Leftists take protected rights to their illogical extreme

Gertrude Himmelfarb, a brilliant observer of society and culture, had this to say about the state of American society many years ago: “The litigious temper of the times is a consequence of the decline of civility and the concomitant proliferation of ‘rights’ — legal rights in place of the manners and morals that once arbitrated disagreements and disputes. In this sense the law has become not so much the aid and abettor of manners and morals as a substitute for them.”

Those who want to focus on “rights” as if they are sacrosanct and exist in a vacuum will instantly jump upon this insightful piece of reality. Do they truly believe that the mere fact that a person has the right to do something absolves that person of the repercussions of exercising that right, particularly when they push the limits beyond reason?

The answer is “yes.” That is precisely what they believe, because nothing is as important to these folks as their own desires. It’s okay, they say, to have a “society” as long as what’s good for the many does not interfere with what’s good for “me.”

Such a philosophy makes it impossible to maintain a society that, by definition, requires individuals to sacrifice a “few” of their abundant rights for the good of the many, or for a few, or even for one. For example, maybe Dan doesn’t have to remind his friend Julie at her mother’s funeral that her mother had too much to drink over the last three decades, even though he has the right to do so.

Personal selfishness and the assertion of individual rights to the exclusion of what is good for the whole of society, or parts of it, is a recipe for societal collapse, and we see substantial movement toward that frightening possibility every day.

And there is likely no better example of this than the atmosphere surrounding the nomination and confirmation hearing of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Such behavior has been on the increase in recent years, and peaked – hopefully – in this disgusting display of individual rights being taken to their ridiculous extreme.

I’m not arguing here about the nomination itself, or whether the judge should have been confirmed or not, but about the crazed behavior of those poor, misguided souls who not only oppose the confirmation, but who do so from a position of ignorance of civics and fairness, and the idea that they can do as they please.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees us “the freedom of speech … and the right of the people peaceably to assemble.”

None of which guarantees anyone the right to say anything they want at any time or at any place, or do anything they want in the name of free speech, and it specifically limits assembly to being peaceable.

It does not, for example, encourage people to attend a formal proceeding of the U.S. Senate or the House of Representatives, or a function of a committee thereof, and scream and interfere with the conducting of a formal process.

It also does not protect a group that confronts a peaceable assembly and attempts to intimidate the group, or worse to commit violence against its members, such as what the fascist Antifa gangs do, particularly when private property is destroyed. Prosecution is needed.

Many of these folks are factually challenged, having insufficient knowledge of our system and how it works.

The #MeToo movement is prime territory for serious errors. In response to inexcusable sexual assaults against females, society has largely accepted an accusation as truth. Many times – perhaps most times – such an allegation is true and accurate, but not always.

Let’s travel to Zelienople, Pennsylvania, where five female schoolmates accused a high school boy of sexual assault on two separate occasions in a 27-page complaint filed against him. One instance was said to have occurred at the Zelienople Community Pool where he worked, and the other at a private home.

The boy was fired from his job at the pool, endured multiple court appearances, was placed in a juvenile detention facility and also in home detention, was subjected to months of bullying from kids at school, had his reputation forever damaged, and faced the possibility of criminal penalties.

After some time had passed, some of the girls admitted that they had conspired to mount false accusations against the boy.

In this instance, some of the worst that could happen did happen. Fortunately, the boy’s parents have taken action to deliver justice to the parties who slandered their son, and to hopefully restore his reputation.

They have filed a civil lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh against the Seneca Valley School District in Butler County (which did nothing after learning that the charges were false), District Attorney Richard Goldinger, and the parents of the five teenage girls who falsely accused the boy of sexual assault.

Perhaps some criminal statutes were also breached.

Let us hope for this unfairly damaged family that all of these scoundrels are severely punished. Perhaps the news of severe and just punishment against false accusers will serve to dampen future false accusations.

Losing economic freedom, and the prospect of women in combat

Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Canada, Chile, Mauritius, and Denmark all beat the United States in the 2013 Index of Economic Freedom. The U.S., part of a group of countries termed "mostly free," scored 76.0 out of 100, dropping .3 from last year, compared with 89.3 for Hong Kong. The world average score of 59.6 is only .1 above the 2012 average. All free economies averaged 84.5, well above the U.S. ranking.

