baldilocks

PR Blunder Number 2324

Sheesh! I almost feel sorry for Senator Kerry. Heck I'm a surly Republican and I could do a better job than his PR people are doing. Maybe he's just ignoring their advice.

From the Houston Chronicle:

Kerry joined them [Senator and Mrs. Edwards] inside [a Wendy's Hamburger franchise] and spied a table of Marines. But when he struck up a conversation, the Marines answered tersely and expressed irritation.

"He imposed on us and I disagree with him coming over here to shake our hands," said one, who did not give his name.

Apparently, the senator hasn’t had much exposure to military personnel in the interval between the end of his Navy service and the beginning of his presidential campaign. If he had, he would remember some of the basic rules for interaction with this august group.

1. Never get between a GI and his/her food.

2. Never get between a GI and his/her food when the GI is obviously on his/her lunch break and has to get back to duty at a specific time.

3. Never get between a GI and his/her food in order to score a photo op.

4. Never get between a GI and his/her food when you don’t know for whom he/she is voting.

5. Never get between a GI and his/her food (it bears repeating).

6. Never point at a GI.

Actually, in the house I grew up in, it was considered rude to interrupt any sit-down meal, outside of emergencies and it was considered rude to point. I guess there is a different etiquette play-book on Senator Kerry’s level.

(Okay, I feel better today.)

AFTERTHOUGHT:

7. Never point at a GI while getting between said GI and his/her food, especially if the GI is a Marine. Marines aren’t that picky about what they eat.

I Give Up

I started a post yesterday afternoon regarding Senator Kerry’s financial holdings and yet another of his staff’s PR gaffes. Additionally, I taped his DNC address for future fisking analysis.

However, upon further consideration, I’m asking myself: “What’s the point?” All the information regarding the senator’s military service, his actions upon leaving the service, his senate voting record and the financial records of his family are readily available at one’s fingertips, if one is searching for them.

It’s not like it was back in the sixties when Roger L. Simon and his late father came to ideological blows over the Vietnam War. It’s not like it was when only the three network TV stations and the major American newspapers supplied information on what was going on in the world.

These days, if you don’t know, you simply don’t want to know.

Why did I give up? It’s pretty simple. I got tired of fighting a losing battle.

Some months back, I borrowed the title of M. Scott Peck’s book, People of the Lie, to point a finger towards people who lie so well and so often that they begin to believe the hype themselves. Let’s call them Group A.

Group A has spawned another group; not ideological offspring per se, but servants. This second group isn’t in the habit of creating lies, however this group--let’s call them Group B—believes what Group A says, at least under certain conditions, which are spelled out in the next paragraph. It can even be said that the members of Group B are often the arms, legs and mouthpieces of Group A, albeit often (usually) unwittingly.

Group B doesn’t have the time, inclination or ability to check the veracity of the assertions of Group A or anyone else’s assertions. All a Group B member knows is that the assertions of Group A fit neatly with his/her own convictions, beliefs, pre-conceived notions and feelings.

What happens when a member of another group— call it Group C—comes along and provides the Group B member with a well-documented fact that doesn’t fit or contradicts the supplied Group A “knowledge?” Two things can occur.

1. The Group B member says something along the lines of this: “Wow! I didn’t know that. How did you find that out?”

or…

2. At top volume, the Group B member calls the Group C member a liar, enraging the Group C member and severely damaging—if not destroying--the links of communication between the two people. (You remember what a liar is, right? It’s one who asserts something known or believed by that one to be a falsehood.)

Guess which one happened to me yesterday.

As it stands, I’m merely set to see the results of the November election. I don’t think that the aftermath will be pretty, regardless of the result. I’ll be keeping watch and praying.

Later…

My dad just called me to regale me with stories of being a Republican in a Democrat family (He and Mom, my sisters and most of that side of the family live in New Mexico.) It served to cheer me up a bit and to remind me that I’m not alone. Thanks, Dad.

Ricochet

I think I may have to change my stance regarding Denzel Washington.

(Thanks to one of LaShawn’s readers)

So Help Me...

These are the fine, moving oaths of enlistment that each US military member is required to take. Brings a tear to me eye!

(Thanks to Dean)

Funny Bunny

Face it: you goofed when you signed the release for this photo, Kerry campaign staffers.

Admit that you made a mistake instead of whining and crying about that known partisan organization, NASA, releasing the photo and about those dastardly Republicans making hay of it. Take your public relations blunder like adults, not like girlie men/women (tee-hee, Governor).

If you shut up about it, nobody will notice it anyway, except for us bloggers. And of course, we don't count (registration required).

Around The Dinner Table

Is your family of mixed heritage; that is, are some Democrat, others Republican? Are some liberals and others conservatives? If the answer is 'yes,' then you’ve got a lot in common with these families: the surviving Reagan siblings (Michael, Ron and Patty), the acting Baldwin brothers (Alec and Stephen—Stephen is a born-again Christian and a Bush supporter) and, I’d be willing to bet, the Heinz family. (Teresa Heinz Kerry’s oldest son, John Heinz IV, has had little to do with the presidential campaign of his stepfather. Recall that his late father was a Republican. )

Black conservative Republicans deal with this sort of family situation all the time. Sometimes understanding is present, but, all too often, our loved ones will label us as outcasts or--the worst condemnation of all--race-traitors. It’s one of the more painful aspects of riding against the political tide.

I’m fortunate in that I and my parents are conservative Republicans, having made the switch independently of each other. However, Democrats make up the vast majority of our family. (My young cousin, about whom I blogged a year ago, is at the Democratic National Convention at this very moment. Actually, however, I think this is good for him; learning early how process works.)

My Democrat great-aunt and I, however, have gone round and round in trying to explain our positions to each other. Often, that exchange of ideas is hampered by her failing hearing and, yes, her unwillingness to listen to someone who is forty years younger than she. (That trait certainly isn’t unique to Democrats or blacks.) My shortcomings in the discussion involve patience, or rather, lack of same.

Finally, after many rounds of argument—some civil and some straining the edges of civility--she said this: “I never met someone who thought like you do.” My response: “I’ve met lots of people who think like you do.”

She: “Well that should tell you something.”

Me: “It doesn’t. A lot of people thinking a certain way about a subject has no bearing on that subject’s correctness.”

Lately, our political discussions have been turned down a few notches in volume. I tend to state my opinions in short conversational bursts, as does my aunt. We also know on when to tread lightly and when to leave a subject alone.

As it happens, she doesn’t plan on voting at all this year. Barring some sort of miracle, she would never vote for a Republican. However, John Kerry’s candidacy has failed to move her. Ironically, I have encouraged her to vote anyway, pointing out that a lot of people died to ensure that black Americans were accorded their constitutional right to vote. She’s considering it. (What have I done?) :-)

I plan on printing out some of my posts and having her read them (she won’t go near my computer). That’s about the only way I can get an uninterrupted word in. :-)

Okay, products of mixed families, what’s your story?

UPDATE: Alec Baldwin paraphrase: "The Republican Party has been hijacked by fundamentalist wackos!" Oh, yeah. Food fight at the Baldwin house. With pomegranates.

Impact Players

Sorry for the dry spell. I’ve been up to my eyeballs in C programming language.

John Hawkins invited me and many other bloggers to submit our choices for “world impact players,” that is those who have had the greatest effect on the world we find ourselves living in today. Be advised that he did *not* ask who was the most admired, but who had contributed ideas, actions and inventions that played the greatest part in changing the world around them and the world that came after (will come after) their departure.

I submitted these twenty in alphabetical order (communication is the top factor):

• Alexander Graham Bell
• Winston Churchill
• Albert Einstein
• Henry Ford
• William Gates
• Adolph Hitler
• Johannes Gutenberg
• Jesus the Christ
• Martin Luther King
• Osama bin Laden
• Abraham Lincoln
• Martin Luther
• Karl Marx
• Muhammad
• St. Paul
• Ronald W. Reagan
• Margaret Sanger
• William Shakespeare
• Josef Stalin
• Orville and Wilbur Wright

Here are some of my others that didn’t make the cut:

• Abraham
• Yasser Arafat
• Neil Armstrong
• Tony Blair
• Napoleon Bonaparte
• George W. Bush
• George Washington Carver
• Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain)
• Marie Curie
• Yuri Gagarin
• Mahatma Ghandi
• Mikhail Gorbachev
• Grace Hopper
• Andrew Jackson
• King James I of England (VI of Scotland)
• C.S. Lewis
• John Locke
• Mao Tse-Tung
• Thurgood Marshall
• J. Robert Oppenheimer
• Rosa Parks
• Ayn Rand
• Jackie Robinson
• Franklin D. Roosevelt
• Mother Teresa

And here are a few of those whom I predict will have a large impact on the future:

• Iyad Allawi
• Hillary Rodham Clinton
• Harold Ford, Jr.

