In a recent blog entry at www.msnbc.com, MSNBC "news" personality Keith Olbermann, who wouldn't know a fact if it smacked him across the head, wrote some pretty ridiculous things about the controversey over White House spokesman Scott McClellan's comments regarding Newsweek. Some highlights in silliness include:
"Of course, everybody in the prosecution of the so-called ‘war on terror’ has done something dumb, dating back to the President’s worst-possible-word-selection (“crusade”) on September 16, 2001."
Actually, Keith, crusade is the most appropriate term the president could have used. I wouldn't expect Mr. Olbermann to know much about the Crusades other than what he reads from Left-Wing Weekly but all five Crusades were a response by Europeans to Muslim aggression. Like European Christians in the middle-ages, we were attacked by Arabs in the name of Islam. Call a spade a spade: Any response to Muslim aggression should be called a crusade.
"The news organization turns to the administration for a denial. The administration says nothing. The news organization runs the story. The administration jumps on the necks of the news organization with both feet — or has its proxies do it for them."
"That’s beyond shameful. It’s treasonous."
So Keith Olbermann thinks the Bush administration are a bunch of traitors. Lovely. No wonder the White House has a problem with the media. Can you blame them (the administration, not the media)? Olbermann and his ilk love throwing around terms like "unpatriotic" and "treasonous" yet when a conservative hints that a liberal may not be acting in the best interest of the nation--a legitimate point--liberals immediatly cry foul and accuse the right of McCarthyism.
So much for tolerance.
"While places like the Fox News Channel (which, only today, I finally recognized — it’s the newscast perpetually running on the giant video screens in the movie “1984”) ask how many heads should roll at Newsweek, it forgets in its fervor that both the story and the phony controversy around it are not so cut-and-dried this time."
I don't know whether to laugh or to cry. Other than the obvious insecurity complex Olbermann exhibits with tired attacks on Fox News, Olbermann shows a complete ignorance when it comes to George Orwell's 1984. In that book, it's the tolitarian left that is the villain (you know, guys like Olbermann). I think it's much more likely that Countdown is being shown on those screens.
"Either way — and also for that tasteless, soul-less conclusion that deaths in Afghanistan should be lain at the magazine’s doorstep — Scott McClellan should resign. The expiration on his carton full of blank-eyed bully-collaborator act passed this afternoon as he sat reeling off those holier-than-thou remarks. Ah, that’s what I smelled."
Ah, I see. McClellan is soul-less. Nice. Coming from a godless commie heathen like Olbermann, this doesn't mean a whole heckuva lot, does it?
Holier-than-thou remarks? Keith, Keith, Keith. Do you ever listen to yourself?
Oh brother...
Thursday, May 19, 2005
Monday, April 25, 2005
Pop singer acknowledges kids aren't born "gay".
Recently, pop singer Moby had this to say about homosexuality: "As a matter of fact, I was talking to my friend Laura, who sings on [my latest] record, and we're both getting to the point where we want to start families. We're convinced that if we have children, we're going to do everything in our power to make them gay."
How refreshing to hear this sort of thing from someone so far to the left. Finally, someone on the left is acknowledging that homosexuality isn't completely inherent.
But one has to question Moby's parental credentials. Why on Earth would any loving parent encourage a male child to be gay? That's nearly a death sentence what with the AIDS virus ravaging the homosexual community. Maybe I'm nuts, but I think children should be encouraged to engage in activities that won't kill them at age forty. Like--I dunno--monogamous heterosexuality.
Moby may be a good singer but people who encourage children to be homosexuals should not be parents. Period.
How refreshing to hear this sort of thing from someone so far to the left. Finally, someone on the left is acknowledging that homosexuality isn't completely inherent.
But one has to question Moby's parental credentials. Why on Earth would any loving parent encourage a male child to be gay? That's nearly a death sentence what with the AIDS virus ravaging the homosexual community. Maybe I'm nuts, but I think children should be encouraged to engage in activities that won't kill them at age forty. Like--I dunno--monogamous heterosexuality.
Moby may be a good singer but people who encourage children to be homosexuals should not be parents. Period.
Monday, April 18, 2005
What's in a name?
I'm fascinated by names. Years before my wife and I had our first child, we'd already heavily discussed possible names. It was important to both of us to name our children after relatives. But we didn't want to use outdated or old-fashioned names just for the sake of naming our chilren after a relative. We wanted good, solid traditional names for our kids. But we wanted to avoid trendy names even if they were traditional, too. So the challenge was to find a family member whom we liked and who also had a traditional name as long as the name was currently not trendy.
So we named our first kid Robert after my grandfather.
But the middle name was important, too. My father-in-law's first name is LeRoy so we decided to give my son the middle name Roy. However, I wanted more. With a common last name like White, my wife and deceided that my son should have two middle names. So I gave my son my middle name as a second middle name.
When we had our second child, a girl, we decided to name her Mary after my wife's grandmother. For Mary's middle name, we decided on Kathryn which is both my sister's name and my great-grandmother's name.
I think it's important to name children after family members who have been important and beloved figures in your life. It's a way to pass on a family legacy and pay homage to your past. I think it isn't done enough, frankly, and I think more people should name their children after family members.
But my brother has a different view. He, like me, thinks middle names should be for family members but first names should be unique to that family. I guess it's all where your coming from: I'm named after a relative, he isn't.
So we named our first kid Robert after my grandfather.
But the middle name was important, too. My father-in-law's first name is LeRoy so we decided to give my son the middle name Roy. However, I wanted more. With a common last name like White, my wife and deceided that my son should have two middle names. So I gave my son my middle name as a second middle name.
When we had our second child, a girl, we decided to name her Mary after my wife's grandmother. For Mary's middle name, we decided on Kathryn which is both my sister's name and my great-grandmother's name.
I think it's important to name children after family members who have been important and beloved figures in your life. It's a way to pass on a family legacy and pay homage to your past. I think it isn't done enough, frankly, and I think more people should name their children after family members.
But my brother has a different view. He, like me, thinks middle names should be for family members but first names should be unique to that family. I guess it's all where your coming from: I'm named after a relative, he isn't.
The Portrayal of McCarthyism in Comic Books.
In a recent storyline in the comic book JSA (Justice Society of America) by DC Comics, the modern-day JSA traveled back in time to save the JSA of the early 1950s. It seems a time-traveling villain by the name of Degaton has it out for the JSA and he has traveled to the 1950s to destroy the team of that era so that the modern team will never exist. And what is Degaton's mode of destruction? Is it a bomb? Or will he murder the team members one-by-one? Nope. Degaton will be using Senator Joe McCarthy to permanently dismantle the JSA in the name of protecting America from communism.
Other than being an extremely predictable storyline by using McCarthy as the villian, the view of McCarthy as a threat to democracy is absurd. McCarthy is an easy target for anyone writing about the 1950s but nearly everything written about Senator McCarthy is libelous. Joe McCarthy was a patriot who was defending America from a very real threat: Communism. While McCarthy came into the game too late to really be of any use (we now know communist agents had already done irreperable damage to America before McCarthy got involved), his crusade to root out those who would sell our secrets to the Soviet Union was admirable.
Yet McCarthy is painted as a man who cared little about the truth and was going around falsely accusing people of being communists and trying to unjustly detain or imprison those same communists. Contrary to nutty claims by the left (who were sympathetic to the commies), no one was detained or imprisoned without due process. McCarthy was correct in that dozens of government employees were communists or communist sympathisers. The same lefties who had a tizzy fit about Joe McCarthy did not get worked up over New York Times columnist Walter Duranty covering up the crimes of Joe Stalin.
I like the writer of JSA (Geoff Johns) but his facts are in question. Especially when he tries to tie McCarthy in with the House Un-American Activities Commitee (HUAC). McCarthy had nothing to do with HUAC. Here's a little tidbit leftist "historians" gloss over: Senator McCarthy was (duh) in the Senate! The 'H' in HUAC stands for House as in the House of Representatives!
Where is the disdain for John F. Kennedy? Kennedy, who was a U.S. representitive and a U.S senator in the 1950s, was so anti-communist (yeah!), he made Joe McCarthy look like Alger Hiss. Kennedy was enthusiastically along for the ride in any attempt to root out communists in our midst. But Kennedy was a Democrat so I guess he gets a pass.
Other than being an extremely predictable storyline by using McCarthy as the villian, the view of McCarthy as a threat to democracy is absurd. McCarthy is an easy target for anyone writing about the 1950s but nearly everything written about Senator McCarthy is libelous. Joe McCarthy was a patriot who was defending America from a very real threat: Communism. While McCarthy came into the game too late to really be of any use (we now know communist agents had already done irreperable damage to America before McCarthy got involved), his crusade to root out those who would sell our secrets to the Soviet Union was admirable.
Yet McCarthy is painted as a man who cared little about the truth and was going around falsely accusing people of being communists and trying to unjustly detain or imprison those same communists. Contrary to nutty claims by the left (who were sympathetic to the commies), no one was detained or imprisoned without due process. McCarthy was correct in that dozens of government employees were communists or communist sympathisers. The same lefties who had a tizzy fit about Joe McCarthy did not get worked up over New York Times columnist Walter Duranty covering up the crimes of Joe Stalin.
I like the writer of JSA (Geoff Johns) but his facts are in question. Especially when he tries to tie McCarthy in with the House Un-American Activities Commitee (HUAC). McCarthy had nothing to do with HUAC. Here's a little tidbit leftist "historians" gloss over: Senator McCarthy was (duh) in the Senate! The 'H' in HUAC stands for House as in the House of Representatives!
