Click to email me.
February 2, 2005_______________________________________________________________________________
Jonah Goldberg, from National Review, posted this yesterday in The Corner. It was a news report from 1967 talking about the successful Vietnamese elections. His post was a repost from the Daily Kos in which he added his own comments which basically followed the line that the Left blindly keeps comparing Iraq to Vietnam. He believes, rightly so, that there is very little comparison and that the Left keeps using it because of their inability to adjust to reality. It is easier to compare the present to the past. All you have to say is Vietnam. You don’t have to have an actual argument. You just have to say the name.
However, after I read the news report as posted, I felt there was one similarity between the two conflicts. I sent Mr. Goldberg this email explaining my point. Unfortunately, as of this post, he has not responded. But then again, he is a busy man:
My main point is that we have the potential for completing the mission in Iraq, just like we did in 1967 in Vietnam. But there is the potential for Iraq to end sort of like Vietnam. We must guard against it. _______________________________________________________________________________
January 28, 2005
I have finally gotten around to writing another essay. This one is about why our President needs accurate intelligence in order to make the correct choices. You can find it here.
Here is a preview: Our intelligence failed us. It failed miserably on 9/11, it failed in Afghanistan and it failed us in Iraq. If you were President would you believe anything that the CIA or the FBI brought to you? I would be very skeptical. How can a President make informed decisions? If he acts on the intelligence and later it turns out to be worthless, he will get hammered in the press and at the polls. Don’t believe me? Just watch the evening news. What if he has reservations about the validity of the intelligence and decides not to act? Most of the time nothing will happen, but it will only take one incident before the press is demanding his head on a platter. It is a no win situation. You have to pity the poor man sometimes.
But we as a nation and as a world are facing some real thorny issues in the near future, namely a nuclear Iran and North Korea as well as the potential for a China vs. Taiwan war. What are President Bush and future Presidents going to base their decisions on? The recent past has shown that our intelligence agencies do not know their butt from a hole in the ground, but they are all you have.
January 26, 2005
The first section of this article is a must read. For those who do not know, Jay Nordlinger is a Managing Editor for National Review. He also wears other hats such as music critic and as a guest on the Dennis Miller Show. He writes a recurring article for National Review Online called Impromptus and is a must read.
Here are a few quotes to get you hooked. And shall we get started on Vietnam? I don't think so. Why is it that, when I was younger, I heard about the boat people, the reeducation camps, and so on only from the lips of "right-wingers"? Has anything changed? And burned into the mind of every conservative is the New York Times's headline, when the Khmer Rouge took over in Cambodia: "Indochina Without Americans: For Most, a Better Life." Nice going, guys.
And… It's hard to get liberals interested in the Sudanese, massacred as they are — because they are not massacred by the "right" murderers — and you really can't get them interested in Arabs. They care about Palestinians to the extent that they can cast Israel as a monster, and the United States as the monster's Frankenstein (Great Satan/Little Satan). What the PA does to Palestinians is of no interest to virtually any liberal. You couldn't get liberals to care about Kuwaitis, except to mock them as rich and languorous. They left the impression that they thought Kuwaitis deserved invasion, rape, and subjugation. (Do you remember Alexander Cockburn, from December 1979? "If any people deserves rape, it's the Afghans.")
About the Afghans: There are liberals who would rather homosexuals be stoned to death than that they be freed by George W. Bush and the U.S. military. The latter is the greater insult. _______________________________________________________________________________
January 25, 2005
Never again! But…….
For a good take on the anti-Semitic attitudes of our European “friends”, go read Mark Steyn’s article over at the Telegraph. This is a very eye opening piece. For this and countless other articles, I can say that Mark Steyn Rocks!!
Here are the last three paragraphs. Experience the nail being hit on the head. As for the notion that this or that people "deserve" a state, that's a dangerous post-modern concept of nationality and sovereignty. The United States doesn't exist because the colonists "deserved" a state, but because they went out and fought for one. Were the Palestinians to do that, they might succeed in pushing every last Jew into the sea, or they might win a less total victory, or they might be routed and have to flee to Damascus or Wolverhampton.
But, whatever the outcome, it's hard to see that they would be any less comprehensively a wrecked people than they are after spending three generations in "refugee" "camps" while their "cause" is managed by a malign if impeccably multilateral coalition of UN bureaucrats, cynical Arab dictators, celebrity terrorists and meddling Europeans whose Palestinian fetishisation seems most explicable as the perverse by-product of the suppression of their traditional anti-Semitism.
