Archive for Politics

At a Certain Point, You’ve Made Enough Money

There goes Obama again, bashing the Clintons:

The Clintons’ annual income easily puts them in the top 1% of Americans. But they may have reached the top 1% of the top 1%, according to publicly disclosed income data.

As we reported recently, according to their 2012 income disclosed in government forms, the Clintons made at least $16.7 million in income that year, largely from Bill Clinton‘s speeches. That total is based on income disclosed in forms that provide income ranges, and the $16.7 million total uses the minimum amount from each stated range.

The nationwide level to make the top 1% of households in 2012 was $567,719, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute. And the level for the top 0.1% was about $2.9 million, a bar the Clintons easily surpassed.

The Tax Policy Center data stop there, at the top 0.1% — or the top 10% of the top 1% of Americans.

Did the Clintons reach the top 1% of the top 1%, based on their 2012 income? A different measure offers a strong clue. The Tax Policy Center says that IRS data for 2011, the most recent numbers available, show 11,500 total tax returns with adjusted gross income over $10 million that year, out of 145 million total returns. So a $10 million adjusted gross income puts one in the top 0.007% of all tax returns, and the Clintons’ income was well above that — likely putting it into the top 1% of the 1%.

Not bad for a couple who left office “dead broke”. Horatio Alger smiles down approvingly.

But not everyone does:

You are truly well-off by anyone’s definition of the term. And hard work is the guys tearing up my roof right now. It’s not flying by private jet to pick up a check for $200,000 to stand at a podium for an hour.

Which gets me to the second set of issues: how you’re continuing to ­vacuum up the money, and the aura of greediness it exudes. Madam Secretary, enough already. This behavior borders on compulsion, like refugees who once were starved and now hoard food. You’re rich beyond your wildest imaginings! You don’t need any more! Just. Stop. Speaking. For. Pay.

In the midst of a book tour (and with the ample cushion of a multimillion-dollar advance), you don’t need to be hustling for another $200,000 or so from the United Fresh Produce Association and Food Marketing Institute. On the verge of a potential presidential bid, please feel free to say yes to the University of Nevada at Las Vegas if you want to speak there. But you don’t have to hit its foundation up for a $225,000 fee, even one you plan to donate to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

What an effed-up world. The Clintons should be free to part fools from their money, and fools should be free to be parted from it for the “privilege” of hearing from them. Hillary should be free to run for President, and people should be free to vote for her (or not). There is no inherent value in poverty and no vice in wealth. It is for no one else to decide when you’ve made “enough money”.

And then there’s politics, where only appearance matters. It’s easy to see how Hillary’s “inartful” language hurst her politically. But hasn’t it always? Think of her comments over the years. On Bill’s affairs, she wasn’t “some little woman standing by her man like Tammy Wynette.”

On her life in public: “I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas…”.

On Bill’s candidacy, “Elect him, you get me.”

More on Bill’s affairs: “The great story here for anybody willing to find it, write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president.”

On partisanship in politics: “I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic, and we should stand up and say, ‘We are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration!’”

On her friends across the aisle: “I wonder if it’s possible to be a Republican and a Christian at the same time.”

On her trip to Bosnia: “I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base…. There was no greeting ceremony and we were basically told to run to our cars. That is what happened.”

On the passing of Moammar Qaddafi: “We came, we saw, he died.”

On the passing of Chris Stevens, Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods, and Sean Smith: “What difference at this point does it make?”

It’s no wonder she’s mangled her book tour so completely. When it comes to politics, she’s deaf, dumb, and blind. And rich as Croesus, God bless her.

PS: Of course, my favorite Hillary Clinton quote is someone else’s. But it proves the same point:

Comments

Who Said It?

Oprah or Hillary?

Let’s play!

The thing with Obama is that he can’t be bothered and there is no hand on the tiller half the time. That’s the story of the Obama presidency. No hand on the f***ing tiller.

Obama has turned into a joke.

You can’t trust the motherf***er.

His word isn’t worth sh*t.

[E]ven when the Obamas think they are being charming, they hold you at arm’s length.

It slowly dawned on [her] that the Obamas had absolutely no intention of keeping their word and bringing her into their confidence. [... She] was hurt and angry and will never make up with the Obamas. [...] She knows how to hold a grudge.

Does it really matter? Either one said them all, according to Edward Klein’s new book.

Except for this. Bill said this:

I hate that man Obama more than any man I’ve ever met, more than any man who ever lived.

A rare moment of truth from 42.

