April 28, 2005
Extry! Extry! Al Gore Still Unhinged
Check out this Al Gore quote from a speech that he gave Wednesday
He also cited recent comments from leaders of two conservative organizations - the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family - about disenfranchising certain courts or denying them funds. "This aggressive new strain of right-wing religious zealotry is actually a throwback to the intolerance that led to the creation of America in the first place," Gore said as many in the audience stood and applauded. The speech was sponsored by the liberal group MoveOn's political action committee.
Decrying non-constructionist judges who force changes over tradition, law, and public opinion is the same as systematically oppressing certain religious groups? Yeah, uh, who’s trying to systematically oppress certain religious groups here? Al Gore sure has gotten “interesting” in the past four years. I'm sure he stays up nights thinking about how much George Bush is like Hitler.
Hat tip to The Museum of Left Wing Lunacy for the link, as well as an interesting Al Gore picture.
Posted by illuminaria at 11:41 PM | Comments (0)
April 27, 2005
A Heartbreaking Story of Rejection
Number 2 Pencil has a link to a simply hilarious article by a college journalism intern’s torturous experience of being rejected for a job.
The world of a college journalism intern is not glamorous. It's not exciting, and it isn't fun. It is a true test of skills and stamina, and above all, it makes you wonder if you really want to do what you thought you always wanted to do.Last week, I was flatly rejected by SPIN magazine for a summer internship in New York City. The "rejection e-mail" from SPIN's editorial intern coordinator said something like "after thoroughly reviewing all applications, we have come to a decision, and unfortunately you have not been selected." All I heard was, "You suck."
This girl better grow a thicker skin if she wants to have any job at all, ever. Unless you’re applying at McDonalds, many people have to apply for dozens of positions to even get an interview, let alone get a job. And these are people who actually have, you know, experience and stuff.
I first stumbled upon the internship opportunity on SPIN's Web site, and decided to take a shot at it. The application required a cover letter and resume, and three to five clips of published work. Three to five? I had at least six in my portfolio from my time here at the Transcript and with MCLA's paper, the Beacon. Along with camera-room experience and graphic arts certification, I assumed I was a shoo-in.
They required 3-5 clips of published work and she had 6. SIX. I mean, do you actually think that anyone else applying for that job possibly met those stringent requirements? She was totally a shoo-in. Totally.
[I] started looking for apartments in the East Village in my spare time. I told my friends I was moving to New York for the summer, and told them they should all come along, thinking they would all say something like, "Wow Krystal, I would, but I just can't right now, you know, work and all." To my chagrin, they all said yes. My friend Amy is moving in a few weeks, and I found her a job at a hip vintage store in the East Village. At least it worked out for someone.
Ok, I know I’m in the engineering department and most of us here would are probably familiar enough with reality to not do something like that, but I have never ever heard of anyone applying for a job and being so confident that they would get it that they started looking for apartments and telling everyone that they were definitely moving.
The rejection e-mail from SPIN also welcomed "questions regarding my decision." Naturally, I was a little more than curious. I was, and am, heartbroken, and like any heartbreak, I needed a reason. I asked politely, and received no response. A week later, I sent another e-mail, asking a little less politely, and a little more aggressively. This time I got an answer.
Heartbroken. I mean seriously, she was a shoo-in. This is comparable to divorce or something.
After telling me the delay in correspondence was because they had "fallen a bit behind in the creation of the next issue," I was told that being "snippy" to a prospective employer was "unbelievably off-putting," even if they had already decided not to give me the job.I went home and cried until I passed out, then woke up and cried some more.
Being unfailingly polite to a prospective employer seems like, you know, a good idea. What a surprise that they would get upset if you weren’t. I bet the SPIN correspondent was thinking, “Thank God we didn’t hire her.” I’d love to see her email. “You said you’d email me and you didn’t. Get on the ball!”
Then I thought about what the second rejection e-mail really said.First of all, what does an editorial intern coordinator have to do with the production schedule of a magazine? I read SPIN a lot, and have seen this man's name under a few minor album reviews. Nothing that would delay anyone's schedule. I had gotten a lame excuse for his procrastination, and he obviously didn't take my inquiry seriously.
Totally! I mean SPIN has 2-3 interns, after telling them what to do and corresponding with a few pissy applicants, what could he possibly be doing with his time? Sitting around sipping coffee while everyone else scrambles around?
I love her confidence that she knows what this guy’s duties are and that he should have emailed her back IMMEDIATELY since he obviously has nothing else to do.
Secondly, being "snippy" and being direct are two very different things. He said he would answer questions, and I took him up on the offer. When he didn't reply, I asked again. I wasn't mean or rude, just to-the-point. If he didn't have time to answer my first question, he wouldn't have time to read any unnecessary formalities. I had a question, and I wanted an answer. That's all.
She should have asked once, as politely as possible and if she never got a response, tough. They have no obligation to tell her anything, even if they said they would. I wonder if she would get “direct” with me if I offered to give her some cash, and then took more than a week to give it to her.
But, you know, she was just being nice and respectful of his precious time by leaving out "unnecessary formalities."
Lastly, and most importantly, his reasons for rejecting my application were the font I used in my resume and cover letter headings, and that I didn't show a "passion for SPIN magazine."So I used an interesting typestyle. I thought it was creative and would make my application stand out. Apparently, it made me seem "less serious."
My passion for SPIN is definitely waning, but I do have a passion for music, though rarely have the opportunity to write about it. Not everyone is lucky enough to write about whatever they want, especially if they want to get published. I thought an editorial intern coordinator would know that better than anyone.
Usually when people are going through resumes looking for someone to hire, they pay more attention to who they like and why, not why they are rejecting every single other person. Most of the reasons they would give for rejecting a particular person would be similarly pathetic.
But they totally should have had a good reason for rejecting this girl, because she was a shoo-in!
I was at a party last weekend and everyone asked me about the internship because I talked myself up so much. All I could say was I didn't get it. No one had the time to hear all the reasons why, and I didn't have the energy to talk about it.
Maybe you should have told them that you were an idiot for making assumptions and telling everyone about your cool summer job.
So I'm in for another six months at the Transcript until school starts in the fall. Besides, an internship with SPIN might not be the best thing for me anyway. I have a feeling I'd ask too many questions.
I love stupid kids. She gets rejected, but it’s not because she’s a poor applicant, it’s because she “asks too many questions.” She’s “standing up to authority.” I bet she even thinks her parents are, like, so totally dumb. Geeze, I'm 25 so it's not like I can't understand the hubris of the young, but I don't think I've been that presumptuous in at least ten years.
If there are any “editorial intern coordinators” reading this, while on one of their many coffee breaks, I hope they remember the name Krystal Grow.
Posted by illuminaria at 03:06 PM | Comments (1)
In Defense of Pedophiles?
I vividly remember a few years ago when I came across the NAMBLA website. (And I’m talking about the North American Man/Boy Love Association, not the North American Marlon Brando Look Alikes) I was sick and depressed for days; I just couldn’t believe that not only did child-molesters exist, but that they had formed an organization where they tried to convince themselves and others that child-molestation was completely OK and children were sexual beings who should have the right to choose to have sex if they wished to.
What was most sickening was the section of their website where they have testimonials from boys as young as 11 with titles like “For The First Time in My Life I Felt Wanted” and “He Listens to Me, Unlike Most People.” Anyone who is not a child-molester can recognize in this the pedophilic tactic of preying on the abused and the lonely. I’m sure you could find some beaten women to praise their abusive husbands, too, and I’m sure that within their writings you could also find the tells of an abusive relationship.
