Bill's Blog Archive

More Archives

Ref's Bad Call a Lesson in Politics (January 17, 2006)

The National Football League (NFL) has made rare admission - a referee did indeed make a bad call in Sunday's playoff game between the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Indianapolis Colts. What does this have to do with politics, you might ask? I'll get to that in a moment, but first some background. Here's how Sports Illustrated reported the story:

NEW YORK (AP) -- The NFL said the referee made a mistake: Troy Polamalu caught the ball.

The league acknowledged Monday that referee Pete Morelli erred when he overturned on replay Polamalu's interception of a Peyton Manning pass Sunday in the playoff game between Pittsburgh and Indianapolis.

Mike Pereira, the league's vice president of officiating, said in a statement that Morelli should have let the call on the field stand.

“He maintained possession long enough to establish a catch,” Pereira said. “Therefore, the replay review should have upheld the call on the field that it was a catch and fumble.”

NFL rules clearly state that a referee should overturn a call on the field only if there is irrefutable evidence that the call was wrong. Without such evidence, referees are required to let the call stand, despite any personal feelings that the call was wrong. Therein lies a lesson for Chuckie Schumer.

Schumer has been trying to convince us (and perhaps himself) that Pres. Bush's judicial nominees are “activists”. In the process, he's managed to distort the definition of an “activist judge”, at least perhaps in the minds of some of his more weak-minded followers. According to Chuckie, voting to declare a law unconstitutional makes a judge an activist.

No, Chuckie, being an activist judge isn't determined by counting how many laws he overturns, it's what standards are being used in the process. In the NFL example, overturning a call on the field doesn't make a referee an activist, but ignoring the rules to come to a desired outcome certainly does. Referee Pete Morelli ignored the rule that he needed irrefutable evidence to overturn, and in effect, made up his own rule.

In another sports analogy, one of the senators on the Judiciary Committee (I forget which one) likened Judge Alito to a baseball umpire who calls most of one pitcher's pitches balls, and most of the other pitcher's pitches strikes. Being an umpire myself, I can tell you from personal experience that some pitchers throw many more strikes than others. If I ignored what the rules say about the strike zone, and tried to meet some statistical standard of equal balls and strikes for both pitchers, I would not doing my job. I'd be an activist umpire.

A Great Catch (January 10, 2006)

Yesterday, someone from Wappingers Falls called the Sean Hannity program and dropped a bombshell. He recalled (as I do now that I've been reminded) that John Kerry touched on the “wiretap” issue during one of the debates.

So let's go back to 2004 and reprise Kerry's words. In the first debate, held on Sept. 30 at the University of Miami, Kerry was asked, “As president, what would you do, specifically, in addition to or differently to increase the homeland security of the United States than what President Bush is doing?” They go back and forth, and then Kerry says this:

KERRY: The president just said the FBI had changed its culture. We just read on the front pages of America's papers that there are over 100,000 hours of tapes, unlistened to. On one of those tapes may be the enemy being right the next time.

And the test is not whether you're spending more money. The test is, are you doing everything possible to make America safe?

We didn't need that tax cut. America needed to be safe.

Does this sound like the same John Kerry who is now nit-picking the president over whether or not he got warrants for those “tapes”?

Homeland Security Ate My Homework (December 30, 2005)

Have you been following the story?

A UMass Dartmouth student claimed to have been visited by Homeland Security agents over his request for “The Little Red Book” by Mao Zedong. A Mass. newspaper runs with the story.

Ted “the Swimmer Kennedy” writes an op-ed in the Boston Globe citing the incident as evidence of the Bush administration's contempt for civil liberties. Then, the student admits to having made the whole story up.

Three days later, the Sacramento Bee repeats the story in an editorial. Then on Wednesday, the Bee posts a correction saying “The student now says he did not request ‘Mao's Little Red Book’ through interlibrary loan and was not visited by federal agents.” (Note the use of the word “now” which avoids the fact that the hoax admission came three days before their editorial)

The gullibility of the leftmedia and Bush-hating Democrats are obvious points to be drawn from the saga, but why did the student pull the stunt in the first place? Bloggress Academic Elephant offers a fascinating theory:

Undergraduates don't want to do their homework. This is also not news. But this student's avoidance method--to play on his professors' paranoid fantasies about the Bush administration to shirk coursework--should alert us to a new reality in academia. The students are on to their professors' obvious and extreme bias, and, as always, are ready to exploit this new angle. This student's mistake was that his story was too good. His professors could not resist going public--and then the house of cards collapsed under public scrutiny. They'll be more careful next time.

Look, people, you're becoming a cliched joke. Do you think students such as this one will respect your concerns for their civil liberties? No. They will despise you as a gullible dupe and laugh all the way to the registrar with that A.

I've heard many students tell how they've had to pretend to accept their professors' extreme-left bias, but if AE is correct, at least one student has gone a step further, and has learned how to capitalize on it. Let's hope this starts a trend.

