You knew it wouldn't take long in this highly-charged climate of political rant-o-rama, but I don't think anyone would have bet on this popping up so fast. But considering the source, it is not that surprising, I guess. But let's get one thing straight from the start: Mississippi Governor Hailey Barbour and President Bush had as much to do with Katrina as RFK, Jr. did. For that matter, "Global Warming" might even create COOLER temperatures in equatorial oceans due to melting of polar ice, right? Even if Kyoto was approved by this President, it wouldn't have had any effect at this point, so to blame Barbour and Bush for Katrina is the height of idiocy. Quite aside from the fact that posting that sort of political ankle-biting while rescue operations are going on and people are still missing is beyond the pale.
Let's also remember that the vast majority of "bad" hurricanes occurred long before we ever heard the words "Global Warming". In fact the hurricane experts are saying "Global Warming" has NOTHING to do with the current (or past or future)hurricane cycle.
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
Back Again
Sorry, I have been knee deep in back to school the past week, and have been negligent in blogging. Will try to get back on track in the next few days. Thanks for coming by.
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
'Noles Win Battle with NCAA (For Now)
Florida State University, which had been one of eighteen schools in the cross-hairs of the National Collegiate Athletic Association over its use of Indian "Native American" imagery and nicknames, got the all clear from the collegiate sports governing body earlier this week. Of course, it probably didn't hurt that the President of the University, T.K. Weatherell, was willing to sue the NCAA over the inclusion of his school in the organization's "red"-list.
Let's see how long it takes for Utah (Utes), Illinois (Fighting Illini) and North Dakota (Fighting Sioux) -- all of which have some sort of arrangement with their respective tribal namesakes or their descendants -- to seek similarhead er, redress.
Let's see how long it takes for Utah (Utes), Illinois (Fighting Illini) and North Dakota (Fighting Sioux) -- all of which have some sort of arrangement with their respective tribal namesakes or their descendants -- to seek similar
A Little Perspective, Please
I was churning over my thoughts on the subject of military deaths in the War On Terror yesterday trying to figure out how to best put it. The news media and the leftist terrorist-sympathizers (how else would you describe those in this country who wish President Bush ill will and want us to give up in Iraq and pull-out?) are having an orgy over the more than 1,800 military casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001. But compared to other military ventures, isn't this an absurdly SMALL number? 58-thousand in Viet Nam over the 15 years (give or take) we were there works out to, what? Almost 3,900 per YEAR. That's almost 8 times the casualty rate (on average) of the current War On Terror. Yep, just like Viet Nam, eh?
Or what about accidental deaths in the military on average? What's that number? Well, as it turns out, someone else was thinking the same thing. Only puts it even better -- John Hinderaker at Powerline has this very subject covered to a "T". The answer to accidental deaths is even more amazing (quoting from his post):
"The media's breathless tabulation of casualties in Iraq--now, over 1,800 deaths--is generally devoid of context. Here's some context: between 1983 and 1996, 18,006 American military personnel died accidentally in the service of their country. That death rate of 1,286 per year exceeds the rate of combat deaths in Iraq by a ratio of nearly two to one.
"That's right: all through the years when hardly anyone was paying attention, soldiers, sailors and Marines were dying in accidents, training and otherwise, at nearly twice the rate of combat deaths in Iraq from the start of the war in 2003 to the present. Somehow, though, when there was no political hay to be made, I don't recall any great outcry, or gleeful reporting, or erecting of crosses in the President's home town. In fact, I'll offer a free six-pack to the first person who can find evidence that any liberal expressed concern--any concern--about the 18,006 American service members who died accidentally in service of their country from 1983 to 1996."
Amazing. Especially considering we're fighting a REAL war here. So how about some HONEST reporting for a change -- in PROPER context. Hmm?
Or what about accidental deaths in the military on average? What's that number? Well, as it turns out, someone else was thinking the same thing. Only puts it even better -- John Hinderaker at Powerline has this very subject covered to a "T". The answer to accidental deaths is even more amazing (quoting from his post):
"The media's breathless tabulation of casualties in Iraq--now, over 1,800 deaths--is generally devoid of context. Here's some context: between 1983 and 1996, 18,006 American military personnel died accidentally in the service of their country. That death rate of 1,286 per year exceeds the rate of combat deaths in Iraq by a ratio of nearly two to one.
"That's right: all through the years when hardly anyone was paying attention, soldiers, sailors and Marines were dying in accidents, training and otherwise, at nearly twice the rate of combat deaths in Iraq from the start of the war in 2003 to the present. Somehow, though, when there was no political hay to be made, I don't recall any great outcry, or gleeful reporting, or erecting of crosses in the President's home town. In fact, I'll offer a free six-pack to the first person who can find evidence that any liberal expressed concern--any concern--about the 18,006 American service members who died accidentally in service of their country from 1983 to 1996."
Amazing. Especially considering we're fighting a REAL war here. So how about some HONEST reporting for a change -- in PROPER context. Hmm?
Monday, August 22, 2005
Disney Throws Michael Graham Under the Bus
WMAL(AM), Washington, DC, radio talk show host Michael Graham's three week suspension from the air for upsetting the folks at CAIR (The Council on American-Islamic Relations) has become permanent. Disney, through it's ABC Radio division, which owns WMAL, has given in to pressure from the group which has a track record of hammering media outlets and companies over "unfair" portrayals of Islam. Granted, Michael Graham could have chosen his words more carefully, but Disney's actions are certainly no more commendable.
