|
Tuesday, December 24, 2002
Posted
12:07 PM
by Hank
CHRISTMAS RAPPING 
It's almost Christmas Eve here. And participations for the "big night" are underway.
My sainted wife (who, as always, we refer to as "Peggy"), and the girls (who, as always, we refer to as "Bobbi" and "Luanne") are in the kitchen, giggling over some sort of holiday confection, while the loyal hound sits at my feet. My presents are all wrapped, I have some great Christmas music on the stereo (James Brown's "Santa Goes Straight to the Ghetto" being a personal favorite, along with anything by Elvis Presley). Yep. JB and the Big E. Not to mention Charlie Brown, the Grinch and Rudolph. Along with family, friends and presents, there's a lot to be thankful for this year. However, some folks out there in the world, can't enjoy the same freedoms we have this time of year. Not only can't they listen to "the Godfather of Soul" or the King of Rock n' Roll, sing Christmas carols, they can't really listen to anyone sing them, at least not publicly. Need an example? Here's one:
The Washington Post has this report from Saudi Arabia:
Expatriate workers hold discreet holiday parties within walled compounds, out of sight of the government's religious police, who guard against offenses to the faith. . . . Some embassies . . . organize gatherings for their citizens during the holiday season, but generally not on Christmas Day to avoid offending Saudi sensibilities. . . .In Riyadh, the mere mention of Christmas leads many expatriates to lower their voices and fidget, fearful of unwanted attention or risking their jobs. Just buying a Christmas card requires a whispered journey into a greeting card underworld. Sounds pretty bad, don't it? Of course, sometimes I wonder if we aren't going to end up that way ourselves.... Not because America is turning Muslim (though with our lax immigration and naturalization laws, anything is possible). No, I worry that people won't be able to celebrate Christmas openly because of that old devil "political correctness." Think about it, for a second. Because everyone is afraid of getting sued companies hold "holiday parties," and even those are "discreet...fearful of unwanted attention or risking [our] jobs" And, like in Saudi Arabia, it seems like no one dares mention Christmas any more. Instead, we are supposed to say "Happy Holidays," in order "to avoid offending ...sensibilities." So what should we do? I'll tell you what. We should, to paraphrase Charles Dickens, "hold Christmas in [our] heart, and try
to keep it all the year." We should also be thankful we live in America and have the freedoms we do. And we should be ever vigliant when the "PC" movement's religious police try to take our rights away from us.
So, Merry Christmas, Happy New Year...
AND GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!! ------------
Wednesday, December 18, 2002
Posted
3:46 PM
by Hank
LOTT OF TROUBLE 
First off, let me apologize for that pun in the title. Speaking of apologies, I've been trying to figure out for about a week now what to write about incoming Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott. As everyone (with the possible exception of my brother, who hasn't read a newspaper since the time his high school graduation notice was in it) in the world knows, Lott is in deep, deep trouble, for suggesting that the country might have been better off if Sen. Strom Thurmond had been elected President in 1948. At the time Thurmond ran, he did so as a segregationalist Democrat. As a result, many people took that to mean Lott thought the world would have been better off if Thurmond had won and kept the country segregated. To make matters worse, it appears that this isn't the first time that Lott has made statements that appear to support racism. As Time magazine reported: The Senator from Mississippi appeared as recently as the 1990s before a white-supremacist group...telling its members that they stand for 'the right principles and the right philosophy.' When confronted over the remarks later, he denied any 'firsthand' knowledge of the group's beliefs." At first this issue didn't get much play. Then, it got more and more coverage, leading Lott to issue a half-hearted apology. And then another. And then another. I'm not sure how many he is up to at this point, in fact. And, with each apology he sounds more and more like a Democrat, coming out in favor of affirmative action and "a task force of reconciliation." Despite these apologies, a lot of people, including a lot of the most prominent conservatives in the country, have called for Lott to step down as majority leader. Some people have defended Lott. For example, former Clinton advisor Dick Morris had this to say about Lott: I have known Lott for 15 years and have had, perhaps, a hundred or more meetings with him. I got to know him better than any American politician other than Bill Clinton. He is no racist. There is not a racist bone in his body. **** He made his comment about Strom Thurmond - for which he has apologized three times - just because he was trying to be nice to a 100-year-old man. Lott