Quote of the Day...

From a transcript of Fox News Channel's Hannity & Colmes last night. Ann Coulter said with regard to being heckled during her campus speeches:

"But I think there really is a problem on college campuses and if you want liberalism to continue in this country — I don't — but just to give you a little tip: Liberal students are being let down by their professors, by the world.

I mean, they're buffeted along by a liberal media. They have liberal public school teachers. They go to college. They have liberal professors. They don't know how to argue. They can't put together a logical thought, whereas you could put a college Republican on TV right now and he can debate you and do a credible job. But liberals, they throw food, they curse."

Hat Tip: Powerline

Posted by: Gary at 03:10 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 144 words, total size 1 kb.

UK Election tracking poll...

For those following the Parliamentary elections in Britain, I have the lastest BBC News poll here.

As of the numbers released today, Labour leads with 38%, Tories have 32%, Lib Dems get 22% with 8% for "other". The numbers are not much different than the results on the day the elections were scheduled - Labour 37% & Conservatives 34%. The margin of error for each poll is +/- 3%.

So it would appear that Labour (currently being outside the margin of error) is looking at holding their majority. The only question at this point is how much larger or smaller will that majority be.

Posted by: Gary at 11:20 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 112 words, total size 1 kb.

The Wisdom of the "Bush Tax Cuts"...

Lorie Byrd links to the WaPo story that reports - surprise, surprise - tax receipts went UP this year. What the Post doesn't get - yet again - is that they went up because of Bush's tax policy not in spite of it. As to why the headline isn't "Dems wrong on Bush Tax Cuts", Lorie explains:

Since news like that in the Washington Post today flies in the face of the rhetoric we have heard from Democrats for years (actually decades) it should be big news when they are shown to be wrong. But it wonÂ’t be. Instead we will read about how this is an anomaly and it will be explained by a million other factors. The fact that reduced tax rates often result in increased revenue is something that may never be recognized by the followers of Paul Krugman.

Posted by: Gary at 10:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 156 words, total size 1 kb.

The Wisdom of the "Bush Doctrine"...

In the Baltimore Sun, Herbert London writes "Signs of Bush's Success Can't Be Diminished".

Alexander Solzhenitsyn once remarked that if the totalitarians covered the Earth in cement, there would be a crack and from it would emerge a plant. Despite all of the efforts to control free expression, despite the gulags and the secret police, despite radical mullahs and terror groups, the desire for democracy is inextinguishable.

This is what Mr. Bush is counting on. The tyrannies in the Arab world have received the message. It is not clear which one will next be in the president's sights, but if I were the Syrian or Iranian president, I would not be sleeping soundly.

This, I should hastily note, is not merely a military battle; it is - to use a well-worn cliché - a war of ideas. It is largely a question of letting grass-roots organizations make the democratic arguments the president has unleashed.

Even the ultra-Liberal UK Guardian (cautiously) admits that the policy of opposing tyranny and encouraging democracy in the Middle East is bearing fruit:

We must respect American power, and also acknowledge that the world sometimes has much need of it. As Sir Michael Howard, wisest of British strategic thinkers, often remarks: "If America does not do things, nobody else will." We should acknowledge the limitations of the UN. The pitiful performance of many international peacekeeping contingents, not least in Afghanistan, highlights the feebleness of what passes for European security policy.

Yet it still seems reasonable to question the optimism currently prevailing among Washington's neocons, because this remains founded upon a woefully simplistic vision. It is true that, in some chronic, unstable regions, some bad governments — those of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein — have been removed by the Americans. But the fragile advantages gained will be lost, unless Washington can match its boldness in the deployment of military power with a new sensitivity to alien cultures, matched by far more subtle political skills.

Democracy and freedom are fragile things. And the current changes taking place throughout the Middle East - Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Libya, Lebanon, Syria, Iran - will take time and patience but as long as the execution is consistent with the plan, there's no reason not to be optimistic.

Posted by: Gary at 09:25 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 388 words, total size 3 kb.

The U.S. needs Blair to win...Big time.

I've already laid out my case for a Labour victory in tomorrow's British Parliamentary elections. Essentially, U.S. interests need Blair to remain as PM not to mention the fact that he has been, and remains, a loyal friend.