Comments (1)

Conservatives Are Bad, But Did You Know We Were This Bad?

A little background, helpfully provided by James Taranto:

One explanation for this phenomenon comes from social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, author of “The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion.” Todd Zywicki, coincidentally on the same day Cuomo made his remark, summed up the relevant finding in a Volokh Conspiracy post:

Haidt reports on the following experiment: after determining whether someone is liberal or conservative, he then has each person answer the standard battery of questions as if he were the opposite ideology. So, he would ask a liberal to answer the questions as if he were a “typical conservative” and vice-versa. What he finds is quite striking: “The results were clear and consistent. Moderates and conservatives were most accurate in their predictions, whether they were pretending to be liberals or conservatives. Liberals were the least accurate, especially those who describe themselves as ‘very liberal.’ The biggest errors in the whole study came when liberals answered the Care and Fairness questions while pretending to be conservatives.” In other words, moderates and conservatives can understand the liberal worldview and liberals are unable to relate to the conservative worldview, especially when it comes to questions of care and fairness.

In short, Haidt’s research suggests that many liberals really do believe that conservatives are heartless bastards–or as a friend of mine once remarked, “Conservatives think that liberals are good people with bad ideas, whereas liberals think conservatives are bad people”–and very liberal people think that especially strongly. Haidt suggests that there is some truth to this.

How often have we said this ourselves? (Other than all the time?) It helps me, anyway, to have been a liberal for many years myself. I know the thought processes (to be generous), the denial, the sacrifice of reality for dogma. I consider my liberal self to be an unfinished version of my better self. I’m still not finished, mind you, nothing so smug and self-satisfied as that, but I could never go back—and it would be back—to modern American/Western liberalism.

But let’s look at a few less evolved people, shall we? Taranto names two:

[Mayor Bill] de Blasio launched an attack, or rather reinforced one, on a minority he can afford to alienate. Breitbart.com’s Kerry Picket reports the mayor “emphatically backed New [York] Governor Andrew Cuomo’s controversial remarks that ‘extreme’ conservatives . . . ‘have no place in the state of New York.’ ”

“I stand by that 100%,” said the mayor.

[Cuomo said:] “Right to life, pro-assault weapons, anti-gay–if that’s who they are, they have no place in the state of New York because that’s not who New Yorkers are.”

Cuomo’s statement was a gaffe, though one suspects it was a Kinsley gaffe, an inadvertent disclosure of his true feelings. De Blasio’s endorsement of it, by contrast, was unquestionably purposeful. “I agree with Gov. Cuomo’s remarks,” he said. “I interpret his remarks to say that an extremist attitude that continues the reality of violence in our communities or an extremist attitude that denies the rights of women does not represent the views of New York state.”

These were no pissant pipsqueaks, but the Mayor and Governor of New York City and State. Conservatives are not only demonized (anti-gay, pro assault weapons, holders of “extremist attitudes” that perpetuate violence and subjugate women), but as such, they cannot live among decent people. Would you want to live next to Charles Manson?

But Cuomo and de Blasio are pissant pipsqueaks next to the President of the United States:

“There’s no doubt that there’s some folks who just really dislike me because they don’t like the idea of a black president.”

Says the recently reelected Barack Obama. America as a whole seems to like the idea of a black president. Or, to give America more credit than it deserves, it likes the idea of Barack Obama as president. (He wasn’t the first black candidate, just the first successful black candidate.) Still, there’s no denying that his race (the black half) was more responsible than anything else in putting him on the political map. Just about every white supporter I know has said it.

Even Obama acknowledges it:

“Now, the flip side of it is there are some black folks and maybe some white folks who really like me and give me the benefit of the doubt precisely because I’m a black president,”

Maybe? Did you think it was your effervescent personality? Your sharp wit? Your uncanny ability at bird calls? “Maybe some white folks…” No [bleep], Sherlock.

And you know who it is poisoning the minds of those “folks” who don’t like him. Why, none other than:

“Another way of putting it, I guess, is that the issue has been the inability of my message to penetrate the Republican base so that they feel persuaded that I’m not the caricature that you see on Fox News or Rush Limbaugh, but I’m somebody who is interested in solving problems and is pretty practical, and that, actually, a lot of the things that we’ve put in place worked better than people might think. And as long as there’s that gap between perceptions of me within the average Republican primary voter and the reality, it’s hard for folks like John Boehner to move too far in my direction.”

