After the Virginia Tech shootings I wrote a piece about how just one student or faculty member could have made a difference had they been armed. Certainly I wasn't the only one. There were even Virginia Tech students who wrote that they were qualified for conceal/carry permits, but had not carried their weapons because the school banned them from doing so. Of course the argument makes the liberals go absolutely ballistic with their quick comparisons to the "wild west" and their bumper sticker slogans about needing "less guns, not more." I kept hoping something like this would happen. And now it has.
Yesterday, another 20ish disturbed young man shot several people in a Denver suburb and then drove to Colorado Springs and attacked a church full of people, killing people at random. But lo and behold, an armed church goer, a woman who volunteered as a security guard, pulled out her own gun and shot the loser dead. According to reports she charged him with her gun drawn and probably saved hundreds of lives. The shooter was just "walking and shooting" when she confronted him. Reports say that he had "thousands" of rounds of ammunition on him along with three guns. He had written on a blog that he intended to kill as many Christians as he could
Monday, December 10, 2007
Monday, November 12, 2007
Planting Season
It came out over the weekend that Hillary Clinton was caught planting questions on her campaign stops in Iowa. Hillary's reaction was that she didn't know about it, that it had been "staff" and that they wouldn't do it again. That is "again," as in "again today." They got caught doing it again the next day. That's when the story became "everyybody does it." I believe that it's a logical conclusion that Hillary not only knew about it but likely instigated it. Think about it. What would you do if a "staffer" sought out, on their own, to plant a question for your benefit, but wound up embarrassing you and your campaign? If it happened that way, they'd be fired in a heartbeat. Fire them and you certainly look like somebody in charge of your own campaign. You look like somebody who is willing to make a tough decision and wants to play it straight. You'd be somebody who values honesty and principles over the personal loyalty of subordinates. And there is only one reason you wouldn't fire the person responsible. That would be because you told them to do it. Now, if you fire them, they blow the whistle on YOU. I mean they're loyal, but not without a paycheck. So you have to cover for them. It's my understanding that nobody was fired.
Anyway, here's the transcript from the planted question news conference:
Question: “As a young person, I’m worried about the long-term effects of global warming How does your plan combat climate change?
Clinton: “Well, you should be worried. You know, I find as I travel around Iowa that it’s usually young people that ask me about global warming. And that’s because we always try to have a young person ask this particular planted question. And we ask them to preface the question with the phrase ‘As a young person...’ just so that point is not missed. The next question that is going to be asked is about terrorism and I believe we’ve arranged for an Iraq war veteran to begin that question with ‘As an Iraq war veteran...’ Our focus groups indicate that is a highly effective technique. Next question? You, the young man dressed in combat fatigues with the orange sticker on your forehead.”
Question: “As an Iraq war veteran, I’d like to know how you can tell the difference between Sunni terrorists and Shiite terrorists.
Clinton: “I think the Shiites wear turbans while the Sunnis wear those dish rags tied on with a rope. Next? The young woman dressed in pink, with the orange sticker on her forehead.”
Question: “Will you personally pull the trigger at Dick Cheney’s execution?”
Clinton: “Whoa there! We haven’t even brought charges yet. But since you asked the question, yes I will.” (winks) Next? Way in the back, the man in a business suit with the orange sticker on your lapel.”
Question: “As a businessman, I’d like to know if there is any possible way that I can pay more in taxes? I just don’t feel as though I’m doing my fair share.
Clinton: “ I am hearing this more and more here in Iowa because my campaign manager thinks we can trick people into thinking that raising taxes was your idea! I’m not entirely convinced, but hey, you heard what the man said. He wants his taxes raised. Who am I to argue?
Anyway, here's the transcript from the planted question news conference:
Question: “As a young person, I’m worried about the long-term effects of global warming How does your plan combat climate change?
Clinton: “Well, you should be worried. You know, I find as I travel around Iowa that it’s usually young people that ask me about global warming. And that’s because we always try to have a young person ask this particular planted question. And we ask them to preface the question with the phrase ‘As a young person...’ just so that point is not missed. The next question that is going to be asked is about terrorism and I believe we’ve arranged for an Iraq war veteran to begin that question with ‘As an Iraq war veteran...’ Our focus groups indicate that is a highly effective technique. Next question? You, the young man dressed in combat fatigues with the orange sticker on your forehead.”
Question: “As an Iraq war veteran, I’d like to know how you can tell the difference between Sunni terrorists and Shiite terrorists.
