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.

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.

How Modern Liberals Think

Great lecture on Modern Liberal thinking. The best part is his commentary on Flushing Korans Down the Toilet. How does that work? Enjoy.

"Define What 'Is', is..."

When I Use a Word, It Means Precisely What I Want It To Mean. Nothing More. Nothing Less."--Humpty Dumpty

If you search for the name 'Jessica Lynch', you're going to find the words hero or heroine plastered all through the top 10 results. you will find the word heroine or hero prominent in the description of the top ten results. I support the troops, the war in Iraq and the broader conflict in the War on Terror, but could someone explain to me please, why Jessica Lynch is a hero(ine)?If getting captured and getting save now meet the criteria for 'above and beyond' duty? What ever happened to those guys who had no regard for their own livelihood or safety? I forgot. Those were the guys that saved Jessica Lynch. Who are they again? Heroism just ain't what it used to be I guess.

In fact, so many words in our language have been so watered down and genuinely raped of their meaning, it's hard to take the concepts behind them seriously. Once upon a time, the words we spoke held great meaning. Now, they're either casually misapplied or watered down to the point where they lose their original meaning entirely. I guess speaking ain't what it used to be.

Remember when 'Bigot' and 'Racist' used to mean people that held an irrational hatred of others based on the color of their skin or their ethnicity? They were truly despicable people. Today however, it generally means you don’t agree with someone of another race. You’re against affirmative action? Shut up, you’re a racist. Even more confounding; only white people can be racists and bigots. The hateful language of Louis Farrakhan is perfectly acceptable; since he’s black, he can’t be racist or bigoted.

Gay used to mean happy, light, frolicking in the meadow and the like. But this is a word that has been twisted beyond recognition. It's so bad, that if you use the thesaurus in MS Word, there aren't any other alternatives by way of synonyms. Now, it means homosexuality. My point is not to argue about homosexuality, but to point out the twisting of the language. Even the geniuses at Microsoft in Washington can’t find a way to deal with the unbelievable versatility of the word gay.

Rape used to have a meaning, too. It was the horrible act of forcing one's self on a woman without her consent, usually employing force or the threat of physical violence. Most women used to know immediately when they were raped. Now consensual marital relations are argued to be a form of rape. If you've had sex with your wife after a few, you're technically committing rape. Some young women now discover they’ve been raped only after being informed by counselors weeks after the fact. Incredible job of a word trying to hit a moving concept.

Child abuse used to mean the cruel mistreatment of children without regard to their welfare. Now it can be smoking in their presence or giving them a spanking. In fact, its current meaning has become so elastic that no two state agencies here in Massachusetts can seem to agree on what they should use for a definition. Like porn, the state bureaucrats 'know it when they, uh, see it'. I guess it just depends on who you draw and when.

Poverty used to mean you couldn't’t earn enough to support yourself. Poor people didn’t have food, or phones, or cable TV. They didn't have Doctors, heating in the winter or A/C in the summer. Now, 'poverty' is applied to people who have cable and a TV, Microwaves, automobiles, housing, heating, A/C, cell phones, free medical care, some day care, plenty of job training and they even get some meals free with food stamps. Thanks, LBJ.

Jeez, even being 'rich' is different these days. It used to mean you had money which pretty much did all your business for you, instead of you doing all your business for it. Now, rich people are just whomever so happens to have, or have the appearance of having, a greater income than yourself. My parents made a good living in Connecticut, but I guess the government thought they were rich, because between state and federal income taxes and social security they'll never see, more than half of their paychecks were confiscated. That's before they contributed to health insurance and retirement. Go figure; they were rich, but they couldn't have ever scraped up enough money to leave town.

Nazis, once upon a time, were a bunch of idiots who thought exterminating Jews and conquering Europe was a good idea. Now, a 'Nazi' is anyone that doesn't agree with you, especially if you're a Republican or conservative. Any time you talk about military power: "NAZI!" If you ever decide to run for office as a member of the GOP, just run and wait for it, because it's coming baby, with absolutely no effort on your part, either.

Ah how about Respect? It used to be something you earned by projecting a sense of integrity. You didn't demand it on anyone because you had to work for it. Now, if you don't give some douche-bag without a job, education or a clue, the courtesy normally reserved for heads of state, you're disrespecting them. Chalk up another casualty to moon-bat land which ripped and twisted a word that was just minding it's own business.

'Tolerance' meant putting up with something specific that you might not like, but isn't really worth causing a stink over. I put up with my Aunt Sis' excessively wet kisses on the cheek at Thanksgiving. Today, tolerance means you have to not only accept and embrace, you must 'celebrate' it no matter how offensive it may be to you. If you're not sanctifying it or 'celebrating' hard enough, you're intolerant. I guess the people redefining these words never had to sit next to my Aunt Sis at Thanksgiving Dinner.

