Bill's Blog

Down With the Old

Progressing toward the new site configuration, I've taken down the portal to it, and any calls to www.mhvperspective.com will bring up the new. If you really need to access the old, you can do so through www.mhvperspective.com/home.shtml, at least for a while. \nIf you experience any problems (other than an occasional hang-up - which is a server problem over which I have no control) or experience any anomolies, please let me know. You can “Add a comment” below to do so.

Selective Moral Judgment

Je$$ie Ja¢k$on was on John Gambling's radio program today, and he said something that made me almost fall off my chair. \nIn the course of the interview, Gambling asked Ja¢k$on about his support of the Duke Lacrosse players’ rape accuser in light of recent developments. Of course, the “Reverend” couldn't admit he'd made a mistake so he did what 'liberals’ do so well - he changed the subject. \nHe couldn't bring himself to acknowledge that the players were probably innocent of the charges, so he went off on a tangent, pointing out that they were acting immorally by being in a strip club viewing women's naked bodies. That's when I almost fell over. \nLet's go back in our collective memories just a few weeks, and recall the story of the black man who was shot and killed by police on the night before his wedding. I seem to recall quite clearly that the guy was shot coming out of - you guessed it - a strip club! \nDid you hear anyone saying anything about the impropriety of a groom-to-be going to a strip club just prior to his wedding? Did you hear anyone suggesting that this might be disrespectful not just to women in general, but to his fiancée? \nI certainly didn't hear Je$$ie Ja¢k$on doing any moralizing about strip clubs then. It almost makes me question his sincerity.

All That Matters is How They Feel

On her weekly radio program on WABC, Monica Crowley was inviting listeners to share their views on Saddam Hussein's execution. One caller in particular caught my attention. \nHe said he was opposed to the execution because he just didn't think it was right to kill anyone. He said it violated his “principles� - he also said he was opposed to abortion. When Crowley listed all the good things that could result from Hussein's forced demise, the guy was insistent. Yes, he said, all that might be true, but the thought just turned his stomach. \nListening to others of like mind, it often becomes quite clear that they really don't give a damn about what is best for civilization, all they care about is how it affects them personally - how it makes them feel. In fact, I often get the same impression from some on the other side of issues (If you think I'm referring to you, you're probably right). \nIt's all too easy to get hung up on “principle�, and forget what that principle is meant to accomplish. \nThat guy's principle - not taking life - can easily lead to more loss of life when followed too rigidly. If Hussein's life is spared and he remains in jail, he can become a focal point for more violence aimed at gaining his release and return to power. Many, many more lives can be forfeit if we haven't the stomach to do what is necessary - executing a tyrant. \nAnd then I might be saying this because Hussein's death made me feel so good!

The 'Move On’ double standard

In today's Poughkeepsie Journal's “Speak Up” column, readers responded to the question, “Do you have fond memories of former President Gerald Ford?” Predictably, his pardon of Pres. Nixon was mentioned negatively in several of the responses. \nI'd be willing to bet that a good percentage (if not all) of those who responded thus are faithful followers of George Soros who founded MoveOn.org. If you recall, that lovely organization was the result of the Clinton impeachment, and was meant to tell us to just “Move on” and forget about it. \nIsn't it funny how these people who tell us to just move on refuse to move on themselves - from the 2000 election, or even from the Nixon “scandal”?

Change is Coming

Within the next week or so, I'm planning to implement a major change to the site. You'll definitely notice a difference right away, but the significant changes have to do with how information is stored and retrieved. One of the problems with the present system is that it's very difficult to change how things are presented, and with the new system, I'll be able to make a small change in one place that will affect everything. Now, I'd have to make changes to all the old files, and there are hundreds of files to change.

A big advantage will be the ability to have multiple contributors, and I'll be able to make entries from anywhere as long as I have web access. If you're interested in becoming a regular contributor (reporter), please let me know.

Another advantage will be the ability to search the archive. The advanced search on the “PJ Letters” page utilizes this ability and it's very powerful. This probably won't be available right away, but soon.

Making the final transition will probably require a few days down time, and there'll almost certainly be a few bugs. Please be patient and let me know if you encounter any of them.

