals as appeasement. Obama pledged to meet with Ahmadinejad, the chief financial backer, weapons supplier and military training provider of Hamas and Hezbollah, both of which have been designated as terrorist organizations by the U.S. and the European Union.
Ahmadinejad has referred to Israel as a DEAD RAT., a SAVAGE ANIMAL and a BLACK AND DIRTY MICROBE. In 2005 he said: "There is no doubt that the new wave (the second intifada) in Palestine will wipe off this stigma (Israel) from the face of the Islamic world. Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury, (while) any (Islamic leader) who recognizes the Zionist regime means he is acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world. The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."
Ahmadinejad has repeadly called for the destruction of Israel and has also called for DEATH TO AMERICA. And this sponsor of terrorism with his radical rhetoric is the guy Obama has pledged to talk to WITHOUT PRE-CONDITIONS. If that's not appeasement, then what in the world is it? Is Obama so naive as to believe that he can persuade Ahmadinejad to kiss and make up with Israel and with America? If so, Obama must still believe in the tooth fairy.
Speaking of appeasement, a year before Borah wished he could have talked with Hitler, Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister, was convinced he had appeased Hitler out of going to war by conceding part of Czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany. This is how Wikipedia describes the grinning Prime Minister's "triumphant" return to England - Neville Chamberlain holding the paper containing the resolution to commit to peaceful methods signed by both Hitler and himself on his return from Munich. Showing the piece of paper to a crowd at Heston Aerodrome, he said:
"...the settlement of the Czechoslovakian problem, which has now been achieved is, in my view, only the prelude to a larger settlement in which all Europe may find peace. This morning I had another talk with the German Chancellor, Herr Hitler, and here is the paper which bears his name upon it as well as mine (waves paper to the crowd - receiving loud cheers and "Hear Hears"). Some of you, perhaps, have already heard what it contains but I would just like to read it to you ...".
Later that day he stood outside Number 10 Downing Street and again read from the document and concluded: '"My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is PEACE FOR OUR TIME." The rest is history - World War II.
Having learned nothing from Chamberlain's failed "peace for our time" legacy, President Bill Clinton played his hand at trying to appease Yasser Arafat by pressuring Israel into agreeing to make concessions to the Palestinians, concessions that would have damaged the security of the Jewish State. Clinton thought he had obtained Arafat's agreement to make peace with Israel, but instead of peace, the PLO leader chose to bring on the first intifada.
Bush had it exactly right. It truly is a "foolish delusion" to think that you can make deals with fanatics and tyrants. History has shown repeatedly that appeasement, as was the case with Hitler and Arafat, merely whets the appetite of those bent on further conquests, a lesson apparently lost on Bill Cinton, Carter and Obama, as well as on Hillary Clinton, Biden, Reid, Pelosi and other leading Democrats.
As for Israel, Charles Krauthammer, the Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist, recently wrote: "Israel's crime is not its policies but its insistence on living. On the day the Arabs -- and the Palestinians in particular -- make a collective decision to accept the Jewish state, there will be peace, as Israel proved with its treaties with Egypt and Jordan. Until that day, there will be nothing but war. And every 'peace process', however cynical or well-meaning, will come to nothing."
And when might we expect peace between Issrael and the Arabs? Not anytime in the near future. As several analysts have noted, the Islamists want to kill all Christians and all Jews, whereas the moderate Muslims only want to kill all the Jews. Bush had it right when he implied that Carter and Obama were APPEASERS. So, if Obama becomes President and carries out his pledge to talk with Ahmadinejad, he will be, like Chamberlain and Bill Clinton before him, tilting at windmills.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
NO MORE COPS UNDER 60
I'm sure a lot of cops wish that policing would return to the good old days, like when I was a cop. In those days cops were not prejudiced - we just kicked the shit out of everybody. It took only a couple of smacks to the head to get a juvenile's attention and that was usually enough to keep him in line. We didn't take any crap from anyone. If someone mouthed off at us, they would be collecting a handful of their teeth from the sidewalk.
In the good old days people rarely gave us cops any crap. Despite frequent "kick ass and take names later" incidents, most people respected police officers. And crime rates were lower to boot. In those days, we didn't have or need any of those college educated pussy cops with their fuzzy pointy-headed liberal nonsense of sweet-talking to turds. And thankfully, in the good old days there were no women cops to get in the way of us doing our jobs.
It's too bad the good old days are gone. Today's ass-kissing policing has little to do with civil rights. It has more to do with capitulating to the sensitivities of the various constituencies police are having to deal with. It almost seems as if today's cops are expected to salute the Mexican flag and to make Jessee Jackson and Al Sharpton honorary policemen. Fuck all those thin-skinned assholes and their feelings! I say, let's return to the good old days! And the way to do that is by not hiring any police officers under the age of 60. Here's why:
Researchers say those in their twenties think about sex every 10 seconds. Those of us over 60 think about sex at most twice a day, leaving us more than 28,000 additional seconds per day to concentrate on our work.
Young officers haven't lived long enough to be cranky, and a cranky cop is an aggressive cop. Us older guys complain a lot about our physical ailments. We are an impatient lot and by letting us kick the living shit out of some asshole who desperately deserves it, maybe that will make us feel better and shut us up for a while.
Young guys don't even like to get up before 10 AM. Us old guys alway get up early to pee, so what the hell. And since we're already up, we might as well be up kicking the shit out of some sorry son-of-a-bitch.
Some of the physical training exercises would have to be easier for us old guys. They could do away with the obstacle course because in all my years as a cop, I never saw any 20 foot wall with rope hanging over the side. And after I finished my basic training, I never had to go hand over hand under a long set of crossbars or do any pushups and pull-ups. The running part is kind of a waste of energy too - I've never seen anyone outrun a bullet.
And, those basic training instructors would not have to yell and scream at us like they do at the younger guys. We're used to getting yelled and screamed at by our wives and kids. We've also developed an appreciation for guns. We've been using guns for years as an excuse to get out of the house, away from all the yelling and screaming.
So, stop hiring young cops and let us old guys go out on the streets to confront any dirty rotten troublemakers. The last thing those assholes want to see is a bunch of pissed-off armed and dangerous old farts with attitudes who don't give a shit anymore because they know their best years are already way behind them.
In the good old days people rarely gave us cops any crap. Despite frequent "kick ass and take names later" incidents, most people respected police officers. And crime rates were lower to boot. In those days, we didn't have or need any of those college educated pussy cops with their fuzzy pointy-headed liberal nonsense of sweet-talking to turds. And thankfully, in the good old days there were no women cops to get in the way of us doing our jobs.
It's too bad the good old days are gone. Today's ass-kissing policing has little to do with civil rights. It has more to do with capitulating to the sensitivities of the various constituencies police are having to deal with. It almost seems as if today's cops are expected to salute the Mexican flag and to make Jessee Jackson and Al Sharpton honorary policemen. Fuck all those thin-skinned assholes and their feelings! I say, let's return to the good old days! And the way to do that is by not hiring any police officers under the age of 60. Here's why:
Researchers say those in their twenties think about sex every 10 seconds. Those of us over 60 think about sex at most twice a day, leaving us more than 28,000 additional seconds per day to concentrate on our work.
Young officers haven't lived long enough to be cranky, and a cranky cop is an aggressive cop. Us older guys complain a lot about our physical ailments. We are an impatient lot and by letting us kick the living shit out of some asshole who desperately deserves it, maybe that will make us feel better and shut us up for a while.
Young guys don't even like to get up before 10 AM. Us old guys alway get up early to pee, so what the hell. And since we're already up, we might as well be up kicking the shit out of some sorry son-of-a-bitch.
Some of the physical training exercises would have to be easier for us old guys. They could do away with the obstacle course because in all my years as a cop, I never saw any 20 foot wall with rope hanging over the side. And after I finished my basic training, I never had to go hand over hand under a long set of crossbars or do any pushups and pull-ups. The running part is kind of a waste of energy too - I've never seen anyone outrun a bullet.
And, those basic training instructors would not have to yell and scream at us like they do at the younger guys. We're used to getting yelled and screamed at by our wives and kids. We've also developed an appreciation for guns. We've been using guns for years as an excuse to get out of the house, away from all the yelling and screaming.
So, stop hiring young cops and let us old guys go out on the streets to confront any dirty rotten troublemakers. The last thing those assholes want to see is a bunch of pissed-off armed and dangerous old farts with attitudes who don't give a shit anymore because they know their best years are already way behind them.
Monday, May 12, 2008
TRUMAN'S GUTSY RECOGNITION OF ISRAEL
For many years. I have believed that Harry Truman was one of our greatest Presidents, if not the greatest. Likewise, I have believed that General George Marshall was one of our greatest Secretaries of State. According to Richard Holbrooke, a former high ranking State Department official, Marshall along with Dean Rusk, Dean Acheson, and several other top level government officials strongly opposed the recognition of the State of Israel when it declared its independence 60 years ago.
Whether one likes Truman or not, no one can deny the gutsiness of the former President. He did not hesitate to order the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, thereby bringing about an early end to the WWII conflict in the Pacific. That act saved countless of American and allied lives (probably my life too) and, yes, even Japanese lives. Truman also did not hesitate to fire General Douglas MacArthur for disobeying his orders during the Korean War. That really took a lot of guts since MacArthur was extremely popular and considered by many as a likely future President.
Holbrooke writes about the conflict between Truman and his top advisers over the recognition of Israel. It seems that opposition to the State of Israel was rooted as much in anti-Semitism as it was in a fear of the Arab World's reaction to the formation of a Jewish State. And suprisingly, even some prominent American Jews were dead set against letting Zionists establish their own state. Here is how Holbrooke described the conflict in a recent Washington Post column (May 7, Page A21):
Washington's battle over Israel's birth
By Richard Holbrooke
In the celebrations next week surrounding Israel's 60th anniversary, it should not be forgotten that there was an epic struggle in Washington over how to respond to Israel's declaration of independence on May 14, 1948. It led to the most serious disagreement President Harry Truman ever had with his revered secretary of state, George Marshall -- and with most of the foreign policy establishment. Twenty years ago, when I was helping Clark Clifford write his memoirs, I reviewed the historical record and interviewed all the living participants in that drama. The battle lines drawn then resonate still.
The British planned to leave Palestine at midnight on May 14. At that moment, the Jewish Agency, led by David Ben-Gurion, would proclaim the new (and still unnamed) Jewish state. The neighboring Arab states warned that fighting, which had already begun, would erupt into full-scale war at that moment.
The Jewish Agency proposed partitioning Palestine into two parts -- one Jewish, one Arab. But the State and Defense departments backed the British plan to turn Palestine over to the United Nations. In March, Truman privately promised Chaim Weizmann, the future president of Israel, that he would support partition -- only to learn the next day that the American ambassador to the United Nations had voted for U.N. trusteeship. Enraged, Truman wrote a private note on his calendar: "The State Dept. pulled the rug from under me today. The first I know about it is what I read in the newspapers! Isn't that hell? I'm now in the position of a liar and double-crosser. I've never felt so low in my life. ..."
Truman blamed "third and fourth level" State Department officials -- especially the director of U.N. affairs, Dean Rusk, and the agency's counselor, Charles Bohlen. But opposition really came from an even more formidable group: the "wise men" who were simultaneously creating the great Truman foreign policy of the late 1940s -- among them Marshall, James Forrestal, George Kennan, Robert Lovett, John McCloy, Paul Nitze and Dean Acheson. To overrule State would mean Truman taking on Marshall, whom he regarded as "the greatest living American," a daunting task for a very unpopular president.
Beneath the surface lay unspoken but real anti-Semitism on the part of some (but not all) policymakers. The position of those opposing recognition was simple -- oil, numbers and history. "There are thirty million Arabs on one side and about 600,000 Jews on the other," Defense Secretary Forrestal told Clifford. "Why don't you face up to the realities?"
On May 12, Truman held a meeting in the Oval Office to decide the issue. Marshall and his universally respected deputy, Robert Lovett, made the case for delaying recognition -- and "delay" really meant "deny." Truman asked his young aide, Clark Clifford, to present the case for immediate recognition. When Clifford finished, Marshall, uncharacteristically, exploded. "I don't even know why Clifford is here. He is a domestic adviser, and this is a foreign policy matter. The only reason Clifford is here is that he is pressing a political consideration."
Marshall then uttered what Clifford would later call "the most remarkable threat I ever heard anyone make directly to a President." In an unusual top-secret memorandum Marshall wrote for the historical files after the meeting, the great general recorded his own words: "I said bluntly that if the President were to follow Mr. Clifford's advice and if in the elections I were to vote, I would vote against the President."
After this stunning moment, the meeting adjourned in disarray. In the next two days, Clifford looked for ways to get Marshall to accept recognition. Lovett, though still opposed to recognition, finally talked a reluctant Marshall into remaining silent if Truman acted. With only a few hours left until midnight in Tel Aviv, Clifford told the Jewish Agency to request immediate recognition of the new state, which still lacked a name. Truman announced recognition at 6:11 p.m. on May 14 -- 11 minutes after Ben-Gurion's declaration of independence in Tel Aviv. So rapidly was this done that in the official announcement, the typed words "Jewish State" are crossed out, replaced in Clifford's handwriting with "State of Israel." Thus the United States became the first nation to recognize Israel, as Truman and Clifford wanted. The secret of the Oval Office confrontation held for years, and a crisis in both domestic politics and foreign policy was narrowly averted.
Clifford insisted to me and others in countless discussions over the next 40 years that politics was not at the root of his position -- moral conviction was. Noting sharp divisions within the American Jewish community -- the substantial anti-Zionist faction among leading Jews included the publishers of both The Washington Post and the New York Times -- Clifford had told Truman in his famous 1947 blueprint for Truman's presidential campaign that "a continued commitment to liberal political and economic policies" was the key to Jewish support.
But to this day, many think that Marshall and Lovett were right on the merits and that domestic politics was the real reason for Truman's decision. Israel, they argue, has been nothing but trouble for the United States.
I think this misses the point. Israel was going to come into existence whether or not Washington recognized it. But without American support from the very beginning, Israel's survival would have been at even greater risk. Even if European Jewry had not just emerged from the horrors of World War II, it would have been an unthinkable act of abandonment by the United States. Truman's decision, though opposed by almost the entire foreign policy establishment, was the right one -- and despite complicated consequences that continue to this day, it is a decision all Americans should recognize and admire.
Whether one likes Truman or not, no one can deny the gutsiness of the former President. He did not hesitate to order the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, thereby bringing about an early end to the WWII conflict in the Pacific. That act saved countless of American and allied lives (probably my life too) and, yes, even Japanese lives. Truman also did not hesitate to fire General Douglas MacArthur for disobeying his orders during the Korean War. That really took a lot of guts since MacArthur was extremely popular and considered by many as a likely future President.
Holbrooke writes about the conflict between Truman and his top advisers over the recognition of Israel. It seems that opposition to the State of Israel was rooted as much in anti-Semitism as it was in a fear of the Arab World's reaction to the formation of a Jewish State. And suprisingly, even some prominent American Jews were dead set against letting Zionists establish their own state. Here is how Holbrooke described the conflict in a recent Washington Post column (May 7, Page A21):
Washington's battle over Israel's birth
By Richard Holbrooke
In the celebrations next week surrounding Israel's 60th anniversary, it should not be forgotten that there was an epic struggle in Washington over how to respond to Israel's declaration of independence on May 14, 1948. It led to the most serious disagreement President Harry Truman ever had with his revered secretary of state, George Marshall -- and with most of the foreign policy establishment. Twenty years ago, when I was helping Clark Clifford write his memoirs, I reviewed the historical record and interviewed all the living participants in that drama. The battle lines drawn then resonate still.
The British planned to leave Palestine at midnight on May 14. At that moment, the Jewish Agency, led by David Ben-Gurion, would proclaim the new (and still unnamed) Jewish state. The neighboring Arab states warned that fighting, which had already begun, would erupt into full-scale war at that moment.
The Jewish Agency proposed partitioning Palestine into two parts -- one Jewish, one Arab. But the State and Defense departments backed the British plan to turn Palestine over to the United Nations. In March, Truman privately promised Chaim Weizmann, the future president of Israel, that he would support partition -- only to learn the next day that the American ambassador to the United Nations had voted for U.N. trusteeship. Enraged, Truman wrote a private note on his calendar: "The State Dept. pulled the rug from under me today. The first I know about it is what I read in the newspapers! Isn't that hell? I'm now in the position of a liar and double-crosser. I've never felt so low in my life. ..."
Truman blamed "third and fourth level" State Department officials -- especially the director of U.N. affairs, Dean Rusk, and the agency's counselor, Charles Bohlen. But opposition really came from an even more formidable group: the "wise men" who were simultaneously creating the great Truman foreign policy of the late 1940s -- among them Marshall, James Forrestal, George Kennan, Robert Lovett, John McCloy, Paul Nitze and Dean Acheson. To overrule State would mean Truman taking on Marshall, whom he regarded as "the greatest living American," a daunting task for a very unpopular president.
Beneath the surface lay unspoken but real anti-Semitism on the part of some (but not all) policymakers. The position of those opposing recognition was simple -- oil, numbers and history. "There are thirty million Arabs on one side and about 600,000 Jews on the other," Defense Secretary Forrestal told Clifford. "Why don't you face up to the realities?"
