Maggie's Farm

Color-coding in schools? I am agin' it. Nowadays, who cares?

Plus it's getting harder to tell what color anyone is, anyway: everybody is getting mixed skin DNA. For example, what color is Derek Jeter? And do you really care?

In our offices, they are all sorts of Indians, Asians, who knows what? You don't even think about it - they are all humans.

Heck, our own Editor Bird Dog is part Iroquois. Do you care? He is part dog, also (which has helped him get into the best dog schools).

Let's arrange folks by character, energy, brains, talent, discipline, interest, etc. This skin thing has got to go. It is just too stupid.

But I see some libs are still trying to count their Crayolas. Eliott Spitzer, for one. NY Sun. Supreme Court. Good case.

Discouraging but not surprising stats about US education at Willisms. Take a look.

It's the same old story: spending does not correlate with results.

What does school spending correlate with? Teacher's union votes. 

EDUCATION RESULTS ARE CULTURAL.

Math is too hard - can't the kids do something creative? To develop and express their special selves? And to have fun?

Abe Lincoln learned more in a one-room schoolhouse with a wood fire and a only a Bible to read and a teacher with a paddle than kids do today.

Not even air conditioning!

Most American kids want everything to be easy, and they want work to be nothing more than a short path to a second childhood, called "retirement."

I suppose the new way is just not the old Yankee view of life. Our material comfort and success is biting us in the behind: it is both a blessing and a curse. Perhaps, in time, this lazy approach to life will lead us back, against our will, to our true gritty selves.

Image: a Kansas one-room schoolhouse

As one of those employers who supposedly wants illegals for cheap labor, forget it.

I like legal immigration, but I believe that it is up to the people of the country to decide who comes in, and how they enter, and why.

A nation without a boundary is not a nation. That does not make me a "racist," although I do tend to believe that folks with northern European backgrounds seem to understand American ways, traditions, social habits and values most readily and adapt most easily. But everyone knows that.

But let me ask our readers a simple question: Would you enter a country illegally? And if not, why not?

Illegals are simply taking advantage of us (which probably means they are that sort of people), and of our our soft-heartedness. It's as simple as that. But no good deed goes unpunished.

Here's what happens when you decide to base your new life on breaking the law (data from PoliPundit):

CRIME STATISTICS
95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.

83% of warrants for murder in Phoenix are for illegal aliens.

86% of warrants for murder in Albuquerque are for illegal aliens.

75% of those on the most wanted list in Los Angeles, Phoenix and Albuquerque are illegal aliens.

24.9% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally

40.1% of all inmates in Arizona detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally

48.2% of all inmates in New Mexico detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally

29% (630,000) convicted illegal alien felons fill our state and federal prisons at a cost of $1.6 billion annually

53% plus of all investigated burglaries reported in California, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona and Texas are perpetrated by illegal aliens.

50% plus of all gang members in Los Angeles are illegal aliens from south of the border.

71% plus of all apprehended cars stolen in 2005 in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and California were stolen by Illegal aliens or “transport coyotes".

47% of cited/stopped drivers in California have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 47%, 92% are illegal aliens.

63% of cited/stopped drivers in Arizona have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 63%, 97% are illegal aliens

66% of cited/stopped drivers in New Mexico have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 66% 98% are illegal aliens.

BIRTH STATISTICS
380,000 plus “anchor babies” were born in the U.S. in 2005 to illegal alien parents, making 380,000 babies automatically U.S.citizens.

97.2% of all costs incurred from those births were paid by the American taxpayers.

66% plus of all births in California are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal whose births were paid for by taxpayers.

