Tuesday, March 07, 2006

Blog Break

This is the last post for the next 2 weeks...maybe more. My employer, me, has mandated a 2 week vacation. In the interim, try not to read or watch mainstream media....it will simply depress you and distort reality, leading to severe anxiety.

Sunday, March 05, 2006

Hollywood, more self congratulations

Click image to enlarge

Myth: Schools Need More Money

The refrain from teacher's unions and politicians "we need more money to educate the children" is not only dishonest, it's just horse puckey. John Stossel's report on public school financing discloses the real numbers and immediately was personally attacked by the unions. Instead of debating the real issues, personal assaults have become the norm:

"Stossel is an idiot who should be fired from ABC and sent back to elementary school to learn journalism." "Stossel is a right-wing extremist ideologue."

So there you have it. What else do you need to know? Stossel is an idiot. No further discussion allowed. And to buttress their position, they simply ignore the facts:

Many such comments came in after the National Education Association (NEA) informed its members about the special and claimed that I have a "documented history of blatant antagonism toward public schools."
Then they pull out their "trump card" with a childish approach:

The NEA says public schools need more money. That's the refrain heard in politicians' speeches, ballot initiatives and maybe even in your child's own classroom. At a union demonstration, teachers carried signs that said schools will only improve "when the schools have all the money they need and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber."

Boy, it's sure hard to argue that point! Bake sales for the military. Deep thinkers, they.

So, here are the real numbers:

The truth is, public schools are rolling in money. If you divide the U.S. Department of Education's figure for total spending on K-12 education by the department's count of K-12 students, it works out to about $10,000 per student.

Think about that! For a class of 25 kids, that's $250,000 per classroom. This doesn't include capital costs. Couldn't you do much better than government schools with $250,000? You could hire several good teachers; I doubt you'd hire many bureaucrats. Government schools, like most monopolies, squander money.

America spends more on schooling than the vast majority of countries that outscore us on the international tests. But the bureaucrats still blame school failure on lack of funds, and demand more money.

There's more. Read the rest here.

Saturday, March 04, 2006

Good chuckle video on Dubya

David Letterman, who's made no secret of his disdain of Bush, had Frank Caliend on, to do his stand up bit, making fun of Dubya...pretty funny stuff, actually:
See it here

Per CNN anchor "It's not our fault CNN is crap, it's the viewer's fault"

...and of course the eeevil FoxNews.

Well, he didn't exactly say those things....but that doesn't mean the story isn't true! (CBS motto).

Former CNN anchor Aaron Brown has suggested that television viewers are responsible for the deterioration of broadcast news as much as the TV networks themselves. "In the perfect democracy that I believe TV news is, it's not enough to say you want serious news, you have to watch it," he told an audience in Medford, OR this week. As reported by the Medford Mail Tribune, Brown, speaking to a First Amendment forum, noted that while CNN was spending a fortune covering the 2004 tsunami, Fox News was channeling its resources into the missing teenager Natalee Holloway. The contest, he noted, was won hands down by Fox. The result, he suggested, was not lost on his former employer, CNN. "The news in this country is a business," he said. "You might not like to think of it that way, but it is." He suggested that television, instead of being diverted by scores of late-breaking trivial stories, ought to focus on the 6-10 "really important stories" that occur each day.

"Really importants stories"....like bashing Bush every single day, multiple times a day, even if the story isn't exactly accurate.

Blair under fire for evoking God in Iraq war decision

From the moonbat socialist left and the anti-war crowd, Blair had the unmitigated gall to reference GOD, during a recent interview. The anti-theists are howling BLASPHAMY! and throwing their usual bile toward Blare. Except for the "religion of peace", Islam, the Socialists want no part of any other religion(s).....they only pray at the altar of big government.

LONDON (AFP) - Tony Blair triggered strong reactions from parents of soldiers killed in Iraq and the political opposition, after the British prime minister evoked God in his decision to go to war.

Details emerged Friday of Blair's interview on an ITV1 television talk show where he said God and history would judge his action in joining the US-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

"That decision has to be taken and has to be lived with, and in the end there is a judgment that -- well, I think if you have faith about these things then you realise that judgment is made by other people," Blair said in the interview with host Michael Parkinson which will air Saturday night.

Pressed to clarify what he meant, Blair, a devout Christian, replied: "If you believe in God, it's made by God as well."

And in typical Leftist fashion, the Blair statement is taken completely out of context:

Other Liberal Democrats agreed that God should not be part of the equation.

"It is a bizarre and shocking revelation that the prime minister claims to have been guided by the supernatural in this matter, especially given the particular religious sensitivities in the Middle East," said Evan Harris, a Liberal Democrat member of parliament from the Oxford area, who is an honorary associate of the National Secular Society.

"We don't want Bush or Khomeini-type fundamentalism in our politics," he added.