On May 12, Truman held a meeting in the Oval Office to decide the issue. Marshall and his universally respected deputy, Robert Lovett, made the case for delaying recognition -- and "delay" really meant "deny." Truman asked his young aide, Clark Clifford, to present the case for immediate recognition. When Clifford finished, Marshall, uncharacteristically, exploded. "I don't even know why Clifford is here. He is a domestic adviser, and this is a foreign policy matter. The only reason Clifford is here is that he is pressing a political consideration."
Marshall then uttered what Clifford would later call "the most remarkable threat I ever heard anyone make directly to a President." In an unusual top-secret memorandum Marshall wrote for the historical files after the meeting, the great general recorded his own words: "I said bluntly that if the President were to follow Mr. Clifford's advice and if in the elections I were to vote, I would vote against the President."
After this stunning moment, the meeting adjourned in disarray. In the next two days, Clifford looked for ways to get Marshall to accept recognition. Lovett, though still opposed to recognition, finally talked a reluctant Marshall into remaining silent if Truman acted. With only a few hours left until midnight in Tel Aviv, Clifford told the Jewish Agency to request immediate recognition of the new state, which still lacked a name. Truman announced recognition at 6:11 p.m. on May 14 -- 11 minutes after Ben-Gurion's declaration of independence in Tel Aviv. So rapidly was this done that in the official announcement, the typed words "Jewish State" are crossed out, replaced in Clifford's handwriting with "State of Israel." Thus the United States became the first nation to recognize Israel, as Truman and Clifford wanted. The secret of the Oval Office confrontation held for years, and a crisis in both domestic politics and foreign policy was narrowly averted.
Clifford insisted to me and others in countless discussions over the next 40 years that politics was not at the root of his position -- moral conviction was. Noting sharp divisions within the American Jewish community -- the substantial anti-Zionist faction among leading Jews included the publishers of both The Washington Post and the New York Times -- Clifford had told Truman in his famous 1947 blueprint for Truman's presidential campaign that "a continued commitment to liberal political and economic policies" was the key to Jewish support.
But to this day, many think that Marshall and Lovett were right on the merits and that domestic politics was the real reason for Truman's decision. Israel, they argue, has been nothing but trouble for the United States.
I think this misses the point. Israel was going to come into existence whether or not Washington recognized it. But without American support from the very beginning, Israel's survival would have been at even greater risk. Even if European Jewry had not just emerged from the horrors of World War II, it would have been an unthinkable act of abandonment by the United States. Truman's decision, though opposed by almost the entire foreign policy establishment, was the right one -- and despite complicated consequences that continue to this day, it is a decision all Americans should recognize and admire.
HALL OF FAME OR HALL OF SHAME?
Roger Clemens, the uberpitcher, was on a certain path to Baseball's Hall of Fame when Brian McNamee, his former trainer, accused him of taking growth hormnes and steroids. He has vehemntly denied taking any performance enhancing substances and is suing McNamee for defamation of character. He is currently under investigation by the Justice Department to determine if he committed perjury while testifying before Congress.
If that's not bad enough, Clemens is now facing a public relations nightmare of allegations that, for many years, he has been cheating on his wife with a number of different women. The Daily News, a New York tabloid, has reported that Clemens had a 10-year long intimate relationship with country singer Mindy McCready.
According to the initial story in The News, Clemens met McCready at The Hired Hand, a karaoke bar in Fort Myers, Florida, when she was a 15-year old aspiring singer and, at 28, he was the ace Red Sox pitcher and married father of two. That report indicated Clemens began the affair that night in his hotel room. When contacted by The News, McCready said, "I cannot refute anything in the story." Thereafter though, sources told The News that Clemens and McCready did not have sex that night and that the intimacies did not begin until after she had moved to Nashville in pursuit of her singing career.
Rusty Hardin, Clemens' Houston attorney, rushed to release this statement: "At no time did Roger engage in any kind of inappropriate or improper relationship with her. It is unfortunate that the Daily News has chosen to report anonymous allegations that are completely unfounded, have no basis in fact, and have nothing to do with Roger's baseball career or the issue of steroid use in baseball." That statement was made before McCready told The News she could not refute anything in the story. Hardin accused McNamee's attorney of planting the story in an attempt to influence the defamation lawsuit.
Gayle Inge, McCready's mother, told The News, "I know Roger was infatuated with Mindy." Inge admitted knowing that her daughter had traveled to Las Vegas and other cities with Clemens. Apparently, Mindy was not the only object of Roger's affection. He was reported to have had a romantic relationship with Paulette Daly, former wife of golfer John Daly. Paulette did not deny the allegations, telling The News, "You know what, I'm really uncomfortable talking about this. I'm just going to have to say, 'No comment'."
Clemens is also reported to have had an intimate relationship with Angela Moyer, a former Manhattan bartender, now a real estate agent in Lemoyne, Pennsylvania. A New Orleans woman by the name of Jennifer is reported to have accompanied Clemens on a private jet to a University of Florida basketball game. On that occasion he gave Jennifer a pair of diamond earrings in the presence of at least two friends. And, sources told The News that, throughout his baseball career, Clemens also hung out with several other women in California and Boston.
In response to the Daily News stories, Clemens denied the extra-marital affairs accusations. But he did issue a public apology to his family and fans for having made "mistakes in my personal life." He did not specify what those mistakes were.
In my blog, AMAZING AMUSING ALIBIS (January 7, 2008), I wrote about the steroid and human growth hormone allegations. At the time, I came to believe that Clemens was lying when he denied using any performance enhanding substances. Here are some excerpts from that blog which strongly indicate Clemens was lying:
"Clemens claims that McNamee injected him with lidocaine to relieve pain in his joints and with Vitamin B-12 which he said he takes on a regular basis for his health. He insisted that he has never taken any steroids or human growth hormones.
Lidocaine is a local anesthetic used topically to relieve itching, burning and pain from skin inflammations. It is injected as a dental anesthetic and in minor surgeries. While a lidocaine shot in his butt might relieve Clemens of a pain in the ass, it is impossible for that injection to have any effect on a pain in his joints."
Subsequently, in the presence of Hardin, "Clemens changed his story about why he was taking lidocaine. Instead of 'It's for my joints' as he explained it on 60 Minutes, he now claims to have taken the lidocaine injections for back pains. While his butt is clearly closer to his back than to his joints, lidocaine must be injected directly into the immediate site of the pain for it to have any effect. Thus, a butt injection could not possibly relieve a pain in his back."
I could care less if Clemens used performance enhancing drugs. And his philandering ways with several women, including another man's wife, don't bother me either. Spousal cheating goes on all the time, especially among professional athletes. Ironically, Mindy McCready had a No. 1 single in 1996 with GUYS DO IT ALL THE TIME.
What does bother me is that Clemens has pretended to be a role model to the nation's youths, when in fact it appears as though he has been a liar and cheat all along. The Hall of Fame? No, no! He belongs more appropriately in the Hall of Shame, along with such other baseball greats as Pete Rose and Barry Bonds. Or if, considering the initial Daily News story which McCready said she could not refute, the 28-year old Clemens did have sex with Mindy when she was only 15 - Hmmm, how about the Hall of Justice?
If that's not bad enough, Clemens is now facing a public relations nightmare of allegations that, for many years, he has been cheating on his wife with a number of different women. The Daily News, a New York tabloid, has reported that Clemens had a 10-year long intimate relationship with country singer Mindy McCready.
According to the initial story in The News, Clemens met McCready at The Hired Hand, a karaoke bar in Fort Myers, Florida, when she was a 15-year old aspiring singer and, at 28, he was the ace Red Sox pitcher and married father of two. That report indicated Clemens began the affair that night in his hotel room. When contacted by The News, McCready said, "I cannot refute anything in the story." Thereafter though, sources told The News that Clemens and McCready did not have sex that night and that the intimacies did not begin until after she had moved to Nashville in pursuit of her singing career.
Rusty Hardin, Clemens' Houston attorney, rushed to release this statement: "At no time did Roger engage in any kind of inappropriate or improper relationship with her. It is unfortunate that the Daily News has chosen to report anonymous allegations that are completely unfounded, have no basis in fact, and have nothing to do with Roger's baseball career or the issue of steroid use in baseball." That statement was made before McCready told The News she could not refute anything in the story. Hardin accused McNamee's attorney of planting the story in an attempt to influence the defamation lawsuit.
Gayle Inge, McCready's mother, told The News, "I know Roger was infatuated with Mindy." Inge admitted knowing that her daughter had traveled to Las Vegas and other cities with Clemens. Apparently, Mindy was not the only object of Roger's affection. He was reported to have had a romantic relationship with Paulette Daly, former wife of golfer John Daly. Paulette did not deny the allegations, telling The News, "You know what, I'm really uncomfortable talking about this. I'm just going to have to say, 'No comment'."
Clemens is also reported to have had an intimate relationship with Angela Moyer, a former Manhattan bartender, now a real estate agent in Lemoyne, Pennsylvania. A New Orleans woman by the name of Jennifer is reported to have accompanied Clemens on a private jet to a University of Florida basketball game. On that occasion he gave Jennifer a pair of diamond earrings in the presence of at least two friends. And, sources told The News that, throughout his baseball career, Clemens also hung out with several other women in California and Boston.
In response to the Daily News stories, Clemens denied the extra-marital affairs accusations. But he did issue a public apology to his family and fans for having made "mistakes in my personal life." He did not specify what those mistakes were.
In my blog, AMAZING AMUSING ALIBIS (January 7, 2008), I wrote about the steroid and human growth hormone allegations. At the time, I came to believe that Clemens was lying when he denied using any performance enhanding substances. Here are some excerpts from that blog which strongly indicate Clemens was lying:
"Clemens claims that McNamee injected him with lidocaine to relieve pain in his joints and with Vitamin B-12 which he said he takes on a regular basis for his health. He insisted that he has never taken any steroids or human growth hormones.
Lidocaine is a local anesthetic used topically to relieve itching, burning and pain from skin inflammations. It is injected as a dental anesthetic and in minor surgeries. While a lidocaine shot in his butt might relieve Clemens of a pain in the ass, it is impossible for that injection to have any effect on a pain in his joints."
Subsequently, in the presence of Hardin, "Clemens changed his story about why he was taking lidocaine. Instead of 'It's for my joints' as he explained it on 60 Minutes, he now claims to have taken the lidocaine injections for back pains. While his butt is clearly closer to his back than to his joints, lidocaine must be injected directly into the immediate site of the pain for it to have any effect. Thus, a butt injection could not possibly relieve a pain in his back."
I could care less if Clemens used performance enhancing drugs. And his philandering ways with several women, including another man's wife, don't bother me either. Spousal cheating goes on all the time, especially among professional athletes. Ironically, Mindy McCready had a No. 1 single in 1996 with GUYS DO IT ALL THE TIME.
What does bother me is that Clemens has pretended to be a role model to the nation's youths, when in fact it appears as though he has been a liar and cheat all along. The Hall of Fame? No, no! He belongs more appropriately in the Hall of Shame, along with such other baseball greats as Pete Rose and Barry Bonds. Or if, considering the initial Daily News story which McCready said she could not refute, the 28-year old Clemens did have sex with Mindy when she was only 15 - Hmmm, how about the Hall of Justice?
Sunday, May 11, 2008
HAMAS ENDORSES OBAMA
Recently, Aron Klein and John Batchelor interviewed Ahmed Yousef, a leading Hamas official, on WABC radio. Yousef said, "We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election." Yousef explained, "He has a vision to change America." Hamas believes that with Obama as President, his administration will be more supportive of the Palestinian demands in peace negotiations with Israel.
Yousef also described Jimmy Carter as "this noble man" who "did an excellent job as President." When asked about Obama's condemnation of Carter's meetings with Hamas leaders, Yousef did not take the condemnation seriously, attributing it to politics during an American election campaign where every politician wants to sound like a friend of Israel.
Why in the world would Hamas believe that Obama would shift American foreign policy more in the direction of the Palestinians? All you have to do is to look at Obama's supporters and advisers for the answer. George Soros, a wealthy Obama supporter and campaign contributor, has a long history of harsh condemnations of Israel. Jimmy Carter has referred to Israel as an "apartheid" state and characterized Israel's response to the Hamas rocket launchings from Gaza as a "crime."
Robert Malley, one of Obama's Middle East policy advisers, recently told the The Times of London that he has held regular meetings with Hamas. Obama advisers Zbigniew Brezezinski and Samantha Power, like Malley, are both well known for their long time anti-Israeli positions. Other reported Obama foreign policy advisers are also known to be hostile toward Israel.
Then there is Obama's long time relationship with Jeremiah Wright, his "former" dear friend, pastor and spiritual adviser of some 20 years. Wright has a long history of sermonizing against Israel, calling it a terrorist state, and has repeatedly praised Louis Farrakhan, a virulent anit-Semite and long time supporter of the Palestinians. Wright has also reproduced the "Hamas Manifesto" in one of his church publications.
Obama has repudiated Malley and Power while downplaying Carter's and Brezezinski's role as foreign policy advisers. He has finally broken off his relationship with Wright because it was hurting him in the polls. He has addressed Jewish groups, assuring them of his strong support for Israel.
I don't for one minute believe Obama was sincere in repudiating his foreing policy advisers and the Reverend Wright. And, I certainly don't believe he was telling Jewish groups the truth about his support for Israel. Wright, saying that Obama was forced to play politics, doesn't believe him either. AND NEITHER DOES HAMAS! That is why Hamas has endorsed Obama for President.
Yousef also described Jimmy Carter as "this noble man" who "did an excellent job as President." When asked about Obama's condemnation of Carter's meetings with Hamas leaders, Yousef did not take the condemnation seriously, attributing it to politics during an American election campaign where every politician wants to sound like a friend of Israel.
Why in the world would Hamas believe that Obama would shift American foreign policy more in the direction of the Palestinians? All you have to do is to look at Obama's supporters and advisers for the answer. George Soros, a wealthy Obama supporter and campaign contributor, has a long history of harsh condemnations of Israel. Jimmy Carter has referred to Israel as an "apartheid" state and characterized Israel's response to the Hamas rocket launchings from Gaza as a "crime."
Robert Malley, one of Obama's Middle East policy advisers, recently told the The Times of London that he has held regular meetings with Hamas. Obama advisers Zbigniew Brezezinski and Samantha Power, like Malley, are both well known for their long time anti-Israeli positions. Other reported Obama foreign policy advisers are also known to be hostile toward Israel.
Then there is Obama's long time relationship with Jeremiah Wright, his "former" dear friend, pastor and spiritual adviser of some 20 years. Wright has a long history of sermonizing against Israel, calling it a terrorist state, and has repeatedly praised Louis Farrakhan, a virulent anit-Semite and long time supporter of the Palestinians. Wright has also reproduced the "Hamas Manifesto" in one of his church publications.
Obama has repudiated Malley and Power while downplaying Carter's and Brezezinski's role as foreign policy advisers. He has finally broken off his relationship with Wright because it was hurting him in the polls. He has addressed Jewish groups, assuring them of his strong support for Israel.
I don't for one minute believe Obama was sincere in repudiating his foreing policy advisers and the Reverend Wright. And, I certainly don't believe he was telling Jewish groups the truth about his support for Israel. Wright, saying that Obama was forced to play politics, doesn't believe him either. AND NEITHER DOES HAMAS! That is why Hamas has endorsed Obama for President.
Friday, May 09, 2008
CLINT STRAATMAN, PATRIOT
Froylan Camelo, a student at Minico High School in Rupert, Idaho, has been contacted by the ACLU (American Communist Liberties Union) about filing a law suit against Clint Straatman, a physical education teacher. What did Straatman do to Camelo that raised the ire of the ACLU? He took away the Mexican flag Camelo was waving and put it in a garbage can.
Camelo and a number of other students of Mexican descent had brought Mexican flags to the school in clebration of Stinko, oops, I meant Cinco De Mayo. According to Camelo, he was changing into gym clothes when Straatman approached him and said, "Give me the flag." Camelo said he asked, "What's the problem?" and that Straatman replied, "The problem is that we are in the United States and not in Mexico." Camelo claimed that Straatman grabbed the flag from him and threw it in a garbage can.
Because he had been told the flag would be returned later, Camelo claimed that when he later asked, "Where is my flag?" Straatman replied, "What, the U.S. flag?" Camelo said he told Straatman, "No, the one for Mexico." When Straatman did not give him the flag, Camelo retrieved it from the garbage can himself.
Straatman gave a somewhat different version of the events, saying that Camelo was waving the Mexican flag in the gym and he confiscated it because he was afraid that Camelo's act would lead to trouble between Mexican and Anglo students. Straatman claims that he may have been misunderstood because of Camelo's poor English speaking skills.
About a third of the Minico student body is Hispanic. The Superintendent of the Minidoka County Joint School District is now investigating the Stinko De Mayo incident. He stated that, "We believe in nondiscriminatory practices and cultural diversity. ........ If there is a teacher making derogatory comments we don't approve of that. We also don't approve of a student disrupting the classroom."
Derogatory comments? There is certainly nothing derogatory in telling a student, "....... we are in the United States and not in Mexico." Nor is it derogatory, when asked where the student's flag was, to respond, "What, the U.S. flag?" The only thing derogatory in this incident was that Hispanic students brought Mexican flags to the school and waved them in the faces of their Anglo classmates.
