Due to multiple power outages in my area, I may not be able to get out a newsletter today.

How to commit the perfect crime: Get a judge to order it.

This story is typical of the garbage the leftmedia are using to mold public opinion in favor of the culture of death. What's bogus about it is that Terri Schiavo is (or at least wasn't) sick - she is disabled. It's probably true that a person in the natural dying process (which Terri was not) may stop eating and go through what the article describes. But it is not relevant to a physically healthy person! This is just one in a series of half-truths, distortions and outright lies that the media have been perpetrating.

This article may be completely bogus. Pay attention to how it starts out:

After suffering through cancer, the middle-aged woman decided her illness was too much to bear. Everything she ate, she painfully vomited back up. The prospect of surgery and a colostomy bag held no appeal.

And so, against the advice of her doctors, the patient decided to stop eating and drinking.

Over the next 40 days in 1993, Dr. Robert Sullivan of Duke University Medical Center observed the woman's gradual decline, providing one of the most detailed clinical accounts of starvation and dehydration.

You don't have to be a doctor to know that no one can survive for forty days without water.

--Mid-Hudson Valley Perspective--

If you've relied on the “mainstream” media for information on the Terri Schiavo case, you're probably under several misconceptions. The most serious being that it is a “right to die” case, which it's not. But also up at the top of the list is another; that this is a partisan Republican issue. It's not, and the proof is in the House vote.

There is no roll-call vote count for the Senate because they passed it on a voice vote which generally requires overwhelming support. In other words, the bill was passed in both houses with strong bipartisan support.

An ABC poll released today indicates that a majority of the public believes the federal government should stay out of it. The news story doesn't say what questions were asked to elicit this result, nor if respondents were questioned about their knowledge of the case. I suspect that the majority are woefully ignorant thanks to the media fog surrounding it.

Today, a letter in the Poughkeepsie Journal by Robert McKiernan of Poughquag made an important point about the abortion issue. It's too bad that Mr. McKiernan didn't get his own point. Here's what he says (in part):

Let me first address letter writer Dan Gilman's treatise on truth. Gilman says abortion is an absolute wrong just as much as it would be wrong for him to steal. I imagine that if Gilman were poor and unemployed and had no other manner in which to provide food for his child, he would steal it.

He would be acting on a parent's natural instinct to feed a child. And acting on that instinct is natural and just. It is the concept of personal property that is unnatural and thus renders his action illegal but not necessarily wrong or immoral.

The obvious point he makes is that abortion is not always wrong. I can agree with him in that there can be instances where abortion is justified, most notably when the life of the mother is threatened by the pregnancy. But look at the example he gives to illustrate his point. Granted, if your children were starving, it may not be wrong to steal to feed them. But we don't make stealing an absolute right just because there are hypothetical instances where it might be justified.

Mr. McKiernan frames his letter in terms of an absolute wrong. The real issue is how abortion has been made into an absolute right. I doubt Mr. McKiernan will ever understand how his example shows what's wrong with the way abortion is treated under the law.

Sometimes I can only conclude that the headline writers and editors at the Poughkeepsie Journal are completely incompetent. Today was one of those days.

Here's what was the top headline in today's paper: “Blake beats murder rap”. This was, of course, in reference to the acquittal of Robert Blake on murder charges stemming from the death of his wife.

Before giving her the paper to read, I asked my wife what it means to beat a rap. She confirmed what I felt on reading the headline - that someone “beating a rap” is a guilty person who got off.

Now I'm sure there are a lot of people who believe Blake is guilty, but the reality is that his guilt was not proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt. Even the Journal's headline writer has a right to his personal opinion which may be that Blake killed Bonnie, but he or she has no right to convey that opinion at the top of the newspaper.

I'm beginning to wonder why I waste my money subscribing to the Journal. I'm also beginning to think I may be the only conservative left who does. Reading the Letters to the Editor, you'd have to conclude either that conservatives don't read the paper, or they simply don't care about issues. I know it can't be the latter.

This is a tale of two stories. Both involve advances in science, one has profound ramifications, the other has created huge headlines.

The story making the big news is about steroids in baseball. I just don't know what the fuss is about. This isn't the first time athletes have used science to enhance their performance. Radical eye surgery greatly improves vision. Advances in orthopedic surgery lengthen careers and even can improve on nature. For instance, Paul Harvey recently reported on a type of elbow surgery that would add several miles per hour to a pitcher's fastball. Dietary supplements can increase stamina.

There's also been major progress in sports equipment. Golf is an excellent example. Newer clubs hit the newer ball longer and straighter. Bigger clubheads make it easier to strike the ball on the sweet spot. When Tiger Woods faces off against Phil Mickelson, he's also competing against “Slammin' Sammy” Snead, Ben Hogan, Bobby Jones, et al. But those guys didn't have the advantage of the technology in Tiger's bag. Does that mean every record Tiger sets should have an asterisk next to it?

You've probably figured out that I don't consider the steroid story big news. But what's the other story about, you might ask? The headline reads, “Scientists to make ‘Stuart Little’ mouse with the brain of a human”, reported here last Wednesday. I had to go to England to get the story, and haven't heard a peep about it in the domestic “mainstream” media. I guess they're too busy reporting more important stories, such as Martha Stewart in jail, Michael Jackson's trial and steroids in baseball. How can a little story about a Frankenstein monster compare to those?

Many theories have been advanced to explain why judges become ‘liberal’ activists after receiving lifetime appointments. Most of them don't make a lot of sense. I have one that does.

As Thomas Sowell pointed out in a recent column, activist judges make it impossible to predict what the outcome of any particular case will be. He explains how this provides fertile ground for lawyers to extort huge settlements because defendants can never be sure that, even though they believe they are on solid legal ground, the ‘activist’ element throws the outcome up into the air. That's bad enough, but what if there's another reason for the judges' activism?

Suppose you're a judge who is interested in supplementing your modest income by soliciting bribes. Would you want to set a judicial pattern of always strictly following the law, i.e., always being predictable? Of course you wouldn't because then when you accepted a bribe to invent some judicial principle, it would stick out like a sore thumb.

Take Judge Greer in the Terri Schiavo case for instance. To me, it certainly looks like he's been bought and paid for by Michael Schiavo who has the resources to buy a judge after his lucrative settlement. But since Greer has a history of ‘liberal’ activism, his rulings in this case fit the pattern of his previous rulings. They therefore don't draw much suspicion.

I say it's time to start looking at these activists from a different perspective. Instead of just seeing them as hopeless ‘liberals’, let's take a more realistic approach. Look at them as potential crooks, which is what they probably are.

Recently, we reported that a Maine lawmaker had introduced legislation that would prohibit the abortion of unborn homosexual babies. I commented that Maine State Rep. Brian Duprey, a Republican, is a genius. I stand by that assessment and would like to expand on it.

I suspect that Rep. Duprey isn't as interested in protecting homosexual babies as he is in protecting the unborn in general, and chipping away at the “right” to abortion. This is the type of political hardball the left has been playing for decades, and it's about time someone on our side got in the game.

What if we expanded the game? Duprey's bill puts pro-abortion legislators in a spot. If they oppose it, they can be branded as anti-‘gay’. And if they support it, they'll lose backing from their pro-abortion patrons. But why should we stop at using legislation? Another prime target should be the leftist, activist courts.

Looking at recent court decisions, we see enemy combatants being granted rights under the Bill of Rights. We also see the death penalty being ruled “cruel and unusual punishment”. Combining those two rulings, how can the military be allowed do kill enemy combatants even in a theater of war? Certainly, nuclear weapons impose a punishment more “cruel and unusual” than death by lethal injection, particularly since many of their targets aren't killed outright but suffer grievous injuries. I'm sure many on the left would love to have these things outlawed by courts but don't dare try because of the public backlash.

But what if we on the right took the issue to the courts? It would put the activists in a tough spot. They'd either have to repudiate their previous rulings or enrage the general public to point that might endanger their exalted position.

So maybe this isn't the best way to make our point, but I believe it's the type of strategy we ought to be pursuing. Rep. Duprey exemplifies the thinking that we on the right ought to be engaging in. He needs to be advanced in the party.

On Tuesday night, Clinton aide Nancy Soderberg, author of “The Superpower Myth: The Use and Misuse of American Might” appeared on Comedy Central's “The Daily Show With Jon Stewart”. Fortunately, James Taranto, editor of the Wall Street Journal's “Best of the Web” was tuned in and thanks to Tivo ®, was able to transcribe the exchange. You can read it here, but I'll give you some of the highlights, if you can call them that.

Looking beyond the obvious, that the premise of her book is being discredited on a daily basis, some of the things she said were disturbing, and makes it harder for Democrats to deny that they put partisan interests over what's good for the country. For instance, when Stewart pointed to happenings in the Middle East that make Bush's policies look successful, Soderberg said, “Well, I think, you know, as a Democrat, you don't want anything nice to happen to the Republicans, and you don't want them to have progress. But as an American, you hope good things would happen.” Isn't something a bit out of whack when the interests of your party don't coincide with what's good for the country?

But then when Stewart said referring to Bush's successes, “It's scary for Democrats, I have to say,” Sodenberg replied, “Well, there's still Iran and North Korea, don't forget. There's hope for the rest of us.”

Think about that for a moment. Here's a high Clinton administration official actually hoping that Bush's foreign policy vis-a-vis North Korea and Iran fails. And think what the consequences of failure might be. Would she be happy if a North Korean or Iranian nuclear weapon was detonated in an American city? You'd almost have to come to that conclusion, wouldn't you?

So what does this mean for the once-great Democrat party? They have no positive agenda, so all they can do is hope for U.S. failure to discredit a Republican administration. When you consider what that could mean for the country, it's nothing short of frightening.

Seeing Jason West's picture on the top fold of the Poughkeepsie Journal today emphasized to me how we on the right side of issues don't know how to drive our points home the way the left does. They're willing to break laws and risk jail, and we're not. This puts us at a disadvantage because in our system of laws, the only way to challenge a law in the courts is to break it. I'm sure someone will remind me that some of our own have been incarcerated in the course of their protests, but they don't count if they were unjustly arrested. That leaves out most of them except for Michael Griffin, James Kopp and a few others who many of us have ended up vilifying or distancing ourselves from.

So how can we get our points across the way they do? I have a couple of suggestions. The first addresses the same-sex ‘marriage’ issue. After the Poughkeepsie Journal printed a letter I wrote on the subject of same-sex marriage, I received a phone call from a same-sex marriage advocate. He gave me the usual line about rights, discrimination, etc., and then I asked him a question. I asked, if there were no financial benefits to marriage, did he think any same-sex couples would be clamoring to get married. He answered, truthfully, I believe, that they probably wouldn't, since that was what marriage was all about. I then reminded him that the reason government bestows benefits on married couples is for the benefit of children and their care-givers.

So when the left looks at marriage as nothing but a source of financial benefits, it behooves us to take on the issue from that angle. Here's one way to do it. What we're looking at is a situation where one group of people (same-sex couples) is trying to get their hands on government benefits for which they, by the nature of their unions, do not qualify. We can do the same. We can start going to our government offices and demanding food-stamps, e.g. Maybe we can get a friendly welfare worker to illegally issue us food-stamps, arguing, as West did, that the law unconstitutionally discriminates, and therefore the law can be broken.

Another idea addresses the situation facing Terri Schiavo. The first thing that came to mind was a nation-wide hunger strike, but frankly, I don't think the people aligned with Terri's husband would care one bit if a million or two right-wingers starved themselves to death. So we need something more direct that's more likely to get their attention - an animal “starve-in”. On the day Terri's feeding tube is removed, we publicly and loudly put our pets in cages without food and water. When PETA and the SPCA come after us, our retort is that if what we're doing is cruel, then how is it that a court can order this treatment for a human being?

What I'm proposing are just ideas. Consider them a starting point for a new way of looking at how we react to issues. Peaceful protests do have a place, but sometimes you have to block the lunchcounter.

New Page Feb. 23, 2005

The new “Essays” page contains (or will contain) a compilation of essays on various important societal issues. Its intent is to serve as a resource for people wishing to engage in debate via letters to the editor, etc. Readers are invited to submit articles for inclusion and to suggest new subjects. When submitting an article, please include the URL.

Correction Feb. 22, 2005

As an alert read noted, the writer of the Spitzer puff piece is a senior at Vassar College, not SUNY.

Now, a note to the “New Paltz senior”. Let's see if anything appears in the Poughkeepsie Journal correcting the inaccuracies in their story.

‘Yellow Journalism’ at the Journal Feb. 21, 2005

Yesterday (Sunday) the Poughkeepsie Journal dedicated almost an entire page to an article on Elliot Spitzer's publicity-seeking lawsuit against power plants. It was written by a SUNY student working as an intern, and although the byline said she's a senior, the article was decidedly sophomoric.

The article was one of the worst examples of biased and unbalanced journalism I've ever seen, and inspired me to write a rebuttal to the Environmental Editor, Dan Shapley. Here it is in its entirety:

If the article on “N.Y. heads anti-pollution push” by Emily Morris was an indication of what students at SUNY are “learning”, it's a sad reflection on the state of “education” these days. To say the article lacked balance would be a gross understatement. Here are just a few of the things that were left out or distorted:

1. The article gave no indication that there are many scientists who do not accept the dire forecasts of “global warming” alarmists. The ONLY thing scientists agree on is that CO2 is a “greenhouse gas”. Lost in articles like yours, though, is the further truth that the “greenhouse” contribution of atmospheric CO2 is minuscule compared to other “greenhouse” gasses, such as water vapor and methane. The statement in the article “Carbon dioxide is the most powerful greenhouse gas” was completely false. Water vapor is by far the most significant contributor to the greenhouse effect.
2. There is solid evidence that current warming trends are not “greenhouse” related. For instance, the planet Mars has been warming along with the earth, which might indicate that variations in solar output are the real culprit.
3. Carbon dioxide is not a “pollutant”, it is essential to life on earth. Yet your article repeatedly depicted it as a pollutant.
4. No mention of beneficial effects of global warming if it were to occur. For example, agriculture would benefit due to longer growing seasons and the fact that higher CO2 levels encourage plant growth.
5. Under “Possible effects of warming”,
• The article mentioned increased deaths due to heat waves, but made no mention of the fact that there would be a corresponding, but probably larger, decrease in deaths due to cold. This error indicates a lack of understanding of the mechanics of the greenhouse effect. Because infrared radiation (what CO2 and other "greenhouse" gasses impede) is a function of the fourth power of absolute temperature, the greenhouse effect (without which the earth would be uninhabitable) causes more warming at lower temperatures. What that means is that real greenhouse warming would make summers a tiny bit warmer and winters significantly warmer. Incidentally, this means that greenhouse warming could result in less weather violence (contrary to predictions of global warming alarmists) since storms are heat engines requiring temperature difference to generate and maintain them. As a planet warms due to greenhouse effect, the temperature difference between the coldest regions and the warmest regions, i.e., the driving force for storms, DECREASES.
• Rising seas due to glaciers melting is arguable. Real global warming is likely to increase precipitation (due to greater evaporation from the oceans), including snow. Glaciers, being rivers of ice, are maintained by snow input at the origin, and melting and breakage at the terminus. They basically grow in winter and shrink in summer. If they don't get enough snow in winter to balance out summer shrinkage, the overall effect will be for the glacier to shrink. But global cooling could result in less evaporation therefore less precipitation. Shrinking glaciers are not necessarily due to global warming.
• The idea that rising seas will cause the Hudson estuary to back up and push the salt wedge upstream is ludicrous. This might be true if the rising sea levels came in the form of a tsunami, but its inclusion in the article shows a gross lack of understanding and perspective.
• The amount of climate change required to cause maple trees to die would be centuries away under even the worst case scenarios. But it points to another omission from the article - the fact that contrary to "global warming" alarmism, the frost line (above which maple trees are likely to thrive) in the U.S. has been steadily moving SOUTH.
6. Discussion of the costs of implementation of the Kyoto Treaty was minimal and relegated to the final paragraphs of the article.
7. No mention of the fact that several countries participating in the Kyoto Treaty already have had to announce their inability to meet the goals.

Doing My Part Feb. 11, 2005

Yesterday, I sent a Letter to the Editor of the Poughkeepsie Journal on the subject of same-sex marriage. In anticipation of being flim-flammed by the editor, I sent the following note to John Penney:

John,

I sent a letter yesterday (attached) in accordance with your guidelines. It is important that this letter be published in a timely manner, since there is limited time remaining before this case goes to the Court of Appeals.

Since I scrupulously follow your guidelines, I would appreciate equal consideration to what other writers receive. For instance, yesterday, you printed three letters less than 30 days after the writer's previous letter, one 18 days, one 28 days, and the other 21 days.

Maxwell Schnurer - previous letter Jan. 20.
Paul Jankiewicz - previous letter Jan. 23.
Robert L. McKiernan - previous letter Jan. 13.

Thank You,
...

Why did I feel it necessary to send this? Previously, what I've encountered is that when I send them a letter, they will not acknowledge receipt of it until at least 30 days after they printed my previous letter. And then they wait a period of time after that to put it in the paper. Their published policy, however, makes no mention of a minimum interval between published letters, only an interval between submissions, which I scrupulously follow. As is evident from the three letters I cited, Penney's arbitrary limit of 30 days between publications seems to be enforced mainly in the breach.

I'll be posting follow-ups as appropriate. If Penney responds, I'll post his response. If he ignores me, I'll pass that on too.

More Poughkeepsie Journal Bias Feb. 10, 2005

The people at the Poughkeepsie Journal constantly profess their lack of bias, but what appeared on the Letters to the Editor page today pretty much removes all doubt in my mind. A letter appeared from Raymond Skov of Poughkeepsie, in which he generally applauded Thomas Sowell's recent article on Social Security, but took exception to Sowell's closing paragraph. Here's the entire letter:

This is in reference to Thomas Sowell's column on Jan. 25 titled “A private pension plan means you get the money you're owed.” I like Sowell's quality arguments for the conservative position on various subjects, in this case on the (optional, limited) privatizing of Social Security.

But it would have been nice if the Journal had included the liberal position on the same page for comparison. And then I suddenly realized that Sowell had generously provided it for us in his last paragraph, as follows: “Liberals are desperate to keep Social Security the way it is, because that means they can keep spending your money as they see fit and keep you dependent on them. That's what the welfare state is all about.” Who knew? Such enlightenment.

On a serious note, it was very disappointing to see Sowell write such partisan nonsense, which tarnishes his credibility.

When you write a letter to the Journal, they print your letter pretty much verbatim, but they reserve the right to compose the headline over it. In this case the headline they wrote was “Columnist's partisan hogwash helps no one”. Notice first of all that the word “hogwash” does not appear in the letter. Then, where the writer's opines that Sowell's “partisan nonsense” damages Sowell's credibility, the headline makes it seem as if the whole column “helps no one”.

If you're tempted to view the Journal as unbiased, just ask yourself this: where did the word “hogwash” come from? It didn't come from the letter, so it must have come from the mind of someone at the Journal, and passed over the desks of others. It's not a word an unbiased person would have picked out of the air.

Selective Indignation Feb. 9, 2005

Yesterday, the Poughkeepsie Journal ran an editorial from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch under the headline, “IRS probe of rights group is troubling”. The “rights group” is, of course, the NAACP, and the story appeared here.

I too find the situation troubling, but for different reasons. For one, I can't remember the Journal publishing editorials against the IRS harrassment of Paula Jones, or the Christian Coalition (and other conservative groups) during Clinton's tenure. But my concern goes deeper than that. What really concerns me is that “the land of the free” can have an organization with the power to stifle speech and invade our privacy as the IRS does.

This situation is just one more indication that the oppressive IRS has no place in a free society. We shouldn't be whining about our pet organizations getting audited, we should be rising up in anger against the power to audit anyone! And the only way to get rid of the oppression is to get rid of the income tax.

If ‘liberals’ were as concerned about liberty and privacy as they pretend to be when obstructing anti-terrorism measures, their first target would be the IRS. But since the IRS is essential to funding their socialist programs, they turn a blind eye to its excesses.

It's Time, Folks Feb. 6, 2005

Judging from the paucity of ‘conservative’ letters appearing in the Poughkeepsie Journal, I'm guessing that all you ‘conservatives’ have been holding back in case something really important comes up, and you don't want to be stuck behind that 30 day limit. Well, folks, that “really important” something has come up and it's time to fire up the keyboards.

Yesterday, Mayor Bloomberg of New York City announced his plan to solidify the Supreme Court Justice's dictate nullifying New York's marriage law. He's going to appeal it to the Court of Appeals to get a “final” decision. What he's not saying is that undoubtedly, the city will make a feeble, token defense of the law, giving the higher court little grounds to reverse the decision.

As I pointed out previously, the “equal protection” argument is bogus. So too is the argument likening same-sex marriage to interracial marriage. Laws against miscegenation did violate the equal protection clauses of the New York State Constitution and the U.S. Constitution. Under those laws, people were treated differently based on their race. A white man could marry a white woman, but miscegenation laws prohibited a black man from marrying the same white woman. That is obviously unequal treatment. However, there is no inequality under the present law. A black or white man, whether heterosexual or homosexual, can legally marry a heterosexual or homosexual woman. There is no discrimination based on sexual orientation. A homosexual man, under the present law, is prohibited from marrying another man. But a heterosexual man is also prohibited from marrying another man, so there is no unequal treatment. And don't buy the counter argument that a heterosexual man would have no reason to marry another man. When you reduce marriage to nothing more than a means to qualify for benefits (which is what the push for same-sex marriage is doing), there certainly is reason for a heterosexual man (or woman) to want to marry another man (or woman).

So it is imperative that the fallacy of the legal arguments are exposed in short order. Letters to the editor are one powerful way to educate the public who have been brain-washed by the leftmedia. For the best effect, when you write, please follow the following guidelines:

• Do not use the term “gay marriage”. Stick to “same-sex marriage”. When you put it in terms of “gay marriage”, you make it an attack on homosexuals. “Same-sex” marriage puts the argument in positive terms defending traditional marriage.
• Avoid religious arguments. Since we're now forced to argue the issue in the courts, religious arguments carry no weight, and actually can have a negative effect. When the issue is argued in the political arena (where it should be argued, but where this rogue judge is attempting to keep the issue from), then religion has a place.