More Leftist Lying (December 20, 2005)

Today's Poughkeepsie Journal carried a letter from Mark Schoenfeld, a frequent writer with a decidedly leftist view. Most of what he writes is nonsense, but today he went over the line. Here's his letter:

The following quotes by Michelle Malkin come from her Dec. 3 column, “For reckless rage, turn to a leftist.” The song, I trust, needs no introduction.

Song: “Silent night, holy night; all is calm, all is bright ...”

Malkin: “Let's get Something Nice and Sparkling clear: Stay Away from Me.”

Song: “Round yon virgin mother and child, Holy infant so tender and mild ...”

Malkin: “Stay Away From Me. Stay out of my personal space.”

Song: “Sleep in heavenly peace; sleep in heavenly peace.”

Malkin: “I want nothing to do with you.”

Song: “Silent night, holy night; Son of God, love's pure light...”

Malkin: “I want nothing from you.”

Song: “Radiance beams from thy holy face, With the dawn of redeeming grace...”

Malkin: “I want nothing to do with your 'vision' ...”

Song: “Jesus, Lord, at they birth; Jesus, Lord, at they birth.”

Malkin: “The most conciliatory thing I can say for these people at this point is: Kill yourself.”

Happy holidays to Michelle, too.

This makes Michelle into something of an ogre, except for one thing - the “quotes by Michelle Malkin” were not “by Michelle”, but were a citation from democratunderground.org that Malkin included in the column to illustrate her point.

If Michelle hadn't made her point in the column, Schoenfeld made it in is letter. His rage made him reckless with the truth.

Partial Site Outage (December 14, 2005)

For a reason I can't fathom, I was blocked out of the site all day today, meaning I could not upload anything to it, nor could I browse it. Since people using other ISPs didn't have a problem accessing the site, I suspect that the blockage was somewhere in the depths of Optimum Online which seems to have singled out this site for mayhem. At about 7 pm, it inexplicably became unblocked.

As a result, things became a bit confused, so subscribers might receive an extra “Today's Headlines” mailing - or they might not. If you do, I apologize.

Fixing the Vote (December 13, 2005)

This has nothing to do with Iraq - we can expect a fair vote there. No, my complaint is with today's vote on the Arlingon School District bond issue for a new high school.

I looked all through today's Poughkeepsie Journal and found nothing reminding people to go out and vote. The last reminder I received from the school district came many weeks ago. They don't want me to vote because I don't have children in school. But they do want students' parents to vote because they're more inclined to suppport the board's greed. I'm sure they sent notices home with the kids reminding their parents to vote. They didn't get to the retired people who are being taxed out of our homes, though.

The school bureaucracy has an extensive repertoire of tricks to fix the vote. My favorite is the way they schedule evening programs for parents on budget vote days (the polling places, of course, are in the schools). It's a very selective, and effective, get-out-the-vote tactic. It's so blatant, it should be illegal - and maybe it is.

The Prescient Left (December 12, 2005)

Don't let the pessimists in the leftmedia get you down with gloomy predictions of Iraq's future. Not only do they want us to forget that Democrats said the same things about Saddam Hussein's threat, they'd also like us to forget all the dire predictions they made before Iraq's last round of elections. But thanks to the long memory of the internet, we can go back in time, and here's a collection of political cartoons that were running in leftmedia outlets just prior to the elections for Iraq's interim government.

By the way, did any of these pessimists admit how wrong they were?

What's In a Name? (December 12, 2005)

Unless Gov. Schwartzenegger intervenes, Stanley “Tookie” Williams will die tonight. Has anyone not living in a cave not heard the name “‘Tookie’ Williams”? Probably not, but ask any of them to name the people he killed, and you'll come up with a lot of blanks.

Then there's “Peace Mom” Cindy Sheehan. She's built her 15 minutes of fame on the death of her son, but I wonder how many people, who would instantly recognize her name, could give the name of her son who died for her freedom to make an ass of herself. It's Casey, in case you've forgotten.

Getting back to the Williams' saga, I've looked through a lot of news stories without any mention of his victims' names. It think it's important because the effort to humanize this killer has had the effect of dehumanizing his victims. We're told of all the wonderful things Williams has done, but what about the lost accomplishments of his victims? Does anyone care about them?

If we're to believe the news stories, “Tookie” Williams killed four anonymous people. But he killed four people with names - and lives - and families - and futures. I'm tired of hearing about how he's renounced gangs. I'm tired of hearing about his book (that managed to sell about 300 copies). He snuffed out the lives of four people - people who had names. For that he should die.

Feels Like... (December 8, 2005)

What exactly does it mean when the weatherman says “It's 20 degrees out but it feels like 10.” Then when the temperature gets down to 10 degrees, he'll say “It's 10 degrees out but it feels like zero.”

If 20 feels like 10 and 10 feels like zero, doesn't it logically follow that 20 feels like zero? Well, not exactly since when it gets down to zero, he'll probably say it feels like 10 below.

