Red White & Blue Hens

College students in Delaware who think right is right, and left is wrong. We study hard, party hard, and play hardball.

Saturday, April 30, 2005

A possible version of W's plan

Hey check this out from the washingtonpost:
Couple the savings in outlays with personal accounts, and the difference in benefits is more than made up. Obviuosly the details are more complicated, but as a starting point, this really makes sense

Friday, April 29, 2005

Short-sighted liberals are at it again. At Carnegie Mellon University yesterday, activists effectively shutdown an Army Reserve recruitment table. Waving a banner that read "Resistance is Fertile," these clever kids are creating a problem their utopian-minded little heads can't comprehend.

Arising from these repeated incidents are a multitude of issues, none of which portend well for the country, the military, or the liberal platform. Recently I attended the Conservative Political Action Conference in D.C. Much to my surprise, the American Civil Liberties Union had their own booth there. Now, tell me if I'm wrong, but the advocation of full-blown gay marriage, defending the National-Man-Boy-Love-Association and supporting abortion whereever, whenever are hardly conservative stances. But this group was not only given a chance to be heard, they were invited. No pie-throwings were reported. While this conservative organization went out of its way for a dissident voice to be heard, it's increasingly trendy for some liberals to obstruct the conservative message through any means possible, i.e pies or banners. So much for freedom of expression, but I guess that's not needed anymore when you become so entrenched in your ideology that anyone who dares to think differently is clearly a "fascist/protofascist/racist/gay-basher/war-mongerer" etc.. Apparently, the basic right of expressing yourself doesn't apply to Army recruiters, probably for their utter lack of importance in the global war on terror.

Branching off of that, do these kids actually think about what would happen if their dream actualized and no one enlisted?
In an "all-volunteer military," the military relies on--no, it's not a play on words--volunteers. If those responsible for blocking the recruitment table had their way, there would be no volunteers. What has happened in the past when there were not enough volunteers? What is the logical extension of an "all-volunteer military" with no recruits? A draft. Smooth thinking, campus idiots. Not an end to war; as we've seen in the past drafts are instituted when needed. The Pentagon is as opposed to a draft as I am, because no one wants to rely on some punk with a gun who rather be hugging his teddy bear than serving his country. Someone who is not motivated to be in the military will be too laid-back and too lackadaisical; a perfect formula for more casualities on all sides. If that's your goal, Mr. College Activist, march on.

Here is a quote from Brian Dipippa, an organizer of the counterrecruitment on recruiters visiting local high schools:
"I get really mad, but then sad because I know people buy into it." Apparently buying into the ideal of serving your country by facing roadside bombs in Baghdad, of possibly sacrificing life or limb going cave-to-cave in Afghanistan, of becoming a part of something greater than yourself and contributing to the democratic potential in the Middle East is too much for this pimply-faced kid to grasp. Perhaps it's jealousy. Perhaps he knows he could never trade the possibility of macking some slamming brunette at the next Alpha Chi Omega Psi Delta Phi Rho Tau house party with a year in Wegetshotatalot, Iraq. He knows he couldn't handle the heat, the sand, the explosions, or the time lost. So rather than pay respect, he gets "sad" when someone else demonstrates their desire to stand up to the thugs blowing up innocent people, whether it be in NYC, Mosul, or Kabul. It's a shame the notion of military service to these kids is so antithetical to their views. In this dangerous time with an uncertain future, let's hope their seed of disservice doesn't sprout.

Thursday, April 28, 2005

Bush Press Conference on Social Security

My thoughts

He talked about non-Social Security stuff too. Good stuff.

Wednesday, April 27, 2005

Abu Ghraib

Here is a piece I wrote at the apex of the Abu Ghraib controvery (although it's a little rough and a bit outdated):

Some common sense on Abu Ghraib

Everyone please read this striaght forward editorial on the prisoner abuse issue. Then, if you are a lets-blame-bush-rumsfeld-gonzales-type, take a deep breath and go find something else to complian about.

Bob Dole on the Democrats Obstruction

Hey Conservatives, want to argue your point and win when is comes to the President's Judicial Nominations? Read this letter to the editor of the NYtimes by Senator Bob Dole.

Tuesday, April 26, 2005

Saddam Hussein, terrorist?

