Talk show hosts and their callers are still going beserk over the presumptive nomination of John McCain. McCain's call  for party members to "calm down" lit their fires all over again. They were insulted that McCain implied that they were acting like children. Well guess what? They are.

They want to adhere to their "principles" as conservatives. If McCain won't come over to their way of thinking, they will "punish him" by sitting out the election, insuring the Democrats win.

Get real. The Democrats are probably going to win anyway. Look at the raw vote count in the primaries. The Democrats outvoted the Republicans two to one, and that was with the conservative favorites on the field. The Republican party is in decline. Making a public spectacle of the sad situation by committing hari-kari in front of the media just makes it all more pathetic.

If the Republicans had a decent conservative candidate, he should have run. The two names I hear batted around the most as possibles to fill that category have been Jeb Bush and George Allen. Neither one is or will be viable as a presidential candidate. Does anyone possibly believe the public will vote a third Bush into the White House? Allen is politically dead. Can you can "macaca"?

So it comes down to rebuilding and redefining the party, but no one seems to have a clue how to do that. Republicans should realistically figure on being out of office for eight (yes, 8) years or more and during that time they should try to figure out who they are. Right now, they are just a mob, trying to self destruct.

The fat is in the fire now. Conservative talk show hosts are having a hissy fit over Senator John MaCain's victory on Super Tuesday. It's the worst-case scenario, and they and many of their "dittohead" listeners have drilled themselves into the ground on this one.

After months of beating McCain with a battery of verbal clubs, the hosts have essentially told their listeners that voting for McCain proves you are not a conservative. Without the conservative "base", at least in theory, McCain doesn't stand a chance in November. By vilifying McCain to almost equating him with the anti-Christ, the talkers have helped the Democrats win in November.

Some are trying to play this down, speculating only four years in the wilderness. But even Limbaugh hedged on this today, noting that the conservative period of drought between Barry Goldwater in '64 and Ronald Maximus Reagan in '80 was more like 16 years of wandering.

Some like Sean Hannity are suggesting that a compromise might happen, if John McCain is willing to come to them. (Interesting, the attitude of power brokering). If he doesn't, they seem ready to lead their legions of loyal listeners into a  "sit it out" campaign in the fall. Sort of like destroying the village in order to save it. It's weird and the logic escapes me, but it's like Jim Jones said to his followers "Drink the Kool-Aide".

I'm becoming convinced that the Republicans want to lose the Presidential election. I've been voting since 1964 and have never seen such self-destructive internal fighting in a political party.

The impression I have from talk radio is that the commentators and most of their callers would rather have Hillary or Obama win than John McCain. They prefer to sink the ship rather than have it commanded by a person who lacks their requisite "conservative" credentials. To them, they are the "base" of the party and anyone who does not subscribe totally to their mantra should be thrown overboard, to use another nautical metaphor.

I do not believe that if John McCain wins the nomination, they will suddenly rally around the flag. The damage has been done, and the R's are digging themselves in deeper every day. The talk show hosts and their followers are throwing the game, and trying to take the party along with them.

I confess that I never really noticed the zealotry before John McCain emerged as a front runner. I knew he was disliked by the talking microphones, but I didn't realize the depth of their hatred. I also realized that they think they "own" the Republican party, and that anyone who is not a Reagan conservative is a heretic and should move over to the Democrats. I'm not going there, but they sure have shown me that the crazies on the right are as bad as the crazies on the left.

I can only guess that they hope for the loss so they can say "we told you so", to find an approved candidate for 2012.  I only have one question at this point:

If conservatives are the "base" and majority of the party, why is John McCain in the lead?

I’m a recovering talk show listener. I’ve learned in the past few months that the major hosts not only march to the same drummer, but when they turn on someone en mass, they are as vicious as any mob.

 Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and Glenn Beck are the ones I am talking about. Since John McCain began to gain momentum, these four (and maybe others as well) have attacked him as though he were the devil incarnate. If McCain does get the nomination, these hosts are the Democrats best friends, because they have gone out of their ways to poison the well of the Republican party if McCain is the nominee. For instance, just yesterday, Glen Beck referred to Senator McCain as a “two faced son of a b**ch”.  

The talkers have become hysterical. McCain doesn’t come close to meeting their criteria as “conservative”, so he needs to be lynched. They prattle on about Ronald Reagan as though he had been the Second Coming. I hate to tell you this folks, but Reagan is dead. That aside, he wasn’t exactly perfect. I voted for him twice, and he was a good President, but rewriting history about his time in office has become boring. 

Senator McCain may or may not become the nominee. Either way, the talk show hosts have shown that they can be more vicious and vituperative than any Democrat. McCain certainly isn’t perfect, but obviously people are voting for him or he would not be the front runner. I think the talk show hosts are the ones who are out of touch, not McCain. 

These hosts seem to think that they are the arbiters of who is a Republican. They hold up their conservative standards as the only acceptable attributes. Their zealotry has become disturbing, and in my opinion they are doing their best to make sure that John McCain loses, even if it means forfeiting the election to the Democrats. 

I know this much; they have helped me decide to vote for McCain. I’ve also decided to listen to music when I drive.

 

I've not written here for quite some time, but an article in the New York Post got me going. According to the piece, NBC is negotiating to pay Paris Hilton $1,000,000.00 for her first interview upon exiting the jailhouse in a week or so. NBC wasn't  the only one to offer the poor little rich girl the big bucks.  Apparently ABC is ticked off because NBC grabbed the brass ring out from under their noses.

Let me see if I've got this straight: Paris Hilton gets some DUI's, gets probation, breaks probation, goes to jail, gets out of jail, goes to jail again, and is getting out next week to get a million dollar payday.

There is so much that is sad and pathetic about our culture in this that I'm having a tough time wrapping my brain around it. Meredith Vieira is doing the interview, so I suppose NBC considers this "news".  Our one-time laudable national news media has sunken below the level of the supermarket tabloids and they wonder why we think they are a joke. The sad part about it is the intereview will undoubtedly get huge ratings. The media panders to our lowest common denominator and we lap it up.

Old timers used to say that we're "going to hell in a handcart". We passed that stop some time back.

We can win or we can lose. That is where we are in the Iraq war today. To read the media or listen to liberal politicians, we are losing, losing, losing, and the sooner we accept that and get out, the better off we'll be.

We have around 2.5 million men and women in the military, and about 150,000 of them are in Iraq. If my calculator is correct, this means about six percent of our forces are there. I know that simply using raw numbers is misleading, but even if our numbers in Iraq were doubled or even tripled, it amounts to a small percentage of of military personnel.

The antiwar critiques contend we cannot win. They are suggesting that a country who fought and won two world wars is helpless against an insurgency of less than 100,000. For all our power and technology, we are being defeated by a ragtag band of guerillas.

Since we can't win, we might as well pull out. Bring the troops home, lick our wounds, and spin the loss somehow. But where does this leave us, and what happens next?

Imagine the joy and celebration in the Middle East as the extremists dance and frolic expressing their victory over the Great Satan. No matter how we spin it, we will have been humiliated. Our currency in that region and in much of the world will become worthless. Not only should our allies distrust any notion that we will support them, but our enemies will be emboldened as never before. Beating us means they are strong and we are weak. They will want more. Anyone who thinks that by leaving Iraq we solve a problem is delusional. By leaving Iraq we create a problem larger than we can even imagine.

Are we already defeated? Is this our new place in the world? It seems sad to think of us as the former super power and now irrelevant United States of America.

 

I enjoy reading liberal blogs. Whenever I think I'm becoming too conservative, I cruise over to the lefty blogs. In quicktime, I'm balanced once again. The vociferous and palpable anger and venom at Daily Kos, Huffington Post and others reinforce my sense of center. As long as I'm well to the right of these strange folks, I'm pretty much in center field.

