Wednesday, June 22, 2005


Attempts by a group of Tampa homosexuals to proselytize among our children have been sidetracked (at least temporarily) by diligent parents and public officials.

As you may have read, the homosexuals arranged to place a "HOMOSEXUALS ARE GOOD" display at a local library. They refuse to explain why they chose a youth-oriented library (Westgate) in a suburban neighborhood rather than go to the much larger, adult oriented library (J. Germany) located in downtown.

At a time when the Tampa area is reeling from a series of murders of our children by sexual predators, one would expect that any self respecting homosexual would bend over backwards to avoid worrying parents. Not our GAY TWITS. They selected this time to get in the face of local parents and, when it was suggested that their actions were not welcome, they held a pep rally at which they warned that the parents have, "AWAKENED A SLEEPING GIANT". They have promised that a march and a law suit will follow.

One of the leading County Commissioners opposed to the current homosexual agenda is named Ronda. Many parents are now learning the words to the old song, Help me, Ronda! Help me indeed.

In stories that may or may not be related, the Tampa Tribune reports in today's edition that one sex offender was arrested for a form of parole violation and another was arrested for possession of child pornography. It is not clear whether or not they claimed to sleeping giants or just plain, garden variety perverts.

Tuesday, June 21, 2005


Gay Marriage - Willful Twit #4

In any discussion of gay marriage, it is easy to spot the proponent. He/she is the one lying on the floor kicking and screaming. The message they send is clear, "Logical discussion? Not while I’m around."

Rational folks understand that denying gays the sanction of marriage is not discrimination. It is merely a matter of qualifications. Consider: if I applied for a position as a jet pilot or a brain surgeon, I would probably be rejected. I don’t qualify for either. Rational folks recognize that denying homosexuals the sanction of "marriage" is not discrimination. They simply do not qualify.

Who determines the qualifications for marriage? Any and every authority who has addressed the issue has come to the same conclusion. For over 4,000 years (if you are a creationist) or for a billion years (if you of the evolutionist persuasion) marriage is the union of a man and a woman. The ACLU is looking for a loophole, but there isn’t any. Check any dictionary, statute book, holy book. Man and Woman. Homosexuals do not qualify.

Is there a reason for this? Of course. The most important and constant feature of our progress from cave man to our 21st century civilization has been the family. Ane this is not only for humans. If you watch one of the nature shows on Saturday, you will see that every specie that has survived has done so because the parents are willing to make the necessary sacrifices for the children. One of the sacrifices includes shielding our children from predators.

Does any of this register with our twitful friends? Apparently not. Word of caution: do not try to use logic with a gay twit. As the saying goes, "They are neither influenced nor impressed by it".
You must remember that the function of a Willful Twit is to create a problem where none existed before and then cry discrimination when rational persons fail to adopt their self-serving solution.

By now, the twits have run to the ACLU for a little TLC. Let’s you and me take advantage in the lull in the proceedings to consider a rational solution to the faux problem.

We should have the several state legislatures consider the issue. Hold hearings, listen to all interested (and rational) parties, analyze the problems (eg. How do we handle the support and other issues affecting manufactured babies, adoption, inheritance, termination of the union, etc.?), accept input from all interested and effected parties and determine which issues are capable of being resolved by legislation. They would then fashion a statute intended to resolve the problem. When we have realistically considered the matter, we would develop a domestic partnership statute.

The development of a statute has several advantages. It would by its nature require the participation of a variety of people, the consideration of alternatives and a two or three step review process. Future court proceedings could rely on the legislative debate to determine the meaning of the words and phrases in the statute. If a portion of the statute is found to be unworkable, it culd bereferred back for clarification.

On the other hand, if you rely on law suits to decide one issue at a time, you run the risk of having the court decide more on the emotion of the case before them than on the broad picture and future application of a narrow ruling.

Have you ever wondered why the gays refuse to participate in such a standard procedure? Could it be that they would prefer to sneak up on a judge and blindside him with an emotional case wherein the public at large will not be represented?

The procedure suggested herein is simple and reasonable. This is the way that a representative democracy is supposed to work, the way we have addressed contentious issues for centuries. This is the way adults make decisions.

Just one thing is wrong. If you tried it, the gay twits would sic Rosie O’Donnell on you and you would wish that you had never been born. They really do not want a solution. THEY WANT AN ISSUE. THEY WANT A CAUSE. If you do not believe this, try to discuss it with them. They would much prefer to put on a show, to demonstrate, to posture for the cameras, and, most important, to complain. Whine, bitch, moan and complain.

Have you ever known a gay person to solve a problem? It is not in their nature. You can pick up a newspaper and read about all of the problems that they are creating but don't ask me to hold my breath while you think of a problem that they ever solved. Their posture in every problem is, "Let me have my way or I will sue!" There is no compromise ith gays.

I would be ecstatic if they prove me wrong. What odds are you offering?