Amidst news of Zarqawi's near capture, information relating to when he entered Iraq--May 2002--has resurged. During that month, Zaraqwi fled Afghanistan for Iraq in hopes of sound medical treatment. Opponents of the Iraq War parade around the "fact" that Saddam had no links with al-Queda. Why does the media totally gloss over the fact that Saddam harbored one of Osama's closest lieutenants? Why do we still live with the myth that Saddam had no links to al-Queda? Are we expected to believe that--even with Saddam's four intelligence organizations operating around the clock--Saddam had no knowledge of Zarqawi's presence in his capital city?

In my opinion, there are intellectual arguments against the war; however, to say Saddam didn't harbor terrorists or that he played no role in terror is simply inconsistent with the facts. Saddam harbored known terrorists that killed Americans. He funded Palestinian suicide bombers, which greatly inflamed the Arab-Israeli conflict, a main source of Arab anger against the United States. And, of course, Saddam harbored Zaraqawi, whose hands have almost as much American blood on them as his boss', Osama. Oppose the war because you don't feel American lives are worth an Iraqi democracy, but to oppose the war thinking Saddam wasn't an international terrorist with links to al-Queda, you're simply not seeing the facts.

Check it Out

Sunday, April 24, 2005

Beyond the Headlines: Clinton Stumps for Blair; Smacks Bush

You may have heard that former President Clinton spoke at a Labour Party meeting, even though the White House has said that the election if for the British people to decide. Well not only did Clinton urge Brits to vote Blair, but he did it by slapping the current President in the face.
Appearing on a giant screen at a Labour Party meeting in London, the former Democrat leader warned that when a country has "a progressive government in power, our people get a little easily disillusioned."

"They don't like this policy or that policy. They sometimes fall into the trap of thinking it doesn't matter and there are no consequences."

"But if you believe that look at the difference in the US between now and four years ago."

Having read Ari Fleischer's book, I know that the Bush White House has an official policy of not blaming (Bill) Clinton for anything. Why the stab in the back? This isn't the first time he's done it either. Is it becuase he had to sleep on the floor? Or is he setting up his robot master wife for 2008?

Friday, April 22, 2005

Fillibuster Fickleness

Another nugget of political gold dug up by our friends at Best of the Web (

Sean Rushton of the Committee for Justice, a group that favors the confirmation of President Bush's "constitutionalist judicial nominees," offers some interesting history over at National Review Online. In January 1995, by a vote of 76-19, the Senate rejected a proposal by Sen. Tom Harkin that would "permit cloture to be invoked by a decreasing majority vote of Senators down to a majority of all Senators duly chosen and sworn." This would have effectively done away with the filibuster--not just for judicial nominees but for all purposes.

Among the senators who favored the proposal (voting "no" on the motion to table it) were nine who still sit, several of whom are now among the most vigorous filibuster defenders: Harkin plus Jeff Bingaman, Barbara Boxer, Russ Feingold, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Frank Lautenberg, Joe Lieberman and Paul Sarbanes. It's hard to take seriously their protestations that the Republicans' far narrower proposal to abolish the filibuster for judicial nominees only amounts to some sort of assault on America's system of checks and balances.

Rushton further notes that there are a variety of limits on the filibuster already in place. Among them:

You cannot filibuster a federal budget resolution (Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974).

You cannot filibuster a resolution authorizing the use of force (War Powers Resolution).

You cannot filibuster international trade agreements (Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2002).

And as the minority leader, Sen. Harry Reid (D., Nev.), well knows, you cannot filibuster legislation under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.
There's even an argument that the filibuster is unconstitutional. Rushton calls our attention to U.S. v. Ballin, an 1892 ruling in which the Supreme Court held that a House vote of 138-3 was sufficient to enact a law, even though 189 members didn't vote. Justice David Brewer wrote for a unanimous court:

The general rule of all parliamentary bodies is that, when a quorum is present, the act of a majority of the quorum is the act of the body. This has been the rule for all time, except so far as in any given case the terms of the organic act under which the body is assembled have prescribed specific limitations. As, for instance, in those states where the constitution provides that a majority of all the members elected to either house shall be necessary for the passage of any bill. No such limitation is found in the federal constitution, and therefore the general law of such bodies obtains.

As we noted last week, some liberal commentators have urged Senate Democrats to call the GOP's bluff and revert to the old Harkin proposal of abolishing filibusters altogether, which would (these commentators argue) make it easier in the long run to pass liberal legislation. Unlike the current defense of the status quo for expedience' sake, this would amount to a principled position.