If you're interested in a sneak preview, click here.

Underutilized Pages

There are a couple of areas on this site that seem to get very little traffic - and should get more. The first is the “Open Forum” where extended discussions can be carried on. I've recently made a change that causes the left-hand menu to show when new entries have been made. That should make it easier to track discussions.

The other is the “Essays” page. I'm looking for particularly informative and insightful articles on various subject for inclusion on this page. I'll also be adding some myself in the future. My first effort, The Kinsey Connection, explains why we on the right have to get away from our knee-jerk rejection of anything Kinsey.

I'd really appreciate contributions to this page. I only ask that submissions focus mainly on secular aspects of the issues, as I want them to be palatable to a secular audience.

p.s. If you wish to write something yourself, I'll certainly consider it for inclusion (with appropriate editing), but it will have to meet my standards.

Did You Try To Add a Comment?

Recently, I made what should have been a transparent change to how certain tasks are handled. Unfortunately, I missed how it would affect the comments addition program.

Many thanks to a reader who brought it to my attention so that I could fix it. I hope everything's OK now, but just in case, if you find something not working the way you expect, please let me know.

A Long-overdue Revision

Some have complained about having to scroll down comment e-mails to get to the newest comment. I just never got around to fixing this - until now. I realize that if you're getting the e-mails, you've already read all the prior comments, so including them in the e-mails is redundant.

So now, if you indicate that you want e-mail updates to a comment thread (or get all comments), the e-mail will only contain the new comment.

Should the Conservative Party Exist?

There is a letter circulating, purporting to be from the Conservative Party of Dutchess County, and urging registered Conservatives not to vote for the Conservative Party's candidate, Helen Westover. I have attempted to contact the CP chairwoman to confirm the source, but could only reach an answering machine.

If this letter is authentic, it is astounding! The rationale given for voting against Westover is, in fact, a rationale for dissolving the Conservative Party. What good is it if its only purpose is to keep ‘liberal’ Democrats from being elected? Wouldn't the conservative agenda be better served if those now registered as Conservatives could vote in Republican primaries and maybe keep “liberals” like Joel Miller off the Republican line?

There's a lot more to be said about this letter, but since I don't know for sure that it's authentic, I'll reserve further comment.

Letter Search Upgrade

The PJ Letters page search has been somewhat revised. Previously, searching by last name or date from the main page (not advanced search) took you to the Journal's site. The problem with this was that the Journal routinely deletes the LTTE pages when they're about 6 months old.

Now, if you search by date, you will be taken to the Journal's LTTE page for that date if it exists, which is how it was previously. But if you search by last name, you will see a longer (than previously) list of dates and authors, and clicking on a date brings up the letter from this site's database. If the Journal's LTTE page for that date exists, you can get to it (for verification, e.g.) via a link.

A Letter Never Sent (Oct. 24, 2006)

I was doing some housecleaning and came across a letter to the editor I wrote back in 2000 but never sent in. The theme of the letter coincides with the Halloween season, so I thought I'd share it here:

To the Editor;

Can you imagine that in this supposedly enlightened age, there are still people who cannot accept diversity in others' sexual orientations. These hate-filled bigots condemn necrophiliacs' sexual attraction to corpses, and have gone to the extermes of having laws passed outlawing this private behavior, and persecuting those who practice it. This bigotry is intolerable and must be stamped out. If God thought making love to dead bodies was unnatural, (s)he wouldn't have caused some people to have this attraction.

Even Worse, necrophiliacs are prohibited by our out-dated laws from marrying their “lovers”, and our schools do not teach our children the safe and proper methods of making love to corpses. These egregious errors must be corrected! We must stop denying necrophiliacs the benefits of marriage, and informative books such as “Heather has a Cold Mommy” must become a part of our schools' curricula. Further, teen-agers should be encouraged to try making love to a corpse to see if they like it.

If you agree with me, I urge you to proclaim your solidarity by wearing a pasty grey ribbon this Halloween, which, coincidentally, is “Necrophilia Pride” day.