The American Spectator's John Tabin argues that it's in America's interest for Blair to not just win, but for his party to have a strong enough showing to keep him at the helm. The Tories are too isolationist and a weak victory might cause Labour to supplant Blair with Finance Minister Gordon Brown - no Atlanticist, he.

Almost no one expects Labour to lose its majority. They are ahead in every poll, and even allowing for the historical tendency of the Tories to outperform their poll numbers, Labour is secure; the makeup of the British electoral map means the Conservative Party needs to outperform Labour at the polls by about six percentage points to achieve parity in Parliament. Labour could, however, see its current 160-seat majority shrink significantly, possibly to below 80 seats according to one analysis of polling in "marginals" (what we would call swing districts). That would be bad news, since the conventional wisdom is that the worse Labour does, the harder it will be for Tony Blair to survive. The thinking, writes John O'Sullivan, is that if "Blair's majority falls below 60 seats, he could go within months; if it hovers between 60 and 120, then he might survive a year; only if it remains triumphantly above 120 will he be able to stay as prime minister for the duration of the parliament."

Thus, an irony: The fate of Tony Blair, a true friend to America, depends on electing
many MPs who are anything but. Very well, then: Go, Labour, go!

So grit your teeth and cross your fingers. We should have an idea by late tomorrow afternoon.

Posted by: Gary at 04:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 323 words, total size 2 kb.

Lucas "smack-down" from TKS...

Jim Geraghty of NRO's TKS (aka The Kerry Spot) - damn that's too many acronyms in one sentence - has a thoughtful piece on George Lucas the man, his politics and the strong whiff of hypocrisy that permeates the Skywalker Ranch. Good stuff.

Hat Tip: Robert at The Llama Butchers

Posted by: Gary at 11:55 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 58 words, total size 1 kb.

Revenge of the Sith Soundtrack Review (part 2)...

Yesterday I talked about the CD portion of the movie soundtrack, today I review the free DVD that comes with it.

The DVD is comprised of 16 "video" versions of pieces from all six movies. They're loosely arranged to match the chronological story covering episodes I-VI. Each are introduced by Ian McDiarmid, the actor who portrays Palpatine/The Emperor in most of the films. His introductions don't add anything new to the overall story but they put each clip into the perspective of the whole saga. A nice touch.

This is not a documentary of John Williams' work (I suspect Lucas will save something like that for the DVD release of the movie) so don't expect any insights into the writing of the music.

It is however an enjoyable hour and ten minutes featuring the "best of" the themes from the movies. Each piece includes footage and dialogue from several movies. For example, the "Narrow Escape" music is taken from the asteroid field chase in "The Empire Strikes Back" but it intercuts clips from the Jango Fett/Obi-Wan asteroid scene in "Attack of the Clones" as well as other quick scenes of fast-paced space flight from the other movies.

Some of the music is technically presented out of chronological sequence, most notably the "Imperial March" theme from "Empire" is used to illustrate the rise of the Empire (and Darth Vader) prior to episode IV. Also, the Throne Room finale music is used at the end of the disc even though it was featured earlier in the saga. It ties together all the celebration scenes.

So, on one level the music is arranged from start to finish throughout the story arc and the other level is more thematic.

I really enjoyed this presentation because its the first time all films are presented together as one whole story and you have a greater perspective when you see old scenes from the original trilogy. This DVD is best watched all the way through with the volume turned up. There is an option of a chapter selection menu so that you can view/listen to specific clips. You get a real appreciation of all the work the Williams (and Lucas) put into the music for these films.

My only "complaint" is that there is only one clip from Episode III - although it's a good one. It's called "A Hero Falls" which is set to the track "Battle of the Heroes". But less material from "Sith" is understandable considering the movie hasn't been released yet.

Summary:
All in all this is a great package. Target charged $11.99 (sale price) for the CD, DVD and contains a code that allows you to download a bonus track (which I haven't done yet). The last time I actually bought a Star Wars movie soundtrack was when I was 13 years old and I got the "Empire" double LP. Incidentally I have no idea what ever happened to it. But not only is this soundtrack worth owning, but it gives you something to tide you over until the movie comes out.

Posted by: Gary at 09:20 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 526 words, total size 3 kb.