The word 'lie', used to mean that you were saying something you KNEW was false. Today, if you have ever had to make a decision about something, no matter how urgent the situation may be, if you get a single teeny, tiny word wrong, you my friend, are a total 'liar'. Everything you ever have said was a lie, you can't be trusted again and friends, it goes to the fiber of who we are as Americans. That is except when you're a Democrat who perjures himself. Oaths of office mean nothing. It's amazing how this word has turned into verbal play dough.

Who could forget Misogynist? That used to involve hating and treating women poorly. Today, it means not agreeing with a 'feminist'. If you believe homemaking is alright and something you might want to consider, if you're a dude, you're a misogynist because you're lazy. If you're a woman, you're a self-loathing sellout bimbo.

And my personal favorite, 'phobias'. Remember when homosexual behavior was considered a psychological disorder? That was wrong. But now, its anyone who doesn't agree with the homosexual agenda who has the psychological disorder. Millions of Americans now need counseling. I wonder if the state will cover it? 'Xenophobia' means that you're messed up in the head if you think Illegal Immigrants should stop breaking the law. Islamophobia isn't having what Webster's Dictionary would term a 'rational fear of Islamic people" but an irrational feat of Islamic people. It's the ultimate verbal two-fer. I'm better than you and my words are bigger.

I'm sure there are more than a few things I've overlooked here, but I would like to make the main point of my argument clear: We've carelessly used hyperbolic words to get impact and emotional charge out of people, but as a result have left these words without any real power anymore. Its the 'boy who cried wolf' on repeat as someone says something and we get no response when perhaps one is needed. It breaks my heart when a woman is raped, really raped, and we pause to wait for the inevitable shading we've come to expect. If there really is someone who's profoundly racist, like a David Duke, the term racist doesn't have the sting it did long ago. Our language has become so diluted that eating chickens is now compared to the holocaust (thanks PETA freaks).

I think it's true: All the King's horses and all the king's men cannot put our language back together again.

Left Handed Tolerance: MI Congressman's Office Vandalized

Something to check out. Apparently those who vandalized the office insist that Congressman Mike Rogers (R-Michigan) has 'blood on his hands'. Oh, how childish politics are beginning to become.

For the Full Story from Mass Live, Click Here.

More Fun From Northampton #2

Those crazy folks in No-Ho are at it again...

In a love story only left wing lunatics could love, city councilors Raymond W. LaBarge and Marianne L. LaBarge are at each other's throats once again. Guess what it's about? Name calling.

Remember that thing I wrote about public officials acting like children the other day?

The bad blood between the two councilors boiled over recently after Raymond made a comment about Marianne's ethnic heritage on the radio. Marianne's brother telephoned Raymond from Georgia threatening to put him "in the grave." Raymond called the police.

The latest skirmish between the councilors began last Wednesday, when Raymond LaBarge appeared on the Bill Dwight Show. Dwight, a former city councilor, has a morning news and talk show on WHMP 1240 AM. LaBarge, the senior member of the council at 85, announced that he would run for re-election. He has represented Ward 7 for some 20 years

Oh yes, they're mad at each other because someone made fun of someone Else's nationality.

But oh, it's only to be topped by this stirring piece of statesmanship:

In that call, which LaBarge recorded and played for The Republican, Pappas can be heard telling LaBarge, "You don't ever want to see me because I'm a lot of trouble." He goes on to take issue with LaBarge speaking disrespectfully of his family and concludes, "I'll break your arms and legs. I'll put you in the grave. You're an idiot."

I truly can't wait until the baby boomers are gone.

Illegal Immigration Narcissists

I read this at GOPnews.

This weekend brought more polarization of illegal immigrants and the mainstream population. In New Bedford, a pro illegal immigrant rally came close to violence when a disabled navy veteran named Marjorie Blaha demanded to be heard regarding her opinion of illegal immigrants. After being forcibly removed from the rally Marjorie stated "I'm just angry that an American citizen has to follow the laws but those who illegally came into this country are given ... rights," she said. Police Spokesman, Captain Richard Spirlet commented that she was removed for her own safety as many illegal immigrant supporters began to gather around her. Read the story here.

Elsewhere, the Anti-Defamation League of Massachusetts announced that they were going to support illegal immigrants in the future because those who oppose their presence are “bigots”. "We fight against bigotry in all forms," Andrew Tarsy, regional director of the ADL of New England, commented. "It has become clear both in the extremist world and even in the mainstream that the conversation about immigrants is laced with bigotry." Tarsy later stated that the up-tick in the anti immigrant speech and activity would find its roots in groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. Read the story here.

So this is what Massachusetts has become – A place where brave disabled navy veterans who speak out against illegal immigrants are forced out of rallies and told to shut up. And, a place where groups like the Anti Defamation League drop you in the same category as the KKK if you have an opinion opposed to theirs regarding illegal immigrants. Are we just going to sit back and do nothing about this? If the Massachusetts Republican Party can’t win points and votes with the cards these radical liberals are playing then shame on us. Navy veteran Marjorie Blaha should be made a martyr, like Cindy Sheehan, for the cause of getting rid of illegal immigrants. When a disabled woman veteran gets bounced out of a rally for exercising her free speech it’s a clear sign - the left has gone too far. When the ADL claims that those who support enforcement of the laws regarding immigration are bigots from the KKK - the left has gone too far. People, this stuff is a homerun for us and I want to know what the Massachusetts Republican Party’s response to it is.