Clinton: “I think the Shiites wear turbans while the Sunnis wear those dish rags tied on with a rope. Next? The young woman dressed in pink, with the orange sticker on her forehead.”
Question: “Will you personally pull the trigger at Dick Cheney’s execution?”
Clinton: “Whoa there! We haven’t even brought charges yet. But since you asked the question, yes I will.” (winks) Next? Way in the back, the man in a business suit with the orange sticker on your lapel.”
Question: “As a businessman, I’d like to know if there is any possible way that I can pay more in taxes? I just don’t feel as though I’m doing my fair share.
Clinton: “ I am hearing this more and more here in Iowa because my campaign manager thinks we can trick people into thinking that raising taxes was your idea! I’m not entirely convinced, but hey, you heard what the man said. He wants his taxes raised. Who am I to argue?
Friday, September 28, 2007
The Debate That Wasn't
This morning the Today Show opened with a story about last night's debate of Republican presidential candidates. The election is still over a year away and these debates have been going on for over six months now. I cannot believe anybody is actually watching them with the idea of deciding who to vote for. Any blogger who writes about these snore fests has long ago made his choice. He is watching it the same way you watch a football game, cheering his favorite on to victory and eagerly pointing out the other guy's stumbles.
So why cover this one so pointedly? Well it was being held at historically black Morgan State University and the BIG story according to NBC was not who was there but who wasn't. The four front runners (Romney, Guliani, McCain and Fred Thompson) claimed scheduling conflicts and were no shows. I have to admit, I don't really understand why. It does seem highly unlikely that they all had engagements that they couldn't break, especially when it offered an opportunity to hog the spotlight as the only front runner to show up. Of course the angle NBC took was that it was a clear sign of racism within the GOP.
But what was funny was that they kept pointing out that the other candidates would reap tremendous advantage because those guys weren't there and now the also-rans would get all the ink. They then failed to even mention by name the guys who were going to get all that good ink. They showed them criticizing the no-shows but they didn't even identify the speakers, and trust me there aren't that many people who could pick Mike Huckabee out of a line up. Meanwhile the front runners were named again and again as being the guys who would pay the price. As for the actual content of the debate, your guess is as good as mine because there was not one clip shown. Not a word was spoken about an issue. There wasn't even the concept of an issue.
They also gave stern warnings that this was going to be seen as a slight to the black community and would cost them big time in the general election. Aside from the fact that Democrats already get over 90% of the black vote, it's always annoying to hear your opponents express deep concern over your welfare. So it's really hard to watch the likes of Meredith Viera, Matt Lauer and Tim Russert wringing their hands and shaking their heads over the problems the GOP is facing in 2008 when you know as soon as the camera is off, they will more likely be punching their fists in the air ala Tiger Woods.
And it's understandable that the press would react that way, because after all this is the very first time that candidates chose to snub a presidential debate being snonsored by a respected black institution, as long as you don't count the one sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus that Hillary, Obamba, Edwards and Richardson ditched.
So why cover this one so pointedly? Well it was being held at historically black Morgan State University and the BIG story according to NBC was not who was there but who wasn't. The four front runners (Romney, Guliani, McCain and Fred Thompson) claimed scheduling conflicts and were no shows. I have to admit, I don't really understand why. It does seem highly unlikely that they all had engagements that they couldn't break, especially when it offered an opportunity to hog the spotlight as the only front runner to show up. Of course the angle NBC took was that it was a clear sign of racism within the GOP.
But what was funny was that they kept pointing out that the other candidates would reap tremendous advantage because those guys weren't there and now the also-rans would get all the ink. They then failed to even mention by name the guys who were going to get all that good ink. They showed them criticizing the no-shows but they didn't even identify the speakers, and trust me there aren't that many people who could pick Mike Huckabee out of a line up. Meanwhile the front runners were named again and again as being the guys who would pay the price. As for the actual content of the debate, your guess is as good as mine because there was not one clip shown. Not a word was spoken about an issue. There wasn't even the concept of an issue.
They also gave stern warnings that this was going to be seen as a slight to the black community and would cost them big time in the general election. Aside from the fact that Democrats already get over 90% of the black vote, it's always annoying to hear your opponents express deep concern over your welfare. So it's really hard to watch the likes of Meredith Viera, Matt Lauer and Tim Russert wringing their hands and shaking their heads over the problems the GOP is facing in 2008 when you know as soon as the camera is off, they will more likely be punching their fists in the air ala Tiger Woods.