The Index is produced by The Wall Street Journal and the Heritage Foundation, and is based on Adam Smith's theory expressed in The Wealth of Nations in 1776. It covers 10 freedoms scored from 1 to 100, from property rights to entrepreneurship, for 185 countries, and has been published since 1995.

Economic freedom is defined as "the fundamental right of every human to control his or her own labor and property. In an economically free society, individuals are free to work, produce, consume, and invest in any way they please, with that freedom both protected by the state and unconstrained by the state. In economically free societies, governments allow labor, capital and goods to move freely, and refrain from coercion or constraint of liberty beyond the extent necessary to protect and maintain liberty itself." That definition applies less to the U.S. each year.

The U.S. has lost economic freedom for five consecutive years and suffered losses in the categories of monetary freedom, business freedom, labor freedom, and fiscal freedom. The U.S. did post an increase in one category, however: government spending, in which it scored lowest of the ten categories.

The poor U.S. position, the lowest Index score since 2000, is due to rapid expansion of federal policies, which have encroached on the states' ability to control their own economic decisions. The authors specifically mentioned the Affordable Care Act and the Dodd-Frank financial bill as having strong negative influences on economic freedom. They also noted that national spending rose to over 25 percent of GDP in 2010, that public debt passed 100 percent of GDP in 2011, and that budget deficits have exceeded $1 trillion each year since 2009.

"More than three years after the end of the recession in June 2009, the U.S. continues to suffer from policy choices that have led to the slowest recovery in 70 years," the authors wrote. "Businesses remain in a holding pattern, and unemployment is close to 8 percent."

Until government stops trying to regulate nearly every facet of life, its tinkering will continue to slow the economy and prolong suffering, and we will continue to fall in the Index of Economic Freedom.

* * * * * * *

The decision to put women in up-front combat roles is troubling, to say the least, perhaps more so to those of us who grew up and served in times when women played important roles in the military, but were not directly involved in combat, or even close to combat.

Fortunately, only a relative few females have been injured and killed in recent military actions, but if this decision stands those numbers will grow, and that prospect is a quite traumatic one for many Americans, and completely unacceptable for many others.

The critical factor in determining whether any group or individual serves in a combat situation is whether they are up to the daunting challenges that exist. Requirements for who fills combat roles must be maintained at levels that guarantee that every person in a combat role is up to it, man, woman, gay, straight or whatever.

There are also practical considerations when males and females are in combat situations in close proximity. Troops are often in sustained operations for extended periods, and living conditions offer no privacy for personal hygiene functions or sleeping. Finding ways to provide needed privacy during high stress and dangerous operations may very well put troops at greater risk. That is not acceptable.

A convincing argument against this is that the decision was made for the wrong reasons: it was driven by political and social considerations, not military need, according to Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin, US Army (Ret.), who served for 36 years as an original member of the Delta Force and a Green Berets commander.

Some women believe that their chances of career advancement within the military suffer from being excluded from ground combat positions. And predictably, the American Civil Liberties Union, which frequently takes positions that make no sense in the practical world, agrees and has filed a lawsuit on their behalf.

The safety of our military personnel must not be put at risk in return for achieving some politically correct sense of fairness or even to allow female military personnel access to the career advantages that are available to males, as unfair as that may be. Fairness and equality sometimes must take a back seat.

Despite the strong desires of many Americans, men and women are by nature different biological creatures and distinctly not equal in important ways, one of which is that men are better suited to military combat than women. We shouldn’t fool with Mother Nature.

Wisconsin recall debacle casts negative light on labor unions

Wisconsin’s Republican Governor Scott Walker and Lieutenant Governor Rebecca Kleefisch, and three of four Republican state senators won the election last week against a public sector labor union-fueled recall movement.

Walker and Kleefisch both won handily against Democrat opponents, 53-46 percent and 53-47 percent, respectively, approximately the same margin by which Barack Obama won the presidency in 2008. 

