December Seventh

Randy Barnett has the best anniversary tribute to the Pearl Harbor attack I've seen today.

The best video since "Dick in a Box" (NSFW)

A friend tipped me to this; the facial expressions just kill me:

More edu-babble silliness

This actually is not a new idea, if one can actually call it an "idea." I recall my cooperating teacher during my student teaching days (over 20 yrs. ago, natch) laughing while recalling an educational "consultant" whose entire offering during a workshop was those "nasty red pens":

TEACHERS have been told to stop marking schoolchildren's work with red pen because it is an "aggressive" colour.

Queensland's Deputy Opposition Leader Mark McArdle told parliament today that teachers were being advised to reconsider their pen choice because it may offend children.

Mr McArdle tabled a Queensland Health document proposing "strategies for addressing mental health well-being in any classroom".

It says: "Don't mark in a red pen (which can be seen as aggressive) - use a different colour."

"Given your 10-year-old Labor government presides over the lowest numeracy and literacy standards of any state in Australia, don't you think it's time we focused on classroom outcomes rather than these kooky, loony, loopy, lefty policies?" Mr McArdle asked.

Got that right.

I use (and always have) a red pen when I grade papers for one simple reason: It stands out and kids can see it easily. Since I frequently allow students to make corrections on assignments for a higher score, I don't want my students to have difficulty finding what they had done wrong. And, I don't want to search for my initial marks when I re-grade the assignment.

I'm sorry if my use of red pen may "offend" some kids. I'm sure these same educational "consultants" will eventually determine that teachers actually correcting student work is offensive, too -- 100% on everything so as not to make little Johnny upset!

(h/t to Tongue Tied.)

So this explains some of the contribs at DE Liberal

Via the Independent (UK):

Indeed, new research at the University of Rochester in New York state shows that boys born to mothers with raised levels of phthalates were more likely to have smaller penises and undescended testicles. They also had a shorter distance between their anus and genitalia, a classic sign of feminisation. And a study at Rotterdam's Erasmus University showed that boys whose mothers had been exposed to PCBs grew up wanting to play with dolls and tea sets rather than with traditionally male toys.

On the more serious side, wouldn't that last sentence perturb sociologists who believe that gender is merely a sociological "construct?" (Just scroll down to the Optional Modules - List B, course SO229 to see what I mean.) In other words, isn't just how we raise our boys and girls that determines what, for example, they play with?

The Right Stuff

One of my favorite films from my youth is "The Right Stuff" (1983). Of course, being a huge aficionado of fighter aircraft, space flight and the battles of the Cold War made this a perfect choice for yours truly. Despite the film's length (over three hours, but it goes by quickly), the flick (based on Tom Wolfe's novel) is epic, charting the development of early space shots from Chuck Yeager's first sound barrier-breaking flight (1947) through the end of the Mercury Program (1963). And perhaps the very best thing is the humor that is injected into the story. Jeff Goldblum and Harry Shearer play two government bureaucrat recruiters whose wordplay and friendly arguments are riotous. But it is Donald Moffat's portrayal of Lyndon Johnson that really makes the movie, in my opinion, as evidenced by this clip (you'll also see some of Goldblum's and Shearer's antics):

The best dialogue:

SCIENTIST: "By combining our available rockets, the Redstone, the Atlas, I agree with those who say we could launch a pod."
JOHNSON: "A POT?"
SCIENTIST: "A POD! A capsule."

JOHNSON: "Spaceman?"
SCIENTIST: "SPAY-CI-MEN."
JOHNSON: "Well, what kind of SPAY-CEE-MEN?"
SCIENTIST: "A tough one... responsive to orders... I had in mind a chimp."
JOHNSON: "'Jimp?' Well, what the hell is a 'jimp?'"
SCIENTIST: "A chimp, a chimpanzee, senator, uh, an ape, unh?"

AOL dumbs down the term "genius"

Check out one of AOL's features today -- Top Ten Living Geniuses.

I'm sorry, but in my book, real geniuses are those like Stephen Hawking, Tim Berners-Lee, Frederick Sanger and Grigori Perelman, all who made the list (thankfully). These guys deal with way-out concepts in physics, mathematics and chemistry. Phillip Glass, also on the list, could qualify too as a musician since music is highly reliant on mathematics (though I'm not too keen on on Glass's "minimalist" forte).

The real head-shakers on the list: Artist Oscar Niemeyer who "championed the idea of using reinforced concrete solely for its aesthetic impact." That's genius? Perhaps in the field of art it is, but what about its overall impact on humanity?

Dario Fo, the Italian satirist and playwright who is best known for his 1970 play "Accidental Death of an Anarchist." Genius? Uh, no.

Nelson Mandela? A heroic and great man with a constitution of adamantium. But a genius? No.

Creator of "The Simpsons" Matt Groening? Are you serious??

George Soros? Like Mandela, anyone who manages to survive brutal political oppression is heroic and is one strong individual. But does it really make one a genius? No.

That "progressive" bigotry of low expectations

A perfect example of it is on display today in the NY Times regarding the defeat of William "Cold Cash" Jefferson. (Shirley at Delaware Curmudgeon had the story first, locally.) For the Times, African-Americans are interested only in electing other African-Americans, while white voters are interested in getting rid of corruption and electing honest politicians:

The upset victory by the lawyer, Anh Cao, was thought by analysts to be the result of a strong turnout by white voters angered over federal corruption charges against Mr. Jefferson, a black Democrat who was counting on a loyal [read: black] base to return him to Congress for a 10th term....

