The Regular Davis Diatribe

Merlene Davis, intrepid columnist/race-baiter of the Lexington Herald-Leader, delivered herself of a soliloquy the other day that includes silliness to a degree matched only by some editor’s in publishing the stuff. Concerning the voting habits of African Americans, she said, “It's a Pavlovian reaction, a learned thing, a conditioned response, a reason a majority of black folks -- who are by and large conservative -- don't vote Republican.” Her reason for that statement accrued to the actions of a handful of republicans who didn’t vote to suit her on the recent Civil-Rights renewal bill that passed both houses of a republican-managed Congress. The Senate vote was 98-0 and the House vote came in at 390-33, so the Pavlovian reaction naturally beset the black community on such a close vote as that, actually a combined 480-33. Ms. Davis says that blacks are too dumb to recognize the scope of a super-landslide plurality like that. Amazing!

Concerning the president’s appearance and speech at the recent NAACP convention, Ms. Davis had this to say: “Instead of the strutting cowboy, sidearms shiny with notched handles, Bush portrayed a man sincerely seeking to make amends. And he needed to.” Make amends for what? Were there some African-American Muslims at Abu Ghraib…or are there some of the Right Reverend Honorable Louis (Calypso Louie) Farrakhan’s “Million More” Muslims at Guantanamo? Maybe Ms. Davis thinks Bush did the wrong thing by appointing Condi Rice as Secretary of State, when he might have appointed Jesse or Al, folks with real gravitas.

Ms. Davis rattled on: “It was Bush's first appearance as president before the civil rights group. He had turned down five other invitations, letting it be known he didn't really like how the group's leadership portrayed him. You and I can do that.” This is what NAACP Chairman Julian Bond said in July 2001: "[Bush] has selected nominees from the Taliban wing of American politics, appeased the wretched appetites of the extreme right wing, and chosen Cabinet officials whose devotion to the Confederacy is nearly canine in its uncritical affection." Now, one wonders, why should the president not like that portrayal? To be compared to Robert E. Lee can’t be all that bad. Just ask the ghost of General/President U.S. Grant. One might want to ask Bond (and Ms Davis) what a “wretched appetite” is…maybe an affinity for overheated boilerplate straight from “Screamin Howard” Dean.

Here’s a quote from WorldNetDaily of 02 February 2006: Civil rights activist and NAACP Chairman Julian Bond delivered a blistering partisan speech at Fayetteville State University in North Carolina last night, equating the Republican Party with the Nazi Party and characterizing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her predecessor, Colin Powell, as tokens. "The Republican Party would have the American flag and the swastika flying side by side," he charged. Calling President Bush a liar, Bond told the audience at the historically black institution that this White House's lies are more serious than the lies of his predecessor's because Clinton's lies didn't kill people.

How could the president possibly resent a perfectly reasonable character assassination like that? In light of those compliments by NAACP Chairman Bond, Ms. Davis opined, “As unpleasant as it may be, the president has to meet with a lot of folks who call him names and disagree with his policies.” Well…actually no, but the prez waited five years after Bond’s lovely thoughts in 2001 but only a few months after his latest, apparently figuring that Bond is so marginalized that he might as well make the speech and get it over with, especially since 90% of the black vote goes to democrats, and it wouldn’t matter if an orangutan was the democrat nominee. The result would be the same. Since Bond insists that Clinton’s lies didn’t kill, one wonders what he (and Ms. Davis, of course) thinks those lies did.

Ms. Davis continued with her exercise in cognitive excellence: “Bush acknowledged that racism and discrimination still exist in America, despite what fellow party members in the House may think.” Why the lady was compelled to ascribe to the president a revelation already known by only about 285 million Americans – okay less the infants and a handful of republicans – is hard to figure. Maybe she was making a stab at proving that the prez has gravitas and that Cheney is not the only one owning that trait. One thing is certain, to wit, Ms. Davis will see to it that racism – hers – is alive and well and stays that way, the better to keep things stirred up, hopefully for the front page above the fold.

Ms. Davis made this astute observation: “His talk was good; now we will find out if it was also cheap. We've heard promises before that disappear off political radar right after votes are counted.” She didn’t bother to mention that it was the democrat party that stood in the way of civil rights back in the 60s and before. George Wallace wasn’t exactly a republican. She also didn’t mention that the promises made by democrats to the 90% of blacks who vote for them haven’t been kept for decades.

What Ms. Davis either does not understand or will not admit is the simple fact that, especially accruing to pronouncements by the likes of Jackson and Sharpton, the civil-rights legislation was viewed as “something for nothing” in the black community…entitlements based on skin color. As one and maybe the worst result, most black households are headed by a single mother, 70% of all black newborns being illegitimate and eligible (along with their mothers) for all kinds of goodies, a figure that has been virtually extant for years. The fathers, undocumented, of course, have simply quit the game, but often make the scene. In 1960, before the legislation, the rate of illegitimacy among blacks was 23.6% of births, meaning that 75% of black families could be assumed to be headed by a man and wife, reduced now to 30% or less. This doesn’t mean that the civil-rights legislation was bad, then or now, only that it has been terribly misunderstood and misapplied.

It’s a shame, actually, that people like Davis don’t recognize reality.

And so it goes.

Jim Clark

Iran/Syria Cabal - End It!

The desire to either be deluded or to delude others is seen in the notion that Israel attacked Lebanon. Nothing has been better documented than the fact that Israel was attacked in both the Gaza region and from Lebanon, thus fomenting the current conflict, one that hopefully will end Hezbollah once and for all. In 1948, Israel did not attack Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. It was the other way around.

In 1956, Israel did not attack Egypt’s Sinai, but moved against the terrorist raids from that area, as is the current case with Lebanon and Gaza. In 1967, Israel did not attack Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, but took back Gaza and got rid of the constant threats from the Golan Heights and also helped themselves to the West Bank, sort of like the USA hanging on to Gitmo whether Castro likes it or not. The same is true of Guam, although the Japanese are happy for the USA to be there.

In 1973, Israel did not attack Egypt and Syria. It was the other way around. Israel gave the Sinai back to Egypt in1982 and has recently given up much of the West Bank and all of Gaza. By 1982, it was the PLO that took up the fight against Israel, and Sharon invaded its nest in Lebanon, but virtually all Israelis pulled out of South Lebanon by 2000. Hezbollah took over this region. The Syrian army, which controlled Lebanon, did not leave until 2005.

During the 2000s, the suicide/homicide bombings became the “in” weapon used in Israel and the Koranic “death to the infidels at every opportunity and by any method” spiritual modus operandi, as exemplified throughout the 90s throughout the world and culminating for the USA on 9/11, turned the issue into religious fanaticism unimaginable in civilized countries.

Israel is the flashpoint for a much wider and ominous conflict, i.e., that which emanates from the command of the Koran for Islamic annihilation of all infidels, especially in the USA, the greatest threat to that effort. The stage is already set, and, while the Islamic fascists are still too technically/militarily weak and totally blinded by fundamentalism as practiced on ignorant people to do great horror now, the time is right to destroy this threat with a minimum of casualties in both this and other nations. In other words and by whatever means (principally taking out the technical/hardware-resources needed for both conventional weapons and WMD), Iran and Syria, the suppliers of Hezbollah and financers of the mischief (along with Saudi Arabia, a non-player because of its military ineptness), these nations must be neutralized now.

Attempts at diplomacy are laughable and only contain quid pro quo (usually financial) packages that are immediately violated. Think Kim Jong Il. Other powers such as China and all those in Europe, whose nations are becoming more Islamic every day, and even other Islamic nations such as Saudi Arabia will welcome an end to the Iran/Syria cabal, just as they welcomed the virtual end of Al Qaeda and the actual end of Saddam. Russia, with its constant threat of former Muslim SSRs on its southern border (all the “stans”), as well as those within – think Chechnya – will not object. Waiting for the hopeless UN to act is to wait forever, so this nation and perhaps Britain and a handful of others will have to make the decision and carry it out. Without question, Israel, if pushed to the limit, will instigate nuclear war. It’s better to do the “dirty work” now to forestall certain massive upheavals than to wait for a gaggle of idiots such as Iran’s Ahmadinejad or ObL to cause unbelievable turmoil later.

This does not mean a land invasion anywhere. With the Iraq conflict still in progress, such an undertaking is out of the question, anyway, even if it were thought profitable. Further expenditure of American blood/treasure and that of other nations also is not worth a bloody invasion. It means that the ability of Iran and Syria to in any way aid and abet terrorist activities must be completely destroyed.

This would involve first warning these nations that all their nuclear and military facilities would be bombed into ashes if they didn’t stop their activities, notwithstanding and in spite of “collateral damage.” There’s enough information in a number of intelligence agencies in a number of countries to pinpoint these facilities, and there certainly is the means available to destroy them, both in the region and from facilities a half-a-world away, if necessary. Financing the rebuilding of the destroyed infrastructure in the two countries would dry up the cash now expended in supplying proxy butchers such as Hezbollah with the means to literally threaten the world. If these nations did not respond by foreclosing their support of Hezbollah and all other terrorist groups, let the action begin.

This is, of course, a sanguinary – some would say meddlesome and heartless – approach; however, while in the short term it would be nasty, the long-term benefits would be worth both the sacrifices on all sides, as well as the world’s rancor. Actually, the world’s rancor would change little from what it is now, since most of the nations in the UN, while never admitting it, despise Israel, never mind its legitimate standing as a nation, and the USA because of sheer envy and because of its support of Israel, notwithstanding the rightness of that support. With regard to the USA and the UN, it’s always a lose-lose situation for this country when it does anything, so there’s nothing new there.

William Buckley went on the record recently to remark this country’s failure with respect to nation-building in Iraq, actually something it was right to attempt but unable to do, notwithstanding the elections and all the rest. Nation-building might actually happen, however, once the U.S. is out of there. It certainly will not happen until the Americans leave and the Iraqis are faced with democracy or theocracy, either one guaranteed to be bloody in the establishing, especially in a nation with a literacy rate of 40%. The Iran/Syria matter does not involve nation-building, an absolute impossibility in either place, but it does involve neutralizing the ability of these countries to make mischief, and the free world should see to that, even if only the U.S. is up to it.

And so it goes.

Jim Clark

Domestic-Partner Rip-off!

The lengths to which the elitist university pooh-bahs will go to make themselves appear even more irrelevant and out-of-touch with society than they already are can be seen in the decision by the University of Louisville to provide benefits for “domestic partners,” euphemism for homosexuals in what they have the gall to call “committed relationships” and fornicators who prefer shack-up arrangements to marriages…no binding documentation regarding the relationship, no concrete commitment of each “lover” to the other…just live and exploit. The pressure is on the University of Kentucky to do the same silly thing, university spokesman Jay Blanton actually insisting that this must be done in order to attract the brightest and the best in bringing the school to “top 20” status, as if those who practice perversion or lack the will to commit themselves to a documented marriage are somehow superior to nearly all the rest of humanity.

What, one supposes, is a “domestic partner?” According to the Merriam-Webster Collegiate, 11^th Edition, a domestic partner is “either one of an unmarried heterosexual or homosexual cohabiting couple especially when considered as to eligibility for spousal benefits.” So, the aim of the domestic partner has nothing to do with a human relationship per se, but has everything to do with cadging from the government all the things that are defined by documents of one kind or another, principally those having to do with marriage, including the children. The notion that the element of personal commitment plays any part in the matter is too ridiculous even to contemplate. It’s the economy, stupid!

How is the status of a domestic partner to be determined, in order for the bountiful supplies from the government to flow? Good question. Indicated in a check of some university sites is the fact that the partners must have lived together for a while, be committed (whatever that means), be unmarried, of course, own or rent some things in common, etc. Since there’s no official (i.e. government) document to guarantee any of these things or to be brought into play in the event of false claims – no court affairs, jail time, punishment – it’s just sort of a “take my word for it” kind of thing, unless the applicant agrees, one supposes, to submitting to law-enforcement proceedings.

The obvious question: Since married folks have documents to prove their credibility, how is the partnership to be evaluated on a continuing basis to insure its credibility? It’s the consensus that homosexuals, for instance, are unbelievably promiscuous, so that the DP thing simply means subsidization of a lifestyle permitting plenty of “collective domestic partnerships.” Since the homosexuals were the primary players in damning the country with HIV-AIDS and since the care and feeding of the infected under DP arrangements will be expensive items for the taxpayers, one can see how they certainly would want to be leeches on the system. Also, especially in the case of homosexuals, neither partner has any responsibility for family, so why shouldn’t each partner take advantage of his own plan for whatever benefits it provides? Or, is one able-bodied stud supposed to “keep house” while the other brings home the bacon and let whatever company, institution, or agency is stupid enough to give away benefits to the “domestic” pick up the tab? If two people just want to live together – their privilege – let them pay the freight for that privilege, just like the straights and married folks have to do.

This is a travesty upon the very institution that is the foundation of society, composed of the marriage of one man and one woman and their children, if any – the nuclear family. Those who scream that this domestic-partner issue is related only to a religious belief – therefore not a matter with which government can be concerned since it automatically becomes a church-state issue – are wildly off-base. It is a social issue, first and foremost, since it derives from what can inarguably be called the “natural order of things.” Letting down the bars on this “natural order” is tantamount to inducing perversions on a grand scale. One has only to look at nations such as the Netherlands, where both same-sex marriage and “consensual incest” are legal, to see the result. What’s next – legalized bigamy…tripartite marriages…harems? Egad!

On 02 November 2004, Amendment 233A was overwhelmingly approved by the voters and made a part of the Kentucky Constitution: “Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”

It seems clear enough that in Kentucky homosexuals may not marry each other, at least legally, and thus are not accorded the benefits provided by the state to dependents on the basis of documentation with regard to marriage or family standing. No benefits are available for an individual not legally married to the eligible recipient, no matter the sexual orientation or preference, or a dependent not having family standing, as in the case of children in either homosexual households or heterosexual shack-ups. The law is quite clear.

University boards mistakenly believe – especially since the institutions are self-insured, though employees may pay part of their health-insurance premiums – that the state has no power to regulate them. Nothing could be farther from the truth. A land-grant college or university is an institution that has been designated by its state legislature or Congress to receive the benefits of the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890. The state of Kentucky has the last word as to how the higher-education institutions will be governed, notwithstanding the respective boards. If Kentucky law – actually Constitution – mandates against benefits for those affected directly by Amendment 233A, no state-chartered institution can nullify it. The taxpayers of the state pay the freight, as well as the parents of most students, and these taxpayers have spoken in a landslide vote extending the ironclad fist of the Constitution. This is true for all other states where this is an issue.

Private institutions can do as they please, but those that are publicly operated may not. A couple of Kentucky colleges do the domestic-partner thing, not surprising given the atmosphere on most campuses. The wonder is that most of Kentucky’s colleges don’t. It’s certain that the state’s largest newspapers think and editorialize that the domestic-partner silliness is the greatest thing since chunks were introduced into peanut butter. This is what Larry Keeling of the Lexington Herald-Leader had to say in the 16 July issue: “We in Kentucky often talk about aspiring to greatness in education and in economic development. If we truly want to get there, we must choose enlightenment over intolerance.” Enlightenment over intolerance, indeed! What he proposes is “choosing perversion over perception.” Disgusting!

This matter most likely will go to the Courts or the Legislature or both. In any case, under the Constitution there seems no way that the domestic-partner rip-off will stand. Lexington, Ky., Mayor Isaac tried to impose the D-P benefit on the public by executive order in 2003, but was turned back by the governing Council. The board of the University of Louisville is much like the federal Ninth Circuit Court, 75% of whose decisions are overturned by the Supreme Court. It is hoped that the University of Kentucky will not fall into the “political correctness” nonsense and act stupidly. Unlike Toyota or Boeing or Lexmark, it is bound by the people of Kentucky, who have a large stake in how the state’s money is spent, as well as its approach to what is acceptable Constitutionally…and, ultimately, morally. Sanctioning perversion as normal is damning to any society.

And so it goes.

Jim Clark

Domestic-Partner Nonsense

The lengths to which the elitist university pooh-bahs will go to make themselves appear even more irrelevant and out-of-touch with society than they already are can be seen in the decision by the University of Louisville to provide benefits for “domestic partners,” euphemism for homosexuals in what they actually call “committed relationships” and fornicators who prefer shack-ups to marriages…no documentation, no commitment…just live and lust. The pressure is on the University of Kentucky to do the same silly thing, university spokesman Jay Blanton actually insisting that this must be done in order to attract the brightest and the best in bringing the school to “top 20” status, as if those who practice perversion or lack the will to commit themselves to a documented marriage are somehow superior to nearly all the rest of humanity.

This is a travesty upon the very institution that is the foundation of society, composed of the marriage of one man and one woman, and their children – the nuclear family. Those who scream that this domestic-partner issue is related only to a religious belief – therefore not a matter with which government can be concerned since it automatically becomes a church-state issue – are wildly off-base. It is a social issue, first and foremost, since it derives from what can inarguably be called the “natural order of things.” Letting down the bars on this “natural order” is tantamount to inducing perversions on a grand scale. One has only to look at nations such as the Netherlands, where both same-sex marriage and “consensual incest” are legal, to see the result.

On 02 November 2004, Amendment 233A was overwhelmingly approved by the voters and made a part of the Kentucky Constitution. Its wording: Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.

It seems clear enough that in Kentucky homosexuals may not marry each other, at least legally, and thus are not accorded the benefits provided by the state to dependents on the basis of documentation with regard to marriage or family standing. No benefits are available for an individual not legally married to the eligible recipient, no matter the sexual orientation or preference, or a dependent not having family standing, as in the case of children in either homosexual households or heterosexual shack-ups. The law is quite clear.

University boards mistakenly believe – especially since the institutions are self-insured, though employees may pay part of their health-insurance premiums – that the state has no power to regulate them. Nothing could be farther from the truth. A land-grant college or university is an institution that has been designated by its state legislature or Congress to receive the benefits of the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890. The state of Kentucky has the last word as to how the higher-education institutions will be governed, notwithstanding the respective boards. If Kentucky law – actually Constitution – mandates against benefits for those affected directly by Amendment 233A, no state-chartered institution can nullify it. The taxpayers of the state pay the freight, as well as the parents of most students, and these taxpayers have spoken in a landslide vote extending the ironclad fist of the Constitution.

Private institutions can do as they please, but those that are publicly operated may not. A couple of Kentucky colleges do the domestic-partner thing, not surprising given the atmosphere on most campuses. The wonder is that most of Kentucky’s colleges don’t. It is certain that the state’s largest newspapers think and editorialize that the domestic-partner silliness is the greatest thing since chunks were introduced into peanut butter. This is what Boy Columnist (aka Larry Keeling) of the Lexington Herald-Leader had to say in the 16 July issue: “We in Kentucky often talk about aspiring to greatness in education and in economic development. If we truly want to get there, we must choose enlightenment over intolerance.” Enlightenment over intolerance, indeed! What he proposes is “choosing perversion over perception.” Disgusting!

This matter most likely will go to the Courts or the Legislature or both. In any case, under the Constitution there seems no way that the domestic-partner rip-off will stand. Lexington, Ky., Mayor Isaac tried to impose the D-P benefit on the public by executive order in 2003, but was turned back by the Council. The board of the University of Louisville is much like the federal Ninth Circuit Court, 75% of whose decisions are overturned by the Supreme Court. It is hoped that the University of Kentucky will not fall into the “political correctness” nonsense and act stupidly. Unlike Toyota or Boeing or Lexmark, it is bound by the people of Kentucky, who have a large stake in how the state’s money is spent, as well as its approach to what is acceptable Constitutionally…and, ultimately, morally. Sanctioning perversion as normal is damning to any society.

And so it goes.

Jim Clark

A BOGUS Lawsuit?

This is a quote from the blog BluegrassReport.org of 10 July: “This afternoon, a federal lawsuit was filed in the Eastern District of Kentucky entitled Mark Nickolas v. Governor Ernie Fletcher, Secretary John Farris and Secretary Robbie Rudolph over the recent targeting and censorship of BluegrassReport.org. The suit alleges that the administration's actions are an infringement of rights under the 1st Amendment and Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.”

This is the definition of censor: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable. Since neither the governor nor anyone else in the state’s employ, including Farris and Rudolph, have tinkered with anything written in Nickolas’ blog, there seems to be no way this suit could be taken seriously. Indeed, one supposes that neither Fletcher nor anyone else but Nickolas or someone designated by Nickolas (proper password, etc.) could even have access to his blog in order to suppress or delete anything in it. Certainly, no one but the owner of this blog, Muckraker, could touch it. Well…perhaps any hacker worth his salt could do that, but neither the governor nor any state employee has hacked into BluegrassReport, in order to censor it in any way at all.

So…are Nickolas and/or his lawyer(s) so inept that they can’t even properly recognize lawsuit material? Actually, a number of Web sites have been barred from use by state employees, including Nickolas’, apparently, and other sites such as those dealing with pornography and gambling. Nickolas is claiming that this constitutes censorship, since ALL Web sites have not been barred from state-employee use. This obviously has nothing to do with censorship, as claimed in the suit, so perhaps Nickolas should go after the governor on the much more widely used lawsuit-vehicle of discrimination.

This brings up the question of whether or not the governor runs the state, including designating the Web sites to be allowed, as well as the ancillary question: “Does a blogger or anyone else run the state government and make those decisions?” Since Nickolas has in no way been harmed by the action foreclosing his site, he would seem to have no case, unless he can claim monetary damages accruing to the loss of business by state employees who could once view advertising on his site, thus contributing to commissions he might earn; however, his is a non-profit site, so he could hardly make that claim, especially in light of the fact he solicits donations on his site in order to keep it in operation. One supposes he submits the proper tax documents to the state and federal governments if Nickolas is running a paying business.

It would seem best if no Web-sites except those having to do with state business be available to state employees in their workplaces. This would certainly mean better levels of productivity, since Web-surfing, for instance, can gobble up huge portions of time. However, if such is not to be the case, the decision as to which sites will be allowed belong to the administration, taking into account the fact that legislators and justices (representing equal branches of government) have their prerogatives. In any case, it seems that Nickolas has no case. It’s a lead-pipe cinch that his blog would be allowed at the expense of others if Ben Chandler, whose unsuccessful gubernatorial campaign Nickolas managed in 2003, had made it into office instead of Fletcher. As always, to the victor belong the spoils.

And so it goes.

Jim Clark

Herald-Leader Smears Lt. Gov. Pence

Becoming a McClatchy paper last week, if anything, has introduced the Lexington Herald-Leader Editorial Board to even more inanity (or insanity) than usual – and that’s saying a lot, since its degree of lunacy was already well along to the nth level. In an attempt to smear Lt. Gov. Pence in the July 2 edition, the paper indirectly but unmistakably made Ky. Attorney General Stumbo appear to be either unaware of reality or so patently partisan that he couldn’t be trusted to feed the dog.

The editorialists(s) at least implied that Pence, then a federal (not state) prosecutor, must have been attempting to sabotage then Lt. Gov. Henry’s gubernatorial aspirations in 2003 by nailing him for $412,000 worth of Medcare/Medicaid fraud, but let him settle for paying $162,000. In the same editorial, the paper called attention to the fact that a woman who pleaded guilty in May to $74,000 worth of Medicare/Medicaid embezzlements now faces up to 60 years in prison and a $1.5 million fine. In other words, Pence let Henry, a state official, off easy (sued him instead of charging him with a crime), while the current federal prosecutor threw the book at the lady, despite the huge disparity in the charges.

The matters mentioned above involved federal felonies. By contrast with Pence’s treatment of Henry, Stumbo, instead of allowing the alleged Merit System matters to go before the proper personnel agency in order for the aggrieved employees to be made well, indicted a host of Kentucky officials, including the governor, on state misdemeanors…wrist-slappers at best and replicated – without due process – in democrat administrations since time immemorial. In other words, Stumbo actually did damage Fletcher, a state official, for reasons that seem entirely obvious, since he has said he would consider running for the governor’s seat next year only if Fletcher became unpopular. He obviously has done everything in his power to make the governor unpopular, but he’ll be the paper’s boy if he runs, no matter how this stinks.

This unintended consequence – the comparison of the two matters – apparently never registered with the editorialists, whose only aim in life since 2003 has been to deep-six Fletcher, the first republican in over 30 years to gain the governor’s chair. McClatchy Boy Columnist (aka Larry Keeling) is still carrying on about the door Fletcher had built between two offices in the Capitol building years ago, this affair seemingly as ominous as the expose of the New York Times regarding the work of the NSA, which, of course, has been perfectly legal and has helped forestall any further terrorist attacks in this country since 9/11. When he isn’t railing about the infamous door, Boy Columnist wails about the unfairness of a Constitutional provision that disallows men to marry each other…so, the McClatchey folks may wonder pretty soon just what drives this Editorial Board.

Even sillier in the July 2 edition was the banner headline on the front page, with letters nearly an inch tall: Fletcher’s investments tied to a select group. There followed reams of columns of ramblings and pictures, including most of the front page and half of page 12, that meant absolutely nothing, suggested no criminal acts, and wound up with a quote by – of all people – Democrat Party Chairman Jerry Lundergan to the effect that the governor has a right to do just what he did. The editors at the paper knew the public wouldn’t read or care about all this stuff, but the headline was tailored to taint the governor. Okay…it’s summer time and the news business is slow…but between the editorialists and the “reporters,” the H-L gave a new meaning to irrelevance in the July 2 edition.

And so it goes.

Jim Clark