They Giveth, and They Taketh Away
State Government. Not much better than the Federal one.
North Carolina's State Employees will receive a modest 2 percent or an 850 dollar annual raise (whichever is higher) in accordance with the new State Budget. But right on the heels of that, the State Health Plan has announced some changes. Beginning October 1st, they'll be increasing the cost of coverage to state employees, thus eating-up most of that "generous" raise. In simple terms, let's take the state worker who makes LESS than the $42,500 annual salary (the average state employee makes about $35k, according to experts) -- necessary to peg his or her raise to over $850.
Say that person has the average family to support and cover with healthcare. Then note the increase in cost the employee pays for coverage of his or her spouse AND kids from $427.48 per month to $ 480.14 per month beginning October 1. That's an increase of $631.92 a year in premiums alone. Not to mention that the employee portion of the costs in some areas of the health plan have gone up too.
So that $850.00 raise, less the $631.92 increase in premiums, gets that State Worker just $8.38 more in salary per pay period (every two weeks), meaning that after taxes, that State employee will be taking home about five bucks more a pay period.
Good thing the Legislature saw fit to throw in an extra week's paid vacation in the budget for all those State employees or it would truly be nothing but hot air from Raleigh to most.
North Carolina's State Employees will receive a modest 2 percent or an 850 dollar annual raise (whichever is higher) in accordance with the new State Budget. But right on the heels of that, the State Health Plan has announced some changes. Beginning October 1st, they'll be increasing the cost of coverage to state employees, thus eating-up most of that "generous" raise. In simple terms, let's take the state worker who makes LESS than the $42,500 annual salary (the average state employee makes about $35k, according to experts) -- necessary to peg his or her raise to over $850.
Say that person has the average family to support and cover with healthcare. Then note the increase in cost the employee pays for coverage of his or her spouse AND kids from $427.48 per month to $ 480.14 per month beginning October 1. That's an increase of $631.92 a year in premiums alone. Not to mention that the employee portion of the costs in some areas of the health plan have gone up too.
So that $850.00 raise, less the $631.92 increase in premiums, gets that State Worker just $8.38 more in salary per pay period (every two weeks), meaning that after taxes, that State employee will be taking home about five bucks more a pay period.
Good thing the Legislature saw fit to throw in an extra week's paid vacation in the budget for all those State employees or it would truly be nothing but hot air from Raleigh to most.
Friday, August 19, 2005
Oh yeah? Gore WON? Really, now!
You've got to be kidding. Paul Krugman, in today's NY Times pompously and erroneously claims Al Gore won two different media-consortium recounts in Florida in 2000. He references Andrew Gumbel, an American working for The Independent, in England. Too bad Krugman forgot to research the FACTS. All he had to do was go here and here. Note the second source is Krugman's own New York Times. Idiot can't even fact-check his story against his own newspaper! How superior he must believe his intellect is compared to "the great unwashed", and what a pathetic jerk he is to lie about facts that can easily be checked. To think the Times thought Jayson Blair was the one making stuff up!
Tough Being an al Qaeda Leader
There is now only one key al Qaeda operative left on the original list of 26 most-wanted AQ in Saudi Arabia. Saleh Mohammed al-Aoofi, who was the latest Saudi AQ leader (and then one of the last two on the list), was gunned-down along with five other terrorists in a raid by Saudi police yesterday.
How long before the last man on the list is crossed-off? And the left keeps trying to tell us there are no signs terrorists are feeling any pressure.
How long before the last man on the list is crossed-off? And the left keeps trying to tell us there are no signs terrorists are feeling any pressure.
Thursday, August 18, 2005
The Real Deal
I missed this earlier in the week, but having lived in that area for nearly 16 years, thought I should mention it...
Any city that has been around as long as Charleston, South Carolina, will have have suffered as well as celebrated many times over. Charleston has definitely had its share of bad -- both natural (hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes and the like) and man-made (like revolutions and actual wars), as well as good.
Charlestonians have always liked to celebrate the positives, and are rightly proud of their heritage. The city was founded in 1670 and is home to the first museum in America. A far more modern source of Charleston pride retired on Tuesday. Police Chief Reuben Greenberg was well-respected nationally for his 23 years as the city's top cop.
Mayor Joe Riley, commenting on the retirement, noted a key statistic in Greenberg's success story, "Charleston's population increased 64 percent during the time [he] was chief while crime decreased 11 percent." That speaks volumes.
Good luck, Chief, in your retirement.
Any city that has been around as long as Charleston, South Carolina, will have have suffered as well as celebrated many times over. Charleston has definitely had its share of bad -- both natural (hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes and the like) and man-made (like revolutions and actual wars), as well as good.
Charlestonians have always liked to celebrate the positives, and are rightly proud of their heritage. The city was founded in 1670 and is home to the first museum in America. A far more modern source of Charleston pride retired on Tuesday. Police Chief Reuben Greenberg was well-respected nationally for his 23 years as the city's top cop.
Mayor Joe Riley, commenting on the retirement, noted a key statistic in Greenberg's success story, "Charleston's population increased 64 percent during the time [he] was chief while crime decreased 11 percent." That speaks volumes.
Good luck, Chief, in your retirement.
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
Well, Well... WELL QUALIFIED, eh?
Let's see if this makes it any easier. Most likely, the far left will totally ignore the ABA's "Well Qualified" rating and continue to try to bend the ear of such willingly-led Senators as Boxer, Kennedy, Kerry, Schumer and Durbin, among others. They will continue to carry the water for George Soros, People for the American Way, the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) and others.