It was a much bigger victory, however, than some news outlets would have you believe. [begin ital] The New York Times [end ital] and [begin ital]  The Washington Post, [end ital]  for example, said Gov. Walker “survives” recall, as if he won by a point or even a single vote. Some media called Mr. Obama’s 2008 seven-point victory a landslide, but with a seven-point victory, Gov. Walker merely “survived.” Six- or seven-point margins are solid wins, but not landslides, even when Mr. Obama is the winner.

At the root of this upheaval was Wisconsin’s adoption last year of sweeping reforms that curbed collective bargaining rights among government workers, brought the state’s pension system into line with private sector pension systems, and empowered public sector workers to choose whether or not to pay union dues. This bill was passed to save Wisconsin some $30 million in the 2011 fiscal year, helping to reduce a substantial budget deficit.

This was an exercise in union excess. The fact that Scott Walker won the General Election and did what he promised to do in the campaign is not sufficient reason to demand a recall. Given the frequency with which campaign promises are forgotten after the election, one could make a case that the Governor’s performance is reason for celebration.

And speaking of his performance, it has been pretty good.

When he took office on January 3, 2011 the labor force was 3,068,342 strong, 2,828,816 people were working, 239,526 were unemployed, and the unemployment rate was 7.8 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

As of April of this year, BLS numbers showed marked improvement:  the labor force was about the same at 3,068,900 workers, but 2,863,590 were employed, the number of unemployed had fallen to 205,310, and the unemployment rate was 6.7 percent. Approximately 34,000 of the unemployed had found a job. Is that level of improvement in little more than a year bad, or good?

The recall election is a mechanism designed to remove officials during a term of office, but is not a method intended to undo an election because some political faction is unhappy with the results. The people at-large made their decision, and the union faction did not prevail. Barring some illegal activity by those duly elected, everybody should just take a deep breath and wait until the next election.

The ill-conceived recall cost the state millions of dollars and distracted everyone in state government from doing the work they were elected or hired to do. According to polling data, many Democrat voters recognized that the recall was a bad idea, and voted against it because they disagreed with the recall movement more than they disagreed with Gov. Walker’s performance.

This effort is a black eye on the union, conjuring up images of children stamping their feet when they don’t get their way. It epitomizes what is wrong with labor unions, particularly public sector unions: excess.

There is nothing inherently wrong with organized labor, and indeed, there were very good reasons for labor to organize in the past. However, labor law has evolved to a point where laws now mostly control the relationship between employers and employees, eliminating the abuses that were the reason for unions to have originated. Unions simply are no longer needed to protect workers from abuse, and they now focus not on a safe and fair work environment, but on pay levels that are higher than market value and special perks, all of which boost costs for employers.

And that is particularly so in the case of public sector unions. Since government determines the labor climate and is the arbiter of labor disputes, to have a union representing government workers against the government is totally nonsensical.  

The problem posed by the Wisconsin recall madness is far less the responsibility of rank and file union members, many of whom have no choice whether to join a union or not, than of union leadership – which uses political donations and pressure to gain excessive pay, benefits and special perks for members – and the politicians who were more responsive to the lure of financial support and votes than to their responsibility to the taxpayers for whom they work.

It is not the members’ fault if they have an unrealistic level of job perks, and they do feel they are treated unfairly when someone wants to take something away from them. Their position is understandable, even if their level of protest is not.

But the reality is that the level of pay and benefits of public employees places an unfair burden on the taxpayers, and has to be fixed to help restore fiscal stability to the state, and Scott Walker’s first responsibility is to all the people of Wisconsin, not the public employee union.

It is the first step in restoring balance to the realm of public employment.

Click Here to Comment

Bush served them well, but it is time for a new villain to blame now

Back in the George W. Bush era Mr. Bush got blamed for everything, problems real and imagined, and even though he’s been out of office for 31 months, he is still getting blamed. The troubles of today are his fault, they say, and he will likely be blamed for stuff for the next few years.

Mr. Bush certainly made mistakes during his presidency. He presided over increased federal spending and budget deficits, and failed to seal the southern border and address illegal immigration. Critics even blame Mr. Bush for the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction issue and the financial collapse. Believing the latter two requires one to be either fact-challenged or be someone who plays fast and loose with the facts.