Revenge of the Sith Soundtrack Review (part 1)...

JUST finished listening to the brand new Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith soundtrack. Quite simply, it's excellent. Very fast paced like the film is expected to be.

Some of the stand-out tracks are "Battle of the Heroes", "Anakin's Betrayal" & "Anakin & Obi-Wan". "Anakin's Dream" mixes a dark, almost scary type of motif with versions of the "love theme" from Episode II.

But the best is saved for last. The final track "A New Hope and End Credits" is really well done. It starts with the music for what should be the last scene of the film - Owen and Beru Lars holding the baby Luke and staring into the twin sunsets of Tatooine. The use of the "force theme" nicely mirrors the one from the scene in "A New Hope" with Luke staring into the same sunsets. But then...BAM - the standard "star wars theme" ending which blends into some of the highlights from the movie.

And here's the best part: it moves into a more hopeful set of themes that foreshadows the eventual redemption of Anakin Skywalker through the compassion of his son. Starting with the celebration theme from the end of "A New Hope", the rest of the track highlights most of the older popular themes from the original trilogy. What a great segue into episode IV.

The set comes with a free bonus 70-minute DVD that chronicles the music from all the films. Can't wait to watch it...and it will be the subject of part 2 of this review.

Posted by: Gary at 02:40 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 276 words, total size 2 kb.

Quite possibility the stupidest article I have ever read...

It's from the NY Times - in the Health section no less - so it shouldn't come as any surprise.

The title is "Ugly Children May Get Parental Short Shrift". The premise? Parents are more likely to neglect ugly kids (define "ugly"?) than good-looking kids. The research is from Canada, so there's another reason to be skeptical.

Researchers at the University of Alberta carefully observed how parents treated their children during trips to the supermarket. They found that physical attractiveness made a big difference.

The researchers noted if the parents belted their youngsters into the grocery cart seat, how often the parents' attention lapsed and the number of times the children were allowed to engage in potentially dangerous activities like standing up in the shopping cart. They also rated each child's physical attractiveness on a 10-point scale.

The findings, not yet published, were presented at the Warren E. Kalbach Population Conference in Edmonton, Alberta.

When it came to buckling up, pretty and ugly children were treated in starkly different ways, with seat belt use increasing in direct proportion to attractiveness. When a woman was in charge, 4 percent of the homeliest children were strapped in compared with 13.3 percent of the most attractive children. The difference was even more acute when fathers led the shopping expedition - in those cases, none of the least attractive children were secured with seat belts, while 12.5 percent of the prettiest children were.

Homely children were also more often out of sight of their parents, and they were more often allowed to wander more than 10 feet away.

You've got to be kidding me. Based on observations in a supermarket, these "researchers" are able to surmise how much or how little parents care for and love children of varying levels of cuteness? First of all who comes up with this "10-point scale" for judging which kids are cute and which ones are ugly?

Here's the big point. Anyone who is a parent knows that how much they love the child drives how cute they think their kid is - not the other way around. Objectively speaking, some kids may not be gorgeous but most often their parents think they are!

And a supermarket is supposed to be so ideal for such observations? You ever been to Stop & Shop with you're kids? So many factors go into whether or not you strap the kid in or allow him to wander more than 10 feet from you! Is the parent harried and distracted? Did they forget to strap the child in? Is the particular child so good about sitting in the cart that the parent doesn't even think to strap them in? Has experience taught the parent that their child is not likely to stray far or does the child always come back when they get too far away? Is the child merely walking toward an eye-catching product on the shelf or a display as opposed to just blithely wandering?

I mean, what the hell? Is the adult with them even their parent?

Here's a real gem from the article:

Posted by: Gary at 12:50 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 734 words, total size 5 kb.

Sorry for the light posting...

I'll have limited PC access over the next couple of days.

You can always search the archives for a topic that pushes your buttons. Scroll down a little to the Technorati search box in the sidebar.

But check back from time to time as I will update on occasion. And I.MUST.BLOG!

Posted by: Gary at 08:55 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 61 words, total size 1 kb.

South Park Quotes...

The blogosphere has South Park on the brain these days. I'm currently reading Brian C. Anderson's "South Park Conservatives" and Frank Rich has read it but completely missed the point.

