In my previous post, I compared the candidacy of Barack Obama to “rules for success” espoused in the independent film, The Tao of Steve. Let me humbly submit that one of my talents (and I use that term loosely) is an ability to glibly combine American cinema, Early National American history, and contemporary politics into a steaming hot succotash of mildly entertaining pop culture vignettes.
Let me also note, before anyone objects to my proclivity to write about Obama's personality, race, middle name, youth, inexperience, and, now, his lack of prowess at bowling, that the below piece aspired to be primarily tongue in cheek.
For all those who might exhort me to find some consequential issues with which to bludgeon the likely Democratic Party nominee, let me assure you that I intend to clobber Candidate Obama on the issues. This is coming. He has staked out a number of untenable policy positions and espouses an unpalatable political philosophy. And before the first Tuesday in November, you will likely read thousands of words from me on those subjects, teasing out in minute detail my objections to the direction Senator Obama proposes for the United States of America.
The Great Irony: none of that matters much, as I am convinced that Americans are determined to elect this man president--issues be damned.
But until that moment of serious (albeit irrelevant) engagement arrives, I ask your indulgence and respectfully request that you allow me my fun.
Let me also note, before anyone objects to my proclivity to write about Obama's personality, race, middle name, youth, inexperience, and, now, his lack of prowess at bowling, that the below piece aspired to be primarily tongue in cheek.
For all those who might exhort me to find some consequential issues with which to bludgeon the likely Democratic Party nominee, let me assure you that I intend to clobber Candidate Obama on the issues. This is coming. He has staked out a number of untenable policy positions and espouses an unpalatable political philosophy. And before the first Tuesday in November, you will likely read thousands of words from me on those subjects, teasing out in minute detail my objections to the direction Senator Obama proposes for the United States of America.
The Great Irony: none of that matters much, as I am convinced that Americans are determined to elect this man president--issues be damned.
But until that moment of serious (albeit irrelevant) engagement arrives, I ask your indulgence and respectfully request that you allow me my fun.
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
The independent cult film, The Tao of Steve (2000), follows the exploits of "an underachieving, overweight, overeducated former philosophy student turned Kierkegaard-quoting kindergarten teacher," lead character, Dex, whom women, inexplicably, find irresistible.*
How does an abdominous public school teacher so effortlessly seduce beautiful women?
Actually there is an explanation: The Tao of Steve.
Who is Steve?
"Steve is the prototypical cool American male. Steve McGarrett [Hawaii Five-O], Steve Austin [Six Million Dollar Man], Steve McQueen. [H]e's the guy on his horse, the guy alone. He has his own code of honor, his own code of ethics, his own rules of living. He never, ever tries to impress the women--but he always gets the girl."
How do you become Steve?
There are rules.
The first rule of Being Steve:
Eliminate your desire. "If you're out with this girl and even THINKING about sexual intercourse, you're finished, as women can smell an agenda...."
Enough said. There is not a man alive who doesn't understand this.
The second rule of Being Steve:
Be excellent in her presence. You must do something that somehow demonstrates your worthiness.
Evolutionary biology, perhaps. Something primordial draws women to men who are good at something--not necessarily something important in the grand scheme of things--but in an eco-system that favors the fittest, one must exhibit some trait worthy of natural selection.
A Personal Aside: I happily met and courted my beautiful wife (a brilliant history major) while I was king of the history geeks (two years earlier I would not have warranted a second glance). When she eventually brought me home to meet the family, it just so happened that I excelled at one of their favorite pastimes (trivial pursuit). I was Steve. Needless to say, I never let her see me dance or roller skate until after we were married.
The third rule of Being Steve:
Withdraw. According to Dex, Heidegger asserted: "We pursue that which retreats from us."
Dex: "Both men and women are interested in one another. It's natural, except we're on different timetables. Women want us, like, y'know, fifteen minutes after we want them, so alright, if you hold out for twenty she'll be chasing you for five."
Presidential Politics? Really? The connection?
In many ways, this is also the Tao of George...Washington, that is.
The old style of running for president (in the mode of the Father of our Country) was not to run at all.
After demonstrating worthiness, a proper candidate would convince all concerned that he had no desire for the office (standing rather than running--allowing the electorate to find him, rather than actively campaigning). And, finally, the statesman would withdraw to his front porch to await the call of the people--would he accept or decline their invitation? We held our breath in anticipation of the answer.
Do any of the current candidates meet this standard?
An Emphatic NO! Times have changed. The front-porch campaigns were always a bit disingenuous, but we completely abandoned that charade in the early twentieth century.
Another Aside: if the old regime were still in place, we might be getting ready for President Thompson--the person who clearly wanted to be president least.
But we are now operating under an entirely new set of rules. No one can deny that Hillary Clinton desires the Oval Office. Obviously, John McCain very much wants to be president. And, for the most part, we are okay with that. For the most part--although an overly zealous suitor may still strike us as unseemly in our deep collective subconscious.
