An Incoherent Rambling on Virginia Tech...

So, I've let this whole Virginia Tech thing sink in a little bit and being a guy whose worked at a College for six plus years now, I feel like I'm in a little bit of a unique position here. I apologize in advance for the lack of proper grammar, and realize this is more of a rant than anything else, but in getting it out a little bit, I find some peace, as this one hits very close to home for me.

I may be jaded because of the length of time I've been doing this RD thing (too long), but the number of kids with GENUINE problems... I'm not talking about the kids who might booze too much here and there or set off the occasional fire alarm.. has risen exponentially. I'm talking about kids with SERIOUS psychological issues. I could name 10-15 students in the past three years alone I've encountered frequently that are SERIOUS disruptions to the greater community and nothing's done about them.

Everyone's talking about all the side bar issues like Gun control, video game violence, even why campus security doesn't do more. They're really missing the issue. I'll share a few stories here about the insanity that is today's college campus:

The worst I've ever seen was this kid... he was ALWAYS the kid who seemed close to the problem. You'd do a write up and he'd be at the end of the hall smiling watching the whole thing or he'd be walking out of a room where nonsense was going on.... well one night he and his roommate got completely wasted and got into a fight. He had a metal rod in a cast he was wearing. He hammered his roommate with it and the kid's head hit the corner of the door way and he fell to the ground. The hit to the head split his head open, the hit against the doorway did the same and when he hit the floor it was like a Mellon hitting a rock. Well I'm literally trying to hold this kid's brains in his head and we've got EMS there and he's SCREAMING while the cops are taking away "I hope that fvcker dies".

Well he got prosecuted and served only a year of jail time only for the school to ALLOW HIM BACK INTO THE INSTITUTION with NO mandatory counseling of any kind. So what does he do? Gets caught stealing books and selling em back to the book store. He got a $50 fine. Then he pulled a knife on an RA and didn't get sh!t. He literally was threatening professors via telephone and the school STILL did nothing about it. We had the Dean of Campus life, who was a total moon bat by even moon bat standards who thought everyone was provoking him.

Well I left SC two years ago and I come to find out this year they placed him in a senior apartment WITH THE KID WHO HE BRAINED his sophomore year. It's just utterly inexcusable.

One time I had to get a STATE police-issued warrant to search a kid's room and cracked a safe he had in there that had $15,000 in it and a few pounds of cocaine in there amongst other things.... the school didn't kick him out. Instead, they sent him to counseling and wouldn't allow police to prosecute (love MA law, btw).

So when I hear that VT say "Oh, we didn't know this kid was in an institution", I say that's complete and total bullshi_. They have his health center records and I'll bet it's on his medical records. Professors and even the school counselors (who at most places are beyond incompetent) were recommending he be removed from the community and he wasn't. He had a record not only with police but on campus as being a big disciplinary problem. Every single indicator there could have been for the school to remove him from the premises, or at least suspend him until he was psychologically cleared to come back to campus, was there and they did absolutely nothing about it.

This year alone I've got a ton of 'cutters' in the dorm who're girls that slice their arms up when they get upset. Out of 125 residents, I'd say 25 have serious social and or mental impairments. I've got one girl who will repeat entire conversations. You'll get about 5 minutes in with her and bam, she shoots back to the beginning and starts the whole thing over again. I already talked about the girl who was screaming at the Dean of Students and literally was punching the walls and pulling her hair out by the roots. She's still here.

There's GOT to be some sort of way admissions offices can better filter these kids. IMO, EVERY college kid should be evaluated by a counselor of psychiatrist to see if they're ready for it. Sure, some will still slip through the cracks, but at least you'll help curb the problem a little bit. As someone who lives and works with these kids every day and has been doing so for a long time, I can't tell you how much my wife's and my work load has gone up because we're literally explaining to these kids that slapping your roommate isn't the way to tell them to turn their music down. At least at Springfield when I had the guys, you yelled at them, intimidated them a bit, wrote them up and made peace with them when they were sobered up. The girls always have the 'issues', but even at the end of my time at SC, I noticed the mental stability of the guys going way down too.

In terms of security, well, there's only so much many of them can do. We have cameras and a guard stationed at every dorm entrance. Training requirements for campus police officers has no consistency from campus to campus. Most aren't even armed. There's nothing they can do to subdue unruly or violent students. Imagine asking a plumber to fix a leak without a wrench. These guys who work on campus police forces aren't even allowed to carry firearms in most cases and simply lack the tools to be able to do their job. That's not even getting into the fact that the super moonbat judicial officers at these campuses completely undermine what they're doing at every turn, just because they hate police. It's frustrating. Then to make it worse, they toss RA's at them with crappy training and put them at risk.

The other thing is too, that students need to start taking responsibility for their own safety at some point. I see kids holding doors for people I've never seen before. I write em up for it because it's a huge safety risk. They prop doors, and don't sign people in, anything. We had a kid who obviously raped a girl two years ago. She was beat up and his DNA was (thankfully.. for the case at least) all over her. But there was no record of him being signed in. They looked at the security footage and some other kid just held the door for him. Thank god we had the cameras, or we wouldn't have been able to definitively place him in the building during the time of the assault.

So I guess in sum, while we can debate gun control until we turn blue, it's really NOT the issue here. The issue is the messed up kid. But the first 'greater problem' we should be looking at is how colleges and universities are handling kids with problems. They can only do so much from a security standpoint so I won't fault them on that. Howie Carr was arguing that kids should be allowed to carry on campus, and though I agree with him 99% of the time, I thought he was completely nuts on that. If you saw how irresponsible most college kids are with their homework, much less a firearm, you'd be astonished. Giving college kids guns ain't going to solve the problem, it's going to make them more difficult to handle.

When you brush ALL that aside, where colleges bear some measure of responsibility is what they do when they KNOW they have a problem child who is a detriment to the community and they decide to do nothing about it. There's a neo arms race going on with colleges competing over tuition dollars that has caused them to take kids with issues less seriously. The money is the important thing. Beyond that, it's social activist judicial officers on campus who treat the college disciplinary system as a social experiment, with no regard for the people they effect through their action or, in these cases, inaction.

I've seen this stuff so many freakin' times and I'm just sick of it. I screamed about this while I was at SC and saw this coming years ago. Frankly, I'm shocked it hasn't already happened and it'll happen again. What gets me on the societal level is two things. 1.) the media's glorification of the shooter. He WANTED us to be talking about him like they were today on the news. Giving a guy like that press encourages the idiots. We had a bomb threat at a Republican event we held in Northampton the other day and when I talked to a reporter about it, they said they wouldn't print it because it encourages those types of people. The same treatment should be given to this kid. All it does in the end is embolden idiots and other crazies. 2.) In watching the commentary, it just astonishes me as to how detached adults are from what kids are going through these days. They're talking about gun control, what the campus security should have done and just about everything that doesn't matter at all. They're not recognizing that we've got a generation with a ton more messed up kids than we had before and we need to figure out how to reach them, how to treat them, but most of all, keep them from harming themselves and those around them.

Sorry for the rant, but this hits a little too close to home for me. What's more frustrating for me, is I feel like myself and other professionals in my field have seen this coming for years, and yet no one's done anything about it. Worse yet, now that it's happened, we're moving further and further away from solving the issue.

Again, apologies for the rant and the overall incoherence of this particular entry, but sometimes you just need to tee it high and let it fly.

Thoughts and Prayers

Are with the students, family, faculty and other members of the Virginia Tech Community. As someone who has worked on a college campus for a good long while now, my heartfelt prayers and sympathy go out to you.

To read more about this story, click here

What's Wrong With Firing Don Imus? The First Ammendment

“It is our feeling that this is only the beginning. We must have a broad discussion on what is permitted and not permitted on the airwaves…”---Al Sharpton

These words should frighten us all. What happened to Imus is not censorship, only another Sharpton/Jackson racial shakedown of another American company. But Reverend Al’s words are yet another societal sign of something very bad for anyone enjoying First Amendment protection.

The power of Sharpton and Jackson comes from the media. The power of the media comes from the First Amendment. But the elite media seem unconcerned about the meaning behind Sharpton’s words. Keith Olbermann of MSNBC has been good enough to make a list of radio and television personalities that need to be purged from American debate and ideas, including Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and the half of the county who do not share his political leanings.