In heavily white precincts, turnout was about 26 percent, while it was only about 12 percent in the heavily black precincts, said Greg Rigamer, a New Orleans demographer and analyst.

The exact percentage of blacks here, like the population itself, is unknown after Hurricane Katrina hit in 2005, but is thought to be 55 percent to 60 percent, down from around 70 percent before the storm. The City Council has turned majority-white after years of being led by blacks.

"It’s clearly shifted," Mr. Rigamer said of the population. "You have fewer African-Americans in the city than previously."

But Mr. Rigamer also suggested that the corruption charges against Mr. Jefferson pushed whites to the polls in unusual numbers. "The bottom line," he said, "is this is an issue-driven race that ignited turnout in the white community."

Y'see? To Rigamer and Times writer Adam Nossiter, blacks don't turn out heavily for "issue-driven" elections. In this case, it didn't matter to African-Americans that Jefferson is a corrupt stooge, it only mattered to whites.

As I wrote, it's the bigotry of low expectations.

Question:

How many Delaware right-leaning blogs have written (seriously, that is) about Obama's supposed lack of US citizenship (thus he's unable to become president)? How many have written (seriously, that is) about Obama "really" being a Muslim?

Now, how many Delaware left-leaning blogs have written (seriously) about Sarah Palin not really being the mother of her Downs Syndrome baby? How many have written (seriously) about George W. Bush knowing in advance about the 9/11 attacks?

Just a few examples ...

While people lose their jobs en masse and ...

... the economy is the worst it's been since the Great Depression yada yada yada, our new president is vacationing in luxury:

President-elect Barack Obama, returning to his home state of Hawaii for the holidays, plans a beachside vacation at one of Oahu's most exclusive properties, according to an islander involved in the planning.

Arrangements are being finalized for the Obamas and the families of two or three friends to stay at a Kailua beachfront location with three modern, multi-million-dollar homes. Each wraps around a lagoon-style swimming pool, with palm trees, grassy lawns and retractable glass walls for postcard views of the white sand and windsurfers.

Obama and his friends plan to rent the privately owned homes for several days including Christmas, said the islander, a Democratic activist who spoke Thursday night on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to reveal the details.

Now, I really have little hassle with Obama's vacay plans. You know where I'm headed, 'tho: If this had been President G.W. Bush, the AP (and MSNBC which picked up the AP article) and every other mainstream media operation would be BLASTING him as I did in this post's first sentence. MSNBC titles its headline "Obama goes upscale in Hawaii for holiday." If this had been Bush, it'd be "Bush ignores plight of millions of Americans; vacations in luxury."

You know it's true.

(h/t to Media Blog.)

Bill Ayers: "I'm really not that bad a guy"

Read and be prepared to grab the proverbial vomit bag. Some of my favorite lines (my emphasis):

"The Weather Underground crossed lines of legality ..."

"I was cast in the 'unrepentant terrorist' role ..."

"With the mainstream news media and the blogosphere caught in the pre-election excitement, I saw no viable path to a rational discussion..."

"I felt at times like the enemy projected onto a large screen in the 'Two Minutes Hate' scene from George Orwell’s '1984,' when the faithful gathered in a frenzy of fear and loathing."

Awww. Poor baby.

UPDATE: Eric Posner shows what a tool Ayers is.

If you're wondering where ...

... to send a charitable donation this holiday season, consider CHOP -- the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. (Donation form is here.) I don't think there's a more worthwhile cause, and CHOP really is a miraculous place.

Really. A good friend of mine's son needed to remain at CHOP for almost a year after being born. He's home now, thank God; however, without the miracle workers at CHOP, he might not be here period.

I'm heading to a benefit for the little guy today, and I'll be donating quite generously. Again, if you're considering a superb charitable cause during the holidays, please take a look at CHOP.

Plaxico Burress PSA on gun safety

Good stuff:

Watcher's Council results

First place in the Council category was Right Truth with P.C./D.C.

First place in the non-Council category was Elder of Ziyon with Islamist strategy vs. Western tactics.

Full results can be found here.

N.A.S. conference

The National Association of Scholars is exploring “The Changing Landscape of Higher Education” at its January conference. From the looks of the schedule, it sure looks like it’ll be a good one.

The dates: January 9-11, 2009.
Where: Washington DC, Marriott Hotel.
Contact: John Irving (609) 497-2480.

Those 'ol "hate crimes" again

I've written about them so often I've lost track. (Feel free to search the Colossus archives on the topic -- search bar is at right.) I argue that the biggest joke about them is how they're so selectively enforced. For instance, an attack whereby, say, a white guy has his wallet taken by a black guy won't be dubbed a "hate crime" even if the epithet "cracker" was uttered at him because the motivation behind the crime was "economic," not "racial." This is a distinction with which I actually have little quibble; however, when a reverse situation occurs, the invocation of "hate crime" is more common. But on the whole in the US, mere verbal slurs by themselves and even those uttered during non-bias crimes [usually] aren't dubbed "hate crimes."

But now the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee has come out and essentially endorsed the notion that the mere utterance of a racial epithet should be a "hate crime" (and a "violent" one at that):

Hate crimes against Arab Americans have decreased steadily since the September 11 attacks but are still more common than they were before the hijackings, a civil rights group said on Thursday.

