Tuesday, December 4, 2007 - Page updated at 02:47 AM
Report: Seattle's gifted program favors whites
By Emily Heffter
Seattle Times education reporter
An outside review of gifted education in Seattle Public Schools said the district should act aggressively to diversify its program.
Almost three-quarters of the students enrolled in the Accelerated Progress Program (APP) are white, compared to about 40 percent districtwide.
Concerns about APP were noted by a group of consultants from the University of Virginia who were hired by the district to review the program. Their report was released today.
About 1,500 students in APP are admitted after testing in the 98th or 99th percentile nationally in cognitive ability and reading and math skills. They can spend almost their entire public-school experience together, starting at Lowell Elementary School, on to Washington Middle and finishing at Garfield High.
But according to the report, APP is perceived to be "elitist, exclusionary and even racist," and that some of its African-American students are bullied and isolated.
Administrators are committed to addressing issues of racial and socio-economic diversity, the report added.
The report also raised concern about student selection, saying admission to the program relies too much on a single test and is unfair to low-income students and students without parental support.
"I think that we are going to work really hard to bring [up] the representation of all the different students in our advanced learning programs," said Bob Vaughan, director of advanced learning for the district. "The process we have now for selection is not sufficient."
The program's curriculum lacks vision, the report said, and rigor in classes is inconsistent. "The philosophy and definition of giftedness in Seattle do not reflect current developments in the field of gifted education," it said.
The review is one of several the district has launched, including evaluations of curriculum, special education and alternative programs.
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Thanks . . . America. A reason to give thanks.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Mark Steyn: World should give thanks for America
MARK STEYN
Syndicated columnist
Comments 11 | Recommend 413
Speaking as a misfit unassimilated foreigner, I think of Thanksgiving as the most American of holidays.
Christmas is celebrated elsewhere, even if there are significant local variations: In Continental Europe, naughty children get left rods to be flayed with and lumps of coal; in Britain, Christmas lasts from Dec. 22 to mid-January and celebrates the ancient cultural traditions of massive alcohol intake and watching the telly till you pass out in a pool of your own vomit. All part of the rich diversity of our world.
But Thanksgiving (excepting the premature and somewhat undernourished Canadian version) is unique to America. "What's it about?" an Irish visitor asked me a couple of years back. "Everyone sits around giving thanks all day? Thanks for what? George bloody Bush?"
Well, Americans have a lot to be thankful for.
Europeans think of this country as "the New World" in part because it has an eternal newness, which is noisy and distracting. Who would ever have thought you could have ready-to-eat pizza faxed directly to your iPod?
And just when you think you're on top of the general trend of novelty, it veers off in an entirely different direction: Continentals who grew up on Hollywood movies where the guy tells the waitress "Gimme a cuppa joe" and slides over a nickel return to New York a year or two later and find the coffee now costs $5.75, takes 25 minutes and requires an agonizing choice between the cinnamon-gingerbread-persimmon latte with coxcomb sprinkles and the decaf venti pepperoni-Eurasian-milfoil macchiato.
Who would have foreseen that the nation that inflicted fast food and drive-thru restaurants on the planet would then take the fastest menu item of all and turn it into a Kabuki-paced performance art? What mad genius!
But Americans aren't novelty junkies on the important things. The New World is one of the oldest settled constitutional democracies on Earth, to a degree the Old World can barely comprehend. Where it counts, Americans are traditionalists.
We know Eastern Europe was a totalitarian prison until the Nineties, but we forget that Mediterranean Europe (Greece, Spain, Portugal) has democratic roots going all the way back until, oh, the mid-Seventies; France and Germany's constitutions date back barely half a century, Italy's only to the 1940s, and Belgium's goes back about 20 minutes, and currently it's not clear whether even that latest rewrite remains operative. The U.S. Constitution is not only older than France's, Germany's, Italy's or Spain's constitution, it's older than all of them put together.
Americans think of Europe as Goethe and Mozart and 12th century castles and 6th century churches, but the Continent's governing mechanisms are no more ancient than the Partridge Family. Aside from the Anglophone democracies, most of the nation-states in the West have been conspicuous failures at sustaining peaceful political evolution from one generation to the next, which is why they're so susceptible to the siren song of Big Ideas – communism, fascism, European Union.
If you're going to be novelty-crazed, better the zebra-mussel cappuccino than the Third Reich.
Even in a supposedly 50/50 nation, you're struck by the assumed stability underpinning even fundamental disputes. If you go into a bookstore, the display shelves offer a smorgasbord of leftist anti-Bush tracts claiming that he and Cheney have trashed, mangled, gutted, raped and tortured, sliced 'n' diced the Constitution, put it in a cement overcoat and lowered it into the East River. Yet even this argument presupposes a shared veneration for tradition unknown to most Western political cultures: When Tony Blair wanted to abolish, in effect, the upper house of the national legislature, he just got on and did it.
I don't believe the U.S. Constitution includes a right to abortion or gay marriage or a zillion other things the Left claims to detect emanating from the penumbra, but I find it sweetly touching that in America even political radicalism has to be framed as an appeal to constitutional tradition from the powdered-wig era.
In Europe, by contrast, one reason why there's no politically significant pro-life movement is because, in a world where constitutions have the life expectancy of an Oldsmobile, great questions are just seen as part of the general tide, the way things are going, no sense trying to fight it. And, by the time you realize you have to, the tide's usually up to your neck.
So Americans should be thankful they have one of the last functioning nation-states. Europeans, because they've been so inept at exercising it, no longer believe in national sovereignty, whereas it would never occur to Americans not to. This profoundly different attitude to the nation-state underpins, in turn, Euro-American attitudes to transnational institutions such as the United Nations.
But on this Thanksgiving the rest of the world ought to give thanks to American national sovereignty, too. When something terrible and destructive happens – a tsunami hits Indonesia, an earthquake devastates Pakistan – the United States can project itself anywhere on the planet within hours and start saving lives, setting up hospitals and restoring the water supply.
Aside from Britain and France, the Europeans cannot project power in any meaningful way anywhere. When they sign on to an enterprise they claim to believe in – shoring up Afghanistan's fledgling post-Taliban democracy – most of them send token forces under constrained rules of engagement that prevent them doing anything more than manning the photocopier back at the base.
If America were to follow the Europeans and maintain only shriveled attenuated residual military capacity, the world would very quickly be nastier and bloodier, and far more unstable. It's not just Americans and Iraqis and Afghans who owe a debt of thanks to the U.S. soldier but all the Europeans grown plump and prosperous in a globalized economy guaranteed by the most benign hegemon in history.
That said, Thanksgiving isn't about the big geopolitical picture, but about the blessings closer to home. Last week, the state of Oklahoma celebrated its centennial, accompanied by rousing performances of Rodgers and Hammerstein's eponymous anthem:
"We know we belong to the land
And the land we belong to is grand!"
Which isn't a bad theme song for the first Thanksgiving, either.
Three hundred and 86 years ago, the Pilgrims thanked God because there was a place for them in this land, and it was indeed grand. The land is grander today, and that, too, is remarkable: France has lurched from Second Empires to Fifth Republics struggling to devise a lasting constitutional settlement for the same smallish chunk of real estate, but the principles that united a baker's dozen of East Coast colonies were resilient enough to expand across a continent and halfway around the globe to Hawaii.
Americans should, as always, be thankful this Thanksgiving, but they should also understand just how rare in human history their blessings are.
Mark Steyn: World should give thanks for America
MARK STEYN
Syndicated columnist
Comments 11 | Recommend 413
Speaking as a misfit unassimilated foreigner, I think of Thanksgiving as the most American of holidays.
Christmas is celebrated elsewhere, even if there are significant local variations: In Continental Europe, naughty children get left rods to be flayed with and lumps of coal; in Britain, Christmas lasts from Dec. 22 to mid-January and celebrates the ancient cultural traditions of massive alcohol intake and watching the telly till you pass out in a pool of your own vomit. All part of the rich diversity of our world.
But Thanksgiving (excepting the premature and somewhat undernourished Canadian version) is unique to America. "What's it about?" an Irish visitor asked me a couple of years back. "Everyone sits around giving thanks all day? Thanks for what? George bloody Bush?"
Well, Americans have a lot to be thankful for.
Europeans think of this country as "the New World" in part because it has an eternal newness, which is noisy and distracting. Who would ever have thought you could have ready-to-eat pizza faxed directly to your iPod?
And just when you think you're on top of the general trend of novelty, it veers off in an entirely different direction: Continentals who grew up on Hollywood movies where the guy tells the waitress "Gimme a cuppa joe" and slides over a nickel return to New York a year or two later and find the coffee now costs $5.75, takes 25 minutes and requires an agonizing choice between the cinnamon-gingerbread-persimmon latte with coxcomb sprinkles and the decaf venti pepperoni-Eurasian-milfoil macchiato.
Who would have foreseen that the nation that inflicted fast food and drive-thru restaurants on the planet would then take the fastest menu item of all and turn it into a Kabuki-paced performance art? What mad genius!
But Americans aren't novelty junkies on the important things. The New World is one of the oldest settled constitutional democracies on Earth, to a degree the Old World can barely comprehend. Where it counts, Americans are traditionalists.
We know Eastern Europe was a totalitarian prison until the Nineties, but we forget that Mediterranean Europe (Greece, Spain, Portugal) has democratic roots going all the way back until, oh, the mid-Seventies; France and Germany's constitutions date back barely half a century, Italy's only to the 1940s, and Belgium's goes back about 20 minutes, and currently it's not clear whether even that latest rewrite remains operative. The U.S. Constitution is not only older than France's, Germany's, Italy's or Spain's constitution, it's older than all of them put together.
Americans think of Europe as Goethe and Mozart and 12th century castles and 6th century churches, but the Continent's governing mechanisms are no more ancient than the Partridge Family. Aside from the Anglophone democracies, most of the nation-states in the West have been conspicuous failures at sustaining peaceful political evolution from one generation to the next, which is why they're so susceptible to the siren song of Big Ideas – communism, fascism, European Union.
If you're going to be novelty-crazed, better the zebra-mussel cappuccino than the Third Reich.
Even in a supposedly 50/50 nation, you're struck by the assumed stability underpinning even fundamental disputes. If you go into a bookstore, the display shelves offer a smorgasbord of leftist anti-Bush tracts claiming that he and Cheney have trashed, mangled, gutted, raped and tortured, sliced 'n' diced the Constitution, put it in a cement overcoat and lowered it into the East River. Yet even this argument presupposes a shared veneration for tradition unknown to most Western political cultures: When Tony Blair wanted to abolish, in effect, the upper house of the national legislature, he just got on and did it.
I don't believe the U.S. Constitution includes a right to abortion or gay marriage or a zillion other things the Left claims to detect emanating from the penumbra, but I find it sweetly touching that in America even political radicalism has to be framed as an appeal to constitutional tradition from the powdered-wig era.
In Europe, by contrast, one reason why there's no politically significant pro-life movement is because, in a world where constitutions have the life expectancy of an Oldsmobile, great questions are just seen as part of the general tide, the way things are going, no sense trying to fight it. And, by the time you realize you have to, the tide's usually up to your neck.
So Americans should be thankful they have one of the last functioning nation-states. Europeans, because they've been so inept at exercising it, no longer believe in national sovereignty, whereas it would never occur to Americans not to. This profoundly different attitude to the nation-state underpins, in turn, Euro-American attitudes to transnational institutions such as the United Nations.
But on this Thanksgiving the rest of the world ought to give thanks to American national sovereignty, too. When something terrible and destructive happens – a tsunami hits Indonesia, an earthquake devastates Pakistan – the United States can project itself anywhere on the planet within hours and start saving lives, setting up hospitals and restoring the water supply.
Aside from Britain and France, the Europeans cannot project power in any meaningful way anywhere. When they sign on to an enterprise they claim to believe in – shoring up Afghanistan's fledgling post-Taliban democracy – most of them send token forces under constrained rules of engagement that prevent them doing anything more than manning the photocopier back at the base.
If America were to follow the Europeans and maintain only shriveled attenuated residual military capacity, the world would very quickly be nastier and bloodier, and far more unstable. It's not just Americans and Iraqis and Afghans who owe a debt of thanks to the U.S. soldier but all the Europeans grown plump and prosperous in a globalized economy guaranteed by the most benign hegemon in history.
That said, Thanksgiving isn't about the big geopolitical picture, but about the blessings closer to home. Last week, the state of Oklahoma celebrated its centennial, accompanied by rousing performances of Rodgers and Hammerstein's eponymous anthem:
"We know we belong to the land
And the land we belong to is grand!"
Which isn't a bad theme song for the first Thanksgiving, either.
Three hundred and 86 years ago, the Pilgrims thanked God because there was a place for them in this land, and it was indeed grand. The land is grander today, and that, too, is remarkable: France has lurched from Second Empires to Fifth Republics struggling to devise a lasting constitutional settlement for the same smallish chunk of real estate, but the principles that united a baker's dozen of East Coast colonies were resilient enough to expand across a continent and halfway around the globe to Hawaii.
Americans should, as always, be thankful this Thanksgiving, but they should also understand just how rare in human history their blessings are.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Point to Clinton
I can give credit when it is due. Thank you President Clinton for saying what we wish more people would say. Here is a quote form an AP story:
Clinton's 50-minute speech, which started about an hour behind schedule, was derailed briefly by several hecklers in the audience who shouted that the 2001 terrorist attacks were a fraud. Rather than ignoring them, Clinton seemed to relish a direct confrontation.
"A fraud? No, it wasn't a fraud," Clinton said, as the crowd cheered him on. "I'll be glad to talk to you if you shut up and let me talk."
When another heckler shouted that the attacks were an "inside job," Clinton took even greater umbrage.
"An inside job? How dare you. How dare you. It was not an inside job," Clinton said.
Clinton's 50-minute speech, which started about an hour behind schedule, was derailed briefly by several hecklers in the audience who shouted that the 2001 terrorist attacks were a fraud. Rather than ignoring them, Clinton seemed to relish a direct confrontation.
"A fraud? No, it wasn't a fraud," Clinton said, as the crowd cheered him on. "I'll be glad to talk to you if you shut up and let me talk."
When another heckler shouted that the attacks were an "inside job," Clinton took even greater umbrage.
"An inside job? How dare you. How dare you. It was not an inside job," Clinton said.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Teach Tolerance or Loose Your Kids
Coming soon to America . . .
from The Daily Mail
23/10/07 - News section
Foster child to be taken away because Christian couple refuse to teach him about homosexuality
By JAMES MILLS
They are devoted foster parents with an unblemished record of caring for almost 30 vulnerable children.
But Vincent and Pauline Matherick will this week have their latest foster son taken away because they have refused to sign new sexual equality regulations.
To do so, they claim, would force them to promote homosexuality and go against their Christian faith.
The 11-year-old boy, who has been in their care for two years, will be placed in a council hostel this week and the Mathericks will no longer be given children to look after.
The devastated couple, who have three grown up children of their own, became foster parents in 2001 and have since cared for 28 children at their home in Chard, Somerset.
Earlier this year, Somerset County Council's social services department asked them to sign a contract to implement Labour's new Sexual Orientation Regulations, part of the Equality Act 2006, which make discrimination on the grounds of sexuality illegal.
Officials told the couple that under the regulations they would be required to discuss same-sex relationships with children as young as 11 and tell them that gay partnerships were just as acceptable as heterosexual marriages.
They could also be required to take teenagers to gay association meetings.
When the Mathericks objected, they were told they would be taken off the register of foster parents.
The Mathericks have decided to resign rather than face the humiliation of being expelled.
Mr Matherick, a 65-year-old retired travel agent and a primary school governor, said: "I simply could not agree to do it because it is against my central beliefs.
"We have never discriminated against anybody but I cannot preach the benefits of homosexuality when I believe it is against the word of God."
Mrs Matherick, 61, said they had asked if they could continue looking after their foster son until he is found a permanent home, but officials refused and he will be placed in a council hostel on Friday.
She said: "He was very upset to begin with. We are all very close, but he's a mature young man and he's dealing with it."
