My wish for Mike Nifong

So a day after Nifong (D.A. in the abhorrent Duke “Rape” case) pleaded not guilty to criminal contempt (demonstrating that he continues to be not of sound mind and body) he is sentenced to one day of jail? What? He should at least have to serve the same number of days as the three Duke Lacrosse players had to live under the threat if imprisonment from this race- baiting glory seeking bastard who never missed an opportunity to slime the innocent lacrosse players.

CNN reports that:

1. Nifong withheld evidence that “potentially would have cleared the three lacrosse players of sexual assault charges months before North Carolina's attorney general dropped them in April.”
2. Nifong told the court that a “contained complete information on DNA test results, when it omitted that information.”

Conclusion: He is a liar, a fraud and a criminal.

It was nice to see him use the Clinton defense (depends on the meaning of the word “is” is) basically stating that Nifong “believed all the statements to be true”. Some one should tell this guy that just because you believe something (i.e. in Santa Claus) is doesn’t make it true. Question to Nifong that I would ask – “Did the lab report in which you reported contained complete DNA information supporting your case against the Duke lacrosse players really contain that DNA information?” Then if I had a follow up I would ask how can he live with himself to know that he almost destroyed three innocent students all for the glory of his pasty white butt. Well, I guess there will be some things we will never know.

But if O.J. can get a book deal, then this reject should as well. We probably have not heard the last from Mike Nifong. Maybe he can get hired for his cutting edge legal analysis on Nancy Grace?

My wish is that I hope he makes millions and has to give it up when the Duke Lacrosse players sue his sorry butt.

More Hypocrisy from the Left

So I blogged last time on those conservative politicians who open themselves up to hypocrisy and saw this story linked over at Drudge with the latest potential government dictate from John Edwards. The story outlines how John Edwards wants American’s to get rid of their SUVs (this statement was made in a speech to labor unions). Quoting from the story “Edwards says Americans should be asked to drive more fuel efficient vehicles. He says he would ask them to give up SUVs.”. So my first question is, what happens if Americans do not? Would it be something a President Edwards would move to make a law? Why do all the left leaning supporters of Edwards who support “choice” in other areas (except for choice in school) throw away their principles when a candidate basically infers that he would “ask” (read “dictate”) what cars American can drive? But what, there’s more.

This is the same John Edwards that owns a 28,000 sq foot mansion and of course at least two SUVs. When he was asked about the apparent contradiction (i.e. he is asking ordinary Americans to sacrifice and he shows no willingness to do the same) he replied that he worked hard all his life and had no apologies. Thanks to Fox News for the info.

Actually John Edwards has stumbled into something that I agree with him on. There may be more but let’s deal with what I know. I work hard every day as well and don’t believe some politician should always see me and those like me (productive Americans) as a resource that hasn’t been tapped out yet by way of taxes to a bloated Government. We are paying enough in taxes and would like the Government to have a budget just like we do and stick to it. Don’t borrow from our sons and daughters so we can pay for some new social convenience so you or politicians from your party can prostrate themselves in front of some vested interest or new political group. So John, I work hard as well and don’t apologize for what I have either. I would also add that I would like to hold on to it rather than be taxed into giving it up to cure some perceived social ill.

John Edwards wants us to give up our SUVs. Al Gore wants to end Global Warming but has no problem jetting around in private airplanes and living in his palatial estate. Bill Clinton had no problem getting an extremely expensive haircut while on the tarmac of an airport holding up air traffic while he lectured us about needing to be more compassionate (i.e. pay more taxes). Even John Edward got into the act with the expensive haircuts ($400). But hypocrisy like this is outweighed by their supporters’ absolute devotion to the causes that politicians like this espouse. Here is an example. The writer donated to the Edwards campaign and discusses the Edwards haircut and actually implies it is some Republican spin machine keeping the story going. This is classic. It is not the action that is the story (or the hypocrisy – aren’t there two Americas according to John Edwards, the haves and have nots) but those that are perpetuating the story. Just like how the Republicans were all concerned about sex during the Lewinsky scandal – heaven forbid some law minded politicians be concerned with Clinton’s perjury. Well let’s all keep drinking the Kool Aid while the politicians preach their rhetoric. By the way, which of the two Americas can one get a $400 haircut?

How can they be that stupid?

One of the many things that has always made me wonder is the apparent idea that conservative politicians allow themselves the opportunity to be cast as hypocrites, engaging in behavior that they would routinely condemn in legislation or at a minimum, rail against in their rhetoric.

Case in point – Bob Livingston, Republican Speaker Elect of the House, was one of the many Republican politicians that called for Bill Clinton’s impeachment due to his perjury during his deposition in the Paula Jones Case. The publisher of an adult pornographic magazine had gotten some info that Livingston had “liaisons” with other women while being married and he resigned in disgrace. What was he thinking – that the media wouldn’t find out? Was he really that dumb or was it arrogance?

Second point – Newt Gingrich. His extra martial affairs came to life around the same time and his third marriage was to a 33 year old staffer (he was in his late 50’s). So as the Speaker of the House Gingrich had at least one admitted affair drawing cries of hypocrisy for lambasting President Clinton. Note though that it wasn’t the cheating that Clinton was impeached for, it was the perjury (i.e. the lying under oath and the obstruction of justice).

