Why are we still noticing?

Today, my new favorite Democrat, Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D, IL), who replaces the colossally stupid and cowardly Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), named former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris to the vacant Illinois U.S. Senate seat.

Every single web story that I have read of the announcement has noted that General Burris is black.

I can only ask: why is the General's skin color important?

As I wrote not too long ago (see my post of November 8, 2008), we will not stop noticing skin color until we have an honest conversation on race in this Country. It seems the liberal extremists who control the media still think it's important to notice skin color even after America elected a black man President (though the informed know President-elect Obama is bi-racial).

Cold Turkey.

Stop noticing.

The President-elect is "safe and secure"

Recalling how the liberal extremists who control the media ridiculed and denigrated President Bush and Vice President Cheney for the U.S. Secret Service and military protection they each received on September 11, 2001, I couldn't wait to see the media's reaction to the extraordinary protection extended to the President-elect during . . . hold on now, during a . . . power outage!

So, I looked and looked, researched and researched, and I could not find a single story noting the President-elect's cowardice as an unnamed federal agency, the resources of state and local Hawai'ian law enforcement and the U.S. Secret Service all jumped into hyper-action in order to protect the President-elect as a power outage interrupted his Oahu vacation.

And thus is how it will be for the next four years.

The hysterically funny skit you will not see on NBC's Saturday Night Live is President-elect Obama sitting in a chair in his study, deep in thought (he's so thoughtful, you know), and suddenly the lights go out and he falls to the floor crying and wailing for protection.

And a letter I sent this morning under the title, "Biden, Clinton, Daschle and now President Clinton vindicate Bush":

Editor,

As if President-elect Obama's selection for his Administration of three United States Senators who voted for war (Biden, Clinton and Daschle) was not enough vindication of President Bush's decision to commit U.S. troops to a multi-national force tasked with ousting Saddam Hussein, President-elect Obama may further validate Bush's decision by conferring a foreign policy assignment on President Clinton (A wrong role for Bill Clinton, editorial, December 28).

For, it was President Clinton who, on December 16, 1998, said (italics the letter writer's for emphasis), " . . . Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten . . . the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons . . . I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again . . . that is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team . . . I have ordered . . . strikes against Iraq. They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction . . . we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems . . . the credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program . . . the best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government, a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort . . . the decision to use force is never cost-free . . . there will be unintended Iraqi casualties . . . if Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors . . . And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them . . . ." (End of letter to the editor that also mocks the delusional who think the Gen. Shinseki selection was a repudiation of Bush.)

Adeste, Fideles

Venite adoremus
Venite adoremus
Venite adoremus Dominum

More from the Obama Senate Seat Sale Scandal Report

My ridiculous "news"paper, the Boston Globe, reported on the Obama Senate Seat Sale Scandal by picking-up the column by Michael D. Shear of the liberally extreme Washington Post, "Obama report clears dealings with Blagojevich".

I do not have a copy of the "Report" written by President-elect Obama's incompetent in-coming White House Counsel, Gregory Craig, so I can only comment on the quotes from the "Report" as shared by Mr. Shear.

First, the incompetent Mr. Craig wrote that Mr. Rahm Emanuel had "one or two" conversations with Gov. Blagojevich (D, IL). My goodness, was it one or two? It's not like we have to know if it was five or six and I can understand the confusion there, but one or two? Recall how U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald doggedly pursued Scooter Libby for forgetting the day he told the truth about a non-criminal act? I gather Mr. Fitzgerald will have a field day with Mr. Emanuel if Mr. Emanuel testifies under oath and gives the wrong number when asked how many contacts he had with Gov. Blagojevich. I assume Mr. Fitzgerald is more competent than Mr. Craig and we'll eventually know if there was one or two contacts.