Once again the left and the media elite (they all look the same to me) are more than willing to define just who deserves free speech for the good of the people. The Great Fourth Estate stands oblivious to the reemergence of the ‘Fairness Doctrine’ and the snowball gradually gaining momentum and headed for congress. The Congress of the United States is never afraid to trash the Constitution when in pursuit of a righteous end. And never afraid to hop a bandwagon when writing a badly conceived, self destructive law designed to pander to whatever emotional “outrage” happens to be on television. But someone will want to yield the political weapon of defining “racist” and other offensive words. Golly, who would be in a good position to do that?

And what a weapon this will be. Here is the instruction manual:

Thank you for purchasing Uncle Joe’s stain remover. Uncle Joe’s removes conservatives, libertarians, and any stain opposing the State.

To Apply:

Opposing affirmative action is racist, therefore illegal thought.

Opposing illegal immigration is racist, therefore illegal thought.

Supporting welfare reform is racist, therefore illegal thought..

All conservative commentators are racist, therefore banned. Especially that Rush Limbaugh guy.

Apply as many times as needed to eliminate stains. Simply define opposing ideas as racist and watch them melt away!

Warning! Harmful to comedians.

Utter the word “racist” enough times and it loses any original meaning altogether. Imus had barely finished uttering his ridiculous remark when politicians were running to the media. The media did its part by demanding comments from presidential candidates. Why would that be? How long before these political creatures begin the one-up contest over who can propose a law that best repairs this “outrage” and prevents any group from ever being insulted again? And who defines acceptable thoughts and debate? Sharpton? Jackson? Nancy Pelosi? Who is at fault for bringing us to the brink of violating (again—see McCain Feingold) the most important Amendment to our Constitution?

We are at fault. What happened to us? Have Americans always expressed “pain” when insulted? We don’t protest that we are “scarred for life” because of the words of a doddering old man…do we? Surely these women of Rutgers basketball didn’t scale the mountain of the NCAA tournament just to have their lives ruined by the words of a washed up geriatric. Is the lesson we want the young to learn from the likes of Sharpton and Jackson that mere words can hurt us in this way? What happened to “sticks and stones”? This accomplishment of Rutgers basketball far outweighs anything this moron has ever achieved in his miserable life of insults. Why not simply say so? We are handing over power to others to protect ourselves from injury to self esteem. How pathetic is that? Do we really want a generation so spineless that they are incapable of standing up and saying, “up yours you washed up old geezer”, without being afraid of the AARP jumping up to protect the feelings of old geezers? I am not exactly of towering stature; will I have a case for a civil rights violation if someone calls me a garden gnome?

We cannot possibly defend ourselves in war if we burst into tears when someone calls us ugly. We also cannot maintain a cohesive nation when we are too busy attacking each other, demanding “justice” for our injured feelings and walking on glass instead of debating our survival openly in the arena of ideas created by the First Amendment. A First Amendment that makes no mention whatsoever of the thickness of one’s skin when exposed to speech. We all can join Rutgers in laughing as Imus loses his job because the market no longer wants him. But we are standing at that very special line once again and great care must be taken with the next step.

The bottom line is that Political Correctness is completely out of control in this country. The ruling liberal establishment in this country are beginning to tread on dangerous waters. The Speaker of the House has set a precedent that America shouldn't have one foreign policy, rather a few hundred decided by what the latest polls dictate. We have a group of social 'activists' that want to dictate what people say on their air, yet do nothing when someone like Rosie O'Donnell peaks her head out of the toilet she lives in to say not only that 9-11 was perpetrated by the US Government, but that fire doesn't melt steel (how is steel made again?). We are making it wrong to point out when we see something fishy while riding public and private transit because we might hurt someones feelings. We have two Presidential Candidates that are as qualified to be President as a No. 2 Pencil, but because of their genitalia and skin color, they're serious contenders. What's worse, is that they'll likely be elected because of it. Here in Massachusetts, we've got a Governor who's woefully unqualified to hold the position he was elected to. I'd love to hammer him ideologically, but he has yet to even propose a piece of coherent legislation or lay out an agenda that would warrant doing so because of total incompetence. This country is eating itself alive by perpetuating sheer stupidity and chronic narcissism by favoring feelings over fact.

Shut Up Imus, Shut Up Poverty Pimps

Please, Don Imus, stop the groveling. You said a stupid thing, you apologized. Move on. Tell Al Sharpton you'll listen to him sermonize about bigotry when he apologizes for the Tawana Brawley incident. That was more racist than anything you said, and here he is giving us a lecture on bigotry? Please, give me a break. He and Jesse Jackson, who is also pretending to be above it all and shocked, SHOCKED! are from the same mold.

Poverty pimps.

Nappy-headed ho's, not to put too fine a point on it. Sharpton claims that we shouldn't just let this drop. Well, I think he should be in jail for ruining the lives of innocent men in order to get some camera time. Imus shouldn't have went on his radio show. Incidents like this are what pimps like Sharpton feed on, and he's not going to let it go as long as it keeps his name in the papers.

This Week in Western MA

Again, sorry folks for being so slow on the posting lately. Life is actually busy again.

Anyways, no excuses the next couple of weeks. Here are some events. SHOW THE F_CK UP and put your money where your mouth is!


1. Reminder: The Springfield Republican City Committee will meet Tuesday,
April 10, 7:00 p.m. at the Parkview Specialty Hospital on State Street with
local blogger/Friend of the Fed/Fed-Head Tom Devine speaking on why Springfield needs a strong GOP city committee. For more information, contact Mary via e-mail at
mjc@attglobal.net.

2. The Southwick Republican Town Committee will host its Meet the
Candidates Spaghetti Supper Friday, April 13, at the American Legion Post
338 for their upcoming May town election. For more information, contact
Bobby Jo at 1-413-575-7133, or via e-mail at sylbobtbow@comcast.net. These guys always have the best food at their functions. It's worth it!

I'll be at a banquet with Former White House Chief of Staff Andy Card tonight! Hope to see some of you there! Hayoooo!

Pelosi's Grandstanding

Nancy Pelosi is to world diplomacy what Michael Jordan was to baseball: completely forgettable and unnecessary. But unlike Michael’s slightly amusing foray into the Babe’s world, there’s nothing funny about Pelosi in Damascus. The terrorists and their supporters, who are always looking for weak links and signs that the US does not have the will or backbone to win the war we’re fighting with them, just found a great ally in Madame Speaker.

Among the older members of my extended Syrian family, there was a general attitude that kindness equaled weakness. It wasn’t that they didn’t believe in charity, but that it must be parceled out carefully, because those of ill intent can be quick to take advantage of those they perceive to be gullible and soft. This is what Nancy Pelosi either doesn’t understand, or doesn’t care about: she’s being used by the very people who want to destroy us in another round of window dressing, subterfuge, and deceit. I suspect that Pelosi knows this, but is more intent on trying to undermine the President than in looking at how she could best support national security.

Let’s look at the record. Syria has admitted that it has financially supported Hezbollah and Hamas, but says that it doesn’t supply them with arms. What’s the difference? What do you think these groups buy with the money? How many Israeli and Lebanese men, women and children have been slaughtered because of Syrian backing of these groups? And who do you think Syria supports across the border in Iraq: our troops or the terrorists some blithely refer to as “insurgents”? Without the direct involvement of Syria and Iran, the current terrorism movement in Iraq would have considerably less groundswell.

Pelosi might respond that she’s aware of all that, but that she’s simply taking James Baker’s advice to talk with your enemies. Well, here’s the problem: Baker’s wrong. Talking to the Syrians has never accomplished anything. They correctly read the signs a long time ago that there would be no real consequences for continuing to support Arab and Islamic terrorist groups. And Pelosi has proven them right again: bend us and we will break.

This needs to stop. Syria and Iran need to know in a very real way that if they continue to support terrorism, they will experience the full wrath of the United States. And there cannot be any negotiating when it comes to this. Moammar Gadhafi —remember that boogeyman?—backed off when we bombed his palace in Libya. Gadhafi’s two-year-old adopted daughter died in that raid, which was a terrible tragedy, particularly since he was the one with blood on his hands, not her. Still, Gadhafi crawled back into his hole, and retreated even further when we invaded Iraq, making a public show of acquiescence to the US. He may be crazy, but he’s not stupid.