Treat Abortion Like Torture (December 6, 2005)

‘Liberals’ in congress are trying to get an anti-torture bill passed, but one compelling argument against it is the so-called “ticking time bomb” scenario. It goes something like this: Suppose you've captured a terrorist and you have good reason to believe he or she knows where and when a nuclear or other terrible weapon is about to be detonated. Do you allow hundreds of thousands or even millions to die because of your ‘liberal’ sensitivities?

Now one of the supposed arguments against torture is that “it doesn't work”. If they really believed that, their answer to the scenario would be “It won't do any good to torture he terrorist!” But instead, they've come up with an “answer” that goes something like this: If this ever happened, prosecutors could (and almost certainly would) use their legitimate discretion and refuse to prosecute.

Wonderful! The ‘liberals’ have discovered a new principle of legislation - you can pass a law that makes you feel good, but isn't going to be used when it would make you feel bad. So let's extend this principle to abortion. Let's make abortion illegal with a wink to prosecutors telling them that whenever abortion is really necessary, they can just ignore the law. Think any of the aforementioned ‘liberals’ would go for it?

Bush's Jury Duty (December 3, 2005)

I'm thinking the left is gleefully waiting to see what happens with Pres. Bush's jury duty summons. They probably think it's a win-win-win for them. If Bush asks to be excused, they'll say he's shirking his duty. If he serves, they'll say he should have asked to be excused since being president is more important than jury duty. And if he is excused without asking, they'll claim he used his influence behind the scenes to get off (and bring up his National Guard service in the process).

Banning Torture is Legislating Morality (November 29, 2005)

When arguing against anti-abortion laws, the left always falls back on the old canard “You can't legislate morality.” But, of course, what they really mean is that they only want their version of morality as the source legislation. This is certainly evident in their current effort to legislate a ban on “torture”.

So let's turn the tables on them. They're quick to say things like “If you don't like abortions, don't have one.” OK, how about this: “If you don't like torture, don't torture.” But of course, they'll respond saying it's a matter of the government doing the torturing, and they don't want their government engaging in it. That sounds an awful lot like what they dismiss when the subject is abortion - we don't want the government paying for abortions either, but that doesn't faze them at all.

What a bunch of hypocrites!

Clinton Attacks Iraq (November 26, 2005)

Mark Simone, a weekend host and fill-in on WABC radio, has put together a compilation of Bill Clinton and other Democrats warning about the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. He has graciously made it available to anyone who e-mails a request for it, which I did. To hear it, click on “Listen”.

A Pop Quiz (November 22, 2005)

This small article appeared yesterday in the Poughkeepsie Journal. See if you can detect what caught my attention.

‘Corpse plant’ is bag attraction at garden

WASHINGTON - Its scent has drawn comparisons to garbage and spoiled meat, but that isn't stopping thousands from flocking to see--and smell--an unusual plant in blossom at the U.S. Botanical Garden.

The enormous titan arum plant is nicknamed “corpse plant” for its rank smell, which is designed to attract pollinating insects in its native Sumatran habitat.

It's expected to attract around 10,000 visitors during the day or two it blooms.

The Left Attacks Its Disciples (November 19, 2005)

A caller to a call-in radio program made an excellent observation yesterday that deserves recognition. He pointed out that while Democrats are criticizing any war proponents who did not serve in the military saying they are unqualified, they are also acting to discourage the current generation of possible recruits from entering the military. The result of this, he said, is that when this generation comes of age, they, too, will be vilified as unqualified by the left for doing what the left encouraged them to do, i.e., avoid military service.

He also said that many young people who “dodged the draft” during the Vietnam conflict did so because of the anti-American propaganda the left was feeding them. It's ironic that the same people who encouraged them then are now saying they have no standing in the war debate.

How true!

Questions for Candidates (November 18, 2005)

OK, so the next presidential campaign is three years away. But it's not too soon to start preparing for it. One thing that's bothered me in recent campaigns is the one-sided questioning that occurred in the “debates”. Everything seemed aimed at advancing the ‘liberal’ agenda and putting down the conservative.

I'm going to give the moderators the benefit of doubt and say that maybe they just didn't think of any good questions that might have put the ‘liberal’ candidate on the spot. So to that end, I'd like to collect some better questions which I will then forward to future moderators when the time comes. If you'd like to participate (and I hope you will), please click here.

Letter to the Editor (November 15, 2005)

Today, I sent the following to the Poughkeepsie Journal as a Letter to the Editor:

After being exposed to a phony ad, about a third of participants in a study “remembered” that they had met Bugs Bunny at Disney World and had even shook his hand. Here's the rub: Bugs Bunny can't be found at Disney World - he's a Warner Brothers character.

By endless repetition of their “Bush lied” mantra, Democrats are getting some of us to “remember” that Democrats never supported the Iraq war and that they weren't saying the same things about Iraq's WMD that Bush did - even before Bush was president. But it isn't that their memories are faulty. When confronted with evidence of their lies, they dissemble, change the subject and throw up straw men. They want their power back, and they'll do anything, even undermine our fighting men and women, to get it.