In my opinion, Clint Straatman is a patriot! He should be commended, not condemned, for taking the Mexican flag away from Camelo. Unfortunately, it looks like the ACLU is going to file a law suit against Straatman. Instead of investigating the actions of this patriot, the Superintendent should investigate the school's Principal for allowing Mexican flags on campus.
Camelo and a number of other students of Mexican descent had brought Mexican flags to the school in clebration of Stinko, oops, I meant Cinco De Mayo. According to Camelo, he was changing into gym clothes when Straatman approached him and said, "Give me the flag." Camelo said he asked, "What's the problem?" and that Straatman replied, "The problem is that we are in the United States and not in Mexico." Camelo claimed that Straatman grabbed the flag from him and threw it in a garbage can.
Because he had been told the flag would be returned later, Camelo claimed that when he later asked, "Where is my flag?" Straatman replied, "What, the U.S. flag?" Camelo said he told Straatman, "No, the one for Mexico." When Straatman did not give him the flag, Camelo retrieved it from the garbage can himself.
Straatman gave a somewhat different version of the events, saying that Camelo was waving the Mexican flag in the gym and he confiscated it because he was afraid that Camelo's act would lead to trouble between Mexican and Anglo students. Straatman claims that he may have been misunderstood because of Camelo's poor English speaking skills.
About a third of the Minico student body is Hispanic. The Superintendent of the Minidoka County Joint School District is now investigating the Stinko De Mayo incident. He stated that, "We believe in nondiscriminatory practices and cultural diversity. ........ If there is a teacher making derogatory comments we don't approve of that. We also don't approve of a student disrupting the classroom."
Derogatory comments? There is certainly nothing derogatory in telling a student, "....... we are in the United States and not in Mexico." Nor is it derogatory, when asked where the student's flag was, to respond, "What, the U.S. flag?" The only thing derogatory in this incident was that Hispanic students brought Mexican flags to the school and waved them in the faces of their Anglo classmates.
In my opinion, Clint Straatman is a patriot! He should be commended, not condemned, for taking the Mexican flag away from Camelo. Unfortunately, it looks like the ACLU is going to file a law suit against Straatman. Instead of investigating the actions of this patriot, the Superintendent should investigate the school's Principal for allowing Mexican flags on campus.
ICE LIES
The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) has the impossible task of trying to keep the illegal immigration problem in check. ICE can neither prevent illegals from swarming across the Mexican border nor can it catch and deport the estimated 20 million illegals already in this country. Besides, most of us really don't want all of them deported because that would deprive us of a pool of hard working cheap laborers.
The best that can be expected of ICE is the apprhension of a tiny fraction of illegals as they cross the border. And ICE can make a few sporadic raids on businesses known to employ illegals, thereby catching an insignificant number of illegal aliens for deportation, more for show than for effect.
If what has happened to Mauricio Barragan is any indication, ICE agents and attorneys must be awfully desperate to show us they are succeeding in their mission. Barragan, 26, was brought here illegally from Bolivia by his parents when he was only one year old. Both parents became U.S. citizens. His father is disabled and his mother is a part-time teacher.
Before his arrest for driving with a suspended driver's license, Barragan had been making 50 percent of the mortgage and utility payments on the home he bought for his parents and sister. He had also been providing financial support for his illegitimate nine-year-old son and, according to the mother, had been actively involved in raising the boy.
Barragan graduated in the top quarter of his high school class and, while employed, attended the University of Houston, where he was a senior at the time of his arrest. He had worked at Target for almost eight years and had been promoted to a leadership position in the electronics department. Barragan became a legal resident in February 2007. At the time of his arrest he had already applied for citizenship.
Barragan's record is not squeaky clean. He had a drug conviction when he was a 15-year-old juvenile. At 17, he was convicted of a Class B misdemeanor for possessing a small amount of marijuana. He was placed on probation for one year and given deferred adjudication. He sucessfully completed his probation, thereby having his conviction set aside.
During the traffic stop, the arresting officer ran a record check which revealed that Barragan had been convicted on a drug charge. The law requires that all aliens, even those here legally, be detained for deportation if they have a past drug conviction.
However, if that conviction was for less than 30 grams of marijuana and if his deportation would cause an immediate relative "extreme hardship," a judge can rule that a legal alien can stay in this country. Barragan's deportation would certainly have resulted in extreme hardship for his parents and for his son.
ICE was determined to have Barragan deported to Bolivia, a country he had not seen since he was one-year-old and where he had no known relatives. ICE opposed all efforts to obtain Barragan's release and to allow him to remain in this country.
He remained in jail for thirteen months. During that time, foreclosure proceedings were started against his parents who, without Mauricio's assitance, could not keep up with their mortgage payments. If Rick Casey, a Houston Chronicle columnist, had not called attention to his plight, Barragon would probably be back in Bolivia by now, his parents would have lost their home, and his son would not be getting child support payments or playing with his father on weekends.
When a judge reinstated Barragan's legal residency allowing him to stay and work in this country, ICE appealed his decision. Here are the "facts" James Manning, Assistant General Counsel for ICE, filed with the court as required by the appeal. Barragan had multiple drug convictions as a juvenile. A LIE! Barragan was a habitual drug dealer and user. A WHOPPER OF A LIE!
Here are more of the "facts" Manning filed in the appeal. Barragan quit school to work. ANOTHER LIE! Barragan never held a job for more than 18 months and was unemployed at the time of his arrest. ANOTHER BIG LIE! Barragan owns no real property. ANOTHER LIE! Barragan has no significant social ties outside the home (ignores that he had a son). ALSO A LIE!
Manning's "facts" directly contradicted the court records. In his brief to the appellate court, Manning did not repeat the false statements he presented in the filings. Without any substantial facts to justify deportation, ICE had no case. The appellate court ruled unanimously in Barragan's favor.
What the hell was going on here? Did ICE agents deliberately present a pack of lies to Manning? If so, did the attorney fail to verify the allegations presented to him? Or, did Manning take it upon himself to deliberately lie about Barragan's background?
Is ICE so hard up to score a victory in the war on illegal immigration that they have to resort to lies and shaft a poor hard working slob who has been in this country for 25 years, getting educated while working and looking after his parents and his son? For sure, Barragan broke the law by using dope, but when they were around Mauricio's age, so did Presidents Clinton and Bush.
Those liars at ICE ought to be ashamed of themselves. After all, they were not dealing with some habitual criminal. They were not dealing with someone who presented a threat against the United States. Barragan's deportation would not have made a dime's worth of difference in the war against illegal immigration.
The assholes who were responsible for the 13 months Barragan was confined should be made to face disciplinary proceedings for their reprehensible behavior. On the other hand, Rick Casey deserves a humanitarian award for bringing the injustices perpetrated against Barragan to the pulic's attention.
The best that can be expected of ICE is the apprhension of a tiny fraction of illegals as they cross the border. And ICE can make a few sporadic raids on businesses known to employ illegals, thereby catching an insignificant number of illegal aliens for deportation, more for show than for effect.
If what has happened to Mauricio Barragan is any indication, ICE agents and attorneys must be awfully desperate to show us they are succeeding in their mission. Barragan, 26, was brought here illegally from Bolivia by his parents when he was only one year old. Both parents became U.S. citizens. His father is disabled and his mother is a part-time teacher.
Before his arrest for driving with a suspended driver's license, Barragan had been making 50 percent of the mortgage and utility payments on the home he bought for his parents and sister. He had also been providing financial support for his illegitimate nine-year-old son and, according to the mother, had been actively involved in raising the boy.
Barragan graduated in the top quarter of his high school class and, while employed, attended the University of Houston, where he was a senior at the time of his arrest. He had worked at Target for almost eight years and had been promoted to a leadership position in the electronics department. Barragan became a legal resident in February 2007. At the time of his arrest he had already applied for citizenship.
Barragan's record is not squeaky clean. He had a drug conviction when he was a 15-year-old juvenile. At 17, he was convicted of a Class B misdemeanor for possessing a small amount of marijuana. He was placed on probation for one year and given deferred adjudication. He sucessfully completed his probation, thereby having his conviction set aside.
During the traffic stop, the arresting officer ran a record check which revealed that Barragan had been convicted on a drug charge. The law requires that all aliens, even those here legally, be detained for deportation if they have a past drug conviction.
However, if that conviction was for less than 30 grams of marijuana and if his deportation would cause an immediate relative "extreme hardship," a judge can rule that a legal alien can stay in this country. Barragan's deportation would certainly have resulted in extreme hardship for his parents and for his son.
ICE was determined to have Barragan deported to Bolivia, a country he had not seen since he was one-year-old and where he had no known relatives. ICE opposed all efforts to obtain Barragan's release and to allow him to remain in this country.
He remained in jail for thirteen months. During that time, foreclosure proceedings were started against his parents who, without Mauricio's assitance, could not keep up with their mortgage payments. If Rick Casey, a Houston Chronicle columnist, had not called attention to his plight, Barragon would probably be back in Bolivia by now, his parents would have lost their home, and his son would not be getting child support payments or playing with his father on weekends.
When a judge reinstated Barragan's legal residency allowing him to stay and work in this country, ICE appealed his decision. Here are the "facts" James Manning, Assistant General Counsel for ICE, filed with the court as required by the appeal. Barragan had multiple drug convictions as a juvenile. A LIE! Barragan was a habitual drug dealer and user. A WHOPPER OF A LIE!
Here are more of the "facts" Manning filed in the appeal. Barragan quit school to work. ANOTHER LIE! Barragan never held a job for more than 18 months and was unemployed at the time of his arrest. ANOTHER BIG LIE! Barragan owns no real property. ANOTHER LIE! Barragan has no significant social ties outside the home (ignores that he had a son). ALSO A LIE!
Manning's "facts" directly contradicted the court records. In his brief to the appellate court, Manning did not repeat the false statements he presented in the filings. Without any substantial facts to justify deportation, ICE had no case. The appellate court ruled unanimously in Barragan's favor.
What the hell was going on here? Did ICE agents deliberately present a pack of lies to Manning? If so, did the attorney fail to verify the allegations presented to him? Or, did Manning take it upon himself to deliberately lie about Barragan's background?
Is ICE so hard up to score a victory in the war on illegal immigration that they have to resort to lies and shaft a poor hard working slob who has been in this country for 25 years, getting educated while working and looking after his parents and his son? For sure, Barragan broke the law by using dope, but when they were around Mauricio's age, so did Presidents Clinton and Bush.
Those liars at ICE ought to be ashamed of themselves. After all, they were not dealing with some habitual criminal. They were not dealing with someone who presented a threat against the United States. Barragan's deportation would not have made a dime's worth of difference in the war against illegal immigration.
The assholes who were responsible for the 13 months Barragan was confined should be made to face disciplinary proceedings for their reprehensible behavior. On the other hand, Rick Casey deserves a humanitarian award for bringing the injustices perpetrated against Barragan to the pulic's attention.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
DOPE AND DOPE(R)S ON CAMPUS
By now, most of you know that 75 San Diego State University (SDSU) students and 21 others were arrested the other day on various drug charges. The investigation began a year ago after freshman student Shirley Poliakoff died from a cocaine overdose. Campus police suspected wide-spread campus drug violations and asked for the DEA's assistance in their investigation. Undercover agents made numerous buys of marijuana, cocaine, ecstasy and meth on and off campus.
Many of the undercover buys were made at the university's fraternity houses. One of the students arrested was about to graduate with a degree in Criminal Justice. Another student was about to get his Masters Degree in Homeland Security. The arrests gave SDSU a well-deserved black eye. Why? Because, had it not been for Poliakoff's overdose and the cocaine overdose death last February of a Mesa College student at a SDSU frat house, the university would have continued to turn a blind eye to a problem they were sure to have been aware of.
Shirley Poliakoff's brother appeared this morning on NBC's Today Show. He believes that illegal drug sales and use are widespread on college campuses all over our country and that parents are not aware of how extensive this problem is. He was also critical of parents who take a lackadasical attitude about their kids experimenting with drugs because that is just "part of growing up."
Dope and dope(r)s on campus is not a recent problem. Back in the 1960's, I investigated the use of drugs on the campus of the University of California at Riverside. Guess what? It wasn't just students. Several of the university's English professors, several Social Science professors, and a couple of math professors were heavily involved in the illegal purchase and use of LSD and other mind altering drugs. So were a good number of the university's non-teaching staff. Worse yet, some students obtained illegal drugs from their professors. And, some professors and students were using drugs together.
What is really sad is that many colleges and universties do not take campus drug use seriously until they are the recipients of bad publicity arising from the overdose death of a young student. The illegal sales and use of drugs on college campuses is no secret to most students. Thus, college administrators are certain to be aware of the drug dealings taking place right under their noses.
The trouble with both College and High School administrators is that they will often try to hide unlawful campus activities from the public, believing that any bad publicity will reflect poorly on them personally. When colleges end up with tragedies like those at SDSU, college adminstrators should be held legally culpable whenever one of their students dies of a drug overdose.
Many of the undercover buys were made at the university's fraternity houses. One of the students arrested was about to graduate with a degree in Criminal Justice. Another student was about to get his Masters Degree in Homeland Security. The arrests gave SDSU a well-deserved black eye. Why? Because, had it not been for Poliakoff's overdose and the cocaine overdose death last February of a Mesa College student at a SDSU frat house, the university would have continued to turn a blind eye to a problem they were sure to have been aware of.
Shirley Poliakoff's brother appeared this morning on NBC's Today Show. He believes that illegal drug sales and use are widespread on college campuses all over our country and that parents are not aware of how extensive this problem is. He was also critical of parents who take a lackadasical attitude about their kids experimenting with drugs because that is just "part of growing up."
Dope and dope(r)s on campus is not a recent problem. Back in the 1960's, I investigated the use of drugs on the campus of the University of California at Riverside. Guess what? It wasn't just students. Several of the university's English professors, several Social Science professors, and a couple of math professors were heavily involved in the illegal purchase and use of LSD and other mind altering drugs. So were a good number of the university's non-teaching staff. Worse yet, some students obtained illegal drugs from their professors. And, some professors and students were using drugs together.
What is really sad is that many colleges and universties do not take campus drug use seriously until they are the recipients of bad publicity arising from the overdose death of a young student. The illegal sales and use of drugs on college campuses is no secret to most students. Thus, college administrators are certain to be aware of the drug dealings taking place right under their noses.
The trouble with both College and High School administrators is that they will often try to hide unlawful campus activities from the public, believing that any bad publicity will reflect poorly on them personally. When colleges end up with tragedies like those at SDSU, college adminstrators should be held legally culpable whenever one of their students dies of a drug overdose.
Sunday, May 04, 2008
ANOTHER STINKO DE MAYO - TAKE YOUR MEXICAN FLAGS SOUTH OF THE BORDER
Here we go again. Another Stinko De Mayo. Mexicans living in the United States, including U.S. citizens, "guest workers" and illegal aliens, are celebrating Mexico's victory over the French at the Battle of Puebla in 1862. There will be parades, demonstrations, picnics and other activities where the flag of Mexico will be on prominent public display. To that I say: "This is the United States of America. If you want to celebrate a Mexican national holiday, take your parades AND ESPECIALLY YOUR MEXICAN FLAGS south of the border. Do not disrespect our country by flaunting a foreign flag in our faces."
Don't get me wrong. I am not against immigration. I happen to be an immigrant myself. But, I am proud to be an American. I do not have a flag of the country where I came from. Nor do I have a flag of Israel, the Jewish homeland. I have a lighted flagpole in front of my house and it flies the American flag 24/7. I don't have a problem with Mexican nationals having a Mexican flag inside their homes so long as they do not display it in public. And, I see nothing wrong when Mexican nationals celebrate one of Mexico's national holidays so long as they do so in the privacy of their homes or in a rented meeting hall.
Here are the only appropriate public places to display the flag of Mexico in this country: In front of a Mexican consulate; in front of the Mexican embassy; at an official ceremony welcoming a Mexican dignitary; at a sporting event, like a boxing match or automobile race, to show support for a participant from Mexico.
What is this country coming to when Mexican students at Montebello (California) High School lower the American flag from the school's flagpole, turn it upside down and haul it back up beneath the flag of Mexico. Pictures (below) show the students celebrating with the Mexican flag flying on top of an upside down American flag. Do these outrageous pictures infuriate you? If not, don't call yourself a proud American!
What is going on here? Now some colleges are flying the Flag of Mexico alongside the American flag. It seems as though we are surrendering parts of the United States to Mexico. When are our public school authorities and our college administrators going to stand up for America? Has this country lost its self-respect? If any flags are going to be burned, it should be Mexican flags, not American flags!
Don't get me wrong. I am not against immigration. I happen to be an immigrant myself. But, I am proud to be an American. I do not have a flag of the country where I came from. Nor do I have a flag of Israel, the Jewish homeland. I have a lighted flagpole in front of my house and it flies the American flag 24/7. I don't have a problem with Mexican nationals having a Mexican flag inside their homes so long as they do not display it in public. And, I see nothing wrong when Mexican nationals celebrate one of Mexico's national holidays so long as they do so in the privacy of their homes or in a rented meeting hall.
Here are the only appropriate public places to display the flag of Mexico in this country: In front of a Mexican consulate; in front of the Mexican embassy; at an official ceremony welcoming a Mexican dignitary; at a sporting event, like a boxing match or automobile race, to show support for a participant from Mexico.