We Have Nothing to Fear

I'm getting tired of hearing ‘liberals’ accusing Pres. Bush and Republicans of running on “fear”. The truth of the matter is, it's Democrats who use the “fear” card most effectively.

I don't see the GOP telling us to fear terrorists, I see them exhorting us to take terrorism seriously and fight it with the best weapons we have. But I do see Democrats running on nothing but a fear platform.

We're supposed to fear the “police state” that Bush is supposedly turning the country into. We're supposed to fear evangelical Christians and their influence on the body politic. We're supposed to fear the “hate” and “bigotry” that conservativism supposedly represents.

Can't somebody stand up and tell it like it is?

Hevesi's Contradiction

Have you heard New York State Controller Alan Hevesi's campaign commercial? I find a glaring contradiction in it.

First, he brags about fighting against “privatizing” Social Security. But then he goes on to boast about how he's built up the state's pension fund. See the contradiction? He's fighting to keep Social Security from benefiting from what he takes credit for doing with New York's pensions.

If he thinks the present Social Security Ponzi Scheme is the way to go when investing pension money, why didn't he convert the state's pension fund to such a scheme, instead of building it up with “private” investments?

An Option Lost (Oct. 9, 2006)

North Korea has the bomb! It's more frightening than we can imagine. And, as expected, Democrats are blaming Bush for letting it happen. But a quick check of recent history reveals that Democrats denied Pres. Bush a serious option for dealing with this kind of crisis.

Several years ago, Pres. Bush proposed spending $7.5 million on research into a new nuclear "bunker buster," the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator. The purpose of this new weapon was to take out threats like the North Koreans posed. Without such a weapon, Bush had few options short of a land invasion by American troops.

Looking back to 2004 when Democrats last defeated this program, we find candidate John Kerry making the following statement against it: “As president, I will stop this administration's program to develop a whole new generation of bunker-busting nuclear bombs. This is a weapon we don't need. And it undermines our credibility in persuading other nations. What kind of message does it send when we're asking other countries not to develop nuclear weapons, but developing new ones ourselves?”. As senator, he and his party were successful in scuttling it.

So we didn't develop it, and what kind of message did that send? It sent the message that we weren't serious about stopping rogue nations from developing nuclear weapons! It certainly didn't stop them.

Somebody needs to point this out to Sen. Kerry, and ask him if knowing what we know today, will he acknowledge that he made a huge mistake? Don't count on the leftmedia doing it, though.

What Did Dems Know - And When Did They Know It? (Oct. 2, 2006)

I wonder if the media might be chasing the wrong scandal (that'd be a first, wouldn't it?). Yes, the alleged conduct of Rep. Foley, if true (which seems to be the case), is a real scandal, but it's primarily a personal scandal - unless others were involved by covering it up.

You'll hear Democrats like Dick Durbin demanding to know when Republicans learned of it. It's a valid question, but it seems to me the obvious question is what did Democrats know and when did they know it? It certainly seems suspicious that they just now released this years-old information. Did it just now fall into their laps, or have they been sitting on it in order to time the release to do the most damage to the GOP in the elections. We don't know if any Republicans knew of it, but the same can't be said of Democrats (and their leftist media allies).

If you know there's a sexual predator in your neighborhood, but your neighbors don't, do you keep your neighbors in the dark for months or years so you can get the most dramatic effect when you tell them? That'd be irresponsible, considering the danger your neighbor's children would have been in the interim. And if Democrats sat on the information, they were just as irresponsible.

The good news is that Foley is getting his comeuppance, thanks to the leftmedia. Will they now start asking Democrats the questions that need to be asked? Don't hold your breath.

Vacation

I will be on vacation until Sep. 16.

Is This Condescending or What? (Aug. 23, 2006)

Today, a story ran on the Poughkeepsie Journal's front page that I found unbelievably condescending. The headline read, “Online pimping admitted”, and reported how a local man pled guilty to promoting prostitution.

What I found unbelievable was the way the prostitutes were treated by the prosecutor, the judge and by the newspaper - as if they were innocent victims. They got off with no charges whatsoever, thanks to their “cooperation”, and the judge boiled it all down to a case of a man “exploiting” the women.

