Prez nominess

I know, I know, this blog is getting too political, but now that I have more time to update my blog, I'll just make another commentary about 2004

I'll go over what I think the weakness and strenghts are in those running for Prez in 2004! Those weakness and strengths are measured by what I think make or dont make a candidate one that I would vote for!

1) John Kerry

Strength : military service, risked his life in Vietnam, pro-choice
Weakness: confuses the public over whether he's for or against the war on Iraq! A man like that has no business running for President! Take a stand or get out of the way!
Kerry is also elitist who can't relate to the regular man, and a gun control fanatic!

2) Dean Gephardt

Strength : willing to get tough on Saddam, can relate to the working class types
Weakness: his anti-trade agenda does more harm than good

3) Howard Dean

Strength : though considered left, he has been able to relate to private sector types, entrepreneurs, etc. Allowed for civil unions for same-sex couples. Also, willing to let states decide their own gun laws, whereas previous Dems wanted the Feds to force excessive gun laws on all of us. Also, pro-Balanced Budgets, not afraid to cut spending when gov. of Vermont. Also, not afraid to criticize the so-called partial birth abotion bans.
Weakness : A HUGE ONE is his lack of enthusiasm for the capture of Saddam and the deserved death of Saddam's sons! A man like that has NO bizness being Prez! Plus, his idiotic comment on the Confederate flag, which patronizes Southern whites and alienates blacks.

4) Joe Lieberman

Strength : tough on Saddam, pro-welfare reform, pro-private sector
Weakness : holier than thou attitude, whines excessively about violent and sexual entertainment, flip-flopped on affirmative action due to political convenience.

5) Al Sharpton

Strength: someone who can put white liberals on the defensive, especially when white liberals claim to sympathize with non-whites, when what they do is patronize. Can relate to ghetto residents and has experience empowering them. Stood up to excessive police brutality and racial violence
Weakness:THE HUGE ONE is his statement on Bill O'Reilly's show 2 MONTHS B4 9/11, when Sharpton said there was no threat to national security. A person who says that at any time has NO BIZNESS being Prez. Also, supports affirmative discrimination AND has abused the race card. Plus, his big government proposals will break the bank!

6) Dennis Kucinnich

Strength : has came to campaign in Hawaii whereas most candidates ignore it. That shows his humility and respect.
Weakness: soft on America's enemies, excessively socialist proposals on health care, education, etc. will bankrupt the nation without improving anything! Also, changed his stance on abortion JUST WHEN HE DECIDED TO RUN FOR THE DEMOCRAT NOMINATION!
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020527&s=pollitt
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020610&s=pollitt

7) Carol Mosley-Braun

Strength: an alternative to Sharpton, forcing Sharpton to not to take blacks for granted. Only woman running!
Weakness: too cozy with ex-dictator of Nigeria, corruption charges, couldn't win re-election for Senate

8) Wesley Clark

Strength: military career, giving Dems a tougher image without compromising Democrat positions on issues, fought against genocide in Bosnia and Kosovo, though wasn't for war on Iraq, at least he had more enthusiasm for Saddam's capture than Howard Dean
Weakness: Was at a GOP fundraiser in 2001, and now he wants to be a Democrat? Yet he expects to be taken seriously?

9) John Edwards

Strength: stood up to Howard Dean on the Confederate flag comment, demands that coastal elites respect the South and the Heartland
Weakness: too cozy with trial lawyers who put out frivolous lawsuits!

10) George W. Bush

Couldn't leave out the Republicans

Strength: tough on Saddam and Al Quaida, allowed concealed weapons when gov. of Texas, not willing to the politically correct fanatics when it comes to foreign policy and the environment
Weakness: claims to be for smaller government while increasing spending on everything, unwilling to end an excessively punitive drug war policy, Ashcroft's hatred of civil liberites, too cozy with the Religious Right, too-anti-abortion!

More on Howard Dean

Here are few clips from Mark Steyn's hilarious analysis on the idiocy of Howard Dean

You can find the whole thing at

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004441

The Bike-Path Left
Saddam? Osama? Whatever, dude!

BY MARK STEYN
Wednesday, December 17, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST

Like Susan Lucci at the Emmys, Howard Dean is getting better at putting a brave face on things. When Saddam Hussein fell from power, the Vermonter said churlishly, "I suppose that's a good thing." When Uday and Qusay bit the dust, the governor announced that "the ends do not justify the means."

So what does get the Dean juices going? A few days later, the governor was on CNN and Judy Woodruff asked him about his admission that he'd left the Episcopal Church and become a Congregationalist because "I had a big fight with a local Episcopal church over the bike path."