More On Berger

Perhaps this information was what Sandy Berger was belatedly trying to dispose of:

The [9/11 Commission] report cites a 1998 meeting between Mr. Berger and the director of central intelligence, George Tenet, at which Mr. Tenet presented a plan to capture Osama bin Laden.

“In his meeting with Tenet, Berger focused most, however, on the question of what was to be done with Bin Ladin if he were actually captured. He worried that the hard evidence against Bin Ladin was still skimpy and that there was a danger of snatching him and bringing him to the United States only to see him acquitted,” the report says, citing a May 1, 1998, Central Intelligence Agency memo summarizing the weekly meeting between Messrs. Berger and Tenet.

In June of 1999, another plan for action against Mr. bin Laden was on the table. The potential target was a Qaeda terrorist camp in Afghanistan known as Tarnak Farms. The commission report released yesterday cites Mr. Berger’s “handwritten notes on the meeting paper” referring to “the presence of 7 to 11 families in the Tarnak Farms facility, which could mean 60-65 casualties.”According to the Berger notes, “if he responds, we’re blamed.”

On December 4, 1999, the National Security Council’s counterterrorism coordinator, Richard Clarke, sent Mr. Berger a memo suggesting a strike in the last week of 1999 against Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. Reports the commission: “In the margin next to Clarke’s suggestion to attack Al Qaeda facilities in the week before January 1, 2000, Berger wrote, ‘no.’ ”

In August of 2000, Mr. Berger was presented with another possible plan for attacking Mr. bin Laden.This time, the plan would be based on aerial surveillance from a “Predator” drone. Reports the commission: “In the memo’s margin,Berger wrote that before considering action, ‘I will want more than verified location: we will need, at least, data on pattern of movements to provide some assurance he will remain in place.’ ”

In other words, according to the commission report, Mr. Berger was presented with plans to take action against the threat of Al Qaeda four separate times — Spring 1998, June 1999, December 1999, and August 2000. Each time, Mr. Berger was an obstacle to action.

Recall that the classified document deeds were done late last year.

There are a lot of pundits--professional and otherwise--who are speculating that the publicizing of Mr. Berger's misdeeds was meticulously timed by RNC operatives. Leaving aside biblical gnat-camel aspects of the timing observation (look it up), who would have more to gain by the timing of this revelation?

Were the RNC (and the Bush Administration) responsible for the “leak,” wouldn’t a September-October 2004 timeframe be a better choice than July?

However, since Mr. Berger’s classified document shenanigans were committed late last year, it’s certainly more likely that either he leaked the information of his own accord or was pressed to do so by the DNC. All of these parties had certainly figured out in the last eight or nine months that the 9/11 Commission had beaten Mr. Berger to the punch and gotten ahold of the above information. In order to preempt the Commissions findings, it behooved Mr. Berger--and the DNC--to get the details of the investigation out there before the Commision did. He made it, just barely.

Why didn’t it come out before? Likely because Mr. Berger (and his legal team) may have been gambling that it need never come out: don’t present yourself for public excoriation if you can avoid it, goes the logic. Especially if it will hurt the Party (recall that Mr. Berger recently stepped down as an adviser to the Kerry presidential campaign). If it's true, it's a pretty fine piece of logic, that.

(Thanks to LGF)

Plastic For the Soldiers

Dang! Got out too soon for my tummy tuck.

580 MPH

A fast exit to Heaven for some and to Hell for others (registration required):

Of the 33 passengers on the plane who were not hijackers, at least 10, and two crew members, spoke to people on the ground. At least five of the calls included discussion of the World Trade Center. At 9:57, about seven minutes before the end, one of the passengers ended her conversation saying: "Everyone's running up to first class. I've got to go. Bye."

The [9/11 Commission] report indicates that [hijacker] Mr. Jarrah, at the controls of United 93, did what many airline pilots have fantasized about since the hijackings: tried to maneuver the plane sharply, rolling and pitching, to keep control of the cockpit. It apparently did not work; the plane crashed in rural Pennsylvania.

The report does not clarify whether the hijackers' goal for Flight 93 was the White House or the Capitol, but indicates that the hijackers tuned a cockpit radio to the frequency of a navigation beacon at National Airport, just across the Potomac River from the capital, erasing any doubt about the region of their intended destination.

At three seconds after 10 a.m., Mr. Jarrah is heard on the cockpit voice recorder saying: "Is that it? Shall we finish it off?"

But another hijacker responds: "No. Not yet. When they all come, we finish it off."

The voice recorder captured sounds of continued fighting, and Mr. Jarrah pitched the plane up and then down. A passenger is heard to say, "In the cockpit. If we don't we'll die!"

Then a passenger yelled "Roll it!" Some aviation experts have speculated that this was a reference to a food cart, being used as a battering ram.

Mr. Jarrah "stopped the violent maneuvers" at 10:01:00, according to the report, and said, "Allah is the greatest! Allah is the greatest!"

"He then asked another hijacker in the cockpit, `Is that it? I mean, shall we put it down?' to which the other replied, `Yes, put it in it, and pull it down.' "

Eighty seconds later, a hijacker is heard to say, "Pull it down! Pull it down!"

"The hijackers remained at the controls but must have judged that the passengers were only seconds from overcoming them," according to the report, which seems to indicate that the hijackers themselves crashed the plane. "With the sounds of the passenger counterattack continuing, the aircraft plowed into an empty field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, at 580 miles per hour, about 20 minutes' flying time from Washington, D.C," according to the report.

72 virgins, right? Did the fine-print say what species of virgins they were? I hope that it is the hijackers that are the promised virgins--to virgin elephants: "never had none of that human stuff." That would be the least of their deserved punishments.

(Thanks to Michelle Malkin)

There's Another Escapee

...from the Blogspot prison that my Mozilla browser hates with a passion. Go check out LaShawn Barber's new digs.

Beam in the Eye

Is this necessary?

Michigan Republicans are helping gather signatures to place independent Ralph Nader on the presidential ballot in the battleground state, irritating Democrats who accuse the GOP of trying to pull votes away from candidate John Kerry.

"It's another example of state Republicans willing to try every unethical trick in the book to hold power," Democratic Executive Chairman Mark Brewer said Thursday. "This clearly shows that a vote for Ralph Nader is a vote to re-elect George Bush. The Republicans know that, and that's why they are desperate to have Nader on the Michigan ballot."

Greg McNeilly of the state Republican Party said the GOP is doing nothing wrong and hopes Nader will draw votes from the Democratic candidate.

Wrong, Mr. McNeilly.

Here’s yet another instance in which I agree with the Democrats. Those that would vote for Nader out of principle and are already planning to do so, know quite well—if they have a lick of sense, as these Nader-supporters most definitely do--that their votes will be more likely to reduce John Kerry's vote tally, than that of the president. To launch a “Republicans for Nader” campaign is certainly legal, but as we know, everything that’s legal isn’t necessarily moral or ethical.

How can we Republicans/conservatives sanction a dirty trick like this while, at the same time, vilify the dirty tricks of our ideological opponents?

(For the record, I sent this post to the RNC chairman, Ed Gillespie.)

(Thanks to the no-blogging co-blogger, King Buzz)

Say What?

Can you rephrase that, Congressman?

“John Edwards is a very attractive candidate in many ways…but I’m a big Dick Cheney fan.”

--Jack Kemp on FoxNews’ Your World w/ Neil Cavuto

Get Up Or Get Over

Sometimes Europeans get things right and Colorado has adopted a driving law which acknowledges that.