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee said it received an average of 120 to 130 reports of ethnically motivated attacks or threats each year between 2003 and 2007, a sharp decrease from the 700 violent incidents (An ethnic threat is a VIOLENT act? -- Hube) it documented in the weeks following the 2001 attacks.

But that figure is still higher than the 80 to 90 reports it received in the late 1990s, the civil rights group said.

Incidents tended to increase after other terrorist attacks, such as the 2005 London subway bombings, the group said. Many incidents did not begin with a clear motivation of bias, but assailants would use racial or ethnic slurs as the situation intensified, the group said.

Got that? Even though "many incidents did not begin with a clear motivation of bias," since eventually a racial or ethnic slur was uttered, voilŕ -- instant hate crime, according to the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. Utilizing this "definition," my example from above has to be a "hate crime": The initial motivation may be economic, but if a racial epithet is spewed in the process of the mugging, it's now [also] a "hate crime."

(h/t to Warner Todd Huston.)

UPDATE: How predictable. I am a "racist" for making this post.

UPDATE 2: At the link above, one semi-rational "progressive" (LiberalGeek) criticizes me for not delving into the "realm of possibility." He wonders why I didn't ponder if, say, a guy breaks into a house and, upon realizing the ethnicity of the home's owners, shoots the family merely because of that. Is that a "hate crime?"

Well, duh. That's quite a far cry from what I addressed based on the original ARTICLE. (Now I have to conceive of every possible angle, apparently, to "justify" my non-racism, y'see.) As I noted in the comments there, I actually have come to see some rationale for hate crimes since pretty much every crime has a severity "test" based on motivation. I don't see why hate crimes couldn't be added into that equation. But in this article, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee makes the case that a mere racial/ethnic epithet -- even in the commission of a petty crime (or even a general scuffle) whose initial motivation was NOT racially/ethnically based -- should be a hate crime. I think this is plain silly. If a white man and a black man happen to get into an argument on, say, a bus over a seat or something, and in the course of the argument one (or both) utter a racial epithet, should there be a prosecution of a "hate crime?" Merely because two men were angry and upset? For me that is the proverbial "slippery slope" territory and the beginning of thoughts becoming crimes.

Cripes, and they won't even publish any of his scores!

Typical. Even the sports media is biased! ;-) Obama ranks 8th among 15 who played -- JFK atop leader board.

In the January issue of Golf Digest, which hits newsstands next week, the president-elect is No. 8 on the list of golfing presidents. "Yep, Obama is a golfer, too," is the headline.

John F. Kennedy and his 80-stroke average tops the list. Calvin Coolidge, who left his golf clubs behind when he departed the White House in 1929, is ranked 15th.

Bill Clinton is just in front of Obama at No. 7 -- although Golf Digest flags Clinton's use of the score-improving "Billigans."

Much has been made about Obama's basketball skills. Not so much on his golfing prowess.

Spokesman Robert Gibbs didn't exactly hype his game when asked in June about a round Obama had just played.

"I don't know if he would tell you they played golf," Gibbs told MSNBC. "They went to a golf course and they swung clubs, but I don't think it was real pretty."

OK, so maybe his political Cinderella story doesn't transfer to the links. He could turn out to be our duffer in chief.

But golfers at Olomano Golf Links, where the lefty-swinging Obama shot a round on his August Hawaiian vacation, were more gracious, saying what they saw looked pretty good. "He hit more than . . . 200 yards," one man told a local TV station.

Man, if Obama ranks 8th, I'd really hate to read about #9-15 on the list and how their game is (was). Hitting an occasional drive over 200 yards is nothing these days. You gotta do it closer to 220-250 every time for even the every-now-and-then golfer. Oh, and hit it straight. With today's technology and a few lessons, it ain't as hard to do as you may think.

Notice nowhere was noted Obama's average score, unlike JFK's. For me this means Obama is an over-100 duffer.

Chances for divorce

According to the "Marriage Calculator," my stats read as follows:

People with similar backgrounds who are already divorced: 23%
People with similar backgrounds who will be divorced over the next five years: 6%

Hmmm ...

Whoa! A gay bible!

Check it out. Here's a glimpse of "Genesis," featuring Aida and Eve:

"And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Aida, and she slept: and he took one of her ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib, which the Lord God had taken from woman, made he another woman, and brought her unto the first. And Aida said, 'This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of me. Therefore shall a woman leave her mother, and shall cleave unto her wife: and they shall be one flesh.' And they were both naked, the woman and her wife, and were not ashamed."

Bush singlehandedly to blame for housing mess

So says the AP which probably feels it'd better hurry up and get as many "bash Bush" stories out there ... before he's gone!

The Bush administration backed off proposed crackdowns on no-money-down, interest-only mortgages years before the economy collapsed, buckling to pressure from some of the same banks that have now failed. It ignored remarkably prescient warnings that foretold the financial meltdown, according to an Associated Press review of regulatory documents.

The administration's blind eye to the impending crisis is emblematic of a philosophy that trusted market forces and discounted the need for government intervention in the economy. Its belief ironically has ushered in the most massive government intervention since the 1930s. (Link.)

*Yaaawn* I'm not here to defend Bush of the GOP for their role in the crisis. The fact of the matter is, Bush did warn about the problems in the lending industry; the NY Times reported back in 2003 the following: "The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago." But, y'see, the GOP was still in control of Congress in '03, so clearly blame falls on them at that time for not acting on these proposals.

