The Voice of Treason

I’d been following the story of the northern bottle-nosed whale who found itself stuck in the Thames (that’s “Temz” for those of you attending “uniform” schools in Florida) and was walking by the TV when I noticed they were reporting its death. T was on the computer.

D: Awwwwwww! What a shame.

T: What?

D: The Thames whale has died!

T: (pause, then sigh) Oh, whale.

The RSPCA said, across the world, an international television audience of about 23 million tuned in to news reports to follow the whale story. Why such interest? What was the whale doing? Was it on its way to Harrods to buy a tin of breakfast tea? Was it trying to tell us something?

No matter - we had to rescue it. Why? We love whales because their blubber is acceptable. We don’t like our whales thin. And whales are innocuous, sweet. Who ever heard of a mean whale?

It was a valiant effort that failed. And just when you thought England was one rung up on America on the ladder of civilization. But look past the whale incident and you’ll discover that we’re not alone with the Jerry Springers, Bobby Browns, and Maury Poviches. The land of Tudors and Plantagenets has crap, too. And it’s called Celebrity Big Brother.

George Galloway has been branded a “laughing stock” by a Labour opponent after he imitated a cat on the Channel 4 show. Yes, MP, Socialist, critic of the Bush administration, and debater of Christopher Hitchens went down on all fours, purred, and pretended to lick cream from Rula Lenska’s hands.

Ah, Rula! Does anyone else remember Rock Follies? A fun little show from the Seventies. My high school friends and I were huge Rula Lenska fans. We wished we were even half as exotic. I’m sorry to hear she was in the same room with Mr. Galloway.

George insists his appearance on the program is good for politics. Ha! That’s like saying it’s a good idea for a presidential candidate to go on a late night show to play a saxophone! Or discuss his underwear on a music video channel! Oh, wait…never mind.

It just reminds me that the people who think Islamofascists hate America for the same reasons they do, conveniently forget that it’s our sordid, decadent culture they hate - and they’re the ones responsible. The London subway bombings are, no doubt, a result of Celebrity Big Brother. You watch Bobby Brown and Whitney Houston, then tell me you don’t want to blow up something.

Anyway, it was time to walk the dogs, so I grabbed my Walkman and tuned into a repeat of Laura Ingraham’s show. I swear I don’t know why I don’t listen to Laura more often - I was laughing so hard I damn near peed myself. Oh, wait - now I remember. It’s because she’s on a station that has such a crappy signal that to hear Neal Boortz in the morning I had to stand in the corner of the bathroom with my boombox on my head, my left leg in the air, and my right pinkie touching my nose. All without breathing. (As you can imagine, it was difficult to get ready for work in a timely manner.)

Anyway, there’s a bumper sticker available at The National Review Store: “Taking the oxymoron out of hip conservative.” It reminds me of Laura. What can I say? She’s a hoot. And may I add, for the record, that one reason conservative talk hosts succeed is they have the absolute best bumper music. That includes Rush. (Limbaugh - not the band.)

Back to Laura. She was talking to Victoria Toensing (I do like her!), then mentioned Peggy Noonan’s new article on Reagan. But when I heard that she had gone one-on-one with a city council member from my little college town (I’d mentioned FNC did a story about the Greens taking it over - see 1/19/06), I groaned aloud. Oh, I wish I hadn’t missed that.

But what I do wish I’d missed was this:

1. Walking through mounds of dog sh*t and broken glass.

What - is this some kind of symbol of culture in this town? American tourists used to complain bitterly about the amount of excrement on the streets of Paris and Naples and I thought they were just being phobic. But now I understand. It’s not the actual crap that bothers me - it’s that people are so irresponsible and lazy that they can’t bend over with a plastic bag and pick it up. And the broken glass everywhere. The residents of our state like to drink and drive - steering wheel in one hand, beer bottle in another - then toss their empties from the car into concrete retaining walls for maximum breakage. More local culture? I don’t understand the thrill of breaking glass myself, but it seems like an important pastime here. Always Bud and Corona. One never sees a Guinness bottle in pieces on a sidewalk. Hmmmmmm.