You were thrilled by Tokyo Rose; you were charmed by Axis Sally; now you will dazzled by Robyn "Red Guard" Blumner. A columnist foisted upon an unsuspecting subscribing public by Pravda on the Bay (a/k/a St. Pete Times), Robyn Red Guard writes a column weakly in which she and her handlers try to convince us that the U.S. Government is the worst threat to civilization since the bubonic plague.

Recently, RRG penned a column while in a period of hallucinatory euphoria, (The best gift for fathers, 6/19/05) in which she announced that,

the reason we have so many children being raised in single parent households it that the evil U. S. Government hasn’t raised the minimum wage recently.

I am sure that Red Guard has a plethora of incontrovertible evidence and an ironclad analysis to support her revelation. Unfortunately, she did not include any of the above in her screed.

Let’s try to apply our obviously inferior talents to the issue. (Notice the Uriah Heep touch?)

No fewer than, "27 % of our children grow up in single parent homes." Is this because their dedicated, industrious fathers become frustrated with the minimum wage and are thus shamed into abandoning their children? (This is Robyn’s version.) Or, is it because the darling little ones were born into single parent homes in the first place?

Wrap yourself around a few facts. Birth records show that 70% of negro children, 20% of caucasians and 1% of Asians were born illegitimate. Guess how many end up being raised in the home of the only parent they recognize. If you guessed most of them, you must have been peeking.

In order for anyone to believe, as Robyn Red Guard does, that single parent homes are the result of the pitiful minimum wage, you must conclude that there are three (or more) different minimum wages, one for each major ethnic group. (Wow. Can you imagine how much we must be paying the Asians?)

I probably should apologize for trying to provoke a battle of wits with a little girl. My mother used to tell my to try to avoid being facetious. Actually, my mother didn’t use the word facetious. She just said, "Don’t be a little shit all your life." So, I will politely wrap up this little paean to Tampa Bay’s sole surviving member of the Red Guard.

"You are going to die, G.I.", Tokyo Rose. "You have been abandoned by Roosevelt and the rest of the Jews", Axis Sally. "The hypocrisy of the federal government has had the most damaging impact of America’s low skilled work force", Robyn "Red Guard" Blumner. Take your pick.

Just to show that no one is totally useless, we must concede that Robyn’s columns are serving a beneficial function. The INS is posting them along the Mexican border. When the potential illegal immigrants read these columns, they become convinced that the U.S. is a hideous place, governed by inhumane monsters and most of turn back and head for Cancun.

We may have more to say about our resident Red Guard. I hear that she has written other columns.

Saturday, June 18, 2005


As we have seen, Blazing Saddles was the turning point in the civil rights movement. The movement stopped being a movement and quickly became an industry with some very wealthy leaders (Thank you, Jesse Jackson). Another significant change was the fact that the workers no longer actually did anything (march, sit in, protest). Rather, they started to demand that YOU do something to satisfy their whims. Behold, the Willful Twit.

The classic example of a willful twit is the faux American Indian protestor. BBS (Before Blazing Saddles) Amerinds had a few valid complaints. The black civil rights movement came along and dragged them on board. They didn’t want the movement to be all about blacks, so they invited anyone who liked being called a victim to give them some cover.

ABS (after Blazing Saddles) all of the heavy lifting had been done and all the good workers had gone home. But, the American Indian girls weren’t satisfied. They had to find something to bitch about. They come up with a perfect faux issue. "How dare those sports teams use Indian references for their athletes" Unless you are an Indian, you can not imagine the shame that young Indians feel when they hear athletes referred to as Braves, Redskins or Indians. Just the thought of such suffering brings tears to my eyes. I try to imagine the oppression and degradation that I and my young ones would feel if any school had ever referred to their athletes as, "the Fighting Irish". Oh, the humanity!

The Indian girls wasted no time taking their cause to a group of the world’s foremost panderers: professional educators. School after school, recognizing the horror and the pain that they had been inflicting on this Minority immediately caved in and gave them what they wanted.
Stanford is no longer the Indians and St. Johns is not the Redmen. The list is quite long as other humanitarians joined the parade of apology and redemption.

My personal favorite is a little midwestern school named Miami of Ohio. Now, think about this. Miami University was named in honor of the Miami Indian tribe that had previously populated the area. When the willful twits decided to annoy, they applied their infinite wisdom to the issue and gave the school an ultimatum. "We Miami Indians will accept the honor of your naming the school Miami, but we cannot accept the insult of having representatives of the school referred to as Indians.

Of course, the school apologized and agreed to put an end to the inhumane practice. They have also changed their job application forms for college administrator. It now reads, "rational thought and backbone optional."

Why do I seem to be picking on school administrators? Well, let’s see what happens when the girls pull this crap on grown ups.

Flushed with success over the round-heels on campus, the twits took dead aim at the pros (Atlanta, Cleveland, Washington, et al.). Here they were confronted with rational adults. The response? Buzz off, or some other two-word phrase. The girls’ reaction? They quietly folded their tepees and went back to their full time jobs in the casinos.

The lesson here is to be on the lookout for whiny twits pushing phony-baloney issues .

Footnote, of sorts. In yesterdays edition of Pravda on the Bay (also known as the St. Pete Times) these two issues were raised.