Got that, “average Republican primary voter”? (Is that a synonym for “typical white person”? A cousin of a “bitter clinger” to guns and religion?) You don’t see “reality”, but a shucking and jiving “caricature” depicted by Rush Limbaugh (pbuh) and Roger Ailes. Maybe you’re not so bad, after all. Just incredibly stupid. So there’s hope.

Oh wait. Maybe not:

RUSH: … So yesterday the New Yorker releases more pages from their interview with Obama in which Obama blames me and Fox News for the fact that he is not as popular as he used to be.

And then later that same day, Chuck-U Schumer heads out to the Center for American Progress to make a speech, and he mentioned me and Fox News five times. Here’s the first…

SCHUMER: What gives this group such undue power? The power of the message machine led by Fox News, the Drudge Report, and the Rush Limbaughs that can broadcast the same exaggerated and even false messages instantaneously are all means that the Tea Party has used to gain ascendancy.

The underlying unrest that allowed the movement to ascend can be found in economic as well as cultural and social forces that in combination have greatly unsettled the American psyche. The first and most important phenomena is a phenomena that Democrats have recently begun to address, the decline in middle class incomes. When the Tea Party elite came in and said, “Government is your problem,” we didn’t say, no, it’s part of the solution. The American people became frustrated, sour, and angry, and the Tea Party elites, unchallenged, tapped into that anger with their pied piper solutions.

Tea Party “elites”? Tea Party “ascendancy”? Who? Since when? Barack Obama is still president, Harry Reid still runs the Senate, and John Boehner, Republican, hates the Tea Party more than both of them put together!

Schumer is just making [bleep] up! And he wasn’t done:

SCHUMER: These people are wealthy, hard right, narrow, people who don’t want to pay taxes, people who say, “I created my business all by my myself. How dare your government tell me what to do with it?” Government paved the roads and built the airports so they can ship their products. Government educated the workers that make their companies run and purchase their products. They conveniently ignore these facts. Over the years, they built a powerful and successful message machine that amplified and sold this anti-government theory to their followers. The Rush Limbaughs, the Fox Newses agree with the plutocrats and spread their propaganda to the masses.

I’ve been wanting to make this point to the “you didn’t build that” crowd for a long time: Romania has paved roads and airpots; so does Zimbabwe. Where are their thriving economies? If that’s all it took, poor countries would become instantly rich with the application of tarmac and blacktop. Stop it.

You really have to hear the contempt, the loathing, dripping from Schumer’s voice. He echoes Obama, but without his “cleanliness” or his “optional Negro dialect” (™ Joe Biden and Harry Reid respectively). I can’t be certain that he and Obama and Cuomo and de Blasio (and Reid and Pelosi, et al) actually feel this much hatred for their conservative fellow citizens—I truly hope note—but their base does. We all know people who hate us this much; we’re related by blood to some. This is their red meat.

We just ticked over into an election year, so we should expect only more. What else do the Democrats have? Obamacare? Loser issue. Immigration? Loser issue. Economy? Loser issue. Peace and respect around the world. Major loser issue.

In politics as in law: “If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table.”

That thumping you hear is the entire Democrat-Media Complex pounding the table. Get used to it.

Comments

Why, Exactly Why, Is Obama Such An Atrocious President?

Yes, he’s a dolt, yes, the economy is weak, our foreign policy is in shambles, the health care law will cost thousands their jobs and maybe America will end up with fewer Americans with health insurance, and he’s arrogant to boot. But to quote one of my kids, who got real persistent and particular one day: “Yes, Mommy, I understand there’s a sperm and an egg, but how, exactly how, do they get together???” In the spirit of that question, what, exactly what, makes this guy worse than so many others?

And I woke up this morning with the particulars:

Obama has a Nixonian respect for the Constitution and the rule of law. (I realize that this is unfair to Richard Nixon).

Obama has a Carteresque way with both foreign policy and the domestic economy, with quite a bit of Carter’s condescending arrogance thrown in.

Obama has a Kennedy era teeny-bop press, in love with his handsome features, lovely wife and daughters, his sexy golf moves, and his inspiring speeches. The Beatles didn’t have it this good.

As a result:

America has a lawless, arrogant, incompetent leader who has lowered our international standing, tortured our economy, and cheapened our culture. And we don’t have a media to help us to understand this.

- Aggie

Comments (1)

Vote the John Not the Johnson

New York voters seem to forgive some of their reprobates but not others:

With no gender gap and a lead among black voters of more than 3-1, former Gov. Eliot Spitzer tops Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer 56 – 37 percent among likely Democratic primary voters in the race for New York City comptroller, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

“Everyone seems to be against former Gov. Eliot Spitzer except the voters, especially black voters,” said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

Again there is a measurable racial gap, but almost no gender gap. Spitzer’s behavior disqualifies him, 29 percent of white voters and 13 percent of black voters say.