Where is the disdain for John F. Kennedy? Kennedy, who was a U.S. representitive and a U.S senator in the 1950s, was so anti-communist (yeah!), he made Joe McCarthy look like Alger Hiss. Kennedy was enthusiastically along for the ride in any attempt to root out communists in our midst. But Kennedy was a Democrat so I guess he gets a pass.
Friday, April 15, 2005
Leftists do not care about the constitution.
If leftists truly cared about the constitution, they wouldn't misquote it so often. How many times do we here leftists ignorantly (or malevolently) spout off about "seperation of church and state" when that phrase appears nowhere in the founding documents of our nation? How many times do we hear leftists wanting to trash the second ammendment? If they truly cared about the constitution, why then do they say these things? The answer is, of course, they don't care about the constitution.
To be clear, I'm not talking about true liberals like Senator Joe Lieberman. I'm talking about the left. The nutty, bigoted, hate-filled left. You know of whom I speak. The folks who have been physically attacking conservative speakers like Pat Buchanan and David Horowitz on college campuses. The folks who defend Ward Churchill. The folks who buy "Kill Bush" t-shirts. The folks who want to hold modern American Christians responsible for what European Christians did five-hundred years ago. Do you know how stupid that is? How bigoted and hateful that is? But this is the modern American left. The folks who think that those who view things as black and white are idiots yet they (the left) view Christianity as black, secularism as white.
Next time you think about bashing conservatives, think about this: Noam Chomsky, Ward Churchill and their ilk can say the most idiotic, hateful things yet they never, never worry about being attacked. They don't need to hire bodyguards. But conservative speakers get attacked often. And some are forced to hire protection. The left is totalitarian and they don't tolerate disagreement. That's why you never hear guests that hold opposing viewpoints on Air America. But you hear opposing voices all the time on conservative talk radio. Dennis Prager and Sean Hannity have guests who disagree with them on their respective shows several times a week. Michael Medved only has guests who disagree with him (with rare exceptions). Conservatives tolerate dissent. We welcome dissent. The left doesn't want to hear that. They won't hear it.
To be clear, I'm not talking about true liberals like Senator Joe Lieberman. I'm talking about the left. The nutty, bigoted, hate-filled left. You know of whom I speak. The folks who have been physically attacking conservative speakers like Pat Buchanan and David Horowitz on college campuses. The folks who defend Ward Churchill. The folks who buy "Kill Bush" t-shirts. The folks who want to hold modern American Christians responsible for what European Christians did five-hundred years ago. Do you know how stupid that is? How bigoted and hateful that is? But this is the modern American left. The folks who think that those who view things as black and white are idiots yet they (the left) view Christianity as black, secularism as white.
Next time you think about bashing conservatives, think about this: Noam Chomsky, Ward Churchill and their ilk can say the most idiotic, hateful things yet they never, never worry about being attacked. They don't need to hire bodyguards. But conservative speakers get attacked often. And some are forced to hire protection. The left is totalitarian and they don't tolerate disagreement. That's why you never hear guests that hold opposing viewpoints on Air America. But you hear opposing voices all the time on conservative talk radio. Dennis Prager and Sean Hannity have guests who disagree with them on their respective shows several times a week. Michael Medved only has guests who disagree with him (with rare exceptions). Conservatives tolerate dissent. We welcome dissent. The left doesn't want to hear that. They won't hear it.
Monday, April 11, 2005
Our universities are no longer about a universe of ideas.
Recent letters-to-the-editor in my local paper have me shaking my head at what people choose to believe. In response to a column published last week in the Ogden Standard-Examiner, many readers are taking the author of the column to task for pointing out the obvious: Colleges have become "monoversities" preaching only one viewpoint--a leftist viewpoint--as acceptable. These nuts who are writing into the paper and proclaiming that universities are open to all viewpoints are fooling themselves and ignoring the vast body of evidence that shows colleges to be havens for extremist leftist professors.
Over the last forty years, colleges have become increasingly hostile and intolerant to conservative ideas. Speech codes have targetted conservative ideas as "hate speech" in an attempt to silence anyone who isn't a leftist nut. Look at what recently happened at Colorado University and Harvard. These two cases illustrate exactly what I'm talking about. At Colorado, Ward Churchill spews out all sorts of extreme leftist nonsense even referring to victims of 9/11 as Nazis. He even lied about his racial background to get the job in the first place. Yet few of his colleagues have condemned Churchill and not one has asked him to resign.
Meanwhile at Harvard, an official spoke off the record about how he thinks men and women just might be different (what a concept) and he's suddenly on the hotseat and being asked to resign by nearly every leftist in the nation. His colleagues are asking him to resign. What is even more absurd about this is that the Harvard official's comments were off-the-record while Ward Churchill's comments were during a very public speech!
Professors in the social sciences are continually teaching kids to hate America. I've had these professors and they outweigh the conservative pofessors I've had by a six-to-one margin. And I know for a fact that the few conservative social science professors I've had are harassed by their colleagues for daring to have an opposing viewpoint. And the university I attend is considered conservative! It makes me wonder what kind of crap is happening at liberal colleges!
Ninety percent of our colleges have speech codes which try to enforce leftist intolerance in the name of social diversity and cultural sensitivity. So when it comes to the only diversity that really matters--intellectual diversity--only the left is allowed to speak.
Those who are defending colleges as "open to all viewpoints" are intellectually dishonest and sadly out-of-touch.
Over the last forty years, colleges have become increasingly hostile and intolerant to conservative ideas. Speech codes have targetted conservative ideas as "hate speech" in an attempt to silence anyone who isn't a leftist nut. Look at what recently happened at Colorado University and Harvard. These two cases illustrate exactly what I'm talking about. At Colorado, Ward Churchill spews out all sorts of extreme leftist nonsense even referring to victims of 9/11 as Nazis. He even lied about his racial background to get the job in the first place. Yet few of his colleagues have condemned Churchill and not one has asked him to resign.
Meanwhile at Harvard, an official spoke off the record about how he thinks men and women just might be different (what a concept) and he's suddenly on the hotseat and being asked to resign by nearly every leftist in the nation. His colleagues are asking him to resign. What is even more absurd about this is that the Harvard official's comments were off-the-record while Ward Churchill's comments were during a very public speech!
Professors in the social sciences are continually teaching kids to hate America. I've had these professors and they outweigh the conservative pofessors I've had by a six-to-one margin. And I know for a fact that the few conservative social science professors I've had are harassed by their colleagues for daring to have an opposing viewpoint. And the university I attend is considered conservative! It makes me wonder what kind of crap is happening at liberal colleges!
Ninety percent of our colleges have speech codes which try to enforce leftist intolerance in the name of social diversity and cultural sensitivity. So when it comes to the only diversity that really matters--intellectual diversity--only the left is allowed to speak.
Those who are defending colleges as "open to all viewpoints" are intellectually dishonest and sadly out-of-touch.
Sunday, March 20, 2005
Ranking the most recent ten presidents, sans Clinton and George W.
I continue to rank presidents in groups of ten. Today, I will rank our last ten presidents up to but not including William Clinton and George W. Bush. I won't be ranking Clinton and Bush because, frankly, their presidencies are recent (and in W's case, current) and I don't think it's entirely fair to put their presidencies in historical context just yet. So from FDR to George H. W. Bush, this is how I'd rank them compared to eachother, 1 through 10:
1. Ronald Reagan - I don't think Reagan's greatness can be exagerated. With his economic policies (i.e, tax cuts) he gave us the strongest economy we've ever had. On top of that, he put the Soviet Union out of business bringing hope to not just millions of Americans but millions of people worldwide. Always positive, Reagan made his enemies--both domestic and foreign--look foolish.
2. Harry S. Truman - Did little to slow down the ineffective New Deal programs of FDR and, overall, he was fairly weak when it came to domestic issues. However, his dealings with the Soviets and Chinese at the beginning of the Cold War were extraordinary in vision and scope. Every Cold War president that followed Truman owed him a debt.
3. Dwight Eisenhower - Though he didn't do enough to stop the growth of government, he did slow it down. And he continued the foreign policy precedent Truman left him. Didn't do enough to root out communists--a very real threat--in America.
4. George H. W. Bush - Strong on foreign affairs, fairly weak on domestic issues. Fell prey to the Clinton Propaganda Machine which told the lie that Bush presided over the "weakest economy in fifty years".
5. John F. Kennedy - Though he made some unwise foreign policy decisions and didn't handle America's entry into Vietnam, Kennedy understood that across-the-board tax cuts actually increased government revenue.
6. Franklin Roosevelt - His New Deal policies actually deepened the Depression and expanded the size of government unnecessarily. FDR hesitated to get involved in WWII. He also did little to help European Jews from extermination before WWII when, through the State Department, he could have easily done so by issuing thousands of visas. His so-so attitude toward the Jewish plight is disturbing. However, getting rid of the gold standard was very helpful to the US banking system and his singular vision once the US entered the war was key to defeating Germany and Japan. FDR never wavered once the US engaged in hostilities with the Axis powers. Unfortunately, he misjudged Stalin and made one of the worst foreign policy mistakes--trusting Stalin--in history.
7. Richard Nixon - Though his dealings with China and the Soviets were two of the biggest foreign policy triumphs in history, his domestic policies--more government programs and more funding for existing programs--were a disaster. And, of course, there was the Watergate cover-up.
