baldilocks

Good Old Days

Here's a Smothers Brothers clip. Move the cursor up to 3:45 and listen to the "Anthropologist Song" all the way through. Just do it.

LOLable but you know they would have been toast had it been 2008.

(Thanks to Krazy Ken)

UPDATE: Once upon a time one member of the sixties equivalent of the Dixie Chicks tangled with Bill Cosby.

I was wondering whether the two were still alive. They are and are still touring. Interesting fact: their father, Major Thomas Smothers, Sr., was a West Point graduate who died as a POW while experiencing the tender mercies of the Japanese. :::shudder:::

It's interesting to speculate how differently they might have turned out had their father lived.

(Thanks to reader Jim C.)

Man Cannot Live on Pride Alone

Columnist Susan Estrich who worked for the spectacularly abortive 1988 presidential campaign of Governor Michael Dukakis (D-MA) rhetorically asks whether Barack Obama could be another Dukakis, then answers ‘no.’

[T]he most important difference between Obama and Dukakis has absolutely nothing to do with the two men, or their primary opponents, or the issues that did or did not get raised. It’s the difference between where the country was then, and where it is now. In June 1988, a majority of Americans thought the country was on the right track. Although the wrong track numbers had been higher earlier in the year, by the summer they turned around. Americans were pleased with the direction of the country. Today, the equivalent numbers are 80% wrong track. Ask any pollster and they’ll tell you that there is no better indication of which party will win an election than the right track-wrong track numbers. This should be a Democratic year. Obama, if he is the candidate, will face a negative machine. But in the end, that machine cannot change the way people feel about the direction the country is heading, or the party that is responsible for it.

There's much, much more to the differences than this.

I mean, come on. Dukakis had the Willie Horton issue.

Obama has…

• Jeremiah Wright
• Black Liberation Theology
• Michelle Obama’s attitude toward America
• William Ayers (Who?)
• Tony Resko (Who?)
• The Bitter, Clingy-ness of White People
• The Ignorance of American Presidential History and how such have deal with enemies
• The NAFTA oddity: being against it while being for it
• The Hamas connections
• The Commie connections

And...

• The possible Islam connections (Yes, I’m willing to allow a crack into my “no way has Obama been a Muslim” edifice, though I still scoff at the idea that Obama was, in some way involved in the Kenya crisis merely because of his blood relationship with (now) Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga.) The alleged connections are interesting in light of
• The 57 states gaffe

"It is wonderful to be back in Oregon," Obama said. "Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it."

This one is extremely weird, until it is considered that there are 57 nation-states in the Organization of Islamic Conference.*

And there are probably all sorts of things that I'm forgetting or don't feel like looking up.

The answer to Estrich’s question is indeed ‘no,’ but not because of perceptions regarding the "direction of the nation." If that were so, Hillary Clinton would have won the nomination by now.

Look. The sheer weight of the baggage which Obama carries along with his chronic trifling dwarf Dukakis’s issues and should have been enough to sink his campaign months ago. But it hasn’t been. And that's because Obama has something which Dukakis doesn’t have--brown skin. But consider this: the fact that his skin color is what's keeping him comfortably afloat isn’t a mere indictment of racism against those who still want Obama to be president while being aware of all of the above listed short-comings--at least it's not an indictment from me.

And consider this: Obama's brown skin is a symbol, one which has been planted into the minds of the unguarded; one which takes the place of rational-thinking and long-term planning (assuming that either or both ever had a place); one which plays on a singular emotion. That emotion is called pride.

A brown-skinned POTUS, especially one of African descent, would be the crowning achievement for an America which prides itself in being the beacon to the world, one of equal opportunity for all comers of whatever color or background. And it would indeed be a breakthrough. Oh sure we can truthfully say that this is the greatest nation on Earth, but if we had a black president, Holy Cow! We can thumb our nose at the nay-sayers with abandon.

For a little while. And then such symbolism’s value would recede and the value of the individual man—the content of his character, judgment, alliances and allegiances—would come to the fore. A country cannot survive on pride and symbolism at the expense of substance; at the expense of the well-being of this nation. And that’s what I and many others are afraid of.

