The poor are not the "less fortunate." They are instead, the "more irresponsible." They put themselves there, and they drag their children into that status with them. They are the "less prepared," the "less diligent," and the "less able." They weren't unlucky. They did it to themselves. -- Neal Boortz
Q&A Friday #28: The Democratic Party Has Been "Kerrized" When It Comes To America's Security
Question: "From Yahoo News today: 'LATROBE, Pa. - Most U.S. troops will leave Iraq within a year because the Army is "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth," Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record) told a civic group.
Murtha predicted most troops will be out of Iraq within a year.
"I predict he'll make it look like we're staying the course," Murtha said, referring to Bush. "Staying the course is not a policy."'
Given that you have predicted the beginnings of a scale down in the next year (so even Democrats could see it), do you agree that this is Murtha simply trying to cover his arse and ensure that the media will be able to paint any return of the troops in his defeatist colours?
If this is the kind of long game the D's are now going to play how can your President defend and counter these tactics without discussing troop scaledown?..." -- RightForScotland
Answer: What you have to understand is that the majority of Democrats in Congress have been "Kerryized" when it comes to America's security. By that, I mean that they habitually lie, act hypocritically, and regularly shift their position -- even when American lives are on the line -- based on what they think will bring them the most political advantage.
For example:
* The President and most of the Democrats in Congress looked at intelligence provided to them by the CIA and came to the conclusion that Saddam had stockpiles of WMDS. When no stockpiles were found, Democrats have claimed they were merely mistaken, but Bush lied.
* Democrats who voted to give Bush authority to go to war have been almost impossible to distinguish from the Democrats who voted against the war. Both groups have done nothing but complain, kvetch, and whine non-stop since we went to war.
* Democrats spent all of 2004 complaining that Bush "didn't have a plan" for the war in Iraq. Then when John Kerry was finally prodded into coming out with his own plan, it turned out to be almost exactly what Bush was already doing in Iraq.
* Democrats like Murtha publicly and expressly called for an immediate pull-out in Iraq, but when the GOP in the House called their bluff and made them vote on it, almost all of them voted against it rather than lose by a lopsided count.
* When the Democrats thought it was to their advantage to call for more troops in Iraq, they were insisting that we send more troops to Iraq. Now that they think it's to their advantage to have the troops home, they're calling for them to come back.
And, yes, even though Bush has been saying over and over again that as the Iraqis stand up, our troops will stand down and even though blogs like this one have been telling everyone for months that we'll probably be bringing a significant number of troops home in early-mid-2006, expect the Democrats to try to take credit for it when it happens.
What it all comes down to is that most of the Democrats have put their political fortunes ahead of defending America and because of that, they're conflicted. They want to cut and run, which is what their liberal base is demanding, but they've already paid a big political price because the American people have correctly tagged them as appeasers and wimps. If they live down to their reputation, it could do even more damage to their political fortunes in the future, especially if things start looking up in Iraq in 2006 (which is highly likely, by the way).
So, what most of the Democrats are trying to do is play both sides of the fence. If things turn out great, it'll be, "Oh, we were for the war all along!" If things don't turn out well, it'll be, "We Democrats told everyone the war would be a disaster!"
Most of the Democrats in Congress including Murtha, Kerry, Pelosi, Reid, and Clinton have been able to get away with that for most of the last year, at least in part, because:
#1) Up until recently, the Bush administration hasn't been calling them on it.
#2) The liberals in the mainstream media understand the game the Dems have been playing and haven't been putting pressure on them to take a side.
But unfortunately for the Democratic Party this strategy isn't going to work any better for them in the end than it did for John Kerry in 2004. It's more than obvious to anyone paying attention already -- and will become even moreso as the new media and White House make the distinctions clearer -- that the GOP is the party of victory in Iraq while the Democrats are the party of surrender. The Democrats have taken a disgraceful position and like their behavior during the Vietnam War, it will not be quickly forgotten by the American people.
Q&A Friday #28: Give Us Your "Guilty Pleasure" Movie List
Question: Mr. Hawkins, I've asked this question before but got no response so I'll try again: Do you have a list of "guilty pleasure" movies? (movies that you know are terrible, B and C grade, but you enjoy regardless)
If you're embarrassed, I'll go first: Hudson Hawk, Nothing But Trouble, Purple Rain and Action Jackson. I know, they were all god-awful but I still get a kick out of them. :) Some things can't be helped :)" --Good_Ol_Boy
Answer: This is a hard question for me to answer because I'm such a big fan of horror movies and chop socky flicks that I could probably reel off a list as long as the Mississippi River of appallingly bad "B" movies that I liked.
But, here are a few bigger name movies I liked that most other people absolutely detested:
Battlefield Earth: I thought this movie was actually entertaining. Perhaps it's because I was the only person who found John Travolta's over-the-top alien character to be entertaining instead of cheesy.
Cool as Ice: This movie is so cheesy and ridiculous that it's entertaining. Vanilla Ice drops lines like, "Drop that zero and get with this hero," and rides a motorcycle right through the wall of a house. How can you not love this?
Godzilla (98): This one is the biggest puzzler to me because I thought it was a really good flick and it cleared over 100 million dollars in the US, but people just hate this movie. I get why people hate the other movies on this list, but I never got the dislike for this film, especially considering how comparatively terrible every other Godzilla flick ever made is compared to this one.
Jason X: This was even more entertaining than the original Jason flick (which is admittedly a bit dated at this point). If you ask me, this movie was more fun than 90% of the horror/sci-fi schlock that's put out today.
Joe Dirt: Ironically, I put off watching this film for a long time because I thought it would be lame. But, when I actually saw it, I thought it was a fairly funny, witty, and well written flick. Again, not the greatest thing I'd ever seen, but not the cluster bomb dropped in a fertilizer plant everyone else seemed to think it was.
Pearl Harbor: I found the extraneous romance/friends fighting plot more tolerable than most people did and the action was really fantastic. On the other hand, I thought the song mocking this movie from Team America: World Police was outstanding, too. So, maybe I'm overrating this one.
Showgirls: Maybe it's just because it was just especially hot to have Elizabeth Berkley go from being a good girl on Saved by the Bell to being a raunchy stripper, but I liked this movie. Ok, it's not, "maybe," it's definitely -- and even though this isn't one of my all-time favorite movies or anything, I have just enough of a thing for Berkley to make this watchable.
Waterworld: Granted, this wasn't a phenomenal movie but it wasn't the disaster people made it out to be. It had an interesting plot, Costner had the whole anti-hero thing going on -- it worked for me.
Q&A Friday #28: Should A Husband's Permission Be Required To Have An Abortion?
Question: "...Where is the man's right to choose? (again, other than to have sex, because that isn't the type of choice accepted by the pro-choice crowd).