Marine Corps gun fighting rules, from Evangelical Outpost, on the Marine Corp's 231st  Birthday:

1. Bring a gun. Preferably, bring at least two guns. Bring all of your friends who have guns.
2. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap. Life is expensive.
3. Only hits count. The only thing worse than a miss is a slow miss.
4. If your shooting stance is good, you're probably not moving fast enough nor using cover correctly.
5. Move away from your attacker. Distance is your friend. (Lateral and diagonal movement are preferred.)
6. If you can choose what to bring to a gunfight, bring a long gun and a friend with a long gun.
7. In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or tactics. They will only remember who lived.
8. If you are not shooting, you should be communicating, reloading, and running.
9. Accuracy is relative: most combat shooting standards will be more dependent on "pucker factor" than the inherent accuracy of the gun.
10. Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty.
11. Always cheat; always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.
12. Have a plan.
13. Have a back-up plan, because the first one won't work.
14. Use cover or concealment as much as possible.
15. Flank your adversary when possible. Protect yours.
16. Don't drop your guard.
17. Always tactical load and threat scan 360 degrees.
18. Watch their hands. Hands kill. In God we trust. Everyone else, keep your hands where I can see them.
19. Decide to be aggressive ENOUGH, quickly ENOUGH.
20. The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you will get.
21. Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet.
22. Be courteous to everyone, friendly to no one.
23. Your number one option for personal security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.
24. Do not attend a gunfight with a handgun, the caliber of which does not start with a "4."

Image: That's a Marine with an M16A2 5.56 mm rifle

Long-time readers of Maggie's know that I am an evil Dem, but not an ideological Dem. My advice to my Repub friends after this lousy day at the polls: 1. Dump your baggage of sleazebags. 2. Find some decent leadership who can communicate: Frist was worthless, as was Hastert. 3. Make a stand on illegal immigration, or Hillary will do it for you 4. Show some interest in regular people - how they live and what they worry about. Don't offer them freebies - offer them cheer, interest and inspiration. 5. Iraq may or may not be a good thing - but it's not the only thing going on. 6. Listen to Mike Pence, below (h/t, NRO):

Election day 2006 will be remembered as a turning point in American political history. Twenty-five years after the Reagan Administration came to Washington with a conservative agenda of limited government, the American people chose a different course.
 
It is the duty of the losing party in a free election to humbly accept defeat and to acknowledge that the people are sovereign in the People's House.
 
As we examine the results of this election, it is imperative that we listen to the American people and learn the right lessons.
 
Some will argue that we lost our majority because of scandals at home and challenges abroad. I say, we did not just lose our majority, we lost our way.
 
While the scandals of the 109th Congress harmed our cause, the greatest scandal in Washington, D.C. is runaway federal spending.
 
After 1994, we were a majority committed to balanced federal budgets, entitlement reform and advancing the principles of limited government.  In recent years, our majority voted to expand the federal government's role in education, entitlements and pursued spending policies that created record deficits and national debt.
 
This was not in the Contract with America and Republican voters said, "enough is enough." Our opponents will say that the American people rejected our Republican vision. I say the American people didn't quit on the Contract with America, we did.  And in so doing, we severed the bonds of trust between our party and millions of our most ardent supporters.
 
As the 110th Congress convenes next year, Republicans must cordially accept defeat and dedicate ourselves to advancing our cause as the loyal opposition knowing that the only way to retake our natural, governing majority, is to renew our commitment to limited government, national defense, traditional values and reform.

Thespis Journal says:

Like many professional training programs, the Columbia faculty concentrate more on furthering their political agenda than on the essential skills needed to be a master teacher.

A quote from a piece in The New York Sun, echoing our views:

What a juxtaposition — the same week that Columbia University is celebrating merit in the form of the Nobel prize in economics awarded to Professor Edmund "Ned" Phelps, Columbia's Teachers College is coming under justified criticism for deriding merit, favoring instead a kind of left-wing indoctrination. If that sounds like an overstatement, we invite you to check out the "conceptual framework" for Teachers College that is available for download at the Teachers College Web site. It states, "Social inequalities are often produced and perpetuated through systematic discrimination and justified by societal ideology of merit, social mobility, and individual responsibility (Strum & Guinier,[*] 1996). Traditionally organized schools help to reproduce social inequalities while giving the illusion that such inequalities are natural and fair."

