Quote

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

Monday, December 04, 2006

First Rumsfeld. Now Bolton.

I think this is about right:


Blame the GOP for Bolton's Resignation
by Robert B. Bluey, Human Events On Line

The United States will lose one its best UN ambassadors when John Bolton leaves his post in Turtle Bay at the end of the year. But don't blame Democrats for Bolton's resignation. A handful of Republicans -- and a White House without a backbone -- are at fault for Bolton's departure.

There's no question Democrats played a role in blocking Bolton, but when he was nominated for the UN job on March 7, 2005, Republicans had a Senate with 55 Republicans, Bush was still very much in control of the agenda following his re-election triumph the previous November and the UN was in desperate need of reform in the wake of the oil-for-food scandal.

Despite those factors working in Bolton's favor, the GOP dropped the ball. And once it started rolling, they could never regain control. (link)

John Bolton was the one man in my memory who went to the U.N. with the intention of cleaning the godawful mess up. All others have gone there to play along and suck up our tax dollars. And get nothing done.

Some will say he was too abrasive. Others of us say he wasn't tough enough.

From here, its back to business as usual. Right where the Democrats want it to be. Such a shame.

In a more sane time, our president would leave the post vacant. It really wouldn't make any difference.

A Step Up From John Warner?

This may be only a rumor, but it's one of those that you want to have substance. The speculation is based on a (remote) possibility that Senator John Warner will retire rather than run for reelection. I'd like to see McDonnell run against Warner in the primary, allowing the electorate to decide where the party is going as opposed to where it's been for a long, long time..

Short of that, retirement will do.

Update: Greg over at BVBL says: MAKE THIS HAPPEN!

Quote Of The Day

Ross MacKenzie, Richmond Times-Dispatch, "Shaking Hands, Apologizing, Moving On:
On Webb, the GOP, & What Needs to Happen Now," December 3, 2006 (link):
The Bush episode reminds that [James] Webb evidently has a serious problem shaking hands. During his 20 years as a Republican of convenience -- recalling nothing quite so much as Eleanor Roosevelt's refusal to shake Joe McCarthy's hand (but not Joseph Stalin's) -- Webb refused to shake the hand of John Kerry. For 20 years. Then he turned around and voted for Kerry for president two years ago, and this year campaigned with him in Virginia arm in arm.

And in the matter of principled consistency, Webb campaigned almost solely on Iraq, then emerged to say in a victory-lap column for The Wall Street Journal -- as he occasionally had elsewhere, including in a T-D Commentary section Q&A and during his editorial board interview -- that his foremost purpose in seeking office was to equalize economic discrepancy and right social wrong.

So: Iraq or economic fairness; Republican or Democrat; corrupt Clinton administration or not; shake hands with Kerry, Cheney, Northern Virginians, and Bush -- or not?

It is to laugh ...
To laugh indeed.

Of All The Issues Facing The USA ...

A case is made, or not, to raise the minimum wage in the Washington Post this morning:

Who's Afraid of a Higher Minimum Wage?
By Michael S. Rosenwald, Washington Post Staff Writer

While the number who make the federal minimum wage is minuscule compared with the total workforce of 132 million, economists think that several million workers would be affected by a change in the law. The Economic Policy Institute, a Washington think tank, estimates that the number of workers making at least $5.15 an hour but less than the Democrat-proposed $7.25 will be 5.6 million by 2009 -- when the proposed increase would be fully phased in.

Then there are the workers who already make $7.25 an hour, or a little more. Liana Fox, an economic analyst for the institute, thinks these workers would also see a small bump in wages to keep the pecking order. The institute puts about 7.4 million workers in that category. That means 13 million people, or about 10 percent of the workforce, could be affected by an increase.

Of those workers, about 79 percent are 20 or older, the institute estimates. Forty-six percent work in sales or service. About 61 percent are white; 59 percent are women.

Locally, about 450,000 workers in Virginia -- 13 percent of the state's workforce -- could be affected, according to an EPI analysis. (
link)

Gee. This could be big.

Or not.

The article provides additional perspective: "...only about 520,000 people nationwide [currently make] the federal minimum of $5.15 an hour ..."


That's a staggering 0.39% of America's workforce.

A question: Of the 0.39% of the workforce that is earning the minimum wage, what percentage are part-time? Curiously, it doesn't say. (It's
87%)

Another question: Of the 520,000 who are earning the minimum wage, what percentage of those individuals live in households where someone else is the primary breadwinner? (think high school and college students working evenings) Oddly, there's no mention. (It's
71%)

And what about those studies that suggest people will lose their jobs if the minimum wage is increased? They apparently are of no consequence: "Some [experts] think [the effects] would be negligible." Negligible. As is the level of concern for those negligible individuals who actually lose their jobs as a result of this feel-good endeavor.

I have a better idea. What say we have our elected officials concentrate on something more important? Like banning trans fats in our
Dunkin' donuts. Or something as momentous, like winning the war on terror. Either one.

