Recently in News & Opinion - Older

Category

Great and huge: by way of Redstate, BORK ENDORSES ROMNEY.

It is likely to force the feminist (and "progressive") mentality into hyperheat, but to my view, this is a huge and extremely appreciable (and welcome) endorsement.

The "exclusive" break is by Mike Allen at POLITICO, however:

Exclusive: Judge Robert BORK, a favorite of conservatives and a Supreme Court nominee of President Ronald Reagan, is endorsing Governor MITT ROMNEY for president.

Few names carry as much automatic street cred with hard-core conservatives.

"Throughout my career," the legal scholar says in a statement to be released today, "I have had the honor of serving under several Presidents and am proud to make today's endorsement. No other candidate will do more to advance the conservative judicial movement than Governor Mitt Romney. … I greatly admired his leadership in Massachusetts in the way that he responded to the activist court's ruling legalizing same-sex 'marriage.' His leadership on the issue has served as a model to the nation on how to respect all of our citizens while respecting the rule of law at the same time."

Bork was solicitor general under Presidents Nixon and Ford, acting attorney general under Nixon, and was nominated by Reagan and confirmed by the Senate as a Circuit Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

ROMNEY replies: "As one of our nation's premier conservative jurists, he has been an important voice for our conservative values in Washington. I look forward to his counsel and working with him on the most important judicial matters facing our nation today."

BTW, if you're Governor Romney, how do you limber up for the FULL HOUR of "Meet"? You sit down with Politico's Jonathan Martin. Watch for his reports on the interview on Politico, on the cleverly named Jonathan Martin blog, and in tomorrow's GameDay extra of Playbook.

However, I note that the "Jonathan Martin blog" has consistently taken a low road nose dive as to Mitt Romney. Whatever can be phrased that diminishes the man, the Jonathan Martin blog has taken over time (I've been reading it now for a good while). Though I have faith that Mitt Romney can handle it.

"When the anarchists riot, you know something good must have happened about which they do."

Like many Americans today -- and, I am sure, many among the French -- the surprise and happiness is upon us as to France's election result (Nicolas Sarkozy wins) and turn toward reasserting friendship and allied intent with the United States.

I'll be among the Americans this day who say I'm glad that the U.S.A.-France fracture is behind us and I hope I can again talk about my French ancestors (French Alps -- bordertown with Switzerland -- since recorded time in the area) without hesitation; however, the the majority of my ancestors are from the British Isles with the exception of one from Northern Italy, San Lorenzo, I've just been silent as to the one range of family from the French Alps in a sort of silent shock as to heritage in the last decade or so while France has wandered into a sort of leashed-law communism.

The woeful media reports, however, as to the current French civic unrest, reveal yet again that the mostly Liberal losers -- many of whom who are rioting are disgruntled immigrants in France -- have a twisted sense of what is peace and what is responsibility. The French and their years of Socialism have born the eventual bad fruit by making it too welcoming and too easy and too well provisioned for the discontented to run amok and not suffer many negative consequences (such as losing a job, housing, being shunned and otherwise socially penalized for acting very badly) for their irresponsible actions.

And, although the U.S. has not declared Socialism as form of government, we are surely suffering similar negative consequences for sponsoring the same Socialist loopholes.

Also among the most interesting as to phenomenon as regards this French election jolt is that Sarkozy's female opponent, Socialist Segolene Royal who lost, did not garner the enthusiasm nor support of the majority of French female voters despite Royal's presumption that her gender rendered her politically appealing to other females.

This French vote result is as it is everywhere as to "women's politics" -- those who rely on their female gender to assume their political appeal are not psychologically (nor emotionally) reliable, not to voters, not to female voters. A "women's candidate," as described, is very often not that in reality because the gender-issue-appeal is not compelling when the socio-political issues are not and vice-versa. Surprise, women think things through more often than anticipated.

Congratulations, France. I wish the nation well.

GOP CONTENDERS EMBRACE REAGAN LEGACY

Mitt Romney made, by far, the best presentation,appeared as most capable for the Presidency in demeanor, temperament -- body language -- and what he had to say otherwise. McCain might best be considered as the mascot of the 2008 election. At least, I hope that's the extent of what McCain's considered for.

Duncan Hunter was a close second to Romney because he used his time and the occasion itself to get the most significant objectives across: national security, border security -- and neither without the other -- and law enforcement. Romney's sincerity in these regards remains subdued, although he certainly has public speaking polished to an art form.

The winner of the evening for the Most Dense Knucklehead was THE POLITICO for the "questions" they hoisted upon the debate. THE POLITICO dusted off the most immature, attitudinal and neurotic statements from among their reader submissions and then paid host/moderator Chris Matthews far too much to pose them to the candidates -- or else THE POLITICO is downright immature, attitudinal and neurotic editorially. Otherwise, questions selected: whatweretheythinking?

I note that there was laughter somewhat frequently among the GOP candidates (and appropriate it was, too, with what they were working with). Compared to the Democrat candidates' recent automotonic debate, the GOP group came off as human.

Because, by now, many of us are all too familiar with what Democrats "like least about America." It's as if they're doing their best to spread the disease, what with that foolish question ("what do you like least about America?") posed to Romney.

P.S.: Here's my brief synopis of Rudy Guiliani (there will be much more to be written in the months ahead): he's a nice guy who is very entertaining and often quite interesting to listen to but he's also a keen manipulator and because of that, combined with his social Liberalism, I don't find him reliable as to who I'd prefer to vote for the Presidency.

P.P.S.: Whoever comes out strongest against illegal immigration and in support of "enforcement first" before any other actions take place to contend with the illegal alien population in the U.S. at this time, wins. Wins my vote. And I am sure the votes of many others who share my perspectives on this complex problem. Deportation of illegal aliens is only as impractical as is any elected official resistant to enforcement.

I was certainly among the first to go "aaack" when I read what Don Imus said on the radio a short while ago (and it was only a matter of weeks ago, as odd as that today seems), as to his use of the expressiion, "nappy headed hos" -- I'd refer to that as a "Black expression" but it'll undoubtedly be viewed critically but a Black expression it is -- but I'm also among the percentage of folks who think Don Imus didn't offer much to any quality content on his broadcasts, anyway.

I was long ago offended by Imus' swarthiness and not in a good way. So I stopped watching his television broadcast years ago after only viewing it intermittently for a few months. I never listened to Imus on the radio but it's reasonable to conclude that there are a lot of people that found his television broadcasts -- and especially his work on the radio -- to be worth watching and/or listening to. They just never posed any appeal to me but I'd never taken the position that that'd then mean that no one else would find them appealing or should never tune in, and, based on his audience over the years, obviously, to my view, I was in a minority in not finding Imus worth my time.

HOWEVER, this recent upset about Imus using the Black expression, "nappy headed hos," was offensive (to me, to many) because Imus misused it and applied it in context to (Black) women who were anything but associated with that downward spiral of prostitution or ghetto-speak: girls enrolled in college, women's basketball team at Rutgers, human beings doing good and constructive things with their lives, hardly suggestive of anything or anyone worthy of being denigrated with the application of such an offensive expression as "nappy headed hos."

But, I never thought Imus merited being fired from both his network and losing his radio broadcast show for having used the icky term. He was a jerk very often on air, his audience seems to have tuned in because he was often a jerk, that was and is Imus' appeal as a commenting personality.

If anything, Imus was/is guilty of terribly bad taste. The market would have contended with that, much as it is contending with the nastiness and rank behavior and speech by the likes of Rosie O'Donnell and a few others over time.

What DID offend me (and still does) is the racial usery that socio-political figures otherwise have made out of this. It was right and good and proper that Imus be held to apologize for his thoughtless, cruel and stupid use/misuse of the rotten expression, but, it's now become some media ball-roll by mostly Black socio-political personalities and interests (Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Barack Obama among others - though these three figureheads made the biggest cash-in of this issue toward if not long past usery of the absurd:

Absurd because the expression is from the Black community, is "Black" people language, heard daily dozens if not hundreds of times to anyone who listens to mostly Black and/or rap music, all over the airways and especially all over the internet, again by nearly always Black people to and about one another.

I listened to an interview on FOX News a few weeks ago just after this Imus-bad-speak issue burst forth, wherein two Black rap musicians were talking to FOX about how the phrase -- "nappy headed ho" -- wasn't noteworthy or even unsual or unusually offensive when and as used by Blacks but because Imus was a White man, and if and as anyone other than Black used the expression, that it was "offensive" and even made them very angry accordingly (as they also became on the air in that interview about this).

At that point, they lose me. They're offended when people-other-than-Black ("POTB") use the phrase, these words as with other offensive ones that I don't need to reprint here because most of us including us POTB hear with all too frequently -- on broadcasts on radio, in CDs, on television, all over music videos right before we change the channel. They're offended not by the phrases and expressions but only when they're used by POTB.

Makes no sense to me.

In that interview on FOX, these two Black musicians (cannot recall their names now) also said that it was cultural privilege (my words for what they said), a "right" of theirs to speak these dreadful terms about one another because of their "culture" and their "community" and yet they considered it utmost insulting to hear POTB use the same words.

Again, nonsensical.

So, today I read the news that it was not, actually, Don Imus from whom the sentiment flowed -- although he did use the words -- but his producer, Bernard Mcguirk ("Imus' Sidekick-Producer Bernard Mcguirk Also Fired").

His producer was the "original author" (offensively) of the (offensive) expression on the Imus television broadcast and Imus, being the subservient in that context, ensued with his own use of the expression.

It was McGuirk who first used the term "hos" while discussing the NCAA women's championship game between Rutgers and Tennessee. Imus described the Rutgers team, which includes eight black women, as tattooed "rough girls" during the April 4 broadcast.

"Some hardcore hos," replied McGuirk.

"That's some nappy headed hos there, I'm going to tell you that," Imus said during the 10-second exchange that ignited a national debate over racist and misogynistic language and lyrics...(READ MORE)

Whoever introduced this on the "White people" airways -- let's face it, that's the underlying issue here -- isn't necessarily the concern here (beyond the legal and professional circles associated with these networks and the talent involved) but the concern IS as to the language itself and what is appropriate, offensive and/or upsetting to anyone. If some language is entertaining language to some people because of the color of their skin, it's difficult to understand how it's not entertaining for others of other skin color and vice-versa, particularly when it's used within a context of humor (however failed was Imus' use in that regard).

The offense to my view is in the language itself. Not who uses it.

Or, put otherwise, in who uses what language.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

If you don't like a word or expression, don't use it. Then you get to judge the "offense" by others who do and act accordingly. But in the case of the crowd who has efforted to demean the Imus-reiteration and bad use of these nasty phrase, unless they themselves come forth with apologies for their own bad speech and abusive phrases, I'd leave the ridiculous Imus (AND his ridiculous producer) to the likes of their audience and the free market.

But I can't see now accepting any upset when the phrase begins to peek it's way into the daily grunt language used by Mr. or Mrs. (or Ms.) Goober ("NYPD Sergeant Investigated For Imus-Like Slur").

Unless, of course, the incentive is to promote a racially divided and racially separist society. Which is what I believe is motivating the negative emotion as to this issue by the likes of Sharpton, Jackson and Obama.

The welcome news is that many millions of Americans -- among others -- agree with me. The unwelcome and disgusting news is that people somewhere voted for Harry Reid and his cowardly peers.

THE NATIONAL LEDGER
"Harry Reid 'War is Lost' Mantra Answered by Joe Lieberman"

THE CONSERVATIVE VOICE
"Harry Reid: Peddling White Flags"

THE MARK LEVIN BLOG
"Reid Must Resign"

I agree that Harry Reid should resign but this latest "gaff" is yet the most disgusting by Reid from among his litany of disgusting acts in Congress. But, of course, he won't resign, he'll continue to malign the United States of America with taxpayers' dollars and all the freedom that our U.S. military and citizens otherwise have sweated and died for.

From southpawstudios:
"Good PowerPoint, Bad Idea: Osama's Pitch"