The Left Says, "You're Ugly!"

Michelle Malkin drew my attention to my home paper where Cheri Pierson Yecke writes about certain members of the Left frequently use unsophisticated criticisms to attack conservatives (or at least against enemies of the Left).

Certainly conservative men (and anyone who challenges the Left) are targetted with words such as "fat", "ugly", or check out the comments section of certain blogs to find even worse insults. Yecke mentions that some women on the Left take no pride in seeing a successful woman if she happens to think like Condi, Katherine Harris, or the Star-Trib's own Kathy Kersten.

Where are the feminists? Their silence speaks volumes about their convictions and partisan leanings. After all, it is mainly conservative women who have been the victims of this sort of media slashing. Sad to say, with few exceptions, the circling vultures are left-leaning women.

Has our culture become so shallow, and our sensibilities so numb, that we will accept from adults the sort of vicious behavior that we would never accept from our children?

Ann Coulter wrote about it in her book "Slander". As you probably know, some on the Left take delight in insulting Coulter's looks... evidently they cannot stand an attractive woman with backbone, guts, and a sharp tongue. At least not if she supports conservatives.

Aging Reporter Ponders '08 Retirement

A sinful and selfish retirement planned by Helen Thomas.

Helen... do you believe we care what you think?

Smoking Ban: Loosening the Grip

Hey! The good folks at Anti-Strib saw a little comment I made... and now I get a little hat tip. :-D Okay, I probably better get this posted soon.

By the way, don't just visit the Anti-Strib for the commentary on the Strib's article, visit for America the Beautiful. ;)


One of my first posts, in fact it was my first post, centered on the smoking ban and property rights. Now, I read in the Strib that Hennepin County will commission a study on the ecconomic effects of the ban and possibly change it a little later this fall. Fine.

Well, I'm a little disappointed that no one against this smoking ban seems to want to mention property rights. Perhaps I should take that as a sign! ;)

There seems to be something else at work here. The swing vote guy on this whole deal is Commissioner Peter McLaughlin. The story says the study should be done in the fall... which seems to time well for McLaughlin who plans to run for Mayor of Minneapolis. He also voted for the ban last fall. Hmmm... perhaps it is me, but I'm smelling an opportunity for McLaughlin to say (words to the effect of), "I voted for it before I was against it".

I just hope the ban eventually crumbles for the sake of property owners' rights.

Old News: Buckley & O'Rourke Drink Funny

A friend of mine once showed me a little column featuring P.J. O'Rourke sampling wine with Christopher Buckley in a blind taste test... actually a blind test followed by a blind drunk test.

Funny? Hell yes. As good as anything by O'Rourke... or as my friend says, as good as anything by C. Buckley.

...Wine--indeed all booze--tastes horrid. This is because of the alcohol. Alcohol's flavor is so bad that no one would ever drink an alcoholic beverage--unless, of course, it contained alcohol. Hence the problem with wine writing. Despite all the hooey about attack and finish, fruits and flowers, round, robust length upon palate and the Robert Parker 100-point scale, we are swallowing the stuff to get high.

In view of this fundamental truth, Mr. Buckley, FYI's editor, and Mr. O'Rourke embarked, one fine afternoon, upon a Blind (Drunk) Wine Tasting. A wide variety of wines were sampled, ranging from the reputedly splendid to the allegedly pitiful. Selection of the better stuff was done by V., proprietor of a quietly chic potables emporium in Washington, D.C. Lesser plonk was chosen on the basis of silly names and ugly labels. Additional expertise came from the pages of Hugh Johnson's Pocket Encyclopedia of Wine, 1999 edition. This book was chosen because it is wide-ranging, authoritative, concise and the only wine guide for sale at the local Hallmark card and gift shop.

This is fairly old... in fact, it took place last century. ;) I just ran across it again and had to mention it.

CNN: Poor Taste in James Doohan's Obit

Rest in peace, Mr. Doohan... and shame on you CNN.

First, I'm not a huge fan of the original Star Trek... just a little to socialist for my tastes. (I am a bigger fan of Deep Space Nine and Star Trek: The Next Generation.) However, it's hard not to have fun watching the old series or the movies with the original crew.

Even without a fan's adoration, how can you not love Scotty? Jimmy Doohan was always wonderful in the show and films... and his interviews were always a treat. I have heard from fans who saw Mr. Doohan at conventions that he is very friendly to and greatful for the fans... and just charming.

Let me get to my admonishment of CNN. Take a look at the obit they posted. Well, most of it is good... a nice tribute. However, focus on the following:

He accused Shatner of hogging the camera, adding: "I like Captain Kirk, but I sure don't like Bill. He's so insecure that all he can think about is himself."

How tacky! I'm not a big Shatner fan myself (although, in the past 10 years he's been very funny and self-depricating... and that can redeem a lot of crap).