And that's our pugnacious little Democrat. On Osama bin Laden, he's Mister Insouciant. But he gets mad about bike paths. Destroy the World Trade Center and he's languid and laconic and blasé. Obstruct plans to convert the ravaged site into a memorial bike path and he'll hunt you down wherever you are.

That's what Howard Dean represents--the passion of the Bike-Path Left.

Vermonters marked the end of the Dean era by electing a Republican governor and a Republican House. To Democratic primary voters across the land, Vermont is a shining, rigorously zoned, mandatory-recycling city on a hill. And the only way up the hill is by the bike path.


A little over an hour north of that Burlington bike path is Montreal, the visits to which (for kids' hockey fixtures and his appearances on a Canadian TV show) Dr. Dean cites, seriously, as his main foreign-policy experience. Montreal is home to North America's largest Iraqi émigré community and on Sunday night the streets were full of honking horns celebrating Saddam's downfall. You don't have to go far to see the world beyond the good doctor's bike-path parochialism, but it's farther than most Dems are willing to go.

My commentary : If Dean wins the Democrat nomination, he WILL NOT win the general election, regardless of whatever flaws George W. Bush has! All Bush has to do is show commercials with Dean's comments on Hussein's capture saying in a sarcastic manner "I suppose that's a good thing." Then the commercial will say "Suppose?" and a few more comments, and that's it! Dean will be finished!
It will implicitly say that Dean appeases dictators and terrorists, just like Bush Senior's ads saying Dukasis coddles violent felons.

The only way Dean will win is if W. Bush doesn't make that ad and doesn't remind people of what Dean has said!

Howard Dean shoots himself in the foot


Dean's biggest weakness in 2004 elections (if he wins the Democrat nomination) is NOT his support of gay civil-unions. It will NOT be because of his lefty image, since he's not as far left on issues like guns and balanced budgets. It will be because lack of enthusiasm for the capture of Saddam and the death of his sons! It WILL haunt him come Nov. 2004. That will be like what Willie Horton was to Michael Dukasis. (and to you race card abusers - IT DOESNT MATTER if Willie Horton and Hussein are non-whites! They're dangerous scumbags, plain and simple!)

And though Lieberman is a longshot for the Democrat nomination, I would say he's WAY MORE SERIOUS on the issue of the Islamic terror than Dean is!

SADDAM' S CAPTURED! -TIME TO PARTY!

Now that Saddam is captured, we should pray for his torture. We already know that he is guilty for crimes against humanity, what more proof do we need!

We ought to be celebrating this, as one tyrant has fell! Next is bin Laden!

President Bush ought to order assinations of Kim Jong Il, Fidel Castro, Robert Mugabe, Muamar Qadafi and other tyrants to show the world we wont tolerate that kind of crap! All poltical correctness goes out the window when dealing with punks like them!

Now for that other prof?

 Now for that other prof?

As you can remember, I had an editorial printed last month about profs wasting class time with indoctorinating students with opinions of UNRELATED topics.

http://www.kaleo.org/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/10/23/3f978f7c5b652?in_archive=1

Usually, on this blog, I complained the Poetry and Drama prof who wasted class time expressing hatred for the President.

But what about the Juvenille Deliquency prof who wasted class time whining about the coach's salary? Well, that's the topic today. Because AGAIN, he ended the class with his anti-June Jones agenda! It's time to set the record straight! (by the way, that prof's name is Dr. Knowles, no relation to Beyonce)

Fallacy #1 -coach Jones makes too much $$$

Reality- what June Jones is making is chump change compared to coach's of more prestigious programs like Southern Cal, Oklahoma, Miami, Florida State, Michigan, etc, who on average make 1.5 - 2 MILLION a year. By comparison, June Jones makes only $800,000.

And also what Dr. Knowles failed to tell the class is that around the same time UH offered June Jones the head coaching job, the NFL's San Diego Charger's offered him $1.5 MILLION. June went with the lesser paying job at UH, chump change in comparison. Yet, Knowles has the nerve to condem June Jones contract with UH?

Fallacy #2 - coach's salary is taking $$$ out of the professors

Reality - coach's salary is coming out of ticket sales, and TV profits People aren't paying that $$$ to pay professors, they're paying to (gasp) watch a football game! To add to that, 1/2 of June Jones' salary is coming from (gasp) private donations.

More people pay to watch June Jones' team play than to watch professors teach - therefore the coach gets more money. This is basic economics we are talking about here.

Now that I've pointed out June Jones' salary comes from ticket sales and TV $$$, Knowles must find another scapegoat for the state's problems. Especially when the university's budget is $800-million (according to http://www.hawaii.edu/admin/sloane.html) which even more makes June Jones salary look like chump change in comparison.