It's this sort of stuff that should really make every citizen worry. Not only that, but read the story about the incident. Nice job on the part of the journalist to make sure he linked the lady protesting law breakers being given rights that normal, law abiding citizens do not have, with White Supremacists. Classy.

This case, perhaps more than any other story that's hit the mainstream media, screams to us why the anchor baby law needs to be done away with. I would love to take every immigrant into this country so long as they were willing to tow their weight by paying taxes. However, that's quite clearly not reality. Illegal Immigrants use our schools but don't pay for them. They use our health care system but don't pay for it. In some places they are issued Driver's Licenses they don't pay for as well. What this case says is that now, by virtue of merely being a parent, you can't be arrested for a crime nor deported. All anyone is asking of illegals is to obey the law. Fill out the papers, submit the application, do the oath thingy, get a green card even. Nothing more, nothing less. Make some sort of effort to not completely leach off the system.

These raids and the subsequent labotomy that followed it may be the best example yet of political leftism gone completely insane. Democrats, especially here, will never do a thing about illegal immigration because they see these folks, as they do felons and other law breakers, as potential votes. To them, they're just more pigs who can pull levers. They'll race bait, turn in anyone who asks them to do their fair share into bigots or racists, all in the name of making sure these folks show up to the polls and crank the level next to the guy with a "D" next to his or her name. That's the name of the game and boy oh boy is it easy to do, especially in Massachusetts!

What disturbs me more than anything, aside from the political posturnig, is the utter selfish nature of advocates of illegal immigrants. Supporting illegals has absolutely nothing to do with winning 'equal rights' for other people, nothing to do with doing the right thing. It's about self-righteous people bowing down to the temple of themselves. It's egotism run amock.

Illegal Immigration supporters support illegal immigration because makes them feel smarter. It makes them feel more enlightened, progressive, and all other self-loving adjectives one can think of. It's about me, myself and I. They find the one semi-good or 'resembling good' thing they can find in a cesspool, champion it and put it on display as if that was reality. They've put these people on display as model parents, just looking to make an honest living, except of course, no one's really being honest here.

Just as was the case in this situation, it doesn't take long to find these examples of the exception becoming the rule all over the place in lib-land. I was in the movie theatre a few weeks ago and walked past a sign for an upcoming movie called "The Good Nazi". They frequently champion "moderate Islamists" even though there just aren't that many, or at least a number that's large enough to be considered significant. They love to find the black sheep and parade it around in that fourth grade "I Told You So" sort of manner, almost deifying it to the point where the exception becomes the rule. Ever hear "Not all Muslims are terrorists!"? Well, while that may mostly be true, but most folks that employ the tactics of terrorism are Muslims. Before long, I'm sure we'll hear glowing tales of the 'nice' cereal killer. The left needs to stop glorifying the exception to the rule and using them to create alternative realities that simply do not exist.

The next step is usually finding all the ways we're just like the wackos, no matter how basic the highlighted human function may be. "They're parents like us", "They pee standing up like us", or my favorite; "They want the same things we do". Of course they want the same things we do. They just want them for free, just like me, but the difference is, I have to pay of course. If I don't, I go to jail. This isn't a country club or a vacation spa where I, the citizen, provide multiple services for our 'guests' to take advantage of. If this is the case, then I want someone who lives here on Longmeadow Street to pay for my kid's college education. Why? Because I'm just like him!

The point of that mini-tirade was to illustrate how the left goes about transforming the bad guy into the good guy. It's being different just because it's cool to be different I guess. Now, here in Massachusetts, Illegal Immigrants are being transformed into the good guys, and this case, more particularly this story, illustrates that as well as anything. We are the bad guys. It's that superficial self loathing that makes a lefties and immigration advocates feel enlightened and brilliant. You know politics and public discourse has been bastardized when issues become an opportunity, not to discuss differences of opinion, but a chance to whip your pants down and masturbate to the greatness of yourself. That, my friends, is the issue behind illegal immigration for it's supporters. Not the tax payers, not paying your way (which is an entirely liberal concept), not any of that. It's about self-worship and a large group of human beings who never graduated from the anal phase of childhood development, loving themselves in only a way that people who never graduated from the anal phase of childhood development could.

Get the helmets kids, it's going to be a bumpy eternity.

More Fun From Northampton

Good Lord, it took me two days to find this. Truly hilarious stuff.

Ladies and Gentleman... I present to you, Irony.

"Interfaith group braves storm in climate change trek"-- Boston Globe 3/16/07

Rosie Officially Falls off the Deep End

Rosie is one gassed-out moonbat. If you didn't think she was completely nuts, read this.