There, I said it. I am afraid; for my country and my countrymen of all colors, but, most especially for my fellow black Americans. Because, while there are still a few people out there who believe in treating all others as individuals, there are not as many as I hoped, even on the Right. And, to be realistic, why should anyone extend the benefit of the doubt to a black American with regard to individualism when we all know that over 90% of black Americans will vote for Obama in the general election? (Yeah, I'm flip-flopping here. Sorta.)

If most black Americans aren't selling individualism, then how can our countrymen buy it? Then, when it becomes apparent that Obama is, at best, woefully under-qualified to be president, who will be blamed?

Live by the pride and the Group Identity Politics...

*(From my comments): Even I have a limit as to how many things--large and trivial--can be just a little bit off or greatly askew about one person before I cry "all foul." I guess Mr. Obama has reached it.

And something tells me that he isn't finished by a long shot.

The Miseducation of a Future President, Part II (UPDATE: Obama Tries the Jedi Mind Trick. Again.)

It turns out that Barack Obama did make the mistake I feared regarding his characterization of the 1945 Yalta meetings between US President Franklin D. Roosevelt, UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill and USSR President Josef Stalin.

I think people understand the notion of talking to our enemies," Obama said. "If FDR can meet with Stalin and Nixon can meet with Mao and Kennedy can meet with Khrushchev and Reagan can meet with Gorbachev, then the notion that we can't meet with some half-baked dictator [Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] is ridiculous.

Tom Maguire:

Well, Stalin was a fully-baked dictator, but he was also our ally against Nazi Germany when he met with Roosevelt. [SNIP]

Think about this - the probable next President of the United States does not know even the broad outlines of the history of American foreign policy from WWII forward and does not know the history of Democratic icons Roosevelt or Truman.

Three things:

1. FDR was in his grave long before Stalin’s USSR became a full blown enemy.
2. Nixon’s meeting with Mao is the exception that proves the rule, but produced the aphorism “only Nixon could go to China” due to Nixon coming into the meeting from a position of strength rather that of supplication. And Nixon’s homework for the trip started well in advance of his second presidential candidacy. (The first was in 1960.)
3. Mikhail Gorbachev was taking affirmative steps to reduce antagonism with the West--not threatening to “bury us” or one of our allies. (Does Obama not remember when the Russian words glasnost’ and perestroika entered the American lexicon? He should remember the latter word since one of its English definition is 'reorientation'--or, more simply, 'Change.')

Not knowing world history is one thing; not knowing the history of your own country is another; but not knowing presidential foreign relations history when one has a flocking degree in political science with a specialization in international relations from Columbia University and is running for president is a frightening issue. (A commenter to Burt Prelutsky’s observations regarding Ivy League presidents reminds us that, during the Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination controversy, some pundits contended that Miers wasn’t qualified to sit on the USSC because she did not attend an Ivy League law school. But, perhaps at least one Ivy League institution should be concerned about one of its more basic programs.)

Unfortunately, Obama’s ignorance of his own field takes its place in a long line of frightening issues regarding the man behind whom the Democrats are uniting to be our 44th president.

(Thanks to Instapundit)

UPDATE: Now Obama campaign says that he never claimed to want to meet with Ahmadinejad without preconditions being on the table.

Susan E. Rice, a former State Department and National Security Council official who is a foreign policy adviser to the Democratic candidate, said that “for political purposes, Senator Obama’s opponents on the right have distorted and reframed” his views. Mr. McCain and his surrogates have repeatedly stated that Mr. Obama would be willing to meet “unconditionally” with Mr. Ahmadinejad. But Dr. Rice said that this was not the case for Iran or any other so-called “rogue” state. Mr. Obama believes “that engagement at the presidential level, at the appropriate time and with the appropriate preparation, can be used to leverage the change we need,” Dr. Rice said. “But nobody said he would initiate contacts at the presidential level; that requires due preparation and advance work.”

