The addition of Randy Moss to the Patriots’ roster and Cleveland’s awesome draft weekend dominated the water cooler chat today. The big question: will Moss help or hurt the Pats? I think he’ll be a great addition, and so do some from Fox Sports News. Moss isn’t the key, Belichick is! Belichick can make the magic work for nearly anyone. Remember, Corey Dillon was a punk at Cincinnati and turned into a man caught on film saying “Sir” in a very intimidated voice everytime he addressed his new boss, Bill Belichick. Moss’ll fit in or he’ll sit down. It’s not like the Pats couldn’t do it without him. But it sure would be cool if he did work out– Belichick still has two more fingers without Patriot rings on his hand!
Archive for April, 2007
Posted by Ryan on April 30, 2007
Fred Thompson was favorably reviewed by Mike Deaver, a Reagan standard-bearer from the good ol’ days, according to the UK Telegraph this weekend. Like many on this site, I’ve been more interested in Thompson as a conservative alternative to the Rudy-McCain-Romney pickle conservatives have found themselves in lately. The base really needs a new substantive cheerleader, especially since William F. Buckley is sounding the Republican death knell in his latest National Review Online article. The article, which I think is out of sync with national trends, says that the Republicans are in quite a jam with Bush being so steadfast on winning the war, even though it’s politically damaging to do so. If I’m not mistaken, shortly after the 2004 Election, the Democrats were a party about to go the way of the Whigs. So, these short-term anomalies come and go. Despite these anomalies, Buckley does have a point: the Republicans need a leader who’ll actually lead, articulate a mission and a message, and make the base feel comfortable supporting him. Perhaps what the base needs is Fred.
Links via Drudge. Picture from the Washington Post.
Posted by Mike on April 30, 2007
They look a little less pathetic by default after last week’s circus, but the Republican field for 2008 is nothing to brag about. Rudy Giuliani, the presmptive frontrunner, is a pro-choice social liberal from New York City. John McCain, the candidate with the best organization, has a habit of playing Steve Urkel to the MSM’s Laura Winslow. Mitt Romney, the candidate doing the best job of articulating a conservative vision for America, was not doing so as little as four years ago. With each viable candidate waving a red flag, it’s no wonder Republican voters have been looking for someone else.
Sensing this frustration, Fred Thompson sent up a trial balloon a few months ago to great fanfare. Thompson is an unapologetic conservative with camera presence and has the gravitas that no Democrat can come close to matching. However, no candidate is perfect and Thompson’s skeleton was revealed a couple of weeks ago.
In a 1994 debate, Fred Thompson answered a question about abortion which could reasonably be interpreted as pro-choice. However, many Thompson supporters describe Thompson’s answer as supporting a federalist system under which the issue of abortion does not belong in the courts, effectively a pro-life position. Although the former interpretation is reasonable, I tend to think the latter interpretation is correct.
I say that because Thompson has a solidly pro-life voting record. According to the National Right to Life Committee, the only black mark on Thomspson’s pro life record was his support for “campaign finance reform.” Although his 1994 statement should be addressed and is cause for concern, Thompson governed as a pro-life Senator for eight years. Eight years of supporting the unborn is stronger evidence than an awkwardly-worded eight second answer from twelve years ago.
Posted by Mike on April 29, 2007
There are many reasons why Joe Biden is a long shot to win the Democrat nomination in 2008. Most of those reasons stem from two flaws that have dogged Biden throughout his career. First, he is infatuated with the sound of his own voice. Second, he grossly overestimates his own intelligence. Combine these two traits and you have one of the most acute cases of diarrhea of the mouth the world has ever seen. Although Biden’s ramblings are a turn off to most normal Americans, they will be especially problematic in his party’s primary, but for a different reason.
The absence of an off switch is not a good thing when you are a liberal Democrat Presidential candidate who had access to the various intelligence reports prior to the Iraq War. The chances for accidentally telling the truth are simply too high. Unfortunately for Biden, he spoke a little too much on today’s episode of Meet the Press. Jim Geraghty at National Review’s The She Who Must Not Be Named Spot summarizes Biden’s blunder:
Then he went into a lengthy description of all the evidence suggesting that Saddam had material that “could be weaponized” to justify his war vote. I strongly suspect Vice President Cheney was applauding during this section, as it dismantles the “Bush lied, people died,” argument. At one point Biden said, (paraphrasing) “this was catalogued by the United Nations, this wasn’t some Cheney pipe dream.”
