HERALD-LEADER Defines "just barely!"

Wonders never cease when it comes to editorialists who must have something to say about everything when it's obvious that they have a hard time having something sensible to say about the simplest things. Here's the opening of the lead editorial in the Lexington Herald-Leader of 23 May (the day after the Primary): "This morning, it's fair to start with congratulations to Gov. Ernie Fletcher. He managed to survive his own party's primary -- just barely."

Well…okay. The republican governor won only 104 of the state's 120 counties, with a plurality well over 50%. So…one has to conclude that the editorialist has a strange definition for the term "just barely." The democrat winner managed only a 41% plurality, so the term "just barely" defies description in his case. Maybe "just barely barely" would do. The paper's view is that half of the republicans voted against a sitting guv, but didn't take the view that nearly 60% of democrats voted against their standard-bearer in November. Editorialists have a hard time, especially when their agenda is being chopped-up into little pieces.

It could be that an important contributing factor to Fletcher's win was the presence of Attorney General Greg Stumbo's name on the ballot in the lieutenant governor slot of the losing democrat team that won a measly 21% of democrat voters. Stumbo said years ago that he would consider running for governor (not lieutenant governor) if Fletcher became "wildly unpopular." He then attempted make the guv wildly unpopular by running an investigation out of his office that properly belonged elsewhere – for instance, before an ethics committee. He racked up a raft of misdemeanors, mostly, and the guv just pardoned the accused, not allowing the obvious witch-hunt to hurt governing and bankrupt bureaucrats hung with huge attorney-fees trying to fight simple misdemeanors. Stumbo even charged the guv, but made nothing stick and dropped everything.

The governor's two republican opponents entered the primary advancing the proposition that Fletcher was too mortally wounded by the faux charges that were obvious to any reasonable person as politically motivated – especially in Kentucky, where the politics surely are the damnedest. For his trouble, Stumbo has been let out to pasture. In his portion of the concession speech, he vowed to try the governor on every street-corner and in every barbershop in Kentucky between now and November, admitting, though obviously unintentionally, that he wasn't able to trap him in the only place that mattered – the court.

The biggest losers financially were the ones who largely – if not almost altogether – bankrolled their own campaigns. Republican Billy Harper spent mega-millions to get 13% of the vote. Democrat Bruce Lunsford (Stumbo's running mate) also spent mega-millions to get 21% of the democrat vote. A few days ago, republican contender Anne Northup shot another $500,000 into her campaign that garnered 37% of the republican vote. Democrat Steve Henry also "loaned" his campaign a cool million in April, and collected 17.5% of the democratic vote for his investment. The biggest loser, of course, was Lunsford, who wasted another $8 million four years ago trying for the office, then dropped out and actually supported republican Fletcher in his successful race against Ben Chandler, who kissed the whole crowd goodbye by going off to Congress the next year and avoiding the current gubernatorial mishmash altogether.

The editorialist one more time: "No matter your campaign rhetoric, people will still know that they don't have affordable health care, that good jobs are hard to find, that their kids aren't learning enough in the early grades and that college is too expensive." These are the exact words rumbling through the editorial pages during every election cycle for decades…so what else is new?

And so it goes.

Jim Clark

Mainstream Media & Misspeaking

Imagine what would have happened if President Bush announced last week that 2,750,000 people (one-tenth of the nation’s population) had died in the fighting in Iraq in one day during the war on terrorism. That extent of carnage when extrapolated over the four years since the invasion in 2003 would surely mean that there was no one left. The president, who is always vilified in the mainstream media for mispronouncing “nuclear” (probably on purpose by now just to stiff his nemeses), would be excoriated by the pundits and talking-heads for being too ignorant to hold office and therefore would call on Congress for immediate impeachment and conviction…then consignment to the nearest booby-hatch.

Consider: President wannabe Senator Barack Obama said in a stirring speech in Richmond, Virginia, the other day that 10,000 people died in a tornado that hit Greensburg, Kansas the day before. At that time, only 12 had been confirmed dead in a town of some 1,500 people. Folks would have had to reserve every bus in the state in order to transport enough people to Greensburg for 10,000 of them to be blown away…that is, if anyone had known the tornado was to happen. At least a couple days notice would have been necessary to make all the arrangements. If Obama had been president last week and his calculations (or miscalculations) had been used, he would have said that 2,750,000 people had died in Iraq in one day.

Okay…Obama was nowhere near Kansas, has to depend on gofers to get both information and misinformation – both needed at various times for different reasons determined by a necessary spin on a specific subject – hadn’t bothered to check something that a high school sophomore would have suspected to be erroneous, and probably didn’t even realize the mistake, much less the enormity of it. According to the NOAA National Weather Service, during the 50-year period 1950-1999 a total of 4,460 people died because of tornados in this entire country, but Obama thought and said 10,000 died in one day. What price has he paid – zilch? Of course. Anyone who makes a mistake that outrageous about something happening in his own country, especially in this day of instant communication, is just considered by the media as having a bad day…especially if he happens to be a democrat.

Or, take the case of Senator Clinton. In conjunction with her current effort as a prez wannabe, her book It Takes a Village came out in a myriad of reprints. Imagine what would happen if a republican wannabe expressed the idea that it actually does take a village to raise a child. He/she would immediately be branded as a socialist or a communist since in those ideologies is the insistence that the state should raise the children while the parents do more useful work. This was Hitler’s idea, too, so throw in the anarchist or fascist – or whatever Hitler was, besides crazy – as the republican’s model. Does the mainstream media consider Senator Clinton to be a devotee to those un-American concepts of government responsibilities? Of course not! Like Obama, she’s a darling of the Michael Moore gang and the freaks that run MoveOn.org for Soros…the Hollywood crowd that lives in la-la-land, the land of make-believe.

What would happen if the president’s press honcho Tony Snow should inform the gang of reporters/pundits/talking-heads and other propagandists of the media at his next news conference that the president of CBS lied on his resume and that he actually didn’t get beyond the sixth-grade, in which he spent five years at that? Snow’s head would have been demanded by the mainstreamers (hopefully not on a platter, like that of John the Baptist) and he would have been accused of the worst sort of slander…and justifiably. He would have been laughed to scorn, blackballed throughout the information industry, and never heard from again.

Flash back to 2004 in the final months just before the presidential election. Dan Rather, the golden boy at CBS, announced to the world that George Bush had been given favors by Texas Air National Guard honchos and that his military record was somehow not complete or erroneous and that the president was therefore not truthful and certainly not up to being president of the nation. He even produced documents to prove these charges, thus making CBS’s democrat-driven agenda rock-solid-hard in insisting that Bush was a liar and worse. The problem: lies and forgeries. Rather didn’t produce news. He produced a hoax of immense proportions.

What happened to Rather at CBS? Nothing, for quite a long time. A few heads rolled, but not his…at least not until it was abundantly obvious to CBS, thoroughly discredited by the whole sordid affair, that he had to go. Has Rather disappeared from sight for having produced a lie as outrageous as can be imagined? Of course not…at least not in the mainstream media, in which he continues to do interviews and, if memory serves, is still on the CBS payroll to do things of a special nature. He is still considered an expert and palmed off on the public as reliable. Not surprising…but weird!

Of course, there’s Howard Fineman of Newsweek. He managed to lie that American GIs had flushed Korans down toilets at Guantanamo a couple years or so ago, causing a bunch of Muslims around the world to commit hara-kiri in protest. Where’s Fineman today? He’s Newsweek’s chief political analyst. Fineman regularly offers his political analysis on various NBC franchises. Notwithstanding his contriving an incredible hoax, Fineman remains a darling of the mainstream media. Is it any wonder that this media has virtually no credibility?

And so it goes.

Jim Clark

Iraqi Vacations = U.S. Departure Time

This country, led most of the time against the current by President Bush, has gone the proverbial “last mile” in Iraq, taking casualties now trying to keep the peace among people hell-bent not to live in peace – at least as far as their leaders are concerned, which is all that matters in a population of which more than half are functionally illiterate and therefore led around by the nose by the butchers who recognize no sanctity of life. The people voted three times in 2005, often, if not always, at great personal risk to secure a democratic government.

Since the last vote, December 2005, this country has stayed the course, watching elected Iraqi leaders act along multi-partisan lines (though mostly sectarian) to defeat the will of the people and install themselves or their parties/tribes/sects/whatever in positions of advantage, leaving the common people worse off then they were under the supreme butcher, Saddam. Even worse, their surrogates in the streets kill indiscriminately, strapping on bombs and blowing women and children to bits in the marketplace or installing IEDs to kill American GIs.

