Michelle Malkin, apparently still trying to be more appalling that Ann Coulter, has succeeded with this week’s column, Abu Ghraib-i-fying America’s Schools. 

From the title (which is designed to both denigrate the topic of corporal punishment AND the Abu Graib abuses), right down to the conclusion, which basically urges America to HIT KIDS HARDER, this is a piece which demands a more scathing response than the patented Wo’C good-natured snark.  But hey, here is my commentary (or as much of one as I could write without wanting to beat someone myself).  Please feel free to add your own comments.  Here’s a link to the report, for anyone who wants to do their own research (Michelle, you might want to read it too):   A Violent Education: Corporal Punishment of Children in US Public Schools.

Now, here’s Michelle:

The citizens of the world who hate America are going to love the latest agitprop released this week by Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union.

Of course, one’s first reaction when reading a report about children being hit in schools should be, “How will the people who hate America view this?, rather than “Shouldn’t we do something about this?”

In a document titled “A Violent Education: Corporal Punishment of Children in U.S. Public Schools,” the left-wing groups seek to paint a horrifying portrait of the nation’s classrooms as Abu Ghraib-like torture chambers.

But since we already know that Abu Ghraib just involved high-spirited shenanigans and fraternity initiation-like antics, what kind of self-respecting agitprop would seek to paint such an ineffective portrait.  (Oh, and Michelle, the report doesn’t cover the entire nation’s classrooms, as corporal punishment is banned in 29 states — and Texas is responsible for about a fourth of all the reported incidences of corporal punishment in schools.)

The report compiles sob stories of students humiliated after being disciplined by school officials for unruliness,

And also compiles stories of students sent to the hospital after being beaten for crimes such as not paying attention in class.  And if those were “sob stories,” the kids really did have something to sob about.

and claims that minority students are “disproportionately targeted” for punishment.

In that statistics show that they are.

The report says that “more than 200,000 U.S. public school students were punished by beatings during the 2006-2007 school year,” but makes no distinction between “beatings” that take the form of mere knuckle-rapping versus swats on the backside versus over-the-line violent confrontations.

Because that figure comes from the Office for Civil Rights at the United States Department of Education, and it only covers the NUMBER OF STUDENTS that the school REPORTED as having received corporal punishment that year.  So, the number of incidents is undoutedly much higher.  And while most of the incidents didn’t leave any broken bones, the point is that thousands of kids are being physically disciplined in public schools each year.

In several of the anecdotes cited, it wasn’t bruised bottoms that upset the supposedly brutalized students. It was bruised egos.

And in several other anecdotes cited, the students were severely bruised.  However, no matter how much or little physical injury was caused, I, like the authors of the study, believe that corporal punishment is destructive and degrading, and that children should be taught to counteract, not perpetuate, violence.

Peter S., a middle-school student from the Mississippi Delta, whined to the researchers: “The other kids were watching and laughing. It made me want to fight them. When you get a paddling and you see everyone laugh at you, it make you mad and you want to do something about it.” How about ending your bad behavior and flying right?

Actually, Michelle, it was Matthew S. (253) who said that, and I don’t think he was “whining” so much as “angrily contemplating perpetuating the violence that had been shown to him.”  His remark was cited in a section of the report about how students and teachers “saw links between corporal punishment and bullying or peer aggression.” And just what “bad behavior” had Matthew been guilty of that earned him a beating with a paddle?  The report doesn’t say, but the odds are, it was something like tardiness or talking in class.  Here’s a section from the report that Michelle presumably missed:

The large majority of instances of corporal punishment reported to Human Rights Watch was for minor infractions, such as having a shirt untucked,129 being tardy (late to class or to school),130 or talking in class131 or in the hallway.132 [...]

Human Rights Watch received reports of corporal punishment in response to a wide range of minor misbehavior. Students were paddled for eating or drinking in class,136 sleeping in class,137 walking on the wrong side of the hallway,138 running in the hallway,139 talking back to a teacher,140 not turning in homework,141 not having a belt in violation of the dress code,142 and going to the bathroom without permission.143

So yeah, Matthew, get that shirt tucked in and fly right, you little criminal!

Of course educators must use common sense when punishing bad apples.

Here, let’s read about one of  those “bad apples” from the report.

One very young student in Texas, a three-year-old boy attending a public pre-kindergarten program, was beaten and bruised during paddling. The program was run at the local elementary school and governed by the school district policy on discipline.223 The boy, who has diagnosed Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), was paddled for taking off his shoes and for playing with an air conditioner. He became reluctant to go to school: his mother reported that “all he would say is that ‘she [the principal] hit him with a board.’”224 The child sustained bruises to his hips that reached around to his belly button.

