Sheehan's Shenanigans
Cindy Sheehan, the newest puppet to the Michael Moore's of the left, has returned to Crawford, Texas to continue her protest of President Bush's handling of the war. Now, before I go any further, I'd like to say that I am incredibly sorry that her son lost his life in Iraq. No mother should have to suffer that kind of grievous loss.
With that out of the way I can say with no guilt that I think Cindy Sheehan is doing a horrible diservice to her son, Casey. She's disrespecting everything he stood for. This man signed up for the U.S. Army, not once, but twice.
He voluntarily re-enlisted! He was a hero who was proud to serve his country. And now his Mother, of all people, is using his death as a symbol of America's supposed iniquity. Cindy should be ashamed.
She wants Bush to pull the troops out of Iraq. Now. But I don't think she's taken into consideration what that would mean for the safety of this country. Nor do I think she realizes that if we pull out now, and the insurgents take over Iraq and terrorism continues, that her son's death would be in vain. Why give your life if the cause you are fighting for is abandoned? Casey Sheehan deserves better. He deserves to be honored, respected and called a hero. His own mother can't give him that. So those of us out there that understand why he died need to show him that his life wasn't taken in vain and that we will continue to fight this war and win it, for him and every other soldier that gave their lives for the safety of this country.
Ms. Sheehan, your son would be turning over in his grave if he knew what you were doing. I suggest you think about that.
Education - Fact or Fiction
The Amistad Commission is a state panel that determines if New York children are learning enough about African American Slavery, its effects on this country and how those African Americans that were here after have effected the country.
I have a very big problem with this panel. I don't mind that people think it's necessary to teach more about slavery, that's their right. However, I do mind when the State is putting it's hand over our education system's curriculum. It's too communist or state-like for me. The school administrations and teachers should be deciding the curriculum, not the government. Soon we're going to be told what our children should learn and what they can't, what books they are allowed to read and those that are banned. Granted, that might be a little extreme, however, it has to start somewhere. And this is not the direction I want this country to go in. I want to be able to send my children to school and know that they are free to learn anything they want.
Furthermore, the Amistad Commission is allowed to have
state-sponsored educational programs and training sessions for teachers. The members of the committee don't have to be academics, they don't have to have a specific background - although I'm sure they have guidelines - and they are politically appointed. Why don't we just bring hardball politics to school!? It's not like the children need to be shielded from such partisan bullying. Instead let's see if they can be used by one party or another as a playing card. That should be fun.
In all seriousness however, bringing politics to school is a sure way to get children to really distrust the government and those that run it. Besides funding, government should not be telling schools what to teach. Illinois and New Jersey have also passed the Amistad Commission into law. Only time will tell if this turns out to be a step in the Stalin direction. Let's hope I'm wrong.
Jeanine Pirro to Run for Senate
Well, it's unofficial until tomorrow when she goes on record, but Westchester District Attorney Jeanine Pirro will throw her hat into the ring with Hillary Clinton for the Jr. New York Senate seat in the upcoming 2006 senatorial elections. The polls don't give Pirro much of a chance against Hillary, and in all honesty, neither do I. I would love to see her win, but Hillary is in good standing, poll-wise, with New Yorker's right now. However, what's going to be interesting is seeing how Hillary's people handle a full blown campaign. When she ran in 2000, Guliani wound up quitting because of cancer and Rick Lazio was thrown into the race. Lazio did an awful job of reaching out to voters about his policies and in the end Clinton won by a landslide.
In the six years since Hillary became Senator, she's been grooming herself for the White House. She has not said she won't go for the Democratic nomination, and if she does, she leaves New York two years into her second term as Senator. (If she wins reelection) This is something New Yorker's should be thinking about, however, as the Post's Frederic U. Dicker rightly states, in his article "One-note Song a Losing Tune," Pirro can't count on only this argument to win her the Senate seat. She needs to come out strong with what she stands for, what differences there are between herself and Clinton. She needs to have her campaign paraphernalia all over New York State, she needs to garner as much publicity as possible, and she needs to keep repeating to New Yorker's
why she should be our Senator instead of Hillary Clinton. She needs to be clear, consice and to-the-point with her campaign. She can't win on popularity, she can't win on name recognition, she might not be able to win on policy issues, but she stands the best chance with the last.