They tell us it's “patriotic” to make outrageous charges against the Commander in Chief in wartime, but it's unpatriotic to criticize them. I have a message for them: If they don't want to be called unpatriotic, they should start acting like patriots.

Babbling Letter Makes a Point (November 15, 2005)

Irvin M. Miller is a regular writer to the Poughkeepsie Journal. Being a confirmed leftist, his letters are generally more hilarious or infuriating than informative. However, one that appeared today made a great point, albeit, I suspect, inadvertently.

The headline read, “Interpretations of Bible also evolve”, and the letter proceeded in that vein until the penultimate and final paragraphs:

Much of the world has come a long way from the village charismatic medicine man. If a single religion that accepts no challenges comes to dominate our politics and science, our once-great nation can sink into a new dark age.

This leads to another biblical story: Babel.

I doubt that Miller was trying to make the point he actually made which was underscored by the column by Linda Chavez which appeared on the same page. According to the Biblical story of Babel, its downfall came about when the Lord confounded their language so that the people could not understand one another. Chavez's piece makes the point that encouraging immigrants to retain their language serves to “Balkanize” the country. Having a common language binds the country together, and departing from that will break us apart, as the Biblical example of Babel shows.

If this is the point Miller was trying to make, it certainly is a departure from his usual leftist orthodoxy. I really doubt that's the case.

Clinton Lets Cat Out of the Bag (November 13, 2005)

Recently, Former President Bill Clinton said at the University of Minnesota, “We should be trying to build a world now that we want to live in when we're not the only big dog on the block.” Those words are so revealing, it's difficult to know where to start to dissect them. But I'll try anyway.

First, he almost certainly seems to be saying that he wants to live in a world where the U.S. is no longer the “only big dog on the block”. If these words were the only evidence to that view, we might give him the benefit of doubt, but considering what he did as president, it's hard to come to any other conclusion, especially considering his transfers of vital satellite and rocket technology to the Chinese.

Why is the left so opposed to the present status of sole superpower status of the United States? I believe it's connected to a common thread - avoidance of responsibility. When you look at the left's overall agenda, that avoidance is seen throughout it, from abortion to welfare.

Superpower status carries with it a huge responsibility. Like it or not, it makes us the world's policeman. Such a great responsibility can only stick in the left's craw. They don't want it, but they still want the power that goes with governing this country. If you want to give them that power, you need to know what they really stand for and where they're likely to take us.

Did You Catch This? (November 11, 2005)

After Pres. Bush made his speech in defense of the unpatriotic (my word, not his) attacks by his enemies, Ted “The Swimmer” Kennedy almost immediately jumped in front of a microphone and said, “It's deeply regrettable that the president is using Veterans Day as a campaign-like attempt to rebuild his own credibility by tearing down those who seek the truth.”

Hey Ted, couldn't you have waited until the day after Veterans Day to launch your campaign? You're once again showing why it's “regrettable” that the people of Massachussetts keep sending a jerk like you to the senate.

Another Site Feature (November 9, 2005)

Recently, the Poughkeepsie Journal made some changes to their website, and as a result, their archive now goes back beyond seven days. I've taken advantage of this by creating a new page (PJ Letters) which will be updated daily and provides links to the Letters to the Editor page by date. It can be accessed from the left-side menu. Enjoy!

Leftists Can't Help Exposing Their Closed Minds (November 9, 2005)

Since I was busy yesterday working as an election official, I didn't get to read Mark Schoenfeld's letter in the Poughkeepsie Journal (second letter) until today. I'm sorry I missed it because it certainly is hilarious, in that it showed exactly what I've always said about closed mind on the left.

When you read the letter, you won't find him refuting anything I say. But more important, you'll see that Schoenfeld's mind is so tightly closed, he can't even respond to what I say - he has to resort to putting words in my mouth in order to have something to respond to (the classic “straw man” tactic). In this case, he refers to my points as “ignorance” because he claims this site provides no “solid, physical scientific evidence for creationism” which is a non sequitur considering I've never defended Creationism. The letter he's responding to merely questioned blind acceptance of evolution without mentioning Creationism or even “Intelligent Design”. Closed minds on the left, like Schoenfeld's, simply can't accept anyone questioning their sacred beliefs.

In a parting shot (referring to another of my letters), he says, “[H]is describing the poor, with whom Margaret Sanger was concerned, as ‘less-fit’ shows a mind-set worthy of Nazi Germany.” This is nothing short of slander, considering that it was Sanger herself who likened the poor to the “less fit”, and it's no coincidence that Sanger was an admirer of Hitler's “master race” demagoguery. The only concern Sanger showed for the poor was a concern that there be less of them (and not by making them rich).

Mark, if you're reading this, I challenge you to defend your charges. You're welcome use this site's open forum. Do you have the courage to debate me? I doubt it.