Does Obama violate the first rule of George in an egregious manner? Perhaps. From the moment Senator Barack Obama ascended Capitol Hill, he has suffered from a severe case of Potomac Fever. Without a doubt, one day one of his biographers will entitle this chapter of his life: "Young Man in a Hurry." For as long as we have known him, this forty-six-year-old, half-term senator has shown himself too eager for elevation.
Will that hurt him with anyone other than historians of nineteenth-century American politics? Hard to say.
Less serious--but not insignificant. Last week in Pennsylvania, Candidate Obama indirectly violated the Second Rule of Being Steve: he looked foolish in front of the electorate.
To demonstrate his "regular-guyness" for some Quaker State hardhats, he bowled.
The Bad News: he bowled a 37 in seven frames. The pictures were horrible. He looked goofy in his shirtsleeves and necktie, bowling gutter balls and making excuses. For the first time in this campaign, he looked like a pathetic poser.
Full disclosure: I bowl about as well as I golf--which is not very impressive. But on a typical night, not having bowled for a couple of years, and drinking a beer or two during the course of the evening to loosen up, I am going to bowl between 100 and 140. That won't make it on the PBA Tour--but it generally puts me in the running for top male performer and usually beats the girls. Obama? For perspective, the last time I went bowling with family friends, their teenage daughter rolled a 37.
Bowling is a working man's game. Obama looked very much like a Harvard pansy ineptly pandering to the yokels. Although he probably won't get this conceit--he bowled a turkey without ever rolling a strike. I tend to think this tip-toe through the bowling alley may prove more damaging than most aristocratic pundits appreciated last week. In short, for that particular moment, Barack was very un-Steve.
Note: the quote from the first sentence comes from the Wikipedia entry for The Tao of Steve.
How does an abdominous public school teacher so effortlessly seduce beautiful women?
Actually there is an explanation: The Tao of Steve.
Who is Steve?
"Steve is the prototypical cool American male. Steve McGarrett [Hawaii Five-O], Steve Austin [Six Million Dollar Man], Steve McQueen. [H]e's the guy on his horse, the guy alone. He has his own code of honor, his own code of ethics, his own rules of living. He never, ever tries to impress the women--but he always gets the girl."
How do you become Steve?
There are rules.
The first rule of Being Steve:
Eliminate your desire. "If you're out with this girl and even THINKING about sexual intercourse, you're finished, as women can smell an agenda...."
Enough said. There is not a man alive who doesn't understand this.
The second rule of Being Steve:
Be excellent in her presence. You must do something that somehow demonstrates your worthiness.
Evolutionary biology, perhaps. Something primordial draws women to men who are good at something--not necessarily something important in the grand scheme of things--but in an eco-system that favors the fittest, one must exhibit some trait worthy of natural selection.
A Personal Aside: I happily met and courted my beautiful wife (a brilliant history major) while I was king of the history geeks (two years earlier I would not have warranted a second glance). When she eventually brought me home to meet the family, it just so happened that I excelled at one of their favorite pastimes (trivial pursuit). I was Steve. Needless to say, I never let her see me dance or roller skate until after we were married.
The third rule of Being Steve:
Withdraw. According to Dex, Heidegger asserted: "We pursue that which retreats from us."
Dex: "Both men and women are interested in one another. It's natural, except we're on different timetables. Women want us, like, y'know, fifteen minutes after we want them, so alright, if you hold out for twenty she'll be chasing you for five."
Presidential Politics? Really? The connection?
In many ways, this is also the Tao of George...Washington, that is.
The old style of running for president (in the mode of the Father of our Country) was not to run at all.
After demonstrating worthiness, a proper candidate would convince all concerned that he had no desire for the office (standing rather than running--allowing the electorate to find him, rather than actively campaigning). And, finally, the statesman would withdraw to his front porch to await the call of the people--would he accept or decline their invitation? We held our breath in anticipation of the answer.
Do any of the current candidates meet this standard?
An Emphatic NO! Times have changed. The front-porch campaigns were always a bit disingenuous, but we completely abandoned that charade in the early twentieth century.
Another Aside: if the old regime were still in place, we might be getting ready for President Thompson--the person who clearly wanted to be president least.
But we are now operating under an entirely new set of rules. No one can deny that Hillary Clinton desires the Oval Office. Obviously, John McCain very much wants to be president. And, for the most part, we are okay with that. For the most part--although an overly zealous suitor may still strike us as unseemly in our deep collective subconscious.
Does Obama violate the first rule of George in an egregious manner? Perhaps. From the moment Senator Barack Obama ascended Capitol Hill, he has suffered from a severe case of Potomac Fever. Without a doubt, one day one of his biographers will entitle this chapter of his life: "Young Man in a Hurry." For as long as we have known him, this forty-six-year-old, half-term senator has shown himself too eager for elevation.
Will that hurt him with anyone other than historians of nineteenth-century American politics? Hard to say.
Less serious--but not insignificant. Last week in Pennsylvania, Candidate Obama indirectly violated the Second Rule of Being Steve: he looked foolish in front of the electorate.
To demonstrate his "regular-guyness" for some Quaker State hardhats, he bowled.
The Bad News: he bowled a 37 in seven frames. The pictures were horrible. He looked goofy in his shirtsleeves and necktie, bowling gutter balls and making excuses. For the first time in this campaign, he looked like a pathetic poser.
Full disclosure: I bowl about as well as I golf--which is not very impressive. But on a typical night, not having bowled for a couple of years, and drinking a beer or two during the course of the evening to loosen up, I am going to bowl between 100 and 140. That won't make it on the PBA Tour--but it generally puts me in the running for top male performer and usually beats the girls. Obama? For perspective, the last time I went bowling with family friends, their teenage daughter rolled a 37.
Bowling is a working man's game. Obama looked very much like a Harvard pansy ineptly pandering to the yokels. Although he probably won't get this conceit--he bowled a turkey without ever rolling a strike. I tend to think this tip-toe through the bowling alley may prove more damaging than most aristocratic pundits appreciated last week. In short, for that particular moment, Barack was very un-Steve.
Note: the quote from the first sentence comes from the Wikipedia entry for The Tao of Steve.
Category: General
Posted by: Tocqueville
From the brilliant and provocative Neil Postman:
"Having sat through two dozen or so graduation speeches, I have naturally wondered why they are so often so bad. One reason, of course, is that the speakers are chosen for their eminence in some field, and not because they are either competent speakers or gifted writers. Another reason is that the audience is eager to be done with all ceremony so that it can proceed to some serious reveling. Thus any speech longer than, say, fifteen minutes will seem tedious, if not entirely pointless. There are other reasons as well, including the difficulty of saying something inspirational without being banal. Here I try my hand at writing a graduation speech, and not merely to discover if I can conquer the form. This is precisely what I would like to say to young people if I had their attention for a few minutes."
Hat Tip -- Rod Dreher
"Having sat through two dozen or so graduation speeches, I have naturally wondered why they are so often so bad. One reason, of course, is that the speakers are chosen for their eminence in some field, and not because they are either competent speakers or gifted writers. Another reason is that the audience is eager to be done with all ceremony so that it can proceed to some serious reveling. Thus any speech longer than, say, fifteen minutes will seem tedious, if not entirely pointless. There are other reasons as well, including the difficulty of saying something inspirational without being banal. Here I try my hand at writing a graduation speech, and not merely to discover if I can conquer the form. This is precisely what I would like to say to young people if I had their attention for a few minutes."
Hat Tip -- Rod Dreher
03/04: Barack and the Ivory Tower
Category: General
Posted by: Tocqueville
Armed with supportive evidence from Michael Barone, Stanley Kurtz makes the convincing case that, at its core, the Obama phenomenon is a product of elite academia.
Category: Farmer's Favorites
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
This week marks forty years since an assassin's bullet took the life of Martin Luther King. The highly symbolic anniversary, as well as the unforgettable metaphor of King's last speech, has tempted many to wonder aloud how close we are as a people to reaching a racial promised land.
I wrote the following a few months ago (October 2007). In the short time since, much has transpired concerning race in America. In light of this moment of commemoration, and the renewed call for conversation concerning who we are and how we come together, one day achieving the ancient American dream of E Pluribus Unum, I resubmit this candid declaration of sentiments:
Herein lie buried many things which if read with patience may show the strange meaning of being black here at the dawning of the Twentieth Century. This meaning is not without interest to you, Gentle Reader; for the problem of the Twentieth Century is the problem of the color line.
More than a century later, the problem of race in America continues to present the most daunting, toxic, and seemingly intractable cultural dilemma of our age. I am convinced that we cannot go on as we are.
We are irreversibly pointed toward a re-evaluation of racial politics in America. In the simplest terms, our current cultural standard rests on according preferences to descendants of victims of past racial discrimination and abominations at the expense of other Americans increasingly less different from the protected class and more and more unconnected to the sins of the fathers. Such a system cannot survive the coming reconciliation with basic principles of American justice and equality.
In brief, here is what I believe:
1. There is no place for discrimination based on race.
Quoting John Roberts: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
I do favor, however, discrimination based on merit, experience, potential, personality, character, previous personal history, commitment, fortitude, integrity, and attitude.
Having said all that, we are all imperfect and saved solely by grace. We do well to view our own actions and motivations with deep skepticism.
2. No person should face disproportionate punishment within the justice system based on race. No person should escape justice in America because of race.