I'd have found the story more believable if the charges had included slavery. But rather than being slaves, the prostitutes were pulling down $150 to $250 per hour, hardly slave wages in my book.

And because (I assume) the women weren't charged, the Journal didn't even name them in the story. Oh, the poor, “exploited” women. They'll have to find a new pimp.

Listen Up, Sean (Aug. 15, 2006)

I'm convinced - Sean Hannity doesn't listen to his callers. Today, a ‘liberal’ asked point-blank, when has the United States ever come to the aid of a Muslim country under attack from a non-Muslim country?

This was a perfect opportunity lost. What came immediately to my mind was Iraq invading Kuwait. Kuwait is certainly a Muslim country, and ‘liberals’ have long maintained that Iraq could not have aided al Qaida because Saddam Hussein's regime was secular!

Had Sean been listening, instead of sitting there with a boilerplate response which is his norm, he could have put the caller on the spot. He'd have to had either acknowledged his error, or denied the ‘liberal’ mantra.

I don't know why I bother listening. He does this all the time.

Speaker Pelosi? (July 31, 2006)

Do you listen to Sean Hannity? If you do, you'll hear him constantly trying to frighten his audience with the spectre of “Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi”. Maybe this is a good strategy for energizing the right, but unless congressional Republicans are completely stupid, it ain't gonna happen. Here's why.

The leader of a party in the House is elected by the party caucus. The Speaker is elected by the entire House. It is unlikely that Pelosi will have the support of every Democrat - there are still a few left with enough sense to realize she's not fit to be second in line of succession for the presidency, or failing that, there are others who covet the job enough to throw her overboard.

House Republicans have to understand the peril, and be willing to do whatever it takes to prevent Pelosi from becoming Speaker. In the event the GOP loses the House, it probably won't be by enough to make them powerless, and all they have to do is unite behind a more acceptable Democrat. Pelosi is not universally loved among Democrats, and almost certainly, one or more of them will make himself a candidate.

Republicans voting for a Democrat for Speaker? In the worst case, it could be the patriotic thing to do.

When Scare Quotes are Appropriate (July 11, 2006)

Back in March, I made note of what I perceived as a biased use of “scare quotes” by the Poughkeepsie Journal. An on-line dictionary defines the term thus: “quotation marks used to express especially skepticism or derision concerning the use of the enclosed word or phrase”. The Journal's headline then was, “President cheers Iraq ‘progress’”. When I brought my concern to the attention of a top editor (Richard Kleban), he responded that there was no bias, they were just making the point that “progress” was Bush's word. That was my point exactly - that the Journal was making the point that the word was Bush's, not theirs.

Now we come to today, and here's the headline from page one, above the fold: “Pataki to veto budget reform” (story here). Note there are no quotes around the word “reform” - but there should be. There are two sides to this particular issue. Legislators who are pushing the bill call it “reform” because that's a word they think goes over well with voters. But Pataki, and many others (including voters who recently rejected a similar proposition) see it as nothing but a power grab by the state legislature.

When the Journal refrained from using scare quotes around reform, it was taking a side, in this case, against the governor. They could just as well have had the headline say, “Pataki to veto power grab”, but in either case, there should have been quotes used.

A (Draft) Letter to the Poughkeepsie Journal (July 4, 2006)

I'll shortly be sending some version of the following to the Poughkeepsie Journal as a letter to the editor:

Edgar A. Licis of Poughkeepsie recently bemoaned the fact that some people actually care about the institution of marriage. He doesn't “care what two people who love each other do.” Mr. Licis, what does “love” have to do with it?

I suggest to Mr. Licis, and all those who share his sentiments, that they go to their library and read the marriage laws. They'll be hard-pressed to find anything about “love” in there. Rather, they'll find much about responsibility, which is what civil marriage has always been about.

And lest you think that what's being forced down our throats is inconsequential, think again. The cosequences could be huge. Once homosexuality and same-sex marriage are deemed “normal”, guess what our children will be indoctrinated with in sex-ed classes!

There is much about sexual orientation we don't know, but common sense suggests that it is not black and white, but rather shades of gray. People may tend toward one side or another, but there is reason to believe that many can switch. If the societal taboo against homosexuality is lifted, some in the middle will gravitate toward homosexuality. This is what the activists want. And why?

Perhaps a recent study contains the answer. It found that older brothers increased a male's probability of being homosexual. So with families shrinking, there'll be less younger brothers, hence less male homosexuals. They need new recruits.

Comments please?

Popular Vote Advocates - Look South (July 4, 2006)

Ever since Bush beat Gore in 2000, the left has been bad-mouthing our Electoral College, saying that a nation-wide “popular vote” for president would be much more “fair”. I strongly disagree with this, and Mexico's current election cycle shows clearly one (of many) reasons to stick with what we have.

The election there will ultimately hinge on a few hundred thousand votes - probably less than 1% of the votes cast. With a little creativity, I'm sure enough votes can be “found” by the loser in order to change the outcome - he can spread the fraud around by “finding” a few votes here and there in districts friendly to him.

If Florida showed us anything, it was our system's strength. With every eye focused there, it would have been difficult (but not impossible) for Gore to have “found” enough votes to turn the state. But under a “popular vote” system, Gore would have challenged the vote in every district in the country where the election officials might favor him. The result would have been chaos.

New Feature: Comment Preview (July 2, 2006)

The page for adding comments now features a “Preview” button. After you write your comment, you can preview it by clicking it. If you are satisfied, or want to re-edit it, use your browser's “Back” button and re-edit or “Submit” it.

p.s. While testing this feature, I inadvertently sent out some “test” e-mails. For this I apologize.

p.p.s. Since I entered the comment below, I (think I) fixed the problem and have put the Preview button back.

 (May 28, 2006)

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

For the record, the last letter I submitted was on April 16, and it was printed on May 7. This one being on a subject currently in the news, it should be printed promptly, and after May 5, they have no excuse for holding it back.

Taking a Vacation (May 26, 2006)

This site will be in hiatus all next week.

Who's the Demagogue? (April 6, 2006)

Today, I sent the following to the Poughkeepsie Journal as a letter to the editor:

Your April 6 editorial cartoon showed a man wearing the label “Anti-Immigrant Demagogues” telling Lady Liberty, “Forget the ‘Give me your poor, your huddled masses’ BALONEY. Make them felons, deny 'em medical care, then toss them the ***** OUT!”

Who are these “Anti-Immigrant Demagogues”? I don't hear anyone denouncing legal immigration. What I hear is people speaking out against lawbreaking. We have legal procedures to control immigration and keep out dangerous elements. Advocating border control doesn't make one an “Anti-Immigrant Demagogue”. In fact, when I looked up the word “demagogue”, I found this: “a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power”.

The cartoonist, by misrepresenting border control advocates as “anti-immigrant”, is using a “popular prejudice” to gain power for the party he supports. That makes him the demagogue. It also says something about the paper that gave prominence to his demagoguery.

Making ‘Fun’ of Fighting Terrorism (March 18, 2006)

Have you heard about the new board game “Patriot Act: The Home Version”? If you haven't you haven't been listening to the leftmedia - good for you.

The Associated Press has a story out on it, carried by many, many “news” outlets, and here's what ABC News headline writers put over it: “Patriot Act Game Pokes Fun at Government”. The game is described thus:

The object of the game is not to amass the most money or real estate, but to be the last player to retain civil liberties.

…

In a nod to President Bush's prewar comments, the “Go” space in is renamed “Bring It On!” Players roll the dice to determine how many civil liberties they start out with, accumulating them from a variety of categories: U.S. citizens get 5; non-citizens 1. Whites and Asians get 5; Arabs 1. Ultra right-wingers get 6; Democrats 3 or 4.

Note that the game's creator doesn't even know that the Bill of Rights contains ten enumerated rights, not five or six. And since one of our civil liberties has to be the right to abortion (which isn't one of the ten), he's at least five short. And instead of “Ultra right-wingers” getting an extra “right”, shouldn't it be women? The story continues:

Instead of landing on, say Oriental Avenue, players land on a color-coded spaces corresponding to the national terror alert. A player who lands on a red space loses one civil liberty, as does anyone else within five spaces. A player who lands on an orange space gets to designate another player to lose one civil liberty.