The "conceptual framework" goes on to assert that "educators must recognize ways in which taken-for-granted notions regarding the legitimacy of the social order are flawed, see change agency as a moral imperative, and have skills to act as agents of change."

Good grief. The "legitimacy of the social order"? Deep waters, there, Teacher's College! I believe we live in a democratic republic already - the most free and most prosperous one ever on the planet, with the greatest opportunities for all.

If those profs think they have a better idea than that, let's hear it - before they inject those ideas into our kids' teachers.

Teaching is a high calling, an art and a skill. And much of teaching requires trying to engage young brains which would naturally prefer to be doing other things. That is often a thankless task, but the emotional rewards are when a kid finally "gets it," and the material rewards are a good pension, long summers, tenure, and better net hourly pay and benefits than most jobs.

Propagandizing with worn-out Marxist notions - left-overs from the 1960s - is a much easier thing to do than to teach kids important and useful information. It's easier on the kids too. They learn quickly to parrot this stuff back, if that's what the teacher wants: kids can be quite cynical and practical about such things.

I know, because I have heard it: "Daaaad, but I know Miss Jones wants us to say this!"

One of these days I will sit down and write what I, as an American citizen (and as an employer of thousands), expect a middle school, a high school, and a college graduate to know. 

If this is what you like, vote for a Dem on November 6th: (from And Rightly So)

The following is just a sampling of Nancy Pelosi’s voting record on issues that are critical to mainstream Americans. Pelosi voted:

NO on the Border Security Bill
NO on making the Republican tax cuts permanent
NO on eliminating the marriage penalty
NO on eliminating the death tax
NO on creating Health Savings Accounts
NO on the Defense of Marriage Act
NO on the 1996 Welfare Reform Law (and NO on its reauthorization)
NO on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance
NO on banning partial-birth abortion
NO on requiring a photo I.D. to ensure only legal voters vote
NO on the Patriot Act
NO on authorizing domestic tracking of terrorists
* NO on military tribunals and new interrogation rules for terrorist detainees

Today is the 50th Anniversary of the Hungarian Uprising against Soviet Communist oppression.

Gateway has a good remembrance, with a letter.

There are two phrases which drive me nuts. One is "root causes," and the other is "The common good."

Expensive consultants have advised the Dems that "the common good" might be a good theme for them. They even imagine that wrapping themselves in a virtuous, John Stuart Mill-sounding cloak could help bring Christians on board.

After all, who is against "the common good"? But there are many ways of looking at the common good. I know what the Dems mean by it: they want to increase dependency on the Federal govt, and therefore on them.

In fact, our Bird Dog wrote on this subject one week ago: Is a nation a family? We can expect more of this "It takes a village" stuff over the next two years, I believe.

As Hillary Clinton now-famously said in 2004: "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that (tax relief) short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

From a piece by Zoll in The Christian Post (h/t, News for Christians):

Ned Lamont uses it in his Connecticut Senate race. President Clinton is scheduled to speak on the idea in Washington this week. Bob Casey Jr., Pennsylvania candidate for Senate, put it in the title of his talk at The Catholic University of America — then repeated the phrase 29 times.
Ned Lamont uses it in his Connecticut Senate race. President Clinton is scheduled to speak on the idea in Washington this week. Bob Casey Jr., Pennsylvania candidate for Senate, put it in the title of his talk at The Catholic University of America — then repeated the phrase 29 times.

The whole thing here.

Harvard embarassed
itself last year,  with
Larry Summers - to their eternal shame for caving in to the manipulative hysterics of a bunch of cranks.

Now it's our turn, as more Ivy administrations prove their cultural dhimmitude and abandon the wisdom and experience of their supporters, who live in the real world.

Mind you, I love these two schools, and have degrees from each of them. But you know how most donors feel: "I just dare you to give me an excuse not to give you my time and money."

Let's do Dartmouth first. Joe's Dartblog provides a fine, detailed run-down of the sleazy actions of the antedeluvian administration, and their cohorts, as they seek to castrate their uppity, free-thinking, reality-oriented alumni organizations. The money involved is like a political campaign - which it is. Very disappinting to see an administration declare war against their own alumni. But the tactics will backfire, as they deserve to do.

