THE TYGRRRR EXPRESS

I met her!

Who? Who do you think? Yes, her! I met Mary Katharine Ham!

YYYYYYYYYAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(If Alan Greenspan heard this, he might accuse me of irrational exuberance)

I would do cartwheels but it has been a long, and incredibly happy, day.

On the overwhelmingly positive front, she is just as lovely in person as she comes across on television. She is simply a nice person, and I would describe her as a “cool chick.”

No, I did not propose, or say anything that would cause her to break out mace or pepperspray. We talked for 10 minutes.

Backtracking several hours, I started out in Los Angeles, where I was supposed to take a flight to Vegas that would arrive on Friday at just before 6pm. I noticed that Mary Katharine Ham would be speaking at a conference at 3pm. I asked my boss if I could take an earlier flight. He said yes. So I flew to Vegas early specifically in the hopes I would meet her.

Yet the reason why is not one anybody would suspect. It was not about love, sex, romance, or even friendship, although she seems like she would be a cool friend to have. It was not even about getting an interview with her for my blog, which she happily agreed to do. I wanted to look into her eyes, and find out one thing…whether or not she thinks I am an idiot.

Yep, that was my motive. As I told her, the whole “Jewish guy desiring Ham” thing started out as a tiny joke and turned into an enormous joke, a trilogy of stupidity. I am not ashamed of one word of it, but hopefully in 20 years I will be seen as more serious. I wanted to know if she had heard of my blog, the articles referring to her, and if she liked them.

I am happy…make that relieved…to say that she does not think I am an idiot. She liked the column, and thought it was funny. She clearly got the joke. Some people came up to her and said, “you have to read this,” with wide smiles. Others said to her, “Ummm, Mary, you might want to read this,” which is more ominous. I find her to be a bright young thinker, and wanted to make sure I did not offend her. She was beyond delightful.

Maybe I am guilty of way too much navel gazing, but yes, it does matter what people think up to a certain point. The comedians that lasted the longest, like Johnny Carson, did not insult people. So once I saw she was ok with what I wrote, it was less nerve wracking to talk with her.

She told me that while Michelle Malkin can sometimes be intimidating on television, she is a complete sweetheart in real life. Based on my Ann Coulter meeting, it does not surprise me that once the cameras are off, Ms. Malkin is not flaring her nostrils, but smiling and being pleasant. She said, “Michelle is sweet to everybody, unless you’re a liberal.” I replied that no, I was not a liberal, and that even though I am a nice guy, I am still a scorched Earth conservative.

I told her that I would rather be known as the guy who writes insightful columns about David Petraeus than some guy who craves Ham. I can only reiterate that my 10 minute impression of her was that she was funny, bright, and just a genuinely nice person. I did take my picture with her, but promised not to put it on the internet. I told her that part of that was because I could not understand why anybody puts pictures of themselves online, and I certainly do not. She laughed.

I wished her well, and told her that being that it was Friday night, I had to get to Temple.

I found a lovely Synagogue, and I mention my trip to Temple because when I was there, I was actually thinking about the service. I was not thinking about the stock market, the NFL, the Bloggers Choice Awards, or anything else. I was not even thinking about women, which I have been known to do inbetween prayers. Heck, I was not even thinking about Ms. Ham. I was just focused, and at peace.

I say this because while my columns can be disjointed, such as this one, my life is also that way, happily so. Yet today, my head was where it was supposed to be all day. At no time did my head and my hide swap spots. At work, I thought about work, and the same for meeting Ms. Ham, and then Temple.

Lately I have been musing aloud as to whether I want to be serious, sophomoric, or both. I still have no idea. My friend and I could have gone to the strip club, but despite this being Sin City, we are both homebodies. We hung out. We ended up watching Clerks II, which was a perfect metaphor for my thoughts. One minute the guys are involved in a bestiality scene with a donkey, next minute they are having serious discussions about what to do with their lives.

How can one movie be so filthy and then so insightful? Heck, it is a difficult balance. I know trying to balance serious republican party analyses with sexually charged drivel sprinkled in periodically is a high wire act I have yet to perfect.

All I can do is be me, and with being me, behind the bravado, is a small slice of humility. One thing I said to Ms. Ham proved prophetic. I told her, “My parents do not read my column every day. My Aunt and Uncle read it, and filter it before letting my parents know if they should look at it. When I write about General Petraeus, they love my column. When I write about desiring Ham, they tell me to stop being sophomoric.” Ms. Ham was genuinely amused by this.

She was also amused that I had to tell my parents, “No, I do not have a crush on Bea Arthur or Monique from Showtime at the Apollo. The Ham thing was for fun.” She laughed when I told her that my Rabbi saw the article, took me aside, and said, “we need to talk.”

As for other things she said, I will keep it private, not because it is “secret,” but because it was a pleasant enjoyable experience left off the internet unless she decides otherwise.

When I told my parents I met her, my mom was like, “oh yeah, the luncheon meat girl.” I cringed. My parents said they liked her on Bill O’Reilly’s program, and then my mom suggested I check my email.

I found a less than heartwarming note. My mother is a saint, but even saints can get fed up.

“I’m really bored this evening, so I read your latest blog article. It’s bad enough there were many grammatical errors (I know, you write quickly), but you don’t have to write rubbish.

‘Oh yeah, and a non-Jewish woman whose last name resembles a deli luncheon meat that my Rabbi would not approve of me eating will be there. I will not be an imbecile around her, although on the subject of deli meats, there is another woman I badly want to give the ketchup bottle treatment to when I get back.’

You’ve got to be kidding! How old are you, 12?

Mom”

Thankfully my dad, the king of blistering critiques, just apparently shook his head and probably questioned how two incredibly normal people produced this bizarre young offspring.

So what happens next regarding the saga of Mary Katharine Ham? Outside of the interview, nothing. My lust life is fabulous, but it will not get me to the next level. It is time to start writing brilliantly again. That means NFL recaps on Sundays, and hard core politics after that.

Oh, and mom and dad, I was perfectly polite, respectful and dignified with Ms. Ham. No, I did not bring up the ketchup bottle treatment. In fact, I did not even think about it in Temple.

I am not even thinking about it now…well…maybe a little bit.

Nah, I am thinking about what many guys think about after meeting a lovely woman like Ms. Ham…what many guys think about in general.

Man, this 7-11 Big Gulp tastes good…Gatorade Cherry Rain…now I need some Doritos or mini-donuts.

eric

The Tygrrrr Express is heading to Sin City. How incredibly appropriate.