I have no comment on the racial disparity, but I do wonder why Anthony Weiner can’t get the same love Spitzer gets. The Big Apple electorate prefers their pervs to use their bodily appendages for their intended purposes, and not as subjects of self-portraits. I guess I see their point.

Comments

Weiner Stands Alone…

Vows to come from behind: (Well, he does!)

As the field of candidates, which also included former City Comptroller Bill Thompson, debated local issues, Weiner stepped in to paint himself as an outsider.

“This is the problem: They all come from basically the same place. They’ve been part of municipal government for decades now,” he argued. “If you want someone truly independent, who’s going to stop this noise … you have a choice here.”

Turning to Weiner, Quinn begged to differ.

“Not for nothing, you were in government your whole career until you had to resign from government, so I’m not sure why you’re finger-pointing at people in government,” she said.

Tuesday’s debate came hours after a new poll showed a dramatic switch in the race. According to the Quinnipiac University survey, de Blasio jumped to the front of the pack with 30% of support among likely Democratic primary voters.

Quinn, the former front-runner, fell behind with 24% and Thompson came in at 22%, just four weeks before the September 10 primary. Weiner remained behind all three at 10%, while Liu had 6% support.

New York city and state politics steered me toward conservatism. Reading about these mental midgets, I can’t understand what took so long. Back in my day, it was Koch, Dinkins, Maloney, et al—plus the Donald Mannes-led menagerie of corrupt local pols, all Democrat. I left NYC before Giuliani ran, but had already committed to voting for him when he did. (And he’s hardly a Conservative with a capital C.)

But every clown show needs a top clown. And in Anthony Weiner the Democrats have the very reincarnations of Bozo, Emmett Kelly, and Bello Nock in one party member (pun very much intended).

Comments (2)

Justice Thomas Is Amusing

Watch to the end.

- Aggie

Comments

OMG

Very, very stupid antics in Oregon

Teachers were shocked and caught off guard when an Oregon school held a school shooting drill.

The Oregonian reports Pine Eagle Charter School in Halfway held the drill last Friday as children were home for an in-service day. Two masked “gunmen” burst into a meeting room holding 15 teachers firing blanks. Teachers only realized it wasn’t a real shooting when none of them were bleeding.

“There was some commotion,” school principal Cammie DeCastro told The Oregonian.

Teachers were frightened about what happened.

“I’ll tell you, the whole situation was horrible,” Morgan Gover told the paper. “I got a couple in the front and a couple in the back.”

The school held the unplanned drill in hopes to better educate teachers on how to deal with a school shooting. Of the 15 teachers in the room, only two would have survived.

“For us not to know how we were going to respond is leaving us open,” DeCastro told The Oregonian.

I’m surprised no one had a heart attack and I wonder if someone will sue. Astonishingly poor judgement.

And I wouldn’t be terribly shocked to learn that some nut has read about this and planned an attack, assuming that teachers will believe the bullets are blanks. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

- Aggie

Comments (2)

Conclave

Gather round, Bloodthirstani, your ol’ pal BTL needs your collective brain power.

This Tuesday is a special primary election to fill the seat vacated by John Kerry (though lord knows it was vacant most of the time he filled it). There are two Democrats and three Republicans vying in their respective primaries.

As an Independent (we call it Unenrolled), I can vote in either primary, for any candidate. Here’s my quandary.

Do I vote Democrat, and pick the moonbattier of the two (Ed Markey), in the hope that he’ll drive centrist voters to the Republican in the general election? Or do I vote for the lesser of two moonbats in Steve Lynch, given that either Democrat will likely win. Lynch is no conservative, not by a long shot, but he’s a human being—unlike that utter imbecile Markey. Markey has been my Congressman for almost 20 years, yet until recently I couldn’t have picked him out of a line-up and could never remember he was my rep (Frank? Delahunt? Tierney? Markey???)

Of the three Republicans I can tell you very little. One, someone named Michael Sullivan, has the endorsement of Red Mass Group, a statewide Republican advocacy organization. He’s a former US Attorney, and ran the Bureau of ATF for the last three years of Bush’s term. Another candidate, Gabriel Gomez, has an admirable resume—ex-Navy Seal, Republican Latino—but he has a habit of sucking up to the Democratic state hierarchy. He’s not beloved by conservatives. Then there’s another guy.