The Passing Lane Law, aimed at improving traffic flow and reducing road rage, took effect Thursday.

The law forbids motorists on multi-lane state highways from driving in the far left lane except to pass or to make a left turn. [Colorado] State troopers will not cite drivers when the amount of traffic makes merging right impossible.

Would that such a law be passed in California. I’ve got some letter-writing to do.

(Thanks to Dennis Prager)

Insecurity

How classified material from the National Archives ended up in Clinton Administration National Security Adviser Sandy Berger’s pockets and down his pants inadvertently is difficult to fathom. How such a formerly highly placed person wouldn’t know that he was been watched while placing such documents in such a strange place is even more difficult to fathom.

Additionally, he claims to have discarded some of the “borrowed” documents.

Please.

It appears to me that he purposely and knowingly did the deed, got wind that it had been discovered and—along with his legal representation--crafted this incredibly implausible story of incompetence and forgetfulness to cover himself.

Well, it’s a pretty thin cover, if you ask me. In fact, you don’t have to ask me, even though, at one time, I handled many classified documents and, somehow, none of them managed to end up on my person. Ask the thousands of military personnel who have been tasked to handle and protect like documents. Ask them what would have happened to them had classified documents ended up growing legs and walking out under their supervision. Ask them what would have happened to them were they to tell investigators that it was “inadvertent.”

Laughter would be the response and Fort Leavenworth would be their new home. Civilians have more legal leeway, for good or ill.

Will Mr. Berger be prosecuted? I doubt it. Fawn Hall wasn’t and she was just a secretary. (For the record, she was granted immunity from prosecution to pry her information from the cover of the Fifth Amendment. I have mixed feelings about that: immunity is granted to many people for this reason, but the unauthorized destruction of classified material should carry some penalty with it. Ms. Hall deserved incarceration more than Martha Stewart does. To be fair, military personnel have Fifth Amendment rights as well, but I wonder how often they are offered such deals.)

Notice, however, the word “security” in the informal title “National Security Adviser.” That means that Mr. Berger was the go-to guy for national security issues in the Clinton Administration. That a person in such a position could mistakenly treat classified documents in such a cavalier manner boggles the mind. Either he was/is incredibly stupid or incredibly venal. I vote both.

Back and Forth

Prometheus 6 and I are having a stimulating conversation on his blog, stemming from his link to the Crutches post. Suffice it to say, we disagree on many things. However, this discussion is forcing me to again question what I think and believe and to flesh out those things verbally. Though my posting style here is blunt and confrontational, when I’m engaging in conversation, I try to calm that aspect of my communication down (emphasis on the word ‘try’). P6 is a tough customer and pulls no punches on what he thinks and believes: an admirable trait. (Of course I would think that. :-)

One of the great things about this conversation is that it is helping both of us clear up misconceptions that we have about the other. And related to that, we’re using clear language to set forth our conclusions and the premises behind them. Also, not the least, our assumptions are being made plain to the other.

Be advised, however, this is no parlor conversation going on here. Enjoy. I am.

Born Again

Now this is one of the most wonderful posts I’ve read in a while.

Good To See It

I’m very heartened by Democrat legislators who are giving the South Africa treatment to the genocidal “government” of Sudan. Several members of the Congressional Black Caucus have allowed themselves to get arrested in front of the Sudanese Embassy in Washington DC. They are:

Charles Rangel (D-NY)
Bobby Rush (D-IL)

...with more to come, no doubt. Julian Bond, the chairman of the NAACP, will submit himself for arrest on July 25. (I never thought I would be saying something nice about him so soon after his words regarding Republicans.)

Though I excoriate black Democrats mercilessly here, when they do something worthwhile, it should be noted and applauded. These types of symbolic gestures paved the way to the end of apartheid in South Africa.

The only misgiving I have regarding this type of action isn’t toward the people taking it; it’s toward the people to which it is directed. The then South African government had a sense of shame and a desire to join the “community of nations,” with all that entailed, both opinion-wise and monetarily. Does the Sudanese government really care what the western world thinks of it or about any trade with the west? Or does cleansing Sudan of the infidels mean more to them? (Recall that many white South Africans regarded black South Africans as infidel as well.)

This action is a great first step, however, and the congressmen are correct in that the Bush Administration needs to do more. Said Rangel:

"The situation in Sudan has clearly reached the level of a genocide. U.S. Agency for International Development Administrator Andrew Natsios has declared that at least 300,000 people will be dead by year's end in the best-case scenario, and over a million will perish if things continue on their present course. We must take immediate actions to condemn the government of Sudan for their complicity and save the lives of these innocent people."[SNIP]

"We acted too late to save million of Jews during World War II. We didn't act at all when hundreds of thousands of innocents were slaughtered in Rwanda. We have the opportunity now to stop a genocide and we must act."

Pie Hole Problems

There’s nothing more annoying for an old bag like me than to see an older, richer bag splashed all over the TV news channels 24 hours per day for two days. Enough with Martha Stewart already! She’s will to do her five-month stint in the junior-flip Big House for one reason alone: her lack of humility. Her arrogance got her in trouble and it continues to set her in a bad light. (No matter how apt the comparison, never mention yourself and Nelson Mandela in the same sentence to the media.) If she has handlers either she doesn’t listen to them or they stink.

You may have fashion, design, cooking and monetary sense, Martha, but if you had any strategic sense, you’d shut up, get your sour-looking face off my TV and go do your time.

And come home and throw a smoking Christmas party.

Miscalculation

I wonder if corporate/government entities hassle senior citizens because they think they can.

My great-aunt has noticed that when I accompany her to her doctor’s appointments--at a county hospital--that information is far more forthcoming than it was when she routinely went alone.

This stems from an incident that occurred when I first started going with her earlier this year. She had been very ill and the office professionals--a doctor and a PA--had given her conflicting diagnoses. So during my third acompanying visit, she and I were sitting in the examination room waiting for one of the professionals. The door was open and her chart was there on the door. Since I had already signed paperwork stipulating that I was allowed to see her medical records and since I have a bit of medical knowledge, I asked my aunt if could look at her record. She consented, so I took her chart off the door. Bad move. The nurse/medical assistant charged in and literally snatched the record from my hand.

Nurse: You’re not allowed to see these.

Me: The paperwork in the front says that I can.

Nurse: You can’t see them without one of us in the room.

Me: Well then you tell your bosses to get the diagnosis straight and I won’t feel the need to have to figure it out for myself.

Needless to say, I am not well-liked in that office. The looks I’ve received on subsequent visits say it all: “Here comes that bald-headed b*tch again.” Heh. That’s exactly the way I want it. Now they know that they can’t jerk my auntie around and the info is flowing like the Mississippi.

This time it’s her insurance company. Having provided my aunt with fire insurance for many years, it sent her a notice that it was going out of business and switched her policy over to another company.

Not long afterward, the new company sends a letter informing her that they were canceling her policy due to part of the roof being flat and due to the security bars having no release latches. Hmm, I’m wondering how they could know that the bars had no release latches, since they never came to inspect the inside of the house. (One day, upon arriving home, my aunt found a business card from some sort of inspector stuck in the front security gate. She had wondered what it was for, since she hadn’t asked for an inspection and no company had called her to inform her that an inspector would come by. Now we know what that was about.)

What I’m also wondering is this: why would an inspector look for the security releases for the bars on the outside of the house?

Additionally, are flat-roof houses no longer to be insured in California?

Anyway, my aunt and I both had our dander up. I took photos of the release latches on the various windows, got them developed, scanned them, faxed them and mailed them along with a superficially polite letter in my aunt’s name. I managed to get in a little scathing commentary without being outright rude. I can do that. :-)

My aunt’s has lived in her house for nearly my entire lifetime--since 1962--and has never missed an insurance payment nor has she filed a claim. (Knowing her, she’s never missed any other kind of payment either.) From the number of years that she’s owned the house, it's obvious that she’s a senior. Do these companies make certain calculations in making their decisions to cancel policies, such as how likely it is that the policy holder will resist being cancelled or how like it is that they will take their grievance up the chain?

As many may have surmised, I like a good fight, especially with those more powerful than myself.