More on the Gorelick Wall
Deborah Orrin, in today's New York Post has the skinny on a 1995 memo from New York Federal Prosecutor Mary Jo White blistering the Justice Department's use of "the wall", saying it could have deadly consequences. She had opposed the wall since the discussion of separating intelligence from law enforcement was proposed.
Funny... we heard nothing of THIS memo in the 9-11 Commission report.
Funny... we heard nothing of THIS memo in the 9-11 Commission report.
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
Back to My Original Question
Despite all of the posturing on the Able Danger controversy(?), as noted on Friday there are a couple of interesting points aside from the purported fingering of Atta and several other 9-11 hijackers. Today, John Podhoretz, commenting on National Review Online's "The Corner" Blog, hits on the MOST important associated point of Able Danger -- the fuzzy relationship between Jamie Gorelick, "the wall" and the 9-11 Commission's disinterest in the linkage.
Sunday, August 14, 2005
Cindy Sheehan -- Just Another Moonbat?
Don't think for a minute I don't empathize with Cindy Sheehan, the 48 year-old mother whose son Casey was killed in Iraq. She, as we all would in the same circumstance, hurts deeply and rightfully so. But her one woman crusade to try to move public opinion and the will of the administration to give up the cause for freedom in the Middle East is just nuts.
The MSM first focused on her desire to meet with President Bush to discuss the death of her son. They were painfully slow in clarifying(say ten or more days after the coverage started) that she ALREADY met with the President last year. She's using the willing media to help carry her water in promoting her anti-war stance. Nothing wrong with being anti-war, mind you, but look at what she said yesterday:
"You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you'll stop the terrorism...
"My son was killed in 2004. I am not paying my taxes for 2004. You killed my son, George Bush, and I don't owe you a penny...you give my son back and I'll pay my taxes. Come after me (for back taxes) and we'll put this war on trial."
"And now I'm going to use another 'I' word - impeachment - because we cannot have these people pardoned. They need to be tried on war crimes and go to jail."
MEMO to Ms. Sheehan: You're not the only parent to lose a child in the cause of freedom in Iraq. Yes, it hurts, horribly. To you the actions of the administration in fighting the GWOT were personally devastating -- but your son and the near 2,000 other Americans killed in Iraq and Afghanistan volunteered for service to the country. He believed in something that you, quite obviously, do not. We did not start this war. It's been building for years. On 9/11/01 it came to us. We have no choice but to fight back. AND WIN. Whatever it takes.
By the way, getting America out of Iraq will do nothing to stop terrorism. In case you forgot, 9/11 occurred well before we went in to Iraq. As did the bombing of our Embassys, the attack on the Cole, the first World Trade Center attacks, and on and on. The terrorists have been after us and our way of life for years. Long before Gulf War 1, even. So let's be real. Us out of Iraq won't stop them from trying to erradicate us from the planet. You must know that, don't you?
Your son Casey was in Iraq helping to build a free society in a country where oppression was once the rule. Freedom that will allow people there to enjoy the same kind of freedom you have here -- which allows you to protest as you do. They did not enjoy that freedom before. With your hatred and vitriol, one can only presume you'd prefer them not to have it in the future. Fortunately for them, President Bush is not listening to you.
The MSM first focused on her desire to meet with President Bush to discuss the death of her son. They were painfully slow in clarifying(say ten or more days after the coverage started) that she ALREADY met with the President last year. She's using the willing media to help carry her water in promoting her anti-war stance. Nothing wrong with being anti-war, mind you, but look at what she said yesterday:
"You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you'll stop the terrorism...
"My son was killed in 2004. I am not paying my taxes for 2004. You killed my son, George Bush, and I don't owe you a penny...you give my son back and I'll pay my taxes. Come after me (for back taxes) and we'll put this war on trial."
"And now I'm going to use another 'I' word - impeachment - because we cannot have these people pardoned. They need to be tried on war crimes and go to jail."
MEMO to Ms. Sheehan: You're not the only parent to lose a child in the cause of freedom in Iraq. Yes, it hurts, horribly. To you the actions of the administration in fighting the GWOT were personally devastating -- but your son and the near 2,000 other Americans killed in Iraq and Afghanistan volunteered for service to the country. He believed in something that you, quite obviously, do not. We did not start this war. It's been building for years. On 9/11/01 it came to us. We have no choice but to fight back. AND WIN. Whatever it takes.
By the way, getting America out of Iraq will do nothing to stop terrorism. In case you forgot, 9/11 occurred well before we went in to Iraq. As did the bombing of our Embassys, the attack on the Cole, the first World Trade Center attacks, and on and on. The terrorists have been after us and our way of life for years. Long before Gulf War 1, even. So let's be real. Us out of Iraq won't stop them from trying to erradicate us from the planet. You must know that, don't you?
Your son Casey was in Iraq helping to build a free society in a country where oppression was once the rule. Freedom that will allow people there to enjoy the same kind of freedom you have here -- which allows you to protest as you do. They did not enjoy that freedom before. With your hatred and vitriol, one can only presume you'd prefer them not to have it in the future. Fortunately for them, President Bush is not listening to you.
Saturday, August 13, 2005
Panthers Kick-off Preseason
The 2005 Edition of the Carolina Panthers defeated the Washington Redskins (known to the PC as the "Washington professional football team") at Bank of America Stadium in Charlotte 28-10. Running Back DeShaun Foster and Pro Bowl Defensive star Kris Jenkins were two of many Panthers to get back on the field following an injury-shortened 2004 season. Go Cats! Headed for SB XL? Let's hope!