Oops. Biden accidentally told the truth and got testy with one of the liberals’ favorite reporters in the process. That won’t sell with the base.
The video of Biden’s appearance, which confirms Geraghty’s account, can be found on the MSDNC website.
Posted by Mike on April 29, 2007
The following video from Fox News’ Red Eye featuring Niccole Trzaska contains a fascinating discussion about several important issues like um, I forgot.
Video via The Daily Gut
Posted by Ryan on April 29, 2007
While General David Petraeus’ US military troop surge for the “Baghdad Security Plan” is roughly half in place, the Dems have been screaming failure and bloody murder as if the whole thing failed before it’s even in had a chance. In fact Muqtada “Mookie” al-Sadr sounds like a mainstream Democrat on this point, and he’s our sworn enemy responsible for killing many of our troops! Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer has a different view on the situation and the changing dynamics over the last two months that have resulted from of the past year of significant changes.
On last evening’s Journal Editorial Report, Paul Gigot had on Fouad Ajami, author of The Foreigner’s Gift: The Americans, the Arabs, and the Iraqis in Iraq, who just returned from “Red Zone” Baghdad. His assessment of the surge was that of cautious optimism. He thinks that the attitude amongst the people in Baghdad reflects that the surge is truly the last chance for stability before an impending American withdrawal. Ajami stated that behind closed doors, all major factions quietly feel that they need America to stay as long as it takes to form a new status quo:
- The Kurds love us and are willing to put a permanent base in Iraqi Kurdistan, but they’ve never been a problem for us.
- The Shi’ites are the ruling majority now and need America to help make the Baghdad Security Plan work so that they can inherit a relatively stable government and overall situation.
- The Sunni insurgency tried to foment a civil war over the last year and got their butts kicked for trying. Baghdad has experienced enough ethnic cleansing to warrant calling it a mostly Shi’a area today. The Sunnis realize that they can’t push their former subjects, the Shi’a, around without consequences that would inevitably leave the Sunnis the object of genocide if America pulls out too soon.
- Al Qaeda would love us to stay so they can blow up more people, foment sectarian violence, and train current and new recruits in the instability. Yet, in the last few months, the Sunnis have helped us track down al Qaeda in Iraq, seeing how al Qaeda’s terrorism has not frightened the Shi’ites, but made them angry– an anger directed toward Sunnis!
Ajami believes that the whole situation could collapse with a precipitous American withdrawal (ie– the Democrat’s plan), and he agrees with Petraeus, and even with Krauthammer, that the true trends and forces moving in Baghdad are not reflected in the media coverage of the war or with the Democrat’s pessimism.
Posted by Ryan on April 28, 2007
One story that seems to pop up every year is how nasty New Jersey’s shoreline is. Not just the air and the bad drivers (apparently the critics of NJ drivers never drove through Rhode Island before!), not just the obnoxious amounts of makeup and “that can’t be for real” accents, but the tons of trash that keep washing up on the New Jersey Shore every year. Last year it totalled roughly 40 tons shorewide!
In defense of the New Jersey Shore, it’s huge and not every beach is a sewer dump! There are some nasty places where I’d be afraid to have my wallet or car keys in plain view, or come within fifteen feet of the water. However, most of it is nice, clean and fun with the boardwalks and a truly summertime atmosphere. I’ve gone “down the shore” (as the locals call it) a number of times and the water is like any other Northeastern beachside– kind of a dark, lots of seaweed depending on the tide, and full of rip currents if you go out too far. I’m glad they got this story out early this year, a few months before beach season, so that the thought of the true nastiness of the murk will have faded in the minds of those of us who might actually go in.
Pic from NJ Scuba Diver.
UPDATE: So, how Jersey are you? I bet you’re a little curious!
Posted by Mike on April 28, 2007
On behalf of all Jets and Patriots fans associated with Axis of Right, I sincerely thank the Miami Dolphins for their decision to take a pass on Brady Quinn.
UPDATE: Quinn winds up where he always wanted to go. Congratulations Cleveland.
Posted by Mike on April 27, 2007
Most people thought the European Constitution was dead. Back in 2005, many across the continent were uneasy about surrendering more of their national sovereignty to a bureaucratic nightmare that even refused to mention the role of Christianity in European history. Some nations flat out rejected the proposal via referendum. Heck, even the French couldn’t stomach the idea.