1. It is impermissibly racist to note that a certain medication is directed at negroes even if it is a scientific fact the only persons of African ancestry would benefit from the med.

2. We know that many Americans are more interested in the plight of a missing person if she happens to be a pretty white girl than if he happens to be a homely negro. We have to do something about this. Look for more stories in the Times about homely black dudes who didn't come home last night and find a way to show how much we miss them.

Friday, June 17, 2005



First, let me introduce the "Willful Twit". Willful Twit is the illegitimate offspring of the civil rights movement. She is jealous of the Blacks, who have real problems, and she wants some of the same attention and sympathy. Unfortunately, she has nothing of consequence to bitch about, so she goes around annoying people until someone tells her to go home. Now, she can cry discrimination and call a press conference and get on the 6 o’clock news. Make my day!

In Tampa, the homosexuals confronted the Hillsborough County Board and demanded that the Board recognize and commend them on their upcoming gay pride parade. Now, call me old-fashioned, but I don’t believe anal intercourse proficiency is something to take pride in. Pleasure maybe, but not pride. I mean, it’s not like you invented it. Straights were trying it before you even thought of KY jelly.

If you want to talk pride, how about a 70 year-old man who doesn’t need viagra? But, I digress.

When the homosexuals asked that the Board "officially recognize" them (pat me on the head) for their daring sexual exploits, the Board politely told them to go do something with each other, which they were probably going to do anyway.

The Board could have been more patronizing. They could have explained that the they normally recognized groups and individuals for doing things FOR other people, not for doing things TO other people. The important thing was that the Board said no.

The Willful Twits now go into Standard Bitching Routine #1.
A. Call a press conference.
B. Threaten to sue the Board (Of course this means that they are suing all of the taxpayers and voters. No matter.)
C. Threaten to alert the ACLU. (Oh! I am trembling.)
D. Make contingency plans to fly Jesse Jackson to Tampa for a photo op.

Is there any thought given to accept the will of the majority of the Board? Are you nuts? How could any majority be more important than my current whim? A Willful Twit never accepts a reasoned response. Hence the title.

Of course, the parade was only part of the homosexuals’ summer offensiveness. The biggy was the gay pride display at the library. ( nb. I use the title gay pride to refer to the whole group; gay, lesbian, transgendered, girls at Harvard who want to use the men's bathroom so they can pee standing up, etc. I don’t mean to slight anyone. I am sure you are all equally offensive in your own way.) They carefully avoided offering their display to the downtown library with which many of them are familiar. No. They selected a library located in a residential community, adjoining a playground and which is designed to cater primarily to children. They selected a period in time when this area is suffering from an incredible epidemic of attacks on children by sexual predators. Bad timing or arrogance? You tell me.

Homosexuals will tell you they love children. If they really want to love the children who use the Westgate Library, they should donate a book (like Mark Twain, not Robert Maplethorpe).
If we tell homosexuals to stay away from our children, we are not showing hatred for the homosexuals; we are showing love for our children. Even if we are not doing the greatest job raising them, they are still OUR children. If you need to take Pride in something, take pride in your ability to leave children alone. What are the odds.

More later on the WILLFUL TWIT.

Tuesday, June 14, 2005


Did you ever try to use logic to convince a dog that the bone he was chewing on had no more nutritional value? If you could hear the dog’s side of the discussion, it would probably go something like this, "It’s mine, it’s mine". That is the end of the discussion.

Did you ever ask a proponent of Affirmative Action if it isn’t about time to phase it out? You will likely get a similar response. "It’s mine, you can’t take it away." A tricky question that may actually inspire some thought is, "Do you think that we should EVER end AA?" Proponents will be reluctant to say that it should continue forever as this would infer that negros are genetically inferior and could never compete with whites on a level field. We know that this is not true, having viewed their success in recent years. O.K. If we are not going to keep it forever, when do we stop it or phase it out? I have not heard an answer to this. No one dares talk about phasing it out under any circumstances. Now, this is just intellectual cowardice.

We know that AA was intended to compensate for past discrimination. Negroes were injured by school segregation. This ended over 50 years ago. True, it was phased out gradually, but it is over. The young people benefitting from AA are the grand-children and great-grand-children of prople who attended the second class segregated school

When are we going to acknowledge this? The fact that some negro children do not do well in school can no longer be blamed on prior segregation. The educational shortfall that we see now is entirely the fault of the student’s family. 70% of negro children born in this country are born into a one parent household. This is a formula for disaster and lack of education is a large part of the formula. In fact, a 70% illegitimacy rate is a disgrace and will result in negros being a permanent underclass. You know it and I know it. But, SHH! Don't tell anyone.

Affirmative Action will NEVER take the place of a father in the household. The penis-envy crowd doesn't like to hear this, but it is true.