Doesn’t Michelle have a daughter who is about four now?  Would she call her kid a “bad apple” if the child takes off her shoes or otherwise  acts like a four-year-old?  Would she want “educators” striking her child?  If not, why is it okay for other kids?

Of course they should be held accountable if they cause undue harm.

So moderate harm is okay.

But the agenda of these outfits is not to ensure the safety of everyone in the classroom. Their agenda is to demonize unapologetic enforcers of order and to impose international dictates on American public institutions.

“Unapologetic enforcers of order” — isn’t that what the S.S. was called?  (Okay, it wasn’t, but I really hate how Michelle is defending teachers and school administrators who think HITTING LITTLE KIDS is a good disciplinary method.)

The main author of the report is a special fellow with the Open Society Institute, funded by George (America must be “de-Nazified”) Soros.

The main (or secondary, depending on who you believe) author of Michelle Malkin’s column is a columnist for Town Hall, which was funded by Richard Mellon (“also helped to fund Watergate”) Scaife.  Exactly what that says about Michelle, I’m not really sure.

Replete with references to the Convention against Torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the report declares in sweeping terms: “All corporal punishment, whether or not it causes significant physical injury, represents a violation of each student’s rights to physical integrity and human dignity. It is degrading and humiliating, damaging the student’s self-esteem and making him or her feel helpless.” It’s Gitmo all over again.

Yes, because Gitmo was just about hurting prisoners’ feelings.  And obviously this report is some kind of liberal/commie B.S., because children don’t have any rights, let alone human dignity.  And anyway, kids SHOULD feel helpless and degraded — it’s the only way to keep them in their place.

As usual, the Human Rights Watch/ACLU activists inject claims of racial discrimination into the mix — repeatedly underscoring that many of the remaining states that allow corporal punishment are in the South. They infer deliberate targeting of black students based on statistics that reportedly show that “in the 13 southern states where corporal punishment is most prevalent, African-American students are punished at 1.4 times the rate that would be expected given their numbers in the student population, and African-American girls are 2.1 times more likely to be paddled than might be expected.”

But that disproportion does not automatically equal discrimination.

The report never claims that it does.  The point is that black students disproportionately attend bad schools, schools which use corporal punishment as their method of maintaining order.

What they don’t tell you are the races or ethnicities of the victims of the thugs being disciplined.

Let’s read some more about some of those “thugs” and their “victims” from the report:

Students and teachers reported that students could be paddled for a catch-all category of “disrespect,” a term which is rarely defined in school policy and is used arbitrarily by teachers. [...] One middle schooler described punishments for “disrespect” as: “if you mess up, and don’t say ma’am or sir.”154

And are many of these “victims” of disrespect minorities themselves?  Yes, certainly.  But it’s still wrong to hit kids.

What they don’t bother to mention — because it doesn’t fit the America-as-torturer-of-minorities narrative — is the unmitigated violence perpetrated in American classrooms against minority teachers.

Because the “unmitigated violence against minority teachers” narrative is the subject of another report, possibly “The Blackboard Jungle’ or “To Sir, With Love.”  So, I’m going to skip Michelle’s little digression about all those minority teachers assaulted by students each year, possibly three-year-old students with ADHD.  Instead, I’ll quote a brief portion of the report that might be relevent to Michelle’s tangent:

Corporal punishment teaches students that violence is acceptable: it can make students aggressive, angry, and more likely to lash out against their peers or educators, and it can teach them that domestic violence is permissible.

But let us now return to Michelle for the exciting conclusion.

America’s problem isn’t that we’re too tough and cruel in the classroom. It’s that we’ve become too soft and placative, too ashamed and timid to assert authority and take unilateral action to guarantee a secure environment. Exactly where the human rights groups want us.

And, as we learned in “The Violent Years,” it’s just where the Commies want us, because making our students rude and disrespectful is the first step in their plot to RULE THE WORLD.  (The second step apparently involves the rape of strapping young men by pearl-wearing debutantes.) 

But anyway, if Michelle is right, then instead of just bruising little kids who take off their shoes in class, we should probably amputate their feet.  Because only that way will we look strong to our enemies.

Uncategorized | 50 Comments »

Over at Pajamas Media, John “Dirty Harry” Nolte is like a kid on Christmas Eve, trembling and giddy in anticipation of David Zucker arriving to lay waste all of Hollywood with jokes about Michael Moore’s unhealthful BMI.

In just this past year, counting both narratives and documentaries, we’ve seen nearly a dozen, high profile anti-Iraq War films and not a single one has made a profit or argued the other side.

Any decent anti-war movie is going to give equal time to promoting the pro-war side, because drama is conflict. (Note:  Equal Time provisions do not apply to AM Talk Radio.)  Besides, if Americans really hated the Iraq War, they’d eschew escapist fare like Iron Man and The Dark Knight, and spend their summer entertainment dollars watching movies that remind them how hateful the war they hate is.  And 7-Eleven would have offered its Rendition Big Gulp in the 64 and not just the 32 ounce size.