The couple, who have six grandchildren and one greatgrandchild, are both ministers at the nonconformist South Chard Christian Church.
When they first started fostering they took in young single mothers and their babies.
More recently they have been caring for children of primary school age.
Mr Matherick added: "It's terrible that we've been forced into this corner. It just should not happen.
"There are not enough foster carers around anyway without these rules.
"They were saying that we had to be prepared to talk about sexuality with 11-year-olds, which I don't think is appropriate anyway, but not only that, to be prepared to explain how gay people date.
"They said we would even have to take a teenager to gay association meetings.
"How can I do that when it's totally against what I believe?"
Religious campaigners say the couple are the latest victims of an equality drive which puts gay rights above religious beliefs.
Christian, Jewish and Muslim leaders have complained that the rules force them to overturn long-held beliefs.
The Mathericks are planning to fight their case in the courts with the backing of the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship.
The same organisation is backing Christian magistrate Andrew McClintock who resigned from the family courts in a row over gay adoption.
He says he was forced to resign because he was not allowed to opt out of cases where he might have to send a child to live with gay parents.
{R}
The Mathericks' case comes at a time when there is a chronic shortage of foster parents, who work on a voluntary basis.
An extra 8,000 are needed to plug the gaps in the service.
Researchers have found that continually moving children from home to home can have a devastating impact on their education and general welfare.
But a report last year revealed that the shortage of carers meant that some children in care are being forced to move up to three times a year.
David Taylor, Somerset County Council's corporate director for children and young people, said: "No decision has been made about the deregistration of Mr and Mrs Matherick.
"The council is committed to promoting the interests of children and young people and welcomes foster carers from all backgrounds and faiths."
from The Daily Mail
23/10/07 - News section
Foster child to be taken away because Christian couple refuse to teach him about homosexuality
By JAMES MILLS
They are devoted foster parents with an unblemished record of caring for almost 30 vulnerable children.
But Vincent and Pauline Matherick will this week have their latest foster son taken away because they have refused to sign new sexual equality regulations.
To do so, they claim, would force them to promote homosexuality and go against their Christian faith.
The 11-year-old boy, who has been in their care for two years, will be placed in a council hostel this week and the Mathericks will no longer be given children to look after.
The devastated couple, who have three grown up children of their own, became foster parents in 2001 and have since cared for 28 children at their home in Chard, Somerset.
Earlier this year, Somerset County Council's social services department asked them to sign a contract to implement Labour's new Sexual Orientation Regulations, part of the Equality Act 2006, which make discrimination on the grounds of sexuality illegal.
Officials told the couple that under the regulations they would be required to discuss same-sex relationships with children as young as 11 and tell them that gay partnerships were just as acceptable as heterosexual marriages.
They could also be required to take teenagers to gay association meetings.
When the Mathericks objected, they were told they would be taken off the register of foster parents.
The Mathericks have decided to resign rather than face the humiliation of being expelled.
Mr Matherick, a 65-year-old retired travel agent and a primary school governor, said: "I simply could not agree to do it because it is against my central beliefs.
"We have never discriminated against anybody but I cannot preach the benefits of homosexuality when I believe it is against the word of God."
Mrs Matherick, 61, said they had asked if they could continue looking after their foster son until he is found a permanent home, but officials refused and he will be placed in a council hostel on Friday.
She said: "He was very upset to begin with. We are all very close, but he's a mature young man and he's dealing with it."
The couple, who have six grandchildren and one greatgrandchild, are both ministers at the nonconformist South Chard Christian Church.
When they first started fostering they took in young single mothers and their babies.
More recently they have been caring for children of primary school age.
Mr Matherick added: "It's terrible that we've been forced into this corner. It just should not happen.
"There are not enough foster carers around anyway without these rules.
"They were saying that we had to be prepared to talk about sexuality with 11-year-olds, which I don't think is appropriate anyway, but not only that, to be prepared to explain how gay people date.
"They said we would even have to take a teenager to gay association meetings.
"How can I do that when it's totally against what I believe?"
Religious campaigners say the couple are the latest victims of an equality drive which puts gay rights above religious beliefs.
Christian, Jewish and Muslim leaders have complained that the rules force them to overturn long-held beliefs.
The Mathericks are planning to fight their case in the courts with the backing of the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship.
The same organisation is backing Christian magistrate Andrew McClintock who resigned from the family courts in a row over gay adoption.
He says he was forced to resign because he was not allowed to opt out of cases where he might have to send a child to live with gay parents.
{R}
The Mathericks' case comes at a time when there is a chronic shortage of foster parents, who work on a voluntary basis.
An extra 8,000 are needed to plug the gaps in the service.
Researchers have found that continually moving children from home to home can have a devastating impact on their education and general welfare.
But a report last year revealed that the shortage of carers meant that some children in care are being forced to move up to three times a year.
David Taylor, Somerset County Council's corporate director for children and young people, said: "No decision has been made about the deregistration of Mr and Mrs Matherick.
"The council is committed to promoting the interests of children and young people and welcomes foster carers from all backgrounds and faiths."
Friday, October 12, 2007
Gore - Peace Prize?
I think he has said exactly what I am thinking. Just a lot nicer.
EUX.TV
Friday, October 12, 2007 at 14:13
Czech president Vaclav Klaus: "surprised" at Nobel prize for Gore
Prague (dpa) - Czech President Vaclav Klaus, a rare vocal global- warming sceptic among heads of state, is "somewhat surprised" that former US vice president Al Gore received the Nobel Peace Prize, the president's spokesman Petr Hajek said in a statement.
"The relationship between his activities and world peace is unclear and indistinct," the statement said. "It rather seems that Gore's doubting of basic cornerstones of the current civilization does not contribute to peace."
Klaus said in a recent speech that environmentalists' efforts to halt global warming "fatally endanger our freedom and prosperity."
The Czech president publicly expresses doubt on what scientists, including those participating in the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, also this year's Nobel Peace Prize laureate, deem very likely - that global warming is caused by humans.
He also said that rising temperatures may not matter enough for governments to throw funds at halting the process.
In a newspaper interview earlier this year, Klaus said that only Al Gore, and not a sane person, would say that mankind is ruining the planet.
The Czech president has also recently participated in Gore-bashing newspaper advertisements ran by The Heartland Institute, a conservative US think tank.
EUX.TV
Friday, October 12, 2007 at 14:13
Czech president Vaclav Klaus: "surprised" at Nobel prize for Gore
Prague (dpa) - Czech President Vaclav Klaus, a rare vocal global- warming sceptic among heads of state, is "somewhat surprised" that former US vice president Al Gore received the Nobel Peace Prize, the president's spokesman Petr Hajek said in a statement.
"The relationship between his activities and world peace is unclear and indistinct," the statement said. "It rather seems that Gore's doubting of basic cornerstones of the current civilization does not contribute to peace."
Klaus said in a recent speech that environmentalists' efforts to halt global warming "fatally endanger our freedom and prosperity."
The Czech president publicly expresses doubt on what scientists, including those participating in the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, also this year's Nobel Peace Prize laureate, deem very likely - that global warming is caused by humans.
He also said that rising temperatures may not matter enough for governments to throw funds at halting the process.
In a newspaper interview earlier this year, Klaus said that only Al Gore, and not a sane person, would say that mankind is ruining the planet.
The Czech president has also recently participated in Gore-bashing newspaper advertisements ran by The Heartland Institute, a conservative US think tank.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Home School Reason #142
his is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57738
Thursday, September 20, 2007
BRAVE NEW SCHOOLS
Muslim religion taught under guise of history
'Students perform skits about the tenets of Islam belief'
Posted: September 20, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
The "Five Pillars" of Islam – charity, fasting, prayer, belief and pilgrimage – are being taught to public school students in Nyssa, Ore., under the guise of world history, the school has confirmed to WND, even though a parent raised a complaint about the same teachings a year ago.
In a letter to parents following the concerns that were raised at that point, Supt. Don Grotting and other school officials told parents that the text called "Journey Across Time" features a chapter on "Islamic Civilizations."
As part of that, "class activities have included guest speakers (including an American soldier serving in Iraq and a practicing Muslim woman who is an American citizen living in Mountain Home) who talked about geography, dress, climate, religion, economy and culture and student skits, in which students prepare and perform three- to five-minute skits about the tenets of Islam belief: charity, fasting, prayer, belief, and pilgrimage."
Janine Weeks, the curriculum director at the school, this week told WND that the curriculum, and class activities, are continuing.
"We've not made any changes," she said. "The content standards require that we present information about the rise of Islam in the context of world history."
(Story continues below)
She said there are "choices" about the way students can respond to the chapter's requirements. "Perhaps one of the items might be the fact that there is a religious journey that is part of the belief system; the kids can present that in a report," she said.
However, she said she was unaware of what requirements there were for presenting the basic beliefs of any other religion, including Christianity, to students.
The McGraw-Hill book itself, according to its online outline, heavily emphasizes the positive aspects of Islam.
"Muslims were successful merchants, in part because they had a common language and a common currency. Baghdad, Cairo, and Damascus grew wealthy from trade and became important centers of learning, government, and the arts. The cities featured mosques that served as Muslim houses of worship and centers of learning. The bazaar was a very important part of the Muslim city. Although Muslims enjoyed great success and cities grew, most Muslims lived in villages and farmed," the book says.
"Muslims made valuable contributions in math, science, and the arts. Muslim scholars saved and translated the works of the ancient Greeks and Romans. Muslims are well known for their beautiful buildings. The Taj Mahal, which is made of marble and precious stone, is one of the world's most beautiful buildings," it says.
Meanwhile, in its chapter on Christianity, it notes that Christianity "attracted many followers because it gave meaning to people's lives, appealed to their emotions, and promised happiness after death."
It goes on to talk about the schism between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church that still exists.
For a student exercise, it suggests students study the American Red Cross.
In its chapter on Judaism, the book notes "the 12 tribes of Israel often quarreled, so they asked a prophet to choose a king to unite them against their enemies." Then, after World War II, "Palestine was divided into a Jewish nation called Israel."
The parent who raised the concerns a year ago, Kendalee Garner, was contacted and told WND that essentially Christianity and Judaism are not being taught. "They teach the history of Hinduism but not the tenets of its faith," she said.
"When I asked the teacher today if they were changing the curriculum she replied there is nothing we need to change," she said.
Idalia Stam, the chair of the school board, confirmed the same teaching curriculum was being used, but declined further comment on the issue.
A lawyer who has argued over such teachings in a case that went to the U.S. Supreme Court said the procedures wouldn't last 10 seconds in a public school if Christianity were being addressed.
"Would it have been 'just cultural education' if students were in simulated baptisms, wearing a crucifix, having taken the name of St. John and with praise banners saying 'Praise be to Jesus Christ' on classroom walls?" Edward White III, of the Thomas More Law Center, told WND earlier.
As WND has reported the case White handled was almost a duplicate. Teachers were having students memorize Islamic prayers, wear Islamic dress and learn to behave as a Muslim under the guise of studying history.
Some parents objected and their resulting lawsuit was turned back by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals where the opinion called it "cultural education."
The presence of such Islamic teachings is because "organized Islamists have gained control of textbook content," according to an organization that analyzes textbooks.
The American Textbook Council has concluded that the situation is the consequence of "the interplay of determined Islamic political activists, textbook editors, and multiculturally minded social studies curriculum planners."
It has gone so far that correcting the situation now becomes a problem, because "educational publishers and educational organizations have bought into claims propounded by Islamists – and have themselves become agents of misinformation."
That comes from Gilbert T. Sewall, who not only wrote the organization's report on Islam and textbooks, but also generated a response to the flood of criticism he encountered.
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57738
Thursday, September 20, 2007
BRAVE NEW SCHOOLS
Muslim religion taught under guise of history
'Students perform skits about the tenets of Islam belief'
Posted: September 20, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
The "Five Pillars" of Islam – charity, fasting, prayer, belief and pilgrimage – are being taught to public school students in Nyssa, Ore., under the guise of world history, the school has confirmed to WND, even though a parent raised a complaint about the same teachings a year ago.
In a letter to parents following the concerns that were raised at that point, Supt. Don Grotting and other school officials told parents that the text called "Journey Across Time" features a chapter on "Islamic Civilizations."
As part of that, "class activities have included guest speakers (including an American soldier serving in Iraq and a practicing Muslim woman who is an American citizen living in Mountain Home) who talked about geography, dress, climate, religion, economy and culture and student skits, in which students prepare and perform three- to five-minute skits about the tenets of Islam belief: charity, fasting, prayer, belief, and pilgrimage."
Janine Weeks, the curriculum director at the school, this week told WND that the curriculum, and class activities, are continuing.
"We've not made any changes," she said. "The content standards require that we present information about the rise of Islam in the context of world history."
(Story continues below)
She said there are "choices" about the way students can respond to the chapter's requirements. "Perhaps one of the items might be the fact that there is a religious journey that is part of the belief system; the kids can present that in a report," she said.
However, she said she was unaware of what requirements there were for presenting the basic beliefs of any other religion, including Christianity, to students.
The McGraw-Hill book itself, according to its online outline, heavily emphasizes the positive aspects of Islam.
"Muslims were successful merchants, in part because they had a common language and a common currency. Baghdad, Cairo, and Damascus grew wealthy from trade and became important centers of learning, government, and the arts. The cities featured mosques that served as Muslim houses of worship and centers of learning. The bazaar was a very important part of the Muslim city. Although Muslims enjoyed great success and cities grew, most Muslims lived in villages and farmed," the book says.
"Muslims made valuable contributions in math, science, and the arts. Muslim scholars saved and translated the works of the ancient Greeks and Romans. Muslims are well known for their beautiful buildings. The Taj Mahal, which is made of marble and precious stone, is one of the world's most beautiful buildings," it says.
Meanwhile, in its chapter on Christianity, it notes that Christianity "attracted many followers because it gave meaning to people's lives, appealed to their emotions, and promised happiness after death."
It goes on to talk about the schism between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church that still exists.
For a student exercise, it suggests students study the American Red Cross.
In its chapter on Judaism, the book notes "the 12 tribes of Israel often quarreled, so they asked a prophet to choose a king to unite them against their enemies." Then, after World War II, "Palestine was divided into a Jewish nation called Israel."
The parent who raised the concerns a year ago, Kendalee Garner, was contacted and told WND that essentially Christianity and Judaism are not being taught. "They teach the history of Hinduism but not the tenets of its faith," she said.
"When I asked the teacher today if they were changing the curriculum she replied there is nothing we need to change," she said.
Idalia Stam, the chair of the school board, confirmed the same teaching curriculum was being used, but declined further comment on the issue.
A lawyer who has argued over such teachings in a case that went to the U.S. Supreme Court said the procedures wouldn't last 10 seconds in a public school if Christianity were being addressed.
"Would it have been 'just cultural education' if students were in simulated baptisms, wearing a crucifix, having taken the name of St. John and with praise banners saying 'Praise be to Jesus Christ' on classroom walls?" Edward White III, of the Thomas More Law Center, told WND earlier.
As WND has reported the case White handled was almost a duplicate. Teachers were having students memorize Islamic prayers, wear Islamic dress and learn to behave as a Muslim under the guise of studying history.
Some parents objected and their resulting lawsuit was turned back by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals where the opinion called it "cultural education."
The presence of such Islamic teachings is because "organized Islamists have gained control of textbook content," according to an organization that analyzes textbooks.
The American Textbook Council has concluded that the situation is the consequence of "the interplay of determined Islamic political activists, textbook editors, and multiculturally minded social studies curriculum planners."
It has gone so far that correcting the situation now becomes a problem, because "educational publishers and educational organizations have bought into claims propounded by Islamists – and have themselves become agents of misinformation."
That comes from Gilbert T. Sewall, who not only wrote the organization's report on Islam and textbooks, but also generated a response to the flood of criticism he encountered.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
HS Reason #141
It certainly is a difficult situation for any public school administrator to have to choose an alliance with one country or the other. Living completely free in the United States of America does allow for her ignorant ambiguity. It is a shame that she is allowed to "teach" that to our children.