Syria and Iran need to be given fair warning to cease and desist all support of terrorist activities, prove they’re doing so, and if they don’t, be held to account.

Damascus and Tehran will continue to taunt and undermine us, and the UK, until they know they can’t. Assad would be a lot less likely to cut checks for terrorists if he knew it could cost him his job or his life. And the same is true of the little guy in the leisure suit over in Iran. This is what they both understand and respect: force, not treaties and tea.

And Pelosi would probably be adverse to hang out with these guys if she knew F-18s might be approaching. Charging her with treason in the meantime would be appropriate. If the Speaker of the House during the Vietnam War had broken bread with Cambodian leaders, the public would have demanded his resignation and the most severe punishment possible for such a crime. And yet when Nancy Pelosi sits down with our enemies’ collaborators, she’s given a pass, even praised by those who cheer on any action that goes against the President. Al Jazerra is probably her biggest fan right now, next to the New York Times.

The problem is she’s not just hurting the President, she’s betraying our troops, and everyone around the world at risk to terrorist attacks, which is most of us.

We should not let her get away with it. We need to hold Pelosi responsible for her actions, as well as Syria and Iran. The three of them have more than proven their status as enemies of the United States.

Marty gets a Limo!?

I'm so sick and tired of people making millions off tax payer dollars. If you thought Billy Bulger wasn't bad enough, check this out from Lowell. Marty Meehan gets a limo driver.

What's not covered for 'public officials' these days in this state? Do they get cooks? Do they get state-paid maids? You've got to wonder if we'll ever get to a point where enough is enough in this state. But herein lies the problem with socialism. When everyone is seemingly on the dole, don't expect anything to change.

Meehan's frivolous behavior is disturbing because this impacts the tax payer two-fold. It's reasons like this that college tuition is so high. Washington State University built the largest jacuzzi on the continent just to have it. Boat loads of tax payer dollars are forcefully taken from their hands and used to purchase 'needs' like limo drivers, Jacuzzis and build new hockey and basketball arenas for the sports teams. Dorms are falling apart and so are, that matter, the classrooms. College professors aren't seeing the money, either. Couple that with the fact that admissions standards are down to whether or not you have a pulse and the money, and there's really no reason for a college professor to give a crap. Milli0ns and billions of both tuition and tax payer dollars a year are wasted on Colleges and Universities. At least at Private Colleges, you know what you're paying into and making the choice based on the services provided. You pay tuition for UMass whether you like it or not.

Social droolers like Billy Bulger and Marty Meehan are all beginning to escape back into college life. There, they can steal as much as humanly possible from the tax payers and go relatively unnoticed. Stealing out in the open wasn't efficient enough, so now they're taking the gravy train under ground. Ask to see the budgets for many state colleges an universities. You'll be appalled. When guys like Marty and Billy see them though, they lick their chops.

Bulger walks off scotch free.

Voters in Massachusetts should be in an absolute uproar over this.

The US attorney's office let the clock run out this week on a federal grand jury in Boston investigating whether William Bulger had committed perjury or obstruction of justice, concluding that there wasn't enough evidence to seek indictments and take a case to trial, the sources said.

"Bill Bulger has been a political football for six years," his lawyer, Thomas R. Kiley, said yesterday.

Bulger, his wife, and children "have been through hell as a result of the focus on Whitey," Kiley said. "If they can get some peace that's a great thing."

US Attorney Michael J. Sullivan could not be reached yesterday, and his chief of staff, Robert Krekorian, declined to comment on the end of the investigation.

Whitey Bulger, 77, a longtime FBI informant, was warned by his retired FBI handler, John J. Connolly Jr., to flee shortly before his January 1995 federal racketeering indictment and has eluded authorities since. The international manhunt for the gangster, who is accused of 19 murders and is one of the FBI's 10 Most Wanted fugitives, alongside Osama bin Laden, has brought intense scrutiny to his family.

William Bulger, 73, of South Boston, who became president of the University of Massachusetts in January 1996, was pressured by Governor Mitt Romney to resign in 2003 after he was publicly grilled about his relationship with his gangster brother by a congressional committee investigating the FBI's mishandling of informants.

William Bulger told the committee that he didn't know where his fugitive brother was hiding and had not aided him in any way since he fled.

One law enforcement official said yesterday that investigators suspected William Bulger knew more than he was revealing and believed "if you put pressure on him, then potentially he or his family would give up where his brother is."

That's right, he's gotten away with all of it. I've never seen such a blatant miscarriage of justice perhaps ever. Billy Bulger is thumbing his nose at everyone today. Not only did he get off scotch free, he pocketed MORE money for his pension. How this guy's not in jail is an atrocity.

Hillary Sprinting Away From Hatred of Military

The epitome of fluff piece. Is this stuff even serious?

Of all the early problems Bill Clinton faced as president, few stand out to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as more frustrating and avoidable than his rocky relationship with the military, her advisers say.

During his 1992 campaign, Mr. Clinton was attacked for avoiding the Vietnam draft and organizing antiwar marches in the 1960s. After taking office, his early focus on gay men and lesbians in the military drew sharp criticism from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin L. Powell, and other officers. Even his ability to salute properly was called into question.

Mrs. Clinton, to use a phrase, has been practicing her salute. As a senator and now as a presidential candidate, she has cultivated relationships with generals and admirals, prepped herself on wartime needs and strategy, and traveled to Iraq and Afghanistan.

“I think eight years in the White House, traveling the world and seeing the United States military doing the nation’s business, and now her time in the Senate, has given her a significant appreciation of the military that maybe her husband didn’t have before the White House,” said Jack Keane, the retired general and former Army vice chief of staff who has become close to the senator.

For Mrs. Clinton, exhibiting a command of military matters is not just about learning from her husband’s experience. It could be vital to her, as a woman seeking to become a wartime commander in chief, to show the public that she is comfortable with military policy and culture — and with the weight of responsibility that accompanies life-and-death decisions.

It is also part of an effort to shed the image some voters hold of her as an antimilitary liberal, defined by her opposition to the Vietnam War and, now, by her criticism of the Bush administration’s conduct of the war in Iraq.

Clinton must think the men and women in our military are as dumb as Rep. Charlie Rangel routinely makes them out to be if she honestly thinks she’ll ever win over a significant amount of military support. The military hasn’t forgotten the disdain for the armed services Bill and Hillary displayed while Bubba was Commander in Chief, nor will they forget that her husband dodged the draft during Vietnam. They also won’t forget her carefully crafted “If I knew then what I know now” position on Iraq, a position she’s taken solely for political purposes aimed at catering to the nutroots left, in spite of her trying to soften her ton on the Iraq war a few months later.

Regardless, this picture tells it all:

US men and women serving might feel compelled by their superiors or bound by a sense of duty to take a picture with an opportunistic politician, but thankfully there is no coercion involved in going to the ballot box, where the military consistently votes around 65% Republican (something Democrats know to the point of trying to suppress their votes in 2000).

So, Senator Clinton, you might think building relationships with the military is something you can do for purposes of political expediency, but - as they say - you can run from your rocky relationship with the military but you cannot hide.

Romney Officially Makes Himself a Contender

Mitt Romney's fund raising totals almost equaled Hillary Clinton's. That's quite a feat considering her name recognition and the fact that she's got herself and a former US President to help raise money for her. Mitt's total ended up at around $25 million according to Mass live.

BOSTON (AP) — Republican Mitt Romney reported raising $23 million for his presidential campaign during the first three months of the year, shaking up the GOP field and rivaling the total reported a day earlier by Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Meanwhile, the Republican front-runner in the polls, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, said his donations totaled $15 million — including more than $10 million raised during March alone.

Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, a longshot GOP candidate, lagged far behind the two Republican money leaders, raising over $1.9 million, including a $575,000 transfer from his Senate campaign account.

Both the Romney and Giuliani totals blew away past party presidential fundraising standards, while Romney's figure put the former Massachusetts governor in competition with Clinton, the Democratic front-runner. The New York senator on Sunday reported raising $26 million between Jan. 1 and March 31.