And it's understandable that the press would react that way, because after all this is the very first time that candidates chose to snub a presidential debate being snonsored by a respected black institution, as long as you don't count the one sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus that Hillary, Obamba, Edwards and Richardson ditched.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Discrimination Rears It's Ugly Head Again.
Many observers have weighed in on the double standard that is clearly at work in the scandalous case of Senator Larry Craig (R-Soddom). And frankly this case hits a little too close to home. You see, I too, take a “wide stance” in the bathroom stall. It’s not something I talk about a lot, for obvious reasons. I have quietly discussed the matter with other wide standers. Most people don’t even know that there is vast network comprised of “widers,” as we like to say. But trust me, we are taking this seriously, and we are not about to take it sitting down.
If you only knew how often we are subjected to police harassment you’d join us in the streets. This has got to stop. Each time we “assume the position” we risk another trip to the security office where we are forced to defend our constitutional right to take a stance. And if we are not allowed to take the stance we prefer, (it’s actually more like a necessity than a preference) you can bet that your right to take a certain position will be scrutinized as well. And what will you say when that day comes? I’m reminded of the lessons we learned from Nazi Germany: “When they came for the bathroom loiterers, I did not complain because I was not a loiterer. When they came for the guys who lean way back at the urinals, I said nothing because I didn’t lean way back. But when they came for the wide standers, there was no one left to speak up for me.”
I can only quote a great American President who bravely proclaimed, “This will not stand! (widely)”
If you only knew how often we are subjected to police harassment you’d join us in the streets. This has got to stop. Each time we “assume the position” we risk another trip to the security office where we are forced to defend our constitutional right to take a stance. And if we are not allowed to take the stance we prefer, (it’s actually more like a necessity than a preference) you can bet that your right to take a certain position will be scrutinized as well. And what will you say when that day comes? I’m reminded of the lessons we learned from Nazi Germany: “When they came for the bathroom loiterers, I did not complain because I was not a loiterer. When they came for the guys who lean way back at the urinals, I said nothing because I didn’t lean way back. But when they came for the wide standers, there was no one left to speak up for me.”
I can only quote a great American President who bravely proclaimed, “This will not stand! (widely)”
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Why Daddy Is a Pinhead
It turns out that here in Madison we have an “author” who has gotten some national attention for his work. When I heard about his first book, I didn’t realize that he lived here in Madison, although I might have guessed that. That’s because I heard the title from Rush Limbaugh and it was called Why Mommy is a Democrat.
Of course it’s a children’s book and he made the papers again today by announcing that he has written a follow up called Why Daddy is a Democrat. In the article, they gave a sample line from Mommy:
“Democrats make sure everyone always has enough to eat, just like Mommy does.”
The “author’ is a fellow by the name of Jeremy Zilber. As far as his real vocation is concerned, the article points out that he, “most recently had temporary teaching assignments at UW-Madison and Lawrence University in Appleton.” So in other words he is an unemployed, over-degreed slacker, right up there with Kevin Barrett, our 9/11 nutcase.
Zilber says that as far as what his critics say, he is most bothered by those who call it propaganda. But he says “I think the book will encourage children to want to learn more about politics." And in fact he may have something there. Let’s look at the sample line from Mommy. When a child reads the line that says Democrats make sure everybody has enough to eat, a question will pop into the child’s mind. That question will be “So who are the evil doers that are trying to keep people hungry?” And with a minimal amount or research that child will learn that it is Republicans who take time out from torturing kittens and puppies to make sure that, somewhere, a child will go to bed hungry. See? He learned it on his own. Zilber’s not telling them WHAT to think, merely HOW to think. Isn’t that what good teachers do?
So I’m thinking maybe I’ve got this guy all wrong. To determine the truth, I did a little snooping and found out where this Zilber lives. Then I went by his house and rifled through his trash where I found a draft copy of his yet to be published, Why Daddy is a Democrat. I’m sure he won’t mind my sharing a few quotes with you. And it appears that he is continuing with the practice of not mentioning Republicans by name so that little Johnny can find this stuff out on his own.
“Democrats believe in free money, like the checks Daddy gets from the Department of Workforce Development. There are other kinds of people who get money by murdering people, exploiting minorities and defiling the Earth. They are not Democrats.”
“Democrats love ALL the children. Then there are those other people who fornicate with sheep and then eat their offspring. They are not Democrats.”