Second, the incompetent Mr. Craig wrote that Mr. Emanuel had "about four" contacts with Gov. Blagojevich's chief of staff, John Harris, to discuss Obama's open senate seat. Knowing now of Mr. Craig's incompetence, I'll concede there were only three contacts between Emanuel and Harris. Again, when this scandal broke President-elect Obama said there were "no contacts" between his transition team and Gov. Blagojevich, now the Report suggests there were at least four. What's amazing is that the contact by the transition team wasn't some low-level staffer, it was Emanuel! The number one guy! Obama wasn't aware his number one guy was talking to Blagojevich? Either Obama is lying or the relationship between the President-elect and his in-coming Chief of Staff is atrocious. Neither prospect is encouraging for Americans.

You know what, there, of course, is more to question in the "Report" but rather than cloud the key points, I'll abruptly end with this: the Report states that none of Obama's staff ever suspected that the Governor was seeking anything improper in exchange for the Senate seat. In a conference call after the Report was released, the incompetent Craig said, "No one in the Obama circle was aware of what was going on in the Governor's office or the Governor's mind UNTIL THE GOVERNOR WAS ARRESTED (Blogger's Note: all CAPS mine for emphasis). No one suspected that there was any effort to crack the circle."

No only is Craig incompetent, the entirety of the "Obama circle" is immensely stupid. Immensely. Let's hope the Obama people dealing with North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, heck, even Canada, Mexico and Israel, are not as stupid as the "circle" (who else in the circle had contact or discussed the Senate seat; maybe the media will find out; or was it a circle of one, Emanuel?) involved in the Obama Senate Seat Sale Scandal.

The letter:

Editor,

In a conference call subsequent to issuing his internal report on the Obama Senate Seat Sale Scandal, the demonstrably incompetent in-coming White House Counsel Gregory Craig said, "No on in the Obama cirlce was aware of what was going on in the Governor's office or the Governor's mind until the Governor was arrested. No one suspected that there was any effort to crack the circle (italics and bold the letter writer's for emphasis) (Obama report clears dealings with Blagojevich (Whew!), December 24, A2)".

"No one" was aware? This is supposed to comfort the American people?

News flash to the "Obama circle": When you sit down with the leaders from North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, heck, even Canada, Mexico and Israel, please suspect that these leaders might be duplicitous. (End of letter to the editor.)

CORRECTION: Please know that I erred in my letter below on Obama's Cabinet, notable for its lack of diversity. If all 15 of Obama's nominees are confirmed, he will only have 3 women in his Cabinet, notable for its lack of diversity. I sent a corrected letter to the Boston Globe but there is no sense in showing the corrected letter here. Additionally, pay attention to how the liberal extremist who control the media now talk of "Cabinet level" positions in an effort to talk-up the Obama Cabinet, notable for its lack of diversity.

Whew! No inappropriate contact! Praise Obama!

Back-tracking significantly from earlier declarations that there was "no contact" between the Office of the President-elect and Gov. Blagojevich (D, IL) in the Obama Senate Seat Sale Scandal, the Office of the President-elect today announced that there was "no inappropriate contact" between the Office of the President-elect and Gov. Blagojevich.

The declaration made by the Messiah, the matter no doubt will be considered closed by the liberal extremists who control the media.

Journalism is Dead III

The Boston Globe received these three letters this weekend.

The first commenting on Obama's Cabinet, notable for its lack of diversity (as the skin-color and gender obsessed define diversity):

Editor,

Acknowledging that all 15 of President-elect Obama’s Cabinet nominees will be confirmed and, accordingly, that Obama will have a less diverse Cabinet than President Bush did when he took office, I was not surprised to see the Boston Globe bury the story of Obama’s last few nominations on page 8 (Obama completes economic team, remainder of Cabinet, December 20).

For the score-keepers, Bush had more African-Americans than Obama will have and they tie on the number of Asian-Americans (2) and women (4). Of course, I’ve always thought "diversity" assumed "of thought" but since the liberal media defines diversity by skin-color (and gender), I provide that scorecard.

