Looks like Bu$hCo has already started cleaning house. Hey Rummy, don't let the door hit you on the way out now, ya hear?
Me wonders: Will Dick Cheney now develop a health problem and be replaced for the last two years? One can only dream...
P.S. Expect to see even more shakeups at even higher levels in this administration as Little Boots becomes further unhinged.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Friday, November 03, 2006
808 days (and counting)
OK, so sometimes I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed but how can ANYONE compare John Kerry’s idiotic “botched joke” with the unwavering statement of support George W. Bush gave Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld the other day when he said he was going to keep Rumsfeld in office until the end of his term. Yes, Kerry is an idiot and hopefully this incident has sunk any plan of his to run again in 2008 but Rumsfeld’s foreign policy is the worst in our nation’s history and yet Bush supports Rumsfeld and bashes Kerry.
Over 100 U.S. service people have died in Iraq just in October alone and Bush has the audacity to crisscross the country using worn-out scare tactics like telling voters not to vote for the Democrats because “they don’t have a plan to win the war in Iraq” (or claiming that the terrorists win if Democrats are elected to Congress). HELLO? What is YOUR plan to win in Iraq Mr. President? After all, you and your cronies are responsible for getting the United States into this mess!
John Kerry is yesterday but we are stuck with Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld for another two years. God help us.
Over 100 U.S. service people have died in Iraq just in October alone and Bush has the audacity to crisscross the country using worn-out scare tactics like telling voters not to vote for the Democrats because “they don’t have a plan to win the war in Iraq” (or claiming that the terrorists win if Democrats are elected to Congress). HELLO? What is YOUR plan to win in Iraq Mr. President? After all, you and your cronies are responsible for getting the United States into this mess!
John Kerry is yesterday but we are stuck with Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld for another two years. God help us.
Interesting View of Diversity
Diversity adulation
By Walter E. Williams
There are some ideas so ludicrous and mischievous
that only an academic would take them seriously. One
of them is diversity. Think about it. Are you for or against diversity?
When's the last time you said to yourself, "I'd better have a little more
diversity in my life"? What would you think if you heard a Microsoft
director tell his fellow board members that the company should have
more diversity and manufacture kitchenware, children's clothing
and shoes? You'd probably think the director was smoking something illegal.
Our institutions of higher learning take diversity seriously and
make it a multimillion-dollar operation. Juilliard School has a
director of diversity and inclusion; Massachusetts Institute of
Technology has a manager of diversity recruitment;
Toledo University, an associate dean for diversity; the
universities of Harvard, Texas A&M, California at Berkeley,
Virginia and many others boast of officers,
deans, vice-presidents and perhaps ministers of diversity.
George Leef, director of the John W. Pope Center for
Higher Education Policy in Raleigh, N.C., writes about this
in an article titled "Some Questions about Diversity" in
the Oct. 5 issue of "Clarion Call." Mr. Leef suggests that only
in academia is diversity pursued for its own sake, but there's
a problem: Everyone, even if they are the same ethnicity,
nationality or religion, is different. Suppose two people are
from the same town in Italy. They might differ in many important
respects: views on morality, religious and political beliefs,
recreation preferences and other characteristics.
Mr. Leef says that some academics see diversity as a
requirement for social justice -- to right historical wrongs.
The problem here is that if you go back far enough, all groups
have suffered some kind of historical wrong.
The Irish can point to injustices at the hands of the British,
Jews at the hands of Nazis, Chinese at the hands of Indonesians,
and Armenians at the hands of the Turks. Of course, black Americans
were enslaved, but slavery is a condition that has been with mankind
throughout most of history. In fact, long before blacks were
enslaved, Europeans were enslaved. The word slavery comes
from Slavs, referring to the Slavic people, who were early slaves.
White Americans, captured by the Barbary pirates, were enslaved
at one time or another. Whites were indentured servants in colonial
America. So what should the diversity managers do about these
injustices?
When academics call for diversity, they're really talking about
racial preferences for particular groups of people, mainly blacks.
The last thing they're talking about is intellectual diversity.
According to a recent national survey, reported by the American
Council of Trustees and Alumni in "Intellectual Diversity," 72 percent
of college professors describe themselves as liberal and 15 percent
conservative. Liberal professors think their classrooms should be
used to promote a political agenda. The University of California
recently abandoned a provision on academic freedom that cautioned
against using the classroom for propaganda. The president said
the regulation was "outdated."
Americans, as taxpayers and benefactors, have been
exceedingly generous to our institutions of higher learning.
That generosity has been betrayed. Rich Americans, who
acquired their wealth through our capitalist system, give billions
to universities. Unbeknownst to them, much of that money often
goes to faculty members and programs that are openly hostile to
donor values. Universities have also failed in their function of
the pursuit of academic excellence by having dumbed
down classes and granting degrees to students who are just
barely literate and computationally incompetent.