The Bush administration has noted its efforts on its website.

Of course, it really didn't matter when the Democrats came to power in early '07 since most of their big guns didn't think there was anything to worry about! And then there's this little bit of inconvenient history.

Funny how the AP neglected all that. No it's not.

Epitome of a billionaire nutjob

Ted Turner is at it again. Check it out this time:

• The KGB was an "honorable place to work." He compared it to working at the FBI.
• He compared the US invasion of Afghanistan following 9/11 to the Soviet invasion of the country in 1979.
• He further compared the US invasion of Iraq in '03 to the Soviet 1979 Afghan incursion.

Kudos to "Meet the Press" host Tom Brokaw for calling Ted out (at least) on the Afghanistan comparison:

TURNER: Well, we invaded Afghanistan, too, and it's a lot further -- at least it's on the border of the Soviet Union or the former Soviet Union or Russia. A lot of these countries have changed names several times.

BROKAW: But, Ted, don't try to go there in terms of justifying that. I mean, it is, the fact is that the Russians, it was a naked aggression-

TURNER: Why can't I try and justify it?

BROKAW: It was naked aggression on the part of the Russians at the time.

TURNER: Well, going into Iraq was naked aggression on the part of the United States.

BROKAW: Yeah, but big power politics and changing big power politics requires everyone to come to the table, and that includes the Russians, not just the United States.

On Delaware education

Dave Burris has a couple posts up about reforming education right here in Delaware, to which the Energizer Bunny Perry has responded. Perry writes:

Dave, I heard your rant the other day and you have a point. However, you seem to think the solution involves cutting out the union and reducing administration duplication and costs. I think there is much more that we can do, which has to do with our continued propensity for so-called local control and continued segregation according to class and race. To improve our schools, we need to start to move away from these concepts.

Say what? Why do away with local control? I always fail to grasp the "progressive" infatuation with top-down control, in this case from one state superintendent downward. What, precisely, is so anathema with having local superintendents, who're much more attuned to their population and district needs? If the issue is saving cash, each individual school district can cut plenty of fat at the central office level.

And what is meant "continued segregation according to class and race?" You mean ... since desegregation? Is it the growing propensity for parents to take advantage of choice -- whether it be public or charter schools? How precisely is this a bad thing? Unfortunately, the only thing I can think of is the usual predilection of "progressives" like Perry to engage in the bigotry of low expectations; in other words, if choice is open to everyone, what does it actually matter if economic and/or racial proportions are disparate? ("Disparate" meaning based on the "progressive" notion of "proportionate representation." The usual crapola.) Y'see, for "progressives" like Perry, equal opportunity is insufficient. Equal outcomes are of primary importance. If, in Delaware, it is a majority of more affluent and/or white parents who are taking advantage of the state's school choice law, then ... something's wrong with the law. Poor[er] people might not utilize school choice. Therefore, we cannot allow the decision of where to attend school to be in parents' hands.

Perry then goes on to make a comparison to Fairfax County, VA's district:

* One superintendent over the entire system.
* Takes advantage of economy of scale.
* Costs $13.4K per student, about 18% less than DE.
* Average SAT score: 1654
* Much smaller number of charter and private schools than DE.
* Has an extensive teacher in-service training system.
* Well organized teacher orientation.
* High standards for teacher hires.
* Pays good salaries/benefits.
* Extensive AP and IB offerings.
* Thomas Jefferson HS of Science and Technology, world class.
* Gifted and talented program available at all schools.
* Extensive adult education offerings.

He writes "good comparison of our school system can be made to the Fairfax County Public School System." But what, precisely, is the "good" comparison? Why is having less private and charter schools "good?" Who says DE districts don't pay well and offer good bennies? Who says DE districts don't have extensive in-service and teacher orientation? What constitutes "good" teacher in-service and orientation? Who says DE districts don't have high standards for new hires?

He then asks,

Now granted, we do not have a $2.2 billion budget to work with, (gee, that might be a "small" factor! -- Hube) but, having a renowned and exemplary school system on our doorsteps, why are we Delawareans so parochial as to not avail ourselves of this model for the improvement of our school system?

Perhaps because, like too much in education today, much of what you say is undefinable fluff. How easy is it to say "We need high standards for teachers." Or, "we need high standards for students." It continually amazes me when education "think tanks" or "study groups" remarkably come up with ideas such as these. I mean, how long does it take a task force to come up with such these "terrific ideas?"

I've had a few conversations with Dave Burris about education reform. While I always note my suggestions are far from a universal panacea, I believe common sense measures include:

• Keep local control. Look at what a fiasco the New County School District was at the beginning of desegregation. If that was a mess, imagine what making the entire state a single district would be.
• Trim the administrative fat at [district] central offices. Concentrate administrators at the school level for improved concentration on curriculum and discipline. Discipline is usually always noted as the #1 concern of teachers and parents alike, so why not increase the administrative presence in this area -- at individual schools?
• In accordance with the above, change the state formula for "teaching unit" allocations. At present, many folks in administrative positions are still labeled as "teaching units." This obviously takes away from classroom resources as principals currently have to count such administrators as "teachers."
• Cut the state DOE, same as above (Kilroy agrees with me). There's no need for many of the top-down regulations at the state level that we currently have.
• Ditch the way-too expensive DSTP for something much cheaper (like the online NWEA). No Child Left Behind doesn't stipulate on what test a state must use for its assessment. It's amazing we've kept the DSTP for as long as we have.
• Common sense teacher evaluations. Some of the stuff "thought up" by our legislators and others makes little sense. For instance, basing a non-core subject teacher's evaluation [partly] on students' performance in math, reading and writing is just flat-out dumb and grossly unfair.
• Allow school choice and charters to continue to grow. Competition within this framework can only benefit students and keeps teachers on their "creative toes." (See the News Journal's report on school choice in Canada.)