Likewise, here are the only appropiate places to fly the flag of the United States in a foreign country: In front of a U.S. consulate; in front of the U.S. embassy; on an American military base in that country; at a sporting event when one of the participants is from the U.S.. Americans living in Mexico, or any other foreign country, should not fly the Stars and Stripes in public.
What is this country coming to when Mexican students at Montebello (California) High School lower the American flag from the school's flagpole, turn it upside down and haul it back up beneath the flag of Mexico. Pictures (below) show the students celebrating with the Mexican flag flying on top of an upside down American flag. Do these outrageous pictures infuriate you? If not, don't call yourself a proud American!
What is going on here? Now some colleges are flying the Flag of Mexico alongside the American flag. It seems as though we are surrendering parts of the United States to Mexico. When are our public school authorities and our college administrators going to stand up for America? Has this country lost its self-respect? If any flags are going to be burned, it should be Mexican flags, not American flags!
Foreign flag displays, like the one in Montebello, would never be tolerated in other countries, including those with rights of free speech. This country's citizens ought to express their pride in America by organizing NON-VIOLENT counter-demonstrations anytime it is likely that a group is going to flaunt a foreign flag in our faces.
We should tell those Cinco De Mayo celebrators to TAKE YOUR MEXICAN FLAGS SOUTH OF THE BORDER! The flag that should be waved during public celebrations or demonstrations is the American flag, the banner under which hundreds of thousands of heroic soldiers, sailors and marines have given their lives in the service of our country.
Saturday, May 03, 2008
ENVIRONMENTALISTS FUEL WORLD HUNGER
There have been food riots in Africa and, closer to home, in Haiti. The price of food has risen so much that many people in the third world can no longer afford to eat, hence the riots. And what has led to the high cost of food? The environmentalists are resonsible because they have successfully pushed legislation mandating the use of biofuels, primarily ethanol, in order to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.
At the behest of environmental groups, backed by agricultural conglomerates, Congress passed the 2005 energy bill which mandated that 4 billion gallons of renewable fuel (mostly corn-based ethanol) must be added to the gasoline supply in 2006. That amount rises to 4.7 billion gallons for 2007 and 7.5 billion in 2012. These targets represent a large percentage increase in ethanol use but are still only a small fraction of the 140 billion gallons of gasoline that the U.S. currently uses every year.
The 2005 energy bill resulted in a demand for the use of corn to produce ethanol. This year, about 25 percent of our corn production will be used for biofuel. Next year it will be a third of our corn production. Because the biofuel industry is enriching corn growers, farmers are growing less corn for use as food and livestock feed. To cash in on the higher profits from supplying ethanol plants with corn, wheat farmers are now switching to the production of corn. That is why the world is facing a shortage of both wheat and corn.
These shortages have driven up the price of grains, with corn prices rising over 60 percent from 2005-07. Since most of our cattle, hogs and chickens are grain fed, and by factoring in the skyrocketing cost of fuel for transportation, the price of meat, milk and eggs has increased significantly. The price of cereals, bread and other grain related products has also increased to the extent that elderly Americans who subsist on fixed retirement incomes are now finding it exceedingly difficult to feed themselves adequately.
Will the change to ethanol and other biofuels reduce our dependence on fossil fuels? Not to any meaningful degree, according to a number of studies. Furthermore, the Environmental Protection Agency has found that plants which convert corn into the gasoline additive ethanol are releasing carbon monoxide, methanol and some carcinogens at levels "many times greater" than they promised. The EPA said the problem is common to "most, if not all, ethanol facilities." On top of that, a recent study from Stanford University suggests that pollution from ethanol could be even worse than from traditional gasoline.
Admittedly, part of the food shortage problem in Africa can be attributed to a severe drought which environmentalists, of course, blame on global warming. However, the main problem is that we have created a "food for fuel nightmare" which has reduced our export of grains while raising the price of corn, flour and other staples beyond the means of most Africans and Haitians to pay for them. The next time you see pictures from Africa of those starving skeletal children with their bloated bellies and bulging eyes, THINK AND BLAME ENVIRONMENTALISTS!
At the behest of environmental groups, backed by agricultural conglomerates, Congress passed the 2005 energy bill which mandated that 4 billion gallons of renewable fuel (mostly corn-based ethanol) must be added to the gasoline supply in 2006. That amount rises to 4.7 billion gallons for 2007 and 7.5 billion in 2012. These targets represent a large percentage increase in ethanol use but are still only a small fraction of the 140 billion gallons of gasoline that the U.S. currently uses every year.
The 2005 energy bill resulted in a demand for the use of corn to produce ethanol. This year, about 25 percent of our corn production will be used for biofuel. Next year it will be a third of our corn production. Because the biofuel industry is enriching corn growers, farmers are growing less corn for use as food and livestock feed. To cash in on the higher profits from supplying ethanol plants with corn, wheat farmers are now switching to the production of corn. That is why the world is facing a shortage of both wheat and corn.
These shortages have driven up the price of grains, with corn prices rising over 60 percent from 2005-07. Since most of our cattle, hogs and chickens are grain fed, and by factoring in the skyrocketing cost of fuel for transportation, the price of meat, milk and eggs has increased significantly. The price of cereals, bread and other grain related products has also increased to the extent that elderly Americans who subsist on fixed retirement incomes are now finding it exceedingly difficult to feed themselves adequately.
Will the change to ethanol and other biofuels reduce our dependence on fossil fuels? Not to any meaningful degree, according to a number of studies. Furthermore, the Environmental Protection Agency has found that plants which convert corn into the gasoline additive ethanol are releasing carbon monoxide, methanol and some carcinogens at levels "many times greater" than they promised. The EPA said the problem is common to "most, if not all, ethanol facilities." On top of that, a recent study from Stanford University suggests that pollution from ethanol could be even worse than from traditional gasoline.
Admittedly, part of the food shortage problem in Africa can be attributed to a severe drought which environmentalists, of course, blame on global warming. However, the main problem is that we have created a "food for fuel nightmare" which has reduced our export of grains while raising the price of corn, flour and other staples beyond the means of most Africans and Haitians to pay for them. The next time you see pictures from Africa of those starving skeletal children with their bloated bellies and bulging eyes, THINK AND BLAME ENVIRONMENTALISTS!
Friday, May 02, 2008
JIMMY CARTER'S SORRY-ASS PEACE PARTNERS
This morning, on my way to the nature center to do some volunteer work, I listened to a local radio newscaster interview Jimmy Carter about his trip last month to the Middle East. Asked how he could defend his meetings with Hamas leaders, Carter replied: "For the past twenty years, I've dedicated my life to help Israel achieve peace with its neighbors." He went on to say that Hamas was a very popular legitimate organization that, along with Syria, would have to be included as a negotiating partner before any Palestinian peace accord with Israel could succeed.
At the very same time he was meeting with Hamas leaders, Hamas TV broadcast an "educational program" which taught that the murder of Jews in the Holocaust was a Zionist plot with two goals:
(1) To eliminate "disabled and handicapped" Jews by sending them to death camps, so they would not be a burden on the future state of Israel.
(2) At the same time, the Holocaust served to make "the Jews seem persecuted" so they could "benefit from international sympathy."
Amin Dabur, head of the Palestinian "Center for Strategic Research" explained that "the Israeli Holocaust - the whole thing was a joke, and part of the perfect show that [Zionist leader and future Israeli prime minister] Ben Gurion put on." The "young energetic and able" were sent to Israel, while the handicapped were sent "so there would be a Holocaust."
Here is the transcript of this "educational program" as it was broadcast on Hamas' Al-Aqsa TV (April 18, 2008).
Narrator:
"The disabled and handicapped are a heavy burden on the state," said the terrorist leader, Ben Gurion. The Satanic Jews thought up an evil plot [the Holocaust] to be rid of the burden of the disabled and handicapped, in twisted criminal ways.
[Pictures were shown of a Holocaust death camp and dead bodies]
While they accuse the Nazis or others so the Jews would seem persecuted, and try to benefit from international sympathy. They were the first to invent the methods of evil and oppression."
Amin Dabur:
"About the Israeli Holocaust, the whole thing was a joke and part of the perfect show that Ben Gurion put on, who focused on strong and energetic youth [for Israel], while the rest- the disabled, the handicapped, and people with special needs, they were sent to [to die]- if it can be proven historically. They were sent [to die] so there would be a holocaust, so Israel could "play" it for world sympathy."
Narrator:
"The alleged numbers of Jews [killed in the Holocaust] were merely for propaganda."
Dedicated his life to help Israel? What a crock! During his trip, while in Egypt, Jimmy Carter told a student and faculty audience at the American University that Israel's response to the rocket attacks from Gaza was "a crime." Is that his way of helping Israel? Previously, in his book PALESTINE: PEACE NOT APARTHEID, Carter described Israel as an "apartheid" state, thus comparing the Jewish State to the former white racist government of South Africa.
Carter's book is sharply critical of Israeli policy and concludes that "Israel's continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land." The prestigious Simon Wiesenthal Center reacted to his defamatory book by contending that Carter "abandons all objectivity and unabashedly acts as a virtual spokesman for the Palestinian cause."
Jimmy Carter's sorry-ass Hamas peace partners have made a mockery of the Holocaust. Both sets of my grandparents were among the six million Jews slaughtered by Nazi Germany. I can assure you they were neither disabled nor handicapped - they just happened to be Jews.
Carter's new found peace partners are the very same people who cheered and danced in the streets when they received news of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and on the Pentagon. And lest we forget, at the time of the Holocaust the Palestinians, together with the rest of the Arab world, sided with Hitler and openly applauded Nazi Germany's extermination the Jews.
Carter's "peace" efforts, if successful, will not achieve a lasting peace - they will merely lead to the eventual destruction of the one and only place of refuge for Jews who are persecuted in other parts of the world. Jimmy Carter is either an old fool or nothing more than a big fraud!
At the very same time he was meeting with Hamas leaders, Hamas TV broadcast an "educational program" which taught that the murder of Jews in the Holocaust was a Zionist plot with two goals:
(1) To eliminate "disabled and handicapped" Jews by sending them to death camps, so they would not be a burden on the future state of Israel.
(2) At the same time, the Holocaust served to make "the Jews seem persecuted" so they could "benefit from international sympathy."
Amin Dabur, head of the Palestinian "Center for Strategic Research" explained that "the Israeli Holocaust - the whole thing was a joke, and part of the perfect show that [Zionist leader and future Israeli prime minister] Ben Gurion put on." The "young energetic and able" were sent to Israel, while the handicapped were sent "so there would be a Holocaust."
Here is the transcript of this "educational program" as it was broadcast on Hamas' Al-Aqsa TV (April 18, 2008).
Narrator:
"The disabled and handicapped are a heavy burden on the state," said the terrorist leader, Ben Gurion. The Satanic Jews thought up an evil plot [the Holocaust] to be rid of the burden of the disabled and handicapped, in twisted criminal ways.
[Pictures were shown of a Holocaust death camp and dead bodies]
While they accuse the Nazis or others so the Jews would seem persecuted, and try to benefit from international sympathy. They were the first to invent the methods of evil and oppression."
Amin Dabur:
"About the Israeli Holocaust, the whole thing was a joke and part of the perfect show that Ben Gurion put on, who focused on strong and energetic youth [for Israel], while the rest- the disabled, the handicapped, and people with special needs, they were sent to [to die]- if it can be proven historically. They were sent [to die] so there would be a holocaust, so Israel could "play" it for world sympathy."
Narrator:
"The alleged numbers of Jews [killed in the Holocaust] were merely for propaganda."
Dedicated his life to help Israel? What a crock! During his trip, while in Egypt, Jimmy Carter told a student and faculty audience at the American University that Israel's response to the rocket attacks from Gaza was "a crime." Is that his way of helping Israel? Previously, in his book PALESTINE: PEACE NOT APARTHEID, Carter described Israel as an "apartheid" state, thus comparing the Jewish State to the former white racist government of South Africa.
Carter's book is sharply critical of Israeli policy and concludes that "Israel's continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land." The prestigious Simon Wiesenthal Center reacted to his defamatory book by contending that Carter "abandons all objectivity and unabashedly acts as a virtual spokesman for the Palestinian cause."
Jimmy Carter's sorry-ass Hamas peace partners have made a mockery of the Holocaust. Both sets of my grandparents were among the six million Jews slaughtered by Nazi Germany. I can assure you they were neither disabled nor handicapped - they just happened to be Jews.
Carter's new found peace partners are the very same people who cheered and danced in the streets when they received news of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and on the Pentagon. And lest we forget, at the time of the Holocaust the Palestinians, together with the rest of the Arab world, sided with Hitler and openly applauded Nazi Germany's extermination the Jews.
Carter's "peace" efforts, if successful, will not achieve a lasting peace - they will merely lead to the eventual destruction of the one and only place of refuge for Jews who are persecuted in other parts of the world. Jimmy Carter is either an old fool or nothing more than a big fraud!
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
ARE YOU A LIBERAL, CONSERVATIVE OR SOUTHERN CONSERVATIVE?
Although laughable, there is probably more truth than fiction in this piece on the difference between our political ideologies. That is why I could not resist blogging it.
Here is a little test that will help you decide the question: How do you tell the difference between Liberals, Conservatives and Southern Conservatives? The answer can be found by posing the following scenario:
You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, an Islamic Terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises the knife, and charges at you. You are carrying a Glock cal. 40, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?
Liberals' Answer:
Well, that's not enough information to answer the question!
Does the man look poor! Or oppressed?
Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?
Could we run away?
What does my wife think?
What about the kids?
Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand?
What does the law say about this situation?
Does the Glock have an appropriate safety built into it?
Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to mychildren?
Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me?
Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me?
If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me?
Should I call 9-1-1?
Why is this street so deserted?
We need to raise taxes, have a paint and weed day and make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior.
This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for few days and try to come to a consensus.
Conservatives' Answer:
BANG!
Southern Conservatives' Answer:
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click.....(sounds of reloading).
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click.
Daughter: "Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips or Hollow Points?"
Here is a little test that will help you decide the question: How do you tell the difference between Liberals, Conservatives and Southern Conservatives? The answer can be found by posing the following scenario:
You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, an Islamic Terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises the knife, and charges at you. You are carrying a Glock cal. 40, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?
Liberals' Answer:
Well, that's not enough information to answer the question!
Does the man look poor! Or oppressed?
Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?
Could we run away?
What does my wife think?
What about the kids?
Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand?
What does the law say about this situation?
Does the Glock have an appropriate safety built into it?
Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to mychildren?
Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me?
Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me?
If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me?
Should I call 9-1-1?
Why is this street so deserted?
We need to raise taxes, have a paint and weed day and make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior.
This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for few days and try to come to a consensus.
Conservatives' Answer:
BANG!
Southern Conservatives' Answer:
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click.....(sounds of reloading).
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click.
Daughter: "Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips or Hollow Points?"
TAXPAYERS FUND HIGHER EDUCATION'S RADICALISM
I am a firm supporter of and believer in free speech. However, I certainly do not want my tax dollars used to support a radical group's call for an "intifada" in the United States. And that is exactly what the Center for Race and Gender, an official unit of U.C. Berkeley, has called for.
This, in part, is how the university describes the center's mission:"The Center for Race and Gender is an interdisciplinary research and community outreach center at the University of California Berkeley dedicated to fostering explorations of race and gender and their intersections. It is virtually unique within the academic community in its focus on both race and gender. Its aim is to foster collegial support and exchange among faculty and students throughout the university and between the university and nearby communities of color."
But what follows in this blog is the promotion of a program sponsored by the center, and hence U.C. Berkeley, which has little to do with race and gender. It is just one example of the radical left-wing crap that is being dissemintated not only at Berkely, but at most of our nation's other institutions of higher learning.
Since U.C. Berkeley receives generous amounts of federal funding, in addition to the funds provided by California's taxpayers, I and every other American taxpayer is helping to pay for this disgaceful program. Here is the kind of crap - note the frequent reference to "colonial," a term favored by Marxist professors - that we are paying for:
UC Berkeley Lecturer Hatem Bazian will speak on Islamophobia.
He has called for an intifada in the United States :
"Are you angry? [Yeah!] Are you angry? [Yeah!] Are you angry? [Yeah!] Well, we’ve been watching intifada in Palestine , we’ve been watching an uprising in Iraq , and the question is that what are we doing? How come we don’t have an intifada in this country? Because it seem[s] to me, that we are comfortable in where we are, watching CNN, ABC, NBC, Fox, and all these mainstream... giving us a window to the world while the world is being managed from Washington, from New York, from every other place in here in San Francisco: Chevron, Bechtel, [Carlyle?] Group, Halliburton; every one of those lying, cheating, stealing, deceiving individuals are in our country and we’re sitting here and watching the world pass by, people being bombed, and it’s about time that we have an intifada in this country that change[s] fundamentally the political dynamics in here. And we know every— They’re gonna say some Palestinian being too radical — well, you haven’t seen radicalism yet!"
De-Constructing Islamophobia: Immigration, Globalization and Constructing the Other
Conference/Symposium April 25 – 26, 2008 every day Barrows Hall, Lipman Room, 8th Floor
Sponsor: Center for Race and Gender
The conference on "De-Constructing Islamophobia: Globalization, Immigration, and Constructing the Other" seeks to develop a theoretical framework through which we can understand the relationship between Islamophobia as the most recently articulated structural organizing principle and its implications in the unfolding colonial present.