So fighting terrorism is all fun and games, right? That's the impression the AP seems to be creating by writing such a one-sided story on this game. The game, of course, is missing a critical card - the “Terrorists Strike” card. When you pick that one up, everyone loses their civil liberties because they're dead!

A Missed Opportunity (March 17, 2006)

Remember the name Jay Bennesh? He's the high-school “teacher” who was recorded by one of his students while giving an anti-Bush, anti-American rant.

There's something I've been waiting for someone to say about this, but I haven't heard it. It's about something Bennesh said.

According to this poor excuse of a teacher, the 9/11 attacks were justified because the targets, i.e., the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and whatever they were aiming flight 93 at, were all legitimate military targets. Granted, he didn't use those exact words, but taken in its entirety, it cannot be denied that that was his meaning. Here's an exerpt:

… hold on, you have to understand something, that when al Qaeda attacked America on September 11, in their view, they're not attacking innocent people. Ok. The CIA has an office at the World Trade Center. The Pentagon is a military target. The White House was a military target. Congress is a military target. The World Trade Center is the economic center of our entire economy.

The FBI, who tracks down terrorists and so on and so forth around the world, has offices in the World Trade Center. Some of the companies that work in the World Trade Center are these huge multinational corporations that are directly involved in the military-industrial complex in supporting corrupt dictatorships in the Middle East.

And so in the minds of al Qaeda, they're not attacking innocent people. They're attacking legitimate targets. People who have blood on their hands as far as they're concerned!

Can you see what's remarkable about this statement? Is it something you've heard before from other Bush-hating, America-hating far, far-leftists? Well, if you haven't figured it out by now, I'll tell you. What Jay Bennesh has acknowledged is that we are in a war, a real war with a real enemy. What he's done is attribute a military agenda to Osama bin Laden. When an enemy has a military agenda aimed at destroying or damaging your military infrastructure, you are at war whether you want to admit it or not. The left can't go around believing what Bennesh said and still claim we're not in a real war.

A Hornets' Nest (Cont'd) (March 12, 2006)

You might ask what my purpose was to question the timing of the S.D. anti-abortion law. Was it an exercise in screaming “Do it my way” as Patricia has suggested? Perhaps I was remiss in not making my motive more clear.

Obviously, the law is now a done deal, and anything I, or anyone else, says about its wisdom or timing is not going to turn back the clock. I believe, however, that it is necessary to speak out, not in recrimination, but in warning.

I do believe that it is necessary for states to stand up for their rights, but I also believe that such an action without a follow-up plan is nothing but an exercise in futility. The S.D. action can only be successful if it comes before a Supreme Court amenable to it, and at present, that is not the case. In this situation, a follow-up plan is even more essential, but so far, no one seems able to explain what it is, or even if one exists. The person who has been most vehement in attacking me seems equally vehement in attacking the Republican Party, suggesting that a third party is needed.

As angry and dissatisfied we might be with the GOP, the political reality is that it is our only hope for overturning Roe. If the last century taught us anything, it should have been that third parties only succeed in electing minority presidents, and a pro-life third party will only succeed in electing Democrats. You might say that there is no real difference between the Democrat and Republican Parties, but can anyone argue that any Democrat president would have nominated a Scalia, a Thomas, a Roberts or an Alito? No, a pro-life third party is only going to result in more Ginsbergs.

So what I'm saying is that South Dakota has made it more necessary to put aside our differences, and work as hard as we can to make sure Democrats stay out of power. Voting for a third party “on principle” is going to do nothing but ensure that we continue to lose.

A Hornets' Nest (March 10, 2006)

I seem to have stirred up a figurative hornets' nest with my comment questioning the timing of the South Dakota law banning virtually all abortions. It's been called an “attack”, and I've been told I “ticked off” a lot of people, that it means I'm a “moderate” on abortion, that I don't care about pre-born children, etc., etc., etc.

Now I want to know when it became an “attack” to simply question a tactic? Let's look at this rationally before we start at each others' throats, OK?