So what do I do? Vote strategically in the Democratic primary—and if so for the crazier or the safer of the two—or vote for the Republican I like better? Or for the Republican I think can win (if they’re not one and the same)?

Answers by Tuesday, please.

PS: I used to say that the only way someone named Sullivan could lose an election in Massachusetts was to another candidate named Sullivan. That assertion is in some doubt.

Comments (4)

Obama’s IRS Tells Agents It Can Snoop On Emails Without Warrant

Yes We Can!

The Internal Revenue Service believes it doesn’t need permission to root through emails, texts or other forms of electronic correspondence, according to recently released internal agency documents.

The documents, which were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request by the American Civil Liberties Union, reveal that tax department agents have been operating under the assumption that they can bypass warrants. The ACLU claims this would in turn violate the Fourth Amendment.
According to a 2009 IRS employee handbook, though, the tax agency said the Fourth Amendment does not protect emails because Internet users don’t “have a reasonable expectation of privacy in such communications.”

A lawyer for the agency reiterated the policy in 2010. And the current online version of the IRS manual says that no warrant is required for emails that are stored by an Internet storage provider for more than 180 days.

“This is an affront not only to our system of checks and balances, but also to our fundamental right to privacy,” Colorado Democratic Sen. Mark Udall said in a statement Thursday, adding that he wants Congress to overhaul the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.
“In the meantime, I urge the IRS to reconsider its overreach,” he said.

During the Bush years, the Left would have taken over the streets. Our rights! Our rights! But they are sleeping in this decade. File this one under Liberal Fascism, BTL.

- Aggie

Comments

Conservatives Fight Back

President of Bowdoin picks on the wrong guy

One day in the summer of 2010, Barry Mills, the president of Bowdoin College, a respected liberal-arts school in Brunswick, Maine, met investor and philanthropist Thomas Klingenstein for a round of golf about an hour north of campus. College presidents spend many of their waking hours talking to potential donors. In this case, the two men spoke about college life—especially “diversity”—and the conversation made such an impression on President Mills that he cited it weeks later in his convocation address to Bowdoin’s freshman class. That’s where the dispute begins.

In his address, President Mills described the golf outing and said he had been interrupted in the middle of a swing by a fellow golfer’s announcement: “I would never support Bowdoin—you are a ridiculous liberal school that brings all the wrong students to campus for all the wrong reasons,” said the other golfer, in Mr. Mills’s telling. During Mr. Mills’s next swing, he recalled, the man blasted Bowdoin’s “misplaced and misguided diversity efforts.” At the end of the round, the college president told the students, “I walked off the course in despair.”

Word of the speech soon got to Mr. Klingenstein. Even though he hadn’t been named in the Mills account, Mr. Klingenstein took to the pages of the Claremont Review of Books to call it nonsense: “He didn’t like my views, so he turned me into a backswing interrupting, Bowdoin-hating boor who wants to return to the segregated days of Jim Crow.”

The real story, wrote Mr. Klingenstein, was that “I explained my disapproval of ‘diversity’ as it generally has been implemented on college campuses: too much celebration of racial and ethnic difference,” coupled with “not enough celebration of our common American identity.”

For this, wrote Mr. Klingenstein, Bowdoin’s president insinuated that he was a racist. And President Mills did so, moreover, in an address that purported to stress the need for respecting the opinions of others across the political spectrum. “We are, in the main, a place of liberal political persuasion,” he told the students, but “we must be willing to entertain diverse perspectives throughout our community. . . . Diversity of ideas at all levels of the college is crucial for our credibility and for our educational mission.” Wrote Mr. Klingenstein: “Would it be uncharitable to suggest that, in a speech calling for more sensitivity to conservative views, he might have shown some?”

Pretty typical story so far: Conservative refuses to donate money to Moonbat Univeristy and President Moonbat calls him racist. Here’s the twist:

A few months later, Mr. Klingenstein decided to do something surprising: He commissioned researchers to examine Bowdoin’s commitment to intellectual diversity, rigorous academics and civic identity. This week, some 18 months and hundreds of pages of documentation later, the project is complete. Its picture of Bowdoin isn’t pretty.

Funded by Mr. Klingenstein, researchers from the National Association of Scholars studied speeches by Bowdoin presidents and deans, formal statements of the college’s principles, official faculty reports and notes of faculty meetings, academic course lists and syllabi, books and articles by professors, the archive of the Bowdoin Orient newspaper and more. They analyzed the school’s history back to its founding in 1794, focusing on the past 45 years—during which, they argue, Bowdoin’s character changed dramatically for the worse.