It will certainly be interesting watching the political scene come January. So many of these loony lefties see the election of a Demo Congress as Nirvana. They seem to see massive changes overnight, from hauling the troops out of Iraq to passage of every imaginable left wing piece of legislation. Of course they expect to see the subpoenas flying and Republicans of every stripe grilled without mercy. Impeachment looms just over the horizon in their muddled sense of being in charge.

To be sure, the Democrats will probably raise the minimum wage, but after that, the parade slowly grinds to a halt. The issues  confronting Congress are too complex and too messy for the quick fix these delusional liberals envision. The rhetoric will flow, and soundbites will be all over the media. But in the end, the same cranky and muddy business of sausage making will continue. The leftie's sweeping change will be swept under the rug.

Welcome to the NFL new guys.

We're going to lose another war. The Democrat victory last week assured it. Come January, the push will be on as never before to pull out of Iraq as soon as possible. John Murtha will likely lead the charge, and the troops will probably be home long before the end of next year.

The Democrats finally have their opportunity to make Iraq into another Vietnam. America will once again tuck its tail between its legs and leave in defeat. To be sure, words like "redeployment" will be tossed about, but our enemies know the truth - they beat us. Our strength in the Middle East will be gone, because the terrorists know that we're not coming back, no matter how much havoc they wreak. What happens in the Middle East after that is speculation, but outside of the control or influence of the United States.

Perhaps the results will not be so bad; oil prices may not go up so much, the internal conflicts of that area may occupy much of their time, and they may leave us alone. Running away from the bullies may save us, for awhile. Eventually, they may come after us again, but maybe we can appease them in some new and creative way.

So John Kerry and Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter will get their wish. Evil America will once again be shown for what it is. Our troops will stop "terrorizing" Iraqi women and children (Kerry), and will no longer be compared to torturers and murderers (Kennedy). With Congress under new management, we can lick our wounds and pretend it never happened.

After Vietnam, I thought we learned a lesson. Clearly we did not. The antiwar forces have once again prevailed, and we will slip another notch as a world power. The message is clear: Don't trust Americans. American rhetoric of freedom and democracy for all is shallow. We only mean it if we don't have to pay a price. If the bullies get too tough, we'll run away.

Congressman Mark Foley resigned last week after being accused of sending salacious emails and instant messages to an underage former Congressional Page.

Since he resigned as soon as the story became public, the presumption of guilt is valid. He made no defense, but rather checked himself in to a rehabilitation clinic, claiming his problem is alcoholism. A few days later, he had a spokesman announce that when he was a teen Foley had been molested by a member of the clergy.

Let's get it straight. Foley is a pervert. Whether or not he is an alcoholic has nothing to do with it. Checking into a rehab and announcing a molestation decades ago changes nothing. He is clearly trying to evoke sympathy as some sort of victim. He is not a victim, he is a predator, and one of the worst sort. To suggest his weirdo proclivities are a result of his drinking is an insult to anyone who truly does battle substance abuse. Foley is an abuser alright, but not of the bottle.

As far as the politics of who knew about Foley and when, that will all come out in time. The real point here is that this creep should not be allowed to claim victimhood. He's a sick freak.

Is the war in Iraq going well or badly? That seems to depend on who is doing the observing. I'd like to play devil's advocate and in so doing ask a few questions:

Let us suppose the war is going badly and we decide to cut our losses and pull out. Speculate on the future of Iraq and the Middle East if tomorrow no Americans were there.

My sense is this: In very short order Iran would take over Iraq, either directly by invasion or by proxy via Shia militas and proxy leaders. I could also see Syria jumping into the fray, expanding the effectiveness of the Iran/Syria/Hezbollah triad.

If we leave Iraq could this happen? What would prevent it?

