Quote

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

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Does This Make Him An Anti-Semi-Semite?

Or a semi-anti-semite?

Moran now blames only some Jews

A queasy quasi-anti-semite?

A pathetic part-anti-semite?

Or just a hate-filled bigot?

A Great Line

From the Richmond Times-Dispatch:

"You know you are in Richmond when debate focuses not on the Confederate flag but on which Confederate flag."

Quote Of The Day

From a Washington Times editorial:
When the Senate resumes debate later this week on the defense authorization bill, one of the first issues on the agenda will be an amendment by Sen. Jim Webb that would effectively cripple the troop surge in Iraq — even as it is demonstrating real success. The real goal of this legislation is to embarrass President Bush and score propaganda points with the antiwar crowd. But it would be a mistake to gloss over the destructive nature of what Mr. Webb's amendment would do to the military and the National Guard.

It would be difficult to imagine a more harmful, destructive approach than that taken by the junior senator from Virginia.
"Jim Webb's Anti-War Bill," September 18, 2007

The Blind Will Walk; The Lame Will See

Snake oil, anyone?
Clinton Presents Plan For Universal Coverage
By Perry Bacon Jr. and Anne Kornblut, Washington Post Staff Writers


In a speech in Des Moines, [Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton] the Democratic front-runner said she would expand insurance to the 47 million people who do not already have coverage and would attempt to reduce costs for others without spawning a massive new bureaucracy. (link)
Everyone will be covered.

The price will go down.

No "massive" governmental cost increases will be required to oversee the program.

This from the woman who can't explain how those billing records got in her bedroom closet.

He's Got My Vote

Let's see. We can settle on a Republican candidate who, because of his liberal positions on such issues as taxes and gun control, can capture at least 35% of the vote in northern Virginia (and therefore 45% statewide), or we can rally behind a solid conservative who will - and has - swept to victory in every region in the commonwealth.

I know where my vote is going:
Gilmore pushed for seat in Senate
By Seth McLaughlin, The Washington Times


Top conservative leaders yesterday urged people to encourage former Virginia Gov. James S. Gilmore to run for retiring Sen. John W. Warner's seat, the latest early endorsement that comes as the party sorts out whether to pick its nominee through a convention or primary.

"We need Jim Gilmore's steady, conservative leadership in the U.S. Senate," said David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, and Paul Weyrich, chief executive officer of Free Congress Foundation, a District-based conservative think tank. (link)
This would make for an interesting race. In 2002 Gilmore handed his replacement a state government that was in sound fiscal condition, only to have that replacement, Mark Warner, claim as soon as he got in office that we were in financial ruin, and that a massive tax increase was necessary. As it turned out, there was no crisis at all and the state racked up, after Warner's tax increase was passed, a huge revenue surplus.

And Warner never apologized for the subterfuge.

Now we might be entertained with Gilmore vs. Warner.

My heart pounds at the very thought.

This Should Be Interesting

Is Rudy Giuliani preparing his own version of Bill Clinton's "Sister Souljah" moment? He's picked the right venue:
Giuliani To Woo NRA
By Carl Campanile, The New York Times

September 18, 2007 -- Rudy Giuliani, an ardent gun-control advocate as mayor, will address the National Rifle Association on Friday.

The GOP White House hopeful, who backed the federal assault-weapons ban in 1994 over the objections of the NRA, has changed his position as a presidential candidate. He now says he supports the Second Amendment and believes gun laws should be
addressed by the states. (
link)
This is probably a good time to review Rudy's past pronouncements on the issue of gun control. Of which there are many:

● "I do not think the government should cut off the right to bear arms. My position for many years has been that just as a motorist must have a license, a gun owner should be required to have one as well. Anyone wanting to own a gun should have to pass a written exam that shows that they know how to use a gun, that they’re intelligent enough and responsible enough to handle a gun. Should both handgun and rifle owners be licensed...we’re talking about all dangerous weapons." (Source: Boston Globe, p. A4 Mar 21, 2000)

● “We need a federal law that bans all assault weapons, and if in fact you do need a handgun, you should be subjected to at least the same restrictions—and really stronger ones—that exist for driving an automobile. ... Congress needs to pass uniform licensing for everyone carrying a gun.”

● Upon passage of Bill Clinton's notorious Brady Bill: "This is an important step toward curtailing the indiscriminate proliferation of guns across the nation.”