NC only allows 100 charter schools to exsist in its state. They have to follow very strict guidelines as well. Too bad for most of the children of NC.
High School Bans American Flag
Tuesday, Sep 11, 2007 - 11:56 PM Updated: 07:03 AM
By NBC17
SAMPSON COUNTY, N.C. – On the sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, students at one high school were not allowed to wear clothes with an American Flag.
Under a new school rule, students at Hobbton High School are not allowed to wear items with flags, from any country, including the United States.
The new rule stems from a controversy over students wearing shirts bearing flags of other countries.
Gayle Langston said her daughter, Jessica, was told to remove her stars and stripes t-shirt.
“Today she wanted to wear her shirt, and I had to tell her no,” said Langston. “She didn't like it at all because I knew it would get her in trouble. Of all days, 9/11, she could not wear her American Flag shirt.”
The superintendent of schools in Sampson County calls the situation unfortunate, but says educators didn’t want to be forced to pick and choose which flags should be permissible.
Go Back
NC only allows 100 charter schools to exsist in its state. They have to follow very strict guidelines as well. Too bad for most of the children of NC.
High School Bans American Flag
Tuesday, Sep 11, 2007 - 11:56 PM Updated: 07:03 AM
By NBC17
SAMPSON COUNTY, N.C. – On the sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, students at one high school were not allowed to wear clothes with an American Flag.
Under a new school rule, students at Hobbton High School are not allowed to wear items with flags, from any country, including the United States.
The new rule stems from a controversy over students wearing shirts bearing flags of other countries.
Gayle Langston said her daughter, Jessica, was told to remove her stars and stripes t-shirt.
“Today she wanted to wear her shirt, and I had to tell her no,” said Langston. “She didn't like it at all because I knew it would get her in trouble. Of all days, 9/11, she could not wear her American Flag shirt.”
The superintendent of schools in Sampson County calls the situation unfortunate, but says educators didn’t want to be forced to pick and choose which flags should be permissible.
Go Back
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Speaking from the Edward's compound . . .
I will give up my SUV when you move into a house of equivelant size to the "average american" and you zero-scape your plantation.
Edwards: Americans should sacrifice their SUVs
August 29, 2007 07:46 EDT
LAKE BUENA VISTA, Fla. (AP) -- Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards told a labor group he would ask Americans to make a big sacrifice: their sport utility vehicles.
The former North Carolina senator told a forum by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers in Lake Buena Vista, Florida, yesterday he thinks Americans are willing to sacrifice.
Edwards says Americans should be asked to drive more fuel efficient vehicles. He says he would ask them to give up SUVs.
Edwards got a standing ovation when he said weapons and equipment used by America's military needs to be made in the United States. He says tanks and ammunition for M16 rifles are being made in other countries.
He says jobs that provide equipment for America's defense need to be made in the United States.
Edwards: Americans should sacrifice their SUVs
August 29, 2007 07:46 EDT
LAKE BUENA VISTA, Fla. (AP) -- Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards told a labor group he would ask Americans to make a big sacrifice: their sport utility vehicles.
The former North Carolina senator told a forum by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers in Lake Buena Vista, Florida, yesterday he thinks Americans are willing to sacrifice.
Edwards says Americans should be asked to drive more fuel efficient vehicles. He says he would ask them to give up SUVs.
Edwards got a standing ovation when he said weapons and equipment used by America's military needs to be made in the United States. He says tanks and ammunition for M16 rifles are being made in other countries.
He says jobs that provide equipment for America's defense need to be made in the United States.
Monday, August 06, 2007
Special Rights for Fat People AGAIN
Legislation would expand law to protect short, fat people
By Ken Maguire, Associated Press Writer | May 17, 2007
BOSTON --Ellen Frankel, who stands 4-foot-8 1/2, recalls being playfully scooped up by larger co-workers, who also would pat her on the head and remark about her height.
"People in authority will very easily make comments about height that they wouldn't make about race or gender," said Frankel, a Marblehead author and mother of two.
Jeanne Toombs understands Frankel's frustration. The board member of the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance says overweight people routinely are discriminated against because of their size.
"It's not fair. No matter what you think of fat people, they deserve to be treated like human beings," said Toombs, 59, a piano teacher who weighs 300 pounds.
People like Frankel and Toombs would get special protection under measure that would make Massachusetts just the second state to add "weight and height" to its anti-discrimination law. The law applies mainly to the workplace but also covers landlords and real estate interactions.
Most states have laws prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, religion, age, gender, disability and other factors. A handful offer protection for gays and lesbians. But only Michigan includes weight and height in its anti-discrimination law. The District of Columbia also bans appearance discrimination and San Francisco and Santa Cruz in California prohibit weight and height discrimination.
The problem -- at least with weight -- isn't going away. Federal government statistics show that U.S. obesity rates have risen to an all-time high. Nearly one-third, or 32 percent of adult Americans, are considered obese, at a time when employers are considering ways to demand healthier behavior, such as no smoking.
Rep. Byron Rushing, a Boston Democrat who is sponsoring the Massachusetts bill, said it's a question of civil rights.
"This is one of the last physical aspects of people that you can acceptably laugh about," said Rushing, who is black, slim and of average height. "You can be a shock jock on the radio and talk about fat people for a solid week and no one would ever think of having you lose your job. It's still acceptable."
Not everyone is persuaded.
"We might as well add colorblind, left-handed, allergic-to-cashews and get it over with," said Todd Domke, a Republican analyst.
Domke envisions Massachusetts scaring off businesses if it expands the protections to include short and overweight workers.
"There's a limit on how far you can legislate your way to paradise," he said. "Good intentions don't necessarily make for good legislation."
The courts aren't convinced, either. Because there's no specific protection, people claiming discrimination in the workplace or for housing must prove in court that their weight problem is a disability -- which is a protected class in state law. Massachusetts courts, however, usually reject such claims.
"People can lose weight," said David Yas, publisher of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly. "As that line of argument goes, why receive special treatment? There is some of that attitude in the courts -- that this should not rise to the level of race and gender -- the rights of which are so important to protect."
Cases tossed out of court include a 6-foot, 285-pound man who sued Shaw's Supermarkets, claiming he was denied a job because of his weight; and a 230-pound woman who sued a Natick car dealership after being denied a receptionist job.
Rushing said advocates were shunned by lawmakers 10 years ago when he proposed a similar bill. He's more confident of passage now because of an increased awareness of the issues. He expects a hearing this fall.
Frankel acknowledges the bill may be a hard sell, because it doesn't define short or fat. She said it's still socially acceptable to denigrate short and overweight people.
"Fatter people and shorter people get promoted less. Shorter people make less than their taller counterparts," said Frankel, who published a memoir last fall entitled "Beyond Measure."
Toombs doesn't buy the argument she can simply diet and lose weight.
"I spent 25 years of my life trying to get thin," she said. "All I ever got was fatter, and I felt like a failure. I thought it was my fault, and it wasn't. People come in different sizes, they always have and they always will. ... I haven't robbed a bank. I work with children. I'm doing good in the world."
By Ken Maguire, Associated Press Writer | May 17, 2007
BOSTON --Ellen Frankel, who stands 4-foot-8 1/2, recalls being playfully scooped up by larger co-workers, who also would pat her on the head and remark about her height.
"People in authority will very easily make comments about height that they wouldn't make about race or gender," said Frankel, a Marblehead author and mother of two.
Jeanne Toombs understands Frankel's frustration. The board member of the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance says overweight people routinely are discriminated against because of their size.
"It's not fair. No matter what you think of fat people, they deserve to be treated like human beings," said Toombs, 59, a piano teacher who weighs 300 pounds.
People like Frankel and Toombs would get special protection under measure that would make Massachusetts just the second state to add "weight and height" to its anti-discrimination law. The law applies mainly to the workplace but also covers landlords and real estate interactions.
Most states have laws prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, religion, age, gender, disability and other factors. A handful offer protection for gays and lesbians. But only Michigan includes weight and height in its anti-discrimination law. The District of Columbia also bans appearance discrimination and San Francisco and Santa Cruz in California prohibit weight and height discrimination.
The problem -- at least with weight -- isn't going away. Federal government statistics show that U.S. obesity rates have risen to an all-time high. Nearly one-third, or 32 percent of adult Americans, are considered obese, at a time when employers are considering ways to demand healthier behavior, such as no smoking.
Rep. Byron Rushing, a Boston Democrat who is sponsoring the Massachusetts bill, said it's a question of civil rights.
"This is one of the last physical aspects of people that you can acceptably laugh about," said Rushing, who is black, slim and of average height. "You can be a shock jock on the radio and talk about fat people for a solid week and no one would ever think of having you lose your job. It's still acceptable."
Not everyone is persuaded.
"We might as well add colorblind, left-handed, allergic-to-cashews and get it over with," said Todd Domke, a Republican analyst.
Domke envisions Massachusetts scaring off businesses if it expands the protections to include short and overweight workers.
"There's a limit on how far you can legislate your way to paradise," he said. "Good intentions don't necessarily make for good legislation."
The courts aren't convinced, either. Because there's no specific protection, people claiming discrimination in the workplace or for housing must prove in court that their weight problem is a disability -- which is a protected class in state law. Massachusetts courts, however, usually reject such claims.
"People can lose weight," said David Yas, publisher of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly. "As that line of argument goes, why receive special treatment? There is some of that attitude in the courts -- that this should not rise to the level of race and gender -- the rights of which are so important to protect."
Cases tossed out of court include a 6-foot, 285-pound man who sued Shaw's Supermarkets, claiming he was denied a job because of his weight; and a 230-pound woman who sued a Natick car dealership after being denied a receptionist job.
Rushing said advocates were shunned by lawmakers 10 years ago when he proposed a similar bill. He's more confident of passage now because of an increased awareness of the issues. He expects a hearing this fall.
Frankel acknowledges the bill may be a hard sell, because it doesn't define short or fat. She said it's still socially acceptable to denigrate short and overweight people.
"Fatter people and shorter people get promoted less. Shorter people make less than their taller counterparts," said Frankel, who published a memoir last fall entitled "Beyond Measure."
Toombs doesn't buy the argument she can simply diet and lose weight.
"I spent 25 years of my life trying to get thin," she said. "All I ever got was fatter, and I felt like a failure. I thought it was my fault, and it wasn't. People come in different sizes, they always have and they always will. ... I haven't robbed a bank. I work with children. I'm doing good in the world."
Friday, May 04, 2007
Study what "Global Warming" has to do with National Security?
House GOP hits shift of spy funds to study climate
By Christina Bellantoni
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published May 4, 2007
Advertisement
Senior House Republicans are complaining about Democrats' plans to divert "scarce" intelligence funds to study global warming.
The House next week will consider the Democrat-crafted Intelligence Authorization bill, which includes a provision directing an assessment of the effects that climate change has on national security.
"Our job is to steal secrets," said Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the ranking Republican on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
"There are all kinds of people analyzing global warming, the Democrats even have a special committee on this," he told The Washington Times. "There's no value added by the intelligence community here; they have no special expertise, and this takes money and resources away from other threats."
Democrats, who outnumber Republicans on the committee, blocked the minority from stripping the warming language from the bill.
Intelligence panel Chairman Silvestre Reyes, Texas Democrat, said the climate-change study is one of several shifts his party has made to intelligence policy.
"We're concerned that global warming might impact our ability to maintain national security," he told The Times, describing the idea as "cutting edge."
"We want to get feedback from the intelligence community to understand if there are possible global issues," Mr. Reyes said, noting the change was on the advice of "several former military commanders."
The panel voted 11-9 to keep the provision that directs a National Intelligence Estimate "on the anticipated geopolitical effects of global climate change and the implications of such effects on the national security of the United States," according to a Republican staffer familiar with the bill.
The study, which so far has an undetermined cost, would examine the science of climate change, among other things. Few details about its method were available, but the staffer said it would "divert already scarce resources to study the climate."
The staffer added that the U.S. already tried using intelligence resources for this purpose in the 1990s.
"There are other parts of the government better suited to doing this type of study," agreed Rep. Darrell Issa, California Republican. "Our government should not commit expensive spy satellites and human intelligence sources to target something as undefined as the environment."
The Clinton administration's Director of Central Intelligence created the DCI Environmental Center in 1997 to examine environmental issues.
In 1999, President Clinton announced he was declassifying satellite images of Antarctica captured by the intelligence community under an initiative to make public previously classified data.
A Clinton White House press release outlines Vice President Al Gore's role in making sure that 59 satellite images of the Arctic were released to "help scientists better understand the interaction between polar ice caps and global warming."
"Together with data gathered on the ground, the newly released images will help scientists better understand ecological dynamics in this extreme environment and their response to climate change," the release read.
Several Republicans trotted out the statistic that the government already spends $6.5 billion annually on global-warming related issues through several agencies, including NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency.
But Mr. Reyes said the provision "makes sense" because of the growing international concern over climate change. "We think it's time," he said.
Republicans were critical yesterday after The Times first reported the provision on its Web site.
"It's hard to imagine how anyone could believe that climate change represents a more clear and present danger to the United States than radical Islamic terrorists armed with bombs, but that's essentially what Democrats have concluded in this bill," said Brian Kennedy, a spokesman for Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican.
The House is expected to vote Wednesday or Thursday on the overall authorization measure, which identifies how intelligence appropriations can be spent in 2008. It is not clear whether Democrats will allow Republicans to offer amendments to the bill.
Last year, the Republican-controlled Senate failed to pass its Intelligence Authorization bill.
Mr. Reyes lauded his panel's work on the bill, noting that it will lead to "stronger, better intelligence," especially by adding money for human intelligence training and for sending analysts abroad.
For the first time, the bill will fund a "baseline" for intelligence activities related to terrorism and Iraq, he said.
He also said it will strengthen counterintelligence, enhance oversight and eliminate wasteful spending.
The completed bill, mostly considered behind closed doors because it includes sensitive information, passed the committee on a voice vote after a more-than-eight-hour markup session. Observers characterized the hearing as "chaotic and contentious."
By Christina Bellantoni
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published May 4, 2007
Advertisement
Senior House Republicans are complaining about Democrats' plans to divert "scarce" intelligence funds to study global warming.
The House next week will consider the Democrat-crafted Intelligence Authorization bill, which includes a provision directing an assessment of the effects that climate change has on national security.
"Our job is to steal secrets," said Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the ranking Republican on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
"There are all kinds of people analyzing global warming, the Democrats even have a special committee on this," he told The Washington Times. "There's no value added by the intelligence community here; they have no special expertise, and this takes money and resources away from other threats."
Democrats, who outnumber Republicans on the committee, blocked the minority from stripping the warming language from the bill.
Intelligence panel Chairman Silvestre Reyes, Texas Democrat, said the climate-change study is one of several shifts his party has made to intelligence policy.
"We're concerned that global warming might impact our ability to maintain national security," he told The Times, describing the idea as "cutting edge."
"We want to get feedback from the intelligence community to understand if there are possible global issues," Mr. Reyes said, noting the change was on the advice of "several former military commanders."
The panel voted 11-9 to keep the provision that directs a National Intelligence Estimate "on the anticipated geopolitical effects of global climate change and the implications of such effects on the national security of the United States," according to a Republican staffer familiar with the bill.
The study, which so far has an undetermined cost, would examine the science of climate change, among other things. Few details about its method were available, but the staffer said it would "divert already scarce resources to study the climate."
The staffer added that the U.S. already tried using intelligence resources for this purpose in the 1990s.
"There are other parts of the government better suited to doing this type of study," agreed Rep. Darrell Issa, California Republican. "Our government should not commit expensive spy satellites and human intelligence sources to target something as undefined as the environment."
The Clinton administration's Director of Central Intelligence created the DCI Environmental Center in 1997 to examine environmental issues.
In 1999, President Clinton announced he was declassifying satellite images of Antarctica captured by the intelligence community under an initiative to make public previously classified data.