2. Walking past a furniture store and seeing the hours of operation sign on the window that read: “Wensday.”

3. Hearing the reporter on the national news at the top of the hour reporting on the whale who died in the “Thaims.” (To be fair, a Harley was going by, but I am certain I heard “Thaims.”)

4. Discussing the online conversations T has and hearing him say that he sees the expression “should of” a lot. Then me saying: “You now just noticed that? That one’s common.”

“But it doesn’t make sense. What is ’should of’? It’s should have.”

“T - it’s because people don’t read great books anymore. What they read is blogs, e-mail, and chat room conversations. Even TV commercials are misspelled. Our language is dying.”

But I’ll end on a happier note. Laura always has a segment in which she asks listeners to vote for their favorite sound byte of the week. A caller noted that Algore, in a portion of his recent barnburner, sounded just like SNL’s Goat Boy. She was right! But it didn’t help Al - Hillary won the contest again. She always does.

Walter Williams was filling in for Rush today so I grabbed my Walkman before I went dogwalking. He began by mentioning a recent article by George Will that calls for the abolition of all schools of education on college campuses. Well, Thomas Sowell has been saying this for years. Why? Because colleges are turning out too many stupid teachers. Education majors consistently score lowest on standardized tests like the SAT, yet we are entrusting them to ed-yoo-cate students. Ironic.

As someone who earned a teaching credential from the state of California, I can honestly say that Sowell and Will know what they’re talking about. My university started out as a teachers’ college about a hundred years ago. When I attended, the administration was determined to offer fine specialized programs but, in order not to turn out a narrow student population, it forced pupils to choose an area of study outside their majors - preferably something far removed from their chosen field of study - to “broaden their horizons” and round them out nicely. Students hated this concept. It was called an “emphasis phase” by the school, and a “f*cking waste of time” by the students.

I was determined to choose an emphasis program that would easily turn into a minor. I looked at several and even started a few different ones. I was in the middle of a French class when I realized that I would never actually be speaking French to anyone anywhere, so I changed my emphasis. I thought about the very popular “Women’s Studies” program, but one day I was waiting between classes and overheard a Women’s Study course in progress. A group of females were sitting cross-legged on the floor discussing how badly they’d been treated by their girlfriends. They sounded whiny and bitter. Scratched that one off the list, too.

I finally ended up with an Art emphasis that turned into a minor. It’s funny when people roll their eyes at Art students - art’s so “easy.” Odd, but I might have learned more from my Art classes than any others. We had intensive Art history courses and while most other classes have become a blur over the years I have retained much of what I learned in my Art courses. The hours a student spends in labs and the hours they spend on assignments is imposing. The Art students I knew were constantly working. I dated photography students who spent most of their time in darkrooms. In a way, this is true for many Liberal Arts students. Music majors were always practicing; theater and film students juggled multiple projects; English majors wrote and read non-stop. I recall a professor who routinely assigned fifty pages of poetry each night. My friends in the Sciences had it easy by comparison. I was envious in some ways. They were having fun, I was reading Donne.

So I felt confident that I was getting a decent education in the arts, literature, and history. I envisioned painting a picture for students: when this story was written, these are the things that were going on in the world. This is what people wore, this is the music they listened to, these were the writers they read, these were the politics, the leaders, the wars, the expressions, the opinions. Give ‘em the whole picture. It’s the way I think history should be taught, so why not teach literature and theatre that way?

My plan was to teach both. The university offered a five year program that required intensive study in one or two areas, then a final year of Education courses combined with student teaching in a local government school. It was that final year that convinced me that I’d made an error in judgment.

At that time, California offered two choices: single subject and multiple subject. The former was geared toward students who wanted to teach high school and maybe junior high students; the latter was for those who wanted to teach on the elementary level. Frankly, these are two entirely different beasts. We argued in Education classes and didn’t mix or mingle outside of the university environment. Night and day. Black and white. Smart and stupid.

Ouch. But that’s the way it was. The students who wanted to teach high school were jaded, cynical, had a sense of humor and a penchant for alcohol. These were people I could be around. The multiple subject people were earnest and perky and insipid and…well, kinda dumb. They’d say things like “Children are such magical creatures!” Those on the other side of the room would mumble about Lord of the Flies under their breath. I was on that side, initiating most of the mumbling.