NAMBLA claims that rape and sexual exploitation is grounds for revocation of membership, and I’m sure that there’s members who really believe that claptrap. They’re the same ones who read “For The First Time in My Life I Felt Wanted” and think it’s a beautiful tale of love rather than a story of abuse. NAMBLA puts out a publication called "The Survival Manual: The Man's Guide to Staying Alive in Man-Boy Sexual Relationships" that explains how to lure children into relationships, how to fool the parents, how to not get caught, and how to escape if caught. Yeah, but, you know, they’re all about freedom for youth. Their capacity for denial is amazing.
Well this morning on Bill O’Reilly’s show, I heard about a 1997 case where two men, Charles Jaynes and Salvatore Sicari lured a 10 year old boy from his home, smothered him with a gasoline-soaked rag, molested the cadaver, and threw the body into a river. Sicari was convicted of first-degree murder and Jaynes was convicted of second-degree muder and kidnapping. In 2000 the murdered boys parents filed a civil lawsuit against NAMBLA, having already won a civil lawsuit against the two perpetrators.
I think this was a wonderful idea. This is what civil lawsuits are for. Let’s put NAMBLA and their members out of business. Unfortunately there’s an organization who disagrees. Three guesses who it is, and the first two don’t count.
That’s right, the ACLU, and they’re doing it for free while the parents are footing the entire side of their bill. They’ve been holding up the case for the past five years; it still hasn’t gone to trial yet.
Information on this can be found here, here, here, and here. I'm suprised I haven't heard more about this case before.
Here’s the ACLU's press release on the subject from 2000.
In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children. What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech.
I’m sorry, but this is completely idiotic. NAMBLA’s content is not free speech anymore than my posting directions of how to build a bomb or exhortations to kill the president would be.
The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.
Actually, when this lawsuit was filed, criminal and civil lawsuits had been won against the two men who committed the crime. This is hardly a case of blaming speech instead of people.
In fact, given Jaynes’s diary, I think it is quite easy to see that NAMBLA indeed contributed to his actions.
It was also revealed during the trials that Jaynes was a timid pedophile for years, until he joined NAMBLA in 1996, according to his own diary. Then he became emboldened by the idea that there were others who shared his twisted, sick obsession. He fueled his perversion through the group's Web site and e-mails filled with horrid, pornographic images of children. He read with great interest the NAMBLA publication entitled "The Rape and Escape Manual." [Nickname for “The Survival Manual“ – ed.]
According to the parents’ lawyer, the ACLU is now charging that the lawsuit would violate Jaynes’s freedom of association.
I’m not one of those conservatives who thinks the ACLU is evil incarnate, although they’ve certainly done things I disagree with, such as their seeming vendetta against the Boy Scouts. This case, though, is simply disgusting. My husband says I’m a libertarian except when it comes to protecting children. I agree with that, but I don’t even see how a libertarian could defend this.
Update: The current lawsuit can be found here. Here's some of the allegations.
28. Prior to joining NAMBLA Charles Jaynes was heterosexual.29. After joining NAMBLA Charles Jaynes received and read the NAMBLA Bulletin, accessed and read the NAMBLA website which is provided by John Doe Inc. and by said means of communication began to collect child pornography and various pedophile material.
30. As a direct and proximate result of the urging, advocacy conspiring and promoting of pedophile activity by John Doe Inc., NAMBLA Radow, Powers, Thorstad, Miller, Herman, Hunter and Schoen, Charles Jaynes became obsessed with having sex with and raping young male children.
31. As a direct and proximate result of the urging, advocacy and promoting of pedophile activity by John Doe Inc., NAMBLA, Radow, Powers, Thorstad, Miller, Herman, Hunter and Schoen, Charles Jaynes stalked Jeffrey Curley of Cambridge, Massachusetts who was ten years old and tortured, murdered and mutilated Jeffrey Curley's body on or about October 1, 1997. Upon information and belief immediately prior to said acts Charles Jaynes accessed NAMBLA's website at the Boston Public Library.
Linked at Outside the Beltway's open post.
Update: Today there's been a rumor going around (started by the LA Times) that pedophiles are almost always Trekkies. Turns out it's not quite totally true, but close enough. Right Thinking from the West Coast has a suggestion as to the reason.
I don’t think for a second that there is anything in Star Trek that particularly appeals to pedophiles. But pedophilia requires a high degree of imagination, such as imagining that little children can and will be receptive to sexual advances, that sort of thing. Nobody gets the idea in their head to molest a child and then immeidately runs out and does it. The action comes after years of fantasizing and imagining various scenarios involving children. So it seems to be to be completely reasonable that a large number of these type of criminals would have a passing to strong interest in Star Trek, a show which has always appealed to the imaginative.
Pedophiles definitly need a good sense of the imagination.
More here here and the guy who broke the story herehere
Posted by illuminaria at 12:32 PM | Comments (5)
April 26, 2005
Black Girl Charged With Hate Crime
Via Michelle Malkin, I saw this story about a recent incident at Trinity International University where three students received “racially motivated hate mail.” When the third letter, which was the first to threaten violence, was brought to the attention of the administration, they called in the police and the FBI and evacuated minority students off campus.
Well, today the university released a statement.
The Bannockburn Police Department investigation of hate mail at Trinity International University has reached a successful conclusion. On Monday, task force members were able to obtain a confession from a Trinity student. The student is a female African-American who became disgruntled and wanted to leave the school. The notes became her way to leave the school by implying it was not a safe campus.
See, also, this story
There never was a serious threat at Trinity International University, police Lt. Ron Price said Tuesday.He said the woman, who was arrested and was expected to be charged on Tuesday, was unhappy at the Christian school and wanted to convince her parents it was too dangerous for her to stay.
"It's kind of a sad story, actually," Price said. Her name was not immediately released.
That’s right, she scared the shit out of lots of students and forced the university and the police and the FBI to waste money and time on an investigation because she didn’t want to deal with telling her parents something unpleasant.
People like this who make false accusations - whether they are of rape, molestation, or hatred - make me so angry. Whether it is for revenge, attention, or manipulation, they waste everyone’s time and make it so real incidents will be less likely to be believed.
The hate crime ones are especially heinous because they give credence to the belief that Americans are “really” racist bigots below the surface, when I think that the majority of Americans really aren’t racist anymore.
That’s why I was very glad to read this in the university’s statement.
The student is being charged with disorderly conduct and a hate crime per the Lake County State Attorneys office.
I hope this is not a misprint or misunderstanding on the part of the school. I don’t agree with hate crime legislation, but if it’s going to be around, I’m glad it’s going to be applied in this case. Threatening people simply because they are a particular race is no less heinous if you’re a member of that race yourself than if you're white.
More here where La Shawn decries the unfair application of hate crime laws, and also here, here, and here
Update: This story has the name of the girl, Alicia Hardin, 19, of Chicago. It also says she is charged with a hate crime.
Also, see this story, where you can see an example of, erm, "interesting" english from Jesse Jackson.
''It would have been the height of irresponsibility to have taken three threatening letters not seriously."
Posted by illuminaria at 12:55 PM | Comments (1)
Columbia Peace Protesters
I was astonished today to see that I missed a story that has been around the blogosphere today that happened right here at home.
Rita Preckshot went to a peace rally, and a fight broke out. It started out as a typical Wednesday for Preckshot, a 49-year-old who stands about 5-foot-2 and has hearing aids in both ears. She was standing on her normal spot on Providence Road, holding her signs in support of American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. For nearly four years now, this has been Preckshot’s life from about 4:15 to about 5:45 in the afternoon once a week. She started her solo troop-support effort to counteract the peace protesters who stand a couple of blocks away at the intersection of Providence and Broadway. The peaceniks hold signs that say things such as "honk for peace" and "end the occupation."They outnumber Preckshot every Wednesday, but she stands out there just the same, sometimes drawing another supporter or two to help her effort.
…
"He started taunting me and reached out and pushed on my shoulder," Preckshot says. "Each time he pushed, it got a little harder. When I saw his hand come at me again, I grabbed it. I felt fearful."