Published Wednesday, the report demonstrates how Bowdoin has become an intellectual monoculture dedicated above all to identity politics.

The school’s ideological pillars would likely be familiar to anyone who has paid attention to American higher education lately. There’s the obsession with race, class, gender and sexuality as the essential forces of history and markers of political identity. There’s the dedication to “sustainability,” or saving the planet from its imminent destruction by the forces of capitalism. And there are the paeans to “global citizenship,” or loving all countries except one’s own.

The Klingenstein report nicely captures the illiberal or fallacious aspects of this campus doctrine, but the paper’s true contribution is in recording some of its absurd manifestations at Bowdoin. For example, the college has “no curricular requirements that center on the American founding or the history of the nation.” Even history majors aren’t required to take a single course in American history. In the History Department, no course is devoted to American political, military, diplomatic or intellectual history—the only ones available are organized around some aspect of race, class, gender or sexuality.

One of the few requirements is that Bowdoin students take a yearlong freshman seminar. Some of the 37 seminars offered this year: “Affirmative Action and U.S. Society,” “Fictions of Freedom,” “Racism,” “Queer Gardens” (which “examines the work of gay and lesbian gardeners and traces how marginal identities find expression in specific garden spaces”), “Sexual Life of Colonialism” and “Modern Western Prostitutes.” [Note: Bowdoin charges $58,00/year in tuition. - Aggie]

Regarding Bowdoin professors, the report estimates that “four or five out of approximately 182 full-time faculty members might be described as politically conservative.” In the 2012 election cycle, 100% of faculty donations went to President Obama. Not that any of this matters if you have ever asked around the faculty lounge.

“A political imbalance [among faculty] was no more significant than having an imbalance between Red Sox and Yankee fans,” sniffed Henry C.W. Laurence, a Bowdoin professor of government, in 2004. He added that the suggestion that liberal professors cannot fairly reflect conservative views in classroom discussions is “intellectually bankrupt, professionally insulting and, fortunately, wildly inaccurate.”

Perhaps so. But he’d have a stronger case if, for example, his colleague Marc Hetherington hadn’t written the same year in Bowdoin’s newspaper that liberal professors outnumber conservatives because conservatives don’t “place the same emphasis on the accumulation of knowledge that liberals do.”

In publishing these and other gems, Mr. Klingenstein and the National Association of Scholars hope to encourage alumni and trustees to push aggressively for reforms. They don’t call for the kind of conservative affirmative action seen at the University of Colorado, which recently created a visiting professorship exclusively for right-wingers. Rather, Mr. Klingenstein and the NAS want schools nationwide to stop “silent discrimination against conservatives.” Good luck.

The only part of that that I disagree with is the “silent criticism of conservatives” line. There is nothing silent about it. Hang out in any coffee shop in Cambridge, or better yet, go to a cookout or a dinner party anywhere in the vicinity. You’ll hear the non-silent rants.

- Aggie

Comments (2)

Should The US Pull Out Of Chicago?

Should the U.S. pull out of Chicago?
Body count: In the last six months, 292 killed (murdered) in Chicago,
compared to 221 killed in Iraq; and Chicago has one of the strictest
gun laws in the entire US!

President: Barack Hussein Obama
Senator: Dick Durbin
House Representative: Jesse Jackson, Jr.
Governor: Pat Quinn
House leader: Mike Madigan
Atty. Gen.: Lisa Madigan (daughter of Mike)
Mayor: Rahm Emanuel

The leadership in Illinois – all Democrats.
Thank you for the combat zone in Chicago.
Of course, they’re all blaming each other.
Can’t blame Republicans; there aren’t any!

Chicago school system rated one of the worst in the country.
Can’t blame Republicans; there aren’t any!

State pension fund $78 Billion in debt, worst in country.
Can’t blame Republicans; there aren’t any!

Cook County ( Chicago ) sales tax 10.25%, highest in country.
Can’t blame Republicans; there aren’t any!

This is the political culture that Obama comes from in Illinois.
And he is going to ‘fix’ Washington politics for us?

George Ryan is no longer governor. He is in the big house.
Of course he was replaced by Rob Blagojevich who is…
that’s right, also in the big house.
And Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr. resigned a couple of weeks ago.
That’s because he is fighting being sent to……..right again, the big house!

The Land of Lincoln , where governors make our license plates!

(I don’t know who wrote this, but I thought you would enjoy reading it.)

- Aggie

Comments

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »