Mr. Bill Cosby and Mr. Juan Williams are Right

On May 17, 2004, Mr. Bill Cosby was the featured speaker at the NAACP’s gala celebrating the 50th anniversary of the 1954 U.S Supreme Court ruling in Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka. In his speech, Mr. Cosby called-out the African-American community for failing to parent African-American children (among other things).

In 2006, Mr. Juan Williams, a senior correspondent for NPR and political analyst for Fox News, wrote a book entitled, Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America – and What We Can Do About It. In his book, Mr. Williams essentially endorses many of Mr. Cosby’s comments from his 2004 speech.

An excerpt from page 109: (Williams commenting on Cosby’s speech) Then he burst out of his parody and said it straight: Why don’t black leaders, black parents, black church people and schoolteachers, tell these black children to stop selling crack cocaine? Why don’t more black leaders point out that crack devastates black people, hurts black families, and spreads crime in black neighborhoods? (End of excerpt.)

On February 21 and February 28, 2007, Mr. Derrick Z. Jackson, an African-American columnist for the Boston Globe, wrote TWO different pieces whining about the differences in sentencing guidelines for powder cocaine crimes and crack cocaine crimes. Not one word beseeching blacks not to do drugs.

In a part from past ZACKlyRight practice of copying and pasting, I provide the links to Mr. Jackson’s perfect fulfillment of the Cosby/Williams indictment.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/
oped/articles/2007/02/21/when_justice_doesnt_add_up/

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/
oped/articles/2007/02/28/the_politics_of_drug_sentencing/

Sexist Female Hogwash

I've never done this before, but then again, I've never encountered a column that begged for it so desperately. I copy and paste a column from the Boston Globe from Monday, February 19. This column is exactly the kind of garbage the Boston Globe thinks passes for serious scholarship. My comments do not appear before the column or after but within, (parenthetically) and italicized.

Hillary Clinton and the glass ceiling
By Dr. Marcia Angell, February 19, 2007

NOW THAT the presidential campaign is underway, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's candidacy is the subject of intense (you wish) discussion. In polite company, people (no, just liberal elitists) often insist with a virtuous (an almost exclusively liberal elitest trait) air that the right thing to do is to vote for the best candidate without regard for gender. But that is a limited view of what's at stake. The fact that Clinton is a woman is not a bad reason to vote for her, and unless you see the perfect man, it may be reason enough. Let me explain.

In the 218 years since George Washington became (uh, you mean, "was elected") president, every one of his 42 successors has been a man. For most of that time (but what about the time before when female queens ruled Europe?), of course, there were no women leaders anywhere in the world. But that changed long ago -- with Golda Meir in Israel, Indira Gandhi in India, Margaret Thatcher in the UK, Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan, and now Angela Merkel in Germany, Michelle Bachelet in Chile, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf in Liberia, and Segolene Royal, a candidate in France's next presidential election. It's way past time for the United States to catch up. Women are not a minority group. We make up the majority of the electorate, are more likely to vote than men, and are on average better educated.

So here comes Clinton -- well-qualified, talented, and smart. Why the unease about her (uh, she's a lying, coniving, two-faced, commodities-manipulating, opportunist?)? To hear people talk, it has nothing to do with gender. What we hear is that she is polarizing, opportunistic (oops, I'm bagged), too tough (please), and, finally, that most self-fulfilling of all prophecies, not electable. Note the vagueness and personal nature of these criticisms; they mostly go to style, not substance -- the kinds of judgments that have everything to do with gender (many of us believe in a strong national defense, respect the sanctity of life, think our money is our money, and support judges that agree with these few beliefs but I guess minor reasons why others oppose Sen. Clinton can be cherry-picked by a pro-Hillary extremist).

The exception (the exception?!; should I list all the exceptions?) is her ill-considered 2002 vote for the war in Iraq. But every other Democratic candidate who was in the Senate at the time was equally craven. (Barack Obama, who did oppose the war, was not yet in the Senate, so didn't have to cast a vote.) Now that the political winds have changed (cowards always know exactly how the political winds are blowing), the other candidates are falling all over themselves to admit their mistake (like I said, cowards). That is harder for her. An apology may be disarming in a man, but a woman has to worry about appearing weak or indecisive (oh, the unfairness of it all!). Yet I have little doubt that if elected, she would move as fast as any of the others to get us out of (I'm quite sure you mean, "surrender in" not "get us out of") Iraq.