As Preckshot pushed the man’s hand away, "he slugged me right in the face," she says.
When the police arrived the nonviolent peace protesters declined to help the police locate the suspect. Luckily he was seen by the victim later at another peace protest (flipping her off I might add) and arrested, and not quietly.
As a Columbian, I can’t say that I’m surprised. Those peace protesters are dedicated and a pain in the neck. They show up at every single event in Columbia and shove their flyers in people’s faces. On April 15th they were outside the post office shoving flyers at everyone who was trying to get their taxes filed. The flyers were all about how the tax dollars being used in the Iraq war could be used to fund the health insurance of poor Missouri children. The poor Iraqi children who no longer live under a brutal dictator and are being helped by the troops are, of course, meaningless.
I'm glad Ms. Preckshot isn't letting it stop her.
Posted by illuminaria at 10:21 AM | Comments (3)
April 21, 2005
First Saddam, Now China
I saw over at Wizbang that France has decided to back communist China in their conflict with free democratic Taiwan. While I understand France's penchant for automatically joining the wrong side of every conflict, I wondered what exactly could be their motivation.
At the outset of a three-day visit to China, French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin said he supported Beijing's "anti-secession" law on Taiwan, and vowed to keep pushing for an end to an EU arms embargo that could open the door for Paris to sell weapons to the Asian giant.Raffarin also signed or finalized major business deals with Beijing valued at around $3.2 billion (2.4 billion euros).
...
During his visit to Beijing on Thursday, China Eastern Airlines and Shenzhen Airlines signed a deal with the European consortium Airbus to buy a total of 10 A319/A320 planes. And China Southern completed an agreement on its purchase of five A380 super jumbos.
The deals were signed between the carriers and the European consortium's vice-president, Philippe Delmas, who is in China accompanying Raffarin on his visit.
Surprise, surprise. It's money. And they're completely willing to sell weapons to China that will be used to kill Taiwanese. But, as we all know, America is the greedy selfish money-grubbing war-mongering cowboy nation.
Posted by illuminaria at 09:13 PM | Comments (0)
Another Michael Moore Tantrum
Michael Moore press release
Oscar-winning filmmaker and best-selling author Michael Moore announced today the establishment of “The Michael Moore Freedom of Speech Scholarship at Cal State San Marcos.” The $2,500 scholarships will be awarded annually, for a minimum of four years, to the two individual students who have done the most to fight for issues of student rights by standing up to the administration of Cal State San Marcos (CSUSM).
I’m really glad to see that with all his money, Michael Moore has finally begun to start to help the little people that he supposedly stands for instead of abusing them because their employer isn't paying him enough. Let’s see, now Michael Moore has millions of dollars that he’s made by lying and manipulating people, how much are these scholarships going to be? Ahh yes, $2,500 for four years for two students. Let’s just see how much it costs for an full time in-state undergraduate to attend CSUSM….looks like $15,946 a year including fees, books, room and board, and other miscellaneous charges. Way to watch out for the little guys, Michael. I’m sure that will be a big help to the two students you choose.
Moore pledged to establish the scholarship after the Cal State San Marcos student-body came out to protest the school administration and CSUSM President Karen Haynes’s decision to cancel a speaking engagement Mr. Moore had at the school on the grounds that the speaker was too “political.”
So he’s not actually doing this to help anyone, but to throw a little tantrum.
Martinez said Moore's $25,000 speaking fee and $12,000 security and travel accommodations would have come from a combination of funds, from the university, from student-paid campus fees and $6,500 that student government leaders voted 12-3 to spend.
The school canceled the speaking engagement in response to complaints from some students that there were no conservative speakers. How terrible that the students would protest that the school is spending thirty-seven thousand of their dollars on a liberal speaker without any balancing views. What’s even more terrible, is that the school would listen to them.
According to an e-mail she sent to some faculty and students, the president didn't want Moore speaking on campus before the election because she felt the university would be unable to get a conservative whose stature ranks with Moore's. Haynes was unavailable for comment yesterday and her office referred all calls to a campus spokesman."Universities are about the exchange of ideas," Haynes said in her brief e-mail. "Some ideas are uncomfortable, but being exposed to them is how we become confident of our own beliefs and values. That said, however, it is important that discussions be balanced."
Back to the press release…
“I hope this scholarship will encourage students to show courage and stand up for what they believe in”, Moore stated. “It’s not easy to take on the establishment, but when students do so for the right reasons, they should be rewarded.”
Is asking that the money that you pay to the school be used to actually bring a few speakers that don’t stand for everything you stand against a “right reason?” Something tells me not. Obviously Mr. Moore has the right to give his paltry scholarship to whomever he wishes, but the gall of calling it the “Freedom of Speech” scholarship is just ridiculous.
“At a time when the media and politicians have shown a lack of courage, we should look to America’s universities and America’s young people to show us how patriotic dissent is. The University should not be a place for fear, but a place for bravery, free thought, and a little bit of rebellion.”
I’m sure the liberal students at CSUSM live in constant fear that the school might not use everyone’s money to pay for their idol to come speak.
Posted by illuminaria at 02:09 PM | Comments (0)
April 20, 2005
Exercising the Constitutional Right to be Stupid.
Via Number 2 Pencil, see this story about a mall that, in response to several recent incidents, is passing out flyers about appropriate conduct and requiring that children under 16 are accompanied by an parent or other responsible adult.
In response parent Leann Newcomb said "I feel as though if I want to drop my kids off, I should. They're responsible." You may want to do it, Ms. Newcomb, but the mall is not required to let you, no matter how responsible you may think your daughter is. They are a private institution with no obligation to act as babysitter to your child.
What was even better, though, was her response to the mall’s rule banning dress "commonly recognized as gang-related…such as long chains …or studded dog or wrist collars, all of which can be used as weapons.”
"They sell that stuff," said Newcomb. "How are they going to tell the kids after they buy that stuff not to wear it? Isn't that a violation of your constitutional rights?"
Words escape me.
Do the schools still teach civics classes? Does anyone pay attention in them? Would it be a violation of Ms. Newcomb’s constitutional rights if I drove to Massachusetts and stuffed a copy of the Constitution where the sun don’t shine?
I can see the Supreme Court cases now – a customer of Victoria Secret sues the company because they objected to her wearing her newly purchased lingerie around the store.
Other annoying examples of constitutional misunderstanding – people who claim it’s a violation of their right to free speech for you to disagree with them or, *gasp*, even call them unpatriotic and children who protest “it’s a free country” when their parents attempt to lay down the law.
Posted by illuminaria at 01:53 PM | Comments (0)
Mayor “Are You Attacking My Manhood” Coleman
Recently talk radio host Glenn Beck has been covering the story of the 16 year old handicapped girl that was beaten and raped on videotape at Mifflin High School in Columbus, Ohio. (Audio can be obtained here. Registration required. Free audio avaliable here.)
While the actions of the students are obviously outrageous, what is even more appalling is that the administration at the school tried to convince the girl’s father to not call the police in order to “avoid media attention.” Surprise surprise, the father called the police anyway and now the school is getting even more media attention for that little gaffe.
But what is simply unbelievable is the fact that the school board decided to fire the principal, but only suspend the assistant principals and then move them to other schools. This, despite the fact that one of the assistant principals was the one that told the girl’s father not to call the authorities.
Glenn Beck was finally able to get Michael B. Coleman, the mayor of Columbus, Ohio on the phone today. (After he tried to back out of his promise to call in two days ago.) The conversation was quite interesting and perhaps indicative of why Columbus has such a problem with their school system.
Glenn attempted to talk to Coleman about the school board’s decision to keep the assistant principals on, and Coleman talked about the criminal side of the investigation and said that he was not allowed to reveal anything about it while it was open, but he was sure everything would be taken care of. Glenn kept trying to steer him back to the subject of the school board and their actions towards the assistant principals and Coleman kept insisting that he couldn’t talk about an open police investigation. About the only thing he said about the schools was that they had paid policemen there and that he, the mayor, had no control or influence over what the school board did.
