Roundup

The big discussion today is this report of a frightening airline flight. I'm sure the Dems will try to spin this as another failure of the administration, but that would make the PC party look like hypo. . . er, well, more like they've been looking.

On the other hand, this may have been a dry run for a suicide bombing, and one must wonder what would have happened had this been for real. Perhaps it was just misperception, but the fact that these Syrians checked out as members of a musical group doesn't rule them out as suicide bombers as well. If this was practice or a test, those fourteen could go on to bring down 6 or 7 airplanes between now and November 2.

Then there's more on an Enron type scandal in big media, falsely hyping their circulatons to either keep ad rates high or inflate them; either way to cheat their advertisers. It's not bad enough to be editorially dishonest, they're crossing into to fiscal fraud as well. There's a lot of dry rot in the fourth estate, yet they seem to still think they're entitled to tell us all what to think. This may be an important warning for us complacent Americans. Are we paying attention?

Los Alamos has been shut down by its director for safety and security violations. Maybe this is why Americans can't have nuclear power generation: We don't take necessary precautions and rules seriously. We also seem to suffer from attention deficit when we're at war, allowing politics to distract us from the urgent needs of defending the nation. I'm sure that there were people in 1942 who wondered why we were fighting Germany, since it had never attacked us. Yet the very people today who admonished us that we needed to understand and address the roots of terrorism are the ones urging us now to drop a strategy designed to do that. Of course, they are so blinded by hate after their loss of control, that they would throw away the sacrifices we've made and break faith with the Iraqis and the 20 or 30 odd allies who fought with us, in order to
appease the Russians, Germans, French and Belgians. We've done it before, so why not again? Why not take a break from this war on terror and use the money to pay for meds for AARPA members? That sounds like the argument of people who don't have children.

Feel the HATE!

The NAACP is about as hypocritical as the national press is. I just saw a replay of the ad it ran against Bush in 2000, where it claimed that Bush's opposition to hate crime legislation was just like dragging James Byrd to death all over again. Now they're making a big deal out Bush's refusal to speak to their convention. Kweisi Mfume, not his birth name, was shown comparing Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Rod Paige and other blacks given important positions in the Bush administration to "ventriloquists' dummies" mouthing their "puppet master's voice, but we see whose lips are moving." That and the vicious attacks by Julian Bond reveal a greater interest in delivering black votes to the Democrats than in the advancement of colored people.

I have a feeling that Bill Cosby spoke for more blacks than Mfume and Bond in his recent remarks, and he said what a lot of whites have been thinking for a long time, civil rights only take you so far, after that you have to grab the opportunities and make the most of them, as Cosby has done. It's sadly ironic to see black politicians turning into the carpetbaggers of the twenty-first century seeking political advantage through the ignorance of their fellow African-Americans. Bush will speak to the Urban League where he can at least be sure that they will listen to him and won't use it as an opportunity to humiliate him.

More and more, the left is reciting falsehoods which it and the press have manufactured carefully over the past year. "Bush dismissed our traditional allies, and failed to build a coalition." What do they think all those efforts at the U.N. were about? And since when are Germany and France our "tradtional allies?" They dismissed us and sold their votes in the UN to Saddam Hussein, and we're to blame? There hasn't been this much pernicious lying since Goebbels was a big shot in Germany. The Big Lie is back in operation.

The new Kerry ads, "Get to know him!" aimed at African Americans have been released and immediately thudded. They're embarrassing. The Black Caucus have denounced them. He's also getting flak for snubbing Hillary Clinton at the convention. Leftist protesters are plotting to disrupt the Republican Convention in New York. That should really help Kerry a lot, sort of like the 1968 Democrat Convention, when the Democrats torpedoed their own convention. As this sinks in throughout the country, I think that serious voters are likely to react to the hysteria as they did in 1968, and vote Republican.

Hugh Hewitt's new book, If It's Not Close, They Can't Cheat. I'm waiting for my copies to get here, but it sounds like a manual for worried patriots on the importance of this election and how to trounce the Democrats. They really need a smack up 'side the head, if there's any hope for them in the future, not that I really think we need a socialist party in this country. I do think that "there must needs be an opposition in all things (that's a Book of Mormon quote, BTW), if only to keep Republicans honest.

I ordered mine!

Hugh Hewitt has been flogging his new book, If It's Not Close, They Can't Cheat. It sounds like the perfect title, and, knowing Hugh, it'll be cogent as well as hard hitting. James Lileks had kind words for it, to the effect that it is factual and reasonable, not just a lot of wild ranting. The title is pretty confrontive, but when the media themselves say that Kerry is getting 15 points worth of support from their bias, I think it's time to take off the gloves. From what's been on Fox News, Bush has decided the same thing. Kerry has decided that Edwards will supply the charisma he so sorely lacks, but Edwards gets old fast. He's just repeating the old welfare state blather from the LBJ era.

It's not bias; it's a disease!

Orson Scott Card offers a primer on media bias, and the term "bulldog journalism: Once you get hold of a story, you never loosen your grip until your victim dies." It's also what James Taranto called the press's "porno addiction" for continuously mentioning the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal in every story as something that wasn't mentioned by this or that speaker. I'd prefer a different term, because I like bulldogs and persistence is generally a positive trait. How about obsessive-compulsive journalism or tinfoil helmet journalism? It truly resembles a mental illness when one considers it news that Donald Rumsfeld didn't mention the Abu Ghraib scandal in his commencement address at West Point. At least Chevy Chase's weekly report that Generalissimo Franciso Franco was still dead was an attempt at humor, as was Rush Limbaugh's counting the days that America had been held hostage to the Clinton administration.

I once had a client who had assaulted a police officer who came to investigate a complaint because she was sure that he was in league with the Post Office in its plot against her. When I was appointed to assist her, she was clear-headed thanks to anti-psychotic medication, but she remembered how obvious it seemed to her at the time. Imagine what it would have been like if all of her work associates and bosses had been sharing the same delusion. It's kind of scary to see half the country in thrall to such a compulsive hatred and fixation on a man they think is too dumb to be president, a brazen liar, and yet an evil mastermind who has somehow managed to derail the Constitution. It seems like mass hysteria, and you'd think that they'd snap out of it as soon as someone realizes how crazy he sounds. Maybe it can only be cured by a defeat in November, but if they're this gonzo now, what will it be like if they lose another election? Probably like watching the wreck of the Hindenberg in slow-motion.

"All the spin we can print."

The New York Times is continuing its insistence that the Bush administration claimed that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and had close working relationship with Al Qaeda. It has no integrity or shame.

Bare Branches and national security

When a society prefers sons to daughters to the extent found in parts of contemporary Asia, it will not only have fewer daughters but also create a subclass of young men likely to have difficulty finding wives and beginning their own families. Because son preference has been a significant phenomenon in Asia for centuries, the Chinese actually have a term for such young men: guang gun-er or "bare branches" � branches of the family tree that will never bear fruit. The girls who should have grown up to be their wives were disposed of instead.. . .

Should the leaders of these nations be worried? The answer is yes. Throughout history, bare branches in East and South Asia have played a role in aggravating societal instability, violent crime and gang formation.

The authors warn of the effects on Indian and Chinese society of the use of prenatal testing and abortion of female children who are less valued by those societies than boys. Arab societies are similar in this respect. China and India are presently producing about 25% more boys than girls. If you wonder where future terrorists will come from, you might want to watch this demographic.