All of the parsing of Clinton's personality and policies ignores the elephant in the living room: She is a woman and the first woman with a serious shot at the presidency. As such, whatever she does will be wrong (paranoid victim, so unbecoming), and wrong (still paranoid victim and even more unbecoming) in a way that does not apply to even the most closely scrutinized male candidate (whoa! so dang paranoid). She will be held to the standard applied only to women trying to break the glass ceiling (the what?! glass ceilings definitely exist but in environments where men create barriers to the advancement of women; the conditions are simply not met to use the phrase here) -- she will have to be perfect according to shifting and often contradictory standards.

I have some experience with glass ceilings (poor victim, now I'm sympathetic to your cause). I entered medicine at a time when it was an almost exclusively male preserve. As with Clinton, criticisms of women usually focused on personal attributes, not ability. We were expected to possess the stereotypical masculine traits that were then associated with doctors, but also satisfy stereotypical notions of femininity -- a tricky juggling act that men were not called on to perform (again, oh, the unfairness). Those days are mostly behind us in medicine, but not in politics, and they won't be until we have a woman president (really?; that's what will put this behind us?).

The major Democratic candidates are similar in ideals and programs. That being the case, the fact that Clinton is a woman should weigh in her favor. Supporting Obama because he is African-American (racism apparently not offending Dr. Angell) does not somehow compensate for the exclusion of more than half the population from the highest office in the country; it simply underscores it. If we wait for the perfect woman to come along, we'll wait a long time. And in the meantime, we'll (yes, YOU will) continue to elect men every four years who will often be seriously imperfect (well, we are men, after all).

Clinton is well qualified by experience and ability to be president, and she has by all accounts been a hardworking and conscientious senator. But we should also pay attention to the fact that the election of a woman in and of itself would be a momentous step toward full equality in the United States and a powerful message to the rest of the world.

Dr. Marcia Angell, a senior lecturer at Harvard Medical School, is a guest columnist (a Harvard education obviously not what it used to be). (End of column and the test run of the embedded sarcasm).

I bolded and italicized the most glaring problem with Dr. Angell's glass ceiling screed: who, exactly, does Dr. Angell think has been electing US Presidents?

The United States of France?

First, do not miss my last post; in my own opinion, some decent, quick-hitting stuff.

I thought today's resolution by the U.S. House of Representatives to surrender in Iraq was incomplete in that there was not a clause calling for our country to be renamed the United States of France.

Nevertheless, the U.S. House of Representatives should certainly adopt the name of the lower house of the French parliament, Assemblée Nationale.

Oh, and I think we can now firmly affix the "e" to the title Madame Speaker.

And, for those offended by this American's observations, the names of the two pilots killed, when President Reagan asked for and was denied fly-over rights by the French Government when President Reagan wanted to retaliate against Libya for its role in the bombing of a Berlin disco that killed 2 U.S. Servicemen and wounded over 200 other innocents, are Capt. Fernando I. Ribas-Dominicci and Capt. Paul Lorence. The entire strike force, orginating in England, had its flight pattern extended by 2,600 miles which required multi mid-air refuelings and added to the difficulty of the strike. Maybe it didn't have an impact on the death of the Captains, but maybe it did.

Super Quick Seven-fer

This started as a "super quick two-fer" but I had to keep adding to it.

1. Ms. Harriet Meirs

Loyal readers of this space know how I'm always trumpeting the huge number of women that President Bush has in significant positions in his Administration. Well, one name that I always forgot to put on the super-long list was Ms. Harriet Meirs, his former White House Counsel who recently resigned. My point is, the list is super-long and then some.

Somewhat related, NOW (is it even relevant anymore?) and the other radical, non-mainstream, women's groups don't care about President Bush's recognition of so many talented (and selfless!) women because the President's culture of life belief offends their culture of death belief.

2. The Great Equivocator

The Great Equivocator missed the first substantive vote (January 26, 2007; on the nomination of Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus) on matters in Iraq subsequent to his announcement that he would spare us the joke of a 2008 presidential campaign and that he instead would fight, fight, fight, to end the war in Iraq.

Again, loyal readers of this space, in unison, What . . . a . . . political . . . coward!