The best part of the interview was when Glenn attempted to ask him a question, “Doesn’t it offend you as a man….” He didn’t get a chance to finish, but I’m assuming the end of that question was something like, “that the schools would allow something like this to happen to a girl and then do nothing to the people who allowed it to go on.” However, he didn’t get a chance because Coleman interrupted him with “Are you attacking my manhood?”
No wonder the Columbus school district is having so many problems, if no one in the city government is willing to get their hands dirty and deal with the problem. Sending the police over to patrol the schools is a good temporary first step, but it's not a solution. A little something more than that needs to be done, and it seems that the school board doesn’t want to do it and the mayor “can’t get involved.”
Apparently Coleman wants to run for governor of Ohio. I hope all you voters in Ohio remember this incident.
To end this article on a funny note, I’ll relate an exchange with a humorous man who called to say that this incident had nothing to do with Mayor Coleman, but instead was completely the fault of President Bush. When a stunned Glenn asked him why, he said “because Cameron Diaz said that if Bush was reelected, that rape would be legal.” Much laughter was enjoyed by all.
Update: Ohio for Blackwell has a post up on this also, and has the audio of the interview avaliable for free.
Update 2: I just spend a while talking about this with my husband. He listened to the entire Glenn Beck show, whereas I came in midway. Glenn was apparently ripping on the mayor the entire two and a half hours during which it seemed that the mayor was dodging the interview that he had previously agreed to. Glenn began the interview by apologizing for a scheduling mistake that Glenn, the mayor, and every single person in the audience knew that Glenn's staff had not made. Glenn was offering the mayor a way to save face for trying to dodge the interview.
However, my husband thinks, right or wrong, that Glenn treated his guest with hostility from the outset. My husband’s impression of the interview with the mayor was that Glenn had one major question to be answered and after the first time he asked it, the mayor stated concretely that he had no authority over the school board, but that his authority and duty was to the police department which was heading up an investigation into the matter and that to answer Glenn's question would most definitely compromise that case. Glenn persisted. The mayor never deviated from his insistence both that the police were doing all they could to investigate and that he was prohibited from compromising the case by answering Glenn's question.
The mayor did indeed say that he couldn’t talk about the police investigation, and it might be a possible interpretation of his words that the school board’s actions were included in the investigation, but I’m not at all convinced that that is the case. It can also easily be interpreted as him avoiding the issue. Plus, I don’t really see any reason why the school board’s actions would be part of the police investigation into the incident and thus covered by the mayor's inability to talk about an ongoing police investigation. My husband maintains, however, that when investigators initiate a media gag order, that they throw the net wide as to what can not be discussed to allow for possible unforeseen ramifications of information disclosure.
My husband also thinks Glenn, who he usually likes, was stupid and uninformed to be trying to talk to the mayor instead of the school board members. I agree. They are the ones who made this decision and should be anwering for it.
Also, directly after the “don’t attack my manhood” incident, the mayor did finally say “I’m not offended” to Glenn’s question about the school board putting the administrators back to work. That makes me think that he’s OK with the school board’s decision and explains why he’s avoiding the issue elsewhere in the interview. My husband thinks, though, that the mayor was flustered because he thought Glenn was attacking him with schoolyard insults. The mayor lost his composure and didn't really understand the question. He thinks that the mayor was reassuring Glenn that he had not offended his guest and that they could continue the discussion.
I still think the mayor was skirting the issue to cover himself and his people and his town, so I’m just recounting all this for the purposes of full disclosure, since I don’t want to be one of those hysterical pajama people who don't tell both sides of the story. I’m curious, though, as to whether anyone else has any sort of similar reaction to the audio of the interview, or if you all think my husband is nuts too. :)
Posted by illuminaria at 12:09 PM | Comments (7)
April 09, 2005
Transcript of Glenn Beck Interview with Ken Mullinax
I've been following the story of the case of Mae Magouirk and the removal of her feeding tube despite a living will that directs otherwise. I haven't had much to add to the story so far, but I thought I would transcribe this Glenn Beck interview with Magourik's nephew, Ken Mullinax since I know not everyone has audio capabilities. It's much more detailed that the stories in the paper and it really helps to clear up some of the questions I had about what was going on.
Obviously this is all Glenn Beck's work (one of my favorite talk radio hosts) and I hope it's ok that I transcribe it. Spelling of names and such has not been verified.
Glenn: I gotta talk to Ken. Ken, you are the, the nephew…Ken: I’m the nephew of Mae Magouirk in LaGrange, Georgia. My family lives in Alabama. They’re from Addiston, Alabama and I live in Birmingham, Alabama and we love my aunt Mae very much and we can’t believe that, uh, she is being withheld substantial nourishment…
Glenn: Ken, tell me this, tell me the situation, uh, be, because your grandma has, your grandma had, or your aunt has a, um, a living will!Ken: Yeah, she has a living will and the living will is not being obeyed. As a matter of fact her attending physician, Doctor Stadde of LaGrange, Georgia, said in probate court that even though Mae Magourik’s living will says tha, uh, that her nourishment and fluids should only be pulled if she’s comatose or vegetative, that he feels her life is such that it should be pulled regardless.
Glenn: Oh my Gosh!
Ken: Have I fallen in to the Twilight Zone, and it’s 1937 and I’m in Nuremberg, Germany?
Glenn: I gotta tell ya, that’s exac… I, I. Ken, I’ve been saying this for five years. I cannot believe it is happening this fast. So she
Ken: And those of your listeners that are sitting by, complacent, thinking “oh, poor Terri Schindler-Schiavo.” And I was one of them last week. I said, “Oh it’s terrible, but it’s just a freak, it’s an anomaly. It couldn’t happen to us.” The next day, it happened to us. And this woman may, 81 may sound old to you Glenn, but the women in the McCloud-Magourik family live to be ancient. My aunt May Magourik is 81. Guess what, her aunt is still living. The one she was named for, Aunt May Oliver, and she is 95. May’s mother lived to be 90 and she had two aunts that were 100 and 104. Now they kill us men off early in life, but the women live to be forever. Now this woman has got 10, 15 more good years left.
Glenn: So tell me, what is, what is wrong with her. She was brought into the hospital why
Ken: All three of the children of the siblings: my mother, Aunt May Magourik, and her brother Buddy McCloud, they all have di - inherited dissected aortas.
Glenn: I don’t know what that means.
Ken: An aorta is the major artery that takes the blood out of your heart.
Glenn: Got that.
Ken: Uh, well, an, an, let’s just start from the beginning. An aneurysm is like a, a, uh hosepipe that has a big bulge in it.
Glenn: Got it.
Ken: Uh, uh, a dissection is ah, like a hosepipe that has a crack in it, but it is not cracked all the way open. And a rupture is when the crack opens all the way open, all the blood flows out of ya and you’re dead in about two minutes.
Glenn: OK.
Ken: So she has ah, ah, a dissection and the ironic thing about it is my mother, her sister, Bonnie Ruth McCloud-Mullinax, two years ago had an aortic dissection. I took her to the fifth best cardiovascular hospital in the nation, University of Alabama-Birmingham. My mother was not a candidate for surgery because it was so bad. Neither is my aunt. But guess what, world-class physicians can treat you with chemicals. My mother was in a coma for three months. I kept feeding her, I kept fluids in her. She has what’s called homeostasis which means if you keep em still enough, it will cure itself. My mother is alive…
Glenn: What is her, wait a minute, what is her quality of life…
Ken: It, it’s fabulous. Until last night. Uh, there’s a addendum to this story. My mom’s not supposed to be given… For three years she’s been cooking, driving, limited, going to church socials, everything in the world. I’m her caregiver now.