The crowning insult to the Bush administration is the recent announcement by the Iraqi government that it intends to take two months off soon for vacation, as if it hasn’t seemingly been somewhere off the planet for a year and a half already. In this corner, which has always steadily supported the Iraqi action, this announcement should be taken by President Bush as an invitation by the Iraqis to depart. If Iraqi lawmakers and bureaucrats don’t intend to be serious about their commitment, this country certainly should not carry their water any longer. No American life or limb has been wasted in the effort, since the world is now on notice that this country has both the power and the will to move military resources around the world and overcome any enemy.

Nation-building, however, is possible only among people who are both willing to participate and unwilling to shed each other’s blood in the process. George Bush announced when running in 2000 that nation-building was not this country’s business. He felt it necessary to change that concept in both Afghanistan and Iraq probably because this country did a great deal to completely turn those countries upside-down. Enormous amounts of lives and treasure have been spent in the process in both places, but in neither place does there seem any actual hope that democracy will take hold.

The literacy rate in Afghanistan is 28.1%, an unbelievable statistic in this country. Two things are necessary for a republic to exist – integrity, especially among officials, and a reasonably well-educated populace, neither of which obtains in Afghanistan and Iraq. This being the case, it’s time now for serious planning for withdrawal, not because democrats demand it but because there’s no light at the end of the tunnel in either place, not to mention that the U.S. military has been heavily enough burdened. In fact, things might get better – except for women and girls – in both places when the troops leave. Unfortunately, even though this country has virtually freed women and girls in their Islamic hells, American GIs cannot enforce decency upon men who are instinctively indecent and driven to be so by a fanaticism enhanced by fanatic imams, ayatollahs, sheiks, whatever.

The claim that a withdrawal will make this nation appear weak or will allow the terrorists to follow our troops to our shores is without foundation. This would have been true if the nation had not “stayed the course” after engaging the enemy in Afghanistan and Iraq 5.5 and four years ago, respectively. There was hope back then that a people would decide to govern themselves secularly but the hope has long since evaporated. It appears that even the man in the street is determined to live by the Koran, which makes jihad incumbent upon him, whether he likes it or not. Now, even the women are getting into the act, blowing themselves, along with other women as well as children, to smithereens in the name of their god – Allah. This country has made its point in spades and has nothing to fear but – as FDR put it in WWII-terms in1941 – fear itself.

Everything is now changed in light of the fact that Iraqi leaders are perfectly willing to take off a couple months while their land is going to hell in a hand-basket, and after having done nothing for some 18 months, at that. Disgusting. The time to start leaving is now. The war was won four years ago and the Iraqi conception of peace is incomprehensible to Americans. Actual peace will never happen…Muslims hate each other too much for that.

And so it goes.

Jim Clark

Congressional Adrenalin Overdose

There’s a tendency, especially among the young, to place elected officials on a pedestal and exist in awe of them. With age comes the realization that they’re just like most folks, warts and all, except that sometimes they manage to exhibit conduct not only unbecoming to mature people but downright silly and/or petty…maybe even dumb. The people in all the political parties are subject to this and are most likely to make themselves look bad right after a shakeup in which they secure privileges never experienced (or at least not for a long time) or expected.

Pettiness carried to the quintessential degree was carried out last week by Senate Majority Leader Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi when they arranged a TV “signing ceremony” (a la the oval office) for the simple exercise of the authenticating of legislation. They proceeded to compound their juvenile tendencies by delaying the submission of the legislation to the president for four days until 01 May, the fourth anniversary of his “Mission Accomplished” ceremony on the aircraft carrier, apparently not realizing that at that time the combat segment of the operation in Iraq had been accomplished, and the president was right. Pelosi and Reid actually embarrassed themselves, as folks remarked their juvenile behavior

This action can be easily understood by any third-grader on any playground in the land. It’s called SPITE, and it’s endemic to folks at most any age, but particularly during the childhood and adolescent years. Its objective is to embarrass, especially by anyone intent upon gaining revenge upon another, especially as practiced by the one of the two who is in the subordinate position. Example, personal: Because a high-school teacher wouldn’t let me make up a test I missed because I was sick, I looked out the window virtually continually while in class after that but always made it a point to know exactly where the discussion was so that I could quickly answer when called upon. That was SPITE…it didn’t hurt the teacher a bit but made me feel better…also made me pay attention.

The democrats had been out of power in Congress since 1994 and 1996, respectively, in the House and Senate until this year. They’ve celebrated their return to power with endless investigations, hearings, subpoenas of one type or another, ultimatums, and general hanky panky instead of doing anything constructive, mostly to embarrass and remove administration officials from their posts. They’ve been eminently unsuccessful, so they’re trying harder at failing. The only meaningful legislation passed so far has to do with the minimum wage, and even then there was an attempt to exempt its requirement from some businesses in Speaker Pelosi’s California.

Pelosi, Reid and their henchmen have decided to run the war in Iraq by holding spending bills for the military hostage, demanding unrealistic maneuvers that would place the military and the Iraqi government in untenable positions. To make their efforts even more unseemly, they attached huge segments of pork to their supposed military spending bills, meaning that they had to buy votes in order to get anything passed. Imagine the irony noticed by the military…having to buy votes in order to get elected officials to vote “the right way” on something as serious as a war. Democrat Senator Joe Biden, current presidential contender, told a South Carolina voter that Congress should "shove it (the legislation) down his (Bush’s) throat." Presumably, this would come after the pork is guaranteed. Disgusting!

Before she could get her office furniture arranged, Speaker Pelosi was off to Syria to confer with the head of a state that overtly supports terrorism against this country and enables terrorism in Iraq. She was so besotted with her new power that she actually thought she was so important that fraternizing/conferring with the enemy was a prerogative accruing to her eminent position not just in this country but throughout the world. It may be that she had confused her office with that of the secretary of state, but all she did was make herself look silly, as had some senators shortly before her, notably Kerry, presidential candidate last time around who recently remarked upon the intelligence (or lack of it) of GIs, and Dodd, who actually is running for the presidency now, as far-out as that seems.

So…the worm has turned. It will take a while before the democrats realize that virtually nothing has changed. Gridlock is still operative in the Congress. Political jockeying is as much in place as ever, this time with Republican Minority Leader McConnell, maybe the shrewdest politician of all, calling the shots, and he makes the former minority and currently majority leader, Senator Reid, pale in comparison regarding parliamentary skullduggery.

And so it goes.

Jim Clark

UK and the "Domestic Partners"

The trustees of the University of Kentucky have just voted to make the “Domestic Partner” benefits available to its employees, including staff along with the faculty and administration. Since the university is a state-authorized and state-supported institution, i.e, licensed and funded in largest part by the taxpayers, it is subject to the laws of the state as derived from the State Constitution. This places it in the same category as all other state agencies, the obvious conclusion to be drawn being that the tens of thousands of employees in those agencies may expect to receive the same treatment, if it is legal.

According to the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary, 11th 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 domestic-partner issue has to do with cadging currently unauthorized perks from a citizen-owned institution/agency those things legally authorized and officially documented only for spouses and families, principally those contingent upon the marriage contract.

On 02 November 2004, Amendment 233A was overwhelmingly (about 3 to 1) approved by Kentucky 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.” In Kentucky, homosexuals may not legally be married to each other, thus the “partners” are not accorded standing accruing to spouses for consideration(s) provided by the state or institutions regulated or supported by it. The same is true for non-married cohabitating couples, known more familiarly as “shack-ups.”

The constitutional amendment actually was unnecessary since state statute already made the same requirement, but the legislators, acting upon the overwhelming insistence of their constituencies, felt there would be no hassle with regard to the provisions of the statute if it was made incontrovertible through making it constitutionally inviolable. The trustees of both the University of Louisville, which began this perk in January, and the University of Kentucky have chosen to place their institutions above the law, a sort of in-your-face, take-it-or-leave-it ultimatum of arrogance fashioned to let the citizenry (the great unwashed) understand its inferiority vis-à-vis the enlightened elite and its inability to exert its will upon that self-appointed elite.