The Education courses were horrid, taught by people who thought government schools actually worked. Maybe they did when they’d been in them, but things had changed. My professors wanted me to go to my public high school and remove all the desks and textbooks. My master teachers at the school were not supportive. I was torn between two worlds and I still had courses I needed to complete for a double major, a minor, and this credential. I was in Hell.

I’d taken over the classes of three teachers during that year, and one was much beloved by her students. She and her husband had taught for decades and were a wonderful couple. That year she was diagnosed with cancer and she lost a breast. I was alone with her students. She’d been teaching All Quiet on the Western Front forever and that was what I had to do. My problem? I believe that tests should be challenging. I hate tests, but I’d tell my students: don’t worry about them. They’re going to be hard, just do what you can do. I’m more interested in your reading, writing, and thinking skills. Use the test to tell me what you know.

They bitched about me constantly. When my master teacher returned to school they complained bitterly about my exams, so she agreed to take one to prove that I wasn’t “hard.” She got a D-. Proof, said the students. She disagreed and thanked me. She said she’d been teaching the book for years but hadn’t read it in over twenty. She went home that night and read it again. My tests remained difficult after my master teacher explained that they weren’t “too difficult.” Why? Because a few students were actually scoring well. (I had a student — from India - who aced every test. He was brilliant.)

Well! If I’d known I was going to take a trip down Memory Lane I would have packed a bag! Enough about this now - there’s plenty more for another time - and back to Walter Williams. He talked to Lisa Snell from the Reason Foundation about the state of public education and the need for vouchers, for choice. There’s a growing movement to take the money allotted to a student and attach it to the kid instead of to the institution. Yes!

Allow me to illustrate. Remember when I wrote about the period before my mother moved us out of Chicago to Arizona? The truant officer called to ask why I was missing school (I can’t say I was missing it, I just wasn’t there) and I explained that my mother thought it was important that we see as much of Chicago as possible before we moved away. The school contacted my mother and told her the following:

“Just get her to school in the morning. She needs to be in her seat when the teacher takes attendance. The school is paid for each student who shows up. We get money if they’re in their seats. Once attendance is taken, you can take her wherever you want. Okay?”

I was nine, but a seed was planted in my head. They don’t give a sh*t about me learning - it’s all about the money. They just want the money.

Then that’s when Walter mentioned the CBEST. YES!!! Finally! I’d been thinking a lot about that test and here was Walter Williams talking about it. The CBEST was a basic skills test that was required for two reasons. Someone wanted to know that you knew these basic skills and someone wanted your money. I forget now how much I had to pay to take the test, but I was concerned. I hate those tests. I knew I was going to fail miserably.

I showed up and sat outside the testing area with a group of very worried looking individuals. I was in my early twenties, fresh out of school. These people looked like they’d been president for four years. Beaten down by life, tired, pained. Turns out that they were all teachers who were required to take the test after all these years of employment in the public school system in order to move up — like into counseling or administration. I spoke to one woman who was especially nervous. She was in her fifties and had been teaching math on the elementary level for years. Something makes me think that she said she was taking it for the second time, but I can’t be sure. How could she have already taken it and failed it? It was a new test (this was 1983). Maybe she failed a sample test. But I do remember that I thought it was odd that she was worried about failing the math portion. She’s a math teacher! If she screwed it up, I’m doomed!

I took the test. I got my results. I passed - no problem. And do you know why? Because the test is EASY. Basic. Simple. I was expecting calculus and it was basic arithmetic. The reading portion? Piece of cake. I was horrified: teachers are failing this test? How?

Well, Walter offered an example of a CBEST math problem on the show and I thought I’d be able to remember it but I can’t. It was something like:

35 is 7 more than this number doubled. What’s the number?

Perhaps I’ve made it too difficult. Here’s a sample question I’ve pulled off a website:

“Keiko spent the day bird watching and counted 34 more birds in the morning than in the afternoon. If she counted a total of 76 birds, how many birds did she count in the afternoon?”