Thursday, April 21, 2005

More Contradicitons from Congressional Democrats, Bolton Nomination

More great points from "Best of the Web Today" a service of
I would reccomend to all of you conservatives out there to sign up for this service

Best of the Web Today - April 21, 2005

Dems to U.N.: Drop Dead
Senate Democrats have won a delay, probably lasting a few weeks, to dig up more dirt on United Nations ambassador nominee John Bolton. But of course their real objection to Bolton is ideological, not temperamental: They take issue with his view of the U.N. So let's step back for a moment and ponder the nature of that disagreement, which the Los Angeles Times summed up nicely in an article on the hearings last week:

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., played a three-minute videotape of Bolton speaking angrily in 1994 about the United Nations. . . . "There is no such thing as the United Nations," Bolton said on the tape. "There is an international community that can occasionally be led by the only real power left in the world--and that is the United States, when it suits our interests and when we can get others to go along."

Boxer said the speech appeared to reflect Bolton's disdain for the world body.

"I see the anger, the hostility," Boxer said, adding, "What we saw here, I think, was the real John Bolton."

Bolton's view--with which this column agrees--seems to be that the U.N. is useful and worthy of respect only insofar as it responds to American leadership and serves American interests. The Democrats' view, by contrast, seems to be that the U.S. has an obligation to follow the U.N., whether it acts in America's interests or not. That's why, for example, John Kerry*, who voted in 2002 to authorize U.S. military force in Iraq, changed his mind the next year when the U.N. Security Council balked at passing a resolution expressly permitting such action.

Only that's not quite right. The classic example of the U.S. leading the U.N. was the first Gulf War. In November 1990 the Security Council passed Resolution 678, which authorized member states "to use all necessary means," including military force, to liberate Kuwait, then under occupation by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. The resolution also "request[ed] all States to provide appropriate support" to that end.

In January 1991 Congress obliged. The House voted 250-183, with 179 Democrats voting "no," to authorize U.S. military force. The Senate vote was 52-47, with 45 Democrats voting "no." Only 86 House Democrats and 10 Senate Democrats voted in favor.

Among the negative votes were all five current Democratic members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who were then in Congress: Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, John Kerry, Paul Sarbanes and then-Rep. Barbara Boxer. All told, 25 of the 28 current Senate Democrats who were in Congress in 1991 voted against the Gulf War. (The three who voted for it, in case you're wondering, were Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, Tom Carper of Delaware and Harry Reid of Nevada.)

So the U.N. gave the thumbs-up for military force and asked for help, and most Democrats balked. Only a handful of lawmakers, including Sen. Jim Jeffords, ex-Sen. Bob Graham, Reps. John Dingell and Jim Leach and a few other House members (along with Al Gore), took what might be considered the consistent pro-U.N. position, supporting the liberation of Kuwait but not Iraq. Most Dems who now pose as champions of the U.N. showed their disdain for the world body by voting to refuse its request for help in 1991.

It seems fair to conclude, then, that most liberal Democrats, like Bolton, are pro-U.N. only when it suits their purposes--and that their purposes are the opposite of Bolton's. That is, for the Democratic left, the U.N. is useful and worthy of respect only insofar as it acts as an obstacle to American leadership and an opponent of American interests.

* The haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way served in Vietnam without U.N. authorization.

Wednesday, April 20, 2005

Socialism Kills!

Besides Ché and the Gulag too! It may be causing the high population ages in Europe (very few people in Europe are having more than one child, and some are having 0). The economies of the European welfare states, like Sweeden, are no where near as good as the US.
Glenn Reynolds:
"It's almost as if high taxes, heavy regulation, and an extensive dole sap people's desire to work hard, making the society as a whole worse off so that those policies don't just redistribute wealth, but actually destroy it. That's probably because they do, and have done so everywhere they're tried. People are usually pointing to some socialist paradise or other where life is wonderful, but -- not to put too fine a point on it -- those places are basically a lie. Socialism just doesn't work, anywhere, for very long. You'd think people would learn."