First of all, can we all agree that as long as Roe. Vs. Wade is the law of the land, we're not going to get anywhere? Wonderful! Now that we've got that out of the way, wouldn't it then follow that our primary objective ought to be getting that abomination overturned?

Here's where the S.D. law comes into play. Certainly, it can be said without argument that the outcome of this law, vis-á-vis Roe, can go in three ways:

1. Hasten the end of Roe,
2. Delay the end of Roe, or
3. Have no effect.

Obviously, if the outcome is #3, getting “ticked off” about it would be counterproductive. But let's say that #2 is a real possibility. If that's so, then anyone defending it, or attacking those who oppose it, would actually be working against what should be our ultimate goal. Shouldn't we then at least consider this possibility, since its consequences could be so great? Yes, we should and when we do, it becomes apparent that it is more than a long shot. Undoubtedly, it is going to make it much more difficult to get conservative judges confirmed at all levels. There's no guarantee, of course, that Bush will get another pick, but if he does, the attacks from the left are going to be so fierce that he might be tempted to put up another Souter. Right now, barring a miraculous change of heart, we only have no more than four votes to overturn. Wouldn't it have been better to wait until there were five?

Now you may disagree with this assessment, and you have every right to do so, but you're being foolish when you attack me for presenting it. After all, when it comes to killing children, you can have all the best intentions in the world, but if your efforts end up allowing more deaths, you know where the road paved with them leads.

Letter to the Editor (Poughkeepsie Journal) (March 9, 2006)

Marcia Seale recently wrote that legal abortion presents women (and presumably society) with the options of “medically safe abortion or a back-alley abortion”. It would be nice if life was that simple, but a lawsuit now pending in Detroit illustrates how simplistic Seale's assumption is.

There, a “men's rights” group is arguing that fathers should have the legal right to opt out of the financial responsibilities of supporting a child they didn't want -- in a claim they dub “Roe v. Wade … for Men.” As wrong as this might sound, it is an understandable outcome when women are told they have all the “reproductive rights” and men have none that anyone can name.

Abortion on demand didn't just create a right for women to abort their children, in many cases, it's become an obligation. Women and girls are being pressured into abortions by parents, peers and boyfriends. And when an older man pressures an underage girl to abort, groups promoting abortion such as Planned Parenthood are willing to hide an underlying crime - statutory rape.

No, Marcia, the choices aren't just between a “safe” or a “back-alley” abortion, they're between a society that honors motherhood and respects and accepts the responsibilities that parenthood entails, and one that does not.

Change of Address (March 6, 2006)

Sad to say, my main e-mail address, “editor”, has become a target of spammers to such an extent that It's been getting about a hundred spam e-mails per day. To counter this, I'm going to retire the account very shortly. You'll still be able to use the e-mail form on the site and if if you have “editor” on a mailing list, please change it to “billk”.

On a related matter, i.e., anti-spam measures, I'm happy to report that I've been able to secure the “Open Forum” and “Guest Book” against the predators who insist on polluting the web with their unwanted garbage. Previously, those were getting spammed on a regular basis, to the tune of sometimes a dozen or more per day. It'd be really nice if they started getting utilized.

Add Your Comments (March 6, 2006)

On the home page, if you scroll down near the bottom, you'll find a list of site goals. One of them is “To provide a forum for interested conservative readers to voice their views…” One way to make this site better is to add your comments. Maybe you've added one or two in the past and thought you'd like know if anyone responded to your comment. Well, now you can. All you have to do is enter your e-mail address in the space provided and you will receive all followup comments (associated with that article only) by e-mail. And, if you check the box provided, you will receive a copy of every comment posted on the site. Don't worry about this compromising your e-mail address to spammers. It will appear nowhere on the site, as it will be stored in a protected area. And since notifications are sent via Bcc: (blind carbon copy), other people receiving notifications will not be privy to your e-mail address.

Container Security Initiative (March 3, 2006)

Here's something I'd bet you've not heard much, if anything, about. I was soing some research on an unrelated matter, and found myself reading about the Container Security Initiative in Wikipedia. There's some interesting stuff in here.