“I’m going to give it everything I’ve got…may lord please let the dice stay hot…let me see a 7 with every shot…Viva, Las Vegas.” Thank you very much (ZZ Top version, not Elvis).

There are several events going on at this hour, so I will give them all short shrift rather than cover one of them with quality and depth.

Before getting into any of them, a quick update regarding the 2007 Bloggers Choice Awards is in order, since that is why I am going to Vegas to begin with. BlogWorld Expo ends Friday, and Postiecon is Saturday. As you know, to put it mildly, there has been some “controversy,” surrounding the awards, with your warm fuzzy tygrrrr friend being at the eye of this storm.

I had two conversations by telephone calls Wednesday night with Ted Murphy, each one of them lengthy. He requested that the substance of those conversations not be disclosed until Sunday, and based on the positive nature of the conversations I will honor his request. I can only say that if he keeps his word, and I suspect he will, not only will I be pleased, but my readers will be even more pleased. Besides, if he is not sincere, it will be scorched Earth in Vegas. Again, based on the conversations, I believe giving him the benefit of the doubt will turn out to be the right move.

Now as for other events going on, I will quickly try not to fall asleep while discussing the Bernard Kerik non-issue. For the sake of full disclosure, I am backing Rudy Giuliani for President, and I am jealous that Bernie Kerik got to sleep with Judith Regan and I didn’t.

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/11/08/the-kerik-indictment-giuliani-and-the-gop/

First of all, the timing of this indictment reeks to high heaven. It is the same timing that has the Bush drunk driving scandal break four days before the 2000 election, preventing a comfortable Bush victory. It is the same timing that has Caspar Weinberger indicted 5 days before the 1992 election, slowing President Bush 41’s momentum and leading to a Clinton landslide. It is the same timing that has the “fake but accurate” memos appear days before the 2004 election. It is the same timing that has the NSA wiretapping non-scandal break the same day Iraqis voted in their 3rd successful election.

It is that same timing that has Rudy Giuliani riding high after a bombshell endorsement by Pat Robertson. I am not saying that the media and other democratic power brokers are lying, cheating, scumbags. Oh wait a minute. I am.

Giuliani will survive this because his fellow republicans, I predict, are too decent to try and use this against him in the primaries. The top four republican contenders are all fine men, and they have been very civil. They have been sparring on issues, but they have not gone after personal matters. One of Giuliani’s trusted lieutenants may have messed up very badly. If the others on the republican side get too heavy handed with this, it could boomerang. In 2004, Gephardt and Screamin’ Dean destroyed each other, and these republicans are smarter than that.

So if Giuliani wins the primary, can’t Hillary (like somebody else will be the democratic nominee…please) use this against him? No way. Giuliani is not Rick Lazio. He is also not George W. Bush, who would rather be gracious and polite than tell people who hate him where to shove it. Giuliani will deck Hillary blow for incredibly low Clintonista blow. You want to talk about Bernie Kerik? He can talk about everybody from Sandy Berger to Kathleen Willey to Terry Lenzner to Susan MacDougal to Norman Hsu to…it would be open season. SOme would argue that Hillary’s lifetime of scandal would be “old news,” but she would have learned nothing from 2004. The only reason the Swiftboat Veterans were so successful against John Kerry was because he brought the issue up to show he was a better man than his opponent. If Hillary opens the door of scandal a crack, Giuliani will take a brickbat to her like she was a squeegee girl. I hope she tries it. Bring it on Hill-Dawg.

The main charge against Kerik is tax evasion. Let’s see what happens when everything from George Soros to Hillary’s various financial scandals are unearthed again. She can swat most of them away, but we only need one. Bernie Kerik and corruption? What say you Hillary? Bernie Kerik lying on his application? Lying? Come on Hillary, the shark tank water is perfect, which just enough blood to cover your hands.

Right now Hillary is holding a focus group to determine how to handle this. Her brawler instincts will not allow her to stay silent, even though she cowers from every issue that does not involve slandering a republican or mistress of her husband.

Rudy may have a bad few days, but nothing will change the narrative of 9/11, where Giuliani and Kerik were spectacular.

In other news, Michael Mukasey was approved as attorney general 53-40. This was no surprise. The democrats had no leverage, since President Bush could have made a recess appointment. The vote is a disgrace for two reasons.

For one, 40 democrats did not care that this man is beyond qualified. What John Roberts is to the Supreme Court, David Petraeus is to Iraq, and Ronald Reagan is to freedom, Judge Mukasey is to law and order. He is that good. Qualifications no longer matter, and when the democrats get into power one day, they will wonder why all their nominees get shot down. The democrats are not honest brokers. They are instead the party of “borkers.” Their hatred for all things conservative is as pernicious as it is corroding to society. Luckily, a few number of democrats did the right thing for their own selfish wrong reasons, as a couple of them freely admitted.

Even more disgusting was the fact that four democrats running for President were too gutless to vote. This way they can claim all things to all people. How can these cowards stand up to terrorist dictators when they cannot even tell the voters what they believe? When the Pelosiraptors open her mouth, she plummets in the polls, and then takes a vow of silence. This is fabulous when one is a leftist ideologue of zero significance. It is cowardly when one is trying to be the leader of the free world.

John McCain also did not vote. I am not happy about this. Heck, Tim Johnson, a democrat from South Dakota, voted. The man almost died a few months ago, and while I vehemently disagree with his vote, I respect his ability to even make it to the Senate floor, something the demagoguic party candidates refused to do. They are lilliputians, and deserve every bit of derision that comes their way, gutless nobodies that they are.

Rosie O’Donnell…oh who cares, she is like Ted Kennedy minus the car and the girth. No wait, just minus the car. Yeah, I went there. I normally eschew cheap shots, but this human cancer is one giant cheap shot, and I will respect her when she starts respecting me. The democrats running for President refuse to have the courage to speak about anything, and this man-bear-pig (South Park reference) refuses to shut up, babbling about everything. She should just go play nose tackle for the Chicago Bears and leave the rest of us alone.

As for O.J. Simpson and Britney Spears…I’m sorry, I refuse to lower the quality of this column any further. To quote the Jim Carrey character in “Liar Liar,” when he has had enough, I want them and the rest of their entertainment industry ilk to “Stop breaking the law, @-hole!”