From me they will get the fax, the letter and a phone call on Monday morning (my aunt hates these voicemail trees). Resistance ain’t futile.

Two Or More In Agreement

Pray for Rudy and Kafi Carrasco and their son, Sam; the latter has been diagnosed with leukemia.

Incredibly Cool

Showing love for the other “brotherhood,” (registration required) passengers of American Airlines flight 866, hooked some brothers up.

It all began with a chance encounter at an airport, a glance, an offer, a quiet chat.

What's your seat number, soldier?

It's 23-B, sir, the soldier told the businessman.

No, son, that's my seat. Yours is in first class.

As more soldiers boarded, similar offers quickly came from the other first-class passengers.

And eight soldiers heading home from Iraq for two weeks of R&R found themselves with their officers in the big seats up front instead of the center seats in coach.

U.S soldiers fresh from Iraq were surprised but grateful for the first-class seats on Flight 866 from Atlanta to Chicago.

That spontaneous act of good will transformed American Airlines Flight 866, from Atlanta to Chicago, on June 29.

"The soldiers were very, very happy, and the whole aircraft had a different feeling," said Lorrie Gammon, one of the Dallas-based flight attendants working the trip.

"There were 14 seats in first class, and there were 12 soldiers there. The other two first-class passengers wanted to give up their seats, too, but they couldn't find any more soldiers."

(Thanks to Michelle Malkin and others)

Throwing Away The Crutches

What have Republicans/conservatives done for black Americans? I hear that question constantly when I disclose that I am a conservative Republican. Often I will provide the usual facts that seem to be missing from the historical lexicon these days: freed the slaves, were 90%+ in the majority in the votes for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. However, something about the question sets steel to my nerves and I’ve been meaning to articulate the reasons for it here for some time now.

Implied in the question is that a political party must “do something” for blacks. Not merely the usual “something” that a government entity does for all of its constituents, e.g. provide utilities, regulate commerce, etc., but something special.

That word ‘special’ has taken on a new meaning in recent years and I think that it applies to the special items that liberals/leftists believe that the government should provide for the ‘special’ people, the “congenitally retarded” folk.

Yes, we ‘special’ people--with ‘special’ needs--require special handling: special education and special employment. You can’t expect black people to live up to the standards of ‘normal’ people. Like paraplegics or the blind or the deaf or those afflicted with Down’s syndrome, singular accommodations must be made for the great handicap of being born with black skin. To liberals/leftists, black people are a crippled class that can never be made whole just as long as they can never be made not-black. What’s this notion called?

And if anyone tries to treat us as full, competent adults, the liberals/leftists will scream in righteous anger and protest about the unfairness of it all. And if some of us ‘handicapped’ verbally express the desire to be treated like full, competent adults and act in a manner that demonstrates that desire, we are deemed as traitors by those who share the same racial makeup, but buy into the ‘handicap’ philosophy. Yes, we are “traitors,” because if some of us refuse to take advantage of the special needs offered and succeed anyway, the vast majority of America will begin to think that we don’t really require the “handicap slot.”

The vast majority of Americans will begin to think that we’re not really inferior after all. (Optimistically speaking, I believe that the vast majority think this anyway.)

"You do not own, and you are not the arbiters of, African-American authenticity," said [Rod] Paige [to NAACP leaders], who rose from segregated Mississippi to become President Bush's education chief.

(Thanks to reader Wesley J.)

Or, as I might put it, who died and made you the head of the Brutha/Sista Card Registry?

This idea of our race-wide ‘handicap’ is so ingrained in the mindsets of some, however, that it has morphed into the very existentiality of black identity: a black person who believes that black Americans need extra help to succeed is “authentically black.” Conversely, one who doesn’t buy it “isn’t really black” and is, therefore, a traitor to black identity.

In short, blacks who believe in their own inferiority are the real deal and those who don’t, aren’t. How's that for twisted dogma?

(This is why Condoleezza Rice comes in for special scorn among the liberals/leftists, especially black ones. Having been born with not merely one, but the proverbial two strikes against her, her very existence gives lie to the entire notion of black inferiority: she has succeeded through innate intelligence, raw talent and hard work. I’m sure that white supremacists hate her just as much. Now there's a marriage made in...somewhere.)

So when some black people find out that Republicans don’t want to “do anything” for them except to encourage them to take part in the American dream of prosperity, stemming from work and ingenuity, they’re like, “WTF? Where’s my money?”

So it is that white Republicans/conservatives, those whose ideology purports to treat blacks as equals are considered Devils. We blacks who agree with this are merely the Devils’ minions.

Those that have wondered why the vast majority of the Republican party don’t spend time on “minority outreach” miss the point. Republicans do outreach already. They just don’t do handicapped outreach, not unless you're really handicapped.

Puppet Master

From the Washington Times:

Kweisi Mfume, president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, condemned the groups as a "collection of black hustlers" who have adopted a conservative agenda in return for "a few bucks a head."

"When the ultraconservative right-wing attacker has run out of attack strategy, he goes and gets someone that looks like you and me to continue the attack," Mfume said in his opening address to the NAACP's annual convention.

"They've financed a conservative coalition of make-believe black organizations, all of them hollow shells with more names on the letterhead than there are people in their membership," he said.

Paraphrasing a line from a 2002 speech by NAACP Chairman Julian Bond, he said, "And like the ventriloquist's dummies, they sit there in the puppet master's voice, but we can see whose lips are moving, and we can hear his money talk."

In a speech punctuated by cheers from the audience, Mr. Mfume said: "They can't deal with the leaders we choose for ourselves, so they manufacture, promote and hire new ones."

My first response is my usual one: why bother refuting silly assertions that you know are false? Like Ted Rall, Mfume feeds on the hate he spews and incites from others.

Why should anyone, much less black conservatives care what a demagogue like Mfume thinks?

However, words coming from Mfume—and Julian Bond—are different from the words and images that drip from Ted Rall’s pen. As the mouthpieces for the renowned NAACP, Mfume and Bond have a platform that gives their words a much wider audience than the leavings of Rall. They make a difference; the kind of difference that changes mindsets or entrenches them even deeper.

So I think that it’s in the best interest of all to take this one on.

First of all, where’s my money, VRWC? You see the donation button. Hook me up with a digital camera so I can take pictures at the LA County Museum of Art (where I went on Tuesday; admission is free on the second Tuesday of each month).

Second, if the puppeteer is a skilled one, an actual puppet doesn’t know when he/she is having those strings pulled. One Lyndon B. Johnson was a master string-puller (pun intended). Anticipating that his “Great Society” programs would be widely popular within the black American population, he opined that he would “have them ni**ers voting Democrat for the next 200 years.” The next 170 years remain to be seen, but he was correct at least for the subsequent 30 or so years past his prediction, so correct that many black people managed to forget that the Democrats had been the party of Jim Crow for Jim's entire lifetime. President Johnson gave black people (and others) money and sustenance for their transgressions, where all Republicans wanted to do was to stop standing in the way of black progress.

That’s not enough for the likes of Bond and Mfume. So they continue to put forth their vitriol, unmindful of proper behavior when one expects another to visit their “house,” and uncaring as to how their illogic plays to the public, black or not, Democrat or not. Why is this so? Because they believe that they will never be accountable for their words and actions. They’re correct. The NAACP continue to rake up millions in donations. (I wonder if all of these donations are from blacks/black organizations. Okay, I don’t really wonder.) They also continue to get favorable press from the larger media. I just heard a KCAL9 news report about Senator John Kerry’s address before the NAACP convention today. The report included information about President Bush’s refusal to attend the convention and his reasons. There was not one word, however, about the NAACP-James Byrd ad of 2000 in the report, even though it was mentioned that the president had attended the convention that year. How’s that for balance? (Interesting that the ad is mentioned in the linked report, however.)

But it wouldn’t have mattered had the information been included in the televised report. I personally know of black people who saw and remembered the ad and still excoriate George W. Bush for “not doing enough” in the Byrd murder. What the heck was then Governor Bush supposed to do, bust some caps in the murderers himself? (Not a bad idea, but you see what I’m getting at.) You have to give President Johnson credit for knowing his puppets well.