Firstly I don't believe in abortion, I find it disgusting, and just this side of murder (I think most defendents would be able to use the insane defense, because they honestly believe that it is not a person).
This isn't about that. Accepting every argument "pro-choicers" use to justify and demand abortion for those women who so choose, why can the same argument not be made for men?
There are dead beat dad laws outthere. Men can be forced to support a child that they never wanted that resulted from one night's bad decision. Women in that situation have many choices; (A) carry the baby to term, raise it, love it, on her own or with what ever voluntary help she can find, (B) carry it term, raise it, love it, and use the law to force help from the father, (C) carry the baby to term and give it up for adoption, and (D) abort the child.
I am curious why there has been no case made for a Man's right to choose, to duck out of the consequences of his actions. As with case (A) above, he has the ability to choose to take care of the child with love and responsibility (If the mother chooses, she can choose not to let him, so the man still has no right there). The man is a victim of (B) has no say in (C) (aside from married couples, the husband/father has some say in giving the baby up for adoption in that case I believe) and can not choose to abort the fetus.
Combinig many of the arguments of the Pro-Choice crowd with the United States' idea of equality and gender neutrality, why is there no case being made for a Man's right to choose? At the very least he should be able to remove himself from responsibilty at any time (because women can put a child up for adoption), and there can be case made for him insisting on an abortion (though I think it far weaker)...." -- Chris_RC
Answer: Personally, I think abortion should be illegal except in the case of rape, murder, or danger to the life of the mother.
But, even today when Roe v. Wade is in effect, I don't think a woman should be able to have an abortion without the permission of the father of the baby.
The woman may be the one responsible for carrying the baby to term, but she didn't make the baby alone. Furthermore, once the baby is born, society holds the father equally responsible with the mother for the welfare of the child (rightfully so, I might add).
Therefore, it seems to me that the woman shouldn't be able to snuff out the life of that child without the permission of the husband. They both had a hand in creating that life and so at a minimum, both of them should have to sign off in order to destroy it.
Q&A Friday #28: Why Don't We See More Strong GOP Challenges To Incumbent Senators?
Question: "How about the notion of replacing liberal Republican Senators with conservative Republicans via the primary elections? It's a great idea but doesn't seem to happen. So I'm wondering why doesn't it happen?" -- bertd
Answer: Incumbent Senators have numerous enormous advantages over their challengers. They have high name recognition, find it easier to get press, are better at fund raising, and because of franking privileges, they can promote themselves to their constituents on the taxpayer's dime.
So, most intraparty challengers are going to figure beating an incumbent is just too high of a mountain to climb. But, consider what happens if they decide to give it a go:
* Because the incumbent Senator is such a heavy favorite and is likely to defeat any challengers, the local Republican establishment will back him. So if a challenger decides to run, all local Republican heavies will try to steer him away from running and the challenger will hear things like: "We couldn't support you if you ran against the Senator, so why don't you wait two years and run for Lt. Governor? We'd be happy to back you then."
* Local businesses and important community leaders may have already received favors from the sitting Senator, think he's likely to win again, and may even prefer the guy already in office because the more seniority you have in Congress, the more influence you gain. So again, they're going to probably back the incumbent.
* After all that, let's say a strong challenger still decides to run. Well, then the Republican establishment -- which will almost always back a RINO with a 90% chance of winning over a conservative with a 50% chance of winning -- will really start working on the challenger.
Pat Toomey was giving Arlen Specter all he could handle in 2004 and then what happens? President Bush, Rick Santorum, and the National Republican Senatorial Committee all came out for Specter and he just edged out Toomey, a real conservative who would have had a decent shot of winning, in the primary.
This time around, the NRSC (which is an advertiser at RWN by the way) is actually running attack ads against moderate Republican Steve Laffey, who's taking on Lincoln Chafee, the most liberal Senator in Congress, in the Rhode Island primaries (Here's some free advice for the NRSC: If you're wondering why your fund raising stinks, defending RINOs against more conservative Republicans has undoubtedly cost you a lot of donations).
Put it all together and you can see why there are so few credible Republican challengers who are willing to take on Republican incumbents.
Question: "You've talked about your least favorite right wingers, but who's your favorite liberal? Not just a moderate, has to be a very left wing individual." -- oneisnotprime
Answer: Ugh! This is a tough one. It's like picking the most preferred place on your body to be whacked with a baseball bat. But, I'm going to not wimp out, I'm not going to choose Mickey Kaus, Joe Lieberman, or Christopher Hitchens here. I'm going to pick some of the real, honest to goodness libs, that I like the best, mainly because they're occasionally honest &/or funny. But do keep in mind, the word, "like," is very, very relative in this case.
Here you go:
Donna Brazile
James Carville
Nicholas Kristof
Al Sharpton
John Stewart
Q&A Friday #28: Why Is Hollywood So Anti-Conservative And In Love With R-Movies?
Question: "Here's a good social conservative question:
A quick glance at boxofficemojo.com reveals that only one of this year's Top 10 grossing movies is rated R (Wedding Crashers), while half of the 16 biggest bombs of the year are rated R.
Since it's plainly obvious that family friendly movies make more money, why is Hollywood intentionally throwing money away producing so many R rated movies?" -- Mike_M
"Do you think M. Moore is now writing for Law & Order SVU? 6 shows in a row have been based on liberal prejudices and talking points. For a show based on reality (?) the over the top themes make me wonder if these guys are really trying to make headway where MSM has failed." -- Hockey_Goon_of_RWN
"I second his question, in a more general sense. What do you have to say about all of the lefty propaganda filling the airwaves and ruining any enjoyment we might get out of TV? I'm pretty much down to about 3 shows I'm not pissed at.
As conservatives, we believe in the free market and free speach, but still, is there anything we can do to bring the debate to public attention?" -- a_velasquez
"Good point. for example I used to really enjoy "The Practice" and it's currently running spin-oof show "Boston Legal". I found it very entertaining and the was amused by the over the top amorality of the David Spader character. However more and more these days "Boston Legal" has become little more than an excuse to showcase leftist propaganda and the way the William shatner character is a grotesque charicature of right wingers has made me tune in less and less. I still enjoy the show, but have to hold my nose while watching." -- "Trench Raider"
Answer: First of all, I discussed this topic with radio talk show host/film critic Michael Medved back in November of 2003. Here's what Medved had to say about it:
John Hawkins: Let's switch over to another topic. Why do you think Hollywood slants so far to the left?
Michael Medved: That's of course one of the most perplexing questions in life. It's like why is the sky blue? It is profoundly irrational and there's no normal, rational way of understanding it. After all, most of the people in Hollywood, when they favor higher taxes, when they favor bigger government, when they favor a generally leftist, anti-American agenda are undermining their own interests. It's completely absurd, it's nuts. By the same token, part of what I've written about in the past and continue to write about, is how they undermine their own interests by making sleazy movies or sleazy TV shows.