Other folks have had their moral failings played out in public (Henry Hyde, Bill Bennett, Rush Limbaugh) and now we have the current scandal with conservative Senator Larry Craig. Yahoo News (via AP) is reporting that Craig has pleaded guilty to “… misdemeanor charges stemming from complaints of lewd conduct in a men's restroom at the Minneapolis airport…”. The AP story notes how Senator Craig is a “conservative” so that somehow is a very meaningful descriptive term to include in this story (i.e. he is a hypocrite). Well done Senator Craig! By the way the charges are that he was looking for homosexual sex in the restroom or something to that effect so you can see the story title already. Why mention he is a conservative? Not once did I see Bill Clinton described as a liberal, or Sandy Berger, or Democratic Congressman Bill Jefferson from Louisiana. Wasn’t their political ideology important to the story or do the Media only care when those who talk virtue fall from grace.

Conservative politicians better wise up. This game is for keeps and the media will find out moral failings, lapses in good judgment and hypocritical behavior and they (the media) will report it. Conservatives should be better than that, although I understand we all are projects in development. My point is that those conservatives should act as if they know that this fight is for keeps and clean their own house. For an opposing point of view, do those politicians think that their supporters will accept the failings and forgive or let it go? Lord knows they probably can place a good bet that conservatives won’t defect en masse to the left side of the house. But what they may do is not show up at the polls leaving those politicians who have betrayed the public trust either through their personal or public actions and have strayed from the path. Sure the right is forgiving (Rush Limbaugh has never been more popular and Newt is talking about a Presidential run), but the Right is also not above demanding better from their politicians and have no problem staying at home if they feel abandoned or their ideology discarded by the supposed conservative politicians. The Right tries to keep is house in order (while the Left excuses everything and anything), and those that ignore this do so at their peril.

What did she say?

This is too easy. WND is reporting that Lauren Caitlin Upton, Miss Teen South Carolina in the Miss Teen USA Pageant was asked the following question. "Recent polls have shown a fifth of Americans can't locate the United States on a world map. Why do you think this is?" So in my mind, a number of different answers come to mind, including a culture that is more obsessed with celebrity gossip and who is sleeping with/divorcing/married to/adopting children with/fighting with who. Why else would we care about Paris Hilton, Lindsey Lohan and the ever popular Britney Spears? We have a generation of young girls who idolize these human waste products and actually try and emulate them in speech, manner and career path choices usually to the detriment of their personal and professional lives.

So Ms. Upton responded to the question with this answer.

“I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because, uh, some people out there in our nation don't have maps, and, uh, I believe that our education like such as in South Africa and, uh, the Iraq everywhere like, such as and I believe that they should, our education over here in the U.S. should help the U.S., er, should help South Africa and should help the Iraq and the Asian countries, so we will be able to build up our future for our children.

I wonder who Lauren Caitlin Upton’s idols are?

Don’t believe me? YouTube has the video right here and below. Like I said, this is too easy.

Goodbye to Karl Rove

Karl Rove announced that he is going to leave the Bush Whitehouse at the end of August and of course there were stories on all the networks and not a few online publications about the departure of “Bush’s brain” and how the “Architect” is leaving the White house. So what is Rove’s legacy, at least from a national level?

We have an unpopular president, an on-going unpopular war in Iraq and Afghanistan, a divided nation with respect to many cultural issues and the majority power in Congress suffering a huge defeat in the mid term elections. I don’t see a lot of positive there and I include the disastrous attempt at Immigration Reform that provided a lot of fodder for talk radio and was quickly dispatched (and rightfully so). Side note on Immigration Reform. For a President that remains so obstinate on the War in Iraq I found the Immigration Reform package to be the worst kind of acquiescence to the Immigration Lobby (i.e. supporters of Illegal Immigration) and a “screw you” to President Bush’s traditional Conservative supporters, but I digress.

Rove has been with the President for over 30 years and architected 4 successful Bush elections (2 for Governor and 2 for President) so in that sense, his legacy is clear. Certainly there has been some good in the President’s tax cuts (of which I am always a fan of) and he was (and is) a strong leader for the country and its response to 9-11 would have been different under Gore or Kerry but I don’t find this President to be a leading Conservative voice that others think that he is. Where has the President been on Abortion, Death Penalty, the coarsening of our Culture, defense of Traditional Values, etc.? Instead we are told that the President is a “wartime” President and that explanation in and of itself should be enough. I agree that the War on Terror is the overriding concern the President should have (actually I believe it is National Security) but I would like to see more leadership from the Whitehouse on any number of issues that plague our nation.

Perhaps that is Rove’s legacy in a nutshell. Everything else that President Bush does or is evaluated against is in the light of being a “wartime” President and it is almost as if that is an excuse to not deal with some of the other issues that (in my opinion) he should be involved in. With every speech, the War and Terror and National Security are all discussed and other domestic issues are quite frankly neglected or at least incorporated into relating to the War and Terror and National Security. The unending War on Terror has given the Republicans a platform plank that has traditionally served them well and has been the bane of Democrats. A brilliant move to say the least as the War on Terror (a very generic term – what is “Terror”?) can adapt to mean just about anything with respect to National Security.

Update: I mentioned the idea of what is "Terror" and its general applicability as a term. CNN is reporting that Greece may label the recent arson incidents as "terrorism".

Florida gets it right

Yahoo News is reporting that Jessica Lunsford's killer has received a death sentence for his kidnap, rape and burying alive of the 9 year old girl. This bastard was a convicted sex offender and should be banished to one of Dante’s 9 circles of Hell for his crimes. What really frosts me is that the 2 of the jurors voted against the death penalty. Yeah let’s keep this piece of human debris alive so he can feed off the system for awhile and watch his free HBO in prison while he recalls what he did to young Jessica and who knows what else. I can only hope and pray that the appeal process is swift (and denied) and justice (yes justice!) is swifter.