The mindset is so ingrained in some folks that, no matter how much common sense is thrown at them, they will jump out of its way, stick out their tongues and say, “see, ya missed me.” Changing one's way of thinking and one's relationship to one's world is almost as difficult as changing one's skin color, Michael Jackson notwithstanding.

More on blacks, conservatives and mindsets in the next post.

(Thanks to the Conservative Brotherhood)

UPDATE: To be fair, the Lyndon B. Johnson quote is third hand, reportedly said by Johnson to two governors aboard Air Force One. The circumstances are reported in Robert Kessler's book Inside the White House.

Filipinos Exit ASAP

One life saved (possibly). How many more will be lost as a result?

I Prognosticate, You Decide

This morning, after listening to a talk radio show host--conservative, of course--discuss what to do about elections in case of another terror attack occurring on or directly before Election Day, November 2, 2004, I made a prediction. First, however, to the subject.

"There does not appear to be a clear process in place to suspend or reschedule voting during an election if there is a major terrorist attack," DeForest B. Soaries, chairman of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, wrote in a letter to Republican and Democratic leaders in the House and Senate. [Bold mine]

Under catastrophic conditions, should the election go forward as planned or should it be postponed? Many pertinent factors were mentioned by the host and the callers, but this one is the most important, perhaps the only important one:

• No provision exists in the Constitution for such a contingency

Far lesser factors mentioned:

• Whether an attack occurred on the exact day
• The scale and scope of the attack

Additionally, some callers didn't want this subject even be discussed on air or in print. Citing the March 11 attacks in Spain and their effect on the Spanish election results, some thought that a public discussion of this subject would give terrorists the encouragement to commit similarly-timed attacks (as if they weren’t already thinking about doing it ).

One caller had an even better point, however: there needs to be public dialogue about these types of conditions, because if there isn’t and some attacks occur under such circumstances, and election contingency decisions have to made, there will be a segment of our society that says, “see, he’s trying to do in again.” Between a terrorist attack and another attempt by Bushitler™ to yet again subvert the democratic process—for the handicapped, that’s sarcasm--one can only imagine the feces storm that could rain down upon the country under such a scenario.

(I joke, but only halfway. The division and viciousness in this country concern me; not frighten, but concern.)

What? Oh yeah, my prediction: moonbat publications would turn the words ‘suspend' and 'reschedule' into the word ‘cancel.’ Granted, after the paragraph about public dialogue and Bushitler™, it didn’t take a prophet to forecast moonbat behavior.

At least two Leftist publications didn’t let me down.

From Democracy Now!: Could Bush Cancel the Election?

From AntiWar.com: Scheme to Cancel the Elections?

(And to be fair, the FoxNews article cited also uses the word ‘cancel.’ Just exercising my prerogative to have a little fun with the Leftists and to crow about being right.)

But the Bush administration isn’t going down that road, says Condoleezza Rice:

"We've had elections in this country when we were at war, even when we were in civil war. And we should have the elections on time. That's the view of the president, that's the view of the administration," Rice said in a televised interview Monday.

That is how a democratic republic operates.

(Thanks to Laura Ingraham)

To Go Or Not To Go

In answering the question as to whether President Bush should go to this year’s NAACP convention, one factor should not come into the equation: whether the NAACP deserves a visit from the man its officials have repeatedly and so unjustly insulted.

“Deserve it?” Of course they don’t. This isn’t the issue. The only factor that President Bush should consider when making this decision is this: what’s in it for him. This factor applies both politically and personally.

For either decision, there will be political drawbacks, easily foreseen through the nature of the entity with which he’s dealing.

Choice one: the president accepts the renewed invitation.

Benefit:

• He will be seen as reasonable and gracious toward an entity that (seemingly) wants him there and wants to bury the hatchet, so to speak.

Drawbacks:

• He will be perceived as being afraid of the consequence of not showing up.
• His presence could be viewed as pandering toward a black Democratic constituency, which, judging from the 2000 presidential election results, means nearly all black Americans.

Choice two: the president refuses the renewed invitation.

Benefits:

He will have the high-ground, in that he refuses to cater to a special interest group that has repeatedly excoriated him and issues an implied threat while extending the “olive branch.”

Drawback:

• He will be perceived as being afraid to face this group

Basically, the president can’t win, nor can he lose. (Recall that he was criticized by some black people for paying homage to Dr. Martin Luther King’s memory earlier this year.) All he can do is pray and follow his conscience.

If I were him, I’d accept the renewed invitation and make sure that every single word and image is recorded for posterity. Christian gesture? Maybe, though Paul (I think) warned against wasting words on the deaf. The deaf won’t be the only ones in attendance, however.

UPDATE: Julian Bond just can’t seem to stop himself. He has a curious way of making the president feel welcome.

"They preach racial neutrality and practice racial division," Bond said Sunday night in the 95th annual convention's keynote address. "They've tried to patch the leaky economy and every other domestic problem with duct tape and plastic sheets. They write a new constitution of Iraq and they ignore the Constitution here at home."

On second thought, perhaps the president should save his pearls. (See LaShawn’s and Michael’s commentary on the situation.)

Into The Lion's Den

After President Bush declined to attend the NAACP’s annual conference, the organization saw fit to issue a new invitation.

... the civil rights group's [NAACP] president [Kweisi Mfume] Saturday reinvited the president to speak and called on the White House to get over its displeasure with criticism from the group's leaders.

In the run-up to the 2000 presidential election, the NAACP sponsored a Texas ad suggesting that then Texas Governor Bush was responsible for the dragging death—lynching—of James Byrd. This, in spite of the fact that two of the perpetrators sat on the state’s death row and a third received life in prison for turning on his companions. The ad stemmed from Governor Bush’s refusal to sign hate-crime legislation. (Death and life in prison: I wonder what worse fate those creatures could have expected under such a law.)

Also implied in the new invitation is a threat.

"At some point in time, you've got to get over it," NAACP President Kweisi Mfume said during a news conference as the group's 95th annual convention began. He suggested that the president's absence would be seen by many black voters as writing them off and may spill over to other campaigns.

The president should just get over it, eh, Mr. Mfume? What, like a stepped-on toe or and accidentally-spilled drink? Sure, okay. You offer no apology, no nothing. (Heck, even the owner of a stepped-on toe expects an apology.) He should just get over it and make his pilgrimage, genuflecting and kowtowing to the (self-)appointed representatives for black Americans.

The ad was much more than just a stepped-on toe. Governor Bush presided over a state that caught, tried and gravely-sentenced the perpetrators of a heinous act that would have been winked at and gone unpunished a couple of generations prior: a terrorist act by whites perpetrated upon blacks. He did no more and no less than his job.

However, the ad, using the grief and anger of Renee Mullins, James Byrd’s daughter, twists the event in such a manner as to make it appear as though Governor Bush was responsible for her father’s murder. Mullins' words from the ad:

So when Governor George W. Bush refused to support hate-crime legislation, it was like my father was killed all over again.

And as if that wasn’t enough, just last month the NAACP chairman, Julian Bond, referred to members of the Republican Party as the Taliban Wing of American politics.

Being compared to two sets of terrorist-murderers isn’t exactly a mild faux pas. It isn’t honest disagreement, nor is it due criticism that comes with the territory of being an elected official. It’s calling the truth a lie and calling a lie the truth. But this last is becoming pretty common in public discourse.

What amazes me is that the NAACP executives expect President Bush to let himself in for similar treatment, without even the slightest bit of contrition for calling him a murderer, not once, but twice; not just four years ago, but a few weeks ago.

With all of that in mind, however, I haven't decided whether I think that he should accept the new invitation or not. More on that is forthcoming.

Loyal To Whom?

When Marine Cpl. Wassef Ali Hassoun was thought to have been the latest victim of Islamist terror-- thought to have been kidnapped and beheaded--I composed a post that started like this:

It’s becoming nearly routine; kidnap-demand-behead, kidnap-demand-behead.

It was a Marine this time. And an Arab Muslim, for diversity’s sake.

"We would like to inform you that the Marine of Lebanese descent has been killed, and you will soon see the movie with your own eyes," said the statement, signed in the name of the group's [Ansar al-Sunna Army] leader, Abu Abdullah al-Hassan bin Mahmoud.

