Wednesday, June 30, 2004


The criminals are in uniform in modern-day Britain. The old-fashioned British police who were good at catching crooks are mostly all gone now -- replaced by socialist dictators with zero respect for ordinary law-abiding people

"A judge yesterday demanded a top-level inquiry after police let a convicted rapist carry on working as a bogus teacher. Detectives monitoring Mark Bradshaw - described as a "very high risk" offender - knew about his job but failed to tell bosses at the school. Bradshaw, 45, impressed the English language centre so much during his eight months there that he was twice promoted. The school contacted police after receiving an anonymous letter that claimed Bradshaw was a sex offender. Jerry Hayes, prosecuting, told the judge that when the police failed to reply, the school assumed the allegations were false.

In fact, the police had decided to do nothing because Bradshaw was in a steady working environment and his marriage seemed to be going well. Five months later, a journalist threatened to publish the story, and the police finally told the school they had a "very high risk" sex offender working for them.

Judge Colin Smith, who jailed Bradshaw for eight months for deception, told Inner London Crown Court: "I find it a very worrying state of affairs. "It is a matter that will have to be looked at at a very high level. "There is a clear public duty on the police to respond promptly and fully to inquiries made by employers in this extremely sensitive area."

Bradshaw, from Stoke Newington, North London, had been jailed for six years at the Old Bailey in September 1995 for rape and attempted rape. He had attacked a resident in a hotel while he was on home leave for raping a woman in a minicab office."

More here. (Via Jerry Lerman).


Particularly their food. Some sarcastic comments from economist PP McGuiness on the Leftist objections to child-benefit payments in Australia:

"The trouble about poor and disadvantaged people is that you can't trust them. Because of their disadvantage they have foolish and irresponsible attitudes to money, which they spend unwisely. They can't be trusted not to spend it on drinking, smoking, junk food and other unhealthy things; nor can they be trusted to spend their time wisely in exercise and study - instead they will sit around watching television, and not even ABC programs. And young women can't be trusted not to have babies for money. Therefore it is necessary to take them in hand, assign social workers and other advisers to tell them what to do and what to eat, and above all, not give them money without strings. That is pretty much what most of the criticism of the Federal Government's new family tax payments and baby bonuses are about.

It is ironic that much of this is coming from the Labor Party, which once campaigned strongly against the idea of paying the dole in kind (food orders, and so on) during the Depression, and sponsored the introduction of the Maternity Benefit - the now forgotten one-off payment to new mothers.

The extreme distrust of the poor and their inability to live their own lives which is displayed by the critics of the new payments is all too typical of those who purport to care for the poor and make social policy. They just know their clients are stupid and hopeless (not their own fault, of course - they are victims of the evil capitalist system), and can never make sensible decisions for themselves. They have to be told what is good for them, and if they don't listen they have to be made to do it. Nowhere has this been clearer than in the debates about junk food and obesity. We have started by aggravating poverty among the smokers and drinkers - if this means they have less to spend on food, it is their own fault. Now we want to force them somehow to eat "better" with what little money they have left."

Tuesday, June 29, 2004


They will lie and cheat to take away your power over what you do with your own body

More abuse of "science" "Fifty years ago, we discovered that smoking is bad for us. In 1954, Austin Bradford Hill and Richard Doll published a preliminary report on a study showing the very strong correlation between smoking and premature mortality. However, this classic study has in many ways sent medical science up a blind alley. While the dangers of smoking have been demonstrated in numerous subsequent studies, the attempts to find the New Smoking - another example of an environmental or lifestyle factor that causes substantial health problems - have largely failed. But the many pieces of junk science that have been produced in the process have provided the ammunition for unwarranted health scares too numerous to mention.....

A topical example of this is passive smoking, and in particular what Brignell calls 'the greatest scientific fraud ever'. In 1992, the US Environmental Protection Agency published a meta-study, bringing together many other studies on passive smoking. Unfortunately, the results were negative. It appeared that passive smoking was not a health risk at all. Mere facts could not be allowed to get in the way of a health scare, so some imagination was applied to the problem. One negative study was removed - but the meta-study still produced no statistically significant result.

So the goalposts were not so much moved as widened. The organisation found that there was a greater than five per cent chance that the results were coincidental, but less than 10 per cent - so they accepted them anyway. In other words, the EPA accepted a bigger risk that the effect they found was purely due to chance, quite at odds with standard practice.

The increased risk of lung cancer they found - 19 per cent - was frankly too small to have been conceivably detected given the methods they used. There are lots of ways in which inaccuracy could have crept into this final result. For example, is it really possible to merge the results of many different studies, all with different methodologies and subjects, accurately? How could someone's actual exposure to environmental smoke be measured over the course of years? Were all the people who said that they were non-smokers absolutely honest? As indicated above, were other possible contributory factors such as age, gender and income controlled for accurately?"

Monday, June 28, 2004


The greatest obstacle to domestic security in the war on terror is the worldview of the liberal elites. No sooner had the Twin Towers fallen than the press and an army of advocacy groups were on the hunt for victims-not of Muslim fanaticism but of American bigotry. The liberal commentariat has denounced every commonsensical measure to protect the country the Bush administration has proposed as an eruption of racism or tyranny.

But the elite ideology began its corrosive work long before 9/11. For three decades, the liberal establishment, fixated on preventing a highly unlikely repeat of Watergate-era abuses, has encumbered America's intelligence and national security capacities with increasingly crippling procedural inhibitions, culminating in domestic intelligence restrictions promulgated by the Clinton administration in 1995. As long as the elites continue to act as if America's biggest enemy is not al-Qaida but the country's own allegedly repressive and bigoted instincts, the nation's defense against terror at home will proceed at half throttle.

In August 2001, mere weeks before the greatest mass murder of civilians in U.S. history, the Justice Department squelched two prescient efforts to avert the attacks. In Minneapolis, FBI agents frantically sought permission to search the possessions of one Zacarias Moussaoui, a bumbling, suspicious flight student and a colleague of Islamic fundamentalists. In New York, another FBI agent no less frantically sought clearance to throw his squad into an 11th-hour search for Khalid Almihdar, an al-Qaida operative at large in the country.

Justice Department bureaucrats refused both requests on absurd grounds..

More here


The "war" against obesity: "The U.S. government's spokesperson on medical issues says obesity is every bit as threatening as terrorism. Given that the war on terror has spawned the largest federal bureaucracy in the history of the United States, questionable trespasses on civil liberties, and is costing U.S. taxpayers tens of billions of dollars, that's an awfully scary thing for a high-ranking government official to say. And that conference organizers chose to place Mr. Carmona's quote front and centre ought to give some sort of indication of the starting point from which this debate kicked off."

Sunday, June 27, 2004


The US Army opposes a Bible reference on medals previously sent out to the families of fallen soldiers. "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." (John 15:13) is ruled unacceptable in multicultural, "tolerant" America


People once called savage butchery and enslavement what it was. Sorry! No longer correct

"They are etched in stone, memories from battles pitched here 300 years ago. But, with words like "savages" and praise for "patriots" who attacked noncombatants, they only tell one side of the story - and no one is arguing that.

Proud descendants of Deerfield's white settlers erected historical markers by the dozens here back in the days when the battleground with American Indian tribes had shifted west to the Black Hills of South Dakota.

But now, some say, the markers have become a modern embarrassment in this museum village that for centuries has been consumed with preserving history. So, in an exhibit, unabashedly called "Covering Up History," historians have hung removable banners over some of the marble plaques in Memorial Hall Museum commemorating the attacks on Deerfield during the French and Indian Wars. Visitors are invited to comment on the rewrite.

The aim is to drape the rhetoric of the 1870s and 1880s, when the museum was established, with a more modern version of events in the late 1600s and early 1700s that no longer denigrates one-time foes. "It was hard for me and other members of the staff to rationalize the words. Phrases like 'bloodthirsty savages' are hurtful to people," said Suzanne Flynt, a curator at the museum operated by the Pocumtuck Valley Historical Society.

Visitors can still lift the banners to view original inscriptions, such as "Mary Field, adopted by an Indian. Was named WALAHOWEY. She married a savage and became one." The covering version reads: "Mary, adopted by a Kanien'kehaka (Mohawk). Was named WALAHOWEY (WELAHAWI). She married a Kanien'kehaka and adopted the culture, customs and language of her new community in Kahanawake."