However, LGF finds yet more evidence that the senator says whatever is expedient at a given point in time even if it is 180 degrees contradictory to something he has said earlier. From the CFR debate last year:

QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.

In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous.

This is becoming tiresome.

UPDATE: Screen Capture from BarackObama.com (click on it to see full version):

First line:

Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.

Do you get the feeling that my kinsman is making it up as he goes along?

My fellow Americans, especially black ones: is our pride at having the first black American president--even one who comes along and says anything--worth risking our nation's existence over? Because that's what's at stake. Our enemies smell this weakness.

(Thanks to Hot Air)

The Miseducation of a Future President (UPDATED)

Jack Kelly gives Barack Obama a history lesson in the wake of the senator's remark regarding non-ordnance communication with America's enemies :

I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did.

Kelly points out the obvious

That he made this statement, and that it passed without comment by the journalists covering his speech indicates either breathtaking ignorance of history on the part of both, or deceit.

and then goes on to remind us that neither FDR nor Truman met with the leaders of Nazi Germany, fascist Italy or Imperial Japan before the United States' entrance into World War II (or at all), that Truman had to use "non-verbal communication" to convince Japan to surrender and that Truman did not meet with North Korea's Kim Il-Sung before the outbreak of the Korean War. Even more interesting is that Kelly points out that while Senator Obama is correct that JFK met with our enemies (USSR's Khrushchev) before the outbreak of a Hot War, that it was the meeting and JFK's flighty persona which probably caused the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Elie Abel, who wrote a history of the Cuban missile crisis (The Missiles of October), said the crisis had its genesis in that summit.

"There is reason to believe that Khrushchev took Kennedy's measure in June 1961 and decided this was a young man who would shrink from hard decisions," Mr. Abel wrote. "There is no evidence to support the belief that Khrushchev ever questioned America's power. He questioned only the president's readiness to use it. As he once told Robert Frost, he came to believe that Americans are 'too liberal to fight.'"

That view was supported by New York Times columnist James Reston, who traveled to Vienna with President Kennedy: "Khrushchev had studied the events of the Bay of Pigs," Mr. Reston wrote. "He would have understood if Kennedy had left Castro alone or destroyed him, but when Kennedy was rash enough to strike at Cuba but not bold enough to finish the job, Khrushchev decided he was dealing with an inexperienced young leader who could be intimidated and blackmailed."

But another supposition which Kelly makes is that, perhaps, Senator Obama is thinking of Josef Stalin's meetings with both FDR and Winston Churchill, most famously at Yalta.

But Stalin was then a U.S. ally, though one of whom we should have been more wary than FDR and Truman were. Few historians think the agreements reached at Yalta and Potsdam, which in effect consigned Eastern Europe to slavery, are diplomatic models we ought to follow. Even fewer Eastern Europeans think so.

The thought that Obama might have made this particular mistake is jaw-dropping.

This sort of history is old hat for me since I lived in the midst of its aftermath and I don't get surprised (anymore) or think less of the average person when he/she demonstrates a lack in this area of factual knowledge. Public schools have sucked for a long time; therefore anyone so educated and who is interested in this area of history--or most others--has to actively seek out the knowledge for self.

But didn't Senator Obama attend private secondary schools during the American portion of his education? And, in order to receive an undergraduate degree from Ivy-covered Columbia University in political science with a specialization in international relations, aren't scholars of that august institution required to take a US history class or two? (Heck, one would think that even Leftists and Socialists would attain at least a working knowledge of the history of the countries which are/were their ideology made flesh--the late USSR, especially the Stalinist version, and North Korea.)

The Cold War--under whose heading the Korean War and the Cuban Missile Crisis fall--was a direct result of World War II. Both wars were actively engaged in by the US. As I said, I make allowance for the average Joe's lack of knowledge there. But when a highly and "well" educated person says that he wants to be president but doesn't know these bare bones of recent US history I have to take a step back.

And this guy will be the Democrat nominee.

