Boortz Pops a Rivet

Neal Boortz:

How long was it going to take before a Defeatocrat came up with this one? John Murtha—our favorite moonbat from Pennsylvania—says that the terrorists arrested in the JFK plot were a product of the war in Iraq. Basically, if we had not gone into Iraq, this terrorist plot would never have come about. He is the boat with 9/11 conspiracy theorists and all those who sympathize with “freedom fighters” and the “peaceful” religion of Islam.

What has this man been smoking? If this was the excuse for the JFK plot, than who does he blame the 9/11 attacks on? He does not understand that the fundamental hatred of terrorists is not based on our presence in Iraq.

This is a complete non-sequitur. Murtha may be right or wrong. But the concept of “blowback” does not in any way support 9/11 conspiracy theories or provide comfort to terrorists. It’s a simple fucking fact. (And you thought fatherhood would make me lighten up.)

Have conservatives even read the 9/11 report? Being aware of blowback doesn’t automatically mean you’re even against the War in Iraq, least of all against the War on Terror. Blowback can be worth it — blowback can be a cost of war, just like dead American soldiers is a cost of war.

But to sit around and pretend that blowback doesn’t exist? To be frank, Boortz, that’s First Rank Moonbatism.


Reason on a drugstore that refuses to stock contraceptives. This is becoming a weird battleground where Leftists assert women have a “right” to get the pill and Rightists assert pharmacists have a “right” not to dispense medication they don’t agree with.

To me, the issue comes down to ownership. The people who own the store get to decide what medication is sold there. If you don’t want to give birth control to women, don’t work there. You don’t have a “right” to pick and choose the medication you dispense for your employer any more than I have a “right” to tell my boss I won’t do the work he assigns. But I both of us have the freedom to quit and get a different job.

But by the same token, if a store refuse to carry birth control, don’t shop there. Women don’t have a “right” to demand a store carry birth control any more than I have a “right” to demand McDonald’s sell healthy salads. But we do have the freedom to go to another store.

Use it.

On Your Own

Conservatives are piling on Hillary’s comment that Bush wants an “on your own” society while she wants a “we’re in in together” society.

There are three pieces of specific bullshit I’d like to address that everyone seems to be missing.

  • To call the current Administration an “on your own” society is horse manure. They didn’t leave Terry Schiavo on her own. They don’t want to leave three-week old feti on their own. They have jacked social spending through the roof, created the biggest expansion of socialized medicine in forty years and created or supported faith-based initiatives, bans on gay marriage, federal control of education, federal marriage counseling, etc. etc. The problem with this Administarion is that they won’t ever leave us “on our own”.
  • Second, we can not “be in it together” under government any more than Mr. Clinton could “feel our pain”. Suffering, tragedy, loss, struggle, desperation, adversity are things we will all face, no matter how much the Hillarys of the world try to coddle us. And no matter how sanctimonious Mrs. Clinton gets, that suffering can not be shared. How can she share my suffering . . . she doesn’t even know me! And given government’s record on these affairs, government can’t even ameliorate pain and suffering, let alone prevent, cure or share it. Only in the extreme circumstances of the Four Horsemen — things like natural disaster, drought, war, crime wave, etc. — can the blunt instrument of government help (when it’s not sending truckloads of water away from starving people).
  • Most importantly, the one thing everyone is missing on Hillary’s “on your own” nonsense is the insulting tacit implication that only government can help people. The United States is, in terms of private donation, easily the most charitable nation on Earth. But in HillaryWorld, there is no such thing as private charity; no such thing as private organizations like the Red Cross or Salvation Army; no churches or community centers; and vanished are the millions of Americans who donate billions of dollars and billions of hours to helping their fellows. (Granted, many liberals thinks this because they themselves give so little of their time and money to charity). No, in HillaryWorld, if government isn’t there to catch you when you fall, you’re “on your own”.
  • This contrast between “on your own” and “we’re in it together” has provoked a response from conservatives — real conservatives — because it exemplifies everything that’s wrong with liberal thinking. It is condescending, arrogant, presumptuous and ignorant.

    The only surprising thing is that it wasn’t President Bush that said it.

    Raise Your Hand!

    At least, if you’re not in England.

    Teachers should not ask pupils to put their hands up if they can answer a question in class to stop quiet children falling behind, according to government advice.

    Education Secretary Alan Johnson said: “We need to make sure that no-one is left behind at any point – from the most gifted and talented children at the top of the class, to the quiet child who is well-practised at hiding from the teacher’s gaze at the back of the class.”

    Bzzzt. Wrong. This again reflects what’s wrong with public schools — the notion that everyone needs to move at the same pace and respond in the same fashion. If only they could march down the halls in lockstep…

    I was a shy kid. I never raised my hand. And my education turned out just fine, thank you.

    The report found that it is often boys who fall behind in English at primary school, while girls were more likely to be found among those struggling to make progress in maths.

    Teachers felt that children suffered because parents stopped helping with homework when maths, in particular, was becoming too complicated.

    Notice no excuse is given for the boys’ struggles in English. This, of course, could never mean that there might be genetic sex-based difference in verbal and mathematical ability.

    The methods included choosing which child to question in class instead of inviting all the pupils to put up their hands if they know the answer.

    Children could also be given 30 seconds “thinking time” before being asked to answer or told to discuss questions in pairs before answering, the Department for Education said.

    Drawing on my four semesters as a college teacher . . . which is four more that most of the idiots opining on this . . . I actually would always use that first method, but in a way that any educator would flinch over. I would choose a student and if they didn’t know the answer, I’d throw it open. Kept them on their toes. It also made them speculate a little bit at times, which was cool.

    As for the 30 seconds of thinking time, I never had 30 seconds to spare — even in a three-hour lecture.

    A three hour lecture.

    Friday Linkorama

    Taxes destroy an old amusement park. I hope the city thinks its worth their art subsidies and other waste.

    The internet weights about the same as a grain of sand.

    Cato on why we should be leery of Rudy:

    Here’s why: Throughout his career, Giuliani has displayed an authoritarian streak that would be all the more problematic in a man who would assume executive powers vastly expanded by President Bush.

    His support of water-borading is another reason. If Kerry were president right now, I’d support Rudy. But we need someone to repair our government’s adherence to constitutional principles.

    Finally, Congress is pushing back against the CIA gul-, er, prisons. Four of seven Republicans. Let’s hope this is just the beginning.

    The border agent decided the TB man didn’t seem sick so he just let him in.

    Yeah, we’re going to stop terrorism by closing the borders.

    Turning the Barrell Over

    Cato has the goods on the latest garbage:

    Eager to avoid the bad publicity of legislative earmarking, lawmakers are secretly calling or writing bureaucrats and demanding that they fund their pet projects by fiat. These projects-via-telephone, or “phonemarks,” are the hottest new gimmick on the Washington scene.

    Executive branch officials can dole out millions of dollars with impunity. And they avoid the scrutiny of the public, since they are done quietly and without any disclosure.

    But . . . but . . . but the Democrats are good?

    Now for a secret. The big problem in Washington isn’t earmarks. They’re just a symptom of the real problem: policymakers who believe the federal government should be all things to all people. Pork projects – disclosed or not – are inevitable in such an environment no matter what you call ‘em.

    Term limits. That’s the only way to stop this.