Right Wing News has a great list of quotes from the show. There are some I like that didn't make the list but one of my (and Betsey Newmark's) favorites that made it:

"Tolerant, but not stupid! Look, just because you have to tolerate something doesn't mean you have to approve of it! ..."Tolerate" means you're just putting up with it! You tolerate a crying child sitting next to you on the airplane or, or you tolerate a bad cold. It can still piss you off!" -- Mr. Garrison (the gay 3rd grade teacher who recently underwent a sex change operation)

Posted by: Gary at 04:57 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 137 words, total size 1 kb.

Judge rules in favor of WA GOP...

Michelle Malkin has the breaking news, via the Seattle Times.

Judge John Bridges this morning said he would allow Republicans to offer statistical analysis to show how illegal voters cast ballots in the November governor's election.
In Chelan County Superior Court, Bridges denied a Democratic Party motion to exclude the evidence, saying he did not see anything in law or court precedent that would prohibit the use of expert testimony to show how illegal votes were cast.

But Bridges said he was not yet accepting the statistical analysis as valid for the trial set to begin May 23. He said the Republican evidence is subject to a separate hearing where Democrats can challenge its scientific value.

Anyone who followed this post-election fiasco and was appalled at the results can take a little relish in this one. Where it will lead? Who knows.

Posted by: Gary at 02:50 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 156 words, total size 1 kb.

School Bans Parents From Sex Ed Class...

You know when a public school doesn't want the parents of students present for a particular class - whether it's sex education or any other class - parents have a right to be concerned. Advocates of sex ed always make the same stupid argument that many kids are not receiving the information at home. While this sounds logical to most people, you need to stop and think about this for a minute. What business is it of the schools what information the students are or are not getting at home with regard to instruction about sex? And who should determine the extent of the information that is given to the kids or at what age is appropriate for such information?

The answers are: none and not the schools.

But let's assume for a minute that enough parents - a majority - are in favor of the schools imparting information of this nature to their children. Is it not reasonable to share with parents (as is customary with any other part of the curriculum) exactly what information is to be taught or allow a parent to "sit-in" on a class (which is also customary for any other instruction)? In Montgomery County, Maryland the question is irrelevant.

Despite the written policy of the school system that welcomes parents into the schools, for this class it doesn't apply.

The policy says, "Classroom visits and conferences by parents and other persons in the school community are encouraged."

Of course a school's spokesman gave their rationale -

"If you're in a classroom and you want to have a frank discussion among your peers, with whom you've developed trust, and you're going to have Johnny Smith's mother sitting in the corner, you're not going to be as honest," he said.

Parents who are concerned about the new curriculum because they think it favors a homosexual agenda and encourages promiscuity said keeping them out of the classroom when the new sex-ed curriculum is being taught is "a big mistake."

"There isn't anything in the school curriculum that parents should not be able to go and hear for themselves," said Michelle Turner, president of Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum (CRC). "If the school feels that parents shouldn't be in the classroom, then that's a red flag for parents."

Here's my point. Why are "frank discussions" necessary? If the purpose is to impart the information in a classroom setting, why the need to promote "honesty" from the students? I thought the important thing was simply giving the facts, not sharing experiences. Questions for factual clarification are one thing, but questions that require an opinion, interpretation or moral judgements should be directed back to the parents - because it's the parent's responsibility and sole authority to address such questions. Not the school. And especially not a school that is funded by very parents who want a say in their children's education.

If the school is so focused on "honesty" and openness then shutting out the parents is the ultimate form of hypocrisy.

Let's be honest. The reason parents are not welcome in this class is that there is an agenda being pushed by the school - one that is bent on presenting certain lifestyles, choices and practices that a vast majority of parents would - at the very least - prefer to discuss with their children themselves. If a certain point of view is to be emphasized, only the parents have the right to do so. The children belong to their parents, not to the school system.

Under pressure from the CRC [Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum], the schools last month removed a sentence in the curriculum that stated: "Sex play with friends of the same gender is not uncommon during early adolescence."

The schools also removed a statement that said that students would "discuss how you develop your sexual identity."

I'm sorry, there is just no legitimate argument for having this class at all. If any other adults tried to take a child aside and have such discussions with them without their parents knowledge, that person would be arrested and prosecuted.