"Facing opponents in an extremely competitive fundraising field who enjoy universal name identification and the clear advantage of existing networks of contributors, Gov. Romney's fundraising totals are indicative of the extraordinary success the campaign has had at building an organization and stirring excitement among grassroots activists responding to his message," said Romney spokesman Kevin Madden.

Rudy Giuliani did well for himself as well, raising near $15 million. Not too bad for the first quarter. We'll see how this stuff pans out, but it's obvious Mitt can talk the pants off a preacher.

Name, Rank Serial Number

Again, I don't much like to criticize people who get caught up in circumstances that I, myself, have never been in, but it seems to me that unless there's some sort of coercion going on that's unlike any we've seen in modern history, that the British sailors and marines who were captured by Iran recently were obliging their captors quite nicely and, dare I say, a little too easily? That's just based on my assessment of the situation. A second solider, one of the royal marines, is offering up a confession and apology to be used by Iran, so they of course, can turn it around and use it as propaganda against coalition forces.


(Royal Marine Nathan Thomas Summers "apologizes" on Iranian TV.)

It took less than a week for sailors and marines to start assisting Iranian thugs by writing letters critical of the US and British Governments and to start apologizing for 'tresspassing" on Iranian territory. Of course, this is at odds with the facts, but really, when did Iran ever care about the real world? These are the same animals that think the Holocaust never happened.

I'm not going to necessarily ride the soliders, as I have no idea about what's going on behind the scenes, but the British commanders have obviously done a pretty crappy job of making sure that their troops are prepared for such a circumstance. You'd think it had to have been considered a possible risk given the fact that this isn't the first capture of British troops working too close to Iran. If they weren't prepared to defend themselves with either the firepower or or 'rules of engagement', I wonder why they were there to begin with. Someone somewhere most know of some set of rules in the British Military that are equal to those I learned in the army regarding issuing statements from captivity that can't be used as propaganda by the enemy. What ever happened to name, rank, serial number?

And how many Iranians must it have taken to capture 15 royal marines and sailors driving along in patrol vessels. It's kind of like the whole claim that we were flushing Korans down the toilet. Like a book being flushed down a toilet isn't really physically possible, how many Iranian troops must've been sent in here to get all these guys to tap out? Anyone remember that transportation officer from West Virginia and her Native American best friend from Arizona who were wounded or killed before they were taken. I wonder what they'd think...

Cartoon of the Week

Helmets for Sledders, No Fluff in School, Now: Protect Teens from Tanning!

Is it me or is the nanny-state legislation spitting out of Beacon Hill at a ridiculous rate?

Here's the latest bill, to 'protect' teenagers from tanning booths:

BOSTON - Tanning booths are the latest area where teenagers need to be protected from themselves, according to lawmakers and health officials pushing legislation they say will reduce the number of new skin cancer cases.
New harsher penalties went into effect this weekend for teenage drivers who speed or drag race on public roads. Now, some on Beacon Hill want to prevent teens from recklessly exposing themselves to ultraviolet rays at an age in their lives when they can be most harmful.
The legislators are slated to testify at a hearing Thursday on a bill that would prohibit youths under 16 years old from using tanning booths and would require parental consent for 16- and 17-year-olds who want an indoor tan.

”Let’s not make it so easy for young people to expose their skin to dangerous rays,” said Sen. Pamela Resor, one of the bill’s sponsors.

Written Off

For every Chief Scott in the world, there's guys like this idiot, who sent this absolutely insane letter into the Springfield Republican, in response to the Aaron Brevoort-police shoot out a few days ago in Springfield:

The manner in which the Springfield police, the four state police officers
and the U.S. marshal killed Aaron J. Brevoort last week appalls me.

Perhaps even more appalling is the fact that this act of savage brutality
was praised by The Republican editorial, "In the line of duty, officers show
courage." (March 15).

How much courage does it take to surround a house with nine others and
shoot, as was reported by witnesses, up to 100 rounds at a man? The degree of
force used in this incident by the cops should be disturbing to everyone, as it
was to Brevoort's neighbors. Andres Salazar is one example who said he was
frightened for himself, his wife, and his 4-year-old grandson due to the
excessive amount of force used by the cops.

If this isn't an attempt to try an sensationalize just about all the stories within the story, I don't know what is. First of all, Salazar was talking about being frightened in general. That tends to happen when people are shooting guns and trying to waste each other in your vacinity.

Second, let's do some math here. If 10 people lined up around the house and were all shooting pistols, then that means they all used one clip. If the shoot out lasted 10-15 minutes, like eye witnesses said it did, then that means each officer fired one shot a minute. Excessive? No. Bad shot? Probably.

But then again, I'm sure this author was hoping for a 'fair' fight.

Another neighbor, Misael Sanchez stated that he counted 55 shell cases on
his property according to the same article. Sanchez commented upon the incident
as follows, "I was nervous. It's like something you see in the movies." There
was a daycare center on the third floor of the same building that Brevoort was
murdered at. According to the witnesses, it seems that the cops were not
shooting with any sort of restraint, accuracy, or concern for human life.
Imagine if one of those bullets would've strayed into that daycare, or another
child nearby; it is likely seeing as 55 shell casings were found on the property
of the neighboring home. With actions such as these we are forced to ask
ourselves who are the real gangs terrorizing our streets?

SHAUN LAMORY

This kind of ignorance just infuriates me. It doesn't make me mad, it makes me furious. For some suburbanite assclown who probably went to Hampshire College to be postulating about the excessive show of force that police used after being shot at. Brevoort was the one who opened fire first. He was the one who showed contempt for life. The police officers bravely did what they could do defuse the situation.

They found Brevoort's body with the chamber of the weapon open, an empty clip on the ground, and a full clip in his hand. He was killed while attempting to re-load his weapon. He wounded one Springfield Police officer to boot. He got his.

What blows my mind with regards to this letter and another written likely by the same idiot using a different name, is how all the facts in the case are completely and conveniently ignored so this nutbag can slam police officers for doing their job. The reason I posted this letter to begin with was because here, again, is a prime example of how idealogical narcissism is driving the folks on the left. There's a complete ignorance to what actually happened and instead a cute, reconstructed story is formulated and inserted so that they can paint 'cops' as the bad guys.

I'm willing to bet someone writes a letter to the editor talking about how Brevoort enjoyed picking flowers or petting the baby goats at Catskill Game Farm in his hometown of Catskill, NY. Someone will diefy him and turn him into a hero.

To me, he's another scumbag gone for good. The combination of technology and natural selection are a great thing.

Meaningless United Nations Fodder

I pick up the paper this morning and read that the Mother of All Paper Tigers, the United Nations, has issued a resolution that “bans all Iranian arms exports and freezes some of the financial assets of 28 Iranian individuals and entities linked to Iran's military and nuclear agencies.”

Oooh. The mullahs in Tehran must be quaking in their decidedly anti-Western garb.

This reminds me a lot of the last several years in which the toothless United Nations issued resolution after resolution designed to influence and pressure Saddam Hussein into compliance. For those who employ revisionist history about American “unilateralism” in Iraq and are in desperate need of a history lesson, here is a PARTIAL LIST of United Nations resolutions (courtesy, ironically of the “Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq” - thanks, guys, for helping me make my point):

1518 (24 November 2003)
1511 (16 October 2003)
1500 (14 August 2003)
1490 (3 July 2003)
1483 (22 May 2003)
1476 (24 April 2003)
1472 (28 March 2003)
1454 (30 December 2002)
1447 (4 December 2002)
1443 (25 November 2002)
1441 (8 November 2002) – the big one
1409 (14 May 2002) - note: "Extends the oil-for-food programme by six months," (this is my personal favorite. Kofi Annan’s cronies must have been running low on cash and apparently not skimming enough money off the top)
1382 (29 November 2001)
1360 (3 July 2001)
1352 (1 June 2001)
1330 (4 December 2000)
1302 (8 June 2000)
1284 (17 December 1999)
1281 (10 December 1999)
1280 (3 December 1999)
1275 (19 November 1999)
1266 (4 October 1999)
1242 (21 May 1999)
1210 (24 November 1998):
1205 (5 November 1998)
1194 (9 September 1998
1175 (19 June 1998)
1158 (25 March 1998)
1154 (2 March 1998)
1153 (20 February 1998)
1143 (4 December 1997)
1137 (12 November 1997)
1134 (23 October 1997)
1129 (12 September 1997)
1115 (21 June 1997)
1111 (4 June 1997)
1060 (12 June 1996)
1051 (27 March 1996)
986 (14 April 1995)
949 (15 October 1994)
899 (4 March 1994)
833 (27 May 1993)
806 (5 February 1993)
778 (2 October 1992)
773 (26 August 1992)
715 (11 October 1991)
712 (19 September 1991)
707 (15 August 1991)
706 (15 August 1991)
705 (15 August 1991)
700 (17 June 1991
699 (17 June 1991):
692 (20 May 1991)
689 (9 April 1991)
688 (5 April 1991)
687 (3 April 1991)
686 (2 March 1991)
685 (31 January 1991)

For those of you reading this who did not get Carpal Tunnel Syndrome or fall asleep from scrolling all the way down the list of U.N. resolutions on Iraq, you’ll note that aside from the meaningless nature of U.N. resolutions, the biggest threat to global warming is all of the trees that had to be cut down to print all of this worthless garbage.