This slimeball buried this little girl alive. I applaud Florida and the Jurors involved in this Jury for getting this right and making it a tiny bit safer for all the little kids out there who will never had to deal with this filth again. And yes I am avoiding mentioning his name. He is already dead to me and I hope soon to society as well.

Justice and Elvira Arellano

I already mentioned this story here but it continues to drive a lot of interest in the media. So to start Elvira Arellano was an illegal immigrant who was arrested and deported last week leaving behind an 8 year old son who is an American citizen. Why the heck are people upset that the United States upheld its own laws? Not only was she an illegal immigrant (i.e. a criminal) she was originally ordered to leave the US back in 1997 but still found her way back to the US (where the hell is that Border Fence that we were supposed to have?) and even got convicted of using a phony Social Security card.

So I came across this article from a Socialist Website noting that (in part) that ““All women’s rights are under attack…whether it’s abortion rights, the right to raise children if that’s our choice—with everything they need for a decent life”. This was part of a talk by Kris Hamel of the Detroit Action Network for Reproductive Rights. Apparently this group has a bone to pick with the US because of Elvira’s deportation.

Where is it in the Constitution that all American Citizens are owed “everything they need for a decent life”? If you said “Nowhere” you would be correct. Instead socialists like Workers World jump onto any cause celeb that they feel will either further their cause directly or help unite disparate groups against the ‘establishment’ indirectly. Why is an abortion rights group aligned with socialists? Elvira Arellano was a criminal and she deserved to be deported regardless of whether or not her cause becomes fodder for people who have not clue what the American Government and Constitution are about. What does the struggle of Elvira Arellano have to do with justice unless the implication is she is owed something just because of her location. This country was not established to give everyone an equal outcome but equal opportunity. Elvira Arellano got what she deserved and everyone’s time would be better served working on the real problems this country has rather than the perceived problems various disgruntled groups have. True justice was sending Elvira back where she came from.

Final thought – I always here about the extreme right wing of the Republican party. Will Newsweek or Nightline or Time or 60 Minutes feature any stories on the extreme wing of the Democrat Party? Worker’s World would be a good start.

Ann Coulter’s great column on this is out and should be required reading.

One of the problems with the Left and the Military

This is too broad of a topic to cover completely but there is a point that needs to be made, especially given recent news as reported in the Chicago Tribune and other media outlets. To set the stage, on 15 November 2005, it was alleged that US Marines had killed a number of civilians (at least 15). 8 US Marines were charged in the incident. Never missing a chance to slam our military, John Murtha (Congressman from Pennsylvania) was quoted at a news conference as saying “Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood.” Yep, that is the Left in America, never waiting to report some bad news that casts this country and its military in a bad light. Never mind the whole “innocent until proven guilty” idea or withholding judgment until all the facts are in, lets get out to the news hounds and get a negative sound bit out in time for the nightly news casts so Murtha (and others like him) can continue to undermine any sort of support for the Iraq War and President Bush.

The only problem is it is being reported that the charges are being dropped against 2 of the US Marines involved. The other Marines are still waiting hearings on their cases. So I checked Murtha’s website and I don’t see any sort of apology from Murtha on this. I suppose since the story came out on 9 August 2007 that I am expecting too much from him. Of course how quickly would Murtha would respond to the guilty verdict of these 2 Marines? Food for thought.The Left will continue to be seen as “anti-military” when they are quick to highlight the negative, especially when the other party is in power. What is sad is I don’t really believe that Democrats want to lose or be perceived that way. Unfortunately they have Leftist leaders who grab headlines and say explosive things and then move on, never considering the real implications of their words. Or maybe (sadly) they are trusting on a society made up of sheep to never hold them accountable.

Dan Proft notes in an online Letter to the Editor on Dailysouthtown.com that “The only thing truly clear from Haditha is that sometimes the casualties of war come home alive.” I encourage these Marines to sue Murtha for defamation of character. If Don Imus can be sued for his asinine comments why not Murtha?

An Illegal Alien in this country is not a crime?

WND has a story that is quite shocking and ludicrous in my opinion but in reading it, also shows the problem with the intricate system of laws that we have in this country. In short the WND story states that the Kansas Court of Appeals has issued a ruling that “… found that while the laws of the United States make it illegal to enter the United States without authorization, being in the United States after entering illegally is "not necessarily a crime." What? That seems to be like saying it is a crime to break into a house but it is not a crime if you are caught in the house itself. Or better yet, a person is not cheating on their significant other if they are caught “in the act” only if they are caught “propositioning” to cheat. Oh man this makes my head hurt. Maybe I should have called this blog the Twilight Zone as I usually have to ask myself where the hell do I live? By the way the illegal immigrant (i.e. law breaker) in the case had pled guilty to “… possession of cocaine, a felony, and endangering a child, because he had his young son deliver drugs to a law enforcement officer working under cover.” (source is the WND Story).

This is a huge failure of the Bush Administration and state and local authorities as well. Illegal immigration is a slow (and not so slow) invasion that remains unchecked and a continued threat to this country’s national security. Any Presidential Candidate to at least get my support better address this issue and not use the term amnesty.