was 7 years old when Thurmond ran and was not a particularly active politician back then. Others have pointed out a double standard is at play. For example, Wall St. Journal columnist Mark Levin noted that the Slick One himself, Bill Clinton, had equally kind words he said about another unambigious segregationalist, Sen. J. William Fulbright:...in 1966-67 Clinton interned for ... Fulbright, who was still a segregationist. In 1993, Mr. Clinton bestowed the Presidential Medal of Freedom on Fulbright. Mr. Clinton called him a "visionary humanitarian, a steadfast supporter of the values of education, and 'my mentor.' " He added that "the American political system produced this remarkable man, and my state did, and I'm real proud of it." This is a complete endorsement of Fulbright, who was a segregationist for most of his career. And Morris also pointed out: ...if they want Lott to resign, why not ask Sen. Bob Byrd (D-W.Va). to resign because of his former membership in the Klu Klux Klan and his recent use of the "N" word on television? And how about Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-S.C.), who voted against civil rights early in his career? These may all be good points. They are good reasons why Lott should stay in the Senate. And, of course, there is the fear that Lott, if not allowed to be Majority Leader, might resign from the Senate altogether, making it possible for the Democrats to seize control again. I'll tell you what, though. I still think Lott needs to step down as leader. I don't think he should resign from the Senate. And not simply because it threatens the Republican majority. He shouldn't resign because, as long as Democrats like Byrd and Fulbright are allowed in the Senate, not a single Democrat should complain about Lott being there. Furthermore, Lott's statements may have, in fact, been simply intended as the kind words Morris intended. Finally, the people of Mississippi elected him for a six year term to represent them. They should decide if he stays or goes as a Senator, and whether his constitutionally protected words make him fit to be in the Senate. But as long as Lott is majority leader, he doesn't just represent Mississippi. He represents me. And every other Republican in America. And the face he's putting on us is not the one I want. At this point, the public perception of Lott (and, therefore, the political reality) is that he is a bad person. Just look at the picture I posted with this column. It isn't from the Nation, the Utne Reader, or even the Ithaca Times. It's from the fair and balanced FOX News, and it seems like more and more members of the "mainstream media" are using it as their "stock" photo of Lott. And it's not just the news media that judged Lott guilty. From "the Tonight Show" on down, his name has become universal shorthand for "white racist." Right or wrong, he's the modern Archie Bunker. So maybe Lott has been unfairly singled out, maybe he got hit with a a cheap shot...but that shot still took him down. It's like football. Maybe it was a foul that injured the Quarterback, but once the quarterback is injured badly enough, you have to take him out of the game before he loses the whole thing. Lott may have taken one for the team but it's time to bench him. The good of the Republican team demands it.
Tuesday, December 10, 2002
Posted
5:22 AM
by Hank
I WAS RIGHT--THEY JUST DON'T GET IT 
If a particular guest columnist for the Ithaca Journal speaks for most of the Democratic party, they still refuse to realize that their recent losses were due to being out of touch.
Joan Bokaer who is, of course, a teacher, has written both a letter to the editor and a full column in which she blames the Democratic losses in Congress on that familiar bogeyman of the left--the vast right wing conspiracy.
But not just any right wing conspriracy.
In Ms. Bokaer's eyes the losses are due to "the Religious Right," which has "(a) desire to gain dominion over society through our political system...to create the Kingdom of God on earth."
In other words, according to Ms. Bokaer, anyone who voted Republican was in the thrall of a secret cabal that "controls the Republican Party at the national level" and "does not tolerate other belief systems." She then declared the Republican victory "a great loss for anyone who values democracy and a pluralistic society." She also she said that "the Democrats need to get better organized" in "stopping the religious right from imposing its worldview on 'all aspects of our daily life.'"
A few things about Ms Bokaer's position stand out:
1. As noted above, this woman is a teacher. How many "skullfuls" of mush is she indoctrinating with this nonsense?
2. This letter demonstrates that the left does not consider republicans "the loyal opposition." To them, Republicans aren't simply a group that has different ideas on how to better our lives--Republicans are against Democracy and out to "gain dominion" over people. Basically, they consider us evil enemies. Remember that when they say they want to compromise. Why would they want to compromise with someone they consider evil?