8. Gerald Ford - Though hampered by a hostile congress, Ford did nothing to stop the expanding government and help the failing economy. And he was weak at foreign policy.
9. Lyndon Johnson - The Great Society was a dismal failure as Johnson took the failed programs of FDR and expanded them which made more people dependent on government. His mishandling of the Vietnam War--a righteous cause--cost thousands of men their lives. LBJ is easily one of the worst presidents in US history.
10. Jimmy Carter - Perhaps the worst president in US history, Carter enabled terrorism through his weak actions against terrorists. His domestic policy lacked any sort of vision. When he finally left the White House, America was at it's lowest point in history.
1. Ronald Reagan - I don't think Reagan's greatness can be exagerated. With his economic policies (i.e, tax cuts) he gave us the strongest economy we've ever had. On top of that, he put the Soviet Union out of business bringing hope to not just millions of Americans but millions of people worldwide. Always positive, Reagan made his enemies--both domestic and foreign--look foolish.
2. Harry S. Truman - Did little to slow down the ineffective New Deal programs of FDR and, overall, he was fairly weak when it came to domestic issues. However, his dealings with the Soviets and Chinese at the beginning of the Cold War were extraordinary in vision and scope. Every Cold War president that followed Truman owed him a debt.
3. Dwight Eisenhower - Though he didn't do enough to stop the growth of government, he did slow it down. And he continued the foreign policy precedent Truman left him. Didn't do enough to root out communists--a very real threat--in America.
4. George H. W. Bush - Strong on foreign affairs, fairly weak on domestic issues. Fell prey to the Clinton Propaganda Machine which told the lie that Bush presided over the "weakest economy in fifty years".
5. John F. Kennedy - Though he made some unwise foreign policy decisions and didn't handle America's entry into Vietnam, Kennedy understood that across-the-board tax cuts actually increased government revenue.
6. Franklin Roosevelt - His New Deal policies actually deepened the Depression and expanded the size of government unnecessarily. FDR hesitated to get involved in WWII. He also did little to help European Jews from extermination before WWII when, through the State Department, he could have easily done so by issuing thousands of visas. His so-so attitude toward the Jewish plight is disturbing. However, getting rid of the gold standard was very helpful to the US banking system and his singular vision once the US entered the war was key to defeating Germany and Japan. FDR never wavered once the US engaged in hostilities with the Axis powers. Unfortunately, he misjudged Stalin and made one of the worst foreign policy mistakes--trusting Stalin--in history.
7. Richard Nixon - Though his dealings with China and the Soviets were two of the biggest foreign policy triumphs in history, his domestic policies--more government programs and more funding for existing programs--were a disaster. And, of course, there was the Watergate cover-up.
8. Gerald Ford - Though hampered by a hostile congress, Ford did nothing to stop the expanding government and help the failing economy. And he was weak at foreign policy.
9. Lyndon Johnson - The Great Society was a dismal failure as Johnson took the failed programs of FDR and expanded them which made more people dependent on government. His mishandling of the Vietnam War--a righteous cause--cost thousands of men their lives. LBJ is easily one of the worst presidents in US history.
10. Jimmy Carter - Perhaps the worst president in US history, Carter enabled terrorism through his weak actions against terrorists. His domestic policy lacked any sort of vision. When he finally left the White House, America was at it's lowest point in history.
Friday, March 18, 2005
Ranking the third ten presidents of the USA.
As I did in earlier posts when I ranked the first ten presidents one through ten and followed with ranking the second ten presidents one through ten, today I will rank the third ten presidents using quotes from a variety of sources:
1. Grover Cleveland - Robert Higgs, Research Director for the Independent Institute, said this of Clevelsnd, "He kept the country at peace. He respected the Constitution, acknowledging that the national government has only a limited mission to perform and shaping his policies accordingly. He fought to lower tariffs; preserved the gold standard in its time of crisis; and restored order forcibly when hoodlums disturbed the peace on a wide front during the great railroad strike of 1894." Though I disagree with Mr. Higgs on many fronts, he nails my opinion of Cleveland perfectly.
2. (tie) Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge - It's hard to seperate Harding and Coolidge because Coolidge was an extension of Harding. A former Reagan economics advisor said this about the Harding/Coolidge term: "In another 50 years, Harding will look much better than he does today. His most sensational move was to name Andrew Mellon, the Pittsburgh banker, Treasury Secretary, which is why the Twenties roared. Mellon was the best Treasury Secretary after Alexander Hamilton. Harding's second great move (which preceded his Mellon pick) was to name Calvin Coolidge his running mate. Coolidge is derided because he didn't advocate Big Government, but he was Reagan's hero. RR was in high school in the Coolidge years, when Coolidge best expressed the ideas of low tax rates producing greater tax revenues than high tax rates. It was Mellon who inspired the JFK tax cuts of 1964 and the Reagan Revolution that followed. The only reason Harding is reviled by today's historians is that he MUST be entombed along with Hoover (and Coolidge) in order to elevate FDR." My thoughts precisely.
4. William McKinley - Karl Rove, George W. Bush's close friend and advisor, said this of McKinley (which I wholeheartedly agree with), "He modernized the presidency, he modernized the Treasury to deal with the modern economy, he changed dramatically the policies of his party by creating a durable governing coalition for 40 years, he took a special interest in finding the rising generation of young leaders and putting them into the government, he attempted deliberately to break with the Gilded Age politics, he was inclusive and he was the first Republican candidate for president to be endorsed by a leader in the Catholic hierarchy."
5. Theodore Roosevelt - His anti-Trust, big government policies hurt the nation's economy significantly. However, when it came to foreign policy, TR got it right in the sense that he wanted to protect democracies from tyranny around the world. And his conservation policies turned millions of acres into our National Park system. A mixed legacy of unnecessary big government, sound foreign policy and visionary conservationist ideals makes TR just an average president in my book.
6. Chester Arthur - Arthur established the federal Civil Service which took thousands of federal jobs out of the patronage system so that their occupants would not be thrown out whenever a new president came into power. He deserves credit for starting the process of taking politics out of the day-to-day operations of the Federal government.
7. Benjamin Harrison - A presidency with mixed results, positive accomplishments include support for the annexation of Hawaii, establishment of the first American protectorate in Samoa, and pushing for an ocean-to-ocean canal in Central America. However, Harrison's support for the McKinley Tariff and Sherman Silver Purchase Act likely contributed to the economic collapse of 1893--the worst depression in US history up to that time.
8. Howard H. Taft - Though Teddy Roosevelt ended up despising his hand-picked successor, Taft was in most ways a carbon copy of TR. He continued TR's so-called "progressive" policies which further damaged the economy by busting more trusts than any president in history. But where TR had some redeeming qualities which made him a fair president, Taft did not.
9. Woodrow Wilson - Though a Democrat, Wilson was made from the same mold that produced TR and Taft. And Wilson continued the haphazard economic policies set up by TR and Taft. Wilson delayed US involvement in WWI costing Europe hundreds of thousands of young men. He was for a big centralized government and during the war, he seized much of the US economy. His Fourteen Points that he introduced after the war were vague and therefore meaningless.
10. Herbert Hoover - Hoover's economic policies led us to the Depression. Oddly, FDR continued to use those same economic policies for the first six years of his presidency which deepened the Depression. Like TR, Taft and Wilson, Hoover expanded the size and power of the Federal government.
1. Grover Cleveland - Robert Higgs, Research Director for the Independent Institute, said this of Clevelsnd, "He kept the country at peace. He respected the Constitution, acknowledging that the national government has only a limited mission to perform and shaping his policies accordingly. He fought to lower tariffs; preserved the gold standard in its time of crisis; and restored order forcibly when hoodlums disturbed the peace on a wide front during the great railroad strike of 1894." Though I disagree with Mr. Higgs on many fronts, he nails my opinion of Cleveland perfectly.
2. (tie) Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge - It's hard to seperate Harding and Coolidge because Coolidge was an extension of Harding. A former Reagan economics advisor said this about the Harding/Coolidge term: "In another 50 years, Harding will look much better than he does today. His most sensational move was to name Andrew Mellon, the Pittsburgh banker, Treasury Secretary, which is why the Twenties roared. Mellon was the best Treasury Secretary after Alexander Hamilton. Harding's second great move (which preceded his Mellon pick) was to name Calvin Coolidge his running mate. Coolidge is derided because he didn't advocate Big Government, but he was Reagan's hero. RR was in high school in the Coolidge years, when Coolidge best expressed the ideas of low tax rates producing greater tax revenues than high tax rates. It was Mellon who inspired the JFK tax cuts of 1964 and the Reagan Revolution that followed. The only reason Harding is reviled by today's historians is that he MUST be entombed along with Hoover (and Coolidge) in order to elevate FDR." My thoughts precisely.
4. William McKinley - Karl Rove, George W. Bush's close friend and advisor, said this of McKinley (which I wholeheartedly agree with), "He modernized the presidency, he modernized the Treasury to deal with the modern economy, he changed dramatically the policies of his party by creating a durable governing coalition for 40 years, he took a special interest in finding the rising generation of young leaders and putting them into the government, he attempted deliberately to break with the Gilded Age politics, he was inclusive and he was the first Republican candidate for president to be endorsed by a leader in the Catholic hierarchy."
5. Theodore Roosevelt - His anti-Trust, big government policies hurt the nation's economy significantly. However, when it came to foreign policy, TR got it right in the sense that he wanted to protect democracies from tyranny around the world. And his conservation policies turned millions of acres into our National Park system. A mixed legacy of unnecessary big government, sound foreign policy and visionary conservationist ideals makes TR just an average president in my book.