UPDATE: Ed Morrissey was on this op-ed before I was--hey, he gets up earlier--and notes the Chamberlain similarities. (Note: not Wilt.)

Obama isn’t merely saying that he’ll reinstitute diplomatic relations with Iran, which would emulate our relations with the Nazis and the Japanese prior to Pearl Harbor. Obama wants to have meetings without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has publicly spoken of his desire to annihilate a key ally of the US, as well as Hugo Chavez, Raul Castro, and any number of thugs and tyrants. When did FDR, Truman, and Kennedy do that? Answer: never.

BTW, one wonders whether the good senator remembers why we have no diplomatic relations with Iran.

1979. Hmmm...who was president then and will the good senator follow his lead?

Behaving Like Dictators

Myanmar's military junta has appropriated the UN's first shipments of relief supplies which were destined to feed the survivors of a cyclone that has killed over 60,000 and which could kill more than 100,000 due to disease and starvation--issues that are sure to be exacerbated by the seizure.

The U.N. said the aid included 38 tons of high-energy biscuits and arrived in Myanmar on Friday on two flights from Bangladesh and the United Arab Emirates.

"All of the food aid and equipment that we managed to get in has been confiscated," U.N. World Food Program spokesman Paul Risley said. "For the time being, we have no choice but to end further efforts to bring critical needed food aid into Myanmar at this time."

Myanmar's government acknowledged taking control of the shipments and said it plans to distribute the aid itself to the affected areas.

Additionally, the government won't let the US--whose relief aid resources are second to none (and spare me the Katrina myths and memes)--anywhere near the country. UN officials euphemistically characterized such decision-making steps as "unprecedented." No they're not--we've seen this before.

It's pretty easy to see why Myanmar's government wouldn't want the UN and especially the US coming to the aid of its suffering citizens. The relationship between dictators and their subject population is like that of an abusive marriage. Dictators can't be seen as impotent or powerless under any circumstances and are insanely jealous--they would rather see their people die that allow them to realize that other forms of government are infinitely better equipped to assist them in their time of dire need. And dictators have behaved this way from time immemorial.

The junta said in a statement Friday it was grateful to the international community for its assistance - which has included 11 chartered planes loaded with aid supplies - but the best way to help was just to send in material rather than personnel.

Several other countries and private agencies have been allowed to assist with supplies, but, as indicated, people are another story.

Can't have "daddy's" image ruined and dead "children" tell no tales.

(Thanks to Hot Air)

UPDATE: Welcome to Ace, Gabriel and my fellow 'Morons!'

"Change" of Power in Russia (UPDATED: Duma Vote)

Russia's new president, Dmitri Medvedev, was sworn in today, while the old one, our friend Vladimir Putin, retreats...or something...into the prime minister's slot.

It looks almost like a wedding, Massachusetts-style, no? Well if it were, there'd be little doubt as to which one was the groom.

Putin, a former KGB leader who had presided over Russia's economic revival while consolidating power, rolling back civil liberties and leading a government beset with corruption, arrived at the ceremony alone and before Medvedev.

He stepped from a black limousine and briefly stood before the ceremonial Presidential Regiment, which was standing outside in the chill. "Greetings, comrades!" he said, and was met with a deep, rousing cheer. [SNIP]

Putin said that he had lived up to his promise, made eight years ago, to serve the country and its citizens faithfully.

The remarks appeared to presage Putin's continued hand on Russian power. "It is extremely important for everyone together to continue the course that has already been taken and has justified itself," he said.

Only then did Medvedev, 42, approach the lectern, rest his hand on a copy of the Russian Constitution, and utter the oath of office. [SNIP]

Minutes later, Putin accompanied the new president outside to review the passing formations of the ceremonial regiment. When the two men left the dais after the last platoon passed, it was on cue from Putin, not Medvedev, who followed the former president's lead.

The ceremony was brief. But the leaders' paired comments, and Putin's physical dominance of each ceremonial stage, neatly framed the central questions about what the inauguration will mean for Russia's politics and direction.