Perhaps the most egregious reason given for the domestic-partner perk (not counting the overarching one of political correctness) is that its inculcation is necessary to bring UK into research-university top-20 land; in other words, the brightest and the best brains are so overwhelmingly owned by homosexuals or those unwilling to make a marriage commitment that they must be cajoled and pampered into blessing the university with their superior abilities. This is a slap in the face of all those who manage to reach top-echelon status without the “advantage” of engaging in perverted behavior, whether homosexual or heterosexual.

Since the university is striving to become known as a bona fide “research” institution on a par with the best of them, it would naturally look to the data to enforce its position vis-à-vis the “brightest and best.” Thus far, it has produced no data that even addresses the subject of superiority/inferiority with regard to sexual preference or non-marital status as applied to academic/research employee-capabilities. This being the case, it identifies itself as sub-top-twenty in the sense that it makes its regulations without benefit of information, either qualitative or quantitative. The ridiculousness of this is palpable.

Detractors are often accused of a stance involving religion and the Bible’s clear-cut denunciation of homosexual behavior and fornication/adultery. This is not the case. The statements here concern cold, hard facts having nothing to do with religion. This is purely a civil matter addressed legislatively and at the ballot box. It can be said (and should be), however, that the traditional family unit is the backbone of the society, and that the teachers of young people should reflect that obvious, well-documented fact, not destroy it. By any standard, homosexual behavior, besides being aberrant, is also unacceptable as a matter of health, emotional and physical. Couples unwilling to reflect family as worthy of commitment thereby state that mutual manipulation, rather than commitment solidified by the marriage contract, present the wrong model. In any case, the citizens should not condone their antisocial behavior and reward them in any way, especially with taxpayer funds already categorized constitutionally.

And so it goes.

Jim Clark

The Facing of Death

One wonders why today’s generation has such a problem with death, especially death of one considered “too young” or “too good” or “too anything.” The recent deaths at Virginia Tech bring the subject front and center again as similar instances of massacres in the past are replayed in the media, with the same exasperation regarding the necessity to bring about “closure,” usually by finding someone or some institution to blame.

This is not to disparage the grief expressed by a whole nation’s citizens in the VT matter, not to mention those directly affected such as parents and other relatives of the dead, but to remark that the notion that death and unhappiness seem unacceptable to the “now” generation. This is graphically seen every night in the newscasts as the media keeps count of the ones who have fallen in the war on terror and talk-show hosts such as John McLaughlin present a morbid accounting every Friday night, complete with humongous fatality-estimates regarding Iraqi civilians, the intention apparently being to account this nation as one big murderer.

A young man – probably deranged, though no one will ever know – took the lives of 32 people for no reason, since no reason for what he did is possible. He did it because he decided to do it. That explanation doesn’t bring comfort to parents, just as parents are not comforted when a drunk driver – for no reason – kills their child. Those killed happened to be in a killing field, whether at a university or on a highway, through no fault of their own. Some years ago, a drunk in northern Kentucky driving the wrong way on a four-lane highway slammed head-on into a church bus returning youngsters from a day at an amusement park and managed to kill 27 people and horribly burn others, while he was hardly affected. They happened to be in a killing field that night…no reason to die…but they did.

In 1982, there were 26,173 people killed in traffic deaths caused by drunk-drivers. That was 72 per day or well over twice the number killed at VT. In 2005, the traffic-deaths caused by drunks totaled 16,885, or 46 per day. Strangely, there was no outpouring of grief over drunks-induced traffic deaths on any day, and John McLaughlin did not bother to keep score, though they were caused by insensitive people with absolutely no reason to kill, the same as the circumstance at VT. Yet, there is an ongoing reaction in Blacksburg, Virginia, that will go on for weeks and then be revisited for years, just as the Columbine killings a few years ago.

The religious fundamentalist will say that death occurs just the way and at just the time God decided before he created the world, yet cautions people against doing bad things that could lead to their deaths. That’s his way of not taking any responsibility for anything that happens, without understanding the obvious contradiction. The atheist says, “no God, no reason, no reality, no nothing,” but rails against Christians for believing something, as if that should make a difference to them since it changes nothing. Others, whether religious or not, state the obvious, namely, that mankind has free will and has a lot to say about death, taxes, and everything else. These people mourn with a reason, but realize that answers will not be found to the killing fields anywhere this side of death itself, assuming another opportunity on the other side to discover the answers.

None of this is to say that there shouldn’t be grief when a loved one dies, or that there will ever be “closure” in the sense of understanding the mystical, the unknowable. During the1,642 actual days of combat in World Wars I and II (4.5 years), an average of 320 Americans died every day…10 times the number at VT on just one day out of decades in Blacksburg. Back home, people understood as well as they could. The deaths resulted from actions taken by German leaders who were unbelievably wicked or crazy or both…no reason for the killing fields, just as at Blacksburg, assuming the young killer was mad, seemingly the case as proven posthumously by his own account, or just plain evil.

During the Korean Conflict in 1950-53, an average of 35 Americans died every day for 1,095 days. In the long nightmare of Vietnam (7.5 years), 21 GIs died every day…2,737 days. Think of the Civil War – 340 dead per day for 1,460 days. The deaths happened to people from all over the country and were the results of madness and evil, but there was no racking, continuing vigil or ceremony in the capital, Washington, D.C., on those days…just the facing of the fact.

The counselors descended on VT in Blacksburg, as they do in any town at a high school when a student has been killed in a car wreck, an accident. This didn’t used to happen. The notion seems operative that young people or all people just have to have help in “getting through it,” as if death isn’t as much a part of life as life itself – an absolute even more certain than life. Surely this generation is not so fragile that its members cannot accept death – no matter the horrific circumstances and lack of reason – as a matter of course and, without a lot of folks weeping, hugging, and encouraging them to be upset, just dry their tears, attend or tend to the rites, and get on with their lives.

And so it goes.

Jim Clark

The Democrat Debate

The democrat “debate,” actually a bit of campaigning, just as was the republican “debate” a week before, that took place on KET-TV 16 April featured seven candidates questioned by two newsman for two hours. I listened to the first hour but very little of the second, figuring, on the basis of the repetition already displayed, that it would be mostly a rehash, though I did get in on some of the gasoline-tax discussion. Gatewood Galbraith made his pitch to the common folks – the moms and pops – and promised leadership to rescue the party. He had the guts and the gumption to expose KERA for the sham that it is, blasted “no child left behind,” and insisted that education must be better funded, citing a decrease of eight points from a few years ago.

House Speaker Jody Richards promised to bring vision, plan, leadership, and integrity to the office. He decried the system of hiring and firing every four years that has been in place as a matter of course, apparently not realizing that he was slamming his own party in no uncertain terms. He didn’t explain why a “merit bill” was not passed this year, but slammed Senate President Williams in the pension matter. He spoke of importing drugs from Canada for seniors and lavished praise upon KERA while slamming NCLB. He was not for differentials in teachers’ pay but claimed they should all get a raise. His strangest suggestion had to do with establishing a “Principal Academy,” apparently not familiar with what principals went through in both classes and huge notebooks soon after the passage of KERA in 1990.

Otis Hensley didn’t say much, but made it clear that he is against legalizing any more gambling enterprises, that the legislature should get rid of KERA, and that teachers should be paid uniformly.

Bruce Lunsford did for this session what fellow millionaire Billy Harper did in the republican session, namely, extol the value of having a businessman in the governor’s chair. He made no opening speech, preferring a moment of silence for those in the Virginia Tech tragedy. Strange. Gatewood accused him of not knowing which party he’s in, and that was the best line of the evening. Lunsford promised to make jobs, said he is not against raising cigarette taxes, praised KERA and slammed the legislature for hurting it.

Steve Beshear acknowledged the administration as the “amateur hour” or something like that and extolled his experience as legislator, attorney general, and lieutenant governor. He said he would surround himself with the best people and strengthen the merit system. He slammed the pardons, mentioning four years, which was strange, since that took in part of the Patton era, in which a democrat governor pardoned four men charged with felonies. Maybe he meant to do that. He was for no new taxes, but expressed support for more gambling. He said gaming proceeds are needed for funding education, but did not mention that this was supposed, at one time at least, to be the purpose of the lottery. That didn’t happen, of course.

Jonathan Miller was the self-appointed pit bull, making much of his opportunities, a la Northup a week earlier, to hurl invective at Governor Fletcher. He said there needed to be less conversation and more action. He accused Fletcher of criminally assaulting the merit system, made the strongest outcry for more gambling (in this case, in behalf of funds for health care), and declared that KERA must be changed, including installing all-day kindergarten.