Random News

One of my favorite programs has made a hiring decision that makes me uneasy. Apparently Janeane Garofalo has joined the cast of the show “24”. Drudge has a link to a story here. What happened to the radio show on Air America? I guess it didn’t work out. But interesting that a right-leaning show would take on such a leftist in its cast and I wonder how many lefties would do the same? I am also wondering if Joel Surnow (pal to Rush Limbaugh and reportedly a right winger) will discuss politics and how he personally disagrees with her views but how the show is above right/left. My guess is he will not and keep himself above the fray as he seems like decent folk. I wonder if Janeane will do the same? The Ouspoken Roman guesses not. I wonder where this show is going (it has already been reported that the US President will be a woman) and would hate for it to lose its conservative edge (not a political perspective (i.e. against abortion or for limited government)) but its strong national defense perspective) in favor of some sort of social engineering platform. Next up, the main villain in the next season of 24 will be some extreme right-wingers who make up part of the Aryan nation.

Yahoo News is reporting via an AP story that Michael Vick is going to plead guilty in the dogfighting case. Is there any reason why this guy should ever be welcome on a football field again? I am sick and tired of organizations not judging people within the organization making it seem like it is such an enlightened position. Recall Michael Irvin (another buddy of Rush Limbaugh) plagued with drug problems back in 1996. Even after pleading no contest he still was welcome back on the Dallas Cowboys and then was welcome onto ESPN as an NFL Analyst. Why? They should have never hired this guy. Further, Irvin seems to be a bit of a racist. And this guy is in the hall of fame. Yes I think we should evaluate the total person, not just what they do on a football field. Who cares if isn’t fair.

If Democrats don’t vote for Barack Obama, are they racist? According to Elton John, they are if we apply his American Idol standards.

Hillary’s cleavage is news. During the great Mark Levin’s show a caller said that he had seen better cleavage on a plumber. That is a great quote. Who cares what she is showing? Can’t we do better than recycling politician’s families? All we need is for Jeb Bush to run for President again. Seeing the schedule of Hollywood remakes maybe there is no originality out there. Although see my book review of The Ruins. I am so glad that it will be made into a movie. Please don’t screw it up.

Why the hell is anyone involved with the new OJ book (“If I did it”)? Here is a news flash: Yes you did it and yes you got off on the murder charge. Yes race played a part in the decision and yes you are a despicable human being. Props to Barnes and Noble (a chain I really support) who are not stocking the OJ book (story here). In my opinion any money generated from this book is blood money and OJ should be dispatched to the dustbin of American history. I wonder how OJ’s hunt for the real murderer is going? Maybe we can get him involved in the Natalee Holloway disappearance as well?

Wolf Hollow

As I said in an earlier post, I visited Wolf Hollow over the weekend. Now for anyone that doesn't know, Wolf Hollow is a non-profit organization set up “to offer a place where people could view and learn about wolves, in hopes that visitors might be inclined to help preserve the species in the wild.” (source is http://www.wolfhollowipswich.com/found.htm). A visitor is treated to an educational lecture about wolves and their environment as well as environmental and policy issues affected these creatures.

Although I really enjoyed the presentation, there was the requisite bash of the Bush Administration and also the state governments of Idaho and Montana. As I recall what I heard, there is a move to move the Gray Wolf off the Endangered Species Act which this foundation opposes and they also urge visitors to oppose hunting by air in Alaska (basically tracking animals by air (helicopter) and then landing and shooting the animals). Without all the facts everyone started nodding like the Bush Administration has started a national Jihad against the Grey Wolves. So I had to see what was up.

So I started surfing the Internet. Interestingly I came across a US Fish and Wildlife Service press release back in July 24, 2006 that denied the a petition submitted by the State of Wyoming asking for the removal from the list of endangered species the Gray Wolf population in the Rocky Mountains. Link is here. Seems strange that such a hostile administration would deny such a petition. Wolf Management efforts are on-going in Idaho and Montana and I would think that having enough wolves that they no longer need protecting under the Endangered Species Act would be a cause for celebration. But according to the Defenders of Wildlife Website, what is really desired is for continued efforts to restore wolves to the lower 48 states as well. But I don’t see the current efforts in Idaho and Montana as working against this goal. As a matter of fact I think in this instance, it is a good thing for the federal government to get uninvolved in this area and rely on the state and local governments to enforce what is needed within the state. Isn’t removing such federal mandates good as the Federal Government is not known for is efficiency? And it is those state and local officials that need to manage the wolf population and do so (in my opinion) with minimal impact to the wolves if they are not causing a threat to the ranchers in the area. I would think the locals would know whether or not the elk population was being threatened by wolves and the ecosystem of the area was being upset. What I don’t get is the accusation that the administration is somehow politically motivated in its efforts to de-list the wolves from the Endangered Species Act. What possibly would they gain by such a move? I actually think the wolves would prosper more being away from the Federal Government’s intentions.

Some links with additional info:

http://www.fws.gov/

http://www.defenders.org/index.php

As for hunting a wolf via helicopter and running it to ground from the air and then shooting it. What a senseless act. But then again I have never understood trophy rooms with the heads of dead animals on the walls. This isn’t to say I am not a big supporter of hunting (I am), it just seemed rather senseless to me to have a head of a gazelle or something on a wall. I guess I feel I am not a supporter of what hunting has become if it is somehow sport to chase a wolf down to exhaustion from the air and then land and shoot it (just for kicks). You can sign the on-line petition to end aerial gunning of wolves here.

The Surge is working?