Feel free, as always, to chime in with your own ideas.

My daughter is only a few years from college ...

... and I'm dreading what sort of utter detritus she'll have to deal with there. Thankfully, I can say with almost utter certainty, she'll not be attending school in Canada:

Carleton University in Ottawa is dropping cystic fibrosis as the beneficiary of its annual fundraiser because the disease isn't diverse enough---most of the people who suffer from it are believed to be white males.

Queens University in Kingston, Ontario, has trained six students to listen in on conversations around campus and correct speakers who voice slurs and other opinions that women, gays and minorities might consider objectionable.

Certainly there are obvious slurs that various [ethnic] groups will find objectionable. I don't see a hassle with anyone speaking up and saying something like "Excuse me, but that's inappropriate" to someone asinine enough to utter one. But the authoritarian aspect of this silliness is apparent based on two facets -- one, these "trained students" have as their job to listen in on other people's conversations. Not only is this an invasion of privacy, but if something like that is someone's "job," you can be sure they're bound to "find" something objectionable. This is the second facet -- these "trained students" alone will determine what gays and minorities might find off-putting. Because, we all know, that gays and minorities are all of like mind and all believe in the same things! Right?

As for the cystic fibrosis nonsense, that is just so ridiculous as to defy description. As article author John Leo notes,

... lots of other diseases could run afoul of a proper diversity test---Tay-Sachs (mostly Jews), sickle disease (mostly blacks) and, for that matter, AIDS (mostly male and gay) and breast cancer. It's just hard to get illnesses to observe diversity standards.

Yeah. Biology sure is a pesky thing. It's always somehow immune to politically correct bone-headedness.

Dopey Philly Daily News Letter of the Week

Philly's Walt Berg asks some "persnickety questions:"

HOW COME when a hurricane hits, it only takes three days for gas prices to rise? But it takes several years for prices to go down with new drilling?

Let's see, Walt ... maybe because the damage from a hurricane to oil rigs is immediate and will thus have an immediate impact on gas prices? Whereas when it comes to new [oil] drilling, companies have to research where to drill, and then construct a rig or drilling platform to get that oil. This takes years, hence the price effect of this new incoming oil takes ... years.

How come nowadays a lot of men and women don't want to get married to each other, but a lot of men want to marry men, and a lot of women want to marry women?

Maybe because most of the latter can't legally do so and ... want to?

Why is it that gas stations charge an extra 9/10ths of a cent a gallon? What's wrong 5/10ths, or no 10ths?

It's a tried and true marketing gimmick, Walt. It's akin to some supermarket item being priced at "$6.99." Why not just make it an even "$7.00?" Because your mind sees that "6" first and determines that there's a "big" difference between "6" and "7." Even though there really isn't. So when the gas price says "$1.85 and 9/10ths," think "$1.86," natch.

Joe M. was right -- Batman did pass away

And the obit didn't even appear until today. Pretty clairvoyant of you, Joe!

Rasmussen reports

Rasmussen on The Pledge:

1) Should school children say the Pledge of Allegiance every morning at school?

77% Yes
13% No
9% Not sure

2) Should children be able to opt out of saying the Pledge of Allegiance every morning at school?

44% Yes
47% No
9% Not sure

3) Is the United States truly a land of liberty and justice for all?

46% Yes
42% No
13% Not sure

4) Should the words “Under God” be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance?

14% Yes
82% No
4% Not sure

5) Are people too worried about being politically correct these days?

72% Yes
19% No
9% Not sure

Seventy-seven percent (77%) of U.S. voters say school children should say the Pledge of Allegiance every morning at school, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Just 13% say they should not, and nine percent (9%) are undecided.

Eighty-two percent (82%) say the words "under God" should remain in the Pledge as well. Fourteen percent (14%) think the phrase should be dropped from the Pledge, and just four percent (4%) have no opinion.

Voters are closely divided over whether students should be able to opt out of saying the Pledge of Allegiance every morning. Forty-four percent (44%) say they should be allowed to do so, but 47% disagree. Nine percent (9%) are not sure.

Support for saying the Pledge is slightly higher than in a survey for July 4 this year in which 75% of voters said they were proud of American history and nearly as many said the world would be a better place if more countries were like ours.

Men and women are in near agreement on saying the Pledge every day. Eighty-four percent (84%) of African-American voters think school children should say the Pledge daily, compared to 77% of whites.

While 91% of Republicans and 75% of unaffiliated voters say students should say the Pledge every morning, just 67% of Democrats agree. Half of Democrats (50%) say children should be able to opt out of saying the Pledge, but 58% of GOP voters say they should not be able to do so.* Unaffiliateds oppose opting out by a six-point margin.

The phrase "under God" which was added to the Pledge in 1954 has been challenged in the courts in recent years, prompting Congress to consider legislation making use of the phrase mandatory under law. The legal challenges have been unsuccessful to date.