Ahmadinejad, the (gulp) elected leader of Iran, may be crazy (see his wonderful list of quotes, just on Israel) but he’s not stupid. He can hold out as long as he wants against the most impotent and meaningless group since supporters of McCain-Feingold vowed to clean up the “corrupting influence of money on politics.”

So what to do? The only thing that Ahmadinejad will understand is a massed invasion force at his borders. Unfortunately, while the United States and a few non-cowardly allies could do just that, our international credibility has taken a hit over the invasion of Iraq and the reasons for it as viewed by those who employ revisionist history. And for any of those who are interested in a little legislative lesson, let’s have a look at a few Democrats who voted for the for H.J. Res. 114, the joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq after the American public, and consequently, our legislative bodies, got frustrated beyond belief with United Nations inaction, corruption and bumbling:

Biden (D-DE), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea (but let’s not forget that he voted for it before he voted against it)
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea

Interesting list.

Let’s see how that plays out in the general election.But back to my point. The United Nations can issue call of the meaningless resolutions it wants, and the Ayatollahs and Mullahs in Tehran will just fall over laughing. And Ahmadinejad will be strengthened.

You U.N. bureaucrats just keep contributing to global warming by cutting down all of those trees for your toothless resolutions. When you are serious about doing something about Iran, then you can call the United States. As long as we don’t have 535 generals running our military, then maybe something might get done.

I Am My Own Worst Problem

I have got to stop doing this.

My Saturday mornings usually begin calm and peaceful. I savor my first cup of French roast coffee, delighted by the fact that I don't have to rush off to work. Ahhhh.

Then, it happens.

Like a heroin addict reaching for the needle that I know will harm me, I pick up the Washington Post and steel myself for the latest steaming pile of dung disguised as balanced reporting. This posting will be short, but I often feel like Don Quixote, tilting windmills and railing against the obvious media bias that only I can see.

To wit, today's headlines that appear above the fold are:

Detainee Alleges Abuse in CIA Prison: (Irritable Elephant note: I don't care if
they hung you by your toenails. If you end up in Gitmo, odds are that you'd like
to fly a plane into an office building in Washington. Call Nancy Pelosi -
collect - and I'm sure she'll find some ACLU lawyer to represent you).

At Walter Reed, Bush Offers and Apology - accompanied by a photo of the President shaking hands with a poor, unfortunate solider with and artificial arm. (Irritable Elephant note: this is exploitative photojournalism. You could as easily have show the President at his press conference at Walter Reed. And is the President REALLY responsible for the abhorrent conditions that our brave veterans face? Or are there about 1,000 levels between him and those two are truly responsible?).

Ex-Partner of Giuliani May Face Charges: (Irritable Elephant note: The headline is NOT "Bernard Kerik May Face Charges." Just another chance to take a swipe at the Republican Party).

Is this media bias? Let's examine what is BELOW THE FOLD and yet still merits front-page attention:

Rock Creek Fish Head Home - really? Will there be a party? Can I come?

Iraqis United Behind Heroine on Arab 'Idol'" - This could not possibly be a positive story about the plight of Iraqis. This must be some mistake.

Housing Crisis Knocks Loudly in Michigan - Some bla bla bla about foreclosures. I don't really give a damn.

Above the fold: REPUBLICANS ARE THE DEVIL!! HIDE YOUR CHILDREN!!

Below the fold: meaningless drivel and pop culture crap.

I am personally torn between canceling my weekend subscription to the Post (lowering by blood pressure) and keeping it as fodder to prove the glaring, menacing media bias against which this Don Quixote will continue to rail.

Where are you, Sancho Panza? Will you join me?

Pelosi To Visit Syria

Nancy Pelosi really does think she's President.

"WASHINGTON (AP) - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will visit Syria, a country President Bush has shunned as a sponsor of terrorism, despite
being asked by the administration not to go.

"In our view, it is not the right time to have these sort of high- profile
visitors to Syria," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters Friday.

Pelosi arrived in Israel on Friday in what is her second fact-finding trip
to the Middle East since taking over leadership in the House in January.

Her repeat trip, an indication she plans to play a role in foreign policy,
is also a direct affront to the administration, which says such diplomatic
overtures by lawmakers can do more harm than good....."

Syria's more than welcome to keep her, too.

Pension Piggies

This certainly won't be the last hike. Here piggy, piggy!

The Massachusetts Board of Retirement agreed yesterday to hike pensions of
about eight of the 17 active and retired college presidents who asked for the
increases to mirror a boost that former University of Massachusetts president
William Bulger won in court.

In November, the Supreme Judicial Court
boosted Bulger's annual pension by $17,000, to $196,000, after factoring in his
housing allowance. State pensions are calculated based on a percentage of the
average of a worker's top three earning years before retirement.
The 17 other
college presidents had asked that their housing allowance be counted as salary
in calculating their pension.

"We made the decision based on the Bulger decision, which said housing
allowance can and should be factored into a pension," said state Treasurer
Timothy Cahill, who chairs the board.
The pension board agreed to set a
retroactive date of July 2002 to begin factoring in the housing allowance.
That's when the board was first notified about the issue.

About 8 of the 17 presidents retired after July 2002 and will be eligible
for the higher pensions.
Among the former or active college presidents who
requested an increase is former Holyoke Community College president David
Bartley, who asked for a $12,000 increase of his $138,000 annual pension.
Bartley retired in 2004.

Not to be crass here, but why is it Treasurer Tim Cahill is a complete and total pussy about everything he's involved with? If Cahill wants to be Governor someday, and let's be honest, if Deval Patrick continues on the road he's on, he may have a shot at the Donk nomination in 2010, then he should step up to the plate for the tax payers and put his foot down. That would make a statement. He should file a counter suit to this or do SOMETHING other than roll over and scream "uncle!!!!"

As for Billy Bulger.. how the feds haven't caught him or jailed him yet is completely beyond me. No one has done more to spit in the face of tax payers than Bulger. Not Dukakis, not King, not that cross-eyed vegtable Tommy Taxes or anyone. It goes to show how backwards your state is when someone like Bulger can get away with what he's gotten away with.

Why the MassGOP hasn't been, isn't, and perhaps will never be all over this, is a tragedy.

The Health Care "Crisis", Insured Stupidity, et all

Why is health care so expensive? Paradoxically, it’s because it’s so cheap! We are grossly over-insured when it comes to health care. This is largely due our managing to shift the cost of our health insurance to others (employers and the government). We perceive a “free lunch”; so why not make it steak and lobster? But there is no “free lunch”, there never is.

Can you imagine the cost of auto insurance if it had to cover our vehicles as comprehensively as our health insurance covers our bodies? It would have to cover routine maintenance, fuel costs, minor repairs, all normal wear and tear, on top of any catastrophic damage. And how well would we care for our cars if insurance paid for all of these things? What would happen to the cost of an oil change if we were all free to demand synthetic oil and super premium filters for a mere $15 out-of-pocket co-pay?