● When the New York City Council passed a law requiring trigger locks for all handguns sold in the city, then-Mayor Giuliani said: "''While the intended goal of this legislation is laudable, and the passage of this bill by the City Council is a step in the right direction, it clearly does not go far enough."

● On why he decided to join the lawsuit several years ago against America's gun manufacturers, "We take guns out of the city relentlessly." See it for yourself:



● He seems quite confident in his position in this video:



● "I've been arguing for that since at least 1980":




For that since 1980. But suddenly he's arguing against it?

Forgive me for being a bit skeptical.

Prove He's Lying

One of the difficulties in extending "civil rights" to homosexuals is this: Anyone can claim ownership of that right by declaring himself to be gay, and nobody can dispute it. No blood test. No genealogy records. No quiz.

That problem - not being able to tell if a person is actually a homosexual when he claims he is - also allows, potentially, for anyone to slither out from under "hate crimes" charges. The "I'm gay too" defense.

That's what may be going on here:
Lawyer Claims Defendant in Hate Crime Is Gay, Too
By Michael Brick, The New York Times


One of the defendants accused of killing a gay man in Brooklyn last year because of his sexual orientation offered a startling courtroom revelation yesterday: He, too, is gay.

So said the lawyer for Anthony Fortunato, 21, one of four men accused of chasing a gay man to his death on the Belt Parkway during a robbery on Oct. 8, 2006.

All along, homosexuality has defined the case. Prosecutors have used it as a sword, seeking heavier sentences for a hate crime.

As the trial began in Brooklyn Supreme Court yesterday, Mr. Fortunato’s lawyer, Gerald J. Di Chiara, sought to use sexual orientation as a shield. (link)
If it keeps this kid from being convicted on additional counts, why not?

Anthony Fortunato is now gay. And proud of it. Don't believe him?

Caught Between A Rock And A Hard Place

The news can be picked up on the internet from a thousand reliable sources. Up-to-the-minute news. Analysis of that news can readily be obtained from millions of internet bloggers. And it's all free to the consumer. That's what's killing the newspaper business. The antique medium.

The once-venerable New York Times thouight it had come up with a plan to stem the tide. It decided to capitalize on its reputation - and to stay afloat - by attempting two years ago to do something that only the Wall Street Journal had been able to pull off successfully. It began charging customers for on-line access to its archived news articles and for its editorial commentary in something called TimesSelect. 50 bucks a year.

It apparently hasn't worked the way the publisher intended:
Times to Stop Charging for Parts of Its Web Site
By Richard Pérez-Peña, The New York Times


The New York Times will stop charging for access to parts of its Web site, effective at midnight Tuesday night.

The move comes two years to the day after The Times began the subscription program, TimesSelect, which has charged $49.95 a year, or $7.95 a month, for online access to the work of its columnists and to the newspaper’s archives. TimesSelect has been free to print subscribers to The Times and to some students and educators.

The Times said the project had met expectations, drawing 227,000 paying subscribers — out of 787,000 over all — and generating about $10 million a year in revenue.

“But our projections for growth on that paid subscriber base were low, compared to the growth of online advertising,” said Vivian L. Schiller, senior vice president and general manager of the site, NYTimes.com. (link)
The Times rightly credits - or blames - the rise of Yahoo and Google for the demise of TimesSelect. The surfers who use those search engines are potential consumers for the advertisers that pay dearly for space in the paper. Those advertisers expect the most bang for their buck. A wall having been constructed between the two was just not going to do.

Still, in the end, it comes down to this: The Times is once again giving its product away for free.

Not the foundation for a good, sound business model.

He'll Never Learn

President Bush thought that if he nominated someone to be his attorney general who was well-liked by the Democrats, the Democrats would quit being so mean to him. I hate to call my president a fool but ...
Democrats Use Confirmation to Press Bush
By Sheryl Gay Stolberg and David M. Hersxenhorn, The New York Times


Washington, Sept. 17 — Two Senate Democrats warned Monday that the Judiciary Committee would delay confirmation of President Bush’s choice for attorney general unless the White House turned over documents that the panel was seeking for several investigations.

[The two] who will have a powerful say over whether Mr. Mukasey gets confirmed — Senators Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont and Charles E. Schumer of New York — vowed on Monday to use the nomination to extract information from a reluctant White House. (link)
So much for turning the other cheek. George.