Fallacy #3 - June Jones salary is the reason why cops aren't making enough and because of that , crime will go up, which YOU will be a victim of (writer's note - Dr. Knowles ACUTALLY said that today, I'm not making it up!)

Reality- If all the school sports programs got eliminated, there would be more gang members, meaning more drive-bys, more robberies, more gang fights, etc. In fact, in the book that Dr. Knowles assigned, it mentioned that the late Kansas City Chiefs player Derrick Thomas saying that if it wasn't for community programs and sports, he would 've gotten in more trouble, and commited more crimes.

But then again, if all the sports programs are eliminated and youth crime increases, that just means that there will be a higher demand for juvenille deliquency experts. That means cha-ching $$$$$ for someone like Dr. Knowles.

Another Knowles comment - I dont care about what anyone of you write about me in the newspapers about my comments - I'm leaving soon and going to San Diego State

My comment: San Diego State is another sports-obsessed school! Plus, it got an even bigger fan base, since it's in one of the largest markets in the nation. In fact, in the early 90's, SDSU was seen as the West Coast version of U of Miami. The only reason why they dont have that image now is that SDSU football is no longer that good.

If Knowles wants a school that isn't obsessed with football, he should try teach at San Jose State, where hardly anyone even show up for the football games. Since that school is in the WAC (just like Hawaii), Knowles can make his rants all day about June Jones.

Contact info

you can contact me at

madtiger99@yahoo.com

I don't usually check this email address, since I usually use another email address, so dont take it personal if I dont respond right away.

And if Tobin Jones is reading this, please understand that anything I get from you can and will get posted on my blog, with my response on it. There will be no private battles since you have publicly declared war on me Fall 2000. And you started this war, not me! All I do is write editorials, you chose to respond to my editorials in a screaming tone!

Pablo Wegesend

======

PS: check my postings about Tobin Jones at http://pablothemadtiger.blogspot.com

More proof of indoctrination at U.H.

In Friday, Nov. 7, 2003 edition of Ka Leo, another student gave a testimony about the left wing indoctorination at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. This student ,Chauntelle Alarie, a junior majoring in Political Science, gave this testimony in response to Stuart Hayashi's great letter and also indirectly in response to Tobin Jones angry letter against me.

And one more thing before you read the letter, I have never heard of Chauntelle Alarie before that letter was printed. Either way, here's her letter

Letters to the Editor

November 07, 2003

Student voice stunted
Stuart Hayashi's, "Keep off-topic rants out of the classroom," really hit the nail on the head. Students pay this university to provide them with professors to teach information in their field, not profess opinions on out of class topics. When I was a freshman at this university five years ago, an incident similar to the abuse of power described by Hayashi happened to me (just in a different form).

My problem occurred in English 100. My class was told to write an opinion paper on any subject that we desired. I selected why Bill Clinton deserved to be impeached. I wrote all my reasons and the explanations for my beliefs. Proud of my work, I gave the paper to my professor. Apparently, my professor did not like my opinion on the subject. When my essay was returned, there were red words scribbled on every margin of every page and even on the free space on the last page.

I could not believe how poor my grammar skills were until I read what was written in that terrible red ink. The writing covering my paper were not corrections, they were my professor's opinions of why I was wrong to think the way I did about my topic. My professor wrote that my views were ridiculous and without merit. This professor could not believe I had the nerve to assign blame solely on the shoulder's of Bill Clinton and not Monica Lewinsky. I did not know what to make of the situation so I assumed my professor was simply engaging in some "friendly" debate.

The next incident that occurred changed my mind. I cannot recall what the topic of our essay was supposed to be, but I do remember the professor asking the students in class for their topic choices. When I was called, I said, "Abortion." Instead of moving on to the next student, my professor asked if I was going to be writing from a pro-choice or pro-life perspective. Stupidly, I responded with my true feelings on the subject and stated I was pro-life. The next thing I knew, my professor started accusing me of depriving women of choice and that I was probably just religious.

Then the professor called on three girls who raised their hands. She proceeded to allow the women to tell me I was wrong and could only think the way I did because religious people were against abortion and I must be religious. The only thing I was allowed to blurt out was that I was not religious. I was not afforded the ability to express my reasons for being pro-life before the professor decided it was time for the next student's topic choice. I walked out of that room knowing I would not write my paper on abortion and feeling embarrassed because everyone in the class probably thought I was some religion freak.

To the guy who acts as if some professors do not press their ideologies on students in classrooms, my letter is just more proof of a disturbing trend that has infected universities nationwide. You may say this story is false, but one thing remains true. There are many students at this university who are afraid to express their true opinions for fear of a professor's ability to ruin a stellar GPA.