DeShaun Foster scores against the Philadelphia Eagles in the 2003 NFC Championship game.
Posted by Picasa
DeShaun Foster scores against the Philadelphia Eagles in the 2003 NFC Championship game.
Posted by Picasa
Friday, August 12, 2005
Good Ol' Sandy, Second Rate Berg-lar
Remember what former President Bill Clinton said when his former National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, "inadvertently" stole highly classified documents from the National Archives? Something to the effect of, "Heh, heh, yeh... that's Sandy. We were all laughing about it on the way over here this morning... He always had a messy desk, too..." Don't the revelations of this week regarding Able Danger make you wonder if what Ol' Bill was REALLY thinking when he said that was more like, "Whew! Good Ol' Sandy... heh, heh, yeah... he's so disorganized, no one will ever know what he really took!"
And it appears the 9-11 Commission's final report was missing more than just the references to Able Danger's information.
If you're still curious as to why the "wall" wasn't enough to get Gorelick kicked-off the panel and into the witness chair, John Podhoretz has a pretty good idea.
UPDATE (8/13/05 at 11:02am): Speaking of Gorelick and "The Wall", Nick Danger at Redstate.com has all the background you could want.
UPDATE 2 (8/13/05 at 11:07am): The New York Times and the Washington Post are furiously trying to throw water on Able Danger. Captain Ed has the follow-up. When the MSM's two biggest old-line liberal newspapers pull-out all stops to try to derail a building controversy, you know there must be some real fire behind the smoke!
UPDATE 3 (8/17/05 at 10:24pm): Someone else is now asking the same question about Sandy Berger's adventures at the National Archives.
And it appears the 9-11 Commission's final report was missing more than just the references to Able Danger's information.
If you're still curious as to why the "wall" wasn't enough to get Gorelick kicked-off the panel and into the witness chair, John Podhoretz has a pretty good idea.
UPDATE (8/13/05 at 11:02am): Speaking of Gorelick and "The Wall", Nick Danger at Redstate.com has all the background you could want.
UPDATE 2 (8/13/05 at 11:07am): The New York Times and the Washington Post are furiously trying to throw water on Able Danger. Captain Ed has the follow-up. When the MSM's two biggest old-line liberal newspapers pull-out all stops to try to derail a building controversy, you know there must be some real fire behind the smoke!
UPDATE 3 (8/17/05 at 10:24pm): Someone else is now asking the same question about Sandy Berger's adventures at the National Archives.
Extremist Group Pulls Discredited Ad
The National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) has decided to pull its lying ad from CNN and other venues. (Hat Tip: Drudge!)
Thursday, August 11, 2005
The Commission on "Connecting the Dots" Didn't
The more we learn about the 9-11 Commission and its failure to pursue evidence that didn't fit its preconceived notions, the more it looks as though the Commission was really just another means to "get Bush", rather than be the distiller of fact it was intended to be. That some of the 9-11 hijackers were identified as possible "terrorists" as much as two years before they carried out their carnage speaks well for certain aspects of intelligence gathering at the time. However, the Clinton Administration's fanatical desire to treat terrorism as a legal matter may be the underlying reason over 3,000 died on our shores four years ago. That Jamie Gorelick -- the Assistant Attorney General who devised the "wall of separation" which kept intelligence gatherers from sharing information with law enforcement and vice-versa -- was allowed to be a member of the Commission and not a key witness in front of it, still smells like a festering swamp.
Democrats were allowed to choose half of the Commission's members, as were the Republicans. But the question that is begging to be answered is this: who suggested Gorelick for the Commission? Why not someone not so closely aligned with the previous administration's efforts to deal with terrorism?
On Tuesday, Pennsylvania Congressman Curt Weldon went public with information that a defense intelligence unit had identified Atta and other future hijackers months before 9-11. Weldon said a year prior to the attacks on New York and Washington, the intelligence unit recommended the information be given to the FBI so Atta's terrorist cell could be neutralized before it could inflict serious harm. He said lawyers for the Department of Defense said the intelligence couldn't be shared because Atta and his associates were "in the country legally". Weldon said he was told the 9-11 Commission had been briefed on two occasions of the information collected by the intelligence group known as "Able Danger".
Wednesday, panel members and staff down-played the "Able Danger" report, saying they had never been told of it. Weldon wrote to Commission co-chairs Lee Hamilton and Thomas Kean:
"The impetus for this letter is my extreme disappointment in the recent, and false, claim of the 9/11 commission staff that the commission was never given access to any information on Able Danger. The 9/11 commission staff received not one but two briefings on Able Danger from former team members, yet did not pursue the matter.
"The commission's refusal to investigate Able Danger after being notified of its existence, and its recent efforts to feign ignorance of the project while blaming others for supposedly withholding information on it, brings shame on the commissioners, and is evocative of the worst tendencies in the federal government that the commission worked to expose."
After denying it, Commission mouthpieces then said they had been aware of the information, but they discarded it because it didn't fit with the findings in their report! Confirmation the Commission was not the non-partisan finder of truth which it was supposed to be.
What, in fact, was the reason for leaving out this important piece of information? Protecting Gorelick? Protecting Clinton? Which brings up another point? Could the information about Able Danger's findings have been in those papers stolen from the National Archives by Sandy Burglar (er...uh...) Berger? Hmmm?
UPDATE: (Thursday, 8/11/05 at 11:45pm) The NY Times in Friday's edition confirms this bizarre failure of the Commission to "connect" its own dots!