Mary was 6 when a combined force of Mohawks, Hurons, Abenakis and French Canadians attacked Deerfield in 1704 killing 50 residents and marching more than 100 others, nearly half of them children, off to captivity in Quebec... "

More here

Saturday, June 26, 2004


"Some of the most violent criminals at large today are illegal aliens. Yet in cities where the crime these aliens commit is highest, the police cannot use the most obvious tool to apprehend them: their immigration status. In Los Angeles, for example, dozens of members of a ruthless Salvadoran prison gang have sneaked back into town after having been deported for such crimes as murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and drug trafficking. Police officers know who they are and know that their mere presence in the country is a felony. Yet should a cop arrest an illegal gangbanger for felonious reentry, it is he who will be treated as a criminal, for violating the LAPD’s rule against enforcing immigration law.

The LAPD’s ban on immigration enforcement mirrors bans in immigrant-saturated cities around the country, from New York and Chicago to San Diego, Austin, and Houston. These “sanctuary policies” generally prohibit city employees, including the cops, from reporting immigration violations to federal authorities.

Such laws testify to the sheer political power of immigrant lobbies, a power so irresistible that police officials shrink from even mentioning the illegal-alien crime wave. “We can’t even talk about it,” says a frustrated LAPD captain. “People are afraid of a backlash from Hispanics.” Another LAPD commander in a predominantly Hispanic, gang-infested district sighs: “I would get a firestorm of criticism if I talked about [enforcing the immigration law against illegals].” Neither captain would speak for attribution.

But however pernicious in themselves, sanctuary rules are a symptom of a much broader disease: the nation’s near-total loss of control over immigration policy. Fifty years ago, immigration policy might have driven immigration numbers, but today the numbers drive policy.... "

More here


Boo Hoo! "A New Bedford [MA] man shot dead during an apparent robbery attempt was the victim of an overzealous homeowner who went into a murderous rage when he discovered an intruder on his property, the dead man's family said yesterday. 'It was plain murder,' said Missy Cimbron, the sister of 24-year-old shooting victim Frank Pereira. 'This guy shot to kill. He did not shoot to defend himself.' Cimbron said her brother has a troubled past and may have been trying to rob the home of Charles Chieppa, but he did not deserve to be shot multiple times and die alone on the street. State cops are trying to piece together the pre-dawn confrontation between Cheippa and Pereira to determine whether the shooting was self-defense or an unnecessary use of deadly force. ... Cops said Pereira snatched a purse filled with prescription drugs from a 56-year-old woman before trying to break into Chieppa's house at about 4 a.m. Thursday."

Friday, June 25, 2004


Even your own body is no longer a personal matter

The "Obesity" racket: "It has often been pointed out that the anti-smoking campaign... the organizations, attorneys, and politicians looking for votes, created a blueprint for other invented "causes"... a blueprint that can take almost any subject and turn it into a massive campaign, based on nothing more substantial than scare tactics, oft-repeated lies, twisted statistics, and emotional appeals. Despite warnings that the same blueprint for deception would move to other areas once tobacco was tapped for all it was worth, millions of people continue to be suckered by the same approach... the same, now-perfected blueprint for fraud.

Obesity is the newest version of the great fraud, and attacks on anyone who might assist us gaining weight are the new villains. If you're obese, you're the latest "victim". You're not responsible for being obese, because you can blame all the food sources you use. You're a helpless victim to your appetite. Attorneys will become insanely wealthy from ridiculous lawsuits, thousands of organizations will fleece power and money from "concerned" citizens. New weight-loss plans will replace those that conned you into praising short-term weight loss only to find that you couldn't live with their plan long-term.

Politicians have jumped on the "caring" bandwagon to rally voters behind their efforts at FORCING us to lose weight. They'll come up with a variety of feel-good, worthless schemes that will cost us, but that we'll forget didn't work, once a new crisis arises. Although I haven't seen it yet, I have no doubt that we will be told that obesity is costing all of us, even if we're slender, by raising the costs of health care. Fat people supposedly take up more health care resources, thus depriving the rest of us. That will make it a national policy issue... the fat version of second-hand smoke. We'll all end up paying for it, even if we never had much problem with our weight.


Ancient wisdom: "Plutarch and his friends saw disease as the responsibility of the individual, arising mainly from `disagreements of food and drink with us and our mistakes in using them'. The answer lies with the mind `which is self-governed and capable, if it will, of changing and altering its course'".

Thursday, June 24, 2004


Coming to the politically correct conclusions was far more important than logic or reason to these university researchers

"University researchers found small racial disparities in traffic citations issued by 249 Bay State police departments. The findings have been greeted as proof of police bias. This conclusion is at best premature, since the Northeastern study lacks every prerequisite of sound profiling analysis.

To the claim that the police stop "too many" members of any given demographic group, the question must always be: "too many" compared to what? The Northeastern study compares police stop rates to population demographics. If 7 percent of a town's residents are black, for example, but 8 percent of traffic citations issued by the town's police are for black drivers, the authors conclude that the police single out drivers on the basis of skin color.

But population is a flawed benchmark for analyzing police actions -- as if police officers are guided by the census rather than by behavior. Crime rates differ across racial and ethnic groups; evidence suggests that driving behavior might, too. A 2001 study of the New Jersey Turnpike, for example, found that black drivers were twice as likely to speed as white drivers, a disparity that increased at speeds above 90 miles per hour. There are many possible explanations for this difference: Black drivers may be more likely to travel long distances on the turnpike, bringing them more frequently into faster left-hand lanes, or the black population on the pike may contain more young males than the white population, raising the number of speeders as well. The Northeastern study makes no effort to determine driving habits among its target groups; it thus has no basis for judging whether police stop rates are disproportionate."

More here


There is an absolutely marvellous story here from an obviously very bright High School student who took on the Leftist establishment at his school. No excerpts can do justice to the story. This is one of the rare occasions when I say: "Read the whole thing". But a few excerpts anyway:

"Operation Tiger Claw was my first attempt at leading a protest against the apathy and leftism running rampant at my school. It all started on Friday, May 14th with a small act of conservative pride. My socialist history teacher was on another kick about how articulate Noam Chomsky was, when I finally reached my limit.

At the end of the day, my fellow PW chapter members and I felt it was time to fight back and strike at the public education indoctrination machine that seemed to be running out of control. Our school desperately needed some ideological balance, so we decided that the next day we would up the ante and place 500 signs in the halls of the school.

Just as I could see I was breaking through to them an angry woman in her thirties came up to me. She called me a racist, yelling and screaming as she really got in my face. I didn't know who she was, but that didn't matter -- I stood strong. I calmly asked what she objected to, and she ripped the signs out of the hands of a student standing by her. She began the same rant I had just heard from the students: how I was a racist, etc. She then claimed that I wouldn't dare put up a sign about black or Jews, and if I ever did I would get my ass kicked (it sure does feel good to know that everyone is concerned for my safety). I explained point by point why I disagreed. She told me I knew nothing about Islam, because I am not Muslim and she is.

The following Tuesday, the principal finally handed down his verdict. Unfortunately, he decided to "err on the side of caution" and would not allow me to post my signs. He said that the Iraqi war and the other issues in the signs do not directly affect the school or its students. But he did allow me to distribute them at lunch to any and all students who were interested.

There is no such thing as separation of speech and state. You as a student have the right to express your personal and political beliefs in school (see Tinker vs. Des Moines). The Supreme Court has upheld this decision on many occasions, protecting student rights. Your administration does not need to like what you're saying, but as long as it doesn't create a material and substantial disruption in the classroom, you can say it. And the disruption has to actually be created -- fear of disruption is not grounds for censorship.

So keep fighting the good fight, even if it isn't the popular thing to do. You might feel alone in your struggle, but you are not, and there are many others like you out there fighting to be heard."


American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.


Wednesday, June 23, 2004


A 14-year-old Australian boy went to court asking for a "divorce" from his family because his mother wouldn't let him out after 11PM, allow him to set fire to his room nor allow him to paint graffiti on the family room walls. The divorce was granted. The mother blames herself and thinks she was too strict by putting any limits on his behavior, apparently. "If I had let Peter do everything he wanted, including staying out until 11pm, this would not have happened," she said. "We have always tried to be fair. I wonder where we have gone wrong.

More here


Worcestershire County Council in the UK has instructed the schools within their domain to NOT apply sun block to young schoolchildren so as to "avoid allegations of child abuse." One furious mother of a boy whose allergy to the sun flared up as a result of his consequent direct exposure feels that this is "bureaucracy gone mad." And is this not, therefore, a form of child abuse? (Via Jerry Lerman).

Tuesday, June 22, 2004


"South Australia's Court of Criminal Appeal has reduced a jail sentence given to a man who broke into an elderly couple's house because he is Aboriginal. The Appeal Court ruled that Aborigines are at greater disadvantage in society that whites.

Darren Clarke, 29, broke into the Port Pirie house of a couple in their 70s in November 2002 by smashing the back door. He ransacked two rooms and stole alcohol and money. The couple was terrified and traumatised.

Clark was sentenced to three years with a non-parole period of 23 months. He appealed against that sentence and one of his grounds was that he was Aboriginal. The Court of Criminal Appeal agreed saying an offender's aboriginality could be relevant. It said many Aboriginal people were marginalised and lacked opportunities.

The judges acknowledged Clark's appalling criminal record and the seriousness of the offence. But they reduced his sentence to two years and three months with a non-parole period of 17 months."

More here


A dry comment by Richard Lynn. He notes that psychopathy is now officially called "antisocial personality disorder" and adds: "This is an expression of the increasing sentimentality of the second half of the twentieth century, in which terms that had acquired negative associations were replaced by euphemisms. There are other examples. Mentally retarded children are now called "slow learners" or even "exceptional children;" aggressive children now have "externalizing behaviors;" prostitutes are "sex workers;" tramps are now "the homeless," as if their houses were destroyed by earthquake; and people on welfare are "clients" of social workers".

Monday, June 21, 2004


Boy's suspension overturned: "The Superintendent of Queen Anne's County [MD] Public Schools overturned the 10-day suspension given to an 11-year-old Grasonville Elementary student who brought a steak knife to school as part of a class project. The boy's mother appealed the suspension handed down May 17 by Principal Anne Dodge under the school system's 'zero tolerance' policy for weapons in schools. At the time, Dodge said the knife had been brought to school 'along with other tools' in a decorated showbox for show and tell and no threat was ever made. Superintendent Dr. Bernard J. Sadusky said he felt the appeal was justified and the student should be back in school."


So much has anti-Americanism become an undisputed expression of truth for the French press that, when veteran journalist Alain Hertoghe documented in his recent book La guerre … outrances (the "all-out war") how the big French papers, because of their hatred of the U.S., reported the Iraq conflict with wild inaccuracy, the media response, right and left, was . . . silence. Well, except at Hertoghe's own paper, the Catholic daily La Croix. There, his boss accused him of committing "an act of treason" and fired him ...

Last week, the newspapers in Paris uncomfortably covered another story that until then they had successfully avoided. Earlier this month, the European blogsite reported a story they'd spotted in the Belgian satirical weekly, Sprout, written by a German politician, Ilka Schroeder, about the misuse of E.U. funds sent to Palestine. It seems the E.U. gives the Palestinians more than $400 million annually-including some $12.5 million each month, paid directly to the Palestinian Authority. The money may be going to wage war on Israel, and indirectly on the U.S. The E.U., says Schroeder, is "well aware that much of the funding ends up in the hands of terrorists"-a situation that Schroeder says doesn't alarm the E.U. at all. On the contrary, "[the E.U.] hopes that a deepening conflict in the region will highlight America's inability to mediate a satisfactory peace deal-and that Europe will then be able to ride to the rescue."

At about the same time, both EURSOC and other European-based blogsites began reporting a scandal involving Yassar Arafat's Paris-dwelling wife. It's thought that Soha Arafat may have laundered as much as $10 million of E.U. funds earmarked for Palestinians apparently into her personal account. After days of dominating the euro-blogs (and U.K. dailies), the story finally appeared in the French press-in the weekly Le Canard Enchaine, like Sprout a satirical publication. Only then did Le Monde, Le Figaro, and Liberation cover the controversy.

It's obvious that without the blogsites' scrutiny and the exposure of the scandal in the foreign media, the story never would have made it into the mainstream French press. Hertoghe says the attempt to sidestep the E.U.-Palestinian story is easy to explain. "The newspapers do not want to report a story that tells the French people that Sharon may be right," he said. The consequences of a badly informed French public are serious for the Middle East, the rest of Europe- where anti-Semitism is again on the rise- and the U.S....

More here

Sunday, June 20, 2004


By John Hawkins

"Are you sick and tired of those "conservative" fairy tales? Are you an American liberal or someone from Europe who thinks those fairy tales teach values that no longer need to be promoted in today's world? Well, RWN is coming to your rescue with our "Politically Correct Fairy Tales!"

Hansel and Gretel: Hansel and Gretel were lost in the woods when they came upon a house made of candy and cake. An old witch invited them in and then captured both of them intending to eat them. Gretel had a chance save both of them by pushing the old woman in an oven but she decided that it would be wrong not to respect the witch's cultural traditions. So Gretel and her brother allowed themselves to be cooked and eaten. The witch was so happy with the children's actions that she invited all of her witch friends to the area. Soon thereafter, they ate every child in a hundred mile radius. Soon the whole area was filled with nothing but child eating witches and all the witches were very happy! The Moral of the Story: You must respect the culture of others, even at your own expense!

Fisherman and the Fish: An old man finds a fish. The fish says "Let me go, old man. I will reward you for my freedom by giving you anything you desire". The old man at the behest of his wife makes wish after wish. Finally, the fish decides the old man and his wife are being too greedy and takes everything he gave them away. Then the man and his wife hire Johnny Cochran and sue the federal government for not having federal regulations in place to prevent wishing fish from unfairly taking away previously given magical spoils. The judge ruled in their favor and they were both given 500 million dollars worth of taxpayer funds with which they lived happily ever after. The Moral of the Story: It's the federal government's responsibility to fix every bad thing that happens in the world.

The Three Billy-Goats Gruff: The first and second billy goat gruffs were stopped from going across a bridge to get food by a troll. Then the biggest and baddest billy goat gruff showed up. He told the troll he was going to kick his (hiney). That greatly upset the first and second of the billy goats gruff who accused the third billy goat gruff of "hegemony" and "imperialism" and said that negotiation was the way to go. So the third billy goat gruff went away. Unfortunately, the troll refused to negotiate and first two billy goats gruff starved to death. The Moral of the Story: It's better to starve to death than to fight!

The Three Little Pigs: There were once three little pigs. The first little pig built his house out of straw. But the big bad wolf easily knocked it down. Then he ran to the 2nd pig's house which was made out of sticks. But the wolf came there and knocked it down too. Then both pigs ran to the American pig's house which was made out brick. When the wolf came there, the American pig pulled out a gun and blew his stinking head off. Afterwards, both little pigs who lost their houses started building their houses out of straw again. When the American pig asked them why they accused the American of being an "arrogant jerk" and of "acting unilaterally". But they secretly knew the American would always save them, just like he did in WW1 and WW2 so they could afford not to be prepared. The Moral of the Story: Even though Americans are helpful, they're real creeps!

The Ants and the Grasshopper: All summer long the ants worked and prepared for the winter while the grasshopper went to Rage Against the Machine concerts and played Everquest. The grasshopper laughed and laughed at the ants for working so hard. Then winter came. The ants had plenty of food and shelter while the grasshopper had none. So the government took the ants tax money and built the grasshopper a house, gave him welfare cheese to eat, and paid for courses at the local university that the grasshopper didn't bother to go to. When the ants complained everyone agreed that they were greedy rich jerks for having more than the grasshopper. The Moral of the Story: Taking money from people who work hard and giving it to the lazy is compassionate!"

Saturday, June 19, 2004


Gabriela Oviedo, this year's Miss Bolivia, got herself into some unexpected hot water, when she responded to a seemingly innocuous question: "What is one of the biggest misconceptions about your country?" Apparently, Miss Bolivia had not previously been equipped with a politically-correct response. She just blurted this out: "Um... unfortunately, people that don't know Bolivia very much think that we are all just Indian people from the west side of the country, it's La Paz all the image that we reflect, is that poor people and very short people and Indian people ... I'm from the other side of the country, the east side and it's not cold, it's very hot and we are tall and we are white people and we know English so all that misconception that Bolivia is only an "Andean" country, it's wrong, Bolivia has a lot to offer and that's my job as an ambassador of my country to let people know much diversity we have."

Well, that was enough to ignite a firestorm. Miss Bolivia's comments were on the front pages of papers in Bolivia. She was called a "racist" and her resignation as Miss Bolivia was even called for (though never by the pageant itself). Even Maria Alvarez Plata, Bolivian Vice-Minister of Culture, weighed in on the question. She called Senorita Oviedo's statements "lamentable" and declared that "No person who represents us has the right to have such a racist outlook." The Vice-Minister of Culture practiced a bit of psychoanalysis, stating that Miss Bolivia has difficulty recognizing "the cultural diversity that we have in our country." [Indignaci¢n por declaraciones racistas de Miss Bolivia en Ecuador LA PAZ, May 27 (AFP)]

Wait a second! It seems to me that Miss Bolivia does recognize the "cultural diversity" in Bolivia. In fact, she got into trouble for recognizing and publicly pointing out-to foreigners! - Bolivia's diversity. You know the deal. Diversity is a Great Thing. It should be celebrated. But if you really talk about it, you're branded a racist.

Let's take an objective look at Bolivia and see what the fuss is about. Bolivia's population is 55% Indian, 30% mestizo and 15% white. Western Bolivia, the Andean region including La Paz, is principally inhabited by the indigenous Quechua and Aymara, descendents of the Inca. They are generally shorter in stature than those of European ancestry. And yes, they tend to be poorer as well. The lowland of Eastern Bolivia, including Santa Cruz, from which Senorita Oviedo hails, is generally inhabited more by mestizos and whites. And they do tend to be taller. Gabriela Oviedo herself is six feet tall.... In other words, what Miss Bolivia said about her country's regions and ethnicities is true...

Certainly, Latin America contains an astonishing mosaic of racial and ethnic groups, including racial mixtures of various kinds. But generally speaking, wherever you go, white Latin Americans are at the top of the totem pole! .... None of these countries has a white majority. But all their Miss Universe contestants (with one exception) are white- or at least from the white end of the mestizo spectrum.Far be it from me to tell Latin American countries who they should pick for their Miss Universe representatives. But please, Latin Americans, don't tell us how racist we are- and how color blind you are! We may be foolish. But we're not blind"

Friday, June 18, 2004


"Getting drunk and blaming the barman for an injury you suffered on the way home got much harder yesterday when the High Court said it was time people accepted responsibility for their actions.

Rosellie Cole lost her 10-year battle to have the South Tweed Heads Rugby League Football Club compensate her for being run over by a car after a day-long drinking session. But the judges' 4-2 decision revealed the court to be split along the lines of those who say pubs and clubs should effectively babysit patrons and those who say interfering with adults' personal choices opens up all sorts of problems.

The dissenters, Justices Michael McHugh and Michael Kirby, said the club should have thrown Ms Cole out long before she told the manager to "get f---ed" when he offered her a taxi or bus home. Justice McHugh said it had a legal duty "to prevent her drinking herself into a state where she was liable to suffer injury". Justice Kirby said the decision would ensure clubs could profit from alcohol without accepting any responsibility for the harm it might cause."

More here.

Thursday, June 17, 2004


This story about some Hispanic building workers having an accident with a nail gun had a sequel. The owner of the site reports that he got an email from Lucie of Rhode Island as follows:

"I feel the final comment on the nail gun story was pretty cold hearted and unfeeling. It was a clever comment, but a quick joke at an unfunny situation. Think about the people involved, and how they have to make a living. The Mexican population lives in a constantly put down situation. Bad pay, little respect, poor living conditions, etc., and now a national joke about a pretty painful accident. I'm not a 'bleeding heart', but I am a woman who has lived 70 plus years and is finally getting the picture about respecting others."

He summarizes his reply as follows:

"I noted to Lucie that first, ALL of the Hispanic-surnamed readers who commented on the story liked the tagline -- they noted they *appreciated* my comment because someone has shown, in public, that they understand their situation. (Unfortunately, I didn't keep any of the comments to publish since I didn't expect ANY criticism of the story, and Lucie's complaint came much later.) I know that just because they had a Hispanic name doesn't mean they're Mexican, nor does it mean that no Mexicans were upset by the story, but that's what I have to go by. I went on to tell Lucie that it's patronizing and paternalistic for her to speak for others about how they should feel about their own nationality and what should offend their pride. And, finally, I noted that her statement that Mexicans all live in poor situations could well be considered racist -- I know PLENTY of Mexican-Americans that are intelligent, successful, and hard-working pillars of their communities, and it's quite unfair to lump them all together in such a negative way!

To her great credit, Lucie replied: "I know I did lump them all together and that was wrong. It just hit a button with me and I responded. I will try from now on to 'think before I write, and even more before I speak'. I apologize for my inadvertent smugness.""

Wednesday, June 16, 2004


Hurting the innocent and ignoring the criminals are the new priorities

a UK traffic warden swooped down on Sue Butcher, giving her a $72 parking fine, when she pulled her car over to help her asthmatic four-year-old son who had stopped breathing. She explained to the warden what was happening but he refused to back down. "I stopped for less than a minute and when I turned around I saw the ticket on the window," she said.

What's more, the Hackbridge, Surrey, city council initially refused to tear up the ticket -- giving in only after media attention. The city council says the traffic warden was simply "over-zealous."

More here.


In one of the most shocking attacks on free speech in Europe since the days of Hitler, The Leftist government of Belgium has done all it can to outlaw the anti-immigration Vlaams Blok party. It was good therefore to see that in the recent EU elections, Vlaams Blok actually out-polled the government party. "The ruling Belgian government, on 13.6 per cent were knocked into third place by centre-right Christian Democrats, 17.4 per cent – and by extreme-right Flemish separatists in Vlaams Blok, 14.3 per cent".

Tuesday, June 15, 2004


Trees are MUCH more important than people

UK prosecutors recently recommended that 34-year-old William Tait face nothing more than a $4,600 fine for hitting and killing 74-year-old Harry Thompson at a pedestrian crossing and THEN recommended that he face a 2 year jail sentence because he hit a tree during his attempt to flee the scene of the accident. Tait was also driving without either a license or insurance.

Why the difference in the proposed charges? Because, they say, killing Thompson was just "careless" driving while hitting a tree was "dangerous" driving.

More here


No, not in Orwell's 1984 but in an American college today

"Two students are suing the State University of New York College at Brockport to overturn parts of its speech policy that they believe are unconstitutional. The lawsuit is the fourth such case filed by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a group dedicated to academic freedom. The group is seeking to rid public campuses of policies that violate students' constitutional rights, said Greg Lukianoff, the group's director of Legal and Public Advocacy.

Not only does SUNY Brockport tell students what not to say, it actually tells them what they must say and even what they must think," he said.

The suit claims that faculty members twice deemed materials distributed by the student group as offensive. A pamphlet showing photographs of outspoken liberal celebrities saying, "Bring Back the Blacklist," drew an angry response from a faculty member who demanded it be removed from the group's informational table, the lawsuit said. Another faculty member ordered that the group be denied funding or shut down after reading a flier encouraging the college community to help "End Liberal Indoctrination on Campus," the lawsuit said.

Lukianoff said the college's policy, which applies to students and faculty, bans constitutionally protected speech, including "cartoons that depict religious figures in compromising situations," "calling someone an 'old bag,"' or "making fun of any protected group," he said. The college also orders students and faculty to promote its sexual harassment policy and condemn all sexual harassment as defined in it, Lukianoff said. "Censorship is bad enough, but requiring individuals to voice opinions with which they do not agree is both unconstitutional and morally outrageous," Lukianoff said".

More here. (Via SCSU Scholars)


American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.


Monday, June 14, 2004


"The cultural revolution is over. Without a shot being fired other than by government agents, America was changed, transformed from a land of liberty to a nation of multicultural tolerance dolts with liberal educations and preemptive mindsets. There is still a bit of mop up work to do to clear out some radical free-thinkers (mostly pesky Christians and diehards of the Confederacy and its battle flag) but they will be eradicated within a decade. One way or another.

American heritage has been demeaned, despised and desecrated. It has also been revised by revisionists who have graduated from universities that inculcate principles of the cultural revolutionaries. The South was uniquely regional in its character, belief system, social behavior and pride. A new "reconstruction" is mopping up where new, lesser and quieter "Shermans" have come and taken over its cities, media, schools and political arenas. The South will one day find its biscuits and gravy have been banned by the World Health Organization as nothing but flour and grease, and replaced by baked broccoli omelets with sliced tomatoes. No Southerner will be permitted to refer to the Stars and Stripes as the "Union flag" and all displays of the Confederate battle flag will be banned under penalty of law. Free speech emanates from free thinking, and to control freedom of speech is eventually to change the direction and tenor of free thought.

The South has always been unique in character, something that the cultural revolution cannot permit in any area of the country. Arizonans were once rugged individualists. That situation has been corrected by cultural revolutionaries quietly moving over from California and occupying the major cities and some of the pricier small towns. In each case the newcomers took command by vocal minorities (or majorities) and initiating activism for liberal agendas. The only way the Arizona state seal escaped being altered for having the motto "Ditat Deus" (God provides) is that no one speaks Latin. There is no need to make an issue out of things the general public doesn't comprehend, the objective is to make issues out of what the public understands all too well, and to do it for great causes like "the children" or "the environment" or, that greatest of all masques, "the future of our country."

