People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Sunday, January 30, 2005

Is There A Rivalry Here?

Some folks at the University of Virginia apparently look down on those who attend Virginia Tech. Or so it seems after reading these (humorous) jokes from someone who is in the UV pep band.

A hokie, by the way, is ... well, I have no idea what a hokie is. But it refers here to a Virginia Tech fan.
The hokie walks into a supermarket and buys: 1 pint of milk, 1 single serving cereal, 1 single serving frozen dinner. The cashier looks at him and asks, “Single are you?” The Hokie replies, “How’d you guess?” She says, “Because you’re ugly.”
Ouch. And how about a football joke?

What's the difference between an Orangeman and a hokie? A few trips to the end zone.
Ouch again.

[W]e will be playing Tech next year at their home stadium in Blacksburg. For the avid [V]irginia fan, the pep band provides directions: south until olfactory stimulation, west until tactile stimulation. For all you hokies, that's "south til ya smell it, west till ya step in it!"
Now we're getting a little mean.

Hokie fans, welcome to our stadium. We would like to remind you that re-entering the stadium is not allowed. Not to worry since we have indoor plumbing here at the University, and therefore restrooms in our very own stadium.
OK. That's enough of that.

Who Knew?

This is kind of cool:
Virginia Tech's MBA ranked 36th by Financial Times

Blacksburg, Va., Va., January 25, 2005 -- The MBA program at Virginia Tech's Pamplin College of Business was ranked 36th overall among U.S. business schools in the Financial Times 2005 rankings of full-time MBA programs. The college improved its position from 43rd a year ago.

Among the notable sub-categories, Pamplin ranked 4th in "percentage salary increase" MBA graduates received, an indicator of alumni career development and purchasing power.

The rankings are based on data reported to the London-based Financial Times by the institutions and their alumni who graduated three years ago, an independent evaluation of each school's research capabilities, and salary data from the previous two surveys. Twenty criteria are used to determine the overall rankings. In addition to alumni career progress, the data obtained and criteria used provide an overview of the school's research productivity and the diversity of its students, faculty, and advisory board.

A total of 127 full-time MBA programs in the United States, Europe, Asia, and elsewhere were ranked. The college's global ranking was 58th. (
Now you know where to go to further your education. The football program ain't bad either, if you're into that sort of thing.

I enjoy a Good Cat Fight

Andrew Sullivan and Mickey Kaus are going at it and it is not pretty. But, just as I enjoy watching two bikini babes wrestle in the mud (yes, I will burn in hell), I can't turn away from the blood-letting. I only get one side of their run-in - Kaus's - because I haven't read Andrew Sullivan since he did a 180 back when we started sustaining casualties in Iraq. He was a solid supporter of President Bush's effort to destroy the terrorist network around the world until then. But he quickly turned and became a Bush antagonist. As well as a sour critic of the war on terror itself. He became, in my eyes, someone who is less than dependable when the going gets tough.

Here is how Kaus sees it:

Thursday January 27, 2005
Excitable Andrew Watch: On the Chris Matthews Show that aired last Saturday, Andrew Sullivan was giddily upbeat about the result of the war in Iraq and, in particular, the coming elections:

Mr. SULLIVAN: We are going to have these elections, Chris, and I--the other thing, I think that there's going to be--people are going to be shocked at how successful they are. ...

MATTHEWS: Define success.

Mr. SULLIVAN: Success is 80 percent turnout in--in most of the regions, extremely enthusiastic voting among the Kurds and the Shias, and better than expected among the Sunnis.

MATTHEWS: Does they war in Iraq increase or decrease American power in pushing democracy in other countries? Nine of you say Iraq hurts, three say it helps the president's chances of achieving his goals in the world. Andrew, you say it helps. A bloody war helps us sell...

Mr. SULLIVAN: Of course it helps. When we see, as we will , see ordinary Iraqis voting for the first time to forge their own destiny in the future, it's going to be an extraordinary moment.

Mr. SULLIVAN: ...and that's the other point about Iraqi democracy. The signal it will send to Iran, which is our real enemy right now, will be enormously helpful. I'm a--I'm a complete optimist about this. I think it'll--I think it'll work. [Emph. added]

But in today's blog, after reading a pessimistic article by another former bullying hawk--TNR's Lawrence Kaplan--Sullivan is almost distraught:

The failure is in part a failure to get the U.S. bureaucracy to support liberal institutions and groups; but it is also simply a failure of order and security. Democracy was always going to be hard in Iraq.

But democracy amid chaos and violence is close to impossible. And we never sent enough troops or conducted a smart enough post-victory occupation plan to maintain order and defeat a fledgling insurgency while we still could. So we are now left to ask ordinary Iraqis to risk their lives in order to leave their homes and vote. ...