Advocates of same-sex marriage say that it really doesn't matter. Of course it does. It will make it impossible to keep same-sex couples from having equal access to adopting children. It will also lead to mandates requiring teaching homosexual practices in sex-ed classes in schools.

And don't forget to remind people that marriage has a purpose, and it's not to give government recognition to two (or more) people's love, devotion or whatever. It's all about children, and protecting their care-givers. When we start giving government benefits to people for whom they weren't originally intended, those benefits are going to have to be paid for. Is it right to force real families with real children to protect and support to subsidize same-sex collusions? I don't think so. If you feel like me, start writing. Please! The Poughkeespie Journal accepts e-mail contributions. Send your letter to letters@poughkee.gannett.com.

West's False Argument Feb. 3, 2005

Jason West, mayor of New Paltz, is in the news again. An Ulster County Court judge has reinstated charges against him relating to his illegal act of “solemnizing a marriage without a license”.

The story which appeared on the top fold of the Poughkeepsie Journal today started with West's assertion that the ruling was wrong. His reasoning is that “My oath of office is to uphold the constitution. As soon as the law forces me to break the constitution, I'm forced to uphold the constitution.”

The ruling wasn't wrong, but you'd never get that from the Journal's coverage. The problem with West's argument is that it is fallacious. Neither the U.S. Constitution, nor the New York State Constitution are valid arguments in his favor. He bases his defense on his assertion that state marriage law discriminates against same-sex couples, thereby violating equality protections under the state constitution. Predictably, the Journal's story doesn't quote the applicable section of the Constitution, but I will:

No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of this state or any subdivision thereof. No person shall, because of race, color, creed or religion, be subjected to any discrimination in his or her civil rights by any other person or by any firm, corporation, or institution, or by the state or any agency or subdivision of the state. (Article I, Section 11, New York State Constitution)

Now, let's see what the U.S. Constitution has to say on the subject:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (14th Amendment, U.S. Constitution)

The important point is that both documents refer to “equal protection” as applied to persons. The only way West's argument would have merit is if equal protection applied to groups of people, and there is nothing in either constitution to indicate that it should. The New York State marriage law does not discriminate against any person. All adult persons, whether heterosexual or homosexual, are permitted to marry a person of the opposite sex. The law does not require that the couple be “in love” or sexually attracted to each other. Therefore, it is clear that the purpose of the law is not to solemnize the love or sexual attraction of applicants.

I believe this tendency to misinterpret constitutions to suit an agenda is a direct result of the rulings of activist courts. When the highest court in the land can invent something as vile as a right to abortion, petty would-be tyrants like West pay attention. If the Supreme Court can disrespect the Constitution, why can't the mayor of New Paltz?

Be aware that West's erroneous interpretation of the law is shared by the state's Attorney General, Elliott Spitzer, who will be, almost certainly, running for governor. He has a good chance of winning.

 Feb. 2, 2005

When does media bias turn into media manipulation? Do they do it on purpose, or unthinkingly, or because they're so stupid they don't know what they're doing? Maybe it's a combination of all of the above.

These questions entered my mind when I saw for about the umpteenth time a picture of a pathetic looking girl on the pages of the Poughkeepsie Journal. For those of you who don't subscribe, the story is about a teenage girl, a “local grad”, who was arrested for allegedly robbing three banks and attempting to rob another. When I saw the picture again today on the front page, I couldn't help suspecting that they were consciously trying to drum up sympathy for her. I mean, couldn't they find another picture, from her high school yearbook, perhaps?

Then I turned to the Opinion Page, and there I found this letter to the editor:

A dispirited looking local teenage girl suspected of bank heists, who was unarmed and “handed the teller a note,” is a front-page story with accompanying picture, yet due to federal privacy laws you could not even reveal the names of 21 illegal immigrant men arrested for repeat violent offenses.

It looks as if their campaign, whether intended or not, is working.

Planned Parenthood Loses a Leader Feb. 1, 2005

There's a story out today about the outgoing president of Planned Parenthood criticizing John Kerry's “presidential” campaign. There are a couple of things i the story that I think rate a mention.

First, I found her life story interesting. She was pregnant at 15, and had three children by age 20. According to what we hear from PP, her life should have been ruined, but somehow, she managed to “rise” above it. So how is it that ‘liberals’ have such a bleak view about what other people are capable of? It just doesn't figure.

Then, there's her criticism of Kerry. Regarding the abortion issue in his campaign, she said, “I have great respect for John Kerry, but there's no question he did not articulate these issues well.” Considering that he's at least nominally a Roman Catholic, she had no right to expect him to articulate them at all. Her problem, like that of most ‘liberals’, is that she doesn't recognize that other people might have views even slightly different from hers. She apparently took it for granted that any nominee of the Democrat Party would be so beholden to the abortion special-interest that he would toe the pro-abortion line without reservation.

Perhaps this tendency of hers to consider the Democrat Party an appendage of Planned Parenthood had something to do with her departure.

Today, Honor Our Troops Jan. 30, 2005

Ted “the Swimmer” Kennedy said American troops were the problem in Iraq. Today, the Swimmer should be hanging his head in shame. Thanks to American troops, Iraqis made history, and put apathetic Americans to shame with their enthusiasm for democracy.

And let's put the credit where it belongs. Our heroic troops put their lives on the line every day to make a beachhead for freedom in the Middle East. The swimmer and his protege, John Kerry, have disparaged the role of the brave troops, but it is they who should be disparaged. The troops should be given the highest honors. It's their day. Honor them. Their sacrifices have not been in vain.

Dems' Next Strategy? Jan. 29, 2005

Being an editor sometimes requires tying together seemingly disparate pieces of information. Here are some things that, when connected, reveal a possible new strategy for Democrats in upcoming elections.

After the past two elections, the Dems have been singing a consistent song - that both of the elections that Bush won were “illegitimate”. In 2000, Bush's victory was illegitimate because he didn't win the popular vote (and he didn't let Gore steal Florida). This time, they invented a phony vote fraud scandal in Ohio, and again, the refrain is that Bush's win wasn't legitimate.

Now turn your attention to Iraq. With elections there just hours away, that old word is cropping up again. They're saying that the vote won't be legitimate because Sunnis are threatening to boycott it.

Consider why the Sunnis are adopting this strategy. Just about everywhere else in the Middle East, Sunni Muslims are a majority. But not in Iraq. There, Shiites are the majority, but until now, Sunnis (Baathists) ruled. Seeing their hold on power evaporating, they seek to delegitimize the elections.

This brings us back home. There are parallels between the Sunnis in Iraq and the Democrats in America. Both are minorities that are accustomed to being power. Both have adopted strategies of attacking the legitimacy of election processes, either before or after the fact.

Which brings me to my prediction, having tied all these observations together. In 2008, facing electoral oblivion, Democrats will boycott the election. Using Ohio as an excuse, they'll disparage our voting system, claiming they have no chance to win, not because of their negative agenda, but because the system is stacked against them. Then, after the election, they'll be able to say it wasn't legitimate because they didn't participate.

Mark my word!

Hoping for Bad News Jan. 28, 2005

How would like to be associated with people who are hoping for bad things to happen to America? Well, if you're on the left with Seymour Hersh, that's what you are. Get a load of this bit of Hersh's wishful thinking.

After a litany of paranoia, he gives us his hopes for the future:

Another salvation may be the economy. It's going to go very bad, folks. You know, if you have not sold your stocks and bought property in Italy, you better do it quick.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we had a loyal opposition with a positive agenda. But where is the positive agenda? If you've seen it, please let me know. It's bad enough that they don't seem to have anything to contribute other than rabid criticism, but when they start viewing a bad economy as their “salvation”, the country is in bad trouble indeed!

Social Security Irony Jan. 25, 2005

If you asked the average American what the original purpose of Social Security was, you'd probably hear something about creating a “safety net” or a minimum income for the elderly. What you'd most likely hear would be wrong.

Social Security was created during the Great Depression. The overarching problem of the time wasn't old-age security, it was unemployment. To that end, Pres. Roosevelt devised this system to entice older workers to retire and open up their jobs to younger workers. The system, you see, wasn't meant for the security of the elderly, it was meant to lower the unemployment numbers.

Today, we're looking at a situation where we're going to have to raise the FICA tax and raise the retirement age in order to keep the system solvent. Here's the irony. When we raise the retirement age, we're going to force older workers to stay in their jobs longer. That's going to make it tougher for younger workers to find jobs, causing unemployment to rise. This relative labor surplus could cause wages to be lower than they otherwise would be. Lower wages means lower FICA tax collections.

We shall see how this all plays out.

Surrogate Rabble-rousing Jan. 24, 2005

Speaking of the inauguration, how many are aware of what some Democrat congressmen did? This is how the San Francisco Chronicle reported it:

The most effective -- and disruptive -- protest may have come from the anti-war group Code Pink, which obtained 16 tickets to the inauguration from their members of Congress. Eight female activists, including Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin of San Francisco, obtained seats in the VIP section.

They took their cue during Bush's speech -- when he spoke about the rights of people living under dictatorships to “free dissent” -- and unfurled banners reading “No War” and “Bush Mandate: Bring the Troops Home.” Police confiscated the banners but did not remove the women.

A few moments later, the women stood up again, but this time they shouted, “Champagne is flying while soldiers are dying” and “Out of Iraq now.” The pro- Bush crowd began chanting, and Bush momentarily paused. Police pulled the women off their chairs and escorted them out of area.

Two of the women were still being held late Thursday -- Benjamin and Diane Wilson of Texas -- but the others were released after the speech was over.

Isn't this typical of today's Democrats. They get others to do their dirty work for them, and pretend their hands are clean. They wanted to protest the inauguration, but didn't want their faces in the news doing it. So they gave their coveted tickets to a bunch of extremist protesters. And I'll bet you're wondering who the cowardly congressmen were. So am I. According to Jim Angle of FOX News, they were from California and New York. Stay tuned.

p.s. I contacted Congressman Hinchey's office, and was informed that he did not give tickets to protesters. Unless I learn otherwise, I'll take them at their word.

Speaking of Lacking Intelligence ... Jan. 24, 2005

The first time I witnessed Barbara Boxer speaking, I was in a hotel room on a business trip. I had heard people talking about this woman, Barbara Boxer, who was running for senator in California, and most of them were saying she was a complete “airhead”.

So I was in the hotel room, and I turned on the TV, and there on the screen was a woman spouting the most inane, nonsensical blather I had ever heard. I thought to myself, this woman is a complete airhead. And then I remembered what I'd heard about Barbara Boxer, and I wondered to myself if this was her. Actually, I was wondering how it could be anyone else.

Well, to make a short story even shorter, I was right, it was Barbara Boxer. And in the years since, I've never heard her say anything to change my first impression. Last week, listening to her insult Condoleezza Rice almost made me ill. Ms. Rice has more intelligence in her pinky finger than Boxer has in the cavity betweem her ears. More integrity, too.

True Colors Shining Through Jan. 22, 2005

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” These historic words from our Declaration of Independence were revolutionary.

But in recent years, we have listened to the left questioning the words. We assumed that their objections had to do with calling a Creator the source of our rights. But their reaction to President Bush's inaugural address is making me believe that maybe their objection is to the entire concept of endowed rights.

When our founders wrote those historic words, they didn't say that only Americans were endowed with inalienable rights - they said “all men” are created equal. President Bush said, “Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way.” This makes the left nervous.

But they weren't nervous when President Clinton used our military might against a dictator in Yugoslavia. So what are we to believe? That if a Democrat president promotes freedom, that's good, but when a Republican president does it, that's bad? I think it's a little more basic than that.

I've come to believe that the true motivation of today's “liberals” and their “do-good” programs isn't really to accomplish good, but to make themselves feel good. When their opposition is doing all the good, it robs them of their good feelings. This explains why their new political agenda, now that they're out of power, is negativism and obstructionism. It's particularly galling to the “feel-good” crowd to see good being done with someone else getting the credit.

Let's assume that they really believe in inalienable rights, but maybe they just quibble about their source. Would they then object to using the power and influence of the United States to promote freedom around the world, especially when they've already demonstrated a willingness to do it when a Democrat is in the White House? I don't think so.

A Great Address Jan. 20, 2005

Former Senator Zell Miller called it “a bold and important speech.” That it certainly was.

While I listened to it, I began to wonder if the leader of any other country would ever dare to make such a speech. Could you imagine those words coming from Jacques Chirac or Gerhard Schroeder? Hardly!

All of the tinhorn dictators around are now on notice. If they deny freedom to their people, they are in Pres. Bush's crosshairs. This is a daring departure from past foreign policy which took a pragmatic approach toward despots. If we thought that they could help us, we'd help them. If we take Bush at his word, those days are over. And if you are ever wondering what Bush plans to do, just listen to what he says.

So now let's wait and see if he follows through. And let's see if Saudi Arabia and Pakistan get the message.

Read it Here First Jan. 18, 2005

Today I received an e-mail from a friend who is on this site's distribution. The e-mail was informing me, and everyone else on her distribution list, that Pres. Bush was backing off from his previous support for the Marriage Amendment, according to the Washington Post.

If she'd kept up with what's posted here, she might not have been so alarmed. Yesterday, I posted a story from NewsMax which essentially implied that the Post might have gotten it wrong.

I don't pretend to know for sure where the truth lies, but I'm pretty sure that the “mainstream” media would love to turn Bush's conservative base against him. And from the CBS conspiracy, we learned that there are a lot of ‘liberals’ in the media who don't let the truth get in the way of their agenda. So I'm more inclined to believe the NewsMax story.

There's a lesson here for all of you. Peruse this site before you go flying off the handle. I spend a lot of time every day trying to get to the bottom of stories of interest to you. I'm wasting my time if you don't take advantage of it.

Selling ‘Ownership’ Jan. 17, 2005

The central theme of President Bush's Social Security plan is “ownership”. What he wants to accomplish is to convert the present pyramid scheme into a system where participants own and control some of the money they are forced to put into Social Security.

One very desirable aspect of this idea is that when a participant dies under the present system, no further benefits are paid except for a death benefit and reduced survivor's benefit. If the person dies before retirement, all contributions are lost. With the proposed “ownership” system, this would change. The “privatized” portion would remain as property of the person's estate, and could be left to whatever heirs the deceased designates.

Here's where Republicans are dropping the ball. This is a powerful selling point, particularly in view of the controversy surrounding same-sex marriage. What we need to do is point out that the present system would benefit homosexuals. When they die of AIDS or whatever, they can leave their Social Security to their partners. They wouldn't even have to be “married” to do it.

Frankly, I think that's all we'd need to do to sell the plan. If it benefits homosexuals, the left can't oppose it.

Policing Letters Jan. 16, 2005

I've been considering creating a new page dedicated to the Poughkeepsie Journal's letter to the editor. Now, I've come to the conclusion that such an expansion is not necessary, and I'll make my observations on this page instead. You've probably noticed that I've already started doing it.

Here's another example of things I'm going to be looking at. Yesterday, this letter from Richard J. May of Hyde Park was at the top of the Letters page:

On Jan. 25, 2002, Alberto Gonzales reaffirmed in a memo to President Bush that the Geneva Conventions didn't apply to Taliban and al-Qaida prisoners.

In it, Gonzales responds to objections of Secretary of State Colin Powell. Powell had asked Bush to reconsider that policy, saying it would be widely condemned, might prompt other countries to look for loopholes to conclude they were not bound by the treaty either, and could undermine the military's high standards of conduct. The latter became a reality in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.

Now during the confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, for nomination as attorney general, Gonzales said, “I consider the Geneva Conventions neither obsolete or quaint,'' and promises to ensure U.S. compliance ”with all of its legal obligations in fighting the war on terror." Talk about flip-flopping.

What's wrong with this letter? First of all, it is inaccurate. If you read the memo, you'll see that Gonzales does not say that the Geneva Conventions don't apply to the Taliban and al-Qaida fighters. What it does say is that the president has the consitutional authority to make such a determination and that the Attorney General,who is charged by statute with interpreting the laws for the Executive Branch, has issued the aforementioned opinion. He also outlines the ramifications of this opinion. The “Purpose” section of the memo makes this clear, stating,“This memorandum outlines the ramifications of your decision and the Secretary [of State]'s request for reconsideration.” Clearly, the memo does not reaffirm that the Geneva Conventions don't apply to Taliban and al-Qaida prisoners.

The second thing wrong with this letter is that it is plagiarized from a Knight-Ridder article. Scroll to the bottom and you'll see that most of the letter is copied word for word. While the Journal's letters policy doesn't specifically require original material, ethics and copyright laws prohibit taking the words of others and representing them as your own. This isn't the first time that the Journal has printed copied letters. I previously reported on them printing other letters copied directly from the DNC's website.

One thing we have to acknowledge about Democrats - they are consistent in their unoriginality.

Evolution - Beating the Odds Jan. 15, 2005

One argument against evolution is the long odds against it. This is one argument I'm not sure I buy. I'm also not sure it isn't a valid argument. Here's why.

It's often said about “infinity” that if you had an infinite “number” of monkeys with and infinite “number” of typewriters and an unlimited amount of paper and ink, one of them would produce a complete, exact copy of “War and Peace”. This analogy is incomplete. Given the mathematical definition of infinity and how it applies to probabities, it would be more accurate to say that the monkeys would produce an infinite “number” of copies of “War and Peace” as well as an infinite “number” of every work of literature ever produced or that ever will be produced. (I put “number” in quotes because infinity and numbers are, in a way, mutually exclusive)

By the laws of probability, it would follow, then, that given a universe of matter and energy (and whatever) of infinite duration, at some point the odds against evolution by chance would be beaten. In fact, it would be beaten an infinite “number” of times. This could be extended to say that since there is a finite probability of the present universe being duplicated atom for atom over and over.

This is pretty hard to swallow, but that may be only because the human mind is incapable of grasping it. Or, it may be because the laws of probability break down when applied to infinity. Maybe there are probabilities that are so remote that they will never be satisfied. Since we have no way to accurately simulate infinity, we'll probably never know for sure.

A ‘New Low’ Jan. 12, 2005

Another letter-writer has detected a “new low” at the “Poughkeepsie Journal”. Here's what Christopher Ruhe of Beacon had to say:

I usually do not write, but from a normally judicious publication like the Journal, a new low has been plumbed.

The profoundly shallow, monumentally small and explicitly threatening column, which invokes the sinister name of Joseph Goebbels, by the benighted Robert Sowell in the Journal, should not have been published. It is beneath you, or at least it should have been.

Golly! The guy's never read “Nazi” references in the Journal before. Where has he been? I've looked through past letters to the editor, and while there's a lot of pretty vile stuff, I want to concentrate on the writing of one person in particular. His name is Tony Allen Raynor. Here is some of his “best” work:

January 27, 2004
The right wing might not be gassing the people or lynching them, but its political agenda has the same foundation and incites such behavior.
...
If Bush wins re-election I will never vote again, because I won't pretend anymore that I am part of a country where half the people resemble Nazis and whose leader is beyond stupid, and are leading this country toward, instead of away from, poison.

February 24, 2004
When I said half the people resemble Nazis, I meant that in that hell that was Nazi Germany there had to be a beginning of the breakdown in their society that enabled them to look at the Jews and the Gypsies and the gays and say to themselves, these people are less than me.

July 19, 2004
Republicans have turned into brainwashed moonies.

November 8, 2004
Referred to Republicans and the president as “homophobes” five times.

It seems to me that issuing a “Joseph Goebbels Award for that journalist who best exemplifies the spirit and the practice that Dr. Goebbels pioneered” is pretty tame stuff compared to Raynor's rantings. Do you agree?

 Jan. 12, 2005

Yesterday, the Poughkeepsie Journal ran a letter from Kathleen Hart of Poughkeepsie who stated that prayer and Bible study in school “violated the First Amendment, which prohibits government establishment of religion. Not ‘a’ religion, but religion period (read it carefully).”

Ms. Hart should take her own advice, because her interpretation is erroneous. Regarding religion, it says,“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.

“[M]ak[ing] no law respecting an establishment of religion” is not equivalent to “prohibit[ing] government establishment of religion”. Reading carefully, we see that it says, in effect, “Congress shall make no law respecting [something]”, that “something” being “an establishment of religion”. An “establishment of religion” in this context refers to any religious organization, such as the Roman Catholic or Mormon churches. The verb “respecting” is defined as “to consider worthy of high regard”, “to refrain from interfering with”, or “to have reference to”.

Since the Bible, prayer, the Ten Commandments and mentions of “God” are not the sole property of any particular “establishment of religion”, their presence in schools is not prohibited by the First Amendment. In fact, prohibiting them violates “the free exercise [of religion]”. Contrary to Ms. Hart's claim, schools have prohibited praying at school events, such as commencement exercises. In one such ceremony, after a prohibition against prayer was invoked, a student felt compelled to fake a sneeze to elicit a “God bless you” from the audience. Ms. Hart says this is a “lie”. Snopes.com, which investigates “urban legends” says otherwise.

Associated Press Whitewashes CBS Jan. 11, 2005

In an AP story which appeared today in the Poughkeepsie Journal, it was stated that the panel investigating CBS's “Rathergate” story found “no evidence of a political bias against Bush.” The AP got it wrong, and I suspect their “error” has as much to do with their anti-Bush bias as the CBS phony story did.

To get to the truth, all we need do is read the panel's report. Here's what it says on page 28:

The Panel is aware that some have ascribed political motivations to 60 Minutes Wednesday's decision to air the September 8 Segment just two months before the presidential election, while others further found political bias in the program itself. The Panel reviewed this issue and found certain actions that could support such charges. However, the Panel cannot conclude that a political agenda at 60 Minutes Wednesday drove either the timing of the airing of the Segment or its content.

This is a far cry from finding “no evidence”. In fact, it's saying that there is evidence (“certain actions”) to support the charge of political bias. All it's saying is that they couldn't find anything like a memo telling people to “get Bush at all costs.”

To say that there is “no evidence of political bias” is ludicrous. The discredited content and timing of the “Rathergate” fiasco is powerful evidence in itself. Reasonable people would have a hard time concluding otherwise, even though the panel was afraid to come to such a conclusion.