If AA was ever intended to help raise the educational level of negroes to a point where it is comparable to other groups, it is being administered in such a way that it is bound to fail. Consider this. I had the good fortune to attend grade school, high school, junior college, college and professional school and all of them were integrated. Having attended class with whites and negroes, I know that some whites are smart enough to benefit from college and some are not. Likewise, some negros are smart enough to benefit from college and some are not. We all know or suspect that this is true, but you cannot say it for fear of being called a racist. This is paternalism. You feel good about yourself if you say that we are all equal, but you know it is not true. Does anyone really believe that we benefit any young person, white or negro, when we refuse to be honest with them?

Recently, there was a well-reported law suit regarding the AA program of a highly regarded university. We found how they handled AA. The application for admissions was graded on a point system that rewarded the various attributes that we would expect a university to look for (academic performance, test scores, activities, community involvement, writing ability, etc.). There were a possible 150 points available. The persons assigning the score would follow the formula and when the applicant was a negro, they would simply add 20 points.

Of course, this would result in numerous minority applicants being accepted over more or better qualified whites. The whites would cry reverse discrimination, etc. but I have no sympathy for them. This is a very important lesson. Life is not fair. Learn to live with it. Negros have lived with it for over two hundred years. Now it’s your turn.

No, the person to pity I this situation is the negro student who could have been accepted in a school for which he was actually qualified. Now he is in a position where he is the least smart kid in the class and everybody knows it. But have no fear. School administrators are the world’s best panderers. They will simply change the rules. DePaul University, for example, went to a ‘no fail’ system. (I took full advantage of this in my final year. I found some fun things to do when I shoud have been in class. )
Others took different approaches. The worst approach was and is the creation of a new curriculum. Black studies, gender studies, etc. have become popular. Let’s teach the blacks about being black. The charlatans came running and the pandering proceeded apace. One example from our local university: A Black Studies art class invited an "artist" to show his work (For a 5 figure fee, of course.). Attendance for certain classes was mandatory. The artist turned out to be a photographer and his specialty was taking pictures of various people having some form of sex. The highlight of his show was the picture of a black man having intercourse with a white woman. He titled it, "Nigger Lover". Clever? Art? Your tax dollars at work. Oh, by the way, we can't say nigger.

So we have prostituted the curriculum and the grading system to avoid embarrassing unqualified students. At least we are integrating, right? Let’s talk about integration for a minute.
In order to make negro students comfortable, many colleges have established ‘black dorms’, allowed black-only fraternities (not white-only fraternities, of course. That would be racism.), and clubs, and explicitly stated that certain courses are not open to white students. So much for integration.

As an undergraduate history major, I was introduced to the writings of a very bright Englishman, Sir Arnold Toynbee. Sir Arnold studied civilizations for the purpose of determining why they appeared, grew, thrived and eventually fell into decline. His conclusion was a marvel of simplicity: Civilizations survived and prospered as long as they responded to the challenges that confronted them. The tougher the challenge. the better the reward for successful response. A perfect example of this is the U.S. in the middle of the last century. Tom Brokaw's Greatest Generation grew up in the Great Depression and then fought World War II. Ten million men and women accepted that challenge and responded by creating a society that was and is the envy of the world.

That seems too simple, doesn’t it? Let’s look at sports as a example. We all know that we do better if we train hard. Some of our best coaches were tough and demanding (Vince Lombardi, George Halas, and many others). This has worked in many aspects of our lives: military, job, school. Those who demanded that we give our best inspired us to do better than we thought possible.

Affirmative Action is precisely the opposite. Stated very simply, AA tells you that you are entitled. We will do what you want to do and we will do it at your pace. If you do not do well, we will hire different teachers. And some negros think that we are doing them a favor. Pandering is no favor. It is simply cowardice.

Think about it.

Thursday, June 09, 2005

Harry Belafonte's war on education

One of the former goals of the civil rights movement was to see that negro children received a good education. But not Harry Belafonte.

Supporters of civil rights believed that a good education would help children attain successful careers with good paying jobs. But not Harry Belafonte.

Belefonte believes that every good little negro boy and girl should want to grow up to be a basketball player or a rap star or the mother of 6 or 8 illegitimate children. How do I know this? Harry told me. He told me when he called Colin Powell and Condi Rice "House Niggers".

According to Harry, if you are a black child and you work hard at school and get good grades and get a good job where you will work alongside white folks, you have betrayed your race. Powell and Rice sold out.

Of coure, Belafonte is not the problem. There are a lot of people who think the way Belafonte does. Among negros, the worst names that you can call another negro are "Uncle Tom", "Oreo" (black on the outside and white on the inside), etc. Psychologists, sociologists, et. al. can give you chapter and verse on the whys of this phenomenon. We no longer have time for profound discussions on the history of the world. We have a problem and, sooner rather than later, we must face it.

As we have noted elsewhere, there are two ways to deal with a problem:
A. Look for a solution, or
B. Look for someone to blame it on.
Gresham's Law of problem solving tells us that B. will kick the shit out of A. seven days a week.
If you let it.