This opposition notwithstanding, Angela Merkel has plans to resurrect the proposal. Has Europe really changed its mind though? Not exactly, but Angela Merkel thinks she can sell it. The details can be found in a recently leaked letter written by Merkel herself.
It is a letter from the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, to her fellow EU heads of government. In it, she proposes a scheme to bring back the European Constitution under a new name – or, as she artlessly puts it, “to use different terminology without changing the legal substance”.
Now this, in itself, is not surprising. Many of us have suspected all along that the Eurocrats would try to bring back their constitution surreptitiously: I have written as much in these pages. What is shocking is the brazenness. Mrs Merkel flagrantly admits that she wants to preserve intact the content of the constitution, making only “the necessary presentational changes”.
So basically, Merkel is going to try to put lace on a bowling ball even though she effectively told everyone what she’s really up to. Something tells me it isn’t going to work.
H/T: Conservative Home
Posted by Ryan on April 27, 2007
Senate Majority Whip, Dick “No Nickname Needed” Durbin, barked this week about his frustration on pre-war intelligence. He believed that the intelligence he saw in 2002 showed him that Bush was misleading the public. So he was one of 23 Senators who voted against it. Apparently, Democrat Jay Rockefeller (who’s still not in jail for some reason) saw the same exact intelligence and even went as far as to say that Saddam was actively trying to get nukes! And all before Rockefeller voted for the Iraq War Resolution in October 2002!
What did Durbin see that Rockefeller and the American people did not see? Short answer: Nothing!
Convenient politicking that ignores the fact that fighting over why we went to war does nothing to solve today’s problems, but encourages divisiveness and a sign of weakness to our enemies. Keep in mind he’s also the guy who compared Gitmo to Nazi concentration camps, Stalinist gulags and Pol Pot’s killing fields. He never truly apologized for those remarks or for this truly damaging and demoralizing symbolic vote, which bothers me being the brother of an Iraq War vet.
Posted by Sal on April 27, 2007
One of the major topics in last night’s Democrat Primary Debate was climate change and the environment, and instituting tough policies that would require sacrifice from the American people. I think that the Democrat candidates for President should look in the mirror and start with themselves. All eight Democrat candidates in last night’s debate chartered or took private jets to South Carolina. There was no commercial travel, no airplane-pooling. It just shows how liberalism is the party of the elite. The elite can do whatever they want, but they are presumptuous enough to tell us how we should live. It truly is akin to how Communism played out. Communism was supposed to be “for the people” where there were no elite class, where everyone had an equal role. However, it turned to totalitarianism where the party members lived a life of privilage while the common man suffered. The same thing is happening in today’s Democrat party.
The elite can live lives of privilege, taking private charters to debates, using more electricity in a month than the average American uses in an entire year, or almost universally sending their own kids to private school, while denying that same choice to poor and working-class Americans (and increasingly middle-class Americans). America is bad, the Democrats know what’s best for you, and you better listen. It’s an attitude that permeates their politics, their personal lives, and their political and judicial philosophy (the liberal members of the Supreme Court fancy themselves as philosopher-kings).
It is conservatism that teaches individual greatness, that government is the problem and not the solution, and that each person is truly capable of greatness. Conservatism looks at each person and realizes what their true potential is, and tries to remove the obstacles in the way of their achieving greatness. Which world would you rather live in?
Posted by Mike on April 26, 2007
Earlier tonight, eight Democrats participated in a debate hosted by their party’s media wing, MSDNC. From a conservative perspective, it was surprisingly entertaining.
Although there were plenty of losers both on camera and off, the big loser tonight was the network itself. I have yet to see a breakdown of how much time each candidate had to speak, but it wasn’t even close to equal. What exactly was the point of inviting the two loons on the right side of the screen (Kucinich and Gravel) if they weren’t going to have an equal opportunity to make their case?
Although each of the three frontrunners had their embarrassing moments, it was She Who Must Not Be Named who tanked this round when she delivered the money quote that will launch 1,000 attack ads:
Well, I don’t have enough time to tell you all the mistakes I’ve made in the last many years.
Truer words have never flown out of her mouth.
Although SWMNBN gave the worst performance, Edwards and Obama also had their moments. The lowlight of Edwards’ night came when he was asked to name one moral leader who has influenced his life. Morality being a foreign concept to the left, several seconds of awkward silence followed before Silky Pony regained his composure and fumbled through his answer. The question about his $400 haircuts was also quite amusing.