Democrats were allowed to choose half of the Commission's members, as were the Republicans. But the question that is begging to be answered is this: who suggested Gorelick for the Commission? Why not someone not so closely aligned with the previous administration's efforts to deal with terrorism?
On Tuesday, Pennsylvania Congressman Curt Weldon went public with information that a defense intelligence unit had identified Atta and other future hijackers months before 9-11. Weldon said a year prior to the attacks on New York and Washington, the intelligence unit recommended the information be given to the FBI so Atta's terrorist cell could be neutralized before it could inflict serious harm. He said lawyers for the Department of Defense said the intelligence couldn't be shared because Atta and his associates were "in the country legally". Weldon said he was told the 9-11 Commission had been briefed on two occasions of the information collected by the intelligence group known as "Able Danger".
Wednesday, panel members and staff down-played the "Able Danger" report, saying they had never been told of it. Weldon wrote to Commission co-chairs Lee Hamilton and Thomas Kean:
"The impetus for this letter is my extreme disappointment in the recent, and false, claim of the 9/11 commission staff that the commission was never given access to any information on Able Danger. The 9/11 commission staff received not one but two briefings on Able Danger from former team members, yet did not pursue the matter.
"The commission's refusal to investigate Able Danger after being notified of its existence, and its recent efforts to feign ignorance of the project while blaming others for supposedly withholding information on it, brings shame on the commissioners, and is evocative of the worst tendencies in the federal government that the commission worked to expose."
After denying it, Commission mouthpieces then said they had been aware of the information, but they discarded it because it didn't fit with the findings in their report! Confirmation the Commission was not the non-partisan finder of truth which it was supposed to be.
What, in fact, was the reason for leaving out this important piece of information? Protecting Gorelick? Protecting Clinton? Which brings up another point? Could the information about Able Danger's findings have been in those papers stolen from the National Archives by Sandy Burglar (er...uh...) Berger? Hmmm?
UPDATE: (Thursday, 8/11/05 at 11:45pm) The NY Times in Friday's edition confirms this bizarre failure of the Commission to "connect" its own dots!
Wednesday, August 10, 2005
It's ALMOST Here!
John Bunting and the North Carolina Tar Heels begin preseason camp tomorrow (8/11). GO 'HEELS!
(Photo by Streeter Lecka/Getty Images)
Posted by Picasa
(Photo by Streeter Lecka/Getty Images)
Posted by Picasa
The Marginalization of CNN
CNN, which has always had a somewhat -- and sometimes more so than others -- leftist lean, has always been a judicious user of the Annenburg School's FactCheck dot org when seeking to discredit or point out the truthfulness of political advertising claims. So why aren't they doing it in this case? [Hat-tip to Drudge!]
NARAL (the National Abortion Rights Action League) is going after Supreme Court nominee John Roberts with a bogus ad CNN has no problem running on its own network. Even though FactCheck says the claims it makes are untrue. Just another example of the MSM going to bat for the DNC.
UPDATE 8:39am: Fixed FactCheck link. Added link to ad claims.
NARAL (the National Abortion Rights Action League) is going after Supreme Court nominee John Roberts with a bogus ad CNN has no problem running on its own network. Even though FactCheck says the claims it makes are untrue. Just another example of the MSM going to bat for the DNC.
UPDATE 8:39am: Fixed FactCheck link. Added link to ad claims.
Monday, August 08, 2005
NCAA Ruling Getting Plenty of Reaction
As mentioned below (scroll down) the NCAA's Executive Committee may be PC, but it has opened a can of worms with its latest attempt to "encourage" member schools from using "demeaning" nicknames. You know, like "Fighting Irish" and "Ragin' Cajuns". Got to stop slamming the ancestry of fine Americans. Right on! Wait a minute, that's not exactly what they meant?
They're really opposed to such words as "Seminoles" and "Illini" and... what? Those words AREN'T demeaning or racist or insulting? Oh YEAH? the NCAA doesn't want to SEE or even to HEAR the words "Seminoles", "Utes", "Chippewas" or "Braves" any more. You'd think there had been some mass Native American uprising against the use of these names. Not according to polling on the subject.
Check out the thorough analysis at Protein Wisdom. Jeff Goldstein has done the heavy lifting on this. The results are not so surprising. Got to love the title to his post, too: "Concerned, guilt-ridden Whiteys to Native Americans: 'WE'LL tell you when you're outraged, Chief.'"
They're really opposed to such words as "Seminoles" and "Illini" and... what? Those words AREN'T demeaning or racist or insulting? Oh YEAH? the NCAA doesn't want to SEE or even to HEAR the words "Seminoles", "Utes", "Chippewas" or "Braves" any more. You'd think there had been some mass Native American uprising against the use of these names. Not according to polling on the subject.
Check out the thorough analysis at Protein Wisdom. Jeff Goldstein has done the heavy lifting on this. The results are not so surprising. Got to love the title to his post, too: "Concerned, guilt-ridden Whiteys to Native Americans: 'WE'LL tell you when you're outraged, Chief.'"
Friday, August 05, 2005
The NCAA Goes PC
College and University Presidents may think they are the smartest men and women on the face of the planet, but the latest ruling by the NCAA's Executive Committee -- made up of the pointiest of the intellectual pointy-heads in our fair land -- makes me want to THROW UP!
As if we don't have more pressing things to worry about -- like getting student-athletes to GO TO CLASS, STAY IN SCHOOL and GRADUATE, so they can be a credit to both their community and alma mater, we now MAY NOT OFFEND. Even if the "offended" are not.