Fox News is reporting that Carl Levin and John Warner, both who are back from a recent trip to Iraq, are saying positive things about the ongoing surge in Iraq. The important quote from a joint statement is: "We have seen indications that the surge of additional brigades to Baghdad and its immediate vicinity and the revitalized counter-insurgency strategy being employed have produced tangible results in making several areas of the capital more secure. We are also encouraged by continuing positive results — in al-Anbar Province, from the recent decisions of some of the Sunni tribes to turn against Al Qaeda and cooperate with coalition force efforts to kill or capture its adherents,". Full story is here.

I have always had a problem with one major party in this country almost banking their hopes to gain national office (i.e. The President) on failure of our efforts in Iraq and the loss of US prestige that will entail. If these candidates (and party) have great ideas for success I am sure President Bush is open to hearing them. It seemed to me that John Kerry during his run for President implied that he had the solution to Iraq but that we would all learn about it when he was elected President (i.e. few specifics and not a few policy shifts). I knew I wouldn’t vote for him as this issue (the war in Iraq) was more important than one person’s political aspirations. So if the surge does work, what does this mean for the candidates vying for the Democratic (and Republican) Presidential Nomination?

Quick note on Illegal Immigration

I visited Wolf Hollow over the weekend and heard a lot of interesting information that I want to comment on but would prefer to do some research before I do a post on it. Let me say though it was fascinating to listen about Wolves in general and the volunteer spoke for more than an hour on the subject. There was some bashing of the current administration (as well as the state governments of Idaho and Montana) but I need to do some investigation before I write anything.

So, I will turn it over to Newsbusters who have this great story on the deportation of Elvira Arellano. Apparently Reuters was all over the story (found here) and had the following headline in the story “Mexican immigrant who sought U.S. sanctuary deported”. The reader was not clued in at all from the headline or the story itself that Ms. Arellano was an illegal immigrant. What you are left with while reading the story is the feeling that this administration or government is hostile to poor Mexicans seeking sanctuary.

This is exactly the sort of shoddiness that Neal Gabler on Fox News Watch constantly harps on (usually related to reporting on leftist causes and the Bush Administration). I wonder if those on the left will apply their critical eye to the Reuters story and how this issue was reported (i.e. without all the facts and context). The headline should read “Illegal Mexican Immigrant deported as current US law and US public demands”. But that is my opinion.

I recommend anyone read the great Newsbusters story found here. Hat tip to Pam Meister for the story.

Book Review: The Ruins by Scott Smith

I got this book from an office swap and didn’t know what to expect. The novel had some good reviews from Stephen King and others comparing the book to the terror of Jaws or the suspense of the TV show “Lost”. Let me say that both statements are right on the mark. The book starts off very benign, with a group of 20 somethings on vacation in Mexico. But the book doesn’t spend a lot of time on back story, instead brings the 20 year olds along with 2 friends into a roller coaster ride of terror that at its worst is a great character study of the different personalities and how they act when faced with a horrifying situation (I would guess that each reader wonders “who would I be”?). At its best The Ruins is a story of unsuspecting college students facing an unstoppable force of fright and spend most of the story at extreme levels of dread and panic.

I could not put this book down as it quickly sets the stage for the characters to be trapped in the ruins by an inexplicable force that quickly diminishes an adventuresome jaunt into a battle of wits between the protagonists in the novel and the monstrous power that works to keep them trapped in the ruins for truly horrifying reasons (the “Lost” comparison) with nothing but their skills and few supplies to survive on.

The reader is left to ask “would I survive”? Read The Ruins which is more like Jaws on speed and ask the question of yourself and see what you decide.

For more info go to Entertheruins.com.

This is not surprising.

ABC News is reporting that Rutgers player Kia Vaughn is suing Dom Imus (and others) for defamation of character. First off, given this litigious society this is not unexpected but I can only imagine why only one player is suing. Don’t they realize that is what we do these days when we have been offended? This is a disgrace in my opinion (just as Imus’ rant against them was) and I think this case should be thrown out. The blood money has been paid with Imus being unceremoniously dismissed from his radio show and MSNBC. AP is reporting though that there has been some settlement between CBS and Imus to derail Imus’ threatened lawsuit for $120 Million, story is here so I am sure Imus is not hurting financially, although his image has been tarnished, especially when many of his high-profile friends were not around to defend him in the media onslaught after his remarks.

In light of this, Roland Martin, a commentator on CNN’s website states that some good has come from Don Imus’ firing, namely that Paula Madison was named to a position dedicated to diversity (Executive Vice President of Diversity). Why? Mr. Martin writes that “The importance of making a critical decision to fully embrace diversity really was a smart one by Capus because it showed that the network was listening to those who questioned some of its moves with respect to Imus.” Additionally the Imus firing sparked a national debate on derogatory language that is found in hip hop music. Where is this national debate going to go? Is there going to be a change in hip hop music that specific terms such as the ones Imus’ used be banned and not used? What are the penalties if this “ban” gets broken by 50 Cent or Ludacris? What about free speech? Isn’t speech (especially speech that we disagree with) protected? Imus’ commentary on the Rutgers women has been universally condemned which is not surprising given how quickly he was shown the door after the Imus Apology Tour, appearing on Al Sharpton’s show for example, taking his lumps. I didn’t hear though the free speech absolutists defend Imus (where was the ACLU) and I thought that was odd.