Americans and Europeans will never agree on this, and the demographic reality - the Islamisation of Europe - will only widen the chasm in the years ahead. But, if I were a European Jew, I would feel this week's observances bordered on cultural appropriation. The old defence against charges of anti-Semitism was: "But some of my best friends are Jewish." As the ancient hatreds rise again across the Continent, the political establishment's defence is: "But some of our best photo opportunities are Jewish." _______________________________________________________________________________
January 22, 2005
I don’t even know where to begin with this one. Makes me choke on my own rage, it does. This cartoon shows one more time that Democrats just DO NOT understand Red State America. I can assure Mr. Toles that while I am a Christian, I did not vote for Mr. Bush because I believe he will establish the New Jerusalem here on earth and all heathen unbelievers will be put against the wall. Do they really think we want or are heading to a Theocracy followed by a Dictatorship? Apparently to Mr. Toles and the editors of the Washington Post, we are. So sad.
_______________________________________________________________________________
January 7, 2005
National Review Online is a treasure trove of information. I was able to follow the Alberto Gonzales hearing yesterday by reading The Corner, which is NRO’s blog.
This morning there is a great piece by Andrew McCarthy about that hearing. Somehow I do not think the big media outlets will give much thought or attention to the points Andrew makes. I guess they do not think their audience could follow the twisted logic and that would make their Democratic Senator friends look like a bunch of asses.
Johnson, who had earlier fretted that coercive interrogation might cause the terrorists "psychological numbing" and perhaps even "major depression," similarly declined to answer because the scenario was too improbable — an "overblown" product of "fantasy" and "mythology." So, if you're following this: According to Gonzales's detractors, the American people should worry profoundly that some sensible permissiveness in interrogation practices might conceivably turn the U.S. military into the Fedayeen — even though there isn't anything, even in the roundly condemned Abu Ghraib scandal, that remotely approaches the depravity of Saddam. Yet these witnesses don't feel the need to trouble themselves even a little over the ticking-bomb scenario because, as they see it, it is unlikely that will ever occur. Very consistent.Preach it brother. A number of us have tried to grapple with the hard stuff about the war against terrorists — the intersection between abiding respect for human dignity and the imperative of pressing for intelligence that might save human life. We don't pretend that this is easy, that it's black-and-white, or that expressly licensing coercive interrogation — even a minimal form of torture — in the most dire situations would not potentially open the door to human-rights abuses that should be universally condemned. It would. That's why it needs to be thought through with sensitivity.
But the critics should do us all a favor: If you're going to talk the talk of righteous indignation, be ready to walk the walk. Be ready to tell Americans exactly what protections you want to give to the terrorists. Be ready to tell Americans that you would prohibit coercive interrogation even if it were the only way of saving a hundred thousand of them.
If you're not ready to do that — because you full well understand that your position is not one even you can defend when the questions get hard — then don't waste our time. Get out of the way of serious people like Judge Gonzales. People who don't pretend to be perfect, who don't claim to have all the answers, and who are not so smug that they think they can afford to take life-and-death options off the table — even as they pray they will never have to use them. _______________________________________________________________________________
January 7, 2005
I have been meaning to post an essay by Victor Davis Hanson that was posted on National Review Online. Sorry for the delay.
It is a wonderful piece on the hypocrisy of the Left and their affinity for Socialist and Communist thugs.
The international media is not up in arms about the murder of filmmaker Theo Van Gough or the video execution of democratic activists in the streets of Baghdad — at least not as they once had been over the televised shooting of a Vietcong captain by South Vietnamese general Nguyen Ngoc Loan. Of course, the democracy activists in Iraq were working only for freedom, not, like Loan, for socialist tyranny. The only political consistency for the media's reaction or lack thereof seems to be the particular affinity of the shooters and victims for the United States: Pulitzer Prizes when a Communist is shot by an American surrogate; snores when the murdered Iraqi idealists shared an American vision of elections. _______________________________________________________________________________
January 7, 2005
Steven Milloy is on a crusade to rid the world of junk science. That is, science that is not science, but “science” that is driven by ideology. In the face of REAL science, the claims made by junk science quickly fall away, but that does not stop them and their allies in the Main Stream Media from proclaiming the claims to be real and legitimate. In most cases, it is actually quite comical to see how absurd some of these claims can be.