3. Mr. "Scooter" Libby

Prosecuted for forgetting what day he told the truth. The target of an unbelievable waste of the taxpayer's money.

4. Mr. Joseph Wilson

Wrongly portrayed as "an outspoken critic of the war in Iraq". He gained all his information as an agent of the Bush Administration. How he gets to choose when he releases that information to the public and not the President is beyond me. Who elected Joe? To anything? Exactly. Nobody.

5. Dixie Chicks

As President Bush said after the Dixie Chicks said they were "ashamed" of him while performing in London, they were and are free to say whatever they want "that's the great thing about America that stands in stark contast to Iraq (pre-liberation)." I don't know why the liberal extremists are so intolerant of my right and so many others' right to not buy a Dixie Chicks album. We are truly given the impression that if liberal extremists could, they would force us to buy a Dixie Chicks album.

6. Donald Rumsfeld

"The architect of the war in Iraq" so says the liberal media establishment. Then, almost immediately, in any hate-Bush column or article or news story, the liberal media establishment has to make some silly observation about "how few served in the military" in the Bush Administration.

Hmmm, but what of the liberal media establishments' boogie man, Mr. Rumsfeld? Mr. Rumsfeld served in the United States Navy from 1954 - 1957 as a fighter pilot (he was NROTC at Princeton University). He continued to serve his country by wearing the uniform as a Reservist until 1975. As a Reservist, he trained other fighter pilots. That's 21 years in uniform. You'll never hear a liberal extremist acknowledge this. Facts usually have a way of discrediting any argument or point they are trying to make.

Mr. Rumsfeld was born in 1932; yes, I think the liberal extremists would argue his birth date was a clever Republican conspiracy so he wouldn't have to serve in WWII.

7. Gov. Mitt Romney

The next President of the United States of America (uh . . . if it's not Rudy . . . or McCain).

Wall Street Journal Stealing Ideas from ZACKlyRight?

The following is the lead editorial from the Wall Street Journal of February 8, 2007:

Hillary on Iraq

One pleasant surprise of Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as New York Senator has been her tough-minded approach on national security. She responded to 9/11 by supporting President Bush's strategy of taking on not just terrorists but the states that harbor them. She also voted for the war in Iraq and has refused to follow much of her party in alleging that Mr. Bush "lied" about weapons of mass destruction.

But as Mrs. Clinton bids to win the Democratic Presidential nomination, she is taking a marked turn to the left. Pressured by other candidates and by her party's left wing, she is walking back her hawkish statements and is now all but part of the antiwar camp. The polls show her to be the favorite to be the next Commander in Chief, so what she really believes, and how firmly she'll stick to it, deserves to be debated. Here's a summary of the arc of Mrs. Clinton's public thinking on Iraq:

- October 10, 2002. Mrs. Clinton addresses the Senate on the use-of-force resolution. "The facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt," she declares, citing Saddam's record of using chemical weapons, the invasion of Kuwait, and his history of deceiving U.N. weapons inspectors. "As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets," she continues, adding that Saddam "has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members."

While she expresses her preference for working through the U.N. if possible, she adds, "I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 U.N. resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998 (Blogger's Note: See my post of just 11 days ago on January 29, 2007 for the key excerpts of President Clinton's speech announcing the launch. ZACKlyRight and first again. As I've written before, it never gets old. No word from the WSJ if they are visiting ZACKlyRight for concept ideas.)."

- December 15, 2003. It is clear by now that no large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction will be found in Iraq. But Mrs. Clinton tells the Council on Foreign Relations that "Yesterday was a good day. I was thrilled that Saddam Hussein had finally been captured. . . . We owe a great debt of gratitude to our troops, to the President, to our intelligence services, to all who had a hand in apprehending Saddam. Now he will be brought to justice."

She adds, "I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote." As for Iraq's prospects, she declares herself "a little optimistic and a little pessimistic . . . We have no option but to stay involved and committed."

- April 20, 2004. Mrs. Clinton tells Larry King: "I don't regret giving the President the authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade." Asked whether she thinks she was "fooled," she replies: "The consensus was the same, from the Clinton Administration to the Bush Administration. It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared about the weapons of mass destruction."

- October 2005. Antiwar fervor on the left is picking up, and activist Cindy Sheehan compares her to Rush Limbaugh after Mrs. Clinton tells the Village Voice: "My bottom line is that I don't want their sons to die in vain . . . I don't believe it's smart to set a date for withdrawal . . . I don't think it's the right time to withdraw."