Ninety-three percent (93%) of Republicans, 80% of unaffiliated voters and 74% of Democrats say "under God" should not be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance.

Even those who characterize themselves as politically liberal support the phrase by a two-to-one margin.

Again, support is stronger among African-Americans (92%) than among whites (82%).

Seventy-two percent (72%) of voters also say people are too worried about being politically correct these days. Only 19% disagree, with nine percent (9%) undecided.

Eighty-one percent (81%) of conservatives and 73% of moderates say there is too much concern about political correctness, but just 56% of liberals agree. Seventy-six percent (76%) of white voters share this view, compared to 59% of African-Americans.

Forty-six percent (46%) of voters say the United States is truly the land of liberty and justice for all, but 42% disagree. Thirteen percent (13%) are not sure. These findings are virtually identical to those in July.

Most men believe America is a land of liberty and justice for all, but a plurality of women (45%) disagree.

While 62% of Republicans say the country is fair to all, 53% of Democrats say it is not. Unaffiliated voters are closely divided on the question, giving a slight edge to the more positive view.

Whites by a 49% to 40% margin say the United States is a country with liberty and justice for all. But just 20% of black voters agree. Sixty percent (60%) of blacks say America is not fair to all.

Two days after Barack Obama became the first African-American to be voted into the White House, the percentage of black voters who viewed American society as fair and decent jumped 18 points to 42%. Just a month earlier, only 24% of black voters viewed U.S. society as fair and decent.

* "Opting out" of saying the Pledge of Allegiance is a settled matter of First Amendment rights. The issue was resolved 65 years ago in the SCOTUS West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette case. Some Jehovah's Witnesses had brought the case, and the Barnette decision had overturned a SCOTUS ruling from a mere three years prior which held that compelling students to recite the Pledge was constitutional.

Watcher's Council results

Unbelievable. Guess who won?

First place in the Council category was The Colossus of Rhodey with Culture of Whine (a rant).

First place in the non-Council category was Serendituous Altruism with American troops in Afghanistan through the eyes of a French OMLT infantryman.

Full results can be seen here.

We should have a "very muted" inauguration

Who says so? Why, all those "progressives!" From prior to President Bush's 2004 inauguration:

Critics are calling on U.S. President George W Bush to scale back the glittering multimillion dollar parties planned this week in honor of his second-term inauguration, saying lavish festivities are unseemly at a time of war.

... Critics insist that with U.S. troops dying daily in Iraq, the tone surrounding this year’s inaugural celebration should be more modest.

“I would have hoped they would have followed the traditions of President Wilson and President Roosevelt, who at a time of war had a very muted celebration,” said Democratic Representative Robert Menendez, speaking on CNN.

“I think when young men and women are dying we should think about the reality of how we conduct ourselves here at home.”

His comments echoed those of Democratic Representative Anthony Weiner, who, in a letter to Bush, urged the president to redirect some of the $40 million “towards a use more fitting to these somber times — bonuses or equipment for our troops.”

Here is a copy of Weiner's entire letter. Michelle Malkin asks:

With an estimated 1.5 million people expected to descend on Washington for the Obama festivities and a federal tax bill alone of at least $50 million, next January’s inauguration will dwarf Bush’s inaugural events and expenses. We are still at war. And, as the Democrats remind us, economic times are tough and average Americans are hurting.

Will Democrat Rep. Weiner demand that Obama go the “cold chicken salad and plain pound cake” route (as FDR did in 1945) and redirect all the money Obama’s Chicago team is raising to the troops, too? Or has he stopped caring about the brave men and women he exploited in 2005 to score Bush-bashing points with the nutroots?

Will billionaire Mark Cuban, who demanded that Bush donate his inauguration funds to Indonesian tsunami victims, call on Obama to fork over the inaugural funds to victims of the Mumbai terrorist bombings or to distressed American homeowners under water on their mortgages?

Where are all the anti-Inauguration critics now?

Just wondering.

She's not really wondering. Michelle knows. Anything associated with "progressives" and/or liberals is "good" and hence cost is never a factor. It goes to the "good." It is just plain "good" that Barack Obama -- The Messiah -- was elected, and no amount of money is too little to celebrate this event. Nuclear war? No worries. Giant asteroid heading our way in a few months? Big deal. Sagittarius A* sucking in the Milky Way to oblivion? Feh.

Some things just never change

Pistons punish Iverson after missing practice.

Yeah, that little thing called "practice":

I'm thankful for ...

... still being able to laugh my ass off. This has to be one of the best baseball bloopers of all time, and it couldn't have happened to a bigger douche:

Comics films update

It looks like the trailer for "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" will debut before the upcoming film "The Day the Earth Stood Still" on December 12th.

Hugh Jackman (at left) returns as the Canuck mutant. My wife thinks he's "beyond hot." Gee, I can't see why. He's only devastatingly handsome with a perfect physique. Bastard. The ironic thing is that in the actual X-Men comic, Wolvie is quite short, and frequently gets ribbed about it by teammates and enemies alike (who're all pretty stupid, really, to risk Wolvie's short temper!).

Superhero Hype has the following film description:

Leading up to the events of X-Men, Wolverine tells the story of Wolverine's especially violent and romantic past, his complex relationship with Victor Creed, and the ominous Weapon X program. Along the way, Wolverine encounters many mutants, both familiar and new, including surprise appearances by several legends of the X-Men universe.