Well, it’s a good thing that my slight case of blogger-burnout was raging at its height then. As it turns out, Corporal Hassoun is free and in the custody of the US military (registration required) after a strange and suspicious sojourn that ended with his voluntary entrance into the US Embassy in his native Lebanon.

What occurred between the time of Corporal Hassoun’s alleged abduction and that of his return to US custody will likely present a fascinating story, complicated by the following:

Hassoun had disappeared from his Marine base near Fallujah on June 19 and later was shown on al-Jazeera satellite television, blindfolded, with a sword hanging over his head. A group calling itself Islamic Response asserted responsibility for his kidnapping and threatened to kill him.

A militant group claiming to be the Ansar al-Sunna Army said on a Web site Saturday that it had beheaded the Marine. But the group said Sunday that it had not issued the statement, and a posting on another Internet site said Hassoun was alive.

On Monday, al-Jazeera reported that it had received a report from Islamic militants saying that Hassoun was in a safe place and had promised to quit the Marines.

On Wednesday, reports surfaced that he was in Lebanon.[SNIP]

But in Tripoli, 50 miles north of Beirut, where Hassoun's family lives, a fight broke out and a relative of Hassoun shot and killed two people and injured a third person, Lebanese officials reported. Other Tripoli residents had accused Hassoun of being a traitor because he left Lebanon and fought with the Marines in Iraq, his brother said.

The family member, Mohamad Said Hassoun, was arrested in the killings, according to internal security forces in Tripoli.

"Everybody here is calling us traitors," Sami Hassoun said. "I think somebody pushed those people to this to try to hurt my family and my relatives. There's no background for these things." [SNIP]

Hassoun was reported not to have returned to Utah since joining the Marines. He had been married to an American, but they divorced. His family said he married his new wife, a cousin, by proxy several months ago. His father signed the marriage contract for him, under Islamic law.

According to other reports read, the new wife is in Lebanon. Curiouser and curiouser.

My prediction: what we have here is a simple case of a marine with divided loyalties and with a "Love Jones" thrown in for good measure. As a marine, Hassoun swore to fulfill his oath, but as a Muslim he feels himself bound to another allegiance. Do the two allegiance’s clash? Possibly—at least in the mind of Hassoun--especially when the designated enemy is Muslim as well. Pour into the mix a portion of the family still residing in Lebanon, catching Hell, literally, for Hassoun’s marine service, along with his Islamic and husbandly duties toward a presumably sight-unseen Lebanese wife. But then, what does Hassoun do? He turns himself in, likelybeing pulled by his other sworn allegiance in the opposite direction.

There’s a full pot of mystery and feces boiling over here, for sure.

What's a nation to do, one that prides itself on freedom of and from religion?

UPDATE: Corporal Hassoun's family sends a message to their fellow Muslims, attempting to explain the US military service of their kinsman.

In Hassoun's native city of Tripoli, his family issued a statement saying he was forced to go to the United States and join the Marines because of the deteriorating economic situation caused by Lebanon's 1975-90 civil war.

The statement appeared aimed at countering criticism by some fundamentalist Sunni Muslims in Tripoli who accused Hassoun's family of being "American agents and collaborators." It stressed the family's Arab and Islamic ties, and its loyalty to Lebanon.

"We are a family of Lebanese Arab Muslims. We are not seeking to defend ourselves," the Hassoun family's statement said. "But we would like to thank the Lebanese for sympathizing with one of their sons (Hassoun) who was pushed by the difficult living conditions in their home country to emigrate and forced to work in a position that they may not like."

Divided loyalties, indeed.

(Thanks to LGF)

Submission-Worthy

Michael Williams has an excellent post regarding marriage and submission, Christian-style. The bottom line, however, is on the bottom line.

(Thanks to Robert)

Top Ten

As the post count approaches 500, I’m thinking of posting a top ten list. I have my top ten. What are yours? (Doesn’t have to be ten.) I’ll take suggestions up to Monday Night.

Long Run

While taking yet another masterful jab yesterday at one Michael Moore, James Lileks points out that Someone doesn’t like ugly, using a Moore-cited incident that Moore, predictably, views in the short-run. I'll refrain from spelling out the ugly aspects of Mr. Moore.

Interesting side note: the man who was being attacked was named Ted Landsmark [a black man]. He spent part of his youth in Harlem. He later went on to Yale, to get a BA in Political Science, then got a PhD at Boston U. He is presently the president and CEO of the Boston Architectural Center, and has received fellowships from the National Science Foundation. (The Bush administration requested a three percent increase in their funding in the last budget.) The man in the photo wielding the flag was Joseph Rakes, who when last heard from was a laborer on the Big Dig in Boston [a white man]. Ted Landsmark is writing opinion pieces for the Globe about the nature of the art and landscaping that will go on top of the tunnel.

God is, most definitely, a strategic thinker.

Rollin' With the Brotherhood

LaShawn takes on the black American versus black immigrant conundrum. I may have a tangential post on the subject later.

Cobb, as always, has many excellent posts up. Here’s a post-mortem on the Civil Rights Movement.

Did you know that President Bush turned down an invitation to speak before the NAACP? Sheesh, it’s like James Byrd being murdered all over again! Michael has the scoop.

Ambra finally updates her treatise on being/not being a Republican.

Samantha let’s get a peak on the preps that go into a West Indian wedding.

Shay highlights an African success story—Botswana—featuring an article by the great Walter Williams.

Darmon won’t be lining the pockets of a certain propaganda artist film-maker.

Avery debunks the assertion that some people don’t notice race.

And Scott discovers something strange on the internet. Call the law! :-)

The Addict

Two people have given me an email heads-up on the latest Ted Rall offering, one which is extremely insulting to Condoleezza Rice and to black women in general. Originally, I hadn’t planned on giving Rall’s latest “comic” strip the time of day and I’m only changing my mind to point this out: attention is what he’s craving. If negative attention is the only type he can get, he’ll take it. I suspect that he can get little of any other brand.

I briefly viewed Rall’s interview by FoxNew’s Hannity and Colmes some weeks back. Infuriating is the nicest word I can think of to describe him. However, there was something more that I observed about his demeanor: he loved Alan Colmes’ polite disapproval and seemed to thrive on Sean Hannity’s barely contained vitriol. Rall wants your hate, folks. He’s smoking it, snorting it, shooting it up

Frankly, I think that one has to respect another’s thinking process in order to hate or revile that person. Ted Rall is too busy feeding his fix to develop a thinking process. And, no, he gets no link from me. His work can be found easily enough.

(Thanks to Reader David H. and to Michelle Malkin)

Useful Quiz

At last, a quiz that refuses to kiss the respondent’s butt.

Wackiness: 38/100
Rationality: 64/100
Constructiveness: 40/100
Leadership: 38/100

You are an SRDF--Sober Rational Destructive Follower. This makes you a font of knowledge. You are cool, analytical, intelligent and completely unfunny. [Now, that last is completely untrue! I crack myself up. That’s all that counts.] Sometimes you slice through conversation with a cutting observation that causes silence and sidelong glances. You make a strong and lasting impression on everyone you meet, the quality of which depends more on their personality than yours.

You may feel persecuted, as you can become a target for fun. Still, you are focused enough on your work and secure enough in your abilities not to worry overly.

You are productive and invaluable to those you work for. You are loyal, steadfast, and conscientious. Your grooming is impeccable. You are in good shape.

You are kind of a tool, but you get things done. You are probably a week away from snapping.

A week? More like thirty seconds.

(Thanks to the Queen of All Evil)

Another Hot Mama's Birthday

Now, let’s see if she’s reading. My Mom, that is. This picture was taken last year.

She doesn’t dye her hair, either, so she claims.

Happy Birthday, Mom. (You, too, Mr. President.)

UPDATE: In my photo page, there's a pic of my Mom and some kid from many years ago (mid-sixties). My youngest sister (twenty-seven) is the spirit and image of that lady in the sixties-era picture.

Best Face Forward

Let’s face it (no pun intended). For many who make their choices for selection of anything—from local school board member to president, image has a strong influence on that choice.