To understand Harry, you must take an unbiased view of the civil rights movement. The civil rights movement became the Civil Rights Industry, Inc. about 30 years ago. We were traumatized by the sixties, proud of the changes and ready to move forward as a unified nation. Were we perfect? Of course not, but we were willing to try. At that time, a group of opportunists stepped forward and offered to help. You know who the opportunists were. They are still here. Like Castro and certain U. S. Senators, they have been with us as long as we can remember and they are not going away. You see the civil rights pros on TV every time there is a camera turned on.

Is this a bad thing? You bet. First, it is a bad thing because of their motivation. They know very well that if the civil rights problem in the U.S. is resolved, they are out of business. Second, it is bad because of the tactics they employ. If they can accuse a person or group of beng anti- negro, they can convince you to dislike and avoid that person or group. If that person or group fails to kiss your butt, you may believe that they are "against you". Of course, kissing your butt may be the worst thing that an educator, employer or law enforcement official can do. Tough love works, but no one dares to try it on a negro for fear of appearing to be a racist. Throw in the Belafonte factor and many negros will not only not get the discipline that they need but they will be afraid to try to succeed for fear of beng called an oreo.

In the period from 1948 to 1973 we made tremendous progress in integrating our society. Since about 1973, we have seen remarkably little progress by the negro in the integrated society. The primary cause of this failure lies with the civil rights industry.

Martin King said that he had a dream of a society where individuals were judged, not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. The civil rights industry says screw you, Martin. I don't want to be judged by my character or by my performance in school or on the job. I want all the freebies I can get. It's payback time, baby. Gimme, gimme, gimme. Affirmative Action, as it is practiced, is diametrically to King's dream. Even after it has failed, even after it has been shown to be a cash cow for the "Industry", negros who are being hurt by it hang on to it like a dog with a bone. Did you ever try to explain to a dog that there is little or no nutritional value in his bone?

The first half of the civil rights period provided opportunity after opportunity for negros who were finally receiving their chance. Painfully few took advntage of it. Big problem. The opportunities looked like work. Be honest with yurself. Let's take two scenarios. First, you are told that you can have a job that would be a challenge and you would succeed with hard work and discipline, including giving your superiors some respect. Second, a civil rights pro tells you that you have a right to a job and a right to promotions and a right to wage increases and you don't have to take any shit from anybody. Which job would you prefer? I know damn well that, as a young man, I would take the second job. I would not ask what kind of employer doesn't care if I am giving my best effort. I wouldn't ask where do I get self respect. These are things that you learn in the real world. My civil rights professional will protect me from all the lessons of life. Even the well meaning civil rights people will try to protect me from reality.

So we find tht the Belafonte factor is just the tip of the iceberg. The movement has been off the tracks for a generation and we are all afraid to tell them. Only a racist bastard would criticize a civil rights pro, right?

Cervantes had a device to protect his society from the damage being created by a well-meaning buffoon. He concocted the Knight of the Mirrors and had the Quixote see himself as he really was. How do we get the civil rights professionals to look in the mirror?

Sunday, June 05, 2005

the civil rights movement has failed - what's next?

Let me be the first to tell you what many people know but are reluctant to say: The civil rights movement has gone off the track and no one seems to care.

For discussion purposes, let's consider the movement to have begun with Brown v. Board of Education, which would place in the early fifties. Brown was followed by the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, etc. up to and including Affirmative Action. During that period, the plight of the American negro improved considerably. Of course, the plight of most Americans improved considerably during this time, so it may be difficult to determine which improvement is due to the movement and which is a result of the risng tide of American progress. Let's try to break it down.

First, we must admit the the civil rights movement was intended to improve the condition of the American negro. We know that various other groups either jumped aboard or were dragged on board to provide some sort of balance (American Indians, Hispanics, etc.). So we now have tagged everyone with some group label. We went thru several phases of identification. First, we were forbidden to make note of anyone's ethnicity lest that note facilitate discrimination. Then we were required to note ethnicity so we could prove that you discriminated. We eventually settled on voluntary identification.

Having some sort of i.d., we can now plot the plight of each and every group. From the plethora of government statistics, we can make an educated guess as to how each group is performing. We know, for example, that after WWII, American negros lagged behind American whites in many respects (education, income, etc.) We now know that, after 50+ years of civil rights movement, that American negros are lagging behind American Whites, Puerto Ricans, Asians (including, individually and collectively, Japanese, Chinese, Philipinos, Koreans and Vietnamese). Most recently, American Negros have appeared to be lagging behind East European immigrants, Asian Indians, Middle-Eastern Moslems not to mention the Mexicans who (Fox is right) will take jobs that American negros will not take and who will support their families.

For decades, the "leaders" of the civil rights industry have made a very good living blaming others for their problems. I put the word leaders in quotation marks because these people do not lead anything. They thrash about, find fault and collect big salaries. As noted above, they do not seem to care that their efforts do not provide any benefit for their followers. But, someone must say out loud what everyone sees. The American negros are being used by the so-called leaders just as their ancestors were used by slave-owners. The only difference is that they do not beat them.