John Hawkins: Because "G" & "PG" rated movies generally do better at the box office?
Michael Medved: On average, for 25 years, they've done better at the box office. It's what I proved in "Hollywood Vs. America" and at the time everybody scoffed and said, "Oh no, Medved's crazy," and now it has been confirmed by countless studies.
I think the secret to both the Hollywood leftism and Hollywood's obsession with what they call "cutting edge material" comes from the same tendency among decision makers in Hollywood. These are terribly insecure people. They are people who want to look like and sound like tough guys, adventurers, rebels. Now I don't know if most people out there have a good sense of what Steven Spielberg is like, but Steven is not a macho man. If you have a good sense of what Michael Eisner or Jeffrey Katzenberg or any of these people are really like, they are not captains of the football team. These are guys who have to go some distance to show their he-man status. People in Hollywood will do that in one of two ways.
The most direct way is by using a lot of "F-words" in your conversation. One of the things that strikes me and it's very peculiar, is in Hollywood meetings among top executives, people will talk like stevedores. I don't think there is any other business in the country, with women present, in very public meetings, where people will be "F"ing this and "F"ing that and using the kind of language that of course that you could never ever use on the radio. So it naturally spills over into the movies and it has to do with this sort of prolonged adolescence in which guys want to show how tough they are.
The sort of rebellious leftist stand has to do with the same thing to some extent. They idea that, "Well, we may drive in limousines and have big houses in the hills, but we are really people of the street. We are in solidarity with the proletariat. We are ordinary folks". What's ironic is that Hollywood has gone in an Ivy League direction. Stars like Jodie Foster, Angela Bassett, Sigourney Weaver, Meryl Streep, Oliver Stone, -- all of those of those people are Yalies for example. The more that Hollywood has become a province for people who were born with privelege rather than the sort of shop girls and truck drivers who once busted their way into the business, the more it has tried to pretend, absurdly, that it is not an elite and corporate industry. The more guilty they feel about their status, the more desire they have to assuage that guilt with leftist pieties.
Personally, I have a slightly different take on this than Medved. I believe the same "bubble effect" that skews the way the mainstream media reports the news, is in effect here. In other words, Hollywood is so predominantly liberal that they literally may not realize when they're pitching a project that won't appeal to a lot of people in mainstream America because there is no one -- who understands what those people like and don't like -- sitting in the room.
In any case, there are very, very few movies and TV shows out there that view a world from a conservative perspective. The best you can hope for in most cases is that they'll try to be apolitical or won't go overboard on the leftist spin too often.
Q&A Friday #28: What 5 Books Do You Think Everyone Should Read?
Question: "If you had to pick a set of, say, 5 or so books that were required for every American to read, which 5 books would you choose? They can be any kind of books, fiction, non-fiction, it's up to you." -- SKatuska
Answer: 5 books, huh? It's tough to pick out just 5, but let me give it a go:
Question: "Will we finally get the nuclear option triggered in the Senate because the donkeys have changed the rules of the game and dropped all pretenses that they always apply an abortion litmus test to judges will try to filibuster Alito?" -- AlexinCT
Question: "Will the Alito nomination put a nail in the coffin of the Bork era of judicial nominations?" -- Compiled
Alito looks likely to get enough votes to pass and the GOP likely has enough votes to shut down the nuclear option. As long as the GOP has the votes to use the nuclear option, the Democrats are unlikely to use it. That's because they hope to add more Democratic Senators in 2006 which could put them in a stronger position if another spot on the SCOTUS opens up during the rest of Bush's term.
In my view, once a mainstream conservative judge with a long track record, like Alito, gets shoved through it should herald the end of the Bork era for Republicans because it'll prove we don't have to nominate stealth nominees.
That suits me just fine and it's unfortunate that we had to wait so long and have a massive intra-party fight over Harriet Miers to get to this point.
PS: The Ann Coulter rape thing sounds current and she didn't mention a particular blog. But, as I've catalogued here on RWN, there are some liberals who have publicly fantasized about raping Ann Coulter before. So, it's hardly a surprise that it's happening again.
So, if there's a subject you've been wanting me to tackle or an issue you want to hear my opinion on, just ask your question in the comments section. Your question can be about politics, ideology, history, blogging, RWN, from a liberal, conservative, or libertarian perspective; heck, it can even be about movies, music, literature, or TV. Then, I'll select some of the more interesting questions and answer them.
Excerpt Of The Day: Grievance Politics -- The Ends Have Been Subsumed By The Means
"An obvious problem with the grievance aspect of identity politics is that the grievance needs to be perpetually maintained in order to justify the identity aspect of the politics. And in an era of academic specialization wherein just about every individual identity groups has its own set of researchers and theoretical champions—as well as a widely accepted generic narrative of grievance—the observation that continued relevance (which translates into political power) is contingent upon the nursing and care of the grievance is something that too often goes unexamined by a society that, at base, really does wish to understand and fix the problems and frustrations expressed by individual identity groups.
All of which leads, I’d argue, to a cultural millieu that—perversely—is fearful of acknowledging its own successes, because to do so is to make irrelevant those who have been so adamant about bringing about those successes. The ends, ironically, have been subsumed by the means, and the means—or better, the structural apparatus designed to support and animate the individual identity group’s cause and promote it’s political agenda—have become more coveted, insofar as they carry all the institutional power, than the ends they claim to advocate." -- Jeff Goldstein
"I'll admit,I am not college educated,but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn express last night.
What the hell is this guy talking about...seriously?" -- xtremewing
What he's saying is that when you're talking about members of the grievance industry -- like professional feminists, race hustling poverty pimps, or environmental wackos -- they receive power, money, and influence not for solving problems, but by keeping grievances alive.
If these grievance mongers were to tell the truth, if let's say Jesse Jackson were to say, "Well, racism isn't even close to being as big of a problem as it used to be and isn't anywhere near as harmful to black Americans as out of wedlock births," or environmental groups were to say, "The environment isn't perfect, but it's much cleaner than it used to be and has been getting better for years," then the obvious question would be: "So what do we need you chumps for?"
So, in short, the have a vested interest in never acknowledging progress in society because all their power, money, and influence comes from perpetually raving about how lousy things are, even if that doesn't reflect reality.
The 10 Most Fascinating People In The Blogosphere For 2005
Barbara Walters' list of the most fascinating people for 2005 came out and it was well, execrable. Camilla Parker Bowles? Tom Cruise? Kayne West? What a list!
But, if Barbara Walters could do a list that lame, why couldn't I do my own lame list -- of bloggers? So, without further ado, here's my off the top of my head list in no particular order:
* Tammy Bruce: Feisty and foxy syndicated talk show host Tammy Bruce now has her own, regularly updated blog. Over the next year or so, can she duplicate the crossover appeal of people like Michelle Malkin and Hugh Hewitt? It seems entirely possible.