NEW YORK (AP) -- Rosie O'Donnell says she began being treated for depression after the Columbine school shootings and hangs upside down for up to a half-hour a day to improve her mental state.

..."I couldn't stop crying," she said on an episode taped for ABC's "The View" and due to air Friday. "I stayed in my room. The lights were off. I couldn't get out of bed and that's when I started taking medication."

Yes, Columbine was traumatic but if it's caused her to got that loony, it makes me wonder how she copes with day to day life while the Iraq War is going on. Life sucks Rosie, get a helmet.

And she hangs herself upside down? With what? A Crane?

Depression isn't her problem. Being nuts is.

Masscahusetts Burning? Swan Compares MA to Mississippi

According to State Representative Ben Swan (D-Springfield), Massachusetts is as racist, if not more racist than Mississippi.

Swan said in a sworn statement filed in connection with the case that he once preferred the Deep South to Springfield.

"When I first moved to Springfield (in the 1950s) I wanted to go back to Mississippi because of the racist attitudes I encountered," Swan said.

Yesterday, he testified he believed there have not been equal opportunities for blacks to get elected here, due to fund-raising and networking handicaps.

I'm curious to know whether or not in Mississippi it's o.k. for public officials to not pay their taxes? In any event, the plaintiffs will rest their 'case' tomorrow. Thank the lord.

Marge Eagan: Deval Patrick Showing True "Grit"

Is it utterly impossible for Democrats to look at their own and raise an eyebrow?

In the latest 'How Dare You' piece by a member of the liberal Boston media, Margery Eagan is quick to point out all the mean-face, Republican evil-doers who also apparently hot-dogged on the job in an attempt to justify Governor Deval's recent issues. This one though, took the taco:

Perhaps you have heard about Mitt and Ann Romney’s “my family is better than your family” presidential tour, where they go on about their perfect marriage, family, teeth, hair and home? It’s nauseating, really.

I’ll take grit over Mitt and Ann in Wonderland. Any day.

'Grit'? Sure. Nothing screams 'grit' like $72,000 a year salaries for Secretaries of non-public officials, flashy curtains, Cadillacs, or calls on fancy cell phones regarding favors for former employers. When I think of those things, I think of ripped blue jeans, beards and flannel shirts.

And yes, Large Marge, some people have families that aren't completely screwed up. Are you jealous or something?

The "Let's Lose Now Caucus"

I love the National Review. A great read from them on House Democrats.

Ward Representation Trial Week 2

SPRINGFIELD - School Committee member Marjorie J. Hurst testified today that backing failed mayoral candidate Thomas M. Ashe in 2005 boosted her political career in by exposing her to more white voters.

Hurst, taking the stand in the second week of a voting rights trial in U.S. District Court, said Ashe's lopsided loss to Mayor Charles V. Ryan coincided with her strongest-ever showing in a School Committee race.

Underscoring the dynamics of race and politics at the center of the trial, Hurst said she concluded there was one explanation for her success.

"I attended a lot of events with a lot of white people," said the lawyer and four-term incumbent, who served as Ashe's campaign co-chairman.

Hurst was testifying in a lawsuit filed by Arise for Social Justice Inc. and other groups seeking to change Springfield's at-large voting system to district representation.

The trial, based on a lawsuit filed in 2005, is pitting some of Springfield's most prominent civil rights advocates against the city. U.S. District Judge Michael A. Ponsor is overseeing the non-jury trial, which is expected to last two or three more weeks.

Responding to questions from plaintiff lawyer Paul E. Nemser of Boston, Hurst said her vote total for 2005 was second only to Ryan, who coasted to victory against Ashe, a School Committee member and ally of Hurst.

CREDIT: Springfield Republican

Huh? One would figure that with more than a year to put together a coherent case for Ward Representation, the plantiffs in this case could've done a better job.

Is Marjorie Hurst upset that she had to talk to *gasp* white voters? Any candidate would get a boost in their poll numbers by publicly backing a mayoral candidate, never mind co-chairing their campaign. What is she mad at or trying to prove here? That she had to compromise her values and try and work cooperatively with people she disagrees with? What the heck is the issue at hand here?

This entire trial has proven nothing, except of course, that socialist candidates feel that they should be handed city council seats on silver platters without having to do what everyone else is doing.

Obama's Audacity (Or Lack Thereof)

Philosopher Hanna Arendt always like to say that “politics is not the nursery”, but if one was to take a quick look at today’s political climate, one will see this proved untrue if not undeniably false. Triangulatio, which is the practice of playing opposing forces against one another lest by any chance one’s own principles be considered “offensive”, is now widely practiced in political campaigns.

Politicians like Barak Obama and our own Deval Patrick. who subscribe to this rhetoric, insist that arguments between opposing points of view creates more problems than solutions. It polarizes anyone who dares stand anywhere that isn’t the middle. This goes against the very point of politics and the process that surrounds it. Politics and government exist to help humanity better solve disputes amongst ourselves. Denying the necessary fact that politics deals solely in disagreements as opposed to agreements tends to produce a chilling effect against folks who don’t stand squarely in the center. If you take a stance, you’re deemed ‘controversial’ or ‘extreme’.