Why are we allowing this to happen? Everyone has their own reasons. Other minorities are happy to see negros standing still. It is easier to pass them. Too many sympathizers do nothing because they have come to realize that civil rights is all about name-calling. Do a little name-calling and you can go home feeling that you are a civil rights worker. Sincere civil rights supporters have are tired of waiting for the negros to help themselves. Reasons but not answers.

Perhaps if we call upon the Knight of the Mirrors, we can all see ourselves as we really are. This is a frightening tought, but let's give it a try.

See our analysis of Blazing Saddles.

Friday, June 03, 2005

President admits that he lied!

I would do it again!

We all remember the fuss, during the recent presidential campaign, involving British intelligence reports. Some people went so far as to say that the President lied. We may now have a definitive resolution.

In a document recently prepared for limited distribution, it was disclosed that certain high ranking officials in the U.S. State Department were, "troubled by British attempts to dupe their Washington allies." In an internal memorandum, a ranking State Department official warned that, "British agents were manufacturing documents." What most disturbed this official was that, "the British were seeking U.S. diplomatic cooperation to validate these forgeries." That State Department official warned the Executive branch to be, "on our guard against false scares."

History now shows that, "policy considerations made it unlikely that the President was going to question the authenticity of potentially useful information." In the memoirs of a former State Department official, discussing the question of the false document's relevance to the President's foreign policy, we are told it was the President's policy to wage war without declaring it and the documents in queston seemed to fit this new approach.

In one of the few publications of its type not written by Bob Woodward, we are informed that, "the President had come to believe, well before America went to war, that truth must often take second place to national security and political expediency."

In fact, the President is quoted as telling one of his close advisers, "I am perfectly willing to mislead and tell untruths, if it will help us win."

If anyone doubts the accuracy of any part of this post, you are invited to check my source;
The Wilson Quarterly, Vol IX, No. I, pages 167 thru 173.

WOW!! 70% Illegitimate?

Occasionally I visit the library and thumb thru the Statistical Abstract just for laughs. I was taking notes the last time and now I am having difficulty reading my scribbling.

Let's see. I think it says that during the last year, 70% of the children born in Wisconsin were illegitimate and 1% of the children born in Indiana were illegitimate. That doesn't make sense. Let's try this reading. 70% of the children born in Italy were illegitimate and 1% of the children born in France were illegitimate. That doesn't make sense either. Oh. Now I see. It actually reads, 70% of the black children born in the U.S. were illegitimate while 1% of the oriental babies were born to unwed parents.

Does that make sense? If that were true, any socialist or child psychologist would tell you that the child raised in a one-parent family is far more likely to grow up in poverty. He or she is also more likely to become involved in substance abuse, wind up on some form of welfare and become a parent without benefit of a spouse. Experts would also tell us that one-family homes produce more criminals than scholars. Therefore, if the numbers in the statistical abstract were accurate, we would wake up some day and find that there are more black men in prison than in college.
That could never happen. Surely the civil rights people, the Congressional Black Caucus and all of the liberals in this great land would do something.

Of course, the statistics could be giving single-parenthood a bad rap. If they were right, one would expect to find that the Oriental children, virtually all raised in two-parent homes, would do much better in school and would be far less likely to live in slums and wind up in prison. What are the chances of that being true.

Any ideas out there about these stupid statistics?

Thursday, June 02, 2005

This blog is copyrighted 5-28-05


In a recent post, I made reference to Robyn Blumner’s article in the May 8, 2005 St. Pete Times where she referred to the United States as, “A nation of civic illiterates”. In that article, Robyn Red Guard was kind enough to point us to an organization that she believes will help us find a cure for this national malady. Her educator of choice is referred to as Civiced. I availed myself of the internet link provided and entered the strange world of Civiced.

Join me as we dive headlong through the looking glass, tumble down the rabbit hole and confront this new dimension (a dimension of time wasted, a dimension of the spaced out, a dimension of the mindless). I will try to limit myself to simply reporting the information found on the Civiced site, but I may occasionally lapse into commentary.

Fresh from their recent workshop in Penang, Malaysia, Civiced is now conducting a “World Congress”. I am not sure what inspiration they received in Malaysia. This nation, as you probably know, is a Moslem nation which has recently experienced a successful Dakwah. For you illiterates, a Dakwah is an enthusiastic return to fundamentalism, Islam style. At any rate, on to the World Congress.

The current World Congress on civic literacy is being held (where else?) in another nation ruled by a Moslem monarch, Jordan. Are you beginning to get the picture? The U.S. is a nation of civic illiterates and we must rely on Moslems to show us the way.

Now, what is happening at the World Congress? Let’s look at the program. You can verify this by checking out the web site given by Robyn (

The keynote speech addresses, “Advancing Peace and Stability”. Whoda thunkit. Go to an Islamic monarchy in the Middle East to learn how to advance peace and stability. I would have thought that avoiding the Middle East would be a good first step, but what the hell. I am illiterate.
This inspiring speech will be followed by something called, “Thematic Breakout Sessions” which I assume means that we will break up into smaller groups and attend seminars. Lucky Robyn and her cohorts will be regaled by one of five civic education experts from (I am not making this up); Mongolia, Bulgaria, Ghana, Chile and Lebanon.

