Home
I.T. Skill Areas
Computer Certifications I currently hold
Self-Study Certification Books
News, Web log, Weblog, Blog
Webcam
Veiled Chameleon Care Sheet
Veiled Chameleon Care Sheet
Frequently Asked Questions
If you like this website or webpage, please link it. I could use the help. Thanks.

October 24, 2006

Another "Referendum" Election

Michael Steele's Real Ideas for Change.

Democrats response.

I really really really really really hope that the Democrats make a very poor showing in the elections. I really really really really really do. Once again they're obviously running on an anti-Bush platform. Let'em burn.

Some are saying that this could be like the 1994 midterm election shocker when the Republicans seized control of the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years. If so, the Democrats will win by following the exact opposite strategy from that which brought the Congressional Republicans to power in 1994.

The Republican strategy, crafted by Newt Gingrich, was to spell out their stands on key issues and to promise to bring those issues to a vote in Congress. They called their agenda "The Contract with America."

It is now clear to all that this year's Democrats are deliberately avoiding spelling out any coherent policy program of their own.

Their strategy is to second-guess, denigrate and undermine Republicans instead of offering an agenda of their own. Rather than having a contract with America, they are seeking a blank check from America. Moreover, they may get it.

--Thomas Sowell

The bad news is that things are looking up for the Democrats, according to the polls.

But the good news is that all they have to do in order to fail is to not recapture either the House or the Senate. And even if they make gains, but they fail to capture both of those, then they've really tanked.

Let me tell you something. There's a USA Today columnist, and I forget his name right now. There's a columnist at USA Today who heard me say that everybody's looking at this the wrong way. The media has got everybody focused on: "Will the Republicans lose? Will the Republicans lose? Will the Republicans lose the House? Will Republicans lose the Senate?" and I said in a brilliant monolog earlier this week, "What if the Democrats lose? If they can't win in this kind of climate and environment, they don't even deserve to be a political party.

And this guy picked up on it, thinks I have a point, starts examining whether or not the Democrats have even earned the right to govern. He's a media guy. He begrudgingly acknowledges that I have a point. This whole thing needs to be turned around in terms of looking at the context. Why is it that the reporting day in and day out is always focused on Republicans lose, Republicans lose the House, Republicans lose the Senate. We really don't hear a whole lot of focus on the Democrats doing this to win back the Senate, the Democrats doing this to win back the House. What we hear are never ending stories about how people hate Republicans, and we are never told that the people of this country have anything other than total adoration and love for Democrats.

If you're to believe the mainstream press, there isn't one Democrat who's going to get one negative vote, who's going to lose an election in this race. There isn't one American who has any gripe with any Democrat. All the gripes are aimed at Republicans. Well, we know that's BS. There are 20 million of us, and we have gripes with Democrats. We're being totally ignored in this context.

--Rush Limbaugh

That would be awesome. Let'em tank.

Until and unless the vote can no longer be considered to be, in any way, "a referendum on the presidency and policies of George W. Bush", I will not vote for another Democrat. It's up to the Democratic candidates themselves to define the elections in other terms.

Posted by Jeff at 05:08 PM | Comments (0)

October 21, 2006

Philosophy Department Censors "Patently Offensive" Speech

The Uncriticizable Leftist Religion: Government

We read:

"In early September, a Marquette University administrator removed a Barry quote about the federal government from Ph.D. student Stuart Ditsler's office door because the quote was "patently offensive." .... In late August, Ditsler posted a quote by Dave Barry on his office door in the philosophy department. The quote read, "As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful, and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government."

On September 5, Philosophy Department Chair James South sent Ditsler an e-mail stating that he had received several complaints and therefore removed the quote. He wrote, "While I am a strong supporter of academic freedom, I'm afraid that hallways and office doors are not `free-speech zones.' If material is patently offensive and has no obvious academic import or university sanction, I have little choice but to take note."

Source

So a perfectly respectable conservative view -- of a sort often expressed by Ronald Reagan -- "has no obvious academic import". That is itself a revealing statement about the intellectual limitations of the university concerned.

