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

Thursday, April 14, 2005


James Taranto, writing in the Wall Street Journal, brought this AP story to my attention.
Witnesses: Teen Assaulted on Videotape

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- A 16-year-old disabled girl was punched and forced to engage in videotaped sexual acts with several boys in a high school auditorium as dozens of students watched, according to witnesses.

Authorities are investigating and no charges have been filed in the alleged attack last month at Mifflin High School. Four boys suspected of involvement were sent home and have not returned to class.

Also, the principal, Regina Crenshaw, was suspended and will be fired for not calling police, school officials said. And three assistant principals were suspended and will be reassigned to other schools. Crenshaw had no comment Tuesday.

The girl was forced to perform oral sex on at least two boys, according to statements from school officials, obtained by The Columbus Dispatch. Part of the alleged assault was videotaped by a student who had a camera for a school project.

School officials found the girl bleeding from the mouth. An assistant principal cautioned the girl's father against calling 911 to avoid media attention, the statements said. [my emphasis] The girl's father called police.

Her father said the girl is developmentally disabled. A special education teacher said the teen has a severe speech impediment. (
There are a whole lot of people who should be going to prison over this. Including at least two school administrators.

For the love of God.

Tom Delay Shows GOP Wienies How It's Done

Tom Delay doesn't do defense. He only knows how to attack. If only his Republican colleagues could take a lesson from him. Politics, after all, is not child's play.

With all the (bogus) charges being launched at him, Delay took time out of his busy day yesterday to apologize for his transgressions.


DeLay says foes seek to shut ethics panel
By Charles Hurt and Stephen Dinan, The Washington Times

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay accused Democrats of shutting down the chamber's ethics committee to prevent him from being exonerated of the ethics accusations against him.

"The only way I can be cleared is through the ethics committee, so they don't want one," Mr. DeLay said yesterday in an interview with editors and reporters of The Washington Times in his office at the Capitol. He also offered a second reason why Democrats want the ethics committee to be hobbled.

"One of their best friends, [Rep.] Jim McDermott, is being investigated, and they don't want him to be kicked out of Congress," Mr. DeLay said. "I mean, this guy has been found guilty -- guilty by a court of law -- and they don't want an ethics committee."

Mr. McDermott was the top Democrat on the ethics committee in 1997 when he leaked to the New York Times an illegally recorded tape of a Republican congressman's cell-phone conversation. (link)
Senator Frist and the other cowards in the Republican party who litter the halls of both houses of Congress could learn how to take it to the bad guys from Tom Delay.

They won't. But they should.

Brooks Beat Me To It

I was thinking yesterday about the John Bolton nomination saga playing out in the senate foreign relations committee. If you haven't been paying attention, liberal Democrats in the senate, egged on by their pals at the New York Times and Washington Post, are all worked up over the fact that President Bush recommended Bolton for the position of U.N. ambassador and the latter has been a vocal critic of that august body.

My thought was that everyone is missing the real reason the Democrats are attacking Bolton. It's not that they consider him to be a harsh manager or that he might go into his new job with an attitude. It's that they hold more allegiance to the United Nations than to the USA and are fearful that Bolton will go over there and disrupt our deliberate march toward world government.

My intention was to write down my thoughts this morning but David Brooks, writing in the New York Times, must have been reading my mind. And has beaten me to it.

Loudly, With a Big Stick

I don't like John Bolton's management style. Nor am I a big fan of his foreign policy views. He doesn't really believe in using U.S. power to end genocide or promote democracy.

But it is ridiculous to say he doesn't believe in the United Nations. This is a canard spread by journalists who haven't bothered to read his stuff and by crafty politicians who aren't willing to say what the Bolton debate is really about.

The Bolton controversy isn't about whether we believe in the U.N. mission. It's about which U.N. mission we believe in.

From the start, the U.N. has had two rival missions.

Some people saw it as a place where sovereign nations could work together to solve problems. But other people saw it as the beginnings of a world government.

This world government dream crashed on the rocks of reality, but as Jeremy Rabkin of Cornell has observed, the federalist idea has been replaced by a squishier but equally pervasive concept: the dream of "global governance."

The people who talk about global governance begin with the same premises as the world government types: the belief that a world of separate nations, living by the law of the jungle, will inevitably be a violent world. Instead, these people believe, some supranational authority should be set up to settle international disputes by rule of law.

They know we're not close to a global version of the European superstate. So they are content to champion creeping institutions like the International Criminal Court. They treat U.N. General Assembly resolutions as an emerging body of international law. They seek to foment a social atmosphere in which positions taken by multilateral organizations are deemed to have more "legitimacy" than positions taken by democratic nations.

John Bolton is just the guy to explain why this vaporous global-governance notion is a dangerous illusion, and that we Americans, like most other peoples, will never accept it. (link)

Some people see the anti-Iraq War marches and view the marchers as anti-American. Although their attitude is probably not off the mark, the real impetus for the long-haired radicals to protest President Bush's "unilateralism" is his disdain for the U.N. And we should come to accept the fact that that the U.N. is our future.

Or so they think.

As for me, I think they, and their concept of world government, which has been around for decades, should be denounced. The United Nations has proven itself to be a corrupt and pitifully ineffective body of two-bit dictators that, without the help of the United States, couldn't give away candy on the street corner without screwing it up.

Remember Brooks' words next time you hear Joe Biden or Patrick Leahy lament John Bolton's disparagement of the U.N. Remember their dream of world government.

And what it will mean for you.

Ban The Scientists

There are far too many research scientists. With a lot of grant money and a whole lot of time on their hands. Remember when butter was declared to be bad for us? Everyone switched to margarine. Then some researcher declared margarine to be potentially injurious. So we migrated back to butter, which, in the meantime, was determined to be a healthy supplement to our daily nutritional requirements after all. Bran is good for us. Well, not really. Peanut butter. Milk. Salt. Sugar. Meat. Eggs.

All this makes me want to go out and order a Quarter Pounder with cheese.

Well, here is the latest health news. Water can kill.
Study Cautions Runners to Limit Intake of Water
By GINA KOLATA, New York Times

After years of telling athletes to drink as much liquid as possible to avoid dehydration, some doctors are now saying that drinking too much during intense exercise poses a far greater health risk.

An increasing number of athletes - marathon runners, triathletes and even hikers in the Grand Canyon - are severely diluting their blood by drinking too much water or too many sports drinks, with some falling gravely ill and even dying, the doctors say.

New research on runners in the Boston Marathon, published today in The New England Journal of Medicine, confirms the problem and shows how serious it is.

The research involved 488 runners in the 2002 marathon. The runners gave blood samples before and after the race. While most were fine, 13 percent of them - or 62 - drank so much that they had hyponatremia, or abnormally low blood sodium levels. Three had levels so low that they were in danger of dying. (link)
The lesson to be learned is to give up that water; drink copious amounts of smooth Kentucky bourbon whiskey. It's always done wonders for me when I was contemplating running the Boston Marathon.