Carrying this scenario along, what happens next? If Islamic radicals were in charge of a large piece of that region, how long would it take for radical control of more the region to take place? What would happen, say in Kuwait? Saudi Arabia? Jordan? It seems to me that radicals might likely become Hitler-like, and move to expand their territorial control.

If we leave Iraq could this happen? What would prevent it?

Suppose as part of an expansion, they now decided to play with oil prices. Some of these countries have the largest oil reserves in the world. Saudi Arabia:264 billion barrels, Iran: 132 billion, Iraq: 115 billion, and Kuwait:101 billion. Almost half of the planet's known oil reserves in four countries in the same region. If radicals controlled this resource, they could plunge the US and indeed the world economy into chaos simply by turning off the pumps for a few months.

If we leave Iraq could this happen? What would prevent it?

It is difficult seeing the war in Iraq slog on day after day, with no apparent end. It is horrific watching our young men and women being killed and wounded with no visible expectation of resolution.It is easy to be critical of our reasons for getting involved in Iraq. Historians will investigate this in the decades of the future. But today, rightly or wrongly, we are there. Our focus must be on finding a way to win. Pulling out only leaves us in a far worse place.

As a sort of conservative, I'm of the belief that the smaller government, the better. I also believe that control should be exercised by the smallest government entity possible. As much as I believe this achieves the greatest possible results, the days of small government having almost any control whatsoever seem to be over.

When I was young, schools were run almost exclusively by local school boards. There was almost no interference from higher levels of government, and frankly the schools seemed to work pretty well. Most of us graduated from elementary and secondary schools with a reasonably rounded and complete education. One thing was for sure: most of us could read, write and do basic math. My observation is that has all changed, and much of it is the fault of the monstrous education bureaucracy.

I teach at a local community college. I've been teaching as an adjunct instructor for ten years now, and have taught at three different community colleges and a state university. I'm currently teaching basic skills reading and writing. Basic skills are for students who have scored below minimum on basic state proficiency tests. Somehow they passed high school proficiency tests to get out of high school, but three months later fail basic skills tests for community college.

Each year my school admits over 5000 (That's right,5000) new students who fail to meet basic skills levels in reading, writing or math, and sometimes in all three. These kids come from schools all across the county, and from adjacent counties as well. Deficiencies are many and varied, but basic skills students typically cannot write a simple essay, struggle to read beyond the grade school level, and are barely functional in math skills.The fact that they graduated from high school means nothing; they are graduated with or without minimal skills.

Most of these kids are reasonably bright. They are simply uneducated. Beyond the skills mentioned, they have almost no concept of things like geography or civics, science or current events. For the most part, a student can get through high school today simply by showing up.

So what happened? How did we go from educated to uneducated students in a few decades? In part, I blame the education machine. Today we have government at every level putting its two cents into education and screwing it up. At least four levels, local, county, state and federal have something to say about how our kids are educated. They create requirements and tests and reports ad nauseam. They throw money at the problem, and rarely stop to observe that money does not work.

Teacher unions are also part of the problem. They have so politicized the role of the teacher that everyone in the school system is more worried about CYA than teaching the kids.In ten years I've observed one major point: the kids are coming in less educated each year. The system is on a downward slope.I'm sure individual teachers try their best, but they are caught in the quicksand created by both their unions and the government bureaucrats.

I practice "triage" teaching. I do the best I can with my students in fifteen weeks, but realize I'll never offset twelve years of failed education. It saddens me and makes me angry.I listen to politicians and "educators" endlessly babbling about "the children" when all they really care about are themselves and their feifdoms. It's hard not to be gloomy watching these phonies pontificate while our kids get short changed more and more every year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

When I came home from Vietnam, one of the first things I noticed was how little the war seemed to effect everyone else. People went to work, watched football games, went out to dinner, and generally lived their lives normally. No matter that 12000 miles away young Americans were dying. The war had precious little effect on the public at large. Sure, there was a draft, but even with that, the odds of any given male being drafted were less than one in ten.