But because it's the school system parents are just supposed to sit by and accept it? I don't think so.

Posted by: Gary at 09:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 712 words, total size 5 kb.

Frank Rich thinks he "gets it", but he doesn't...

NY Times "Media Critic" Frank Rich uses the new book "South Park Conservatives" to rant about the recent Terri Shiavo situation.

First of all let me say that I am currently reading "South Park Conservatives" (the full title of which continues "The Revolt Against Liberal Media Bias") and not only is it an awesome book but Frank Rich seems to totally miss the point. The book's title refers to a phrase coined by Andrew Sullivan to describe those young conservatives who grew up watching the disembowelling of Liberalism over the last twenty years and have made a conscious decision to flip the finger at Liberal media bias and the culture of political correctness that has come from it.

I'll save more of the book for my upcoming review. But suffice to say that Rich uses a recent episode of South Park that involves a Schiavo-like situation to illustrate that the creators - Trey Parker and Matt Stone - of the series are not in agreement with the (cue "imperial theme") evil theocratic Christian conservatives who are attempting to overthrow the government and impose their philosophy on squishy morally-relative liberals like Rich. (end music).

First of all, the book goes so far as to put as asterisk after the title to make sure people understand that the show's creators have no connection to the title. Second, the book's author, Brian C. Anderson is not saying that the show is an exact representation of the phenomena he is describing. The point of the book is that today's Conservatives, especially the younger ones, see through Liberalism's waning influence in the media and are unabashed in their enjoyment of making fun of it.

But that doesn't stop Frank Rich from taking the opportunity to "warn" social conservatives of overreach:

But in this crusade, too, few on the right seem to recognize that they're overplaying their hand; they keep upping the ante. One powerful senator, Ted Stevens of Alaska, has proposed that cable and satellite be policed by the federal government along with broadcast television - a death knell for even the Sirius incarnation of Howard Stern, not to mention much of Comedy Central. A powerful House committee chairman, James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, topped that by calling for offenders to be pursued through a "criminal process." Last week President Bush signed a Family Entertainment and Copyright Act that allows "family-friendly" companies to sell filter technology that cleans up DVD's of Hollywood movies without permission or input from the films' own authors and copyright holders.

Rich of course doesn't go on to explain that Stevens' proposal went over like a fart in church and fell by the wayside. And who but the most rabid family-hostile Liberals would have a problem with giving parents the power to control what their children watch. Where were these idiots when Bubba was advocating the "v-chip" or when Tipper was calling for warning labels on Guns 'N Roses albums?

Rich is simply trying to advance the idea that the social conservatives in the Republican party are attempting to intimidate the nation and impose a set of values on those that do not already subscribe to them.

What he doesn't "get" is that "South Park Conservatives" is lampooning another group of people that try to intimidate the nation and impose a set of values on those that do not already subscribe to them - they're called "politically-correct" Liberals.

Posted by: Gary at 02:38 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 583 words, total size 4 kb.

Oh yeah! "Family Guy" is BACK on the air...

I never watched this show when it was in its first run. A buddy of mine that I work with bought the series on DVD and gave them to me to watch. I gotta tell you this show is so DAMN FUNNY you won't believe it.

Apparently, so many people bought the DVD's that they woke up and realized how much folks loved the show - and they've brought it back.

New episodes start tonight. If you've never seen it before I promise you that if you watch it, you'll love it. If you don't like it, you have no sense of humor. Not as in-your-face crude as South Park, but much more subtle. TONS of pop culture references.

Posted by: Gary at 01:56 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 145 words, total size 1 kb.

Tyranny of the majority?

Wow, they drained the embalming fluid out of Mario Cuomo's veins so he could deliver the Democrat Weekly Radio Address. His message - forget the elections, the party out of power has rights too! When you have drag this fool out to make your case on judicial nominees (not that there is a legitimate one to be made), you're in sorry-ass shape.

Hat Tip to New England Republican. Contributor "The Northeast Dilemma" weighs in:

No mention of Bush's win last fall - probably too relevant for Cuomo. I am sensing a sort of panic among Democrats that the GOP might actually have the votes to do this. AND I am enjoying every second of it!!!

You me both, chief.

Posted by: Gary at 10:20 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 126 words, total size 1 kb.