I hope the truth is accurately reported by the liberal media establishment and the proper credit is given to President Bush.

I do not expect the liberal media establishment to call President-elect Obama on yet another broken campaign promise. (End of letter to the editor.)

The second calling a Globe columnist on his lies that the liberal extremists now seem bent on perpetuating about Gen. Shinseki being grotesquely wrong about how many troops would be needed to pacify Iraq and why Paul Wolfowitz resigned as President of the World Bank:

Editor,

Mr. Derrick Z. Jackson shamelessly and recklessly smeared Mr. Paul Wolfowitz (8 years on the dark side, December 20, A13).

First, Mr. Wolfowitz was absolutely correct in saying that Gen. Shinseki was "wildly off the mark" when Gen. Shinseki meekishly suggested that "several hundred thousand" more troops would be needed to pacify Iraq after the original multi-national invasion. The "surge" was 30,000 troops. If Mr. Jackson cares to loan me "several hundred thousand" dollars, I'd gladly repay him $30,000.

Second, "corruption" did not end Mr. Wolfowitz's presidency at the World Bank as Mr. Jackson nastily states. As the informed know, Mr. Wolfwowitz was forced out at the World Bank on trumped-up and fabricated conflict of interest charges. Prior to joining the Bank, Mr. Wolfowitz notified the Bank he had a relationship with a Bank employee. Bank General Counsel at the time, Mr. Roerto Danino, even acknowledged in a letter dated May 27, 2005, that, " . . . Mr. Wolfowitz has disclosed to the Board, through you (Mr. Wolfowitz's attorney), that he has a pre-existing relationship with a Bank staff member, and that he proposes to resolve the conflict of interest in relation to Staff Rule 3.01, Paragraph 4.02 by recusing himself from all personnel matters and professional contact related to the staff member."

The informed also know that Wolfowitz was targeted by European Bank Directors for directing billions and billions of dollars of Bank aid to African-continent projects at the expense of Europe-based projects; more evidence that the African continent knows no and has known no greater friend than President Bush, who installed Wolfowitz at the Bank. (End of letter to the editor.)

Finally, the third hoping censorship doesn't reign in an Obama administration:

Editor,

In their second nauseating appreciation in three days of President-elect Obama’s choice for White House science adviser, John P. Holdren, Globe Staff writer Carolyn Johnson and Globe Correspondent Bina Venkataraman write, “His willingness to take strong positions on controversial topics, and his active role in crafting policies, isn’t what the public traditionally thinks of as a scientist (From Harvard, a climatic selection, December 21, A27).”

Though they do add this encouraging quote by Holdren, “I would never expect that what the scientist might prefer is always going to be the outcome but I can tell you, with great assurance, that no one will be ignoring the facts (italics, here and later, Blogger's for emphasis).”

I look forward to January 20, 2009 when a “willing” and un-muzzled Holdren lets the American people know when human life begins . . . based on the scientific facts . . . especially as President-elect Obama is set to sign the death warrants of thousands of innocent, unborn babies on this date by rescinding many of President Bush’s Executive Orders protecting such life.

I certainly look forward to follow-up columns by two Globe writers obviously concerned about government censorship should the Obama Administration try to silence Holdren or if Holdren ever cowers. (End of letter to the editor.)

Journalism is Dead II

The Boston Globe received these today:

Under the title, How will Obama "scientists" report on innocent, unborn, human life?:

Editor,

I appreciate that your news articles will continue to trumpet every single President-elect Obama act as an act of God while at the same time smearing President Bush but the "Obama chooses Harvard physicist, A restored role for scientists (December 19, A1)" article was simply too much.

President Bush censored science? Please.

I cannot wait to hear an Obama "junk scientist" tell Americans that human life does not begin until birth and until birth a unborn fetus can be destroyed at the whimsical election of the carrier. Or, if the truth is not distorted, will undeniable truth be censored?