The far left always needs a villain, but realizes this “blame Bush” strategy is losing steam, and needs a new villain to shift responsibility to for their policy failures and has changed its focus.

Enter the Tea Party, which really is a philosophy more than a party, and in fact consists of several separate organizations with “Tea Party” in their name, as well as individuals not associated with any organization who identify with Tea Party principles and favor restoring the United States of America as it was originally configured by the Founding Fathers. It seeks to return the government to its limited and Constitutional boundaries, and also supports fiscal responsibility, low taxation, border security, and personal freedom.

No wonder the far left wants to demonize the Tea Party. The principles it advocates are poison to everything these folks believe. If the movement is successful, the country will thrive and the far left is out of business, and they clearly cannot allow that to happen.

The desperate reaction to the Tea Party movement manifests itself in comments that are well beneath the high level of tolerance the left demands from the right. Here is an example, via Tom Friedman of the New York Times, who wrote: “If sane Republicans do not stand up to this Hezbollah faction in their midst, the Tea Party will take the G.O.P. on a suicide mission.” So, Mr. Friedman believes Tea Party folks are not sane and their ideals compare to those of Islamic terrorists.

Following along on that theme, Nicholas Kristof, also in the New York Times, commented: “Wake up to the national security threat. Only it’s not coming from abroad, but from our own domestic extremists....The blunt truth is that the biggest threat to America’s national security this summer doesn’t come from China, Iran or any other foreign power. It comes from budget machinations, and budget maniacs, at home.”

The hallowed halls of academia are not immune to these wild-eyed reactions: William Yeomans, Fellow in Law and Government at American University in Washington wrote this on the Politico Web site: “It has become commonplace to call the tea party faction in the House ‘hostage takers.’ But they have now become full-blown terrorists.” Iran is not a threat, al Qaeda is not a threat, our out-of-control spending is not a threat, but the Tea Party idealists are a threat.

Before the moderate left called Tea Party advocates “terrorists” it called them “racists,” like this example from the Keith Olberman show on MSNBC, where “actor and activist” Janeane Garofalo said that “they have no idea what the Boston tea party was about. … This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up.” Democrat Representatives Maxine Waters and Charles Rangel appeared on the Fox News channel, both also saying racism was at the core of the Tea Party.

So, the Tea Party is a bunch of racists because they want a government that stays within its dictated boundaries and behaves sensibly with regard to taxes and spending, and personal freedom?

But while you likely have heard comments like the previous ones, chances are you haven’t heard about Tea Party advocate Lloyd Marcus, who writes, “I am a black performer/activist traveling on my third national Tea Party Express tour,” and he told of the “numerous white patriots [who] shook my hand with tears in their eyes thanked me for what I was doing for our country.” “These are the decent hard working great Americans Waters, Rangel and the left continuously attempt to portray as racist,” Mr. Marcus wrote.

A lot of folks believe the racist, terrorist bilge because it is being spread by folks they trust, lending credence to the maxim, “tell a lie often enough and people will begin to believe it.” Others suffer along under the same confusion as those who mischaracterize and demonize the Tea Party folks, apparently believing Tea Party principles are “radical,” and still others simply hate people that disagree with them, and resort to name-calling.

Everyone who regards limited and Constitutional government, fiscal responsibility, low taxation, border security, and personal freedom as “radical” ideas are grossly out of touch with everything the United States of America stands for. They are the ones who pose a great threat to the United States, and it is they, not the Tea Party folks, we should be concerned about.


Comments have hopefully been restored through the old Blogger system.

Click here to comment.

Here’s A Question For You

On his radio program April 4^th, Don Imus was conducting business as usual. Imus is frequently referred to as a “shock jock,” which is defined as “a radio disc jockey or host who features offensive or controversial material.” More recently Imus has not been a disc jockey, and he may never have been a disc jockey in the traditional sense. He is the host of a talk radio program and rose to prominence by being a “shock jock.” However, to call Imus a shock jock based on the more recent content of his program would be to totally mischaracterize the show. “Imus in the Morning” was a well-produced, highly creative, very informative, and mostly incredibly entertaining radio program. The show had news segments, interviews with authorities and personalities and politicians, comedy segments, sports reports and so forth, and sprinkled all through the broadcast were remarks by him or someone else on the show that were most often humorous, though sometimes a little rough.