3. Take these opinion pieces. Remove the phrases "Christian" and "Religious Right" and insert the phrase "the Jews." Suddenly the bigotry is clear. These letters read like modern versions of Nazi propaganda about how Jews were out to take over the world.
In other words, the left thinks the way to capture the hearts of a nation that is predominately Christian is to attack Christians with hate-filled propaganda straight out of the Goebbels playbook and answer complaints that they were too "obstructionist" by wanting to be even more obstructionist?
Yep....they still don't get it.
-----------
Sunday, December 08, 2002
Posted
6:45 AM
by Hank
THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY 
Fox news reports that Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu won a second term Saturday, defeating Republican Suzanne Terrell, by a narrow margin, 52 to 48 percent.
The Democrats, of course, think this is good news for them.
But looking at things a little closer, I don't think it is.
First off, it doesn't change control of the Senate. Get ready for Chief Justice Scalia.
Second, Landrieu is one of the few Democrat Senators, if not the only Democrat Senator, to refuse to have Bill Clinton come down to stump for her. Why did she do that? As the Wall St. Journal notes, "most of the candidates he campaigned for lost. 'The stumpers got stomped,' says Newsweek political writer Howard Fineman, referring to the Clintons. 'This election was the official end of the Clinton-Gore era.' "
In other words, the Slick One may have lost his appeal to the nation. This is great news. First off, the notoriously poll obsessed Clintons must be looking at this referendum on them and figuring that a Presidential bid by Hillary may not be the best idea. Second off, the Democratic Party is stuck with these two albatrosses for the forseeable future.
Finally, for a Democrat, Landrieu is pretty conservative. She first ran for the Senate as a supporter of President Bush. And, according to the Fox article, she has "voted with the president 74 percent of the time." This sort of voting record probably makes her more conservative than some of the real Republicans out there. And, in fact, some "black leaders [have] complained that Landrieu sounded like a Republican."
This, combined with the election losses of notorious liberals and Bush opponents like Walter Mondale and Jean Carnahan, leads me to think that, maybe, the lesson here is that Democrats can win, but they need to be conservative Democrats.
However, the Democratic leadership doesn't seem to understand that. As the New Republic notes: ...the left, for the first time since the 1980s, has a shot at taking over the party...And that is what makes the Democratic Party's current predicament so dangerous. The ideological vacuum atop the post-September 11 Democratic Party will inevitably be filled. And if it is filled by Nancy Pelosi and Dennis Kucinich, the United States will no longer be a 50-50 nation; it will be a 40-60 nation for a generation. In other words, at the very time the Democratic Party needs to move right, their leaders are moving left.
To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, the American people won't be leaving the Democratic party, the Democratic party will be leaving them. And they won't be missed, it seems.
------------
Saturday, December 07, 2002
Posted
6:03 AM
by Hank
SUPERMAN VS THE ULTRA-LIBERALS?
Today's Ithaca Journal has a letter from one of the Ithaca peaceniks in it. In this letter, the writer proudly claims that "Bush is superman -- but we are his kryptonite!" By my way of thinking, this is a pretty apt metaphor, but not in the way the peaceniks intended.
If you think about it, Superman is the good guy. He's here to save us from would-be world conquerers and mass murderers. And what are Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden but real life supervillains, our closest counterparts to Lex Luthor and Brainaic?
And kryptonite?
Kryptonite is something from Superman's home that arch-fiends use to stop our hero as he fights his "never ending battle for truth, justice and the American way." And these peaceniks are, let's face it, domestic (or home grown) "useful idiots" to bad guys like Saddam and Osama, something they can use to stop the good guys.
And there are different varieties of kryptonite, including "red kryptonite." And, I tell you what, I think we all know at least a few of these peaceniks are--ahem-- "red."
Fortunately, however, Superman always finds a way to avoid the kryptonite, win the day, and bring the villains to justice.
I'm confident that President Bush will be able to do the same.