His op-ed in the January 6, 2005 edition of The Washington Times is about the crazy claims by environmentalists concerning the recent tsunami catastrophe. He exposes the contradictions in their thinking. To these people the US can do nothing right. Well, at least not while Bush is President.
Go read the whole thing: Moreover, environmentalists are in feverish denial about the two factors that will, in the end, contribute most to the tsunamis' horrendous death toll — lack of an early warning system and of adequate post-disaster sanitation, both tragic byproducts of the region's severe economic underdevelopment.
Given that fact, how deceptive and calculating for environmentalists to blame "development" as the deadly cause.
It's bad enough they continually try to advance their agendas based on what can only be described as comically wrong information. But it is really troubling that they seem hell-bent on denying poor nations the opportunity to develop economically and thereby pull out of their abject poverty. _______________________________________________________________________________
January 6, 2005
This may sound strange, but I love Mark Steyn. Not in the way you are thinking, but in the fact that he has not written an op-ed that I have not thoroughly enjoyed. This one comes from the January 4, 2005 edition of The Washington Times. It’s a great piece on the good old UN. Somebody remind me again why we keep this thing around?
Below is a little taste. Go read the whole thing: "Only really the U.N. can do that job. It is the only body that has the moral authority."
"Moral authority"? Hey, maybe now that the Oil-for-Fraud gig's dried up, Kofi Annan's son could head the relief effort.
But Miss Short has usefully clarified what it means when the world says "America" isn't "giving" enough "aid." It means the government isn't giving enough money to Jan Egeland's U.N. office. That's the only "giving" that counts. That Pfizer has given $35 million, which is more than most G7 governments have chipped in, doesn't mean anything. That Amazon.com's customers donated more than $6 million in 48 hours doesn't count. The ships and troops send by America are of no consequence. What Jan Egeland means when he talks of "stinginess" is you're not ponying up enough taxpayer bucks to his departmental budget. That's the only measure of global compassion that matters, and he doesn't want to have his time wasted with a lot of chit-chat about any of this other stuff: It's my way or the highway, he says — if, indeed, such a thing is said in Norwegian. Anyway, it's Norway or the doorway. As it happens, the United States pays 40 percent of Mr. Egeland's budget. But, even if the budget was tripled and the U.S. paid 70 percent of it, that wouldn't be enough. _______________________________________________________________________________
October 22, 2004
For some strange reason I never posted links to the following three essays:
The Ultimate War Sim: For all you Real Time Strategy gamers out there. If you have ever played Command & Conquer or Star Craft or any of the hundreds of other games in this genre, then you will get a kick out of this essay.
Inside the Monkeysphere: What the hell is a Monkeysphere you ask and why should you care? “What do monkeys have to do with war, oppression, crime, racism and even e-mail spam?” well, just check it out and learn the surprising answer.
A Realistic Plan for World Peace (a.k.a. Nuke the Moon): Why nuke the moon? What, are you some sort of sicko? Ah, just read and everything will fall into place. Below is one of my favorite lines from the essay: It’s that extra bit of extremely disproportionate use of force that makes other countries start to wonder if America "has it all together" and really worrying who we’ll lash out against next.
_______________________________________________________________________________
October 21, 2004
Just a note. Please vote for my site by using the two links to your left. However, that will only draw visitors to my site who are looking for Simpson’s and Full Metal Jacket sound files. While this is great, I would love to begin drawing visitors to my site who want to read thought provoking essays and opinion pieces.
That being said: If any of you sound file searchers or other visitors are inclined, please help to get my site linked to other like minded sites so that I may draw a more diverse crowd of visitors.
Thanks. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.
_______________________________________________________________________________
October 21, 2004
Ok, I am getting a little suspicious over here.
Is it me, or does this article by Robert Samuelson in the Washington Post sound a lot like the one I wrote here?
His article also ran the same day mine got picked up by The Ornery American. Coincidence? I think not.
ARRRGGGG!!!!! The Washington Post is reading my mind!!!! Or they have Spy Ware on my computer! I feel so violated!
For the record, and I can prove this, my essay was written and posted on my website on September 29, 2004.
_______________________________________________________________________________
October 20, 2004
My essay on North Korea and Iran was picked up by The Ornery American. This is the second essay of mine that they have published. This is getting fun.
Go here to read the essay
_______________________________________________________________________________
October 18, 2004
Below is a great Chip Bok editorial cartoon. Isn't it obvious that the UN is not only totally corrupt, but also completely useless?
