Sunday, April 29, 2007

The devil is named real estate

There seems to be a gathering storm around the activities of several Congressmen in the general area of real estate transactions gone criminal. Most seem to be Republicans like Renzi of Arizona who might join some of their colleagues in jail, but Senator Reid and former Speaker Hastert also have smelly associations which don't seem to be as actively investigated as some of the others. Congressman Jefferson evidently took a bribe for a non-real estate activity and Barack Obama has a slimy association in Chicago which is almost unavoidable for a politician from Illinois, I suppose. I am about ready to conclude that any Congressman involved in a real estate deal while in office or soon thereafter is is probably a crook.

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Supreme Court lets phonies down

Thomas Carper, the low-profile junior senator from Delaware, tries to walk the middle of the road on abortion. He was rated at 55 percent pro-choice by NARAL in 2006, but he was one of the 17 Democrats who voted to ban partial birth abortion three years earlier. Carper said after the court upheld the 2003 bill: "I think a number of people who voted for it thought that the court would ultimately strike it down."
There is something very smarmy about voting for a bill that you think is unconstitutional in the hope that you can have your cake and eat it too when the Supreme Court knocks it down. And to be bipartisan, plenty of Republicans, including President Bush, did that with the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as McCain-Feingold.
This is from a good post by Betsy.

Thursday, April 19, 2007

Mike Nifong's Fate

An interesting side issue in the Mike Nifong saga with prosecutorial misconduct is the manner in which the panel now hearing his case decides the matter. Ordinarily, a bunch of lawyers trying to decide if another lawyer did something unethical would be laughable since the likelihood of them doing something as extraordinary as taking away a license to practice would be beyond the pale. (The same situation would apply to physicians, by the way). This case, however, is so public that it might be argued that it is impossible for Mike to get a fair hearing. Obviously, those lawyers on the panel deciding his fate do not want to be the subject of numerous newspaper and television second-guessing. I predict that in this case, the light shining on the case might actually bring about partial justice and Nifong will lose his license, but won't go to prison where he belongs.

Misplaced Concern

Liberals all have their panties in a wad about the Supreme Court decision regarding partial birth abortion. Actually this was an almost meaningless act since women can still go in after the 5th month and have their cervix dilated so scissors can be used to cut the baby into little pieces and then taken out bit by bit. These leftist loonies can therefore continue to dispatch innocent babies while at the same time they object to any method of capital punishment because it is inhumane and could theoretically cause temporary pain to a convicted piece of scum.

A sensible response to Virginia Tech

NASHVILLE — In a surprise move, a House panel voted today to repeal a state law that forbids the carrying of handguns on property and buildings owned by state, county and city governments — including parks and playgrounds.

"I think the recent Virginia disaster — or catastrophe or nightmare or whatever you want to call it — has woken up a lot of people to the need for having guns available to law-abiding citizens," said Rep. Frank Niceley, R-Strawberry Plains. "I hope that is what this vote reflects."

Sunday, April 15, 2007

The saddest aspect of the Imus affair

We have already had way too much said about the Imus comment and its aftermath, but the most consequential aspect is not that a liberal jerk who provided a national format for liberal politicians and their press shills lost his program. The saddest part is the usage of the term "ho." Imus did not originate the term. Ho is a derivation of whore and it was first used by black men and even today is used primarily to refer to black women, mostly young black women. As has been made obvious in the Imus mess, this is a derogatory way to refer to these young women and all of them do not deserve it. It seems to me, however, that the situation is in some part caused by the extent to which far too many young black women permit black men to use them sexually and then have their babies, sans marriage or subsequent support, without consequence. They may not be whores in the strictest sense, but this situation certainly doesn't allow them to command respect and avoid demeaning references.

Saturday, April 14, 2007

The story behind the lost line item veto

In 1996 the Republican party kept its word and gave President Clinton the line item veto. One of the first times he used it, he struck down a special interest provision which allowed New York hospitals a unique right to bilk Medicare out of extra money. The veto saved at least $200 million that year, but this was challenged in court and went all the way to the Supreme Court which put the kibosh on the veto authority in 1998. As Paul Harvey says, and now for the rest of the story. It turns out the guy who helped stall this powerful tool for controlling spending was none other than Rudy Giuliani who is now busy touting his "fiscally conservative" governing background. The Republican campaign should be fun when things like this are pointed out.

