I almost thought that this was 1950 and Dog the Bounty Hunter donated a million dollars to the communist party while he was at a mixer with Stalin, Kim Il Sung, Ho Chi Minh, and Mao Zedong. 

Has anyone appreciated the irony?  That his whole use of the dreaded "N-WORD" (is it okay to say "n-word" or has the letter been outlawed?) was because he said he was afraid that the black girl his son was dating would hear him say "n-gger" and then leak it to the Tabloids and his whole career would be ruined.  He made it clear he didn't mean "n-gger" in a particularly derogatory manner, just in common parlance. 

"I’m not taking a chance ...  it’s not cause she’s black it’s because we use the word n-gger sometimes here. I’m not going to take a chance ever in life losing everything I worked for for 30 years cause some f----- n-gger heard us say n-gger and turned us in to the Enquirer magazine. Our career is over.... and it’s not that they’re black it’s none of that, it’s that we use the word n-gger we don’t mean you f----ing scum n-gger without a soul, we don’t mean that sh-t. but America would think we mean that."

He should have his own show where he predicts the future!  

It's the best because here's the official comment of A&E:

In evaluating the circumstances of the last few days, A&E has decided to take Dog The Bounty Hunter off the network's schedule for the foreseeable future. We hope that Mr. Chapman continues the healing process that he has begun.  

Healing Process?  Did he get in a car accident and break 29 bones?  Or do they mean the healing process where he checks himself into a rehabilitation center for a 12-week intensive treatment program including an excision of his common sense and freedom of speech. 

Then he can hold a press conference where he apologizes to all those across the nation that he's hurt, how he's deeply sorry to use such a taboo word that you never hear anyone say (unless that is, you listen to 15 seconds of a rap song), and how interracial relationships are the way to solve the problem of racism inherent in every white person's soul, and how he's proud of his son for the courage to date a black girl in today's intolerant society, evidenced by the continued hurtful speech used by white men everywhere, and in fact, he's glad his son leaked the tape because now he sees the error of his ways.  and also, some of his best friends are black!

There's a "Contact Us" section on the AETV.com webpage--please take advantage. 

I remember in elementary school and junior high school (by high school  no one even cared enough to 'vote') the administration thought it would be cute or informative to hold elections for class president and other various cabinet posts.  I remember filing into the auditoriums to hear the candidates' speeches.  More than once I heard promises to end homework on Fridays, to get Taco Bell and Burger King in the cafeteria, to lengthen recess by 15 minutes, and to get televisions in the classrooms (this was when televisions were wheeled from class to class if a teacher had a worn vhs movie to show).  Some students with industrious mothers came to school with trays of brownies or cupcakes to hand out underneath large posters reading Vote for Emily or David for Prez. 

I think Hillary learned a thing or two from grade-school elections too.  She wants to give every child born in the US a 5,000 dollar scholarship.   I don't even want to try the math on that one.  My only question is who's gonna get taxed for that--the tobacco companies or the oil companies? 

Being that this is a competitive society, and the primaries still months away, I wonder what Obama and Edwards are going to come up with to counter this lucrative offer.  6,000 dollars?  Wholly subsidized tuition?  Chocolate milkshakes in the drinking fountains? 

Like the child running for president of Mark Twain Elementary School knows that his efforts will be thwarted by the teachers and principal, surely Hillary knows such an absurd thing will never get off the House floor.  At which point she can shrug her shoulders and say "well, I tried."

Except  she will be saying that from her seat in the Senate, while Mr. Romney (or, god willing Mr. Paul) returns his trusty veto quill back to its inkwell. 

[P.S
Attack at US Embassy in VIenna Thwarted! 
[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071001/ap_on_re_eu/austria_us_embassy_explosives;_ylt=AvOAii0inzKvk1Lr_U6rlZ.s0NUE]
This, after recent thwarted attacks in Turkey, Germany, and Denmark.  This time, a Bosnian was caught with a backpack filled with explosives, nails, and Islamic literature of "unclear nature." 
He's almost a century too late for Archduke Ferdinand. ]

After hearing over and over little news bits on the radio about Bush’s vow to veto the children’s health bill, I did a search.  Some of the headlines I found were:
Bush Ready To Fight Kids Insurance Bill [cbsnews.com]
Children May Lose Out on Insurance [Boston Globe]
Bush Promises Veto of Affordable Health Insurance Plan [emaxhealth.com]

I went with the Washington Post:  “New Bush Policies Limit Reach of Child Insurance Plan.” [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/20/AR2007082002159.html]

When, of course, it should have said:  “New Congress Policies Hyperextend Children’s Health Insurance Plan and Create Undue Tax Burden on American Workers.” 