Maybe a real journalist can recall why she went to journalism school in the first place and when given the chance, can ask Harvard physicist John P. Holdren, Obama's pick for White House science adviser, "When does human life begin?"

President Bush's stand against funding certain stem cell research is consistent with his "culture of life" principles. President Obama's pro-abortion stance is founded in no principle at all and certainly not in any "science". (End of letter to the editor.)

Under the title, Geico to sponsor New York Senate "campaign":

Editor,

So, Ms. Ellen Goodman didn’t think a woman who served on a city council, who served as mayor of a small town, who served as chairwoman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission AND who served as Governor of Alaska was qualified to be Vice-President but does think a woman who raised some money for New York public schools and shook a few hands for President-elect Obama is qualified to be the next Senator from New York (Caroline Kennedy’s time has come, December 19, A19).

Maybe Geico should sponsor all U.S. Senate campaigns: The job is so easy and unimportant even Caroline Kennedy can do it.

Of course, if Ms. Kennedy makes and keeps a promise to read every National Intelligence Estimate before she votes to commit U.S. troops to war then she’ll do more than the irresponsible Senator she might replace. (End of letter to the editor.)

I copied most of my friends at the Boston Globe as well as the authors of the pieces I referenced; I'll let you know if I hear anything.

Journalism Is Dead

The Boston Globe chose to publish three letters that basically said, "cheers", to the "news" article I addressed. Maybe my facts were too much for the Letters Editor at the Boston Globe.

Editor,

In “Bush defends war in trip to Iraq (Boston Globe, November 15, A1)”, Los Angeles Times correspondents Tina Susman and Ceasar Ahmed wrote that President Bush’s words yesterday that the “war is not over” contrasted with the words he spoke aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003.

Huh!?

For those familiar with the full text of the President's 1,852 word speech aboard the Lincoln and not obsessed with five disingenuously cherry-picked words, we know that what President Bush actually said aboard the Lincoln was, “. . . We have difficult work to do in Iraq . . . The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time . . . The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror . . . and still goes on . . . Yet we also have dangerous work to complete. Our mission continues . . . The war on terror is not over . . . ."

Nevertheless, the lies of the liberal media continue. (End of letter to the editor.)

A Letter and a Prediction

The Letter

Editor,

The American people deserve to know if their President is a crook.

No doubt the U.S. Attorney investigating the sale of President-elect Obama's Senate seat will do his job.

Hopefully the liberal media that cheerled for Sen. Obama during the Presidential campaign is up to the task required of an independent press investigating political corruption that does appear to reach the Office of the President-elect. (End of letter to the editor.)

The Prediction

Rep. Rahm Emanuel will not resign from the U.S. House of Representatives and he will not be the next White House Chief of Staff.

Lies We Can Believe In IV

I do not know who would be President on January 20, 2009 if the Obama No Pay to Play corruption scandal takes him down. The media is shocked the President-elect continues to lie? More evidence the media truly did sleep through the Presidential campaign.

The following is the Associated Press’ story on President-elect Obama announcing Gen. Eric K. Shinseki as the next Secretary of Veterans Affairs that appeared in the Boston Globe on December 7, 2008. Because the sentences are almost exactly the same in all the articles in all the hard print and web-based articles I found, it appears this Associated Press piece was the basis for all the articles.

Keep in mind, this is a “news” article by a professional journalist who supposedly went to journalism school. Employing a technique I’ve used in the past, I embed my comments:

Boston Globe, December 7, 2008
Forced out for Iraq predictions, retired general chosen for VA post

WASHINGTON - President-elect Barack Obama has chosen retired General Eric K. Shinseki to be the next Veterans Affairs secretary, turning to a former Army chief of staff once vilified by the Bush administration for questioning its Iraq war strategy (Blogger’s Note: There are no public statements by anyone in the Bush White House that vilified Gen. Shinseki).