* Jason Calacanis: Calacanis reportedly managed to sell Weblogs Inc, which consisted of roughly 85 blogs, to AOL for somewhere around $25 million dollars which gave hope to bloggers all across the world that one day, some clueless corporation would pay grossly inflated prices for their blogs as well. Grossly inflated, paid way too much, got taken for a ride, however you want to phrase it, Calacanis will be laughing all the way to the bank.
* Henry Copeland: The man singlehandedly responsible for making blogging profitable, Henry Copeland, saw his Blogads empire expand beyond politics this year. Because of Copeland's efforts, blogging is slowly but surely turning from a hobby to a profession, at least for some of the bigger bloggers.
* Dr. Helen: Everyone is familiar with Glenn Reynolds, but did ya know the Instawife is blogging now -- and surprisingly, she's really good and has a unique writing style? There are no details on the blog so far about whether the Instahubby leaves the toilet seat up or whether she has to pester him to clean the garage, but give her time =D.
* Arianna Huffington: Admittedly, I'm not a fan of the Huffington Post or Arianna Huffington, but she deserves credit for doing something revolutionary. Get investors to put up money for a blog? Celebrity blogging? Getting bloggers together on a massive scale to draw advertisers? Arianna set a benchmark with her blog that has, and will continue to, inspire imitators.
* Charles Johnson and Roger Simon: When they created Pajamas Media, they drew supporters and detractors out of the woodwork and set off a firestorm of chatter, criticism, and speculation about the future of the blogosphere. Whatever ultimately happens with Pajamas Media, it has certainly made a big splash.
* Michelle Malkin: Malkin's star has ascended like few others in the history of the blogosphere this year. Not only has the traffic at her blog exploded, her columns are gaining more attention and she's regularly filling in at Fox. If Glenn Reynolds is the king of the right side of the blogosphere, then he now has a proper queen, one who even has the potential to surpass him in popularity in the coming years.
* Patrick Ruffini: Ruffini was the webmaster for the Bush-Cheney '04 presidential campaign and after a stint of post-campaign blogging, Ruffini is handling blogger outreach for the Republican National Committee. Because of Ruffini's influence, the RNC has done a better job of communicating and has set up a number of blogger conference calls. Even if you're seeing a warming of relations between the RNC and bloggers, Ruffini is responsible.
* Andrew Sullivan: In the history of the right side of the blogosphere, no one has ever gone from being so admired to so disliked as, "Excitable Andy." As Andrew Sullivan has become progressively more flighty and hysterical, mocking him has become sport in many corners of the blogosphere which is part of what makes him so fascinating -- fascinating, like a train wreck -- but fascinating nonetheless.
* Michael Yon: The superb on-the-spot reporting Michael Yon did in Iraq this year was not only far superior to anything done by the mainstream media, it inspired Bruce Willis to make a movie about the Deuce Four, the unit Yon covered in Iraq. That's impressive.
*** Update #1 ***: Here are 5 honorable mentions, in no particular order, with mini-write-ups.
"School Superintendent Thomas W. Payzant rejected a request to close Boston schools tomorrow, when black leaders and antiwar activists plan a rally honoring the anniversary of Rosa Parks's refusal to give up her seat on a Montgomery, Ala., bus 50 years ago.
Organizers of the protest have demanded that all city offices, including schools, be closed tomorrow so that employees can participate in the march. Tomorrow will mark the 50th anniversary of Parks's historic decision, a catalytic moment in the civil rights movement in the United States. Parks died Oct. 24 at the age of 92.
Councilor Chuck Turner of Roxbury blasted the decision and said the move will leave the school system open to accusations of racism. But officials said that the anniversary is not a recognized holiday and that anyone who does not attend school will be marked absent.
''I believe that Rosa Parks was passionate about the importance of education and equal access to opportunity and that she would want children to be in school and not miss a day of learning to celebrate what she did," Payzant said in a letter to Turner.
''Too many of our high school students already have excessive absences and can not afford to miss an additional day of school."
Earlier this fall, the City Council approved a measure urging businesses to close Dec. 1 to allow employees to commemorate the civil rights hero. Then, as leaders mounted a campaign for a ''day of absence" from work, school, and shopping to protest issues including racism and the war in Iraq, Turner wrote Payzant to ask him to call off school for the day.
After Payzant denied the request, Turner wrote the superintendent calling the decision unconscionable and saying that Payzant had allowed students to have excused absences for past events.
''To keep the schools open and penalize those who chose to commemorate such an historic occasion is going to expose the City and School Department to unnecessary ridicule and create a level of anger, confusion, and sadness that will cast a shadow over a celebration that should be a high point of the year," Turner wrote in the e-mail. ''Unfortunately, your decision will also be characterized as racist, based on the definition of institutional racism -- disparate treatment of people of color."
First of all, if you want to have a march for Rosa Parks, have it on the week-end when the kids don't have school and most people don't have to work. To have the event on a Thursday and then demand that the schools close to accommodate YOUR SCHEDULE is beyond obnoxious.
That is bad enough.
But, perhaps even more offensive is the way that these clowns are using Rosa Parks' memory to promote their own agenda. They're talking it up as a Rosa Parks' march and claiming that it's racist not to shut down the schools to support it, but if you take a look at a flyer for the event (.PDF File) you'll see that it's actually an anti-war/pro-liberal rally. Among the slogans on the flyer are, "Bring the troops home now," "Military recruiters out of our schools," & "Cut the war budget."
If you want to have a march to honor Rosa Parks, do it on a week-end. If you want to have an anti-war rally, fine, have one. But to mix the two and then claim it's racist not to shut the city down to support it is simply asinine.
In the past, to inspire people to suggest new music that I might be interested in and just for entertainment's sake, I've posted the music I was currently listening to on RWN. But, thanks to wonders of modern technology, I can now tell you which songs I listened to the most over the last month.
Here's the list for November...