Barack Obama’s misstep was probably the least damaging of the night. When questioned on his previous statements that all options were on the table vis-a-vis, Iran, the empty suit stood firm, explaining that although Ahmadinejad did not yet possess nuclear weapons, he was committed to acquiring them. That is a reasonable position which would be pretty easy to defend in a general election. However, in a Democrat primary, leaving open the possibility for a military option against a Holocaust-denying maniac committed to acquiring nuclear weapons might not go over too well. Time will tell how this plays out.
In the event Obama wins the nomination, I would expect the eventual Republican nominee to ask Obama to explain why a preemptive war against Iran is acceptable when a Democrat is President but a preemptive war against Iraq is not acceptable when a Republican is President. This question will only be asked if the new tone is scrapped though. Let’s hope.
In addition to the Republican party, the big winner of tonight’s circus was probably former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel. An angry kook liberal straight out of 1972, Gravel was the most entertaining candidate because he courageously used his limited amount of time to admit what modern liberals really believe. That’s not exactly a winning strategy for 2008 but at least it was honest.
Gravel’s honesty produced several other hilarious moments. First, he called out MSNBC for treating him like a potted plant. Second, he drew attention to Joe Biden’s arrogant side. Finally, he had his own Zell Miller moment with Chrissy in his post-debate interview. I think the liberals in the Democrat party should back this guy. Deep down they think he’s right. He isn’t, but they don’t know that.
And finally, no Democrat gathering would be complete without the unintentional comedy of little Dennis Kucinich. Undeterred by his opponents’ unanimous rejection of his impeach Cheney proposal, Kucinich pulled out a pocket-sized copy of the U.S. Constitution, red cover and all, in an attempt to change their minds. It looked like he was waving a little red book. You couldn’t make this stuff up if you tried!
Tonight was merely the opening act in this political version of Eight is Enough and the Dems did themselves no favors. If they really wanted to be taken seriously, they would pay attention to the words of Twisted Sister: “If that’s your best, your best won’t do!”
UPDATE: Gravel vs. Chrissy
Click here for a partial transcript of tonight’s debate
Click here for liberal reaction to tonight’s debate
MSNBC screencap via Free Republic
Posted by Ryan on April 26, 2007
In just a few moments eight Democrats are going to spew more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than all the SUVs in Dayton! NBC’s running the debate so no one’s going to watch it. But, if you’re a political junkie and want a good laugh, you can see:
- Barry O’Bama looking pur-ty and articulating well
- She Who Must Not Be Named faking it (that’s a full time job for her)
- John “Pert-Girl” Edwards swooning us with his grip firmly around our heartstrings
- Eugene V. Debs… sorry, I mean Dennis Kucinich
- Joe Biden, Esq.
- Chris Dodd being mean while trying to look tough
- Bill Richardson, the most palpable of the group going left
- And everybody’s favorite also-ran, Mike Gravel
Posted by Sal on April 26, 2007
We are one signature away from ending the Iraq War. President Bush must listen to the will of the American people and sign this bill so that our troops can come home. I opposed this war from the start. I said then that it would distract us from pursuing those who attacked us and would entangle us in an occupation of undetermined length, cost and consequences. This war has no military solution, and the Iraqi people need to take responsibility for their own future. That’s why I believe that my plan for a phased withdrawal with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31st, 2008 is still the best way to pressure the warring factions to reach a political settlement necessary to end this war. This similar plan responsibly redeploys our troops from Iraq while protecting our interests in the wider Middle East. It ensures that we are as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. All of us have been touched by the heroic sacrifices troops have made in service to our country. With the stroke of a pen, President Bush can bring them home to the families who love them and to a country ready to honor them for their service.
I think Mrs. Sal summed it up the best when she emailed this story to me:
Yup. Once we leave Iraq everything will be all sunshine and roses over there. I’ll say it again… what an idiot…
I agree wholeheartedly. Is this the person that we want for our Commander-in-Chief?
Posted by Mike on April 26, 2007
Although Justice Scalia is the undisputed master of witty dissents, he may soon have a run for his money. Yesterday, the Supreme Court, by a vote of 5-4, struck down three death penalty cases in Abdul-Kabir v. Quarterman. Writing the dissent for the four Justices who have actually read the Constitution, Chief Justice Roberts slammed Justice Stevens for the latter’s absurd reliance on his own dissenting opinions as established law and reminded the 85 year old that what goes around comes around.