Our predicament is that you cannot have democracy without order and you cannot have a new order without democracy. Do I want the elections to succeed? Of course I do. Only those blinded by partisanship or cynicism wouldn't. Maybe a democratic miracle can occur. But at this point it would be exactly that: a miracle. So pray, will you? [Emph. added]

This is why I quit reading Andrew Sullivan long ago. And why I don't include him in my Blogs of Fame off to the left of this page, even though his is one of the most widely read of the millions of weblogs that are out there. He is prone to excitement. He bounces from elation to despair without changing subjects. His opinions, like those of Bill Clinton, are always subject to revision. From one day to the next. Sometimes polar opposites. I got tired of the neck pains from the whiplash. So I deleted the link to his site and have been better off for it. I'll let guys like Mickey Kaus deal with him.
Him and Ralph Waldo Emerson:

Some of your griefs you have cured,
And the sharpest you still have survived;
But what torments of pain you endured
From evils that never arrived!
The Conduct of Life 1860

Fool Me Once ...

How does that old adage go? "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Well, we should make an addendum just for the New York Times. Fool me over and over again and I prove myself to be nothing more than a fool. Here's today's foolishness:
Senator Clinton's Values Lesson

People in the Democratic Party who have been focused on social issues like abortion and gay rights were devastated by the results of the November election, and they have been wondering how to pursue their concerns in the inhospitable environment of the new Bush administration. Last week, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton helped define a promising path.

Speaking on Monday to about 1,000 abortion rights supporters in Albany, Mrs. Clinton did two important things. First, at a moment when women's reproductive freedom is under severe assault, she firmly restated her support for Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion nationwide. What made Mrs. Clinton's speech noteworthy, however, was her second, complementary tack. Without retreating on principle, she deftly shifted the focus of the abortion discussion to where there is the broadest agreement, and where President Bush's policy failure is most apparent - namely, abortion prevention. Echoing her husband's call to make abortion "safe, legal and rare," the senator said that abortion "represents a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women," and that "the best way to reduce the number of abortions is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in the first place." (
This is the "finding common ground" argument again. People who cling to the notion that abortion is somehow a rite of passage for America's young women - to many even a badge of honor - will see this as an attempt at resolving the abortion debate. I have a tendency to call them stupid and/or misguided. But in the case of the editors of the New York Times, I'll be charitable and suggest that they simply suffer from wishful thinking.

Hillary Clinton "firmly restated her support for Roe v. Wade" and then changed the subject, talking about teen pregnancy. And somehow that's progress. Healing. Coming together.


The focus has been, is, and will be on what goes on in the Planned Parenthood abortion centers around the country. Children are being denied life. Babies are being killed. Ripped from their mothers' wombs.

If Hillary gets her jollies by talking about the problem of teen pregnancy, which if memory serves, actually declined in recent years, that's up to her. But don't think for a minute the people of this country are going to buy into the goofy idea that she is "reaching out" to the other side with a compromise. As Rush Limbaugh often says, words have meaning. and in Hillary's case, those words were the same old pap.

And Speaking of Fools ...

Maureen Dowd writes for the New York Times.

I don't know why.

Her columns usually amount to nothing more than inanity shrouded in smarmy self-importance. But occasionally she ventures beyond the dull, juvenile, vacuous babble that she is famous for and writes something that can better be described as ... foolish.

I don't remember her ever voicing a complaint about the 300,000 torture/murder victims of Saddam Hussein. If she wrote about men and women getting their hands, fingers - heads - chopped off, I didn't read it. If she decried the instances of men being thrown off rooftops or having hand grenades taped to their chests to be ignited, I don't remember it. The instances of entire villages of Kurds being bused to a remote desert and being machine-gunned didn't rise to the level of interest to make one of her columns. The poison gassing of the village of Halabjah? I don't think so.

But let American female interrogators willfully show their panties to Islamist terrorists, and she is all over it.

What good is it for President Bush to speak respectfully of Islam and claim Iraq is not a religious war if the Pentagon denigrates Islamic law - allowing its female interrogators to try to make Muslim men talk in late-night sessions featuring sexual touching, displays of fake menstrual blood, and parading in miniskirt, tight T-shirt, bra and thong underwear?

A female military interrogator who wanted to turn up the heat on a 21-year-old Saudi detainee who allegedly had taken flying lessons in Arizona before 9/11 removed her uniform top to expose a snug T-shirt. She began belittling the prisoner - who was praying with his eyes closed - as she touched her breasts, rubbed them against the Saudi's back and commented on his apparent erection. (link)

Oh, the inhumanity.

Let me repeat, she writes for the New York Times. This did not come out of an MTV internet chatroom.

Of course Dowd can't put two paragraphs together without reverting to her world-famous inanity.
It's like a bad porn movie, "The Geneva Monologues." All S and no M.
You folks at the Times must be proud.

But I don't want to get away from my point. In Maureen Dowd's world of moral equivalency, torture and slaughter - genocide - don't rise to the level of an American interrogator displaying her undies to a terrorist captive. That, to her, is beyond acceptable human behavior.

Somebody help me with this.