‘Wartime’ Traditions Jan. 10, 2005

In a way, it's good to see people on the left finally realizing that wartime might require us to alter our behavior. For example, here's a letter that appeared today in the Poughkeepsie Journal written by James L. Joseph of Poughkeepsie:

Instead of the extravagant presidential inaugural ceremonies planned for Jan. 20, it would be more appropriate for President Bush to hold a wartime austerity inauguration. The money raised might better be spent to aid the tsunami survivors.

While this gesture would be largely symbolic, it would at the same time be an act of statesmanship.

Isn't it wonderful to see such statements of patriotism from our ‘liberal’ friends? But wouldn't it be better if they also honored other wartime traditions like supporting the Commander in Chief, the troops and their mission?

Needing a ‘Mandate’ Jan. 8, 2005

The “acting” governor of New Jersey is pushing to raise the state's minimum wage. Such a move could have serious consequences on the economy of the state.

Following November's election victory, Democrats said that Bush's majority (something Clinton never got) was not sufficient to be a mandate for him to advance his ambitious agenda. Now, I wonder, if any Democrats will apply a similar standard to Gov. Codey. I even wonder how many New Jersey citizens would recognize the name Codey as that of their governor.

I guess it's only Republicans who need a mandate to do anything. And, of course, no Republican victory is ever big enough to supply one.

Inalienable Rights Jan. 3, 2005

In the next few weeks, you're going to be hearing the left use the phrase “inalienable rights” time and time again. It's going to be used to make the argument that Pres. Bush's nominee for Attorney General does not respect the Constitution because he advocated denial of certain rights to detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay.

There are two things to keep in mind when you hear them invoke it. First, those words appear nowhere in the Constitution nor in its amendments. Second, they do appear in the Declaration of Independence. They appear in the second paragraph as, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.”

The irony (or the hypocrisy) here is that whenever that particular sentence is raised in a “church and state” context, the left takes great pains to point out that the Declaration of Independence has no standing in law.

Words of Hope - and Dispair Jan. 3, 2005

Why did so many in the media criticize Pres. Bush for not being prominently visible immediately after the tsunami disaster? The reason they seem to be giving is that Bush, speaking for the United States, would have given hope and optimism to the survivors. People calling talk radio the last day or two have been making this point.

This brings me to a question. If symbolism is so important, how were the survivors and rescuers affected by the New York Times, e.g., calling the response “stingy”? If the president's words would have spread hope, wouldn't calling attention to his delayed response have had a tendency to spread dispair?

Parental Instinct Jan. 3, 2005

Did you hear the story about the woman with two children fleeing the tsunami? She realized she couldn't carry both of her children to safety, so she left the older one behind.

That woman was reacting instinctively. Her parental instinct told her she had to save the child least able to save himself.

It should kind of make you wonder how anyone can use the words “mother” and “abortion” in the same sentence.

Endangered? Jan. 2, 2005

A large picture of a bald eagle caught my eye. It was on the front page of today's Poughkeepsie Journal over a story about “endangered” and “threatened” species.

Why was this so interesting to me? because the bald eagle, as a species, has never been endangered. While it was on the endangered species list, the listing only applied to the lower contiguous United States. The species was, and still is, plentiful in Alaska. And its range is not just limited to the United States.

This exposes the dirty little secret about the Endangered Species Act - it isn't really about saving species from extinction, it's about protecting animal habitat against human encroachment. In other words, it's nothing but a tool to interfere with human development.

Another example showing that it isn't about saving species is the treatment of the Atlantic salmon. The salmon as a species is exceedingly plentiful, thanks to a lucrative market for its meat. As long as people want to eat it, it will remain so, even if its numbers are mostly in “farms”. If your interest is in protecting a species from extinction, does it really matter whether the species exists in the wild or in a “farm”? Actually, it shouldn't.

Here's where the danger comes in. When you substitute species habitat for species in what you're trying to protect, there's hardly any limit to how much havoc you can wreak. When you build a house, for instance, you're damaging potential habitat for groundhogs, rabbits, chipmunks, field mice and many other animals. When it doesn't matter how plentiful they might be elsewhere, what's to prevent the do-gooders from stopping you from building based on loss of groundhog habitat, for example? It really isn't that big a step to get from where we are today, to such a ridiculous point.

An Odd Event Dec. 30, 2004

I'm not sure yet what happened, but that it appears that there was a bottleneck somewhere in the mail delivery system that broke today. The result was a bunch of old “Headlines” got sent out all at once. I received a batch of them myself, and one complaint already.

We often complain about the Postal Service, but sometimes e-mail is just as bad - or worse.

The Left's Religious Whackos Dec. 30, 2004

If Rev. Jerry Falwell made a public pronouncement, saying the recent earthquake and tsunami was a result of God's wrath, the outcry in the media would rival the tsunami in strength. But when the New York Times runs an op-ed titled “The Year the Earth Fought Back,” containing the following:

In recent decades, thanks largely to the controversial Gaia Theory developed by the British scientists James Lovelock, it has become ever more respectable to consider the planet as one immense and eternally interacting living system - the living planet, floating in space, every part of its great engine affecting every other, for good or for ill.

we're all expected to take it seriously.

Even discounting the whackos attributing such calamities to the wrath of “Gaia,” there is a chorus of America-bashers blaming the earthquake on our weakening the Earth's crust by drilling for oil. They're calling talk-radio in increasing numbers, and their letters will be appearing in newspapers any day now. Their “science” is typical of their ilk - it sounds credible as long as you don't examine it in any depth.

We do not live on the “third rock from the sun.” This ball we inhabit is far from being a rock. It is, in fact, a large liquid ball with a relatively thin crust of solid material. As the moon circles it, its gravity exerts such a shifting pull that the oceans rise and fall synchronously. That same pull is felt by the liquid core of the earth. The sun has a similar effect, albeit smaller, as do other planets.

These constant, shifting forces create corresponding stress on the crust. Over the eons, these stresses have caused continents to move across the earth's surface, even crashing into each other, and causing mountain ranges to rise. The movements have not been smooth, but rather in bumps and jerks - we call them earthquakes.

If mankind was somehow able to weaken the crust to the extent that it would affect the continental drift, it might result in more earthquakes, but they'd undoubtedly be weaker, since less stress would build up before an event relieved it. But of course, the idea that we're in any way responsible is so foolish, it shouldn't even require a response. Unfortunately, it does.

‘Blue’ Town Politics Dec. 28, 2004

Wouldn't you agree that New Paltz is the “bluest” and the “greenest” town around? It was New Paltz that made national news with its law-breaking mayor, Jason West who ran on the “Green” ticket. It's also New Paltz that keeps left-wing extremist Maurice Hinchey in Congress.

So imagine my surprise at reading a letter to editor in the Poughkeepsie Journal today telling about a fellow who was sentenced to jail and assessed a large fine for his efforts to develop an alternative fuel. Here's how letter writer Randolph R. Cornelius of Poughkeepsie describes it:

Jim Badami was recently convicted in New Paltz town court, sentenced to six months in jail and ordered to pay a $10,000 fine for littering in his own back yard. Badami owns a cardboard recycling business, but his passion has been finding a way to turn waxed, corrugated cardboard boxes -- the kind in which fruit and vegetables are shipped and that landfills don't want -- into fuel.

Badami has done just that, and has now perfected an inexpensive process by which waxed cardboard can be transformed into cheap, clean-burning fuel pellets. The cardboard boxes the town regards as waste are the raw materials for the fuel-making process but the town sees them only as an eyesore. Instead of saying to Badami, “How can we help you?” the town has hounded him relentlessly to remove them.

I guess I shouldn't have been surprised, though. Wasn't it the ‘liberal’ Kennedy family that fought against an off-shore windmill project because it would obstruct their view of the ocean? It seems that all too often, ‘liberals’, while claiming to be champions of “green” energy sources, object when it affects them.

This seems to be another example of their hypocrisy.

‘Gay’ Penguins Dec. 27, 2004

I thought it was an easy challenge. Could anyone spot the reason this story was “politically incorrect”? Maybe it was too easy.

Here's the clue:

... an imbalance between the numbers of male and female birds suspected to be the cause ...

This goes against the PC line which says homosexuality is inborn and cannot be “cause[d]”. This is important to the homosexual agenda. They want you to believe your children aren't at risk of being converted to homosexuality if they weren't born that way.

But evidence seems to argue against the “born-gay” theory. The Kinsey Report, which first perpetrated the myth that 10% of the population is homosexual, was based in large measure on interviews of prisoners. In the absense of heterosexual partners, what stands in the way of homosexual contact is our natural aversion to it (derisively referred to as “homophobia” by those wishing to eradicate it). People with weak morals, such as you'd find in prisons, would seem to be more inclined to overcome their “homophobia” and dabble in homosexuality if that was the only choice they had.

So it seems that given the right incentive, humans (and perhaps penguins) can and will overcome their natural aversion to homosexuality. To some people, “political correctness” is a powerful incentive. To children, being “normal” can be the most powerful incentive. There is no doubt in my mind that if you indoctrinate children with the message that homosexuality is “normal”, there will be some, who otherwise would not, who will experiment with it, and some of them will become predominantly homosexual.

This, I believe, is a truth the homosexual activists don't want you to know. But it is a truth they know very well.

Don't Do No Stereotyping Dec. 26, 2004

I know several Irishmen who aren't drunks. I also know many Italians who aren't in the Mafia. And I'm sure there are a lot of blacks who don't like watermelon.

Do the preceding statements deny or reinforce stereotypes? That is a question that came to mind when I read a letter to the editor of the Poughkeepsie Journal in today's edition:

From this day on, I refuse to recognize the blue and red state labels because I despise stereotyping. There are people in red states who like lattes and people in blue states who work with their hands. There are people in red states who drive old Volvos and blue state NASCAR lovers with strong religious beliefs. ...

I don't want to belabor the point, but isn't the letter-writer doing what she says she despises?

** Merry Christmas ** Dec. 24, 2004

If that offends you, tough!

Power Failure Dec. 24, 2004

Due to a power outage yesterday, I was not able to put anything out. Sorry!

Still Tightening the ‘Loose Ends’ Dec. 22, 2004

The “comments” feature should work a little better now. I increased the max. number of characters to 1,000 and and added a note on the input page. Also, when I implemented the last “upgrade”, it inadvertently changed the way the “Done” button worked (it didn't). It will now send you back to where you started with your comment included.

Another Loose End Dec. 22, 2004

If you've added a comment to an article, you probably noticed that the process was rather slow. When I upgraded the method “named” articles are searched for, I forgot that the “Comments” feature also used the old, slow way. It's a lot quicker now. Feel free to rant.

Social Security and Immigration Dec. 21, 2004

Yesterday, two big topics of Pres. Bush's press conference, other than the Rumsfeld witchhunt, were Immigration and Social Security. What wasn't mentioned - it never is - was the connection between the two subjects.

Social Security can best be described as a “Ponzi Scheme”. I make that characterization because it requires an increasing number of participants in order to make promised payments, since your money doesn't go into your account but goes to pay off current retirees.

The dirty little secret is that our birthrate isn't nearly high enough to keep enough young workers to pay for retirement benefits. Without immigration, Social Security would probably already have run out of money. Even with the high immigration we have, all we've done is postpone the day of reckoning.

As you can surmise, there is no way the present system could survive population stability, but at some time in the future, that has to be achieved one way or another. This means that unless our birthrate goes to nearly zero, we'd have to curtail immigration.

In any event, the only way Social Security can remain viable is if we get away from the “Ponzi Scheme”, and introduce some kind of system where contributions go to the accounts of the contributors. Whether the accounts should be privatized can be a matter of debate, but what is not debatable, in my opinion, is that such a transition must be made, and the sooner the better. Pres. Bush is wise to tackle the issue.

In Your Face Dec. 20, 2004

Let me see if I understand current thinking. If you put a Nativity scene in a public place, you're guilty of shoving Christianity down the throats of non-believers. But if NAMBLA forces a St. Patrick's Day parade to allow a float with naked people performing simulated (?) homosexual acts, that's just ducky.

Confusing the Issue Dec. 20, 2004

Representative John Sweeney recently wrote a column in the Poughkeepsie Journal arguing against allowing illegal immigrants to get legal drivers licenses. This prompted the following response from Mark Lewis who says he's the Albany Representative of the New York Immigration Coalition:

In his column, “Intelligence reform is weaker than needed,” Congressman John Sweeney, R-Clifton Park, is guilty of exactly what he accused Congress of -- letting politics win over security -- by alleging our security will be enhanced by preventing immigrants from getting driver's licenses.

Rep. Sweeney is playing politics by implying the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks would have been prevented if illegal immigrants were not able to receive driver's licenses. The fact is the terrorists did not need U.S.-issued driver's licenses to board planes on Sept. 11; they had foreign passports that allowed them to board airplanes.

The 9/11 Commission Report documents the failings of our intelligence agencies in protecting America from terrorists. Taking away driver's licenses from hard-working immigrants will not make us safer.

We hope Rep. Sweeney will stop playing politics and advocate for real improvements in our efforts to fight terrorism.

Notice that he mentions immigration or immigrants three times, but in only one of those mentions does he include the relevant qualifier, “illegal”. This seems to be a familiar tactic of those who inexplicably defend illegal aliens, lumping them with those who follow the laws.

Notice also the very weak argument he makes regarding the 9/11 hijackers. He says that they didn't need drivers licenses to “board planes on Sept. 11,” as if boarding the planes 100% of the preparations for the attacks. While it's true that they probably could have done everything without valid drivers licenses, the drivers licenses allowed them to stay under the “radar.” While the “radar” may not have been functioning properly on 9/11, our hope is that the “Intelligence Reform” law will get it up to snuff.

Rep. Sweeney was clearly only referring to illegal immigrants, but you don't get that sense from Mr. Lewis's letter. You would think that an organization advocating those who came here legally would be very interested in ensuring that others also follow the rules. But this doesn't seem to be the case, which makes me suspect that this “Coalition” may be a front for lawbreakers.

Canadians and Iraqis Dec. 18, 2004

I read an article a few days ago discussing how people in Iraq feel about Americans. One Iraqi woman expressed how glad she was to finally be free, but when asked how she felt about the Americans who won her freedom, she said she'd like to kill them. She really resents the fact that she owes her freedom to American soldiers.

Looking north toward Canada, I think I sense a similar attitude. If Canadians had reason to hate Americans, you'd think they'd be buttressing their southern defenses and building up their army. But the reality is that they barely have an army. And why should they? They have the big, bad United States down there defending the whole continent.

When you hear a Canadian talking trash about the U.S. of A., remember why they hate us. It's because they know darned well they owe their freedom to us, and they don't have the intestinal fortitude to defend it themselves.

Maybe when we get all those armored HumVees back from Iraq, we should head them toward the northern border.

Performance Upgrade Dec. 18, 2004

When you see a link that looks something like “http://www.mhvperspective.com?id=20041018001”, it will respond a lot faster. The problem is that posted items get moved into archives, so static links to them won't work after relocation. Using the “id=” technique allows them to be found no matter where they are on the site. An example would be when you submit a “Comment” and want to bookmark the story to check for followups, the bookmark would have to be in that form (and will be supplied after you submit the comment).

How To Get a Letter in the Poughkeepsie Journal in a Timely Fashion Dec. 17, 2004

Be a flaming ‘liberal’. That's really all it takes.

As a prime example, I give you Irvin M. Miller of Poughkeepsie. He hasn't written an original thought in recent memory, but he faithfully trashes Republicans and conservatives in general, and Pres. Bush in particular.

Here's how often he can get letters published:

• Dec. 16, 2004
• Nov. 14, 2004
• Oct. 8, 2004
• Aug. 29, 2004
• Jul. 23, 2004
• Jun. 29, 2004
• May 11, 2004
• etc. ...

What's curious is the way the Journal interprets its letters policy when I send them a letter. Even though the policy says writers shouldn't submit letters more than once every 30 days, they apply another standard to my letters, and probably to other conservative letters (but not, apparently to ‘liberal’ Irvin M. Miller). What they tell me is that they won't accept my submission until 30 days after they've published my previous letter. Of course, they reserve the right to sit on my letters as long as they like, and then only start the clock after it's aged.

So, if the policy, as applied to my letters, was applied to Mr. Miller, he couldn't have submitted his Dec. letter until Dec. 14. Based on references in letters, I've determined that the average time between submission and publishing is only slightly less than two weeks. Mr. Miller gets his in two days! On the other hand, my last letter was published Nov. 11, and my last submission, sent according to the published guideline on Nov. 24, was not acknowledged until Dec. 11 and has not yet been published.

If this were a one-time occurrence, it would be one thing, but it happens over and over. I've brought this to the attention of the Editorial Page Editor, the Managing Editor, the Public Editor and the Executive Editor. None of them have responded. What kind of “Public Editor” ignores the public?

A Milestone Achieved Dec. 16, 2004

As of this week, the site has had 10,000 hits since I reset the counters on Jan. 11, 2004. If you're interested in the breakdown by page, click on the counter number on the home page.

Site News Dec. 16, 2004

• A few of you readers have utilized the new feature allowing you to comment on items posted. It took a lot of effort to make it work, and I hope it wasn't in vain. This is a great way to communicate with others on subjects that interest you.
• A not-so-obvious change involves how older articles are archived. The old way was kind of stupid (on my part) and had articles moving from page to page as they aged. Now, once they get moved into the archive (usually after a few days), they stay put.
• A while back, I started assigning unique “names” to every article so that they can be located no matter where they are moved to. Unfortunately, the mechanism to find them can be a little slow, so I'm working on a way to speed things up. It should be incorporated in a week or so.

A Slightly New Direction Dec. 16, 2004

This page will have a slightly different focus. Being an “editorials” page was too confining and too demanding. So now it becomes my “blog” (weblog).

I'll still use it to rant and rave, but in a more condensed, less formal (and hopefully more frequent) style. I also intend to incorporate “Site News”, i.e., keeping up with the status of changes and upgrades I make to the site. I'll also try to keep you abreast of changes in progress.

Re: Science Gives Famous Atheist Belief in God Dec. 7, 2004

Reader “Dinobirdie” asked the question, “... what does this teach a certain webmaster/agnostic???” I believe it deserves an answer.

First, I'd suggest that there are a lot more agnostics than those who admit to it.

One dictionary defines “agnostic” thus:

a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

The key is in the words “believe” and “know”. A belief is a conclusion based, hopefully, on evidence. The jurors in the Scott Peterson case, e.g., could not know that Scott was guilty - the only person on earth who knows is Scott himself. But the evidence caused them to come to believe that he committed the crime. Also, people who claim that “Bush lied” about WMD in Iraq cannot know that he lied because they cannot know whether or not there were WMD in Iraq. They can reasonably (sort of) come to the conclusion that there probably weren't WMD in Iraq. That conclusion constitutes a belief, but not knowledge. So when they say “Bush lied”, they are implying knowledge which they do not have. But I'm editorializing.

When it comes to the existence of “God”, I submit that no one can know one way or the other. We can certainly look at the evidence the universe presents to us and come to a conclusion, but that does not constitute knowledge, it can only be a belief. Some, such as the former atheist in the story, might come to the conclusion that the universe was most likely designed by some higher intelligence, but not necessarily that there is a “God” who is personally involved in their lives. That's pretty much where I stand. But since I cannot know one way or the other, I retain a certain amount of skepticism. The skepticism makes me an agnostic, as it makes anyone whose belief is not totally unshakeable. style="font-family:Times,serif;margin-left:5em;text-indent:-1em;font-style:italic;"

In the final analysis, I guess you could also call me a “deist”, since I do believe that the existence of some higher intelligence is probable.

Baseball's Steroid Problem Dec. 7, 2004

So a bunch of baseball players have taken steroids to make themselves stronger. So what? Why are members of Congress threatening to take action against baseball if baseball won't “clean up its act”?

The “integrity of the game” is (or should be) of no concern to anyone in government. If fans want to pay to see unnaturally large specimens hit balls over a fence, that's their perogative. If they don't, then they'll stop paying to get into ballparks, and owners will have no choice but to get the steroids out of the game. That's how free markets solve problems.

If, however, the government concern is the damage steroids do to those who use them, where are all the “pro-choicers” chanting their “my body” mantra? Who's demanding that government “get out of the locker room”?

Sure, it would be in baseball's interests to get the steroids out of the game, but baseball's interests should not become government's interests. Government has its fingers in way too much already.

Abusing the First Amendment

Dec. 2, 2004

Today, I sent the the following to John Penney, Opinion Page Editor of the Poughkeepsie Journal:

John,

When you told me you were holding one of my letters because you were checking the facts, I thought that maybe, just maybe you were mending your ways. But a letter that appeared today brought me back to my senses. It was written by Tom Trinchera and contained so many inaccuracies that it would be difficult to list them all, but I'll try.

First, he writes:

“I would like to express my outrage at the U.S. House of Representatives for its recent elimination of the law that requires a House member to step aside if indicted on ethics charges.”

His first inaccuracy is referring to it as a “law.” It's not a law, it's an internal rule of the Republican caucus. He also mischaracterized what he calls a “law.” It didn't require “a House member to step aside if indicted on ethics charges.” It required party leaders (Republican only) to step down from their leadership position if indicted.

He contines:

“This sort of double standard is indicative of the behavior of the Republican Party for the past 10 years. In this case, they are eliminating a law they created 11 years ago that gave them the vindictive power they needed to indict Democratic Party members who refused to support GOP-introduced legislation.”

This is patent nonsense! The “law” (actually the rule) had nothing to do with democrats, it applied to Republicans only, since it was a party caucus rule.

Having shown his (and obviously yours, since you allowed this garbage to be printed) ignorance, he plows on:

“Now when one of their own, namely House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, is threatened, they flip-flop (to use their favorite term) and rescind the law to favor themselves. It wouldn't surprise me if they decide to re-enact the law in the future when they are no longer threatened by it but they can use it so Democrats are.”

Who but “themselves” would rescinding (or enacting) such a rule benefit, since it only applied to themselves? And of course, since it's a party rule, there is no way they can threaten Democrats with it.

I wouldn't expect him to recognize that the real dirty politics was most likely being played by the Texas prosecutor who had a history of phony indictments aimed at Republicans. It was indicative of the worth of the pending indictment that it was dropped within days of the rule change, which meant that the prosecutor actually had to prove his case in order to penalize Rep. Delay.

Having dug himself a hole he'll never get out of, he finishes his nonsensical diatribe thus:

“DeLay has a career history of illicit political action. His forced redistricting of Texas and subsequent arrests of House Democrats who fled that state because of horrific bullying at the hand of DeLay in 2003 is just one example of how dirty he will be to get his own way. This type of egregious legislative policy is an insult to the democratic process itself. What the House Republicans have said to the American people is simply the rules do not apply to themselves but they do apply to anyone who's not a member of their own club.”

Whether or not Delay has a “career history of illicit political action” can be a matter of debate, but to state it without proof can be libelous. Throwing out terms like “forced redistricting” may be good for inciting to riot, but, I ask, what other kind of redistricting is there? Every state legislature in the nation engages in “forced redistricting” when required by the Constitution. The Republican-controlled Texas legislature had every right to determine how the state would be redistricted. The Democrats who fled the state did so because they wanted to obstruct the redistricting plan by denying a quorum. I'm sorry that Mr. Trinchera believes having more votes in the legislature is “bullying,” and if he really does, he's exhibiting a total misunderstanding and perhaps non-acceptance of the tenets of democracy.

John Kerry - Where Are You? (Nov. 21, 2004)

Much of the media have spent many broadcast hours replaying video of a young marine killing an unarmed “insurgent” in Iraq, and suggesting the marine is guilty of a war crime. Flashback to prior to the election when John Kerry's Vietnam service was coming into question. The media then took the position that if you weren't there in combat, you weren't qualified to judge Kerry's actions.

It's bad enough that the media are exhibiting the worst symptoms of their biased double standard. But where is John Kerry on this? He claimed to be a big supporter of the troops, but when a trooper needs support, Kerry is strangely silent. How difficult would it be for him to step forward and urge us to withhold judgment until we know all the facts? He could remind us that combat is hard, where a wrong decision made in a millisecond can cost a GI's life or the life of his comrades. He could tell us he knows this because he's been in combat.

John Kerry spent months reminding us over and over of his combat service and his “band of brothers”. Now, when one of his “brothers” needs him to speak up, he either can't be bothered, or he supports the media's kangaroo court conviction.

Thank you “red” states. You dodged the bullet for us.

Marilyn O'Grady for U.S. Senate (Oct. 31, 2004)

It hardly needs repeating, but Chuckie Schumer is an abomination. He needs to be retired, kicking and screaming if necessary. Unfortunately, it's not likely to happen this election, no thanks to the puny efforts of the New York Republican Party that thinks it's not worth the effort and expense to run a real candidate against him.

If I wanted to sit down and compose a list of reasons to rid the senate of the camera-hog Schumer, I could spend a long time doing it. But there is one unforgiveable grievance that makes all others pale in comparison - he violates the Constitution with impunity (and a pox on the rest of the senate for letting him get away with it).

Article VI of the Constitution clearly states that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Chuckie Schumer claims that opposition to abortion is a religious belief and proceeds to question judicial nominees on their abortion beliefs. He then organizes filibusters (or filibuster threats) to block the nominations of those who disagree with his pro-abortion view. By questioning nominees regarding abortion, Schumer is, by his own definition, applying an unconstitutional “religious test”. By violating the Constitution, he also violates his oath of office.

So obviously, Chuckie Schumer is unfit to be senator, but he will be re-elected anyway, probably by a huge margin. So it isn't going to affect the outcome no matter who we vote for. Is there any reason to vote for Howard Mills, the establishment Republican candidate? The only thing I can see it accomplishing is sending the Republican Party the mesage that they can continue to put up feckless Democrat clones with no chance of winning.

So now you have a chance to make your vote count for something. Voting for Conservative Party candidate Marilyn O'Grady is the best way to do that. On these important issues, Marilyn stands head and shoulders above Mills:

• Marilyn O'Grady believes in the second amendment right of Americans to bear arms. She will work to preserve this right in the Senate.
• Marilyn is a strong advocate for the unborn. She is firmly opposed to any and all taxpayer funding for abortion, she supports banning that grisly infanticide called partial birth abortion and she supports the legal protection for unborn victims of violence. (Mills claims to oppose partial-birth abortions, but insists on including the phony “health” exclusion which would make a ban virtually useless.)
• Marilyn is committed to defending the bedrock traditions of our society, including protecting the institution of marriage between one man and woman. She supports President Bush in his call for a Constitutional Amendment to protect marriage. And she will explore cutting off Federal funding to states and localities that condone gay marriages. (Mills supports “civil unions” and opposes a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage.)

What else do I need to say, other than Vote for Marilyn O'Grady. Please!

“Support the Troops”: What Does it Mean? (Oct. 28, 2004)

I see a lot of cars with "Support the troops" ribbons stuck to them, but who really supports them?

There is one political party in this country that is over-represented in the military, and it generally overwhelmingly votes that way. It is the party whose supporters teach their children that it is an honor and a duty to serve. It is the party that honors and appreciates the service and sacrifice of its children.

There is another political party that says the American military is the source of most of the world's problems. It accuses our brave GIs of being "baby killers" and perpetrators of war crimes. It says that unless they are fighting under the United Nations flag, their sacrifices are in vain.

Is it any wonder that the children of the first party proudly serve under the American flag? Is it any wonder that the children of the second party, for the most part, don't?

Is it any wonder that I don't have to identify the parties? We all know without me saying it.

This was sent yesterday to the Poughkeepsie Journal as a letter to the editor. - Ed.

Letter Headline Shows Bias (Oct. 27, 2004)

Yesterday, I sent the following e-mail to John Penney, Opinion Page Editor of the Poughkeepsie Journal. I have not yet received a response.

Dear John,

The headline over a letter written by Lola L. Schurman, which appeared in today's edition, carried the headline, “Vote out pro-choice policies of Democrats.” The problem with this headline is that it does not reflect what was in the letter. Ms. Schurman clearly referred to the policies she objects to as “pro-abortion,” not pro-choice. I doubt that had the letter been from the other side, deriding the “anti-choice” policies of Republicans, you'd have used “pro-life” in the headline.

I recall, in fact, a conversation I had with you some time ago when I complained about you making editorial changes to letters where you would change “pro-abortion” to “pro-choice,” but not change “anti-choice” to “pro-life.” At that time, you reluctantly agreed with me that you should allow the writer's words to stand to avoid an appearance of bias. That was a good decision. You should stick to it.

Regards, ...

If I Were in Congress ... (Oct. 19, 2004)

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, section 3, says:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two thirds of each House, remove such disability.

If I were in Congress, I'd introduce legislation to “remove such disability” from John Kerry to “allow” him to be elected president. Kerry falls under this restriction because he gave “aid or comfort” to our enemies in North Vietnam while still an officer in the Naval Reserve.

Of course, I'd vote against my own legislation.

Media Suppressing Bush Landslide (Oct. 13, 2004)

In a recent issue of Newsweek magazine, writer Evan Thomas, commenting on the upcoming presidential election, said, “The media, I think, want Kerry to win. And I think they're going to portray Kerry and Edwards -- I'm talking about the establishment media, not Fox -- but they're going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and all, there's going to be this glow about them that . . . collectively, the two of them, that's going to be worth maybe 15 points.” A surprising admission, but it doesn't tell the whole story.

Monday's Poughkeepsie Journal ran two letters to the editor that demonstrate how media “spin” affects people's views. First, consider the letter from Fern Wolf of Hyde Park. In it she gives this as a reason not to vote for Bush:

- You had a recent headline stating, “Allawi and Bush call Iraq ‘safe’.” Right under that a second headline stated, “Bombings, kidnapping rage in nation.”

What's interesting about this is that the first headline was a lie. In the body of the story, it was revealed that what Allawi and Bush actually said was that fourteen to fifteen of the eighteen provinces in Iraq were “safe”. Neither said that the entire country was “safe”, but that was what the headline clearly implied. It appeared to me that the headline writer deliberately wrote the false headline in order to make Bush and our ally Allawi look silly. I reported this false headline last month when it appeared.

The second example was in a letter from Jed Tucker of Stone Ridge. Here's the letter in its entirety:

Back in September 2003, President Bush stated plainly, “We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with Sept. 11” (“No Proof Connects Iraq to 9/11, Bush Says,” Los Angeles Times). Since that time, piles and piles of additional evidence have supported Bush's statement.

Meanwhile the Washington Post and the Boston Globe report Vice President Dick Cheney has suggested and continues to “suggest” or even “assert” such a connection.

In the recent debate, he flat-out denied the connection, and even had the audacity to claim he never meant to imply such a link. One wonders how the party that claims to stand for values and honesty feels no shame in allowing one of its highest officials to plainly mislead the American people.

It's hard to miss the fact that the writer has no direct evidence to support his claim - he's relying completely on media reports. Despite mounting evidence that the media do distort the news (Dan Rather is just one example), this man accuses the vice president of the United States of “mislead[ing] the American people” based solely on what the biased media tell him.

Polls tell us that an election held today would result in a virtual tie. According to Evan Thomas's admission, without media distortions, a 50/50 tie should actually be a 57.5% Bush landslide.

Kerry's Second Biggest Lie (Oct. 10, 2004)

Rating Kerry's lies in order of importance is difficult, given the huge number of them. Undoubtedly, the signficance of any particular lie is determined subjectively, and would vary from person to person. What I think is Kerry's second biggest lie, you may think is his forty-ninth or fiftieth biggest lie. So be it.

Kerry didn't get around to telling this particular in a debate until the second one. Jonathan Michaelson asked the following question of Pres. Bush:

Mr. President, if there were a vacancy in the Supreme Court and you had the opportunity to fill that position today, who would you choose and why?

After Bush gave his answer, Kerry responded, saying, in part:

I subscribe to the Justice Potter Stewart standard. He was a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. And he said the mark of a good judge, good justice, is that when you're reading their decision, their opinion, you can't tell if it's written by a man or woman, a liberal or a conservative, a Muslim, a Jew or a Christian. You just know you're reading a good judicial decision.

In the same response, Kerry went on to say:

The future of things that matter to you -- in terms of civil rights, what kind of Justice Department you'll have, whether we'll enforce the law. Will we have equal opportunity? Will women's rights be protected? Will we have equal pay for women, which is going backwards? Will a woman's right to choose be protected?

These are constitutional rights, and I want to make sure we have judges who interpret the Constitution of the United States according to the law.

Which do you believe, the first passage or the second? If Kerry really believes that good judicial decisions pass the Potter Stewart test, how does he reconcile that belief with his pro-Roe V. Wade “litmus test”? The Roe V. Wade decision fails the “Potter Stewart test” miserably, and that's a view shared by many, many legal scholars on both sides of the abortion issue.

It is interesting that Kerry invoked the ghost of Potter Stewart. Justice Stewart sat on the Supreme Court from October 14, 1958 to July 3, 1981. During that period, the court decided both Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe V. Wade. In Griswold v. Connecticut, the court addressed the question, “Does the Constitution protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on a couple's ability to be counseled in the use of contraceptives?” Justice Stewart voted with the minority, and in Justice Black's dissenting opinion, with which Justice Stewart concurred, he said:

In order that there may be no room at all to doubt why I vote as I do, I feel constrained to add that the law is every bit as offensive to me as it is to my Brethren of the majority and my Brothers HARLAN, WHITE and GOLDBERG, who, reciting reasons why it is offensive to them, hold it unconstitutional. There is no single one of the graphic and eloquent strictures and criticisms fired at the policy of this Connecticut law either by the Court's opinion or by those of my concurring Brethren to which I cannot subscribe -- except their conclusion that the evil qualities they see in the law make it unconstitutional.

John Kerry didn't mention when Justice Stewart said the words he quoted, but it must have been somewhere between Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe V. Wade. As I noted previously, Stewart dissented with Griswold, but voted with the majority on Roe. V. Wade! This is strange, considering that the “right of privacy” upon which Roe was based was first expressed in Griswold, with which Stewart dissented. Not only that, Griswold only affirmed a right to marital privacy, whereas Roe created an all-encompassing right to abortion.

So perhaps it was fitting for Kerry to quote Potter Stewart. Judging from his decisions on Griswold and Roe, Stewart appears to have been a “flip-flopper” on Kerry's level.

Is This Kerry's Biggest Lie? (Oct. 9, 2004)

Picking out the biggest lie Kerry and Edwards have told in the “debates” is a daunting task - they've told so many of them. There's the one about Charles DeGaulle trusting the word of John Kennedy in the Cuban missile crisis. Not only did Kerry get the name of the Secretary of State wrong, it was Dean Acheson, not Dean Rusk, it wasn't true that DeGaulle didn't look at the photos. Acheson's memoirs tell a different story. DeGaulle did look at the photos, and then trusted the word of Secretary Acheson because he and Acheson had a history. Small potatoes? Here's another. There was a claim that millionaires pay a lower tax rate than the soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. Totally false! Soldiers in combat zones (which Iraq and Afghanistan are) pay a zero percent income tax rate.

I could go on and list a lot more lies, but I want to focus on one in particular. Kerry told this whopper in the first debate, Edwards repeated it in his, and it came back in the second Kerry/Bush debate. Here's the question from Gibson:

I want to extend for a minute, Senator. And I'm curious about something you said. You said, “It's not when [another terrorist attack on our soil occurs], but if.” You think it's inevitable because the sense of security is a very basic thing with everybody in this country worried about their kids.

Kerry responded with a rote lie:

Well, the president and his experts have told America that it's not a question of if; it's a question of when. And I accept what the president has said. These terrorists are serious, they're deadly, and they know nothing except trying to kill. I understand that. That's why I will never stop at anything to hunt down and kill the terrorists. ...

He will not stop at anything to “hunt down and kill the terrorists!” That's an impressive statement, isn't it? But it's a lie - big, fat, bald-faced lie! How do I know it's a lie? Because Kerry's voting record proves it's a lie.

Would you believe that Sen. John Kerry opposed legislation to impose a death penalty on terrorists who kill Americans? It's true, and it proves Kerry's lie. Sure, he had an excuse for his opposition, but it's as bogus as all the secret “plans” he's promised us.

Kerry, in arguing against the law to kill terrorists once they've been hunted down, gave the lame reason that some other countries would not extradite terrorists to the U.S. if they would face a death sentence. But Kerry was a prosecutor. He knows that extradition deals are made all the time. If the U.S. really wants a criminal extradited and the other country refuses because of our death penalty, the U.S. can simply waive it. As I said, Kerry knows this very well, but chose to use a phony argument rather than admit that he's really opposed to killing terrorists.

So if he's opposed to the death penalty, as his senate record proves, why is he saying he's going to impose it on terrorists he's hunted down? Because he'll say anything to get elected. It's as simple as that.

And then there's the small issue of how he's planning to hunt them down. Is he going to send clandestine hit squads into the 60 countries (U.S. included) that have terrorists in them? Or is he going to rely on local forces, such as Afghani “war lords,” to do the hunting and killing for him?

When you get right down to it, even Kerry's lies make no sense.

Source of Democrats' Hatred Revealed (Oct. 6, 2004)

Last night, John Edwards and Dick Cheney squared off in a debate, and Cheney clearly won. Today, I've been listening to and reading commentary by many pundits and laypeople, touching on many of the points made by both candidates, but there was one seemingly small thing said by Edwards that really perked up my ears, and no one else is talking about it.

Here's the moderator's question:

Whichever one of you is elected in November -- you mentioned those three electoral votes in Wyoming and how critical they turned out to be. But what they're a sign of, also, is that you're going to inherit a very deeply divided electorate economically, politically, you name it. How will you set out, Mr. Vice President, in a way that you weren't able to in these past four years, to bridge that divide?

Vice president Cheney's response was fairly unremarkable, but Edwards let the cat out of the bag when he said:

The President said that he would unite this country, that he was a uniter, not a divider. Have you ever seen America more divided? Have you ever seen Washington more divided? The reality is, this is not an accident; it's a direct result of the choices they've made, and their efforts that have created division in America. We can do better than that in this country.

What Edwards meant, I believe, is that he and his party cannot accept the fact that it's the other party making the legislative “choices”. It is no accident that the “efforts” of a party in power are directed toward enacting their agenda and moving the country in the direction they believe is proper. This is what enrages Democrats so much. They are out of power and they can't stand it, so they'll continue their politics of personal destruction until they either get their power back or become extinct themselves. Given what their efforts have accomplished, I hope the end result is the latter.

 (Sep. 25, 2004)

Note: The following was sent to the Poughkeepsie Journal yesterday as a letter to the editor. - Ed.

Joan Furman claimed that “statements [the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth] made have been proven false.” She probably gets her news from Dan Rather. None of their claims have been debunked.

More trustworthy sources have reported that:

• Kerry admitted he wanted to avoid combat, and joined the Naval Reserve, not the regular Navy.
• When Kerry went into swift boats, they were not expected to be deployed to Vietnam.
• Once in Vietnam, Kerry used (or abused) a seldom-invoked “thrice wounded” rule to “bug out” of the country, thus abandoning the troops under his command.
• Kerry testified before congress that he was in Cambodia for Christmas 1968. This has been proved false.
• Kerry passed on testimony to congress from the “Winter Soldier” investigation, but much of that testimony later proved to be false.
• Kerry was present at an anti-war meeting where the assassination of U.S. senators was discussed. Kerry did not report these plans to authorities, and he denied having attended the meeting until confronted with proof of his attendance.

Kerry today claims that the rest of the world hates the U.S., but he's never acknowledged that his efforts to paint our military in Vietnam as baby-killers and perpetrators of war crimes might have something to do with how the rest of the world views us.

Media Ignoring Veterans' Story (Aug. 25, 2004)

Note: The following was sent to the Poughkeepsie Journal as a letter to the editor. - Ed.

I was a draft-dodger. When my notice came, I was already in the Navy. Worse, I didn't serve in Vietnam. Although I'm unqualified to speak about John Kerry's service, there are over two hundred fifty veterans who are. They can't be dismissed as draft-dodgers.

But according to Kerry and his surrogates, they don't have a right to voice their views. He's threatening radio and TV stations against airing their ads. He's threatening the publisher of their book, “Unfit for Command,” and threatening the veterans themselves with lawsuits. No wonder he chose a trial lawyer for his vice-president.

The partisan media gleefully advanced every nonsense allegation about Bush being “AWOL,” but have ignored the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth. The Journal ran a cartoon calling the veterans “Swift Boat Partisans Against Kerry” claiming there was something “fishy” about their allegations. Yes, there is. Why does Kerry keep changing his story? Now, he might not have been in Cambodia for Christmas '68 (even though that was “seared” in his memory). And his first Purple Heart might have been inadvertently self-inflicted.

Did the media question the motives of anyone making wild claims about Bush's National Guard service? Were any of them branded as “partisans” as the veterans' group is? And have you read anything of this controversy in the news except for negative attacks on the veterans? Why not? Jeff Jacoby, writing in the Boston Globe, titled a recent column “Some of Kerry's biggest fans are in the press.”

Kerry's Tie to MoveOn.org - a“Smoking Gun” (Aug. 22, 2004)

Between 1995-2001 Teresa Heinz-Kerry gave more than $4 million to an organization called the Tides Foundation. There have been suggestions that this money is being used by fringe-left organizations, including MoveOn.org, which is spending lots of money to smear Pres. Bush.

These suggestions are vehemently denied by Heinz Endowments President Maxwell King, who claims that “by legally binding contract, every penny of Heinz's support to Tides has been explicitly directed to specific projects in Pennsylvania. It cannot legally be redirected and is the exact opposite of fungible.”

Mr. King apparently doesn't understand the concept of “fungible.” Suppose you meet a bum on the street and, unknown to you, he has $5 in his pocket that he was planning to use to buy himself a sandwich. Suppose, then, that you give the fellow another $5, but you specify that he has to use it to buy food. What does he do, assuming he follows your direction? He buys the sandwich with your $5, which frees up the other $5 for him to buy a cheap bottle of wine.

When the Heinz Foundation gives money to the Tides Foundation for “specific projects in Pennsylvania,” unless Tides would otherwise give nothing to those projects, we can safely assume that the Heinz money frees up Tides money for other uses, and one of those uses is funding MoveOn.org, which acknowledges on its website that it receives cash from the Tides Foundation.

Most of its funds come from individuals, but MoveOn has also received financial support for its charitable work from the Ben & Jerry's Foundation, the Richard & Rhoda Goldman Fund, the Tides Foundation, and others.

Here again we see fungibilty coming into play. When Tides gives money to MoveOn.org for charitable work, it frees up MoveOn's other funds for use to smear the president.

I smell smoke!

Poughkeepsie Journal Bias Exposed - Again (Aug. 7, 2004)

If you're a long-time reader of this site, you probably saw my exposé of bias in the letters to the editor of the Journal. Well, they're at it again (actually still), and this time, it's almost funny.

Today, the lead letter carried the headline, “Journal leans hard toward the right.” The author, an openly homosexual man who writes frequently, claimed that a recent article on the Ulster County District Attorney warranted changing the paper's name to the “Republican Journal.” His beef was related to the fact that the article didn't mention anything about the DA's “unconstitutional persecution of the mayor of New Paltz and two Unitarian ministers” for performing unlawful same-sex “marriages.”

That hardly qualifies the Journal as a house-organ for the Republican Party. In my opinion, the fact that the paper avoided the subject was probably mostly due to their reluctance to give the DA an opportunity to defend his actions in print.

So that in itself was funny enough but it gets worse. Not only was this letter at the top of the page, two other letters criticizing the paper for omitting negative of Kerry and Former Clinton adviser Sandy Berger were tacked on to the end of the column. And it gets even worse.

As you may know, my exposé mainly dealt with ‘liberal’ letter-writers being routinely allowed to violate the Journal's stated letters policy. One of the policy stipulations is that “writers should submit no more than one letter every 30 days.” But if it's a ‘conservate’ writer (such as myself), they interpret it to mean they won't print more than one letter within 30 days.