In his infinite malevolence (possibly encouraged by his Vice President “Darth Vader”) Bush “announced new policies that will make it harder for states to insure all but the lowest-income children.”  These evil policies are “aimed at preventing parents with private insurance for their children from availing of the government-subsidized State Children's Health Insurance Program.” 

What?

If a family has private insurance, Bush is insisting that they can’t get on the dole?  Good!  That’s like if a gainfully employed citizen tried to apply for unemployment benefits! 

Bush’s policy--you know, the one that limits government coverage to only the poorest of the wretchedly poor--does indeed have an income requirement that is absolutely conscience-shocking.  For a family of four, the requirement is $51,625--which, by the way, is over ten thousand dollars more than the national average income.  (Some states such as Taxachusetts and New York have requirements in the $60,000s for a family of three.)

Bush’s policies also require the child be uninsured for one year, ostensibly to allow the parents time to get their act together and purchase some coverage.  Either that or because he wants children to die in the gutter outside the hospital.  (After reading the Post article, I’m leaning towards the latter.)

How come it’s not shameful for these families making $50,000 a year to get on the dole?  Where’s the article pointing fingers at a middle-class family trying to get taxpayers to bear the burden of taking care of their children? 

The new, terribly overreaching policy proposal would raise the income limit to $83,000 a year.  If you make $83,000 dollars a year and can’t afford health insurance for your kids (and you don’t have a gambling problem or MC Hammer’s accountant) then we should reinstate the stockade.  I see no other rational solution.   With income requirements like that (more than twice the national average) it's likely that half the people paying for S-CHIP are going to be poorer than some of the people using it. 

Not one article mentions the $83,000 figure.  For good cause, certainly.  It would contradict the plethora of quotes from democrats, rallying behind the war cry of “the poor children!”

The cost of this expanded, socialist, program?  Thirty-five to 50 billion dollars.  I hate to sound like a hippy, but what if we took that money into Iraq or any other number of third-world countries and helped them start up a decent economy?  Or, an even better idea, they could give all that money to me, and then whenever a poor kid needed to see a doctor, I’d give him two hundred dollars.

No one is bashing the liberals for their sneaky tactics of trying to pass this grossly overreaching bill mere days before it’s set to expire.  They are doing so to make Bush look like a jackass for vetoing a feel-good bill for children.  The reality is when Bush vetoes it, the actually poor children will lose their coverage and it will be 100% the democrats’ fault.  But, of course, I won’t hold my breath waiting for any headlines to tell the truth on that one.  

Bush’s speech on the subject is transcripted with streaming audio.  It’s short, sweet, and to the point, even if his captatio benevolentiae sucks.
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/09/20070920-2.html]

Felons can vote in my home state of California. 

I had always believed—it seemed to be one of those facts that everyone knew, but that I never read for myself—that felons, ex-convicts, those on parole or probation, could not vote.  And still could not vote when released. 

Waiting for a haircut this weekend, I perused a recent copy of Vibe because Barack Obama was on the cover and I wanted to see what ridiculous things he had to say.  I was distracted by two graphics—one was a chart of 2008 candidates and their positions on select issues, the other was a US map color-coded by states’ voting rights for felons.

Only it said “ex-felon” as if to say once someone has served their sentence, they have ceased to be a felon.  Sorry, but my understanding of the word (and backed by the trusty OED) is that once a felon always a felon.  I believe the correct term they are looking for is “ex-convict.” 

Sure, some felons were convicted for possessing cocaine or engaging in fisticuffs outside a tavern or passing some bad checks.  Nothing so heinous that one could not repent and go on to live a productive life. 

But most felonies are crimes of severe moral turpitude: murder, rape, child molestation, armed robbery, burglary, drug trafficking, weapons offenses, gang activity, &cetera. 