Obama will announce the selection of Shinseki, the first Army four-star general of Japanese-American ancestry (Blogger’s Note: The ancestry for the benefit of the skin color and racial obsessed; if we went Cold Turkey as I’ve written so many times, this ridiculous observation would not be made), at a news conference today in Chicago. He will be the first Asian-American (Blogger’s Note: For the skin color and racial obsessed) to hold the post of Veterans Affairs secretary, adding to the growing diversity of Obama's Cabinet (Blogger’s Note: Recall, this is a “news” article).

"I think that General Shinseki is exactly the right person who is going to be able to make sure that we honor our troops when they come home," Obama said in an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press" to be broadcast today.

Shinseki's tenure as Army chief of staff from 1999 to 2003 was marked by continual tensions with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, which boiled over in 2003 when Shinseki testified to Congress that it might take several hundred thousand US troops to control Iraq after the invasion (Blogger’s Note: Several hundred thousand is certainly more than two but I’ll be generous and put the number at 300,000).

Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, belittled the estimate as "wildly off the mark" and the army general was forced out within months. But Shinseki's words proved prophetic after President Bush in early 2007 announced a "surge" of additional troops to Iraq after miscalculating the numbers needed to stem sectarian violence (Blogger’s Note: The surge added 30,000 troops to 135,000 troops already in Iraq. After the surge, there were 165,000 troops in Iraq. It is absurd to argue 165,000 approaches the 300,000 that the “prescient” Gen. Shinseki claimed were needed. If President Bush had used the “several hundred thousand” phrase, no doubt, the liberal extremists who control the media would have cried “politics of fear”. No such cry here. Gen. Shinseki was precisely as Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz claimed, “wildly off the mark”.).

Shinseki, 66, was born in Lihue on the Hawaiian island of Kauai. He was educated at West Point, Duke University, and the National War College. A recipient of two Purple Hearts for life-threatening injuries in Vietnam, he was Army chief of staff, vice chief of staff, and commanding general of the Army in Europe.

Obama said he selected Shinseki for the VA post because he "was right" (Blogger’ Note: We’ve already seen that Shinseki was “wrong” and that the Bush administration was right) in predicting that the United States will need more troops in Iraq than Rumsfeld believed at the time.

"When I reflect on the sacrifices that have been made by our veterans and, I think about how so many veterans around the country are struggling even more than those who have not served - higher unemployment rates, higher homeless rates, higher substance abuse rates, medical care that is inadequate - it breaks my heart," Obama told NBC.

Shinseki will take the helm of an agency that has been roundly criticized during the Bush administration for underestimating the amount of funding needed to treat thousands of injured veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Thousands of veterans face six-month waits for disability benefits, despite promises by VA Secretary James Peake and his predecessor, Jim Nicholson, to reduce delays. The department also is scrambling to upgrade technology systems before millions of dollars in new GI benefits takes effect next August.

Upon leaving his post in June 2003, Shinseki sternly warned against arrogance in leadership. "You must love those you lead before you can be an effective leader," he said in a farewell speech.

Obama's choice of Shinseki is the latest indication that the president-elect is making good on his pledge to have a diverse Cabinet (Blogger’s Note: Recall, this is a “news” article; and, the author just can’t get past skin color and race).

In Obama's eight Cabinet announcements so far, white men are the minority with two nominations - Timothy Geithner at Treasury and Robert Gates at Defense. Three are women - Janet Napolitano at Homeland Security, Susan Rice as United Nations ambassador, and Hillary Clinton at State. Eric Holder at the Justice Department is African-American, while Bill Richardson at Commerce is Latino. (Blogger’s Note: President-elect Obama has a long way to go to match President Bush’s Cabinet for diversity as the skin color and racial obsessed recognize “diversity”. I’ve always been a “diversity of thought” guy but I fight against the tide of those obsessed with skin color and race.). (End of Associated Press “news” article.)

Two days after the Associated Press shared its lies, the Boston Globe published this editorial on the same subject:

Boston Globe, December 9, 2008
A truth-teller for the VA (Blogger’s Note: The title is rich for the remarkable irony.)