The I-man and his on-air staff poked fun at a lot of people; no one was immune. And, yes, sometimes the remarks were crude and/or off-color. Personally, I was at one time a regular listener when it was available on a local station, and I liked the show. Sometimes I didn’t like a particular segment, sometimes I disagreed with a political position, or maybe thought he went a little too far for my particular tastes, but Imus certainly did not have a patent on that. If his show had been as tawdry and vulgar as much of rap, some rock, and a lot of comedic programming, for example, I wouldn’t have listened to the program.

In his three decades Imus has poked fun at, been critical of, been nasty to, and insulted lots of people, famous and not-so-famous, black/white/Asian/Hispanic, rich and powerful, even friends and associates. The President of the United States is not immune; ask either of the Bushes, or Bill Clinton. When he disagrees with someone, dislikes what someone has done or said, just like a lot of people you probably know who aren’t on the radio, he sometimes lashed out with harsh words. It’s what he does. It’s what he’s been doing for 30 years.

Those familiar with the Imus show saw that day’s fare as more of the same, just a normal day on the air. Along the way while talking about the success the Rutgers girls basketball team he interjected one of those edgy remarks, commenting that the girls team was a bunch of “nappy-headed hos.” That’s not a nice thing to say, of course, but it wasn’t an unusual sort of comment, from Imus’ point of view, and not an unusual comment from his listeners’ point of view, either. On a broader scale, it wasn’t special, at all, it was just one more off-the-cuff remark lasting less than five seconds, and then the staff was on to other topics.

Imus’ radio audience totaled only about 1.6 million a week on only 60 stations, and fewer than 400,000 television viewers. That’s not a lot of people, as big radio and TV shows go. Rush Limbaugh, for example, garners more than 13 million listeners a week and Howard Stern has more than 8 million. So, while Imus has gained influence in political circles, his show reached a relatively small group of people. Millions of people—tens of millions, I’d bet—had never heard of him, let alone listened to him or watched him on television.

So, here’s the question I alluded to in the title: With his relatively small sphere of influence, combined with the likelihood that none of the Rutgers female basketball team even knew who he was before April 4th, and probably didn’t listen to his show that day, why does anyone, especially the Rutgers girls, give a damn what he says about anyone?

The reaction to Imus’ dumb remark is out of all proportion to its impact on the universe, which wouldn’t have noticed had not a few agenda-driven people started screaming bloody murder, and built a band wagon too tempting for others who ought to know better to jump on. Such immense over-reactions and idiotic Chicken-Little behavior are shameful and humiliating characteristics of our society.

If people were really concerned about how Imus' comments would hurt the girls at Rutgers, they'd have kept their big mouths shuts, and let well enough alone.

Iraq Story

A U.S. Marine squad was patrolling north of Fallujah when they came upon an Iraqi terrorist, badly injured and unconscious. On the opposite side of the road was an American Marine in a similar but less serious state. The Marine was conscious and alert and as first aid was given to both men, the squad leader asked the injured Marine what had happened.

The Marine reported, "I was heavily armed and moving north along the highway here, and coming south was a heavily armed insurgent. We saw each other and both took cover in the ditches along the road. I yelled to him that Saddam Hussein is a miserable lowlife, and he yelled back that Ted Kennedy is a good-for-nothing, fat, left wing liberal drunk."

"So I said that Osama Bin Laden dresses and acts like a frigid, ugly, mean-spirited lesbian! He retaliated by yelling, ‘Oh yeah? Well, so does Hillary Clinton!’ And, there we were, in the middle of the road, shaking hands, when a truck hit us!!!"

Technorati Tags: Civility, Humor, Democrats

What Are People Thinking?