Steve Henry was the best speaker and called attention to himself as a husband, father, and physician. He made pitches for help for the veterans and mentioned that Governor Patton’s great cabinet was 40% republican, probably not realizing the boost he was giving the wrong side. He seemed to be making the point that he could manage a non-partisan government. He spoke of health-saving-plans and favored all-day kindergarten.

Probably all but Hensley would like to see increased gambling come to the state. The consensus was that education is in bad shape, and some of the candidates actually put their fingers on the problem – KERA, probably the worst legislation of the last century. The consensus was that more money needs to be thrown at education, the usual fix-all whenever the problem is mentioned. One hopes that some day a candidate will simply declare that a disciplined, standardized, structured statewide program of education must be brought on line and that not even that will solve the problem until parents consider realistically the importance of education and discipline their children in behalf of their accomplishing learning.

Imus - "Send in the Clowns!"

Americans usually respond to adverse circumstances by going overboard, such as in the cases of death, wounding (both physically and verbally administered), or even in routine events such as winning an important game or election. Upon reflection, people often realize just how “overboard” they’ve been in their reactions to a given circumstance but understand that emotions/actions cannot be reconfigured, no matter how silly they sometimes make people appear.

As the dust settles with regard to the recent “Imus debacle,” there’s reason to take a look at some of the circumstances surrounding it. At the outset, it needs saying that what Imus said (referencing a small group of women athletes as “nappy-headed hos”) was beyond the pale. The fact that it was no surprise coming from an entertainer whose milieu is that of a “shock-jock” doesn’t mitigate the fact that Imus went too far, but he’s paid to insult, does it quite routinely no matter the objects of his attention, ranging all the way from the unknown to the highest-profile folks in the world. The head honchos at NBC/CBS have been a part of his gig for many years and reaped mega-millions on his back. Only those without an understanding of his genre would pay his remark a second thought.

Actually, the highest-profile people seek out the Imus-attack, especially if they’re in the entertainment field, peddling a book, or running for election. Senator Chris Dodd, for instance, announced his presidential candidacy on the Imus show earlier this year, genially accepting any barbs, no doubt realizing them to be worth their weight in gold – free publicity at a time when presidential politics is a mega-million-dollar industry. That’s called manipulation.

The Imus show has not been watched in this corner, the total time spent on it probably not more than an hour in total, but a revisit of the speech Imus gave at the Radio/TV Correspondents annual clambake in March 1996 indicates just how crude, vulgar, and obscene he can be. Notwithstanding that, the very people he lambasted at that meeting are the types who gladly visit his program, coming back for more of the same. They enjoy the world of the “shock-jock” and don’t mind being a part of it. Some of them – politicians especially – think nothing of Imus’s barbs, since they think nothing of publicly calling the president or anyone else a liar whenever it suits their fancy…a sort of “no-guilt-by-association” thing.

Leading the pack of wolves after Imus’s carcass are The Rev. Al Sharpton and the Rev Jesse Jackson, each of whom has a syndicated radio program, Sharpton’s handled by some of the same outfits that handle the Imus thing. If he had said about a group of white women athletes that they are “honky whores,” nothing much would have been said about it. He might have experienced a bit of criticism, but most folks would have said that he was “just being old Rev. Al” – just another “shock-jock” doing his thing. The truth is, however, that in the politically correct climate of today, racist remarks are considered racist only if they are uttered by white people. This is the lesson to be learned from the Imus thing.

The Rev. Sharpton, a well-documented liar, has castigated Imus to a fare-thee-well, but he libeled more than one law/justice department worker in the Tawana Brawley dustup in 1987-88, then actually ran for president after that, notwithstanding having to pony up cash for his vicious attack on those folks that emanated from a complete hoax. His remarks/actions at any time, no matter how inflammatory, are not racist because he isn’t white.

According to NBC5/WMAQTV, Chicago, 09 April: "NBC must choose between Imus and the rest of us," said The Rev. Jesse Jackson as he protested with 50 others outside Chicago's NBC Tower Monday. "The rest of us are going to organize a boycott until they make a choice." The Rev. Jackson is well documented as having made one of his female workers into a “nappy-headed ho” himself, then used funds from his tax-exempt Rainbow Coalition treasure-trove of cash to buy her and their illegitimate child (determined by DNA, of course), as reported in FrontPageMagazine.com, January 24, 2001, a $365,000 house; and for her somewhere between $3,000 and $10,000 a month to live on; $20,000 for moving expenses; and $15,000 in advance for “consulting.” Jackson can call Imus anything he likes or attempt to have him fired because, not being white, he is never being racist, not even when he called Jews “hymies” and New York “Hymietown.” He has run for president twice – beats working.

Imus’s fellow entrepreneurs and handlers are deserting him now, shutting down his TV show on MSNBC and his radio show on CBS – actually putting him out of business. His friends – though acceding to his “shock-jock” antics for many years and happily being a part of them – are deserting him in droves. Some might call this sort of going overboard. It is…and particularly so because his high-profile detractors – the revolting reverends, Sharpton and Jackson – are so slathered in sleaze themselves that they should crawl back under the rocks and shut up now. Those high-profile politicians and celebs who have used Imus through the years to advance their endeavors surely see themselves as the hypocrites they are.

Here is the delicious irony, as noted on MSNBC on 12 April: The news came down in the middle of Imus’ Radiothon, which has raised more than $40 million since 1990. The Radiothon had raised more than $1.3 million Thursday before Imus learned that he lost his job. The event benefited Tomorrows Children’s Fund, the CJ Foundation for SIDS and the Imus Ranch. Disgusting!

And so it goes.

Jim Clark

Republicans Debate/Campaign

The debate – not actually, just more campaigning – that took place on KET among the republican gubernatorial hopefuls on 09 April was not an exercise that would “captivate” an audience, certainly, but it served a useful purpose in that it provided the vehicle for allowing a voter to remark the differences in the candidates. Latitude was taken with the facts in some instances by Governor Fletcher and former Congresswoman Anne Northup, but this is always expected. Businessman Billy Harper played it pretty straight. The interrogators were Bill Bartleman of the Paducah Sun and Patrick Crowley of the Kentucky Enquirer.

As expected, there probably are few differences among the three with respect to the issues. None approved of casino gambling and made that plain. All three spoke at length about education but produced little more than clichés about the need to make it better. The issue that should have been discussed was the suggestion made recently by some entity and endorsed strongly by the Lexington Herald-Leader that math and science teachers should be paid more than other teachers, since Kentucky students lag behind those in most other states in these study-areas. None seemed to have an answer to the “testing” problem.

None of the three saw fit to mention that Kentucky lags behind in education after 16 years of being operated under the Kentucky Education Reform Act of 1990, a nightmarish mixture of pork with pedagogy all tied up in the largest tax increase in the state’s history at that time. None even mentioned that legislatures through the years have rescinded much of the act but have done nothing to improve education. None of the candidates had anything new to say regarding the subject, but all agreed that something has to be done.

The loaded question came early in the evening when the question was asked as to whether or not the candidates believed any fellow-candidate had misbehaved. This was the cue for Ms. Northup to lash out at the governor in no uncertain terms, citing the particulars of the “merit scandal,” noting that blanket pardons had been granted, and lamenting that the facts would never be known since no trials had been or would ever be held.

Governor Fletcher insisted, as he has all along, that the effort by Attorney General Greg Stumbo in that matter was a “witch-hunt,” proven by the fact that Stumbo has entered the gubernatorial sweepstakes as the number-two guy on a democrat ticket. Stumbo, of course, long ago stated publicly that he would consider a candidacy if Fletcher became “wildly unpopular.” He was probably wise in going the lieutenant governor route to get the top job, since he hasn’t looked all that good in the merit thing himself. Also, he can ride on millionaire Bruce Lunsford’s financial coattails, thus dodging the pesky business of fund-raising.

Northup brought up the usual “blacktop gimmick” used in every race by a wannabe to color the incumbent as a con man bribing voters by building roads in their sections during election times. Using the golden opportunity she handed him, Fletcher listed some of those projects, even emphasizing one in deep-democrat country in the western end of the state. Harper is a contractor, part of whose business is building roads, so he predictably didn’t harp on the subject. In fact, he stayed away from mudslinging, leaving that up to Northup, who made a pretty good effort at it.

Crowley, strangely, seemed to try to make the case for casino gambling, throwing out the suggestion that the revenue it would generate would be worth going that route. The numbers batted around differed by the hundreds of millions. Northup and Harper turned him aside completely, though Fletcher repeated his position that if the legislature enacted a casino amendment-proposition to be put on the ballot, he would not stand in the way, letting the citizens decide. He made it plain he would not be for it.

The most grating thing in the nearly hour-long program was Northup’s constant use of the terms “leadership” and “plan.” She used these terms sort of as a mantra, no matter the subject, making it plain that Fletcher had damaged the party and, at least inferentially, could not hope to be elected, and that he is a man without a plan, apparently for most everything. Harper played it cool on the subject, though, if memory serves, Fletcher’s “not-a-chance” was perhaps the primary reason he gave last year for his getting in the race.

Stridency best describes Northup’s performance. The target of her barbs was Fletcher, though she presented no “plans” in the process. Harper was kind of laid back and harped constantly that his being a businessman was the reason he should be elected. Fletcher was upbeat and able to tick off a number of accomplishments during his administration, not the least of which has been turning a sizeable deficit into a sizeable surplus in three years time. He also made it a point to mention how he has helped Louisville, Northup’s home-base.

And so it goes.

Jim Clark

RESURRECTION

Most people refer to this time of year as being the “Easter Season,” but in this corner the preferred term is “Resurrection Celebration,” though the element of crucifixion is as vital to the observance as the resurrection of Christ from the dead. Such torture and death as that accomplished through the crucifying of a human being is certainly nothing to celebrate.

According to the Venerable Bede, the name Easter is derived from the pagan spring festival of the Anglo- Saxon goddess Eostre, and many folk customs associated with Easter (for example, Easter eggs) are of pagan origin. Even though Easter in the Christian community also incorporates Judeo-Christian elements (Passover, sacrifice, resurrection), the term “resurrection” is preferred in this corner, thus completely discounting any secular or pagan significance.

Strangely, those of the ilk availing themselves often of the services available at the ACLU locations, while having hissy fits and even physical upheavals over anything alluding to Christ at Christmas, seem not to care that the cross is displayed throughout the countryside during Resurrection, and people are (gasp) even allowed to parade it upon public streets in their various rituals connected to the work of Christ. Indeed, the cross is prominently displayed as part of the insignia worn by military chaplains. How can this possibly be, when such a thing could be claimed by the ACLU to be the recognition of an establishment of religion?

After all, the presence of a nativity crèche in the public square at Christmastime is routinely disallowed by city governments and even disallowed by school-boards, lest students be traumatized by observing the birth of a person connected to religion. Yet, something signifying an entity as bloody as a rugged cross, as much a part of religious observance as anything else, is worn by military officers on their shirt collars and uniform-jackets. Why is this?

One wonders if perhaps the reason is simply that in springtime folks are into the warm weather or off on the ritual spring-break or cleaning house or getting ready for the prom or mesmerized by the NCAA “Final Four” in the never-ending basketball season or lots of other things and are just too busy to be bothered by protesting the display of the cross, which is just as emblematic of an establishment of religion as a nativity scene. Or, could it be that the term “Christ” is not mentioned vis-à-vis the cross, at least in the same way it is with regard to Christmas, and protesters just can’t get any leverage because of that? Or, could it be that they’re so dumb they don’t realize the importance of the cross and that it’s even connected to religion?

Christmas involves attention-grabbing ostentation – slathered with much joy and merry-making – that just screams for protesters to answer ostentatiously, while Resurrection is clouded by quietness and a certain solemnity that hushes even those who are avid in trying for 15 minutes of fame. Being raucous about the birth of a baby is easy, but being disrespectful of the death of a saint is another matter, and yet the two extremes are of a piece with respect to what they represent.

Perhaps part of the answer is found in what the cross represents, as well as the subsequent resurrection, particularly at this time. In the suicides of the Muslim bombers is seen the element of sacrifice, just as it is seen in the death of Christ, actually a suicide as well, since he had the power and the option to negate the cross. But the Muslim bomber dies in an attempt to cause others to die, therefore actually being a suicide/homicide bomber, much as the Japanese Kamikaze pilots in World War II. By contrast, Christ, making no effort to save himself or kill others, died in the effort to give life – more abundantly, as he said, on this earth, and eternally, as he said, beyond the grave.

Mohammed, the creator of Islam and the doctrine of “killing infidels, with Paradise as personal reward,” is accounted by Muslims as the prophet of Allah and delivered the Koran, the Islamic holy book, in the process hijacking much of Holy Writ…but when Mohammed died, he stayed dead. On the third day after his death on the cross, Christ arose from the tomb – alive, defeating death and making eternal life available to all. That says it all.

And so it goes.

Jim Clark

Stumbo's Revenge...Backfiring?

The enormity of Kentucky Attorney General Stumbo’s profligacy in his sordid but botched hatchet job on Governor Fletcher in the so-called “merit scandal” affair is brought home on a daily basis as he cavorts around the state campaigning for the Lunsford/Stumbo gubernatorial ticket. Obviously, Lunsford brings the money to the effort, but what does Stumbo bring? Nothing.

As has been pointed out here before, Stumbo went on the record years ago in stating that he would be interested in the governor’s chair if Fletcher ever became “wildly unpopular.” Strangely, instead of running for that position or even running to succeed himself, he’s the number two guy headed for almost certain political oblivion if the L/S combine fails to make it…as it most likely will. The fact that he, instead of allowing a personnel matter to go before the proper agencies, decided to make the governor become “wildly unpopular” by chasing it through his office speaks volumes for itself. Almost the only “crimes” committed were misdemeanors.

As did Patton, Jones, and Wilkinson before him, Stumbo probably hopes to vault from the number two spot to the top spot, though one wonders, assuming an L/S victory, when Lunsford might be ready to let that happen – four years from now or eight? He’s smart in using Lunsford’s money to do this, whereas the others had to buy their own way in. Wilkinson introduced the new wrinkle of getting back his ante with interest. Jones spent what seemed like his entire term getting back his investment, the procuring of part of which eventuated in a supporter going to the Big House.

Both of Governor Fletcher’s opponents in the Primary began their campaigns on the premise that Fletcher, because of the “merit mess” and the pardons, is unelectable. Northup hammers at this constantly. Harper, who also is buying his way in, seems less strident. The fact is, however, that as Kentuckians take the time to consider seriously what happened with respect to the attempted Stumbo massacre of Fletcher they may take a different view of the pardons, perhaps comparing Stumbo’s actions as AG with those of Ben Chandler as AG with regard to the vote-buying mess in 1995.

In Fletcher’s case, the merit matter should have gone before the proper agencies (personnel, ethics) and, in any case, involved virtually nothing other than misdemeanors. In Patton’s case (the 1995 election), the voting irregularities involved felonies and fitted directly within the purview of the AG’s office. Absent the pardons, Fletcher and his people would have been drained dry in lawyers’ fees for simple misdemeanors, and most folks understand that this was probably what Stumbo was interested in, perhaps as payback for both the democrat loss of the state senate years ago and the governorship in 2003.

Patton effected the four pardons connected to his problem (two union leaders and two state officials) to undo probable trials that might have involved him somewhere along the way with felonies. In fact, they probably would have; otherwise, he could have left the four alleged miscreants hanging in the wind. Conventional wisdom is that the Louisville vote was definitely tainted in 1995.

So…is it fair of Northup and Harper to insist that the governor, who has certainly done no worse in office than other governors and maybe even much better than most recent ones, to premise their campaigns on Fletcher’s un-electability? After all, Lieutenant Governor Pence bailed last June as a second-term guy, though, as a former prosecutor, he might be given some slack in his possible perception of the pardons as just plain wrong, no matter the circumstances. If this is the case, it is nevertheless worth noting that the power to pardon is written into the state constitution so that grievances of little or at least minor consequence or grievances obviously advanced through design can be redressed.

The difference between the pardons granted by Fletcher and Patton is obvious. A former Tennessee governor went to the penitentiary for selling pardons, so the pardon can be misused. In the news lately has been the pardons granted by Bill Clinton on the request of two of Hillary Clinton’s brothers, one involving a “loan” of $100,000 that’s never been repaid in seven years and the other in the amount of $400,000. In Fletcher’s case, since an easily recognizable attempt to “use” the system for political purposes is the issue, the pardons were permissible and the governor should not be judged on their basis. He should be judged only on his performance.

And so it goes.

Jim Clark

Congressional Laugh-In

One has to laugh when contemplating the uproar democrats in Congress are trying to unleash over the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys. The same goes for the current non-uproar over the “outing” of Valerie Plame Wilson’s covert status in the CIA, a status, as it turns out, that never existed officially, and certainly not even tacitly for the number of years she’s been manning a desk at Langley, where all employees are quite un-covert as they drive into the parking lot and later shop at the malls…out in plain view.

The democrats promised a veritable plethora of investigations (euphemism for “witch-hunts”) when they took office in January, and they have been hard at it ever since – give them credit for trying! The problem is that they constantly “ride off in all directions at once.” For instance, Senate Minority Leader McConnell recited a list of the latest “war” resolutions promulgated by democrats – seems there were about 40 of them. They all are designed to just “do something” before the elections next year, lest there be some success in the war on terror, thus making the republicans look too good. Majority Leader Reid could get only 48 votes for the latest. What a laugh!

In Kentucky back in the late 80s and early 90s, federal investigators were tearing up the Kentucky Legislature and by 1993 had packed off to the Big House a large percentage of the solons, nearly all of whom were democrats, including the House Speaker. The current lieutenant governor, Steve Pence, was the lead federal prosecutor in that activity, part of which was known as the BopTrot scandal. Enter the Clinton administration in 1993. Of the 93 federal prosecutors nationwide, Clinton saw to it that 92 of them got the boot – in one day. It is more than just likely that a number of Kentucky legislators breathed a huge sigh of relief.

Obviously, the democrats must have a death-wish in causing this subject to be plastered all over the media. Even the New York Times and Washington Post can’t make this stink go away. But…the hearings in these matters give the stuffed shirts – senators and representatives – their 15 minutes to make the usual speeches and appear as statesmen…or statespersons or statesladies or whatever. The word is that the eight prosecutors, who can be legally fired at any time, were prosecuting folks the White House didn’t want prosecuted. That may or may not be true, but the mass firings in 1993 were probably precipitated, at least partly, by the fact that a prosecutor was getting too close to Illinois Congressman Dan Rostenkowski, a darling of the democrats, so that prosecutor and all the others were just creamed. Soon after, Clinton’s attorney general, Janet Reno, precipitated the massacre at Waco, not a laughing matter. Four federal agents and more than 70 members of the Branch Davidian cult died needlessly, but Reno contaminated the AG office for eight years. The irony is that Rosty went to the Big House anyway.

The Plame affair is both laughable and lamentable, not to mention slimy. Richard Armitage, a deputy in Colin Powell’s State Department, revealed Plame’s identity in 2003 to journalist Robert Novak and probably to journalist Bob Woodward. Powell, the FBI, and at least one other in government knew all this in 2003, as the investigation into who leaked Plame’s non-covert status to the media was carried out by Prosecutor Fitzgerald. Bush assistant Karl Rove testified five times before the grand Jury over a matter already settled. Finally, “Scooter” Libby, Cheney’s chief of staff, was supposedly caught up in perjury over a matter already settled, and which had nothing to do with the “outing” of Plame, who had been working that desk un-covertly for five years. Laughable!

Also laughable in its predictability is the bill being pressed in the House by Rep. Martin Meehan, D-Mass., chairman of the armed services oversight and investigations subcommittee, that would prohibit the military from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, and specifically authorize anyone separated for homosexuality, bisexuality or homosexual conduct to be allowed back into the military if he/she wishes. As virtually his first act in office in 1993 and with overwhelming majorities of democrats in both the House and Senate, Bill Clinton tried this same stuff, with the upshot being the “don’t ask, don’t tell” mess, under which well over 11,000 homosexuals have been discharged since 1994. Republicans have owned Congress since then, so the subject has been moot. Now, with just thin majorities, the democrats, who seem to be mesmerized by the homosexual community, are trying the same stuff again. This is laughable but regrettable, since the military needs no more disruption than it already is experiencing with the war on terrorism.

And so it goes with the laugh-in in Congress. One wonders if it will ever get down to serious business. The Senate’s main preoccupation currently, after a democratic Congress did nothing about Reno’s Waco massacre in 1993, is the attempt to force out Attorney General Gonzales for doing what the usual routine embodies, no matter which party is in power – ho-hum. Play it again, Sam.

And so it goes.

Jim Clark

Prichard Committee Nonsense

The extent of bankruptcy in the thinking of people connected with education in Kentucky was exhibited in an op-ed piece of 08 March in the Lexington Herald-Leader, Lexington, Ky., by Robert F. Sexton, executive director of the Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence. Indeed, one wonders if Ed Prichard, a respected pragmatist in whose honor the committee is named, wouldn’t wonder at Sexton’s latest suggestion if he were still alive.

Sexton suggests that public-school teachers of mathematics and science (actually just physics and chemistry) should be paid significantly more than other teachers because the best mathematician- and scientist-graduates when leaving college opt for higher-paying careers in fields other than teaching. This is the old and predictable political ploy used to solve any problem, to wit, throw money at it. The State Senate has already approved such a bill.

Even though it’s doubtful that the Prichard Committee has ever been worth much more than warm spit in affecting the state’s education system, this latest pronouncement predictably carries weight with a legislature no different from that of 1990 that heaved, strained and vomited up the Kentucky Education Reform Act, complete with enormous pork-barrel attachments necessary to its passage. Much of it has been rescinded, and there’s absolutely no indication that KERA has effected a system any better than the one it replaced. In fact, education is worse off, not least because the legislators attempted to enact pedagogy, about the same as a third-grader designing college courses.

Under KERA, Sexton’s philosophy was enacted in the “rewards system,” the doling out to teachers and administrators of bonuses when their students achieved the proper test grades. In the worst schools (usually demographically and not intellectually hatched), no teachers received rewards, while in the already good schools teachers were happy to be given windfalls for simply doing what they were hired to do. The predictable upshot: widespread cheating (stealing) on the part of both teachers and administrators. The losers: students. This system has been rescinded or drastically reconfigured, so naturally it is being urged again. Amazing!

Whether or not he realizes it, Sexton is suggesting that subjects having to do with the arts or other science subjects such as biology, anatomy, and botany are so unimportant that the teachers of these subjects can be nincompoops, with no sweat. The latest figures (2004) indicate that 53% of the freshmen in Kentucky universities and related enterprises needed remedial work just to be students: math, 44%; English, 32%; reading, 25%, for instance. A student needs only to score above 17 (out of a perfect 36, almost like tossing a coin for the answer) in order to escape remedial work, so this is an indication of how awful the public school system is currently. Even worse, new standards will probably be established soon that will drive the remedial rate even higher.

Sexton blames the Kentucky Education Association for road-blocking his currently misguided approach, while agreeing that there’s no proof that it will work. He simply says that the present salary system doesn’t work but offers no proof of that, either, simply insisting that compensation helps attract talent. Go figure. That’s a known fact in practically any enterprise, so what he’s actually saying is that education should be reformed into tracks (actually systems) that provide schools for technocrats and all other schools for everyone else, a virtual impossibility in other than private terms.

The KEA presents a whole set of problems but it’s right on this one. Under the Senate bill, a chemistry teacher could make up to $10,000 more per year than the biology teacher next-door, with the governing factor being the student’s test scores and economic status. This is another way of encouraging the teacher to “teach to the test,” not to the subject. How Sexton could not see this is amazing. It’s already been tried and proven to fail.

The root of this problem lies in KERA, and until the last vestiges of this enactment are erased – especially the school-based councils – the system is doomed, and so is Kentucky education. When the legislature signed-on to “outcomes-based” pedagogy in 1990 (self-esteem as the most important of all educational endeavors), it essentially mandated mediocrity academically, with diversity and multiculturalism being the be-all and end-all of education endeavor and making it into an experiment (failed, at that) in social engineering. The Prichard Committee needs its collective head examined, and its director needs to face the fact that KERA, far from being an educational success, has damned an entire school generation and is nothing more than the result of a miserably failed fad.

And so it goes.

Jim Clark

Academic Lunacy

In a recent op-ed piece in the Lexington Herald-Leader, Lexington, Ky., David Fenrick, a doctoral candidate and teacher at Asbury Theological Seminary, Wilmore, Ky., reacted to a previous column regarding the movie Amazing Grace, released a few days ago. Here are some of his remarks, along with some responses from this writer.

Fenrick: First, Wilberforce waged a battle against the political, economic and religious abuses of the empire [British, early 1800s] of his day. Today, the United States is the empire: the most politically, economically and culturally powerful nation in the world and, some would argue, in human history.

“For a seminary professor to make a statement this dishonest is to brand him as either a prolific liar, profoundly mentally challenged, or simply to have pulled a ‘Rip Van Winkle’ for his entire life. This country, except for a handful of military bases on various islands mostly, has absolutely no land-grabs to show for its overwhelming victories in World Wars I and II or any other military actions such as Kuwait and Korea. It administers no colonies and its protectorates remain in their relationship of their own volition. It definitely is not an empire even remotely to be compared to those of England, France, Spain, Netherlands, etc., that held people captive in other centuries and right up to the end of World War II. There’s nothing wrong with being the best as long as in the process a nation is not among the worst ethically. Think Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Communist China and Saudi Arabia, for instance.”

Fenrick: In this regard, Wilberforce, Martin Luther King Jr. and Mohandus K. Gandhi would certainly not stand with President Bush's call to "stay the course." They would be leading the people who oppose the abuse of power and the use of violent force for self-serving political and economic ends.

“This is unbelievably out of whack. Each one of the men mentioned eminently, tenaciously ‘stayed the course’ they set for themselves. Gandhi was even willing to starve himself for his cause. MLK probably gave his life. They were relentless in their demonstration of personal sacrifice in ‘leading the people who oppose the abuse of power and the use of violent force for self-serving political and economic ends.’ This is precisely what President Bush is doing as he understands the malevolence of Islamic fundamentalism and the intentions of its spiritual and governmental leaders to subdue all the peoples of the world. This country makes no claims to any Afghani or Iraqi real estate or other elements, such as oil, and is ready to get out of those hell-holes as soon as possible. Certainly, Bush has nothing to gain, but the people of the world who understand the Muslim aims – regardless of what they might say – appreciate the fact this nation is laying its blood and treasure on the line. Think Sudan/Somalia currently. To assume what Wilberforce, King and Gandhi might have done today, given circumstances entirely different from those that were connected with their causes, time, and place is arrogance multiplied exponentially. Each operated within his own country, and none of them faced an enemy driven by ‘spiritual’ nonsense drilled into their mostly uneducated heads by monsters who do have a lot to gain on the backs of others or through their blood. Blowing up women and children in the marketplace is something that only people incapable of parley/diplomacy do.”

Fenrick: Wilberforce, King and Gandhi proclaimed and practiced non-violent protest as a means to awaken oppressors to their injustices and to bring about social transformation. All three spoke against the use of military force to achieve political ends, no matter how righteous they seem.

“This is not an unexpected diatribe from the ‘halls of ivy’ or the ‘ivory towers’ that pass for institutions of higher learning in this country. What would Fenrick have done in 1941 – sit on a pillow by the dock at Pearl Harbor, a la Gandhi, while the bloody Japanese thugs blew the whole island away and then raped the U.S. just as they had already raped Korea, China, and Southeast Asia? Would Wilberforce have sent no boats to Dunkirk, favoring a parley with Hitler, while British soldiers were slaughtered by the thousands? Would King have gone to jail and meditated, rather than throwing Saddam out of Kuwait in 1991? Fenrick is a ‘better red than dead’ guy, so thank God this country is not led by folks like him. Fenrick obviously thinks his heroes had the answer to everything. They lived in another time and place, and he certainly has no clue about the here and now.”

Fenrick: Now, as in Wilberforce's day, the powerful men of the empire fight the voices of peace and justice and oppose those who boldly and bravely speak out against the brutal tyranny of economic and political abuse of power.

“The ‘brutal tyranny of economic and political abuse of power’ resides presently with the powerful men of empire connected to the nations absolutely enslaving and keeping ignorant their populaces in governments controlled by Islamic monsters and their civil-servant toadies. They do not fight for peace and justice, but for world domination at the behest of their ‘holy book,’ cobbled together by Mohammed, an ordinary cultist of the seventh century. This nation speaks out – walks the talk – against these blood-letters who brainwash innocent people into becoming homicide/suicide bombers, much as the hated Kamikaze pilots hoodwinked by the Japanese in World War II and killers of thousands of Americans simply fighting for freedom.”

Fenrick: And just as in Wilberforce's day, labels such as "unpatriotic" and "subversive" are attached to the courageous people who stand up to tyranny and injustice, and whose calls for justice offend the rich, comfortable and powerful who profit from the suffering of millions.

“Well…hardly. Those labels are attached to folks like Fenrick because they’re either too dumb or self-righteous or wimpish to face the world as it is, rather than as how they wish it to be. The profiteers from this country’s current actions are all of its people, who hopefully will again live in a modicum of peace when the Islamic threat is nullified and they don’t have to worry about a simple thing like getting on an airplane.”

Fenrick: Second, while Wilberforce, John Wesley and many other Christian reformers fought for God's justice and an end to the slave trade, their fight cannot be compared to the military conflict in the Middle East.

“Fenrick recognizes the 9/11 episode as some sort of ‘police problem,’ the attitude, essentially, of Bill Clinton, as the Muslims blew up Americans – even in embassies – here and there throughout the world, and even now blow up their own kind, such as women and children in the marketplace, to achieve their ends, fueled entirely by terrorism. Democracy may or may not work in Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else in the benighted Middle East, but it won’t be for lack of this nation’s trying. In any case, the Ayatollahs and their ‘hit men’ will be kept from these shores. That’s what actually matters.”

Fenrick: Wilberforce, Wesley and King clearly understood the teachings of Jesus, the Prince of Peace, who rejected the power of the sword, cautioned that "those who live by the sword will die by the sword" and told a representative of the empire of his day that "my kingdom is not of this world."

“Fenrick needs to re-read Luke 22:35,36, wherein Christ in the ‘Last Supper’ episode told the disciples in no uncertain terms to arm themselves (secure swords), even if they had to sell clothing in order to do so. He even emphasized the point by reminding them of the difference between this command and an earlier one, when he had sent them out on a mission without even an extra pair of shoes or any money. Those who live by the sword – the aggressors – WILL die by the sword, but those who protect themselves, as Jesus admonished his followers to do, will live for another day. Fenrick does not understand the difference between aggression (Muslims) and defense (Coalition forces). Fenrick apparently has no sense of either the scripture or history. This is a shame, especially on a campus, where he can influence often naïve young people.”

Fenrick: The "kingdom of the cross" and the "kingdom of the sword" are diametrically opposed to each other.

“There obviously is no such thing – at least in scripture – as the ‘kingdom of the cross.’ There were many kingdoms of the sword, and Jesus was enslaved in one such, a subject of the Romans. He had sense enough to realize that a hunger strike would not free him or his people from the Romans. For all of Gandhi’s actions, India did not become free of England until AFTER World War II, though the Brits gave India a Constitution in 1935. The American colonists, however, took a much more sanguinary approach to England in the 1700s, and one wonders if Fenrick disapproves of the way his freedom was won. Gandhi’s approach wouldn’t have been worth warm spit in the colonies in 1776, just as it would have been worth nothing in India in 1776.”

Fenrick: Respect and admiration for the United States have decreased into near extinction as we have sought over the last six years to impose the tyranny of our will on the people of the world.

“This statement borders on treason. This country acted in 2001 as the direct result of state-sponsored terrorism on American soil and began rooting it out in Afghanistan. This fight will continue for years and has nothing to do with ‘the tyranny of our will,’ whatever that is. There will be war in both Afghanistan and Iraq when the U.S. leaves, but at least Muslims will be fighting Muslims and not Americans, as was the case on 9/11 and in many other instances in especially the ’90s, when the Clinton administration was absolutely clueless and/or lacked the will to do anything. With regard to this nation’s will, Fenrick doesn’t understand that the U.S. could own vast portions of the world if it had the will to do so, most of it without even firing a shot. The U.S. could take over all the oil in Saudi Arabia tomorrow, for instance, if it wanted – without firing a shot, and no nation would rise up in opposition. This is not an aggressor nation, but God help us if leadership with Fenrick’s mentality should ever take office because it then would be defenseless. As for respect and admiration – who cares?”

Though hard to believe, Fenrick is only one of tens of thousands of academics who spout his drivel on a daily basis. He’s either another Ward Churchill, the University of Colorado nutcase afflicted with “cranial vacuum syndrome,” or just a hater of this country.

And so it goes.

Jim Clark

Obama/Clinton/Edwards Bloody Another Sunday

The trivializing of the elective process was exponentially enhanced over the weekend as Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton, senators who should have more gumption, participated in “dueling churches” in Selma, Alabama. Endeavoring to “out-black” each other, with Clinton at a physical disadvantage except for author Toni Morrison’s label of Hillary’s husband as the “first black president,” they intentionally made African Americans into a political football to be tossed, tumbled, fumbled, and generally manipulated. Neither of them had the bona fides to be preaching in black churches…or in any churches.

The gullibility of blacks is taken for granted in this episode reported by the AP: “U.S. Rep. Artur Davis, who introduced Obama at a breakfast, and said blacks can tell their grandchildren they can be anything if Obama is inaugurated as president on Jan. 20, 2009. ‘The moment that he is standing there will mean that we have a country that is free,’ said Davis, D-Ala.” Davis is black but can’t seem to understand that his own success has already proven that the “country is free,” whatever that means, and has forgotten or never known that Obama is not the first African American elected to the Senate. In modern history, for instance, Edward Brooke, an African-American republican, served in the Senate in 1967-79.

Clinton credited the Civil Rights Movement for giving her the right to run for office, but didn’t mention that there are 90 women in Congress now and that they’ve been eligible to run for Congress for a long time. One wonders how long folks like Clinton will insist that women are a minority (like blacks) in a country in which more than half the population is female. The day was given over to recognizing “Bloody Sunday” of the 60s, so that was the tie-in. Clinton hadn’t even meant to make the scene until she learned that Obama would be in ’bama, then reckoned as how she would become a lay preacher for the day.

The televised clips showed the whole thing as the circus that it was. Obama, said by rival Senator Biden to be articulate, morphed into a Jesse Jackson speech-wise, easily sliding into such figures as saying “moveMENT” instead of “MOVEment,” as he ordinarily would. Clinton took on the “thunder from the mountain” style of John Kerry. Both came off looking as artificial as two clowns at a rodeo. Obama, easing into what he perceives as Alabama vernacular, came off as condescending, while Clinton just sounded silly. When she gets into her groove, most men shudder and appreciate that her fish-wifey brashness belongs to somebody else. When she raises her voice, she sounds like the “old woman” out in the kitchen railing at the dozen children who are her constant plague.

Perhaps Obama’s strangest stretch in remarking his bona fides in the “victimization-via-slavery” category was noting that the British called his grandfather a “houseboy” in Kenya. He had to so something, since his lineage is not blessed with the cruelties of plantation owners in Alabama. Clinton is stuck with a privileged upbringing in Illinois, but, of course, is married to that “first black president.” Obama also had a privileged upbringing, even including part of his education in Islamic schools. One wonders which god he will discuss when he visits Dearborn, Michigan, if ever, home of a large Muslim community. Will he orate in a mosque, for instance?

Most “experts” seem to think the whole ballgame will be over by next January, and that the only thing worth accomplishing now is the gathering of many greenbacks in order to fuel the campaigns with the mega-millions needed to fly around the country, make speeches others are paid to write, sling mud at the appropriate times and people, etc.

John McCain announced his candidacy on the Letterman show, an indication of how trivial the whole thing is. But he had to match – perhaps, he thought – Senator Dodd, who made that same earth-shaking announcement on the “Imus in the Morning” clambake, uttering his wisdom amongst the Imus vulgarities. Perhaps Al Sharpton will announce on the Oprah Winfrey or Montel Williams sob-fest and claim genuine bona fides connected to the (gasp) recent claim that a Strom Thurmond distant relative owned one of his forbears. Good grief!

Meanwhile, John Edwards was out in Berkeley, California, over the weekend, where the AP had this to say: “Democratic presidential contender John Edwards on Sunday called a janitors' campaign for better wages at the University of California, Berkeley, a continuation of the civil rights struggle that began in the 1960s.” Egad! It was “Bloody Sunday” alright, with the truth absolutely being slaughtered by these three “front-runners.”

And so it goes.

Jim Clark

St. Julian the Dragon-Killer

So…State Senator and former governor Julian Carroll thinks Lieutenant Governor Steve Pence should resign account of disloyalty to Governor Fletcher. Pence says he was elected and certainly will not resign, while Carroll thinks he was “picked” and not elected and should even refund his salary at least back to June of last year. If memory serves, Pence’s name was on the ballot in 2003, so it would seem he actually was elected. If Fletcher should become incapacitated again or die, Pence could hardly be expected to give up the job he would then have. Neither would Carroll under the same circumstances.

This is what Carroll said about Fletcher in 2005: "He turns out to be the biggest deceiver that we've had in the governor's office in my lifetime. Rather than a believer, he's truly a deceiver." Carroll also said this: "Certainly the General Assembly should hold hearings on whether or not his conduct in the granting of these pardons is conduct that rises to the level of consideration for impeachment." Never happened, of course.

Back when Carroll was governor, the lieutenant governor ran separately, as Carroll did in 1971 when he was elected lieutenant governor and former governor/senator Wendell Ford was elected governor. So, the governor had to be on the lookout then, lest a political enemy (or friend, for that matter) in the second spot do damage when the head honcho was out of state, something allowed by law. In fact, in those days the lieutenant governor could even be a member of the “other” party, as was the case 1967-71 when Republican Louie Nunn was governor and Democrat Wendell Ford was lieutenant governor.

In fact, when Carroll was governor and decided to leave the state at one time in 1978, Lieutenant Governor Thelma Stovall convened the legislature and rammed through a tax-cap law that prohibits taxing agencies from automatically raising taxes by more than something like four percent without benefit of facing a referendum. She also vetoed the passage of the legislature’s action in voting down the so-called federal Equal Rights Amendment. Her veto was overridden, however…but the tax-cap stood.

Carroll’s tenure was loaded with bumps. His right-hand man, a former legislator and state party chairman, served three years in a federal pen for workmen’s-compensation-insurance shenanigans, and Carroll himself was under federal investigation while in office. This is what Carroll said after being elected to the Kentucky Senate: “I’m assuming a position of leadership in the party as a result of being reelected to the Kentucky State Senate.” In that process, he defeated incumbent Governor Fletcher’s brother, though an alert democrat orangutan would beat a republican human genius in the state-capital district where that happened, without even swinging from limb to limb to campaign.

There were rumblings last year about a possible Carroll run for the governor’s seat again. This is what Bill Bartleman of the Paducah Sun wrote in May 2006: “If he ran statewide, opponents would open Carroll’s political closet and remind voters of the massive five-year federal investigation of his administration that resulted in numerous accusations, but only one indictment of a close political adviser. While Carroll can defend himself since he was never charged or indicted, questions about cronyism and possible borderline activity would make plentiful campaign fodder.”

Lieutenant Governor Carroll ascended to the governorship in 1974 when Governor Ford resigned to take the Senate seat vacated by Republican Senator Marlowe Cook, whom Ford had just defeated in his own Senate bid. Cook stepped down early, thereby giving Ford extra seniority, a magnanimous gesture. There had to be a deal, of course, with Carroll agreeing to appoint Ford to the Senate, after Ford’s resignation from the governorship, in order to take Ford’s place. This also gave Carroll a leg up on the gubernatorial election in 1975, which he easily won.

Concerning his statements about Pence’s disloyalty, etc., Carroll said: “It was something I felt needed to be done. Someone needed to address this. Quite frankly, I thought I had the credentials to do it.” What a joke, notwithstanding Pence’s strange behavior. He took flight from the ticket last summer while Governor Fletcher was out of state. He should realize more than anyone else – as a former prosecutor – that the Merit matter should have gone the usual “Ethics Committee” route, not through the attorney general’s office.

A-G Stumbo had already proclaimed long ago his considering to run for the governorship if Fletcher became “unpopular,” then proceeded to guarantee that he would become unpopular. Stumbo is settling for second chair, assuming success – actually a long-shot at this point. If he couldn’t be supportive by telling it like it is, Pence should have at least shut up and certainly not started actively campaigning against the governor…perhaps with another state job in sight if Northup should be successful – an even longer long-shot.

And so it goes.

Jim Clark