Hard one, right? Because how many people have 76 fingers at their disposal? I know there’s an argument that passing/failing a test is no indication of ability to teach. This is true. That’s why there should be additional measures in place.

I remember watching teachers protest in California and I’d count the misspelled words on their signs. “No Child Left Behind” isn’t perfect, but if it’s something that pisses off the teachers and their unions, then it’s a good start.

Teachers don’t like competition and they think it hurts students. No, you silly gooses. It’s competition that will save them. When schools compete, students win. Like Keiko and her birds, it’s simple math. (Ah! No wonder the teachers have having so much trouble understanding that.)

I’m intrigued by those who are so upset by the administration’s “spying.” Have these people ever held jobs? I had a manager who had nothing better to do than read employee e-mail. Gracious, we have cameras everywhere: grocery stores, banks, dressing rooms, at busy intersections. Ever been to Vegas?

Ever listen to somebody’s cell phone conversation in the supermarket because they’re practically yelling? Ever watch Jerry Springer or the “Girls Gone Wild” commercials? Ever read a blog? When did America get so interested in privacy all of a sudden?

Hey! Ever read an autobiography? Well, the reason I ask is that I’m watching for what happens next because of this little book scandal. Oprah waxed poetic over James Frey’s book and it suddenly became a bestseller. Fine. But now we know that he called it non-fiction only after publishers rejected it when he was calling it fiction - which is what it turns out to be, after all. Some readers don’t care - they liked the book and their lives weren’t ruined by the disclosure. Others are not so easy-going. They want to sue because they feel it’s a case of consumer fraud. Talk about a slippery slope!

The publisher said that they would refund money to those who purchased the book directly from them, but if someone bought the book at a bookstore, the publisher directed them to go back to that store and ask for their money. Ha! Good luck on that one. If I had a dollar for every time I had to explain to someone who wanted to return a crappy book that “this is a bookstore, not a library, and all sales are final no matter how offensive the book is” my house would be paid for. (And I only managed a bookstore for a little over a year.)

But think! This is interesting because there is such a fine line these days between fiction and non-fiction. If I bought Bill or Hillary’s autobiographies (I didn’t), could I get my money back? What about those oddball books like Primary Colors? It’s called fiction, but everyone knew it really wasn’t. Documentary films could fall into this category. Michael Moore, watch out!

And talk about angry consumers! Now UCLA alums want to pay students to spy on their professors. (This spying stuff must be the next big thing - I must try it!) But I understand their point. Parents are paying top dollar to send their kids to school and have no idea what they’re learning. A copy of a lecture would be helpful. Oh, look! There’s absolutely nothing in this lecture about marine biology - it’s all political/personal/non-related/drivel/why-are-we-paying-for-this? kinda crap! My goodness. Where could this lead? Maybe to public elementary schools? Big Brother, indeed.

Oh, those wacky profs. I had my share, but I was able to cut through their biases and get some decent information out of their lectures. Unfortunately, not all students are able to do that. Biases spill over - some call it brainwashing - and this causes some real problems. I’ve written here before about my liberal university in an otherwise conservative part of the state and the terrible consequences.

Well, horrors, FNC just did a story on “my little town.” When Shep said the town’s name I froze, then saw the theater where I spent a lot of my time watching some wonderful films. Then I saw the little plaza and all the places I used to shop. The story, essentially, is that the town’s city council is dominated by Greens and they keep voting to impeach Bush and Cheney, pull troops out of Iraq, and do all sorts of odd things that have very little to do with keeping the little town running efficiently. Now people are ticked off and are boycotting local businesses. If people don’t spend money there, what few businesses that are there will be hurt. And the people who are running most of the businesses aren’t supportive of the council. So who voted for these people who don’t represent the average citizen?

Ah, the professors and students, I’ll bet. The same people who are vandalizing the statue of President McKinley in the plaza just because someone heard that Karl Rove liked him. I liked the town, I liked that statue, and I liked the school.

Oh - and I thank FNC for not mentioning its name during this story.

Our illustrious governor has delivered the State of the State address and has proclaimed 2006 “The Year of the Child.” It’s clear he’s no Republican, yet every Liberal I know who dislikes him refers to him as one. My issues with him are long and complex, so I’ll just focus on one. He has just called for the end of junk food.

