Thought You'd Never Ask

Just mouthing off -- because I can.

Sunday, October 28, 2007

The brave few who stood up and spoke

Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week has ended. It has been a series of events I found particularly intriguing, for the courage shown by David Horowitz and all the other lecturers and campus supporters who honestly and earnestly sought to "raise the consciousness" of academics about the "dark side" of Islam and for the challenges they set before themselves and embraced (proof of their willingness to debate issues and examine facts).

I have also been shocked this week by the responses these people received on campuses across the U.S. where, instead of being heard and debated they were too often met with intimidation, character defamation, and smear tactics and the crushing of dissent. It was amazing and enlightening to see how their opponents usually didn't even try to argue ideas.

As David Horowitz said about the hooligans disrupting his lecture at Emory University in Atlanta: "They call this higher learning?"

As the mother of two children rapidly approaching the age when we must consider which colleges to send them to, I follow such events very closely. (Good old Cal Poly seems reasonable!)

Robert Spencer at Jihadwatch has a wrap-up.

From among the materials put out this week, this "letter to a friend" regarding the equating of Christian fundamentalists with Islamic fundamentalists I found to be very compelling. I actually have friends and relatives who say they fear fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Muslims equally. That is so hard to believe, but this letter offers the quiet but eloquent and complete response I wish I could offer, but don't (because I am usually left speechless):

Just one excerpt:

Few of our colleagues seem to understand that Islam is not merely a religion. It is a religious and a political movement, and in these intertwined aspects it does represent a threat to western, modernizing, and liberal values everywhere. Yet on campus (and far too often in the media) we are busily treating the Islamic world as a Third World underdog that has to be defended, excused, and protected from criticism. At least that's the most generous explanation I can think of for so many colleagues’ gross ignorance and lethal politics. Or is it that they don't really believe there's any danger? Do they have so little respect for Muslims today that they assume they could never succeed in imposing their views on the non-Muslim world? If not, why are they so unconcerned about their own future? Have they truly no clue as to what an Islamist regime would mean for everything - every single value, belief, principle, and everyday matter - these academics hold dear? And these are the very academics who constantly assert that all education is political, which gives them a pretext for not even trying to keep their politics out of the classroom. What, then, do you suppose they’re conveying to their students?

I have appreciated Islamo-Facism Awareness Week and I am sure the consequences and effects will be long-lasting and wide-ranging. I am fascinated to see what happens next as the consciousness-raising continues. It would be terrific if just a few more people, including Muslims, feminists, and liberals on campuses across America (and the world) affirmed:
  • The right of all women to live in freedom and dignity
  • The equality of dignity of women and men
  • The right of all people to live free from violence, intimidation, and coercion
because Islamofascists and their supporters don't. And the silence of those who don't know better or who should know better allows repression and persecution to continue.


Friday, October 26, 2007

Pardon me, but your anti-American treasonist propaganda is showing

"H O L L Y W O O D" as we all once knew it has gone so far into the ash heap of history that I (who in my youth was star-struck and raised to dote on all things Hollywood) don't even check the new movie listings or reviews anymore, and haven't for years. I find myself watching a new film in an actual public theater only once or twice a year, and invariably it is a kids' movie seen with my children. But I know I'm not the only one who has gone through this metamorphosis of taste. My own mother quit going to movies or caring about what came out of Hollywood when the 1960's ethos hit the silver screen. Burned too often by disappointed expectations and offended by what she was paying to see, she decided "the new movies aren't worth seeing anymore." I didn't share her viewpoint when I was a teen (movies and going to them alone was all too new to me), but I do now.

Like the so-called mainstream media, Hollywood's production line (outside of the lucrative Pixar and children's movies) these days is a mere ghost of its former self, masquerading as a much more populist and democratic entity than it really is. Most people no longer care about the movies, as they once almost all did just 50 or 60 years ago. And the result cannot entirely be blamed on the advent of TV. In fact, thanks to television, more people are watching and valuing classic old movies than ever before.

With the vast majority of its former customer base killed off, these days Hollywood and the Los Angeles-based television entertainment industry it spawned cater to various remaining unique market segments: almost all of them are pursued and pandered to for nothing more sacred than the almighty dollar. That is why we have more glossy sequels and stylish remakes and recycles than creative original stories and developed, believable characters. And that is why, in the hands of the former "studio bosses" of Hollywood's golden era (like Louis B. Mayer who, in tandem with his horse-trading sense and ambition, had strong moral and patriotic standards and a sense of responsibility to and respect for the people and the nation he served), we had movies that enlightened, lifted, and inspired audiences. Can you name a Hollywood movie recently that enlightened, lifted, or inspired you?