Lastly, there is a writer’s strike going on in Hollywood, and shockingly enough, I have survived like Gloria Gaynor. This is almost as delightful as a baseball strike. Let these leftists destroy each other. I encourage people to write the President and demand he not intervene. I would write congress, but getting the Pelosiraptor and her fellow dinosaurs to do nothing is not necessary. It is their default option.

On the subject of defaults, the stock market has gotten rocked, oil is doing the triple digit dance, and all of this is a blip on the significance scale. If it were any less significant, it would be most of this column, except for the part of the Bloggers Choice Awards.

There, a complete newscast has come full circle. News, sports, lifestyle, and politics, without having to listen to some lily white male news anchor drone on about how we need diversity except for overrated lily white male news anchors.

As for the Bloggers Choice Awards, based on my positive developments with regards to the 2007 contest, I am entering the 2008 contest. I am not going to be a perpetual campaigner, so even though people can vote for me now for best political blog, I will not solicit them for another 6-8 months.

So for those of you who want to vote for me on an unsolicited basis, all I ask is that you do NOT have more than one person vote on any one computer. Otherwise the votes will be invalidated. The BCA system is based on IP addresses, so if you work in an office, only one vote per office. Married couples must have separate IP addresses, so get divorced and move out to help me. Throw your kids out as well so they learn self reliance, and buy them their own computer to vote for me.

http://www.bloggerschoiceawards.com/blogs/show/21020

Ok, off to the land of booze and call girls. Just kidding. I don’t drink.

Yep, the republican party and my parents cringe at comments like that.

Oh yeah, and a non-Jewish woman whose last name resembles a deli luncheon meat that my Rabbi would not approve of me eating will be there. I will not be an imbecile around her, although on the subject of deli meats, there is another woman I badly want to give the “ketchup bottle treatment” to when I get back.

Vegas Bay-bee! Bloggers competition and other fun! Let’s get it on!

eric

Political endorsements are normally worthless, but a neutron bomb of a political endorsement came in the form of Pat Robertson coming out in support of Rudy Giuliani.

This caused much controversy, and while I occasionally stop by Michelle Malkin’s blog for a comment or three, I got into a polite but heated discussion today with a social conservative that found this endorsement unacceptable and a betrayal of his conservative principals.

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/11/07/robertson-to-endorse-giuliani/#comments

I have redacted the fellow’s name out of politeness, but the debate was so lively it became a column all in itself. I rarely comment on my own blog, preferring to be a moderator that usually steps in behind the scenes, if at all. However, in this case I went from reasoned overseer to guerilla warrior.

“On November 7th, 2007 at 12:50 pm, blacktygrrrr said:

Endorsements are usually irrelevant, but this is a neutron bomb.

Giuliani wants terrorists dead at all costs. That sounds pretty pro-life to me. Giuliani, Romney, McCain and Thompson are all fine men, but to me Rudy is the right man.

Robertson did not do this out of altruism. He did it out of pragmatism. He knows that if Rudy wins without him (highly possible), then Robertson risks becoming irrelevant, the same way Bill Clinton marginalized Jesse Jackson compared to his predecessors.

It was a smart move by Robertson, who has seen his influence wane.

If Rudy wins, Robertson can claim it was because of his endorsement.

eric

On November 7th, 2007 at 12:52 pm, blacktygrrrr said:

Also, those on the far right that went with a fringe candidate in 1992 got Bill Clinton…80% agreement is not a 20% enemy…Any one of the top 4 candidates is better than Hillary by a country middle America mile.

Respectfully,

eric

aka the Tygrrrr Express”

I was not expecting hostility towards lovable me on a politically conservative site. While the majority of people that commented about what I had to say agreed with me, I will focus on those that did not.

“(name redacted) Get your facts straight. The people who left the GOP to vote for Perot were not “the far right”, they were squishy moderates like you. And Giuliani agrees with us on 20%, not 80%.”

A great quote by one person who agreed with me said, “As a California party boss once said, ‘Winning isn’t everything, but losing isn’t anything.’”

Anyway, those that agreed with me spoke in a reasonable manner while those that disagreed frothed in a rabid manner. I tried to use humor and satire, which is often lost on those that are too angry to acknowledge healthy intraparty disagreements.

“On November 7th, 2007 at 1:50 pm, blacktygrrrr said:

1) I obey Ronald Reagan’s 11th commandment of not bashing other republicans. Calling me a ‘squishy moderate’ is not only insulting, but it is asinine. Anybody who has read my blog knows my conservative credentials.

2) Some social conservatives are unfairly seen as intolerant bigots. Religion is under assault, and social conservatives should be respected. HOWEVER, some people who happen to be social conservatives ARE intolerant, and they refuse to believe that many people can disagree with them and still be good people. They are the right wing version of liberals, and demand 100% purity.

People who win elections govern. Pat Robertson tried to take the entire table awhile back and lost. Now he wants a place at the table, since that beats getting nothing at all by a lot.

Social conservatives deserve a place at the table, but not the entire table.

eric aka the Tygrrrr Express

On November 7th, 2007 at 2:14 pm, blacktygrrrr said:

Also, those that try to take the entire table often find it is a small table akin to a kiddie table while the large table contains a governing majority without them.

I respect all republicans, be they Christian Coalition, Log Cabin, Wall Street Journal, National Review, or anybody else that wants lower taxes and dead terrorists.

We can disagree about divisive social issues, but we must respect those differences without litmus tests for entry into the party.

We can be tolerant, or we can be liberals. I would rather be tolerant.

Respectfully,

eric”

The response was as swift as it was incoherent.

“(name redacted) Reagan himself never observed the 11th commandment.

I’ve read your blog, and I’m underwhelmed by your conservative credentals. You seem to be a pro-war liberal. I don’t mean that as an insult. We need pro-war liberals.

In todays Republican party, is there ANY place for them at the table? It seems not.

But you are diverting from the real problem. Rudy Giuliani is not only no social conservative, he is no conservative of any sort. He is essentally a liberal running on the Republican ticket. His stance on the issues and his experience is no different from those of Michael Bloomberg. Would you try to claim that Bloomberg is any sort of conservative?”

For the sake of honesty I did not answer his question. Of course Bloomberg is not a conservative. He left the republican party entirely, and only joined it to begin with to ride Rudy’s coattails into office.

One fellow who disagreed with me was very reasonable.

“(name redacted) So then you should have no problem with Rudy or any Democrat running; all would be fine with dead terrorists. I on the other hand am not happy with dead terrorists, I need something from my candidate that sets him or her apart from the pack. So far I do not see that in any candidate, Republican or Democrat.