I believe there was a slightly different obit earlier in the day which I have not yet found, so I may be entirely wrong. However, if I remember correctly it was much worse. When was the quote regarding Bill Shatner? I suspect it was at least ten if not fifteen years ago or more.

As I heard a while ago, Shatner admitted on a late night talk show (probably Conan O'Brien) that he learned how much the cast disliked and hated him once started interviewing his old castmates for his autobiography. Like I mentioned before, it seems like Shatner has really learned to poke fun at himself in public over the last several years... but even if he's still an ass, his co-star's obituary is hardly the place to continue attacks on William Shatner.

No wonder FOX is kicking the tar out of CNN.

God Bless Australia

The spirit, courage, and resolve of our ally Prime Minister John Howard of Australia deserves our thanks and a strengthening of our own resolve.

See Powerline for comments from Australia's PM.

...once a country allows its foreign policy to be determined by terrorism, it's given the game away, to use the vernacular. And no Australian government that I lead will ever have policies determined by terrorism or terrorist threats, and no self-respecting government of any political stripe in Australia would allow that to happen.

Now, off to a brief vacation. I should toast good Mister Howard... perhaps a couple of times! ;)

Short Attention Span News... and Long-Term Short-Stories

Tony Blankly's column in the Jewish World Review covers the frustratingly brief coverage of last week's London bombings... while on the other hand, some newscasters wish to hold on to less important stories for as long as possible (updates from Aruba).

What gives? He suggests that this could come from politically correct attitudes.

Political correctness started out as an externally applied pressure placed by academic elites on regular people not to say certain things that were judged improper.

But it has become a more dangerous phenomenon now. Government, law enforcement, military officials and many regular citizens are beginning to internalize the politically correct mentality. If government officials, the media and increasing elements of the public actually begin to believe that there is no relationship between Islam as currently practiced by some percentage of the Moslem population and the mortal threat of terrorism—then it will be hard if not impossible to mount an effective defense.

Teachers and Students... Who Serves Who?

What's wrong with this picture?

In this morning's edition of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune (also known as The Enemy Paper or the Star-and-Sickle), the front page has the picture above the fold. The headline: Finding Teachers For Tomorrow. The first thing I noticed... nice to see a teacher wearing a Che shirt.

Forget the fact that he dresses like a student (big shock, he's a college student), he's wearing the fashion icon of a murdering commie thug.

As if that weren't enough, I start reading the article and a nationwide program (Breakthrough Collaborative) apparently considers the lack of teachers "of color" a big problem. Not worried about quality at all, are you folks? Later, the article says (according to Breakthrough Collaborative) 57 percent of its potential teachers are of color while the national average is 17 percent.

Call me ignorant and color me closed-minded, but my main concern with teachers center on their qualifications, success rate, ability to speak English, the judgement to know that Che was a murdering commie thug, and the taste to keep them from wearing a shirt with the image of Che on it. Obviously, I don't want them to be anti-American, but finding a teacher who doesn't blame America first is getting harder and harder. If they actually dress like a grown-up that's more into the bargain for me. If they happen to be black, Irish, Chinese, Scottish, Indian, Nigerian, Russian, or Mexican I'm not really going to have a problem... because it is largely irrelevant.

The teachers are there for the students... meaning the purpose of schools is to have teachers serve the students' education. It isn't the other way around... the students are not in school to provide jobs for teachers, much less provide teachers "of color" a job via Affirmative Action.

Could someone get a sense of priorities, please?

(Also, it is apparently going to cost and additional $800 million for 2006 and 2007. We don't have a money problem, folks... this is vast prosperity.)


UPDATE: July 26th, 2005 at 2:10 PM
See Rambix for a similar story.

Today, We're British!

Many folks around the world turned their heads toward our shores back in 2001 on the morning of September the 11th... I recall no small number called themselves Americans to stand with us in the face of barbarity.

Now, 229 years after we told King George III and his men to push off we should stand solidly yet again with our cousins in Great Britian. We stood twice in the previous century against fascism... we stood together in the Cold War.

(Credit where credit is due, the Bull Moose blog suggested the idea.)

Surely, this attack is hardly as vicious or deadly as the hijackings... however, that's not the point. I was heartened by a Brit e-mail sent to National Review Online for the Corner.

We have faced terror before - Nazi terror, Irish Republican terror - and have not been beaten. This will not beat us either.

The overwhelming feeling round our office is "Is this best they can do?" - it looks and sounds much worse on 24hr news channels than in person.

I would gladly buy this Brit a beer... or a scotch... or both. Tough as old boots.


UPDATE: 1:04 PM, July 7th, 2005

Ah, the Kids... they can say the most rediculous, mind-numbing drivel. ;) Check out Decision '08 (because it's never too early).