More on Prop. 1 (November 3, 2005)

First, a correction: It's not a proposition, it's a proposal. Here's the text that appears on the ballot:

According to an article in today's Poughkeepsie Journal (not available online, as far as I can tell), all candidates for governor oppose it. That's not surprising because it apparently shifts budgetary power from the governor to the legislature. After reading the above description several times, I've come to the conclusion that it wasn't written to be understood. I have a rule that if I can't fully understand something on the ballot, I'm voting against it. This is one of those times.

Proposition One (November 2, 2005)

Have you looked into Proposition 1 which will appear on the Nov. 8 ballot in New York? According to the description the appears on the ballot, it is supposed to address the chronic problem of late budgets, and it all sounds fairly innocuous. But someone is running radio ads blasting the proposition as a way for the legislature to raise our taxes. I fail to see, from the information provided, what the problem is, but I'm suspicious of the group that's running the ads. They call themselves “Grow New York”, but the only entity I can find going by that name is a government program of the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets (click here for website).

What's going on here? It appears that Gov. Pataki may be behind the effort to derail the proposition. If any of you can figure this out, I'd love to hear from you.

Now Abortion Right is “Fundamental” (November 1, 2005)

Have you noticed how lately, the left has been adding the word “fundamental” to their mantra of the “right” to an abortion (which they euphemistically call a “choice”)? For something that could only be sensed from emanations from the penumbra, it seems strange that it is now portrayed as a “fundamental right”. These leftists who are throwing the words around should be mindful of the fact that it wasn't all that long ago, historically speaking, that it was considered a “fundamental right” of husbands to beat their wives.

In reality, there are no fundamental rights. All rights must be fought for and defended. And they can be lost or taken away. So no matter how often the left throws the “f” word around, their sacred “right” to abortion can be rescinded. Let's hope it happens.

Crime Vs. Incarceration - Dems Just Don't Get It (October 29, 2005)

Note: This is in reference to a letter from Roger Higgins, Minority Leader Dutchess County Legislature, which appeared in the Poughkeepsie Journal Oct. 27, 2005 (first letter).

You walk into your house from the cold November air and the first thing you notice is how warm and cozy it is. Then you notice that the heat is on. Your first reaction is to be “puzzled” that you'd need the heat to be on because the house is so nice and warm.

Sound silly, even stupid? Not if you're the Minority Leader of the Dutchess County Legislature. Any person of average intelligence would understand that the house is warm because the heat is on, and that in order for the house to stay warm, the heat would have to remain on. Analogous to this, a moderately intelligent person seeing a declining crime rate and an overcrowded jail would come to the conclusion that crime is going down because criminals are in jail. But poor Roger Higgins is “puzzled” by what seems a paradox to him. He can't understand why so many people should be in jail when crime is decreasing. He wants to put criminals back on the streets with an “alternatives to incarceration” program.

If this is the best the Democrats can come up with, let's hope this guy remains Minority Leader for a long, long time.

On Oil Company Profits (October 28, 2005)

I'm not joining the chorus condemning the oil industry for “obscene” profits following the hurricane disasters. My view is that they performed a valuable service, and deserve to be rewarded.

First, let me explain the “valuable service” they performed. When hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit the oil platforms and refineries, they created shortages. If oil prices hadn't risen, there would have been no incentive for motorists to cut back on their driving and thereby reduce demand. The only way demand could have been reduced without price increases would be rationing, either through some government action or through the failure of gas stations to be able to refill their tanks (i.e., first-come first-served rationing). Any government rationing system would have required some time to implement, meaning it would have been unneeded before it ever took effect. So the best way was what happened - prices rose, demand fell, and everyone got to work.

When you get right down to it, what ‘liberals’ are most incensed about is the fact that the oil companies got the money rather than the government. And I'm going to predict that next quarter, the oil company profit picture is going to be much gloomier due to rapidly falling prices. You won't hear much about it, though - count on it.

Barbara Bush in Context (October 26, 2005)

A letter appearing in the Poughkeepsie Journal today disturbed me a bit. Jack Donovan of Beacon included the following in his letter under the headline “Poor people always get a lousy deal”:

Just several weeks ago, while visiting Hurricane Katrina evacuees in Houston's Astrodome, the gracious and matriarchal Barbara Bush said: “So many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this is working very well for them.” Regarding poverty and the poor, the well-to-do seem to be totally clueless.

I had a hard time believing that Mrs. Bush could say something so callous, so I looked into the accuracy of the quote. I found that, according to snopes.com, she actually uttered those words. However, when read in context, I came away with a slightly different interpretation. Here's the complete quote:

Almost everyone I've talked to says, ‘We're going to move to Houston.’ What I'm hearing, which is sort of scary, is they all want to stay in Texas. Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality.

And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this, this is working very well for them.

That preceding paragraph seems to change the meaning somewhat. As a proud Texan, what Barbara was saying was “working very well for them” was the opportunity to move to Houston. At least that's the impression I got.