6. Chester Arthur - Arthur established the federal Civil Service which took thousands of federal jobs out of the patronage system so that their occupants would not be thrown out whenever a new president came into power. He deserves credit for starting the process of taking politics out of the day-to-day operations of the Federal government.
7. Benjamin Harrison - A presidency with mixed results, positive accomplishments include support for the annexation of Hawaii, establishment of the first American protectorate in Samoa, and pushing for an ocean-to-ocean canal in Central America. However, Harrison's support for the McKinley Tariff and Sherman Silver Purchase Act likely contributed to the economic collapse of 1893--the worst depression in US history up to that time.
8. Howard H. Taft - Though Teddy Roosevelt ended up despising his hand-picked successor, Taft was in most ways a carbon copy of TR. He continued TR's so-called "progressive" policies which further damaged the economy by busting more trusts than any president in history. But where TR had some redeeming qualities which made him a fair president, Taft did not.
9. Woodrow Wilson - Though a Democrat, Wilson was made from the same mold that produced TR and Taft. And Wilson continued the haphazard economic policies set up by TR and Taft. Wilson delayed US involvement in WWI costing Europe hundreds of thousands of young men. He was for a big centralized government and during the war, he seized much of the US economy. His Fourteen Points that he introduced after the war were vague and therefore meaningless.
10. Herbert Hoover - Hoover's economic policies led us to the Depression. Oddly, FDR continued to use those same economic policies for the first six years of his presidency which deepened the Depression. Like TR, Taft and Wilson, Hoover expanded the size and power of the Federal government.
Thursday, March 17, 2005
Ranking the second ten presidents of the USA.
Last week, I ranked the first ten presidents of the United States from 1 to 10. Today, I will rank the second ten presidents:
1. Abraham Lincoln - After the South left the Union and threw a tizzy fit because they couldn't get their way with regards to slavery (make no mistake, the South left because of slavery--the states's rights idea perpetuated by neo-Confederates is a myth), Lincoln did the right thing going to war to keep the Union together. Yes, he expanded the powers of the federal government but he had no choice. His detractors, many of whom favor small government, need to look at Lincoln in the context of the times. Lincoln did what needed to be done.
2. James Polk - Expanded the boundaries of the United States and settled the border between Canada and the US. The war with Mexico led to the aquisition of California.
3. Rutherford B. Hayes - Though the controversial election of 1876 could have made Hayes's presidency a lameduck presidency, he instead chose men of merit to inhabit his cabinet and refused to appoint men based on political considerations. While Hayes did end Reconstruction, this process was already under way by the start of his administration and there was little he could do to stop it. Hayes also took the first real steps in ending rampant corruption within the civil service.
4. Ulysses S. Grant - Columnist John J. Miller said this of Grant, "Let us not insist that Grant was a great president. But he was a solidly good one, whose hard-money policies fought inflation and who kept the peace with foreign powers." Miller adds, "Some claim he didn't do enough to help blacks in the South secure their rights in the 1870s — but this is grossly unfair, because Grant was hobbled by a Congress and a public that didn't want to go as far as he did. Furthermore, Grant's administration may have been corrupt, but the corruption was not categorically worse than what has been found in several other administrations and it did not reach to the top of the organizational chart." Historians who continue to rank Grant near the bottom of the presidential pile are partisan and unfair. Grant deserves better.
5. James Garfield - As president he extended Federal authority over the corrupt New York Customs House making many enemies in the process. The senate balked at approving Garfield's list of appointments including an unpopular pick to run the Customs House asking Garfield to re-submit a new list. Garfield replied with, "This...will settle the question whether the President is registering clerk of the Senate or the Executive of the United States..." Garfield stood strong against a senate that exceeded its authority. While Garfield's presidency was cut short by an assassin, his accomplishments in his 200 days in office were remarkable.
6. Franklin Pierce - Historians are probably a bit too harsh in their criticism of Pierce. As an example, he had to send troops to Boston to secure the fugitive slave Anthony Burns--2,000 abolitionits had just murdered a U.S. marshal! Pierce felt the cause of abolition was just but that did not make the actions of the mob, in their zeal to free Burns, any less illegal. Still, there weren't many notable accomplishments during his term in office.
7. Andrew Johnson - Though Johnson deserves some credit for following many of Lincoln's Reconstruction policies, he didn't do nearly enough to protect the freedman against Southern aggression.
8. Zachary Taylor - Taylor had little impact on the presidency. And Taylor's months in office did little to delay the Civil War. To his credit, he would have likely used force to preserve the Union even though he was a slaveholder.
9. Millard Fillmore - Fillmore is most remembered as signing the controversial Compromise of 1850. The compromise only deepened divisions between the South and North.
10. James Buchanan - Writer Christopher Buckley said it best, "The Greatness That Was the Buchanan Era included Dred Scott, the economic panic of 1857, secession, and Fort Sumter. You have to look hard to find four more dismal nodes in American history. Open the Buchanan file to any random page and you'll find such accolades as: "never regarded as a brilliant speaker," "neither a brilliant nor visionary thinker," and even "expelled from college." Ouch!
1. Abraham Lincoln - After the South left the Union and threw a tizzy fit because they couldn't get their way with regards to slavery (make no mistake, the South left because of slavery--the states's rights idea perpetuated by neo-Confederates is a myth), Lincoln did the right thing going to war to keep the Union together. Yes, he expanded the powers of the federal government but he had no choice. His detractors, many of whom favor small government, need to look at Lincoln in the context of the times. Lincoln did what needed to be done.
2. James Polk - Expanded the boundaries of the United States and settled the border between Canada and the US. The war with Mexico led to the aquisition of California.
3. Rutherford B. Hayes - Though the controversial election of 1876 could have made Hayes's presidency a lameduck presidency, he instead chose men of merit to inhabit his cabinet and refused to appoint men based on political considerations. While Hayes did end Reconstruction, this process was already under way by the start of his administration and there was little he could do to stop it. Hayes also took the first real steps in ending rampant corruption within the civil service.
4. Ulysses S. Grant - Columnist John J. Miller said this of Grant, "Let us not insist that Grant was a great president. But he was a solidly good one, whose hard-money policies fought inflation and who kept the peace with foreign powers." Miller adds, "Some claim he didn't do enough to help blacks in the South secure their rights in the 1870s — but this is grossly unfair, because Grant was hobbled by a Congress and a public that didn't want to go as far as he did. Furthermore, Grant's administration may have been corrupt, but the corruption was not categorically worse than what has been found in several other administrations and it did not reach to the top of the organizational chart." Historians who continue to rank Grant near the bottom of the presidential pile are partisan and unfair. Grant deserves better.
5. James Garfield - As president he extended Federal authority over the corrupt New York Customs House making many enemies in the process. The senate balked at approving Garfield's list of appointments including an unpopular pick to run the Customs House asking Garfield to re-submit a new list. Garfield replied with, "This...will settle the question whether the President is registering clerk of the Senate or the Executive of the United States..." Garfield stood strong against a senate that exceeded its authority. While Garfield's presidency was cut short by an assassin, his accomplishments in his 200 days in office were remarkable.
6. Franklin Pierce - Historians are probably a bit too harsh in their criticism of Pierce. As an example, he had to send troops to Boston to secure the fugitive slave Anthony Burns--2,000 abolitionits had just murdered a U.S. marshal! Pierce felt the cause of abolition was just but that did not make the actions of the mob, in their zeal to free Burns, any less illegal. Still, there weren't many notable accomplishments during his term in office.
7. Andrew Johnson - Though Johnson deserves some credit for following many of Lincoln's Reconstruction policies, he didn't do nearly enough to protect the freedman against Southern aggression.
8. Zachary Taylor - Taylor had little impact on the presidency. And Taylor's months in office did little to delay the Civil War. To his credit, he would have likely used force to preserve the Union even though he was a slaveholder.
9. Millard Fillmore - Fillmore is most remembered as signing the controversial Compromise of 1850. The compromise only deepened divisions between the South and North.
10. James Buchanan - Writer Christopher Buckley said it best, "The Greatness That Was the Buchanan Era included Dred Scott, the economic panic of 1857, secession, and Fort Sumter. You have to look hard to find four more dismal nodes in American history. Open the Buchanan file to any random page and you'll find such accolades as: "never regarded as a brilliant speaker," "neither a brilliant nor visionary thinker," and even "expelled from college." Ouch!
Saturday, March 12, 2005
Senator Harry Reid.
Democratic Minority Leader Senator Harry Reid continues making an ass of himself and, in the process, is increasingly becoming more and more of an embarassment to this member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (aka the Mormons; Reid is a Mormon). Senator Harry "Jackass" Reid's recent comments prove, once again, most congressional Democrats care little about the rule of law. Reid said the following when asked what will happen if the Republicans try to use the so-called nuclear option to stop senate Democrats from there unconstitutional filibusters of President Bush's judicial appointments, "they will rue the day they did it, because we will do whatever we can do to strike back. I will, for lack of a better word, screw things up." Oh boo-hoo, you big baby. This continues the pattern of Democrats acting like spoiled children whenever they don't get their way. This comment is just one of many truly moronic comments Reid has made over the years. Reid's near-racist remarks concerning Justice Clarence Thomas a few months ago (a refresher: Reid called Thomas "an embarassment to the Supreme Court" while praising Thomas's judicial clone Justice Scalia at that same time!) has made Reid look like an obstuctionist bigot. To be fair, Reid probably isn't really a racist--unless you're a black Republican. And a few years ago on Fox News Sunday, Reid said his father was too dumb to have a private retirement account!