The simple fact is that in times of conflict, the center cannot hold, and if the best of the best lack conviction, it gives way. To borrow (or continue to ) from William Butler Yeats- to the worst, which are full of passionate intensity.

So now we’ve got Barack Obama, whose autobiography, “The Audacity of Hope” has become a neo-manifesto for ‘progressives’. My Father-In-Law leant me the book to read, and as I didn’t pay for it, I felt it wouldn’t hurt to give it a read. As far as I could tell from my own reading, Obama shows a tendency, even an outright eagerness, to take positions not conspicuous, let’s say, for their audacity. Perhaps his most prominent position in this regard is his ‘stand’ against genocide in Darfur, which really isn’t a ‘stand’ against or for anything, seeing as there is no such thing as a pro-genocide movement to ‘stand’ against.

In fact, Obama seems to be full of this sort of blather. When Obama declared he was running for the Presidency in Springfield, IL., he roused up the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1858, in which, as he told it, Lincoln “called on a divided house to stand together.”

It would have been awesome is Lincoln had, well, actually ever said that. What Lincoln did argue, actually and implicitly, was that the house would ‘cease to be divided,’ which is not quite the same. All the previous compromises made by moderate governments had amplified the danger of complacency. When Lincoln judged that a reckoning of some kind was coming no matter what, it was an attack on the establishment, moderate government, which, far from being too adversarial, had been complacent about those who wanted to split the country for far too long.

Harry Jaffa, a leading, if not THE leading historian on the subject, claimed that Lincoln represented a ‘great link in the chain of events that led to secession and civil war.’ So rather than Obama’s preference for a common front, its more in line with common sense to accept, as Lincoln did, that politics is division by definition.

This 100%, testosterone-free ‘rising star’ of the Democratic party is aiming, like Deval Patrick did here in Massachusetts, to turn the political arena into a nursery. Like Governor Patrick, Obama’s supporters would likely struggle to name his greatest accomplishment, aside of course, from his impeccable dental hygene and making the initials “B.O.” not be so gross anymore. One hopes this juvenile attempt will miss it’s mark, if only because it has little to offer it in a time when, with actual enemies presenting themselves against western civilization as a whole, politics in the western world’s leading country should be serious business. Obama’s triangulation politics, in contrast, are meant for show, and they ought to be regarded and treated as such.

After all, as Ann Coulter said in a column; “If Obama's biggest asset is his inexperience, then if by the slightest chance he were elected and were to run for a second term, he will have to claim he didn't learn anything the first four years.”

Coakley-Rivera Testimony a Coincidence?

In a story found on the Springfield Republican's website, State Representative Cheryl Coakley-Rivera (D-Springfield) painted a 'dismal picture of Racial Equality in Springfield'.

Que political grand standing at it's worst in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...

State Rep. Cheryl A. Coakley-Rivera, D-Springfield, who is of Irish and Puerto Rican descent, testified she believes her Anglo roots have helped her win white votes over the past several elections.

"My mother is from County Cork. I think that's made a difference. ... People have said that to me," the legislator said under questioning from a lawyer for plaintiffs in a ward representation lawsuit against the city.

Civil rights groups and individuals who brought the suit have argued Springfield's at-large voting for City Council and School Committee largely shuts out black and Latino candidates who face fund-raising and networking challenges in a racially splintered city.

Well this is as big a surprise as the sun coming up in the morning. Rivera's always looking for a fight, whether it's punching someone in the face on the house floor, or screaming about Trash Fees, she's never far from the headlines.

It's the end of the story that's the telling part of this.

Coakley-Rivera did not testify publicly about allegations in her sworn statement about Mayor Charles V. Ryan's former chief of staff, Michelle Webber.

Coakley-Rivera submitted an affidavit last month for trial that detailed alleged racist statements made by Webber at City Hall, including calling a man of Muslim descent a "towel head."

Webber denied making the statements, but ultimately resigned after the legislator's allegations became public.

Of course, this little snippet was tossed in the story for good measure and its worth mentioning because, by now, it should strike no one as a mere coincidence.

What's more convenient than anything are the names and identities of the folks who are being left out of this story, the Ryan Staffers who accused Webber of making these statements. I find it beyond a coincidence that these two staffers were former staffers to Cheryl Rivera once upon a time.

Meddle much?

She's clearly attempting to galvanize the minority vote by showing up to testify in this trial just as much like she probably was during the whole Ryan-Weber 'scandal'. This is a third, very clear shot across the bow of the S.S. Charlie Ryan Steamship.

Cheryl Rivera wants to be Mayor, and she's willing to blatantly use the race card to do it.

It's no secret Ryan and Rivera, who've traditionally been pretty formidable allies, aren't on the same page the way they used to be. The coincidences and timing here stink worse than a burning bag of dog poo.