Moreover, this focus on diversity is extremely troubling. The implication being that a person of a specific color can only be related to by someone of the same color. NBC wasn’t diverse enough which was said to be the real problem there. This is nonsense. To say someone of Asian descent cannot find stories or report on stories that I as a white person would care about is actually quite racist. Is that why Katie Couric’s newscast is doing so terrible as she is not appealing to men? Heaven forbid blame falls either on bad programming decisions or an individual? Why would the strength of MSNBC news be increased if there is renewed increase on diversity? Would the World Champion New England Patriots (topical reference) have a stronger team if Bill Belichick were not white but rather some other race? Of course not. Focusing on diversity sounds very good and will placate those that are satisfied with such meaningless positions. It will not in my opinion, improve anything over at MSNBC. Diversity will not solve the next Imus.

Lastly, how will the Kia Vaughn’s lawsuit turn out? Well that settlement Imus got from CBS should be a nice start.

Update: Kia Vaughn's lawsuit was dropped in September. The Associated Press reported that Vaughn was pressured by Rutgers Coach C. Vivian Stringer to drop the suit but this was denied by Vaughn.

Score one for parents but they (and we) lose as well.

Quick link and story and file this under humorous and sad all in one. The News & Observer out of North Carolina has this story in the news section “Teen who married teacher loses lawsuit seeking toys from parents”. Lead paragraph reads as follows “A 16-year-old girl who married her 40-year-old former teacher cannot force her parents to return her Beanie Baby collection, a PlayStation video game console and other belongings, a judge ruled.” I didn’t know someone could get married at 16 (there should be a law against that) but to compound matters the new bride was miffed that her parents wouldn’t let her take some of her favorite toys to her new house.

A 16 year old married to a 40 year old? When did this stop being creepy and sick and worthy of condemnation as a society? What the hell is wrong with this picture?

There I go judging again.

Why is flip flopping news?

In perusing the various major news outlets over the past week, there seem to be a lot of stories and focus on the shifting positions of the leading Democratic and Republican Presidential candidates and I can only infer that since there are so many stories on this phenomenon, the media either thinks we really care about this or they (the media) feel it is extremely news worthy. Whether it is Hillary on the Iraq War, Mitt on Abortion or Rudy on Immigration, the change from one position to another on these issues are generating a lot of paper and bytes.

Is it news? Take Hillary for example who voted in 2002 to authorize the invasion of Iraq. She was even quoted in the NY Times stating it would be a “mistake” to withdraw the troops from Iraq by a specific date. Now, she is singing a different tune, stating that the troops should be withdrawn (the war should be ended) “today”. Is this position even viable? In my opinion, who ever sits in the Oval Office in 2009 will be faced with the War in Iraq for some time (at least through his or her first term) and that to state such drivel is meaningless. We are not going to withdraw from Iraq as it will demonstrate that America’s resolve is as weak as our America’s enemies say it is. To take this position is pure pandering to the hard left who hate President Bush and hate the Iraq War. Why do the Hillary supporters put so much faith in what is a pure political move with no real policy shift behind it?

Then over on the right, we have Mitt (from my new home state of Massachusetts) having some problems on the issue of Abortion. For as long as I can recall the Republican Party has been on the side of the Pro-Life position and although some of the candidates have only given lip service to Pro-Lifers, Mitt comes from a very liberal state and has been quoted from his campaigns for Governor that he would protect a women’s “right to choose” although he admits he is personally “pro-life”. So now as he is courting the Republican base he seems to have changed, in fact calling for a repeal of Roe v. Wade. Again, a flip flop but is it news worthy at least to the level of attention it has already garnered? Mitt is in the running to be the standard bearer of the Republican Party which similar to the Hillary’s problem is more out of step than he has been as a local politician moving to the national stage. But let me make a distinction here. Where Mitt has spoken on the issue of life and how his understanding of the issue has evolved, one can at least say it makes some sense that with the changes in our understanding of life and the complex life issues (stem cell research, designer babies, etc.) and marry this with a more and more callous view of life observed in society I can understand the change in position.

Hillary’s change is a little more suspect. She supposedly saw all sorts of intelligence data supporting the President’s request to authorize the Iraqi invasion. She should have done due diligence in reviewing this material and making a conscious vote. I will give her the benefit of a doubt and say that all was done. To move away from her vote now when we have troops on the ground, dying almost daily, as well as being in the White House when regime change in Iraq became US policy under her husband strikes me as being a completely political opportunist move rather than a principled one and may play well with the hard left crowd now. But come 2009, if she is in the White House, it will be interesting to hear why the words she is speaking today will be a distant hollow memory.

Watch out for the flume!

Of no particular interest to anyone but me, I have to write on the activity I participated today. Instead of working I went on a whale watch from Gloucester and had a great time. Props and thanks go to the crew of 7 Seas Whale Watch for giving all of us quite a ride. Although we didn’t see a lot of whales (5-6 sightings), on the way back to port we did ride through a pack of about 100 dolphins leaping and frolicking in our wake. It was my first time going on a whale watch and the group that I went with had a blast. I did not know for example that the Humpback Whales can be identified by their individual white markings on their tails (I love learning all sorts of strange trivia). I also learned from the local pub that some of us went to for lunch that Ipswich Ale is brewed right up the road from Gloucester although I stuck with my Sam Adams Summer Ale.

The trip was also memorable as behind the boat (the “stern” as I am reminded) two of the crew were attempting a little science experiment. I hadn’t heard of this but I guess if you mix Coke/Diet Coke/Pepsi with Mentos, a very interesting chemical reaction takes place. Take a look at the link below if you don’t believe me. Anyway – it was a real hoot. The rants will continue tomorrow.