More here


Students for Academic Freedom has a win at University of Nevada: "A conservative student at the University of Nevada in Reno has successfully contested a discriminatory grade he received for supporting the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In her advanced Organizational Behavior class, Professor Linda Barrenchea had asked students to argue the gun control issue using the utilitarian approach to moral reasoning. Jeremy Rosenstengel and several classmates took a pro-Second Amendment approach to the assignment and argued against gun control, and because of that, received lower grades than classmates who argued for gun control. The former University of Nevada student, who now has his bachelor's degree, contends that the professor allowed her personal opinions on the gun control issue to enter into her evaluation of students' tests. 'After going through my education,' he says, 'I really found that, in a lot of classes, if you don't kowtow to what the teacher believes -- not even what they're teaching, but what they believe -- your grades will suffer, not just on paper but through in-class intimidation.

After Rosenstengel confronted Barrenchea with further evidence to support his position, she reluctantly raised his test grade from a score of 70 percent to a 100 percent. However, the instructor would not apologize and still questions the validity of the pro-Second Amendment argument'"


American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.


Sunday, June 13, 2004


Below is an excerpt from the article that first revealed the truth behind those 'Three-year-old dies from obesity' headlines.

'When a three-year-old girl who weighs 40 kilograms dies of heart failure brought on by obesity, you know her parents are guilty of gross child abuse....'

That was one commentator's verdict on the tragic death of a young Bengali girl in a London hospital, brought to Britain's attention by the UK House of Commons Health Select Committee's report on obesity, published on 27 May.

Was this child really stuffed to death, overfed by uncaring parents until her heart packed in? Can we even say that she 'died from obesity', let alone that her death sounds the alarm for a coming obesity epidemic? There are experts on childhood obesity - including one who has some experience in dealing with this particular child's case - who very much doubt it. They think that the way in which this tragic, rare, isolated incident was made public and then discussed by the media has been a disgrace.

'I was horrified and quite upset at how this death was portrayed', says Dr Sadaf Farooqi, a clinician scientist at Addenbrookes Hospital in Cambridge. 'The suggestion is that the parents caused the child's death by allowing the child to get so obese. No thought or consideration was given to the fact that for a child so young to become so obese, it's highly likely that there is some medical cause, some genetic cause, to their obesity.'

Dr Sadaf Farooqi is in a good position to know that there was a medical condition behind the three-year-old's extreme weight problem. 'I know there was a genetic cause to the child's obesity, because I identified it', she tells me..... Farooqi declines to tell me what the genetic defect was, 'because it would probably identify the family and we don't want to do that'. But it's fair to say that, where this death was presented as an open-and-shut case of death by overeating where parental neglect was the main culprit, it was nothing of the sort? 'Nothing of the sort', says Farooqi. 'That was shocking, the notion that this death shows what can happen to any three-year-old who eats too much. No, there was something different in this case, something medical, and that should have been taken into account.'

Despite the fact that there likely was some complicated medical cause to the three-year-old child's obesity, and that this disturbing case is virtually a one-off, which has shocked even those who care for obese seven, eight and nine-year-olds, the death has been transformed into a warning sign that all parents must heed. The three-year-old's death has featured in articles about children's eating habits, growing waistlines and parental responsibility, as if death by heart failure could happen to any toddler who likes fizzy drinks and chocolate. 'The death has become part of the discussion about what children eat', says Farooqi, 'when in fact it was the result of something else entirely. We are mixing up children's weight issues with distinct medical problems'.


I have lifted this entire post from Joanne Jacobs:

Jennifer was an English teacher who knew too much. She got in trouble for explaining that a line in Merchant of Venice was referring to a Bible verse.
Next day I get called into the principal's office; some parents were FURIOUS that I had told their kids that Jesus said anyone who says 'fool,' will go to Hell.
"But he did," I pointed out.
"It doesn't matter, Jennifer. You can't insult kids' religions."
"Well, the kid asked me what that line from the play meant! What was I supposed to do?"
"Just tell him you don't know."
Jennifer was denied tenure and her teaching contract was not renewed.

Matt Welch's brother had a similar experience as an untenured public school history teacher in California.
At one post six or seven years ago, he was asked in class about how the Germans could have possibly supported Adolf Hitler. He explained, best as he could, about the Versailles Treaty, hyperinflation, the wounded German national psyche, how the Nazi twerp made some people feel better, how Germans are weird; the usual stuff (I'm, uh, paraphrasing from memory; at any rate, he spoke of the plausible reasons why the Little Dictator originally became popular). A kid in his class, who was Jewish, told her mom that night that the history teacher was Defending Hitler. Mom called the principal. Principal called my bro into the office for a dressing-down or three. At the end of the year, he was not asked to return; he remains convinced that this was the biggest single reason.
Knowledge is no excuse.


American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.


Saturday, June 12, 2004


Real compassion versus Leftist elitism: "[UK] Health secretary John Reid angered health campaigners and anti-smoking groups when he said yesterday that smoking is one of the few pleasures left for the poor on sink estates and working men's clubs. Mr Reid said that the middle classes were obsessed with giving instruction to people from lower socio-economic backgrounds and that smoking was not one of the worst problems facing poorer people.'I just do not think the worst problem on our sink estates by any means is smoking, but that it is an obsession of the learned middle class,' he said. 'What enjoyment does a 21-year-old single mother of three living in a council sink estate get? The only enjoyment sometimes they have is to have a cigarette.'"


The Left must have woken up to the fact that it is a form of private enterprise

Huh? These are LEFTISTS speaking? "Prostitutes are to be offered an 'exit strategy' which will include drug and alcohol rehabilitation, housing, and basic skills training while the men who pay for their services are heavily fined. But the [UK] Home Office team proposing the biggest overhaul of prostitution laws since the 50s has rejected 'tolerance' or 'managed' zones where sex workers would be allowed to operate, monitored by the police and provided with health facilities."

Friday, June 11, 2004


"Is promoting a lesbian lifestyle to primary school children a rare event? And are the producers of the ABC's Play School alone in their battle to normalise what many parents would consider unnatural behaviour? In fact, in recent years several education groups have sought to introduce gay, lesbian and transgender studies in the classroom?...

Start with the Australian Education Union, a strong advocate of a politically correct approach to gender. Under the heading Sex Education, the union's policy paper argues that gays, lesbians and transgender individuals have a right to teach sex education and that such learning should be "positive in its approach"....

In the first named paper, the rationale for teaching gender issues is so that "the workings of dominant models of masculinity on the lives of girls and boys can be examined ... Once such a platform has been established ... it is possible to initiate students into an active and effective exploration of alternative versions of masculinity"

Most parents are happy for their children to develop a traditional sense of what it means to be male or female. But English teachers are told that they must help students recognise "the various ways in which gender categories are tied to an oppressive binary structure for organising the social and cultural practices of adolescent boys and girls"....

As a result, traditional literature, such as Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, is attacked for promoting heterosexual love and books such as The Magic Faraway Tree and traditional fairytales such as Jack and the Beanstalk are attacked for presenting boys as masculine and physically assertive."


Leftists and "politically correct" progressives insist that Americans and Israelis are the real barbarians -- that we purposely and sadistically shoot innocent Arab civilian demonstrators from gunships and tanks and drop bombs on wedding parties, hospitals, and children.

I strongly disagree. Americans and Israelis only kill civilians by accident; Islamist terrorists kill civilians on purpose. The vast majority of American and Israeli soldiers have ethical standards that are far different from those of their Islamist opponents. The world, accordingly, holds them to a different, higher standard.

The world media are also quick to accuse the Israeli and American armies of crimes that they have not committed -- and slow to print retractions. In the so-called "massacre" of Jenin (which never took place -- even the United Nations exonerated Israel of this libel), 23 young Israeli soldiers lost their lives. Possibly, given the world`s hostility toward Israel`s right to defend itself, the IDF felt it had no choice but to send its soldiers in on foot, house to house, to engage in hand-to-hand combat.

Last year, at the Israeli Film Festival, I saw a remarkable documentary in which the Israeli soldiers in Jenin were wracked with anguish for what they had to do. They did not gloat over their victory -- they mourned it. In my view, the Israeli army has behaved with exquisite, almost self-destructive, restraint as it faces hostile civilian populations who actively shelter armed terrorists in their hearts, homes, and demonstrations.

The U.S. army in Iraq has also behaved with Israeli-like restraint -- despite the fact that many mosques routinely shelter weapons and terrorists. Americans have tried hard to avoid civilian casualties and the destruction of mosques.

More here.