Glenn: How old is she?
Ken: She’s, uh, 74. But she is freaking out so bad about her sister, she’s not supposed, we’ve finally had to tell her Monday because we needed her to go before the probate judge to stop Beth Gaddy, uh, May Magourik’s grandchild and my cousin, from, uh, not, you know, giving her substantial nourishment. So Mom had to go. Uh, she’s, her blood pressure has been skyrocketing since that happened. Last night Mom started, uh, complaining of pain and now my mother is in the intensive care unit [begins to get emotional] at UAB hospital in Birmingham with an extension of her dissection. And it’s because she’s freaking out about her aunt, about her sister - my aunt. My mom’s at UAB right now in cardiac intensive care since 10 o’clock last night.
Glenn: Gosh, Ken. I am so sorry man, I don’t know what…
Ken: I don’t know what to do Glenn. Am I, am I having a nightmare? I’ll tell you who’s having a nightmare, Glenn Beck. The United States health care system is having a nightmare. And all of you all who are listening… It may be my aunt May Magourik in LaGrange, Georgia who is not being given substantial nourishment today, but guess what, it may just be you tomorrow because they may say, “well, you know, you’re old, you don’t need to live, or you’ve got Down’s Syndrome…” That’s what they’re saying today, but next week is it going to be, “you’re Catholic or you’re a Jew.”
Glenn: Let me ask you this Ken, let me ask you this. How did your, um, uh, how did your aunt’s uh, granddaughter get control of the situation?
Ken: How did she what?
Glenn: How did she get control. How did this happ…
Ken: Well I’ll tell you what. First of all she bluffed us. Uh, we went to the hospital in LaGrange when my aunt was first sick and Beth told my uncle, she said, “Uncle Buddy, don’t even start with me. I’ve got the medical durable power of attorney. I’m making the decisions.” And I said, “Beth, you know, we’re right here in front of your grandmother. Even though she’s on morphine, we shouldn’t talk about this. We should go out in the hall.” We went out in the hall and we explained my mother’s in uh, she’s had a great quality of life for the last two years even though she was in a coma. We can treat it without surgery. And she said, “Listen,” she said, she started crying, she said, “I’ve been praying about this and, and I’ve been praying to Jesus. Jesus has told me it’s time that grandmother went home to Jesus. She’s got glaucoma. Now she’s got a dissected aorta and her quality of life is just terrible and we just think she should just go to hospice.” And I said, “Beth, hospice is a synonym for death. We’ve got doctors who are ready to take care of her today.” She goes, “no, I’ve got the medical power of attorney and that’s it.” So we thought our hands were tied, Glenn. A week goes by. Last Thursday my uncle and my mother independently started thinking, “this is wrong.” Since I used to be on Capitol Hill as a senior staff guy in Washington, I know my way around, so they said, “Kenny, get involved see what you can find out, we want to bring May to UAB hospital.” So I call hospice, I say to Frita the hospice nurse. I said, “what are my aunt’s vital stats at. She said, “well today, her blood pressure is 160/88 with a pulse of 84.” I said, “well that’s not so bad.” I said, “my aunt’s going to make it, isn’t she.” She says, “Oh no, your aunt’s not going to make it because we have withheld nourishment per geth…Beth Gaddy since March 28th.” She said, “I’ve been off the past few days. I’m surprised your aunt’s still alive.” I said, “What!” Next time, I, she says, “call the hospice attorney.” I called Carol Todd, hospice attorney, ug, said “we’re going to be litigious.” She said, “let me check into it. Heard nothing all day, last Thursday, March 31st until 4 in the afternoon. Carol Todd called me up, “Oh my God, we made a mistake.” I said, “What are you talking about, mistake?” She said, “Beth has power of attorney, but it’s only financial, not medical durable power of attorney. And guess what? Your aunt has a living will and it says only should fluids and nourishment be withheld if she’s comatose or vegetative, she’s neither.” I said, “Guess what, Mother, get on the phone.” Mom got on the phone. She said, “start IV fluids immediately.” They said, “we can do that.” She said, “start a temporary feeding tube just in the nose to give her nourishment and get her electrolytes back up so she can start feeding herself.” They said, “We can’t do that, you’ve gotta come in and sign the papers.” So, uh, Mom stayed here because she’s a little sick. My uncle Buddy, Aunt May’s brother and I went, the three hours from our homes to LaGrange, Georgia from our homes in Alabama. Hospice attorney Carol Todd was to meet us at 10 o’clock. She didn’t show up and the hospice head nurse talked to us, “oh, she needs to die. You know, the life’s over, no quality of life.” And finally, we listened to this for about an hour and a half, and I said, “This is B.S. We want my aunt out of here now. I have world-class doctor Raed Agel of UAB’s cardiovascular unit arranging life-saver helicopter.” They kept inching us on out, Glenn, until Carol Todd the hospice attorney showed up and gave us a piece of paper. Turns out hospice had told Beth Gaddy the granddaughter that we were coming over, that she no longer had durable power of attorney and she went before the probate judge that morning and got a temporary emergency guardianship.
Glenn: Oh my gosh.
Ken: Yeah
Glenn: Oh my gosh. Ken, I’ve gotta tell you something. I, I, I, uh, want someone. I’m not and investigator, I’m not an investigative reporter. I’m not somebody who is, you know, on the bandwagon on cause after cause after cause. Even though it feels like it lately, I’m not that guy. There is somebody in our, in our listening area that can start an investigation into the connection between these courts, these attorneys, and hospice centers. These hospice centers are starting to kill people and there is something going on that isn’t right. I don’t know what it is, but there’s gotta be somebody that can get to the bottom of it. When we have these judges who are giving power of attorney when a woman has a living will. We know what she wanted! And a jur…, a judge will ta, overturn it. I gotta tell you Ken, I, uh, you sound like a credible guy but this, I feel like I’m in the same nightmare with ya. I can’t believe this story is true. I ca… I, I don’t … if this is happening again inside of my country except the wishes are known and the person is not in a persistent vegetative state, is not in a coma, if this person is being killed, quote, because she has glaucoma, and because she’s old, and it’s time to go to Jesus? I’ve woken up in a parallel universe.
Ken: Well this is the bizarre world, but the probate judge of Troup county, Georgia, in LaGrange, Georgia is Donald Boyd and guess what. In Georgia, probate judges don’t have to be attorneys. Judge Boyd is not an attorney. My second question lies, after making sure hospices don’t kill people who are not terminally ill, is that all probate judges who decide matter of life and death should graduate from law school and be a member of the Bar Association
Glenn: Oh, I gotta tell you, you can go to all the law schools, you say everybody on the Supreme Court, everybody on the 11th circuit court, everybody down in Florida, they all passed the bar and I gotta tell you man. Just because you went to school and, and passed the bar and you are an attorney and then you become a judge, doesn’t mean that you have common sense. I’m sick of these judges, man, sick to death of these judges. So let me ask you, did they put, did they, so they didn’t put the feeding tube back in. Was she, did, uh, did, how long has she been without food and water?
Ken: No, but they did have an IV in that we ordered on last Thursday and it was in her Friday, April 1st. But when the hospice person gave us this emergency decree from the probate judge, they took the IV liquids out right in front of us.
Glenn: How come your, um, your mother didn’t, um, how come she doesn’t have custody. How did the granddaughter get custody and not the sister?