_______________________________________________________________________________
October 8, 2004
You need to view the new video over at kerryoniraq.com. It is devastating. Every news outlet in this country should play this entire video during their prime time news casts. Then they should have John Kerry on to attempt to explain away things he said. Words mean things, Senator. They may not mean things to you, but to me they mean a lot.
When you get finished viewing the video, go on over to National Review Online and read Jonah Goldberg’s most recent Goldberg File. I believe that the video and this article complement each other very nicely.
_______________________________________________________________________________
September 29, 2004
There is a new essay up in the My Writings section of my site. This essay is on what to do about Iran and North Korea developing nuclear weapons. Stop by and read my hypothetical interview with Senator Kerry and President Bush. Then you will see why I will never be allowed or asked to do actual interviews. I hope you enjoy.
_______________________________________________________________________________
September 1, 2004
I have been published!
I am totally amazed that anyone would find my essays enjoyable, but I guess there are all kinds of people in the world!My essay on the United Nations was picked up by The Ornery American, a great Conservative website with all kinds of essays and opinion pieces. To see my essay in all it’s glory, go here.
This is so cool! Now I will need to re-double my writing efforts. Who knows, maybe one day I will write for National Review. That will be the day!
_______________________________________________________________________________
I am slowly, but surely posting some of my ranting and ravings concerning all aspects of life. Please check out the My Writings section of my website for what I hope you will find to be interesting, thought provoking essays. Let me know what you think of them. If they suck…..let me know….if they are the greatest thing since sliced bread, definitely tell me!
Looking for "United Nothing"? Go here Looking for "President Gore?" Go here Looking for "Racism? In South Georgia? The Hell You Say?" Go here
_______________________________________________________________________________
July 2, 2004:
Charles Krauthammer has a humorous Op-Ed (free registration required) in today’s (July 2, 2004) Washington Post. It concerns the F-word and how it was employed recently by Vice President Dick Cheney. It is a laugh riot!
Here are a few snippets:
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.These next two paragraphs are so true it is actually kind of sad:
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.
Fun stuff.
_______________________________________________________________________________
June 4, 2004
The Washington Times has an op-ed by Cal Thomas concerning the Judge in San Francisco who ruled the new Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act is unconstitutional. Partial Birth Abortion is Infanticide, plain and simple. If the baby….errr…..sorry….the fetus is delivered a few more INCHES!! it is considered a live birth and the baby is protected by law as a human being…….imagine that. Gruesome stuff. Go here to see how the "procedure" is performed. WARNING! The pictures are tough to look at.
Read this op-ed and call your Congressman/woman and your Senator. We have to do something about this.
Here is a snippet: This isn't about abortion. This is child sacrifice, a practice associated with ancient cults and pagan rituals. It is also about politics, which can obscure logic and reasoned argument.
And it is about the pro-abortion lobby seeing any restriction on the extermination of a child with a beating heart and brainwaves and the ability to live outside the woman as a step toward banning all abortions. So for the sake of maintaining "political purity," the pro-abortion lobby continues to stain humanity by endorsing this horrible procedure. And: If partial-birth abortion is "practicing medicine," was last month's beheading of Nick Berg by Islamic terrorists in Iraq a "surgical procedure"?
What's the difference? Berg had a heartbeat and brainwaves. So does the baby targeted for extermination while emerging from the woman's womb (she can't be called a mother, because one must have a child to be a mother and such a child has been declared to be a nonperson by the Supreme Court). And finally: People who have seen pictures of Berg's beheading (they are available on the Internet) testify to their disgust and horror. Perhaps if videotape or even still pictures of what occurs during a partial-birth abortion were available (I have only seen drawings), the disgust over the pressurized vacuuming of a child's brain might be as strong. Would the cry then be loud enough to force even federal judges to take notice? It's possible, but not probable.
_______________________________________________________________________________
May 20, 2004
Go check out an article by John Derbyshire over at National Review Online. It is a great compare/contrast piece about Civilization and Barbarism. It's a very well balanced work that I hope will cause you to think.
Here is a teaser: For all the conundrums and contradictions, though, the opposition between civilization and barbarism remains perfectly clear to anyone with moral good sense. A few weeks ago I published a piece in which I described Israel as being on the front lines of civilization. This roused the legions of Israel-haters and paleocons, who took a break from cataloguing their collections of Third Reich memorabilia and sticking pins in their Abraham Lincoln dolls to e-mail in and tell me of all the horrid things the Mossad and the IDF are guilty of.