Thursday, June 10, 2004


Maybe it's because I am so pro-Israel, but this bit of political correctness merely made me laugh:

"In a precedent-setting ruling that could have far-reaching implications for the funding of competitive sports in Israel, the High Court of Justice handed down a decision yesterday that local authorities must provide women's sports teams with budgets that are 150 percent higher than those received by counterpart men's teams."

More here.

Israeli professor, Steven Plaut sounds a bit more upset by it than I was. He refers to the feminists behind the matter as "the quota strumpets, also known as the radical moustache madams or bovine brethren"


We know conclusively that the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal is as phony as a Bill Clinton sex denial because there are no calls for the resignation of the one individual most responsible for the abuses.

That would be the officer in charge of Abu Ghraib and all U.S. military prisons in Iraq, the commander of the 800th Military Police Brigade, Army Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski. And why have there been no calls for her resignation? Let's be honest. It is because she is a woman. Thus the frightening lesson of the abuse scandal: Political correctness trumps national security, even in wartime.

Yes, Democratic demagogues are willing to sacrifice America's national security, to trash the morale and honor of American soldiers risking their lives in Iraq and lose the war on terrorism in order to defeat President Bush in November, so they use the abuse scandal as an excuse to go after Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. But be assured that if Gen. Karpinski was a man, demands for his accountability would be loud and clear.

In fact, we owe the entire Abu Ghraib scandal to the leadership failure and gross incompetence of Janis Karpinski and to her superiors' fear of doing anything about her ineptitude because she is a woman. She should have been relieved of her command last summer but was not.

Near the town of Mahawil in southern Iraq, U.S. Marines uncovered a mass gravesite holding the remains of some 15,000 Iraqis. They were slaughtered for taking part in the Shia uprising against Saddam Hussein in the early 1990s. Saddam's agent responsible for conducting the mass killings was Mohammed Jawad Anayfas; the grave site is on land owned by him.

In July 2003, Mr. Anayfas was captured by U.S. forces and turned over to the Military Police Brigade under Gen. Karpinski's command. The Brigade Headquarters managed to lose his paperwork. So instead of contacting her superiors, Gen. Karpinski ordered Mr. Anayfas set free. Soon thereafter, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz came to Iraq and visited the Mahawil gravesite, where he was informed by Marine Lt. Gen. James Conway how outraged the local Iraqis were over Mr. Anayfas' release. Visibly upset, Mr. Wolfowitz vowed Mr. Anayfas would be recaptured and tried as a war criminal. Mr. Anayfas is still at large, and Gen. Karpinski received no reprimand.

More here. (Via Horsefeathers).

Wednesday, June 09, 2004


Ronald Reagan foresaw the battle with political correctness and its nihilistic values that we are now in the midst of. From his farewell speech as President:

"Finally, there is a great tradition of warnings in presidential farewells, and I've got one that's been on my mind for some time. But oddly enough it starts with one of the things I'm proudest of in the past eight years: the resurgence of national pride that I called the new patriotism. This national feeling is good, but it won't count for much, and it won't last unless it's grounded in thoughtfulness and knowledge.

An informed patriotism is what we want. And are we doing a good enough job teaching our children what America is and what she represents in the long history of the world? Those of us who are over 35 or so years of age grew up in a different America. We were taught, very directly, what it means to be an American. And we absorbed, almost in the air, a love of country and an appreciation of its institutions. If you didn't get these things from your family, you got them from the neighborhood, from the father down the street who fought in Korea or the family who lost someone at Anzio. Or you could get a sense of patriotism from school. And if all else failed, you could get a sense of patriotism from popular culture. The movies celebrated democratic values and implicitly reinforced the idea that America was special. TV was like that, too, through the mid-'60s

But now, we're about to enter the '90s, and some things have changed. Younger parents aren't sure that an unambivalent appreciation of America is the right thing to teach modern children. And as for those who create the popular culture, well-grounded patriotism is no longer the style. Our spirit is back, but we haven't reinstitutionalized it. We've got to do a better job of getting across that America is freedom — freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of enterprise. And freedom is special and rare. It's fragile; it needs protection.

So, we've got to teach history based not on what's in fashion but what's important: Why the Pilgrims came here, who Jimmy Doolittle was, and what those 30 seconds over Tokyo meant. You know, four years ago on the 40th anniversary of D-Day, I read a letter from a young woman writing of her late father, who'd fought on Omaha Beach. Her name was Lisa Zanatta Henn, and she said, "We will always remember, we will never forget what the boys of Normandy did." Well, let's help her keep her word. If we forget what we did, we won't know who we are. I'm warning of an eradication of the American memory that could result, ultimately, in an erosion of the American spirit. Let's start with some basics: more attention to American history and a greater emphasis on civic ritual."


Windschuttle points out just some of the problems of this very "correct" idea:

"Several organisations link social justice with human rights, as though the two were much the same thing. However, they are quite different. Human rights are universal, like the concept of justice itself. Both apply equally to all people. Social justice, however, is a relative term. It is only applicable to certain kinds of people. In some cases, like eligibility for social welfare payments, the targets can be identified fairly objectively by income testing and the process is unobjectionable. But in most cases, the demand for social justice amounts to little more than political preference. It hijacks the universalism of justice to serve partisan ideological ends. It is yet another instrument of Seventies radicalism, the politics of gender, race and class.

For instance, the notion that women as a category or ethnics as a group deserve social justice in the form of affirmative action derives from these interest group politics. The latest constituency is illegal immigrants, who are now targets of social justice programs from a wide range of organisations. The idea that these groups deserve special rights that are not available to others, especially the right to jump queue, undermines the principle of egalitarianism that the same organisations purport to uphold. In some cases, social justice policies are in direct conflict with universal human rights, such as the advocacy of customary law for Aboriginal people which, if implemented strictly, would deny Aboriginal women the right to enter marriage freely.

The universalism of human rights was a product of the eighteenth century Enlightenment and since then has been subject to almost constant debate and testing in the field of social reality. Its principles have been written down and refined in declarations and laws, most specifically in the 1948 United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Hence it is possible to check what they actually say. This is in contrast to the relativism of social justice, which can mean just about anything its various advocates want it to mean and apply to any social group they choose. There is no widely agreed way of ever telling when social justice has been satisfied. It thus offers an unlimited vista of political appeal. Anything - including terrorism - can be done in its name".

Tuesday, June 08, 2004


Politians insult ordinary people: British politicians think that we are powerless to resist the temptations of convenience food: "Most bizarre of all, though, is the notion that a decade of officially sponsored risk aversion about letting children play outside or walk to school can be reversed by scaring them with the alternative risk of having an obese child; and the idea that children will be encouraged to take part in sport, not because they enjoy it, but because it is supposed to be good for them. The argument that the UK is facing imminent Death by Chocolate is heavier on prejudice than evidence. The solutions proposed by the document are even less persuasive."

"Overblown rhetoric about the 'obesity epidemic' has itself reached epidemic proportions. Trial lawyers increasingly see dollar signs where the rest of us see dinner. Activists and bureaucrats are proposing radical 'solutions' like zoning restrictions on restaurants and convenience stores, as well as extra taxes and warning labels on certain foods. As a collection of food cops and nutrition zealots gather in Virginia to fan the flames ... the Center for Consumer Freedom is releasing an extensively documented booklet that exposes the flaws, bias, and outright myths behind this widespread plague of misinformation. ... Our paper tackles the following seven myths driving the current hysteria over excess flab."

Litigation won't make America thinner: "In the hours after midnight, cable TV is saturated with ads for diet pills promising big and easy weight loss and ads for law firms promising big and easy legal judgments and settlements. Until recently, there was no direct connection between the two groups trolling for customers, but leave it to America?s trial lawyers to find one. Welcome to the brave new world of obesity litigation."

Michael Duffy on the anti-McDonalds stunt by Leftist film-maker Morgan Spurlock: "Spurlock didn't simply live off McDonald's. He stuffed himself with McDonald's... In doing so, Spurlock turned what might have been a mildly interesting experiment into a ludicrous stunt. Morgan Spurlock is to nutrition what Greenpeace is to environmentalism. There's also another point, which is that you don't have to eat McDonald's just because it's there... And why do we focus so much on obesity when the dangers of being under-weight are so much greater? Being underweight by five pounds is as dangerous to good health as being overweight by 75 pounds"


I have lifted the post below from Joanne Jacobs

"Auto tech classes motivate students at a huge New York City school and prepare them for skilled jobs, writes Samuel Freedman in the New York Times. But the program is about to be junked.
On the ground floor of Kennedy, tucked between the football field and the weight room, a teacher named Manny Martinez runs an automotive technology program. In the combined garage and classroom, amid tool cabinets and hydraulic lifts and service bays, about 170 pupils a year study a '97 Grand Am and '96 Cavalier the way medical school students study cadavers, as a means of learning anatomy and organ function.