- November 2005. Mrs. Clinton posts a letter to constituents that marks her first dovish turn. "If Congress had been asked [to authorize the war], based on what we know now, we never would have agreed," she writes. But invoking retired General Eric Shinseki's estimate of more American troops necessary to pacify Iraq, she demands not withdrawal but a new plan: "It is time for the President to stop serving up platitudes and present us with a plan for finishing this war with success and honor -- not a rigid timetable that terrorists can exploit, but a public plan for winning and concluding the war."

- August 3, 2006. Mrs. Clinton calls for Donald Rumsfeld to resign as Defense Secretary, asking for "new leadership that would give us a fighting chance to turn the situation around before it's too late."

- December 18, 2006. Her march left gains speed. On NBC's "Today" show, Mrs. Clinton renounces her war vote unequivocally for the first time: "I certainly wouldn't have voted that way."

- January 13, 2007. From Baghdad, Mrs. Clinton responds to Mr. Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq to secure Baghdad: "I don't know that the American people or the Congress at this point believe this mission can work. And in the absence of a commitment that is backed up by actions from the Iraqi government, why should we believe it?"

- January 17, 2007. Mrs. Clinton calls for capping the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, saying she will introduce legislation to do so. And while she says she won't block money for the troops, she suggests withholding funds for the Iraqi government. It is precisely such a funds cut-off to the South Vietnamese government in 1975 that led to the final U.S. flight from Saigon.

- January 27, 2007. On the campaign trail in Iowa, Mrs. Clinton demands that President Bush "extricate our country from this before he leaves office." And she promises that, if elected, she will end the war quickly.

All politicians change their minds about something at some point, but what's troubling about Mrs. Clinton's record on Iraq is that it tends to follow, rather than lead, public opinion (Blogger's Note: As I wrote on August 23, 2005: If the "position" of the Democrat Party is withdrawal, then shouldn't someone in the Party be saying that right now? Even Sen. Russ Feingold (D, Minnesota), arguably the most vocal Senator against the war on terror, doesn't even call for an immediate pull-out. If the position of the Democrat Party is not pull-out, is one of these Senators going to try to "time" their flip-flop just as the Party's hatred for all things George W. Bush reaches a critical mass? Will the Party really nominate the person that tries to steal the drum major's staff?). When the war was first debated, and she couldn't easily walk away from her husband's record against Saddam, she was a solid, even eloquent, hawk. Then for a time she laid low and avoided the antiwar excesses of John Kerry and others.

But now that the war has proven to be difficult, and her fellow Democrats are outflanking her on the antiwar left, she is steadily, even rapidly, moving in their direction. So in the space of merely 14 months and as the Presidential campaign begins in earnest, Mrs. Clinton has gone from advocating a new plan to "win" the Iraq war, with "honor," to vocally opposing President Bush's new strategy to try to do precisely that. And, oh, yes, she now wants the "surge" to be in Afghanistan instead of Iraq.

The question we'd ask is whether this is the kind of stalwart drift that Mrs. Clinton would bring to the Oval Office? (End of editorial.)

5 Democratic Senators; How did each vote?

With the announcement last week that Sen. Joseph Biden has entered the 2008 Presidential contest, that brings to five the number of current or former Democratic Senators that have declared for the Presidency.

Sometime late last year, Senate Democrats elected former Ku Klux Klan member Sen. Robert C. Byrd as President Pro Tempore of the Senate thus making him third in line of succession to the Presidency. (Assuming former Klan membership should be enough to offend, it is taking all my self-control skills to not list Sen Byrd's other atrocious, well-documented, racist behavior through at least May, 2001; readers of this space have seen the list many times.)

Since none of the candidate's offices will take my call, can somebody with access that reads this post please ask Sens. Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Obama and Edwards (who was in the Senate when Democrats elected Byrd to the post twice! in 2001) if they voted for former Kleagle (a title reserved for Klan recruiters) Byrd?

Does not the answer help us differentiate between the candidates, if there even is a difference?

Is it possible all five voted for the former Klan member?

If so, where is the outrage?

Anyway, if someone could please let me know how these five voted, I'll pass the information along to Sen. Trent Lott.

Strange a liberal media isn't curious about the answer.