Threatening to "screw things up" in the senate beacuse you aren't getting your way will only help Republicans in the 2006 elections--remember what happened to Tom Daschle--and that, coupled with Reid's other stupid comments, will continue to make Democrats look very bad in the eyes of most sensible Americans and only continue to hurt Democrats.
Reid feels that Justice Thomas is an embarassment to the Supreme Court? I feel that Reid is an embarassment to the Mormon faith.
Threatening to "screw things up" in the senate beacuse you aren't getting your way will only help Republicans in the 2006 elections--remember what happened to Tom Daschle--and that, coupled with Reid's other stupid comments, will continue to make Democrats look very bad in the eyes of most sensible Americans and only continue to hurt Democrats.
Reid feels that Justice Thomas is an embarassment to the Supreme Court? I feel that Reid is an embarassment to the Mormon faith.
Thursday, March 10, 2005
Music.
My music tastes can be narrow as I just went through a long period where I only listened to heavy metal. But recently I've been listening to a lot of Willie Nelson and Merle Haggard, two of country music's greatest artists. I used to listen to Willie Nelson quite often in the late eighties and it's been fun rediscovering one of the giants of American music. His talent as a songwriter is matched by few and his abilities as a guitarist are simply amazing. But where he really can shine is when he covers other artists's material. "City of New Orleans" is a perfect example. Another cover I enjoy is Paul Simon's "Graceland" which is enhanced by Willie's guitar playing. So, because I like lists, my favorite Willie Nelson songs of the moment:
1. "Pancho and Lefty"
2. "City of New Orleans"
3. "Graceland"
4. "Stay All Night (Stay a Little Longer)" live
5. "Bloody Mary Morning"
1. "Pancho and Lefty"
2. "City of New Orleans"
3. "Graceland"
4. "Stay All Night (Stay a Little Longer)" live
5. "Bloody Mary Morning"
Ranking the first ten Presidents of the U.S.A.
I'm something of a presidential historian and spurred on by my current reading of A Patriot's History of the United States by Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen, I thought it would be fun to rate the first ten Presidents of the United States as I see it:
1. George Washington - He set the precedents for all presidents to follow and it could have been disastrous for the young republic. But he did things right (though even Washington couldn't avoid controversies). Author and historian Larry Schweikart said it best, "It's hard to imagine, say, John Adams or Thomas Jefferson setting the same kinds of incredible precedents that Washington set, both for decorum and for efficiency. Adams would have (as he later did) alienated half the country, and Jefferson would have lacked the diplomacy to pull the Federalists along."
2. Thomas Jefferson - With the Louisiana Purchase, he doubled the size of the United States. Jefferson believed in small government and believed that people should govern themselves. He also banned the slave trade as president and had the vision to fund the Lewis and Clark Expedition.
3. James Monroe - Monroe had one of the greatest cabinets ever assembled and he had the wisdom to let his cabinet secretaries do what they did best. The Missouri Compromise managed to keep the young republic together and the Monroe Doctrine laid the course for generations to follow.
4. James Madison - Got us involved in the War of 1812 which many historians think was a completely unnecessary war. I disagree. Though Madison made many mistakes that led us into the War of 1812--like imposing economic sanctions on much of Europe which nearly ruined New England--the war itself was a good thing in the sense that we showed the world that we weren't to be taken lightly.
5. John Quincy Adams - The best Secretary of State ever, his presidency was "stillborn" because of the controversial election of 1824 and he never accomplished anything of note because of that.
6. John Adams - When you have the Alien and Sedition Acts synonymous with your presidency, you don't qualify as a very good president.
7. Martin Van Buren - Founded the Democratic Party (historians wrongly point to Jefferson as the first Democratic president) and helped Jackson become the first Democratic president. He had zero noteworthy accomplishments in office.
8. John Tyler - No accomplishments of note. He replaced Harrison after Harrison died in office. Congressional gridlock marred his tenure. But he's still better than Jackson.
9. William Henry Harrison - Perhaps it's unfair to rank Harrison (he was only president for thirty days). But he didn't damage the United States whereas Jackson did.
10. Andrew Jackson - Contrary to popular opinion, Jackson was not a small government guy. In fact, government expanded under Jackson even more than it did under Lincoln. Jackson's dislike of the second Bank of the United States has been misrepresented. He did take down the second BUS but he did it so he could appoint partisan political hacks in banks Jackson controlled. And Jackson virtually committed genocide against the Indians--Trail of Tears anyone? His presidency was filled with corruption and Jackson ignored the Constitution whenever it suited him.
It's interesting to note that seven of the first ten presidents rank below average to awful in my book. However, Jefferson, Washington and Monroe rank as three of the best presidents ever. No surprise that Jackson was the first Democratic president. He set the precedent that nearly all future democratic presidents would follow: Corruption and disregard for the rule of law. No wonder modern Democrats want to claim Jefferson, not Jackson, as the first Democratic president.
1. George Washington - He set the precedents for all presidents to follow and it could have been disastrous for the young republic. But he did things right (though even Washington couldn't avoid controversies). Author and historian Larry Schweikart said it best, "It's hard to imagine, say, John Adams or Thomas Jefferson setting the same kinds of incredible precedents that Washington set, both for decorum and for efficiency. Adams would have (as he later did) alienated half the country, and Jefferson would have lacked the diplomacy to pull the Federalists along."
2. Thomas Jefferson - With the Louisiana Purchase, he doubled the size of the United States. Jefferson believed in small government and believed that people should govern themselves. He also banned the slave trade as president and had the vision to fund the Lewis and Clark Expedition.
3. James Monroe - Monroe had one of the greatest cabinets ever assembled and he had the wisdom to let his cabinet secretaries do what they did best. The Missouri Compromise managed to keep the young republic together and the Monroe Doctrine laid the course for generations to follow.
4. James Madison - Got us involved in the War of 1812 which many historians think was a completely unnecessary war. I disagree. Though Madison made many mistakes that led us into the War of 1812--like imposing economic sanctions on much of Europe which nearly ruined New England--the war itself was a good thing in the sense that we showed the world that we weren't to be taken lightly.
5. John Quincy Adams - The best Secretary of State ever, his presidency was "stillborn" because of the controversial election of 1824 and he never accomplished anything of note because of that.
6. John Adams - When you have the Alien and Sedition Acts synonymous with your presidency, you don't qualify as a very good president.
7. Martin Van Buren - Founded the Democratic Party (historians wrongly point to Jefferson as the first Democratic president) and helped Jackson become the first Democratic president. He had zero noteworthy accomplishments in office.
8. John Tyler - No accomplishments of note. He replaced Harrison after Harrison died in office. Congressional gridlock marred his tenure. But he's still better than Jackson.
9. William Henry Harrison - Perhaps it's unfair to rank Harrison (he was only president for thirty days). But he didn't damage the United States whereas Jackson did.
10. Andrew Jackson - Contrary to popular opinion, Jackson was not a small government guy. In fact, government expanded under Jackson even more than it did under Lincoln. Jackson's dislike of the second Bank of the United States has been misrepresented. He did take down the second BUS but he did it so he could appoint partisan political hacks in banks Jackson controlled. And Jackson virtually committed genocide against the Indians--Trail of Tears anyone? His presidency was filled with corruption and Jackson ignored the Constitution whenever it suited him.
It's interesting to note that seven of the first ten presidents rank below average to awful in my book. However, Jefferson, Washington and Monroe rank as three of the best presidents ever. No surprise that Jackson was the first Democratic president. He set the precedent that nearly all future democratic presidents would follow: Corruption and disregard for the rule of law. No wonder modern Democrats want to claim Jefferson, not Jackson, as the first Democratic president.
Ann Coulter nails the left--again!
I was visiting Ann Coulter's website (www.anncoulter.com) this afternoon when I came across this quote from her most recent article:
"Howard Dean — chairman of the party that supports murder, adultery, lying about adultery, coveting other people's money, stealing other people's money, mass-producing human embryos for spare parts like an automotive chop shop and banning God — has called the Republican Party "evil." One Democrat in the audience, a preschool teacher no less, complained that Dean was soft-pedaling his message."
All I have to say to this is "Go Ann!"
Heh.
"Howard Dean — chairman of the party that supports murder, adultery, lying about adultery, coveting other people's money, stealing other people's money, mass-producing human embryos for spare parts like an automotive chop shop and banning God — has called the Republican Party "evil." One Democrat in the audience, a preschool teacher no less, complained that Dean was soft-pedaling his message."
All I have to say to this is "Go Ann!"
Heh.
Tuesday, March 08, 2005
I am Spock.
My friend and spiritual advisor (heh), Curtis Gibson (http://lordmhoram.blogspot.com/), turned me on to a website that dares ask the question: Which fantasy/sci-fi character are you?
My result: I am Spock. Quoting the website's profile of Spock:
"A focused advisor whose actions are dictated by almost pure logic, you believe in exploring the fascinating possibilities around you."
Well, I'm not sure if that's completely accurate but, hey, as a fan of Star Trek (Spock is one of my favorite Trek characters), I'll take it.
My friend Curtis has taken the test three times on three distinct occassions and he comes up as Yoda every time. Yoda's/Curtis's profile reads:
"A venerated sage with vast power and knowledge, you gently guide forces around you while serving as a champion of the light."
Now I may be about to embarass Curtis a bit here, but I think that fits him pretty well.