Victor Creed is Sabertooth, who we last saw in the first "X-Men" film. 'Tooth and Wolverine have many of the same abilities; indeed, both were part of that mentioned "Weapon X" program. (If you're wondering why Wolvie impaling 'Tooth numerous times in their pitched battle on top of the Statue of Liberty didn't outright kill the latter in "X-Men," it's 'cuz 'Tooth has the same fast healing ability as Wolvie.) The flashbacks Wolverine had in "X-Men" and "X-Men 2" were indeed those relating to the "Weapon X" program. His battle with Lady Deathstrike in "X2" took place in the bowels of a Weapon X lab, possibly where Wolverine was given his adamantium skeleton and claws.

As noted in "X-Men," it is virtually impossible to determine Wolverine's true age as his healing abilities retard aging. Thus, it'll be interesting to see how far back in time the movie will take Jackman in his origin. The comics (with which I gave up trying to keep pace long ago) have Wolvie's origins all over the place, but it's now generally accepted canon that he was born in 19th century Canada.

"X-Men Origins: Wolverine" is due in theaters May 1, 2009.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Dopey Philly Daily News Letter of the Week

Ann Townson of Philly is a perfect demonstration of the typical Obama voter:

I FOR ONE have had it. I'm sick and tired of a bunch of idiots foaming at the mouth regarding President-elect Obama having no experience. Unless I've lost my mind, neither did Ronald Reagan. He was a Hollywood actor.

Need I say more?

No. Please -- don't. As you said, "unless I've lost my mind..." It's gone, Ann. Let me fill you in on one "small" tidbit: Reagan was governor of the most populous state in the Union for eight years.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Change you can believe in

ABC News is reporting that Susan Rice will be Obama's Ambassador to the United Nations. Here's some "change you can believe in" -- Rice's view on the US acting unilaterally without UN approval:

History demonstrates that there is one language Khartoum understands: the credible threat or use of force....

After swift diplomatic consultations, the United States should press for a U.N. resolution that issues Sudan an ultimatum: accept unconditional deployment of the U.N. force within one week or face military consequences....

The United States, preferably with NATO involvement and African political support, would strike Sudanese airfields, aircraft and other military assets. It could blockade Port Sudan, through which Sudan's oil exports flow. Then U.N. troops would deploy — by force, if necessary, with U.S. and NATO backing.

If the United States fails to gain U.N. support, we should act without it. Impossible? No, the United States acted without U.N. blessing in 1999 in Kosovo to confront a lesser humanitarian crisis (perhaps 10,000 killed) and a more formidable adversary....

Others will insist that, without the consent of the United Nations or a relevant regional body, we would be breaking international law. Perhaps, but the Security Council recently codified a new international norm prescribing "the responsibility to protect." It commits U.N. members to decisive action, including enforcement, when peaceful measures fail to halt genocide or crimes against humanity.

How many times did we hear from BDSers ("Bush Derangement Syndrome-ers") that George Bush was breaking international law for "unilaterally" going into Iraq -- without UN approval? Wasn't Bush just committing the US to "decisive action, including enforcement" of all the UN sanctions that Saddam Hussein had broken since 1991? Didn't "peaceful measures fail to halt genocide or crimes against humanity" in Iraq?

Hmm. Yes and yes. As I told Maria Evans on DTR this morning, this isn't "change you can believe in." It is "change you've been suckered into believing." The only difference is who's in power. It'll be OK to ignore the UN now because The Messiah will be president. He's "better" than George Bush. He's "not evil" like George Bush. Etc.

Previous "change you can believe in."

Hube on DE Talk Radio tomorrow

Delaware Talk Radio's Maria Evans just confirmed it -- I'll be on with her at 9:00 am tomorrow "assisting" her with her Weds. morning show. You can catch the live stream here.

Maria and I go all the way back to junior high school, yo. I may actually bring some of those old memories up ... ;-)

This Thursday ...

1. Turkey or Ham? Turkey!

2. Cranberry Sauce or Stuffing? Stuffing!

3. Pumpkin Pie or Apple Pie? Pumpkin!

4. Warm apple cider or hot cocoa? Irish coffee!

5. Cook the meal yourself or go to someone's house to eat? Someone's house!

6. After eating do you...collapse on the couch in front of the tv or go for a walk? Collapse on the couch watching football!

(h/t: Randomness.)

Try this question on for size:

When you first met your current main squeeze (husband, wife, boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, sex partner, WHATEVER!), what were you thinking?

My answer: "How freakin' unbelievably hot her friend was!!" (That would be the second week of February, 1986, at the University of Costa Rica's "Pretil" -- the hangout in front of the campus library.)

Mutual aid vs. welfare

David Beito of the University of Alabama discusses his book From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State during a four-campus swing through North Carolina.

David graciously invited me to attend a seminar about a similar topic almost two years ago. Talk about stretching one's brain!

Impeach Bush now!!

In order to "save the economy," so says a columnist of the Detroit Free Press. Check out my latest Newsbusters post.

The web: Most reliable news source

A recent Zogby poll:

A Zogby Poll, commissioned by IFC, found 37.6% of those asked consider the Internet the most reliable source of news. 20.3% consider national TV news most reliable and 16% say radio is the most reliable source.