Tongue Tied

It's what this nation is becoming. And will. Unless you do your part to put it to an end.

Posted by Jeff at 11:31 PM | Comments (9)

October 15, 2006

Mark Steyn Interview

Long-time readers of the National Post will know that former columnist Mark Steyn is one of Canada's most gifted political writers, a man weirdly able to provoke laughter while forecasting the end of the world.

In his newly released book, America Alone, he argues that without vigilance and the unapologetic assertion of American force, we will all soon be living under Sharia law. And while Mr. Steyn muses in his book that he may not mind picking up a few extra wives, he worries that the rest of us may not like the system as much.

Mr. Steyn lives in rural New Hampshire with his (only) wife and three children.

LF You were born in Toronto, but live in the U.S. Are you still a Canadian citizen?

MS I'm a citizen of Canada, never been anything else....

Link.
Posted by Jeff at 05:46 AM | Comments (3)

Harry Reid Crooked?

Democratic Nevada senator Harry Reid crooked?

Interesting...:

listen or read. The scoop.

Atlanta Journal Constitution:

Republican ranks or crying "cover-up" over the GOP's failure to promptly and appropriately deal with former Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) and his sexually explicit e-mails to congressional pages. Reid faces too many questions about his own behavior to crusade against the misdeeds of others.

have been properly disclosed. When the property was sold in 2004, it belonged to a company formed with a long-time friend and included a parcel that once had been owed by Reid. Despite having transferred his parcel to the company, the Nevada Democrat continued to report in Senate documents that he still owned it personally. That's a breach of Senate disclosure rules, according to the Associated Press, which first reported the transaction details.

Big deal?

From Limbaugh (linked above):

Not to make a big deal out of this, ladies and gentlemen, but falsifying the report as Dingy Harry Greed apparently did is a federal crime, under Title 18, United States Code section 1001. It's a false statement for which Reid could be sent to jail, according to the statute. Now, as Jed Babbin says, "If you're looking for this on tonight's network news or on the front page of tomorrow's New York Times next to the latest Foley reveal, you won't find it." MSNBC, as I said, did a little blurb on this today, this morning in addition to the original AP story here, and let me just highlight some things that are relatively new.

"Other parts of the deal such as the informal handling of property taxes raise questions about possible gifts or income reportable to Congress and the IRS, ethics experts said. Reid and his wife Landra personally signed the deed, selling their full interest in the property to this Jay Brown's company, Patrick Lane, LLC, for the same $400,000 they paid in 1998."

Now, you buy something for 400 grand in 1998, you sell it back four years later for the same amount of money? No inflation even factored in, much less interest? Come on! Who does this?

Posted by Jeff at 02:03 AM | Comments (0)

October 09, 2006

The Self-Abasement of Political Correctness

nurse-uniform-lingerie.gif

I just read something ridiculous, quite by accident. Someone on a message board I frequent has just reached a milestone in a beginning nursing career. As a bit of a joke, I searched Google images for nurses uniform lingerie, and quickly found a good, if conservative, photo of a woman wearing nurses lingerie (in the photo to the left), which I intended to include in a response to the message board posting.

I clicked the image link, fully expecting that it would take me to a website which sells the lingerie. Instead, my browser loaded a page from a website called "Nurse Advocacy", which included the photo of the nurses uniform, along with text that begins this way:

January 5, 2005 -- Australian nurses have succeeded in ending advertising for a "naughty nurse" outfit sold by major retailer Bras 'n Things. However, the product remains for sale in the lingerie chain's 150+ stores in Australia and New Zealand, even though the Australian Nursing Federation (ANF) has reportedly called for a boycott of the stores unless the outfit is "dropped." The unsigned January 4 piece "Poster makes nurses ill" in the Herald Sun tells the basic story prior to the pulling of the ads, and gets the nurses' point across, though it also includes some condescending description of them. The Center salutes Australian nurses, especially the Australian Nursing Federation, for this campaign. We urge Bras 'n Things to retire the naughty nurse item. Read more below or click here to send our instant letter now.