Then questioning Blair, the BBC reporter threw the biggest slander he could think of at the evil God loving Blair:

During last year's election campaign, BBC interviewer Jeremy Paxman asked Blair if he prayed with Bush.

Looking decidedly uncomfortable, Blair replied: "No, Jeremy, we don't pray together."

Gee, why would Tony be "decidely uncomfortable?

Friday, March 03, 2006

The story of Hillary "Walking Eagle" Clinton

Senator Hillary Clinton was invited to address a major gathering of the American Indian Nation two weeks ago in upper New York State.

She spoke for almost an hour on her future plans for increasing every Native American's present standard of living, should she one day become the first female President.

She referred to her career as a New York Senator, how she had signed "YES" for every Indian issue that came to her desk for approval.

Although the Senator was vague on the details of her plan, she seemed most enthusiastic about her future ideas for helping her "red sisters and brothers".

At the conclusion of her speech, the Tribes presented the Senator with a plaque inscribed with her new Indian name … "Walking Eagle."

The proud Senator then departed in her motorcade, waving to the crowds.

A news reporter later inquired to the group of chiefs of how they came to select the new name given to the Senator.

They explained that Walking Eagle is the name given to a bird so full of “shit” it can no longer fly.

If that doesn't make you laugh, nothing will!

Hat Tip to Ken

Wednesday, March 01, 2006

Was Katrina about white vs. black?

It's, at the very least, tiresome to hear over and over how the New Orleans Katrina fiasco was/is all about racism, and of course the biggest racist of all was Bush and his oil buddies.

Listening to the Left's continuous mantra centering on the "blacks are all victims of racism" is not only intellectually dishonest, but exceptionally harmful to blacks. Why would the Democrats insist on preaching to blacks that there is no hope for their future in racist America? Could it simply be to keep blacks voting for Democrats, even though their policies only extend racism and poverty on the very people they allegedly care so much about?

Here's a refreshing view from a black man's perspective on the Katrina story:

Say a hurricane is about to destroy the city you live in. Two questions:

What would you do?

What would you do if you were black?

Sadly, the two questions don't have the same answer.

To the first: Most of us would take our families out of that city quickly to protect them from danger. Then, able-bodied men would return to help others in need, as wives and others cared for children, elderly, infirm and the like.

For better or worse, Hurricane Katrina has told us the answer to the second question. If you're black and a hurricane is about to destroy your city, you'll probably wait for the government to save you.

This was not always the case. Prior to 40 years ago, such a pathetic performance by the black community in a time of crisis would have been inconceivable. The first response would have come from black men. They would take care of their families, bring them to safety, and then help the rest of the community. Then local government would come in.

No longer. When 75 percent of New Orleans residents had left the city, it was primarily immoral, welfare-pampered blacks that stayed behind and waited for the government to bail them out. This, as we know, did not turn out good results.

Enter Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan. Jackson and Farrakhan laid blame on "racist" President Bush. Farrakhan actually proposed the idea that the government blew up a levee so as to kill blacks and save whites. The two demanded massive governmental spending to rebuild New Orleans, above and beyond the federal government's proposed $60 billion. Not only that, these two were positioning themselves as the gatekeepers to supervise the dispersion of funds. Perfect: Two of the most dishonest elite blacks in America, "overseeing" billions of dollars. I wonder where that money will end up.

Of course, if these two were really serious about laying blame on government, they should blame the local one. Responsibility to perform legally and practically fell first on the mayor of New Orleans. We are now all familiar with Mayor Ray Nagin the black Democrat who likes to yell at President Bush for failing to do Nagin's job. The facts, unfortunately, do not support Nagin's wailing. As the Washington Times puts it, "recent reports show [Nagin] failed to follow through on his own city's emergency-response plan, which acknowledged that thousands of the city's poorest residents would have no way to evacuate the city."

One wonders how there was "no way" for these people to evacuate the city. We have photographic evidence telling us otherwise. You've probably seen it by now the photo showing 2,000 parked school buses, unused and underwater. How much planning does it require to put people on a bus and leave town, Mayor Nagin?

Instead of doing the obvious, Mayor Nagin (with no positive contribution from Democratic Gov. Kathleen Blanco, the other major leader vested with responsibility to address the hurricane disaster) loaded remaining New Orleans residents into the Superdome and the city's convention center. We know how that plan turned out.

About five years ago, in a debate before the National Association of Black Journalists, I stated that if whites were to just leave the United States and let blacks run the country, they would turn America into a ghetto within 10 years. The audience, shall we say, disagreed with me strongly. Now I have to disagree with me. I gave blacks too much credit. It took a mere three days for blacks to turn the Superdome and the convention center into ghettos, rampant with theft, rape and murder.

President Bush is not to blame for the rampant immorality of blacks. Had New Orleans' black community taken action, most would have been out of harm's way. But most were too lazy, immoral and trifling to do anything productive for themselves.