In the Bush administration, Gen. Eric K. Shinseki committed the crime of truth-telling: He told the Senate in early 2003 that maintaining order in Iraq would take far more U.S. troops than Donald Rumsfeld planned for (Blogger’s Note: As we saw above, this claim has been debunked.). It cost him his job as Army chief of staff (Blogger’s Note: This is also a lie. Gen. Shinseki’s retirement from the Army was announced in the Washington Times on April 19, 2002. Gen. Shinseki gave his exaggerated and fear-mongering testimony to Congress that more than 300,000 troops would be needed in Iraq on February 25, 2003. If Bush fired Shinseki for his testimony, then the facts show Bush to be the prescient one as Bush fired Shinseki 9 months before the general’s “wildly off the mark” testimony.). That same virtue, honesty (Blogger’s Note: or lies and fear-mongering, if we want to be more accurate), should stand him in good stead now that President-elect Barack Obama has nominated him to be secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs (Blogger’s Note: But remarkably not a field command where the General’s “prescience” could be used to benefit men and women actually fighting, well, provided the general had a demonstrated record of being "right" instead of his now high-profile record of being incredibly "wrong" on the most significant decision of the day. No, to direct the men and woman doing the actual fighting, President-elect Obama is not using his own people or his own generals, he’s using President Bush’s: SecDef Robert Gates and Gen. David Petraeus).

The choice is a stinging rebuke not just of Rumsfeld and President Bush for failing to take Shinseki's advice (Blogger’s Note: Bush did not take the advice of a man who was wrong) on the Iraq war, but also of the administration's weak effort to solve the medical, educational, emotional and employment problems that veterans are having in returning to civilian life.

If confirmed, Shinseki will face the challenge first of reducing the unconscionable six months to a year that it now takes many veterans to qualify for disability coverage, or to transition from military medical care to the veterans' system. Also, veterans’ health facilities often lack the specialists needed to treat and counsel veterans suffering from traumatic brain injuries or post-traumatic stress disorder.

The new secretary will have to oversee implementation of the expanded GI Bill educational benefits that Congress wisely approved earlier this year.

Shinseki, who lost most of one foot in combat in Vietnam and had to persuade military doctors to let him return to duty, said discharged service members "deserve a smooth, error-free, no-fail, benefits-assured transition into our ranks as veterans."

While no one doubts that Shinseki would speak up if he thought Congress or administration numbers-crunchers were not giving him the money he needs (Blogger’s Note: Gen. Shinseki spoke up in February, 2003; as we’ve seen, a full 9 months after his retirement was announced; he gets no credit for “honesty” since he risked nothing as his future was already decided. Leaders lead. Where was Shinseki’s “honesty” when he was still advising the President in an active capacity?), there is concern that his low-key style might not be up to the formidable task of shaking up the department's bureaucracy. Critics said he should have fought harder to get Rumsfeld to plan for the several hundred thousand troops (Blogger’s Note: 300,000 or more) that Shinseki predicted would be needed to occupy Iraq (Blogger’s Note: Iraq was pacified with 165,000.). But in that dispute, Shinseki could not count on the backing of the president (Blogger's Note: probably because he was wrong). Obama made clear in nominating him that Shinseki would have that support. That should put some steel in his management of the department. It badly needs a forceful advocate at its head. (End of Boston Globe editorial.)

Coat-stub II

Unreported by the liberal media this week, for obvious reasons, was that there were two runoff elections in Louisiana on Saturday, December 6, 2008 for two U.S. House of Representative seats.

In the Louisiana 2nd, Ahn “Joseph” Cao (R) defeated William Jefferson (D).

In the Louisiana 4th, John Fleming (R) defeated Paul Carmouche (D).

The "R"s signify Republican; the "D"s represent the party of the coat-tailless President-elect Obama, Democratic.