Unless it’s to inspire their annual cinematic treatise to all things them — the annual film decrying the 1950s blacklist which forced a few screenwriters to use a pseudonym –

Bunch’a babies.  John uses a pseudonyn when he blogs, and you don’t hear him whining about it.  Anyway, I’m probably not qualified to comment, since I missed this year’s big studio film decrying the blacklist.  And last year’s, too.  In fact, the most recent movie I can remember that even used the blacklist as a plot point was 2001′s The Majestic, but it’s entirely possible that the anti-Blacklist propaganda in The Hottie and the Nottie flew right over my head.

— present-day liberal Hollywood doesn’t much care for the word “blacklist,” especially when it’s them being accused of doing the blacklisting.  Their defense is to hide behind the literal and claim there is no actual blacklist or organized conspiracy to keep openly conservative filmmakers from getting work.

They hide their reluctance to produce Dirty’s movies behind feeble, transparent euphemisms like “trite melodrama,” “steaming, witless ejecta,” and “Good grief, how is it possible for any single person to suck this much without the assistance of a Shop-Vac?!”

Fine.

Okay, then.  Dirty goes on the recount how Hollywood leftists conspired to stop Mel Gibson’s (pre-Sugar Tits, and ante-anti-Semitic tirade) masterpiece, The Passion of the Christ.

…the goal was therefore two-fold: to hurt the movie financially (which obviously failed), but also to launch a pre-emptive strike against any filmmaker thinking about following Gibson’s lead and scampering off the liberal Hollywood plantation.

I thought that problem was settled by the Supreme Court in Dredd Scott v. Columbia/Screen Gems Home Entertainment.

The Passion may be the only film to make over a half-billion dollars and not create a me-too phenomenon.

Not one other major star belonging to a splinter Catholic cult run by his father, the Pope of Malibu, opted to spend millions of dollars of his own money to make an Aramaic language fetish video about beating up Jesus.  If that’s not a blacklist I don’t know what is.

A more tolerant industry, or at least one driven by financial considerations, would’ve quickly greenlit a serious-minded sequel based on the Acts of the Apostles.

If only Hollywood was more focused on the bottom line, we could be in a movie theater right now, enjoying Sister Acts of the Apostles II:  The Cock Crows At Midnight.

Reasonable people would call this a form of “blacklisting,” but liberal Hollywood isn’t reasonable and rather than have an honest discussion on the matter they instead wrap us ’round the axle of specificity when it comes to the word “blacklist. ”

They also insist on inflating the Tires of Proper Definition.

So let’s use another word: Passioning.

Well, the metaphors weren’t working out, so I guess we might as well try neologisms.  But let’s start by defining our crappy, made-up terms:

“Passioning” is what happens when the leftist Hollywood establishment, using whatever power available, demean, dismiss, diminish, and defame those they consider an ideological apostate. In 2004 it was Mel Gibson and The Passion of the Christ; today it’s director David Zucker and An American Carol.

According to Dirty, various bloggers have reacted with muted enthusiasm to The Passion of the Zucker, implying that a film in which Michael Moore “finds political clarity at the smoking ruins of the World Trade Center while the admonishing ghost of George Washington (played by Jon Voight) hovers nearby” may not provide the sort of rollicking, laugh-a-minute thrill ride that readers of internet spoiler sites legitimately expect.

Thus, like Red Channels, the Army-McCarthy Hearings, and the House Un-American Activities Committee, the iron heel of CHUD.com and Ain’t It Cool News grinds another artist into the dust for the crime of standing up and declaring, “I am not a number!  I am a free man!… By the way, how’re the weekend numbers?”

Tinsel Town Talk | 23 Comments »

Let’s skip the preliminaries, and jump right into Dr. Mike’s latest, “Fat Lesbians on Crack.”

So this lesbian goes walking into a counselor’s office to get help with her same-sexed relationship. Actually, it sounds like the start of a really bad joke but it isn’t. The counselor’s name is Marcia Walden. In addition to being a counselor she is a devout Christian who believes it is immoral to engage in same-sex relationships. So she faced a tough decision when Jane, her prospective client, sought help resolving problems in her lesbian relationship.

Rather than misleading her, Marcia decided to tell Jane about her religious conflict, indicating that it would be unfair for her (Jane) if she were to serve as her counselor. But she remained helpful and offered to refer Jane to another counselor named Ken Cook.