Monday, April 18, 2005

Lest We Forget

I wonder how many of you have ever heard of SGT Maupin. Captured in April of 2004, he is the only U.S soldier from this current war whose whereabouts are unknown. I am not making this post to lambast the "liberal" media for what some may think of their scant attention to his and his families' plight, nor to add fuel to the fire of thought that he may still be alive. My hopes and intentions are simple: to keep SGT Maupin in our thoughts whether he be in Heaven or in the hands of heathens, to recognize his sacrifice and gallantry under depraved conditions and, most importantly, to keep his memory alive for fear the Maupins think this country has forgotten one of their bravest. Please, I encourage all of you--liberals, conservatives and anyone in between fascism and communism--to do your part in keeping alive SGT Maupin's spirit. Democrats and Republicans, mention him in your blogs, in your AIM profiles, in your conversations--lest we forget what he gave for his country.

Sunday, April 17, 2005

Let's Export Us Some Democracy

Terror & Obstruction

Friday, April 15, 2005

Some Fillibuster-on-judicial-nominatios Quotes

Guess the quote:


1. "I also plead with my colleagues to move judges with alacrity -- vote them up or down. ... But this delay makes a mockery of the Constitution, makes a mockery of the fact that we are here working, and makes a mockery of the lives of very sincere people who have put themselves forward to be judges and then they hang out there in limbo."

2. "The president and the nominee and all Americans deserve an up or down vote.(re the nomination) I am totally opposed to a filibuster."

3. decrying a possible fillibuster of Clarence Thomas in 1988...."As a matter of high priority, the Senate should change its rules so that we can act responsibly, more rapidly and with more certainty on the major issues our nation faces."


Number 1 Mr. Chuck Schumer (NY-D) {leader of current judicial fillibuster} said on the Senate floor in 2000

Number 2 Mr. Patrick Leahy (VT-D) 2000
He is now the ranking Dem on the Senate Judiciary Cmte.

Number 3 Texas Senator Lloyd Bentsen, who had been the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 1988

Thursday, April 14, 2005

Two interesting headlines

As highlighted by Opinion's "Best of the Web":

Problem Solved

"U.S. Executions by Lethal Injection May Not Be Humane"--headline, HealthDay News, April 14

"Experts Say Ending Feeding Can Lead to a Gentle Death"--headline, New York Times, March 20

Ali's Poem

A poem from an Iraqi regarding the second anniversary of the fall of Baghdad. I know it's long, but it's worth it
Two years now and "they" still wonder
And "they" still ask Was it worth it?
Was it right?
Two years and it seems to me Like it was yesterday
Two years and "they" keep trying
To silence the voice inside us
Yet it only grows louder
I was once free When I was a kid
But when I grew up
I couldn't be the man I am
I couldn't be the kid I was
And I couldn't flee
Two years since I finally became
The man in me, and the kid in me.
And "they" want to take this away?
"They" would have to kill them both first
The man and the kid
And turn the clock back around
And still "they" can't change me back
Two years since I stopped weeping
Inside of me, day and night
Two years since the widow
Found her husband's body
In a feast of death for the human death lord.
Two years since the orphan
knew Where his father lied
And now they finally have peace
And they have a future
No matter how painful it is to go on
And their dreams still go on
Two years since I started dreaming
Dreams that have a chance
And are becoming true
Two years since I regained my heart
And then I found her...
And she found me...
And the world looked beautiful!
And "they" think they can separate us?!
Think again, or keep wishing.
"They" say we are being slaughtered
"They" say we are being abused
Am I blind or are "they" the ones who are sightless?!
As why can't I see what "they" see?
And the best "they" can offer of their view is Maybe I'm a CIA?
Or maybe the other "they", that of their accusations is paying me?
But who is their accused and rumored "they"?
Oh, the accusers have so many names for this other "they".
Sometimes they're the CIA
Sometimes they're the NSA
Sometimes they're Bush and the gang
I say, yes they exist and they "pay" me, and I'm seduced.
I see with my own eyes this other "they"
And I call them simply, Americans.
What are they paying me?
Oh, you couldn't afford that!
Saddam couldn't afford it.
Sadr cannot afford it.
"They" think any of these can?
Could their "they" even try!?
Two years and some are still
Trapped in the past
And some cannot withstand the moment
And want to arrive without struggle to a better future
While others just enjoy what is already better now
And work to meet the future, bettered with them.
Two years and they ask Should I be grateful?
Am I?
Do I even need to answer that!?
YES, and to the last breath!