I read up on Pat Robertson and I think he blamed Americans for the 9/11 attacks. As a Christian I cannot support him nor Giuliani’s campaign.

Where do we go from here? ”

The off the rails fellow did make a reasonable point.

“(name redacted) Great. I respect them also. But wanting dead terrorists and lower taxes does not make one either a Republican or a conservative. Who does not want these things?”

Despite his question that had many people responding about democrats and liberals, I addressed his prioir, less reasonable comments.

“On November 7th, 2007 at 3:13 pm, blacktygrrrr said:

Somebody here just called me a ‘Pro-War Liberal.’

That is the most disgusting thing I have ever been called. First a squishy moderate, now a liberal.

I can handle being called a Nazi, racist, sexist, facist pig, which I am often called by liberals because I am a conservative.

To be called a liberal…Mr. (redacted), have you no decency sir?

As for those who are acting like 5 year olds and threatening to stay home in the hopes the entire party will grovel at your feet, I say “stay home.”

It worked with Pat Buchanan, it will work with James Dobson, and it will work with anybody else that thinks they have the right to force an entire party to agree with them.

Just remember this. If some people advocate staying home, and the republicans win anyway…it will be a very cold few winters for those that stayed home.

Pat Robertson made a very pragmatic political move, and it was to keep himself and his movement relevant.

I need to get the bitter taste out of my mouth at being called a liberal. Off to eat some red meat like the alpha male I am.

Respectfully,

eric aka the Tygrrrr Express”

The response came.

“(name redacted) If the Republicans win as a liberal party, who cares? I’m not going to help them, and I’m not remotely concerned to hear that liberals will then blackist me. How is that different from their current behavior?”

Here was a gem of a comment indicting most of the room, who according to this fellow were not conservative enough.

“(name redacted) What if the GOP nominee is a leftist also? I swear, some of you people would vote for Castro if he ran on the Republican ticket.”

Further debate would have been pointless. Plus, I have an actual job, and quick typing notwithstanding, I had work to do.

 

The bottom line is that there is a difference between having an ideology and being an ideologue. I have an ideology. I am a conservative. I am not an ideologue since I do not subject every single view to a litmus test. People romanticize Reagan, but I am sure if I looked really hard I might disagree with him on something, and I revere the guy.

 

Pat Robertson’s endorsement of Rudy is a big deal not because millions will follow him, but because it shows that not all evangelicals are obsessed only with the abortion issue. His credentials on other issues such as the War on Terror do matter. His support for Israel appeals to evangelicals, as does his fights against pornography and anti-Christian “art.”

Many people are passionate about the abortion issue, but to assume that they are incapable of analyzing other issues reduces them to cartoon characters. They are people like anybody else, and capable of human thought, and often in a thoughtful manner.

 

I still believe that Pat Robertson is the right wing version of Jesse Jackson. He desperately wants to remain relevant, and backing a winner early is a smart move.

 

Comparing Rudy Giuliani to Hillary Clinton is lunacy. They are beyond different.

 

I am thankful that the fellow that lashed out at me does not represent mainstream republican or even conservative thought. Conservatism comes from Edmund Burke, John Locke, Abraham Lincoln, and Barry Goldwater. None of the first three had zero commentary on issues social conservatives hold dear, and Barry Goldwater would not fit in well with the modern Christian Coalition.

 

Ronald Reagan is beloved, but the social conservatives fail to understand that they agreed with him, not the other way around. Everyone agreed with him, and various factions of the republican party all wanted that wonderful man to love us as much as we loved him.

 

Thou shalt speak ill of no other republican. Those that violate Mr. Reagan’s 11th commandment dishonor his memory.

 

Every republican is invited into the big tent for the party, but nobody is allowed to question my loyalty, commitment, and membership.

 

I was called a liberal. I feel orally violated, and not in a Clinton-Lewinsky kind of way.

 

Off to give my eardrums a good scrubbing, and hoping that the dozen people forming a third party all vote themselves off of the island. I deal with enough children on the left, and have no patience for children on the right. We are adults, and had better start acting like it.

 

I have had my issues with Pat Robertson, but he made a grown up decision. Hillary is a liberal. I am not, and neither are any of the top tier republican presidential candidates. To imply otherwise is…there is not a word to describe it…something so…well…liberal.

eric

After watching Sean Hannity interview Duane “Dog the Bounty Hunter” Chapman, I can only say that I personally am willing to forgive the Dog. The controversy surrounding the Dog’s use of the n-word is not as ebony and ivory as it is made out to be. Before delving into complex racial issues because it’s my blog and I can, we all need to lighten up. No, I did not advocate black people going the Michael Jackson route. It’s an expression.

Is Dog just the fall guy? No, that would be a different bounty hunter played by Lee Majors in the 1980s. I bet you all now have the theme to that show stuck in your head.

“Well I’m not the kind to kiss and tell, but I’ve been seen with Farah…I’ve never been with anything less than a 9…so fine…

I’ve been on fire with Sally Field, gone fast with a girl named Bo…but somehow, they just don’t end up as mine…

It’s a death defying life I lead, I take my chances…I die for a living in the movies and tv… but the hardest thing I ever do is watch my leading ladies…kiss some other guy while I’m bandaging my knee…

I might fall from a tall building, I might roll a brand new car…’cause I’m the unknown stuntman, that made Redford such a star…

I never spent much time in school, but I taught ladies plenty…it’s true I hire my body out for pay…hey hey…

I’ve gotten burned over Cheryl Tiegs, blown up for Raquel Welch…but when I wind up in the hay it’s only hey, hey hey…

I might jump an open drawbridge, or Tarzan from a vine…’cause I’m the unknown stuntman, that makes Eastwood look so fine…

They’ll never make me President, but I’ve got the best First Ladies…some days I’ve got ’em as far as the eye can see, hoo wee…

I’ve born and died with Jackie Smith, I crash in the night with Cheryl…but in the end they never stay with me…

I might fall from a tall building, so Burt Reynold’s don’t get hurt…I might leap a mighty canyon, so he can kiss and flirt…while that smooth talker’s kissing my girl, I’m just kissing dirt…yes I’m the lonely stuntman, that made a lover out of Burt.”

Ok, enough with Colt and any other animals. Back to the Dog.

He used the n-word. This is not a joke, and it is not a laughing matter. It is a disgusting word that sears souls. When a white man directs it towards a black man, it is meant with hatred.