It’s absolutely fair to disenfranchise the felons who took it upon themselves to disenfranchise a fellow citizen and human being of his or her life or property. 

I’m no legal scholar, but surely granting felons and ex-cons the vote would have a negative impact when our state votes on criminal issues.  California has over a quarter of a million current convicts and I don’t know how many ex-convicts because all my searches for such information only brought back statistics showing how latinos and blacks are “targeted” by any policy that seeks to punish those who commit crimes. 

What if (in this state it’s a big what-if) there was a proposition that increased mandatory minimums or put tougher restrictions on parole eligibility.  Or, quite likely, a proposition to abolish the death penalty?  It’s a definite possibility that the ex-con vote could sway the measure.

Don't even mention if we vote to repeal felons' voting rights. 

Since when did voting become a right?  (Well, actually, I know the answer to that is 1870, 1920, 1965,  and  1971.)  I think everyone agrees that voting is a great honor—how many great honors are also automatic, unquestionable entitlements?  I thought you had to earn honors and privileges.  Being a citizen in good standing, being literate, being able to understand how the ballot works—these requirements are somehow racist or otherwise unfair? 

Are we going to let Osama Bin Laden vote in 2008?  Probably, he was never caught and convicted. 

So, what is the top news story today?  General Petraeus, troop withdrawal, Sara Hammon running away from a perverse polygamous sect, oil prices at an all-time high.  (Read: Iraq war failing but corrupt administration continuing to lie, Christians are crazy, and oil companies are stealing from us.)

What about the 600 pounds of explosives found in a busy marketplace in Ankara, capital of Turkey?  Terrorist groups are trying to blow up fellow Muslims!  Think of what they have in store for the infidels…

Combined with the foiled plots in Denmark and Germany, the latest in Turkey makes three in less than one week. 

I found what I thought to be a good article on terrorism post-911 published in popular press [http://www.bet.com/News/September11SixYearAnn.htm].  The article starts out asking if we are safer.  It then lists a few foiled terrorists plans from just the past year, including the planned attacks of buildings in Miami, Chicago, and of Fort Dix in New Jersey. 

Then I looked at page 2.

It offered the other side of the coin:  what if our post-911 aggression caused the hatred and resentment that fueled the planning of these foiled attacks?  Apparently, and I quote, “Lawmakers, defense experts and others” believe that “U.S. Military intervention in Iraq and other parts of the world has only made America more vulnerable to foreign resentment. Resentment, they argue, breeds terrorism, which is why there are so many attempts to kill Americans.” 

Then follow quotes from Hilary and Obama (nevermind that she voted for war and Obama had the luxury of not serving in the Senate in 2002 when the Iraq Resolution was passed) where they say that war in Iraq is hurting America’s reputation and fostering resentment towards us.

All these foiled terrorism plots are our own fault.  If we were just nicer to the Islamofacists, then they’d be nicer to us! 

So how does that account for the fact that Turkey, Germany, and Denmark were just targeted this week?  Or that there was an explosion in Istanbul in 2004.  Or the 2004 attack in Madrid?  Turkey, Germany, Denmark, and Spain—at their peaks—deployed 2, 0, 430, 1300 troops respectively (at the time of the Denmark threat, only 55 active troops were in Iraq).  We’ve had more support from Poland, Australia, and South Korea. 

Or is the lesson that we should all be nicer to the terrorists?  Send them fruit baskets and lollypops and they’ll change their minds about our corporatism and materialism and gluttonous, heretical culture. 

It’s my guess (and I am extremely qualified to make wild guesses) that the average Muslim citizen cares about his family, finding work, and having a goat or two and probably could care less about a culture half way around the globe.  Just as the average American citizen cares about his family, his bank account, and having a Big Mac or two and couldn’t care less about what gods they pray to in India or Japan or anywhere else.  Those average Muslim citizens might get peeved hearing Americans call Islam a religion of violence or say things like all Muslims are Allah-crazed lunatics.  About as peeved as Americans get when we hear the Islamofascists call us swine and infidels and our women whores. 