We know Scalia would have had a field day with Stevens, but on this occasion he deferred to the Chief. Although no one can touch Scalia in the art of dissent, deferring to Roberts was the right thing to do. How else is he going to learn?
Posted by Sal on April 26, 2007
I pointed out last week that a war on free speech was underway after the Imus firing. It appears that the Ocean State, the state of origin of all three members of the Axis of Right, has become a primary battleground in this war. The following three stories should be proof enough.
- WJAR Channel 10 yesterday called for Rush Limbaugh’s firing over a parody that he runs, “Barack the magic Negro”, for being racist. The parody, however, is rather brilliant. The phrase came from an LA Times story written by an African-American LA times reporter, in which the reporter said that Barack Obama was the “magic negro” who could appeal to white voters but had never really undergone the black experience. Rush’s parody itself points this fact out, that it came from an LA times story, and uses an Al Sharpton parody to deliver. The Drive-by media, however, (in this case WJAR-10) does not tell you any of this background, only the title of the parody and then calls for Limbaugh’s firing.
- At URI, the student senate nearly voted to de-recognize the College Republicans because of a parody ad that they ran advertising a “white, heterosexual American males”, and they refused to apologize. Luckily, the measure did not go through, and the URI College Republicans remain a University-recognized groups. The response of the URI College Republicans? The same day their organization was up for the vote, they organized the first-annual URI Global Cooling Day.
- Less lucky and more troubling is the firing of two Roger Williams University students, Dana Peloso and Jon Porter, from WQRI, Roger Williams University’s college radio station. The hosts repeated the phrase “nappy-headed hos” multiple times. The phrase, which was the phrase that got Imus fired, was used solely in describing the Imus situation.
Apparently, free speech is OK only when it’s liberal free speech and it doesn’t offend anyone.
Posted by Ryan on April 25, 2007
There’s a buzz around the blogosphere about Joe Lieberman’s response to Harry Reid’s “the war is lost” rhetoric. The buzz isn’t about Lieberman’s support of the war, but of something much more ominous: Joe’s very liberal, but also very independent, having been abandoned by the Connecticut Democratic Party and getting reelected anyway. What if he decided that because of Reid’s politicking on the war and his old party’s attempts to defund the troops, Joe ubruptly starts caucusing with the Republicans?
Suddenly, there’d be 49 Dems and 1 Socialist on one side and 49 Republicans with Joe on the other.
Here’s another way tot look at the math: 50 + Dick Cheney = Republican control of the Senate!
I think that Joe needs to man-up on this one and take the plunge. He’d still have five years to rehabilitate any damage to his image before the next election in a blue state where he doesn’t even need the Democratic Party behind him to win. Even the threat might send a message to the Dems to replace Reid as their leader. Yet, the Dems haven’t been very good at understanding messages over the last six months. I know this is just buzz, but the thought would be neat!
Posted by Mike on April 25, 2007
Failing to read beyond the headlines of recent news stories, Barrack Obama criticized Rudy Giuliani for his remarks that America would face another 9-11 if a Democrat won the White House. According to the empty suit,
Rudy Giuliani today has taken the politics of fear to a new low and I believe Americans are ready to reject those kind of politics,” Obama said in a statement. “America’s mayor should know that when it comes to 9-11 and fighting terrorists, America is united. We know we can win this war based on shared purpose, not the same divisive politics that question your patriotism if you dare to question failed policies that have made us less secure.”
There are three problems with this overreaction. First, Giuliani did not say that electing a Democrat would lead to another 9-11. Obama would know that if he had actually read the article underneath the misleading headline in the Politico story which generated the controversy. What Giuliani said was that our nation would return to a “pre-Sept. 11 attitude of defense.” He then cited Democrat opposition to post September 11 measures such as the Iraq War and wiretapping as evidence for his claim. Giuliani did not say what the headline said he did.
The second problem with Obama’s overreaction is his aversion to debate. Democrats repeatedly squawk about the need for a frank discussion about national security issues. Implicit in these calls for discussion is an exchange of viewpoints, including the potential consequences of opposing points of view. Democrats like Obama oppose the war in Iraq and other aspects of the War on Terror. Assuming their opposition is honest, they take the positions they do because they think their policies will create a more secure America while their opponents’ policies would make America less secure. Conversely, Republicans like Giuliani take the positions they do because they think their policies will create a more secure America while their opponents’ policies would make America less secure. That’s the debate. If it’s acceptable for Democrats to make their arguments, then it’s acceptable for Republicans to make theirs.