Is this a good thing?

Over the weekend the Boston Globe reported a story that Gun Ownership in Massachusetts is down by 25% (story is here) and I am left wondering if this is a good thing. The Globe story cites restrictive laws, higher licensing fees and a “cultural shift” although I was surprised that there wasn’t more discussion on what shift has occurred in the culture. Why the shift with 9/11 so recent in the country’s history. With the ongoing war in Iraq and Afghanistan and stories such as the ones explaining about the plot at Fort Dix (reference is here) I would think more people not less would be interested in home (self) defense.

But going back to my title, is it a good thing? It depends on how you see the Second Amendment. I cannot believe that if a story was written in the Boston Globe or the NY Times detailing how Free Speech was being curbed by the Government it would be treated as a good thing. I can hear the caterwauling now about how Free Speech doesn’t kill. Tell that to the Jews that lived in Germany circa 1940’s. But to get to the crux of the matter, as cliché as it sounds, guns do not kill either. They are inanimate objects that I can leave on my kitchen table and I can be assured I would be safe from it jumping up and putting a 9 mm in me. Blaming guns for death is like blaming a pencil for spelling mistakes (I love that line and I wish I could take credit for it but I can’t). I believe an armed populace contributes to a safer society, regardless of what the Town of Quincy’s police chief says. Basically the story in the Boston Globe could be considered as an advertisement for what towns and areas the criminals should concentrate their efforts in as to ensure a better chance of finding a house without a firearm.

Now with ownership comes a requirement for folks to remain trained in the use of firearms. It is an obligation in my opinion with any tool to know how to use it. The local NRA chapters can and do support this, including training that can be taken with children so there isn’t an armed society without the skills needed to properly use the firearm. Not to get too lowbrow but guns are not that complicated and the training is pretty straight forward.

I am worried that we in this society will continue to trust in someone else to protect us, someone else to plan our future and someone else to care for the children that we bring into this world. This “Right to Bear Arms” is in the Constitution whether the anti-gun zealots want to acknowledge it or not. We should not be celebrating the degradation of a right.

Are you happy in your job?

Just a quick note that I like going into work and doing what I do. But when I see stories like this one (Headline "Two Deer Island workers drenched in dozens of gallons of sewage".) I appreciate where I work even more. Ouch.

Presidential Debate Questions

I love politics. Not politicians mind you or the backroom dealings that happen once well intentioned folks get sent to Washington, but the discussion and debate over those philosophical underpinnings of our country and how the problems that face us are being dealt with. Unfortunately we as US citizens are not always given the cream of the crop and have to make do with what we have to choose from but I have always wondered if under the Democratic and Republican candidate voting buttons in a voting booth there was a lever for None of the above, what the end result would be?
So in the vein of this story letting us know that the Republican YouTube debate is back on, I thought I would put together some questions for the candidates. I am going to start with the Democrats because right now, they are more entertaining (the “are you black enough” Obama, “are you man enough” Clinton and “are you female enough” Edwards and of course Dennis Kucinich).

1. Do you believe in God and how does your religion affect your governing philosophy and principles?

2. Do you believe in the Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the Second Amendment)? If so, why or why not? Follow up – is the Right to Bear Arms as absolute as the 1st Amendment (Right to Free Speech)?

3. What parts in the Constitution do you think are best and what parts do you think are worst? What would have added/removed from the Constitution?

4. When does life begin?

5. If we pull out of Iraq as you all promise you will do if elected President, what are you prepared to do if the fledgling Iraqi Government cannot deal with the violence that is predicted to occur (within its country and without)?

6. Describe a scenario when you, as President, would authorize a pre-emptive military strike/War/Nuclear weapon attack?

7. Name three things that are great about America? Name three things that are not good about America?

8. The phrase “the rich don’t pay their fair share in taxes” has been a staple of Democratic Presidential candidates for a number of campaigns. Do you agree with this statement? What is the appropriate percentage of income that the rich should pay to the government? Follow up – do you believe the poor should pay taxes? What income level should be exempt from paying taxes and what philosophical principle do you base that on?

9. Operation Desert Fox was an Iraqi bombing campaign that was carried out by President Bill Clinton in 1998. This military operation was justified in part of Madeline Albright, then Secretary of State as an effort to “degrade” Iraq’s ability to manufacture and use weapons of mass destruction. Further Albright noted that (Iraq’s) weapons “...are a threat to the future”. So the question is, do you agree with President Clinton’s act and if not, did you voice your criticism at the time and if not, why not?
- Source for the quote is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Desert_Fox

10. Can you recite for me the preamble to the US Constitution?

11. Should violent lyrics in music (rap, rock, etc.) be banned?

12. As President what do you see your role in setting a cultural agenda?

13. What is the most challenging cultural problem facing our children these days? As President what can/should/would you do about it?

14. Do you have a plan for getting out of Iraq? If so, have you shared it with the administration and if not, why not?

15. Who should be in charge of education, a parent/guardian or the Government?

16. Should a parent have the right to excuse their son or daughter from discussions or topics that are against their religious or moral beliefs?

17. What 3 governmental programs do you want to cut the day you are elected President? Follow up – same question for 3 Governmental Agencies?

18. Socialism is defined by Webster’s Dictionary as “political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods”. Why is Government control over health care not a move toward socialism?