I just heard a CNN reporter referring to "war weary Americans", and it made me wonder what is causing their weariness? To be sure, any person with a son or daughter or brother or sister in the military has plenty to worry about and be concerned with. But outside of these overly burdened folks, the rest of us have it pretty easy. Unlike World War II, there is no rationing, no inconvenience of any kind. We have it pretty easy while once again a few young men and women carry the load.

I wonder how many Americans even know a soldier or Marine, much less than one in Iraq or Afghanistan? With no draft, the public has far less exposure to the military than perhaps ever in our history. Outside of airports, I would venture few Americans rarely even see one of our folks in uniform.

I know a few men and women who have been to Iraq, and a few more who could go any time. That makes me lucky, knowing them. These are some of the finest young men and women in our land. If anyone has the right to be "weary", it's them and their families. Too many of the rest of us are more interested in American Idol or the upcoming football season. We now have wars without sacrifice, except for a brave and noble few. The rest of us have no right being "weary". Posturing and feigning concern about our troops is hypocritical. You either really care or you don't care at all. I believe too many of us fall in the latter category.

 

What would you do? This is the question which needs to be asked of all 2008 Presidential contenders. Specifically, what would you do about the Iraq war? With some detail, if you please?

We always let politicians off the hook. Since the war in Iraq is one of the biggest issues of the day, we need to ask the question,and demand specific answers, not the usual political obfuscation.

Any candidate for President should be able to enunciate clearly his or her position. Stay in Iraq? Leave Iraq? When? With a clear schedule or based on conditions? This is an easy question. Any politician without a specific answer to what he or she would do
does not deserve to win.

It's not a matter of being prowar or antiwar. It's a matter of precision and a matter of clarity. Will you, Mr. Candidate, continue to pursue our military activities in Iraq, or will you bring the troops home? Please answer in detail.

Nixon had a "secret plan" for ending the Vietnam war. That turned out to be nothing more than pulling out under the guise of "Vietnamization". No more tolerance for "secret plans".

Any high school student can write a 500 word composition and generally stick to the topic. For once, each candidate should be required to give us at least this much on their position on Iraq.
Knock off the obscuring and diversion, can the hyperbole and rhetoric.  In 500 words or less, state your position. If you can't do that, or we can't understand your essay, you're fired before you're even hired.

 

 

Senator Joe Biden from Delaware is one of the early wannabes for the 2008 Democrat nomination for President. When asked recently about his chances in the South against contenders from that region, Biden noted he would have no problem because his state was a slave state.

It appears that Delaware was indeed a slave state during the Civil War, although it did not leave the Union. It just seems strange to me however, that Biden would use that way to describe his chances against southern Democrats for the nomination.

Does he think that this will endear him to Southerners? That because Delaware had slaves that makes him part of the club? Besides the fact that it is incredibly insulting to Southerners, It was just a bizarre thing to say. 

I understand that Biden is trying to distance himself from the image as a liberal from the Northeast, but to me Delaware is at the very least a Mid Atlantic state, certainly not a southern one. Joe, you just can't join that club.

But hey, I'm from Jersey. What do I know?
 

I don't watch Entertainment Tonight, but last night immediately following the evening news their screaming setup caught my attention. The lead and about half the show sensationalized the JonBenet Ramsey murder. Image after image of her possible murderer, John Mark Karr were woven between often seductive pictures of that poor little girl. Murder, especially sordid murder, is clearly now entertainment in the eyes of the media.

Too be sure, this is nothing new. Tabloids and television have long sought the goriest for the front page. There was a time, however, when some discretion was used. No longer.

"If it bleeds, it leads", has long been a media cliche. From the Manson murders to Princess Diana, we've seen and read far more about insanity and tragedy than has ever been necessary. I can understand CBS or CNN or even Court TV regurgitating this "story" under the loose rubric of "news".
 
Entertainment Tonight packaging this poor little girl along with the Teen Choice Awards is one step further down in our descent into perdition.