Guess what! This author had a letter published on July 12, only 26 days ago! And, it refers to an article in last Sunday's paper, only six days ago! Compare this remarkable turn-around time to this: I sent them a letter on July 20, which was 18 days ago! It still has not been published. The other letters which were critical of the Journal's omissions of negative stories about Democrats were both on subjects dating back well before the Ulster DA story. Of course, I can't tell when those letters were written, but they could have been written many days prior to last Sunday. Since the length of the last two letters combined was only a few words more than the first letter, there can hardly be a “space” reason for giving the first letter such favorable treatment.

Was this a mistake? I doubt it. I've called their attention to these recurring discrepancies, the previous time being on July 23 when they printed a letter from one Irvin M. Miller who writes one Bush-bashing letter after another. The problem with this letter was that it appeared just 24 days after his previous letter! My e-mail to the letters editor, the managing editor, the “public” editor and executive editor, regarding this violation by a writer who was previously allowed to skirt the rules, received no reply from any of the recipients.

I can imagine the letters editor's glee on receiving a letter accusing the paper of right-wing bias. But in their haste to take credit for a bias they obviously don't have, they exposed the bias they do have.

Boy, We Really Dodged a Bullet (June. 27, 2004)

Carefully consider this exerpt from a "major policy" speech Al Gore, who almost became president, gave this week:

The [Bush] administration works closely with a network of “rapid response” digital brownshirts who work to pressure reporters and their editors for “undermining support for our troops.” [Former Enron adviser] Paul Krugman, the New York Times columnist, was one of the first journalists to regularly expose the President's consistent distortions of the facts. Krugman writes, “Let's not overlook the role of intimidation. After 9/11, if you were thinking of saying anything negative of the President . . . you had to expect right-wing pundits and publications to do all they could to ruin your reputation.”

What he's saying is that the left has every right to criticize the president (true enough), but that if anyone criticizes them, they are NAZIS! We almost had a president who actually believes that the First Amendment only applies to the left.

Credibility is Everything (May. 9, 2004)

When you read something in a newspaper, you probably think that the words have been, at least to some degree, checked for factuality, whether they appear in advertisements, news stories, features, or editorials. If this weren't true, we would place no value on these things, since we couldn't trust what we read. As a result, we would probably stop buying the newspaper.

So why shouldn't the same standard apply to the letters to the editor? Aren't the editors doing a disservice to readers and the newspaper itself when they allow misinformation in published letters, especially when the truth is easily verifiable?

Against its own interests, the Poughkeepsie Journal has passed on many such falsehoods in recent months. The latest example is in a letter written by Jean Woods. Woods states, “The Bush administration wants to prohibit workers earning over $23,660 annually from receiving overtime pay.” This statement is simply false. The changes proposed in Bush's overtime policy are far too extensive to outline here, but they would prohibit no one from receiving overtime pay!

There is no excuse for any “news” person not knowing the truth about Bush's overtime proposals. Is the editor ignorant of national news, unconcerned about the credibility of the letters page, or complicit in the perpetration of lies? If the Poughkeepsie Journal allows blatant fabrications on one page, can we trust the rest of the paper? Unless the editor explains himself, we are free to draw our own conclusions.

Lack of Diversity is the Problem (Apr. 25, 2004)

Yesterday, the Poughkeepsie Journal ran a front page headline saying, “Vatican forbids Communion to pro-choice politicians.” Today, “Public Editor” Kathleen Norton laments in her weekly column (not available on the web at this writing) about the recent spate of journalistic malfeasance, in which reporters have invented stories and sources, and editors have ignored or covered up the scandals.

What do these two things have in common? In my opinion, they are emblematic of a lack of diversity in the news media. Surely, there is plenty of diversity if all you're talking about is skin color, but in the more important area of diversity of ideas, the media in general deserves a failing grade.

By now, you might be wondering how diversity of ideas is connected to either of these events. Let's examine the scandals first.

It's hardly arguable that there is an almost uniform ‘liberal’ bias in the media. Surveys of newsrooms asking reporters and editors about their political views and affiliations have found overwhelming proportions of ‘liberals’ who almost monolithically support Democrats in national elections. If you could find a pro-life “born again” Christian, that person could be on the endangered species list.

One of the things we've learned about ‘liberal’ Democrats in recent years is that they cover for each other, sometimes going to extreme lengths to do so. Why should we expect repporters and editors of that persuasion to be any different from Democrat politicians, pundits and writers of letters to the editor? Would the situation be different if there was some conflict in perspectives in newsroom staffs? I think so.

But what does that Saturday headline have to do with all this? Do you think that if there was a pro-life editor on the editorial board of the Poughkeepsie Journal, he would have allowed a headline that so distorted the position of the Vatican? Nothing in the Vatican edict said anything about “choice.” That's a pro-abort euphemism for abortion, nothing more nor less. Just as they distort the same-sex “marriage” issue into discrimination against “gays,” their bias moves them to divert attention from the reality of abortion to a false issue of “choice.”

In her column, Ms. Norton laments the scandals because they “bruised a profession that people still aspire to because it has the power to inform and enlighten as well as change people's lives.” The founding fathers did not guarantee freedom of the press so that ‘liberal’ busy-bodies could use the “power” of the press to “change people's lives.” They did so so that people could change their own lives based on full and accurate information. The public is not served by biased journalists giving only one side of critical issues.

Politicizing 9/11 (Mar. 8, 2004)

Since I first discovered the true agenda of the 9/11 “families” representatives who were protesting Pres. Bush's campaign ads, I've been doing a little digging. As you should already know, rather than representing victims' families, they were really representing an anti-Bush, pacifist organization named Peaceful Tomorrows. The website of this group makes its agenda quite clear.

The owner of their website is a man named Barry Amundson who lives in Oakland, California, and whose brother, Craig, was killed in the Pentagon attack. A google® search for “Barry Amundson” produces a long list of his activities. Ever since 9/11/01, this fellow and his associates have been using their status as survivors of 9/11 victims to advance their anti-war agenda.

Barry's brother Craig was a 28 year-old Army Specialist. Do we know that he would approve of his memory being used in this way? If he was an anti-war pacifist like his brother Barry, why did he enlist in the army? Kelly Campbell, Craig's “sister-in-law,” (she calls herself Craig's “sister-in-law,” but google® tells me she's not married to Barry) and one of those “representatives” of victims' families, says, “..Craig [Amundson] was not the military type, but he, as most who enlist, did so to support his family and secure medical care for his pregnant wife and child.” Kelly is also co-director of Peaceful Tomorrows. Craig is dead and can't speak for himself.

In the course of tracking Amundson, I ran across quite a few other anti-war, anti-Bush sites which were chronicling his activism. One site in particular caught my attention. It is a site named War Times. What caught my eye was the picture at the top of the page. Yesterday, it was a picture of the World Trade Center towers burning. Today, it's a picture of a disabled veteran in a wheelchair.

Am I criticizing Amundson and his anti-war buddies for using images of 9/11 and other “tragedies” to advance their agenda? Absolutely not! What I am taking exception to is their hypocrisy in excoriating Pres. Bush for doing the same thing they are doing.

And shame on the mainstream media for not picking up on this.

The Cascade Effect (Mar. 2, 2004)

I recently ran across an article which attempted to explain why John Kerry seems to have unstoppable “momentum” toward the Democrats' nomination. It suggested that an explanation could be found in a series of psychology experiments conducted at Princeton University in the 1950s. “Princeton social psychologist Solomon Asch showed a room of participants a series of slides displaying sets of vertical lines. Two of these lines were clearly the same length, while the others were obviously very different. The subjects were then given the seemingly trivial task of identifying which pair of lines were the same. But there was a trick: Everyone in the room except for one person had been instructed beforehand to give the same incorrect answer. The real subject of the experiment was the lone unwitting participant, and the real test was of an individual's ability to disagree with his or her peers.”

The article goes on to say, “Asch demonstrated a stunning effect: Faced with a decision that, in isolation, no one would ever get wrong, the unwitting subjects went against the evidence of their own eyes about one-third of the time.”

The suggestion here is that Sen. Kerry may not be the best candidate, but his early wins are causing a “cascade” effect which is influencing the votes in primaries and caucuses that followed.

Personally, I don't much care how the Democrats select their candidate. Whomever it is is likely to be a disaster for the country. But there is a lesson in this for the rest of us.

The experiment seems to indicate that as many as one third of the populace can be influenced to vote against their better judgment if there is enough “noise” telling them to vote otherwise. If you look at the letters to the editor, you can see a daily stream of “noise,” and there's hardly anything to counter it. The message those people are getting is that “most” people think Bush is a liar, that same-sex “marriage” is about “civil rights,” that John Ashcroft is the devil and the Patriot Act is the first step toward the Fourth Reich.

This “noise” needs to be countered, but it seems that most right-thinking people are sitting on their pens, expecting someone else to say what needs to be said. But that's not the way it works. I can do my part, but I'm lucky if I can get a letter in once a month. In order to get just one letter in per day, it would take a minimum of thirty people, and that wouldn't be enough. Every day's edition of the Poughkeepsie Journal, e.g., seems to have at least two, three or more letters from hard-core leftists. These people are dedicated, and they are having an effect. Just check Bush's declining poll numbers to see just how effective.

Are you doing your part? Or are you going to sit on the sidelines and then complain when we lose in November? Don't expect to win if you're not willing to work for it.

Ashcroft Critics Missing in Action (Feb. 28, 2004)

The confirmation hearing for John Ashcroft, held back in 2000, continues to provide evidence of the rank hypocrisy of the left. This time, it's regarding the law-breaking mayors in San Francisco, California, and New Paltz, New York, and the state Attorneys General who are sitting on their hands while the law is being flouted.

The left, way back then, was almost uniform in it's apprehension, when the subject was Ashcroft's willingness to enforce laws he didn't agree with. Even though he had no history of disrespect for the law, they believed that, since he had strong personal convictions, he just might ignore laws that went against those personal beliefs.

Now those critics have an opportunity to prove that they really were supporting the rule of law, and not just that part of it which they agree with. They are failing the test. There's hardly a peep coming from the left demanding that the laws be enforced. In fact, most of what we're hearing is at least tacit approval of the law-breaking, if not outright enthusiasm. The only criticism that I've heard from that direction is based on a fear of backlash, not respect for the law.

Leonard Pitts, You're Dead Wrong on Same-sex Marriage (Feb. 23, 2004)

Note: This was sent to columnist Leonard Pitts in response to a column defending unlawful activities by homosexual activists. - Ed.

Dear Mr. Pitts,

On the issue of same-sex marriage, you are dead wrong saying it's a matter of “discrimination” against homosexuals. They are not discriminated against, and I can prove it.

First, there is nothing on any marriage license application that I know of that asks if the applicants are heterosexual or homosexual or asexual. So there's nothing stopping a homosexual from getting married. The only prohibition is against getting married to a person of the same sex, and heterosexuals are equally prohibited!

That is important because the reasons homosexuals give for claiming “discrimination,” i.e., financial benefits, could equally apply to a brother and sister, two (or more) sisters, or two bachelor buddies. They too are “discriminated” against by your definition. The “discrimination” has nothing to do with “sexual orientation.”

Before you go mucking around with the institution of marriage, you should carefully examine its purpose, and why government sanctions it. When you do that, you find that homosexual unions do not fit the purpose, nor does subsidizing their unions provide any benefit to society.

The governmental purpose is to provide a stable family environment for the children who will comprise the next generation. It is not to legitimize “relationships.” This is hardly arguable.

However, contrarians do try to argue that this “purpose” is violated by childless couples and elderly (i.e., infertile) couples being “allowed” to marry. These examples are nothing but a diversion. In the first instance (and to some extent the second), the government would have to invade the privacy of the applicants by requiring that they state their intentions and reproductive capabilities. But the government doesn't even now ask if the applicants are heterosexual! If it did, only then could it be argued that homosexuals are discriminated against. In the second instance (i.e., the elderly), there is another factor in play that does not apply to homosexuals - societal pressure. There has been a prevailing notion that when a man and woman live together, they should be married. True, this notion ignores the purpose of marriage, but that doesn't make the pressure any less real.

Please reconsider your position, and put some thought into it next time.

An Article of Faith (Feb. 21, 2004)

Recently, Sen. John Kerry, who is seeking the Democrats' nomination for president, explained why his voting record on abortion issues is so much in conflict with his professed Catholicism. He said that his church's opposition to abortion is an “article of faith,” and therefore he felt constrained from applying his religious beliefs to legislation.

By acknowledging that personal beliefs on abortion are (or can be) religious beliefs, Kerry exposed something he would rather remain obscured. A minority of senators has been waging a battle to keep some of Bush's judicial nominations off the bench. Most of the opposition is directed at the nominees' personal views on abortion. This is apparent in the lines of questions directed at them by Sen. Charles Schumer and others on the Judiciary Committee. Therein lies the problem.

Our Constitution specifically states that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States” (Article VI). Therefore, it is unconstitutional for any senator on the committee to ask a nominee about his religious beliefs. Kerry has identified abortion as a religious belief making that line of questioning constitutionally out of bounds. Yet, he has supported filibusters based on this unconstitutional “religious test.”

Kerry acknowledges that he can separate his religious beliefs from his legislative positions. Yet he refuses to give the benefit of doubt to judicial nominees that they can do the same. Maybe he thinks they are better Christians than he.

Democrats - Always the Victims (Feb. 3, 2004)

Senate Democrats are in a snit. In recent months, there have been two incidents where “confidential” memos, authored by Democrats, were made public. In both cases, one in the Senate Intelligence Committee and the other in the Senate Judiciary Committee, the memos detailed strategies that should have put Democrats in a bad light. In the Senate Intelligence Committee, Democrats plotted to use intelligence information and resources for partisan gain. In the Senate Judiciary Committee, they plotted delays and filibusters based on nominees' ethnic and religious backgrounds. But in both cases, Democrats were able, with help from their media allies, to turn the tables on Republicans and make themselves out to be “victims.”

In a way, they were victims, even if only of their own incompetence. The Intelligence Committee memos are believed to have come into Republican hands via a former Democrat staffer. The Judiciary Committee memos allegedly were stored on a “publicly” accessible hard drive where anyone on the committee could read them.

They've also been able to exploit the “privacy” issue, bestowing on themselves a veil of confidentiality that Democrats have been unwilling to afford to the Cheney Energy Group, e.g. Whether or not the memos in question came into Republican hands by nefarious means or sheer serendipity, the Democrats have been able to make their disclosure a matter of “ethics.”

I find the “ethics” aspect particularly galling. Let's go back in time a bit. Do you remember a story about Newt Gingrich, while still Speaker of the House, having a phone call tape-recorded by Democrat operatives? The operatives gave it to a congressman, and he took it to the media which gave it big play.

That phone call, too, was about “strategy.” And what were all the “news” stories about? Not about the “ethics” of tape-recording phone conversations and giving them to the news, media, that's for sure. No, the “news” was that nasty Republicans actually strategized their legislative agenda. But unlike the strategy in the Democrat memos, Newt's strategy didn't contain anything unethical.

Is there a “double-standard” in the media? Nah!

“Clinton's” Intelligence Force FAILED (Jan. 29, 2004)

After reading and hearing so much about “intelligence failures” vis-a-vis Iraq's alleged “weapons of mass destruction,” I came upon an old editorial in the Philadelphia Inquirer which, if I remember correctly, was typical of the Democrat reaction to the military success in Iraq. The headline: “Credit military success to Clinton's policies, not Bush's defense spending spree.”

That got me looking to see if I could find any Democrats willing to take blame for the intelligence failures. After taking credit for the military success, that would seem to be the fair thing to do. Well, I haven't found anything yet, but I'm still looking.

In the meantime, I sent the following e-mail to the author (mattino@worldnet.att.net) of the Inquirer editorial:

If I receive a response, I'll post it.

MoveOn.org's Lies (Jan. 22, 2004)

The following was sent to the Poughkeepsie Journal as a letter to the editor.

In a recent letter, Jeff Atkins parrots MoveOn.org's disclaimer of “sponsorship” of despicable ads “morphing” Pres. Bush into Hitler, that appeared on its website. He accuses the Republican National Committee (RNC) of being “deliberately and maliciously misleading” for assigning sponsorship to the site where they appeared. But facts argue against MoveOn and Atkins. The website did not accept all submissions. Its acceptance criteria stipulated that it would reject ads not suitable for TV. Additionally, it did not accept PRO-Bush ads. By applying an acceptance criteria, it assumed “sponsorship” for what got throught its filter. The RNC had every reason to object to the ads.

Further on in his diatribe, Mr. Atkins accuses a Republican ad of “morphing” the face of Osama bin Laden into the face of Sen. Max Cleland. This simply is false. While ads by Cleland's Republican challenger did included images of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, there was no “morphing.” After some complaints, the images were removed from the ads.

In today's political climate, how a candidate would deal with terrorists is a legitimate issue. Hitler is not. Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein have been, whether in reality or rhetoric, tied to terrorism. Putting their pictures off-limits to the political debate would certainly benefit those who want to shift attention away from their weakness on terrorism. But it would not benefit the political process.

Pickering and Cross-burning - Two Views (Jan. 21, 2004)

A few days ago, Pres. Bush made a recess appointment, putting Judge Pickering on the Federal Appeals Court, and bypassing the obstructionism of Democrats led by our own obstructionist, Sen. Chuckie Schumer. Democrats and their media allies, most notably the New York Times, were incensed as evidenced by this editorial!

Democrats framed their opposition to Pickering as an issue of blatant racism. Of course, their real reason for opposing him has nothing to do with racism, it has to do with his conservative credentials, particularly his perceived position on abortion. But that doesn't mean they haven't gotten really nasty while playing the “racism” card.

If you listen to their spin, you might be tempted to think this guy has no business on any bench, let alone, one as lofty as the second highest court in the land. But when you peel away the partisanship, you find a quite different story.

Here are two different versions of the same episode. The first is a hatchet job by the so-called People for the American Way (PAW). The second is by Byron York and appeared in National Review. Read them both carefully. Do you see the glaring differences between them?

One thing that jumps out is the fact that the PAW version gives nothing of Pickering's side of the controversy. What he said at Swan's sentencing made his views of the crime quite clear. Why did PAW completely ignore this exculpatory evidence?

PAW, in trying to make Swan, the defendant, the “leader of the conspiracy” states only that this was what the prosecutors claimed. In York's version, Pickering says, “It was established to the satisfaction of this court that although the juvenile was younger than the defendant Daniel Swan, that nevertheless the juvenile was the ring leader in the burning of the cross involved in this crime.” PAW relies solely on the word of the prosecutors, and ignores the facts brought out in court. As York's version makes clear, Pickering's determination that the prosecutors had fingered the wrong “ring leader” was central to his decision to reduce Swan's sentence. Schumer and PAW don't care that that the motive they ascribe to Pickering is almost certainly false. They only care that they succeeded in keeping Pickering and other non-‘liberal’ judges from getting lifetime appointments.

It's a shame that this case is so typical of how the media allow liars to get away with lies. It's so easy to make a charge of racism, but it takes a bit of explanation to neutralize the charges. The media, by airing the charges but ignoring the explanation, abet the liars' agenda.

Al Gore - Liar or Ignoramus? (Jan. 15, 2004)

Al Gore's at it again. On the coldest day in decades, he's preaching doom and gloom, saying Geore W. Bush is causing “global warming.” That would be arguable, but when he contines, his rhetoric becomes laughable. He says that the record cold weather is a result of “global warming.”

While it may be true that “global warming” can result in temperature extremes, what makes Gore's conclusion disingenuous is the fact that what he's blaming “global warming” on, i.e., what Bush's policies might have an effect on, results in less temperature extremes, not more.

Global warming is a fairly complicated subject, but I'll try to make it as simple as possible. If everything is constant, the earth's temperature will achieve and maintain a temperature such that the heat it receives from the sun is balanced by heat it radiates into space. If something upsets this balance, temperature will change in the direction of the imbalance.

The heat the earth receives is affected by the strength of the sun's output, which is not a constant, and the amount of sunlight reflected back into space by clouds, snow, etc.

When the sunlight is absorbed by the earth, it warms the earth and surrounding air. The warmed earth and air then emit more infrared radiation (IR) which is a mechanism for sending energy back into space. When there is an imbalance such that there is more heat coming in than being radiated out, the earth and air will heat up, and in doing so, radiate more IR until the increased output balances the input. At that point, temperature will stabilize. Mathematically, we can say that the amount of IR radiated is proportional to the absolute temperature to the fourth power.

Weather depends on the rotation of the earth. While the sun is shining on half of the earth, that side receives more heat than it radiates, so the temperature on the sunny side increase. On the shaded side, there is basically no heat input, but the earth and air that was heated during the day radiate IR and cool. The amount of cooling from day to night determines the severity of weather, since that is what determines temperature differences which are the engine of weather.

We can see that there are basically two things that can cause global warming. Those two things are, more heat input from the sun, and less heat radiated in the form of IR. Heat input is affected by the strength of the sun, which varies by as much as several percent. Also, sunlight can be reflected back into space by clouds, snow, dust, etc., in which case, it contributes to no heating. There is always some sunlight reflected back into space, but the amount can be affected positively as well as negatively. A blacktop parking lot will not reflect nearly as much light as will a grassy field. So if a field is paved over, it will affect global temperature to some small degree.

On the other side of the earth, there's basically no heat input, and there's nothing but heat loss. If something restricts the IR, less heat will escape, therefore nighttime cooling will be less. Certain gasses are transparent to sunlight, but somewhat opaque to IR. These gasses are called “greenhouse gasses.” The most significant greenhouse gas by far is water vapor. It's greenhouse power is apparent to anyone paying attention. In the summer time, you can see its effect by the coolness of nights. When the humidity (i.e., the amount of water vapor in the air) is high, the temperature doesn't go very low at night. But out in the desert, where there's hardly any humidity, nighttime temperatures can get very low, even in the heat of summer.

So as I pointed out earlier, global warming can be caused by more heat coming in, or less heat being radiated out. If the warming is a result of more heat coming in, it is possible that greater temperature differences will be a result. But if it's due to the greenhouse effect, temperature differences will be less, since nighttime cooling will be less.