Many of the phone calls that come in to my home are telemarketers. I don’t like these calls. If I can identify on the Caller ID that the caller isn’t someone that I want to talk with, or if I don’t have reasonable curiosity about the call, I either don’t answer the call at all, or, I answer, and if I don’t hear a voice on the other end within about half a second, I hang up. It happens multiple times every day.

This afternoon the phone rang. I was busy. I didn’t want to talk with anyone I didn’t know, or with whom I was not expecting a call. I looked at the Caller ID; I decided to answer the phone.

According to the Caller ID, on the other end was the U.S. Marine Corps Recruiting Office, and a young Marine politely greeted me and asked about my daughter. Was she home? No, she is at college. Did I think she might be up to the Marine’s demanding regimen? “Probably not,” I said; “at least not until she graduates.” He thanked me for talking with him.

After the formalities were out of the way, I asked the Sgt. how the recruiting effort was going? “Pretty well,” he said, “although of the calls I’ve made recently you are the most polite and friendly person that I’ve talked to.”

“Really,” I said, expressing mild-to-moderate disbelief. In southwest Virginia and neighboring southern West Virginia, people are not only generally polite and respectful, but they honor our military personnel for what they voluntarily give to their country.

“Yeah. Most of the time I get cussed out or hung up on,” he said.

We talked a little more, I thanked him for being a Marine, he thanked me for being civil to him, and we both moved on with our respective business.

I am continually baffled by how easily some folks abandon common civility these days and resort to in-your-face nastiness. But what really galls me is that some people, many people, would treat our military recruiters with anything less than total respect, and their behavior begs the question, Why do they behave this way?

Opinions?

Out of Touch with Reality

My contempt for the American media is no secret; abdication of its primary responsibility for objectivity in favor of cheap advocacy for a political agenda is among the most despicable of acts in recent history.

The following excerpts from a piece by Marvin Olasky illustrate the immoderate core of ideologically based reporting and commentary daily offered up by today’s “journalists.” Commentary, of course, is where one expresses his or her opinion, so however radical the opinion may be, expressing it is okay. However, the tone of these comments reflects not only a decided bias, but more than that a deep frustration that their radical views are rejected by most Americans. Enlightened and moderate criticism has flown away, replaced by vituperative rhetoric born of desperation:

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann said on Sept. 11, at the site of the World Trade Center, "Who has left this hole in the ground? We have not forgotten, Mr. President. You have. May this country forgive you." On Oct. 18 he announced that the Bush administration is "more dangerous to our liberty than is the enemy it claims to protect us from."

Somehow, the prospect that Keith Olbermann really hopes for forgiveness for Mr. Bush seems less than genuine. Thankfully, Mr. Olbermann qualifies only for MSMBC where nobody sees him.

Newsweek's Eleanor Clift, declaring on April 7 that "There's nothing this administration won't do under the guise of battling terrorism," called for Americans to "stop Bush's imperial expansion of power." But Clift on July 15 said Russia's Vladimir Putin has "a commanding popularity among his own people, because he is perceived to be an effective dictator. What we have in this country is a dictator who's ineffective."

Perhaps Mzz Clift should go live in Iran under Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, or under Kim Jong Il in North Korea, or to Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe, for a few years to see just what a dictatorship is all about. On the other hand, maybe we should keep her here in the U.S. as an example of how not to behave.

Los Angeles Times columnist Joel Stein wrote on Jan. 24, "I don't support our troops. When you volunteer for the U.S. military you're willingly signing up to be a fighting tool of American imperialism."

At least Mr. Stein is honest enough to admit that he does not support our troops. Most of his fellow travelers on the Left Wing profess support for the troops, all the while working to under mine them. Mr. Stein should be sentenced to take a political science course to become acquainted with what imperialism really is.

CNN's Jack Cafferty on May 11 said that Senate Judiciary Committee head Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), who had criticized the Bush administration, "might be all that's standing between us and a full-blown dictatorship in this country."

The absurdity of that statement is self-evident. When Jack Cafferty first appeared on CNN, I had the distinct impression that in choosing an unknown old-timer the network must have reasoned thusly: “Even though ol’ Jack hasn’t wowed anyone with his performance, he’s been hacking around a long time. Let’s let him have that slot.”