Welcome to political correctness taken to the extreme. From the text of the rule itself:
"The presidents and chancellors who serve on the NCAA Executive Committee have adopted a new policy to prohibit NCAA colleges and universities from displaying hostile and abusive racial/ethnic/national origin mascots, nicknames or imagery at any of the 88 NCAA championships."
Does that mean Notre Dame must look at changing from the Fighting Irish to something else to be PC with the NCAA? I can't think of any other school that uses a "national origin" nickname.
Next they'll be going after participant's names. Think that isn't a possibility? North Carolina's soon-to-be all-time leading pass receiver is named Jawarski Pollock (pronounced POE-lock like the slang for a person of Polish descent). He may be glad he's in his last year, or he might be looking to have to change his last name. Although it could force a change to Jawarski "Dreadlock", or something equally dramatic. Continuing with the ABSURDITY:
"The Executive Committee, meeting Thursday in Indianapolis, also approved recommended best practices for schools who continue to use Native American mascots, nicknames and imagery in their intercollegiate athletic programs.
"Colleges and universities may adopt any mascot that they wish, as that is an institutional matter," said Walter Harrison, chair of the Executive Committee and president at the University of Hartford. "But as a national association, we believe that mascots, nicknames or images deemed hostile or abusive in terms of race, ethnicity or national origin should not be visible at the championship events that we control."
Okay, right off the bat we'll have to start calling this the "Ban FSU, Utah and Illinois" rule... Must not have an "offensive" nickname. If you do, can't host an event. First of all, who is to say the indians, excuse me, the Native Americans are even mildly concerned about this, not to mention offended by it?
By the way, the Florida State Seminoles even have a long-standing agreement with the Seminole "nation" to use their name! In fact, the Seminoles receive untold POSITIVE promotional benefits from FSU's use of their name.
Thank goodness there is one pointy-head who is not impressed with this PC stuff... IN FSU's DEFENSE, the President of the University, T. K. Wetherell, has responded to the NCAA and its PC President, Myles Brand. Quoting President Wetherell:
"Florida State University is stunned at the complete lack of appreciation for cultural diversity shown by the National Collegiate Athletic Association's executive committee, which announced today a policy banning schools using Native American names and symbols from hosting NCAA championship events. That the NCAA would now label our close bond with the Seminole Tribe of Florida as culturally "hostile and abusive" is both outrageous and insulting.
On June 17, the Tribal Council of the Seminole Tribe of Florida spoke unequivocally of its support for Florida State University in its use of the Seminole name and related symbols. Accordingly, I intend to pursue all legal avenues to ensure that this unacceptable decision is overturned, and that this university will forever be associated with the "unconquered" spirit of the Seminole Tribe of Florida."
Neither Utah's nor Illinois' official athletic sites have any response to the NCAA legislation at this point, but it's good to see Bobby Bowden U is on the warpath (oops, must be PC), er uh, is ready to make a stand!
Let's hope PETA doesn't convince the NCAA to ban animal nicknames, or my head WILL EXPLODE!
UPDATE: (Monday 8/8/05 at 8:28am) My references herein to the Seminole Indians and FSU's agreements apply solely to the Seminole Indians OF FLORIDA -- the legendary "Unconquered" -- the descendants of whom have every right to associate their ancestors' "spirit" with FSU's athletic teams if they so choose. The university likely does not need the approval of the Oklahoma Seminoles (even though their number is nearly ten times that of the Seminoles of Florida), since the school is in no way claiming to represent them.
Also, I forgot about the Ragin' Cajuns of Louisiana Lafayette (Jake Delhomme's school), when I was commenting on "national origin" nicknames, and I believe there is a "Fighting Scots" somewhere, too. Nonetheless, lets see what the NCAA does with the Irish mascot. Bet they don't!
UPDATE 2: (Monday, 8/8/05 at 2:15pm) Anyone note the extreme irony in the fact the NCAA is headquartered in INDIANapolis, INDIANa? Guess they ought to have to move (again) if they want to really be PC.
As if we don't have more pressing things to worry about -- like getting student-athletes to GO TO CLASS, STAY IN SCHOOL and GRADUATE, so they can be a credit to both their community and alma mater, we now MAY NOT OFFEND. Even if the "offended" are not.
Welcome to political correctness taken to the extreme. From the text of the rule itself:
"The presidents and chancellors who serve on the NCAA Executive Committee have adopted a new policy to prohibit NCAA colleges and universities from displaying hostile and abusive racial/ethnic/national origin mascots, nicknames or imagery at any of the 88 NCAA championships."
Does that mean Notre Dame must look at changing from the Fighting Irish to something else to be PC with the NCAA? I can't think of any other school that uses a "national origin" nickname.
Next they'll be going after participant's names. Think that isn't a possibility? North Carolina's soon-to-be all-time leading pass receiver is named Jawarski Pollock (pronounced POE-lock like the slang for a person of Polish descent). He may be glad he's in his last year, or he might be looking to have to change his last name. Although it could force a change to Jawarski "Dreadlock", or something equally dramatic. Continuing with the ABSURDITY:
"The Executive Committee, meeting Thursday in Indianapolis, also approved recommended best practices for schools who continue to use Native American mascots, nicknames and imagery in their intercollegiate athletic programs.
"Colleges and universities may adopt any mascot that they wish, as that is an institutional matter," said Walter Harrison, chair of the Executive Committee and president at the University of Hartford. "But as a national association, we believe that mascots, nicknames or images deemed hostile or abusive in terms of race, ethnicity or national origin should not be visible at the championship events that we control."
Okay, right off the bat we'll have to start calling this the "Ban FSU, Utah and Illinois" rule... Must not have an "offensive" nickname. If you do, can't host an event. First of all, who is to say the indians, excuse me, the Native Americans are even mildly concerned about this, not to mention offended by it?
By the way, the Florida State Seminoles even have a long-standing agreement with the Seminole "nation" to use their name! In fact, the Seminoles receive untold POSITIVE promotional benefits from FSU's use of their name.
Thank goodness there is one pointy-head who is not impressed with this PC stuff... IN FSU's DEFENSE, the President of the University, T. K. Wetherell, has responded to the NCAA and its PC President, Myles Brand. Quoting President Wetherell:
"Florida State University is stunned at the complete lack of appreciation for cultural diversity shown by the National Collegiate Athletic Association's executive committee, which announced today a policy banning schools using Native American names and symbols from hosting NCAA championship events. That the NCAA would now label our close bond with the Seminole Tribe of Florida as culturally "hostile and abusive" is both outrageous and insulting.
On June 17, the Tribal Council of the Seminole Tribe of Florida spoke unequivocally of its support for Florida State University in its use of the Seminole name and related symbols. Accordingly, I intend to pursue all legal avenues to ensure that this unacceptable decision is overturned, and that this university will forever be associated with the "unconquered" spirit of the Seminole Tribe of Florida."
Neither Utah's nor Illinois' official athletic sites have any response to the NCAA legislation at this point, but it's good to see Bobby Bowden U is on the warpath (oops, must be PC), er uh, is ready to make a stand!
Let's hope PETA doesn't convince the NCAA to ban animal nicknames, or my head WILL EXPLODE!
UPDATE: (Monday 8/8/05 at 8:28am) My references herein to the Seminole Indians and FSU's agreements apply solely to the Seminole Indians OF FLORIDA -- the legendary "Unconquered" -- the descendants of whom have every right to associate their ancestors' "spirit" with FSU's athletic teams if they so choose. The university likely does not need the approval of the Oklahoma Seminoles (even though their number is nearly ten times that of the Seminoles of Florida), since the school is in no way claiming to represent them.
Also, I forgot about the Ragin' Cajuns of Louisiana Lafayette (Jake Delhomme's school), when I was commenting on "national origin" nicknames, and I believe there is a "Fighting Scots" somewhere, too. Nonetheless, lets see what the NCAA does with the Irish mascot. Bet they don't!
UPDATE 2: (Monday, 8/8/05 at 2:15pm) Anyone note the extreme irony in the fact the NCAA is headquartered in INDIANapolis, INDIANa? Guess they ought to have to move (again) if they want to really be PC.
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
A System In Need of (Smart) Leadership
Fellow former UNC Tar Heel footballer Bob Lee Swagger has unloaded his latest screed at the North Carolina Legislature and has managed to wing folks from Manteo to Murphy in the process. Good Work BLS! He touches on the current "crisis" in higher education in the Old North State, which seems to demand larger and larger collagen injections of cold hard cash with regularity.
A few weeks ago, I had a discussion in a related vein with George Leef, a regular contributor to The John Locke Foundation's blog, "The Locker Room" (Note link to the right). My concern was that one of the big questions surrounding the departure of UNC System President Molly Broad was how much they needed to up the President's pay for the next (sight-unseen) one. I think this e-mail swap is still right on the money (so to speak!):
MY E-MAIL TO GEORGE:
"One thing you can 'bank' on these days is that educrats will presume that 'more money' is the solution to everything. Just think about it... need higher test scores? 'more money'... need better teachers? 'more money'... need more bricks and mortar? 'more money'... after all, it's just tax dollars. Not anyone's personal money. BUT just don't cut the fat and bureaucracy out of the education system... no, can't do that!
"If $300k+ was good enough for Molly Broad, then why is it not good enough for the next prez? Or is the presumption that Molly wasn't that good of a UNC president and now we get the chance to get a better one?
"Sheesh!
"The educrats will bankrupt us all."
TO WHICH HE REPLIED:
"The education industry has figured out that by wrapping all demands in the soft blanket of 'it's for the children' it's able to squeeze enormous amounts of money out of the taxpayers in return for less and less value."
Amen and Amen!
Let's hope sanity and reason will eventually win out. Not holding my breath, though.
A few weeks ago, I had a discussion in a related vein with George Leef, a regular contributor to The John Locke Foundation's blog, "The Locker Room" (Note link to the right). My concern was that one of the big questions surrounding the departure of UNC System President Molly Broad was how much they needed to up the President's pay for the next (sight-unseen) one. I think this e-mail swap is still right on the money (so to speak!):
MY E-MAIL TO GEORGE:
"One thing you can 'bank' on these days is that educrats will presume that 'more money' is the solution to everything. Just think about it... need higher test scores? 'more money'... need better teachers? 'more money'... need more bricks and mortar? 'more money'... after all, it's just tax dollars. Not anyone's personal money. BUT just don't cut the fat and bureaucracy out of the education system... no, can't do that!
"If $300k+ was good enough for Molly Broad, then why is it not good enough for the next prez? Or is the presumption that Molly wasn't that good of a UNC president and now we get the chance to get a better one?
"Sheesh!
"The educrats will bankrupt us all."
TO WHICH HE REPLIED:
"The education industry has figured out that by wrapping all demands in the soft blanket of 'it's for the children' it's able to squeeze enormous amounts of money out of the taxpayers in return for less and less value."