“Democrats are a lot like your dog, Buster. They wag their tails and lick your face and they will always love you. But that Rottweiler down the street who mangled your ankle last year? He is not a Democrat. He’s not even an Independent who will caucus with the Democrats.”
“Remember when your Uncle Bunky taught you how to play ‘Hide the meat puppet’? Well I hope I don’t have to point out that Uncle Bunky is not a Democrat. If you become a Democrat, he will stay away and leave you alone”
So it looks like I owe Professor Zilber an apology. He is merely providing the tools for the sifting and winnowing that they will be asked to do when they are adults.
Of course it’s a children’s book and he made the papers again today by announcing that he has written a follow up called Why Daddy is a Democrat. In the article, they gave a sample line from Mommy:
“Democrats make sure everyone always has enough to eat, just like Mommy does.”
The “author’ is a fellow by the name of Jeremy Zilber. As far as his real vocation is concerned, the article points out that he, “most recently had temporary teaching assignments at UW-Madison and Lawrence University in Appleton.” So in other words he is an unemployed, over-degreed slacker, right up there with Kevin Barrett, our 9/11 nutcase.
Zilber says that as far as what his critics say, he is most bothered by those who call it propaganda. But he says “I think the book will encourage children to want to learn more about politics." And in fact he may have something there. Let’s look at the sample line from Mommy. When a child reads the line that says Democrats make sure everybody has enough to eat, a question will pop into the child’s mind. That question will be “So who are the evil doers that are trying to keep people hungry?” And with a minimal amount or research that child will learn that it is Republicans who take time out from torturing kittens and puppies to make sure that, somewhere, a child will go to bed hungry. See? He learned it on his own. Zilber’s not telling them WHAT to think, merely HOW to think. Isn’t that what good teachers do?
So I’m thinking maybe I’ve got this guy all wrong. To determine the truth, I did a little snooping and found out where this Zilber lives. Then I went by his house and rifled through his trash where I found a draft copy of his yet to be published, Why Daddy is a Democrat. I’m sure he won’t mind my sharing a few quotes with you. And it appears that he is continuing with the practice of not mentioning Republicans by name so that little Johnny can find this stuff out on his own.
“Democrats believe in free money, like the checks Daddy gets from the Department of Workforce Development. There are other kinds of people who get money by murdering people, exploiting minorities and defiling the Earth. They are not Democrats.”
“Democrats love ALL the children. Then there are those other people who fornicate with sheep and then eat their offspring. They are not Democrats.”
“Democrats are a lot like your dog, Buster. They wag their tails and lick your face and they will always love you. But that Rottweiler down the street who mangled your ankle last year? He is not a Democrat. He’s not even an Independent who will caucus with the Democrats.”
“Remember when your Uncle Bunky taught you how to play ‘Hide the meat puppet’? Well I hope I don’t have to point out that Uncle Bunky is not a Democrat. If you become a Democrat, he will stay away and leave you alone”
So it looks like I owe Professor Zilber an apology. He is merely providing the tools for the sifting and winnowing that they will be asked to do when they are adults.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
A Crock
This Miss New Jersey blackmail story is absurd. Photos that do not show her naked, nor drinking under age, nor doing anything else particularly offensive, are supposedly sent with the threat that they will be revealed unless she resigns? Unless this is being done by Miss First Runner Up (who will of course assume those duties should Miss New Jersey, for whatever reason, be unable to fulfil her obligations as Miss New Jersey...) I think it is Miss New Jersey herself who is doing this. Think about it. She just did not one, but two segments on the Today show this morning. She was there to release the photos, supposedly in order to "quell the uproar." I think the truth is she felt she didn't get enough mileage out of the original story. She is now the ONLY state title holder who is known to millions of people and regularly being featured on national television. When asked why she was revealing them now she replied, "I want to end this ... It’s time to reveal them." Yep, that it'll end it for sure. Oh and by the way, she thinks those photos were taken from a web site on which she had posted them. But they were meant to be private, because it was password protected.
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Perspective
Just in case you are as outraged by the President's commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence as the liberals seem to be, here is something to keep in mind for perspective. Bill Clinton commuted the sentences of 21 individuals convicted of drug dealing. The cases were mostly cocaine with a few heroin, PCP and meth violations. He negated 400 YEARS in prison sentences and commuted one death sentence to life in prison. But of course that's nothing next to a conviction for remebering things differently than Tim Russert.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)