The message is clear: get out of the way.

Stuff The Media Wants You to Think About the Libby Trial That Really Isn't True

It’s probably a little ridiculous to have to state this, but after reading the deplorable 'coverage' (which constitutes ripping a story off the AP wire that reads more like an opinion piece) by the Springfield Republican regarding this story, some things need to be pointed out.

The only thing this story means is that in the eyes of the jury, he lied about what he told prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.

It does not mean:
1. That one iota of intelligence was in any way manipulated in the run up to Iraq.
2. That Joe Wilson has been vindicated in any way.
3. That Valerie Plame was "covert". She was an analyst.
4. That the Bush White House had anything to worry about from Wilson/Plame.

Don't be fooled by all the spin-sters attempting to turn this into the Watergate of the Bush era. It's not.

And everyone knows it...

Crappy News, Culture, and Why You Should Care

I'm through watching the 'news'. I'm done. They air nothing that is of any importance to me other than the occasional weather report, which, by the way, doesn't really need to take up 20 minutes of a half hour news cast every night.

I used to talk about the liberal bias in the media, which still exists on the networks, but not so much 24-hour news which is just cluttered with garbage. To be honest, I miss the days of liberal bias. I really do. You can't be biased about the latest tug of war over Anna Nichole's intestines. Stuff like Brittany's baldness, Ann Coulter called John Edwards a f-bomb, Anna Nichole's wormy body, Anna Nichole's wormier boy friends, and more videos of kids sticking their wangs in light sockets just doesn't constitute entertainment or even low brow entertainment for me anymore, much less be something I considered 'news'. I yearn for Dan Rather.

This, all coming from the guy who religiously watches Pro Wrestling more than two nights a week, should say something.

The political correctness in our culture is just utterly out of control. We've had a Jew, a black guy and female all 'convicted' of being homophobes or racists or whatever and two of them are in rehab...or something. It's really not news. I'll be taking bets on who gets to wear the white hood of hilarity next. Today, apparently every one's a target. By the way, am I the only one who finds irony in the fact that the gay community, whose behavior was deemed as a psychological disorder in the 1970s, are now making the same diagnosis of those who don't subscribe to their liberal fundamentalist (see Homophobe) views?

I'm completely tired and done with Anna Nichole Smith. I loved the Playboy issues and what not, but I'm just tired of it all. I'm tired of Greta Van Sustern and Nancy Grace popping up out of her rectum with exclusive pictures of exactly what flavor of Slim Fast she ate before she went belly up in her hotel room. I don't care about the fight over a kid whose entire life at this point, is guaranteed to out do even her mother's, in it's level of train-wreck-ness. I don't care about the kid, nor did I ever care about the sewer that was Anna Nichole's entire life. Her life should be a lesson to the insanely stupid and nothing more, not another excuse for Wolfie Blitzer to hop on into the 'Situation Room'.

Evidently the genius that thought up the whole idea for 24-hour news never considered the fact that 24 hours is just a lot of freaking time to fill up. Stuff that really would never be considered news is now, well, news.

The Print Media is really trying to make sure they're not outdone in their level of non-newsworthy stuff. I mean really trying. Just look at our beloved Springfield Republican Newspaper which today ran a story on Ibuprofen being the best pain killer for kids. If that story doesn't win the earth is flat award, "Cries and Whispers" the most 'un-funny' and non-newsworthy part of the paper, would in a heartbeat. This morning, I learned what Police Commissioner Flynn's favorite comic strip is and that some kid from Westfield State played palm tree no. 624 once on an episode of 'Lost'. Really, the only reason for it's existence is so that the elites in downtown can continue to pretend to be celebrities.

And to think, people honestly wonder why we're so hated in the world. We're not hated because of who we did or didn't colonize five million years ago. We're not hated because we like oil. We're not hated because we like baseball and think soccer is for wussies. We're hated because our country has become a complete and total moral sewer of stupidity where anything is worth talking about, from someone shaving their head, or flashing their genitals in public, to mourning for a situation in where the mother of a child ate a few hundred pills a day and slept with so many men, we don't know who the father is.

Arab terrorists don't hate us for our freedom. They hate us for how we abuse it and make a mockery out of it only to turn around and claim the moral high ground. That's what makes the stories of Michael Richards, Ann Coulter and the black guy from that hospital show thing, so preposterous. The very people who act as loudly inappropriate as they wish are attempting to accuse others of, well, acting as inappropriately as they wish.

Yes, we are in a culture war of sorts, but that may be a little mellow dramatic. That would mean functionally retarded people are moving organized and in unison against the tide of normalcy. People that wear helmets and flash their Pee-Pee's usually aren't capable of such acts, so I try not to give them too much credit. We have some absolutely insane human beings in this country who are getting all the attention and their ridiculous behavior, while probably not inspiring our kids to grab guns and shoot each other in the cha-cha, is inspiring other people to really hate us in other countries and want to shoot us in the cha-cha. Maybe if we were a little less obsessed with our cha-chas, and a little more concerned with how we conduct ourselves as adults, we wouldn't have half the arab world looking to slay the infidel.