All of these lesser lights have one thing in common, which is that we know them far less for their excellent journalistic skills than for their sharp tongues. Congratulations, lady and gentlemen, you have made a name for yourself; you have arrived and can now stand beside such luminaries as Michael Moore, Howard Dean, Al Sharpton and Cindy Sheehan.

God Bless Cindy Sheehan

Cindy Sheehan made a name for herself by using her son’s death to gain the public stage and then making a nuisance of herself through her petulant behavior. Democrats and liberals embraced her, and made her Queen. Her harangues against President Bush were the stuff of legend.

Proving what so many believe about her, that she is out of control, Ms. Sheehan created another spectacle as Democrats were taking the first official steps as leaders of the U.S. Congress for the first time in 12 years. As Congressman Rahm Emanuel was speaking to the party faithful, a group that included Ms. Sheehan began chanting about evacuating our troops from Iraq, drowning out Mr. Emanuel and forcing him to give up.

Rude? You betcha. But, of course, that sort of behavior is part and parcel of Ms. Sheehan’s in-your-face strategy. Only now, the Democrats are in her sights.

God bless Cindy Sheehan. She is an equal opportunity basher. She and the rest of the Left’s angry fringe—flirting with lunacy, or perhaps securely wrapped in it—will now become a problem for Democrats, who will not satisfy them, either. And God bless Cindy Sheehan, because she obviously needs it.

A Greeting

With political correctness run amok, the rampant hypersensitivity of the legions of people looking to be offended, it is so difficult in today's world to know exactly what to say without offending someone. But I wanted to express my good wishes to all, so I met with my attorney yesterday, and with his advice and counsel, I wish to say the following:

To all my family, friends and readers,

Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low stress, non-addictive, gender neutral celebration of the Winter Solstice holiday period, practiced within the most enjoyable tradition of the religious persuasions or secular practices of your choice with respect for the religious/secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all.

I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year of 2007, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures, whose contributions to society have helped make America great (not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country or is the only " America" in the western hemisphere) and without due regard to the race, creed, colour, age, physical ability, or disability, religious faith or the sexual preference of the wishee.

By accepting this greeting, you are accepting these terms: This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for him/herself or others and is void where prohibited by law, and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. This wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher.

Disclaimer: No trees were harmed, nor any whales saved or harmed, in the sending of this message, however a significant number of electrons were slightly inconvenienced.

Enjoy the season, whatever you call it, if applicable, or not!

Best wishes,

James Shott

Many thanks to Whitesnake for this piece.

Is It Too Late For a Recount?

I am embarrassed by the boorish actions of the newly elected Senator from my state, Virginia, who behaved like an adolescent in one of his first public appearances since barely winning the November 7^th election over incumbent George Allen by less than one percent. James M. Webb shunned the President of the United States in a formal gathering recently in honor of newly elected Representatives and Senators, by avoiding the receiving line, and refusing to have his picture taken with the President. I don’t care who you are, how you voted, or how screwed up your thinking is, that is poor form.

Worse, when President Bush approached Mr. Webb and asked about his son, who is in the military and serving in Iraq, Mr. Webb insolently replied, “That’s between me and my boy.”

Mr. Webb is not the only small person that doesn’t know how to behave in polite company, of course; there are legions of them these days. But he is an elected representative of the people of Virginia, where good manners are still widely practiced, and he owes them a better public face than that. I’m very unhappy that Commonwealth voters chose someone with such an apparent absence of class. I’m betting that if the good people of Virginia had any idea that Mr. Webb would behave so boorishly, George Allen would have been reelected.

Is it too late for a recount?

What A Difference A Day Makes!

Yesterday afternoon I sat with friends in the pavilion of the Bacardi distillery in San Juan sipping a Bacardi cocktail in the 88-degree heat.

Very civilized. Very pleasant.

Today, I woke up at home in the beautiful mountains of southwest Virginia to an inch of snow and 31 degrees.

Brother!

Technorati Tags: Civility, Vacation, Puerto Rico, San Juan, Pleasure