Beating Up on Halliburton (October 14, 2005)

Edmund Holden of Clinton Corners wrote the following letter to the Poughkeepsie Journal which appeared today:

In an article from the BBC on Oct. 6, Vice President Dick Cheney addressed U.S. military personnel, trying to bolster support for the war in Iraq.

Cheney said, “Like other great duties in history, it will require decades of patient effort, and it will be resisted by those whose only hope for power is through the spread of violence.”

It seems to me the United States has inflicted its share of violence on Iraq for what seems to be more and more apparent bogus reasons.

On the bright side, it just might be a good time to invest in Halliburton stock. The stock has been an excellent performer the last few years going from about $10 a share to around $70 recently. No doubt those no-contract bids from the U.S. government and the roughly $8 billion of taxpayer money that is unaccounted for in Iraq have helped Halliburton's cause.

As time goes on, it seems more and more apparent this is a war for profit at a cost of too many innocent lives on both sides.

Unlike the Journal editors, who only seem interested in accuracy when a letter is from a conservative perspective, I decided to look up how Halliburton stock has actually done. According to historical data provided by Yahoo! Financial, Halliburton stock, adjusted for dividends and splits went from 11.96 to 37.61 during the Clinton administration, more than tripling. But since Pres. Bush took office, the adjusted price has only risen to 59.48. If that rate of performance continues to the end of Bush's term, it will have done far better under Clinton!

Proving My Point (October 13, 2005)

Recently, I had a letter published in the Poughkeepsie Journal (posted here) questioning the open-mindedness of evolutionists. Today, a letter appeared seeming to demonstrate my point.

The writer, K.J. Walters of Monroe, starts off, “Recently in these pages the following arguments have been presented as evidence by Creationists to refute evolution:” He goes on to list the arguments, and first on his list is this: “The eye is useless unless it is perfect.”

Since I was the only person making an “eye” argument, I'd like to know where Walters came up with the idea that I am a “Creationist”. There was absolutely nothing in my letter linking me to Creationism, and in fact, I am not a Creationist. That would be a very strange position for an Agnostic to take, wouldn't you think?

The point of my letter was that many, many evolutionists have demonstrated that their minds are closed, probably out of fear. K.J. Walters exemplifies how that fear is manifested. First of all, Evangelical Evolutionists (EEs) create a false dichotomy. According to them, if you don't have absolute faith in evolution, you must be a “Creationist”. Even though the “Intelligent Design” hypothesis was first advanced by scientists based on their observations of the complexity of living organisms, EEs insist that ID is “stealth Creationism”. By classifying all counter arguments as religion-based, they can avoid addressing them, as Walters does in his letter.

And not only did Walters avoid my argument, he distorted it. I did not say a non-perfect eye would be useless. My eyes are far from perfect, but I certainly don't consider them useless. What I pointed out was that evolution provides no explanation for how the optic system could have developed. In order for an organism to see images, it needs at a minimum a lens to form the image, a light-sensitive retina to collect the image, an optic nerve to transmit the information to the brain, and a brain to make sense of the information. Without all four of these in place simultaneously, each of the individual components is useless, and by natural selection, would be discarded. And without the complete system in place, there is no way for an organism to detect the possibility of sight.

My position is that there is no need to “believe” in evolution, “Intelligent Design”, or Creationism, since no scientific truths rest on any of these hypotheses. People who feel they must believe in one of them, do so for other reasons. For Creationists, it's an integral part of their religious beliefs. For Evolutionists, it's also an integral part of their religious beliefs, i.e., that humans are the Supreme Being.

Religion and science differ in a fundamental way. Religion requires acceptance, i.e., a closed mind, whereas science requires skepticism, i.e., an open mind. By rejecting an open-minded approach to the question of the origins of life, EEs show clearly that they're not dedicated to science, but to their own form of religion.

Letter to the Editor (October 9, 2005)

The following was sent yesterday to the Poughkeepsie Journal as a Letter to the Editor:

Bill Bennett has devoted his life to ending the practice of abortion of all babies, regardless of race. When he alluded to a known fact, that black youths are responsible for crimes in numbers disproportional to the population as a whole, he was branded as a 'racist' by the left and their media allies. But by making the statement in terms of abortion, of which he is a staunch opponent, he can not truthfully be charged with racism.

What makes the left's attacks so ludicrous is the fact that what Bennett alluded to (while condemning it), was the abortion of black babies, something one of the left's favorite organizations has been doing for decades. Planned Parenthood was founded on the principle of keeping the “less fit” from over-breeding. Margaret Sanger, PP's founder, made that clear in her early writings. Today, a black baby is approximately three times more likely to be aborted by PP than a white baby. PP sites its clinics in poor (i.e., black) urban areas in accordance with Sanger's aims. Furthermore, contributing factors to the black crime rate are the devaluation of fatherhood resulting from PP's agenda of exclusively female “reproductive rights”, and the left's welfare policies.