Written by Ali, a Iraqi living in Baghdad
His blog is
another amazing blog to check out is:

Tuesday, April 12, 2005

Campus Purse Used For Political Action

Corporations may donate money, but leftists still spend the money on most college campuses:

More recently, students approached the WRC about co-sponsoring a speech by Christina Hoff Summers, the renegade feminist author of Who Stole Feminism? The students were told that the WRC simply didn't have the resources. (Of course, the resources always seem to be there when the speakers adhere to the political beliefs of the people who run the WRC.) When the students responded that the WRC didn't even have to put any money into the speech--just lend its name as a co-sponsor--the answer was, "not interested." Christina Hoff Summers, you see, isn't the right kind of feminist for the WRC, because she isn't a left-wing ideologue. Tellingly, though, the WRC saw fit to sponsor a screening of Outfoxed, an anti-Fox News film promoted and partially financed by, the leftist political action committee that last year spent over $20 million campaigning for Democratic candidates. Exactly how a political film about a news network relates to the mission of the Women's Resource Center has yet to be explained to the parents, students and alumni who ultimately paid for it.

Full Article

Monday, April 11, 2005

A Joke in Kind

How Many Liberals Does It Take to Scew in a Lightbulb?

Let's find out:

1 to formulate an the idea for a government agency to regulate lightbulb change
3 to create agency
500 dedicated lightbulb changing regulators
500 to work at agency creating paperwork
15 to decide if lightbulbs fall under fair trade
1500 to pool together to buy lightbulbs for third world countries to sell at a lower rate, thus disrupting said third world country's economy (of which most people don'r have electricity
12 Feminists to decide if it degrading to change a lightbulb becuase it is housework or it falls under equal rights for women
10 to determine that major lightbulb companies are involved heavily in the WTO and must be protested
50 to organize protest
1500 to show up to protest
5 to decide solar power is much more energie effecient
20 to install solar power
3 to realize that still doesn't solve the question of the lightbulb

4199 and approx. 2.8 million in taxpayer dollars

Social Security

I found a great article about the successful social security system in Chile. Lawmakers should do their research. The link is on my blog.

Friday, April 08, 2005

Response to "A Response to the CRepug's Ramblings about Academia"

Thank you for the intellectual superiority and civility you demonstrated by including the word “CRepug” in your response. Not only should you give yourself kudos for possessing such wit but also for your service in elevating collegiate political discourse. While I applaud your disarming humor, your response leaves me begging for a response to what I actually wrote.
Your informative blog about how UD receives its money was greatly appreciated, but that has nothing to do with what goes on inside the classroom at universities, and my argument for liberal bias was not focused on UD. Funny, I didn't even mention UD in my post. Anyway...

You did a great job of proving the liberal argument against academia as weak--basically you closed your eyes and said “I don’t see any proof.” The old “I don’t believe it so it can’t possibly be true” mantra is not only close-minded but it does a disservice to anyone who reads your blog. Come with some cold hard facts. Show me the webpage of a conservative Professor who can balance this and this. Show me conservative students acting as narrow-minded as radical liberals on campus and pieing speakers they don’t agree with--the latest incident, ironically, the day I made my post about liberalism in universities.
Tell me how it’s not liberal indoctrination “when a midterm examination contains a required essay on the topic, ‘Make the argument that the military action of the U.S. attacking Iraq was criminal.’” A criminology exam at the University of Northern Colorado did just that. Show me how liberal bias at universities isn’t a problem “when a professor of property law tells his class that the "R" in Republican stands for "racist," and devotes an entire class hour to explaining why Americans deserved to die on 9/11. But that happened at the Colorado University Law School.” And show me the benefit to one’s education “when professors try to get their students to vote against President Bush or to demonstrate against the war in Iraq.” All those incidents are mentioned in this USAToday article. Show me how liberal indoctrination isn't widespread when many similiar incidents have been reported by students here. Or, for comedic value, just tell me everyone of those incidents is hearsay.

More later...

Ed. note- for the links to work, manually delete all of the URL until you get to the 2nd "http://". I don't know whats up with that.

Thursday, April 07, 2005

The GOP is Alienating its Base

Bush, and other moderates, continue to alienate their "conservative base" by angering them once again. The GOP is contributing to its own demise.

That's it I quit. And Ryan S. is mad, too.