Between the commies over there and our own ascendant socialists, one wonders whether anyone reads history books anymore. I'd say 'no.'

The sad thing is that some of our countrymen on the Left probably expect George Bush--who probably has pleasant visions of Getting Out of Dodge DC forever dancing in his head every night right about now--to behave in this manner when his allotted presidential time is up. No, Leftists, this is what your side does best and most often.

UPDATE: The Duma blesses the marriage.

Russia’s Parliament overwhelmingly confirmed Vladimir V. Putin as prime minister on Thursday, completing a carefully managed departure from the presidency in a manner that left him the country’s dominant politician and with a clear grip on power.

Mr. Putin, out of office less than 26 hours, received 392 votes in the 450-seat Duma, Parliament’s lower house.

Well, with the vote not being unanimous, the process at least appears to be a democratic one.

Because appearance is all that really counts.

Mildred Loving

Mildred Loving, who was one of the plaintiffs in Loving vs. Virginia, died on May 2nd. The other plaintiff was her husband, Richard, who died in 1975. From Wikipedia:

Mildred Loving (nee Mildred Delores Jeter, a woman of African and Rappahannock Native American descent, 1939 - May 2, 2008)[2][3] and Richard Perry Loving (a white man, October 29, 1933 - June 1975), were residents of the Commonwealth of Virginia who had been married in June 1958 in the District of Columbia, having left Virginia to evade the Racial Integrity Act, a state law banning marriages between any white person and a black person (there was no law banning marriage with other ethnicities as they were not seen to represent a significant enough population to be a problem). Upon their return to Caroline County, Virginia, they were charged with violation of the ban. They were charged under Section 20-58 of the Virginia Code, which prohibited interracial couples [consisting of one white person and one black person] from being married out of state and then returning to Virginia, and Section 20-59, which defined "miscegenation" as a felony punishable by a prison sentence of between one and five years. On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty and were sentenced to one year in prison, with the sentence suspended for 25 years on condition that the couple leave the state of Virginia. The trial judge in the case, Leon Bazile, echoing Johann Friedrich Blumenbach's 18th-century interpretation of race, proclaimed that

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and He placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that He separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix.

The Lovings moved to the District of Columbia, and on November 6, 1963 they filed a motion in the state trial court to vacate the judgment and set aside the sentence on the grounds that the violated statutes ran counter to the Fourteenth Amendment.

In the Wiki article, it is noted that several church hierarchies--from those which had centralized leadership--came forward to repudiate Bazile's ersatz race theology. Ultimately, the United States Supreme Court unanimously determined that anti-miscegenation laws violated the Fourteenth Amendment.

It would have been interesting to discover what Mrs. Loving thought of Barack Obama, Black Liberation Theology and how times and people have changed. However, she was probably just a regular woman ready to rest.

RIP, ma'am.

(Thanks to Clarence Page)

What I'm Reading, May 7, 2008

I hope that I don't have to explain who James Cone is again.

The copy of the book I have is the only one in the Los Angeles Public Library system and I was surprised to be able to get ahold of it so quickly. One might have thought that, after Jeremiah Wright's publicity tour last weekend people, would want to know more about Black Liberation Theology. But again I have overestimated human curiosity.

The book was originally published in 1969 but has a 1989 preface for that year's edition. In it, the author contends that the language used in the original version would be different than twenty years hence (and one assumes, an additional twenty years after that) to address contemporaneous problems faced by blacks--and to remedy perceived sexism of the author. One also assumes, however, that the basic ideas remain the same: that God is a partisan on the side of the "victims"--in this case, blacks--and that He will ensure that these victims have victory over the white oppressor.

We'll see.

One thing: a very interesting quote attributed to Cone and found on the web is said to appear in this book: "Black Theology is the theological arm of Black Power, and Black Power is the political arm of Black Theology." If it is in this book, the proper references, however, are improper--meaning they're wrong. Anyone have a page number?

Jungle Boogie

Yes, I'm still up.

Lions and buffaloes and crocs tangle. And the winner is...well you'll just have to watch.

(Thanks to Ace)

Thus Always to Terrorists

The DC Sniper is ready to die.

Washington-area sniper John Allen Muhammad is asking prosecutors in a letter to help him end legal appeals of his conviction and death sentence "so that you can murder this innocent black man."

In a two-page letter obtained by The Associated Press on Tuesday, Muhammad said he has tried without success to stop his defense attorneys from pursuing the appeals, and that he was counting on the state attorney general to assist him.

Muhammad told the prosecutors' office that he is waiving all rights to appeal his 2003 conviction and death sentence for the sniper killings in 2002 that terrorized the Washington, D.C., region

I say "see ya."

"He killed Americans - male and female, young and old, black and white."

Blame Stephen King For the Rise of Barack Obama

Mythical Magic Negroes everywhere...

The Shining--Dick Hallorann
It--Mike Hanlon
The Stand--Mother Abigail Freemantle
The Green Mile--John Coffey

More?

In addition, Mother Abigail was a Republican. Imagine that.

I bet a shrink could have a field day with that.

(Thanks to Ace of Spades who has warped my mind)

MORE:

Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption--Ellis Boyd 'Red' Redding

UPDATE: Though "Red" was portrayed by the illustrious Morgan Freeman in the movie The Shawshank Redemption, reader Beryl informs me that King had originally written "the man who can get things" as an Irishman; Black version, no doubt.

Black Liberation Theology: Mainstream Myth

Unlike NRO's John Derbyshire, columnists Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom at did their homework on Black Liberation Theology and the "black church":

Most black churchgoers belong to congregations that are overwhelmingly African-American and are affiliated with one of the historically black religious denominations such as the African Methodist Episcopal Church (AME) or the National Baptist Convention. Rev. Wright's Trinity Church, on the other hand, is a predominantly black branch of a white denomination that is not part of "the African-American religious tradition." The United Church of Christ (known until 1957 as the Congregational Church) has a little over a million members; a mere 4 percent of them are black. Fewer than 50,000 blacks in the entire nation worship at a UCC church.

In contrast, 98 percent of the National Baptist Convention's 4 million members are African Americans. Add in black Methodists and Pentecostals, as well as other black Baptists, and the total comes to more than 14 million members of an organized, predominantly African-American church. These churches include a substantial majority of all black adults today. In terms of sheer demographic weight, they clearly represent the "African-American religious tradition"-as Rev. Wright's branch of a overwhelmingly white denomination does not. [SNIP]

Some of these churches are led by figures like Rev. Wright, an adherent of what is called black liberation theology, which rejects racial integration and stresses the experience of black bondage. But not many. C. Eric Lincoln's mid-1980s survey of the leaders of 2,150 black churches found that two-thirds of them said they had not been influenced by "any of the authors and thinkers of black liberation theology." Indeed, 63 percent did not believe that the black church had "a different mission from the white church." A third did not even think it was "important have black figures in [their] Sunday school literature."

I don't think that there was enough outrage at the cravenness of Jeremiah Wright when he held up other black people as his rhetorical shield against criticism of his lunacy. The Thernstroms wonder about this also and suggest that he may have convinced many whites that his beliefs are mainstream among blacks, a concern I share. If someone with Derbyshire's resources can't be bothered to find out this information, what about the average white Joe?

Wright was trying to do some bamboozling of his own. Like those who are trying to hasten a confrontation between Islam and Christianity by spread lies, I believe Wright and like-minded individuals are intentionally trying to stir up enmity between black and white.

Don't be fooled by those who feed on Discord, folks--or by the One who does.

Fallen King Wallows in Ignorance

Stephen King tells Newsbusters’ Noel Sheppard to shut up about the former's insult to the troops--while reiterating the same exact insult.