I was watching the Grammys a few weeks ago and of course the Dixie Chicks swept the awards because they're totally the best at hating George Bush. In Lead Singer Natalie Mains' acceptance speech she said 'I bet a lot of people are changing the channel'. She then continued to snidely toss her gold record player in everyone's face talking about how courageous she was and how she stood up to us all. Then it sort of dawned on me that the only one who's talking about people talking about Natalie Mains is Natalie Mains, which brings me to the point of this entire rant.

Idiots love attention any way they can get it. To insure you'll keep watching, they'll say more stupid things or remind you of all the stupid things they said before. Unfortunately today, the more retarded you act, the more likely you are to be on TV. The problem is, when we keep letting functionally retarded and emotionally stunted human beings speak for normal folks, it gives you a bad name and it gives me a bad name. It gives our country and our culture a bad name. It's not good for us as people nor as a country. So do yourself a favor and turn these idiots off when they come on TV. The life span of a news story is dictated by the ratings they receive. Hit 'em where it hurts.

Do what I do. Watch pro wrestling.

Helmets For Our State Legislators

If you didn't think things could be any more outrageous on Beacon Hill these days, you were wrong. Dead wrong. Just read this Story for proof.

This past week, Senator Steven Panagiatakos (guess which Party) has now filed legislation that would require kids to wear helmets while they go sledding. It's official: we've crossed the line of stupidity to outright insanity. Truth be told, the only people who should be wearing helmets are the folks on Beacon Hill that would support this kind of crap legislation.

First, it was fluffernutter sandwiches. Now it's helmets for sledding. I can't wait to see full body armor and gas masks for kids who want to play tag. I'd call the legislation "Pimp My Kid".

I stay up at night sometimes thinking about how our society became this incredibly far gone. I'd be clamoring for the baby-boomers to kick the bucket as soon as possible if it were not for my own generation being equally as idiotic. Rome is burning, folks.

Ever Walk in On Your Parents Having Sex?

This is the one thing that just makes me shake my head at Massachusetts Politics in general.

There is perhaps no other legislative body in the country that is more disgraceful then the Massachusetts General Court. No one is as unqualified to be a Governor as Deval Patrick. If this doesn't prove it, I don't know what does.

To be blunt, I could care less about where Governor Patrick's ideological stances are at this point. I never thought I'd say that, but really, it's true. I just want to see this guy get through one day giving off the aura that he might have the slightest clue of, I don't know, WHAT TO DO.

We've had all sorts of fluffer-nutter Pod Casts, Civil Rights speeches, and other acts that give us 'fuzzy feelings'. Deval's not wearing the old tie to the office as much anymore and is going for the more casual, cool look. He opened up the Governor's private elevator so everyone can use it. He took those ugly velvet ropes around the corner office down, too. Don't you feel more 'engaged'!?What's next? A soft serve ice cream maker in the main rotunda of the state house that gives away 'free' cones to anyone who wants it? Is this Sesame Street?

In his first month in office, Patrick has almost burnt his office down accidentally (which he laughed about on his 'Pod Cast'), dismissed the man whom he had just appointed to the head of the Economic Affairs cabinet position and replaced him with, well, himself. He played long-face about the recently discovered budget deficit before re-instating nearly $383 million dollars worth of cuts to the budget and now apparently is considering completely crushing the budget by raising the salaries of members of the state legislature all so he can get a free ride for the next four years. Seeing as everyone else seems to be getting a nice wad of dough except for, of course, those of us whose shoulders it will fall on to pay for all these goodies.

If that weren't fun enough,, has announced he will not be keeping his pledge to cut property taxes, abandoned any state role in apprehending illegal immigrants and announced his opposition to voters participating in the state constitution's initiative and petition process.

Then right up there with The Senator Barrios "Kill Peanut Butter and Fluff Sandwiches" legislation, Deval Patrick is trying to get more in touch with us by speaking to use through our iPods. After all, If that's not government in action, I don't know what is. Patrick said he was eager for the opportunity, touting it as a wonderful opportunity for more 'dialogue', which in the end, kind of confuses me. For a 'dialogue' to occur, two people need to be talking to each other, right? So if Governor Patrick is interested in hearing from me or is considering playing people's concerns back and responding to them, there isn't much 'dialogue' going on, just more Patrick sweet talk.

Politically, one must wonder where Patrick's head has gone. Ideological differences aside, I admired his political know how and his ability to pain an image of himself and successfully market it to the masses. He ran a brilliant campaign for governor, although now, the truth may be coming out that it wasn't about changing anything, it was about marketing a gimmick. Never once was it about substance, it was all style. Senator Steven Bounoconti of West Springfield, the DEMOCRAT legislator of the year once upon a time, called Patrick "Naive". Dan Bosely, Patrick's original Economic Affairs appointment, couldn't take it on saw the writing on the wall before so much as the first week of his administration was done. Now, Patrick's willing to bump up the salaries of the pigs in the legislature in exchange for passing more of his goof-ball legislation and doing it blatently right out in the open for everyone to see. Listening and watching the actions of the Democrats in the state house, you can't help but question whether Patrick possesses even the core competencies that are required to do the basics of the job.