Amen and Amen!
Let's hope sanity and reason will eventually win out. Not holding my breath, though.
Animal Rights and Wrongs
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) may have over-reached with its over-the-top attitude. According to the AP, PETA staged a protest in Utah over the way Kentucky Fried Chicken slaughters its primary food staple -- chicken. The protest drew less than a dozen concerned animal rights supporters, but it also drew nearly three dozen diners -- showing their support of KFC with their wallets and stomachs!
Meanwhile, in Minnesota, Governor Tim Pawlenty says he's going out to dine on Walleyed Pike, in the wake of a PETA request that he declare the state fish off limits to fishing. He also says PETA should keep its nose out of "Minnesota's proud fishing lifestyle"!
Think folks are getting tired of being told what they should and should not do by a bunch of "do gooders" who have nothing better to do than scream and berate average Americans? I thought so.
Meanwhile, in Minnesota, Governor Tim Pawlenty says he's going out to dine on Walleyed Pike, in the wake of a PETA request that he declare the state fish off limits to fishing. He also says PETA should keep its nose out of "Minnesota's proud fishing lifestyle"!
Think folks are getting tired of being told what they should and should not do by a bunch of "do gooders" who have nothing better to do than scream and berate average Americans? I thought so.
Monday, August 01, 2005
I Swear
Here in North Carolina, the ACLU, on behalf of a Muslim woman, is suing the state to get the Legislature to change the law and make the legal system more inclusive of all religions. The plan is to require all courts to have multiple religious texts so that someone of say, Muslim faith can swear on the Quran instead of the Christian Bible.
Interesting banter occurred this morning on WPTF in Raleigh. Kevin Miller's guest was Jennifer Rudinger, the Executive Director of the state ACLU. [FOR BACKGROUND on the lawsuit follow the link below]
Some callers argued tradition should be allowed to stand, a few said the country was founded on Judeo-Christian values, so others should just adapt. Rudinger says, in essence, she believes someone of a different faith may put more stock into "swearing" on their own religious text than on the Bible.
One woman, who claimed not to be very pious in her Jewish beliefs, pointed out Jews are not supposed to "swear" on anything. She says every time she's been asked to "swear" an oath she has said, "I affirm on my religion..." and that has been fully acceptable. She also noted it costs nothing for the state to let her do that, while the ACLU plan would have a steep price tag. Rudinger noted the law allows for that, as it is written in the statutes, but the ACLU is not disputing that point.
Something I did not hear was any Muslim commenting on "swearing" on anything. I mean, we're treated to horror stories by the news media of Quran abuse at Gitmo. We're told by the military that safeguards are in place to treat the Quran with utmost respect -- gloved hands, placing the Quaran on a clean towel, etc. -- because it is degrading to Muslims for an infidel to "touch" the Holy Quran.
So, what is it ACLU? If the Quran "abuse" angle is considered, wouldn't having a Quran available in the courtroom subject it to being abused by infidels? In fact, most likely an infidel would hold the Quran for a Muslim to "swear" on, which would be the heighth of blasphemy! The ACLU might also want to check on "swearing" by Muslims also. Seems to me they probably have rules about that, as well. And since Jews are not supposed to "swear" an oath, then aren't we back at square one?
The state of North Carolina (as do most) already allows a non-Christian to be sworn "with upraised hand," without any religious text being used, and -- as noted above -- to say "affirm" instead of "swear" and to delete the words "so help me God". SO WHAT'S THE PROBLEM???
Just what's the point? Is this really a useful debate?
Interesting banter occurred this morning on WPTF in Raleigh. Kevin Miller's guest was Jennifer Rudinger, the Executive Director of the state ACLU. [FOR BACKGROUND on the lawsuit follow the link below]
Some callers argued tradition should be allowed to stand, a few said the country was founded on Judeo-Christian values, so others should just adapt. Rudinger says, in essence, she believes someone of a different faith may put more stock into "swearing" on their own religious text than on the Bible.
One woman, who claimed not to be very pious in her Jewish beliefs, pointed out Jews are not supposed to "swear" on anything. She says every time she's been asked to "swear" an oath she has said, "I affirm on my religion..." and that has been fully acceptable. She also noted it costs nothing for the state to let her do that, while the ACLU plan would have a steep price tag. Rudinger noted the law allows for that, as it is written in the statutes, but the ACLU is not disputing that point.
Something I did not hear was any Muslim commenting on "swearing" on anything. I mean, we're treated to horror stories by the news media of Quran abuse at Gitmo. We're told by the military that safeguards are in place to treat the Quran with utmost respect -- gloved hands, placing the Quaran on a clean towel, etc. -- because it is degrading to Muslims for an infidel to "touch" the Holy Quran.
So, what is it ACLU? If the Quran "abuse" angle is considered, wouldn't having a Quran available in the courtroom subject it to being abused by infidels? In fact, most likely an infidel would hold the Quran for a Muslim to "swear" on, which would be the heighth of blasphemy! The ACLU might also want to check on "swearing" by Muslims also. Seems to me they probably have rules about that, as well. And since Jews are not supposed to "swear" an oath, then aren't we back at square one?
The state of North Carolina (as do most) already allows a non-Christian to be sworn "with upraised hand," without any religious text being used, and -- as noted above -- to say "affirm" instead of "swear" and to delete the words "so help me God". SO WHAT'S THE PROBLEM???
Just what's the point? Is this really a useful debate?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)