The point?  That “being nice” to terrorists isn’t going to turn them into average Muslims, concerned with making a living and taking care of their family.  Same way how “being mean” to us isn’t going to turn us into no pork eating, praying five times a day, Christ-renouncing Muslims.  However, there is a chance, I think, that if we are “mean” enough to the Islamofascists, if we beat them at their own game (which is violence), then they might start to focus on stability and prosperity on their own soil, instead of chasing the elusive white whale of American infidels.

Of all things to worry about in the twenty-first century:  schools are segregated again.

On August 29, 2007, a Washington Post story [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/29/AR2007082902111.html] proclaims that schools are becoming more segregated because of the June 2007 ruling of the Supreme Court regarding using race as a factor in assigning children to public schools.  How could that be, if the Supreme Court ruled that school districts must be color-blind?

The Post story cites a report from the Civil Rights Project of UCLA.  Matthew Biggs, author of the Post story, clams that: “Many segregated schools struggle to attract highly qualified teachers and administrators, do not prepare students well for college and fail to graduate more than half their students.” 

Are the Washington Post and University of California funded research report saying that schools in predominantly non-white areas, with predominantly non-white students are of worse quality than schools in areas with more white students? 

They don't mention why this is.  Are they saying that minority students constantly underacheive and it only shows when they have schools to themselves?  Are they saying that black and Latino students do worse in school without more white students around, to give the school an air of seriousness and focus?

When I went to high school in a largely white neighborhood in Long Beach, CA; there was about a 25-25-15-35 mix of Latinos, blacks, Asians, and whites.  In the honors classes I took, there were more white students (not by that much, however) and the minority students (there were plenty) were focused and determine to study and achieve.  In the non-honors classes I took, the students (far less white students, more Latinos and blacks) the students were loud, often vulgar, talked throughout class and never contributed anything to a discussion.  I learned less in those non-honors classes with disruptive, mostly minority students.   (However, I didn't learn all that much in the honors classes where teachers' main focus was how creative we could be,  but at least everyone in the class did their homework and could keep quiet for 55 minutes while the teachers tried to do their jobs.)  

Thanks to this new study, I can conclude that minority students, left to their own devices will disrupt class and not take their educations seriously.  Schools need leaders--students to act and acknowledge that it’s an institute of learning and that it’s a privilege to be educated.   Why else would all-minority schools do so poorly?

At any rate, that was not my point.  My point is that while the media outlets constantly scream that they have “No Political Agenda,” they publish stories about institutes and reports and studies that do have political biases and agendas.  The UCLA professor they interviewed (Gary Orfield) says, “The federal courts are clearly pushing us backward segregation with the encouragement of the Justice Department of President George W. Bush.”  Nevermind the unclear syntax, his point is what hippies have been claiming for decades:  The Man exists.   

There you have it: The US government (or, “The System,” if you prefer broad, scary-sounding terms) is going out of the way to destroy the educations and opportunities of minority students.  There’s something wrong with The System.  Not the attitudes many minority students take towards their public educations.   (And nevermind that Asian students are consistently enrolled in universities in numbers disproportionate to their population.)

The court case that the study cites as destroying the hopes and dreams of minority students is Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 et al [and is graciously archived by Cornell University at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-908.ZO.html]. This case was ruled by the Supreme Court on June 28, 2007 and reversed the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that school districts in Washington State could use race as a “tiebreaker” when assigning children to schools.  After some children were denied admission to their high schools of choice solely because of race, the parents--understandably so--filed suit based on an a violation of their constitutionally guaranteed right to equal protection.  District and Ninth Circuit Courts upheld the school’s decision, saying it had reason based on its interest in creating diverse schools.

The school district allowed students to choose which high school they attended; if one school became overbooked, then race was considered.  The districts distributed students to high schools to meet pre-set, mandated racial mixture ratios.  The schools had never had legal segregation or had ever been ordered by the court to desegregate, but voluntarily used quotas to overcome certain racial patterns that made certain schools more ethnically homogenous.  The high schools wouldn’t let more than a certain percentage of white students in, and if there were too many, then nonwhite students would be selected to attend that school--even if they would not have otherwise been selected if race had not been a factor. 

The Supreme Court deciding that it is wrong to assign students to certain schools based solely on race--you know, based on the great Civil Rights amendment, the Fourteenth one--is merely part of a concerted federal effort to give minorities poorer educations than white children get.