Promoting Honest Debate
“Many People” are Offended

Nothing like the liberal Massachusetts public school system to help get me out of my post-election malaise. It was just a matter of time before the soft curriculum would smell of feel-good liberalism and advocacy brain-washing.

I’m not saying that there have not been others prior, but these two events are events I became aware of (recently). I am not proud that I didn’t confront my kids’ teachers in either instance but my kids are outstanding students (one is “high honors”) and the last thing I need to do is change a teacher’s perception of my kids because of my pro-life and religious-tolerance-for-all beliefs.

So, just before the election, my 7th grader asked me why I was voting for Sen. McCain over Sen. Obama when it’s “Sen. Obama who wants American soldiers to stop being killed in Iraq.” I asked her where she heard such a nonsensical characterization of the candidate’s positions on the war and she told me “candidate profile sheets” that were passed out in class. I asked here how the “profiles” explained the candidate’s positions on abortion and she asked, “What’s abortion?” My daughter has two new cousins born October, 2008 at 31 weeks (2 lbs and 4 lbs); she now knows what abortion is and she now is better able to explain why she supported Sen. McCain over Sen. Obama.

Then, last week, my 5th grader brought home an issue of TIME for Kids, the magazine’s liberally extreme views not reserved just for adults. On a periodic basis, the teacher assigns an “article” from the magazine that the student is supposed to discuss with a care-giver. So, my daughter asks me to read a piece by Ms. Charlene Teters, a career Native American activist and a member of the Spokane Tribe (Washington state) whose mission in life is to end the use of all Native American imagery in sports and media.

The “article”, which is really an editorial, calls for the elimination of Native American Indians as mascots for sports teams. The title of the piece is, “Indians Deserve Respect”. The piece is accompanied by two pictures, one of Turner Field and the occupants doing the “tomahawk chop” and another of a white, male, Washington Redskin fan fresh from a tailgate in full Native American Indian stereotypical head dress and face paint.

Before I go any further, I am definitely not arguing in support of Native American imagery in sports and media. My complaints are limited to what I note below.

My primary objection is that any time 5th graders are asked to read an opinion piece, they should be asked to read two opinion pieces. Either they can handle the subject matter or they cannot. In this case, the school system chose to subject impressionable students to the manipulative writings of a propagandist and not expose them to an opposing view.

My secondary objections go directly to the construction of the editorial.

Again, the title of the editorial was, "Indians Deserve Respect". I, of course, have no problem with the title in a vacuum, though I think everyone deserves respect, but in an editorial devoted to mascots, it implies to any child who reads the editorial that supporting an Indian mascot is equivalent to having no respect for Indians. That, of course, is hogwash. After no more than five minutes of web research, I found the Seminole Tribe of Florida is actively supporting the Florida State Seminoles’ mascot, Chief Osceola. I hardly think the Seminole Tribe of Florida has no respect for itself but I wouldn’t know because the opposing view in support of Indian mascots was not presented.

Next, Ms. Teters continually confuses 'mascot' with 'team name' (in her editorial to children; how clever she?). Ms. Teters could not compose a 400 word essay to children without manipulative complaint creep. Chief Wahoo, who is not mentioned in the editorial, is the mascot of the Cleveland Indians and Chief Illiniwek, who was not mentioned in the editorial, was the mascot of the University of Illinois Fighting Illini. Ms. Teters mentions the Warrior(s), Brave(s), and Redskin(s) and I have no knowledge of, nor could I find, any mascot named Warrior, Brave or Redskin. Ms. Teters, of course, knows this but that did not prevent her from taking advantage of her captive, grade-school, audience.

Quickly, in my opinion, the image of Chief Wahoo is offensive but the image of Chief Osceola is not.

The Atlanta Braves, by the way, do not use the image of a Native American Indian. Their mascot is a person with a baseball for a head (Homer the Brave). Yet, in an editorial on mascots, Ms. Teters chose to include a picture of Atlanta Braves fans doing the "tomahawk chop" to exaggerate her mascot editorial. No doubt the grade-schoolers would be influenced.

