(saw this short interstitial on ShoNext, one of the digital Showtime channels)

Below are some of the arguments used to suppored the practice and why each of them is wrong...

1. Is there a state or national interest in demanding that a profession or school have a higher "ethnic diversity" ratio? There clearly isn't an interes in rigging the rules where that happens. How is it better to have more doctors of a minority race, for example? Does a black doctor do a better job than a white doctor? What interest does the state have in fixing the rules to get more unqualified minority doctors in hospitals, while forcing highly qualified white doctors out of hospitals by rigging the system?

2. In regards to school admissions- what interest does it serve to keep out whites with high test scores and better qualifications and enroll black students who have lower test scores and fewer qualifications? How does a more ethnically diverse student body help the state or even the school itself? With the logic of affirmative action rulings- the following has to be true for all schools.

If one school is 50% white and 50% non-white (may those students be black americans, asian americans, hispanic americans, etc), and another school has a ratio of 90% white to 10% non-white...the first school with a more "racially diverse" student body HAS to be a better school that is more capable of teaching students. It also has to be better for society as a whole- because, the affirmative action laws claim that a more racially diverse student body, even if said students have lower test scores and fewer qualifications, is a much better learning environment, which has to lead to high test scores and more qualified graduates.

Of course, we know that is not the case. If that were the case, you'd also have to say that colleges that are considered, traditionally, to be mostly black are failures in the same sense...due to their lack of racial diversity in the student body. Racial diversity does not, by definition, make a positive. If you take a room full of high school drop outs that is racially diverse, and a group of all white graduate students- wouldn't the all white group be better suited for more jobs? Wouldn't they probably be better suited to run things (companies, schools, government bodies, etc), and wouldn't they be better suited to success out in the real world overall? The idea that the most racially diverse group of people is better for all involved and closer to some sort of mystical utopia is, in itself, a racist idea...it asserts that people of different races are vastly different creatures just because of their skin tone, and it's obvious that such an idea is not only factually inaccurate, but wholly discriminatory itself.

3. SCOTUS and lower courts have ruled that affirmative action programs that cause higher college enrollment of minority students that aren't meant to be where they are (they're given spots they haven't earned, and most of them find that they cannot handle the pressures of being in a spot where they have no right to be in to begin with) actually lead to a decrease in discrimination. But, common sense tells us that that the opposite is almost surely true most of the time. If you give a job to an unqualified minority worker because of his skin color, that means that he doesn't have to work as hard to climb the ladder of success, that he doesn't have to play by the same rules...that a white worker can work ten times harder and longer, and be much more qualified, yet that white worker can be refused the job in order to comply with the inherent racism of affirmative action plans. It's obvious to everyone (besides the courts who made these absurd rulings, and those who support them- mainly liberals), that this sort of discrimination CREATES MORE racism. If a black worker took the job that you had worked for, and he got that job simply because of his skin color, wouldn't that create racial tension, and even possibly aninmosty towards that person because of race (which easily leads to a subtle form of racism due to your own plight caused by racism in the first place?)

Giving undeserved promotions, jobs, contracts, or school enrollments to minorities who might be less qualified, might not work as hard and as long to get there, and who might be anywhere near ready for the position they find themselves in obviously will lead to more tension between groups of different races. Anyone who thinks that this plan will lead to less "discrimination" (we'll fix long-past discrimination of one group by discriminating the other group today!), is living in a fantasy world and knows nothing about human nature.

These three points (some of the main points made by those who support racism based hiring and enrollment (aff. action) take common sense and human nature and turn them on their head. The ideas are completely backward. Racism doesn't solve racism...and one would be a fool to think it does. The whole idea asserts that blacks are different than any other white. That blacks are not as capable, that blacks are different socially and culturally...I just don't find that to be the case in the general sense. And where those differences do exist, I think it's mainly due to the idea pushed on the American people by those who support absurd ideas such as affirmative action and other ideas which have reverse discrimination at their core. Sure, there are subtle differences in economic classes and by ideology, as well as groups living in different areas (a new englander will have a slightly different view of the world than someone from Alabama, for example), but in the general sense- it's dangerous to look at the different races as being completely different creatures, having vastly different ideas of how the world works, and of human nature itself. If those differences actually do exist in the real world, then frankly- we're doomed as a society, and we'll be in need of a lot more than "affirmative action."

MORE:
Affirmative Action Hurts Those It's Supposed to Help
On flattering minorities (Jeff Jacoby)
The Affirmative Action Myth (Cato Institute)

click each for full size image

Here's a picture Bush, his brother, a cousin (by marriage), and Condi Rice at a Washington Nationals game.

This just looks wrong. It looks like the president suddenly whipped it out and started taking a pee or something and everyone is shocked or amazed (or maybe both.)

In a new press release/article, she attacks what she calls "right-wing hysteria", "the vast right wing conspiracy", "right-wing screed", and more in her hit piece on anyone who disagrees with her. Her non-apology apology for her disgusting claims during a journalism gathering that American military is targeting and murderering journalists.

Why is she so angry? I'd sure like to know. She attacks everyone who disagrees with her as a right-wing loony...she attacks what she calls "talk-radio blabbers who peddle hate," and everyone else who disagreed with her. She says she gave one interview to Editor and Publisher, because she figured it "Was a credible publication"- in her eyes, any of the other media outlets that called on her to apologize for her outrageous attacks on the soldiers (wholly inaccurate at that) are not considered credible. Only a publication that will most likely not disagree with her is considered to be credible.

The head of Sinclair broadcasting is a "hack" in Foley's opinion. Why? Because they planned on airing that John Kerry documentary (it was an anti-Kerry documentary), a documentary she ALSO attacks (because it's right-wing in her mind, and all things conservative are evil, I'd assume.) So, Sinclair's chief is a hack, and she claims he never really "broke" (she puts the quotes around the word herself) story, since there wasn't a story to begin with.

A large newspaper union chief makes obscene claims that US military personnel are targeting journalists (no proof of this at all), yet that shouldn't have ever been a story?!! IS she insane? I have to honestly wonder.

She says:

It would all be amusing were it not for the vicious, mean-spirited—sometimes pornographic, sometimes threatening—e-mails and phone messages these hate-stokers from Fox & Co. generated. The misogynistic language and name-calling don’t bother me so much, although if some of these e-mails were read on a network program like the David Letterman Show, Brent Bozell (another social commentator who has called for my resignation) undoubtedly would be clamoring to get the entire CBS network thrown off the air for good for violating obscenity standards.

So, I assume she thinks that everyone with Fox News is a "right-wing" nut as well? Why even attack "Fox. & Co." as "hate-stokers"? That's immature, it's stupid, it's offensive, and it goes a long way to prove that she is, indeed, LEFT OF THE LEFT, as many have claimed of the group of journalists at the conference where she made her idiotic remarks.

This is the president of a large newspaper union for heaven's sake! Does that not say ten kinds of shit about our media in this country?! You thought Dan Rather was bad? At least he's not a stark raving lunatic. Foley clearly fits that description quite well, and she continues to prove it everytime she opens her mouth.

PREVIOUS:
Newspaper Guild Chief: US Targeting Journalists in IraqMore on Comments from Newspaper Guild President Foley
Newspaper Guild Attacks Foley Detractors as "Looniest Fringe"

You knew when he kept trying to deny the obvious that his truth telling was suspect.

Then, the very outcome of the film- if you eat NOTHING but McDonald's for every single meal every single day, you'll gain weight, and you won't be as healthy. Well, stop the fucking presses, Spurlock has made the discovery of the century. Fast food companies are evil is the message you'll get from the film, and they're out to fool dumb consumers into thinking they can eat fast food for every meal and be as healthy as can be...of course we know this isn't true, because common sense tells us that the average person is smart enough to know that fast food every single meal is NOT healthy. The average person knows that, gosh- if you do eat nothing but fast food, you will probably be sick.

Spurlock's diet while making the film was absurd as it was...for people who eat fast food a lot (not every meal- I've never met anyone who does that), no one eats as much as he did in every sitting. I don't know many people that eat 3 meals a day, let alone 3 meals and all of them at a fast food joint. I don't know anyone who ALWAYS goes and ALWAYS orders the super size drink, fries, etc. So, we can easily deduce that his diet while doing all of this was ridiculously obscene and not at all realistic- which makes his entire point a moot one. If you're eating a diet and you MIGHT be able to find a handful of people in the entire nation that eat the same exact way (even that is doubtful when you think about it!), isn't your entire thesis ruined?

The point is- Spurlock's film was poorly thought out, his goal to attack fast food was already written in stone before he began, and the documentary, overall, was just an attack on the fast food companies- McDonald's in particular...which is fine, you can make attack pieces all you want, but he was never honest about his true intent, and he pretended this was a serious quest (he acted shocked when his doctor examined him afterwards- trust me, Morgan, you were the ONLY one shocked.)

His new project on FX...a "reality"/documentary series called 30 Days, it turns out, is just as phony...

http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110006868

Debbie Schlussel was asked to be on an upcoming episode of the show...an episode about muslims living in America, and as was the case with Super Size Me, Morgan had the ending set in stone before he even began the episode. The premise of the show is that he will take different people and put them in someone elses shoes for 30 days and document what happens to them...

In her article about this, Debbie quotes the show summary from the producers:

"This process aims to deconstruct common misconceptions and stereotypes. . . . Our character will learn firsthand about Islam and the daily issues that . . . Muslims in America face today. The viewers will witness our character emerge from the immersion situation with a deeper understanding and appreciation for the Muslim-American experience. . . . The potential is great for this program to enlighten a national television audience about the Muslim American experience and increase their compassion, understanding and support."

The producers for the show are the same ones who did Michael Moore's TV show, The Awful Truth. I think that says it all. Spurlock who showed himself to be incapable of even honesty with his "documentary" (hit piece) on fast food with producers from a Michael Moore TV show- maybe the title of the show should be, As Much Dishonest Propaganda We Could Pack Into a TV Series!

As was missing from Super Size Me...don't expect any truth to come out of this series. Unfortunately, like Michael Moore, Spurlock will fool millions into buying his bologna...for the rest of us who know better, we'll be sitting this one out.

On Cavuto- claims Rumsfeld has never given any strategy on what we'll do in Iraq, or when we will make any plan to pullout. She claims that there's no proof that the Sunnis are writing a Constitution.

She says that it's quite possible the administration lied (tho no evidence exists to suggest that).

She goes on to attack Bush's war plans...she says the US has no idea why on earth we're in Iraq, and she claims we "don't have the facts" here. She complains of Cheney's view that the insurgency is losing ground, that it's in its last throes. She kept going on and on about how we need truth (and implying we're not getting it)...she complains we haven't had an arab summit with our arab allies. She says we're not working with our allies to get them involved in Iraq- a complaint that makes no sense. Is she suggesting we try to get the saudis or the iranians to join us in Iraq? Does she not realize nearly all the arab governments are terrorist friendly? That's the liberal way- attack attack attack and demand that the US hold a summit!

She's part of what I think she said is called the 'Out of Iraq Caucus.'

Just to show you how clueless liberals are on the issue of defense, military action, and how to fight and win wars. All they can do is claim lies were told, that we have no idea why we're in Iraq, that the war is a sham, that it's a disaster, a quagmire, a loss, etc. Jackson Lee, the fool from Texas, is no different...maybe one of the worst in this group.

MORE:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/957150/posts
http://decision08.blogspot.com/2005/02/weekly-jackass-number-twelve-sheila.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33896

Sure, any unplanned event at 130 MPH has to be scary, but when on earth did this sort of thing become a "crash"?

I'm also wondering why they had to play the video (that just showed the boat coasting onto the bank) over and over and over...and then play it back in slow motion.

Goes to show you how the media will hype a story, trying to make it look as bad as they possibly can, using key words like "crash" that will get your attention, when in reality the event was nothing like it was described.

I will try to get out tomorrow to the hills overlooking the riverfront area itself and take pictures...If I can find a cable to run to my VCR from my camcorder, I might take video.

And since I was outside, I took some other pictures as well (before I went swimming.)

The pool and the view to the east (north? I'm not sure)...

The dog(s)...

And, because I got bored, I took a picture of the sun.

Since, I'm too lazy to link each picture to it's full size version, here is the folder...
http://thebluesite.com/images/june242005/

You could have hit properties and found it yourself, but I'm just a helpful guy.

Ted Kennedy is a traitor, he's guilty of treason, and he's a braindead idiot.

Kennedy to the troops- you're fighting a war that is going terrible, you're losing, you're risking your life for a wrong war and a lie, and you're all bogged down in a "quagmire."

Great job, Teddy! As always, great job!

UPDATE: Ya know...regarding Kennedy's obscene statements on Iraq- there's one more thing to note. Since that nation is no longer under an occupation, the government has taken control overall, his claim of a quagmire and a war that has been "mismanaged" every step of the way (also an absurd claim) is an attack on the Iraqi government, security forces, and military in a way. If he's telling the US military they've made a mess in Iraq- which is exactly what he was saying...you can't stop there logically- if what he says is the case, you have to figure that the Iraqi government and their security forces and military are also failing in all of their duties. That's nowhere near the case either, but Kennedy is delusional, so most of what he says isn't based on fact or reality.

A quick google search shows that Fatina is a bit unhinged already, so this op-ed shouldn't come as much of a surprise.

A few points...
She's a "palestinian"- American who complains:

Abdrabboh fears that she, a Palestinian American, and other Arab Americans will become the target of unwarranted wiretaps, monitoring and secret hearings solely because of their ethnicity. She has tucked away most of her favorite "I am Muslim" T-shirts and changed the "Free Palestine" screen saver on her computer.

"My freedom of identity and expression are gone," said Abdrabboh, 21, of Dearborn. "I get the feeling that I'm being watched."

"Free palestine"?? The hallmark of an arab nutjob. There is no palestine for one, and two- a place that doesn't exist cannot be un-free!

So, America is to blame for her loss of "freedom of identity and expression"? Get real!! She worries, without any cause or evidence to suggest this might be the case, that she will lose her freedoms for being a muslim and that the government will be watching her every move, wiretapping her phones, and holding her for secret hearings (probably in dark underground bunkers will they'll beat her and pee on her copy of the koran, I'm sure!) Clearly, she's a bit out of it to begin with...as much is quite obvious.

An unhinged NY Times op-ed that is probably totally bogus (let's try to ask Gore if he remember this supposed event) by a woman who is paranoid, bitter, and all too angry at the world. She wants to "free palestine," so it'd be interesting to get her take on the terrorism in Israel and terrorism in general. She complains, without a reason, that her rights are going to be limited because of her "ethnicity" and that she's brought down daily by this nation and Americans themselves (don't stare at her, it'll make her feel bad, and she might be forced to tears...hell, maybe those rude, staring Americans might even cause her to do something bad!) I'm not suprised to see this from the Times the paper of record! ha!) or an angry young muslim woman. She probably does her own "people" that she's so worried about even more trouble when she whines and moans over imagined transgressions she claims to experience on a daily basis.

Democrats go ape shit and attack Rove's comments as terrible, they're disgusting, all that...yet, he never even said anything about Democrats, he said liberals. Many Democrats are liberal, but still- it's ridiculous. It was also clear that he was talking about SPECIFIC liberals with a certain mindset, not all people who are liberal. And, the fact is- that has for sometime been the dominating liberal mindset- Clinton himself treated terrorism as a law enforcement issue and nothing else for EIGHT YEARS!! So, when Rove states a fact, his comments are deplorable, yet when Dean attacks personally, or Durbin attacks the military as nazis, there's no huge outcry? Are these people freaking kidding me?