Red White & Blue Hens

Directly from the Washington Post Editoiral Page of April 7th (meaning written by WashPost staff, not outside people)

"The wide-open politicking, itself a welcome novelty in the Arab world, caused some to fret that Iraqis would again grow disillusioned after the high point of the Jan. 30 elections, or that Sunni insurgents would grow stronger. The opposite seems to be true. A poll taken in late February and early March showed that 60 percent of Iraqis believed the country is headed in the right direction, and almost as many expected the situation will "slowly" improve. According to reports by American, British and Iraqi commanders, insurgent activity has fallen off in recent weeks; coalition casualties in March were the lowest in more than a year. Since late March there have been four major encounters between Iraqi and U.S. forces and large groups of insurgents. But this too is mostly good news: Two of the battles were initiated by government forces, and all led to lopsided defeats for the insurgents. In one indication that some Sunni leaders have given up on armed resistance to the new political order, 60 members of the influential Association of Muslim Scholars last week ordered their supporters to join the Iraqi army."

I have nothing to add.....

Wednesday, April 06, 2005

Putting the Liberal in Liberal Arts

Not that more argument is needed to prove the overwhelming liberal bias of today's universities, but the severity of the institutionalized problem never ceases to amaze and amuse me. Here is an account of a visiting professor from Europe and his ventures in America's universities. Piggybacking on the hilarity of Ward Churchill, this syllabus(!) of Professor Christensen from North Carolina Wesleyan College is as hilarious as it is horrific. With such objective links as "Support the Anti-War Movement," it's hard to discern the difference between her page and some left-of-Stalin crackpot messing around with HTML. Montclair English Professor Grover Furr demonstrates his non-partisanship with his Politics page which is listed as a course resouce--I'll bet you didn't know being an English Professor makes you a qualified expert in politics as well. As you might expect, liberal indoctrination makes quite an impact on students, as evidenced by the civility and grace liberals show conservative speakers on campus. The all-too-common-liberal mantra of "Free speech for me but not for thee" seems to motivate some liberals to do whatever they can to shutdown a speaker who has the gall to possess an opposing viewpoint *gasp*. It's kind of sad really. I saw notable communist/revisionist historian Howard Zinn speak at Rutgers last summer and the crowd was as docile as the victims of Saddam's chemical weapons attack in '88. Students even spoke only when they were supposed to, but of course every question was a softball; every comment a compliment. Sigh...

How many more must die before Kofi quits?

What kind of leadership would tolerate this conduct 10 years ago? The answer is: precisely the same leadership that, 10 years later, permitted the oil-for-food scandal and the sex-for-food scandal. Why did it take everyone 10 years to figure this out?

The second searing irony for me is that the American neoconservative right has occupied the moral high ground in critique of Annan, outflanking the left, which sits on indefensible territory in his support. But if prevention of genocide and protection of the vulnerable are not core priorities on the left, then what is? If anyone's values have been betrayed, it is those of us on the left who believe most deeply in the organisation's ideals. I am mystified by the reluctance of the left both in the US and the UK (the Guardian 's coverage, for example) to criticise Annan's leadership. The bodies burn today in Darfur - and the women are raped - amid the sound of silence from Annan. How many genocides, the prevention of which is the UN's very raison d'être, will we endure before the left is moved to criticise Annan? Shouldn't we be hearing the left screaming bloody murder about the UN's failure to protect vulnerable Africans? Has it lost its compass so badly that it purports to excuse the rape of Congolese women by UN peacekeepers under Annan's watch? Is stealing money intended for widows and orphans in Iraq merely a forgivable bureaucratic snafu?

Full Story

Monday, April 04, 2005

Unfair Critics?

The New Republic has a great article on the lack of credit given to Bush by his partisan critics:

"If George W. Bush were to discover a cure for cancer, his critics would denounce him for having done it unilaterally, without adequate consultation, with a crude disregard for the sensibilities of others. He pursued his goal obstinately, they would say, without filtering his thoughts through the medical research establishment. And he didn't share his research with competing labs and thus caused resentment among other scientists who didn't have the resources or the bold--perhaps even somewhat reckless--instincts to pursue the task as he did. And he completely ignored the World Health Organization, showing his contempt for international institutions. Anyway, a cure for cancer is all fine and nice, but what about aids?" 

Sunday, April 03, 2005

Assault at Western Michigan

Inside info on the assault on Pat Buchanan can be found on my blog. Includes video of the hippie doing it.

Check it out.