I’ll bet you could never sell such a stupid idea to your employer. Only the government could push such an economically ignorant plan. Of course this was a logical response at its inception to another stupid government plan, Wage & Price controls. Since employers couldn’t raise wages to attract talented people, when the IRS ruled that employer provided health care insurance was tax deductible, employers turned to this form of Other Compensation. Now they’re stuck with it and face the prospect of being forced farther down this road with plans like Mitt Romney’s, requiring them to provide it whether they want to or not.

I talked to a friend yesterday, who has been without health insurance for some time. What strikes him as particularly surreal is his doctor’s inability to determine what amount he owes him for his services in cash on the day of service. He has no idea what the drugs he prescribes, the procedures he recommends, or the tests he requests, will cost my buddy. He can’t even price his own services. He is utterly clueless about the cost structure of his industry, and has little incentive to find out. The consumer can’t shop around, because the system is so dysfunctional.

I'd also like to touch on the “right” to health care. I know several newly minted physicians. One of my best friend’s sister is getting ready to start her residency requirements. I’ve met her roommates and classmates, aspiring doctors all. They are all superlative people. I’ve never met a better group of people. By what “right” do we propose to take the fruits of their long years of sacrifice and dedication to education? Don’t they have a right to the well deserved benefits accruing to their astronomical investment of time, effort and money? Do we really think these intelligent people will not respond to having their services hijacked in the name of manufactured “Rights” by those unwilling and unable to do what they do? Anyone capable of becoming a doctor is capable of becoming just about anything else they might choose. Creating a powerful disincentive can only be counterproductive in the long run.

The latest wrinkle in this long sad tale is the “New” idea of socialized medicine. The same people that have screwed health care up now use its being screwed up as justification to further screw it up. You know, because the government is just so efficient at running things like education, mail delivery, issuing licenses, and all the other many wonderful things they do. To paraphrase Dr. Thomas Sowell, “Why do those that think health care is expensive now think it will somehow be cheaper after we add a layer of government bureaucracy to it?”

Give individuals the money and access to health insurance. Then they are the paying customers. If an insurance company gives poor service, consumers can take their business to another insurance company. If a doctor charges too much, they can shop around. If the consumer demand existed for up front pricing, it would be available. Suddenly a $5,000 deductible doesn’t sound out of line, does it? Maybe if we had to shell out the $1,000 for a MRI, we’d be more amenable to the $300 CT Scan instead. If we all had to pay for our own insurance, the incentives would straighten things out in pretty short order. If health insurance worked like home owner’s insurance or car insurance, everything else would start making sense, too. The answer isn’t more government. The answer isn’t forcing employers to absorb the costs. The answer isn’t to confiscate the services of doctors. The answer is to return the costs and responsibilities to the consumer and let the magic of the invisible hand make things right again.

Frankie Keough Gets Three Years

Frankie Keough was sentenced to three years yesterday. That's right, three year for swindling an entire agency for nearly a decade.

As one of the best-known public figure caught in a federal corruption dragnet in Springfield, Keough pleaded guilty in January to conspiracy, extortion, mail fraud, witness tampering and perjury charges linked to his tenure at Friends of the Homeless Inc., which runs two shelters in Springfield.

In an apology moments before Ponsor issued the sentence, Keough expressed a mix of anguish and self-contempt.

"I've asked myself how I arrived in a place like this," said Keough, who was jailed in August 2005 after admitting bail violations. "Quite frankly, I don't have an answer," he added.

After getting dozens of letters in jail from friends and former supporters, Keough, a college football star and former five-term city councilor, said could not bring himself to read them.

"They would just remind me of how grossly I have failed," he said.

It may be the understatement of the decade.

In perhaps the most ridiculous 'legal' basis for a slap on the wrist sentence, Judge Ponser said the following:

Ponsor also expressed concern that Keough's wife and son had struggled during his 20-month absence.

Defense lawyer Daniel D. Kelly of Springfield cited an unspecified medical condition of Keough's son, Griffin, while asking that his client be sentenced to home confinement.

Not only did he steal thousands upon millions of dollars from the HOMELESS agency in the city, he resorted to petty theft too, stealing mattresses, TV's, appliances, etc. Who gives leniency to the people whom he stole from?

Only in Springfield...


By the way, on a completely unrelated and utterly random note.... Frankie Keough barrs a striking resemblence to WWE Smackdown! Superstar Fit Finlay:


I'd bet, in a fight, Finlay would win. By a lot.

Hillary's Vagina v. Grumpy/Primped/Gigolo

Tony Blankley, on the inevitability of President Hillary Rodham Clinton:

With every passing week it becomes more likely that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic Party nominee for president. This thought, alone, should provide the strongest possible motivation to the Bush Administration and the Washington Republicans to get their acts together so that the eventual Republican nominee for president doesn't start the general election campaign in too deep a hole.

That's probably not going to happen. When at any time in the past two years has the Bush Administration had its act together? The congress are too busy trying to run away to ever notice Clinton moving behind them within length of a telephone chord.

The polls that show half the country saying they won't vote for Hillary should be discounted. At the election, the choice will not be Hillary or not Hillary -- it will be Hillary or someone else. And that is what the campaign is about. ...

Moreover, Hillary's strengths are not yet as appreciated as they will be. Don't get me wrong, personally I find her and her candidacy detestable as the worst form of unprincipled, ruthless, nihilistic, mud-throwing demagogic politics. But for the Democratic Party electorate (and some Independents and soft Republicans) her apparent strengths will become more persuasive.

For example, the same 'strengths' that the donk congressional candidates had this year, like, uh, not being Republicans. Even more, she's the polar opposite of George W. Bush.
And, you know, Clintons always, um, pound Bushes.

Currently she suffers by the media's focus on her lack of spontaneity, charm or pleasant voice - particularly when compared with Obama and, to some extent, Edwards. But charm is not the only path to the American voter. Richard Milhouse Nixon won more national elections than any politician in our history (two vice presidents, three presidential nominations and two presidencies - three if you count the stolen 1960 election against Kennedy). He didn't have any charm - but he was smart, shrewd, highly political, hard working and ruthless. Sometimes the voters are looking for what they think is competence rather than a love affair.

Well, Tony, you should triple underline 'ruthless'. Hillary's a lot like Nixon, but the biggest difference between them is whereas Nixon's ruthlessness was incompetent, Hillary and the rest of the Clinton Workshop are, well, well oiled to say the least. That machine ran roughshod over every scandal pursuer and rings around the poor, stupid, hapless GOP for eight nearly intolerable years.

And no doubt, she's 'nowhere near as charming as her husband' and 'has all of her husband's slickness and none of the salesmanship that allowed him to get away with it,' she's got two huge advantages:

1.) A Vagina

2.) She's Not a Republican

The first will be so mind-blowingly intimidating to the second, that whoever the 'he' is that gets to face her, he won't DARE think of waging the kind of campaign she's guaranteed to. The media will do plenty to insulate her as well. It won't matter what he says or does; he's going to be gobbled up by her cult of personality, and the overwhelming power of her preemptive coronational procession. It doesn't matter who it is. It doesn't matter if it's jowly flavor of the week Fred Thompson. It doesn't matter if it's primped as a poodle Mitt Romney. It doesn't matter if it's Rudy Giuliani, male gigolo. Just like that Rick Lazio did in their 2000 Senate race, they'll spend months needlessly justifying or apologizing for the fact that they, too, don't have vaginas.

The Center Right will stay home because they'll just be frustrated. "Independents" will be dazzled by her 'competence', her hand-waving, and unmatched Bush hatred. Oh and like here in Massachusetts with Deval Patrick's blackness, they'll swoon for her, well the novelty of electing a woman to the presidency. The Cook-wing of the Donk party will be rustling themselves out of tequila comas and dragging themselves out of their organic gardens to exact the ultimate revenge for the 200 election.

Congressional Republicans need to stop treating the base of their party like they have AIDS. If they continue on the path they're on, the 2008 election is over. Period.

If Reagan could be resurrected or genetically cloned, he'd have a shot at the Vagina in '08, but none of the actual candidates, as of right now, really has a prayer. They don't have a vagina. Voters are that shallow and the Clintons will play right to it. They're the Washington Generals to Hillary's Harlem Globetrotters. If the movie Rocky were real, it would be like what would happen if Rocky faced Apollo creed for real. They're beaten. The media's playing coy with her for now, but give it some time and they'll prop her fallopian tubes up on a mantle an worship them. For now, These guys have all been beaten, and they don't even know it.