From King's site:

That a right-wing-blog would impugn my patriotism because I said children should learn to read, and could get better jobs by doing so, is beneath contempt. Noel Sheppard says, “Nice sentiment when the nation is at war, Stephen.” I guess he feels ignorance and illiteracy are OK when the country needs cannon-fodder. I guess he also feels that the war in Iraq has nationwide approval. Well, it doesn’t have mine. It is a waste of national resources. . . and that includes the youth and blood of the 4,000 American troops who have lost their lives there and for the tens of thousands who have been wounded. I live in a national guard town, and I support our troops, but I don’t support either the war or educational policies that limit the options of young men and women to any one career—military or otherwise. If you agree, find Sheppard on the internet, and send him an email:

“Hi, Noel—Stephen King says to shut up and I agree.”

Steve

(Emphasis mine.)

King's upshot is that these phantom "educational policies" cause illiteracy in young men and women and that these illiterate young men and women are limited to a singular career--the military.

Keep talking, Steve. You've lost this "illiterate" veteran for good and I'm sure that I'm not alone.

BACKGROUND: King Falls From Throne

UPDATE: I was going to leave a comment on the message boards at King's site, but they're shut down for some reason. Heh.

Our New Red Overlords?

Speaking of weird ideas and ideologues, Nice Deb rounds up a few of the latter, noting that during the entire span of his nearly forty-seven years, Barack Obama hasn't been able to turn around comfortably for all of the communists and socialists well inside his close orbit. Just sayin' and you heard it here first.

But it doesn't seem to matter to most of the Democrats, including those in North Carolina.

I just got off the phone with Mike Ash, Director of the Durham County Board of Elections in Durham, NC. He doesn't have any numbers as far as percentages of eligible voters making it to the polls at this point, but said several polling locations have already hit record numbers. That is as of 11:30 AM. It appears that the record turnout in early voting on Sunday is expected to continue through today.

This matters because Durham is something of a bellwether of African-American voter turn-out in North Carolina. A high African-American turnout—and it appears that is indeed occurring—makes a Clinton win impossible.

A bumpy Tuesday, indeed.

Europe Tries to Plant Itself

Plant dignity?

Plant dignity??

PLANT DIGNITY????

Yes there are advocates and activists for and official policy guarding the "dignity" of plants--in Europe of course, Switzerland to be specific.

The Swiss federal government's ethics committee on non-human biotechnology has mapped out guidelines to help granting agencies decide which research applications deeply offend the dignity of plants — and hence become unfundable. [SNIP]

Beat Keller of the Institute of Plant Biology at the University of Zurich[…] is running the first field trial — of disease-resistant corn (maize) — to be approved under the new legislation. [SNIP]

Keller sees the issue as providing another tool for opponents to argue against any form of plant biotechnology, which is already very difficult to conduct in Switzerland. [Swiss constitution lawyer at the University of Basel and member of the Swiss federal ethics committee on non-human biotechnology Markus] Schefer says that things will start to become clearer when legal challenges to specific research projects come to court, and case law becomes established.

When I first heard about this, I guessed that it was all about opposition to biotechnology. The demonization of biotech has managed to continue the cycle of starvation in Africa, but you have to hand it to the Swiss—they’re doing their best to ensure that misery will be shared and shared alike. It just may take longer for it to be felt than has been so in Africa.

The committee has created a decision tree presenting the different issues that need to be taken into account for each case. But it has come up with few concrete examples of what type of experiment might be considered an unacceptable insult to plant dignity. The committee does not consider that genetic engineering of plants automatically falls into this category, but its majority view holds that it would if the genetic modification caused plants to 'lose their independence' — for example by interfering with their capacity to reproduce. The statement has confused plant geneticists, who point out the contrast with traditional plant-hybridization technologies, for example in roses, which require male sterility, and the commercial development of seedless fruits.

(Emphasis mine.)

I can’t decide whether to laugh or cry.

You know, between the near-zero population replacement growth of indigenous Europeans, the over-concern for animal dignity in the form of eschewing meat-eating, the opposition to using animals for medical experiments that may lead to saving human life…and now this, one might reasonably conclude that Europe seems content to drag out its commission of suicide.

Don't jump!

See also Wesley J. Smith's "The Silent Scream of the Asparagus" at the Weekly Standard.