Here’s a shorter version of what happened next (per Dr. Mike): later, Jane complained to Marcia’s supervisor about Marcia’s refusal to help her.  Marica’s supervisors advised Marcia that the next time this happened she should just tell the client that she (Marcia) wasn’t qualified to counsel her rather than saying that she thought that same-sex relationships were immoral.  Marcia refused, because as a Christian she couldn’t lie.  She also couldn’t, in good conscience, counsel homosexuals.  (Marcia, Marcia, Marcia!)   Eventually, Marcia was fired.  So, now Marcia is being represented by the Alliance Defense Fund, which is suing her former employer.

Now, back to Dr. Mike for the outrage.

What this case – taken by the Alliance Defense Fund – all boils down to is the unreasonable accommodation of gay activists who simply cannot tolerate the existence of anyone, anywhere who does not accept the gay lifestyle. And to the extent that we accommodate them, we are helping to create a very “uncivil” rights movement. And it is a trend with dangerous implications.

Imagine for a moment that we were to forbid a counselor from expressing her objection to overeating, despite proven health risks, simply because the obese individual likes to eat and claims some genetic predisposition to obesity.

Or imagine for a moment that we were to forbid a counselor from expressing her objection to over-drinking, despite proven health risks, simply because the drunken individual likes to drink and claims some genetic predisposition to alcoholism. (Or, worse, imagine she likes crack!).

But you don’t have to imagine forbidding a counselor from expressing her objection to homosexuality, despite proven health risks, simply because the gay individual likes homosexuality and claims some genetic predisposition to gayness.

That’s where we have arrived because, in America, there is no idea that is too dumb to be taken seriously.

Nice try, Dr. Mike, but Jane didn’t go to her college counseling office for a physical and some Christian advice about the health risks of same-sex relationships, she went for relationship counseling.  And Marcia refused to help her because Marcia believes that Jane is a sinner — and Marcia told Jane as much.

So, Dr. Mike, imagine for a minute that you go to your doctor for a physical, and your doctor refuses to treat you because, based on his Christian faith, he thinks that all conservatives are going to hell.  You’d be fine with that, wouldn’t you?  You’d say that he should have the right to follow the dictates of his conscience, and his employer should make reasonable accommodations for his religious beliefs, right?

(Note to readers: this is what we call a facetious question, because Dr. Mike is the guy who writes 5-part columns overflowing with apoplectic rage when somebody fails to include the honorific in front of his name or when a cafeteria worker forgets to give him the tater tots that were supposed to come with his Beanie Wienie lunch special.  And if there are ever any reactions to his obnoxious behavior, he claims he’s being persecuted because of his conservative beliefs .  So, there’s no way he would handle the above scenario with anything approaching sanity, let alone graciousness. )

Here’s another one for you, Dr. Mike: imagine for a moment that you go out to get your latest copy of Guns & Manhood, and it isn’t in your mailbox.  You call the post office and complain, and then learn that your letter carrier refuses to deliver your mail because he objects to your pro-gun, anti-life behavior.  However, your carrier says he asked his colleague to deliver your mail (when he gets a chance), so you should be getting your gun mags eventually.  Therefore, you have nothing to complain about, and your letter carrier and his mailbag (and soul) will remain clear of the stain that serving you would entail.  That would be okay with you, wouldn’t it?

One last hypothetical. Imagine that you are walking down the street, looking for a $20 hooker minding your own business, when you are assaulted by a big, burly man who says he finds you morally repugnant (yes, hard to believe I know, but in America there is no idea that is too dumb to be taken seriously).  You left your Glock in your other suit, so you call for help.  Fortunately for you, a police officer hears your cries and arrives within a couple of minutes.  Unfortunately for you, he refuses to help you because, as a committed Christian who has read your columns, he believes that you are a horrible person and that you are receiving God’s just punishment for your many, many bad acts.  He does, however, try to aid you within the framework of his belief system by reading you some Bible verses about “the wages of sin.” 

Meanwhile, the big guy is still pounding you into the pavement.  You are understandably upset, and tell the policeman that as a public servant who is paid by taxpayers like you, he has no right to refuse to help people based solely on his personal religious beliefs.  He says that the police force used to think that, but after getting sued by the Alliance Defense Force, they changed their policy, and now Dr. Mike will just have to wait for a police officer whose moral code permits him to help douche bags.  It’s a long wait.

Okay, enough with the imagining.  Bottom line: one does have to have have trust and respect for one’s counseler for the process to be effective, and so Marcia probably wasn’t the right therapist for Jane.  But Marcia can’t refuse to treat a segment of the students she is there to serve just because she thinks they are immoral — and she should dang well expect to be fired if she tells students that she can’t counsel people like them because she is a good Christian and they are abominations to God (which may or may not be what Marcia said to Jane – it’s some times hard to get the truth from Dr. Mike’s stories).

But hey, let’s let get back to Dr. Mike for the stirring conclusion to this piece.

I’m not claiming that the gay rights movement has taken over the country. But, clearly, when it comes to gays, the patients are the ones who are running the therapists. And, before long, the inmates really will be running the asylum.

But then apes will evolve from men, and nobody will really care anymore.

With Dr. Mike | 24 Comments »

Over at RenewAmerica, Reed R. Heustis warns us that when the American Heritage Party comes to power, in thunder and in earthquake like a Jove, then we’ll all be sorry that we made fun of his Pharaoh.

KISSING THE SON IN THE CIVIL ARENA

Liberty works!

However, the moment Christians organize themselves politically in the civil arena, somehow that same liberty ceases to exist.

When Christians create political organizations, such as a Christian political party like the American Heritage Party, look out, duck for cover! They will be demonized as extremists, bigots, and intolerant tyrants, just to name a few of the nicer epithets.

Well, that does seem unfair.  As Reed, both an attorney and a practicing Baptist, could no doubt testify, not every Christian who enters politics does so with the intention of imposing some sort of Taliban-like theocracy.

The top priority for any civil magistrate is to acknowledge the Kingship of Jesus Christ in the political arena and to serve Him.

Hm.  Apparently the only thing required to pass the California Bar Exam is the demonstrated ability to color inside the lines.  But what happens if a judge has a full docket, and doesn’t budget the time each day to acknowledge the Kingship of Jesus Christ in the political arena?

Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled.

He took you to the movies, he paid for dinner…KISS HIM!

To kiss the Son means to pay homage to the Lord Jesus Christ, who rules in all affairs of men, including civic affairs.

In fact, he ruled in our favor when we took the Condo Board to Small Claims Court over their failure to obtain three competitive bids for resealing the driveway.

Not surprisingly, non-Christian civil magistrates refuse to pay homage to the Son, while Secular Humanists vociferously defend this “right” to refuse to do so.

Look Wapner, if I’ve gotta kiss the guy, you’ve gotta kiss him.  There’s no homage-paying exception for uppity old dudes in black satin muumuus.

To make matters worse, Secular Humanists take the further step of forbidding Christian civil magistrates to pay the same homage! In the minds of Secular Humanists, any civil magistrate who publicly acknowledges the Kingship of Jesus Christ necessarily mixes religion with politics, and this is somehow verboten.

Think of the Constitution, not as a blueprint for self-government, but as a recipe.  Understood in this way, you realize that “the separation of Church and State” is merely what happens when you forget to stir.

The reason why a Christian civil magistrate mixes religion with politics is precisely because it is impossible to separate religion from politics.

“That is why, it is with the deepest humility, and an even deeper faith in the greatness of the American people, that I accept my party’s nomination for the office of Pontiff!”

It is not a question as to whether religion should be mixed with politics, but rather which religion?

I can’t believe that in this day and age we’re even asking this question!  If only the Founders hadn’t been so squeamish aabout Europe’s long history of religious wars and state-sanctioned persecution, we would’ve settled this by now.

Whose God reigns?

I smell a Pay Per View cage match…!

No political position can be based upon non-religion.

Claims that alternate side of the street parking regulations are revenue neutral were instrumental in defeating the Arians at the Council of Nicaea.

An atheist, much to his chagrin, is no less religious because he makes himself to be his own god.

“Hey honey?  Have you seen my mystical Uru hammer?  I’ve got to smite some heretics.  And did Greg, Lord of the Hoary Underworld ever return my Garden Weasel?”

“Every nation has to make one of two choices: kiss the Son or serve the serpent. The whole of history is an account of which nations kissed the Son and which nations served the snake — and what happened as a result.” (emphasis added)

Thanks for adding the emphasis; for a second there I couldn’t make up my mind which part was the craziest.

If Christians are “allowed” to have their own Christian hospitals, Christian schools, and Christian missions, then why not their own Christian civic organizations?

Why not their own Christian police?  I hear the Saudis have something similar, and it’s working out very nicely for everyone.  Or what about Christian Fire Departments, Christian Department of Motor Vehicles, or a Christian Bureau of Labor Statistics?  The motto, etched in stone above the entrance, practically writes itself:  “The laborer is worthy of his wages (Timothy 5:18) Unless you can get it cheaper by hiring illegals, in which case, Suffer the Day Laborers from the Home Depot parking lot to come unto me.”

Live from the Asylum | 22 Comments »

Meet Bailey, my nieces’ Cocker Spaniel which I’m planning to steal when I leave.  Shhh!  (First, though, it’s off to the Shick Center to cure that her three-sock-a-day habit.  Then after rehab she’ll take some time off to work on her autobiography, A Million Little Pieces of Lint That Used to Be Your Sweat Pants.)

Pardon me while I phone Oprah.

Wild Things | 3 Comments »

Greetings from the Great Northwest, where I’m visiting my sister and her family.  To be specific, I’m cowering in my brother-in-law’s office, avoiding the vocal fallout from my nieces’ creative differences over the wii version of American Idol.  (You know, drunk and/or drugged-up Paula Abdul is kind of funny in a “put a goofy souvenir hat on your co-worker when he nods off after two Jagermeisters at the Christmas Party and then post the Poloroids in the Break Room on Monday” sort of way.  Virtual Paul Abdul is a gruesome, dead-eyed abomination who will haunt your dreams like the souls of the murdered crying out for justice!, and then nodding off on the couch in a goofy hat.)

So in quest of a little local color, we check out the front page of The Oregonian, and find a rare example of charity, humility, and empathy in the ordinarily cynical and self-aggrandizing arena of national politics.

LAKE OSWEGO — Congressional candidate Mike Erickson on Monday vigorously defended his 2004 trip to Cuba as a humanitarian mission even as he acknowledged that he spent most of the trip sightseeing and talking to Cubans.

Traveling to Cuba or doing business with the Communist country is sharply restricted by the U.S. government. Erickson was part of a group that gave medical donations to get into Cuba but spent most of the week on vacation, The Oregonian reported Sunday. He visited the Tropicana nightclub and attended Comandante Fidel Castro’s Annual Gala Cigar Dinner and Auction.

Followed by a long weekend at the Godfather II Fantasy Camp, which includes free passes to Casino Night and $100 credit at the Roulette table, two tickets to the Live Sex Show of your choice, a Junior Suite at the Hotel Nacional, and a voucher permitting you to shoot one (1) random peasant in the head without consequences.  It’s also good for unlimited coffee refills at the Breakfast Buffet.

At a news conference, Erickson called The Oregonian’s account inaccurate. He said that he brought 20 boxes of medical supplies and delivered them to aid clinics over two days.

“Maybe some people may have gone there for a different purpose, but not me. Mike Erickson went there truly to see and feel what the people in Cuba were going through,” he said.

He said he has receipts documenting the 20 boxes of supplies but can’t find them.

Well, given liberals’ well-known penchant for vacationing in exotic foreign locales, this guy must be a Democrat.  Let’s skim down, uh, 1, 2, 3 paragraphs…Gee, you think they’d have mentioned it by now…4, 5, 6 paragraphs…What, is he running for Congress on spec?…7 — ah!  Here we are…

Erickson, a Republican

Oh.  Well, who really cares what party he belongs to?  It’s not like there’s an election going on.

…faces Democratic state Sen. Kurt Schrader in the Nov. 4 election for the 5th Congressional District…

Erickson and some friends $1,698 each for a weeklong Cuban vacation that coincided with the Habanos Festival, an annual celebration of Cuban cigars.

And those medical supplies he brought were desperately needed, because you know what happens when those Cubanos start celebrating cigars!  Your arm hair could get singed by a carelessly held cigar, or you might get severe sunburn while standing in line at the cerveza booth, or your pinkie toe could possibly get crushed by a merciless Cuban heel.

Optional activities included dove shooting, a cockfight and tour of a cigar factory.

He said he did not go marlin fishing or dove hunting, as listed on an itinerary provided by the tour organizer.

So that’s a Yes on the cockfights, I gather.  Still, Erickson avoided the fishing and hunting because he’s aware of the awesome responsibilities of a would-be Congressman, and asked himself, “Would Mother Theresa play a 200-pound marlin for hours in the hot Caribbean sun before finally landing it, or use a 12 gauge shotgun to turn the pure white symbol of Christian peace into an airborne sneeze of blood and feathers?”  And his answer was “No.  She would deny herself the gaudy pleasures of this world and make do with smoking foot long Diplomáticos, betting on cockfights, and irrigating her throat with an endless succession of daiquiris brought to her by beardless, tawny-skinned young men.”

He acknowledged that he attended the Castro cigar dinner and the Tropicana in Havana, but he said Castro did not attend the dinner. Erickson said he’s not a cigar fan.

He’d been misinformed about the evening’s activities, and went expecting to see a famously well-endowed donkey.

“I’ve never smoked a whole cigar in my entire life. I’ve puffed on a couple of cigars, and I choke every time.”

Republicans.  Dude, it’s a cigar.  Follow Clinton’s example and don’t inhale.

Under questioning, Erickson estimated he spent about “a third” of his time distributing medical supplies. The rest of the time, he said he visited tourist sights and talked to people to find out what life was really like under the Castro regime.

“Every time I was at dinner, I would talk to the waiters and waitresses and say, ‘Hey, you’re young. What do you want to do in life?’ ” he said.

“Well Señor, until recently my ambitions were modest — to help my invalid parents, perhaps one day to marry and have children — but then I saw this film called Red Dawn, and I realized that Colorado was ripe for conquest!”