A Clinton White House press release outlines Vice President Al Gore's role in making sure that 59 satellite images of the Arctic were released to "help scientists better understand the interaction between polar ice caps and global warming."
"Together with data gathered on the ground, the newly released images will help scientists better understand ecological dynamics in this extreme environment and their response to climate change," the release read.
Several Republicans trotted out the statistic that the government already spends $6.5 billion annually on global-warming related issues through several agencies, including NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency.
But Mr. Reyes said the provision "makes sense" because of the growing international concern over climate change. "We think it's time," he said.
Republicans were critical yesterday after The Times first reported the provision on its Web site.
"It's hard to imagine how anyone could believe that climate change represents a more clear and present danger to the United States than radical Islamic terrorists armed with bombs, but that's essentially what Democrats have concluded in this bill," said Brian Kennedy, a spokesman for Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican.
The House is expected to vote Wednesday or Thursday on the overall authorization measure, which identifies how intelligence appropriations can be spent in 2008. It is not clear whether Democrats will allow Republicans to offer amendments to the bill.
Last year, the Republican-controlled Senate failed to pass its Intelligence Authorization bill.
Mr. Reyes lauded his panel's work on the bill, noting that it will lead to "stronger, better intelligence," especially by adding money for human intelligence training and for sending analysts abroad.
For the first time, the bill will fund a "baseline" for intelligence activities related to terrorism and Iraq, he said.
He also said it will strengthen counterintelligence, enhance oversight and eliminate wasteful spending.
The completed bill, mostly considered behind closed doors because it includes sensitive information, passed the committee on a voice vote after a more-than-eight-hour markup session. Observers characterized the hearing as "chaotic and contentious."
Thursday, April 19, 2007
A Culture of Passivity
April 18, 2007, 0:44 p.m.
A Culture of Passivity
"Protecting" our "children" at Virginia Tech.
By Mark Steyn
I haven’t weighed in yet on Virginia Tech — mainly because, in a saner world, it would not be the kind of incident one needed to have a partisan opinion on. But I was giving a couple of speeches in Minnesota yesterday and I was asked about it and found myself more and more disturbed by the tone of the coverage. I’m not sure I’m ready to go the full Derb but I think he’s closer to the reality of the situation than most. On Monday night, Geraldo was all over Fox News saying we have to accept that, in this horrible world we live in, our “children” need to be “protected.”
Point one: They’re not “children.” The students at Virginia Tech were grown women and — if you’ll forgive the expression — men. They would be regarded as adults by any other society in the history of our planet. Granted, we live in a selectively infantilized culture where twentysomethings are “children” if they’re serving in the Third Infantry Division in Ramadi but grown-ups making rational choices if they drop to the broadloom in President Clinton’s Oval Office. Nonetheless, it’s deeply damaging to portray fit fully formed adults as children who need to be protected. We should be raising them to understand that there will be moments in life when you need to protect yourself — and, in a “horrible” world, there may come moments when you have to choose between protecting yourself or others. It is a poor reflection on us that, in those first critical seconds where one has to make a decision, only an elderly Holocaust survivor, Professor Librescu, understood instinctively the obligation to act.
Point two: The cost of a “protected” society of eternal “children” is too high. Every December 6th, my own unmanned Dominion lowers its flags to half-mast and tries to saddle Canadian manhood in general with the blame for the “Montreal massacre,” the 14 female students of the Ecole Polytechnique murdered by Marc Lepine (born Gamil Gharbi, the son of an Algerian Muslim wife-beater, though you’d never know that from the press coverage). As I wrote up north a few years ago:
Yet the defining image of contemporary Canadian maleness is not M Lepine/Gharbi but the professors and the men in that classroom, who, ordered to leave by the lone gunman, meekly did so, and abandoned their female classmates to their fate — an act of abdication that would have been unthinkable in almost any other culture throughout human history. The “men” stood outside in the corridor and, even as they heard the first shots, they did nothing. And, when it was over and Gharbi walked out of the room and past them, they still did nothing. Whatever its other defects, Canadian manhood does not suffer from an excess of testosterone.
I have always believed America is different. Certainly on September 11th we understood. The only good news of the day came from the passengers who didn’t meekly follow the obsolescent 1970s hijack procedures but who used their wits and acted as free-born individuals. And a few months later as Richard Reid bent down and tried to light his shoe in that critical split-second even the French guys leapt up and pounded the bejasus out of him.
We do our children a disservice to raise them to entrust all to officialdom’s security blanket. Geraldo-like “protection” is a delusion: when something goes awry — whether on a September morning flight out of Logan or on a peaceful college campus — the state won’t be there to protect you. You’ll be the fellow on the scene who has to make the decision. As my distinguished compatriot Kathy Shaidle says:
When we say “we don’t know what we’d do under the same circumstances”, we make cowardice the default position.
I’d prefer to say that the default position is a terrible enervating passivity. Murderous misfit loners are mercifully rare. But this awful corrosive passivity is far more pervasive, and, unlike the psycho killer, is an existential threat to a functioning society.
— Mark Steyn, a National Review columnist, is author of America Alone.
A Culture of Passivity
"Protecting" our "children" at Virginia Tech.
By Mark Steyn
I haven’t weighed in yet on Virginia Tech — mainly because, in a saner world, it would not be the kind of incident one needed to have a partisan opinion on. But I was giving a couple of speeches in Minnesota yesterday and I was asked about it and found myself more and more disturbed by the tone of the coverage. I’m not sure I’m ready to go the full Derb but I think he’s closer to the reality of the situation than most. On Monday night, Geraldo was all over Fox News saying we have to accept that, in this horrible world we live in, our “children” need to be “protected.”
Point one: They’re not “children.” The students at Virginia Tech were grown women and — if you’ll forgive the expression — men. They would be regarded as adults by any other society in the history of our planet. Granted, we live in a selectively infantilized culture where twentysomethings are “children” if they’re serving in the Third Infantry Division in Ramadi but grown-ups making rational choices if they drop to the broadloom in President Clinton’s Oval Office. Nonetheless, it’s deeply damaging to portray fit fully formed adults as children who need to be protected. We should be raising them to understand that there will be moments in life when you need to protect yourself — and, in a “horrible” world, there may come moments when you have to choose between protecting yourself or others. It is a poor reflection on us that, in those first critical seconds where one has to make a decision, only an elderly Holocaust survivor, Professor Librescu, understood instinctively the obligation to act.
Point two: The cost of a “protected” society of eternal “children” is too high. Every December 6th, my own unmanned Dominion lowers its flags to half-mast and tries to saddle Canadian manhood in general with the blame for the “Montreal massacre,” the 14 female students of the Ecole Polytechnique murdered by Marc Lepine (born Gamil Gharbi, the son of an Algerian Muslim wife-beater, though you’d never know that from the press coverage). As I wrote up north a few years ago:
Yet the defining image of contemporary Canadian maleness is not M Lepine/Gharbi but the professors and the men in that classroom, who, ordered to leave by the lone gunman, meekly did so, and abandoned their female classmates to their fate — an act of abdication that would have been unthinkable in almost any other culture throughout human history. The “men” stood outside in the corridor and, even as they heard the first shots, they did nothing. And, when it was over and Gharbi walked out of the room and past them, they still did nothing. Whatever its other defects, Canadian manhood does not suffer from an excess of testosterone.
I have always believed America is different. Certainly on September 11th we understood. The only good news of the day came from the passengers who didn’t meekly follow the obsolescent 1970s hijack procedures but who used their wits and acted as free-born individuals. And a few months later as Richard Reid bent down and tried to light his shoe in that critical split-second even the French guys leapt up and pounded the bejasus out of him.
We do our children a disservice to raise them to entrust all to officialdom’s security blanket. Geraldo-like “protection” is a delusion: when something goes awry — whether on a September morning flight out of Logan or on a peaceful college campus — the state won’t be there to protect you. You’ll be the fellow on the scene who has to make the decision. As my distinguished compatriot Kathy Shaidle says:
When we say “we don’t know what we’d do under the same circumstances”, we make cowardice the default position.
I’d prefer to say that the default position is a terrible enervating passivity. Murderous misfit loners are mercifully rare. But this awful corrosive passivity is far more pervasive, and, unlike the psycho killer, is an existential threat to a functioning society.
— Mark Steyn, a National Review columnist, is author of America Alone.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Soft People, Hard People
January 18, 2007
Soft People, Hard People
By Selwyn Duke
If the 1976 western The Last Hard Men has it right, we Occidentals metamorphosed into jellyfish sometime around the early twentieth century. Although this title is more movie marketing than historical statement, there may be something to it. After all, Robert Baden-Powell, a lieutenant general in the British Army, was motivated by the belief that western boys were becoming too soft when he originated the Boy Scouts in 1907.
Regardless of the origin and rapidity of our transition from he-men to she-men, one thing is for certain: We have become a very soft people.
When pondering this, I think about how it is now common to see men cry publicly. Just recently George Bush Sr. broke down while rendering a speech, something that was unthinkable a generation ago. Why, presidential aspirant Edmund Muskie saw his campaign scuttled by a few inopportune tears in 1972. And before you score me for not embracing the metrosexual model, remember the impression this gives the rest of the world. Feminization may be fashionable, but it doesn't engender respect among the more patriarchal peoples.
Then I think about our unwillingness to discipline our children, something to which our jungle-like schools bear witness. And should someone use punitive measures harsher than the euphemistically named "time-out" - something that may actually work - he is often excoriated for damaging the little darlings' "self-esteem." And a spanking? Perish the thought. We're told this could scar a child irreparably (although we seldom ponder the ravages of pickling a young brain with Ritalin), and the idea is so foreign to many parents they cannot even conceive of placing a hand on their cherubim's sanctified little posteriors.
In contrast, the people of the Third World - and especially the Muslim fanatics who have designs on the West - are hard as stone. We fret over the fact that Saddam Hussein endured some taunts during his execution, while next door in Saudi Arabia they may still chop off the hand of a thief. We cater to the religious wants of incarcerated terrorists, providing everything from the Koran and prayer rugs to desired foods, and the soft set still laments the terrible privation these poor victims must endure. In contrast, the terrorists' Muslim brethren often disallow the practice of other religions in the Abode of Islam. We let illegal aliens run roughshod over our nation, sometimes bestowing government benefits upon them, then still feel guilty about not exalting them sufficiently. In the Third World, however, foreigners are often treated like second-class citizens. Under the Mexican Constitution, one foreign-born will never enjoy the full rights of citizenship. In many Muslim societies, a certain kind of second-class status is reserved for "infidels"; it's called dhimmitude.
All this is not surprising. After all, luxury and living high soften the sinews and, regrettably, sometimes also the head. The hand that spends its entire existence inside a velvet glove will remain soft and delicate. The one wielding workmen's tools dawn till dusk becomes calloused and hard, more able to inflict injury and more resistant to it.
I know, I know what's coming. That's what makes us better than the nations in question, proclaim some, allowing themselves a rare foray into the realm of cultural superiority (what ever happened to the notion that all cultures are morally equal?). As for me, I'm not awash in moral relativism, but neither do I fall victim to blind cultural chauvinism. For, anyone who believes we have a monopoly on virtue is living in a fantasy-world of smug self-delusion. Don't get me wrong, we are better in some very significant ways, but also worse in a few ominous ones. We lack certain manly virtues, qualities on which national survival may hinge.
There is an immutable truth of human nature: When soft people clash with hard people, the soft are vanquished. That is, unless they become hard.
People may laugh. That's crazy, say they, we have the greatest military in the world, the most advanced technology, and a nuclear umbrella. Yes, that's true. But first, I don't claim we'll fall tomorrow, next month, or next year. Even more significantly, though, external enemies would not initiate our undoing. The fact is that no body, no matter how strong, imposing and well-armored, can survive an untreated disease metastasizing rapidly within. The smallest bacteria can kill giants as easily as dwarves.
And that is what ails us. Every time an action designed to preserve western civilization is taken or even proposed, a great internecine battle ensues. We capture combatants on the battlefield and then spend millions in legal fees debating whether to adjudicate their cases in civil or military courts. We rightly scrutinize Imams making a scene at an airport and then spend millions more arguing about so-called "racial profiling." And it's incessant. Every act nowadays, from singling out illegals for deportation and the suspicious for scrutiny to getting swatted by "Tigger" to a six-year-old boy giving a girl a peck on the cheek, is met with hand-wringing and a disproportionate reaction. And far too often litigation results, costing us valuable resources.
And let's be very clear: Every dollar in currency and passion we spend on litigation is one less we have to fight those who would see us in ashes. This means fewer resources - in terms of not just money but also attention and zeal - to secure our borders, ensure domestic tranquility and root out terrorists within and without. A united people would confront threats as a monolithic front; we are expending ourselves fighting a cold civil war. And the end result is that the lawyers get richer, we get weaker, and the hard people, waiting and watching in the darkness, laugh louder.
Lest I be misunderstood, I don't suggest we become the Hunnish Empire. It's noble to recognize that Saddam Hussein's tormentors might have demonstrated more dignity. It's a sign of civilization to expect our troops to behave as professional soldiers, not rampaging warriors. And it's most divine to realize all God's children are valuable in His eyes. But to the excesses of justice, correction or interrogation, we react not with measured admonition but with hysteria. Our civility should be the fruits of manly virtue, but it's the putrescence of pusillanimity.
And here I think of Chesterton's profound description of our condition:
"Nowadays, we have Christian values floating around detached from one another. Consequently, we see scientists who care only about truth but have no pity, and humanitarians who care only about pity but have no truth."
The Muslim world is one extreme, we are the other, the humanitarians who have no truth. Why can't we control seven-year-olds, prosecute a war efficiently or strike fear into the hearts of criminals? It's all for the same reason. We're soft-headed pseudo-humanitarians to whom the kind of action or punishment necessary to deter evil behavior seems medieval. This is why we had a national conniption when teenage vandal Michael Faye was to receive a typical Singaporean punishment, caning, for his misdeeds. We should bear in mind that you can walk Singapore's streets safely in the dark of night. The same cannot be said of ours.
Oh, this is just the price of freedom, some say? They are wrong. This is the price of abused freedom.
You may think I'm missing the boat, that the problem lies not with the weak but with the malicious, those who are the enemy within. And, of course, but for their meddlesome hands, we wouldn't be at this precipice. But a minority tyrannizes only at the deference of the majority. For instance, if enough of us rejected the media that disseminated footage of Abu Ghraib far and wide while refusing to show Muslim beheadings, we'd not have reporters who were more internationalist than nationalist.
And a juxtaposition of Abu Ghraib and Muslim beheadings tells the tale, as too many of us are epitomized by panties while our adversaries are by swords. While they bat nary an eye at the torture of an innocent, we eat ourselves alive over the humiliation of the guilty. But what is truly humiliating is when the hard people laugh, watching the soft people play the fools, bray at one another, and commit cultural suicide.
And make no mistake, they laugh. Why do you think the Mexican government distributed literature instructing its citizens on how to best violate our southern border? Why did Islamists issue advice on how to play the victim card in the American legal system? They don't tolerate such under their dominion, but they know about our lawsuits, protests, pandering politicians and capitulating clergy. They know the game. They know us. And they don't really think we're barbaric or unjust.
They think we're weak and stupid.
Soft people and hard people, two sides of the same world. Of course, we were harder too, a long, long, long time ago. But it would be nice to find that happy medium, something that seems ever elusive. A bane of man is that he jumps from blind prejudice to blind tolerance and back again, without ever making a stopover at the ethereal land known as enlightened distinction.
Will we find it within ourselves to strike that balance? That is doubtful. But what is fairly certain is that we won't much longer have the luxury of being a soft republic. With enemies on both sides of the gate, it's only a matter of time before we see a 9/11 that is not a 9/11, but 9/11 squared. Thus, to use a play on Otto Von Bismarck's metaphor, we can proceed with a velvet glove, but within must lie an iron fist. We have no other choice. Unless, that is, we fancy death a viable option.
Selwyn Duke is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. Contact Selwyn Duke.