Pirro not only has to worry about Clinton, she's got to worry about the New York Conservative party, which doesn't like her liberal social stance. She won't get the money from them that she needs for this election if she doesn't give a little in that area. However, that's a catch-22 because she would be most appealing to New Yorkers with a liberal social view. Just like Mayor Bloomberg, who might as well be a Democrat for all his backing of their issues, Pirro needs to find her balance within the party. Only then will she stand a chance against Hillary in 2006.
White Christian Males Need Not Apply
I read an article, "Campus to 'Mix' it Up," in the NY Post yesterday about Columbia University's new plan to spend $15 million dollars to diversify its faculty. Apparently, after controversy surrounding anti-semetism and professorial intimidation, Columbia's Officials have decided they need to fix their image. They would like to hire more women and minority professors. So, if you're a white man with a Ph.D., are published, and considered among the best in your field, don't apply. I repeat, Don't Apply! You won't get the job. Nevermind that you might be overly qualified for it, it doesn't matter. This "diversity" doesn't include you.
Now, don't get me wrong, racism, bias and any other form of discrimination is not right and should not be tolerated. The controversy over anti-semetism at Columbia disturbed me as much as the next person. However, if Columbia is so pro-inclusion, pro-diversity, they should allow ROTC back on the campus. By kicking them off campus, they go against their supposed tolerance and diversity. Those two terms don't exclude anyone, whether the University agrees with these groups or not. If they let them on campus, completely disagreeing with them but allowing them the right to practice, that would be a show of tolerance worthy of praise.
In regards to adding faculty though, how about we use a tried and true approach. Merit-based hiring. Imagine, hiring people because they deserve the job, no matter what race, gender, religion or sexual orientation they are. It's not a novel idea, but it's one that has been lost in all the PC crap that's out there now. And it's the only form that has no bias.
My Washington Times Comment
George Lakoff is a professor at UC Berkeley and a founder of the Rockridge Institute. This comment is based on his
article from the UC Berkeley news website and in response to Greg Pierce's blog on the Washington Times website.
I read an article, actually a question and answer session, from the UC Berkeley News with George Lakoff. He was asked why conservatives "appear" to be better at framing than progressives and why progressives haven't done the same thing. His answer astounded me with it's finely tuned rationalization of incompetence. Naturally, as with all lefty arguments, he uses big business and money for his reasoning. Conservatives have think tanks and foundations that fund those think tanks so that they can create this false framing and apply it to the people. He says, "they build infrastructure, they build TV studios, hire intellectuals, set aside money to buy a lot of books to get them on the best-seller lists, hire research assistants for their intellectuals so they do well on TV, and hire agents to put them on TV." Now, the ridiculousness of his claim that they have money set aside to buy conservative books would be laughable if it hadn't been said in all seriousness. As to the rest, in my opinion, that's just being smart. It's amazing that through the whole article he never acknowledges the fact that building infrastructure, TV stuidos, etc., produces jobs for the people. He goes into conservatives being the "strict father" and the progressives being the "nurturant parent." "Strict father" meaning a forceful, dominant figure, and "nurturant parent" meaning those who help individuals that need help (the selfless do-gooder). However, he fails to mention that without big, bad business there would be no money to help anyone. He openly admits that progressives have no idea how to talk to the public or how to follow a moral pattern that people can relate to. And instead of attributing this to the progressives lack of moral values, he attributes it to linguistics. Someone needs to let him know that the public is not stupid and that this country - it's President, Senate and House - is run by Republican's because the public voted for it. If he thinks that over 62 million people who voted for Bush are dumb, he's not going to win over any Independents or moderate Republicans. Let him preach to his choir, he's not going to reach anyone outside the leftist base.
Politically Incorrect
Now, I'm not big on being "PC" for the sake of being "PC". But here's an interesting article from the NY Post. (
http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/50669.htm) Dov Hikind, a Brooklyn DEMOCRAT, says that random bag checking in NYC subways and transit systems is "insane." He believes that the NYPD has to use racial profiling for the searches to possibly save lives. He believes in using the "terrorist profile" to target searches of Middle Eastern men and women. This may be a reminder to the Japanese of the WWII internment camps that were set up, which was obviously a more extreme way of dealing with a problem of this kind. I'll let you all come to your own conclusions.
In other news, John Bolton was appointed to the post of UN Ambassador by President Bush today. In what's known as a "recess appointment" Bush used his constitutional authority to place Bolton in this position without the confirmation by Congress. The recess appointment will last until January 2007, the end of the current Congress.