Next, let's do Columbia - the only College in the US besides the great University of Chicago which can guarantee that a graduate knows certain important things.

At Columbia, the administration seems to happily cave in to the disruptors and the chronically aggrieved. It is pathetic to toss open, civil debate overboard because of noisy juvenile delinquents intimidating people with their  politically-correct babble. Brownshirts. Remember courage? 

Come on, Pres. Bollinger. Stand for something! If Columbia stands for caving in to the most barbaric and aggressive - then at least admit it.

Plenty of Columbia updates at Michelle, and more details at Allah Pundit. My opinion? Anyone who prevents the open exchange of ideas in civil debate does not belong in college.

A new feature of campus Stalinism is discussed - and later mocked - on Althouse. They want UW kids to snitch about a long list of things, including "disrespect." Huh? Manners are fine, but respect is earned: I do not hand out respect like Halloween candy, either. I wonder whether they paid Kim Sung Il to write this code for them.

Says Auster:

This demonstrates my definition of the three types of politics. Reactionaries and traditionalists recognize a threat to their society the moment it appears. Conservatives recognize a threat to their society only after the society is half ruined. And liberals and leftists recognize a threat to their society only after the society is completely ruined, or they never recognize it at all.

                                                                I am, in principle, in favor of a universal draft with service required for every young American boy and girl. I know the Armed Forces would not want all of those short-termers these days, as service has grown more technical and requires training well beyond Basic.

Getting rid of the draft was an insidious, politically-motivated move by Nixon, and, as he cynically predicted, it did largely end the anti-war movement.

So, although I do not have a Plan, I think it's an important concept. Service to the country used to be what all Americans (well, American guys) had in common. Now, there is nothing, other than paying taxes.

This comes up because The News Junkie asked me to comment on a piece by Kim du Toit. A couple of quotes:

At its most basic foundation, conscription addresses an unpleasant little fact: most people are cowards. They might be cowards on their own behalf, or because they want to protect their children from dying, but they are cowards nevertheless.

and 

We can dress this up with all the fine rhetoric, slogans and philosophy we choose: conscription is slavery; conscription is discriminatory; conscription is un-Constitutional, whatever.

It’s all camouflage to hide the uncomfortable fact that many people consider their own lives to be more valuable than any ideal, or the needs of the community. (I don’t have a problem with people feeling that way: I just want people to be honest about it.)

The most pernicious statement against conscription, however, is the famous one uttered by Robert Heinlein: “Any country that has to defend itself with forced conscripts is not worth defending.” It is depressing to think that a man who got so much right could utter such complete nonsense.

The reason it’s nonsense, of course, is that (like many similar arguments) it ignores this basic facet of human nature: that many people value their own lives more than the existence of their country.

A coward? Me? Hell, yes. Read the whole thing. How can we be, as a country, comfortable and guilt-free leaving service to "others"? Freedom is not a free lunch.

What is the big deal? Clinton did way worse with his young charges (with the sex IMs too), plus the BJs and all the rest.

Why is this any different?

Can't a good ol' Southern boy have his fun? How is flirting "predation?" Boys will be boys, right? Plus it's his personal life, ya know. And no BJs, as far as we know. Like a friendly uncle. 

Oh, it's different because Foley is gay! Gay flirting is predation. As the New New Dems wish to say, the guy is a pervert.

Yes, yet another typical youth-stalking gay pervert. "And you gay Dems in the back row - Shut the hell up. We have an election to win." 

This would be a business-as-usual non-story if Foley were a Dem, and he wouldn't have quit, either. I am eagerly awaiting Barney Frank's and the Clinton's view of this story, but they are having too much fun watching the Repubs trip all over themselves - plus there's nothing they can say.

Truly, election time is Silly Season.  Wake me up when it's over.

Ya gotta love that argument. It's our fault!

