Winston's Diary

Because something like this incident sounds like the stories the EU tells about the U.S.

Methinks the EU needs to remove the mote from its own eye.

Looking at FactCheck.org again today, I have to temper my praise from Monday a bit. They've begun the practice of undercutting their criticism of Kerry with criticism of Bush in the same article. For example, in the most recent one, they verify that Kerry actually did vote no on a appropriations bill to send $87 million to the troops in Iraq to shore up their defenses, etc. But they can't leave it at verifying the fact; instead, they must tell us that the extra $87 million wouldn't have been needed had Bush provided enough in the way of supplies (particularly armor) in the first place.

Certainly Bush has made some misjudgments about what was/is needed in Iraq. But when the need was discovered, he made an effort to rectify his earlier misjudgment. Kerry played politics and voted to deny necessary aid, and then tried to divert attention away from his actions by blaming Bush.

As for Kerry's vote to authorize the President's use of force, only the most disingenous would argue that that didn't really mean that he voted in favor of the Iraq war.

Really, anyone who says they didn't realize that voting to authorize the use of force meant that there was a strong possibility Bush would actually use that force has no business pursuing the presidency. World leaders, I would think, should be able to read the intentions of other world leaders, particularly when they telegraph them as much as Bush does.

Their CPB connections are starting to show--subtly, of course, but that's the way the liberal media works, so they can deny bias at a later date and your average reader/viewer, unfamiliar with rhetorical manipulation, will believe them.

I try to get back to blogging about education soon. I don't have much to say about it right now, save that I cannot believe the grades my students received on the objective portion of their latest exam. How many times do you have to repeat something to a college student before it sinks in?

You may or may not have noticed that a few weeks ago I quietly slipped a new link into the sidebar, for a website called FactCheck.org, a site which checks on the "facts" contained in political ads and holds them up to the real facts.

It's being run out of the Anneberg CPB Foundation, which made me skeptical, because anything connection with PBS has been tainted in my opinion, but they appear to be pretty even-handed in what they choose to tackle, and even--dare I say it, lest I resurrection the lie of the conservative media--a little harder on the Kerry campaign and those asshats over at MoveOn.org than they are on Bush. I see this as being a result of the fact that the Bush ads aren't playing as fast and loose with the truth as the Kerry ads are, and aren't just blatantly lying and manipulating like the weasels at MoveOn.org who need to pull their collective heads out of their collective leftists asses.

Did I mention I hate MoveOn.org?

Anyway, they seem to update every couple of days (more often than yours truly), and they're worth a look.

I'd take a moment to blog on that country full of Neville Chamberlains we call Spain, but in a few years, when the new series of state mandated history textbooks in Europe see this weekend as the beginning of the glorious revolution (praise Allah), won't there be egg on my face.

Jane Galt has an excellent post on the lack of conservatives in academia over at Asymmetrical Information. She does a nice job of breaking down the cause and effect aspect of the problem.

As for the lack of proof one commentator complains about, I think that the rapidly growing number of conservative academic blogs, most of which complain about this problem, are beginning to constitute proof enough, not to mention the Duke statistics and the studies conducted by Horowitz and company.

However, I do agree with the commentator who argues that the problem should not be identified as the lack of conservatives in academia but rather the preponderance of a leftist point-of-view (I can't really call them liberals--sorry, but what I see isn't liberalism). It's not that there aren't conservatives in academia, it's that in the humanities and social sciences at least, one political point-of-view dominates all others.

Most academics in the humanities and the social sciences--and when I say most, in my personal experience this is something like 90% (1) are against the war in Iraq; (2) consider Bush to have illegally seized the presidency; (3) are for abortion on demand; (4) oppose the death penalty; (5) are agnostic or atheist; (6) are in favor of affirmative action; (7) are in favor of redistributing income through the use of a progressive tax structure (though I know quite as few who are in the favor of the Nader/Green Party limit of $30,000 a year income for all); (8) are in favor of gay marriage; (9) belief Western culture to be responsible for many of the world's ills; (10) consider the authority of the U.N. to be ethically "weightier" than that of the United States.

I could go on, but I think you all get the picture. The prevailing point-of-view on almost any issue you could raise is left.

But it doesn't stop there. There is also the attitude--sometimes expressed overtly, as in the Duke Philosophy Department Chair, but more often subtly--that other points-of-view are unenlightened, whether they be conservative, neoconservative, libertarian, or what have you.

The problem is that leftism is all too often taught as dogma. Other points-of-view are misguided at best, evil and wrong at worst.

Unbelievable. California lawmakers want to extend the vote to children as young as 14.

The AP writer doesn't tell us what political party these "representatives" belong to, but we are told that Republicans don't like it.

How much you wanna bet these are Democrat lawmakers behind this? Most kids in the 14-18 group would likely vote Democrat, particularly with all their empty promises regarding education and utopia in general. What better way to increase the number of Democratic voters (besides extending the franchise to illegal aliens, that is)?

After years of teaching college (and a few teaching high school), it seems to me it would be a wiser move to raise the voting age to 21, or even 30--at least until after you've outgrown the urge to pierce body parts other than the ear lobe. The argument that "the Internet, cellular phones, multichannel television and a diverse society makes today's teens better informed than their predecessors" is ridiculous on the face of it. Sure, teens have access to a wealth of information, but what information are they actually accessing? Total Request Live on MTV and video clips of Paris Hilton?

Honestly--watch a few segments of "Jaywalking" on The Tonight Show and you'll want to rescind a lot of people's voting rights. The sad thing is that your average college freshman is only slightly better informed in political matters than the people Leno is poking fun at--just teach a composition class if you don't believe me.