The third problem is that Obama didn’t tell the truth. Giuliani never questioned his patriotism.
Today’s national security debate centers around which policies are most effective in preserving national security. In that debate, people presumably take a position because they see the alternatives as less effective. In this case, Obama wants to have his cake and eat it too. Democrats can call for a discussion and criticize Republicans. Republicans can’t talk back though.
Posted by Sal on April 25, 2007
Oral arguments were held today in the Supreme Court for the case FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Lifeinvolve ads that WRL wanted to run during the 2004 election cycle urging Russ Feingold to support a piece of Pro-life legislation. This ad fell under McCain-Feingold’s draconian 60-day rule, and was not allowed to be aired. The case is now before the SCOTUS, and both Roberts and Scalia appear to be itching to overturn the 2003 decision McConnell v. Federal Election Commission. In 2003, it was Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy dissenting against Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens, Breyer, and O’Connor. During arguments, Roberts expressed disdain for restrictions on speech, so the crux of where this ruling will come down appears to fall on Justice Alito. Given his seeming preference for narrow rulings as opposed to the broad overturning of cases, I predict that the case will allow ads such as the one presented in this case, but will fall short of overturning McConnell.
Posted by Sal on April 25, 2007
The Non-candidate candidate Newt Gingrich is attempting to establish his 2008 campaign platform by taking traditional conservative issues and expanding or refining them, coming up with new approaches to traditional conservative issues. He is also attempting triangulation at traditional liberal issues such as health care, and attempting to proactively push more conservative solutions to these so-called “Democrat issues”. Whether he succeeds or not is still up in the air. His ideas are certainly more conservative than the ideas of the left, but sometimes he concedes ground in order to win the issue. For example, Newt’s views on environmentalism are much more common-sense than the Democrats. He believes in using the free market to push a “Green Conservatism“, but he accepts the premise that carbon, which is produced by all animals, is harmful to the atmosphere. Politically, it may make sense because Newt is positioning himself as a problem-solver, trying to rise above traditional politics and separate from the “Liberal Machine” and “Stand-Pat Republicans”. Newt is trying to position himself as the new Reagan, a conservative politician with fresh ideas and ready to build a coalition of Conservative Republicans, Democrats, and independents. That, and his decision not to announce a run until the fall at the earliest, is unconventional to say the least. Whether his approach will gain any traction is an open question, but it is interesting to watch in any case.
Posted by Ryan on April 24, 2007
China will surpass the evil insidious, polluting juggernaut that is the United States of America in greenhouse and other pollutant emissions this year! They were supposed to pass us in 2010, but their economy is on fire and beat the evil expectations. What I looooove about China is that they are exempt from the Kyoto Protocol because they’re “developing!” So pollution doesn’t matter to the Kyoto crowd, just historical advantage. Kyoto’s a joke and this shows it further!
Photo from NBC Channel 7 Boston
Posted by Sal on April 24, 2007
Deval Patrick, the Premier of the People’s Republic of Massachusetts, has decided that the state will no longer apply for a federal grant which is used to promote Abstinence Education in high schools. The State of MA currently receives that grant (and has since 1998) and since 2003 has used it as part of an abstinence-education program, taught alongside what the Boston Globe labels as “Comprehensive Sex Education”, a.k.a. “How to not get pregnant and avoid STDs (sometimes)”. The reasoning is that supposedly according to a federal study, Abstinence education does not reduce the number of teenagers who have sex. The Drive-by media is heralding this as a victory for contraceptive-based sex-ed, and the death knell for Abstinence Education in America.
However, The Washington Times points out a major flaw in the study. The study was conducted of 16 and 17 year old teenagers who received Abstinence education when they were 11 and 12, but not since. The average age of first intercourse was 14 years, 9 months. What this may show is that the abstinence message needs more reinforcement as children get older, rather than the fact that the abstinence message does not work.
That’s not good enough, however for Premier Patrick. Abstinence education must be banned!