Well, McCain probably does....

These idiots need to wake up.

And the Train Keeps On a Rollin'

The Deval Patrick administration LITERALLY can't get through a day without something ridiculous happening. This was in today's Globe.

Two commissioners on the state's quasi judicial labor relations board are accusing Governor Deval Patrick's chief labor aide of interfering with the agency on cases involving two unions that endorsed Patrick and donated heavily to his gubernatorial campaign.

The two commissioners, Paul T. O'Neill and Hugh L. Reilly, asserted in interviews with the Globe that Suzanne M. Bump made an inappropriate call about a case involving the Boston Teachers Union and pressured the commission to approve a pending petition by Service Employees International Union, Local 1199.

Of course, Bump and company denied it.

"There is not a single instance of my telling them to make a decision on anything," said Bump, a former legislator from Braintree who served as Patrick's liaison with labor during the campaign.

In late January, O'Neill and Reilly said, Bump made an irate phone call to commission chairman John F. Jesensky after the agency made its initial ruling that the Boston Teachers Union was violating the law with its threats to call a strike. They said she complained to him that she had not been given notice before the decision was made in the case.

Bump "clearly communicated her extreme displeasure, and we clearly got the message that she was unhappy," O'Neill said in an interview this week. Jesensky, who was also appointed by Romney, declined to comment, but O'Neill and Reilly said the chairman briefed them on the call.

About a week later, O'Neill and Reilly said, during a review of the commission's budget, Bump expressed strong support for a petition pending before the commission by Service Employees International Union, Local 1199, which spent more than $600,000 last year in support of Patrick's candidacy.

Under state law, the Labor Relations Commission is an independent, quasi judicial panel that resolves labor disputes and enforces state labor laws. The commission falls within Bump's agency for budgetary reason, but under statute is "in no respect subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

The two commissioners said Bump's discussion of the SEIU contract and the teachers dispute constituted "inappropriate" interference. Reilly said it also raises "ethical improprieties." O'Neill said the agency plans to take their complaint to the governor.

The Deval Patrick Administration is truly the gift that keeps on giving.

"Negro Magic"?

One must wonder if the following montage of headlines is worth it to Barack Obama to become Hillary Clinton's vice president:

Obama's kin owned slaves - A genealogical report finds two slave owners among the candidate's U.S. ancestors (on his white mother's side of the family, natch)

Is Obama the new 'black'? - Barack Obama is a rising star. He's a powerful speaker and a gifted writer. He is the only African American serving in the U.S. Senate. But is he black?

That's what New York Daily News columnist Stanley Crouch asked last month, and his answer was decidedly "no." No, Crouch wasn't just employing the old "blacker than thou" canard. Nor was he concerned with the fact that Obama was raised by his white mother. Rather, he was treating blackness not just as a racial (shared biology) identity but as an ethnic (shared historical experience) one. And isn't that what the switch of terms from "black" to "African American" was all about?...

What Crouch is arguing is that what the majority of black Americans share is their ancestors' experience as human chattel, brought to these shores in the grips of chains. Slavery and segregation not only forged a rigid racial line between black and white but created a shared ethnic experience. For Crouch, the fact that Obama's father — whom Obama met only once — was a black Kenyan who came to the U.S. to study at Harvard and the University of Hawaii removes him from the traditional black American narrative.

Author and essayist Debra Dickerson agrees. She believes that much of Obama's popularity among whites stems from the fact that his family wasn't part of the slave experience and therefore elicits no feelings of historical guilt. "The swooning from white people is a paroxysm of self-congratulation," she said.

Come on, folks. Slavery ended almost 145 years ago. We stopped the whole stupidity of segregation 43 years ago. Unfortunately, the oppression of black Americans continues even today, in the form of self-imposed (leftist) racist pathology that can't be let go of or left in the rear view mirror and is about as relevant to today's black Americans as the Norman conquest of England is to their white countrymen. As the old saying goes: "You can't go forward unless you first stop looking back." In terms of race, this is akin to advocating for the holocaust to the political left. After all, if Donks starting doing that, we might actually become a colorblind society in which the content of one's character matters more than the color of one's skin, and black voters might start thinking for themselves instead of believing most of those tasteless anti-Republican/anti-conservative lies, and the Democrats might lose their iron clad grip hold on Afro-Americans and the national political viability that goes with it. And we certainly can't have THAT.

Historical guilt". Would be better described as "collective guilt." No, worse than that - racial guilt. Whites "swoon" over Barack Obama because all whites are racists because some whites inflicted slavery on some blacks in centuries past. But Obama isn't "really black" because his ancestors were genuinely "African" and not "African-American," never slaves but rather....well, never slaves, anyway. At least not in the sense of being owned by white people. And because he's, you know, an "Oreo". Or "zebra". His blood done be pluted by honky cracker genes.

Come on, folks. Don't look at me like that. I'm just trying to amplify the spirit of how the political left, which we all know, could never be racist, is talking about Obama. The dialogue is cluttered with mindless chit chat over the not so subtle but consistent theme:

TIME: Is Obama Black Enough?

LA Times: Some wonder: Is Obama black enough?

Maybe it's me, but I don't think I could possibly think of a more blatantly and perhaps more patently and blanket racist question than these. Imagine the furor over a conservative asking such a question!

How, aside from being bi-racial, is Barack Obama "not black enough"? One would have to figure that it had to do with something more than not being the decedent of a slave right? Is it because, he's well, eloquent, highly charismatic and uh, educated? Do black men forfeit their supposed 'blackness' when they drop their victim hood and do something with their lives?

Stop it! Stop looking at me like I'm a royal jerk-face. I'm not the guy saying Obama isn't 'black enough'. To me, it's just the usual overtly racist crap that flies from the left, but to them, it's a real 'test of faith' so to speak. And since libs can get away with saying ANYthing, that would explain this next quote, in which David Ehrenstein of the L.A. Times gives this crypto-Klan rhetoric an astonishing and appalling label:

As ever carbon-based life form on this planet surely knows, Barack Obama, the junior Democratic senator from Illinois, is running for president. Since making his announcement, there has been no end of commentary about him in all quarters — musing over his charisma and the prospect he offers of being the first African American to be elected to the White House.

But it's clear that Obama also is running for an equally important unelected office, in the province of the popular imagination — the "Magic Negro."

WAIT WHAT!? "Magic Negro"!? "Magic Negro". If Ann Coulter ever used that phrase we'd be picking her off the bottom of the Connecticut River. I can't think of a GOP member who would touch it with ten feet long tongs? It's too nuclear. It would end his or her political career in a heartbeat. The very same Left that has impunity to toss off such racial epithets would fall upon that hapless pachyderm and strip every last speck of PR meat from his/her bones in a self-righteous feeding frenzy of hyper-moralistic indignation. Anyone on the right using the term would have 'revealed their inherent racism' but a liberal doing that kind of stuff is, well, who cares.

Me, I figure Barack Obama is "black enough" based on his hyper-NeoBolshevik voting record. The Left will like him because he's good at doing what he's told. That's sort of what the left likes out of their minority "constituents"). However, he's really brought nothing to national politics and the only reason he's running for the Oval Office so early in his career is because he has some incredibly unique political traits all rolled up into a nice Afro-American package. Oddly enough, even that isn't enough to even the folks who should support him more than anyone.

But it will be enough to get him on the '08 Donk ticket with Mrs. Clinton, who will need all the "Negro magic" she can get.

Perky Katie being poked for not being 'nice' enough to John Edwards

CBS's Katie Couric has come under scrutiny after her interview with John and Elizabeth Edwards. She apparently wasn’t nice enough. I was impressed Couric actually asked some actual questions.

Couric challenged their decision by asking pointed, difficult questions.

J. Edwards feigned shock when Couric suggested he was putting work before family. Work is what he did as lawyer. Being President wouldn’t be work, it would be service.

The women of the View seemed very impressed by this obviously rehearsed response. If Edwards doesn’t think he will be “working” as President he definitely has no business in the office.

Couric asked the hard questions and she put the dilemma in proper perspective.