All Americans must tell blacks this truth. It was blacks' moral poverty not their material poverty that cost them dearly in New Orleans. Farrakhan, Jackson, and other race hustlers are to be repudiated for they will only perpetuate this problem by stirring up hatred and applauding moral corruption. New Orleans, to the extent it is to be rebuilt, should be remade into a dependency-free, morally strong city where corruption is opposed and success is applauded. Blacks are obligated to help themselves and not depend on the government to care for them. We are all obligated to tell them so.

The Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson is founder and resident of BOND, the Brotherhood Organization of A New Destiny, and author of "Scam: How the Black Leadership Exploits Black America."

H/T Ken

Tuesday, February 28, 2006

CBS poll skewed to the Left...as usual

Currently some 1200 Google News stories about the CBS poll showing Bush's approval rating now at 38%, his lowest yet. Too bad they didn't disclose the blatantly biased slant that isn't part of the story. CBS, and their hatred of Bush is determined to scuttle this president if it's the last thing they do.

Not that these numbers are skewed or anything:

Total Respondents 1018
Total Republicans 272 / 289
Total Democrats 409/ 381
Total Independents 337 / 348

(all the poll numbers here...pdf file)

In Rather think: "just becaused it's tilted to the left doesn't mean it's not true.
.....they still think they're a real news agency.

Sunday, February 26, 2006

WSJ: The war on drugs does more harm than the drugs

Drug policy reform has been around since the end of alcohol prohibition. How we got to drug prohibition is another story, a lengthy one, to be sure.. Let's just say the problems with drug prohibition is no different than failed alcohol prohibition, except for one significant difference: alcohol prohibition was a result of a Constitutional amendment, while Drug prohibition was created by the existing army of booze police, which quickly morphed into the drug warriors after repeal of the 21st amendment.

This is one of those subjects where everyone has a very strong opinion about drug policy reform, but overflowing prisons, police corruption, and laws that do more harm than the drugs themselves, the drift towards reform seems to be slowly moving forward.

WSJ editorial addresses the issue with seldom found candor:

Economist Milton Friedman predicted in Newsweek nearly 34 years ago that Richard Nixon's ambitious "global war against drugs" would be a failure. Much evidence today suggests that he was right. But the war rages on with little mainstream challenge of its basic weapon, prohibition.

To be sure, Mr. Friedman wasn't the only critic. William Buckley's National Review declared a decade ago that the U.S. had "lost" the drug war, bolstering its case with testimony from the likes of Joseph D. McNamara, a former police chief in Kansas City, Mo., and San Jose, Calif. But today discussion of the war's depressing cost-benefit ratio is being mainly conducted in the blogosphere, where the tone is predominantly libertarian. In the broader polity, support for the great Nixon crusade remains sufficiently strong to discourage effective counterattacks.


The drug war has become costly, with some $50 billion in direct outlays by all levels of government, and much higher indirect costs, such as the expanded prison system to house half a million drug-law offenders and the burdens on the court system. Civil rights sometimes are infringed. One sharply rising expense is for efforts to interdict illegal drug shipments into the U.S., which is budgeted at $1.4 billion this fiscal year, up 41% from two years ago.

That reflects government's tendency to throw more money at a program that isn't working. Not only have the various efforts not stopped the flow but they have begun to create friction with countries the U.S. would prefer to have as friends.


Milton Friedman saw the problem. To the extent that authorities curtail supplies of marijuana, cocaine and heroin coming into the rich U.S. market, the retail price of these substances goes up, making the trade immensely profitable--tax-free, of course. The more the U.S. spends on interdiction, the more incentive it creates for taking the risk of running drugs.

In 1933, the U.S. finally gave up on the 13-year prohibition of alcohol--a drug that is by some measures more intoxicating and dangerous to health than marijuana. That effort to alter human behavior left a legacy of corruption, criminality, and deaths and blindness from the drinking of bad booze. America's use of alcohol went up after repeal but no serious person today suggests a repeat of the alcohol experiment. Yet prohibition is still being attempted, at great expense, for the small portion of the population--perhaps little more than 5%--who habitually use proscribed drugs.

So what's the alternative? An army of government employees now makes a living from the drug laws and has a rather conflictive interest in claiming both that the drug laws are working and that more money is needed. The challenge is issued: Do you favor legalization? In fact, most drugs are legal, including alcohol, tobacco and coffee and the great array of modern, life-saving drugs administered by doctors. To be precise, the question should be do you favor legalization or decriminalization of the sale and use of marijuana, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamines?

A large percentage of Americans will probably say no, mainly because they are law-abiding people who maintain high moral and ethical standards and don't want to surrender to a small minority that flouts the laws, whether in the ghettos of Washington D.C. or Beverly Hills salons. The concern about damaging society's fabric is legitimate. But another question needs to be asked: Is that fabric being damaged now?

Mr. Melloan is deputy editor, international of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?