Now that we know why we are in Jordan and who is leading us, let’s take a look at the syllabus. The main topic of discussion is Global Education. This is described as promoting, “(A) K-12 Social Study curriculum designed to support civic structure with active participation of students in the improvement of society”. It is not clear whether this curriculum will be presented in the original German.

I can’t resist noting one more hot session from this World Congress; “How to develop a team to write a civics textbook”, conducted by two Russians! (Polozhevets and Voskresenskaya)

So there you have it. If we, the illiterate Americans, will just listen to Robin Red Guard and her pals (the Russians, Moslems, Mongolian, et al.) there may be some hope for us after all.

The Program for the World Congress ends with a fervent wish that takes on added poignancy when you are in a Moslem nation; “Have a safe journey home”.

It is expected that RRG will come home with all manner of wisdom. I reserve theright to comment thereon.



Many people, including our own President Bush, try to convince us that Islam is a beautiful religion. Not so. Issue a fatwa if you must, but first I am going to tell you why I believe as I do.

The basic analysis of religion is so obvious that I am sure this notion has been published before. I just have not seen it, so pardon me if I act as though I have discovered something new.

Virtually all of the religions with which we are familiar have a yin and a yang. The yin, or feminine side, if you will, is the basic philosophy of the religion. The yin is opposed by the yang which we recognize as the administrative arm. Throughout history virtually every religion has started as the musings or writings of a great thinker who believes his or her thoughts will help mankind if only he or she can get a lot of people to listen. The result is a bible, Koran, Talmud, Bhagavad Gita et al. This would be a wonderful place if we could stop there. Unfortunately, we never do.

If and when a given religion achieves a following, someone will step forward and establish an administrative side or yang. (Somebody has to take care of the collection.) The administrative side usually appears as a bureaucracy complete with titles, funny uniforms and palaces. Once these perks become established, the administrators learn that they must defend their turf. (Or, as Governor LePetomaine famously said, “Gentlemen, we’ve gotta protect our cockamamie jobs.”) You don’t do this by advising your flock to go across the street and listen to Reverend Sweetlips next Sunday. Your flock may never come back. Better if we tell them that the guy across the street is the devil and you will go to Hell if you ever listen to him.

In recent years, we have learned one thing for sure. The yang, or administrative side, never loses. It may develop schisms, but when it does, the yang only gets stronger. And is does this, not by following the original writing, but rather by claiming to protect that writing. The basic technique here is to create a straw man and blame him for all your troubles. We could discuss how the various Christian groups in Europe traded support for monopolies and agreed to torment the Jews who had no monarch in their camp. Too obvious.

Back to our friends, the Moslems. It is fairly obvious that; where you have one religion, you will have a tyrannical government, where you have two religions you will have constant fighting and where you have multiple religions you will a peaceful democracy. (I wish the ACLU could understand this.) Islam began as a normal religion with the preachings of charismatic leader. When the leader died, yang took over and never looked back. The Islam bureaucracy divided into two camps, both claiming to be in charge. Soon we had two religions (Sunni and Shiite). Actually, this is one religion with two sets of administrators. They fight with other for no good reason. The Sunnis and the Shiites fought the Iran-Iraq war just for the hell of it. They have no monopoly here. The Catholics and Protestants did the same thing in Europe,

So, now we have two major groups of Moslems and numerous minor sects who recognize that the Sunnis and Shiites are all a--holes.
While I don’t claim to have all the answers today, I do believe that we will take a giant step in the right direction if we recognize that, while there once was a beautiful religion known as Islam, today we have to deal with several groups of bureaucrats who claim to represent that religion. As long as Moslems living in the civilized world continue to act as if they are living in the Middle Ages and are protecting their homes from Crusaders, we will need to treat them all as real or potential terrorists.

Is there a solution? To be continued.

Wednesday, June 01, 2005


In her St. Pete Times article printed on May 8, 2005, Robyn Blumner first bemoaned that we (poor, dumb Americans that we are) are, “In a Civics Education Crisis”.

Don’t run for the duct tape and plywood just yet, because Robyn proceeds to demonstrate that the crisis exists primarily at her word-processor. She heroically controls her hysteria as she reports (Oh, the humanity!) on the latest assault by the Bush administration. Specifically, she reveals that, “In court documents, the Bush administration has blankly (?) asserted that the presidential authority as Commander in Chief of the armed forces supercedes laws passed by the Congress.”
Of course, since we are in the aforementioned crisis, she does not take the time to tell you that the President has been secretly reading the United States Constitution where he found at Article II, Section 2,
“The President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.”

You really don’t need a degree in Constitutional Law or even a basic course in Civics to see that the Constitution (“the supreme law of the land“, if you believe Article VI, Par 2) vests in the President every bit of the authority that he is claiming.

Now, where is Robyn going with this rant? Read on. In this same article, she quotes an “admired stance” one of her followers as, “If their (Muslim terrorists) due process rights are at risk, whose are secure”. I can’t tell you how many nanoseconds I have lain awake worrying about the due process rights of Muslim terrorists.