If you want to find out which fantasy/sci-fi character you are, here's the link:
http://www.tk421.net/character/
Have fun!
My result: I am Spock. Quoting the website's profile of Spock:
"A focused advisor whose actions are dictated by almost pure logic, you believe in exploring the fascinating possibilities around you."
Well, I'm not sure if that's completely accurate but, hey, as a fan of Star Trek (Spock is one of my favorite Trek characters), I'll take it.
My friend Curtis has taken the test three times on three distinct occassions and he comes up as Yoda every time. Yoda's/Curtis's profile reads:
"A venerated sage with vast power and knowledge, you gently guide forces around you while serving as a champion of the light."
Now I may be about to embarass Curtis a bit here, but I think that fits him pretty well.
If you want to find out which fantasy/sci-fi character you are, here's the link:
http://www.tk421.net/character/
Have fun!
Friday, March 04, 2005
The totalitarian left clamping down on free speech again.
An incident that occurred February, 23rd at the Washington State Capitol has ignited a firestorm of controversy. Lou Novak, a vice-president of the Rental Housing Association of Puget Sound, made a comment in a private conversation with a colleague that was overheard by a group from the Long Life AIDS Alliance as the they hoppity-skipped down the hall.
The Associated Press reported the following:
(Olympia Washington) Legislators are demanding an apology from a businessman who made anti-gay comments to a group visiting the Capitol for an AIDS awareness day.
"Looks like it's anal sex week," Lou Novak loudly remarked as a group from the Life Long AIDS Alliance walked though the state House office building. The group included a 13-year-old girl and a 16-year-old boy. The boy's family had recently been forced to move because of anti-gay prejudice in his neighborhood.
Novak is first vice president of the Rental Housing Association of Puget Sound, a landlords' organization.
The leader of the AIDS awareness group, Suzie Saxton of Yakima, followed the man into the public Capitol cafeteria and asked him what he'd said. She said Novak repeated his comment and told her people shouldn't engage in irresponsible sex and ask for public money.
The incident happened Feb. 23. The Associated Press obtained a copy of a Senate report on the incident and spoke to Novak and Saxton on Wednesday. The Senate got involved when a woman sitting with Novak in the cafeteria called security. Senate Counsel Mike Hoover investigated the incident and wrote the report, which notes that the Legislature's rules of decorum and respectful workplace policy apply to visitors as well as lawmakers.
"It's not acceptable anywhere and certainly not at the state Capitol," said Saxton, executive director of an AIDS advocacy organization in Yakima. "He owes them an apology ... Certainly people are allowed their private opinions, but what he did actually borders on hate crime. He could be charged, and he's darn lucky that's not happening."
Novak said he regrets his remarks and will write a letter of apology. "The remark was made in private and they just happened to overhear it, and that's very unfortunate," Novak said Wednesday night. "I'm certainly sorry that anyone was offended by it."
Thursday, Novak resigned from the Association after its president wrote a letter of apology to several legislators. "RHA has a strong record of tolerance and understanding to all members of the community," president Cathy Jeney wrote. "We take these obligations seriously and, for that reason, included them in our member Code of Conduct. While an organization of 3,500 members cannot always control the individual actions of its members, I would like to assure you that RHA does not endorse or condone any comments which differ from our commitment to diversity."
The incident may affect consideration of House Bill 1515, which would ban discrimination against gays and lesbians in employment, insurance and housing. It passed in the House and is awaiting a hearing in the Senate. Opponents recently argued on the House floor that the bill is unnecessary because prejudice against gays and lesbians is dying out. Bill supporters point to Novak's comments. "The first vice president of a rental association attacking some kid ... is Exhibit A of why we need House Bill 1515," said Rep. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, who sponsored the bill. "It's one thing to speak your mind. It's another thing to use abusive language in front of a minor." Murray called the incident "a black mark" on the Legislature.
Sen. Darlene Fairley, D-Lake Forest Park, said she let the rental housing association know that Novak is no longer welcome to testify at her committee, which oversees housing issues. "I am a mother, and you do not say that kind of crap in front of children. You do NOT, I don't care what your feelings are," Fairley said. "You can't unring that bell for a child who's heard that, but for the parents and other people it will help to have letters of apology," Fairley said.
©Associated Press 2005
This "controversy" is so silly, I don't know where to begin. First of all, Suzie Saxton has lost her mind. The incident is a borderline hate-crime? Ms. Saxton, please. What Novak said may be crude but it is not a borderline hate-crime. Ms. Saxton is being silly. Besides, aren't gays proud of anal sex? Novak spoke the truth, Ms. Saxton. What are gay pride parades about? They're about celebrating anal sex. If you've ever seen a gay pride parade, you know precisely what I'm talking about.
Second, Rep. Ed Murray is out of his mind to say that Novak was attacking a kid. If mentioning anal sex in front of a 13-year old is an attack and a hate-crime, then gays should not be supporting teaching elementary kids about anal sex, should they? It's amazing that Washington State voters elected this moron to the legislature.
And Sen. Darlene Fairley's comments that "...you do not say that kind of crap in front of children. You do NOT, I don't care what your feelings are," are completely absurd. Again, people like the Long Life AIDS Alliance want anal sex taught in our schools.
Novak's comments should have amounted to nothing. But there has been an official investigation into it and Novak lost his job.
Once again, the left has proven they only support free speech for those they agree with. It's odd that the left accuses those on the right of being fascists and Nazis. Yet it's the left that wants to limit free speech by passing unconstitutional laws (like hate-crime legislation) limiting speech rights. So I ask: Who are the real fascists? It's the left.
Watch out, folks, soon "dirty looks" will be illegal.
The Associated Press reported the following:
(Olympia Washington) Legislators are demanding an apology from a businessman who made anti-gay comments to a group visiting the Capitol for an AIDS awareness day.
"Looks like it's anal sex week," Lou Novak loudly remarked as a group from the Life Long AIDS Alliance walked though the state House office building. The group included a 13-year-old girl and a 16-year-old boy. The boy's family had recently been forced to move because of anti-gay prejudice in his neighborhood.
Novak is first vice president of the Rental Housing Association of Puget Sound, a landlords' organization.
The leader of the AIDS awareness group, Suzie Saxton of Yakima, followed the man into the public Capitol cafeteria and asked him what he'd said. She said Novak repeated his comment and told her people shouldn't engage in irresponsible sex and ask for public money.
The incident happened Feb. 23. The Associated Press obtained a copy of a Senate report on the incident and spoke to Novak and Saxton on Wednesday. The Senate got involved when a woman sitting with Novak in the cafeteria called security. Senate Counsel Mike Hoover investigated the incident and wrote the report, which notes that the Legislature's rules of decorum and respectful workplace policy apply to visitors as well as lawmakers.
"It's not acceptable anywhere and certainly not at the state Capitol," said Saxton, executive director of an AIDS advocacy organization in Yakima. "He owes them an apology ... Certainly people are allowed their private opinions, but what he did actually borders on hate crime. He could be charged, and he's darn lucky that's not happening."
Novak said he regrets his remarks and will write a letter of apology. "The remark was made in private and they just happened to overhear it, and that's very unfortunate," Novak said Wednesday night. "I'm certainly sorry that anyone was offended by it."
Thursday, Novak resigned from the Association after its president wrote a letter of apology to several legislators. "RHA has a strong record of tolerance and understanding to all members of the community," president Cathy Jeney wrote. "We take these obligations seriously and, for that reason, included them in our member Code of Conduct. While an organization of 3,500 members cannot always control the individual actions of its members, I would like to assure you that RHA does not endorse or condone any comments which differ from our commitment to diversity."
The incident may affect consideration of House Bill 1515, which would ban discrimination against gays and lesbians in employment, insurance and housing. It passed in the House and is awaiting a hearing in the Senate. Opponents recently argued on the House floor that the bill is unnecessary because prejudice against gays and lesbians is dying out. Bill supporters point to Novak's comments. "The first vice president of a rental association attacking some kid ... is Exhibit A of why we need House Bill 1515," said Rep. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, who sponsored the bill. "It's one thing to speak your mind. It's another thing to use abusive language in front of a minor." Murray called the incident "a black mark" on the Legislature.
Sen. Darlene Fairley, D-Lake Forest Park, said she let the rental housing association know that Novak is no longer welcome to testify at her committee, which oversees housing issues. "I am a mother, and you do not say that kind of crap in front of children. You do NOT, I don't care what your feelings are," Fairley said. "You can't unring that bell for a child who's heard that, but for the parents and other people it will help to have letters of apology," Fairley said.
©Associated Press 2005
This "controversy" is so silly, I don't know where to begin. First of all, Suzie Saxton has lost her mind. The incident is a borderline hate-crime? Ms. Saxton, please. What Novak said may be crude but it is not a borderline hate-crime. Ms. Saxton is being silly. Besides, aren't gays proud of anal sex? Novak spoke the truth, Ms. Saxton. What are gay pride parades about? They're about celebrating anal sex. If you've ever seen a gay pride parade, you know precisely what I'm talking about.
Second, Rep. Ed Murray is out of his mind to say that Novak was attacking a kid. If mentioning anal sex in front of a 13-year old is an attack and a hate-crime, then gays should not be supporting teaching elementary kids about anal sex, should they? It's amazing that Washington State voters elected this moron to the legislature.
And Sen. Darlene Fairley's comments that "...you do not say that kind of crap in front of children. You do NOT, I don't care what your feelings are," are completely absurd. Again, people like the Long Life AIDS Alliance want anal sex taught in our schools.
Novak's comments should have amounted to nothing. But there has been an official investigation into it and Novak lost his job.
Once again, the left has proven they only support free speech for those they agree with. It's odd that the left accuses those on the right of being fascists and Nazis. Yet it's the left that wants to limit free speech by passing unconstitutional laws (like hate-crime legislation) limiting speech rights. So I ask: Who are the real fascists? It's the left.
Watch out, folks, soon "dirty looks" will be illegal.
Thursday, March 03, 2005
Senator Robert "KKK" Byrd.
Why does Senator Robert Byrd, a "former" member of the Ku Klux Klan and current Democrat, keep getting elected by the people of West Virginia?
Mr. Byrd's recent comments on the senate floor where he compared senate Republicans to Hitler was just one more stupid statement in a long line of stupid statements from Byrd.
Senator Byrd's comments were as follows: "Hitler's originality lay in his realization that effective revolutions in modern conditions are carried out with, and not without, not against, the power of the State. The correct order of events was first to secure access to that power of the State, and then begin his revolution. Hitler never abandoned the cloak of legality. He never abandoned the cloak of legality. He recognized the enormous, psychological value of having the law on his side. Instead, he turned the law inside out and made his illegality legal. And that is what the nuclear option seeks to do. To Rule 22 of the standing rules of the Senate."
So because senate Republicans support the constitution and the "advise and consent" clause when it comes to appointing judges and are against the unconstitutionality of the filibuster to stop the "consent" part of "advise and consent" they are Nazis?
Do you have any idea what it's like being called a Nazi by Robert "KKK" Byrd?
It's like being called immoral by Bill Clinton. It's like being called a racist by Andrew "I Murder Indians for Fun" Jackson. It's like being called stiff by Al Gore. Or being called a traitor by John "Benedict Arnold" Kerry.
It's time Senator Byrd retired. He's an embarassment to the U.S. Senate. He's an embarassment to the United States. He's a racist (not a term I use lightly) and a bigot. And as long as the Democrats in the Senate (or Democrats in general, for that matter) keep silent on Byrd's idiotic comments, they are saying it's okay to have a Ku Klux Klan wing of the Democratic Party. I wish Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada would stand up to Byrd and say "You went too far, Bob." But he won't. Like most Democrats in leadership positions, Reid doesn't care what you say as long as you have that "D" next to your name.
Mr. Byrd's recent comments on the senate floor where he compared senate Republicans to Hitler was just one more stupid statement in a long line of stupid statements from Byrd.
Senator Byrd's comments were as follows: "Hitler's originality lay in his realization that effective revolutions in modern conditions are carried out with, and not without, not against, the power of the State. The correct order of events was first to secure access to that power of the State, and then begin his revolution. Hitler never abandoned the cloak of legality. He never abandoned the cloak of legality. He recognized the enormous, psychological value of having the law on his side. Instead, he turned the law inside out and made his illegality legal. And that is what the nuclear option seeks to do. To Rule 22 of the standing rules of the Senate."
So because senate Republicans support the constitution and the "advise and consent" clause when it comes to appointing judges and are against the unconstitutionality of the filibuster to stop the "consent" part of "advise and consent" they are Nazis?
Do you have any idea what it's like being called a Nazi by Robert "KKK" Byrd?
It's like being called immoral by Bill Clinton. It's like being called a racist by Andrew "I Murder Indians for Fun" Jackson. It's like being called stiff by Al Gore. Or being called a traitor by John "Benedict Arnold" Kerry.
It's time Senator Byrd retired. He's an embarassment to the U.S. Senate. He's an embarassment to the United States. He's a racist (not a term I use lightly) and a bigot. And as long as the Democrats in the Senate (or Democrats in general, for that matter) keep silent on Byrd's idiotic comments, they are saying it's okay to have a Ku Klux Klan wing of the Democratic Party. I wish Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada would stand up to Byrd and say "You went too far, Bob." But he won't. Like most Democrats in leadership positions, Reid doesn't care what you say as long as you have that "D" next to your name.
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Jumping on the Detroit Pistons bandwagon.
In the 2004 NBA Finals, the Detroit Pistons pulled off one of the most stunning upsets in NBA history by defeating the powerful Los Angeles Lakers. The Lakers boasted four of the greatest players in NBA history (though two were well past their prime and one of those two was injured). The Pistons deserve all the credit in the world. No one expected them to beat the Lakers--especially in five games! I admire the Pistons and their remarkable victory. But a peculiar form of lunacy has gripped NBA analysts. A lunacy caused by the Pistons victory.
While listening to sports talk radio or watching ESPN, it is nearly impossible to avoid NBA analysts heaping accolades on the Pistons. Fine. But what's even more stunning is that these so-called "experts" are arguing that the Pistons defeat of the Lakers in the NBA Finals marks a new era of the NBA where teams do not need superstars to win titles! This is simply ridiculous. What the Pistons did was fantastic but it's something that rarely happens in the NBA: Superstar-less teams (or teams without superstar-caliber players) rarely win NBA championships. In fact, what the Pistons did was so rare, it's only the second time it's happened in the last forty-four years (in 1979, the Seattle SuperSonics won the NBA title with no legitimate superstar-caliber players)!
The Pistons also accomplished something equally as rare as winning an NBA title without a superstar-caliber player on the roster: Only one other NBA team in the last forty-four years has managed to pull off as big of an upset in the finals (the Warriors swept the heavily favored Washington Bullets in the 1975 NBA Finals).
The Pistons accomplished both rare feats in the same season! But that's not the only trend they bucked in 2004:
Since the NBA was founded in 1946 (then the league was known as the Basketball Association of America), only a handful of teams have won NBA Titles without a hall-of-fame center on the roster. Think about it: From the late 1940s to the mid '50s, George Mikan led the Minneapolis Lakers to five NBA Championships; from 1957 to 1969 Bill Russell and the Boston Celtics won eleven titles (the one year they didn't win the title in the '60s, it was Wilt Chamberlain and the 'Sixers who won it); in the '70s Lew Alcindor, Willis Reed, Bill Walton, Wes Unseld, Dave Cowens, Wilt Chamberlain and Nate Thurmond were on teams that won nine of the ten NBA titles in that decade; in the '80s, nine of the ten NBA champs boasted hall-of-fame caliber centers like Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Moses Malone and Robert Parish. In the 1990s things changed when Jordan and the Bulls won six titles in eight years. But, c'mon, it's Michael Jordan we're talking about here! He's an obvious exception. When the Bulls didn't win championships in their eight year run, it was a Houston Rockets franchise led by none other than Hakeem Olajuwon! And when the Bulls dynasty ended in '98, the next five titles were won by teams led by Tim Duncan, David Robinson and Shaquille O'Neal! Great centers all!
My point? Stop jumping on that Pistons bandwagon. Put their victory into historical context. They are a rare exception to the rule that you need superstars and, more importantly, a superstar center to win NBA titles. Add to that the rarity of their upset, and I don't think we are looking at a trend. The teams that will be winning titles in the next few years will likely be teams like San Antonio, Miami or Houston: Teams with great centers.
While listening to sports talk radio or watching ESPN, it is nearly impossible to avoid NBA analysts heaping accolades on the Pistons. Fine. But what's even more stunning is that these so-called "experts" are arguing that the Pistons defeat of the Lakers in the NBA Finals marks a new era of the NBA where teams do not need superstars to win titles! This is simply ridiculous. What the Pistons did was fantastic but it's something that rarely happens in the NBA: Superstar-less teams (or teams without superstar-caliber players) rarely win NBA championships. In fact, what the Pistons did was so rare, it's only the second time it's happened in the last forty-four years (in 1979, the Seattle SuperSonics won the NBA title with no legitimate superstar-caliber players)!
The Pistons also accomplished something equally as rare as winning an NBA title without a superstar-caliber player on the roster: Only one other NBA team in the last forty-four years has managed to pull off as big of an upset in the finals (the Warriors swept the heavily favored Washington Bullets in the 1975 NBA Finals).
The Pistons accomplished both rare feats in the same season! But that's not the only trend they bucked in 2004:
Since the NBA was founded in 1946 (then the league was known as the Basketball Association of America), only a handful of teams have won NBA Titles without a hall-of-fame center on the roster. Think about it: From the late 1940s to the mid '50s, George Mikan led the Minneapolis Lakers to five NBA Championships; from 1957 to 1969 Bill Russell and the Boston Celtics won eleven titles (the one year they didn't win the title in the '60s, it was Wilt Chamberlain and the 'Sixers who won it); in the '70s Lew Alcindor, Willis Reed, Bill Walton, Wes Unseld, Dave Cowens, Wilt Chamberlain and Nate Thurmond were on teams that won nine of the ten NBA titles in that decade; in the '80s, nine of the ten NBA champs boasted hall-of-fame caliber centers like Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Moses Malone and Robert Parish. In the 1990s things changed when Jordan and the Bulls won six titles in eight years. But, c'mon, it's Michael Jordan we're talking about here! He's an obvious exception. When the Bulls didn't win championships in their eight year run, it was a Houston Rockets franchise led by none other than Hakeem Olajuwon! And when the Bulls dynasty ended in '98, the next five titles were won by teams led by Tim Duncan, David Robinson and Shaquille O'Neal! Great centers all!
My point? Stop jumping on that Pistons bandwagon. Put their victory into historical context. They are a rare exception to the rule that you need superstars and, more importantly, a superstar center to win NBA titles. Add to that the rarity of their upset, and I don't think we are looking at a trend. The teams that will be winning titles in the next few years will likely be teams like San Antonio, Miami or Houston: Teams with great centers.