Yes, he intends to keep junk food away from the children by banning it from government schools. Gov, if you really want to help the children you’d be better off - and Lord, so would they - if you would ban public education in this state. (Our public education is, to be polite, an embarrassment.)

Not being able to read, write, add, subtract, multiply, or divide is not the issue. The Food Police is more concerned with what goes into a child’s stomach - not what isn’t going into a child’s brain. So junk food must go.

I can say that my mother wasn’t perfect and I could list all the bad choices she made when we were growing up. But I can also say that she got a couple things very right - and those were important enough to cancel out some of the dumbass things she did.

To illustrate:

A couple friends of my siblings were over and stopped in front of a fruit bowl my mother had on the table. The kids were mesmerized, staring at the contents of the bowl. My mother noticed them and asked if they wanted something.

“What’s that?”

“What’s what?”

“Those.”

My mother was confused. “Those are peaches and nectarines. Want some?”

The kids were nervous at first, and tentative about these foreign objects, but once they tasted them, the fruit quickly disappeared.

When their mother came to get them, mine told her that they’d had some of the fruit.

“No! Don’t waste good food on them!”

My mother was horrified and continued to introduce them to different taste treats when they visited. I remember every variety of apple and melon, pomegranates, persimmons, kiwis, tangerines, mangoes, papayas, and kumquats readily available to us. We were lucky: my mother worked in restaurants, was taught to cook by a Tuscan neighbor after her mother died, and knew good food. We went to great restaurants on her days off and she made sure we were educated about the wonderful things in the world that were edible. None of my siblings had weird food issues.

Ever order a pizza for a group of people?

“I like everything - except olives!”

“Ugh - no onions!”

“Hate bell pepper!”

“Mushrooms make me vomit!”

“No pepperoni!”

“Anything but anchovy!”

“Plain cheese would be great!”

“I can’t eat sausage.”

“I’m allergic to tomatoes.”

“I won’t eat anything with hot peppers.”

“Garlic is gross.”

Give me all of it - including the anchovies. The only thing I’m not crazy about is tripe. Everything else - with the exception of exotics like dog and monkey - is fair game. I worry about people who are afraid of some foods. I understand if it’s something that almost killed you once, but to run out of a room to avoid an avocado is just plain…well, neurotic.

I know I will never be anorexic. I also know what’s good and what isn’t, and even when I was a kid I had discerning taste. There was plenty of junk food available when I was in high school and kids always lined up during the morning break at the campus snack bar. During my first semester I’d get a doughnut and maybe a cup of hot chocolate. When I knew I had a film class, I’d grab a Big Hunk. That was pretty much the extent of my gluttony. The reason I never loaded up on a lot of crap was that I knew there was decent food at home waiting for me.

I imagine the kids who spend money (where do they get all this money? I never had money when I was a kid!) on junk food are the ones who aren’t eating at home. I hear women say that they don’t cook anymore because no one’s ever there. The kids are always at friends’ houses or out somewhere and they’ll pick up something or warm up a frozen whatever in the microwave when they get home. It’s kinda like the horror I felt when I discovered that kids ate pasta out of a can. If a woman can’t boil up a pot of noodles and put some sauce on it, she shouldn’t have children. End of story.

So my point is - and I do have one - is that once again we are allowing the Food Police to control what children eat because their parents can’t. Again, it’s like those PSAs that teach parents that talking to your kid is a good idea. Reading to your kid is a good idea. Knowing where your kid is at three a.m. is a good idea. Feeding your kid is a good idea.

Really??? Ya think???

I saw a good editorial cartoon on coxandforkum.com this week. Ted Kennedy is questioning Judge Alito:

Senator: Isn’t it true, Judge Alito, that you once joined a club that discriminated against females?

Alito: Yes…but I was nine and they had cooties.

It’s especially amusing since the senator has for many years been a member of the Owl Club - a “f-owl” organization that allows no hens, just cocks.

Another senator, Hillary Clinton, was flapping, too. On MLK Day at the Canaan Baptist Church of Christ in Harlem, she chirped:

“When you look at the way the House of Representatives has been run, it has been run like a plantation, and you know what I’m talking about.”