Soft People, Hard People
By Selwyn Duke
If the 1976 western The Last Hard Men has it right, we Occidentals metamorphosed into jellyfish sometime around the early twentieth century. Although this title is more movie marketing than historical statement, there may be something to it. After all, Robert Baden-Powell, a lieutenant general in the British Army, was motivated by the belief that western boys were becoming too soft when he originated the Boy Scouts in 1907.
Regardless of the origin and rapidity of our transition from he-men to she-men, one thing is for certain: We have become a very soft people.
When pondering this, I think about how it is now common to see men cry publicly. Just recently George Bush Sr. broke down while rendering a speech, something that was unthinkable a generation ago. Why, presidential aspirant Edmund Muskie saw his campaign scuttled by a few inopportune tears in 1972. And before you score me for not embracing the metrosexual model, remember the impression this gives the rest of the world. Feminization may be fashionable, but it doesn't engender respect among the more patriarchal peoples.
Then I think about our unwillingness to discipline our children, something to which our jungle-like schools bear witness. And should someone use punitive measures harsher than the euphemistically named "time-out" - something that may actually work - he is often excoriated for damaging the little darlings' "self-esteem." And a spanking? Perish the thought. We're told this could scar a child irreparably (although we seldom ponder the ravages of pickling a young brain with Ritalin), and the idea is so foreign to many parents they cannot even conceive of placing a hand on their cherubim's sanctified little posteriors.
In contrast, the people of the Third World - and especially the Muslim fanatics who have designs on the West - are hard as stone. We fret over the fact that Saddam Hussein endured some taunts during his execution, while next door in Saudi Arabia they may still chop off the hand of a thief. We cater to the religious wants of incarcerated terrorists, providing everything from the Koran and prayer rugs to desired foods, and the soft set still laments the terrible privation these poor victims must endure. In contrast, the terrorists' Muslim brethren often disallow the practice of other religions in the Abode of Islam. We let illegal aliens run roughshod over our nation, sometimes bestowing government benefits upon them, then still feel guilty about not exalting them sufficiently. In the Third World, however, foreigners are often treated like second-class citizens. Under the Mexican Constitution, one foreign-born will never enjoy the full rights of citizenship. In many Muslim societies, a certain kind of second-class status is reserved for "infidels"; it's called dhimmitude.
All this is not surprising. After all, luxury and living high soften the sinews and, regrettably, sometimes also the head. The hand that spends its entire existence inside a velvet glove will remain soft and delicate. The one wielding workmen's tools dawn till dusk becomes calloused and hard, more able to inflict injury and more resistant to it.
I know, I know what's coming. That's what makes us better than the nations in question, proclaim some, allowing themselves a rare foray into the realm of cultural superiority (what ever happened to the notion that all cultures are morally equal?). As for me, I'm not awash in moral relativism, but neither do I fall victim to blind cultural chauvinism. For, anyone who believes we have a monopoly on virtue is living in a fantasy-world of smug self-delusion. Don't get me wrong, we are better in some very significant ways, but also worse in a few ominous ones. We lack certain manly virtues, qualities on which national survival may hinge.
There is an immutable truth of human nature: When soft people clash with hard people, the soft are vanquished. That is, unless they become hard.
People may laugh. That's crazy, say they, we have the greatest military in the world, the most advanced technology, and a nuclear umbrella. Yes, that's true. But first, I don't claim we'll fall tomorrow, next month, or next year. Even more significantly, though, external enemies would not initiate our undoing. The fact is that no body, no matter how strong, imposing and well-armored, can survive an untreated disease metastasizing rapidly within. The smallest bacteria can kill giants as easily as dwarves.
And that is what ails us. Every time an action designed to preserve western civilization is taken or even proposed, a great internecine battle ensues. We capture combatants on the battlefield and then spend millions in legal fees debating whether to adjudicate their cases in civil or military courts. We rightly scrutinize Imams making a scene at an airport and then spend millions more arguing about so-called "racial profiling." And it's incessant. Every act nowadays, from singling out illegals for deportation and the suspicious for scrutiny to getting swatted by "Tigger" to a six-year-old boy giving a girl a peck on the cheek, is met with hand-wringing and a disproportionate reaction. And far too often litigation results, costing us valuable resources.
And let's be very clear: Every dollar in currency and passion we spend on litigation is one less we have to fight those who would see us in ashes. This means fewer resources - in terms of not just money but also attention and zeal - to secure our borders, ensure domestic tranquility and root out terrorists within and without. A united people would confront threats as a monolithic front; we are expending ourselves fighting a cold civil war. And the end result is that the lawyers get richer, we get weaker, and the hard people, waiting and watching in the darkness, laugh louder.
Lest I be misunderstood, I don't suggest we become the Hunnish Empire. It's noble to recognize that Saddam Hussein's tormentors might have demonstrated more dignity. It's a sign of civilization to expect our troops to behave as professional soldiers, not rampaging warriors. And it's most divine to realize all God's children are valuable in His eyes. But to the excesses of justice, correction or interrogation, we react not with measured admonition but with hysteria. Our civility should be the fruits of manly virtue, but it's the putrescence of pusillanimity.
And here I think of Chesterton's profound description of our condition:
"Nowadays, we have Christian values floating around detached from one another. Consequently, we see scientists who care only about truth but have no pity, and humanitarians who care only about pity but have no truth."
The Muslim world is one extreme, we are the other, the humanitarians who have no truth. Why can't we control seven-year-olds, prosecute a war efficiently or strike fear into the hearts of criminals? It's all for the same reason. We're soft-headed pseudo-humanitarians to whom the kind of action or punishment necessary to deter evil behavior seems medieval. This is why we had a national conniption when teenage vandal Michael Faye was to receive a typical Singaporean punishment, caning, for his misdeeds. We should bear in mind that you can walk Singapore's streets safely in the dark of night. The same cannot be said of ours.
Oh, this is just the price of freedom, some say? They are wrong. This is the price of abused freedom.
You may think I'm missing the boat, that the problem lies not with the weak but with the malicious, those who are the enemy within. And, of course, but for their meddlesome hands, we wouldn't be at this precipice. But a minority tyrannizes only at the deference of the majority. For instance, if enough of us rejected the media that disseminated footage of Abu Ghraib far and wide while refusing to show Muslim beheadings, we'd not have reporters who were more internationalist than nationalist.
And a juxtaposition of Abu Ghraib and Muslim beheadings tells the tale, as too many of us are epitomized by panties while our adversaries are by swords. While they bat nary an eye at the torture of an innocent, we eat ourselves alive over the humiliation of the guilty. But what is truly humiliating is when the hard people laugh, watching the soft people play the fools, bray at one another, and commit cultural suicide.
And make no mistake, they laugh. Why do you think the Mexican government distributed literature instructing its citizens on how to best violate our southern border? Why did Islamists issue advice on how to play the victim card in the American legal system? They don't tolerate such under their dominion, but they know about our lawsuits, protests, pandering politicians and capitulating clergy. They know the game. They know us. And they don't really think we're barbaric or unjust.
They think we're weak and stupid.
Soft people and hard people, two sides of the same world. Of course, we were harder too, a long, long, long time ago. But it would be nice to find that happy medium, something that seems ever elusive. A bane of man is that he jumps from blind prejudice to blind tolerance and back again, without ever making a stopover at the ethereal land known as enlightened distinction.
Will we find it within ourselves to strike that balance? That is doubtful. But what is fairly certain is that we won't much longer have the luxury of being a soft republic. With enemies on both sides of the gate, it's only a matter of time before we see a 9/11 that is not a 9/11, but 9/11 squared. Thus, to use a play on Otto Von Bismarck's metaphor, we can proceed with a velvet glove, but within must lie an iron fist. We have no other choice. Unless, that is, we fancy death a viable option.
Selwyn Duke is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. Contact Selwyn Duke.
Friday, April 06, 2007
Jane and Delusions of Grandeur
She is believing her own hype. What a proud time for women. She goes in and screws everything up. Now we can all thank Nancy for the next attack.
When even the Washington Post has something bad to say about a Dem - you know you have done something wrong.
Pratfall in Damascus
Nancy Pelosi's foolish shuttle diplomacy
Thursday, April 5, 2007; A16
HOUSE SPEAKER Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered an excellent demonstration yesterday of why members of Congress should not attempt to supplant the secretary of state when traveling abroad. After a meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that "Israel was ready to engage in peace talks" with Syria. What's more, she added, Mr. Assad was ready to "resume the peace process" as well. Having announced this seeming diplomatic breakthrough, Ms. Pelosi suggested that her Kissingerian shuttle diplomacy was just getting started. "We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria," she said.
Only one problem: The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message. "What was communicated to the U.S. House Speaker does not contain any change in the policies of Israel," said a statement quickly issued by the prime minister's office. In fact, Mr. Olmert told Ms. Pelosi that "a number of Senate and House members who recently visited Damascus received the impression that despite the declarations of Bashar Assad, there is no change in the position of his country regarding a possible peace process with Israel." In other words, Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel's position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad's words were mere propaganda.
Ms. Pelosi was criticized by President Bush for visiting Damascus at a time when the administration -- rightly or wrongly -- has frozen high-level contacts with Syria. Mr. Bush said that thanks to the speaker's freelancing Mr. Assad was getting mixed messages from the United States. Ms. Pelosi responded by pointing out that Republican congressmen had visited Syria without drawing presidential censure. That's true enough -- but those other congressmen didn't try to introduce a new U.S. diplomatic initiative in the Middle East. "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace," Ms. Pelosi grandly declared.
Never mind that that statement is ludicrous: As any diplomat with knowledge of the region could have told Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Assad is a corrupt thug whose overriding priority at the moment is not peace with Israel but heading off U.N. charges that he orchestrated the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri. The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president. Two weeks ago Ms. Pelosi rammed legislation through the House of Representatives that would strip Mr. Bush of his authority as commander in chief to manage troop movements in Iraq. Now she is attempting to introduce a new Middle East policy that directly conflicts with that of the president. We have found much to criticize in Mr. Bush's military strategy and regional diplomacy. But Ms. Pelosi's attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish.
When even the Washington Post has something bad to say about a Dem - you know you have done something wrong.
Pratfall in Damascus
Nancy Pelosi's foolish shuttle diplomacy
Thursday, April 5, 2007; A16
HOUSE SPEAKER Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered an excellent demonstration yesterday of why members of Congress should not attempt to supplant the secretary of state when traveling abroad. After a meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that "Israel was ready to engage in peace talks" with Syria. What's more, she added, Mr. Assad was ready to "resume the peace process" as well. Having announced this seeming diplomatic breakthrough, Ms. Pelosi suggested that her Kissingerian shuttle diplomacy was just getting started. "We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria," she said.
Only one problem: The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message. "What was communicated to the U.S. House Speaker does not contain any change in the policies of Israel," said a statement quickly issued by the prime minister's office. In fact, Mr. Olmert told Ms. Pelosi that "a number of Senate and House members who recently visited Damascus received the impression that despite the declarations of Bashar Assad, there is no change in the position of his country regarding a possible peace process with Israel." In other words, Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel's position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad's words were mere propaganda.
Ms. Pelosi was criticized by President Bush for visiting Damascus at a time when the administration -- rightly or wrongly -- has frozen high-level contacts with Syria. Mr. Bush said that thanks to the speaker's freelancing Mr. Assad was getting mixed messages from the United States. Ms. Pelosi responded by pointing out that Republican congressmen had visited Syria without drawing presidential censure. That's true enough -- but those other congressmen didn't try to introduce a new U.S. diplomatic initiative in the Middle East. "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace," Ms. Pelosi grandly declared.
Never mind that that statement is ludicrous: As any diplomat with knowledge of the region could have told Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Assad is a corrupt thug whose overriding priority at the moment is not peace with Israel but heading off U.N. charges that he orchestrated the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri. The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president. Two weeks ago Ms. Pelosi rammed legislation through the House of Representatives that would strip Mr. Bush of his authority as commander in chief to manage troop movements in Iraq. Now she is attempting to introduce a new Middle East policy that directly conflicts with that of the president. We have found much to criticize in Mr. Bush's military strategy and regional diplomacy. But Ms. Pelosi's attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish.
I didn't get the chance to vote for Jane, and neither did you.
Nor was she appointed to Sec. of Denfense.
Gen. Pelosi's gift to our enemies
By David Limbaugh
Friday, April 6, 2007
It is frankly astounding to me that people aren't making a bigger deal of the colossal impropriety of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's unauthorized trip to Syria. Where is the outrage?
I realize Democratic leaders and those they answer to have unmitigated contempt for President Bush. I realize they believe the public rewarded their hatred and their antiwar posturing in the November congressional elections.
But according to the latest news reports, President Bush is still in office. This means he is still commander in chief and primarily in charge of U.S. foreign policy.
Democrats have long been opposed to the administration's stern policy toward terrorist-sponsoring states like Iran and Syria. They apparently believe their evil tyrants mean well, and if we will just open a dialogue with them, we can build a lasting peace. After all, the vaunted Iraq Surrender Group recommended that very thing.
But the president has emphasized he does not want to negotiate with Syria, a nation that is supporting our enemies in Iraq, sponsoring Hamas and Islamic Jihad organizations, provides weapons to Hezbollah, is a proxy of Iran and is dedicated to the destruction of our ally, Israel.
President Bush strongly urged Pelosi not to go. But in keeping with her flagrant disrespect for President Bush and, manifestly, for the presidency itself, she openly defied him and went anyway.
Her action is indefensible. She was not legally representing the United States, since the president refused to authorize her mission. And if she wasn't purporting to represent the United States, her trip was pointless. But she was.
Pelosi and her delegation were clearly attempting to influence American foreign policy by pressuring the Bush administration to open a dialogue with Syria.
What's wrong with that, you ask? What's wrong is that she didn't just lobby the president to begin diplomatic talks. She conspired with the Syrian regime to alter the president's policy toward that regime. Is it beginning to sink in out there?
If you believe the Pelosi delegation was merely "fact-finding," which characterization is laughable, listen to its own post-trip assessment. Delegation member Tom Lantos boasted that the meeting "reinforced sharply" the potential benefits of talking to Syria. "This is only the beginning of our constructive dialogue with Syria, and we hope to build on this visit."
Translation: "Despite the president's direction that we not go and especially not hold ourselves out, in violation of the Constitution, as representing the United States, we did go, and we did purport to represent the United States and we did open a dialogue with Syria, and we do intend to build on it."
Under the Constitution, President Bush is in charge of U.S. foreign policy. In that capacity, he has attempted to isolate Syria and has persuaded our allies to do likewise. Pelosi, in direct contravention of presidential authority, directly contradicted the U.S. policy toward Syria by sending the unmistakable signal that Syria is part of the international mainstream when it is our policy to discourage that notion. As the highest-ranking member of the House of Representatives, she colluded with a terrorist tyrant to humiliate the commander in chief and countermand his foreign policy.
Democrats are always accusing the president of overstepping his constitutional authority, but look at them now. Democrats are always talking about President Bush harming America's image in the world. But consider the damage to our image Pelosi's trip caused.
Pelosi not only undermined the United States through her unconstitutional usurpation and contradiction of executive authority. She also intermeddled with Israeli policy and caused great harm there, too, by misrepresenting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in implying he had softened Israel's stance toward Syria and wanted to renew peace negotiations. This reckless blunder incensed the Olmert administration, which strongly denied it had changed its position. Olmert said that until Syria changes its sponsorship of terrorism, peace talks will be meaningless.
If there is any doubt about Pelosi's collusion with Syria to weaken the president and thus the United States, or if there is any doubt about the poisonous fruits of that infernal collusion, hear the words of Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al Moallem following the Assad-Pelosi meeting. He said, "These people in the United States who are opposing dialogue, I tell them one thing: Dialogue is … the only method to close the gap existing between the two countries. … We are happy that Mrs. Pelosi and her delegation had the courage and determination to bridge these differences."
Pelosi has caused enormous anxiety to our allies, but has given great comfort to our enemies who seek to divide and conquer us, by doing the dividing part for them. Her actions were disgraceful.