What's part of Williams' solution? Benefactors should stop
giving money to universities that engage in racist diversity policy.
Simply go to the university's website, and if you find offices of
diversity, close your pocketbook. There's nothing like the sound
of pocketbooks snapping shut to open the closed minds of administrators.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University
as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and is the
author of More Liberty Means Less Government: Our Founders
Knew This Well.
By Walter E. Williams
There are some ideas so ludicrous and mischievous
that only an academic would take them seriously. One
of them is diversity. Think about it. Are you for or against diversity?
When's the last time you said to yourself, "I'd better have a little more
diversity in my life"? What would you think if you heard a Microsoft
director tell his fellow board members that the company should have
more diversity and manufacture kitchenware, children's clothing
and shoes? You'd probably think the director was smoking something illegal.
Our institutions of higher learning take diversity seriously and
make it a multimillion-dollar operation. Juilliard School has a
director of diversity and inclusion; Massachusetts Institute of
Technology has a manager of diversity recruitment;
Toledo University, an associate dean for diversity; the
universities of Harvard, Texas A&M, California at Berkeley,
Virginia and many others boast of officers,
deans, vice-presidents and perhaps ministers of diversity.
George Leef, director of the John W. Pope Center for
Higher Education Policy in Raleigh, N.C., writes about this
in an article titled "Some Questions about Diversity" in
the Oct. 5 issue of "Clarion Call." Mr. Leef suggests that only
in academia is diversity pursued for its own sake, but there's
a problem: Everyone, even if they are the same ethnicity,
nationality or religion, is different. Suppose two people are
from the same town in Italy. They might differ in many important
respects: views on morality, religious and political beliefs,
recreation preferences and other characteristics.
Mr. Leef says that some academics see diversity as a
requirement for social justice -- to right historical wrongs.
The problem here is that if you go back far enough, all groups
have suffered some kind of historical wrong.
The Irish can point to injustices at the hands of the British,
Jews at the hands of Nazis, Chinese at the hands of Indonesians,
and Armenians at the hands of the Turks. Of course, black Americans
were enslaved, but slavery is a condition that has been with mankind
throughout most of history. In fact, long before blacks were
enslaved, Europeans were enslaved. The word slavery comes
from Slavs, referring to the Slavic people, who were early slaves.
White Americans, captured by the Barbary pirates, were enslaved
at one time or another. Whites were indentured servants in colonial
America. So what should the diversity managers do about these
injustices?
When academics call for diversity, they're really talking about
racial preferences for particular groups of people, mainly blacks.
The last thing they're talking about is intellectual diversity.
According to a recent national survey, reported by the American
Council of Trustees and Alumni in "Intellectual Diversity," 72 percent
of college professors describe themselves as liberal and 15 percent
conservative. Liberal professors think their classrooms should be
used to promote a political agenda. The University of California
recently abandoned a provision on academic freedom that cautioned
against using the classroom for propaganda. The president said
the regulation was "outdated."
Americans, as taxpayers and benefactors, have been
exceedingly generous to our institutions of higher learning.
That generosity has been betrayed. Rich Americans, who
acquired their wealth through our capitalist system, give billions
to universities. Unbeknownst to them, much of that money often
goes to faculty members and programs that are openly hostile to
donor values. Universities have also failed in their function of
the pursuit of academic excellence by having dumbed
down classes and granting degrees to students who are just
barely literate and computationally incompetent.
What's part of Williams' solution? Benefactors should stop
giving money to universities that engage in racist diversity policy.
Simply go to the university's website, and if you find offices of
diversity, close your pocketbook. There's nothing like the sound
of pocketbooks snapping shut to open the closed minds of administrators.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University
as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and is the
author of More Liberty Means Less Government: Our Founders
Knew This Well.
Thursday, November 02, 2006
From the New York Times...
Editorial
The Great Divider
As President Bush throws himself into the final days of a particularly nasty campaign season, he’s settled into a familiar pattern of ugly behavior. Since he can’t defend the real world created by his policies and his decisions, Mr. Bush is inventing a fantasy world in which to campaign on phony issues against fake enemies.
In Mr. Bush’s world, America is making real progress in Iraq. In the real world, as Michael Gordon reported in yesterday’s Times, the index that generals use to track developments shows an inexorable slide toward chaos. In Mr. Bush’s world, his administration is marching arm in arm with Iraqi officials committed to democracy and to staving off civil war. In the real world, the prime minister of Iraq orders the removal of American checkpoints in Baghdad and abets the sectarian militias that are slicing and dicing their country.