In today’s world, Islam and Muslims are the feared "other" and the threat they pose is already connected to every local, regional and global process. The process of "othering Islam and Muslims" is already well under way with devastating consequences and a virtual state of siege has set-in, not only in the affected communities, but also in academic circles where the subject has yet to receive a comprehensive treatment. Islamophobia, as the present structural organizing principle, is employed by the power elite in order to extend and maintain the patterns of racial, gender, colonial, ethnic and religious discrimination.
In the past, the existing methodological approaches in race and gender studies remained distant from the subject and, up to this point, have not yet adjusted to incorporate a closer examination of "othering Islam and Muslims." The conference seeks to provide an open scholarly exchange, exploring new approaches to the study of the current period, de-constructing the organizing process that gave birth to Islamophobia, and studying its interconnectedness to existing and historical otherness in the areas of race, gender and "post-colonial" studies. The conference will explore and pose a number of questions that can be the springboard for further collaborative and multidisciplinary approaches to de-constructing Islamophobia. How should we approach Islamophobia and can we think of it within the field(s) of post-colonial studies and/or Ethnic Studies? What would be Islamophobia's impact on the move from a post-colonial approach into a de-colonization, and its centrality in the development of a new paradigm? What new or modified theoretical frameworks should be employed? Are existing academic fields with their current methodologies able to de-construct Islamophobia or do we need adjustment; and if it is needed then what, where and how?"
This, in part, is how the university describes the center's mission:"The Center for Race and Gender is an interdisciplinary research and community outreach center at the University of California Berkeley dedicated to fostering explorations of race and gender and their intersections. It is virtually unique within the academic community in its focus on both race and gender. Its aim is to foster collegial support and exchange among faculty and students throughout the university and between the university and nearby communities of color."
But what follows in this blog is the promotion of a program sponsored by the center, and hence U.C. Berkeley, which has little to do with race and gender. It is just one example of the radical left-wing crap that is being dissemintated not only at Berkely, but at most of our nation's other institutions of higher learning.
Since U.C. Berkeley receives generous amounts of federal funding, in addition to the funds provided by California's taxpayers, I and every other American taxpayer is helping to pay for this disgaceful program. Here is the kind of crap - note the frequent reference to "colonial," a term favored by Marxist professors - that we are paying for:
UC Berkeley Lecturer Hatem Bazian will speak on Islamophobia.
He has called for an intifada in the United States :
"Are you angry? [Yeah!] Are you angry? [Yeah!] Are you angry? [Yeah!] Well, we’ve been watching intifada in Palestine , we’ve been watching an uprising in Iraq , and the question is that what are we doing? How come we don’t have an intifada in this country? Because it seem[s] to me, that we are comfortable in where we are, watching CNN, ABC, NBC, Fox, and all these mainstream... giving us a window to the world while the world is being managed from Washington, from New York, from every other place in here in San Francisco: Chevron, Bechtel, [Carlyle?] Group, Halliburton; every one of those lying, cheating, stealing, deceiving individuals are in our country and we’re sitting here and watching the world pass by, people being bombed, and it’s about time that we have an intifada in this country that change[s] fundamentally the political dynamics in here. And we know every— They’re gonna say some Palestinian being too radical — well, you haven’t seen radicalism yet!"
De-Constructing Islamophobia: Immigration, Globalization and Constructing the Other
Conference/Symposium April 25 – 26, 2008 every day Barrows Hall, Lipman Room, 8th Floor
Sponsor: Center for Race and Gender
The conference on "De-Constructing Islamophobia: Globalization, Immigration, and Constructing the Other" seeks to develop a theoretical framework through which we can understand the relationship between Islamophobia as the most recently articulated structural organizing principle and its implications in the unfolding colonial present.
In today’s world, Islam and Muslims are the feared "other" and the threat they pose is already connected to every local, regional and global process. The process of "othering Islam and Muslims" is already well under way with devastating consequences and a virtual state of siege has set-in, not only in the affected communities, but also in academic circles where the subject has yet to receive a comprehensive treatment. Islamophobia, as the present structural organizing principle, is employed by the power elite in order to extend and maintain the patterns of racial, gender, colonial, ethnic and religious discrimination.
In the past, the existing methodological approaches in race and gender studies remained distant from the subject and, up to this point, have not yet adjusted to incorporate a closer examination of "othering Islam and Muslims." The conference seeks to provide an open scholarly exchange, exploring new approaches to the study of the current period, de-constructing the organizing process that gave birth to Islamophobia, and studying its interconnectedness to existing and historical otherness in the areas of race, gender and "post-colonial" studies. The conference will explore and pose a number of questions that can be the springboard for further collaborative and multidisciplinary approaches to de-constructing Islamophobia. How should we approach Islamophobia and can we think of it within the field(s) of post-colonial studies and/or Ethnic Studies? What would be Islamophobia's impact on the move from a post-colonial approach into a de-colonization, and its centrality in the development of a new paradigm? What new or modified theoretical frameworks should be employed? Are existing academic fields with their current methodologies able to de-construct Islamophobia or do we need adjustment; and if it is needed then what, where and how?"
50 SHOTS FIRED
Three New York City police detectives were just acquitted in a court trial (trial by a judge) for killing Sean Bell, an unarmed black man, on the eve of his wedding. The "victim" and two companions had gone to a topless club for his bachelor's party. The officers were working an undercover case against the club when they confronted the three men as they were leaving in their vehicle. Believing that one of the men had a gun and was about to use it against them, the officers opened fire, killing the groom-to-be and wounding his companions.
Much has been made in the press about the officers firing a total of 50 shots, with one officer firing 15 rounds and then reloading to fire 15 more. I have no intention of discussing the merits or details of the case. I do believe the judge rendered the right decision. Of course, the bride-to-be, her family and friends, the deceased's family and friends and many others, both blacks and whites, were incensed over the judge's decision. Al Sharpton loudly condemned the acquittal. My interest in this case concerns the 50 shots fired.
In recent years, several police shootings have been sensationalized by the media due to the number of shots fired by the cops. In 1999, four plain-clothed New York City police officers mistook Amadou Diallo, an African immigrant standing in front of his home, for a serial rapist. As they confronted the unarmed Diallo, one of the officers thought he had a gun and was going to shoot them. When he warned his fellow officers, they opened fire with a total of 41 shots, hitting Diallo 19 times, with one officer firing 16 rounds and then reloading to fire 15 more. A jury acquitted the officers of all charges, including murder.
In other cases where several officers confronted a suspect face-to-face with multiple shots, the media sensationalized the shootings when the "victim" was shot in the back, making it appear as if that was done deliberately. What the media refuses to acknowledge is the fact that when a person is hit by gunfire he is often spun around, which accounts for his getting hit in the back by some of the shots.
Why do officers fire so many rounds in a shooting incident? When officers fear an immediate threat to their lives, the "fight or flight" syndrome takes effect - and officers are expected to fight, not flee. Insitinctively they do not stop shooting until the perceived threat has passed. In the Bell case, the groom and his companions were inside a vehicle and the officers could not determine when and if the threat was over. In the Diallo case, the officers probably felt he continued to pose a threat until he hit the ground. With four officers engaged in rapid gunfire, he could have been readily hit 19 times before going down.
People expect police officers to be trained not to shoot at unarmed persons and trained to fire only one or two well-placed shots at a suspect. Such expectations are not realistic. Once, I happened to be near a shoot-out where a New York officer shot the gun out of a robber's hand. When I praised him for his accuracy, he replied: "Shit, I was really trying to hit the motherfucker between the eyes."
When an officer believes that an unarmed person is about to shoot him, you cannot blame the officer for immediately opening fire and to keep shooting until that person goes down. No amount or type of training can prevent an officer from going into a panic mode when he is placed in immediate fear of his life. And, during a street shoot-out, as opposed to a police firing range exercise, you cannot expect an officer to have the same confidence in hitting his target as he would have had in his training program. That's why he's unlikely to stop shooting until he feels sure his life is no longer in jeopardy.
When several officers are involved, a shooting frenzy is likely to follow the first shot fired by an officer. And, it is quite possible that some of the officer will mistake the shots they hear as coming from the unarmed suspect. It is very unfair to judge and condemn police officers for the number of shots they fire in an incident where they believe their lives are in imminent danger, whether the suspect is armed or not.
New York City is very fortunate that two of the three officers in the Bell shooting were black, thereby depriving Sharpton of his usual claptrap that white cops are murdering black men. Had all three cops been white, Sharpton's rants could easily have led to riots in the black community. The city is certain to be sued by Bell's family and by his fiancee. Rather than spend millions in legal costs, the city will probably settle out of court as it did in the Diallo case, where it paid his family $3 million.
The officers' ordeal in the Bell case is far from over. They will also be sued. Far worse though, they will be placed in double jeopardy if the U.S. Department of Justice acquiesces to the demands of Sharpton and other blacks that they now be tried for civil rights violations. (To its credit, in the Diallo shooting, the Justice Department refused Sharpton's demands that those officers be charged with civil rights violations.) As Bell's fiancee put it - this is not over!
Much has been made in the press about the officers firing a total of 50 shots, with one officer firing 15 rounds and then reloading to fire 15 more. I have no intention of discussing the merits or details of the case. I do believe the judge rendered the right decision. Of course, the bride-to-be, her family and friends, the deceased's family and friends and many others, both blacks and whites, were incensed over the judge's decision. Al Sharpton loudly condemned the acquittal. My interest in this case concerns the 50 shots fired.
In recent years, several police shootings have been sensationalized by the media due to the number of shots fired by the cops. In 1999, four plain-clothed New York City police officers mistook Amadou Diallo, an African immigrant standing in front of his home, for a serial rapist. As they confronted the unarmed Diallo, one of the officers thought he had a gun and was going to shoot them. When he warned his fellow officers, they opened fire with a total of 41 shots, hitting Diallo 19 times, with one officer firing 16 rounds and then reloading to fire 15 more. A jury acquitted the officers of all charges, including murder.
In other cases where several officers confronted a suspect face-to-face with multiple shots, the media sensationalized the shootings when the "victim" was shot in the back, making it appear as if that was done deliberately. What the media refuses to acknowledge is the fact that when a person is hit by gunfire he is often spun around, which accounts for his getting hit in the back by some of the shots.
Why do officers fire so many rounds in a shooting incident? When officers fear an immediate threat to their lives, the "fight or flight" syndrome takes effect - and officers are expected to fight, not flee. Insitinctively they do not stop shooting until the perceived threat has passed. In the Bell case, the groom and his companions were inside a vehicle and the officers could not determine when and if the threat was over. In the Diallo case, the officers probably felt he continued to pose a threat until he hit the ground. With four officers engaged in rapid gunfire, he could have been readily hit 19 times before going down.
People expect police officers to be trained not to shoot at unarmed persons and trained to fire only one or two well-placed shots at a suspect. Such expectations are not realistic. Once, I happened to be near a shoot-out where a New York officer shot the gun out of a robber's hand. When I praised him for his accuracy, he replied: "Shit, I was really trying to hit the motherfucker between the eyes."
When an officer believes that an unarmed person is about to shoot him, you cannot blame the officer for immediately opening fire and to keep shooting until that person goes down. No amount or type of training can prevent an officer from going into a panic mode when he is placed in immediate fear of his life. And, during a street shoot-out, as opposed to a police firing range exercise, you cannot expect an officer to have the same confidence in hitting his target as he would have had in his training program. That's why he's unlikely to stop shooting until he feels sure his life is no longer in jeopardy.
When several officers are involved, a shooting frenzy is likely to follow the first shot fired by an officer. And, it is quite possible that some of the officer will mistake the shots they hear as coming from the unarmed suspect. It is very unfair to judge and condemn police officers for the number of shots they fire in an incident where they believe their lives are in imminent danger, whether the suspect is armed or not.
New York City is very fortunate that two of the three officers in the Bell shooting were black, thereby depriving Sharpton of his usual claptrap that white cops are murdering black men. Had all three cops been white, Sharpton's rants could easily have led to riots in the black community. The city is certain to be sued by Bell's family and by his fiancee. Rather than spend millions in legal costs, the city will probably settle out of court as it did in the Diallo case, where it paid his family $3 million.
The officers' ordeal in the Bell case is far from over. They will also be sued. Far worse though, they will be placed in double jeopardy if the U.S. Department of Justice acquiesces to the demands of Sharpton and other blacks that they now be tried for civil rights violations. (To its credit, in the Diallo shooting, the Justice Department refused Sharpton's demands that those officers be charged with civil rights violations.) As Bell's fiancee put it - this is not over!
Monday, April 28, 2008
BUM RAP - FALSE ADVERTISING
For the last couple of weeks or so, I've been watching false advertising on my TV set and you'll never guess who was behind it. OK, give up? It's the Disney designed Space Center Theme Park at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston. And what was the false advertising? MAN-EATING PIRRAHNA. The Space Center was promoting an exhibit by telling viewers to come and "see man-eating pirrahnas." Folks, there is no such thing as a man-eating pirrahna. Shame on those advertisers!
I've made eight extended sojourns to the Amazon and I am always amazed at the tall tales that come out of that area. Two animals in particular have long gotten a bum rap. I'm talking about Pirrahnas and Anacondas. Now, if you've ever seen them, you will agree that Pirrahnas and Anacondas are not cute and cuddly creatures. Pirrahnas have an ugly face with sharp protruding teeth that give these fish a very menacing look. Anacondas are huge slimy acquatic snakes.
Movies and books have portrayed both animals as very aggressive killers of man and beast. Pirrahnas have been pictured as skeletizing cows in minutes and man in seconds. Pirrahnas eat mostly other fish, not man or cows. Anacondas have been pictured leaping out of tall trees to snatch away some poor unsuspecting hiker or jungle explorer. Anacondas don't venture far from the streams and lakes in which they dwell. They will come out of the water to sun themselves and to catch rodents and other small animals for an occasional meal.
I was first exposed to Pirrahnas in 1991. I was wading in a river in the Venezuelan Amazon when I felt something nibbling at my ankles. I asked my guide what it could be and when he told me it was probably pirrahnas I almost shit. I quickly highstepped my way to the bank when he called me back and told me not to worry. When I thought he had been kidding me, he took a piece of meat, put it on a hook tied to a string and threw it in the water. Within seconds he had hooked an ugly mean looking pirrahna.
Amazon villages are almost always located along river banks because the rivers provide a means of transportation and are a source of food for the Indians. The villagers bathe in the rivers and the children play and swim in them. I've seen many a toddler in pirrahna infested waters which assured me that pirrahnas do not pose any danger to mankind.
I've also come across a number of Anacondas in the wild, one of which appeared to be close to 20 feet long. It was about two-thirds out of the water, lying under a bush and guarding a capibara that it had earlier constricted. Apparently, it was not yet ready to eat its kill. (Capibaras are the world's largest rodents, sometimes exceeding 100 pound in weight.)
During my explorations I must have come across a dozen or so of these boas. Whenever I got close to them, they would eye me, but none of them ever made any threatening moves or noises. (I did pick up and hold a 12-14 footer on my shoulders at the zoo in Leticia, Columbia. While staggering under its weight, that sucker coiled its tail end several times around one of my arms. I've got the pictures to prove it.) So, I can say with confidence that Anacondas, like Pirrahnas, do not pose a threat to people.
Which brings me back to the Space Center Theme Park's false advertising. That promo about "man-eating pirrahnas" may bring in a few more visitors, but when all is said and done, what that TV ad really does is to keep promulgating an undeserved myth about a small ugly Amazon fish. The folks in charge of that theme park should be ashamed of themselves!
I've made eight extended sojourns to the Amazon and I am always amazed at the tall tales that come out of that area. Two animals in particular have long gotten a bum rap. I'm talking about Pirrahnas and Anacondas. Now, if you've ever seen them, you will agree that Pirrahnas and Anacondas are not cute and cuddly creatures. Pirrahnas have an ugly face with sharp protruding teeth that give these fish a very menacing look. Anacondas are huge slimy acquatic snakes.
Movies and books have portrayed both animals as very aggressive killers of man and beast. Pirrahnas have been pictured as skeletizing cows in minutes and man in seconds. Pirrahnas eat mostly other fish, not man or cows. Anacondas have been pictured leaping out of tall trees to snatch away some poor unsuspecting hiker or jungle explorer. Anacondas don't venture far from the streams and lakes in which they dwell. They will come out of the water to sun themselves and to catch rodents and other small animals for an occasional meal.
I was first exposed to Pirrahnas in 1991. I was wading in a river in the Venezuelan Amazon when I felt something nibbling at my ankles. I asked my guide what it could be and when he told me it was probably pirrahnas I almost shit. I quickly highstepped my way to the bank when he called me back and told me not to worry. When I thought he had been kidding me, he took a piece of meat, put it on a hook tied to a string and threw it in the water. Within seconds he had hooked an ugly mean looking pirrahna.
Amazon villages are almost always located along river banks because the rivers provide a means of transportation and are a source of food for the Indians. The villagers bathe in the rivers and the children play and swim in them. I've seen many a toddler in pirrahna infested waters which assured me that pirrahnas do not pose any danger to mankind.
I've also come across a number of Anacondas in the wild, one of which appeared to be close to 20 feet long. It was about two-thirds out of the water, lying under a bush and guarding a capibara that it had earlier constricted. Apparently, it was not yet ready to eat its kill. (Capibaras are the world's largest rodents, sometimes exceeding 100 pound in weight.)