Yet some have argued that a black man can say it to another black man with love. Richard Pryor and Chris Rock used it frequently in their comedy routines. I vehemently disagree with this. Richard Pryor said he would stop, and Chris Rock can be hysterically funny without using it. If a comedian needs the word to be funny, then they are not funny.

So what do we make of Dog? First of all, this is not Michael Richards or Don Imus. They had public platforms, and abused their platforms by publicly attacking people. Dog Chapman had a private phone conversation recorded by his own son, who betrayed him.

Yes, Dog is a victim in this situation. He was absolutely wrong to use the word, but why are more people not condemning the fact that his own flesh and blood betrayed him with the help of a complicit media? How many finger pointers have horrible thoughts in their own private conversations? How many jokes have they told at parties that would be embarrassing if they were recorded? Dog Chapman is being pilloried for thinking bad thoughts.

First of all, why was Dog using the n-word to begin with? According to him, and I believe him, he saw it as brotherly joking with his black friends, who use it with each other. He assumed, completely incorrectly, that because he was so progressive and “down with them,” that he would be seen as black himself.

This is not crazy. Ask a random sample of black men whether Bill Clinton or Clarence Thomas is “blacker,” and most of them would say Clinton. I may think this is insane, since to me race is pigmentation, nothing more, nothing less. Yet many black men who have no problems with colorblindness truly believe that certain characteristics completely irrespective of race can shape a man’s race. This can be damaging because “acting black,” is often seen as behaving like a thug, while “acting white,” means being a successful white collar professional. “Street Cred” becomes more important than decent behavior.

Duane Chapman bought into this misguided myth. He found out the hard way that he is not one of the “homies.” So to all upper middle class white teenagers who try to “act black,” you are a uniting factor in the sense that urban blacks and mainstream whites will both agree that you look like idiots, whether it be the pants hanging low or the baseball cap on backwards.

Some say context is everything. With some words, yes. Snoop Doggy Dogg refers in his songs to women as b*tches and hos. I am actually not offended by this, and have defended him, because he is not attacking specific private individuals. He is attacking generic women that use men for their money and fame. However, Don Imus referred to specific identifiable women as hos. That crossed the line.

https://tygrrrrexpress.com/2007/05/in-defizzle-defense-of-snoop-doggy-dogg-or-whatever-he-calls-himself-this-week/

As for the n-word, I do not believe that there is an acceptable context. Yet while Dog may be saying it jokingly with his black friends, the context in which he laced into his son’s girlfriend goes way beyond any bounds of decency. He simply should not have called her that. There is no excuse for that.

Having said that, while Dog’s choice of words was reprehensible, his concerns about her were completely well founded. He was worried that she would try to tape record him using the n-word, and then sell it to the media to humiliate him, and make money for herself. That is exactly what ended up happening. For her to go on tv and say that she feels he is a racist, and how dare he think bad things about her, is ludicrous (not to be confused with Ludacris, who says many bad words that do not offend me). She did exactly what he thought she would do. She is contemptible, and so is the Dog’s own son for betraying his father. The only reason anyone knows who this woman is is because she dated the son of a famous man. If Snoop Doggy Dogg had called her a bad name, nobody would bat an eyelash, least of all me.

(On a side note, more proof that Mr. Chapman wants to be black is his adopting a nickname shared with black rappers such as Snoop Doggy Dogg, Nate Dogg and others. Perhaps Mr. Chapman truly believed he was a member of the Dogg Pound. He needs to stop insulting blacks, and start insulting women, especially the ones that are hos)

So what is the solution for the Dog? The answer is contrition. I saw a very contrite man. Some may say he is being contrite to save his job as head of a popular television show, but anyone watching his interview can see a man who is ashamed at what he said. He repeatedly said that he will apologize until the day he dies.

I hope he does not do this. I hope he apologizes for a finite amount of time, and then is allowed to move forward. If he is fired from his show (he is currently suspended), then that is his price. However, he has asked for forgiveness, and I believe he is sincere. He should be forgiven.

Some will say that words are not enough, and that they need to be matched with deeds.

One such deed could be some form of sensitivity training. Dog already has a spiritual adviser who happens to be black, and he clearly now sees why he cannot say the n-word. So if Dog has learned that what he did wrong, what else is there? Sure, he could make a donation to some black charity, but those who despise him will then say he is only doing it to save his reputation. In short, those who want to pillory him will never stop.

One thing Dog should absolutely not do is have repeated meetings with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. They are human garbage, as racist and poisonous to society as David Duke. They are true racists, and unlike Dog, they have never apologized for some of their more hateful remarks. I am sure both of them will give full absolution to the Dog once he has made “restitution,” in the form of a generous “donation,” to the Rainbow Coalition or National Action Network.

Sorry, but the National Agitation Network has enough guilty white liberal blood money. If Dog wants to make things better, he should not be spending any time around people who benefit and thrive by making things worse.

Dog should speak to people who are not mired in corruption…people who can still be molded into positive members of society…students. He can go to junior high schools and speak to classes about his experiences, and where he and they should go from here. Think about how boring most school assemblies are. This would not be boring. It would be something most assemblies only dream of being…useful.

The Dog has done some positive things in his life. He arrests criminals who jump bail. The streets are safer because of men like him. As the expression goes, “it’s a dirty job, but someone’s got to do it.” When dealing with a violent criminal element, I can see why he would use foul language. However, it is one thing to curse. It is another to denigrate an entire race of people, even unintentionally.

Dog caused people pain. For this, he has to face some form of punishment, and his suspension and humiliation are sufficient. The pain he caused was unintentional. For this, he must be forgiven and brought back into the family of humanity. Human beings who judge him would want nothing less for themselves.

eric

I have never been to Fallujah or been hunted by Nazis, but I did go to public school in New York. I spent many days fearing for my life, and have vowed that when I bring children into the world, I will never despise my own flesh and blood enough to send them to public school.

Somewhere out there are positive contributions to society by today’s public schools. Then again, somewhere out there in San Francisco are republicans. This is what society refers to as aberrations. Public schools have destroyed my religious community, and they will not rest until every child has committed suicide or been murdered. Of course “No child is left behind,” is code for “screw the children, let ’em die.” America is killing our children one public school at a time.

https://tygrrrrexpress.com/2007/03/destroying-the-jewish-people-one-schoolteacher-at-a-time/

Harsh? Only if one ignores that the greatest evils in society are found in public schools.