2 + 2 = ... Let's Do Some Calculatin'

Sleight of hand
Noun: sleight of hand
1. A trick or set of tricks performed by a juggler or magician so quickly and deftly that the manner of execution cannot be observed; legerdemain.

Check out the associative reasoning in this paragraph appearing in an editorial in this morning's New York Times:
What’s Wrong With My Voting Machine?
By Adam Cohen


In Ohio, Illinois, New Jersey and other states last month, there were reports — some confirmed by election officials — that when voters touched the screen for one candidate, the machine registered it for another. One Florida Congressional race, in which the Republican won by fewer than 400 votes, is in the courts because paperless electronic voting machines may have failed to register as many as 18,000 votes. (link)
Warning: Don't read it again or you'll get whiplash.

Translated, it reads: Votes reportedly flip from one candidate to another on machines in isolated precincts in three northern states and therefore it can be assumed that a Democrat loses in a congressional district in Florida where (this can be no accident) by statistical extrapolation, as many as 18,000 votes disappeared (despite a complete lack of hard evidence to support the notion) and (because they were all by inference Democratic votes), the Democrat should therefore be declared the victor.

Based on the reasoning used in this jewel, there is no need for us to ever have an election again. We can, by applying statistical permutations and combinations, and Democrat reasoning, determine the winner of all future contests and not bother with those infernal machines.

And if the results we want still don't obtain, we'll go to PLAN B.

On Forced Integration

Segregation
Noun: segregation 'segru'geyshun
1. A social system that provides separate facilities for minority groups
2. The act of segregating or sequestering

In beating up on George Will yesterday for coming to the party late on the school busing debate, I failed to address the point he was trying to make - that setting racial quotas in our public schools goes against Supreme Court precedents and is an inherently bad thing. He writes regarding the Seattle school system:
Until June, the school district's Web site declared that "cultural racism" includes "emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology," "having a future time orientation" (planning ahead) and "defining one form of English as standard." The site also asserted that only whites can be racists, and disparaged assimilation as the "giving up" of one's culture. After this propaganda provoked outrage, the district, saying it needed to "provide more context to readers" about "institutional racism," put up a page saying that the district's intention is to avoid "unsuccessful concepts such as a melting pot or colorblind mentality."

The Supreme Court has said that all racial classifications by government are "presumptively invalid" unless narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. The district's repellent Web site revealed the interest that the district considers so compelling that it justifies racial preferences. Supreme Court deference to such race-mongering would make a mockery of the equal protection guarantee. (link)
This seems so clear that one wonders how it is the administrators of the system (and the 9th Circuit) thought otherwise. Well, one knows where to look when one seeks an explanation for such twisted views - the New York Times. It comes through this morning, with something they like to call "managed choice" or, getting past the slippery locution, we call forced integration:
An Assault on Local School Control
New York Times editorial

Conservative activists are seeking to halt the completely voluntary, and laudable, efforts by Seattle and Louisville, Ky., to promote racially integrated education. Both cities have school assignment plans known as managed or open choice. Children are assigned to schools based on a variety of factors, one of which is the applicant’s race.

The Louisville and Seattle plans are precisely the kind of benign race-based policies that the court has long held to be constitutional. (link)
Note the dichotomy in this gem: The system is "completely voluntary" but the children are assigned their choice of schools. It will come as a welcome shock to the parents who have sued the Seattle school system to find out that the quotas established there based on race are "completely voluntary."

Beyond that, will we ever reach the day when we can agree that there is no such thing as a "benign" race-based policy? Every time one is applied, it has negative consequences. Every time. Whether it involves black kids in Little Rock being segregated and forced into inferior all-black schools or, in the example George Will provides and I brought up yesterday, making little children get up well before dawn to catch a bus going across town so that they "can" intermingle (at the point of a gun) with children whose skin color is a shade or two different.

In any case, you get the idea where these elitists are coming from. Segregation to them doesn't mean that which you read above. It means people choose to live where they do and that sometimes brings about quota disparities requiring government action.

Segregation = Racial Quota Imbalance.

Welcome to P.W. Botha's world.

With that mindset, we'll never get beyond race.

Don't Let That Stop You

Electability
Noun: electability ee'lect'u'bil'i'tee
1. What John Kerry lacked besides credibility, compatibility, and likeability.

Speaking of Hillary ...
Clinton Dogged by 'Electability' Questions
By Beth Fouhy, Associated Press Writer


While Hillary Rodham Clinton tops every national poll of likely 2008 Democratic presidential contenders, the New York senator is dogged by questions of "electability" - political code for whether she can win enough swing states to prevail in a general election.

... some Democrats still believe the odds are against her actually being elected president. (link)
Memo to Democrats: Why let the fact that Hillary is viewed by most Americans as being a hate-consumed, cruel, conniving, thieving bitch stop you from nominating her? After John Kerry, Michael Dukakis, and Crazy Al, she is downright ... well, uh, never mind. You're right.

Let's go with Osama Obama*.

* Ted Kennedy's pet name for the junior senator from Illinois.