Gen. Pelosi's gift to our enemies
By David Limbaugh
Friday, April 6, 2007
It is frankly astounding to me that people aren't making a bigger deal of the colossal impropriety of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's unauthorized trip to Syria. Where is the outrage?
I realize Democratic leaders and those they answer to have unmitigated contempt for President Bush. I realize they believe the public rewarded their hatred and their antiwar posturing in the November congressional elections.
But according to the latest news reports, President Bush is still in office. This means he is still commander in chief and primarily in charge of U.S. foreign policy.
Democrats have long been opposed to the administration's stern policy toward terrorist-sponsoring states like Iran and Syria. They apparently believe their evil tyrants mean well, and if we will just open a dialogue with them, we can build a lasting peace. After all, the vaunted Iraq Surrender Group recommended that very thing.
But the president has emphasized he does not want to negotiate with Syria, a nation that is supporting our enemies in Iraq, sponsoring Hamas and Islamic Jihad organizations, provides weapons to Hezbollah, is a proxy of Iran and is dedicated to the destruction of our ally, Israel.
President Bush strongly urged Pelosi not to go. But in keeping with her flagrant disrespect for President Bush and, manifestly, for the presidency itself, she openly defied him and went anyway.
Her action is indefensible. She was not legally representing the United States, since the president refused to authorize her mission. And if she wasn't purporting to represent the United States, her trip was pointless. But she was.
Pelosi and her delegation were clearly attempting to influence American foreign policy by pressuring the Bush administration to open a dialogue with Syria.
What's wrong with that, you ask? What's wrong is that she didn't just lobby the president to begin diplomatic talks. She conspired with the Syrian regime to alter the president's policy toward that regime. Is it beginning to sink in out there?
If you believe the Pelosi delegation was merely "fact-finding," which characterization is laughable, listen to its own post-trip assessment. Delegation member Tom Lantos boasted that the meeting "reinforced sharply" the potential benefits of talking to Syria. "This is only the beginning of our constructive dialogue with Syria, and we hope to build on this visit."
Translation: "Despite the president's direction that we not go and especially not hold ourselves out, in violation of the Constitution, as representing the United States, we did go, and we did purport to represent the United States and we did open a dialogue with Syria, and we do intend to build on it."
Under the Constitution, President Bush is in charge of U.S. foreign policy. In that capacity, he has attempted to isolate Syria and has persuaded our allies to do likewise. Pelosi, in direct contravention of presidential authority, directly contradicted the U.S. policy toward Syria by sending the unmistakable signal that Syria is part of the international mainstream when it is our policy to discourage that notion. As the highest-ranking member of the House of Representatives, she colluded with a terrorist tyrant to humiliate the commander in chief and countermand his foreign policy.
Democrats are always accusing the president of overstepping his constitutional authority, but look at them now. Democrats are always talking about President Bush harming America's image in the world. But consider the damage to our image Pelosi's trip caused.
Pelosi not only undermined the United States through her unconstitutional usurpation and contradiction of executive authority. She also intermeddled with Israeli policy and caused great harm there, too, by misrepresenting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in implying he had softened Israel's stance toward Syria and wanted to renew peace negotiations. This reckless blunder incensed the Olmert administration, which strongly denied it had changed its position. Olmert said that until Syria changes its sponsorship of terrorism, peace talks will be meaningless.
If there is any doubt about Pelosi's collusion with Syria to weaken the president and thus the United States, or if there is any doubt about the poisonous fruits of that infernal collusion, hear the words of Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al Moallem following the Assad-Pelosi meeting. He said, "These people in the United States who are opposing dialogue, I tell them one thing: Dialogue is … the only method to close the gap existing between the two countries. … We are happy that Mrs. Pelosi and her delegation had the courage and determination to bridge these differences."
Pelosi has caused enormous anxiety to our allies, but has given great comfort to our enemies who seek to divide and conquer us, by doing the dividing part for them. Her actions were disgraceful.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Now you are worried about the message you send?
Seriously Jane, NOT denouncing the action of Iran AND visiting our enemies - what a message you are sending! Talk about bringing up images of Vietnam. Now our own government officials are spitting in the faces of those that serve to keep you free.
House Silent on British Hostage Crisis
Mar 30 04:00 PM US/Eastern
By ANNE FLAHERTY
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Members of the House left Washington on Friday for their two-week spring break without weighing in on the international crisis tormenting the nation's closest ally: the capture of 15 British sailors and marines by Iran.
The omission by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is being noted by some Republicans, who say they should have gotten the chance to join the Senate in denouncing Tehran's bold actions.
"I am very disappointed that the speaker chose not to act," said Rep. Charles Dent, R-Pa.
"I believe it's important for us as Americans to show our solidarity with the Britons," he added in a phone interview Friday. "The British are our closest allies, and I think we have to stand next to them in a moment like this."
The Senate on Thursday, before adjourning for its one-week break, passed a resolution condemning the act "in the strongest possible terms" and calling for the sailors "immediate, safe and unconditional release."
Pelosi's spokesman Brendan Daly said the speaker was reluctant to weigh in on the incident without knowing that such a message would do more good than harm. Daly said the British government had not asked Congress to try to pressure Tehran.
"The leadership discussed it and agreed that inserting Congress into an international crisis while ongoing would not be helpful," Daly said.
Pelosi is traveling in the Middle East, where she plans to visit Syria, Israel and the West Bank.
The sailors were seized on March 23 off the Iraqi coast while searching merchant ships for evidence of smuggling. Britain insists the seven Royal marines and eight sailors were taken in Iraqi waters and has said no admission of error would be made.
Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., says Congress should not only call for the release of the British personnel but also should press the United Nations to explore harsher sanctions against Tehran.
Cantor, the GOP's chief deputy whip, pressed Pelosi this week to pass the measure.
"The illegal seizure of the British forces is a signal that Iran views us as powerless to prevent it from realizing its aggressive ambitions," Cantor wrote in a letter to Pelosi.
House Silent on British Hostage Crisis
Mar 30 04:00 PM US/Eastern
By ANNE FLAHERTY
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Members of the House left Washington on Friday for their two-week spring break without weighing in on the international crisis tormenting the nation's closest ally: the capture of 15 British sailors and marines by Iran.
The omission by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is being noted by some Republicans, who say they should have gotten the chance to join the Senate in denouncing Tehran's bold actions.
"I am very disappointed that the speaker chose not to act," said Rep. Charles Dent, R-Pa.
"I believe it's important for us as Americans to show our solidarity with the Britons," he added in a phone interview Friday. "The British are our closest allies, and I think we have to stand next to them in a moment like this."
The Senate on Thursday, before adjourning for its one-week break, passed a resolution condemning the act "in the strongest possible terms" and calling for the sailors "immediate, safe and unconditional release."
Pelosi's spokesman Brendan Daly said the speaker was reluctant to weigh in on the incident without knowing that such a message would do more good than harm. Daly said the British government had not asked Congress to try to pressure Tehran.
"The leadership discussed it and agreed that inserting Congress into an international crisis while ongoing would not be helpful," Daly said.
Pelosi is traveling in the Middle East, where she plans to visit Syria, Israel and the West Bank.
The sailors were seized on March 23 off the Iraqi coast while searching merchant ships for evidence of smuggling. Britain insists the seven Royal marines and eight sailors were taken in Iraqi waters and has said no admission of error would be made.
Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., says Congress should not only call for the release of the British personnel but also should press the United Nations to explore harsher sanctions against Tehran.
Cantor, the GOP's chief deputy whip, pressed Pelosi this week to pass the measure.
"The illegal seizure of the British forces is a signal that Iran views us as powerless to prevent it from realizing its aggressive ambitions," Cantor wrote in a letter to Pelosi.
What is next Jane, I mean Nancy?
Pelosi Going to Syria Despite Objections
Mar 30 04:10 PM US/Eastern
By ANNE FLAHERTY
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will visit Syria, a country President Bush has shunned as a sponsor of terrorism, despite being asked by the administration not to go.
"In our view, it is not the right time to have these sort of high- profile visitors to Syria," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters Friday.
Pelosi arrived in Israel on Friday in what is her second fact-finding trip to the Middle East since taking over leadership in the House in January.
Her repeat trip, an indication she plans to play a role in foreign policy, is also a direct affront to the administration, which says such diplomatic overtures by lawmakers can do more harm than good.
Pelosi will not be the first member of Congress in recent months to travel to Syria, but as House speaker she is the most senior.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the speaker "should take a step back and think about the message that it sends."
"This is a county that is a state sponsor of terror, one that is trying to disrupt the Senora government in Lebanon and one that is allowing foreign fighters to flow into Iraq from its borders," Perino said.
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad "probably really wants people to come, and have a photo opportunity, and have tea with him, and have discussions about where they're coming from. But we just think it's a really bad idea," Perino said.
Pelosi's office did not immediately return a call seeking comment on why she was not heeding administration warnings.
U.S. officials held their first direct, high-level contact with Syrian representatives in years when they met in Baghdad this month with officials from several Middle East countries to discuss Iraq.
McCormack said the State Department tried to discourage Pelosi and the others from visiting Syria but agreed to give their staff a pre-trip briefing. The U.S. Embassy in Damascus also is expected to assist the delegation.
Others traveling with Pelosi were Democratic Reps. Keith Ellison of Minnesota, Henry Waxman and Tom Lantos of California, Louise Slaughter of New York and Nick Rahall of West Virginia, and Ohio Republican David Hobson. Ellison is the first Muslim member of Congress.
The House has adjourned for a two-week spring break.
The group planned to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and to travel to the West Bank to meet with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, said Ellison's spokesman, Rick Jauert.
The speaker is expected on Sunday to address the Israeli Knesset, her first address to a foreign government. She will become the highest- ranking American woman to speak before the Israeli parliament, according to her office.
She is expected to discuss "America's commitment to Israel and the challenges facing the two nations in the Middle East," according to a statement.
In late January, Pelosi and a close political ally, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., led a delegation of House members to Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel and other countries.
The January trip to Baghdad came just days after the president asked Congress in his State of the Union address to give his revised war strategy a chance to work. Bush is sending 21,500 additional combat troops, plus thousands of other support troops, to Iraq in a bid to tamp down sectarian attacks and provide enough security to hasten reconstruction efforts.
Pelosi last week forced legislation through the House that would order all combat troops out of Iraq by September 2008, a measure that resembles legislation approved by the Democratic-run Senate.
___
Associated Press writers Frederic J. Frommer, Jennifer Loven and Matthew Lee contributed to this report.
Mar 30 04:10 PM US/Eastern
By ANNE FLAHERTY
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will visit Syria, a country President Bush has shunned as a sponsor of terrorism, despite being asked by the administration not to go.
"In our view, it is not the right time to have these sort of high- profile visitors to Syria," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters Friday.
Pelosi arrived in Israel on Friday in what is her second fact-finding trip to the Middle East since taking over leadership in the House in January.
Her repeat trip, an indication she plans to play a role in foreign policy, is also a direct affront to the administration, which says such diplomatic overtures by lawmakers can do more harm than good.
Pelosi will not be the first member of Congress in recent months to travel to Syria, but as House speaker she is the most senior.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the speaker "should take a step back and think about the message that it sends."
"This is a county that is a state sponsor of terror, one that is trying to disrupt the Senora government in Lebanon and one that is allowing foreign fighters to flow into Iraq from its borders," Perino said.
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad "probably really wants people to come, and have a photo opportunity, and have tea with him, and have discussions about where they're coming from. But we just think it's a really bad idea," Perino said.
Pelosi's office did not immediately return a call seeking comment on why she was not heeding administration warnings.
U.S. officials held their first direct, high-level contact with Syrian representatives in years when they met in Baghdad this month with officials from several Middle East countries to discuss Iraq.
McCormack said the State Department tried to discourage Pelosi and the others from visiting Syria but agreed to give their staff a pre-trip briefing. The U.S. Embassy in Damascus also is expected to assist the delegation.
Others traveling with Pelosi were Democratic Reps. Keith Ellison of Minnesota, Henry Waxman and Tom Lantos of California, Louise Slaughter of New York and Nick Rahall of West Virginia, and Ohio Republican David Hobson. Ellison is the first Muslim member of Congress.
The House has adjourned for a two-week spring break.
The group planned to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and to travel to the West Bank to meet with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, said Ellison's spokesman, Rick Jauert.
The speaker is expected on Sunday to address the Israeli Knesset, her first address to a foreign government. She will become the highest- ranking American woman to speak before the Israeli parliament, according to her office.
She is expected to discuss "America's commitment to Israel and the challenges facing the two nations in the Middle East," according to a statement.
In late January, Pelosi and a close political ally, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., led a delegation of House members to Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel and other countries.
The January trip to Baghdad came just days after the president asked Congress in his State of the Union address to give his revised war strategy a chance to work. Bush is sending 21,500 additional combat troops, plus thousands of other support troops, to Iraq in a bid to tamp down sectarian attacks and provide enough security to hasten reconstruction efforts.
Pelosi last week forced legislation through the House that would order all combat troops out of Iraq by September 2008, a measure that resembles legislation approved by the Democratic-run Senate.
___
Associated Press writers Frederic J. Frommer, Jennifer Loven and Matthew Lee contributed to this report.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Not all private schools created equally
L'Eggo My Lego
By Maureen Martin : 28 Feb 2007
Some Seattle school children are being told to be skeptical of private property rights. This lesson is being taught by banning Legos.
A ban was initiated at the Hilltop Children's Center in Seattle. According to an article in the winter 2006-07 issue of "Rethinking Schools" magazine, the teachers at the private school wanted their students to learn that private property ownership is evil.
According to the article, the students had been building an elaborate "Legotown," but it was accidentally demolished. The teachers decided its destruction was an opportunity to explore "the inequities of private ownership." According to the teachers, "Our intention was to promote a contrasting set of values: collectivity, collaboration, resource-sharing, and full democratic participation."
The children were allegedly incorporating into Legotown "their assumptions about ownership and the social power it conveys." These assumptions "mirrored those of a class-based, capitalist society -- a society that we teachers believe to be unjust and oppressive."
They claimed as their role shaping the children's "social and political understandings of ownership and economic equity ... from a perspective of social justice."
So they first explored with the children the issue of ownership. Not all of the students shared the teachers' anathema to private property ownership. "If I buy it, I own it," one child is quoted saying. The teachers then explored with the students concepts of fairness, equity, power, and other issues over a period of several months.
At the end of that time, Legos returned to the classroom after the children agreed to several guiding principles framed by the teachers, including that "All structures are public structures" and "All structures will be standard sizes." The teachers quote the children:
"A house is good because it is a community house."
"We should have equal houses. They should be standard sizes."
"It's important to have the same amount of power as other people over your building."
Given some recent history in Washington state with respect to private property protections, perhaps this should not come as a surprise. Municipal officials in Washington have long known how to condemn one person's private property and sell it to another for the "public use" of private economic development. Even prior to the U.S. Supreme Court's 2005 ruling in Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut, which sanctioned such a use of eminent domain, Washington state officials acting under their state constitution were already proceeding full speed ahead with such transactions.
Officials in Bremerton, for example, condemned a house where a widow had lived for 55 years so her property could be used for a car lot, according to the Institute for Justice. And Seattle successfully condemned nine properties and turned them over to a private developer for retail shops and hotel parking, IJ reports. Attempts to do the same thing in Vancouver (for mixed use development) and Lakewood (for an amusement park) failed for reasons unrelated to property confiscation issues.
The court's ruling in Kelo, however, whetted municipal condemnation appetites even further. The Institute for Justice reports 272 takings for private use are pending or threatened in the state as of last summer. It's unclear if Legos will be targeted. But given what's being taught in some schools, perhaps it's just a matter of time.
Maureen Martin (martin@heartland.org), an attorney, is senior fellow for legal affairs at The Heartland Institute, a nonprofit organization based in Chicago that promotes free-market solutions to social and economic problems.
By Maureen Martin : 28 Feb 2007
Some Seattle school children are being told to be skeptical of private property rights. This lesson is being taught by banning Legos.