In Mr. Bush’s world, there are only two kinds of Americans: those who are against terrorism, and those who somehow are all right with it. Some Americans want to win in Iraq and some don’t. There are Americans who support the troops and Americans who don’t support the troops. And at the root of it all is the hideously damaging fantasy that there is a gulf between Americans who love their country and those who question his leadership.
Mr. Bush has been pushing these divisive themes all over the nation, offering up the ludicrous notion the other day that if Democrats manage to control even one house of Congress, America will lose and the terrorists will win. But he hit a particularly creepy low when he decided to distort a lame joke lamely delivered by Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts. Mr. Kerry warned college students that the punishment for not learning your lessons was to “get stuck in Iraq.” In context, it was obviously an attempt to disparage Mr. Bush’s intelligence. That’s impolitic and impolite, but it’s not as bad as Mr. Bush’s response. Knowing full well what Mr. Kerry meant, the president and his team cried out that the senator was disparaging the troops. It was a depressing replay of the way the Bush campaign Swift-boated Americans in 2004 into believing that Mr. Kerry, who went to war, was a coward and Mr. Bush, who stayed home, was a hero.
It’s not the least bit surprising or objectionable that Mr. Bush would hit the trail hard at this point, trying to salvage his party’s control of Congress and, by extension, his last two years in office. And we’re not naïve enough to believe that either party has been running a positive campaign that focuses on the issues.
But when candidates for lower office make their opponents out to be friends of Osama bin Laden, or try to turn a minor gaffe into a near felony, that’s just depressing. When the president of the United States gleefully bathes in the muck to divide Americans into those who love their country and those who don’t, it is destructive to the fabric of the nation he is supposed to be leading.
This is hardly the first time that Mr. Bush has played the politics of fear, anger and division; if he’s ever missed a chance to wave the bloody flag of 9/11, we can’t think of when. But Mr. Bush’s latest outbursts go way beyond that. They leave us wondering whether this president will ever be willing or able to make room for bipartisanship, compromise and statesmanship in the two years he has left in office.
The Great Divider
As President Bush throws himself into the final days of a particularly nasty campaign season, he’s settled into a familiar pattern of ugly behavior. Since he can’t defend the real world created by his policies and his decisions, Mr. Bush is inventing a fantasy world in which to campaign on phony issues against fake enemies.
In Mr. Bush’s world, America is making real progress in Iraq. In the real world, as Michael Gordon reported in yesterday’s Times, the index that generals use to track developments shows an inexorable slide toward chaos. In Mr. Bush’s world, his administration is marching arm in arm with Iraqi officials committed to democracy and to staving off civil war. In the real world, the prime minister of Iraq orders the removal of American checkpoints in Baghdad and abets the sectarian militias that are slicing and dicing their country.
In Mr. Bush’s world, there are only two kinds of Americans: those who are against terrorism, and those who somehow are all right with it. Some Americans want to win in Iraq and some don’t. There are Americans who support the troops and Americans who don’t support the troops. And at the root of it all is the hideously damaging fantasy that there is a gulf between Americans who love their country and those who question his leadership.
Mr. Bush has been pushing these divisive themes all over the nation, offering up the ludicrous notion the other day that if Democrats manage to control even one house of Congress, America will lose and the terrorists will win. But he hit a particularly creepy low when he decided to distort a lame joke lamely delivered by Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts. Mr. Kerry warned college students that the punishment for not learning your lessons was to “get stuck in Iraq.” In context, it was obviously an attempt to disparage Mr. Bush’s intelligence. That’s impolitic and impolite, but it’s not as bad as Mr. Bush’s response. Knowing full well what Mr. Kerry meant, the president and his team cried out that the senator was disparaging the troops. It was a depressing replay of the way the Bush campaign Swift-boated Americans in 2004 into believing that Mr. Kerry, who went to war, was a coward and Mr. Bush, who stayed home, was a hero.
It’s not the least bit surprising or objectionable that Mr. Bush would hit the trail hard at this point, trying to salvage his party’s control of Congress and, by extension, his last two years in office. And we’re not naïve enough to believe that either party has been running a positive campaign that focuses on the issues.
But when candidates for lower office make their opponents out to be friends of Osama bin Laden, or try to turn a minor gaffe into a near felony, that’s just depressing. When the president of the United States gleefully bathes in the muck to divide Americans into those who love their country and those who don’t, it is destructive to the fabric of the nation he is supposed to be leading.
This is hardly the first time that Mr. Bush has played the politics of fear, anger and division; if he’s ever missed a chance to wave the bloody flag of 9/11, we can’t think of when. But Mr. Bush’s latest outbursts go way beyond that. They leave us wondering whether this president will ever be willing or able to make room for bipartisanship, compromise and statesmanship in the two years he has left in office.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)