And there’s no liberal media?  Sure, the papers don’t write scathing polemics.  They just write “objective pieces” on thinly-veiled scathing polemics masquerading as “reports.”   

“Study Finds Left-Wing Brain, Right-Wing Brain” says the Los Angeles Times today [http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-politics10sep10,0,5982337.story?coll=la-home-center]. 

I will refrain from the obvious, lowbrow joke that the difference between liberal and conservatives’ brains is None and A Big One, respectively.

The UCLA study says, in a nutshell, liberals are better problem-solvers, think more complexly, and such high-order thinking has been responsible for many scientific and social advances throughout history.

Now, if only we could get them to accept studies regarding differences in men and women’s brains.

The study was performed on a sampling of college students who were then asked to press an M when it lighted up on a keyboard and to not press a W.  Students who self-identified as “more liberal” did better on this test, proving… that it was an easy test, that most college students self-identify as “more liberal,” therefore: more liberal students do well on this easy test!

Which reminds me of the poll in August that sadly reported 1 in 4 Americans read no books last year.  [http://www.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/wayoflife/08/21/reading.ap/.]  The poll made distinctions [women read more, men read more nonfiction] and said that non-readers tend to be older, less educated, poorer, from rural areas, or a minority.  What you’d expect.  There was a mention towards the end that Democrats read “slightly more books” than Republicans.  (I’m surprised that the title of the article wasn’t “Liberals Lead Country in Reading.”) 

So what would you expect Pat Schroeder, president of the American Association of Publishers, to say?  Something like “we need to turn off the television” or “encourage children to read”? 

She said: “The Karl Roves of the world have built a generation that just wants a couple slogans: 'No, don't raise my taxes, no new taxes … It's pretty hard to write a book saying, 'No new taxes, no new taxes, no new taxes' on every page.”

Okaaayyy... 

I guess that there is a valid point.  “No New Taxes” or “W04” are quite straight-forward and simple.  While “Bush Lied, People Died” and “No Blood for Oil” play on many subtle political nuances and requires much more of that higher-order thinking they are now scientifically proven to posses. 

What was the grave difference between the devout scholars of the Left and the Nascar-watching Right?  According to the AP-Ipsos poll, among those who had read at least one book, liberals typically read nine books in the year, conservatives typically read eight, moderates typically read  five. 

Surely we couldn’t be expected to read that one extra book per year because we’re too busy shopping for bumper stickers. 

“The army has got a brand new toy / And they're just waiting for the word”

I should have known that a consequence of listening to rock music is having to endure the senselessly liberal lyrics.  The above quote is from the new Strung Out album, and I started to laugh when I heard it. 

The Army is waiting to try out its new toys?  Well, of course.  We sink money into defense for top-of-the-line--top-of-the-globe--equipment and systems and we need to test it out.  More importantly, we need to train more officers and career sergeants in the heat of combat, so there’s not two generations of active soldiers who have never had the privilege of serving in combat. 

And this is bad?

We are not warmongering.  We are not only defending the interests of the US.  We are defending the interests of the entire orderly freeworld’s.

The musicians and actors and college students say it’s sheer greed and bloodlust. 

They compare the U.S. to the other orderly democratic countries--in France, they do this; in Sweden they do this; in Canada they have that.  Those civilized countries spend little on the military and have free healthcare for all.  But in fact, it’s our military might and our duty to defend our allies that allow Western Europe the luxury of small, under-funded, and largely impotent, standing militaries.  They know America will step up if there’s a hostile aggressor.  And they can have socialist programs because they don’t have unwashed hordes breaking down the doors in the public sphere: schools, hospitals, the dole. 

What do these socialized European countries not have:  The right of private gun ownership.  Or, if you will, the right to defend one’s person and family with equal or greater force than some malevolent pervert lurking in the night.  After all, would you want your wife raped in the bed you shared while you lay bound and bleeding on the floor--or would you like to be able to brandish a firearm and shoot at any thing that breeches your castle’s walls? 

We have the most security and prosperity and modernity of any civilization in the history of time--as a result of our mix of know-how and innovative free market flourish.  We are on top, and we gotta keep it that way--with the biggest God damned tanks and bombs money can buy.