19. Is there a right to health care for all Americans? What principle of Government as enumerated in the Constitution do you base that response on?

20. Are Illegal Aliens criminals? What Principle in the Constitution outlines why people who are here illegally should receive Government benefits?

What the heck is wrong with Chris Matthews?

I am not a fan of Chris Matthews or his show “Hardball”. I am really not a fan of MSNBC in general and usually watch CNN or get my news on-line. I will say that I heard Chris Matthews fill in for Rush Limbaugh in the 90’s, right after the Columbine School shootings and I thought he was pretty good (he kept me listening at least) but on TV, he always struck me as a bit of a blowhard. He also has deep ties to the Democratic party and although I don’t begrudge him that, I always wondered when Fox News was being pilloried as the voice of the Bush Administration why the same critics weren’t pointing fingers at Matthews (who has worked for at least three Democratic politicians including being a speechwriter in the Carter White house) and mentioning his apparent loyalties. I guess he was given a pass due to his political leanings.

Anyway Newbusters is reporting a great story (video is here) about an exchange Matthews had with a CNBC reporter, asking her to move closer to the camera and joking about her looks. Basically Matthews engaged in (at a minimum) inappropriate sexually suggestive remarks and I am checking Breitbart to see if anyone is calling for his resignation and the all so necessary public apology. Can you imagine the uproar if Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly had a similar exchange with Megyn Kelly or Laurie Dhue? First off Media Matters would pick it up and then it would be the lead story in all the morning discussions (like O’Reilly’s sexual harassment lawsuit was) and there would be calls for Fox to terminate him, and all that. Fox would be revealed (supposedly) as the anti-women, patriarchal establishment that all their foes thought they were to begin with. But I digress…

I think this is typical of the double standard that is in the News Media today (now referred to as the MSM (or Mainstream Media)). I recall that President Carter (remember Matthews was a speechwriter for Carter) admitted in a Playboy interview that he (President Carter) “lusted in his heart” for women other than his wife. Maybe it is time for Chris Matthews to do the same.

Bikers are human too?

In the face of the Democratic debate last night that was specifically held to address gay and lesbian issues (story here) I wanted to rant about something that really riles me. First off, I don’t understand why a certain segment of our society feels the need to have a debate ‘catered’ just to them but if the Dems want to do it, I guess they should have at it. The questions were interesting (“Is homosexuality immoral”, “Is homosexuality a choice or is it biological”, “Are you comfortable around gay and lesbian folks”) but I thought once again, we as a society are continuing to see each other as part of these competing groups that need to have their needs specifically addressed, not as part of the larger community that we live in but as that behavior or activity or gender, etc. that we choose to define ourselves. I am sure gays and lesbians are concerned about the Iraq War, Health Care, National Security, Public Education, our country’s infrastructure, etc. but those seem to get lost in the shuffle when it comes to the issues that make the headlines.

So I really wanted to talk about bikers (people on bicycles – not motorcycles). What really gets me is the arrogance of these silly helmet and spandex folks on their Cannondales that forget that they need to obey the rules of the road. For example, if you are on a bike and you come to a red light, I believe it is the law of Massachusetts that you need to stop at the light, not just go through it, trusting in the grace of the motorists that have the green light that they will stop or avoid hitting the biker right where they deserve it. Every weekend bikers folk to the streets and back roads to ride incredible distances for exercise or to see the country and I wish they would be more respectful of the other folks on the road, namely those of us in large SUVs that are actually obeying the laws. This is not to indict all bikers, just those that think that they are above the law and everyone else should defer to them. In my opinion, in a contest between a Ford Expedition and a Guru Road bike, the helmet will wind up wearing the biker rather than the other way around.

Maybe the bikers should have their own Presidential debate as well to address issues important to their community?

Congrats to Barry Bonds?

As everyone probably knows, Barry Bonds (playing at home in San Francisco) hit his 756th Home Run, breaking Hank Aaron’s record. Story at Yahoo right here.So, should we be celebrating? It is a momentous achievement but we know that this event is also tainted by the specter of Steroid use. Dan Wetzel, writing in his column available on Yahoo states that today’s sports is “…an era of sports where rule-breaking is rampant and honest heroes such as Henry Aaron are in the shortest of supplies.” Is Barry Bonds a hero in the vein of Hank Aaron given the background of both players? Moreover is the accomplishment comparable?

My view is that the sport has changed since Hank Aaron accomplished his feat and although Barry’s record is an “achievement”, it is comparing two different sports. With the rampant use of steroids and other performance enhancing drugs, the ‘record’ that Bonds now has will forever have an asterisk next to it that indicates there is another dimension to this story (i.e. steroid use) and Bond’s record will never be told standalone, instead will have a rider attached to it with the reference to the performance drug issue. It is not unlike how President Clinton and his presidency will always be told with the Monica addendum to it. The two issues are inseparable and quite frankly should be.Dan Wetzel’s column can be found at Yahoo Sports. http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AkEKdf_ry1Z8rnwOSlRJdrIRvLYF?slug=dw-756bonds080707&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

Opening Salvo

Is that a great blog name or what? Outspoken Roman I think was intended as a joke when it was suggested but I liked it so it looks like it is a keeper. I am interested in writing and expressing my inane and mundane ideas as only a blog can. Personally I am a wanna be writer living outside of Boston and will write about whatever strikes my fancy to culture, politics, things I think are dumb (there are many guilty parties) but I am pretty jazzed about this.
Email me at outspoken.roman@gmail.com