During my explorations I must have come across a dozen or so of these boas. Whenever I got close to them, they would eye me, but none of them ever made any threatening moves or noises. (I did pick up and hold a 12-14 footer on my shoulders at the zoo in Leticia, Columbia. While staggering under its weight, that sucker coiled its tail end several times around one of my arms. I've got the pictures to prove it.) So, I can say with confidence that Anacondas, like Pirrahnas, do not pose a threat to people.
Which brings me back to the Space Center Theme Park's false advertising. That promo about "man-eating pirrahnas" may bring in a few more visitors, but when all is said and done, what that TV ad really does is to keep promulgating an undeserved myth about a small ugly Amazon fish. The folks in charge of that theme park should be ashamed of themselves!
Saturday, April 26, 2008
SO, WHAT SHALL WE CALL THEM?
According to the Associated Press, documents it obtained reveal that Federal Agencies have instructed their employees to stop describing Islamists as "Jihadists" or "Mujahedeen" and not to call them "Islamo-Fascists," a term favored by Roach Limburger and his dodoheads. The Bush administration believes that such terms may actually help increase support for Jihadists within Muslim audiences by "giving them a veneer of religious credibility or by causing offense to moderates."
Hmmmm, the Bush administration is going to wage a kinder and gentler war on terrorism so as not to offend any "moderate" Muslims. Are they going to have federal employees take sensitivity training? God forbid that we might offend all those Muslims who love us so dearly. Has the administration taken leave of its senses or do they really believe that by not using those terms, they will make it difficult for the Islamists to recruit suicide bombers?
Let's see now. Who was it that bombed the U.S. Marine Corps barracks in Lebanon? Who bombed our embassies in Africa? Who bombed that train in Madrid? Who bombed the three London subway trains and a bus? Who were the doctors that plotted car bombings in England? Who in England plotted to blow up seven jumbo-jet airliners simultaneously over the Atlantic? Were they Anglicans? Or, Catholics? No, they were all Muslims.
And who took over our airliners to crash them into the Twin Towers and into the Pentagon, thereby causing the deaths of 3,000 innocent people? Were they Baptists? Catholics? Jews? Buddhists? Hindus? Or, how about Atheists? No, no, no! They were Muslims, each and everyone of them. Should we be sensitive to their feelings and avoid offending them? Hell no! It's we Americans who have been offended by Muslims, and big time to boot.
So, what shall we call those Islamists? We can always call them by the name their Marxist supporters use - "Freedom Fighters." Or, how about Boy Suiciders of Islam and Girl Suiciders of Islam? Or, the Salvation Army? - No, that name has already been taken. How about Muhammad's Martyrs? 72 Virgins in Heaven Seekers? Allah's Avengers? Infidel Terminators? Or, whatever.
Mr. President, please spare us that Political Correctness crap. You know what? I think plain old "Muslim Terrorists" will do just fine. No matter what we do or do not call them, the Islamists will keep on recruiting more terrorists, and do so quite successfully. And, if by calling them Islamo-Fascists and other names we end up offending those Muslims who believe America is the Great Satan or who equate Christians to swine and Jews to apes, that's just tough shit!
Hmmmm, the Bush administration is going to wage a kinder and gentler war on terrorism so as not to offend any "moderate" Muslims. Are they going to have federal employees take sensitivity training? God forbid that we might offend all those Muslims who love us so dearly. Has the administration taken leave of its senses or do they really believe that by not using those terms, they will make it difficult for the Islamists to recruit suicide bombers?
Let's see now. Who was it that bombed the U.S. Marine Corps barracks in Lebanon? Who bombed our embassies in Africa? Who bombed that train in Madrid? Who bombed the three London subway trains and a bus? Who were the doctors that plotted car bombings in England? Who in England plotted to blow up seven jumbo-jet airliners simultaneously over the Atlantic? Were they Anglicans? Or, Catholics? No, they were all Muslims.
And who took over our airliners to crash them into the Twin Towers and into the Pentagon, thereby causing the deaths of 3,000 innocent people? Were they Baptists? Catholics? Jews? Buddhists? Hindus? Or, how about Atheists? No, no, no! They were Muslims, each and everyone of them. Should we be sensitive to their feelings and avoid offending them? Hell no! It's we Americans who have been offended by Muslims, and big time to boot.
So, what shall we call those Islamists? We can always call them by the name their Marxist supporters use - "Freedom Fighters." Or, how about Boy Suiciders of Islam and Girl Suiciders of Islam? Or, the Salvation Army? - No, that name has already been taken. How about Muhammad's Martyrs? 72 Virgins in Heaven Seekers? Allah's Avengers? Infidel Terminators? Or, whatever.
Mr. President, please spare us that Political Correctness crap. You know what? I think plain old "Muslim Terrorists" will do just fine. No matter what we do or do not call them, the Islamists will keep on recruiting more terrorists, and do so quite successfully. And, if by calling them Islamo-Fascists and other names we end up offending those Muslims who believe America is the Great Satan or who equate Christians to swine and Jews to apes, that's just tough shit!
Friday, April 25, 2008
AMERICA NEEDS LEADERS LIKE JOHN HOWARD
One thing is for sure. Immigration, especially the illegal kind, continues to trouble many Americans. We have 20 million or so illegal Mexican aliens in our country and, pragmatically, there is no way that we can deport them all. Nor would we want to send them all back to Mexico because then we would be depriving ourselves of the cheap labor services they provide.
What bothers most American, including me, are those legal immigrants who converse in public using their native language rather than English, who prefer to celebrate their native holidays - Cinco de Mayo for instance - rather than the Fourth of July, and who demonstrate by waving foreign banners like the Mexican or Palestinian flags in our faces whenever they have a beef with our government's policies.
Apparently, Australia has its share of discontent over immigration. Its leader, Prime Minister John Howard, unlike our wimpy politically correct leaders, has spoken out forcefully on what he dislikes about those immigrants who reject Australia's customs. We could sure use some leaders like him in our country. That is why I am publishing his remarks in my blog. Not being a Christian, my only concern would be that if he had been leading our government instead of Australia's, his statements could energize the efforts of those Americans who want to use our public schools to promote Christianity to students holding other religious beliefs and who want to insert creationism into the sutdy of evolution.
Evidently, Prime Minister Howard made his remarks after he had angered some Australian Muslims by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques. Here is what he had to say:
'IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians.'
'This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom'
'We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society .... Learn the language!'
'Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.'
'We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.' 'This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, THE RIGHT TO LEAVE.'
'If you aren't happy here then LEAVE We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.'
What bothers most American, including me, are those legal immigrants who converse in public using their native language rather than English, who prefer to celebrate their native holidays - Cinco de Mayo for instance - rather than the Fourth of July, and who demonstrate by waving foreign banners like the Mexican or Palestinian flags in our faces whenever they have a beef with our government's policies.
Apparently, Australia has its share of discontent over immigration. Its leader, Prime Minister John Howard, unlike our wimpy politically correct leaders, has spoken out forcefully on what he dislikes about those immigrants who reject Australia's customs. We could sure use some leaders like him in our country. That is why I am publishing his remarks in my blog. Not being a Christian, my only concern would be that if he had been leading our government instead of Australia's, his statements could energize the efforts of those Americans who want to use our public schools to promote Christianity to students holding other religious beliefs and who want to insert creationism into the sutdy of evolution.
Evidently, Prime Minister Howard made his remarks after he had angered some Australian Muslims by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques. Here is what he had to say:
'IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians.'
'This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom'
'We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society .... Learn the language!'
'Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.'
'We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.' 'This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, THE RIGHT TO LEAVE.'
'If you aren't happy here then LEAVE We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.'
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
MICHELLE MALKIN ON JIMMY CARTER
Jimmy Carter has been widely recognized as one of our worst Presidents ever. The holier-than-though ex-President pretends to be a friend of Israel, but he calls the Jewish homeland an "apartheid state." During his just completed "peace mission" to the Hamas leadership, he stopped off to lay a wreath at the tomb of Yasser Arafat, Israel's long-time nemisis. During his trip he told a university audience in Cairo that the Israeli military's treatment of the Gaza Strip Palestinians was a "crime."
The only accomplishment of his mission was to give legitimacy to Hamas, a terrorist organization that refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist and has sworn to annihilate the "Zionist entity." With "friends" like Carter, Israel does not need any enemies. It has been reported in a number of reputable publications that Barack Obama relies on Carter for foreign policy advise.
Michelle Malking is one of my favorite political columnists. I know that she is looked upon as a far-out right-winger by some of her colleagues. I don't believe she represents that fringe. Malkin just says things the way they are. Obviously, she is more conservative than much of the mainstream media, but so what! Here is what Malkin had to say today about our pious former President.
The Democrats' Jimmy Carter Problem
By Michelle Malkin
April 23, 2008
So much for Jimmy Carter's triumphal peace mission in the Middle East. Like everything else he has done on foreign policy, the world's biggest tool for jihad propaganda created yet another bloody mess. Quick review:
After proclaiming that Hamas terrorists were willing to accept Israel as a "neighbor next door," Carter's Hamas hug buddies flipped him the bird. They gladly accepted the diplomatic legitimacy Carter's visit conferred upon them, while clinging bitterly to their insistence on the destruction of the Jewish state.
After laying a wreath in honor of the murderous Yasser Arafat, Carter dutifully agreed to deliver a letter from kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit to his parents on behalf of the terrorists who are holding him hostage. Shalit's father rightly jeered Carter as nothing more than a postman for Hamas.
After Carter asserted that the State Department never clearly opposed his trip, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice pointed out that she had explicitly warned him against meeting with Hamas. Not to mention all those bold-faced, unequivocal headlines before the trip announcing that "State Department opposes Carter meeting with Hamas chief" (USA Today) and "Rice Criticizes Carter for Reported Meeting Planned With Hamas" (Fox News).
What part of "Don't meet with the Jew-hating killers, you idiot!" didn't Carter understand?
Article 13 of the Hamas charter is also as clear as day: "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."
Jimmy Carter's thick skull and moral myopia are an American embarrassment and an American problem. But more precisely: Jimmy Carter is a Democratic problem. He casts a long, feckless shadow over the party -- and it will haunt the party through the Democratic National Convention in August and beyond.
Carter is a Democratic Party superdelegate who will undoubtedly seek a prominent role at the convention this August. But the party can ill afford a diarrhea-of-the-mouth moment from their elder terror apologist. The world is watching and listening.
Though he has not formally endorsed Barack Obama, Carter has made enough positive noise about the campaign to send Iranian TV into euphoria. The regime's media arm led with an item earlier this week headlined, "Carter: Obama favorite worldwide." The news item quoted Carter as saying that Obama is supported by "many people in Ghana, Nigeria and Nepal. ... World opinion is strongly supportive of Obama, that's all we hear."
(Left off the list of legitimate world opinion, of course: Israel.)
Despite Obama's milquetoast protestations of Carter's visit and his technocratic disavowal of Hamas, Carter and Hamas are giving Obama two thumbs up. (Obama's associations with anti-Semites like the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and the Louis Farrakhan-cheerleading Rev. Michael Pfleger give him all the cred he needs.)
Conservatives have mobilized to protest Carter's terrorist shilling. GOP Rep. Sue Myrick called for his passport to be revoked; Rep. Joe Knollenberg wants $19 million in taxpayer funding to be withdrawn from his Georgia-based scholarly institution. But the Sick-Of-Jimmy-Carter Coalition isn't just a Republican club. The Jewish Daily Forward reports that "some liberal observers...worry that the elder statesman may create headaches for the party at its nominating convention in Denver."
Their angst is well placed. The question is: Will exiling America's top Hamas apologist from the convention podium be enough to dispel the shadow of surrender? Or, to paraphrase Obama, can the Democrats no more disown Carter than they can disown the softheaded liberalism at the party's ideological core?
---
Michelle Malkin is author of "Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild." Her e-mail address is malkinblog@gmail.com.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
The only accomplishment of his mission was to give legitimacy to Hamas, a terrorist organization that refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist and has sworn to annihilate the "Zionist entity." With "friends" like Carter, Israel does not need any enemies. It has been reported in a number of reputable publications that Barack Obama relies on Carter for foreign policy advise.
Michelle Malking is one of my favorite political columnists. I know that she is looked upon as a far-out right-winger by some of her colleagues. I don't believe she represents that fringe. Malkin just says things the way they are. Obviously, she is more conservative than much of the mainstream media, but so what! Here is what Malkin had to say today about our pious former President.
The Democrats' Jimmy Carter Problem
By Michelle Malkin
April 23, 2008
So much for Jimmy Carter's triumphal peace mission in the Middle East. Like everything else he has done on foreign policy, the world's biggest tool for jihad propaganda created yet another bloody mess. Quick review:
After proclaiming that Hamas terrorists were willing to accept Israel as a "neighbor next door," Carter's Hamas hug buddies flipped him the bird. They gladly accepted the diplomatic legitimacy Carter's visit conferred upon them, while clinging bitterly to their insistence on the destruction of the Jewish state.
After laying a wreath in honor of the murderous Yasser Arafat, Carter dutifully agreed to deliver a letter from kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit to his parents on behalf of the terrorists who are holding him hostage. Shalit's father rightly jeered Carter as nothing more than a postman for Hamas.
After Carter asserted that the State Department never clearly opposed his trip, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice pointed out that she had explicitly warned him against meeting with Hamas. Not to mention all those bold-faced, unequivocal headlines before the trip announcing that "State Department opposes Carter meeting with Hamas chief" (USA Today) and "Rice Criticizes Carter for Reported Meeting Planned With Hamas" (Fox News).
What part of "Don't meet with the Jew-hating killers, you idiot!" didn't Carter understand?
Article 13 of the Hamas charter is also as clear as day: "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."
Jimmy Carter's thick skull and moral myopia are an American embarrassment and an American problem. But more precisely: Jimmy Carter is a Democratic problem. He casts a long, feckless shadow over the party -- and it will haunt the party through the Democratic National Convention in August and beyond.
Carter is a Democratic Party superdelegate who will undoubtedly seek a prominent role at the convention this August. But the party can ill afford a diarrhea-of-the-mouth moment from their elder terror apologist. The world is watching and listening.
Though he has not formally endorsed Barack Obama, Carter has made enough positive noise about the campaign to send Iranian TV into euphoria. The regime's media arm led with an item earlier this week headlined, "Carter: Obama favorite worldwide." The news item quoted Carter as saying that Obama is supported by "many people in Ghana, Nigeria and Nepal. ... World opinion is strongly supportive of Obama, that's all we hear."
(Left off the list of legitimate world opinion, of course: Israel.)
Despite Obama's milquetoast protestations of Carter's visit and his technocratic disavowal of Hamas, Carter and Hamas are giving Obama two thumbs up. (Obama's associations with anti-Semites like the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and the Louis Farrakhan-cheerleading Rev. Michael Pfleger give him all the cred he needs.)
Conservatives have mobilized to protest Carter's terrorist shilling. GOP Rep. Sue Myrick called for his passport to be revoked; Rep. Joe Knollenberg wants $19 million in taxpayer funding to be withdrawn from his Georgia-based scholarly institution. But the Sick-Of-Jimmy-Carter Coalition isn't just a Republican club. The Jewish Daily Forward reports that "some liberal observers...worry that the elder statesman may create headaches for the party at its nominating convention in Denver."
Their angst is well placed. The question is: Will exiling America's top Hamas apologist from the convention podium be enough to dispel the shadow of surrender? Or, to paraphrase Obama, can the Democrats no more disown Carter than they can disown the softheaded liberalism at the party's ideological core?
---
Michelle Malkin is author of "Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild." Her e-mail address is malkinblog@gmail.com.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Monday, April 21, 2008
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE BATTLE OF SAN JACINTO
On April 21, 1836, at the Battle of San Jacinto, a rag-tag band of 783 Texans achieved an improbable and almost unbelievable victory over a Mexican army of more than 1,500 troops. The victorious Texas army was led by General Sam Houston. The defeated Mexicans were under the command of General Santa Anna, the President of Mexico.
The Texanns' surprise attack caught the Mexican emcampment off guard. The Texans shouted "Remember the Alamo" and "Remember Goliad" as they charged the unsuspecting Mexicans. The battle lasted a mere 18 minutes. When it was over, the Texans had lost nine killed and 30 wounded. The Mexicans had lost 630 killed, 208 wounded and 730 soldiers taken prisoner. Texas had won its independence from Mexico.
Legend has it that around the time of the Texans' attack, Santa Anna was in the sack making whoopee with Emily West, the beautiful mulatto servant and mistress of James Morgan, a wealthy landowner. The story goes that Morgan intentionally sent Emily to the Mexican encampment in order to distract Santa Anna by seducing him. Emily came to be known as "The Yellow Rose of Texas." Santa Anna's conquest of Emily West eventually cost Mexico nearly a million square miles of its land.
Texas erected a 570-foot tall monument at the San Jacinto Battleground in LaPorte, a suburb close by Houston. Construction started in 1936 and was completed in 1939. The significance of the Battle of San Jacinto is spelled out on a panel at the side of the monument:
"Measured by its results, San Jacinto was one of the decisive battles of the world. The freedom of Texas from Mexico won here led to annexation and to the Mexican War, resulting in the acquisition by the United States of the States of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, California, Utah, and parts of Colorado, Wyoming, Kansas and Oklahoma. Almost one-third of the present area of the American nation, nearly a million square miles of territory, changed sovereignty."