A ban was initiated at the Hilltop Children's Center in Seattle. According to an article in the winter 2006-07 issue of "Rethinking Schools" magazine, the teachers at the private school wanted their students to learn that private property ownership is evil.
According to the article, the students had been building an elaborate "Legotown," but it was accidentally demolished. The teachers decided its destruction was an opportunity to explore "the inequities of private ownership." According to the teachers, "Our intention was to promote a contrasting set of values: collectivity, collaboration, resource-sharing, and full democratic participation."
The children were allegedly incorporating into Legotown "their assumptions about ownership and the social power it conveys." These assumptions "mirrored those of a class-based, capitalist society -- a society that we teachers believe to be unjust and oppressive."
They claimed as their role shaping the children's "social and political understandings of ownership and economic equity ... from a perspective of social justice."
So they first explored with the children the issue of ownership. Not all of the students shared the teachers' anathema to private property ownership. "If I buy it, I own it," one child is quoted saying. The teachers then explored with the students concepts of fairness, equity, power, and other issues over a period of several months.
At the end of that time, Legos returned to the classroom after the children agreed to several guiding principles framed by the teachers, including that "All structures are public structures" and "All structures will be standard sizes." The teachers quote the children:
"A house is good because it is a community house."
"We should have equal houses. They should be standard sizes."
"It's important to have the same amount of power as other people over your building."
Given some recent history in Washington state with respect to private property protections, perhaps this should not come as a surprise. Municipal officials in Washington have long known how to condemn one person's private property and sell it to another for the "public use" of private economic development. Even prior to the U.S. Supreme Court's 2005 ruling in Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut, which sanctioned such a use of eminent domain, Washington state officials acting under their state constitution were already proceeding full speed ahead with such transactions.
Officials in Bremerton, for example, condemned a house where a widow had lived for 55 years so her property could be used for a car lot, according to the Institute for Justice. And Seattle successfully condemned nine properties and turned them over to a private developer for retail shops and hotel parking, IJ reports. Attempts to do the same thing in Vancouver (for mixed use development) and Lakewood (for an amusement park) failed for reasons unrelated to property confiscation issues.
The court's ruling in Kelo, however, whetted municipal condemnation appetites even further. The Institute for Justice reports 272 takings for private use are pending or threatened in the state as of last summer. It's unclear if Legos will be targeted. But given what's being taught in some schools, perhaps it's just a matter of time.
Maureen Martin (martin@heartland.org), an attorney, is senior fellow for legal affairs at The Heartland Institute, a nonprofit organization based in Chicago that promotes free-market solutions to social and economic problems.
Monday, March 05, 2007
Another Vietnam??
Another Vietnam? Bring it on
By Dinesh D'Souza
Monday, March 5, 2007
The Pelosi Democrats in Congress and the leading Democratic presidential contenders all stress that things aren’t going well in Iraq. Yet they all seem quite pleased about this. The real question is whether the Pelosi Democrats and their left-wing allies want America to lose the Iraq war, just as a generation ago liberal Democrats pressed for a humiliating American retreat in Vietnam.
With the Iraq war now in its fourth year, comparisons to Vietnam become inevitable. There was Jane Fonda on the mall at the peace rally recently, invoking the spirit of 1968. Others have been making the Vietnam analogy for some time. Typical is columnist Robert Freeman, who frets that Iraq has become a “quagmire” and is leading to “an outcome perhaps even more calamitous than in Vietnam.” Several senior Democrats have taken up the theme, with Senator Ted Kennedy calling Iraq “George Bush’s Vietnam.”
Actually Iraq is not like Vietnam. America has vital interests in Iraq, unlike in Vietnam. If the Islamic radicals seize Iraq, then they would have control of a second major state, since they already run Iran. Moreover, in Vietnam there were a million men fighting on the other side. In Iraq America faces an insurgency drawing from the Sunni faction that makes up only 20 percent of the population. Despite the ferocity of the enemy and the outbursts of civil strife, America can win in Iraq. And America must win, because the stakes of losing are too high.
But there is a whole political group here in America that is working overtime for America to get out of Iraq in the same ignominious way it retreated from Vietnam. And if America loses in Iraq, I suspect it will be less because of military defeat imposed by the insurgency, and more because of political defeat imposed by the left in this country. The political left, with its powerful allies in the media, and now with its hands on the levers of Congressional power, seems to be waging an undeclared war against Bush’s war on terror. For this group, “another Vietnam” is not a prospect to be feared, but welcomed.
Why? We commonly hear that America lost the Vietnam War, and this is true, but it is not true of the political left. The left won the Vietnam War. It won in the sense that it wanted America to withdraw and accept humiliation, and America withdrew and accepted humiliation. The result was very bad for the Indochinese, who suffered a Communist bloodbath in the aftermath of the U.S. withdrawal. At the same time, the result was extremely beneficial for the political left.
Withdrawal from Vietnam was a devastating blow for America’s pride and self-confidence, and inhibited direct American military intervention abroad for a generation. This was exactly what leading leftists wanted, and they got it. Moreover, a whole generation of liberal Democrats—the so-called Class of ’74—were swept into Congress, and some of them are still in office, such as Chris Dodd, Tom Harkin and George Miller. The Nixon presidency was further crippled, and the groundwork was laid for Carter’s election in 1976.
In addition, the antiwar movement generated by opposition to the Vietnam war greatly fortified other social movements that were gathering momentum at the time, such as the women’s rights and the gay rights movements. Without Vietnam, would the sexual revolution have exploded in the way that it did? It seems doubtful. Vietnam was the main reason for the counterculture of the 1960s, which may have developed anyway but would have been a much weaker force without this galvanizing cause. In sum, Vietnam was for the left not only a foreign policy success but also a political success and a cultural success.
One possible objection to the idea that the left wants another Vietnam is the results were not an unqualified triumph for American liberalism. Historians point out that the legacy of Vietnam produced a political backlash that helped Reagan get elected in 1980. The whole conservative ascendancy of the past generation is partly a product of this backlash. Even so, the left during the Vietnam era was able to make permanent changes in American society. Gender relations were transformed. Homosexuals came out of the closet. Abortion on demand became not only legal but interwoven with the lives of millions of Americans. Even now, a quarter of a century later, conservatives can only hope to moderate, but not reverse, these sweeping changes. The left paid a political price for these victories, but it was worth it.
A second possible objection to the theory that the left wants Vietnam-style defeat in Iraq is that the Islamic radicals are the most illiberal force in the world. The Vietnamese Communists, like Communists in the Soviet Union and elsewhere, at least appealed to liberal principles such as social egalitarianism and workers’ rights. So one might understand how American leftists in the 1960s and 1970s might feel sympathetic toward their cause and view America as the enemy. By contrast, the argument goes, the Islamic radicals who are likely to benefit from America’s defeat in Iraq are resolute enemies of feminism, gay rights, civil liberties, and all the social causes that are a top priority on the left.
Yes, but it is precisely in the name of these causes that several figures on the left want the Islamic radicals to win, and Bush to lose, the war on terror. If you listen carefully to the rhetoric of leading leftists, you discover that they dislike Bin Laden and the Islamic radicals but they hate Bush and his conservative allies. Bin Laden to them is the “far enemy” but Bush is the “near enemy.” From their point of view, Bin Laden’s radicals want sharia in Baghdad but Bush’s religious and political supporters wants sharia in Boston. It is Bush, not Bin Laden, who threatens with one more Supreme Court appointment to jeopardize the left’s hard-won social victories of the past generation.
For this reason, the left is pursuing the strategy of the lesser evil. The left cannot publicly say this, but it is willing to work with the bad guy in order to get rid of the worse guy. The left and its allies in the press seem quite ready to risk an Islamic radical takeover in Iraq as long as it also produces the greater political good of destroying Bush and his conservative allies in America. If Bush is defeated in Iraq he could go down in history with a reputation as bad as Nixon’s and conservative foreign policy could be set back for another generation. Some on the left may be quite willing to give up the whole Middle East for this.
So far Bush and the right are fighting two wars, a military fight over there and a political war over here. So far the conservatives seem utterly ignorant of what they are up against. Conservatives continue their strenuous efforts to convince liberals and leftists that the Islamic radicals don’t like Hillary Clinton and Barney Frank. News flash to the right: the left already knows this. Conservatives also keep saying the liberal Democrats don’t have a foreign policy. But they do, and it’s the same strategy that Jane Fonda used a generation ago: to work with the enemy abroad in order to defeat the enemy at home.
Dinesh D'Souza's new book The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11 has just been published by Doubleday. D’Souza is the Rishwain Fellow at the Hoover Institution.
By Dinesh D'Souza
Monday, March 5, 2007
The Pelosi Democrats in Congress and the leading Democratic presidential contenders all stress that things aren’t going well in Iraq. Yet they all seem quite pleased about this. The real question is whether the Pelosi Democrats and their left-wing allies want America to lose the Iraq war, just as a generation ago liberal Democrats pressed for a humiliating American retreat in Vietnam.
With the Iraq war now in its fourth year, comparisons to Vietnam become inevitable. There was Jane Fonda on the mall at the peace rally recently, invoking the spirit of 1968. Others have been making the Vietnam analogy for some time. Typical is columnist Robert Freeman, who frets that Iraq has become a “quagmire” and is leading to “an outcome perhaps even more calamitous than in Vietnam.” Several senior Democrats have taken up the theme, with Senator Ted Kennedy calling Iraq “George Bush’s Vietnam.”
Actually Iraq is not like Vietnam. America has vital interests in Iraq, unlike in Vietnam. If the Islamic radicals seize Iraq, then they would have control of a second major state, since they already run Iran. Moreover, in Vietnam there were a million men fighting on the other side. In Iraq America faces an insurgency drawing from the Sunni faction that makes up only 20 percent of the population. Despite the ferocity of the enemy and the outbursts of civil strife, America can win in Iraq. And America must win, because the stakes of losing are too high.
But there is a whole political group here in America that is working overtime for America to get out of Iraq in the same ignominious way it retreated from Vietnam. And if America loses in Iraq, I suspect it will be less because of military defeat imposed by the insurgency, and more because of political defeat imposed by the left in this country. The political left, with its powerful allies in the media, and now with its hands on the levers of Congressional power, seems to be waging an undeclared war against Bush’s war on terror. For this group, “another Vietnam” is not a prospect to be feared, but welcomed.
Why? We commonly hear that America lost the Vietnam War, and this is true, but it is not true of the political left. The left won the Vietnam War. It won in the sense that it wanted America to withdraw and accept humiliation, and America withdrew and accepted humiliation. The result was very bad for the Indochinese, who suffered a Communist bloodbath in the aftermath of the U.S. withdrawal. At the same time, the result was extremely beneficial for the political left.
Withdrawal from Vietnam was a devastating blow for America’s pride and self-confidence, and inhibited direct American military intervention abroad for a generation. This was exactly what leading leftists wanted, and they got it. Moreover, a whole generation of liberal Democrats—the so-called Class of ’74—were swept into Congress, and some of them are still in office, such as Chris Dodd, Tom Harkin and George Miller. The Nixon presidency was further crippled, and the groundwork was laid for Carter’s election in 1976.
In addition, the antiwar movement generated by opposition to the Vietnam war greatly fortified other social movements that were gathering momentum at the time, such as the women’s rights and the gay rights movements. Without Vietnam, would the sexual revolution have exploded in the way that it did? It seems doubtful. Vietnam was the main reason for the counterculture of the 1960s, which may have developed anyway but would have been a much weaker force without this galvanizing cause. In sum, Vietnam was for the left not only a foreign policy success but also a political success and a cultural success.
One possible objection to the idea that the left wants another Vietnam is the results were not an unqualified triumph for American liberalism. Historians point out that the legacy of Vietnam produced a political backlash that helped Reagan get elected in 1980. The whole conservative ascendancy of the past generation is partly a product of this backlash. Even so, the left during the Vietnam era was able to make permanent changes in American society. Gender relations were transformed. Homosexuals came out of the closet. Abortion on demand became not only legal but interwoven with the lives of millions of Americans. Even now, a quarter of a century later, conservatives can only hope to moderate, but not reverse, these sweeping changes. The left paid a political price for these victories, but it was worth it.
A second possible objection to the theory that the left wants Vietnam-style defeat in Iraq is that the Islamic radicals are the most illiberal force in the world. The Vietnamese Communists, like Communists in the Soviet Union and elsewhere, at least appealed to liberal principles such as social egalitarianism and workers’ rights. So one might understand how American leftists in the 1960s and 1970s might feel sympathetic toward their cause and view America as the enemy. By contrast, the argument goes, the Islamic radicals who are likely to benefit from America’s defeat in Iraq are resolute enemies of feminism, gay rights, civil liberties, and all the social causes that are a top priority on the left.
Yes, but it is precisely in the name of these causes that several figures on the left want the Islamic radicals to win, and Bush to lose, the war on terror. If you listen carefully to the rhetoric of leading leftists, you discover that they dislike Bin Laden and the Islamic radicals but they hate Bush and his conservative allies. Bin Laden to them is the “far enemy” but Bush is the “near enemy.” From their point of view, Bin Laden’s radicals want sharia in Baghdad but Bush’s religious and political supporters wants sharia in Boston. It is Bush, not Bin Laden, who threatens with one more Supreme Court appointment to jeopardize the left’s hard-won social victories of the past generation.
For this reason, the left is pursuing the strategy of the lesser evil. The left cannot publicly say this, but it is willing to work with the bad guy in order to get rid of the worse guy. The left and its allies in the press seem quite ready to risk an Islamic radical takeover in Iraq as long as it also produces the greater political good of destroying Bush and his conservative allies in America. If Bush is defeated in Iraq he could go down in history with a reputation as bad as Nixon’s and conservative foreign policy could be set back for another generation. Some on the left may be quite willing to give up the whole Middle East for this.
So far Bush and the right are fighting two wars, a military fight over there and a political war over here. So far the conservatives seem utterly ignorant of what they are up against. Conservatives continue their strenuous efforts to convince liberals and leftists that the Islamic radicals don’t like Hillary Clinton and Barney Frank. News flash to the right: the left already knows this. Conservatives also keep saying the liberal Democrats don’t have a foreign policy. But they do, and it’s the same strategy that Jane Fonda used a generation ago: to work with the enemy abroad in order to defeat the enemy at home.
Dinesh D'Souza's new book The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11 has just been published by Doubleday. D’Souza is the Rishwain Fellow at the Hoover Institution.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Throwing our border guards to the lions
How serious are we in border patrol & the losing war on drugs? I hope to hear more about this case.
We need compassion for our border guards
By Phyllis Schlafly
Monday, January 1, 2007
President George W. Bush pardoned 16 criminals including five drug dealers at Christmastime, but so far has refused to pardon the two U.S. Border Patrol agents who were trying to defend Americans against drug smugglers. It makes us wonder which side the self-proclaimed "compassionate" president is on.
Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean were guarding the Mexican border near El Paso, Texas, on Feb. 17, 2005, when they intercepted a van carrying 743 pounds of marijuana. For what happened next, they were convicted and sentenced under a statute that was designed to impose heavy punishment on criminal drug smugglers caught in the commission of a crime.
A U.S. Border Patrol agent patrols along the fence line of the U.S.-Mexico border in Nogales, Ariz., on Thursday, April 6, 2006. Lawmakers in Washington are debating immigration reform measures. Arrests of illegal migrants along the U.S.-Mexican border have dropped by more than a third since U.S. National Guard troops started helping with border security, suggesting that fewer people may be trying to cross. "The presence of the National Guard has had a big impact on migrants," he told The Associated Press on Tuesday Dec. 26, 2006. (AP Photo/Khampha Bouaphanh)
The two agents are scheduled to start 11-year and 12-year prison terms, respectively, on Jan. 17, for the crime of putting one bullet in the buttocks of the admitted drug smuggler, Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, and failing to report the discharge of their firearms. The nonfatal bullet didn't stop the smuggler from running to escape in a van waiting for him on the Mexican side of the border.
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., called the two agents heroes. "Because of their actions, more than a million dollars in illegal drugs were stopped from being sold to our children. Bringing felony charges against them is a travesty of justice beyond description."