My daughter, sensing my displeasure with the dishonest editorial, tried to make Ms. Teters’ arguments to me. Quoting two different sentences, my daughter noted but “many people” are offended by certain Native American imagery. On the FoxNews (only because the better site, CNN, was down), I found 679,465 people voted for Ralph Nader for President on Nov. 4. I asked my daughter if 679,465 was “many people”. I then explained to her that Mr. Nader received just over ½ of 1% of the vote. Of course, Ms. Teters knows she’s disingenuous with her uses of the phrase “many people”. No doubt the grade-schoolers would be influenced as my daughter was.

To wit, my daughter persisted, an antagonist is born!, “But it’s still offensive.”

We're Catholics but I would hope people of all religious faiths would understand my offense. To give my daughter an education in “it’s offensive” I showed her pictures of Serrano's "Piss Christ" and Chris Ofili's "Sensation". I then told her that the first piece of "art" was, in part, funded by the National Endowment for the Arts. Needless to say, my daughter was offended. I told my daughter that I don’t recall an editorial by Ms. Teters condemning Serrano or Ofili’s art. I also told her that "many people” think I’m overly-sensitive to seeing my God in a glass of the "artist's" urine or seeing elephant dung strewn all over an image of the Blessed Virgin Mary. People who do not understand and make jokes of “papal infallibility” do not recognize their own religious bigotry. Some bigotry is casually dismissed if recognized at all.

I drafted a rather lengthy email to my 5th graders teacher and I looked at it, looked at it some more, and finally deleted it. I’m not thrilled with what I did but I suspect it is now just a matter of days or weeks before I get my next chance to let a teacher know that I’m not pleased with the selective opinions that are being shared with my kids. Two plus two equals four and one person's opinion on Native American imagery is only that.

The use of Native American Indian imagery in sports and media is a controversial issue. Controversial issues should be honestly debated, especially if introduced in the classroom. The segment of the Massachusetts public school system that I’m exposed to is failing to promote honest debate. What a surprise.

Post-Election Malaise

As British Prime Minister Tony Blair morphed from President Clinton's world leader soulmate to a stupid liar on, or shortly after, January 20, 2001, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is morphing from the face of the Bush Administration's prosecution of the war in Iraq to the man most qualified to be President-elect Obama's Secretary of Defense.

This is just the latest example of how the national media, doubling as President-elect Obama's communication team, is keeping me in a post-election malaise.

I still have no creativity for a significant post.

Anyone with a suggestion? Or, how about a question to generate a conversation in the comments?

Coat-stub

Republican incumbent Sen. Saxby Chambliss defeated Democrat Jim Martin in a run-off election for the United States Senate seat from Georgia yesterday . . . in an absolute slaughter (58 percent to 42 percent). I write "slaughter" because the media claimed Sen. Obama won in a "landslide" with less than 53% of the vote so I just applied some relativity.

So, given the massive amount of money Democrats dumped into the Martin campaign and the numerous visits to Georgia by Democratic Party superstars, President Bill Clinton being the headliner, President-elect Obama's boy still got trashed.

Coat-tails?

No, coat-stub.

The decline of the Obama Presidency has begun and it hasn't even started yet.

Applying the Same Reasoning

The day President-elect Obama announced New York Federal Reserve Bank President Timothy Geithner as SecTreas I thought the Dow coincidently rose 500 points but the liberal extremist who control the media insisted there was a direct correlation. Every single major newspaper and news website specifically cited the announcement as the driver to the Dow's rise.

Applying the same logic, I wonder if tomorrows headlines will recognize the same correlation between President-elect Obama's announcement today of Sen. Hillary Clinton as SecState and the Dow's 680 point plunge.

I apologize for the dearth of posts the last few days. I traveled to my high school reunion this weekend and I was basically in a time warp for 20 hours and in stand-still traffic before and after the warp for another twelve.