Monday, February 28, 2005
Do team championships equal individual greatness in team sports?
NBA All-Star Karl Malone recently announced his retirement from professional basketball. Though universally hailed by columnists, sports talk radio hosts and fans alike, all kept dredging up the fact that Malone, despite three trips to the NBA Finals, never won an NBA Championship.
So what? Why is that relevant?
Individual greatness in team sports should not be dependant on whether or not a player won a championship. I could list a number of great players in the NBA, NFL, NHL and MLB that never won championships (Karl Malone, Dan Marino, Ted Williams...) but I shouldn't have to. A lot of factors explain why certain players didn't win a championship: Teammates, injuries, caliber of opponents, etc. In Malone's case, he arguably had the teammates (John Stockton and Jeff Hornacek though you could a better center could have pushed the Jazz over the top) and Malone never suffered a serious injury as a member of the Jazz (his key teammate, John Stockton, never suffered a serious injury, either). But what Malone and the Jazz did have was Michael Jordan and the Bulls. The level of competition was as high as it gets. The Bulls were a juggernaut that, unfortunately, the Jazz had to face twice in the NBA Finals. And while many people feel that Malone and the Lakers should have won the NBA Title in 2004, it certainly wasn't Malone's fault they didn't. Malone tried playing through a serious injury but, in the end, the injury limited Malone's ability to help his teammates substantially and Detroit pulled off the rare major NBA Finals upset (something that only has happened twice in the last forty-five years).
In nearly two decades of playing professional basketball, Malone did everything he could do to win a title. No one worked harder. Few, if any, power forwards in NBA history have been better (only Elvin Hayes, Kevin McHale and Tim Duncan can be ranked near Malone among power forwards). Yet some will still cite Malone's poor fourth-quarter play in the playoffs as a big reason why Malone didn't win a title. And I will concede that point. However, not every great player is a Michael Jordan or a Magic Johnson when it comes to clutch play. And, as I pointed out earlier, there are many reasons why great players don't win championships. The absence of an NBA Title on Malone's resume should have nothing to do with how great he should be considered.
So what? Why is that relevant?
Individual greatness in team sports should not be dependant on whether or not a player won a championship. I could list a number of great players in the NBA, NFL, NHL and MLB that never won championships (Karl Malone, Dan Marino, Ted Williams...) but I shouldn't have to. A lot of factors explain why certain players didn't win a championship: Teammates, injuries, caliber of opponents, etc. In Malone's case, he arguably had the teammates (John Stockton and Jeff Hornacek though you could a better center could have pushed the Jazz over the top) and Malone never suffered a serious injury as a member of the Jazz (his key teammate, John Stockton, never suffered a serious injury, either). But what Malone and the Jazz did have was Michael Jordan and the Bulls. The level of competition was as high as it gets. The Bulls were a juggernaut that, unfortunately, the Jazz had to face twice in the NBA Finals. And while many people feel that Malone and the Lakers should have won the NBA Title in 2004, it certainly wasn't Malone's fault they didn't. Malone tried playing through a serious injury but, in the end, the injury limited Malone's ability to help his teammates substantially and Detroit pulled off the rare major NBA Finals upset (something that only has happened twice in the last forty-five years).
In nearly two decades of playing professional basketball, Malone did everything he could do to win a title. No one worked harder. Few, if any, power forwards in NBA history have been better (only Elvin Hayes, Kevin McHale and Tim Duncan can be ranked near Malone among power forwards). Yet some will still cite Malone's poor fourth-quarter play in the playoffs as a big reason why Malone didn't win a title. And I will concede that point. However, not every great player is a Michael Jordan or a Magic Johnson when it comes to clutch play. And, as I pointed out earlier, there are many reasons why great players don't win championships. The absence of an NBA Title on Malone's resume should have nothing to do with how great he should be considered.
Is Michael Moore evil?
Back in October of 2004, Utah Valley State College (located in Orem, Utah) paid Michael Moore to speak at their school. The studentbody presidency was willing to shell out $40,000 for the "honor" of Moore's presence. The invitation ignited a firestorm of controversy but the studentbody governement would not back down saying, in essence, that though they disagreed with Moore's views, they felt it important to have someone speak at USVC whom represented a viewpoint that differed from the mostly conservative studentbody. At his blog (http://www.jinxidoru.com/), Michael Bailey, an alum of USVC's "parent" school, Brigham Young University, has ridiculed the protestors as bigots and accused many of them of writing "horribly ignorant" letters to the editor. Apparently, Bailey's feathers were ruffled after some anti-Moore folks called Mr. Moore "evil". Other Moore supporters, like Bailey, have accused the anti-Moore folks as being intolerant of opposing views and so forth. The pro-Moore side has been especially troubled by the threat of USVC supporters and alumni to withdraw support from the school because of the invitation and subsequent appearance of Moore.
Michael Bailey and his ilk just don't get it.
One, people weren't upset because Moore has an opposing view. They were upset because Moore doesn't counter conservative ideology with intelligent discourse. Moore instead counters the right with misleads, half-truths and lies. Fahrenheit 9/11 is all one, huge lie. I needn't go over the lies again. Writer Christopher Hitchens, who ironically is a liberal, has already done a superb job of exposing Moore for the liar he is (http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/).
Two (this shot isn't necessarily aimed at Bailey), the pro-Moore folks in Utah, in their hysteria over supporters of USVC possibley withdrawing support from the school, have accused the anti-Moore crowd as being against free speech. What a bunch of ignorant nonsense. Free speech is a two way street, guys, and if supporters of USVC want to stop donating to the school over the controversy, that's their right to do so! They are simply speaking out with their pocketbook. I don't completely agree with the way they are speaking out against the Moore invitation but, as I said, free speech is a two way street.
Three, anyone who goes around making up horrific stories of American abuse (of Americans and non-Americans alike), falsely accusing the Bush administration of heinous crimes, and fomenting hatred from abroad toward America certainly comes close to evil in my book, Michael Bailey. So please, next time you refer to those of us in Utah as bigots and horribly ignorant letter writers, perhaps you should really take an honest look at Michael Moore. I don't throw the word evil around carelessly and hesistate to do so now but Michael Bailey, if Michael Moore is not evil, he is certainly something akin to evil.
Michael Bailey and his ilk just don't get it.
One, people weren't upset because Moore has an opposing view. They were upset because Moore doesn't counter conservative ideology with intelligent discourse. Moore instead counters the right with misleads, half-truths and lies. Fahrenheit 9/11 is all one, huge lie. I needn't go over the lies again. Writer Christopher Hitchens, who ironically is a liberal, has already done a superb job of exposing Moore for the liar he is (http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/).
Two (this shot isn't necessarily aimed at Bailey), the pro-Moore folks in Utah, in their hysteria over supporters of USVC possibley withdrawing support from the school, have accused the anti-Moore crowd as being against free speech. What a bunch of ignorant nonsense. Free speech is a two way street, guys, and if supporters of USVC want to stop donating to the school over the controversy, that's their right to do so! They are simply speaking out with their pocketbook. I don't completely agree with the way they are speaking out against the Moore invitation but, as I said, free speech is a two way street.
Three, anyone who goes around making up horrific stories of American abuse (of Americans and non-Americans alike), falsely accusing the Bush administration of heinous crimes, and fomenting hatred from abroad toward America certainly comes close to evil in my book, Michael Bailey. So please, next time you refer to those of us in Utah as bigots and horribly ignorant letter writers, perhaps you should really take an honest look at Michael Moore. I don't throw the word evil around carelessly and hesistate to do so now but Michael Bailey, if Michael Moore is not evil, he is certainly something akin to evil.
Friday, February 25, 2005
The left do not support our troops.
Today I came across a letter to the Illinois Times (an excerpt):
"I don't know of a single person, whether they lean to the left or to the right, who would say they don't support our troops. "
Peter Kullick
Chatham
Not true! If you're against the mission our troops are engaged in, you don't support them. Period. And those on the left (or, for that matter, the right) who say they're against the current mission in Iraq but they still support the troops are disingenuous. It is impossible to support the troops without supporting their mission. Those against the war in Iraq may not want the troops to die and may hope the troops return to America safely but to say you support them is absurd. It is not possible.
It's like someone saying they supported John Kerry but voted for President Bush. They can say they supported Kerry, but it is simply not true. Support for Kerry would have translated into a vote for Kerry.
And now we have some leftist whackos going around stealing the "Support Our Troops" magnets off of motor vehicles. How absurd! How stupid! It's just another case of the left supporting free speech as long as they agree with it.
"I don't know of a single person, whether they lean to the left or to the right, who would say they don't support our troops. "
Peter Kullick
Chatham
Not true! If you're against the mission our troops are engaged in, you don't support them. Period. And those on the left (or, for that matter, the right) who say they're against the current mission in Iraq but they still support the troops are disingenuous. It is impossible to support the troops without supporting their mission. Those against the war in Iraq may not want the troops to die and may hope the troops return to America safely but to say you support them is absurd. It is not possible.
It's like someone saying they supported John Kerry but voted for President Bush. They can say they supported Kerry, but it is simply not true. Support for Kerry would have translated into a vote for Kerry.
And now we have some leftist whackos going around stealing the "Support Our Troops" magnets off of motor vehicles. How absurd! How stupid! It's just another case of the left supporting free speech as long as they agree with it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)