Now I'm not naive to the process. I know how it works. The Legislature gets goodies if they give goodies back to Deval, Quid Pro Quo. But the problem I have with deals like the one Patrick is floating around with the Massachusetts Legislature is alot like the one we have about our Parents and having sex. Sure you know your parents do it, afterall, if they didn't, you wouldn't be here reading this. But it's a totally different thing to see it actually happening right in front of you. I know the legislature and the Patrick Administration are trying to stuff their own pockets as well as their buddies' pockets. I just wish they'd at least try to do it behind closed doors.

It's less politically inclined folks like Patrick that make me squirm these days. At least when most politicians make these kinds of sleezy deals, they try to keep them hidden. Then I can justify my outrage and come on and rant about it around here. But when you've got bafoons like Governor Patrick running around the Corner Office, I can't help but think the fun has been taken out of it all.

"Imposing Freedom" and Oxymoron

So it seems everywhere I go these days, I see little spots of anti-war protesters here and there. I'll be honest, I greatly admire the persistence and commitment of these folks while I completely disagree with their cause entirely. Frankly, if our right wingers had a tenth of the passion and commitment that these folks have, we wouldn't be on the verge of extinction in Massachusetts.

All that aside, I mentioned that I disagree with their cause. I very much disapprove of their playing on the emotions of others in hopes of convincing people that somehow war is never justified, which is really is complete and total buffoonery. These must be the same folks, who if someone put their family in danger, would likely ask the attacker if he would like to talk? Nothing encourages violence more than people who lack the spine to stop it or prevent it from happening before it begins.

Many of the peace-nicks seem to insist that war has never solved anything. Is that really any kind of rational statement to make? War has, in fact solved many of mankind's greatest problems and issues. Did War not solve the issue of slavery? Did War not cast Hitler from this earth? What if we confronted Soviet Communism not with Nuclear escalation, but by laying down naked in Australia, allowing our nude bodies to form the word "Peace"?

Those who fail to remember history are doomed to repeat it, or so I've been told. With Islamic fascism becoming the new Nazism, what will it take for these folks to take it seriously? What is most unsettling to me is that even the audacity of the 9-11 attacks wasn't enough to make people take this new struggle seriously. 2,000+ people died in the middle of our largest city in broad day light. If that wasn't enough, what will be?

More importantly, what will it take to stop Osama Bin Laden and co.? A relentless succession of sit-ins, die ins, and crap ins? Maybe dressing up in garbage bags and laying in the street will do it? Are these people to be taken seriously at all?

We have many, many issues facing us in this country today, but none greater than fighting the war on terror. Democrats have conveniently flip flopped on their position of 'more troops to win the war' and are now in full blown 'get them out, we've lost' mode. I can't think of a more disastrous foreign policy blunder than to yank our troops out of Iraq at the most critical point in the war.

However, beyond the tactical and political implications lies the truly disturbing piece of all of this, which is how much traction self-defeatism has gained. There has been a relentless effort on the part of Democrats and those generally opposed to the conflict to point out every conceivable flaw this war has had. If it's a success , it should have been a success months ago, not now. Nothing is ever good enough. One must question any idealogical sect that makes the argument that we somehow are "Imposing Freedom on others". Isn't that, in and of itself, oxymoronic?

When you strip it all away, it's all about power. Of course the Democrats want to remove the troops from Iraq. When it goes to hell in a hand basket, they'll ask Americans in 2008 a simple question: "After the foreign policy disaster that was the Bush Administration, how can you possibly elect another Republican President?" It all boils down to power and a party that never viewed our current President as legitimate. Because they never saw him as legitimate, not one single policy he's ever brought up has been seen as remotely legitimate. Nothings up for negotiation when you feel the person sitting in office is not legitimate. It's created a fanaticism and bitterness towards a sitting President never before equaled and quite possibly, never will be ever again. Democrats hate George Bush. Burying him and his Presidency, his party and even perhaps his people, is what drives them every day and will continue to do so until they regain the power they feel is rightfully theirs. If national security of the American people is compromised, then so be it.

Which brings me to the part of all this where I pull things together. Those driven to stop this war are motivated by power, not principle. For the very reasons they supposedly 'threw the bums out' in November, they're opposing this war. It's about being 'right', not DOING what's right. I give full credit to peace-nicks and liberals for wanting to live in a better world. However, their recklessness and thirst for power make me question their motives. You can't be serious about ending a war unless you are serious about ridding the world of the causes of war, which include socialist dictatorships, like the one that we had in Iraq and spreading freedom and democracy and values which we believe to be god-given. Once they start to do that, then I'll take their gatherings on the town green and on the on ramp to I-91 seriously.