Well, yes, to be sure, civilization has its dirty work to do. "He [Kipling] sees clearly that men can only be highly civilized while other men, inevitably less civilized, are there to guard and feed them"-G. Orwell. (He knew what he was talking about, having once worked as a policeman.) Still, it is an extreme kind of moral obtuseness that refuses to notice the difference between a people who strive to minimize noncombatant casualties and a people who do their best to maximize them. I note also that when Arabs are injured in an Arab terrorist attack against Jews, they are cared for in Israeli hospitals, to which they have been transported by Israeli ambulances. Imagine the converse, if it were possible: Jewish inhabitants of an Arab country, injured in a Jewish-terrorist attack on Arabs. They would be torn to pieces by ululating mobs of Arabs, and the pieces would be paraded triumphantly through streets crowded with laughing revelers, the whole thing broadcast on Al-Jazeera to general rejoicing around the Arab world. Wow. So true, so true…
_______________________________________________________________________________
April 20, 2004:
Michelle Malkin has a great article over at townhall.com that deals with the Left’s hypocrisy towards what Bush did or did not due Pre-9/11.
At the time Moussaoui was detained, the Justice Department had no evidence he had done anything illegal other than overstay his visit to the U.S., a transgression that is routinely pooh-poohed by liberals and other open-borders advocates as a "minor" or "technical" immigration violation that shouldn't be punished.
Unsurprisingly, when Attorney General John Ashcroft acted decisively to detain more than 1,200 potential Zacarias Moussaouis after Sept. 11 he was lambasted by Democrats, the ACLU, minority groups, and, yes, the New York Times editorial board, which attacked Ashcroft's "extreme measures" (Nov. 10, 2001) against illegal alien detainees who were merely "Muslim men with immigration problems" (Sept. 10, 2002).
Go check it out.
_______________________________________________________________________________
April 8, 2004:
Robert Samuelson has a great op-ed (free registration required) in today's (April 8, 2004) Washington Post. I believe it speaks truth about the difficulties in governing this great country. Sometimes it takes something bad to happen before the American public is willing to stand up and make the difficult choices required to fix a problem.
Below is a little look see:
One truth is that government often operates by crisis. People do hard things only when forced by events. A superb example is the aging of baby boomers. As is well known, the over-65 population will double between now and 2030. With Social Security, Medicare and other retiree programs representing about two-fifths of the federal budget, this aging threatens huge spending increases, big tax increases, larger deficits, or -- to minimize those problems -- significant cuts in retiree benefits or other spending. Faced with these realities, what have successive presidents and Congresses done? Absolutely nothing.
And this:
Sadly, what it often takes to convince the public is suffering the very problem we're trying to prevent. The solution to the dilemma proposed sanctimoniously by scholars and pundits is "leadership." Politicians (particularly presidents) should convince the public of the need to act before it's too late.
Sounds simple, but it's risky in practice, as Bush has shown. In Iraq, he offered just such leadership. Believing Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction -- but not knowing for certain -- he presented the strongest case possible to the public or (to critics) deliberately overstated the case. Now, he's suffering a backlash because the weapons haven't materialized and the war's aftermath has proved obstinately messy.
It is a wonderful op-ed. _______________________________________________________________________________
March 26, 2004:
Charles Krauthammer has another excellent op-ed (free registration required) in today's (March 26, 2004) Washington Post. It deals with Richard Clarke's book and testimony before the 9-11 Commission: Clarke gives Clinton a pass and instead concentrates his ire on Bush. For what? For not having preemptively attacked Afghanistan? On what grounds -- increased terrorist chatter in June and July 2001?
Look. George W. Bush did not distinguish himself on terrorism in the first eight months of his presidency. Whatever his failings, however, they pale in comparison to those of his predecessor.
Clinton was in office eight years, not eight months. As Clarke himself said in a 2002 National Security Council briefing, the Clinton administration never made a plan for dealing with al Qaeda and never left one behind for the Bush administration.
The end of the Op-Ed sums up what, to me, is the obvious truth:
Clarke is clearly an angry man, angry that Condoleezza Rice demoted him, angry that he was denied a coveted bureaucratic job by the Bush administration. Angry and unreliable. He told the commission to disregard what he said in his 2002 briefing because he was, in effect, spinning. "I've done it for several presidents," he said. He's still at it, spinning now for himself.