If Robyn and her Myrmidons are sincere in their interest in civic education, let me give them a constitutional maxim that has been recognized by even the most liberal of judges, “ THE CONSTITUTION WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE A SUICIDE PACT.” Think about that the next time you worry whether or not suspected terrorists are receiving a balanced diet.

The reference, in Robyn Red Guard’s column, to CIVICED.ORG is interesting. This sweet group is currently holding an international symposium. I have obtained a copy of their daily schedule. More on this later.

You heard it here first!


The lead story in most news media this week concerns to the manner in which Social Security is funded and distributed. A poll published today shows that 72% of the respondents approve of a plan whereby successful wage earners will pay considerably higher Soc. Sec. tax and receive lower benefits.

This plan has a formal title, but you will never hear its proponents use the words. The title is, “From each according to his ability; to each according to his need.” If you recognize the title, you may recall what happened to every government tried it.

Regardless, we will try it again. I can’t help but be reminded of the old Rocky and Bullwinkle Show. As you may recall, at some time during the show, we would see Bullwinkle with his hand in a magician’s hat as he mumbled some incantation. Rocky would whine, “That trick never works“ and Bullwinkle would utter the hopeful words, “This time for sure“.

Well, Socialism never did work and never will work. At least not with humans. Try a different species and you may have a winner.

The reason that it will be tried is easy to understand. It sounds good. If you have more than I, you must give me some. The reason it will never work is just as obvious, but it is only obvious to people who dare to think about it. Very simply stated, if you have a disconnect between productivity and reward, productivity will dry up and the demand for reward will grow. As every socialist nation has discovered, without equitable reward, you can only get productivity by way of forced effort.
Every socialist nation vows to avoid the unavoidable. They will do it, but will limit the downside. They remind me of the old joke about the boy who was told that if he kept doing it, he would go blind. His reply was that he would quit as soon as he needed glasses.

If our friends in Washington don’t need glasses yet, at least they need a good optometrist.



If you are not familiar with the antics of the Red Guard during the heyday of Mao Zedong’s misrule of China, do not fret. The Red Guard is alive and well and writes a column for the St. Petersburg Times each Sunday under the by-line of Robin ‘Red Guard’ Blumner. The purpose of the column appears to be to cause as much hate, hell and confusion as possible (and if we can stamp out the use of logic at the same time, so much the better.

In the latest installment, Robin Red Guard describes the evil and injustice in the “khaki ceiling”. The original ceiling complained of by women was made of glass and referred to the fact that organizations placed a limit upon the upward advancement of women. The problem with that ceiling was that it precluded women from attaining the ‘better’ jobs (higher wages, more authority, etc.). In Robyn’s khaki ceiling, women are prevented from participating in something called the combat infantry. Now, I am sure that the Army has changed considerably since I spent three years in the airborne infantry, but I am equally sure that the changes are not of such a magnitude as to make the combat infantry as desirable as, let’s say, the executive washroom at IBM.

So, why is Robyn bitching. The Marxian rationale of, “from each according to her ability” comes to mind. but that is too easy. Let’s take a look at her explanation and see if we can discern a pattern.

First, RRG (Robyn Red Guard) scoffs at the idea that the difference between the average physicality of a man and a woman as a factor worth considering. Here, she is clearly on the wrong side of history. The women’s professional golf ass’n would love to have their members invited to play in the men’s tournaments, but they will fight to the death to prevent man from playing in theirs. Tennis is dominated by 6 foot, 180 pound, testosterone laden gals, but they still forbid men and play best 2 out of 3 matches while men play 3 out of 5. Professional basketball has women playing shorter games than men. If women athletes recognize a difference, why must the army ignore it?

RRG also snickers at the subject of unit cohesion and proffers that the whole issue is based on fear of sexual competition. Let’s consider a more rational thought. Whether you believe in evolution or creationism, you have been taught that man has been not only the hunter-gatherer in providing for the family, he is also the protector. This may embarrass some feminists, but it is a fact of life and has been since the beginning of time. Congress may pass a law creating a technical state of equality between men and women in the military, but they cannot wish away eons of, “Look out for your sister”.

The day-to-day life of an infantryman is not only less than glamorous: it is dehumanizing. You will eat slop, not waste water washing when you may need it to drink, relieve yourself any time you can unzip your fly or drop your pants, etc. Accommodating the sensibilities of the ladies that we all want our sisters daughters to be is a luxury that we cannot afford to worry about. But we will worry about it because we were raised that way and it is the right thing to do. While these matters may seem insignificant, the effect on cohesion is not. Cohesion refers to togetherness and the men who find themselves in the combat infantry have enough to do trying to stay alive. They should not be required to take care of little sister at the same time.

Combat is a stupid thing for adults to tolerate let alone aspire to. To consider it an honor to be in charge of it is the height of twittiness.


Blogarama - The Blogs Directory Blog Directory & Search engine
Search Popdex:
Blogarama - The Blogs Directory Free Web Counter
Free Hit Counter