12) The Union Underground: Across the Nation
12) Survivor: Eye of the Tiger
12) Stabbing Westward: Save Yourself
12) Kid Rock: American Bad*ss
12) Guns and Roses: Don't You Cry Tonight
12) Disturbed: Down With the Sickness
12) Chumbawamba: Tubthumping
9) Russell Watson: Faith of the Heart
9) Offspring: I Choose
9) Elton John: Still Standin'
8) Rob Zombie: Dragula
8) Asian Dub Foundation: Fortress Europe
6) Nine Inch Nails: Only
6) Green Day: Boulevard of Broken Dreams
4) Seether: Remedy
4) Lynyrd Skynyrd: Sweet Home Alabama
2) Seether: Out of My Way
2) Rob Zombie: Never Gonna Stop
1) Disturbed: Stricken
Top Ten Upcoming NYT Headlines On The Economy -- Satire By Ace Of Spades HQ
10. Falling Jobless Rate Has Perverse Effect: Higher Salaries Result In Rising Labor Costs
9. Amidst Boom, A Piece of Americana Lost: Fewer Rummies Raving In The Streets
8. Rising Incomes Mean More Americans Caught By Alternative Minimum Tax; Minorities, Women Hardest Hit
7. Falling Gas Prices May Lead To Increased Greenhouse Gas Production
6. With Economic Depression Averted, Struggling Discount Hard-Liquor Manufacturers Wonder: "Where Do We Go From Here?"
5. Picking Up The Pieces: Americans Struggle To Find Quality Chinese Restaurants After Relocating To Work At Higher Paying Jobs
4. The Forgotten Victims: As Investments Shift Towards Stocks, Wall Street Bond Traders "Despondant" At Sub-100K Bonuses
3. Economists Fret At Growing "Luxury Gap" Between Filthy Rich and Filthy Stinking Rich
2. The Dark Side of Prosperity: Study Links Rising Disposable Income With Casual Drug Use, Purchase of "Upscale" Pornographic DVDs
....and the Number One Upcoming NYT Headline On The Economy...
1. Paul Krugman Stops Writing Column, Starts Pelting Well-Dressed Passers-By With His Own Feces; "Some Of His Best Work Ever," Raves The American Prospect
Quote Of The Day: The Truth About The Minimum Wage
Some demagogues charge that jobs at Wal-Mart and McDonald's only pay the minimum wage. That's plain wrong, as are many other things said about jobs that start at the minimum wage. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: Sixty-three percent of minimum wage workers receive raises within one year of employment, and only 15 percent still earn the minimum wage after three years. Moreover, only three percent of all hourly workers and two percent of wage and salary earners earn minimum wages. Most minimum wage earners are young -- 53 percent are between the ages of 16 and 24.
Furthermore, only 5.3 percent of minimum wage earners are from households below the official poverty line; 40 percent of minimum wage earners live in households with incomes of $60,000 and higher, and over 82 percent of minimum wage earners do not have dependents. -- Walter Williams
So Is Europe About To Turn Into A Desert Or Experience A Mini-Ice Age?
We've had hysterical environmental scaremongers predicting gloom and doom because of greenhouse gasses for decades. Through the seventies and into the early eighties, the big scare was over global cooling. Yes, unless we retarded progress and shackled the economy with incredibly expensive new technology of dubious worth, look out, Ice Age, here we come.
Then, most of the hysterical environmental scaremongers made a 180 degree turn and claimed that greenhouse gasses were going to cause global warming. Yes, unless we retarded progress and shackled the economy with incredibly expensive new technology of dubious worth, look out, deserts and heatwaves, here we come.
Now, we have hysterical environmental scaremongers both predicting global warming and global cooling at the same time.
"Policy makers, businesses and individuals must act now on a range of environmental matters or pay a heavy price later" says the European Environment Agency (EEA).
The four hottest years on record were 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2004, it reports. Ten per cent of Alpine glaciers disappeared during the summer of 2003 alone. At current rates, three quarters of Switzerland’s glaciers will have melted by 2050. Europe has not seen climate changes on this scale for 5,000 years, says the EEA."
"The ocean current that gives western Europe its relatively balmy climate is stuttering, raising fears that it might fail entirely and plunge the continent into a mini ice age.
The dramatic finding comes from a study of ocean circulation in the North Atlantic, which found a 30% reduction in the warm currents that carry water north from the Gulf Stream.
The slow-down, which has long been predicted as a possible consequence of global warming, will give renewed urgency to intergovernmental talks in Montreal, Canada, this week on a successor to the Kyoto Protocol."
It's fascinating, isn't it? They can't tell you whether Europe is going to be turned into the Sahara Desert or the Arctic in fifty years, but they can definitely tell you that mankind is responsible, despite the fact that there have been severe climate changes on earth since there were T-Rex's chowing down on Triceratops.
Yet, if you -- very reasonably -- suggest that we do more research on the weather or suggest that we try to come up with some cheaper and more efficient technology that would allow us, if we so desired, to reduce greenhouse gasses without doing massive damage to our economies, you get hysterical demands that we act now, even though we're probably decades away from truly understanding what's happening.
We'd probably all be better off if these environmentalists and scientists -- who're trying to get attention by making these wild, far reaching pronouncements about what they theorize the weather is going to be like in 50 years -- spent more time actually studying the weather and less time doing press conferences.
The sooner they put Tookie Williams, a cold blooded murderer and co-founder of the Crips, into the ground, the better. But, don't tell that to the folks at the NAACP, who're working overtime to save Tookie's life:
"The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People on Monday announced a two-week "crusade" through California to show its opposition to the pending execution of gang founder and Nobel Peace Prize nominee Stanley "Tookie" Williams.
The group hopes to convince California Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger that Williams deserves to live because of his work in encouraging young people to stay away from gangs.
Williams, who co-founded the notorious Crips gang, is scheduled to be executed Dec. 13 for murdering four people during robberies in 1979. Supporters ranging from Archbishop Desmond Tutu to the actor Jamie Foxx are urging Schwarzenegger to grant Williams clemency and commute his sentence to a life in prison without the possibility of parole.
"I am convinced that our community is best served if Stan is alive and contributing to the guidance of our youth," NAACP President Bruce Gordon said in a release. "He is a one-of-a-kind human asset who needs to exercise his unique ability to touch the lives of young people."
Gordon referred to the numerous children's books Williams has authored from behind bars that encourage kids to stay away from gangs and violence.
Williams has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize and the Nobel Prize for Literature by his supporters, who say his attempts to save children merit the awards."
How ironic of a stance is that for the NAACP to take? After all, Tookie Williams has done more damage to black Americans in the last 25 years than the Klan, Robert Byrd, and David Duke combined. Tookie Williams co-founded the Crips and how many black Americans have those animals murdered since then? How many black kids have they helped to get hooked on drugs? How many black Americans have they raped and robbed? How many black neighborhoods have they turned into hellholes full of people who were afraid to come out of their own houses when those scumbags were on the street?
Oh, but he wrote some children's books when he was in prison so all was forgiven. Yeah, right.
You know jailhouse conversions are always a little suspect. You always have to wonder if the criminal is doing this to save his own skin or because he has really reformed. In Tookie's case, the former looks highly likely.
Williams has never admitted guilt for the murders he committed or apologized to the families of the people he killed. Even though he certainly must have known about countless crimes and murders committed by other Crips, he never helped the innocent people that they victimized get the justice they deserved. He just said the right things, wrote a few children's books, got nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize and next thing you know he has celebrities like Jamie Foxx, Snoop Dogg, Jesse Jackson, Bianca Jagger, Desmond Tutu, & Mike Farrell pleading for his life.
But what about the families of the people who were murdered by Tookie Williams? What about the thousands of families of people who have been murdered by other Crips? I guess if they want sympathy from the NAACP and celebrities, they should get to work on a children's book, because wanting justice for a murdered family member apparently doesn't do the trick.
Folks, we're getting close to Christmas time and there's a certain dog who could use a few presents..
Clicking on the advertisers below makes them happy, encourages them to advertise with RWN again, and that helps me have the money I need to buy Patton Christmas presents along with you know, electricity, web hosting, DSL -- those are for me, not the dog, but you get the idea.
Thank you in advance for the clicks.
PS: I now have 2 out of 4 banner ad slots available. The cost is $60 for a 468x60, 20 kb or less banner ad that runs at the top of RWN for a month. If you're interested, send me an email letting me know, click on the "donate via Paypal" in the support section to get the money to me, and I'll have an ad up for you ASAP.
Because of the increasingly loud anti-Christian zealots on the left, we've seen more and more businesses and schools having "Holiday celebrations" instead of "Christmas celebrations."
That's understandable. It allowed these schools and businesses to claim that they were being more inclusive (See? We're celebrating not just Christmas, but Hanukkah and Kwanzaa!), it helped them steer clear of complaints and sometimes even legal challenges from the Michael Newdow/ACLU types, and Christians didn't seem to mind.
However, more and more Christians are getting wise to what's going on and are starting to feel slighted by the change. There's nothing wrong with saying, "Happy Holidays," or having a, "Holiday celebration," per se, but it's another thing entirely to say that Christmas is some sort of "dirty word" and that it shouldn't be said because someone might get offended. This is an overwhelmingly Christian country and the vast majority of people are getting ready to celebrate Christmas. So what's supposed to be wrong with calling it what it is?
Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert has apparently caught wind of this vibe and is doing something about it up on Capitol Hill:
"If it's a spruce tree adorned with 10,000 lights and 5,000 ornaments displayed on the Capitol grounds in December, it's a Christmas tree and that's what it should be called, says House Speaker Dennis Hastert.
Hastert, R-Ill., in a letter to the Architect of the Capitol, recommended that the annual Capitol Holiday Tree, as it has been called the past several years, be renamed the Capitol Christmas Tree.
"I strongly urge that we return to this tradition and join the White House, countless other public institutions and millions of American families in celebrating the holiday season with a Christmas tree," Hastert wrote to Architect Alan Hantman."
Maybe this is a small thing to some people, but Hastert was right to take action. It's not a, "Holiday tree," it's a Christmas tree, and that's what it should be called.
Is Cindy Sheehan Making A Mint Off Of Her Son's Death?
Back when Cindy Sheehan was in the news every day and liberals were fawning over her as the "Rosa Parks" of the anti-war movement, a few people, myself included, had the temerity to ask if Cindy Sheehan was using her son's death to rake in the bucks. Back on August 11th of this year, when "Mother Sheehan" was in the midst of wrapping the press around her little finger, I wrote the following:
"Cindy Sheehan has gotten an enormous amount of fawning press coverage of late and she's in heavy demand on the left. They want her to do speeches, appearances; you have to figure that the donations are just pouring into the anti-war group she co-founded, "Gold Star Families For Peace," and can a book deal be far behind?
Now, given that Mrs. Sheehan is a full-time antiwar activist whose notoriety is based entirely on the fact that she lost a son in Iraq, there is a very basic question that needs to be asked at this point: is she making a profit off of her son's death?
...For example, does Cindy Sheehan take any money for speeches beyond her expenses? Does she get paid a salary by "Gold Star Families For Peace?" Does she stand to make more money if donations go up?
Some people might think it's not proper to ask those sort of questions. But, since Ms. Sheehan has chosen to blatantly exploit her son's death to promote "her own personal agenda and notoriety," I don't think it's unfair to wonder if this is really ultimately about grief or whether perhaps it could be about grief AND being able to afford a bigger house a few months down the road.
Maybe the next time some starstruck left-wingers are comparing her to Rosa Parks or are talking about what an incredible American hero she is for parroting the same anti-war lines they've been mouthing since the war started, they can publicly ask her if she's making any money off of this just to put the whole thing to rest once and for all."
To begin with, note the line about the book deal in the first paragraph. Interestingly enough, we now know that she was actually working on her book when that blog post was written:
"After spending scorching August days with hundreds of war protesters at her makeshift camp near President Bush's Crawford ranch, Cindy Sheehan slipped away each night to her tent or RV for a few quiet moments on her laptop.
...Now those journal entries are in her book, "Not One More Mother's Child," to be released Wednesday. The paperback also contains some of her speeches to peace groups earlier this year, letters to politicians and writings since leaving Crawford."
But writing a book wasn't the only way that Cindy Sheehan exploited her son's death for notoriety and profit. She's also bringing in some hefty speaker fees:
"The State University College at Oneonta has booked a Fox News Channel military analyst to counter a lecture tonight by anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan.
Lt. Col. Scott Rutter, who retired from the Army in November 2003 after leading a mechanized infantry battalion into Baghdad, will give a presentation sponsored by the student-run College Union Activities Council at noon Friday in the Hunt Union Square.
...Sheehan is getting paid $11,000 for the hour-long talk, while Rutter will receive his standard fee of $600 for his presentation, Dromgoole said."
$11,000 bucks for an hour? That's not quite Ann Coulter money, but it's pretty good -- especially to listen to a vapid, dishonest, and uninformed woman spout anti-war cliches and publicly grieve for a son who died more than a year and a half ago. Milking your son's death for money and attention is never pretty, but isn't there some sort of time limit on it? Casey Sheehan was KIA on April 4, 2004 and "Saint Cindy" is still using his name every day to get press attention and put money in her pocket.
While any decent person has sympathy for the family and friends of soldiers who are injured or killed in the service of our country, there is something grotesque about making a career out of playing on those sympathies. Someone close to Cindy Sheehan should alert her to that fact if, somehow, she doesn't know it already.
Arlen Specter Says Terrell Owens Treated Unfairly By James Joyner
Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who chairs the Judiciary Committee, held a news conference decrying the Philadelphia Eagles' "vindictive and inappropriate" treatment of Terrell Owens and hinted that he might launch an investigation.
Sen. Arlen Specter has accused the NFL and the Philadelphia Eagles of treating Terrell Owens unfairly, and might refer the matter to the antitrust subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Specter, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, said at a news conference Monday in Harrisburg it was "vindictive and inappropriate" for the league and the Eagles to forbid the star wide receiver from playing and prevent other teams from talking to him. "It's a restraint of trade for them to do that, and the thought crosses my mind, it might be a violation of antitrust laws," Specter said.
Aside from the fact that something this trivial is hardly a job for a United States Senator--let alone one who so incompetently runs his committee--Specter is almost certainly wrong on this.
Arbitrator Richard Bloch said last week the team's actions were supported by the labor agreement between the league and the NFL Players Association. "The arbitrator's decision is consistent with our collective bargaining agreement, and it simply enforced the terms of the player's contract," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said.
Some legal experts disagreed with Specter's view. "To have an antitrust violation, you have to have a contract or conspiracy in restraint of trade," said Robert McCormick, a law professor at Michigan State University. Matthew J. Mitten, director of the National Sports Law Institute at Marquette University, said, "We're in the labor arena, not antitrust."
Quite right. Further, it should be noted that Owens is 1) under contract with the Eagles and 2) being paid by the Eagles. If the NBA can suspend Ron Artest 73 games without pay, surely the Eagles can force Owens to sit while they pay his salary.
Specter emphasized that he was "not a supporter of Terrell Owens." "I am madder than hell at what he has done in ruining the Eagles' season," the Pennsylvania Republican said. "I think he's in flagrant breach of his contract and I believe the Eagles would be within their rights in not paying him another dime or perhaps even suing him for damages." But Specter said, "I do not believe, personally, that it is appropriate to punish him (by forcing him to sit out the rest of the season). He's not committed a crime, he's committed a breach of contract. And what they're doing against him is vindictive."
Given that he is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Specter's personal opinions on such things carry rather substantial weight and he should therefore keep them close to the vest. Further, Owens isn't being punished for a crime; he's being punished by his employer. Football teams routinely bench players for conduct far less detrimental than Owens' or, indeed, for simply not being as good as others on the team.
What's especially odd to me is that Specter is making his comments now, after an arbitrator's ruling, and not four weeks ago. Indeed, I think there's a far better case to be made against the Eagles' handing down a four game unpaid suspension than sitting him four games at full pay.
Sen. Arlen Specter backed off a threat to have a Senate subcommittee investigate whether the NFL and the Philadelphia Eagles violated antitrust laws in their handling of Terrell Owens. Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Tuesday that he talked to lawyers in the Department of Justice about the issue. "I think it's more a matter for them than us because we've got ... a lot of matters which take precedence over this for our own time," said Specter, R-Pa.
On Tuesday of last week, I was fortunate to have the opportunity to do my 3rd interview with Michelle Malkin, this time by phone. As most of you know, Michelle is a fill-in host at Fox News, has a very successful blog, and has just published her 3rd book, Unhinged.
This interview focused mainly on the left, but we also talked about Michelle's experience in Pajamas Media and feminism in the blogosphere among other topics.
You can read the transcript of our interview, which was edited slightly for the sake of clarity and to avoid repetition, here.
Ever wondered how the Nielsen TV ratings work? Well, I was actually picked to be one of the people who did the ratings last week, and while it wasn't exactly a rocket ride down the side of Mount Everest, I thought people might be interested in reading about how the whole thing works.
First of all, the Nielsen Media Research people are some of the most organized people I've ever dealt with.
To begin with, they called, asked me a few basic questions, and I agreed to do their survey. Then they sent me a letter telling me to look out for the survey, it should be arriving soon. Then the survey arrived along with $15 bucks they sent as payment for filling it out. Then, a couple of days later when the survey was due to start, they called again and asked if I was starting the survey. Then, at about the mid-way point, they called again to make sure I didn't have any questions.
Like I said, we're talking about very organized people.
So next, I filled out the survey for 8 days (I do an extra day because I have TiVo) and I found something odd. You know how usually, if you write down let's say, how much money you spend, you'll find that you spent more than you thought? I figured it would be that way for TV, too. Oh, I don't think I watch much TV, but really I do.
Uh-uh.
Actually, I watched MUCH LESS TV than I would have expected. In fact, I probably watch less TV than the vast majority of people reading this page. In 8 days, I only watched 9 1/2 hours of TV, including 4 hours on one day. As a matter of fact, on 2 of the days, I didn't watch any TV at all (By the way, the big winners were House, Surface, and South Park. The losers were everything else).
What I've come to realize is that this is a byproduct of having TiVo. When you can use TiVo to record all of your favorite shows and then watch them at your leisure, you can chew through whole seasons of a show you like in 2 or 3 weeks. Then you get bored with that show, move on to the next one, and then do the same thing. Next thing you know, you're down to a half a dozen shows you're interested in, and since you never channel surf, you're hardly watching TV. At least that's how it has turned out with me anyway.
In any case, if anyone ever asks you if you actually know of anyone who has ever filled out one of those Nielsen surveys, you can give them my name.
"When I saw the cover of this old comic book, I immediately thought of Rightwing News and made a couple small (of) changes to retcon it into this far future 21st Century where we live in our current continuity, :)"
Immediately, I knew this had to go up on RWN because it paints such a fascinating picture of the future.
Granted, the giant, glowing-eyed bats and the enormous, over sized skull in the corner are a little scary. But, the gigantism could be caused by some sort of advance in genetic engineering gone wrong. You know, we're feeding the world with giant cows and hogs and unfortunately there was a leak and next thing you know, giant bats. But, who knows? Maybe that was intentional because the bats are actually tasty? Granted, they don't look so hot, but you broil them for 30 minutes at 450 degrees and throw a little hot sauce on them and maybe they're actually delicacies. Certainly if we can eat sushi, octopuses, and turtles today (Yes, I am so country that I've eaten turtle), we can eat giant bats in the future.
The other thing that sticks out is the clothing. The guy isn't wearing some Star Trek uniform, he's dressed like a Cowboy and when you think Cowboys, you think...that's right baby, the United States of America. Obviously, Americans are still alive and kicking in the future, but who knows about the rest of you? Maybe the other animals are as big as the bats and we were the only country that could handle them militarily. I mean, let's face it, there is no country in the world better prepared to go to war with giant animals than the United States. Heck, I have relatives who hunt bears and deer with bows as it is. You think they're sweating giant bats? Yeah, right!
As a man, it's also comforting to note that really short skirts and sexy boots haven't gone out of style either. Of course, we must wonder: is that what she normally wears or did she wear that outfit because she knew she might need to be rescued later in the day? I mean, if a woman needs to convince a man to risk being eaten by a giant bat to save her, wearing a clingy outfit and showing a little leg can't hurt.
But in any case, if this comic book is right and the giant animal wars do come, we here in America have all the guns and short skirts we'll ever need. Can non-American countries say the same? I think not!
Excerpt Of The Day: Wal-Mart -- The Poor American's Greatest Ally?
"Wal-Mart's critics allege that the retailer is bad for poor Americans. This claim is backward: As Jason Furman of New York University puts it, Wal-Mart is "a progressive success story." Furman advised John "Benedict Arnold" Kerry in the 2004 campaign and has never received any payment from Wal-Mart; he is no corporate apologist. But he points out that Wal-Mart's discounting on food alone boosts the welfare of American shoppers by at least $50 billion a year. The savings are possibly five times that much if you count all of Wal-Mart's products.
These gains are especially important to poor and moderate-income families. The average Wal-Mart customer earns $35,000 a year, compared with $50,000 at Target and $74,000 at Costco. Moreover, Wal-Mart's "every day low prices" make the biggest difference to the poor, since they spend a higher proportion of income on food and other basics. As a force for poverty relief, Wal-Mart's $200 billion-plus assistance to consumers may rival many federal programs. Those programs are better targeted at the needy, but they are dramatically smaller. Food stamps were worth $33 billion in 2005, and the earned-income tax credit was worth $40 billion.
Set against these savings for consumers, Wal-Mart's alleged suppression of wages appears trivial. Arindrajit Dube of the University of California at Berkeley, a leading Wal-Mart critic, has calculated that the firm has caused a $4.7 billion annual loss of wages for workers in the retail sector. This number is disputed: Wal-Mart's pay and benefits can be made to look good or bad depending on which other firms you compare them to. When Wal-Mart opened a store in Glendale, Ariz., last year, it received 8,000 applications for 525 jobs, suggesting that not everyone believes the pay and benefits are unattractive.
But let's say we accept Dube's calculation that retail workers take home $4.7 billion less per year because Wal-Mart has busted unions and generally been ruthless. That loss to workers would still be dwarfed by the $50 billion-plus that Wal-Mart consumers save on food, never mind the much larger sums that they save altogether. Indeed, Furman points out that the wage suppression is so small that even its "victims" may be better off. Retail workers may take home less pay, but their purchasing power probably still grows thanks to Wal-Mart's low prices." -- Sebastian Mallaby
Take Canada’s much vaunted health-care system. In a recent poll, more than 80 percent of Canadians rate the system “in crisis.” People wait for practically any diagnostic test, surgical procedure, or specialist consult. The doctors’ shortage is so severe that, in Norwood, Ont., winning the town lottery isn’t a ticket to material wealth. With just one family doctor to service the entire town, the physician takes only 50 new patients a year. As a result, the town holds an annual lottery with the 50 winners getting an appointment with him.
The plight of Norwood is not unusual. According to Statistics Canada, approximately 1.2 million Canadians don’t have a family doctor and are looking for one. American companies now routinely advertise in major Canadian dailies, offering timely health care — in the United States. And north of the 49th parallel, private health services are a booming business despite the fact that many operate in violation of federal law. The prime minister’s own family doctor, incidentally, runs the most successful chain of private clinics in the country.
This content was used with the permission of Polipundit.
It's really great to be able to take a day off and have your guest bloggers do 11 posts that pull in even more traffic than normal. So, I'd like to give an extra-special thanks to all of the guest bloggers on RWN yesterday who did such a phenomenal job:
"I can't say that I know a whole lot about California Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA) -- well, other than the fact that he looks to be about as crooked as a dog's hindleg.
...If Cunningham is honest (which I sincerely doubt), then he's too dumb to be in Congress because even a nitwit should have been able to see the huge ethical morass lying dead ahead. However, if Cunningham is not honest, then he's a crook who deserves to be tarred and feathered and then run out of Washington on a rail.
Either way, Randy "Duke" Cunningham deserves to lose his job." -- John Hawkins
Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham pleaded guilty Monday to conspiracy and tax charges and tearfully resigned from office, admitting he took $2.4 million in bribes to steer defense contracts to conspirators.
Cunningham, 63, entered pleas in U.S. District Court to charges of conspiracy to commit bribery, mail fraud and wire fraud, and tax evasion for underreporting his income in 2004.
Cunningham answered "yes, Your Honor" when asked by U.S. District Judge Larry Burns if he had accepted bribes from someone in exchange for his performance of official duties.
Later, at a news conference, he wiped away tears as he announced his resignation.
"I can't undo what I have done but I can atone," he said.
Cunningham, an eight-term Republican congressman, had already announced in July that he would not seek re-election next year.
Here we have a wealthy Vietnam war hero who had a seat in Congress and now he's going to lose it all because he was greedy and corrupt. I'm glad to see that justice is being done in this case because no one should be above the law, including Republican members of Congress.
Soon, it'll be time for the 4th annual warblogger awards here at RWN. More than 225 bloggers will be asked to select their favorite bloggers in a number of different categories.
Here's the current list of categories the bloggers will be voting on:
The Funniest Blog
Best Looking Blog
Most Missed (The best blog that's out of business now)
Best Linker
The Best Original Content For A Blog
Favorite Columnist Who's Not A Blogger
Least Liked Columnist Who's Not A Blogger
Favorite Political Website That's Not A Blog
Favorite Left-Of-Center Blogger
Most Annoying Left-Of-Center Blogger
Most Annoying Right-Of-Center Blogger
Most Overrated Blog
The Best Blog Overall
Are there any other categories you'd like to see included? If so, suggest them in the comments section.
To my way of thinking, rightwingers like you and me should take a great deal of interest in the state-to-state battles between the cable companies and the so-called “Baby Bells” over who controls the airwaves. It started in Texas. And now various levels of government in New Jersey and New York are taking up the question of whether it is time to end the cable companies’ local monopolies on video services.
The Texas legislature and governor said yes, it was. Two months ago they opened the door to allow Verizon to acquire a statewide franchise to provide video services to homeowners. Prior to that, Verizon had to go to every community, hat in hand, to obtain local franchises. This system worked well for Big Cable, as it prohibited anyone from angling in on their easy money. But Internet Protocol Television (or IPTV), the technology behind Verizon’s product, is there in Texas to stay. And the results, thus far, have been fairly encouraging if you are no fan of Big Cable: one customer describes Verizon’s picture quality in glowing terms, and the cost is $13 per month less than cable.
Before too long, every state should confront the problem of cable monopolies, which offer only expensive, inflexible products and poor customer service. There are even bills in the U.S. House and Senate to allow video providers of all kinds the ability to secure national franchises. Congress should pass these measures, to open up competition and thereby hold the line on skyrocketing prices, improve services and ignite innovation.
But an adherence to free market principles isn’t the only reason why rightwingers should support greater competition in the video market. With a greater variety of video service providers will come a greater variety of content. It’s inevitable. And greater, more varied content can only help liven the debate of the public issues rightwingers care most about. Like the use of talk radio, C-SPAN, and small circulation newsletters by Newt Gingrich and his Republican revolutionaries in 1994, the homegrown video products that could, over time, be narrowcast through IPTV technology, rightwingers like me would have another venue for voicing our dissent against the mainstream media. Think of IPTV as a technology that could help spawn TV blogs. Not that is a reason to support reform.