“The other two-thirds wasn’t just leisure, or just whatever it was. I was constantly always asking, ‘Hey, what’s going on in your country here?’ “

“Why’s it take twenty minutes to get a mojito from the bar to the pool?  What’d you do, send it by burro?”

He said he came back with a renewed appreciation for life in the United States.

A country where anyone, no matter what their background, can grow up to defraud a charity out of prescription drugs and travel expenses.  But in the spirit of Bill O’Reilly, we’ll let the pre-Congressman have the last word here.

Erickson vowed to keep campaigning and stay focused on issues that matter.

“I think that’s what’s going to win this race for me. I’m focused on the issues and people are tired of the smear campaigns,” he said.

My Country Right, Wrong or Decline to State | 17 Comments »

WorldNetDaily, one of the planet’s foremost producers of wingnut crap, has outdone itself with its latest product, the above magnetic bumper sticker. Here’s part of their sales pitch:

This is America. Speak English!

MAGNETIC MESSAGE – New, removable bumper sticker proclaims your love for the United States

We may be living in America, but is this really the United States?

These days, it’s hard to tell if you go by the colorful patchwork of foreign tongues heard on the streets.

You know, back when I was a kid, I could always tell that I was in America by the lack of diversity.  And that’s the way that God intended it to be! 

But if people are now speaking languages that aren’t English on our streets, then the founding Fathers’ dream of a united nation has gone horribly wrong, and we have a crisis on our hands!  Get magnets, STAT!

The English language has been the unifying force that has bonded the nation together from its inception, and immigrants have always been willing to learn the language of the land – until now, that is.

Yeah, all those Chinatowns, Polish enclaves, “Little Italies,” etc. were just created NOW!, when the new crop of danged ungrateful immigrants decided they were too good to assimilate.

As a result, America’s culture as well as national security are at risk.

Okay, this is getting too silly even for me. But if one of you wants to write a screenplay about how an elderly Mexican woman’s failure to learn English puts our national security at risk until Jack Bauer saves the day with his trusty bumper sticker, then I promise to give it a read.

P.S.  One additional thought about this.  Not even WorldNetDaily expects anyone to read this bumper sticker and say to themselves ”Wow, that SUV makes a good point — I guess I will speak nothing but English from this day forth!”  No, the real reason to display it is because it’s so hard to find tasteful bumper stickers that say, “I hate minorities.”

Uncategorized | 37 Comments »

We’d like to introduce you to a new Town Hall columnist, Jackie Gingrich Cushman.  Here’s a shorter version of her latest column, ’Worthwhile Time.’

Michael Phelps is a really good swimmer.  I read a newspaper article about him that says he spends a lot of time practicing swimming.  I will now copy some stuff from the article.

You know who else is good?  Neil Diamond!  I went to one of his concerts, and I sang along with the songs.  It was really cool!  I read an article about him that says that Neil spends a lot of time practicing too, but he practices electrolyte-balancing and carb-loading, not swimming.

You should do something with your time too.  The End.

Hey, if you don’t think that was a fair paraphrase of her column, then read it for yourself.  Here’s a paragraph to get you started.  (To be fair, it appears to be suffering from either a bad cut-and-paste error, or terminal leprosy, but it will still give you an accurate impression of both Jackie’s work and Town Hall in general ).

Two very different people have become very successful, in very different areas, by making the most of the time they have. At first glance, they might appear to have few commonalities: Neil Diamond and Built to Swim,” provides background for Phelps’ career.  He began swimming at age 7, following his two older sisters, and began practicing with elite swimmers just four years later. Sokolove’s article notes that while studies were hard for Phelps when he was young that, “the water was his therapy.”

I’m sure you’re as impressed as I am with Jackie’s talent, insight, and originality.  How did Town Hall find this up-and-coming young wingnut?  Maybe her Townhall bio will shed some light on that.

Jackie Gingrich Cushman writes a weekly human-interest column that focuses on current events and political issues from a mom’s perspective.

Word on the streets is that the World Worst Mother tiara is up for grabs, and that Jackie is training hard for the contest.  (I hear that this year’s event will be held in lovely Mexico City, so that the nannies who actually raise the contestants children can recruit their replacements.  But TBogg hasn’t made an official annoucement, so I could be wrong about this.) 

Cushman is passionate about improving the world her two children will inherit and teaching them how to make a positive impact through their daily lives. As a daughter of former Speaker Newt Gingrich, her perspective has been shaped by a lifetime of work in the political arena.

Yes, Jackie is indeed the daughter of Newt “the Newt” Gingrich.  I’m sure you guessed that already, knowing as you do that nepotism is one of the key planks of the conservative platform.  So, yes, Jackie’s two children WILL inherit the world — therefore, I guess it’s only right that Jackie makes it a better place for them by copying stuff from various news service articles and tacking on uplifting morals.

I’m sure we’ll be seeing more of Jackie in the future, maybe on the days when Pastor Swank has writer’s block and Dr. Mike Adams has been taken to the psych ward for another 48-hour observation period.

Uncategorized | 20 Comments »

Last night Scott and I went to see The Dark Knight. Whew. That’s a brutal movie. A very good movie, but it is brutal. Heath Ledger gave a remarkable performance, obviously taking himself to some very dark place in order to reach the depths of Sick and Psychotic that personified his Joker.

Now, here’s the thing. I’ve heard the trite-wing pundits all rush to claim this movie as their own, declaring that The Dark Knight is just like George W. Bush.

Did they even see the same movie I saw? Did they just watch the trailer and assume that it brazenly supported the Administration’s “feed a crony, starve a constitution” strategy in the GWOT?

Let’s look at the two incidents which in this movie that seem to echo Bush Administration tactics: torture and unlawful surveillance.

[NOTE: For those who are interested in the film but are waiting for the condensed version to come out on a Burger King collectible cup, Spoiler Alerts are in effect.]

Torture: During questioning, the Joker manipulates the Batman into breaking his own rules, when Batman realizes the Joker has put two people Bruce Wayne cares about in imminent danger. He bars the door to the interrogation room (to keep out Gordon, who wants to stop Batman) and begins to beat the Clown White crap out of the Joker. Eventually, the Joker gives up the information. And guess what? The only info Batman got was the info that the Joker wanted him to have.

The movie’s conclusion: torture doesn’t work.

Illegal Surveillance: Batman has the technology to turn every cellphone in the city into a “camera” of sorts, allowing him to see all the activities of all people, good and bad, alike. Does he give himself control of this awesome technology? No.

Does he give it to his loyal butler Alfred, or to Gordon (who would presumably love to see who is taking drugs, having sex with a prostitute, etc.)? No. He doesn’t.

He gives it to Fox (Morgan Freeman), the one man who says to him, “This is awful. This is wrong. You cannot do this.” Fox agrees to help “just this once,” meaning he will allow the technology to look for one man, the Joker, who has already, shall we say, given the good guys Probable Cause. The Batman trusts that Fox (much like the original FISA court) would not allow him to abuse this power, but would give him only enough information to help him find only The Joker, and you know what? It still worked!

The movie’s conclusion: The old FISA rules for court ordered surveillance worked just fine, even in a world of ever-advancing technology, thank you very much.

So, Dark Knight = Bush? Ehhhh, not so much. At least not in Christopher Nolan’s film. Wonder what Dark Knight the wingers saw?

Maybe it was the “Mexican Batwoman“, or the “Filipino Batman and Robin“! Wait! I’ve got it! It was “Bedmen – yarasa adam”, the Turkish Batman! (Google them, watch the vids and weep, whether with laughter or pain, I leave to you).

Movies | 10 Comments »

You Can’t Refuse This Man []

Rob Long. Funny man. Cool man. Conservative man. Hollywood institution. Will be in Colorado. Must go.

And who has reduced K-Lo to such short, Frankensteinian utterances? Why it’s this man, Rob Long, Hollywood institution and America’s Smuggest Dockers Model.

As we learned recently, Jonah, Rob and Christopher Buckley (the “Cute One”) will be in Colorado fighting the poisonous influence of the Democratic convention with the anti-venom of stand-up comedy — the kind you can usually only find on a rainy night in Youngstown, Ohio when you’ve had car trouble on the turnpike and you wander into a club called Ha! Ha! to use the payphone and discover that it’s Open Mic Night.

But connoisseurs of Conservative Comedy are notoriously demanding, and not even a trio of right wing wordsmiths famous for their spontaneous wit (which man will be the first to pull his ears out at a right angle to his head and shout “Hope!” It could be a dead heat.) will satisfy all.

You Want Funny? I’ll Show You Funny. []
I’m sure the Long, Buckley, Goldberg pre-game show in Colorado Springs will be hilarious. But NRI has overlooked one of the funniest people on the planet. … I’m talking about Kate O’Beirne.

For smart, quick-witted, side-clutching repartee, one need look no further.

To be fair, isn’t there really an absolute limit to the amount of rib-tickling and zaniness the human body can endure in a single evening? (Although it’s been reported that Kate can really rock the Harlequin mask at Adult Comedy Nights on the Clothing Optional NRO cruises.) Besides, their graphics people have already come up with some great images for the event, and I’m not sure where, at this late date, they’d stick Kate’s head.

Click here for the full poster, including testimonials to the cost effectiveness of conservative comedy.

Revenge of the Nerds | 8 Comments »