Friday, December 06, 2002
Posted
3:09 PM
by Hank
HYPOCRISY INTERNATIONAL? 
According to the Ithaca Journal, "The Ithaca chapter of Amnesty International will hold a candlelight vigil commemorating International Human Rights Day from 5-6 p.m. Sunday Dec. 8 at the Central Pavilion on the Commons in Ithaca." I wonder if they will speak to the Human Rights abuses of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. As noted recently on CNN, "Britain has released a second dossier on Iraq, accusing dictator Saddam Hussein of masterminding the widespread and systematic torture of his political opponents." According to the BBC, Saddam's record includes "torture, the treatment of women, prison conditions, arbitrary and summary killings, the persecution of the Kurds and the Shia, the harassment of opposition figures outside Iraq and the occupation of Kuwait."
The full dossier, in PDF form, is here. It isn't for the faint of heart. With a record like that, you'd think Amnesty International, and the local yokels in Ithaca, would be right out there Sunday, attacking Iraq, wouldn't you? After all aren't liberals always screaming about stopping dictators who oppose human rights? You'd think so. But I don't think you'll see it. Rather than applaud Great Britain for recognizing Iraq's history of violating human rights, Amnesty International condemned the report as "a cold and calculated manipulation of the work of human rights activists" in an effort "to justify military action." The group also attempts to shift the blame from Saddam to the United Nations sanctions on Iraq, claiming that sanctions to end a dictatorship "have jeopardised the right to food, health, education and, in many cases, life of hundreds of thousands of individuals, many of them children."
Excuse me? It's not an evil dictator who's causing the problem throught murder, torture, rape and other sadistic acts?
It's sanctions?!?! I thought liberals and human rights groups were all for sanctions. And it turns out that, at least in other cases, they are. A "google" search doesn't show any evidence they opposed the sanction on South Africa, even though folks back then claimed that the sanctions were hurting the very people they were designed to liberate (the same claim Amnesty International now makes about Iraq).
In fact, they have testified in favor of sanctions against the Musim regime in Nigeria. And in 2000, the group "demanded" sanctions against the nation of Sierra Leone.
You have to wonder why Amnesty International considers sanctions to be bad in some situations, but not others. Here's a theory:
It sure looks like the countries in which sanctions are opposed are countries that are traditionally enemies of the United States. And where the country isn't our enemy, they're all for sanctions. It makes you wonder: is the group concerned about human rights, or all they just opposed to the United States? Let's see what happens on the "International Day of Human Rights." If they don't attack Iraq, and instead attack the sanctions, I think we'll have our answer. If we don't already.
Posted
2:19 PM
by Hank
Dang.
I'm having trouble with the title graphic.
If it still looks funny while you read this, I'm working on it, with the help of a fine fellow blogger who goes above and beyond.
If only this was as easy as thawin' a regulator after a propane freeze up, I'd have it done in a jif, I tell ya what.
Thursday, December 05, 2002
Posted
9:11 PM
by Hank
Lawyers, Guns and Morons
I see that the The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday ruled that "there is no individual right to gun possession, holding that only state-run militias have a constitutional right to bear arms."
A couple of thoughts on this:
This is the same court that recently declared the pledge unconstitutional. I think that says a lot about their mentality.
The court also used, as one of the bases for their decision, the work of Michael Bellesiles. Bellesiles is the author of "Arming America." As the Wall St. Journal noted, recently, "that ...book, published by Knopf in 2000, purported to show that guns were a rarity in early America, which would have had broad implications for the Second Amendment's historical context. Within months of the book's appearance, however, a battle raged over Mr. Bellesiles's scholarship. It ended last week when a distinguished panel of scholars declared the work "unprofessional and misleading," and Mr. Bellesiles resigned from Emory University. Garbage In. Garbage Out, as the boys on dumpster duty like to say.
In any event, shoddy research aside, I have a more philosophical question.
At what point did the Bill of Rights become rights given to any government body, including the states?
Now, granted I'm a product of the public school system, but wasn't the whole point of the first ten amendments to the Constitution to make sure that everyone-- AND I MEAN EVERYONE--in the states and the federal government understood that individuals have certain inalienable rights?