The White House and the U.S. Department of Justice are stonewalling requests for a presidential pardon from 55 members of Congress and U.S. citizens who have sent at least 160,000 petitions and 15,000 faxes. When the Bush administration deigns to respond at all, the official line is that the Border Patrol agents got a fair trial.
But that's not true; they didn't get a fair trial. They were convicted because the Justice Department sent investigators into Mexico, tracked down the drug smuggler, and gave him immunity from all prosecution for his drug smuggling crimes if he would please come back and testify against Ramos and Compean.
It was massively unfair to give immunity to an illegal alien narcotics trafficker while destroying the lives and families of two Border Patrol agents who risked their lives to stop him. Ramos and Compean were convicted mainly on the testimony of the immunity-sheltered drug smuggler, whose integrity should have been called into question, but Ramos and Compean were forbidden to do that during the trial.
The prosecutor even tried to get Ramos and Compean convicted of attempted murder! The jury acquitted them of that outlandish charge, but the government still asked for a sentence of 20 years for the other counts on which they were convicted.
How did the prosecution go from an administrative violation for failing to report a firearm discharge, with the penalty of perhaps a five-day suspension, to prosecution for intent to commit murder?
After the trial, two jurors gave sworn statements that they had been pressured to render a guilty verdict and did not understand that a hung jury was possible. A major argument used by the prosecution during the trial was that our government has a policy forbidding agents from chasing suspected drug smugglers without first getting permission from supervisors. That sounds like a no-arrest policy. By the time an agent gets permission, a smuggler can be out of sight and safely back over the border.
There were a couple of factual discrepancies between the smuggler's story and the agents' testimony, but the government chose to believe the drug smuggler rather than Border Patrol agents with clean records. Ramos was nominated for Border Patrol Agent of the year in 2005, and Compean served honorably in the Navy before joining the Border Patrol.
The Bush administration tidied up Aldrete's wound at a U.S. hospital at our expense and opened the way for him to sue the U.S. government for $5 million for violating his civil rights, which he is now doing.
This case exposes the misplaced priorities of the Bush administration. The case also reminds us that our Border Patrol agents are in daily danger from hardened criminals.
The Department of Homeland Security issued this Officer Safety Alert on Dec. 21, 2005: "Unidentified Mexican alien smugglers ... have agreed that the best way to deal with U.S. Border Patrol agents is to hire a group of contract killers." The alert cautions that to perform the killings, the smugglers intend to use the Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) street gang, known for its unspeakable atrocities and torture.
T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council. said: "There is a palpable sense of outrage and betrayal. Here, you have five convicted drug dealers being pardoned, and two Border Patrol agents, who were doing their job, fighting the war on drugs on the front lines, and they're going to prison." This case is a test of George Bush's character, compassion, and concern for drugs coming across our border. He can't duck responsibility: the prosecutor, U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, and the judge, Kathleen Cardone, are both Bush appointees.
We need compassion for our border guards
By Phyllis Schlafly
Monday, January 1, 2007
President George W. Bush pardoned 16 criminals including five drug dealers at Christmastime, but so far has refused to pardon the two U.S. Border Patrol agents who were trying to defend Americans against drug smugglers. It makes us wonder which side the self-proclaimed "compassionate" president is on.
Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean were guarding the Mexican border near El Paso, Texas, on Feb. 17, 2005, when they intercepted a van carrying 743 pounds of marijuana. For what happened next, they were convicted and sentenced under a statute that was designed to impose heavy punishment on criminal drug smugglers caught in the commission of a crime.
A U.S. Border Patrol agent patrols along the fence line of the U.S.-Mexico border in Nogales, Ariz., on Thursday, April 6, 2006. Lawmakers in Washington are debating immigration reform measures. Arrests of illegal migrants along the U.S.-Mexican border have dropped by more than a third since U.S. National Guard troops started helping with border security, suggesting that fewer people may be trying to cross. "The presence of the National Guard has had a big impact on migrants," he told The Associated Press on Tuesday Dec. 26, 2006. (AP Photo/Khampha Bouaphanh)
The two agents are scheduled to start 11-year and 12-year prison terms, respectively, on Jan. 17, for the crime of putting one bullet in the buttocks of the admitted drug smuggler, Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, and failing to report the discharge of their firearms. The nonfatal bullet didn't stop the smuggler from running to escape in a van waiting for him on the Mexican side of the border.
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., called the two agents heroes. "Because of their actions, more than a million dollars in illegal drugs were stopped from being sold to our children. Bringing felony charges against them is a travesty of justice beyond description."
The White House and the U.S. Department of Justice are stonewalling requests for a presidential pardon from 55 members of Congress and U.S. citizens who have sent at least 160,000 petitions and 15,000 faxes. When the Bush administration deigns to respond at all, the official line is that the Border Patrol agents got a fair trial.
But that's not true; they didn't get a fair trial. They were convicted because the Justice Department sent investigators into Mexico, tracked down the drug smuggler, and gave him immunity from all prosecution for his drug smuggling crimes if he would please come back and testify against Ramos and Compean.
It was massively unfair to give immunity to an illegal alien narcotics trafficker while destroying the lives and families of two Border Patrol agents who risked their lives to stop him. Ramos and Compean were convicted mainly on the testimony of the immunity-sheltered drug smuggler, whose integrity should have been called into question, but Ramos and Compean were forbidden to do that during the trial.
The prosecutor even tried to get Ramos and Compean convicted of attempted murder! The jury acquitted them of that outlandish charge, but the government still asked for a sentence of 20 years for the other counts on which they were convicted.
How did the prosecution go from an administrative violation for failing to report a firearm discharge, with the penalty of perhaps a five-day suspension, to prosecution for intent to commit murder?
After the trial, two jurors gave sworn statements that they had been pressured to render a guilty verdict and did not understand that a hung jury was possible. A major argument used by the prosecution during the trial was that our government has a policy forbidding agents from chasing suspected drug smugglers without first getting permission from supervisors. That sounds like a no-arrest policy. By the time an agent gets permission, a smuggler can be out of sight and safely back over the border.
There were a couple of factual discrepancies between the smuggler's story and the agents' testimony, but the government chose to believe the drug smuggler rather than Border Patrol agents with clean records. Ramos was nominated for Border Patrol Agent of the year in 2005, and Compean served honorably in the Navy before joining the Border Patrol.
The Bush administration tidied up Aldrete's wound at a U.S. hospital at our expense and opened the way for him to sue the U.S. government for $5 million for violating his civil rights, which he is now doing.
This case exposes the misplaced priorities of the Bush administration. The case also reminds us that our Border Patrol agents are in daily danger from hardened criminals.
The Department of Homeland Security issued this Officer Safety Alert on Dec. 21, 2005: "Unidentified Mexican alien smugglers ... have agreed that the best way to deal with U.S. Border Patrol agents is to hire a group of contract killers." The alert cautions that to perform the killings, the smugglers intend to use the Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) street gang, known for its unspeakable atrocities and torture.
T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council. said: "There is a palpable sense of outrage and betrayal. Here, you have five convicted drug dealers being pardoned, and two Border Patrol agents, who were doing their job, fighting the war on drugs on the front lines, and they're going to prison." This case is a test of George Bush's character, compassion, and concern for drugs coming across our border. He can't duck responsibility: the prosecutor, U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, and the judge, Kathleen Cardone, are both Bush appointees.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
The Top Ten Cigars of 2006
The Top Ten Cigars of 2006
By Mike S. Adams
Monday, January 1, 2007
The other day, one of my readers asked “Why do you have to be so political and controversial in every column? Why can’t you just relax?” Well, those are good questions. And maybe they’re best answered with a non-political column on my favorite cigars of 2006 – a column written for my fellow cigar-smoking friend Dennis Prager. And, since I’m not being political, this is also for my favorite fat lesbian Rosie O’Donnell.
(Author’s Note: This column was sponsored, in part, by Donald Trump Enterprises, which has since filed for bankruptcy after an unsuccessful suit for sexual hair-assment against the producers of “The View,” a once-popular daytime talk show for recovering alcoholics).
10. Don Lino Africa by La Aurora. This 6 ½ - inch, 58- ring monster is among the more attractive cigars on my list. The dark and veiny wrapper gives a distinct coffee flavor to an otherwise earthy cigar. Few cigars I characterize as “earthy” make my annual Top Ten. But this one has too fine a burn, too nice a draw, and too powerful a punch not to merit inclusion.
9. La Flor Dominica Double Ligero DL-700. Measuring over 6 inches in length with a ring gauge of 60, this one will keep you occupied for a couple of hours. This is a rich medium to full-bodied cigar dominated by a coffee flavor. It is also slightly nutty with a good, firm draw. Several of my friends have placed this cigar in their year-end Top Five.
8. Saint Luis Rey Reserva Especial Belicoso. This is by far the best bargain on my list. I get these cigars for $3.30 a piece from my buddy Steve Gimello at Brooklynn Cigars in Wilmington, N.C. (http://www.brookelynncigars.com/). At just over 6 inches, this 52-ring cigar is just the right size. It has a fantastic draw and burn with a dominant chocolate flavor. Creamy vanilla notes add to the flavor of this excellent medium to full-bodied cigar.
7. Sancho Panza Extra Fuerte Cadiz. This is a complex cigar – one I’ve heard described as woody, earthy, nutty, and leathery. I’ve detected coffee and chocolate flavors, too. After you smoke this medium-bodied 6 1/8-inch by 54-ring Virgin Sun Grown gem, write me at www.DrAdams.org to tell me how it tasted to you.
6. Oliva “O” Churchill Maduro. I’ve recommended this powerful 7 by 50 Nicaraguan before. But beware of the new packaging. The cloth cigar ring is gone - replaced with a standard paper ring – but it is still the same potent, full-bodied, after dinner smoke.
5. The Coronado by La Flor. This cigar comes in a 50, a 54, and a 60-ring version, all of which are seven inches long. I prefer the 54-ring but all are wonderful smokes.
Beware: This is a very powerful smoke. But the earthy flavor is complimented by a wonderfully rich and cedary finish that some will find to be the ideal combination in a full-bodied cigar.
4. The Edge Corojo by Rocky Patel. This 6 ¼ – inch, 52-ring cigar caused me to stop reading the cigar ratings in Cigar Aficionado. To call this cigar “grassy,” their raters must have smoked it right after putting down a crack pipe. Just after this spicy, potent cigar gets going, it begins to take on a sweet, hardwood flavor. Warning: It is potent, hence the name “The Edge.”
3. The Chisel Double Ligero Maduro by La Flor Dominica. This is the best tasting, most potent maduro I’ve ever smoked. It is best to use a “V” cutter on this 6-inch by 54-ring beauty – but not before operating any heavy machinery.
2. Rocky Patel Virgin Sun Grown Torpedo. I think every man deserves 72 of these virgin sun grown cigars when he gets to heaven. It is a rich, cedary, medium bodied cigar with a unique and tangy finish. This 6 by 52 gem just keeps getting better with every puff. I’ve burned my fingertips many a time on this wonderful cigar. I was hard pressed to keep this one out of the #1 slot.
1. The Chisel Double Ligero Natural by La Flor Dominica. Given my love of corojos, maduros, and virgin sun growns, it is really quite shocking that my #1 pick for 2006 is a cigar with a natural wrapper. Nonetheless, this is the best tasting cigar I’ve ever smoked. I’ve singed by eyebrows many a time sniffing the wrapper of this rich, cedary 6 by 54 beauty. The slightly spicy taste adds complexity to the finest fell-bodied smoke that money can buy. The communists in Cuba could never match the perfection found in this fine Dominican figurado.
Now that we’re done, could someone please pass the “V” cutter? It’s right next to my copy of The Satanic Verses.
By Mike S. Adams
Monday, January 1, 2007
The other day, one of my readers asked “Why do you have to be so political and controversial in every column? Why can’t you just relax?” Well, those are good questions. And maybe they’re best answered with a non-political column on my favorite cigars of 2006 – a column written for my fellow cigar-smoking friend Dennis Prager. And, since I’m not being political, this is also for my favorite fat lesbian Rosie O’Donnell.
(Author’s Note: This column was sponsored, in part, by Donald Trump Enterprises, which has since filed for bankruptcy after an unsuccessful suit for sexual hair-assment against the producers of “The View,” a once-popular daytime talk show for recovering alcoholics).
10. Don Lino Africa by La Aurora. This 6 ½ - inch, 58- ring monster is among the more attractive cigars on my list. The dark and veiny wrapper gives a distinct coffee flavor to an otherwise earthy cigar. Few cigars I characterize as “earthy” make my annual Top Ten. But this one has too fine a burn, too nice a draw, and too powerful a punch not to merit inclusion.
9. La Flor Dominica Double Ligero DL-700. Measuring over 6 inches in length with a ring gauge of 60, this one will keep you occupied for a couple of hours. This is a rich medium to full-bodied cigar dominated by a coffee flavor. It is also slightly nutty with a good, firm draw. Several of my friends have placed this cigar in their year-end Top Five.
8. Saint Luis Rey Reserva Especial Belicoso. This is by far the best bargain on my list. I get these cigars for $3.30 a piece from my buddy Steve Gimello at Brooklynn Cigars in Wilmington, N.C. (http://www.brookelynncigars.com/). At just over 6 inches, this 52-ring cigar is just the right size. It has a fantastic draw and burn with a dominant chocolate flavor. Creamy vanilla notes add to the flavor of this excellent medium to full-bodied cigar.
7. Sancho Panza Extra Fuerte Cadiz. This is a complex cigar – one I’ve heard described as woody, earthy, nutty, and leathery. I’ve detected coffee and chocolate flavors, too. After you smoke this medium-bodied 6 1/8-inch by 54-ring Virgin Sun Grown gem, write me at www.DrAdams.org to tell me how it tasted to you.
6. Oliva “O” Churchill Maduro. I’ve recommended this powerful 7 by 50 Nicaraguan before. But beware of the new packaging. The cloth cigar ring is gone - replaced with a standard paper ring – but it is still the same potent, full-bodied, after dinner smoke.
5. The Coronado by La Flor. This cigar comes in a 50, a 54, and a 60-ring version, all of which are seven inches long. I prefer the 54-ring but all are wonderful smokes.
Beware: This is a very powerful smoke. But the earthy flavor is complimented by a wonderfully rich and cedary finish that some will find to be the ideal combination in a full-bodied cigar.
4. The Edge Corojo by Rocky Patel. This 6 ¼ – inch, 52-ring cigar caused me to stop reading the cigar ratings in Cigar Aficionado. To call this cigar “grassy,” their raters must have smoked it right after putting down a crack pipe. Just after this spicy, potent cigar gets going, it begins to take on a sweet, hardwood flavor. Warning: It is potent, hence the name “The Edge.”
3. The Chisel Double Ligero Maduro by La Flor Dominica. This is the best tasting, most potent maduro I’ve ever smoked. It is best to use a “V” cutter on this 6-inch by 54-ring beauty – but not before operating any heavy machinery.
2. Rocky Patel Virgin Sun Grown Torpedo. I think every man deserves 72 of these virgin sun grown cigars when he gets to heaven. It is a rich, cedary, medium bodied cigar with a unique and tangy finish. This 6 by 52 gem just keeps getting better with every puff. I’ve burned my fingertips many a time on this wonderful cigar. I was hard pressed to keep this one out of the #1 slot.
1. The Chisel Double Ligero Natural by La Flor Dominica. Given my love of corojos, maduros, and virgin sun growns, it is really quite shocking that my #1 pick for 2006 is a cigar with a natural wrapper. Nonetheless, this is the best tasting cigar I’ve ever smoked. I’ve singed by eyebrows many a time sniffing the wrapper of this rich, cedary 6 by 54 beauty. The slightly spicy taste adds complexity to the finest fell-bodied smoke that money can buy. The communists in Cuba could never match the perfection found in this fine Dominican figurado.
Now that we’re done, could someone please pass the “V” cutter? It’s right next to my copy of The Satanic Verses.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