My friend works at “Ignite Learning,” but all the software in the world will only work if the people operating the software actually can ignite learning. Give parents the software, and who knows what brilliance could flourish?

http://www.ignitelearning.com/

As for the evils in public schools, kids do not get hooked on drugs at home. They get drugs at school. Why don’t schools simply ban drug dealers from being on school grounds? For the same reason we can’t simply ban terrorists from blowing up buildings. Bad people do not listen, even if you ask really nicely and say pretty please. The solution to drug dealers is to treat them like the terrorists they are and just kill them.

Unfortunately, students and criminals (often redundant) are the only people allowed to have guns in school. Technically they are not allowed, but laws without enforcement are meaningless. So unarmed teachers are held hostage by students with violent tendencies.

My parents were teachers for 30 years in inner city neighborhoods. My father even won a teacher of the year award. To show their appreciation, one student pulled a knife on my father. My dad disarmed the kid, kept him at bay, and made sure he did not kill anyone. As a reward, my dad was brought in to be questioned by school authorities due to concern that the boy with the knife may have been hurt. If my dad had a gun, he could have immediately had the kid get on the ground, and waited for the police to arrive. Even better would have been if the kid would have continued with the knife, at which point my dad could have shot him in self defense and spared the world a future adult criminal. Harsh? Tell that to the people with fathers unlucky enough to defend themselves as ably as my dad. They are in the morgue.

In addition to drugs and guns, schools are integrated. This a tragedy. They should be segregated immediately. No, not by race…by intellect. Let’s not be politically correct. Forcing the smart kids to go to school with dumb kids does nothing but torture the smart kids. When I say “dumb,” I am not referring to kids with legitimate learning disabilities. I am referring to students that simply go to school for the purpose of not learning. The dumb kids should just be put in a steel cage. When Michael Vick engaged in dogfighting, he received a prison sentence. Had he used dumb kids instead of dogs, many people would be recommending he run for President. My father told me that when I got to college I would be around kids as bright as me, if not brighter. I remarked that first I had to live long enough to get to college.

If drugs and guns do not get the students, then the child molesters known as teachers can finish them off. How do these people get hired? Do applications for teachers require anything besides a commitment to atheism and a love for all things recyclable? No, not all teachers are child molesters. My parents were not. However, the inability of schools to weed these people out in a timely manner is a disgrace.

Assuming the kids do not get shot, stabbed, drugged out, or raped, there is always the torture to be received at the hands of bullies. Folks, getting a “tittie-twister” or a “wet willie” will not kill children. However, getting beaten to a bloody pulp will. In addition, most school principals are qualified to be either gutter rats or State Department employees. At this point I should apologize to the gutter rats. Principals see everything in terms of moral equivalence. I can picture a fistfight between a Palestinian homicide bomber and a Jewish student trying to defend himself. He succeeds in taking away the bomb, and then both students are suspended for fighting. In public schools, on the rare occasions a student being attacked actually fights back, both the defender and the bully are suspended. Children are actually taught that if they are abused by a bully, they should inform a teacher or principal. Has this ever worked? Does anyone understand why students have no faith that the system can protect them? Public schools are prisons, and the way to survive is for the potential victims to get in good with the toughs, at any price.

Assuming the children live through the day, their brains are turned to mush by the curriculum. As vital as it is to learn whether or not “Heather has two mommies,” perhaps more time should be spent on multiplication tables. Some would say we can do both, but this is just not happening. American children rank near the bottom of most categories. Schools experiment with nonsense such as “Outcome-Based Education,” “Ebonics,” and “Self-esteem” sessions. God forbid…oh wait, we cannot say that in schools, even though we forbid God…we actually stop the liberal activism and just stick with English (a language similar to Spanish except that it isn’t), spelling and mathematics.

There have been good teachers, and they were punished for being good. James Escalante is the legend that the movie “Stand and Deliver” was based on. He was criticized for teaching advanced calculus to inner city junior high school Hispanic kids. Guess what? He taught it anyway, and they learned it. They ended up smarter than those around them. Joe Clark, lionized in the Morgan Freeman movie “Lean on Me,” brought a baseball bat to school. He turned East Side High in New Jersey around. He was fired because the powers that be were more concerned about lawsuits from parents of children that were bustouts from the day they entered the world.

Good teachers are also punished by being given the worst students, because they can handle them. Bad teachers, who cannot be fired short of publicly financing Al Queda (and even then the unions would argue that union dues protect teachers for this exact reason), get rewarded with the best students, who they then drive into the ground.

Even good teachers are handicapped because they have no say over the curriculum. Creativity is not to be tolerated, and lesson plans must conform to the statist mommy and daddy state that run the system. Some kids actually start out by wanting to learn more, but the system will not allow for this.

So what is the solution to the problem of the public schools? The answer is to give up. Get the Federal Government out of the education business. The system is a colossal failure, and like a condemned building in the Bronx, needs to be imploded.

Forcing students to go to school prolongs the inevitable. Rather than having bullies stealing lunch boxes, by letting them come and go as they please, perhaps they will try and steal a lunch box from an adult on the street, and face the consequences. Some will say this is just a way of letting people die. No, it is forcing parents to know where their children are, and let them discipline their own children as necessary. Schools should not be a place for parents to drop their problems off. As for parents who abuse their kids, that should not be the problem of the other kids.

One solution is religious schools. Parochial schools simply produce better results on every level. Yes, they have problems, but those problems are the exception, not the rule. Atheists may complain (what a surprise) that this is discriminatory. No, discriminatory is forcing God fearing students to go to public schools. In the same way “White flight” from neighborhoods is not racism, religious students fleeing public schools is not bigotry. If atheists believe that God has no place in public schools, give them the d@mn public schools. Just do not force the religious students to be stuck learning atheism. Atheists may claim that this “separate but equal” approach is biased because religious students will get a better education. If anything, that proves the very point of how awful public schools are!

Another solution is home schooling. In today’s world of internet commerce, more and more people are working from their home. Conferences can be done without air travel. People conduct deals in their pajamas. Yes, the results from home schooling are solid. Some would say that home schooling deprives students from the “school experience,” as if guns, drugs and beatings build character.

How many Kip Kinkel’s or Columbines need to occur before people realize that every aspect of public education is broken? No, I am not blaming society for what these deranged, and yes evil, kids did. I am saying that there was no way to protect the other students who went to school assuming they would learn, and live.