Isn't it just a little bit odd that talking about aborting black babies, while condemning it, is politically incorrect, but actually doing it is applauded by the same thought police?

Editorial Writer Responds (October 4, 2005)

I received the following e-mail from Theresa Keegan who wrote the editorial containing the incorrect terminology regarding the rule forcing Tom DeLay from his leadership post:

Mr. Kriebel,

As the author of the editorial on Tom Delay, I would like to thank you for pointing out my error regarding House rules and the law. I apologize for the situation and you can expect a correction in the paper.

Thank you for being such a dedicated reader. I pride myself in accuracy and appreciate your effort in helping me to provide accurate editorials for the Opinion page of the Poughkeepsie Journal.

Theresa.

p.s. I later received the following e-mail from John Penney, Opinion Page Editor of the Poughkeepsie Journal:

Subject: RE: Error of Fact in Editorial -> Error of Fact in Correction

Bill,

For the purposes Delay's [sic] situation, it was, indeed, a “House rule,” one by his own party that forced him to step down from the leadership position. I don't understand why you have a problem with the correction. I do understand why you had a problem when we originally called it a law, not an rule.

John

He refuses to get it. Of course it's not a “House rule” - that would mean it applied to the entire House of Representatives. He, and his media cohorts, refuse to tell the public the entire story - that the rule forcing DeLay to step down applies only to Republicans!

Poughkeepsie Journal Prints Incorrect “Correction” (October 1, 2005)

Note: This entry re-written from original post.

Yesterday, we reported that the Poughkeepsie Journal had, in an editorial, incorrectly (falsely?) stated that Tom DeLay stepped down from his leadership post because of a “law” requiring him to do so. In today's paper (print edition), they printed a correction on page two, in the little section “Getting it right” - which, most likely, very few people read. The correction read in its entirety as follows:

Incorrect terminology - An editorial on Sept. 30 should have said a House rule, rather than a law, required Rep. Tom Delay [sic] to leave his leadership post.

They got it wrong again! I've again notified the editors of this error. As I point out in my e-mail to them:

It is a rule that only applies to Republicans, and that is an important point to leave out, particularly since the Democrat Caucus does not have such a rule (a fact that the media strangely seem to find unimportant).

Even though the factually incorrect editorial appeared on their website, I could find no correction there. The editorial appears in Friday's archive in its original form, with nothing to indicate that it is factually incorrect. Perhaps an online correction exists, but if it does, I doubt anyone read it because they probably can't find it either.

An Insulting Editorial (September 28, 2005)

I don't know how else to describe the editorial in today's Poughkeepsie Journal, other than to say it's a piece of trash. The headline reads, “Brown's views are insulting”, and it starts off with:

“In what likely will be the first salvo in a series of attacks, the former director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency predictably blamed state and local officials for the failed response to Hurricane Katrina.”

Where have the Journal editors been? After all the finger-pointing at FEMA, how can Brown's testimony be a “first salvo”?

The editorial goes on:

Common sense tells us there are grains of truth to what Michael Brown says. But, in many ways, Brown's testimony before Congress Tuesday was disingenuous at best. He found little blame in his own agency's response, and that view is unacceptable.

Brown is indulging himself in a heaping of revisionist history. He points out that he told top officials, including President Bush, that Hurricane Katrina was “going to be a bad one.” But he also appeared on numerous television networks just days before the storm hit, expressing confidence that FEMA would be able to provide the necessary help to localities immediately afterward.

He was wrong.

I want to know how the Journal editors know that Brown's testimony was “disingenuous”. They gave no evidence whatsoever to support their claim, other than their pre-judgment that Brown screwed up. But nowhere in the editorial do they even bother to point to anything Brown did or failed to do that would make him culpable. Oh, they did mention that Brown had “express[ed] confidence” before the storm hit, but what would they be saying now if he hadn't?

I don't recall the Journal editorializing on the truly insulting charges of racism thrown around by the Bush-can-do-no-right crowd. Maybe that's because the Journal editors are part of that crowd.

Stealth Candidate in Rhinebeck/Clinton? (September 14, 2005)

The Republican candidate for Dutchess County Legislator in District 11, the post now held by Joel Tyner, is Joan Carbonaro. Carbonaro says she wants to focus on the issues of “People with families and children. Recreational issues. There are issues of clean water and open space. Things like that, that I feel can be more aggressively pursued and addressed by a legislator who is more interested in the local issues as opposed to more global issues.”

In support of her candidacy, she cites her service on the Town of Clinton Zoning Board of Appeals, the Library Board, Clinton business Association, Wappingers Creek Watershed Committee and other community groups. But there is another aspect of her activism that she apparently would rather keep from the voters.

On the website of Clinton Corners, there's space for commercial enterprises to advertise their services. Scrolling down the page, you'll come upon the name of Joan Carbonaro, and in her blurb, she says she's a “Published author.” Oddly, though, if you go to any of the big booksellers websites and search for “Joan Carbonaro”, you'll come up with zilch!