Well, I clicked their link to compose a letter all right, but it wasn't exactly what they asked for. Here is what I wrote:

Dear Ms. Cheryl Williams and Bras n' Things management:

I've rarely seen anything so ridiculous as the "Nurse Advocacy" grievance about the nurses uniform lingerie. I find it absolutely absurd that you would give in to Puritanical pressures and remove a perfectly acceptable garment from your website.

Perhaps it is none of my business, as I am an American, but it seems to me that the fallout from knee jerk applications of political correctness is a growing problem throughout what we refer to the "free world". With every voluntary capitulation we make to anyone who happens to be offended by who or what we are, what we like or dislike, we only succeed in substituting their values for our own, thus abasing ourselves. This tendency toward self-abasement is having unintended ramifications for western culture all over the globe, in which we take on feelings of embarrassment for being ourselves, while other cultures (who do not share this feeling of self-hatred) move into, grow and multiply among us, with their cultures erasing western culture. Western culture is much too valuable to be lost in this manner.

Please, take a moment to stand up for who you are by re-including the nurses uniform on your website. Giving up ourselves in the face of social pressures does not provide a good example to others, but standing up for ourselves most certainly does. (You would not have had the nurses uniform on your site if you, yourself, did not approve of it prior to the impermissive and prudish outcry from "Nurse Advocacy". Are they really more fit to guide your actions than your own conscience?)

nurses-uniform-lingerie.jpg

I suggest that anyone who agrees substantially with my position should send a similar letter. In fact, feel free to copy and paste my own letter, above, from this site and into the form at Nurse Advocacy (delete their text first).

In the meantime, and in an effort to give a little bit of real economic pressure in the other direction, here is a link to nurses uniform lingerie which can be purchased from a store that hasn't given into Puritanical social pressures. They deserve your business: Surprise Him.

Actually, there are three whole pages of sexy nurses uniforms there.

 
Posted by Jeff at 03:54 PM | Comments (7)

October 06, 2006

Does anyone take the terrorists seriously anymore?

I was just reading about the latest terrorist threat against the United States, delivered by non-other than Al Qa'eda's #2 man himself, Al Zawahiri.

As I was reading about it, I realized something that's different now: I'm not concerned. Not at all. Not in the least.

A message at the end of September of 2001 would've had me very concerned.

But now? Nope.

And, yet, we're told that the terrorist threat is now larger than ever, due to the war on terror in general, and especially due to the Iraq war, with far more terrorists after the United States than there ever has been. That's probably true.

And yet, no concern.

So why no concern?

Answer: I feel protected. I know they're out there, but...I'm not scared. I feel perfectly secure.

Someone in our government must be doing something right.

It sure isn't any Democrat, though. The Democrats have tried with rigor to stop one measure of protection right after another. It seems to be their game plan.

I wonder why?

They seem to have gotten a bit of a boost, haven't they(?), from that report about recent U.S. foreign policy creating more terrorists than are being eliminated. Gee, that makes me wonder: what kind of boost would they get if we had another attack within the borders of the United States? That'd be a big failure for the Bush administration. Wouldn't it?

Wouldn't it?

Nah, Democrats wouldn't root for bad things (terrorism, poor economic indicators, high gas prices, public victimization due to moral corruption within the Republican party, etc.) to appear in the public eye just before an election. That's just silly.

Posted by Jeff at 01:02 AM | Comments (2)

October 03, 2006

John Adams

Having read 1776, by David McCullough, and enjoyed it quite a bit, I've decided to move on to one of his other books: John Adams.

John Adams, by David McCullough

So far, John Adams is less interesting, but still good. The author fills the pages with meaningless details (names of childhood friends, as one example, most of which I suspect will never be mentioned again), which can make some pages a bit of a bore, but then it steps right up again. I'm enjoying these books.

Posted by Jeff at 12:15 AM | Comments (1)

. Original Copyright, May 2004. All Rights Reserved.