Also revealed:

• 39.3% of those surveyed trust FOX News most for the issues they consider most important, followed by CNN with 16% and MSNBC with 15%.

• 72.6% believe the news they read and see is biased.

• 88.7% Republican and 57.5% Democrat respondents describe the news media as biased.

Little surprise here, really ...

Gotta love it

The losers eat their young.

What a freakin' shame ...

"Change" you can believe in

Or not. Obama Attorney General nominee Eric Holder on terrorists and the Geneva Convention:

One of the things we clearly want to do with these prisoners is to have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future plans might be, where other cells are located; under the Geneva Convention that you are really limited in the amount of information that you can elicit from people. It seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted themselves, however, that they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of war. If, for instance, Mohamed Atta had survived the attack on the World Trade Center, would we now be calling him a prisoner of war? I think not. Should Zacarias Moussaoui be called a prisoner of war? Again, I think not.

As Dave Burris has been saying, welcome to "realism" Mr. Obama.

I don't see a problem with this

... naming a school after Barack Obama that is. Yeah, that's right. I said I don't see a problem with it. (Volokh disagrees, to whom the h/t for this story goes.) Naming an elementary school is a fairly paltry matter in the whole scheme of things, and the mere election of Obama is historic in itself. Besides, if Obama ends up a total loser of a chief exec, the school can always be renamed again!

This is a far cry from wanting a national holiday for the guy. Now that is a big deal and, in my opinion, requires the demonstration of a superb tenure as president.

Top 25 Comic Battles

Comic Book Resources has a list of the "Top 25 Comic Battles" of all-time. The one's I've read are in bold. I've added some needed comments where necessary, natch.

#25: Fantastic Four vs. Galactus. The "Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer" movie was loosely based on this battle.

#24. Batman vs. the Leader of the Mutant Gang. From the classic "Return of the Dark Knight" by Frank Miller.

#23. Invincible vs. Omni-Man.

#22. X-Men vs. the Marauders.

#21. The Ultimates vs. the Chitauri. This Avengers revamp is high-powered action all the way. Also, two straight-to-DVD animated flicks are based on this saga.

#20. The Avengers (and friends) vs. Korvac. There may be no greater "everything is at stake" comics yarn ever. Comics master Jim Shooter at his finest writing.

#19. The X-Men vs. the Hellfire Club. Part of artist extraordinaire John Byrne's run on the X-Men.

#18. The Avengers vs. Ultron. Kurt Busiek's magnum opus of volume 3 Avengers.

#17. Deathstroke vs. the Justice League of America.

#16. Batman vs. Guy Gardner.

#15. The Superheroes of the DC Multiverse vs. the Anti-Monitor.

#14. Wolverine vs. the Hulk.

#13. Hulk vs. the Thing. The Thing never wins against the Hulk. Never.

#12. X-Men vs. the Shi'Ar Imperial Guard. "X-Men 3" was loosely based on this tragic tale of the "death" of Jean Grey. Original cover at left.

#11. Spider-Man vs. the Green Goblin. Goblin kills Spidey's girl, and Webhead is out for revenge. The original "Spider-Man" film is based on this classic two-part comic set.

#10. Elektra vs. Bullseye. Like #11 above, much of the "Daredevil" movie is based on this battle. In fact, many of the lines spoken by Colin Farrell (Bullseye) were verbatim from this double-sized comic.

#9. Avengers vs. the Masters of Evil.

#8. Spider-Man vs. Juggernaut.

#7. The Ultimates vs. the Hulk.

#6. The Sinestro Corps War. I'm not a big DC Comics fan, but my buddy Brent loaned me this series, and all I could say afterward was "Wow."

#5. Practically all of Marvel's Superheroes vs. Thanos.

#4. Miracleman vs. Kid Miracleman.

#3. The Final Battle in “Kingdom Come." An alternate version of the DC Universe, and painted (yes, painted) by artist supreme Alex Ross. Not to be missed.

#2. Superman vs. Doomsday.

#1. Batman vs. Superman. The last segment of Frank Miller's "Return of the Dark Knight," Bruce Wayne has high-powered armored to take on the Man of Steel. Great stuff.

Always nice to be interviewed by a sympathetic ear

Former Weather Underground dude and Barack Obama pal Bill Ayers on the show "Democracy Now!"

One is, I was not a terrorist. I never was a terrorist. And the idea that the Weather Underground carried out terrorism is nonsense. We never killed or hurt a person. We never intended to.

It is accurate that the W.U. was not directly responsible for the deaths of anyone, they were responsible for a prodigious amount of property damage. Ayers himself "participated in planting a bomb at a statue dedicated to riot police casualties in the 1886 Haymarket Riot confrontation between labor supporters and the police." Three of Ayers buddies accidentally offed themselves when the nail bomb they were assembling accidentally detonated. They had planned to plant this bomb at a Fort Dix social dance. Not exactly the "never intended" to kill that Ayers stated in that interview, eh? And this doesn't even get into Ayers' involvement in the bombings at the Pentagon, the Capitol Building and New York City Police HQ in 1970-72. Years after the W.U. dissolved, a few of Ayers' former pals were involved in a bank robbery and ended up murdering a security guard and two police officers.

Nevertheless, in the warped mind of radicals like Bill Ayers, it is somehow not "terrorism" to wantonly destroy property. As long as the "intent" wasn't to kill anybody, it somehow is not terrorism."

Uh-huh.