_______________________________________________________________________________
March 15, 2004:
David Brooks has an outstanding Op-Ed about John Kerry in the New York Times.
Here is a snippet: For you see, Kerry continued, "Again and again and again in the debate, it was made clear that the vote of the U.S. Senate and the House on the authorization of immediate use of force on Jan. 12 was not a vote as to whether or not force should be used."
In laying out the Kerry Doctrine - that in voting on a use-of-force resolution that is not a use-of-force resolution, the opposite of the correct answer is also the correct answer - Kerry was venturing off into the realm of Post-Cartesian Multivariate Co-Directionality that would mark so many of his major foreign policy statements.
This is another classic line:
Kerry has made clear that if he is elected president, the nation will never face a caveat shortage. He has established the foragainst method, which has enabled him to be foragainst the war in Iraq, foragainst the Patriot Act and foragainst No Child Left Behind. If you decide to vote for him this year, there would be a correctness in that judgment, but if you decide to vote for George Bush, that would also be correct.
_______________________________________________________________________________
February 27, 2004:
Charles Krauthammer has an excellent op-ed (free registration required) in today's (Feb 27, 2004) Washington Post. It deals with Gay Marriage and how it is close to being pushed on the country by Judicial Fiat. Below is just a snippet of the article. Predictably, Massachusetts Democrats are on the attack. John Kerry charges the president with seeking "a wedge issue to divide the American people." Ted Kennedy amplifies: "It's about politics -- an attempt to drive a wedge between one group of citizens and the rest of the country, solely for partisan advantage." Wedge? Marriage has been around for, oh, 5,000 years. In every society, in every place, in every time it has been defined as an opposite-sex union. Then four robed eminences in Boston decree otherwise. With the stroke of a pen, they radically redefine the most ancient of all social institutions. And then those not quite prepared to accept this undebated, unlegislated, unvoted, unnegotiated revolution are the ones accused of creating a political wedge! Amen Brother! Preach it.
_______________________________________________________________________________
February 18, 2004, 4:17 pm EST
10,000 !!!!!!!
I can not believe it, but the old hit meter just crossed 10,000 unique hits! Thanks for the patronage! Tell all your friends about the site and enjoy!
_______________________________________________________________________________
Below is a Ted Rall cartoon as run in the February 4, 2004 edition of the Washington Post. His comics almost exclusively promote Liberal ideology/conspiracy theories. As such, I usually choke on my own rage when reading them. But this one is different. It actually makes sense. I am not sure if he meant it the way I take it, but I see it as a prime example of how the Liberal media works. You hear something enough times you tend to believe it. We need more outlets of conservative viewpoints to balance the news and to be able to test and judge for ourselves what the real story is.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Below is one of my favorite quotes.
"Wherever there is a jackboot stomping on a human face there will be a well-heeled Western liberal to explain that the face does, after all, enjoy free health care and 100 percent literacy." Read the entire article here.
This quote is by John Derbyshire. He is a National Review Online contributor and author of several books. His most recent book is Prime Obsession which "is a nonfiction book on the Riemann Hypothesis, a famous unsolved problem in higher mathematics."(quoted from his website) You can check out Derbyshire's homepage here.
_______________________________________________________________________________
This is an interesting confession by ABCNews.com about the political press corps. Posted Feb. 10, 2004. Go here for the full story:
_______________________________________________________________________________
I have finally arrived! All my e-mailing to Derbyshire has paid off! I have been quoted in The Corner on National Review Online! My next quest is to get my name actually mentioned next time! This was posted on Tuesday November 25, 2003 at 8:30 AM. I am so proud!
HE'S MAD AS HELL [John Derbyshire]
...and not going to take it any more. This reader, I mean: "Derb--Just heard today's Morning Edition on the way into work. Jennifer Luddin (spelling?) did a segment on Mexican Consular ID cards being issued to illegals in this country and about state governments accepting them as ID. This seems like a slap in the face to you and all the other LEGAL immigrants. It happens to me all the time--If you are a law abiding, bill paying, tax paying person......you get squat! If you do not work, do not pay taxes, do not follow the law....they give you free health care, tax refunds!! and welfare. The best line of the show was the last when she said something like: 'The political wrangling continues. Meanwhile, immigrants line up at Consular offices to get their ID cards.' She couldn't even bring herself to say 'illegal immigrants.' No, they are just your average immigrants."
Posted at 08:30 AM
_______________________________________________________________________________