They should be upset. We fight back. That is a surprise? Maybe it is, after Clinton/Albright. Let them die angry. Why not? Allah loves that. Let's make Allah happy!

Hey, Ned Lamont! Let's please Allah! Change your ideas, and let them die. They want it, and need it, badly. Be multicultural, and consider their feelings! Let's give them the deaths they long for. It's a form of "caring," plus it meets their emotional needs.

Rush played a clip today of Nancy Pelosi suggesting applying the Golden Rule to our terrorist enemies.

Thus far, she has not suggested applying the Golden Rule to fellow Americans, like Republicans, however.

Thanks to Assistant Village Idiot for pointing out what those lies were that the Hungarians are getting steamed about. Because they are ordinary, everyday political lies, and not specific deceptions.

Here is what Prime Minister Gyurcsany said, as quoted in Brussels Journal:

“I was speaking about the whole elite. We repeated and repeated that you can be richer, fulfil your dreams, and we can give you happiness and fortune as a gift. This is a real lie. For the last 15 years, none of us were brave enough to initiate deep reform. We wanted to avoid painful measures and always found excuses not to act. That’s the real lie.” He added that he is the first politician who is brave enough to admit his mistake, i.e. Gyurcsány is the first politician in Europe who is honest enough to admit his dishonesty.

First in Europe? How about first in history? A vigorous wag of the dog's tail to this guy. Whole piece in Brussels Journal.

Re-posted from August 11, 2005

Interviewing Morons and Slackers - Hot Tips for Senior College Students, Plus the Glory of Maine

Pardon my rant, but I am fed up. I am heading to Northeast Harbor through Labor Day tomorrow, thank God, to play with my little Hinckley Picnic Boat which I paid (!)  someone to drive up there from CT, do a little bluefishing and striper fishing, get my three lobster pots out, play a little or hopefully a lot of tennis, read twenty books, go to a bunch of nice cocktail parties, and bang around the woods with the kids and the grandkids, and do some minor bird-watching, but I have been forced to run through what seems like a hundred educated fools over the past few months, so let me blow off a little steam.

We hire lots of folks every year. All we care about is what you bring to the table. We do not care what sex, color, sexual preference, or anything else that you are (as long as you speak grammatical English including correct use of the subjunctive, which I am a stickler about, and can pass our own patented quick-essay-writing test which I instituted. We give you the topic, and you get 30 minutes to write the most penetrating and knowledgable essay you can. Your one chance to show us what you have under the hood - if we're impressed by it, you will have a great opportunity to prove yourself. If you cannot write adequately under pressure, you cannot think adequately under pressure). We'll also give you an IQ test, but none of those psychological tests. We don't even care where you went to school (provided you had meaningful competition to deal with. Third tier - sorry - we just don't have the time for you no matter how good you might be - you probably paid a lot of money for a second high-school-level education. Time is money, sorry to say, and we are beholden to unforgiving shareholders). We really just care about what you can offer us. We expect a lot, but if we get a lot, we'll compensate you well, and if we are disappointed, you'll be gone in a flash. Period. Everyone is on parole, guilty until proven innocent, useless until proven valuable. That's reality. Assume, at least for your first year or so, that your file will contain abundant negatives. You will deserve them, even if we like you a lot. We do it so we can dismiss you if we decide to, and to educate you, and to motivate you, and because you won't understand what you are doing for a while anyway.

Among the other "delights" of my job is the pleasure of interviewing - I decided this year to personally make final approval for employees for two of our our companies, for new hires mainly over $90,000, bonus not included. These are companies that we are trying to aggressively move forward, and need good people. For my own education, and to assess the cut of their jibs, I took on this chore. (I tend to be partial to quirky, brainy, awkward people who love detail but can readily cut to the core of things. I am repelled by smoothies and I like people who will stand up to me, respectfully, of course  - I do not find ass-kissers or flatterers useful, but be warned, because many dumb employers love it. At least this is my feedback from my pal in HR, who speaks to me fearlessly since I depend on his judgement so much, and is my tennis partner at home.) This group included plenty of 2005 graduates, BAs, MBAs, and assorted other degrees. A word to the wise in HR: I hereby do not want to waste my time interviewing anyone who has not taken calculus, statistics, macro- and micro-economics, or pre-med biology, and probably chemistry and preferably a few physics courses.