Without revealing too much, I pretended to “snap” in 12th grade. I pulled a Hamlet and pretended to be crazy. I had had enough, and was again, not sure I would live to see college. I had it easy compared to kids today, and thankfully I was never overweight or speech-impaired. Those kids get treated in a manner that would make the ACLU shut up about waterboarding. Come to think of it, it would be nice if the ACLU spent less time defending terrorists and more time saving young kids from the education system.

Anyway, after getting suspended for fighting (I can identify with the dogs Michael Vick had, I was that glazed and crazed), I still had to take my classes. The teachers came to my home. They were in shock. They were expecting a thug. I mean, how often does an honors student get suspended? They found a bright young kid eager to learn. My dad cooked up steaks for the professors and me, and I devoured the material. I learned about “The Iliad,” which is still my favorite book to this day. I got to stay up late and discovered the joy of David Letterman, who I still watch 17 years later. I even did my homework, which I never did in school.

My closest friends stuck by me, and tried to convince the principal to reinstate me. I am still friends with those guys today. The only problem was I did not want to go back. Nevertheless, when I returned, nobody messed with me anymore. Some kids even said, “that guy’s crazy, just leave him alone. He might kill you.” Is this what it takes for a powerless person to get power? Why should it get to that point? Can’t principals or teachers do something?

No. They can’t. I did what I had to do to survive.

My father once apologized for my experience. He told me that if he had known how awful my school days were, he would have home schooled me. I do not blame my parents. They honestly did not know. Why did I not tell them? I don’t know. Some blame parents for missing signs, but I was secretive. There was no way they could have known. My friends knew, and we were all in it together. Our friendship got us through the tough times.

My desire to eliminate the public schools is not based on vengeance. It is based on saving the lives of future children from a personal hell that dwarfs anything I had to deal with.

Politicians cannot fix the problem. Prosecutors that stare down the mob fear teachers’ unions. Union dues are used for political purposes, which is code for enacting a left wing curriculum that is politically correct but academically inept. Corrupt union thugs allow bad teachers to have lifetime job security, while principals claim the wonders of diversity and multiculturalism as the screams of students begging not to die go unheard. In a cruel irony, military recruiters are banned from many schools. I can see why schools would not want to have soldiers on campus giving students a chance to learn how to defend America and themselves. I mean, who wants to have a kid end up in a war zone in Iraq when they can be perfectly safe in a war zone in a New York school. At least in Iraq the soldiers are attempting to improve the quality of life. Oh yeah, and the attempts are more successful.

Shut down all public schools. We have lost. Liberals are willing to surrender in Iraq and give up on the war on drugs. The one thing worth giving up, they keep fighting for. Why?

I refuse to believe liberals wake up and plot ways to destroy children. I just cannot fathom that they actually could feel this way. Assuming they don’t, they need to accept that the destruction is occurring, and it must be stopped. The Constitution gives us life and liberty. Forget the pursuit of happiness, let’s start with life and liberty.

Waiting for liberals to understand this is like trying to teach a pig to sing. It wastes time and annoys the pig. Conservative republicans need to do their part, especially those that claim to be pro-life. Save lives, remove your kids from public schools, and reduce the population in these kiddie jails by half. That way the children of conservatives will grow up to be smarter, happier, God fearing…heck, they will be alive.

I pray for decent students everywhere. I hear your cries for help. Unlike the people running the public education system, I actually understand, and care.

eric

One of my main criticisms of liberalism is that it demonizes anybody that dares to disagree with the conclusions that liberals theorize. Either one is a liberal, or they are an imbecile, evil, or in rare cases such as George W. Bush, both. Feelings trump facts, emotions trump evidence, and loud screaming displaces logical reasoning.

When Timothy McVeigh committed the Oklahoma City bombings, Senator Dianne Feinstein claimed that we needed more gun control, even though guns had nothing to do with this atrocity.

When Bill Clinton received illegal campaign contributions from Asian donors who skipped town (a pattern his wife is now repeating), the left claimed that we needed more campaign finance reform.

What the left either willingly or inadvertantly refuses to concede is that more solutions in the form of laws do not work if the underlying premise for enacting the laws is flawed.

Unfortunately, the pattern is continuing on the left today in the form of the environmental movement. Senator Barbara Boxer is blaming global warming for causing everything from the San Diego wildfires to  a supposed decline in polar bears.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/polar_bear_pandering.html

I am not an expert on environmental matters. I freely admit my knowledge base on the subject is paper thin, with apologies to those who hate paper because it comes from dead trees. What bothers me is that when I question aspects of those who consider themselves environmentalists, I am treated as a dunce. If I am so wrong, why get angry with me? Why not answer my questions in a sincere manner? Why not allow debate from those who know more than me and disagree with the conclusions of some environmentalists?

Like many republicans, I am not anti-environment. I am just not willing to destroy all human and animal life to save the environment. Trees matter, but so do people. It is nto that the right hates nature. It is that the left is so hades bent on saving nature that they often disregard any human consequences.

Simply put, the Greeniacs do not allow for debate. The issue is open and shut, especially on global warming. The problem is, it is not. Stifling debate is not the same as consensus. Shouting people down or insulting them is not the same as being right.

In the spirit of Socrates, I have several questions.

First of all, does global warming exist? I have no idea. I am not a scientist. Some scientists say yes, and some say no. Some say that the scientists saying no are not “serious” scientists. The question is then, who gets to decide what makes some scientists more serious than others? Are the ones saying that global warming does not exist all quacks? Do they not have college diplomas, much less advanced studying of this subject? I am not educated enough on this issue to be definitive, but I am educated enough to know that trying to invalidate those that disagree with others is a sign of a lack of confidence in one’s own argument. I suspect reasonable and educated people dispute this issue. It is not beyond dispute at all, far from it.

Even if global warming exists, which I cannot concede, what causes it, man or nature? Again, I have no idea. What I do know is that those on the left insist that humans are killing the planet, and those who question this are relegated to the back of the little yellow bus reserved for “special” children. Can a 14 year old girl spraying mousse in her hair really be raping the planet? Isn’t that a little extreme?

In the 1970s it was global cooling. We were headed towards an ice age. The Greeniacs maintain that the technology we have now allows us to be more accurate. I can accept that on many subjects, we know more now than we do then. That is reasonable. However, absolute truth does not exist with regards to this question. Maybe nothing any human being is doing is causing this problem. Plenty of things that harm this planet on some level are completely not preventable. Earthquakes are not caused by human beings. As of now, there is nothing any living person can do to prevent an Earthquake. Yes, we can take actions to minimize the damage, but the Earthquake itself cannot be stopped. What if global warming fits into this category? Is a person an uneducated baboon for even pondering this as a reasonable question? I would say that this is not the case.