Yes, we do. And we suggest that if the Democrats want black Democrats like Barack Obama to have a shot at the White House, they teach Ted Kennedy how to pronounce his name and tell Hillary to stay in the Senate.

In keeping with the bird theme, let’s just say that Republicans have some fine specimens on their “plantation.” And I predict the name Lynn Swann will be ruffling some feathers on the Left and getting the Right all a-flutter.

And then there’s the Mayor of Nawlins, who has said that his city will be “chocolate” again. Now I’ve heard of politicians promising a chicken in every pot, but Nagin’s talking Lindt truffles for all.

Isn’t he?

Algore had one of those really long barnburners today. Here’s a bit of it:

“…The President of the United States has been breaking the law repeatedly and persistently.”

“A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government. Our Founding Fathers were adamant that they had established a government of laws and not men. Indeed, they recognized that the structure of government they had enshrined in our Constitution - our system of checks and balances - was designed with a central purpose of ensuring that it would govern through the rule of law. As John Adams said: ‘The executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them, to the end that it may be a government of laws and not of men.’”

“An executive who arrogates to himself the power to ignore the legitimate legislative directives of the Congress or to act free of the check of the judiciary becomes the central threat that the Founders sought to nullify in the Constitution - an all-powerful executive too reminiscent of the King from whom they had broken free. In the words of James Madison, ‘the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.’”

“Vigilant adherence to the rule of law strengthens our democracy and strengthens America. It ensures that those who govern us operate within our constitutional structure, which means that our democratic institutions play their indispensable role in shaping policy and determining the direction of our nation. It means that the people of this nation ultimately determine its course and not executive officials operating in secret without constraint.”

“…A commitment to openness, truthfulness and accountability also helps our country avoid many serious mistakes…America would have been better off knowing the truth and avoiding both of these colossal mistakes in our history. Following the rule of law makes us safer, not more vulnerable.”

“…Once violated, the rule of law is in danger. Unless stopped, lawlessness grows. The greater the power of the executive grows, the more difficult it becomes for the other branches to perform their constitutional roles. As the executive acts outside its constitutionally prescribed role and is able to control access to information that would expose its actions, it becomes increasingly difficult for the other branches to police it. Once that ability is lost, democracy itself is threatened and we become a government of men and not laws.”

“…In the words of George Orwell: ‘We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield.’”

“Whenever power is unchecked and unaccountable it almost inevitably leads to mistakes and abuses. In the absence of rigorous accountability, incompetence flourishes. Dishonesty is encouraged and rewarded.”

It’s taken a long time, but I think it’s wonderful that Algore has evolved and has finally come out about his former running mate. There’s a whole lot more to this speech - why, it goes on for days - and there’s even more evidence in it that Al has seen the light. I remember when he came out to defend Bill after the whole Monica thing, calling him “one of our greatest presidents.” Well, in this speech, he calls Abraham Lincoln our greatest. A Republican!

My! A tree grows in Washington.

“When you are younger you get blamed for crimes you never committed and when you’re older you begin to get credit for virtues you never possessed. It evens itself out. ”
– I. F. Stone

Clarence Ray Allen is scheduled for execution this week. This case isn’t getting the media attention that Tookie’s received, but it’s another opportunity to make the Governator look like a cold-blooded, mean-spirited, insensitive…well, Republican. (Hey, there are a lot of Republicans who like it when Arnold looks and acts like a Republican.)

Anyway, lawyers claim that Allen is “too old and too sick” to be a threat to anyone, and have declared that “he presents absolutely no danger at this point, as incapacitated as he is. There’s no legitimate state purpose served by executing him. It would be gratuitous punishment.” Execution would be cruel and unusual they say. He’s severely disabled, deaf, legally blind, and wheelchair bound. He has advanced diabetes and a bad ticker. In other words, he’s dying.

The state of California just wants to help him get to the other side sooner and with a lot less pain. Why, the state just north wholeheartedly supports euthanasia. When someone is old and sick and suffering, isn’t euthanasia the most humane option? That’s what they say in Oregon. That’s what they said about Terri Schiavo.