The View perspective: Couric faced the same situation and she kept working.

ROSIE, JOY and ELIZABETH: Couric was not on the campaign trail- she was a newscaster with flexibility in her job. She was home every day with her family, supporting her husband. Her husband, who actually had the cancer, was with his kids. Couric was not the person who was going to die.

The women then suggest that McCain’s skin cancer and Giuliani’s prostate cancer are the equivalent of E. Edwards’s metastasized cancer. They suggest that there is a double standard at play because people don’t have concerns about the men in the race that actually had cancer.

Remember when Rudy got out of the Senate race when he was diagnosed because he didn’t know how his cancer story was going to play out. Now he knows his cancer is “cured”. I would bet good money that if Rudy’s cancer came back, he would be out.

McCain has had skin cancer. No one has suggested the occasional removal of skin cancer will result in his untimely death. There is no double standard here. Do not compare apples to oranges.

In the end, the Couric interview was simply good practice for the John and Elizabeth Edwards. After all, Joy observed, the republicans are much more insensitive than Katie Couric could ever be.

Romney Taps Into College Students for Dollars

Romney seems to be doing quite an impressive job of tapping into the rather sizable College Republican population in the country by bringing them onto the campaign as fundraisers and allowing them to keep up to and in some cases more, than 8% commission on the total money they raise. Pretty innovative stuff.

BOSTON (AP) — A millionaire thanks to his work as a venture capitalist, Mitt Romney is acutely aware of the motivating power of money. His presidential campaign hopes it will have a similar effect on college students, which is why it's offering them a cut of their fundraising.

Participants in "Students for Mitt" will get 10 percent of the money they raise for the campaign beyond the first $1,000. While candidates often offer professional fundraisers commissions up to 8 percent, campaign experts believe the Massachusetts Republican is the first to do so with the legion of college students who have historically served as campaign volunteers.

"For the kids that want to get involved in a political campaign and they don't want to spend their summer painting houses, they can help the campaign and themselves at the same time," said Romney spokesman Kevin Madden.

For more on the program, read here.

Romney has been aggressively lobbying for the support of America's Conservative College Students for some time now, paying nearly $25,000 to ship as many as he could down to CPAC in Washington, D.C. earlier this month to take part in the annual straw poll. Romney won the poll with 21 percent of the vote.

Governor Patrick Coming to Western Mass To Hammer Legislators

In an effort to turn up the heat on state legislators who aren't supporting taxes on new businesses, Deval Patrick's going to be touring the state having more of those silly town meeting moonbat pow-wows to push his new policy. In fact, he's planning on 'suggesting' names of some legislators who need to be 'lobbied' according to Mass Live. That'll go over like a fart in church.

"At the outset, we believe that our supporters and supporters of these ideas ought to be talking to their own legislators," Patrick said late yesterday afternoon. "As we do our own polling and we develop a sense of who is supportive and who is on the fence and who's elsewhere, then we'll be targeting particular legislators - you bet."

Patrick said he hopes legislators don't resent it.

Call me crazy, but I think they will. Just a tad.

Petrolati said yesterday it would be counterproductive to effectively raise taxes on businesses, especially when the state's economy is slowing.

"What I'm hearing is that people don't want new taxes," Petrolati said.

For once in my life, I agree with Tommy Petrolati. Hell is chilly tonight. While Patrick is partly right that many legislators are out of touch with their districts, on this particular issue (business taxes), most aren't, which is a political anomaly in this state.

Really though, what happened to "Together" We Can? Deval's made himself enough enemies in these early months. It probably wouldn't serve him well to make more.

Moonbats in Full Flight

Deval Patrick's new web site has garnered a little criticism over the past 48 hours or so, but for anyone curious as to how this web site was any different from his campaign web site.. well, uh....

Yes, everyone, 9-11 never happened, at least according to the 'community activists' on Deval Patrick's web site. Don't believe me, follow this link.

Secretary of State Bill Galvin has even chimed in with his feelings on the matter here. Apparently the web site has been publishing your address, phone number and all sorts of personal information. If the left hates the Patriot Act so much, they must be having a hemorrhage over this one!

It's that time of year where the moon bats like to spread 'em!...... The wings that is.

Speech Codes for Professors?

Rarely does a day go by when we aren’t assaulted by some story of censorship on a college or university campus or even in general by the left. Just last week the Western Massachusetts Republicans had their Calvin Coolidge Banquet interrupted by a bomb threat.

Where do we draw the line? For those of us that think free speech is an okay thing, even when it means I have to listen to someone whose opinion I may detest, it’s a difficult question to grapple with. When it comes to students being able to voice their opinions on a college or university campus, there is no line and nor should there be. However, what about professors, especially those employed at state universities? Should we maybe institute a litmus test?

Many people in academia these days subscribe to the views of Herbert Marcuse, who would say that it’s okay to censor views that are deemed ‘oppressive’ (see Conservative). For Example, Marcusianists would argue that largely conservative religious views regarding safe sex should be censored because they function as a repressive social mechanism to sexual minorities.

Last October, there was a batch of students at Columbia University who charged the stage of an anti-Illegal Immigration speaker, claiming that he had zero right to speak. Leaders of the group said later on Fox News’s Hannity & Colmes that the speaker was ‘spewing hate’ and that their actions were justified because the speaker’s views were unacceptable.

Depending on the circumstances, censorship can either be a heckler’s veto (like it was in the case I just mentioned) and other times it’s through more official channels. Despite their rhetoric, College and University campuses are becoming notorious for their speech codes. Prohibited speech is really anything that supposedly make someone, especially minorities, fell uncomfortable. There are even some campuses where certain jokes are banned!

Marcusian regulations would say these speech codes are a-okay and even in most cases beneficial because they allow minorities the freedom to express their views instead. Full-fledged free speech cannot exist they claim, because oppressive views might be instilled in minorities and they will, as a result, be intimidated to the degree that they will fall silent. Most levelheaded, common sense people see the problem with these views and they rarely hold up in court.

But really, what about professors? Students don't just naturally behave this way. They have to learn it from somewhere and many times today, their world views are spoon fed to them by a decidedly liberal academic elite.

The University campus should be an entirely open marketplace of ideas and debate. Some of my best friends in college were professed Democrats whom I rarely agreed with anything on, but found ourselves to be quite a dangerous beer pong team. Former State Representative and 2001 Mayoral Candidate Paul Caron was an ardent Democrat. His roommate at Springfield College, few people know, was Craig Shirley, who is one of Washington D.C.’s most pre-eminent power brokers. Shirley’s clients include Ann Coulter, Zell Miller, and just about every major Republican think tank in Washington. He’s an executive board member at the Patrick Henry Center as well as the American Conservatives Union, the same group that puts on the annual conservative Woodstock known as “CPAC”. Imagine what those conversations must have been like?

Competing ideologies amongst students on campus should be welcome. However, there should be some ground rules in place. In the 1950’s, Nobel laureate Friedrich Hayek said that the constitution of liberty that professors who oppose the principles upon which their position rests should forfeit their position. He gave an example of a communist, relevant to the time he was writing, who advocated for the overthrow of the American system and the imprisonment of the enemies of the Proletariat, including his fellow intellectuals. According to him, if such an individual were given power, they would send a majority of their coworkers and the rest of us as well, to the gulag or to the gallows.

Perhaps most importantly, Hayek said that ‘tolerance shouldn’t include the advocacy of intolerance’. A professor’s job depends on the existence of free society and it, under no circumstances can or should advocate for the destruction of that society. The constitution of a free society should not be a suicide pact or the blessings of liberty become the means of its undoing and we’re all worse off in the long run

Understanding Hayek’s argument is important. There is a huge difference between believing that certain change, even radical change, to the status quo is necessary and believing that the freedom one has to speak should be unconditionally denied to all who disagree.

Radical Islam poses a similar threat as communism did decades ago. If in power, its adherents would silence dissent and kill many dissenters. Should professors with this view forfeit their right to tenure, a privilege dependent upon Western ideals of tolerance and free inquiry? This discussion is difficult because it strikes at the heart of many of the ideas we hold dear. We didn't like it when it involved communists and, to our credit, we still don't like it today. But it's a discussion we must have nonetheless.