So here's the problem. Gore says the extreme temperatures are the result of global warming, and global warming is the result of George W. Bush's policies. Since nothing Bush has done affects heat input, what Gore is saying can't be true. The policy that has Gore so incensed is Bush's refusal to ratify the Kyoto Treaty. But that only addresses the heat output, i.e., the "greenhouse effect." As we've seen, warming as a result of the greenhouse effect lessens temperature extremes. So either Gore is speaking from ignorance, or he is flat-out lying.

Homophiles Achieving Their Goal (Jan. 6, 2004)

Opponents of the homosexual agenda sometimes argue that “normalizing” homosexuality will result in more of it. Some even go so far as to say that's a goal of the homosexual agenda. Homosexual advocates (homophiles) counter that people won't become homosexual because sexuality is in-born.

Anectdotal evidence suggests otherwise. This story from the Washington Post tells about teenagers experimenting in homosexuality. According to the story, “Social scientists say that 5 percent to 7 percent of young people are gay or lesbian, and that teenagers are starting at younger ages to have same-sex sexual experiences: 13 for boys, 15 for girls.”

Getting off the subject for a moment, something I've found arguing with proaborts is that they will not acknowledge that the purpose of sex is procreation. If they make that admission, they cannot then say that a woman is a “victim” of an “unwanted” embryo, which they would then have the right to dispose of in “self defense.” They insist that the purpose of sex is pleasure, and conception is just an “unwanted” byproduct.

For argument's sake, let's concede them that point. If the purpose of sex is strictly pleasure, then it must be pointed out that the sexual pleasure can be administered by anyone of any sex, even an animal. The only thing keeping people from seeking pleasure from members of their own sex is their own sexual orientation. But what we've always recognized as the “normal” sexual orientation includes a strong aversion to same-sex contact. This is what homophiles are attacking, with some success, as “homophobia.” The goal is to break down the “normal” sexual orientation even as they claim that the sexual orientation of homosexuals cannot be changed.

Once it's become inarguable that sexual orientation can be changed, at least in the direction towards homosexuality, by chipping away at natural aversions, what's next? What about incest? If sex is only about pleasure, and conception merely an unwanted byproduct, there is no reason to oppose it, or even bestiality.

It is also becoming increasingly clear that when young children are indoctrinated in the “normalcy” of same-sex contact, they are more likely to overcome their natural aversion and experiment in it. The more they experiment in it, the weaker it becomes. The result of all this will be more homosexuality and more bisexuality.

Is all this what we, as a society, want? It's becoming apparent that's what the homophiles want.

ACLU - Partisan to the Core (Dec. 23, 2003)

Note: The following was sent as a letter to the editor of the Poughkeepsie Journal.

While the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is suing towns for Christmas displays on public property, and government workers for saying “God bless you” when people sneeze, an American citizen is being legally persecuted for his political beliefs.

When Rush Limbaugh's medical records were seized in a fishing expedition to charge him with a misdemeanor drug violation, the ACLU was silent, they were busy protecting the library records of suspected terrorists.

When Linda Tripp tape-recorded conversations with Monica Lewinski to protect herself from being ensnared in an obstruction of justice scheme involving a Democrat president, the ACLU launched a media campaign attacking her. When a drug-dealing “housekeeper” tape-recorded allegedly incriminating conversations with Rush Limbaugh, the ACLU remained silent. But this silence has precedence. They also did nothing when Newt Gingrich's private telephone conversations were tape-recorded and given to a partisan Democrat operative.

The ACLU claims to be a protector of free speech, but they never have anything to say when the speech is opposed to abortion. Recently, a well-known anti-abortion website was booted from the internet as the result of proabortion pressure. Again, silence from the ACLU.

The real kicker is that this blatantly partisan, political organization enjoys tax-exempt status. The ACLU should clean up its act, or be treated like the partisan organization it is, and lose its special status.

By the way, I was being facetious about the “sneeze” thing, but don't be surprised if that's next on their agenda.

A Letter the Poughkeepsie Journal Refuses to Print (Dec. 17, 2003)

To the Editor:

The letters to the editor on Dec. 17 presented an interesting juxtaposition of letters. The first letter, by a ‘conservative’ writer, complained that he was limited to 250 words to express his point of view. The very next letter, by a ‘liberal’ writer, exceeded the word count limit, stated in the Journal's letters policy, by fifteen words! My own experience with letter-writing is that on many occasions, the Journal has refused to publish my letters unless I edited the length down to 250 words. Yet, I find the policy violated again and again, most often by ‘liberal’ letters.

I have also had letters delayed by the “policy” requiring a 30 days interval, and seen the policy violated repeatedly. I have also had references to my website (www.mhvperspective.com) deleted, on the pretext that reader letters could not promote a “commercial” website (my website has no commercial purpose). The most recent violation of that policy occurred December 16, by, you guessed it, a far-left letter-writer promoting a far-left, Bush-hating website.

Most people would need many times the 250 word limit to chronicle the frequent violations. Fortunately, though, I only need one : http://www.mhvperspective.com?id=20031217001.

William E. Kriebel
Hopewell Junction

If you wish to circulate this letter to others, please include this URL: http://www.mhvperspective.com?id=20031217003. - Ed.

The Perfect Defense (Dec. 6, 2003)

I can't prove this, but back when so-called “hate-crime” legislation was the talk of the day, I predicted that sooner or later, some smart lawyer was going to base an insanity defense on the defendant's uncontrollable hatred, and let the prosecution make his case for him. Well guess what. It seems that my prediction may be coming to pass.

Here's a story by James Taranto that appeared in the Opinion Journal:

The judge in the trial of Lee Malvo, who allegedly joined John Allen Muhammad in last year's Washington-area murder spree, has accepted into evidence “dozens of sketches that the teen-ager scribbled in his jail cell while awaiting trial,” the Baltimore Sun reports. The drawings are “filled with rambling anti-American messages and hand-drawn images of Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and a mix of characters from The Matrix movie”:

“I would take you out at your dinner table. . . . You will not escape, America. Not now, not ever,” Malvo wrote on one sketch, which shows the cross hairs of a rifle superimposed over a police officer. Another sketch shows cross hairs aiming at the White House. . . .

While the letters and drawings express a wide range of militant sentiments, the most recurring theme is that of jihad--or holy war--against America.

“We did not start this flame, we merely picked up the torch,” he wrote on the drawing showing bin Laden near a police officer in a rifle's sights. “Ye shall all die! Every last one.”

Blogger Alexander Williams has photos of many of the sketches. The Sun says it's not yet clear if the jury will see the drawings, but if they do, it ought to be a boon for the prosecution.

Only here's the odd part: Not the prosecution but the defense introduced the pictures, in an effort “to shed light on what they believe was an insane mind,” as the Sun puts it. That's right, Malvo's lawyers are betting their client's future on the jihadi defense.

Are the lawyers crazy?. Self-styled jihadis, after all, have murdered thousands on American soil. Is Osama bin Laden sane? Was Mohamed Atta? Who cares? For most Americans after Sept. 11, the only good jihadi is a dead jihadi. Can Malvo's lawyers really be so clueless as not to realize this?

--end of exerpt--

It will be interesting to see how this strategy affects the outcome of the trial. Perhaps Taranto is right. Perhaps this isn't a good case to use this defense strategy, but the strategy was inevitable in my opinion. I just don't understand what took so long. After all, given the state of ‘liberal’ thought these days, which holds that people have so little control over their behavior and emotions that they're little more than animals, it seems that this would be the perfect defense. Let the prosecution prove that the defendant was driven by hatred, and then argue that the defendant had no control over the hatred. It's almost too good.

The Left Should Defend Limbaugh (Nov. 20, 2003)

The recent story alleging Rush Limbaugh may have violated a money laundering law once again exposes the rank hypocrisy of the left.

The story goes something like this: Over a period of time, Limbaugh withdrew large amounts of cash, but limited the withdrawals to less than $10,000 to avoid a reporting requirement. Rush claims that the bank advised him to keep withdrawals below the reporting limit so that they could avoid the paperwork involved. This explanation is bolstered by the fact that the bank was fined for doing just that, giving the advice to Limbaugh and many other customers.

So how does this expose hypocrisy? Look as hard as you can and you'll not likely find anyone on the left defending Limbaugh. But why should they?

Think about all their ranting about the “Patriot Act.” Their main complaint seems to be the provision giving the government the ability to look at library records after suspicion of terrorism has been raised. They say this a violation of “civil liberties.”

The chief difference between this “violation of civil liberties” and the law Rush allegedly violated is that Patriot Act first requires suspicion of terrorism. The bank reporting law presumes suspicion based solely on a person's financial transactions. It's a blatant case of profiling based on otherwise perfectly legal activities.

If the people blasting the Patriot Act were intellectually honest, they'd be defending Limbaugh and calling for repeal of the law he is alleged to have broken. But don't expect any intellectual honesty from that crowd.