Monitoring Letters to the Poughkeepsie Journal Editor (March 1, 2006)

Very shortly, I'm going to expand the “PJ Letters” page to include analysis of letters appear there, and other information regarding its operation. For the time being, I'm not going to include this in “Today's Headlines” e-mail newsletters, but you will be alerted to new entries there by a flag in the left-hand menu. As with other pages, if you see “>” next to an item, it signifies that the associated page has changed since your last visit.

Searching Poughkeepsie Journal Letters to the Editor (February 27, 2006)

I've made a change to how you can go about finding letters to the Poughkeepsie Journal editor. Instead of having to find the date in an ever-growing table, you can now just enter the desired date and you will be taken directly to the desired page. Alternatively, you can still search by author's last name.

Why is this a valuable resource, you might ask. For an example, check out the letter from Frank Welsh of Fishkill, published Feb. 23. Mr. Welsh complained that another letter-writer, Mark Thomas of Wappingers Falls, misrepresented Welsh's previous letter. Considering the length of time it takes the Journal to print a letter (about two weeks or more), the average Journal reader probably doesn't remember what a letter referred to actually said and has no easy way of verifying that a writer is correct about a previous letter. In the case of Thomas' letter, he was incorrect in just about everything, but you wouldn't know it unless you have access to a resource like you find here.

First of all, Thomas refers to Welsh's letter as having been published Nov. 5. It wasn't - it appeared Dec. 12. And, as Welsh points out in his follow-up, he did not condemn the Verge writer as Thomas claimed. When you read his letter, you find no basis whatsoever for what Thomas alleged.

But having been clued in to this misrepresentation by Wappingers Falls resident homosexual activist, I started to examine Thomas' letter more closely. He didn't just lie about Welsh's letter, he went on in similar vein toward another writer, Frank T. Weber of Poughkeepsie. Thomas claimed that Weber called him an “enemy of the good ole USA”, and went on to say that Weber had equated homosexuality with pedophilia. Neither of those allegations is true, as you can clearly see when you can read Weber's actual words.

As I wrote, your average Journal reader has no way to determine who's telling the truth, unless he saves all his newspapers, or wants to spend time going to a library. But you have a way right at your fingertips. Don't be afraid to use it.

The Gore Connection (February 26, 2006)

While I was on vacation, I was following the latest media-generated “scandal” regarding the takeover of U.S. port operations by an Arab company. I listened to many opinions on both sides, and the thing that amazed me was that nobody, as far as I could tell, made the connection to Gore's recent speech in Saudi Arabia.

Perhaps, before getting into the gist of Gore's words and their relevance to the current controversy, I should explain why they're important. After the speech was brought to our attention, some questioned why the media gave it so little (if any) attention. The response from leftmedia apologists was that since Gore wasn't in any position of power, he wasn't really all that newsworthy. With this I have a strong disagreement.

Let's go back to the 2000 election and its aftermath. Therein is the root of the bitter hatred of George W. Bush that many Democrats hold. They maintained then, and still do, that Gore actually won the election. They have never accepted Bush's presidency as legitimate. They cannot, however, continue to reject the Bush presidency without acknowledging that they really consider Gore something like a president in exile. Until they are willing to accept Bush's presidency, they cannot dismiss Gore as irrelevant. I won't.

Having established that Gore's words are, or should be, significant to the Bush-haters, let's take a look at what he said. The Fox News headline over the story was, “Gore to Saudis: U.S. Discrimination After Sept. 11 ‘Wrong’”. While his rhetoric was directed at alleged abuses against Saudis, it could just as well apply to citizens of the United Arab Emirates, or any other Arab state. Disregarding some of his more outrageous accusations, and the fact that such a speech should not have been given beyond the water's edge, he did make a legitimate argument against indiscriminate profiling of Arabs. And isn't that exactly what the opponents of the ports deal are doing?

Given the position he took in Saudi Arabia, it would seem that Gore must be 100% on Bush's side on the issue of port operation. In fact, if he really believes what he said, there is no way he could remain silent and not support the administration. I'm waiting to hear him come out and say it, but I won't be holding my breath while I do.

Vacation (February 16, 2006)

I'll be taking a few days off starting tomorrow.