Mexico has never forgiven us for its humiliating defeat. Over time, it has sneaked an invading army of some 20 million Mexicans across the border in the guise of a cheap labor force, surreptitiously reoccupying the territory it lost to the United States. It is estimated that 2,000 illegal aliens cross our border every day. At the rate those illegals keep coming here, it will not be all that long before Mexico can reclaim all the land it lost after its humiliation at San Jacinto.
The Texanns' surprise attack caught the Mexican emcampment off guard. The Texans shouted "Remember the Alamo" and "Remember Goliad" as they charged the unsuspecting Mexicans. The battle lasted a mere 18 minutes. When it was over, the Texans had lost nine killed and 30 wounded. The Mexicans had lost 630 killed, 208 wounded and 730 soldiers taken prisoner. Texas had won its independence from Mexico.
Legend has it that around the time of the Texans' attack, Santa Anna was in the sack making whoopee with Emily West, the beautiful mulatto servant and mistress of James Morgan, a wealthy landowner. The story goes that Morgan intentionally sent Emily to the Mexican encampment in order to distract Santa Anna by seducing him. Emily came to be known as "The Yellow Rose of Texas." Santa Anna's conquest of Emily West eventually cost Mexico nearly a million square miles of its land.
Texas erected a 570-foot tall monument at the San Jacinto Battleground in LaPorte, a suburb close by Houston. Construction started in 1936 and was completed in 1939. The significance of the Battle of San Jacinto is spelled out on a panel at the side of the monument:
"Measured by its results, San Jacinto was one of the decisive battles of the world. The freedom of Texas from Mexico won here led to annexation and to the Mexican War, resulting in the acquisition by the United States of the States of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, California, Utah, and parts of Colorado, Wyoming, Kansas and Oklahoma. Almost one-third of the present area of the American nation, nearly a million square miles of territory, changed sovereignty."
Mexico has never forgiven us for its humiliating defeat. Over time, it has sneaked an invading army of some 20 million Mexicans across the border in the guise of a cheap labor force, surreptitiously reoccupying the territory it lost to the United States. It is estimated that 2,000 illegal aliens cross our border every day. At the rate those illegals keep coming here, it will not be all that long before Mexico can reclaim all the land it lost after its humiliation at San Jacinto.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
HOORAY FOR A MICHIGAN STATE PROFESSOR!
Friends in California sent me a brave professor's rebuke of a Muslim group's drivel. Obviously, Professor Wichman is not one of the politically correct types commonly found within the social sciences discipline.
The story begins at Michigan State University with a mechanical engineering professor named Indrek Wichman.
Wichman sent an e-mail to the Muslim Student's Association. The e-mail was in response to the students' protest of the Danish cartoons that portrayed the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist. The group had complained the cartoons were "hate speech."
Enter Professor Wichman. In his e-mail, he said the following:
Dear Moslem Association,
As a professor of Mechanical Engineering here at MSU, I intend to protest your protest.
I am offended not by cartoons, but by more mundane things like:
Beheadings of civilians
Cowardly attacks on public buildings
Suicide murders
Murders of Catholic priests (the latest in Turkey)
Burnings of Christian churches
The continued persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt
The imposition of Sharia law on non-Muslims
The rapes of Scandinavian girls and women (called "whores" in your culture)
The murder of film directors in Holland
And the rioting and looting in Paris, France .
This is what offends me, a soft-spoken person and academic, and many, many of my colleagues.
I counsel you dissatisfied, aggressive, brutal, and uncivilized slave-trading Moslems to be very aware of this as you proceed with your infantile "protests."
If you do not like the values of the West - see the 1st Amendment - you are free to leave. I hope for God's sake most of you choose that option.
Please return to your ancestral homelands and build them up yourselves instead of troubling Americans.
Cordially,
I. S. Wichman
Professor of Mechanical Engineering
As you can imagine, the Muslim group at the university didn't like this too well. They're demanding that Wichman be reprimanded and the university impose mandatory diversity training for faculty and mandate a seminar on hate and discrimination for all freshmen.
Now the local chapter of CAIR has jumped into the fray. CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, apparently doesn't believe that the good professor had the right to express his opinion.
For its part, the university is standing its ground in support of Professor Wichman, saying the e-mail was private, and they don't intend to publicly condemn his remarks.
The story begins at Michigan State University with a mechanical engineering professor named Indrek Wichman.
Wichman sent an e-mail to the Muslim Student's Association. The e-mail was in response to the students' protest of the Danish cartoons that portrayed the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist. The group had complained the cartoons were "hate speech."
Enter Professor Wichman. In his e-mail, he said the following:
Dear Moslem Association,
As a professor of Mechanical Engineering here at MSU, I intend to protest your protest.
I am offended not by cartoons, but by more mundane things like:
Beheadings of civilians
Cowardly attacks on public buildings
Suicide murders
Murders of Catholic priests (the latest in Turkey)
Burnings of Christian churches
The continued persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt
The imposition of Sharia law on non-Muslims
The rapes of Scandinavian girls and women (called "whores" in your culture)
The murder of film directors in Holland
And the rioting and looting in Paris, France .
This is what offends me, a soft-spoken person and academic, and many, many of my colleagues.
I counsel you dissatisfied, aggressive, brutal, and uncivilized slave-trading Moslems to be very aware of this as you proceed with your infantile "protests."
If you do not like the values of the West - see the 1st Amendment - you are free to leave. I hope for God's sake most of you choose that option.
Please return to your ancestral homelands and build them up yourselves instead of troubling Americans.
Cordially,
I. S. Wichman
Professor of Mechanical Engineering
As you can imagine, the Muslim group at the university didn't like this too well. They're demanding that Wichman be reprimanded and the university impose mandatory diversity training for faculty and mandate a seminar on hate and discrimination for all freshmen.
Now the local chapter of CAIR has jumped into the fray. CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, apparently doesn't believe that the good professor had the right to express his opinion.
For its part, the university is standing its ground in support of Professor Wichman, saying the e-mail was private, and they don't intend to publicly condemn his remarks.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
I JUST SAT THERE AND KEPT MY MOUTH SHUT
Last night I attended the College of the Marxists annual employee recognition dinner. As a retiree, I get invited every year. This was only the second one I've attended since I retired 15 years ago. I must admit it was nice to meet some old friends again. Another retired teacher came up to me and informed me her son-in-law, a former student of mine, had advanced through the ranks of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration to become one of its high ranking admiistrators. Naturally, that really made me feel good.
Before the start of the affair, I talked to a young, obviously well-educated police officer about his experience in the government course he took at the college. The course was taught by David Michael Smith, an avowed Marxist. I asked the officer what he had learned about government in that course. He replied, "Nothing about government. I just sat there and kept my mouth shut." He went on to explain that students could not take Smith on because he had years of experience practicing the art of defending his (anti-American and anti-capitalist) positions.
The Marxist instructors at the college teach government, history and economics courses. Government and American History are required courses for most degrees, thereby providing these instructors with a captive audience. Since this college is a state funded institution, it is required to follow the curriculm guidelines set forth by the State of Texas. But, for the most part, that is not what the students get from their Marxist instrctors.
Marxists are imbedded in the faculties of most institutions of higher learning. Their goal is to replace capitalism with "socialism," a less abrasive term than "communism." Their teachings dwell on the evils of capitalism and proclaim the virtues of socialism. And since America is closely identified with capitalism, their teachings emphasize a littany of what they perceive to be our government's past and current domestic and foreign transgressions. That constitutes brainwashing and indoctrination, not education.
Over the years, many students at College of the Marxists have complained about being subjected to a constant drumbeat of "anti-Americanism" and the usual Marxist claptrap - America goes to war inorder to enrich the oil companies and other multi-national corporations; America exploits its workers and oppresses the masses; America is a sponsor of state terrorism; America is an imperialist power; etc..
There is no question that America has had its flaws and continues to have them. However, academic responsibility requires educators to present both sides of any controversial issue. One-sided teaching would only be justified if courses were, for example, entitled ANTI-AMERICANISM 101, EVILS OF CAPITALISM 101, or VIRTUES OF COMMUNISM 101. At least that way students are given a good clue about what to expect before enrolling in such courses.
Whenever anyone denounces their questionable classroom activities, the Marxists respond by screaming that their right of "Academic Freedom" is being attacked. That is a clever ruse used to garner the support of other faculty members, since most college teachers count on that doctrine to protect their jobs. It is astounding how few college professors actually know what academic freedom entails. And many wimpy college administators also do not understand the principles of academic freedom, or worse yet, deliberately turn a blind eye to any violations thereof. As for the trustees at College of the Marxists, they probably do not have a clue as to what Academic Freedom is really all about.
The PRINCIPLES OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM were formulated years ago by the Association of American Colleges and Universities and by the American Association of University Professors. These principles were designed to protect college teachers from reprisals for expressing unpopular opinions in the classroom. However, they do not give teachers license to practice intellectual deceit and dishonesty in the classroom or to brainwash and indoctrinate their students.
Many academicians believe the Principles of Academic Freedom leave them free to say and do almost anything in the classroom without fear of retribution. Nothing could be further from the truth. The principles include specific obligations and prohibitions. Academic Freedom requires that teachers "should at all times be accurate, SHOULD EXERCISE APPROPRIATE RESTRAINT, ........... ." The principles were formulated for the "free search for truth" and "NOT TO FURTHER THE INTEREST OF ............ the individual teacher."
In 2002, some reputable community leaders and other civic-minded citizens joined me in pleading with the college's Board of Trustees not to grant David Smith tenure. My opposition was based on his violations of the Principles of Academic Freedom, on his practice of intellectual deceit, and on his attempts to brainwash and indoctrinate the students in his classroom. I figured our pleadings would fall on deaf ears. Because he is very charming and hands out good grades, it was not surprising that many students, both young and old, addressed the Board to request that Smith be granted tenure. And that is exactly what the Board did by a unanimous vote.
Ralph Holm was one of the trustees at the time. When he first ran for a position on the Board, I donated money to his election campaign and personally took out ads on his behalf in two local newspapers. During a Veterams Day event at the college, well after Smith had been granted tenure, Holm approached me and apologized for the Board's action.
When I questioned Holm on why he voted to grant Smith tenure, he replied, "We had no choice. He was so popular with the students." I looked him straight in the eye and said, "What's that got to do with anything? Hitler was also very popular with the Germans." Holm turned red in the face, spun around and left. We have not spoken since.
And so it goes at College of the Marxists where students who detest all that anti-Americanism, like the police officer I talked to, continue to sit in Smith's classes and suffer in silence. And, as long as COLLEGE OF THE MAINLAND continues to support instructors who espouse anti-Americanism in mandatory Government and American History courses, I shall continue to call it "College of the Marxists."
Before the start of the affair, I talked to a young, obviously well-educated police officer about his experience in the government course he took at the college. The course was taught by David Michael Smith, an avowed Marxist. I asked the officer what he had learned about government in that course. He replied, "Nothing about government. I just sat there and kept my mouth shut." He went on to explain that students could not take Smith on because he had years of experience practicing the art of defending his (anti-American and anti-capitalist) positions.
The Marxist instructors at the college teach government, history and economics courses. Government and American History are required courses for most degrees, thereby providing these instructors with a captive audience. Since this college is a state funded institution, it is required to follow the curriculm guidelines set forth by the State of Texas. But, for the most part, that is not what the students get from their Marxist instrctors.
Marxists are imbedded in the faculties of most institutions of higher learning. Their goal is to replace capitalism with "socialism," a less abrasive term than "communism." Their teachings dwell on the evils of capitalism and proclaim the virtues of socialism. And since America is closely identified with capitalism, their teachings emphasize a littany of what they perceive to be our government's past and current domestic and foreign transgressions. That constitutes brainwashing and indoctrination, not education.
Over the years, many students at College of the Marxists have complained about being subjected to a constant drumbeat of "anti-Americanism" and the usual Marxist claptrap - America goes to war inorder to enrich the oil companies and other multi-national corporations; America exploits its workers and oppresses the masses; America is a sponsor of state terrorism; America is an imperialist power; etc..
There is no question that America has had its flaws and continues to have them. However, academic responsibility requires educators to present both sides of any controversial issue. One-sided teaching would only be justified if courses were, for example, entitled ANTI-AMERICANISM 101, EVILS OF CAPITALISM 101, or VIRTUES OF COMMUNISM 101. At least that way students are given a good clue about what to expect before enrolling in such courses.
Whenever anyone denounces their questionable classroom activities, the Marxists respond by screaming that their right of "Academic Freedom" is being attacked. That is a clever ruse used to garner the support of other faculty members, since most college teachers count on that doctrine to protect their jobs. It is astounding how few college professors actually know what academic freedom entails. And many wimpy college administators also do not understand the principles of academic freedom, or worse yet, deliberately turn a blind eye to any violations thereof. As for the trustees at College of the Marxists, they probably do not have a clue as to what Academic Freedom is really all about.
The PRINCIPLES OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM were formulated years ago by the Association of American Colleges and Universities and by the American Association of University Professors. These principles were designed to protect college teachers from reprisals for expressing unpopular opinions in the classroom. However, they do not give teachers license to practice intellectual deceit and dishonesty in the classroom or to brainwash and indoctrinate their students.
Many academicians believe the Principles of Academic Freedom leave them free to say and do almost anything in the classroom without fear of retribution. Nothing could be further from the truth. The principles include specific obligations and prohibitions. Academic Freedom requires that teachers "should at all times be accurate, SHOULD EXERCISE APPROPRIATE RESTRAINT, ........... ." The principles were formulated for the "free search for truth" and "NOT TO FURTHER THE INTEREST OF ............ the individual teacher."
In 2002, some reputable community leaders and other civic-minded citizens joined me in pleading with the college's Board of Trustees not to grant David Smith tenure. My opposition was based on his violations of the Principles of Academic Freedom, on his practice of intellectual deceit, and on his attempts to brainwash and indoctrinate the students in his classroom. I figured our pleadings would fall on deaf ears. Because he is very charming and hands out good grades, it was not surprising that many students, both young and old, addressed the Board to request that Smith be granted tenure. And that is exactly what the Board did by a unanimous vote.
Ralph Holm was one of the trustees at the time. When he first ran for a position on the Board, I donated money to his election campaign and personally took out ads on his behalf in two local newspapers. During a Veterams Day event at the college, well after Smith had been granted tenure, Holm approached me and apologized for the Board's action.
When I questioned Holm on why he voted to grant Smith tenure, he replied, "We had no choice. He was so popular with the students." I looked him straight in the eye and said, "What's that got to do with anything? Hitler was also very popular with the Germans." Holm turned red in the face, spun around and left. We have not spoken since.
And so it goes at College of the Marxists where students who detest all that anti-Americanism, like the police officer I talked to, continue to sit in Smith's classes and suffer in silence. And, as long as COLLEGE OF THE MAINLAND continues to support instructors who espouse anti-Americanism in mandatory Government and American History courses, I shall continue to call it "College of the Marxists."
Thursday, April 17, 2008
A LESSON THAT SHOULD BE TAUGHT IN ALL SCHOOLS!
Here is a true story that is definitely worth repeating in my blog. This outstanding moment in classroom teaching was sent to me by a cop friend who is both civic-minded and patriotic. Too bad there are so few teachers like Martha Cothren in America's high schools.
Back in September of 2005, on the first day of school, Martha Cothren, a social studies school teacher at Robinson High School in Little Rock, Arkaansas did something not to be forgotten.
On the first day of school, with the permission of the school superintendent, the principal and the building supervisor, she removed all of the desks out of herclassroom.
When the first period kids entered the room they discovered that there were no desks.
Looking around, confused, they asked, "Ms. Cothren, where're our desks?"
She replied, "You can't have a desk until you tell me what you have done to earn the right to sit at a desk.
"They thought, "Well, maybe it's our grades."
"No," she said.
"Maybe it's our behavior." She told them, "No, it's not even your behavior."
And so, they came and went, the first period, second period, third period. Still no desks in the classroom.
By early afternoon television news crews had started gathering in Ms. Cothren's classroom to report about this crazy teacher who had taken all the desks out of her room.
The final period of the day came and as the puzzled students found seats on the floor of the deskless classroom, Martha Cothren said, "Throughout the day no one has been able to tell me just what he/she has done to earn the right to sit at the desks that are ordinarily found in this classroom. Now I am going to tell you." At this point, Martha Cothren went over to the door of her classroom and opened it.
Twenty-seven (27) U.S. Veterans, all in uniforms, walked into that classroom, each one carrying a school desk. The Vets began placing the school desks in rows, and then they would walk over and stand alongside the wall.
By the time the last soldier had set the final desk in place those kids started to understand, perhaps for the first time in their lives, just how the right to sit at those desks had been earned.
Martha said, "You didn't earn the right to sit at these desks. These heroes did it for you. They placed the desks here for you. Now, it's up to you to sit in them. It is your responsibility to learn, to be good students, to be good citizens. They paid the price so that you could have the freedom to get an education. Don't ever forget it."
Back in September of 2005, on the first day of school, Martha Cothren, a social studies school teacher at Robinson High School in Little Rock, Arkaansas did something not to be forgotten.
On the first day of school, with the permission of the school superintendent, the principal and the building supervisor, she removed all of the desks out of herclassroom.
When the first period kids entered the room they discovered that there were no desks.
Looking around, confused, they asked, "Ms. Cothren, where're our desks?"