Why would the founding fathers have given us nine amendments about individual rights (freedom of religion, speech, assembly, right to counsel, etc.) and then, right in the middle, stuck one in that took away rights from an individual and gave them to a "state-run militia?" Just to see if we were paying attention in history class?
Finally, is it me, or does anyone else find it--I dunno--funny that liberals are always screaming about every right but this one? Heck, they even MAKE UP rights that aren't as obviously in the Constitution, so crazy about rights are they, and here they tell us that a plainly given one isn't there.
I know, I know...it was a rhetorical question anyway.
Posted
8:24 PM
by Hank
Porn and Chickenhawks
According to the Cornell Daily Sun, Robert Mosher, a former staff member at Cornell Information Technology, was arrested for possessing child pornography on a Cornell-owned computer.
If I was Mosher, I wouldn't be worried.
Even if he's convicted, I am sure the Ithaca City School District would be happy to hire him to work alongside the convicted Coke dealer they hired as coach. Or maybe Mosher could run the school's computer labs. He obviously has experience with kids and computers.
After all, as the liberals told Board of Eduction members Henry Kramer and Arthur Berkey when they dared to question hiring the coke dealer, "we should reserve moral judgments of character…we all have things in our past that we would much rather stay there."
So don't worry, Mr. Mosher. No matter what happens I'm sure you'll be able to find work in enlightened and tolerant Ithaca. You might even get to be a school chaperone.
Just don't get caught looking at, say, National Review's homepage or Rush Limbaugh's, (or this one) and I'm sure you'll have a long and happy academic career.
Posted
8:14 PM
by Hank
Speaking of ISIS:
I linked to this (I hope) already. But here's the text of one of the pieces I wrote about how liberal Ithaca is. I figure it'll make a good first article here, since it was pretty much the last one I wrote for ISIS.
------------
Diversify THIS 
This may come as no surprise, but I read a lot of what some would call “right wing” magazines: National Review, American Enterprise, and the Limbaugh letter are just a few of the fine periodicals that adorn the living room coffee table here at the Hill house.
Why do I read them? A couple of reasons.
First of all, I figure I get enough of the “liberal” perspective from the mainstream national media-not to mention “radical left wing” perspective from the Ithaca press. I need to read something to remind myself that I’m not the only conservative out there.
Second, as some of you might recall, my wife (who, for the sake of anonymity we will continue to refer to as “Peggy”) works for Cornell, which forces me to sometimes come in contact with her co-workers. I like to have facts to counteract whatever “big lie” they heard on NPR last week and are treating as gospel THIS week.
Recently, one of the articles I was reading in the American Enterprise got me thinking about every Ithacan’s favorite cause (even more favored than solar energy, organic food and bringing down Bush’s high approval ratings): “diversity.”
If you spend any time at all around Ithaca you know that Ithacans claim to worship diversity. They put “celebrate diversity” bumper stickers on their identical Subaru wagons and wear “celebrate diversity” buttons on their identical “Angelheart” sack clothes. If you ask the average Ithacan what he or she most appreciates about Ithaca, the odds are that he or she (and it could be either sex) will run their hand over their gray pony tail (either sex) in feigned contemplation, rub their facial hair (again, either sex) in feigned thought, and then begin telling you about how great it is to live in such a “diverse” community.
I even heard one such Ithacan parent start to tell a child it was important to share “because there is no ‘I’ in ‘diversity’,” until she (or maybe it was a he-see above paragraph) realized there actually was. Two, in fact (which demonstrates, once again, that liberals prize slogans over the truth, but I digress).
Yep….Ithacans (or at least liberal Ithacans) love to tell us how much they love diversity. Some might even say that Ithacans worship diversity, that diversity it an Ithacan’s “god” and “Thou shalt have no other gods before it.”
“Well Hank,” you might say, “we all know that Ithacans are pious about diversity. But what does this have to do with ‘the American Enterprise’ magazine.”
I’ll tell you what.
The September 2002 issue of American Enterprise had an article about how the nation’s colleges are not merely overrun by liberals, but that there are so many liberals on campus that conservatives are virtually non-existent.