My, how the "Times" has changed

In 1909 the New York Times in an editorial opposing the income tax stated the following: "When men get in the habit of helping themselves to the property of others, they cannot be easily cured of it."

Curious speech

I just returned from a week where I was in crowds of people of different racial and cultural backgrounds from those I usually encounter. One thing that struck me during this exposure was the wide-spread use of "ja know what I mean?" in almost every sentence during almost all conversations I overheard. I presume this is an extension of the previous verbal assault "you know" which became a common source of lingual criticism and derision.

My question concerns the origin of this practice. So far I have come up with two possibilities. The first is the individual has no confidence in his or her ability to communicate effectively and just wants some assurance that all the words actually mean something. The second is the person speaking has no confidence that the person being addressed is smart enough to understand the spoken words. In either case, a desire for reassurance by constantly asking "you know what I mean?" makes sense, but the deficiencies implied are not particularly flattering.

Schools take on a new task

Despite proving themselves the biggest failure in modern America our public schools have decided that it now up to them to undertake an effort to assure that our students which they can't educate properly get the proper nutrition and watch their weight. More and more schools are undertaking the job of putting the child's body mass index on the report cards and writing letters to parents of students who they consider too heavy. This comes at a time when these same schools are eliminating activities at what once was called "recess" because things like tag and dodge ball are not politically correct.
Finally, when you question the education establishment about their failure to educate, a common excuse is the teachers have too many distractions like paperwork, reports to the government, mandated testing, etc. The logic of any suggestion that teachers work to improve their primary mission before undertaking new ones is probably not going to be appreciated.

Chirac exits stage left

Jacques Chirac has finally exited the world stage and thus the President of France ends a career as the world's biggest liberal. In this country, we all know that the libs want to raise taxes on everyone that is rich enough to pay them. That is chump change to our man Chirac. His biggest disappointment as President came when he failed in his effort to tax everyone in the world. He wanted every country in the world to put a tax on air fares and give the money to some idiotic organization like the U.N. to improve the environment or some other nonsensical project. The sad aspect of Chirac's leaving is the French will not improve in their next selection.

Monday, April 09, 2007

Unintended consequences

The obvious efforts of Speaker Pelosi to establish her own foreign policy is being criticized by even such liberal rags as the Washington Post and U.S. Today. Despite this response to her Syrian diplomacy, it may be that hubris will not allow her to rein in her concept of her role in the Constitutional process. Should she continue with her anti-Bush end-runs, it just might make the electorate even more reluctant to entrust our government to Hillary. If Ms Rodham comes to a similar conclusion, it will be interesting to watch how this threat is obviated. Watch your back, Nancy.

Saturday, April 07, 2007

The Logan Act still on the books

Does this apply to Speaker Pelosi and other members of Congress--Republican or Democrat? Probably, but it doesn't make any difference. Bush has amply demonstrated that he has no intention of enforcing the law. Witness the Sandy Burger case, illegal immigrants, etc. The entire article is here.

The Logan Act makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, "without authority of the United States," to communicate with a foreign government in an effort to influence that government's behavior on any "disputes or controversies with the United States."

Friday, April 06, 2007

The British get their troops but lose pride

As mentioned in a previous entry to this enlightened blog, the timidity of the British in their response to the outrageous retention of their military personnel by the Iranians is really sad. The country which once ruled the high seas now cowers and runs to the U.N. in the face of a true assault on their sovereignty.
Jonah Goldberg writes about the sorry state of U.K. affairs here. Read it all.

Monday, April 02, 2007

Coming here next?

The following is from England, but how long before our teachers catch up? Read it all.

Schools are dropping the Holocaust from history lessons to avoid offending Muslim pupils, a Government backed study has revealed.

It found some teachers are reluctant to cover the atrocity for fear of upsetting students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial.

Personal Unsecured Loan