And, what on earth is Hillary talking about? She wants Donald Rumsfeld to demand Rove apologize for what she calls "insulting" comments? If it's true, and it was her husband's OWN policy for two terms as president, how on earth is it insulting? By saying that, if she not also attacking her husband? Many liberals HAVE said that we should treat these terrorists as a law enforcement issue, that it's not a war on terror (many have claimed there IS NO war on terror), and that we should try to look at WHY they attack and try to understand them and where they're coming from...so Rove's comments were spot on, but I assume the Democrats want to look like they're tough when it comes to the military and war? They want to pretend that they're possible, more times than not, ISN'T a soft approach, and that they have long seen terrorism as a crime not an act of war? Will Hillary now work to repudiate all of the actions by her husband while president, since he did exactly what Rove said liberals do?

The party of hate refuses to apologize for comments comparing the soldiers' actions to those of nazis, but when Rove makes a true statement, they go ape shit. Amazing.

There's no doubt the Court is indeed usurping power from the other branches of government, and the court has long been creating law as opposed to interpreting the law. When they actually do interpret the law, they often times refer to documents other than the US Constitution, and clearly that's not what the federal judiciary was set up to do. The founders worried over the idea of a Supreme Court, knowing that these judges, who are not accountable to any other branch of government nor the people themselves, could easily assert their own decisions based on nothing but personal opinions, attitudes, and beliefs, as opposed to the law as it was written by the founders and agreed upon by the people.

Take the 1st Amendment rulings for example...it's quite clear that the founders wanted to make sure that government could play no role in limiting the people's free exercise of their religion, but SCOTUS has actually issued rulings that ban religious speeches, prayers, etc. by public schools, public officials, and other aspects of public life by saying that Americans have a right not to have their feelings hurt. In ruling on pre-game prayers at Texas high school football games, the court ruled that by allowing a prayer, some people in the crowd might feel like outsiders, and because of that it was illegal. Clearly the Constitution contains no right of Americans to not feel left out, like outsiders, etc. One ruling said that it wasn't legal to make people feel like they were being psychologically coerced thru peer pressure to join in a prayer they didn't want to, for fear of being seen as different...the founding documents make no mention of any of this, and there are no guaranteed rights like these, but the court found it just and fair to create these laws themselves. Judical activism in its purest form.

On the issue of abortion- the court created an imaginary "right to privacy" that doesn't exist in the US Constitution. It started out with cases involving married couples and contraception, and went from that to unmarried couples and rulings that proclaimed that Americans had a right to privacy, and because of that made up right to privacy, the court could rule that many laws in many states were Unconstitutional, even if the Constitution made no mention of any of the things the court claimed were inherent rights of all Americans.

The abortion rulings and precedents were also written by justices who were, at best, ruling on emotion and personal opinion, and at worst- ruling on issues due to a hunger for power and popularity. One justice who wrote majority opinions on Roe v Wade actually got fan mail from many who supported his decisions, and according to his law clerk, the justice at it up and started turning quite radical in his rulings after he started to get letters from "fans." The same justice came up with the complicated schedule of trimesters and in which time period abortion is legal and illegal...his absurd rulings have lead to SCOTUS rulings that overturned state bans on partial birth abortion.

These are just two subjects in a very well written and well thought out book (as I can tell so far)...I've found nothing that isn't logical in Levin's argument that the court is, indeed, destroying America. When the supreme court of the land creates imaginary law that was never supposed to be to begin with, and when that same courts limits and even destroys rights guaranteed to all Americans by our founders, there's little doubt that that same court is, in reality, destroying America and our way of life. The court will continue to rule based on bogus precedent set by former justices, and it all turns out to be a vicious circle of illegality transformed into the law of the land. I've no doubt that, left unchecked, the court will continue to create laws that the Constitution never mentioned, dictate new rights that that document never intended, and slowly chip away at the rights that we were once guaranteed but now have to fight to protect and save.

I never heard this before, or maybe I did but forgot, but this is what NY Times editor Howard Raines had to say of Bush in the run up to the 2004 election:

"Does anyone in America doubt that Kerry has a higher IQ than Bush? I'm sure the candidates' SATs and college transcripts would put Kerry far ahead."