For many of Mr. Martinez's charges, auto shop offers the one place and time where they experience the utility of an education. The vocational program keeps them coming to school. It has led a number of alumni into skilled jobs with dealerships and service centers, jobs that pay decent wages and benefits, jobs that boast a career ladder.

At a time in New York public education when specialized minischools are being uncritically embraced, one could plausibly say that the Kennedy auto tech program provides many of the same attributes: a focused curriculum, a motivated student body, the application of classroom knowledge in the real world. Which makes it nothing short of astonishing that within two weeks, if plans hold, the whole program will be shut down. The auto shop will be gutted, the students and teachers left directionless, several hundred thousand dollars' worth of equipment hauled away.

Kennedy High needs to make space for three mini-schools specializing in theater, international studies and law and finance. Another Bronx high school also closed its auto tech program to make space for mini-schools. Why is there no space anywhere for a small school focused on automotive technology? The jobs are there."

Monday, June 07, 2004


Boy! Would they hate living in Australia or California!

"Derby city council has advised headteachers to stop children playing outside - if it is too sunny.

A circular from the council says, 'Try to plan external acitivies - short-duration trips, external lessons, sports days - for times when the sun is likely to be at its lowest...Give consideration to postponing or cancelling such events in periods of excessive sun and high temperatures'. So those school sports days that used to be postponed due to rain may now be postponed due to 'excessive sun'.

The rising obsession with avoiding health risks is leading to a situation where many of the staple pleasures of childhood are being scrapped in the name of a possible minute increase in the incidence of skin cancer. Not only does this killjoy attitude betray a contempt for the capacity of people to decide for themselves how they should live, but it is also contradictory: one week after a hysterical parliamentary report suggested that our children will die younger because of increased obesity caused by lack of exercise, we are told they should stay indoors for fear of skin cancer.



"A GROUP of students at the University of California's Boalt Hall School of Law circulated a petition last week calling on law professor John Yoo to "repudiate" a 2002 memo he had written when he worked for the Bush Justice Department or "resign" his academic post. The memo advised that the Geneva conventions did not apply to al Qaeda and Taliban fighters in Afghanistan. Oddly, the petition writers claimed that their attempt to drive Yoo from academia did not "constitute an attack on academic freedom."

"The choice is up to (Yoo). He is free to do what he wants," explained petition circulator Michael Anderson, 35. Besides, he said, the petition concerned what Yoo did as a government official, not for what he said in class. Bunk: The only reason the petition is not an attack on academic freedom is because it didn't work -- a testament to Boalt Hall's commitment to the free exchange of ideas, I might add. There are no faculty committees considering pressuring Yoo to resign, noted Acting Dean Robert Berring Jr. Yoo himself has no such plans. If the students had gotten what they wanted, however, the petition most certainly would send a chill through the halls of academia....

The law students who signed the petition apparently can't fathom that the Justice Department memo made some reasonable legal arguments. To wit: al Qaeda operatives don't qualify for Geneva conventions prisoner-of-war status because they don't fight for a nation, there's no clear chain of command in their organization, they don't wear uniforms and they do not obey the laws of war toward civilians....

The same person also strongly disagreed with Yoo's argument that the Taliban don't fall under the Geneva conventions. He believed the memo failed to explore the repercussions of determining that the international law is not binding. Too bad such meaty criticism was not found in the petition.

Anderson, who just graduated from Boalt Hall, dismissed any legitimacy in the Justice Department argument, instead charging that Yoo "assisted his client in perpetuating illegal acts," and is guilty of "aiding and abetting." So if someone writes an opinion you don't like, they're breaking the law? "We're not trying to make his opinion-espousing illegal. What he did is illegal," Anderson answered. Now I see why Anderson says the petition doesn't limit academic thought. After all, if he had his way, Yoo would be free to think what he wants -- from a jail cell.....

Yoo decided not to attend Boalt Hall's graduation, as more than a quarter of the graduates wore armbands protesting Yoo's "aiding and abetting war crimes." He told me he didn't want to interfere with the commencement celebration".

More here


American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.


Sunday, June 06, 2004


Head teacher Judith Wressel is introducing a less competitive format for the event at Maney Hill Primary School in Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands. She said keeping spectators away while changes were made would be in the children's interest. But one of the banned parents condemned the move as "political correctness gone mad".

In a letter to parents, Ms Wressel writes: "Taking part in traditional races can be difficult and often embarrassing for many children, which is why we now envisage a different outdoor activity event which will suit all children." ... She added: "We decided to trial this year a new activity-based sports day to ensure all our children take part and enjoy the experience. "The event involves the children moving from area to area taking part in a variety of activities, some of which will be competitive.

Rob Busst, whose two sons attend the school, said: "They are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. "This is political correctness gone mad. I have spoken to at least 30 other parents and we all feel disappointed. "Children don't become scarred for life because they lose the egg and spoon race."

Nick Seaton, chairman of the Campaign for Real Education, added: "Most parents will be horrified. Competition is a part of everyday life and children need to get used to winning and losing. "This whole idea is nonsense. You have to learn about the real world while you are at school."

More here (Via Anton Kelly)


Peggy Noonan makes an interesting point: Why are the Left in favour of some addictive and harmful drugs such as cannabis and cocaine and against another addictive and harmful drug -- tobacco? They seem to want to ban one and un-ban the others. As a libertarian, I myself think that cocaine, heroin, cannabis and tobacco should all be legal -- for use among consenting adults only. An excerpt from Peggy's article:

"I have come to hate the banners. No, I don't smoke. I just believe in the right of people to be human, to be imperfect and messy and flawed. I don't dislike the banners because they're prissy bullies, though that is reason enough. I dislike them because their work forces us to look at the shift in values in our country in our time. As I watched the NBC report, I actually thought to myself: I want to make sure I understand. If you smoke a cigarette on a beach in modern America you are harming the innocent. If you have a baby scraped from your womb, you are protecting your freedom. If you sell a pack of cigarettes to a 12-year-old boy you can be jailed, fined and sent to Guantanamo Bay with the other killers. If you sell a pack of contraceptives to a 12 year old boy in modern America you are socially responsible citizen.

For reasons that call for an essay of their own, and as we all know, the banners of cigarettes are on and of the left, and the resisters of the banners are on the right. Once the banners of liquor were of the right and its legalizers of the left. The banners of drugs were on the right and the legalizers on the left.

Why did the left change its stance on what it calls personal freedom regarding cigarettes and cigars? What was the logic? And please, if you are on the left, would you answer this question for me? How come the only organ the left insists be chaste is the lung? What is this pulmocentrism? Why are lungs so special? Why can't you endanger your own lungs? Why don't you care as much about livers? Don't the Democrats have a liver lobby?

I think that it is true that there is no individual human on earth that I hate. But when I think of the banners I think of what the old news producer told the bureaucrat who fired him in a cost-cutting campaign in "Broadcast News." At the end of their meeting the bureaucrat asked in unctuous tones if there was anything he could do to help. The producer thought. "Well, I certainly hope you die soon," he said. A great cinematic moment. I wish the banners would go away and stop bothering our country."

Saturday, June 05, 2004


Leftists love inequality. Without it they would have nothing to say most of the time. So it should be no surprise that FAT is now caused by inequality. If we were all equal we would all be slim -- or so Polly Toynbee in The Guardian says. Once you've finished laughing, you may enjoy the way Daily Ablution pulls the nonsense apart.


There seems to be no complete transcript of what Bill Cosby said in his famous speech about black responsibility for black failure so I reproduce below the two sets of excerpts that seem to be the most extensive

"We've got these knuckleheads walking around. . . The lower economic people are not holding up their end in this deal. These people are not parenting." "I am talking about these people who cry when their son is standing there in an orange suit. Where were you when he was 2? Where were you when he was 12? Where were you when he was 18 and how come you didn't know that he had a pistol? And where is the father?" "People putting their clothes on backward: Isn't that a sign of something gone wrong? . . . People with their hats on backward, pants down around the crack, isn't that a sign of something, or are you waiting for Jesus to pull his pants up? Isn't it a sign of something when she has her dress all the way up . . . and got all type of needles (piercing) going through her body? What part of Africa did this come from? We are not Africans. Those people are not Africans; they don't know a . . . thing about Africa." "With names like Shaniqua, Taliqua and Mohammed and all of that crap, and all of them are in jail. Brown versus the Board of Education is no longer the white person's problem. We have got to take the neighborhood back. . . . They are standing on the corner and they can't speak English." "People used to be ashamed. . . . Today a woman has eight children with eight different 'husbands,' or men or whatever you call them now." "The idea is to one day get out of the projects. You don't just stay there." "We have millionaire football players who can't read. We have million-dollar basketball players who can't write two paragraphs." "We as black folks have to do a better job. . . . Someone working at Wal-Mart with seven kids, you are hurting us. We have to start holding each other to a higher standard." ". . . We cannot blame white people. . . . ." "The incarcerated? These are not political criminals. These are people going around stealing Coca-Cola. People getting shot in the back of the head over a piece of pound cake and then we run out and we are outraged, saying, 'The cops shouldn't have shot him.' What the hell was he doing with the pound cake in his hand?"