Why? Because these are the only things left that are certain to demand intellectual rigor, and separate the men from the boys, as it were. I don't care about your grades, and I don't care what your major is - just show me you will tackle difficult things and that you have a problem-solving attitude. We can train you to do anything, if you arrive with the goods: IQ, discipline, strong sense of duty, enjoyment in taking on tough assignments, ability to use harsh criticism, and the right amount of ambition - not so much as to corrupt you, and not so little as to not be motivated. I could be missing some great hires, but I refuse to spend another five minutes of my life with a BS artist, basket-weaving major, "really nice guy" from Brown who can play squash. Nothing against squash. But got better things to do, like striper fishing. Well, I might seriously consider a Fly Fishing Major from Brown...do they have that major yet?

Later, Bird Dog. I am on vacation as of right now.

Churchill and Global Warming?

Steve Hayward of The Commons did a speech at the American Political Science Association recently, The Use and Abuse of Churchill in History. (Found it before Powerline linked it, but those guys are SCARY FAST.) Link to the whole speech here, but here is a quote:

 It is worth remembering how long we waited before finally facing the challenge posed by Nazi totalitarianism and Hitler. Many were reluctant to acknowledge that an effort on the scale of what became World War II was actually necessary, and most wanted to believe that the threat could be wished away with trivial sacrifices. For several years before the awful truth was accepted, one Western leader spoke out forcefully and eloquently about the gathering storm. Winston Churchill was uncompromising in his insistence that every effort be immediately bent to the task of ensuring Hitler’s defeat. After Neville Chamberlain concluded the Munich Pact of 1938, which gave Czechoslovakia to Hitler in return for his pledge not to take over still more territory, most Britons were happy and supported the policy that later was condemned as appeasement. Churchill, however, grasped the essence of what had occurred and of the unavoidable conflict that lay ahead.

From here Gore goes to quote at length the ultimate paragraph of Churchill’s Munich speech in the House, though, like the BBC’s Wilderness Years adaptation of the speech done in the late 1970s, he omits the final phrase, "as in the olden time."

From here Gore continues his main theme: "Thus do we meekly acquiesce in the loss of the world’s rain forests and their living species, the loss of the Everglades, the Aral Sea, the old-growth forests of the Pacific Northwest, the topsoil of the Midwest. . ." etc. "Bitter cups all--but only ‘the beginning of the reckoning,’ only the first of a steady stream of progressively more serious ecological catastrophes that will be repeatedly proffered to us . . ."

In An Inconvenient Truth Gore ratchets up the comparison, making out skeptics of his eco-apocalypticism, or doubters of the proposed remedies such as the Kyoto Protocol, to be the moral equivalent of Nazi appeasers. Gore cites the conclusion of Churchill’s 1936 speech attacking appeasement: "The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences."

We are re-posting this item for three reasons: 1. We can't stand Soros, 2. We added this cute photo from Moonbattery, 3. We have this new youTube video link about Soros calling Bush a Nazi. ...complaining about suppression of speech -  on national TV! What a jerk.

May I apply the old expression "If you're so rich, how come you ain't smart"? Well, I think he is smart, but not wise.

Who is this hero of capitalism?

George Soros, born Gyorgy Schwartz in Hungary in 1930, fled the Nazis in youth with his family, and ended up educated at the London School of Economics.

Since his arrival, almost penniless, in the US in 1956, he has become a legend of the hedge fund business. His specialty has been laying siege to currencies. His conviction for insider trading, and other financial wrong-doings, never garnered much negative attention and, indeed, it was peanuts - just the cost of doing aggressive business. His Quantum Fund is, predictably, registered in Curacao, an off-shore tax haven.