And one of the worst offenders? You guessed it: Cornell University (no wonder they call it “the Big Red”), of which only approximately three percent of its professors are “republican” or “conservative.” And when you consider that the study counted libertarians as “conservative,” you realize that the number could actually be even lower.
How bad is three percent compared to other colleges of note? Let’s put it this way: not only is it lower than Harvard (recently in the news for ITS skewed faculty population), but is even lower than Berkeley, long considered the most liberal campus anywhere in America!
To make matters worse, if you think about it, this bodes badly for “diversity” in Ithaca in general, even more so than in those other “college towns.”
At least, say, Boston (home of Harvard) has business and industry not connected to its colleges. With rare exceptions, Ithaca is nothing but its colleges. In fact, in a way, Ithaca is a “factory town,” no different than, for example, Detroit under the automakers or White Plains, under the old IBM regime: everyone in town works in the same places, is exposed to THE same “corporate culture,” and comes to town expected to fit into that “culture.” Heck, in a way, the colleges control Ithaca the way Hershey Chocolate controls Hershey, PA (I guess that makes TCAT the overpriced theme park thrill ride, but I digress again).
In other words, as a result of this campus domination of the town, the entire City of Ithaca (if not the entire County) is rapidly turning into one big faculty mixer: the schools, the churches, the government, you name it. And as we just learned, that translates into a population that’s even more liberal than Berkeley.
Don’t believe me? Just ask the liberals. Even the Ithaca Times has picked up on the “no Republicans welcome in Ithaca” vibe. In their recent “Welcome to Ithaca” issue they advised newcomers: “If you are Republican, get a thick skin. Ithaca has been liberal for about as long as anyone can remember, and …Republicans usually have a hard time here.”
In other words, even the liberals are admitting we are a minority.
Which got me thinking some more.
As any good liberal can tell you, minorities are always repressed and discriminated against by the majority. So, obviously, we aren’t just a minority. We are a REPRESSED minority.
And you know what THAT means.
Yep. We need affirmative action…and set asides…and special programs…and a designated seat on each government body and committee. We might even need one of those “alternative schools.”
Heck, the way I see it, we might even be entitled to REPARATIONS.
And so, I think it’s time for conservatives, as a repressed minority in Ithaca, to demand their rights. The way I figure it, given that we have been discriminated against “for about as long as anyone can remember,” we need to organize and demand what we are due. We need to attract more conservatives to the area.
And how can the liberals complain? After all, bringing in more conservatives would increase Ithaca’s “diversity.” And isn’t that what they worship?
Unless they plan on admitting that their “god” is a false idol, I think we may have a plan here.
Posted
8:07 PM
by Hank
Yep...got myself a blog.
Now, you might be saying to yourself: "Hank, that's all well and good. But what's the point? Wouldn't be better off selling propane and propane accessories?"
I'll tell you what the point is.
I used to contribute to a webzine called "ISIS"
ISIS was the only conservative voice in a very liberal place called Ithaca, New York. How liberal is Ithaca? Ithaca is so liberal that was was voted most enlightened city in America by the liberal magazine Utne Reader. Ithaca is so liberal that it conservatives at another site, Free Republic calls it "the City of Evil", complete with spiffy graphic: 
Then, one day, ISIS was gone. I'm not sure what happened. But when you go the website, website, you get a message about "tolerance" (or the lack thereof). I don't know what happened, but I have the feelin' that some not so tolerant folks decided that diversity doesn't include diversity of thought. At least when that divergent thought is conservative thought. So, having no place to put down my ponderings about various things political, I decided to start this here blog.
My "handle" remains the same. Call me Hank.
The title comes from the one the folks at ISIS wanted to give my column before (I think) the tolerant thought police shut them down. When the mood strikes me, and my wife Peggy doesn't have a chore to do, you might find me here commenting on the news of the day. In the words of that great philosophizer and lover of critters, Ellie Mae Clampett: "Y'all come back now, y'hear?"
|
![[Powered by Blogger]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tVXKs6e--Blw1wor02Uro30amxs6Hp2OkLXznYYbjXhOot_IwW93jOds-KPPLgmOxxoYXNt0Ec_2CYXqwUwidSudZ35UT0AT3YArT_sLQq=s0-d){kind=small}