So why is it suddenly not a good option in this case?

The governor has spoken: “The depravity of Allen’s crimes has not diminished with the years.” See, time doesn’t heal all wounds. Mr. Allen will roll into eternity the day after he blows out the candles on his 76th birthday cake.

The leader of the Liberal and Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR), Vladimir “I will raise Russia from her knees” Zhirinovsky, recently expressed his opinion of Condoleezza Rice in an exclusive interview with Pravda.Ru. The following are excerpts for your perusal:

“Condoleezza Rice released a coarse anti-Russian statement. This is because she is a single woman who has no children. She loses her reason because of her late single status. Nature takes it all.”

“Such women are very rough. They are all workaholics, public workaholics. They can be happy only when they are talked and written about everywhere: ‘Oh, Condoleezza, what a remarkable woman, what a charming Afro-American lady! How well she can play the piano and speak Russian! What a courageous, tough and strong female she is!’”

“This is the only way to satisfy her needs of a female. She derives pleasure from it. If she has no man by her side at her age, he will never appear. Even if she had a whole selection of men to choose from she would stay single because her soul and heart have hardened.”

“…She needs to be on top of the world.”

“The civilized world needs to think about a decision when single politicians are not allowed to stay in power. This was a common practice in the Soviet political system. The matter of international relations is very subtle and exquisite. One single word or phrase may play an extremely important role in politics. This is not the place, where one can sublimate their personal sexual problems.”

“Complex-prone women are especially dangerous. They are like malicious mothers-in-law, women that evoke hatred and irritation with everyone. Everybody tries to part with such women as soon as possible. A mother-in-law is better than a single and childless political persona, though.”

“This is really scary. Ms. Rice’s personal complexes affect the entire field of international politics. This is an irritating factor for everyone, especially for the East and the Islamic world. When they look at her, they go mad.”

“Condoleezza Rice needs a company of soldiers. She needs to be taken to barracks where she would be satisfied. On the other hand, she can hardly be satisfied because of her age. This is a complex. She needs to return to her university and teach students there. She could also deal with psychological analysis.”

“The true reason of Ms. Rice’s attack against Russia is very simple. Condoleezza Rice is a very cruel, offended woman who lacks men’s attention. Releasing such stupid remarks gives her the feeling of being fulfilled. This is the only way for her to attract men’s attention.”

Excuuuuuuuuuuse me? Am I nuts, or am I hearing:

“Condi has no man and no children. Frankly, because she’s over forty, she’s too old to ever get a man and now she’s too old to breed. Since she can’t get attention from a man, she’s a workaholic who seeks attention from the public. But, because she has no man, she’s bitter and psychotic and needs professional help. Silly, irritating woman — she wants to be on top. But what she really needs is to be gang raped. Then she should go be a schoolmarm and just be quiet.”

I see. So the leader of the Liberal and Democratic Party of Russia has issues with older women who have chosen careers over marriage and children. He feels she has to prove she’s smart, which is irritating. He suggests that no one likes a woman who thinks she knows it all. After all, women aren’t supposed to be world leaders - they should be wives, mothers, or teachers.

Hmmm. And there seems to be a hint of racism here, too: “What a charming Afro-American lady! How well she can play the piano!”

And where are the leaders of the Liberal and Democratic Party of America on this? Where are leaders of the Congressional Black Caucus? Where’s Ted Kennedy? Hillary Clinton? The members of NOW?

Why, they’re too busy vilifying Sam Alito to be bothered by comments that used to get them out marching in the streets.

Could it be a Reagan-Thatcher thing? It’s just too soon to tell and I really don’t know enough about Angela Merkel, but I felt she was charmed by Dubya and that the relationship is off to a good start. When asked to describe the meeting with her, he carefully chose the right sentiments:

“We’ve got something in common, we both didn’t exactly landslide our way into office.”
(Humor! Humility! Realism!)

“I’m convinced that we will have a really important and good relationship.”
(Sounds like commitment to me.)

“First, I do want to send my best regards to Gerhard Schröeder. We spent a lot of time together, and we talked about issues. Listen, there was room for agreement and room for disagreement. And I do hope he’s doing well.”
(Shows real sensitivity and an open mind.)