The third question exists if and only if the answers to the first two disputed questions are accepted with a ringing affirmative declaration. Can human beings do anything to stop global warming? The third question actually contains a fourth question…should we care?

Now this line of thinking makes liberals go apoplectic. How can we not care? What kind of horrible people do not care about global warming? How can we not do something? We have to do something. We cannot just sit idly by and do nothing.

Actually, yes we can. Possibly, and I stress possibly, yes we should.

Liberals love to take swift action on many issues because it feels good to say that one are “doing things.” On many issues, reasonable people believe that doing nothing is a perfect solution. On economics, many respected economists believe governments should do absolutely nothing, and let the economy do what needs to be done. Keynesians believe in activist intervention, with higher taxes. Supply Siders such as myself favor lower taxes. Yet some economists favor just taking a nap and leaving everything alone. These economists are not imbeciles.

Some people believe in doing nothing with various global conflicts. We are doing nothing with regards to conflicts between India and Pakistan. In fact, America made things worse when an ancient San Francisco dinosaur known as the Pelosiraptor decided to inject herself into a conflict between Turk and Armenians. Rather than minding our own business with regards to a conflict that…like global warming…may have occurred (there is much argument on this subject) almost a century ago, we chose to “do something,” and exacerbated conflict in the Turkish region of the world.

Although liberals are often hostile towards business, decisions need to be made in a cold, businesslike fashion, removing human emotion as a calculation component. If we decide that global warming exists and is caused by humans, can combatting it be done without humanity paying too high a price? Destroying the global economy is too high a price. Since America is the leader of that economy, destroying America is tantamount to destroying the world. That may not lways be the case, but it is now. Enacting the Kyoto Treaty, and other treaties where China and India are exempt, forces America to unilaterally destroy itself financially. It seems that liberals love unilateral action except when it is positive for America, such as removing bloodthirsty tyrants like Saddam Hussein.

Should Americans recklessly try to destroy the environment? Of course not. No rational person favors ruining the Earth. However, liberals actually characterize conservatives as people who enjoy raping the environment, which is almost as insulting to conservatives as it is to rape victims. I wonder why liberal feminists never condemn this language.

What I do know is that Hollywood celebrities that spout off are not any more informed than I am. If the scientists do not agree, anybody can line up behind any scientist. Al Gore may turn out to be right. For those who have just had their jaws drop, I am not saying he is right. I am saying he very well one day could be. However, his winning an Academy Award contributes nothing to the debate. The Academy are not scientists. They are artists. His winning a Nobel Peace Prize is even less relevant. It was not a science award.

I have often said that those giving out Oscars and Nobels are simply liberals rewarding liberals. It would be like me giving an award to somebody for reinforcing my opinions. These awards are given by people who do not even try to hide their ideological biases. Science is only effective if it is unbiased. Otherwise it is tainted. It is one thing to show bias in terms of who to give a film award to, regardless of quality or facts. It is another to let medical or scientific studies be flawed. That is how people die, and drug companies spend millions on studies, with true “double blind” studies having the most credibility. Science can produce clear unambiguous results, but while the results do not need to be neutral, the methods used to get to the conclusions must be neutral.

Neutrality is only valid if it is honest neutrality, which brings us to the concept of being carbon neutral, in the form of carbon “offsets.” The way it works is this. Al Gore flies around on private jets. This is supposedly bad for the environment. He is a “Lear Jet Liberal.” To avoid this label, he pays other people to be more environmentally friendly in their own lives, therefore negating, or offsetting, his negative contribution.

This is ludicrous. If I pay 10 people to not kill anybody, can I go then kill 10 people and claim neutrality? Of course not. How can killing the Earth, if that is what people are doing, be any better? Some would argue that Al Gore’s message is so important, and his stature so high, that he needs to break the rules to educate people on how to obey them. How is that leading by example? It isn’t. It is hypocrisy. Gore could be environmentally positive by encouraging others to obey the rules and obeying them himself. Of course, this assumes that the problem exists, people caused it, and we could and should attack it.

What separates normal people from crusaders/zealots/activists is the idea that disagreement is heresy. I do not condemn people for being vegans. If they believe it is healthier, more power to them. All I ask is that they not yell “meat is murder,” when I am trying to eat a burger.

Many conservatives do not hate liberals. We just want them to shut up and sit down. We want them to leave us alone and let us live our lives. Most importantly, we want the right to engage in legitimate socratic debate without being pilloried.

At no time in this column have I definitely stated that the Greeniacs are wrong. They could be. I am simply openminded.

Being closeminded is sometimes acceptable. Questioning that 2 + 2 = 4 is beyond debate. Questioning that terrorists crashed into the Towers on 9/11 is fact. The sun does rise in the East and set in the West. There have been tests, retests, and finally accepted conclusions. It is permissible, and logical, to be closeminded on issues that truly are beyond dispute.

Global warming and other environmental issues could be in that category one day. Not to frighten the liberals, but the conclusions could be the opposite of what they now suspect, in the same way that they were wrong about global cooling. Technology is constantly evolving, and who knows what is beyond the horizon?

The world has a finite amount of some resources, including money. It is one thing to spend money to wage a war against an enemy that wants to destroy the world. Preserving all of humanity from Armageddon is a reasonable expenditure. Reasonable minds can disagree on the approach, but not whether preserving civilization matters. Yet spending enough money to cripple the global economy through treaties and other anti-business methods for a possible situation is what separates rational people from screaming Deaniacs…in this case Greeniacs.

Intelligence involves developing an argument so strong it cannot refuted. The null hypothesis is rejected, and the alternative hypothesis reigns supreme. Rather than declare the debate over, the left should have the courage of their convictions (shouting and screaming is not courage) to be willing to test those convictions. No scientist wants to find their life’s beliefs invalidated, but that is the price to pay for having more accurate scientific results. The science has to supersede the scientists. This is anathema to liberals, because liberalism is about the people, not the ideas. Right versus wrong is meaningless, because the ideological agenda is what matters, not the consequences.

Liberals need to unclench their teeth long enough to have spirited but honest debate.

The truth, with a very small “t,” is that the Greeniacs, like most liberals, do not want to accept the real truth…that their theories…everything that they believe in…could…very…well…mean…that…the…Greeniacs…could…possibly…be…wrong.

eric