She replied, "You can't have a desk until you tell me what you have done to earn the right to sit at a desk.
"They thought, "Well, maybe it's our grades."
"No," she said.
"Maybe it's our behavior." She told them, "No, it's not even your behavior."
And so, they came and went, the first period, second period, third period. Still no desks in the classroom.
By early afternoon television news crews had started gathering in Ms. Cothren's classroom to report about this crazy teacher who had taken all the desks out of her room.
The final period of the day came and as the puzzled students found seats on the floor of the deskless classroom, Martha Cothren said, "Throughout the day no one has been able to tell me just what he/she has done to earn the right to sit at the desks that are ordinarily found in this classroom. Now I am going to tell you." At this point, Martha Cothren went over to the door of her classroom and opened it.
Twenty-seven (27) U.S. Veterans, all in uniforms, walked into that classroom, each one carrying a school desk. The Vets began placing the school desks in rows, and then they would walk over and stand alongside the wall.
By the time the last soldier had set the final desk in place those kids started to understand, perhaps for the first time in their lives, just how the right to sit at those desks had been earned.
Martha said, "You didn't earn the right to sit at these desks. These heroes did it for you. They placed the desks here for you. Now, it's up to you to sit in them. It is your responsibility to learn, to be good students, to be good citizens. They paid the price so that you could have the freedom to get an education. Don't ever forget it."
Monday, April 14, 2008
RED SKELTON RECALLS HOW HIS TEACHER EXPLAINED THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
I know the late comedian Red Skelton's story explaining the meaning of our nation's Pledge of Allegiance has been widely distributed over the internet time and time again. Nevertheless it is such a great example of patriotism and what it means to be an American, that I consider it well-worth repeating again.
From the Red Skelton Hour, January 14, 1969
"Getting back to school, I remember a teacher that I had. Now I only went, I went through the seventh grade. I left home when I was 10 years old because I was hungry. And .. this is true. I worked in the summer and went to school in the winter. But, I had this one teacher, he was the principal of the Harrison school, in Vincennes, Indiana. To me, this was the greatest teacher, a real sage of..of my time, anyhow.
He had such wisdom. We were all reciting the Pledge of Allegiance one day, and he walked over. This little old teacher ... Mr. Lasswell was his name. He said:
"I've been listening to you boys and girls recite the Pledge of Allegiance all semester and it seems as though it is becoming monotonous to you. If I may, may I recite it and try to explain to you the meaning of each word?
I --- me, an individual, a committee of one.
Pledge --- dedicate all of my worldly goods to give without self-pity.
Allegiance --- my love and my devotion.
To the Flag [of the] --- our standard, Old Glory, a symbol of freedom. Wherever she waves, there's respect because your loyalty has given her a dignity that shouts freedom is everybody's job.
United --- that means that we have all come together.
States [of America] --- individual communities that have united into 48 great states. 48 individual communities with pride and dignity and purpose, all divided with imaginary boundaries, yet united to a common purpose, and that's love for country.
and to the Republic For Which It Stands --- Republic ... a state in which sovereign power is invested in representatives chosen by the people to govern. And government is the people and it's from the people to the leaders, not from the leaders to the people.
One Nation --- One Nation ... meaning, so blessed by God.
Indivisible --- incapable of being divided.
With Liberty --- which is freedom, the right of power to live one's own life, without threats, fear, or some sort of retaliation.
And Justice --- the principle or qualities of dealing fairly with others.
For All --- For all ... which means, boys and girls, it's as much your country as it is mine.
And now boys and girls let me hear you recite,the Pledge of Allegiance.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country, and two words have been added to the Pledge of Allegiance - "under God." Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said, "That is a prayer," and that would be eliminated from schools, too?"
Red Skelton
EDITOR'S NOTE: Our Pledge of Allegiance is very dear to my heart. This country has been very good to my family ever since we came here in 1936 as refugees from Nazi Germany. I eagerly and proudly enlisted in the U.S. Army on my 17th birthday. The GI Bill paid for most of my college education. It bothers me that Americans take their citizenship for granted and do not really appreciate what sets this country apart from most other countries in the world.
This reminds me of an occasion that I found absolutely disgusting. The college at which I taught Criminal Justice courses is located midway between Houston and Galveston, Texas. For many years, the college was controlled by a group of labor union-backed openly-avowed Marxist faculty members. That is why I call it COLLEGE OF THE MARXISTS.
I think it was in January of 1991, during the first Gulf War, that we had a scheduled general faculty and staff meeting. Before the meeting started, I approached Larry Stanley, the college's puppet (of the Marxists) president and asked him to lead the faculty in our Pledge of Allegiance. When he refused to do so, I asked him if I could do it. He answered with a resounding "No." When I asked him why not, Stanley became angry and told me: "Because this is neither the time nor the place for that." (I later learned that he refused both requests because he knew the Marxists would storm out of the auditorium had anyone started to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.)
Neither the time nor the place? I beg your pardon! You can take this to the bank - ANY TIME AND ANY PLACE IS ALWAYS APPROPRIATE FOR US TO PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO OUR GREAT DEMOCRACY! Those who refuse to do so are, in effect, renouncing their citizenship and, in effect, declaring they are not loyal to the United States of America. Those who refuse to pledge their loyalty to this country should pack up and leave forthwith!!
From the Red Skelton Hour, January 14, 1969
"Getting back to school, I remember a teacher that I had. Now I only went, I went through the seventh grade. I left home when I was 10 years old because I was hungry. And .. this is true. I worked in the summer and went to school in the winter. But, I had this one teacher, he was the principal of the Harrison school, in Vincennes, Indiana. To me, this was the greatest teacher, a real sage of..of my time, anyhow.
He had such wisdom. We were all reciting the Pledge of Allegiance one day, and he walked over. This little old teacher ... Mr. Lasswell was his name. He said:
"I've been listening to you boys and girls recite the Pledge of Allegiance all semester and it seems as though it is becoming monotonous to you. If I may, may I recite it and try to explain to you the meaning of each word?
I --- me, an individual, a committee of one.
Pledge --- dedicate all of my worldly goods to give without self-pity.
Allegiance --- my love and my devotion.
To the Flag [of the] --- our standard, Old Glory, a symbol of freedom. Wherever she waves, there's respect because your loyalty has given her a dignity that shouts freedom is everybody's job.
United --- that means that we have all come together.
States [of America] --- individual communities that have united into 48 great states. 48 individual communities with pride and dignity and purpose, all divided with imaginary boundaries, yet united to a common purpose, and that's love for country.
and to the Republic For Which It Stands --- Republic ... a state in which sovereign power is invested in representatives chosen by the people to govern. And government is the people and it's from the people to the leaders, not from the leaders to the people.
One Nation --- One Nation ... meaning, so blessed by God.
Indivisible --- incapable of being divided.
With Liberty --- which is freedom, the right of power to live one's own life, without threats, fear, or some sort of retaliation.
And Justice --- the principle or qualities of dealing fairly with others.
For All --- For all ... which means, boys and girls, it's as much your country as it is mine.
And now boys and girls let me hear you recite,the Pledge of Allegiance.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country, and two words have been added to the Pledge of Allegiance - "under God." Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said, "That is a prayer," and that would be eliminated from schools, too?"
Red Skelton
EDITOR'S NOTE: Our Pledge of Allegiance is very dear to my heart. This country has been very good to my family ever since we came here in 1936 as refugees from Nazi Germany. I eagerly and proudly enlisted in the U.S. Army on my 17th birthday. The GI Bill paid for most of my college education. It bothers me that Americans take their citizenship for granted and do not really appreciate what sets this country apart from most other countries in the world.
This reminds me of an occasion that I found absolutely disgusting. The college at which I taught Criminal Justice courses is located midway between Houston and Galveston, Texas. For many years, the college was controlled by a group of labor union-backed openly-avowed Marxist faculty members. That is why I call it COLLEGE OF THE MARXISTS.
I think it was in January of 1991, during the first Gulf War, that we had a scheduled general faculty and staff meeting. Before the meeting started, I approached Larry Stanley, the college's puppet (of the Marxists) president and asked him to lead the faculty in our Pledge of Allegiance. When he refused to do so, I asked him if I could do it. He answered with a resounding "No." When I asked him why not, Stanley became angry and told me: "Because this is neither the time nor the place for that." (I later learned that he refused both requests because he knew the Marxists would storm out of the auditorium had anyone started to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.)
Neither the time nor the place? I beg your pardon! You can take this to the bank - ANY TIME AND ANY PLACE IS ALWAYS APPROPRIATE FOR US TO PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO OUR GREAT DEMOCRACY! Those who refuse to do so are, in effect, renouncing their citizenship and, in effect, declaring they are not loyal to the United States of America. Those who refuse to pledge their loyalty to this country should pack up and leave forthwith!!
Friday, April 11, 2008
MODERN KEYSTONE COPS (MARCH-APRIL, 2008)
It's been two years since I've blogged any moderm keystone cop stories. Two police incidents occurred recently, each deserving of a distinguished Modern Keystone Cop award.
"HEY, STOP OR I'LL SHOOT! STOP OR I'LL SHOOT!"
Last month, a 17-year-old chimpanzee escaped from a University of Texas (UT) laboratory in Bastrop, a community not far from the university's main campus in Austin. Lab attendants in a pick-up truck darted the chimp with a tranquilizer gun, but without effect. According to the official report, the chimp jumped into the back of the pick-up truck and "took the attendant's dart gun away from him and discarded it."
The driver sped away and the chimp either fell from the truck or jumped out of it. The chimp then advanced toward a UT police officer. According to the report, "The chimpanzee started flailing its arms. The officer shouted at least twice that he was going to shoot." In fear for his safety, the officer then fired several times at the advancing chimp, killing him.
Now I can understand how the officer would be in fear for his life. But, warning the chimp at least twice that he was going to shoot? Did he shout in chimpanzeenese which, just as Jews and Italians do while talking, involves the flailing of one's arms and hands? Or, as a college cop, did he simply mistake that ape for a rampaging dope-crazed unkempt naked UT student?
Obviously the chimp did not stop. Maybe that was because in the excitement, when he warned the chimp, the officer forgot to follow the accepted attention-getting police practice of beginning each warning by shouting: "HEY, ASSHOLE!"
"I BET YOU TEN PESOS I CAN HIT THAT THING FROM HERE."
Earlier this month, a large group of Mexican police officers were firing their weapons at a shooting range in Tapachula, a city in southern Mexico's state of Chiapas. One of the officers fired his gun and struck a hive of Africanized (killer) bees. CARAMBA !!!!!!!!
The killer bees swarmed at the cops and at least 70 officers were stung bad enough to be hospitalized. Score: Killer Bees 70 - Killer Cops 1. At least 10 of the officers were hospitalized in serious condition. If you get hold of a Spanish-English dictionary, you can bet there is no English transaltion for the language used by the officers while they were being stung.
EDITOR'S NOTE: The chimpanzee that was shot in Bastrop most probably would have understood the shouts used by the Mexican cops as they flailed their arms in the midst of the swarming bees.
"HEY, STOP OR I'LL SHOOT! STOP OR I'LL SHOOT!"
Last month, a 17-year-old chimpanzee escaped from a University of Texas (UT) laboratory in Bastrop, a community not far from the university's main campus in Austin. Lab attendants in a pick-up truck darted the chimp with a tranquilizer gun, but without effect. According to the official report, the chimp jumped into the back of the pick-up truck and "took the attendant's dart gun away from him and discarded it."
The driver sped away and the chimp either fell from the truck or jumped out of it. The chimp then advanced toward a UT police officer. According to the report, "The chimpanzee started flailing its arms. The officer shouted at least twice that he was going to shoot." In fear for his safety, the officer then fired several times at the advancing chimp, killing him.
Now I can understand how the officer would be in fear for his life. But, warning the chimp at least twice that he was going to shoot? Did he shout in chimpanzeenese which, just as Jews and Italians do while talking, involves the flailing of one's arms and hands? Or, as a college cop, did he simply mistake that ape for a rampaging dope-crazed unkempt naked UT student?
Obviously the chimp did not stop. Maybe that was because in the excitement, when he warned the chimp, the officer forgot to follow the accepted attention-getting police practice of beginning each warning by shouting: "HEY, ASSHOLE!"
"I BET YOU TEN PESOS I CAN HIT THAT THING FROM HERE."
Earlier this month, a large group of Mexican police officers were firing their weapons at a shooting range in Tapachula, a city in southern Mexico's state of Chiapas. One of the officers fired his gun and struck a hive of Africanized (killer) bees. CARAMBA !!!!!!!!
The killer bees swarmed at the cops and at least 70 officers were stung bad enough to be hospitalized. Score: Killer Bees 70 - Killer Cops 1. At least 10 of the officers were hospitalized in serious condition. If you get hold of a Spanish-English dictionary, you can bet there is no English transaltion for the language used by the officers while they were being stung.
EDITOR'S NOTE: The chimpanzee that was shot in Bastrop most probably would have understood the shouts used by the Mexican cops as they flailed their arms in the midst of the swarming bees.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
AAA FAILS TO DELIVER
A former student and long-time friend asked me to blog her unfortunate experience with a prominent motor club because, according to her, I had such a "way with words" and could "blast all holy hell at Triple A." Well, I could not have put it any better myself, so here in her own words is what happened.
I want you to put a story on your blog for me.
A friend of mine and I were in Clear Lake (a Houston suburb) tonight. We stopped at the Popeye's on Bay Area at Space Center. She locked her keys in her truck. Then the fun began.
She called Triple A at 9:00 pm.
We were told it'd be 40 minutes.
She told them that her dog was locked in the truck and the windows were not rolled down; they promised to "put a rush on it."
She called back at 9:45 and was told that they needed another 45 minutes.
I called at 9:57 using my Triple A card and was told that they were "trying to find someone to come out and help us."
I was put on hold for about ten minutes while the lady mumbled and typed on her computer. I finally told her my cell phone was going dead. She said "I'm sorry."
I then asked if she had found someone else yet. She again said "I'm trying to find someone."
I then told her it was a pretty sorry state of affairs when two women were left in a dark parking lot.....alone....both of them with Triple A memberships....and NO ONE in the Houston / Clear Lake area could come to help them.
I was then told that I could call a wrecker myself and they would "SEE if I could get reimbursed."
By now it was 10:15 and she said again that it would be at least 30 more minutes.
At 10:45 my friends husband showed up... driving all the way from their home south of Alvin (a neighboring city) and unlocked the truck.
We left at 10:50.....and still there was no wrecker in sight...........
Tomorrow......we are both cancelling our memberships with Triple A.
I'm sure that you....with your way with words... can blast all holy hell at Triple A. It's a sad thing when two Senior Citizens.......women......one disabled.... are left in a dark parking lot for almost two hours with no help coming.........and with a dog locked in the truck. (It's a good thing it wasn't summer time and hot.....the dog would have been in sad shape.)
Ok.....that's it....I've vented....thanks for listening...
I certainly don't blame these two ladies for cancelling their AAA memberships. They might have been better served had they called for police assistance. Some police agencies will allow their officers to carry "slim jims" for this purpose. This incident should serve as a warning to those expecting a rapid response for roadside assistance from AAA, or from any other motor club or insurance company for that matter.
I would, however, like to add one comment: NEVER, EVER LEAVE A DOG LOCKED UP UNATTENDED IN A MOTOR VEHICLE!
I want you to put a story on your blog for me.
A friend of mine and I were in Clear Lake (a Houston suburb) tonight. We stopped at the Popeye's on Bay Area at Space Center. She locked her keys in her truck. Then the fun began.
She called Triple A at 9:00 pm.
We were told it'd be 40 minutes.
She told them that her dog was locked in the truck and the windows were not rolled down; they promised to "put a rush on it."
She called back at 9:45 and was told that they needed another 45 minutes.
I called at 9:57 using my Triple A card and was told that they were "trying to find someone to come out and help us."
I was put on hold for about ten minutes while the lady mumbled and typed on her computer. I finally told her my cell phone was going dead. She said "I'm sorry."
I then asked if she had found someone else yet. She again said "I'm trying to find someone."
I then told her it was a pretty sorry state of affairs when two women were left in a dark parking lot.....alone....both of them with Triple A memberships....and NO ONE in the Houston / Clear Lake area could come to help them.
I was then told that I could call a wrecker myself and they would "SEE if I could get reimbursed."
By now it was 10:15 and she said again that it would be at least 30 more minutes.
At 10:45 my friends husband showed up... driving all the way from their home south of Alvin (a neighboring city) and unlocked the truck.
We left at 10:50.....and still there was no wrecker in sight...........
Tomorrow......we are both cancelling our memberships with Triple A.
I'm sure that you....with your way with words... can blast all holy hell at Triple A. It's a sad thing when two Senior Citizens.......women......one disabled.... are left in a dark parking lot for almost two hours with no help coming.........and with a dog locked in the truck. (It's a good thing it wasn't summer time and hot.....the dog would have been in sad shape.)
Ok.....that's it....I've vented....thanks for listening...
I certainly don't blame these two ladies for cancelling their AAA memberships. They might have been better served had they called for police assistance. Some police agencies will allow their officers to carry "slim jims" for this purpose. This incident should serve as a warning to those expecting a rapid response for roadside assistance from AAA, or from any other motor club or insurance company for that matter.
I would, however, like to add one comment: NEVER, EVER LEAVE A DOG LOCKED UP UNATTENDED IN A MOTOR VEHICLE!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)