Wesley Clark is a hypocrite

Clark said {I believe this was on Sixty Minutes II} that he thought the wars he prosecuted in the Balkans were right and moral despite the fact that they lacked UN approval. He said the humanitarian crises that existed were justification enough for bombing innocent people from the ten thousand feet. But surprise, surprise, he doesn't believe that the humanitarian crises caused by Saddam Hussein justified a war - a war which is being prosecuted by a political rival. I wish the reporter {Dan Rather, but why would he ask a tough question} had asked, which measure of suffering was so much greater in Kosovo than in Kurdistan that a war was justified there but not in Iraq? Were the Kosovar Albanians attacked with weapons of mass destruction? Where are the mass graves in Kosovo that come within 10% of the mass graves we've already found in Iraq? There is no possible way that Clark can back up his assertion with any facts; they don't exist. The crisis in Iraq and those in the past caused by Saddam were well beyond those caused by Milosevic. Clark's comments are self-serving without basis and fully dressed in hypocrisy.

Firearm Paranoia

At the beginning of the Macy's parade there was a rifle drill team -- I know this because I've seen the moves before. The problem was they were not spinning rifles, they were drilling with large white comma's. These rifle substitutes weren't quite as curved as a comma but that's the best description I can come up with.

Are we that afraid of guns that we can't stomach a drill-team with a wooden outline of rifle?

Annapolis Maryland is banning toy guns.

What will wackos think of next?

UPDATE: Selective prosecution obvious comparing City to County

Well, the County has indicted the man responsible for blowing up his house. We'll see if they allow him a reasonable bail.

Teaching to the Test

As the debate rages in Maryland as to whether or not to use "high stakes" tests to determine eligibility for grade promotion or matriculation, a familiar refrain is resounding from a chorus of education establishment apologists -- teachers are spending too much time "TEACHING TO THE TEST".

Oh my God! I can't believe that anyone would waste precious school hours teaching algebra, biology, reading or government. I've not heard one comment that the skills on the test weren't basic or vital. Nor have I heard that the skills on the tests aren't skill that should be taught by the teachers and understood by the students.

Instead the arguments made against such tests are tangential to the issue.

At the root of the arguments is that the educational process suffers if students are asked to take a cummulative test that will determine graduation or grade promotion. You know, I've never heard that our doctors, lawyers or engineers, CPA's, dentists, or nurses are poorly trained or had a less than ideal education because they were forced to take boards or pass bars. I've never heard a law school professor claim that the training he provides in hampered by that nasty bar exam looming in every students' future. I wonder if those apologists would go to a doctor who wasn't Board Certified? Clearly there is a need to measure the progress individuals make in a given course of study. No one can assume that a person having consumed certain classes is a master of the subject or even proficient.

Teachers who protest such tests have something to hide.

Selective prosecution obvious comparing City to County

A man in the county opens a gas main and causes an explosion in his house and no charges are filed. A man in the city, with no intent to blow himself or anyone else up, imprudently stores gunpowder is arrested, denied bail, has legal weapons confiscated, has legal cash confiscated and pleas to charges which deny him many rights for 3 years. One of these men had a mens rea; the other does not.

The Democrat Answer to Iraq

OK... So far this morning I've seen Wesley Clark and Tom Daschle asked about what we should do in Iraq. Both plans (which is really one talking point) start with the idea that America should give up control to an international authority. First, which groups have left Iraq? That's right, the UN and the Red Cross. Why did they leave? They were attacked by the same miscreants making trouble for the US and British troops. Now the Italians have suffered from a tremendous attack; which all of us regret. My question is why do the Democrats believe that having more countries on the ground in Iraq will make it any less dangerous. The implication is that the dead-enders hate America, everyone else is safe. That fantasy may have had some credence before the attack on the Red Cross. Sure, we might save some cash but we've also seen how impossible it is to reach agreement in a body where individual countries are far more self-interested then charitable. We've seen the battle for control of Iraq within in Bush Administration, imagine now having to deal with France and Germany again. It's not a pretty sight.

Sick and tired of the Leftist notion that Nirvana is just across the Atlantic

The Leftists who truly hate America, believe that there is perfection in other countries and all that needs to happen here to reach Nirvana is to duplicate the institutions found abroad. This ignores the future consequences these countries will face for having such a Nanny State today.

Apart from Italy, the Netherlands and Japan, no country faces such unfavorable population development as Germany. The old-age dependency ratio, i.e. the number of people over 65 as a percentage of those of working age (15-65) will rise from 22% at present to 47% by the year 2030. In comparison, the coming structural changes appear a lot less dramatic in the U.K., where the proportion will rise from 23.5% (1990) to 39%, and in the U.S., where it will grow from 19% to around 32%. Despite this, Germany is still bringing up the rear in terms of funded pension systems, along with its neighbors France and Italy. here

From a fantastic article in Forbes:

The EU is built on a fantasy--that men and women can do less and less work, have longer and longer holidays and retire at an earlier age, while having their income, in real terms, and their standard of living increase. And this miracle is to be brought about by the enlightened bureaucratic regulation of every aspect of life.

The Lefties see the "bliss" of today, yet won't talk about the elephant in the room -- the overwhelming off-book debt that will come due when the population's age distribution shifts.

More examples of the overlapping powers between state and federal governments

Helping Justice Overcome a Flawed Policy


"Senator Durbin's bill is in line with the history and purpose of the American criminal jury system, which has been likened to the "fourth branch of government" and the "final check and balance." His measure would allow jurors to know whether the verdict they are asked to return would be a just one. If not, jurors could refuse to convict -- nullify the law -- on their own initiative. Durbin's bill will merely allow the jury system -- the conscience of the community -- to dispense, as Judge Hoyt so well put, "acts of mercy ... where the facts dictate morally and ethically that mercy is appropriate." "

John Edwards seems like a decent man

Removal of Hussein was the right thing

On Meet the Press, John Edwards really impressed me with a very reasonable and principled approach to the war in Iraq. When Tim Russert asked him about his statement that Iraq was a danger because of Saddam Hussein's pursuit of nuclear weapons, his response was unusual for a Democrat. He didn't say, I was duped by that smooth talking George Bush. He didn't say that the intelligence gathered over the past 2 years was wrong. He said that the intelligence for the past 10 years has been consistant and that intelligence has indicated that the Hussein regime has intended to procure nuclear weapons. Wow, someone willing to speak the truth and stand behind the votes he made -- and he's a Democrat.

Earlier on Fox News when Carl Levin was asked to explain Saddam's actions if he had no WMD's, Tony Snow had to put on his hip waders. There is no explanation that makes sense. Ergo, there is no reason to expect a rational person to look at 15 years of history and the then current actions of the Hussein regime and not fully believe that they were in possession of WMD's. Whether or not war was the right solution is something that can be debated by rational people. Asserting that the absense of WMD's is PROOF that the President and his administration intentionally misled the Congress and the American people in order to prosecute a war for personal reasons is pernicious and itself, intentionally misleading.

Lawyer shot in front of TV crews

BBC NEWS | Lawyer shot in front of TV crews: "The alleged gunman was named by police as William Strier, 64. He was being held on $500,000 bail. "


The "alleged" gunman? What the hell. Who is it doing the "alleging"? Is it the cameraman who video taped the man pulling the trigger and then followed the shooter pointing to him, saying 'hey here he is'? Is that where this allegation is coming from? How far will political correctness go?

We are allowed to judge people. It does not take a court of law for me to know that this man is the "actual" shooter. He may or may not be found guilty of a crime, but he is the shooter