Posted by Sal on April 24, 2007
A U.S. Marine stationed in Ramadi, Iraq, wrote an email to a friend in which he lambasted the Democrats and Harry Reid for saying that the war was lost. This Marine points out how the situation in Ramdi has dramatically improved, and has a few choice words for the Majority Leader. Additionally, Army reservists from Harry Reid’s own State of Nevada beg to differ with his assertion, and blaming politicians for tying the hands of the military in fighting this war. What the Democrat’s don’t realize is that they can’t support the troops while undermining the mission. The troops themselves don’t buy into that theory, so why should we? By making comments such as he did, Harry Reid and the Democrat’s are making it harder for the troops to do their job effectively. Their words hurt morale and embolden the terrorists. The terrorists are on the warpath right now, knowing that if they can last just a little longer, they just might win the war along with the help of their accomplices in Congress.
Posted by Ryan on April 23, 2007
Not only am I writing this post from a laptop whose Internet is powered by Wifi technology, my contribution to the wireless world could be harming little children, the environment and me! Another scary suggestion from British scientists says just that and adds that cell phones and other wireless technology could be, and I quote, “the cigarette of the 21st Century.”
Wow. I’d really like to see, however, some honest to goodness real data for a change so I can know what to think! It’s like Lib charges of Republican scandals. You sit there and you think, “Wow, that sure would be something… if it were true.”
Posted by Sal on April 23, 2007
The Dow reached an all-time high last week, and is at the cusp of hitting 13,000 for the first time. The Dow has posted gains in 15 of its last 16 sessions, a feat only accomplished three other times and last done 15 years ago, prior to the Clinton presidency. The economic slowdown that some economists feared coming into 2007 has not materialized. Revenue and profits are growing faster than anticipated, and by all measures the economy is booming. So why isn’t Bush getting credit for a good economy? All we heard through the 90s was about Clinton’s handling of the economy. Today’s economy is just as robust and arguably more sound than the bubble from the late 90s. It shows the success of the Bush fiscal policy of tax cuts. Of course, he’ll never get credit for it, but it is one of the unsung successes of the Bush administration.
Posted by Mike on April 23, 2007
Forget the Half Hour News Hour. If you are ever suffering from insomnia or merely in the mood for late night news and entertainment, be sure to check out Fox News’ Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld. Red Eye is basically a program where moderately cool people joke about the news. I think this is what Fox was trying to do with the Half Hour News Hour, but Red Eye actually delivers. It’s not a bad show for 2 AM.
Without question, the best part of the show is Fox News Senior Correspondent, Mrs. Gutfeld (Greg’s mother). Normally she discusses what she saw on Fox News earlier in the day, but on this occasion, she had something else in mind. Move over Mrs. Letterman!
Posted by Mike on April 23, 2007
Boris Yeltsin, the first President of post-Soviet Russia, died today at the age of 76. Known to many as the father of Russian democracy, Yeltsin is best remembered for his bold and courageous leadership against hard line Communists during a coup attempt while the Soviet Union was on the threshold of that ash heap Ronald Reagan spoke of.
As the first President of a democratic Russia, Yeltsin faced a difficult task. With its long tradition of tsars and Communist dictators, democracy was a foreign concept to Russia when Yeltsin assumed power. At times, Yeltsin used heavy-handed tactics to accomplish what he thought was necessary to preserve his country’s new democracy. He did indeed centralize power, but ultimately allowed free and fair elections, including one in 1996 where the outcome was far from certain. Boris Yeltsin helped change the face of Russia and the world is better off for it.
Yeltsin will be remembered as a giant in Russian history. May he rest in peace.
Posted by Mike on April 22, 2007
Al Jazeera. Jonah Goldberg couldn’t add much and neither can I. This joke just writes itself.
Posted by Ryan on April 22, 2007
The final trailer for Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix has come out today and, surprise surprise, is all over YouTube. It looks like it’ll probably be the best movie so far (I think Azkaban, Goblet and Prince are better books). The books get more intense and the story gets larger and more dire as the series continues. I’m really jazzed to see how they condense an 800 page plus book into 2 1/2 hours!
Posted by Mike on April 22, 2007
Something tells me this lady would not have been Miss America in today’s age. When Venus Ramey, Miss America 1944, discovered a thief on her property, she shot out the tires on his truck with a .38-caliber to prevent him from escaping justice. Undoubtedly a bold move, some people wondered what would have happened if the criminal had tried to physically harm her? According to Ramey:
“If they’d even dared come close to me, they’d be 6 feet under by now.”
That’s a better answer than the a lot of the other garbage usually heard at today’s pageants. This lady is pretty cool. She owns a gun, knows how to use it, and clearly isn’t afraid to use it. Don’t expect to see any other criminals on her tobacco farm anytime soon!