Obviously, she's published under a pseudonym, but what is it? If you google® Joan Carbonaro, you probably won't come up with anything - you're going to need help. In my case, I'm not free to say who my help was, but once I was given the name Juliet Carrera, the connection became obvious.

Having the name, you can find that Juliet Carrera is the author of a book of fiction, “Inside Out”, which is about lesbian lovers and a closeted lesbian politician. The jacket of the book directs you to julietcarrera.com, but the site has been taken down. Fortunately, domain registrars maintain information on domains that are defunct. If your computer has a whois utility, whois julietcarrera.com yields the following:

Registrant:

Juliet Carrera
Joan Carbonaro
267 Hollow Road
Staatsburg, NY 12580
US
Email: Julietcarrera@aol.com

OK, so we've established that Juliet Carrera is actually Joan Carbonaro, who writes lesbian fiction. If you happen upon a copy of the book, you'll find this inside the back cover:

Before you assume that the Human Rights Campaign is something devoted to the betterment of mankind, please visit their website. You probably won't find anything about the human rights of Christians being persecuted for their religion, or about the human rights of slaves being bought and sold in Africa. The only “human right” they seem interested in is the right to impose their definition of marriage on the rest of society.

So far, Joan Carbonaro hasn't leveled with the voters of Rhinebeck and Clinton about her true agenda. True, she probably couldn't do much damage as a county legislator, but she probably considers it a stepping stone to higher office. I think the voters need to know the truth about her before she gets any further.

A New Feature (September 14, 2005)

In my continuing effort to make this site user-friendly, I've added a new feature which might be apparent to you from this headline. It appears as a link, but in reality, it's a link to this article, so it won't take you anywhere. So why, you ask, have a link to nowhere? It's so that you can create bookmarks to the site's articles. Depending on your browser, you click on the headline and add it to your bookmarks, or you can copy the link and paste it into your bookmarks list. Every article has a unique “name”. Once you bookmark the article using that name, it can be located wherever it ends up on the site.

Mary Landreau Criticizes Black Work Ethic (September 4, 2005)

Did you read where Sen. Landreau blamed Pres. Bush for the failure of Mayor Nagin to mobilize the buses? Here's what she said: “Mayor Nagin and most mayors in this country have a hard time getting their people to work on a sunny day, let alone getting them out of the city in front of a hurricane ...”

Judging from all the black faces on the news, we can assume that the workers she's talking about are also prodominently black. If these people are underpaid, how can they support their families if they take off from work on sunny days? That's not how people in desperate financial straits approach a job.

So what are we to assume? That they're lazy or that they feel they don't have to take a job seriously because the government will take care of them?

It seems to me that you can take this two ways. Either she's criticizing the black work ethic, or indicting the welfare state. Take your pick, but I pick the first option.

Where's the Real Racism? (September 4, 2005)

The left's propaganda machine is working 'round the clock spinning a tale that condemns Pres. Bush's response to the Katrina hurricane as “racist”. They point to the preponderance of black faces in the news footage, and claim that's why Bush let the levees fail (as if he had anything to do with it).

So Ok, let's assume for a moment that we can gauge “racism” on perceived differences in response based on the color of the faces we see on the news. Using that standard, let's do our own comparison.

As we reported here, Planned Parenthood jumped into the “relief” effort with a huge condom giveaway. A letter in the Poughkeepsie Journal today urges that we “Send money, food, water and birth control (not necessarily in that order) south.” Now I don't recall any similar condom giveaways after other hurricanes, and I don't recall any similar letters appearing in the paper. Was it all those “human weeds” that got PP and its supporters into a giving mood? What other conclusion can we draw?

Planned Parenthood is an organization with two main goals - the elimination of “undesirables” from the human race, and making lots of money to support the first goal. The only way they'd ever sacrifice profits would be if it supported the frirst goal, and a condom giveaway to blacks fits that bill.

Case closed!

Open Minds Welcome (August 31, 2005)

Note: The following is being sent to the Poughkeepsie Journal as a letter to the editor:

An animal with no eyes has no way of knowing that light can be refracted to form an image. By the theory of evolution, then, eyeballs would be discarded as useless long before they could develop into useful instruments. This, and many other questions unanswered by evolutionists gave rise within the scientific community to the thought that the complexities of life cannot be explained by chance mutations, the foundation of the theory of evolution.

But according to these same evolutionists, any questioning of their sacrosanct theory cannot be tolerated in education. At the behest of the ACLU, the following "sticker" was ordered removed from science texts:

“This textbook contains meterial on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. The material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”

In 1925, religionists opposed teaching evolution and it culminated in the infamous Scopes “monkey trial”. Those religionists feared that teaching evolution might cause students to question their beliefs. Today, the roles are reversed, but the driving force is the same - fear. If the theory of evolution cannot stand up to an “open mind”, how can any “liberal intellectual” (as one writer described himself) defend it? If any want to try, they can visit http://www.mhvperspective.com?id=20050831001 where open minds are welcome.