“Our job now is to work together. We’ve got big interests. Germany is a really important country. It’s right in the heart of Europe; it’s vital that Germany take the lead on a lot of issues.”
(She is important. She is the heart of Europe.)

“And I look forward to working with the Chancellor on common objectives. And my first impressions, with 45 minutes alone in the Oval Office, were incredibly positive.”
(She’s a player on the world stage.)

“She’s smart — she’s plenty capable. She’s got kind of a spirit to her that is appealing. She loves freedom.”
(First and foremost, she has brain power — but that’s not all that’s appealing.)

“I was particularly touched by hearing about her early life in communist Germany. There’s something uplifting to talk to somebody who knows the difference between just talking about tyranny and living in freedom and actually done it.”
(He could listen to her life story all day long. She’s compelling, and experienced in matters of freedom.)

“So we’re going to have a very good relationship. And that’s important for our respective people. I’m looking forward to consultations, visits, contacts, phone calls, all the things you do.”
(He can’t wait to see her again. He’ll be waiting by the phone.)

“And now I’m going to take her to lunch.”
(Bingo! Knows the way to the woman’s soul and he’s treating!)

I keep seeing Democrats reaching into their pockets (refreshing, since they’re usually reaching into ours) to extract these tiny pamphlets, which they wave emphatically at TV cameras. This, they explain, is THE CONSTITUTION! Harry Reid won’t go on any Sunday show without it. Chuck Schumer was flapping his around at the Alito hearings.

It’s not very large from what I can see of it, so I imagine the print must be very small if it includes the entire Constitution. I have one of those pocket Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution thingies, too - think I got it from the Cato people - and it looks like a small book. Like, sixty pages. Much more substantial than this piece of folded over paper the Democrats have been waving.

Well, this had some of us wondering if maybe they’re only waving a few amendments around. I’m happy to report that we now have an answer. As an official member of the V.R.W.C. (that’s Vast Right Wing Conspiracy for those of you getting a “uniform education” in Florida), I am privy to the Daily Message. See, one of our really pro-active members recently went on a fact-finding mission and actually secured one of these pamphlets.

How on earth, you ask, did we get a copy of this document? Our member reports that she was able to obtain the item directly from the pants pocket of a prominent senator from a small New England state. At first we were concerned: what was she doing in this senator’s pants? (We really do have spies everywhere!) She assured us that she was nowhere near the senator at the time. He is known to drop his pants often and at various locations, and she just happened to be having a vodka martini at this particular one and was able to acquire the document in question. Let’s just say she “subpoenaed” it. (I call it “finders keepers.”)

The V.R.W.C. has distributed copies to its premium members (moi!), so I have one right in front of me. Here ’tis:

The Constitution or Our Guide To Winning The Battle of Democracy!

We the members of the Democratic Party of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

We have seen that the first step in the revolution (revolution=good) by the working class (think “working poor”) is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy. (Think “win-win!”)

The proletariat will use its political supremacy (think “MUST-win!”) to wrest, by degree, all capital (think “filthy lucre!”) from the bourgeoisie (bad guys), to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state (good guys), i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible (think “moving forward!”).

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected (think “grassroots effort!”) except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property (property, BAD - unless, of course, it belongs to us), and on the conditions of bourgeois (bad) production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement (movement=good), outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order (think NEW social order), and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production. (When asked, call it “reform.”)

Amendment I
Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. Because it’s fair.

Amendment II
A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. Because we care.

Amendment III
Abolition of all rights of inheritance. Because it’s unfair.

Amendment IV
Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. Because we have a better use for it. Think “greater good.”

Amendment V
Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. Because we want to know what you have — er, need.

Amendment VI
Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state. Because we want to protect you.

Amendment VII
Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. A living wage and healthcare for all!

Amendment VIII
Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. Industrial army=good.

Amendment IX
Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. Think fifty blue states. (Fifty-one with D.C.!)

Amendment X
Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. Because we care about the children. They are the future.

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing (oppression=bad) another.

In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms (very bad), we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all. And that’s a good thing.