Chauntelle Alarie
Junior
Political Science

Now my response to this letter

Alarie said Stuart Hayashi's, "Keep off-topic rants out of the classroom," really hit the nail on the head. Students pay this university to provide them with professors to teach information in their field, not profess opinions on out of class topics.

My response : Boo-ya! Amen! Bingo! This is the exact point I was trying to make in my recent editorial for which Tobin Jones gave me a scolding for. What is wrong with her point, Mr. Jones? Is it because the ethical profs aren't supplementing their topics with radical left propaganda? Hmm? Hmmm? Hmm? What some REFUSE to understand is that the students are paying hard earned $$$$ to get an education to get qulaified for better opportunites, NOT TO LISTEN TO SOME ARROGANT PRICK EXPRESSING HATRED FOR CURRENT POLITICAL LEADERS, and NOT TO LISTEN TO SOME ARROGANT PRICK TELLING THE CLASS WHAT TO THINK ABOUT THE LATEST ISSUES OF THE DAY!

Anyways, Alarie said the prof punished her for believing Clinton should've been impeached. In my opinion, the whole Clinton impeachment was a waste of time. But should professors act as if their opinions are facts? NO! Should professors tell their students what to think about Clinton impeachment? NO! If I was a prof, I would've accepted Alarie's paper on Clinton's impeachment and just corrected the grammar, give credit for strong points, and ask for clarification on confusing points.

Alarie went on to say : The writing covering my paper were not corrections, they were my professor's opinions of why I was wrong to think the way I did about my topic. My professor wrote that my views were ridiculous and without merit

My response: Tobin might call this "supplementing" but I call this explicit indoctrination, very similar to the brainwashing "re-education camps" that the Vietnamese and North Korean communists used to punish non-communist thought! Unlike what Tobin believes, it is NOT the prof's job to tell anyone what to think about Clinton's impeachment, even though I think the whole media circus about Clinton-Monica hoo-ra was excessive, and a waste of time.

An English prof is supposed to (gasp) just correct grammar and to encourage clear expressions of ideas. I didn't mind if a prof corrected my paper's grammar. If he just did that, I would be OK with it. But a prof's arrogant attitude in conducting class and his excessive editorializing in class is unacceptable! ANd those who defend his conduct are ass kissers.

Anyways, back to Alarie's letter. She continued, saying When I was called, I said, "Abortion." Instead of moving on to the next student, my professor asked if I was going to be writing from a pro-choice or pro-life perspective. Stupidly, I responded with my true feelings on the subject and stated I was pro-life. The next thing I knew, my professor started accusing me of depriving women of choice and that I was probably just religious.

My response: If Tobin knew my actual view on abortion (I'm pro-choice) that would collapse his view of me being a "right-winger". I do disagree with the President's signing of the partial-birth abortion ban, and I dont give a shit if Tobin agrees or not! But the prof has ZERO business to tell a student to be pro-choice! A prof can join Planned Parenthood or the Right-to-Life Coalition on his/her own spare time, but the prof has ZERO business forcing his/her views in class!

Alarie continued on to say: Then the professor called on three girls who raised their hands. She proceeded to allow the women to tell me I was wrong and could only think the way I did because religious people were against abortion and I must be religious.

Any prof who allows a bunch of students to gang up on another student just for their viewpoint is super-unethical! A prof is supposed to (gasp) facilitate civilized discussion, not indoctorinate.

And here is Alarie's last paragraph addressed to (drumroll, please) Tobin Jones

To the guy who acts as if some professors do not press their ideologies on students in classrooms, my letter is just more proof of a disturbing trend that has infected universities nationwide. You may say this story is false, but one thing remains true. There are many students at this university who are afraid to express their true opinions for fear of a professor's ability to ruin a stellar GPA.

Tobin's denial of indoctorination at UH is similar to the neo-Nazi's denial of the Holocaust! Tobin doesn't mind if non-leftist students are intimidated by the politically correct thought police, because after all, he IS part of the politically correct thought police. Tobin wants to silence me, and is satisfied that I (gasp) had consideration for my classmates who didn't pay hard earned $$$ to hear me and the prof argue! But Tobin can't stop me from writing my thoughts, and writing is one way to go over the heads of arrogant profs and speak directly to students in their own time.

And yes, some students do fear for their GPA! One of my friends told me that his classmate never wrote a paper that disagreed with Tehranian's (American Studies prof) viewpoint, because he feared that she'll give him a low grade, and with a low grade, he would've lost his scholarship! These profs who claim to be for the poor and downtrodden, are the ones using their politically biased grading to intimidate those who rely on scholarships.