Well, when Kerry FINALLY released the military records he vowed to release throughout the campaign (only actually doing so in the last few weeks), it was shown that Kerry's cumulative grade point score was a 76 and Bush's score was a 77 (both C's under grading systems at the time.) Funny how the newspaper of record has an editor that is so clueless, attacking without ANY information, and ultimately making an ass of himself when the truth comes out and he's totally wrong. Is it safe to assume Raines scored even lower than either Bush or Kerry in college, considering his idiotic attacks?

Elder mentions a retired Yale history professor who had both men in the class she taught. She only remembers Kerry, and that he was a "smart student." When she finds out that Kerry got a 71 and a 79 in her history courses, she said, "uh, oh. I thought he was [a] good student. Those aren't very good grades." Bush, in the same course, got an 88- 9 points above Kerry's higher grade and 17 points over Kerry's lower grade. Which one is the dummy again?

This sort of thing shows the obvious media bias that runs rampant in much of the mainstream media, and it shows how stupid the MSM can look when the facts come out. They all attacked Bush as a bumbling fool with no brains, and that Kerry was a brilliant man, an eloquent speaker, and clearly Bush's intellectual superior. Looking at grades and test scores, it's obvious that Bush was, in fact, the superior in this regard.

As Elder points out...a Fox News poll taken a week after Kerry's grades were released, only 27% of those polled believed that Bush got better grades and 43% still believe that Kerry's grades were actually higher. Which begs the question Elder asks, "Does the contained-no-bombshells media play a role in voters' ignorance of current events?"

Great question...you have to wonder how much of a role the media's biased reporting on important issues like Iraq, social security, and the recent debate over the judicial filibuster plays in the thinking and attitudes of the American people? Sadly, the truth is- the media's portrayal of events, no matter how woefully inaccurate, affect the way millions of Americans see the most important issues we face, and when so many in the media are so obviously biased and so factually inaccurate so much of the time, it does all Americans a grave disservice.

I never heard this before, or maybe I did but forgot, but this is what NY Times editor Howard Raines had to say of Bush in the run up to the 2004 election:

"Does anyone in America doubt that Kerry has a higher IQ than Bush? I'm sure the candidates' SATs and college transcripts would put Kerry far ahead."

Well, when Kerry FINALLY released the military records he vowed to release throughout the campaign (only actually doing so in the last few weeks), it was shown that Kerry's cumulative grade point score was a 76 and Bush's score was a 77 (both C's under grading systems at the time.) Funny how the newspaper of record has an editor that is so clueless, attacking without ANY information, and ultimately making an ass of himself when the truth comes out and he's totally wrong. Is it safe to assume Raines scored even lower than either Bush or Kerry in college, considering his idiotic attacks?

Elder mentions a retired Yale history professor who had both men in the class she taught. She only remembers Kerry, and that he was a "smart student." When she finds out that Kerry got a 71 and a 79 in her history courses, she said, "uh, oh. I thought he was [a] good student. Those aren't very good grades." Bush, in the same course, got an 88- 9 points above Kerry's higher grade and 17 points over Kerry's lower grade. Which one is the dummy again?

This sort of thing shows the obvious media bias that runs rampant in much of the mainstream media, and it shows how stupid the MSM can look when the facts come out. They all attacked Bush as a bumbling fool with no brains, and that Kerry was a brilliant man, an eloquent speaker, and clearly Bush's intellectual superior. Looking at grades and test scores, it's obvious that Bush was, in fact, the superior in this regard.

As Elder points out...a Fox News poll taken a week after Kerry's grades were released, only 27% of those polled believed that Bush got better grades and 43% still believe that Kerry's grades were actually higher. Which begs the question Elder asks, "Does the contained-no-bombshells media play a role in voters' ignorance of current events?"

Great question...you have to wonder how much of a role the media's biased reporting on important issues like Iraq, social security, and the recent debate over the judicial filibuster plays in the thinking and attitudes of the American people? Sadly, the truth is- the media's portrayal of events, no matter how woefully inaccurate, affect the way millions of Americans see the most important issues we face, and when so many in the media are so obviously biased and so factually inaccurate so much of the time, it does all Americans a grave disservice.