Ken: Under Georgia law the closest living next of kin make all the medical decisions. And if we had known that the week Beth said she had power of attorney we would have already moved her to Georgia. When they found out that the law was on our side, they just sort of, uh, kept us going until Beth did an end run around us and got this emergency decree. The judge didn’t know any of the facts of the case, didn’t know we were even around or the closest living next of kin, but he gave it to Beth Gaddy, uh, because we would have had her here. So Monday, we had to appear before the judge, April 4th, and uh, we try to work a compromise out because the judge was not allowing evidence that a dissected aorta could be treated without surgery. We could tell that he was already going to rule in favor of Beth. Because this is the clannish little town. Everyone works for the hospital or the hospice, and it’s controlled by a very wealthy former textile mill family. It, it, uh, everything’s inbred in this little town. But we worked out a compromise that said three doctors would review her case and their decision would be binding. Well two of the doctors are from LaGrange, Georgia. One of them is our world class UAB cardiologist Raed Agel. They were supposed to do something in 24 hours. Well I heard nothing Monday, nothing Tuesday, nothing Wednesday. So Thursday I contacted the Schiavo-Schindler, Schindler uh, people, uh Schindler-Schiavo people and that’s, just in the last 24 hours, this has gotten on the World Net Daily News. Uh, I’ve actually had a call this morning from David Gibbs, the lead attorney for Terri Schindler, and he’s now volunteered his services to help us. Uh..
Glenn: But, how much, how much time does she have?
Ken: That’s why I couldn’t wait on this compromise. It was supposed to be 24 hours from Monday. I waited all the way till Thursday. But how much time does she have? I don’t know. Because she’s 81 and the worst thing about it, you know, it’s bad that she’s not getting adequate nourishment or adequate fluids, but this is a little thing that, that may not mean anything to anybody but me or my aunt. But she, she has glaucoma. She can’t produce tears. She has to take drops to keep her eyes lubricated. She hasn’t had those drops in the last two weeks. She’s blind practically now. Opening her eyes is, is a terrible pain. And they won’t give her the drops.
Glenn: All right. Ken, we’re going to follow this story. Um, I want ya to, I want you to hold on just a second because I want to make sure we have all of your information. We tried to get a hold of, the uh, the granddaughter. But, do uh, do you have another way of getting a hold of her? She’s, uh, her phone is not working.
Ken: Well it turned out that the bloggers for Terri Schiavo gave her about two or three thousand telephone calls yesterday. Oh yeah, and they called the probate judge and because the light of public knowledge is shining on these people, they’re shirking back into the corner. Maybe because of people like you, and people like the Terri Schindler folks. They were just going to let this lady not have proper nourishment because she can’t feed herself…that is just too bad. But because of y’all, maybe something will happen here. But guess what? Even when my aunt, if we get this thing done correctly and we’re able to get her and take care of her, I am not stopping here. I have just become a life advocate.
Glenn: And you know, it’s amazing. And you weren’t when Terri was dying because now you understand it’s not just about one person. Ken, we’ll stay in touch with you. Thank you very much.
See other coverage here here here here here here here here here here and here
Posted by illuminaria at 02:36 AM | Comments (0)
April 06, 2005
Selfish Protesters - Toss Em an Email
Via Michelle Malkin, see this disgusting story about protesters interrupting a university career fair.
Santa Cruz junior Jonathan Perez dressed in a suit and tie Tuesday, hoping to impress company recruiters at the campus job fair. But more than 200 student anti-war protesters got there first, storming the Stevenson Event Center, shouting and banging on windows and demanding that military recruiters in the corner of the room leave. … UCSC administrators stepped up security at the job fair, hoping to avert a confrontation. Students had to present identification at the door and reporters asking to enter were screened.That didn’t stop the student protesters. About 75 of them pushed their way in, carrying signs and a banner that said "Military Off Our Campus." They chanted, "Racist, Sexist, Anti-Gay. Hey, recruiters, go away."
Campus police and firefighters blocked the doors, keeping more than 100 students outside. They kept up a drumbeat of protest, and inside it was hard to hear over the din.
I simply cannot express how absolutely disgusting I find this behavior. If they want to protest the military, fine. I don’t agree with them, but that’s their right (one that the military protects.) But to disrupt thousands of students looking for jobs and 60 companies looking for employees is indicative of the horrible hypocritical selfishness of so many of these protesters. I’d imagine if you asked them, they would tell you about how terribly the economy is doing under Bush and how it’s impossible for anyone to find a job – and yet they think it’s OK to add to that problem. I can’t even find the words…
It reminds me of an incident where I was sitting in a restaurant with my husband listening to the conversation of 3-4 college age kids sitting near us. They were talking about how “cool” anarchy was and telling stories about stuff anarchists did. I don’t really know much about anarchists and the tactics they use so I don’t know if their stories were indicative, but if they were, anarchists sure are idiots. They weren’t talking about disrupting the government, they were talking about disrupting the everyday lives of normal people, like staging a protest in front of a movie theater or a grocery store. I’m sure they think that kind of stuff is a-OK because they’re “just doing what needs to be done to get people’s attention.” I think they’re a bunch of selfish immature a**holes.
But what’s even worse than that is this:
The noisy sit-in ended after an hour of chaos and tension when military representatives vacated their posts. … UCSC Police Capt. Nancy Carroll and other officers appeared in riot gear wearing protective helmets, but administrators sought a peaceful resolution, negotiating with protest leaders Nils McCune and Josh Sonnenfeld. … Student protesters hugged each other happily after administrators allowed them to hand out information on alternatives to military careers and agreed to a meeting to discuss future job fairs.
Yeah, that’s right. The administration folded. Great job UCSC. Let’s teach them that their terror tactics work.
The article says the leaders of the group were Nils McCune and Josh Sonnenfeld. A web search on the latter shows that he organized a walkout at Santa Cruz High in response to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Apparently he is a member of the Santa Cruz Resource Center for Nonviolence. What an ironic name, considering the behavior of his group. The group can be contacted at counterrecruitment@yahoo.com. (If you email, please don't swear or rant or threaten. Don't stoop to their level.)
More here here here here here here here and here.
Posted by illuminaria at 01:28 PM | Comments (3)
March 22, 2005
Ward Speaks Out
When I saw this AP article on CNN entitled “Embattled professor won't back down,” I thought “hmmm, what could this be about.”
Why it’s about everyone’s favorite abused professor whose rights are being trampled on, Ward Churchill. Let’s go over some of my favorite quotes from the article.
In one message, liberal scholar Noam Chomsky calls Churchill's achievements of inestimable value.
Ha! Way to go, Noam.
[Churchill] acknowledged the uproar now dominates his life and makes it difficult to focus on his job as a tenured professor of ethnic studies."I'm struggling desperately to be able to deliver to my students what they signed up for," Churchill said. …“Every day there's a new idiocy.”
Ain’t that the truth. (Okay, I’ll admit it, I shamelessly deleted sections of the excerpt to make it appear to say something that it actually doesn’t, merely for the value of humor. That was very wrong of me.)
The latest charges are that Churchill plagiarized others' work and threatened physical violence against critics. He denies both claims.
Yes, there’s absolutely no truth to those claims.
Churchill said his critics have mangled the facts in their rush to condemn him.He said the inquiry is not merely an investigation of his work but a pretext for a broader campaign to discourage critical thinking and reduce higher education to "an advanced vo-tech" where students are taught skills useful to corporations.
Churchill, on the other hand, teaches students skills that are of absolutely no use at all, unless you want to fabricate stuff. Plus he's a paragon of critical thinking. See this next quote.
"That's why I'm so in-your-face. You will not ignore this, purport to innocence while applauding genocide. You may not be directly culpable, but you're not innocent," he said.
Gee, that sounds familiar.
Update: Via Michelle Malkin, see this story about Ward striking a blow for academic freedom by banning recording devices at a speech "in the spirit of creating an open forum for debate and discussion."
Posted by illuminaria at 12:54 PM | Comments (0)
March 18, 2005
Manipulative Marijuana Opponents
There have been some interesting things going on in the last 6 months in my town, Columbia, Missouri.
In November city voters overwhelmingly approved a medical marijuana ordinance (69% voted yes), and an ordinance that limits the punishment for possessing less than 35 grams to a $250 fine in municipal court (61% voted yes.) The second ordinance means that no one will have a criminal record for this offense unless it was committed along with another crime. It also means that college students, which comprise a lot of Columbia, will not lose educational funding for possession of small amounts of marijuana.
In January, there was an incident in which a man, Rick Evans, shot a police officer, Molly Bowden during a traffic stop. The next day when the police were closing in, he shot another officer, Curtis Brown, and then fatally shot himself. Brown was moderately wounded with one shot in the arm. Bowden was seriously wounded with three shots in the neck and shoulder and died a month later. When the police later searched Evan’s car and house they found marijuana and scales. The amount of marijuana was above 35 grams. Evans had previously been convicted on misdemeanor charges of marijuana possession and was on unsupervised probation. It’s been speculated that his motive for shooting was to prevent the officer from finding drugs and sending him back to jail. No one knows if he was impaired at the time of the shooting.
In February Officer Sterling Infield, president of the Columbia Police Officers Association wrote a letter to Assistant City Manager Paula Hertwig Hopkins asking the city to help them “squash this tainted ordinance.” (Referring to the second ordinance, not the medical marijuana ordinance.) In that letter he stated, "I am asking for your help, and Mr. Beck’s. Mr. Beck went to Officer Curtis Brown during his ordeal and" asked "him if there is anything he could do to help. There is. Please allow the law department to allow the city prosecutor or the chief to file a complaint with the Attorney General’s Office to squash this tainted ordinance." The letter has been oft criticized for that excerpt. Infield also said that he feared that people on parole for violent crimes would not have their parole revoked and instead be treated as first-time criminals. However Missouri Department of Corrections rules state that possession of any amount of drugs is a violation of parole, subjecting the parolee to jail time, regardless of whether a charge or conviction is obtained.
This month Missouri State Senator Chuck Gross introduced a bill that would ban high school tournaments in cities with certain marijuana policies, like those in Columbia.
Earlier this week police launched a petition to reverse the ordinance. If they gather the signatures required, the petition would be presented to the City Council, which would then be able to overturn the ordinance.
Personally I’m in favor of marijuana decriminalization. I once saw a poster from early last century that listed recreational drugs from least to most harmful. Marijuana was at the very top, before both alcohol and tobacco. The government has been lying to us about its effects for years. There was an incident ten years or so ago where they put out a public service commercial purporting to show a brain scan from a normal kid, and a kid on dope. It came out that the second brain scan was actually from a brain-damaged patient. If we made marijuana legal and subject to the same restrictions that alcohol and/or tobacco are restricted to, (impaired driving, age limits, etc.) we’d clear out many people from our prisons. Marijuana would become as much of a “gateway” drug as is any other legal drug. The reason it’s a “gateway” drug now is because it’s illegal and thus a gateway into the world of crime, not because it’s terribly harmful or a gateway into addiction. We’d essentially put a huge number of dealers out of business with the resultant drop in price, and the government would be making money off marijuana taxes rather than spending billions of dollars fighting it.
However, even if I weren’t in favor of decriminalization, the antics of people in this region to get this ordinance overturned would still blow my mind. First we have a group attempting to overturn the will of the voters by sneaking things through the City Council. Then we have a member of that group using a terrible tragedy to support the group’s actions. (Note that if you read the excerpt of the letter, it’s never actually claimed that Officer Brown asked for anyone to help overturn the ordinance, but it’s cleverly worded to give that impression. That’s just great, let’s put words in the mouth of a wounded officer to achieve our goals.) That member also hangs the threat of rapists and murderers walking the streets to scare Columbia voters and City Council members into submission. Finally we have a state senator holding student athletics hostage in order to achieve his goals. All schools have strict drug policies and many require drug testing to play sports, but apparently the mere presence of an ordinance reducing the punishment given to misdemeanor marijuana possession is sending the message “hey kids, smoke all you want.”
Politicians can be such manipulative idiots sometimes.
Posted by illuminaria at 03:54 PM | Comments (3)
February 22, 2005
That Sneaky Evil Genius Karl Rove!
I've noticed today on my site stats that some people have been coming in from Google and Yahoo to this entry using search terms like "Maurice Hinchey's theory." Perhaps all those Michael Moore types out there got really excited when they heard that a congressman had jumped on the "Evil Karl Rove" theory. "Why, it must be true," they said.
That's why I'd like to think the people running our country should try to be just a tad bit more informed, so that conspiracy theorists have less legitimization of their crazy theories. But I guess that's too much to ask.
This site reveals how the whole Maurice Hinchey thing is yet another Karl Rove plot. That sneaky Karl Rove!
I know why people are so obsessed with Karl Rove. It allows them to hold the contradictory views that Bush is both an evil genius and a complete moron.
Update: Tim Blair has discovered a transcript of the secret meeting where Karl Rove unveils his dastardly plan. Jeff Gannon is, of course, his willing minion.
Posted by illuminaria at 05:19 PM | Comments (0)
February 21, 2005
Maurice Hinchey Proves Himself to be Spectacularly Uninformed
Via Wizbang, I saw this post on LGF about Maurice Hinchey's theory that Karl Rove (every Democrat's favorite evil genius) planted the documents that led to Rathergate. In his comments, he makes it obvious that he hasn't even taken the time to bone up on the facts.
And they — and they distributed those out to elements of the media. And it was only — what, like was it CBS? Or whatever, whatever which one Rather works for. They — the people there — they finally bought into it, and they, and they aired it.
See he's so informed that he doesn't even know what station was responsible for the whole affair, and yet, he's convinced it was a setup. But...
Now, I mean, I have my own beliefs about how that happened.
... "You know, it's only my spectacularly uninformed opinion." I bet on his off-time he posts at the Democratic Underground.
And then there's this part. (I assume "they" refers to Karl Rove's sneaky bunch of White House operatives.)
Well, you know, they are manipulating the media, they did it in the very beginning through intimidation. They would intimidate the people in the, uh, in the press conference. And ... they would ask — they would allow questions to be asked only of people that they knew were going to ask the right kind of questions, from their point of view.
Uh-hu. So lets go look at the first 12 questions asked at the President's Press Conference from just before Iraqi elections. (Responses and follow up questions removed.)
Q Mr. President, the insurgents in Iraq are threatening to kill anyone who comes out to vote on Sunday. Do you think they'll succeed in killing or scaring away enough people so that the elections will be rendered seriously flawed or not credible?Q Sir, your inaugural address has been interpreted as a new, aggressive posture against certain countries, in particular Iran. Should we view it that way?
Q Mr. President, let me take you up on that, if I may. Last month in Jordan, a gentleman named Ali Hatar was arrested after delivering a lecture called, "Why We Boycott America." He was charged under section 191 of their penal code for slander of government officials. He stood up for democracy, you might say. And I wonder if here and now, you will specifically condemn this abuse of human rights by a key American ally. And if you won't, sir, then what, in a practical sense, do your fine words mean?
Q Mr. President, in the debate over Dr. Rice's confirmation, Democrats came right out and accused you and the administration of lying in the run-up to the war in Iraq. Republicans, in some cases, conceded that mistakes have been made. Now that the election is over, are you willing to concede that any mistakes were made? And how do you feel about --
Q I'd like to ask you -- sir, I'd like to ask you about the deficit. But before I do that, there is a developing story this morning -- the helicopter crash in Iraq. Can you tell us what you know about that, what may have caused it, and your reaction to it?
Q You're preparing to ask Congress for an additional $80 billion in war spending in Afghanistan and Iraq. The White House is also prepared to predict a budget deficit of $427 billion for this year. You talk about sacrifice in this country. Do you think that you're really asking Americans to sacrifice financially -- when you're asking them to fund the war, yet, at the same time, perhaps pay an exorbitant amount to set up private accounts in Social Security, pay for a prescription drug benefit, as well as other spending plans?