Senator John Kerry picked Senator John Edwards as his running mate for the upcoming presidential election. It’s a smooth move for Senator Kerry. The senator from North Carolina is easy-on-the-eyes, telegenic—they’re not the same thing—and presents a far less dour, unsettling, elitist presence than does the senator from Massachusetts. (As for Senator Edwards’ political profile, I’ll have to do some research and post on it. In the past, I paid attention mostly to the ever-changing Democrat primary front-runners: Kerry, Dean and Clark, but little to the others. Heck, I wasn’t going to vote for any of them.)

Senator Edwards’ above-mentioned attributes present a stark contrast to those of Vice President Richard Cheney’s. The vice president is older, has a pace-maker, isn’t as pretty and has recently—and hilariously—displayed a certain occasional lack of decorum. Whether the latter was justified or not doesn’t matter.

Like many all around the blog world, I wonder whether President George W. Bush has a corresponding vice-presidential announcement to drop on the American public in the next few months.

Between Vice President Cheney’s health woes, doctor problems and his recent expression of frustration toward Senator Leahy, could there be a close-to-the-vest plan for a new running mate?

If so, who would that running mate be?

There is much GOP political salivating over the prospect of President Bush picking National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice as the replacement running mate. Dr. Rice strikes me as a steely customer: extremely intelligent, cool-headed, knowledgeable. And, of course, her image benefits rival, even surpass those of Senator Edwards.

Is Dr. Rice VP material? I have expressed my doubts about that before. (This is due to her lack of high-level executive experience, her stint as provost at Stanford University notwithstanding; had she come back to California last year to run for governor, however I would have voted for her in a heartbeat. She’s more qualified for that position than Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is, and he’s doing a decent job.)

I’m not necessarily suggesting that President Bush change his running mate simply for the sake of countering the image potential of his rival’s running mate, just doing a little Tuesday-morning speculating. As a matter of fact, I hope he doesn’t change. But you can be sure that all of his options are being weighed by himself and his advisers.

Change Up

The thirty days for half-staff is done. RIP, President Reagan.

I got tired of looking at my own mug. I think I'll change my front page pic from time to time, just for informational purposes.

Born on the Fourth

It’s a great day for birthdays, both for the Republic and for my great-aunt; the latter is considerably younger, though no less vibrant and tough and lovable. Here she is in the late 1940s.

Pretty hot mama, eh? She still is, but she'd skin me alive if I posted a recent picture. Yes, she can still do that.

Happy Birthday to my second Mom and to my country.

Who Are They?

Now this needs some publicity.

Several members of the House of Representatives have requested the United Nations (news - web sites) to send observers to monitor the November 2 US presidential election to avoid a contentious vote like in 2000, when the outcome was decided by Florida.

Yeah? I wonder who these fine, upstanding Congressional Representatives are.

There’s Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas; the Yahoo article mistakenly says she’s from Florida), who is spear-heading this proposal.

I want to know who the rest are. Can’t find a list in this article. Nor in this one.

I checked the House site for press releases. Nothing.

I want, no, demand to know who else it is in our legislature that would propose to bring the UN in for “observation” for one of the US’ presidential elections. And what will happen if the UN finds something suspicious during the election?

Will these representatives propose that the election results be nullified? Will they ask the UN to send a multi-national force to impose its will on the US government? Sounds as if some members of the House want to get back a the president for both the 2000 election and for Iraq. You, know, the "theft" and the "quagmire."

Good flocking luck.

Do these representatives know what size the can of worms is that they are proposing to open up?

(Thanks to Ith)

UPDATE: Here they are (thanks to faithful reader, teal marie).

Joseph Crowley (D-NY-07)
Raul Grijalva (D-AZ-07)
Danny Davis (D-IL-07)
Corrine Brown (D-FL-03)
Carolyn Maloney (D-NY-14)
Jerrold Nadler (D-NY-08)
Michael Honda (D-CA-15)
Elijah Cummings (D-MD-07)
Julia Carson (D-IN-07)
Edolphus Towns (D-NY-10)

(I'm surprised that my rep, Miss Maxine isn't on this list. Apparently, even she knows a loser when she sees one.)

Interesting how one has to dig deep into the web site of some of the members to find out what party they belong to—as if I couldn’t guess. For some, I had to check out their committee membership. Finally, I simply looked at the House Directory for the information.

Seeing Double

I make a mere observation and what does that corrupted youth, Ambra, do? Why, this:

Al Sharpton and Saddam Hussein

Hmmm. Brothers from another mother?

Careful, Ambra. You’re going to be as crazy as I am someday if you’re not careful. Heh.

F-word Versus BS (Brown Shirt)

Charles Krauthammer hilariously dissects the media over-reaction (registration required) to Vice President Dick Cheney’s skillful deployment of a WMD (word of mass destruction):

I am sure there is a special place in heaven reserved for those who have never used the F-word. I will never get near that place. Nor, apparently, will Dick Cheney.

Sadly, nor will I.

(I try not use any curse words here on the blog, simply because I don’t want it Googled. I get enough unwanted Google hits as it is, including someone who surfed in today looking for “little african girls pics.” Whoever you are, I hope, for your soul’s sake that you’re looking for such for high-minded reasons. Otherwise, begone, you pervert.)

…By all accounts, he deployed the pungent verb form, in effect a suggestion as to how the good senator from Vermont might amuse himself.

Just a little helpful advice.

Which makes it [f you] excellent for drive-by information conveyance. When some jerk tailgater rides my bumper in heavy traffic, honking his horn before passing and cutting me off, I do a turn-to-the-left, eyeball-to-eyeball, through-the-driver's-window two-worder -- mouthed slowly and with exaggerated lip movements. No interlocutor has yet missed my meaning.

Alas, I am guilty of this horrid offense as well. It take the most self-controlled of California drivers to refrain from a little self-expression in the face of millions of no-driving $%#^$.

Nonetheless, while the two-worder has the directness of the dagger, the three-worder has the elegance of the wide-arced saber slice. It is more musical and, being more clearly spelled out, more comprehensible to the non-English speaker (a boon in major urban areas). It consists of a straightforward directive containing both a subject and an object -- charmingly, the same person. [SNIP]

Ah, but the earnest chin-pullers are not amused. Cheney's demonstration of earthy authenticity in a chamber in which authenticity of any kind is to be valued has occasioned anguished meditations on the loss of civility in American politics. Liberals in particular have expressed deep concern about this breach of decorum.

Odd. The day before first reports of Cheney's alleged indiscretion, his Democratic predecessor, Al Gore, delivered a public speech in which he spoke of the administration's establishing a "Bush gulag" around the world and using "digital brown shirts" to intimidate the media. The former vice president of the United States compared the current president to both Hitler and Stalin in the same speech -- a first not just in hyperbole but in calumny -- and nary a complaint is heard about a breach of civility.[SNIP]

… In the face of Gore's real breach of civil political discourse, which of the following is the right corrective: (a) offer a reasoned refutation of the charge that George Bush is both Stalinist and Hitlerian; (b) suggest an increase in Gore's medication; or (c) do a Cheney.

Better than breaking Godwin’s Law or the laws of the land, in my view. (You will notice that I never criticized Senator John Kerry for his public use of the adjectival form of the word during an interview. So what? If that were the worst thing about him, I'd consider voting for him. Alas, it's not.)

The f-word happens. Some of us try to refrain from using it, but sometimes no other word does the job as well. Sometimes, you don’t want the object of your communication to mistake the level of your displeasure; you want to offend. I will assume that this is true of former Vice President Al Gore’s word usage as well. It worked.

And before I get the "double standard" call, check your standards first. The VP's suggestion to Senator Leahy wasn't meant for public consumption. The words of Senator Kerry and former VP Gore were.

Related addendum: S-Train has inducted the vice president into the “Playas” Club, dubbing him with an…um..interesting “pimp” handle.

Too Old and Too Rich To Care

And, likely, still too grief-stricken.

Dr. Cosby, they’re going to stop inviting you to these “Soul Patrol” soirees.

Break it down, my dear.

[Bill] Cosby made headlines in May when he upbraided some poor blacks for their grammar and accused them of squandering opportunities the civil rights movement gave them. He shot back Thursday, saying his detractors were trying in vain to hide the black community's "dirty laundry."