"I can't even talk the way these people talk: `Why you ain't, where you is'.I don't know who these people are. And I blamed the kid until I heard the mother talk. And then I heard the father talk. It's all in the house. You used to talk a certain way on the corner and when you got in the house you switched to English. Everybody knows that at some point you switch to English, except these knuckleheads."

"We're raising our own home-grown immigrants."

"I'm talking about these people who cry when their son is standing there in an orange (prison jump) suit. Where were you when he was two? Where were you when he was 12? Where were you when he was 18 and how come you don't know he had a pistol?"

"Looking at the incarcerated, these people are not political prisoners. These people are going around stealing Coca-Cola. People getting shot in the back of the head over a piece of pound cake. Then we're all outraged. Ah, the cops shouldn't have shot him. What the hell was he doing with the piece of pound cake in his hands? I wanted a piece of pound cake just as bad as anybody else. I looked at it and I had no money, and something called parenting said `if you get caught with it you're going to embarrass your mother; plus you're gonna to get your butt kicked.'"

"Grandmother, mother and great-grandmother in the same place raising children and the child knows nothing about love or respect from any one of the three of them. All the child knows is give me, give me, give me."

"We're not parenting ladies and gentlemen. Listen to these people. They are showing you what's wrong. People putting their clothes on backward; isn't that a sign of something going on wrong? Are you not paying attention? People with the hat on backwards and pants down around their crack. Isn't that a sign of something, or are you waiting for Jesus to pull his pants up?"

"Isn't it a sign of something when she's got a dress on all the way up to her crack?"


Friday, June 04, 2004


From Dr. David Yeagley -- of American Indian descent

I'm still an American Indian patriot. Even after watching CNN's 90 minute program featuring the May 29 dedications of the new National WWII Memorial in Washington, D.C., I still love this country, more than ever. No, I didn't hear one mention of the American Indian. No one acknowledged themore than 190,000 living American Indian veterans, who represent nearly one out of every ten Indians. I didn't hear any praise for the unique contribution Indians have made in all war efforts of the twentieth century.

I heard instead repeated praise of black, Hispanic, and Japanese Americans and their contributions to the war effort, and American society in general. Indeed, the featured musical moment of the program, was given to a black female, Denyse Graves, mezzo soprano opera singer. They could have chosen Barbara McAllister, a tall Cherokee mezzo, who is older but well-known in New York opera circles. Barry Black, the black chaplain of the U.S. Senate, gave the benediction. Apparently there no longer any living descendents of the "white" Sons of the Revolution who can pray; no, Black's skin gave him special authority. Barry Black didn't mention the name Jesus Christ. Would that name have blurred his image? After the program, Paula Zahn interviewed Martha S. Putney, a black female historian. Putney talked about black female contributions to the war effort. Paula apparently didn't know Indian women veterans exist.

One got the impression that blacks now constitute the core definition of what it means to be an American. Somehow, they have become the quintessential carrier of American values. The memorial service was like an ethnic pride parade in Washington, another Million Man March.

More here


According to this:

"A Portland lawyer says suffering by African Americans at the hands of slave owners is to blame in the death of a 2-year-old Beaverton boy.

Randall Vogt is offering the untested theory, called post traumatic slave syndrome, in his defense of Isaac Cortez Bynum, who is charged with murder by abuse in the June 30 death of his son, Ryshawn Lamar Bynum. Vogt says he will argue -- "in a general way" -- that masters beat slaves, so Bynum was justified in beating his son.

The slave theory is the work of Joy DeGruy-Leary, an assistant professor in the Portland State University Graduate School of Social Work. It is not listed by psychiatrists or the courts as an accepted disorder, and some experts said they had never heard of it.

DeGruy-Leary testified this month in Washington County Circuit Court that African Americans today are affected by past centuries of U.S. slavery because the original slaves were never treated for the trauma of losing their homes; seeing relatives whipped, raped and killed; and being subjugated by whites."

More here

Clayton Cramer comments: "Let's see: my ancestors (and only a few more generations ago) were abused as well-- although for reasons of social class, not race. Perhaps I can justify robbing banks with "post traumatic peasant syndrome.""

And I just may find it handy one day that two of my ancestors came to Australia in the 1820s chained up in the holds of ships. I even have an ancestral document connected with that here.

Thursday, June 03, 2004


The PC brigade find cause for offence in almost anything that conservatives do or say. But they never worry about offending conservatives!

This is not supposed to happen: "A San Francisco gallery owner bears a painful reminder of the nation's unresolved anguish over the incidents at the Abu Ghraib prison -- a black eye delivered by an unknown assailant who apparently objected to a painting that depicts U.S. soldiers torturing Iraqi prisoners. Guy Colwell's painting, titled 'Abuse,' depicts three U.S. soldiers leering at a group of naked men in hoods with wires connected to their bodies. The one in the foreground has a blood-spattered American flag patch on his uniform. In the background, a soldier in sunglasses guards a blindfolded woman. The painting was part of a show of the Berkeley artist's work that mostly featured pastel-colored abstracts. "


Multicultural dictatorship: "The University of Texas is considering requiring students to study another culture, and some students are upset. 'It absolutely is political correctness gone amok,' said Mark Tait, director of internal affairs for the Young Conservatives of Texas. Arguing that the University of Texas is already culturally inclusive, Tait said, 'Students don't need bureaucracy to tell them to increase and broaden their cultural perspective.' The proposal making Tait mad is one by University President Larry Faulkner, which would require students to spend one semester studying a different culture. 'That's not just about the principal cultural divisions in the United States, Faulkner said. 'It's even relating to cultural divisions around the world. It's evident to all of us right now that we don't know nearly as much about Islamic culture as we need to know.' The faculty will now debate whether studying other cultures will be mandatory or elective."

Wednesday, June 02, 2004


Excerpts from an article by Rush Button:

"I fear that this absurd obsession with being tolerant and politically correct could, in effect, contribute to our losing the war against terrorism and result in the destruction of our country. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are the backbone of our republic. Stripped of these rights, our country would collapse into a heap of rotting oppression. I see this "politically correct" compulsion as a devious method of nullifying those rights similar to the "new-speak" system in Orwell's sinister novel "1984." No one is really a criminal; they're just "morally challenged." Bloodthirsty al-Qaida murders aren't terrorists, they're "freedom fighters."

Unless plain speaking is allowed, clear thinking is denied. Without clear thinking, we are doomed because our many enemies are certainly not unclear in their thinking about killing us, and they don't give a rat's behind about political correctness. The Bolsheviks and their communistic government, the "Red Terror," fervently embraced political correctness with the communist revolution. The Russian dictator Joseph Stalin murdered millions for being politically incorrect. An ill-chosen word was enough to get one executed or sent to prison. If you complained about being hungry when food shortages were not officially recognized, then you became an enemy of the state. If you failed to praise a Soviet hero or praised an ex-hero, then again your fate was sealed. The need to be politically correct dominated all conversation and behavior because failure meant drastic penalty. Living within this horrible system naturally destroyed all spontaneity of thought or action.

Now The Religion Newswriters Association said it was "troubled" by the frequent use of the term "Islamic terrorists" in the days after the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. This group has now adopted a resolution rejecting this and similar phrases that "associate an entire religion with the action of a few."....

OK, but at least we can still call them terrorists, right? Wrong! I was reading that Stephen Jukes, Reuters' global head of news, decreed the giant wire service's 2,500 journalists should not use the T-word unless in a direct quote. "We all know that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and that Reuters upholds the principle that we do not use the word terrorist," he wrote in an internal memo. "To be frank, it adds little to call the attack on the World Trade Center a 'terrorist attack.'" Oh, my... Oh, no indeed! Let us not demean these wonderful "freedom fighters" by calling their heinous murder of 3,000 innocent men, women and children, terrorist attacks.

Hmm, let's see. Perhaps the Reuters' headlines announcing the next attack on America might read: "Brave religious freedom fighters explode 'dirty' nuclear bombs in American cities killing five million."