Yet there is one market segment that is valued more than bucks in today's Hollywood and that is the vast, unwashed, imagined "little people out there in the dark" of the political left (and the "ignorant undecideds" who may be persuaded left) across America. Idealists these days who manage to get large-budget, high-production-values films made and released are doing it not for money (for the money has dropped out of that market, evidently); they are doing it for the message. And that message seems to be one of American self-loathing.

Many of us have noticed the strange difference in Hollywood's reaction and productions now as compared to during World War II. As Michael Fumento writes in "Hollywood's War on the War on Terror" (via Little Green Footballs):

In 1942, Hollywood went to war. It began pumping out countless movies designed both to entertain the public and bolster its will to fight. A lot of them were cheap, hokey, or both. But even in a nation that seemingly needed little reminder of the dastardly attack on Pearl Harbor or the evils of the Nazis, they kept drilling home the message that we must persevere no matter the costs or the duration....

Fast forward that reel to the post-9/11 era. Just how many Hollywood movies (not documentaries) have been made in which the bad guys are Islamist terrorists that do not specifically concern the Sept. 11 attacks? If you have to guess, guess “none.”

His observations are so true. Read the whole thing. And while Hollywood refuses to produce any films glorifying the American side of the War on Terror, it also refuses to glorify much of anything about America. In fact, it chooses to run down and denigrate America, and as Fumento says:

Instead, they’re giving us the equivalent of 1943 movies equating FDR with Hitler.
Ed Driscoll amplifies on this phenomenon with his post, "Hollywood Nihilism" (via Ace, who says that to Hollywood, the real enemy is us):

As I noted at the start of the month, Hollywood has, over the last decade or so (in other words, prior to 9/11, or even George W. Bush taking office) adopted a remarkably nihilistic view of America's involvement in war--any war, whether it's Iraq, the War On Terror, or even World War II. The latter is all the more remarkable, considering WWII was long thought to be "the Good War" by virtually all concerned--partially because it had the blessings of the left, happy that we stopped the Soviet Union's former ally, Nazi Germany. Nearly a decade ago, Mark Steyn documented the first signs of the change in Hollywood's souring on WWII in Steven Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan:

Purporting to be a recreation of the US landings on Omaha Beach, Private Ryan is actually an elite commando raid by Hollywood and the Hamptons to seize the past. After the spectacular D-Day prologue, the film settles down, Tom Hanks and his men are dispatched to rescue Matt Damon (the elusive Private Ryan) and Spielberg finds himself in need of the odd line of dialogue. Endeavouring to justify their mission to his unit, Hanks's sergeant muses that, in years to come when they look back on the war, they'll figure that `maybe saving Private Ryan was the one decent thing we managed to pull out of this whole godawful mess'. Once upon a time, defeating Hitler and his Axis hordes bent on world domination would have been considered `one decent thing'. Even soppy liberals figured that keeping a few million more Jews from going to the gas chambers was `one decent thing'. When fashions in victim groups changed, ending the Nazi persecution of pink-triangled gays was still `one decent thing'. But, for Spielberg, the one decent thing is getting one GI joe back to his picturesque farmhouse in Iowa.

As Mark Steyn has pointed out, "'Saving Private Ryan' is the antithesis of 'Casablanca'."

And frankly, I'll take "Casablanca." Many of us "little people in the dark" have noticed and are demanding out loud: where are the Islamofascist bad guys in today's Hollywood movie blockbusters? Why are we recycling tired old Nazis as villains when there are plenty of current "political thriller" characters among the jihadis to portray?

What's the matter, Hollywood? Aren't guys who stone women, blow up children and behead infidels bad enough for you?

When do we get to root for the good guys? Where are the true stories of American good guys and good girls? Where is the great film story of the tragedy of 9/11? Where is our generation's "The Longest Day" about the sacrifices and courage shown by our best and brightest on the run toward Baghdad and the capture of Saddam Hussein? Is Hollywood too cynical to care?

Does anybody want to bet that movies telling some of those stories would be big money-makers (and would not increase any perceptible "anti-Muslim backlash")? D'ya think such movies might even make money among audiences of moderate, pro-American Muslim moviegoers, ready to have their own views expressed for once, and their own stories truely told? I do.

Get off your leftist, defeatist, America-hating soapbox, Hollywood "liberals," and entertain, enlighten, and inspire us with some decent characterizations, some truly portrayed events, and some bold, old-fashioned patriotic fare. You might be surprised by the good results. Or perhaps you don't really want good results?

BACKGROUND: "Hollywood's Missing Movies" by Kenneth Lloyd Billingsley gives the historical development of how the Left got its grip on Hollywood.

UPDATE: "Box office patriotism is dead" (via Michelle Malkin).

UPDATE: Read the comments in response to this article. I am not alone!

UPDATE: Roger L. Simon summarizes the avalanche and reveals the motivation:

The audience members themselves – that is the Breitbart commenters – are having none of this nonsense. The third one down, “Extremely Bored,” puts it this way: “Let me correct this point - I am not weary of war news at all. I am shunning these movies - and many others- because I am tired of Hollywood’s anti-American stance on absolutely everything. However we got into the war, and whatever mistakes were made up to this point, we are one country. We need to win and we need to remain tough against terrorism. It doesn’t benefit anyone to do otherwise. I will go see a movie that reflects that point.”

He is echoed almost immediately by commenter “Lee”: “The real answer - the obvious one that liberals can’t bring themselves to accept - is that most Americans are tired of liberal spinmeisters trashing their country, our soldiers, and our way of life. The Redfords of the world sit in their ivory towers and try to tell us how to think and react based on their own prejudices …”

And so it goes down the page… hundreds, soon thousands....

The truth is Hollywood people are massively uninformed. They live in a bubble and, outside what they read in the New York Times and hear on NPR, they know almost nothing about what is really going on in the Middle East. And very few of them are curious to find out, because they assume what they already know is true and they have no impetus to investigate further.

But there is deeper reason for this than mere convenience and received conventional wisdom. These are not curious people because they are highly self-protective. They live a hugely privileged lifestyle, often based to a great degree on luck (and they know it), and this existence could only be threatened by contradictory information. Who wants that – particularly when it would alienate your colleagues, hurt your reputation and cause work problems?...

And there is another benefit. (Here is where I am really going to make enemies.) Making movies like these or making extreme liberal public pronouncements make you seem like a good guy to yourself, when in your private life you are a miserable, self-serving bastard.

In order to understand how important that is you must never forget that Hollywood is a brutal place. It is just as vicious and competitive as dramatized in TV shows like Entourage, only nowhere near as entertaining. Only the most ambitious and determined survive and, to do that, the chances are you will not come out of the process a nice person. You will step on the backs of your colleagues, mistreat your staff and have generally erratic personal relationships based much more on status and connections than love or genuine affection.

Of course I am overstating to make a point, but I have noticed, in the years I have worked in Hollywood, that, with rare exceptions, the more successful people are, the more wretched they are to others. And those with the most obvious public liberal credentials are often the ones who are the most despicable in their private behavior. You could almost graph it.

Much of this public liberalism of the excessive knee-jerk variety stems from a form of self-loathing. These same people do not want to be bastards – life just put them in that position. But, at the same time, they do not want anyone to take away what they have – the vast acclaim and fortune – even if deep down they wonder if they are worthy. What to do? What to do?

The solution is to create another self, a kind of mini-me, who goes out and loudly proclaims what a fine liberal humanistic person he or she is- a public projection to obfuscate the private self. Sometimes this results in actual good works, but usually it is basically blather (see Streisand’s website) or dopey showing off like Sean Penn putting in an appearance with Hugo Chavez.

Other times, distorted work emerges like the current group of films no one wants to see.


I think the time has come and the opening is obvious now for many more voices to succeed in entertaining Americans than the tired old Hollywood "mainstream" that really isn't anymore.

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Most startling photo of the day

That's this photo of Laura Bush among the beetlelike burka-clad denizens of the United Arab Emirates, assembled to commemorate breast cancer awareness. Many commenters seem to criticize Mrs. Bush for being seen smiling with such poor downtrodden creatures who dare not even show their own faces. But I think it's a terrific photo, showing Mrs. Bush confident, radiant, and fully accepting of her own freedoms and her own individuality. That shows leadership quite graphically. What's keeping the other poor women from enjoying the same freedoms and confidence is not Mrs. Bush's fault, but she has certainly drawn stark attention to the difference and the gulf.

What a contrast to Rep. Nancy Pelosi visiting Damascus and being photographed in a head scarf, telegraphing an unAmerican and unfeminist submissive dhimmitude.

If you ask me, Laura Bush has shown herself once again, in her usual understated and nuanced way, to be the better (smarter) champion of women's rights.

Meanwhile, David Horowitz is doing yeoman's work in standing up for persecuted Muslim women (and other victims) with Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, going on at U.S. college campuses right now.

UPDATE: Guess we spoke too soon.

Labels: , , ,

California fires

Wildfires raging and even consuming homes and buildings in my former home state of California are nothing new or unexpected. But the scope of this season's tragedy is almost beyond comprehension. Hundreds of thousands of people evacuated or told to be ready (including my sister). Fires creeping through places I'm very familiar with (including my former hometown of Santa Clarita -- known as Saugus when I first lived there). My thoughts and prayers are with everyone suffering in So. Cal, including the displaced, the newly homeless, and the firefighters. And we will make our donation to the Red Cross, and I urge you to do the same.

I lived in California for a total of about 12 years. I lived through not just one, but many earthquakes (including the big one of 1971), brush fires (yes, ash rains down like snow), and floods (yes, I helped fill sandbags to save my neighborhood as a teen and saw a highway bridge washed away). Living in California is by nature a dramatic experience, sometimes of near-Biblical proportions.

UPDATE: Good news; fewer winds. Conditions seem to have improved in the Santa Clarita Valley. Here's the Signal's news report.

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Clintons in the White House: Know what you're signing up for

Seems to be a foregone conclusion that Hillary Clinton will be the Democrat candidate for President in the 2008 election (because it looks like there's not much else going on over on that side of the political spectrum). Even Roger L. Simon predicts that. But Emmett Tyrrell (via Neal Boortz) reminds us of "Seven Things to Know About the Clintons" that should not be forgotten when America heads into the voting booth. We can't say were weren't warned. Some of us older folks even remember these seven things, and more.

We will get the leadership we deserve, I'm afraid. After two terms of Bill Clinton, nothing will surprise me.

Not even a come-from-behind winner, perhaps Mike Huckabee (as endorsed by Chuck Norris!) (via Neal Boortz).

Labels: , ,

Friday, October 19, 2007

Friday roundup of good links

Other chores and pleasures have been keeping me very busy elsewhere, but here are a few links I've enjoyed this morning:

Gates of Vienna blog points to the What Kind of Reader Are You? quiz. I'm an "obsessive-compulsive bookworm" too. Kind of knew that (again) when the weight of the stacks of my "to read" books toppled over my nightstand a while back. And yes, I carry a book with me in case I find a few moments of unexpected reading time (in a parked car, school auditorium, or in line at the post office or bank). But my best reading years were when I was a kid, and the only other things that got in the way of my reading were school and sleeping.

Gates of Vienna also hosts some very good articles on the ethics of abortion, the fact that many people who can afford to choose not to purchase medical insurance, and the journey of Clarence Thomas ("If for no other reason, read the book to discover Justice Thomas’ journey from radical liberal to moderate conservative. That is another lonely journey for a Negro in America."...) Judge Thomas' book will eventually make its way into my "to read" stack.

Then there's this fresh breeze of observations from the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina at American Digest. Reminds me how glad I am to be a former denizen of the West Coast and Washington D.C. now living in flyover country after all. Life's better in the U.S. stix. And Gerard's writing never disappoints.

Meanwhile, the Hillary Clinton campaign contributions fishiness just keeps piling up. Can a Presidential candidate outrun such a persistent and constantly renewed stench? Peggy Noonan has some apt words about Hillary trying to run as a "woman" instead of as what she obviously is: a corrupt and lying woman.

Finally, if you didn't see Zombie's pictorial coverage of Code Pink vs. the Marines in Berkeley this past week, here it is. And here is Rush Limbaugh's record-breaking support for our Marines, too.

Have a great weekend.

UPDATEs by Powerline on the Hillary/Chinatown fundraising weirdness. Wow. And on how the Democrats really feel about Rush's challenge. Final score: Rush's generous gesture raises over $4 million, without much Democrat help. "Hypocrisy so extreme it warps time and justice."

UPDATE: The Really Truly Hillary Gallery of unfortunate photos.

Saturday, October 13, 2007

Today's chuckle

I haven't seen editorial confusion like this since I worked on my high school yearbook staff. Only in high school, we had proofreaders and a teacher overseeing us who would check our layout and journalistic messes and set things right before we made public fools of ourselves. Must've been the adult's day off at Newsweek. To the kids, all "neo-conservatives" (!) look alike!

And here's another witty delight: Rush Limbaugh profiting from his heinous crimes!!

Finally, there's this hilarious story of a meet-up gone sour: Latin American Marxists and Iranian Khomenists heading for a four-day conference and ideological embrace at Tehran University are shocked to find out about each other's darker sides (via Little Green Footballs). Must've been a bad translation or something! Who knew that Che was not a man of God who hated Communism? Who knew Islamofascists don't give a damn about the plight of the toiling masses? They're all Progressives who hate the Great Satan, right? Why can't they all just get along?

UPDATE: Bookworm writes the definitive history of the Rush Limbaugh phoney soldiers story. It's a nightmare of idle (and false) gossip pushed by the media into willing Democrat Senator ears gone ballistic. Veritas has nothing to do with it!

Labels: , , ,

"Seeking truth," media covers up scathing reprimand of itself

Powerline got my attention this morning by pointing out how the media attended and then deep-sixed the very newsworthy tongue-lashing delivered to it yesterday by General Ricardo Sanchez. A poignant excerpt:

...I do not believe that this is what our forefathers intended. The Code of Ethics for the Society of Professional Journalists states: ...Public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility.

The basic ethics of a journalist that calls for [sic]:

1. Seeking truth,

2. Providing fair and comprehensive account of events and issues

3. Thoroughness and honesty

All are victims of the massive agenda driven competition for economic or political supremacy. The death knell of your ethics has been enabled by your parent organizations who have chosen to align themselves with political agendas. What is clear to me is that you are perpetuating the corrosive partisan politics that is destroying our country and killing our service members who are at war.

[my bold]

That's clear to a lot of other Americans, too, including me.

And how did the Washington Post title its coverage of the General's speech? "Former Iraq Commander Faults Bush." No mention of the criticism of reportage in the New York Times, either. This would be laughable if it weren't so tragic, indicating such a serious danger and a loss to our service members, our military mission, our country, and to the quality of honest, informed debate among Americans.

As Powerline points out, "It's quite a luxury to be able to decide whether criticisms of your own conduct ever see the light of day--a luxury the mainstream media not only enjoy, but abuse."

I was glad to see the General name John Burns (among a handful of others) as one of the few decent, honest, and ethical journalists he has known. John Burns' writing, analysis, and reports have long stood out in my mind as being a cut above the rest, and therefore that much more reliably honest and true.

Covering such ideas and criticism as Powerline and so many other blogs do today might just be the first important step in seeing that there are more John Burns in the future, and fewer biased, dishonest, politically-driven "reporters" and organs.

Note: The Washington Post's rehash of the General's speech in today's paper contains a final paragraph that mentions the General's criticism of the media coverage. I can't seem to find yesterday's article online to see if the same paragraph appeared then. Perhaps the Post was shamed into including this mention based on Powerline's posting; I don't know. All I know is that the blogs these days clearly seem to be keeping the mainstream media more honest than they want to be.

The entire speech of General Sanchez is here.

More reaction at Ace's place.


Friday, October 12, 2007

"Al Qaeda is perverted"

Impressions of Iraq...

A common theme heard from analysts and intelligence officers is the abject irreligious nature of al Qaeda. It is not quite zealotry to cut off the fingers of smokers, take 14-year old “brides”, mutilate the dead, force bodies to remain unburied, and steal businesses, homes and cars. Those are verifiable incidents—in addition to the other often told rumors of the terrorists serving children up to their parents or the employment of former male prostitutes as Al Qaeda heads. We think of bin Ladenism as a perverted distortion of Islam, but on the street level it is more a cover for gasoline and food racketeering, petty theft, and murder by young criminally-minded youth.

Soldiers spoke of confiscated computers of al Qaeda with the worst sort of pornography on them, or stories by Iraqis of known deviants, thugs, and criminals now masquerading as religious jihadists.

Here we prove incompetent in not publicizing the nature of hard-core jihadists, not just their hypocrisy and brutality, but their criminality. No doubt many of the 100,000 felons Saddam released on the eve of the war ended up working for al Qaeda, a fact we blithely forget.

How we can be doing so much in so many areas, but almost nothing to bring to the world’s attention the abject fraud of al Qaedism? Here we are reminded of anti-Western moralist Bin Laden’s kids watching video games, or the sheik himself buying a 15-year old bride on the eve of 9/11, or Dr. Zawahiri supervising the forced sodomy (to video cameras) of young teenage male captives. We are at war not just with radical Islam, but with the dregs of humanity, a sort of updated SS group of psychopaths.

That's just one observation of many by Victor Davis Hanson's following his visit to Iraq. If you haven't read his three-part report, you need to.

Labels: ,

Thursday, October 11, 2007

Not blogging but it's okay

Hard to believe it's been so many days since I've left a post here, since time has flown while I've been extremely busy elsewhere. Just haven't felt the need to offer an opinion or an update. And frankly, haven't wanted to spend the time here, away from my family, my community, several good books, and all my other work and pleasures.

That's a little odd of me, to come to a lull like this. But meanwhile all of my favorite bloggers (see the right-hand side of my blog) are covering what's going on and I continue to enjoy and be grateful for their efforts and follow their links as they distill each day's public events for me in their entertaining and thoughtful ways. For some reason it's just seemed better for me right now to let the larger world roll on without taking time to contribute my public comments.

Good thing it's not a job, it's just my blog. My blog. Such as it is. With ups and downs.

I'm still trying to perfect my tea cakes. When I get the recipe successfully nailed, I'll share it here.

Oh yes, and here's an interesting item: the Global Incident Map (via Sharon Chadha).

And don't forget to hug your kids and tell your dear ones you love them.

And don't forget to laugh.


Wednesday, October 03, 2007

Dems attack Rush, put foot in it

When the Democrats are reduced to editing a Limbaugh quote so that they can pretend to be all outraged they just expose the hollowness of their own support for our troops.

Betsy updates us on the hypocrisy of the Democrats. Seems pretty obvious to me, too.

Tuesday, October 02, 2007

A little hiatus

For those of you who wondered where I've been, I took a three-day weekend off to meet up with a longtime, dear woman friend, in the mountains of North Carolina. We ate, we shopped, we were merry, and we talked non-stop for 48 hours or so. Just what the doctor ordered when she ordered a healthy dose of stimulating relaxation (or relaxing stimulation).

Then yesterday I let everything (including the piled-up laundry) wait while I spent a few hours visiting my mom. We ate, we shopped, we were merry, we caught up on the family news.

Today I'm eating bananas and going for my three-mile walk to moderate the effects of all that eating. Luckily fall weather has come at last and I actually feel like walking outside again. And I'm doing that laundry, and catching up on ironing my Dreamboat's dress shirts (Betty Friedan, eat your heart out).

Just finished reading Eminient Victorians by Lytton Strachey, evidently the Tom Wolfe of his generation. Of the four "artful biographies," in this book, the one of General Gordon's work in China and in trying to suppress the slave trade in Africa (including in Darfur) and meeting his end at Khartoum by the hands of Muslim jihadists was the most interesting and eye-opening to me (there is so much about history I don't know). But all four vignettes are written artfully enough to intrigue a modern reader who likes learning about the past. I can recommend Strachey's biography of Queen Victoria very highly, and also now want to read his groundbreaking psychological history, Elizabeth and Essex.

I return to find that Newt has bowed out of the race--I think Betsy's comments are apt. I also think Betsy has a good point when she points to Mike Huckabee deserving more attention.

I also heard Rush Limbaugh defending himself against the slanderous attacks of certain Democrats on his Friday radio show. Those wacky Dems are always surprising me by how stupidly they go about things. If they wanted to distract the public and the media from's General "Betray Us" backlash, they could've come up with something smarter than the clumsily and transparently manufactured charge that this one is.

More later from me when I can see past all the dirty laundry. By the way, I am a happily married housewife living in the June Cleaver/Ward Cleaver model, and can testify it works for me and Ward (and for the kids who have two relatively non-stressed parents heading their home almost all the time they are there).

Labels: , , ,