"Let me tell you something, your dirty laundry gets out of school at 2:30 every day, it's cursing and calling each other n------ as they're walking up and down the street," Cosby said during an appearance at the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition & Citizenship Education Fund's annual conference.

"They think they're hip," the entertainer said. "They can't read; they can't write. They're laughing and giggling, and they're going nowhere." [SNIP]

"Dogs, water hoses that tear the bark off trees, Emmett Till," he said, naming the black youth who was tortured and murdered in Mississippi in 1955, allegedly for whistling at a white woman. "And you're going to tell me you're going to drop out of school? You're going to tell me you're going to steal from a store?"

Cosby also said he wasn't concerned that some whites took his comments and turned them "against our people."

"Let them talk," he said.

That’s right. Talk is cheap. Action is what counts; the same type of action that Dr. Cosby demonstrated in becoming *Doctor* Cosby when he had enough accomplishments to rest on his laurels.

If a person has taken all of the opportunities available to him and runs with them, who cares what those that don’t matter say? As long as they’re not breaking down your door or some such, tell them to bite you and move on.

Odds are favorable that you won't end up like Emmitt Till. Not now.

Those that do matter, i.e. those who recognize and value genius, achievement and can-do spirit, won’t care what package those qualities come in.

Thank you, Dr. Cosby and may God grant you peace.

Saddam From Iraq

I’m still Saddam from Iraq

I’ve got a body-double
So I don’t get shot

--From one of the myriad parodies of Jennifer Lopez’ Jenny From The Block

The world got its first view in seven months of deposed Iraq President Saddam Hussein on the news this morning. Watching him point his pen at his interviewers had all the entertainment value of watching a stick being poked at a caged lion, that is to say, none at all.

Thinner, older-looking and sporting a gray beard--which contrasted curiously with his jet-black hair--Hussein was the very model of a deposed totalitarian: still-defiant, arrogant and angry. And why shouldn’t he be angry? He had it all: money, power, palaces, women (no doubt), weapons, all acquired at such little cost; just a few hundred thousand corpses of his countrymen and a little payola from the UN. Now it’s all down the tubes, courtesy of that “criminal,” George W. Bush. I’d be PO’d, too, if I were him and didn’t have a conscience. (Question: are deposed presidents still properly referred to as “President So-and-so?” If so, then, yes, Saddam Hussein is correct, he’s President of Iraq, just not the sitting one.)

What a charming old man!

Word Definitions and True Meanings

My very conservative and even more acerbic friend, Ron, sent me this list of alternate word definitions (he didn’t know the attribution). Cynical, but humorous:

1. Cigarette: A pinch of tobacco rolled in paper with fire at one end and a
fool at the other.

2. Marriage: It's an agreement in which a man loses his bachelor degree and a woman gains her master

3. Divorce: Future tense of marriage

4. Lecture: An art of transferring information from the notes of the
lecturer to the notes of the students without passing through "the minds of either".

5. Conference: The confusion of one man multiplied by the number present.

6. Compromise: The art of dividing a cake in such a way that everybody
believes he has the biggest piece.

7. Tears: The hydraulic force by which masculine will-power is defeated by feminine water-power

8. Dictionary: A place where divorce comes before marriage.

9. Conference Room: A place where everybody talks, nobody listens & everybody disagrees later on.

10. Ecstasy: A feeling when you feel you are going to feel a feeling you have never felt before.

11. Classic: A book which people praise, but do not read.

12. Smile: A curve that can set a lot of things straight.

13. Office: A place where you can relax after your strenuous home life.

14. Yawn: The only time some married men ever get to open their mouth.

15. Etc.: A sign to make others believe that you know more than you actually do.

16. Experience: The name men give to their mistakes.

17. Atom Bomb: An invention to end all inventions.

18. Philosopher: A fool who torments himself during life, to be spoken of when dead.

19. Diplomat: A person who tells you to go to hell in such a way that you actually look forward to the trip.

20. Opportunist: A person who starts taking bath if he accidentally falls
into a river.

21. Optimist: A person who while falling from Eiffel Tower says in midway
"See I am not injured yet."

22. Miser: A person who lives poor so that he can die rich.

23. Father: A banker provided by nature.

24. Criminal: A guy no different from the rest... except that he got caught.

25. Boss: Someone who is early when you are late and late when you are
early.

26. Politician: One who shakes your hand before elections and your
Confidence after.

27. Doctor: A person who kills your ills by pills, and kills you with his
bills.

Riding The Tide

Jesse Jackson continues his quest to line his pockets.

Chicago (CNSNews.com) - Jesse Jackson says NASCAR should feature more African-American drivers because "negroes can drive cars fast."

Apparently Jesse saw me hauling it down I-5 a week or so ago.

"One thing I know, negroes can drive cars fast," Jackson said to laughter. "I mean, we go through red lights, even [drive] at night with our lights off. We can drive cars fast," he asserted from the podium.

Oh, yeah, sure. Get NASCAR to sponsor an annual gang-banger race. Gang-bangers and Good Ole Boys living together. Sounds like prison. I wonder who will be the better armed.

[NASCAR's vice president of marketing George] Pyne left no doubt that NASCAR was currently supporting Jackson.

"To the extent that Rainbow/PUSH is committed to making NASCAR more diverse, we support them," Pyne said in an interview with CNSNews.com following the luncheon.

Pyne was unequivocal in his defense of NASCAR's decision to support Jackson.

"I would point out that there are a number of Fortune 500 companies that support Rainbow/PUSH and every other major sport America supports, or a number of major sports entities, support Rainbow PUSH," Pyne said. [SNIP]

"We certainly would think that we would want to be in step with the other sports and corporations in America, and it's consistent with how we approach the business," he added.

Whose problem is Jesse Jackson? As I previously stated, he is the problem of white America, specifically “white” corporate America. That Fortune 500 companies in large numbers have fallen for Jackson’s scam does not justify NASCAR’s support. Their support merely indicates that they’re just as cowardly (and guilt-ridden, rightly or wrongly) as the the other companies.

However, I can understand why NASCAR, in particular, would go this route: the sport is perceived to be the province of southern white men, whose reputation as racist has long outlived their actuality in numbers and effectiveness. Look at the comments of Rainbow/PUSH Coalition board member, Bill Shack, from last year, playing on this history:

Chicago (CNSNews.com) - A board member of Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH Coalition says auto-racing organizations such as NASCAR (National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing) are "the last bastion of white supremacy" in professional sports.

(Personally, I’ve experienced all my racially-charged incidents from whites right here in California; northern California is lousy with such knuckleheads.)

I’m betting that this perception played a large part in NASCAR’s decision to bow to Jackson’s pressure. It’s a reasonable, real-world decision, if an unfortunate one.

And I have a few questions: what if not enough “bruthas” want to become NASCAR drivers? Will NASCAR be vilified for that? And what’s next? Will the NHL be forced to have a quota? There’d have to be one for the NBA also. (By the way, my oldest nephew plays some serious hockey. I think that he might become one of the few black NHL players in upcoming years. However, since he’s only half black, will he only fill half of the quota slot? My head hurts.)

Back to the article:

I wonder if NASCAR cares more about its endorsements than its fans (actually, I don’t wonder):

"Despite the expression of opposition from thousands of NASCAR's fans last year to NASCAR's support of Jackson, it looks like NASCAR is now fully embracing him" [President of the National Legal and Policy Center Peter]Flaherty, the president of the Virginia-based legal group, told CNSNews.com on Wednesday.

But NASCAR’s executives have folded. Check out these subsequent comments from Shack:

"[NASCAR] appear[s] to be moving in the right direction. They appear to have an attitudinal shift. I think that they are making progress," Shack said following Tuesday's luncheon.

Attitudinal Shift: very telling verbiage this is. NASCAR’s executives have shifted their attitude to the politically correct one. Too bad for them.

Feel guilty for your corporations’ past or, maybe, your personal past, “White” Corporate America? Fine. But there are better ways to assuage it than to throw money at a charlatan who claims to speak for Americans of African descent. Try holding us to the same standard as yourselves. That is true anti-racism: believing that blacks are just as intelligent, self-disciplined and accomplished as your white peers are and expecting us to be your equals, not your bought chattel.