* Home Page Guest Book Open Forum News Culture War Media Watch Brave New Schools PC Watch Bill's Blog Essays Columnists Helen's Page (STOPP) Links Readers' Picks Visitor Letters Reviews Humor Site News * Best of the Web PJ Letters * Late Night Jokes * Site Search * Resource Page * Poughkeepsie Weather	Bill's Blog Archive More Archives Mea Culpa August 28, 2005 In a previous comment, I stated that Pat Robertson had not said that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez should be assassinated. Upon further investigation, it appears that my comment was not true. Him having said, “... I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it”, it's hard to see how that could be construed to mean anything else. The question of whether or not that comment was appropriate is a completely different matter, however. A Question With No Answer August 25, 2005 I have a question I wish someone could give an answer to, but I won't hold my breath waiting for one. How is it that the overwhelmingly ‘liberal’ media can question the ability of a conservative judicial nominee to do his job objectively, while never questioning their own ability to do the same? The Left Responds ... (Cont'd) August 19, 2005 The left-wing blog that trashed Linda's letter wouldn't let me post a response (unlike this blog), so I wrote an e-mail to the blogger: I notice that the thrust of your diatribe is to try to keep Linda from exercising her freedom of speech, rather than addressing a SINGLE point she makes. It appears that you are well “educated” by linda's definition, particularly as it relates to her definition of “hate.” I suspect (actually know) that your characterization of her message as “vile”, full of “viciousness”, “dripping with vile stereotypes and hate mongering” is nothing more than creating a phony case for SHUTTING HER UP. It's a form of AD HOMINEM used by people who can't argue any other way. You can't engage in rational dialog, because rational dialog exposes the shallowness and self-centeredness of your point of view. Have a nice day (and I don't hate you, but I hate what you're doing) Bill K. Today, I received this response (in its entirety): The march of bigotry and stupidity in this country is relentless and exhausting. Obviously, this guy doesn't want a rational discussion. He wants to pre-empt discussion by discrediting all views counter to his as based on bigotry and hatred. It's a form of intellecual dishonesty that is almost breathtaking in its audacity. Undeterred, though, I'm issuing a challenge to the “Bald gay Jewish” guy who name-calls behind his veil of anonymity. Come here, bald guy, and we'll discuss this rationally. The only rule is when you resort to name-calling and ad hominem attacks I win. [an error occurred while processing this directive] The Left Responds to Linda August 18, 2005 When I wrote about the response to Linda Cebrian's letter in the Poughkeepsie Journal, I didn't include her entire letter (partly because she didn't submit it here for publication, not that that would necessarily stop me). If I had linked to the Journal, the link would be expired shortly, but now there's a more permanent copy of it on a pro-homosexual blog. According to the blogger, “a letter of similar tone and viciousness, a letter that borders on the status of hate crime, would not have been published had it been about Blacks, Hispanics or even Jews.” It goes on to say the letter was “dripping with vile stereotypes and hate mongering.” You, of course can read Linda's entire letter following the diatribe. I came to the conclusion that the writer certainly is “educated” (by Linda's definition). [an error occurred while processing this directive] Left Rooting for ‘Unraveling in Iraq’ August 17, 2005 Yesterday, Salon.com ran an article by hard-leftist and obvious Bush-hater Joan Walsh. The gist of the article was in praise of Cindy Sheehan and the anti-war movement she is allegedly spawning. But in the middle of the diatribe is this illuminating gem: ... even as Sheehan's public relations victories give people reason to be optimistic about the administration's unraveling in Iraq, liberals and war opponents have to be careful not to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Ponder that for a moment. What she's said is that the Left's definition of “victory” in Iraq is the “unraveling” of whatever Bush attempts to accomplish. I'm confident that if you polled the American people and asked them if the success of Bush's policy in Iraq would be in the best interests of America, the response would be a resounding “yes” (which is probably why the media aren't asking the question). A Very Revealing Letter August 15, 2005 A frequent contributer to this site, Linda Cebrian, recently had a letter published in the Poughkeepsie Journal. Today, local flaming ‘liberal’ activist Martha Mercer responded to Linda's letter (it only took the Journal 8 days since Linda's letter to print this one - it's been 15 days since I sent them one and they haven't printed it yet). It was typical liberal clap-trap, but one item particularly caught my attention: . . . The letter reminds us of: . . . -The need for the scientific knowledge of the unalterable genetic basis of homosexuality. Notice that she doesn't say there's a need for the truth of whether or not there is an unalterable basis for homosexuality. She's basically telling scientists to go out and find this basis whether it exists or not. This is the left's approach to “science”. We see it in other areas, most notably with “global warming”. [an error occurred while processing this directive] Who's Arrogant? August 8, 2005 ‘Liberal’ letter-writer Jack Donovan had the following letter published today in the Poughkeepsie Journal: Inasmuch as John G. Roberts Jr. appears to be professionally competent and personally likable and, what is more important, without a paper trail, it would seem he will be comparatively easily confirmed as a Supreme Court justice. If this is indeed the case, the amount of twaddie we will have to hear regarding the usual two of the very many respect life issues mercifully will be reduced. The shaky science and tenuous theology relating t abortion and end-of-life ethics shoddily presented by breast-beating politicians, sucking up to the highly politicized religious right, will be somewhat limited. Thank God. We have all read so many stories about people being resuscitated or not being resuscitated after extended periods of heart stoppage and/or of lack of brain activity that we have to question what is a foolproof indication of life or death. To believers this should be easy. Human life begins when God bestows an immortal soul upon the fetus. Human life ends when God takes the immortal soul from the body. It would seem, then, that only God knows the moment of death and the moment of life. Just when did Terri Schiavo die? Just when did Terri Schiavo come into being? Politicians like Tom DeLay, it must be assumed, feel they share in this divine knowledge of life and death. The absolute arrogance. The unmitigated gall. The monumental egotism. An extra credit thought question: Do non-believer have a dog in this fight? Why is Donovan excoriating Tom DeLay? Because he believes judges shouldn't be playing “God” and deciding when a life has no value? While he doesn't actually say this, it's clear from the context that's what he means. To avoid being guilty of “arrogance”, shouldn't we then always err on the side of life? That's what the Terri Schiavo case was about. Since we don't know if Terri was alive and aware at the time of her starvation, it was the height of arrogance to assume that Jack Donovan or any judge holds that knowledge. By criticizing DeLay, Mr. Donovan exposes where the true arrogance lies. A Letter to the Editor August 2, 2005 I sent the following letter Sunday to the “Poughkeepsie Journal”. They acknowledged receiving it today. The left will stop at nothing to keep the Supreme Court firmly rooted on the left. A recent letter by Constantine Kazolias exemplifies their use of obfuscation to sway public opinion. In it, he implies that a conservative Supreme Court handed down the ruling allowing governments to “confiscate private property.” What a crock! Yes, seven sitting judges were appointed by Republican presidents, but of those, only two were confirmed by a Republican-controlled senate. Have we forgotten the tactics used by senate Democrats against conservative nominees? They made it clear that no true conservative judge would ever be confirmed, giving us the likes of Souter, Stevens and Kennedy. They even created a new verb: to “Bork”. When Kazolias implies that the Court was doing Bush's bidding with that atrocious ruling, does he know that Justices Ginsberg and Breyer, both appointed by Clinton and confirmed by a Democrat-controlled senate, voted in the majority? Does he care that the majority was made up of the ‘liberal’ wing of the court, and opposed by the ‘conservative’ wing? Would it matter to him that when a Republican-sponsored resolution (Res. 340) condemning the ruling was voted on in the House of Representatives, 32 of the 33 votes against the resolution were cast by Democrats, with another 7 Democrats voting “present”, in essence, a vote against it. Judging from his past letters, I'd say that neither Kazolias nor his comrades care much whether they're telling the truth or not. Find the Facts August 1, 2005 Today, the Poughkeepsie Journal printed a response to Helen Westover's indictment of Planned Parenthood as a protector of sexual abusers of young girls. It was from Willa Freiband, Public Affairs Director of Poughkeepsie Planned Parenthood. I'd like you to read this letter carefully and try to find where she actually rebuts anything Helen wrote. If you find it, you're reading something I couldn't find. A recent letter attempts to stir anti-Planned Parenthood sentiment for the political gain of a specific anti-choice organization. The writer capitalizes on the emotional issue of young women who are victims of sexual abuse. The letter is filled with allegations and sweeping statements that aim to stir fear and hatred but do nothing to help the true victims of abuse. Real concern for victims of abuse should focus on the young women, not on the organizations that help deal with these situations. Let's set the record straight. Sadly, sexual abuse and incest exist. To help protect victims, there are laws designed to stop the cycle of violence. Health care professionals, like those at Planned Parenthood, are familiar with these laws, and organizations like ours file reports with the proper authorities. The purpose of the mandatory reporting statute is to identify suspected sexual abuse so the victim can be protected from further harm by those legally responsible for her. Planned Parenthood counselors, nurses and educators help empower women, letting them know healthy sexuality is free from coercion or force. When one of our medical professionals suspects sexual abuse, they take their role in preventing future abuse seriously. We focus on the woman and her well being. The only gain we hope to make, is to help young women find their voice in making healthy, responsible choices about their sexuality. [an error occurred while processing this directive] The Strip The ‘Turd Blossom’ Strip July 27, 2005 Yesterday, we reported that some newspapers had refused to run Garry Trudeau's Doonesbury comic strip because of the use of the nickname “Turd Blossom”. If you want to see the strip, click above on “The Strip”. You might also like to know that Rove, in an interview last year with ABC's Barbara Walters, explained the nickname by saying, “It's a Texas phrase. In the west Texas plains, wildflowers will spring up through nature's natural fertilizer, shall we say.” Letter to John Penney July 27, 2005 Note: I sent the following to John Penney, Opinion Page Editor of the Poughkeepsie Journal. Subject: Are ‘Liberals’ Exempt from Letters Policy? John, It is apparent that ‘liberal’ letter writer Eileen Fay of Kingston is exempt from the limits you impose on conservative writers like myself. As proof, I offer the following data which consists of the dates her previous six letters were published: 7/27/05 6/30/05 5/29/05 4/20/05 3/25/05 3/02/05 (That AVERAGES out to less than 30 days between letters.) The 3/02 letter referenced an editorial that you ran a mere four days prior to her letter. You've never printed one of my letters within four days of receipt. It's also noteworthy that whenever you print a letter pointing out your ‘liberal’ bias (which is palpable), it is almost invariably the last letter on the page, and usually on Saturday when your circulation is lowest. I've been keeping track. Here's a Thought July 26, 2005 The British police are falling all over themselves apologizing for killing an innocent Brazilian, thinking he was a fleeing terrorist (oops! I should have said “bomber” in accordance with BBC guidelines). When the dust settles, there's a real possibility that the police will modify their shoot-to-kill policy to prevent future such “mistakes”. But just suppose it wasn't a mistake. Suppose the fleeing Brazilian was committing “suicide by police” as a terrorist tactic. The policy of shooting for the head (to avoid hitting bomb vests) is effective, and the terrorists know it. I'm sure they'd love for the police to back off of it. So why wouldn't they send out a “clean” member looking like a terrorist to get killed. There's no denying that suicide is part of their playbook - carrying a bomb is only one way to commit suicide and to serve the terrorists' purpose. From what I've seen so far, the terrorists might get what they want, whether or not the police made a mistake. Someone, Please Respond July 23, 2005 The following letter appeared in the Poughkeepsie Journal yesterday, and it cries out for a response. The author is Sondra Giordano of Tillson, and the headline over it (supplied by the Journal editor) read “Rationality good answer for sexism”. As you can see, there is nothing rational in the letter: Every week we see letters in the Journal from people who claim to love life. Whatever they claim, they certainly don't love the lives of those who suffer from AIDS or the millions who are dying of hunger around the world. They don't care about raped children or beaten women. In fact they do not seem to have any interest whatever in life for those already born. Most of the letters are written by men and that's understandable. If only they could keep women barefoot and pregnant they would at least feel superior to someone. One can almost hear them saying, “How dare a woman earn more than I do? How dare she do anything other than serve me, her lord and master?” They yearn for the days when a woman's life was limited to “children, kitchen, church.” Some of the letters are written by women. We have all met at least one woman who hates other women unless they are as miserable as she is. Successful women, happy women, and independent women are all this poor creature's targets. She has no concern for the many unwanted children who live in broken homes; who are ill-fed, ill-clothed and ill-housed. Those of us who believe that all children should be wanted children; that American women should have the same liberty and freedom as American men will continue to work for equality and justice and we will answer their letters with rational, common sense letters of our own. Let's, for a moment, ignore the false and libelous assumptions this woman (who obviously hates men - I can make assumptions too) is making. Let's look at the only thing she says that could be construed as being a fact. She claims that “Most of the letters are written by men”. I doubt that she really knows this to be true because unless she actually did a count (which I did), she'd only be guessing. As it turns out, her guess turns out to be accurate, but not by a lot. I've been keeping a database of letters (for purposes like this) and I did an analysis of letters going back almost two years. Here's what I found regarding pro-life/pro-abortion letters: Pro-abortion: Pro-life: Total: 59 Total: 105 Written by males: 42 (71%) Written by males: 65 (61%) Total authors: 46 Total authors: 71 Male authors: 31 (67%) Male authors: 46 (64%) Some interesting conclusions can be drawn from these numbers. First, you can see that on the pro-life side, male authors, on average, wrote less letters than their female counterparts, since they comprise 64% of authors, but only 61% of output. On the pro-abortion side, it's the exact opposite. More important, though is the obvious disparity between pro-life and pro-abortion letters by women. If pro-life is mostly a matter of men wanting their wives “barefoot and pregnant”, why are more women writing to condemn abortion than to defend it? Unlike (I'm sure) the author, I've actually done some research, and what I found was that over the last 2+ years, approximately 60% of all the letters to the Poughkeepsie Journal were written by males. The percentage might be a little higher because I generally assumed that unless I could discern otherwise, any author who gave only initials was not a male. So the percentage of males writing to condemn abortion is not out of line with the percentage writing on all subjects. Not so on the other side. If there is anything that really sticks out in these statistics, it's the preponderence of males writing to defend abortion. The author believes she knows why men are outspoken on pro-life issues - they want their women “barefoot and pregnant”. Well, I can play that game too. I can jump to the conclusion (probably much closer to truth), that males support abortion on demand because they like the idea of being able to engage in sexual activity without responsibility. I suspect that these men offer their women, when they find themselves pregant, the “choice” of killing the child or never seeing him (or child support) again (Some choice!). Why else would pro-abortion males be so much more outspoken on the issue than women, despite the fact that they claim to be speaking for women? This letter needs to be responded to, but I don't anticipate doing it myself - my next letter is on a different, but related subject. Anyone who wishes to do it can feel free to cite the information I've provided. The data I used can be found here: Pro-life Letter Writers Pro-abortion Letter Writers All Letter Writers [an error occurred while processing this directive] It's All Connected July 21, 2005 A friend of this site asked me why I don't stick to one issue (abortion). It was a good question because there is no doubt that abortion is a very serious problem. But my position is that abortion is just one facet of the culture war, and if we ignore the rest of it, we do so at our peril. Make no mistake, abortion, same-sex “marriage”, assisted suicide, drug legalization, welfare, gun control, the government school monopoly, a “living” Constitution, etc. are all viewed by the left as essential to attainment of their ultimate goal - replacing the nuclear family with the power of a socialist government. Don't think for a moment that they're really concerned that women might be denied the “choice” to kill their unborn children. They're really more concerned that what Margaret Sanger called “human weeds” don't make the choice to propogate. At the risk of offending my pro-life readers, I'll say that I believe the loss of life attributable to abortion is secondary to the damage Roe Vs. Wade did to the Constitution and to our society. The decision was not the disease, but a symptom of a much more serious ailment. If we merely attack one symptom, the disease will metastacize. The cure requires the complete political defeat of the left, which means we have to take them on on all fronts (see above). [an error occurred while processing this directive] More Blaming America for Terrorism July 20, 2005 If you want to know what the left's current “talking points” are, all you have to do is read the letters to the editors of newspapers. When Karl Rove said that ‘liberals’ responded to 9/11 by calling for “understanding”, the left roundly condemned his words, but what else can you say about people who want to excuse violence by blaming America? Consider this letter from Jennifer Ronsheim of Hopewell Junction, which appeared in the Poughkeepsie Journal yesterday: The sentiment expressed by Michelle Malkin's July 14 commentary on “sanitizing truth about terrorism” permeates U.S. policy and is the real culprit in hiding truth, blocking solutions and perpetuating violence. Malkin presents an image of “radical Islamist ... hijackers who incinerate children on their way to Disneyland” and proceeds to express her opinion that Muslims and Arabs should be denied access to the United States through greater restrictions on visas. She believes the H1-B visa program (a program which allows non-citizens to work in this country) should be further “scoured -- for Islamist exploitation.” By “Islamist,” Malkin means “Muslim,” or any person of the Islamic faith, whether they are “radical” and dangerous or not. The process by which any non-citizen, especially Arabs and Muslims, may gain access to a U.S. education or job is actually very stringent, from prolonged personal investigations to periodic check-ins with local INS offices. The people who come through this process are some of the most patriotic Americans - even if they still don't have citizenship. Malkin's plan for increased “profiling and targeted immigration enforcement measures” would only serve to segregate people in the Middle East from people in the United States, and would further our country's image as racist and separatist. That is not a solution to terrorism. That is precisely the attitude, as expressed by U.S. foreign policy for years, which has made us a target for terrorism in the first place. Ronsheim, and the leftist websites she's obviously getting her talking points from, chooses to ignore many facts. She describes the people she's defending as “patriotic Americans”, while ignoring the fact that the London bombers appeared to be patriotic Britons. If the Muslims in this country are as patriotic as Ronsheim wants us to believe, why have they been so reluctant to condemn terrorism by their radical brethren? The silence coming from the Muslim community is another fact that Ronsheim chooses to ignore. And then there's the most ludicrous of her rationalizations - that our “separatist” attitude is the root cause of Islamic terrorism. Does she even know that if you're not a Muslim, you are not allowed to enter Mecca? What could be more “separatist” than that? So why does she ignore it? Probably because she's swallowed multiculturalism hook, line and sinker. Multiculturalists believe, in case you haven't been paying attention, that all cultures are equal, except for western Judeo-Christian culture, which must be condemned and expunged. It's fine and dandy for Muslims to be separatists, and the left will never speak a word against it, but let even a hint of separatism, i.e., the antithesis of multiculturalism, appear in western culture, they're out in full bellow. And how she can blame Malkin's “attitude” for terrorism would be a mystery without an understanding of leftism. Malkin was decrying what isn't being done. Diana West wrote an excellent piece on multiculturalism which appeared on this site yesterday. If you haven't read it yet, find it here. Non-story of the Day July 18, 2005 Take a look at this Associated Press story (Poughkeepsie Journal, Sunday, July 17, 2005, Pg. 5B) on the rare snow lotus which has been observed to produce smaller flowers in areas where humans selectively pick the larger blooms. Its start off implying that this is some kind of proof of Darwin's theory of evolution. What poppycock! A primary definition of the word evolution is “: a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state”. So it's apparent that what this story is about is the opposite of evolution. In fact, evolution theory would seem to have the lotus flower growing larger as larger flowers are deemed more desirable. The observed response is nothing more than predictable Mendelian Genetics. In reality, what this story proves is the way the religion of evolution has been misrepresented. In reality, there are two types of evolution, commonly referred to as survival of the fittest and origins of species. The former is sometimes called micro-evolution while the latter macro-evolution. In reality, they are exact opposites. Micro-evolution causes undesirable traits to become dominated by more desirable, i.e., survivable, traits. In that respect, it is subtractive. On the other hand, macro-evolution posits the creation of new, species with new, previously non-existent attributes. As such, it is additive. Evolutionists can't prove that macro-evolution is possible, let alone that it actually occurred. But micro-evolution is an observable phenomenon. The two types of evolution have only one thing in common - the name. Yet, committed evolutionists (as the author of the story almost certainly is) like to pretend, and convince the rest of us, that one proves the other. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Leftist Lie Machine July 17, 2005 If you thought the Supreme Court's Kelo decision was bad, you'll be disgusted to see how the left is spinning it. Consider the letter to the Poughkeepsie Journal (July 17, 2005) from far left letter writer Constantine Kazolias of Poughkeepsie. The headline over the letter reads, “Bush's leadership has turned into dictatorship”, and the letter starts out thus: Plato's evolution of power is in four stages: revolution, civil war, democracy and finally, dictatorship. Bush's United States is in the final stage of dictatorship evidenced by the recent Supreme Court ruling that allows government to confiscate people's property, and also the Patriot Act (denying civil rights under the Magna Carta and the U.S. Constitution). Now that the two most cherished rights (relating to property and individuals) have been abrogated, looking at Webster's definition of fascism befits Bush's “united” administration. ... Notice what leftist Kazolias has done - he's attributed this atrocious decision to the Bush administration, despite the indisputable fact that it was the the ‘liberal’ faction of the court that imposed it. Every justice who voted for it was either nominated by a Democrat president, or confirmed by a Democrat-controlled senate (no conservative judges allowed). Going further, let's look at the response of the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. After the decision, a resolution was submitted condemning the decision. It was co-sponsored by seven members - all Republicans. When the vote was taken, 33 members voted against it - 32 of them were Democrats. Additionally, 26 Democrats, versus 9 Republicans, either did not vote, or voted “present” - in effect a vote against the resolution. The fact that this letter saw the light of day is powerful evidence that the leftmedia have not done their job. If the conservative wing of the court had been responsible for this ruling, they would have been blaring this fact at full decibel level. But since it was ‘liberals’, they might condemn it, but they'll allow the public to falsely believe that Bush and Republicans were somehow responsible for it - sort of like the way they made the public believe Democrat Gary Condit (remember Sandra Levy?) was a Republican by preceding his name in news stories with “Rep.” and not specifying his party affiliation. The public was led to believe that “Rep.” was an abbreviation for Republican, not Representative, and it was no accident. Folks, these lies have to be countered. The leftmedia won't do it because they don't want their lies and distortions countered. It's up to you and me. Please, please start the letters flowing. It's the only way to set the record straight.  July 13, 2005 Yesterday, “Annie's Mailbox”, the advice column, ran a letter from a reader responding to a previous column. Here's how it starts out: This letter is for the woman whose husband refuses to follow his diabetic diet. Actually, this is for the husband. Dear Diabetic Husband: Have you considered how selfish you are? What makes you think it is OK to jeopardize your health just because it's your body? [emphasis mine] Your wife obviously loves you or she wouldn't have written. Consider the effect you have on those who love you. ... I doubt “Annie” will receive a single complaint from an irate reader, but had it been addressed to a woman considering an abortion, can you imagine the explosion? But really, what's the difference? Even if you grant a woman complete “bodily autonomy”, what she does with it affects others, and the effects cannot be discounted. Babies have fathers, uncles, aunts, cousins and grandparents, as well as mothers. No doubt, abortion is a selfish act. What's wrong with pointing that out to a woman considering one? We don't seem to have a problem with being judgmental when the selfishness is expressed in other ways. Letter to the Editor July 1, 2005 I sent the following letter to the Editor of the Poughkeepsie Journal: The San Francisco Chronicle recently reported that the Democrat party is seeking advice from George Lakoff, a professor at the University of California. Since then, Lakoff wrote, “For a while last week, the Democrats were doing better at framing the issues. The poll numbers showed that Bush's approval rating was down, that around 60% of the voters had turned against the Iraq War ...” In case you didn't get it, what he said was that a goal of the Democrat Party is or should be erosion of support for the troops who are fighting and dying in Iraq. Of course, if anyone says Democrats don't support the troops or are not patriotic, howls of protest ensue. And speaking of howls of protests from Democrats, that's what we got when Karl Rove said that “liberals” responded to the Sept. 11 terrorist strikes by wanting to “prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.” But if Rove wasn't right on the money, we should expect your ‘liberal’ readers to repudiate the recent letter from Michael Kulla who wrote, “The great corrective for all forms of war-promoting misconceptions is empathy. It means understanding the thoughts and feelings of the other side by jumping into their skin to comprehend the thinking behind their decisions and actions.” Apparently, if you want to get a ‘liberal’ in a tizzy, just tell the truth about ‘liberals’ Proving Rove Right June 29, 2005 I wonder how many ‘liberal’ readers of the Poughkeepsie Journal were nodding in approval as they read the letter from Michael Kulla of Pleasant Valley. Here's the text of his letter in its entirety: Wars fought over the past 100 years have been significantly influenced by demonizing the enemy, rationalizing one's own aggressive behavior and underestimating the enemy's strength. These misperceptions frequently interact with fear and pride as motives for war. Emotions are made larger than the conflict, resulting in hatred of anything associated with the other side, even its music, literature, etc. The great corrective for all forms of war-promoting misconceptions is empathy. It means understanding the thoughts and feelings of the other side by jumping into their skin to comprehend the thinking behind their decisions and actions. Empathy is different than sympathy. It is not about warmth or approval, nor agreeing or siding with, but only about bona fide understanding. Applying this to the Middle East, “terrorists” to us become “freedom fighters” to them, suicide bombers become heroic martyrs. We would have never referred to our preemptive attack there as a “crusade” had President Bush applied a smidgen of realistic empathy. We're frequently seen with distrust and suspicion and as pursuing our interests arrogantly and hypocritically. We must honestly listen to these painful perceptions of us, and vice versa, as part of the empathy process. Such are the preconditions for viable negotiating, hopefully replacing a war mentality with one of peace. What got ‘liberals’ in a tizzy was Karl Rove saying ‘liberals’ responded to the Sept. 11 terrorist strikes by wanting to “prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.” But if what Rove said was a lie, shouldn't we soon see ‘liberal’ responses condemning Kulla's letter? I won't be holding my breath waiting for them to do so. Conservative Court? Setting the Record Straight June 28, 2005 One of the big lies perpetrated by the left and their media allies is that the current Supreme Court is ‘conservative’, based on the fact that seven of the nine justices were appointed by Republican presidents. This is the worst kind of lie, being half true and totally false. Yes, seven of them were appointed by Republican presidents - William H. Rehnquist (Nixon), John Paul Stevens (Ford), Sandra Day O'Connor (Reagan), Antonin Scalia (Reagan), Anthony M. Kennedy (Reagan), David Hackett Souter (G.H.W.Bush) and Clarence Thomas (G.H.W.Bush). But that tells only half of the story. Of those seven, Rehnquist, Stevens, Kennedy, Souter and Thomas had to be confirmed by Democrat-controlled senates. As has been shown conclusively by the current filibuster kerfuffle, Democrats are much more focused on controlling the judiciary than Republicans are, and this goes back at least to the Bork fiasco. I lived through all of these nominations, and I distinctly remember that senate Democrats, while in control, were adament in making it clear to the Republican presidents that they would not allow a true conservative to sit on the court. The only one that got through was Thomas, and had he been white, I'm sure he wouldn't be sitting on the court today. Souter and Kennedy in particular were chosen because they had no track record of ‘conservative’ decisions Democrats could use as ammunition against them. Look at the recent decision giving government power to confiscate private property to benefit big government. It was a ‘liberal’ decision all the way, and look at who was on the ‘liberal’ side of it - Ginsberg and Breyer (both appointed by Clinton) and Stevens, Kennedy and Souter (all confirmed by Democrat-controlled senates). What becomes clear from this is that there is no such thing as a ‘moderate’ Supreme Court justice. Whenever a Republican president seeks to mollify Democrats by advancing a ‘moderate’ appointee, that appointee becomes a ‘liberal’ judge. So it's imperative that Pres. Bush does not give in to Democrats and continues to nominate only originalists to the federal judiciary. Our freedom depends on it. Indictments and Understanding June 24, 2005 After avoiding comment on Sen. Durbin's treasonous remarks, our senator, Hillary Rodham Clinton, has come out strong against Karl Rove for telling the truth. “Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers,” Rove said Wednesday night. If Democrats want to call attention to Rove's speech, they'd better hope that it doesn't result in a close examination of what it says. The fact is that if the standard is truth, Rove is on solid ground. There is no doubt that the liberal approach to terrorism was treating it as a law enforcement problem, which is what Rove meant by “indictments”, so