Soros' extracurricular activities over recent years have been rightly attracting much attention, as he has become more outspoken in his political views, which tend to be anti-American, pro-world-government, and quasi-socialistic. His preoccupation with drug-legalization is well-known, but his efforts to spread abortion among traditional catholic nations is not.

Besides being outspoken, Soros puts his vast amounts of money where his mouth is. Changing the world into his vision seems to be his life mission. His grandiosity, and his lack of respect for American traditions and principles, seem to be his flaws. There is no question that the man who broke the Bank of England understands markets, but that doesn't make him wise about other subjects.

While his efforts to bend the Democratic Party leftwards over the past few years, through his Move On organization, have been most visible, Soros' money has been active through many other organizations which would not exist without it. Many say that Soros has bought the Democratic Party, and now he wants to buy America. Many are not aware of his role in Amnesty International, in getting support for McCain-Feingold, or of his formation of the Center for American Progress and America Coming Together. And that's just the beginning. What's his role in funding Air America?

As a celebrity investor with billions to spend, he can always get a podium, and he can always find a way to support political goals while by-passing McCain-Feingold via the advocacy organizations he supports. Does he always get a pass from the press? Of course. He is one of the "good rich guys," as opposed to the "evil greedy Republican rich guys."  They are in awe of him.

Kincaid called him "the biggest political fat cat of all time."

Horowitz and Poe, in a new book, view Soros as the banker of The Shadow Party.

Atlas is always on Soros' case, unlike the MSM who leave him alone.

Here's a good summary of his NGO activities abroad.

But it's time to make "Soros-supported" a dirty phrase. Someone needs to do an in-depth study, and get the word out, more loudly. I do not have the time, but Discover the Networks doesn't do the job on Soros.

We don't mind his being wealthy, nor do we mind his having opinions. We just want people to know what he wants, and what he is doing, and paying for, behind the scenes.

Image of Soros as Dr. Evil stolen from Moonbattery

(Ignore continuation page below)

It is difficult not to dwell on the meaning of 9-11 this week. As a guy who works in NYC (but was in Maine on that date), it hit very close to home. Here are some of my current thoughts, in corporate, bullet-point form:

1. Islam is a dangerous religion to non-Moslems.  Unlike Christianity, which is commanded to spread the good news via example and preaching, Islam is commanded to spread their word via submission or death. Westernized Moslems reject that notion, but many no more wish to be Westernized than I wish to be, or my nation to be, Moslemized. "Tolerance of differences" is not in their lexicon.

2. America is only one of many targets of world-wide jihad. When we try to understand it in terms of America and the West, we miss the point. That view is too self-centered. They have many other targets, all around the Moslem perimeter.

3. Traditional Islamic culture is not compatible with Western, democratic, Judeo-Christian culture. Oil and water. Either one, or the other, must compromise its culture to live in the same place.

4. The world bears the US little good will. Not because of what we do, but because of what we are. There is envy, condescension, schadenfreude, and some fear. But they are wrong about us. We are decent, and we will leave you alone if you leave us alone. We can't help it if we're lucky, ambitious, free-thinking, and hard-working, and we need not apologize for that. 

5. The Moslem migrational invasion of Europe is a catastrophe for Europe, politically, demographically, and culturally. It seems that when they enter a nation in large enough numbers, they demand that their generous host adjust to them, rather than vice versa. There is no visible gratitude - only demands and threats. So why do they leave home? Why?

6. Traditional Islam feels threatened by Western ideas, ideals, behavior, and freedoms.  The less isolated and insulated they are, the more they realize that they are a cultural island, stuck in an ancient past. The world is shrinking, and the more they encounter of the West, the more they freak out, and want to strike out. No doubt they love their traditions and their ways as much as we love ours. Fine, if you don't mind living in the 13th century. But you may not impose them on us.

7. The Bush administration over-estimates the dangerousness of Jihad. However, he, or any President, must do that, politically, because the next 200 or 3000 or 100,000 Americans who are killed by Jihadists will be the responsibility of whoever is in charge. Protection is the first job of the federal government, and bringing the fight to our attackers is not a bad plan.