Q Mr. President, I want to try another way to ask you about Iraq. When you made the decision to go to war in Iraq, you clearly had majority support in the country. A string of recent polls have shown a clear majority of the American people now believe it was a mistake to go to war in Iraq. You've asked for $80 billion in more money on top of the billions already spent. The army says that we'll probably have 100,000 or more troops in Iraq for at least another year. What would you say to the American people, including a significant number who supported you at the beginning of the war, who now say this is not what we were led to believe would happen?
Q A question on Social Security, if we may, sir. There has been, as you move forward to making your plan -- your ultimate proposal, growing concern among Republicans on Capitol Hill. We had Chairman Thomas last week with some concern about the process, and Senator Olympia Snowe on the other side suggesting that she's concerned about an absentee guaranteed benefit -- excuse me. Are you prepared today to say that those who opt into a potential private account -- personal account could, in fact, have a guaranteed benefit, as well? And what do you say to Republicans who are beginning to worry?
Q Mr. President, if I could return for a moment to your inaugural address. Dr. Rice referred in her testimony to six outposts of tyranny, countries where we clearly, I think, have a pretty good idea of your policies. What we're confused by right now, I think -- or, at least, I'm confused by, is how you deal with those countries like Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, with whom we have enormous broad interests. Should the leaders of those countries now be on notice that the primary measure of their relationship with the United States should be their progress toward liberty? Or can they rest assured that, in fact, you've got this broad agenda with them and you're willing to measure liberty up against what China does for you on North Korea, what Russia does for you in other areas?
Q Mr. President, Dr. Rice again -- quoting your future Secretary of State, wrote in "Foreign Affairs Magazine" in 2000, outlining what a potential Bush administration foreign policy would be, talked about things like security interests, free trade pacts, confronting rogue nations, dealing with great powers like China and Russia -- but promotion of democracy and liberty around the world was not a signature element of that prescription. I'm wondering what's changed since 2000 that has made this such an important element of your foreign policy.
Q Mr. President, Chairman Thomas and some others on the Hill have suggested taking up tax reform at the same time that you deal with Social Security reform, and to consider alternatives such as a value-added tax to the current payroll tax for financing Social Security. Are you willing to consider combining those two big projects, or do you prefer to keep them on separate tracks?
Q Mr. President, I'd like to ask you about the Gonzales nomination, and specifically, about an issue that came up during it, your views on torture. You've said repeatedly that you do not sanction it, you would never approve it. But there are some written responses that Judge Gonzales gave to his Senate testimony that have troubled some people, and specifically, his allusion to the fact that cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of some prisoners is not specifically forbidden so long as it's conducted by the CIA and conducted overseas. Is that a loophole that you approve?
Those are obviously softball questions. I bet Jeff Gannon asked them all!
Update: Michelle Malkin has more interesting tidbits.
Posted by illuminaria at 02:16 PM | Comments (0)
February 10, 2005
Far Left Terrorist Sympathizer Convicted
Today on CNN.
The jury had deliberated 13 days over the past month before convicting Lynne Stewart, 65, a firebrand, left-wing activist known for representing radicals and revolutionaries in her 30 years on the New York legal scene.What is wrong with some people? I've certainly heard all of the uproar over terrorists getting fair legal treatment, but what kind of idiot would carry messages between a terrorist and his minions? Of course considering this quote, I suppose it's not too much of a surprise.Stewart faces up to 20 years in prison on charges that include conspiracy, giving material support to terrorists and defrauding the U.S. government.
Prosecutors said Stewart and the others carried messages between the sheik and senior members of a Egyptian-based terrorist organization, helping spread Abdel-Rahman's venomous call to kill those who did not subscribe to his extremist interpretation of Islamic law.
Stewart, who once represented Weather Underground radicals and mob turncoat Sammy "The Bull" Gravano, repeatedly declared her innocence, maintaining she was unfairly targeted by overzealous prosecutors.
But she also testified that she believed violence was sometimes necessary to achieve justice: "To rid ourselves of the entrenched, voracious type of capitalism that is in this country that perpetuates sexism and racism, I don't think that can come nonviolently."One doesn't feel too inclined to believe her protestations of innocence after hearing that.
Here's some other interesting things I've found...
In this interview
SD: Let’s say you were part of a government that you actually trusted and supported, and your country held political prisoners. At what point would you think monitoring and controlling these people was acceptable?So apparently it's ok for Castro (whom, I note, she intimately refers to as "Fidel") to lock up people for disagreeing with the government, but the US is evil for locking up terrorists.
LS: I’m such a strange amalgam of old-line things and new-line things. I don’t have any problem with Mao or Stalin or the Vietnamese leaders or certainly Fidel locking up people they see as dangerous. Because so often, dissidence has been used by the greater powers to undermine a people’s revolution. The CIA pays a thousand people and cuts them loose, and they will undermine any revolution in the name of freedom of speech.
In 1995 she told the New York Times
In another interview:
I don't believe in anarchistic violence but in directed violence," she said. "That would be violence directed at the institutions which perpetuate capitalism, racism and sexism, and at the people who are the appointed guardians of those institutions, and accompanied by popular support.
WW3R: The press release did not concern legal matters. So why was it protected by attorney-client privilege?I don't even know what to say to all of that. Apparently it was ok for her to violate the SAM she signed, because to do otherwise would be violating her client's right to send out press releases calling off a cease fire.
LS: The Sheikh, as the person I'm representing, has the right to communicate outside the SAMs.
…
WW3R: So what is the crux of your defense strategy?
LS: The crux of my defense strategy is that I'm a lawyer, and I did what the kind of lawyer who vigorously defends clients always does--and that is not adhering to a narrow little stage of action.
…
WW3R: Apart from the legal consequences, just speaking in terms of its appropriateness or ethics, how do you feel about what you did? How do you feel about handing on the press release?
LS: Oh, I would do it again in a minute. You know, when I was interviewed in another media [60 Minutes, May 5], I used the words "Well, maybe it was a mistake, but it wasn't a crime." What I meant is, nobody likes to go back on their word. I signed a piece of paper that said I wouldn't do this, right? Just like when you get married you say, "I do," and you're gonna love, honor and et cetera, et cetera. And five years down the road something comes up and you find out you can no longer love and honor, and that oath you took to this other person has to be broken for many reasons. So when I signed that SAM, I was perfectly willing to obey it. But when something came up that made it impossible for me to balance my duties as a lawyer with what the government was requiring of me, I chose my duties as a lawyer.
…
WW3R: What if the Sheikh's advice was taken, and the cease-fire was broken in Egypt? The terrorist attack at Luxor in 1997 left over 50 Egyptians and tourists dead, and the Islamic Group claimed responsibility. Do you think it would be a good thing if these sort of attacks were to resume?
LS: Americans are very two-faced about violence, aren't they? I mean, we came out of the Boston Tea Party and throwing rocks at soldiers on the Boston Commons and finally taking up arms and going against the British army. War has changed since 1776, but the basic desire of people to be free hasn't changed. And I'm not sure that I want to second-guess what methods other people use. I'm not saying that if I had been told to carry the message "There are a hundred rifles hidden at the battery and they should be taken up to the Egyptian embassy and everybody murdered up there," that I would carry such a message. But a political message, a message which is aimed at a group which is deciding things politically, although they have a military wing--I don't think I would draw the line there. I think somebody like the Sheikh, just like Joe Doherty [IRA militant extradited from New York to Northern Ireland in 1992] and the Irish prisoners, has a right to be heard. And its not up to me to decide what action should be taken after that.
And for Pete's sake, why does no one on the left understand the difference between a civil war in which soldiers openly attack other soldiers and terrorist actions that are primarily directed at civilians?
Posted by illuminaria at 04:24 PM | Comments (0)