he has nothing to apologize for there. But what about the “therapy and understanding” part? It's important to note that Rove aimed his remarks at “liberals”. If Democrats took it personally, it could only because they identify with the sentiment Rove was addressing. And there is no doubt that after the 9/11 attacks, there were many ‘liberals’ (moveon.org, etc.) blaming America, and excusing the attackers, and it continues to this day. As this is being written, a controversy brews over the memorial at “Ground Zero”. ‘Liberals’ are pushing for a so-called “Freedom Center” which will focus on things like slavery and America's treatment of Indians. These things, of course, are worthy of being commemorated, but why in a memorial to the 9/11 attacks? Because ‘liberals’, in their desire to offer “therapy and understanding” to America's enemies, want to remind the world why America deserved to be attacked. So my advice to Karl Rove would be to not only not apologize, but repeat it and defend it. The reason Democrats are so upset is that Rove's words rang true. The Flag Burning Amendment June 23, 2005 I've been doing a lot of thinking about the flag burning amendment being considered in congress, and I've reached my decision - I'm against it. To set the record straight, this amendment will not make burning the flag illegal, it will only give congress the constitutional authority to pass legislation to make it illegal. Now allow me to explain why I oppose making flag burning against the law. I believe that such a law would be closely related to “hate-crime” laws, which I also oppose. What, really, is the difference between burning a flag and burning a cross? They're both examples of idiots expressing their idiocy, and frankly, I'd like to know who these idiots are. If we allow them to express themselves, we'll always know. Idiots burn the flag because they hate what it represents. Making it illegal for them to express their hatred isn't going to stop the hatred. The left supports hate-crime legislation because they're always so concerned about offending people. If someone expresses hatred and someone else is offended, that makes it a hate crime. But honestly, I'm not offended in the least when idiots burns the flag. They're saying more about themselves than about the country they're disparaging. I say let 'em make jackasses of themselves. Linda Chavez's Column June 2, 2005 Yesterday, I wondered whether the Poughkeepsie Journal would run the Chavez column in which she lamented praising the senate filibuster “compromise” in her previous column. Well, they surprised me - they published it. Will wonders never cease? The Canadian Blood Story June 1, 2005 If you tried to follow the link I provided from the story on the Canadian Red Cross and tainted blood, you didn't end up where I intended. My mistake! Try this. You won't be getting any of this in the “mainstream” media. A ‘Liberal’ Response May 17, 2005 Yesterday, the Poughkeepsie Journal printed a response to my letter which they finally got around to publishing on May 10. I'll do the math for you - after they sat on my letter for over 4 weeks, it only took 6 days for a response to get published. And what a response it was! The author, S. Adler of Hopewell Junction wrote: What twisted logic leads William Kriebel, author of the letter “Liberals only seek to push own agenda,” to believe “the purpose of spousal benefits is to protect childrens' caregivers?” One only needs to spend a few hours in a nursing home financial office or down at the Medicare office to learn Social Security spousal benefits have enabled leagues of unskilled, female and seniors with the means of support they need to survive. Why should women over 65 contribute endless hours of domestic labor (not to exclude the raising of children) to forfeit benefits they rightfully earned? Even more inane is trying to connect the privatization of Social Security spousal benefits to the Schiavo case and right-to-life issues. Who has an agenda? You have to wonder if ‘liberals’ know how to read. If Adler had read my letter, he (or she) would have known that the “twisted logic” he's so agitated about came from a “liberal” feminist organization. And in true “liberal” fashion, Adler expects readers to accept his “twisted logic” characterization without question. And also in true “liberal” fashion, what little explanation he offers doesn't support his position, and in fact, tends to support mine. He whines about women contributing “endless hours of domestic labor” to have “earned” spousal benefits. I would ask, if they weren't taking care of children, why weren't they holding down a job and building their own retirement benefits? Is Adler so obtuse that he doesn't understand that the protection spousal benefits provide to children's caregivers must extend beyond the caregiving years? Otherwise, they really aren't providing much protection at all. And, of course, Adler wasn't content to show his obtuseness by refusing to understand the purpose of spousal benefits, he had to go on and mis-characterize the rest of my letter. I didn't “connect the privatization of Social Security spousal benefits to the Schiavo case and right-to-life issues”, the consistent hypocrisy of the “liberal” feminists did that. I merely pointed out the connection. Honestly, when I see this kind of babbling in response to what I say, I know I must have hit a nerve. Re: Poughkeepsie Journal Headline May 13, 2005 I sent the following e-mail to Kathleen Norton, Public Editor of the Poughkeepsie Journal: Subject: Headline: Critics jeer VA beds shift Ms. Norton, I am not necessarily in agreement with the proposed Veterans' Affairs changes, but I would like to believe that the people proposing them are doing so in a good faith effort to get the most from the taxpayers' dollars. Their point of view deserves more respect than to be portrayed on the front page as the subject of jeers. If your “newspaper” wants to take a stand against such changes, you have every right to do so, but your readers deserve to have those views expressed in the proper forum - on the editorial page! A Question for Evolutionists May 10, 2005 Do you believe that some day in the future, man will know enough about DNA and posses the necessary skills to be able to create new species of plants and animals? I'm not asking this question to elicit an opinion, but to suggest that you ask it to your evolutionist friends and acquaintances, particularly those who believe that evolution should be taught in schools as “fact”. If the person you ask is honest (and doesn't see what's coming next), he'll most probably answer “yes”. When he does, you've got him. By responding in the affirmative, he's accepted the possibility of “intelligent design”. In fact, his answer embraces the likelihood of it. Considering the fact that eternity extends not only into the future, but also into the past, it seems to me the height of hubris to believe that we humans are the most intelligent beings to ever have existed. So if you can accept the idea that in all likelihood, some more intelligent beings preceded us, and you believe that (proably) inferior beings such as ourselves can design and create species, the idea that life on Earth was designed by a more intelligent being or beings is not far-fetched. In fact, it seems to me to be a higher probability than chance evolution. Four Weeks and Counting ... May 9, 2005 Note: The following was sent today to John Penney, Opinion Page Editor of the Poughkeepsie Journal. It now been four weeks since I submitted (strictly in accordance with your published guidelines) my letter to the editor. It has now been forty two days since you published my last letter. You say you don‘t show favoritism to ’liberal‘ or Democrat letter-writers but I know that’s not true and proof can be found at: /?id=20050425030 (and elsewhere on the site). Since the first of this year, by my count you have published 265 letters with a ‘liberal’ or Democrat bias, and only 119 with a conservative or Republican bias. With such a lopsided ratio, one would think you'd want more balance, but instead, you sit on conservative letters, and make ridiculous demands for proof of things that aren't even stated as fact when it comes from the right, while you print the wildest claims from the left seemingly without question. I've complained to you in the past that it's unfair for you to impose an additional 30 day limit (starting after a letter is published) because it allows you to include time that you arbitrarily include in holding on to letters before publishing them. It's doubly unfair when your enforcement of this arbitrary limit is so slip-shod (and almost always favoring ‘liberal’/Democrat letters - see above web link). This is Evolution? May 5, 2005 In their zeal to promote evolution as an article of faith, religious secularists are promoting a new-found dinosaur fossil as a missing link between meat-eating and vegetarian beasts. The lead paragraph of this MSNBC story proclaims, “Caught in the act of evolution, the odd-looking, feathered dinosaur was becoming more vegetarian, moving away from its meat-eating ancestors.” That raises a question in my mind, and I'm wondering if anyone can give a satisfactory answer to it. If meat-eating to vegetarian is an evolutionary step forward, as this story implies, then meat-eaters came before vegetarians. So here's the question: If meat-eaters came first, where did the meat that they ate come from? Letter Writer Needed May 1, 2005 I've been noting a disturbing trend in letters to the Poughkeepsie Journal. They're accepting letters that ridicule Christianity, particularly of the “fundamentalist” variety. Consider this from Arthur W. Kaiser of Wappingers Falls (05/01/2005): Some 2,000 years ago, a long-awaited spiritual leader was born to a virgin, and a religion was built around his teachings which came to be known as Christianity. He taught that we should love one another as he loved us (even our enemies). Seeing the hate, rage and atrocities in the world today it is obvious Christianity is not working as it was meant to. This is not altogether our fault. When you consider that the fundamentalist preachers teach us that we are born in sin, live our lives in sin and die in sin, while fending off the snares of a mythological scapegoat called the devil, who can we blame for our evil ways. Hence “the devil made me do it.” logic. How else are we expected to act? We (Christians) are now anticipating the return of Christ to straighten things out again. But what if this “second coming” isn't in this generation, or even in this century? We who choose not to wait for that glorious day, to make Christianity (or any religion) work as it was intended, must each take it upon ourselves to emulate the lives of our chosen Way-shower (Moses, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad) without influence from an imaginary boogey-man forced on us by TV evangelists. And this from Allelu Kurten of Clinton (04/25/2005): Our once fair and open democracy is now being “ruled” and its policies directed by ultra-conservative, far-right fundamentalist Christians who call all of us belonging to other Christian denominations, other religions, or holding variant views (all caring U.S. citizens), “looney leftists,” “bankrupt obstructionists” (read Michele Malkin). The Patriot Act makes it easy to silence dissent and imprison protesters. Meanwhile, the more-than-$30 billion surplus inherited by this government has become a crippling deficit to feed the war machine as our poor, elderly and sick are being disenfranchised, our environment poisoned and our nation's infrastructure left in disarray. Seemingly an Armageddon is being created, but, if we read the tenets of these particular fundamentalists, we know the Apocalypse is necessary before they can be “raptured” -- carried up to heaven in body, leaving all the rest of us (termed “nonbelievers” or worse) facing damnation (see Apocalypse.org and rapture.ready.com). It is said President Bush is hoping to be “raptured” between the Tigris and the Euphrates. Considering this extraordinary scenario, who, please, is representing all of those not included who want desperately to reverse the Armageddon march? It is amazing that, pushed down and attacked as we are, we don't rise in a body crying out “Enough.” If someone were to write a letter ridiculing the Muslim religion, or Hinduism or Buddhism, do you suppose the Journal would print it? It might be enlightening if someone were to try. Any volunteers? Left-wing Bias Rears Its Ugly Head at the Poughkeepsie Journal Apr. 28, 2005 The person at the Poughkeepsie Journal who didn't know anything the other day called me yesterday to tell me the paper can't run my letter as written. She identified herself as Theresa Keegan. The problem, she said, is with my statement “There was reason to suspect that Michael caused Terri's condition ...” She said I'm not allowed to say that because the Associated Press reported that her condition was the result of an eating disorder. Never mind that it was never proven that she actually had an eating disorder, the only thing that matters to the leftists at the Journal is what gets past the AP's left-wing filters. I pointed out that I was not making an accusation, just a suggestion of a possible cause that has never been credibly discounted. I further pointed out that even if Terri Schiavo's condition was the result of an eating disorder, her husband might have been at least partially responsible for it by calling her “too fat”, e.g.. Ah, but facts and logic mean nothing to the hopelessly biased folks at the Journal. They don't like what I had to say and they're not going to print my letter unless I take out the “offending” words. Stay tuned! School Tax Math Doesn't Add Up Apr. 27, 2005 Recently, a very interesting Letter to the Editor appeared in the Poughkeepsie Journal. It was from Daniel French, Councilman, Town of Beekman. Here's the text of the letter: It has been a pleasure to serve the wonderful Town of Beekman during the last four months. One of the most exciting initiatives the town board has been working on this year is the Open Space Conservation Plan. The longterm goal is to permanently protect approximately one-third of Beekman's acreage. I've been a strong supporter of protecting open space because it will enable us to protect our town's wonderful natural resources and help us maintain our rural character and small-town charm. I'm also strongly in favor of a ballot initiative that will create a dedicated source of local funding for open space protection. While it's true that the creation of such a fund will entail a small yearly tax increase, the costs of not doing so are far greater. The county's Department of Planning and Development estimates that each 1,000 acres of farmland converted to residential lots will add at least 215 students. The current cost of about $7,000 per student per year translates to a $1.5 million annual taxpayer expense, or $30 million over the next 20 years. Beekman's plan would ultimately protect more than 2,500 acres of open space. The savings to taxpayers in the long run will be enormous. In order to address these issues, we must work together in a shared effort. Please do not be swayed by naysayers who seek to discourage open space protection because it may entail a small yearly sacrifice. The costs of not doing so are simply too high. It seems to me that this guy is leaving out a very important point - the amount of tax revenue generated by building houses on those 1,000 acres. Using my house as typical, even if the 1,000 acres yielded only 500 homes, it would generate $2.5M/year in school taxes. That's $1M/year more than this guy claims is the cost of the additional students. The only way he makes sense is if the farmland is currently being taxed at $1,000/acre or more. If that's the case, that's a major part of the problem. Letter Update Apr. 25, 2005 It's been two weeks since the Poughkeepsie Journal received my letter to the editor. They always call the sender to verify letters before they publish them. They never called me, so today, I called them. They did receive it, but the person I talked to didn't know anything (does anyone at that paper know anything?). The editor, John Penney, is out of the office until next month so I couldn't yell at him. I had my ducks all in a row. I was expecting him to tell me that they don't publish letters more than once in 30 days. That's not what their letters policy says. It says writers shouldn't submit letters more than once in 30 days, and I always abide by that policy. I do but they don't. I keep track of such things, so today I went back through their letters and found 7 instances since April 10 where they published two letters by a single author in less than 30 days. And can you guess which end of the political spectrum all the writers were coming from? If you guessed the left, you'd be correct. 04/10/2005: Lillian Moerschell, Poughkeepsie - 21 days 04/10/2005: Marcos Ionescu, Highland - 14 days 04/14/2005: Charles Canfield Brown, Kingston - 3 days 04/20/2005: Eileen Fay, Kingston - 26 days 04/22/2005: (R.) Bryan Cook, Poughkeepsie - 5 days 04/24/2005: Payton Wendell, Poughkeepsie - 28 days 04/25/2005: Allelu Kurten, Clinton - 27 days Who says there's a ‘liberal’ bias in the media? Kerry's Foot-in-Mouth Disease Apr. 12, 2005 Yesterday, I reported that Kerry was claiming that Bush won the election because of trickery. One of the tricks, according to Kerry, “Leaflets are handed out saying Democrats vote on Wednesday, Republicans vote on Tuesday.” Well, it turns out that not only did Kerry fall for a joke, it was an old joke. And not only that, it came from his party! The Oct. 31, 2000 Hampton Union reported that Al Franken, stumping for Al Gore, said, “If your friends say I'm voting for Bush, just remind them of the rule change. That Republicans get to vote on Wednesday, Nov. 8. Democrats vote on Tuesday and Republicans on Wednesday. That's what I'm tell my Republican friends, and I think they believe me,” Franken ended. And from the Nov. 7, 2000 issue of Variety comes this: GOOD MORNING:“All you Democrats, vote on Tuesday; you Republicans, vote on Wednesday!” Those were the words (written by Bruce Vilanch) with which Whoopi Goldberg was to have greeted attendees at BAFTA-LA's tribute to Steven Spielberg, Saturday at the Century Plaza Hotel. But only a few hours before the event, Whoopi phoned BAFTA-LA exec director Donald Haber to report she was flu-felled, running a fever and unable to appear. Opening speaker, thesp Ian Abercrombie was quickly asked to deliver some of Goldberg's/Vilanch's remarks, including the above. Thanks to James Taranto of The Wall Street Journal (April 12) for this delightful story.  Apr. 11, 2005 Note: The following was sent as a letter to the editor of the Poughkeepsie Journal. Recently, a ‘liberal’ women's umbrella organization blasted Pres. Bush's proposed Social Security proposal saying, “This attack on the spousal benefits under Social Security is a telling example of how little privatizers value the unpaid caregiving work that millions of women provide for this society.” In a previous letter, I pointed out that the purpose of spousal benefits is to protect children's caregivers. It's nice to see ‘liberals’ finally acknowledging this, but why only when it supports their agenda? How is it that these same people support extending “spousal benefits” to same-sex couples, who obviously can't produce children, at the expense of the “unpaid caregivers” they are now claiming to defend? This duplicity is not surprising following their inexplicable support of Michael Schiavo's successful effort to kill his wife. There was reason to suspect that Michael caused Terri's condition, yet these so-called “feminist” groups never came to her defense. But had Terri been pregnant, and had Michael claimed that Terri would want to die rather than abort her fetus, these same groups would undoubtedly have opposed him. Even ignoring their previous demagoguery, it's hard to see their present attacks on “privatization” as anything but more of the same. The simple fact that Bush's “privatization” would be voluntary makes it clear that they aren't trying to protect anything but their left-wing agenda. New York Times Admits Immigration - Social Security Link Apr. 5, 2005 Last December, I made the following point: The dirty little secret is that our birthrate isn't nearly high enough to keep enough young workers to pay for retirement benefits. Without immigration, Social Security would probably already have run out of money. Even with the high immigration we have, all we've done is postpone the day of reckoning. Today, the New York Times ran an editorial with the headline, “Illegal Immigrants Are Bolstering Social Security With Billions”. It's nice to be proven right, but I question the premise of this article. If employers are collecting FICA tax on undocumented workers, how are they reporting it? Don't they have to supply a Social Security number to the Social Security Administration? And what's with the Times sounding as if it's a good thing that our government is ripping off these workers. Isn't that taking money on false pretenses? Blame It on Cablevision Mar. 30, 2005 Unfortunately, I'm dependent on Cablevision for my internet service, and yesterday, my cable went out from early afternoon to late at night. As a result, I wasn't able to update the site. What Does Terri Schiavo Want? Mar. 26, 2005 The fate of Terri Schiavo rests on what a judge has determined Terri's wishes were prior to her disability. In my opinion, the judge should have put little weight on that determination for two reasons. First, if Terri really had such a conversation with Michael, it was based on a hypothetical situation. Many people who have been in situations similar to Terri's and have recovered have said that although they had said they wouldn't want to be kept alive, when actually in that condition, their entire focus was on staying alive and recovering. It may very well be that the real Terri Schiavo is trapped in an unresponsive body and desperately wants to survive. That brings me to the second point. Doctors maintain that Terri cannot communicate, which implies that we cannot know if Terri wants to live or die. But there may be a way. As Kevin McCullough pointed out in a recent column, it seems to be true that Terri is able to swallow, since her mouth does not fill up with saliva. Nurses have testified that she is able to drink on her own and swallow soft food. This leads to a disturbing conclusion. By preventing anyone from giving Terri food or water, Judge Greer is preventing her from communicating her wish to live. If she wanted to die, the simplest way for her to end her life would be to refuse food. If she was given food to eat and she swallowed it, she would clearly be showing a will to live. Shouldn't this be about what Terri wants now?
Author: Patricia Date: Saturday March 26, 2005 20:26 P.S. After Karen Ann Quinlan was removed from the respirator she lived seven years. No one suggested starving her.
Author: Patricia Date: Saturday March 26, 2005 20:23 I can only add what i said when you sent this to me directly. Terri want's what Terri always wanted. In her words about Karen Ann Quinlan "How do those Doctors and judges know what she feels? WHERE THER IS LIFE THERE IS HOPE". Emphasis mine. They tell me there are tapes of Terri interacting with nurses at the nurses station. Greeting other residents. All till she was confined to her room. Greeting them was in character for Terri. From what they tell us she visited her grandmother at the nursing home on a regular basis.
Author: Helen W. Date: Saturday March 26, 2005 9:38 I believe that Terri has reached the point of no return. Never has the struggle between the "culture of life" and that of Death been so clear. I and others are sodden with anger and grief. I hope that once we recover, we will finally take this battle dead seriously.
Author: Anonymous Date: Friday March 4, 2005 11:17 Stewart: But what do you make of--here's my dilemma, if you will. I don't care for the way these guys conduct themselves--and this is just you and I talking, no cameras here [audience laughter]. But boy, when you see the Lebanese take to the streets and all that, and you go, "Oh my God, this is working," and I begin to wonder, is it--is the way that they handled it really--it's sort of like, "Uh, OK, my daddy hits me, but look how tough I'm getting." You know what I mean? Like, you don't like the method, but maybe--wrong analogy, is that, uh--? Link #1
Author: Anonymous Date: Friday March 4, 2005 11:13 In the interest of fairness you need to display your bias toward Nancy Soderberg: Link #1 Link #2
Author: Patricia Date: Monday March 21, 2005 12:24 Continued: Common law wife. A doctor informed her parents that she was either run over by a mack truck or someone beat the living daylights out of her. Now how did that happen? We must not allow Court Sanctioned Murder in the United States of America.
Author: Patricia Date: Monday March 21, 2005 11:42 You are correct about the ignorance regarding Terri. I have been involved with "Fight4Terri" since she had her tube taken out in'03. The contgress people that spoke against her last night are woefully ignorant and had no business speaking on an issue they know so little about.Too many people have seen her responsive besides the family to have it just be their desire to think she is responsive. Most people do not know she has not been in this state for 15 years. she was talking some and walking a little and while she had the tube she was eating some and she continues to swollaw her saliva. She is breathing on her own and her heart beat is independent.This is a case of horrendous neglect which started in earnest after the mal practice suit was settled for 1.7 million dollars. This after Michael swore under oath that he would spend his life caring for her the rest of her's. He had already abandoned her for other womwn. He now has a concubine that is his common
Author: webmaster Date: Friday March 4, 2005 14:06 Dear anonymous, If you want to know my bias, why don't you visit my home page? I spell it out clearly, unlike Dan Rather, Peter Jennings and the rest of the leftmedia. Link #1
Author: Anonymous Date: Friday March 4, 2005 11:17 Stewart: But what do you make of--here's my dilemma, if you will. I don't care for the way these guys conduct themselves--and this is just you and I talking, no cameras here [audience laughter]. But boy, when you see the Lebanese take to the streets and all that, and you go, "Oh my God, this is working," and I begin to wonder, is it--is the way that they handled it really--it's sort of like, "Uh, OK, my daddy hits me, but look how tough I'm getting." You know what I mean? Like, you don't like the method, but maybe--wrong analogy, is that, uh--? Link #1
Author: Anonymous Date: Friday March 4, 2005 11:13 In the interest of fairness you need to display your bias toward Nancy Soderberg: Link #1 Link #2
Author: Linda Cebrian Date: Thursday March 17, 2005 20:48 It's important to remember that in the Northeast it is not easy to be conservative. Also,IMHO, the media consider themselves "mainstream", so they find nothing wrong with the verbiage they use.
Author: patricia Date: Thursday March 17, 2005 17:47 And they told me i could not publish a letter about Terri Schundler Schiavo that accused no one merely stated facts in evidence, that have been ignored. I quoted sworn statements by reputable medical people and they said unless AP said I could not say it and they said I was accusing Michael Schiavo. In my first draft I asked the question was she a battered woman, but I even changed that and still I could not print it. Someone should get that headline to the gentleman and let him sir the pasnts of the Pok Journal.
Author: webmaster Date: Friday March 4, 2005 14:06 Dear anonymous, If you want to know my bias, why don't you visit my home page? I spell it out clearly, unlike Dan Rather, Peter Jennings and the rest of the leftmedia. Link #1
Author: Anonymous Date: Friday March 4, 2005 11:17 Stewart: But what do you make of--here's my dilemma, if you will. I don't care for the way these guys conduct themselves--and this is just you and I talking, no cameras here [audience laughter]. But boy, when you see the Lebanese take to the streets and all that, and you go, "Oh my God, this is working," and I begin to wonder, is it--is the way that they handled it really--it's sort of like, "Uh, OK, my daddy hits me, but look how tough I'm getting." You know what I mean? Like, you don't like the method, but maybe--wrong analogy, is that, uh--? Link #1
Author: Anonymous Date: Friday March 4, 2005 11:13 In the interest of fairness you need to display your bias toward Nancy Soderberg: Link #1 Link #2
Author: Linda Cebrian Date: Saturday March 12, 2005 19:18 Additional hypotheses on the reason for activist judges: 1. They are political appointments who possess no knowledge of constitutional law or principles of jurisprudence; 2. They are true secularists who disdain or are clueless about Judeo-Christian ethics; 3. They have no backbone and issue rulings meant to "go along to get along."
Author: Anonymous Date: Friday March 4, 2005 16:20 Here's the entire Comedy Central interview: Link #1
Author: Anonymous Date: Friday March 4, 2005 16:18 Here's the entire Comedy Central interview: Link #1 Link #2 Link #3
Author: webmaster Date: Friday March 4, 2005 14:06 Dear anonymous, If you want to know my bias, why don't you visit my home page? I spell it out clearly, unlike Dan Rather, Peter Jennings and the rest of the leftmedia. Link #1
Author: Anonymous Date: Friday March 4, 2005 11:17 Stewart: But what do you make of--here's my dilemma, if you will. I don't care for the way these guys conduct themselves--and this is just you and I talking, no cameras here [audience laughter]. But boy, when you see the Lebanese take to the streets and all that, and you go, "Oh my God, this is working," and I begin to wonder, is it--is the way that they handled it really--it's sort of like, "Uh, OK, my daddy hits me, but look how tough I'm getting." You know what I mean? Like, you don't like the method, but maybe--wrong analogy, is that, uh--? Link #1
Author: Anonymous Date: Friday March 4, 2005 11:13 In the interest of fairness you need to display your bias toward Nancy Soderberg: Link #1 Link #2
Author: Anonymous Date: Monday February 21, 2005 21:25 You make some interesting points here. But you should get your facts straight: the author is a Vassar Student, not a SUNY student. If you are going to bash a report for its lack of balance, you should make sure your commentary is factually accurate first. -- A New Paltz senior who knows how to read.
Author: Patricia Date: Thursday February 10, 2005 22:34 As the editor knows i have had my own troubles with the Poughkeepsie Journal recently in that the letters-editor refused to print my letter because in refuting an AP report he would not allow me to quote any one but AP and I could disagree with them but would not be allowed to explain why. They would not take names of Doctors or their sworn testimony, only a "Reliable source", like the AP.So nothing they do surorises me. Could it be that they too are angry that the President was re elected?
Author: Patricia Date: Sunday February 6, 2005 19:47 Hi Bill, I totally agreee with you and there are people lined around the corner that do also. Not so many agree or even know any real facts about Terri Schiavo. I must find a way around John Penney and get something out there in defence of this woman. She may not have thirty days. Also I want to have a Terri Schiavo Day and maybe stand with our signs outside the Pok Journ.. do you think you could help me?
Author: Anonymous Date: Monday January 31, 2005 17:34 "The third factor relates to security against the hazards and vicissitudes of life. Fear and worry based on unknown danger contribute to social unrest and economic demoralization. If, as our Constitution tells us, our Federal Government was established among other things, "to promote the general welfare," it is our plain duty to provide for that security upon which welfare depends. Next winter we may well undertake the great task of furthering the security of the citizen and his family through social insurance. This is not an untried experiment. Lessons of experience are available from States, from industries and from many Nations of the civilized world. The various types of social insurance are interrelated; and I think it is difficult to attempt to solve them piecemeal. Hence, I am looking for a sound means which I can recommend to provide at once security against several of the great disturbing factors in life--especially those which relate to unemployment Link #1
Author: Big Daddy Date: Tuesday January 25, 2005 19:24 Funny, but some people are very selective about what 'government' information they choose to believe.
Author: Anonymous Date: Tuesday January 25, 2005 16:15 Funny, when I go to the Social Security Administration's Web site and read their history article, it only seems to give the safety net story and not your version. Who ya gonna believe.
Author: Patricia Date: Tuesday January 25, 2005 8:32 I could never take Sen. Hinchey at his word. Regarding the article "Church Changes Position On Condoms". Mamy people only read the headline so it is misleading.. Also the line "The Spainish Catholic Church". There is no such thing. Ther is the Roman Catholic Church. There is the Church in Spain. If the report is correct that it was the bishops and not the government those bishops are not in Communion with the Church. Therefore not Catholic of any description. Both NewsMax and your readership should be so informed.
Author: mamaditto Date: Sunday January 16, 2005 21:20 I remember the day my son came home from middle school and told me he was taught the theory of primodial soup as the origin of life. I asked him what this soup consisted of. "Molecules," he replied. I asked him where the molecules came from. "Atoms," he said. I asked him where the atoms came from. "Hydrogen, nitrogen," he stammered. I asked him where the hydrogen and nitrogen came from. When he couldn't answer, I pointed out that something cannot originate from nothing. As a dietitian with a special interest in "soup" I was able to explain to him that the amino acids in a kettle of vegetable stew were a great deal more complex than the simple hydrogen and nitrogen of the earth's primitive atmosphere. Yet, if a kettle of vegetable stew were left to simmer on a stove for ten million years, the result would be moldy stew -not a civilization loaded with a diversity of flora and fauna. Linda Cebrian
Author: Patricia Date: Saturday January 8, 2005 14:51 Liberals are all hypocrits. BRW I was unable yo access story about women not using contraception,
Author: Patricia Date: Tuesday January 4, 2005 18:16 Not really in response to your editorial, but right hear in our own community we have a priest who's home is in the disaster area. Father Fernando, a prison chaplain who resides at Holy Trinity Rectory told a friend of mine his home church is no more, but that he believes all his family s safe.