8. The Left wishes to minimize the danger. Not all of us Dems, but some Dems, and the Lefty fringe. Why? Because they do not love their country and its traditions. Simple.

9. The anti-war folks are not anti-war. They do not mind others waging war, only the US. They are therefore simply part of #8, above: so secure in their comforts and safety that they refuse to take danger seriously - or maybe even welcome some, to mess things up.

10. Of course the Jihadists hate the Western liberation of Iraq from a barbaric tyranny. Political freedom poses a serious threat, and the collapse of Saddam was a humiliating blow. Political freedom in the heart of the middle-east is probably something even the Saudis find discouraging. It is alien, and threatening to the old ways. Another intrusion of "modern" ideas, just like all of the satellite dishes in Iran that Ahmadinejad has been destroying. I suspect that the people of such nations as Iraq and Iran are far ahead of their "leaders."

11. Israel is a scapegoat. Islamist politicians and mullahs get some mileage out of being anti-semitic, but the problem is that tiny Israel with its tiny population is an affront to them - economically, religiously, and politically. However, if you gave Israel to the Palestinians today, in six months it would be a dump like they made of Gaza.

Jeff says it more succinctly and precisely than I can:

The boutique multiculturalism that the West has dabbled in with such self-satisfaction, then, is dangerous insofar as it appears to promote the principles of a multicultural worldview that, when push comes to shove, it cannot—and should not—actually support.  That is to say, by promoting the idea that individual cultures are the province of those who belong to them, rendering outside judgments about the beliefs and practices in those cultures at best presumptuous and at worst colonialistic (after all, in a world where “truth” is contingent upon the consensus of given interpretive communities, there are no immutable laws beyond those made by fallible man), Western culture has set the stage for its own inevitable hypocrisy when it is forced to draw the line at a point where Otherness is truly, rather than superficially, defined.

Honor killings are one such point. Female circumcisions are another.  And both, in my estimation, show up the folly of building a social organization around a principle that must, at some point, be arbitrarily subverted by those who have claimed all along to promote it—else the host culture be forced to surrender to the cultures it has claimed selflessly to accomodate.  At which point boutique multiculturalism is replaced by strong multiculturalism, which is the only multiculturalism that carries any real force to begin with.

And strong multiculturalism is, in certain respects, very much akin to the will to power I’ve talked about in terms of interpretive communities and identity politics:  for instance, once sharia law is “accepted,” that ascendency would snuff out the rights of those who don’t wish to practice it and would then set itself up as the dominant social narrative.  Which is why the Pandora’s Box of strong multiculturalism should never be opened—and why people like myself are wary whenever we see boutique multiculturalists playing around with the latch.

The Anchoress sums up all of our thoughts about the press, with an admirably restrained indignation.

One quote:

The incurious press never did want to know about John Kerry’s military records…they never did actually want to hear what the Swiftboat Vets had to say…hell, they weren’t even curious enough about Plamegate to ask Joe Wilson a question beyond “so, how is the Bush Neocon Cabal out to get you?” They never were curious enough to ask Valerie Plame nuthin’ at all. They weren’t curious about Sandy Berger’s pants, or Air America ’s use of public monies, either. They are not interested in the 45,000 boxes of documents which came out of Iraq and which are unearthing so much interesting stuff. They were not especially interested in Juanita Brodderick (imagine how interested they’d have been in her, however, had she shown up on Bush’s watch!). They’re not interested in why Bill Clinton was asked to leave Oxford University as a young man (but Bush’s TANG dentist - he got asked questions!) They have no curiousity about why Hillary Clinton - whose pet issues include education - was not taking part of the Eductation Consortium which took place in the rotunda of the Capital, on 9/11. Actually the press never seems able to ask Hillary a question that moves beyond, “how’d you get to be so great?”

Truth be told, the press is staggeringly incurious about most things, and what it is interested in - which in the past few years means “screwing Bush,” sorry, but it’s true - it obsesses on.

I cannot add anything to this piece. Read the whole thing.