We should accept that some black people actually commit criminal acts. Moreover, not all white sheriffs, district attorneys, and judges are racists. However, we should also accept that some members of the white power elite are racist (some overtly and some subconsciously), which leads to race-tainted injustices. We must approach individual cases with fair and open minds and then carefully weigh the facts to discern the truth in each particular situation.
Blunt assumptions and rushes to judgment are not constructive on either side of the racial divide.
3. No person should face public or personal harassment because of race. But racial slander is never a just provocation for violent reprisal.
There is no place in our culture for racially charged symbols designed to intimidate and/or humiliate. However, we are better served when we deal with hateful speech in a proportionate and reasoned manner. An "eye for an eye" is inarguably the "less excellent way"--but an “eye” for a harsh word is completely unacceptable.
4. We should not pre-judge people whom we do not know based on race. Having said that, sensitivity based on our knowledge and experience is a valuable component of our social skills set.
We should apply the Golden Rule and Christian charity in all our interactions.
5. We should not accept racial lunacy from our peers, friends, relatives and/or community leaders. Certainly, we can disagree without being disagreeable, but we should not allow destructive, erroneous, broadly crafted, conspiratorial rhetoric to go unchecked. We have the duty to stand up for truth, justice, and the American way.
Last thought:
Go out with that faith today. Go back to your homes in the Southland to that faith, with that faith today. Go back to Philadelphia, to New York, to Detroit and Chicago with that faith today: that the universe is on our side in the struggle. Stand up for justice.
Sometimes it gets hard, but it is always difficult to get out of Egypt, for the Red Sea always stands before you with discouraging dimensions. And even after you've crossed the Red Sea, you have to move through a wilderness with prodigious hilltops of evil and gigantic mountains of opposition. But I say to you this afternoon: Keep moving. Let nothing slow you up. Move on with dignity and honor and respectability.
Godspeed.
I wrote the following a few months ago (October 2007). In the short time since, much has transpired concerning race in America. In light of this moment of commemoration, and the renewed call for conversation concerning who we are and how we come together, one day achieving the ancient American dream of E Pluribus Unum, I resubmit this candid declaration of sentiments:
Herein lie buried many things which if read with patience may show the strange meaning of being black here at the dawning of the Twentieth Century. This meaning is not without interest to you, Gentle Reader; for the problem of the Twentieth Century is the problem of the color line.
W.E.B. DuBois, 1903
More than a century later, the problem of race in America continues to present the most daunting, toxic, and seemingly intractable cultural dilemma of our age. I am convinced that we cannot go on as we are.
We are irreversibly pointed toward a re-evaluation of racial politics in America. In the simplest terms, our current cultural standard rests on according preferences to descendants of victims of past racial discrimination and abominations at the expense of other Americans increasingly less different from the protected class and more and more unconnected to the sins of the fathers. Such a system cannot survive the coming reconciliation with basic principles of American justice and equality.
In brief, here is what I believe:
1. There is no place for discrimination based on race.
Quoting John Roberts: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
I do favor, however, discrimination based on merit, experience, potential, personality, character, previous personal history, commitment, fortitude, integrity, and attitude.
Having said all that, we are all imperfect and saved solely by grace. We do well to view our own actions and motivations with deep skepticism.
2. No person should face disproportionate punishment within the justice system based on race. No person should escape justice in America because of race.
We should accept that some black people actually commit criminal acts. Moreover, not all white sheriffs, district attorneys, and judges are racists. However, we should also accept that some members of the white power elite are racist (some overtly and some subconsciously), which leads to race-tainted injustices. We must approach individual cases with fair and open minds and then carefully weigh the facts to discern the truth in each particular situation.
Blunt assumptions and rushes to judgment are not constructive on either side of the racial divide.
3. No person should face public or personal harassment because of race. But racial slander is never a just provocation for violent reprisal.
There is no place in our culture for racially charged symbols designed to intimidate and/or humiliate. However, we are better served when we deal with hateful speech in a proportionate and reasoned manner. An "eye for an eye" is inarguably the "less excellent way"--but an “eye” for a harsh word is completely unacceptable.
4. We should not pre-judge people whom we do not know based on race. Having said that, sensitivity based on our knowledge and experience is a valuable component of our social skills set.
We should apply the Golden Rule and Christian charity in all our interactions.
5. We should not accept racial lunacy from our peers, friends, relatives and/or community leaders. Certainly, we can disagree without being disagreeable, but we should not allow destructive, erroneous, broadly crafted, conspiratorial rhetoric to go unchecked. We have the duty to stand up for truth, justice, and the American way.
Last thought:
Go out with that faith today. Go back to your homes in the Southland to that faith, with that faith today. Go back to Philadelphia, to New York, to Detroit and Chicago with that faith today: that the universe is on our side in the struggle. Stand up for justice.
Sometimes it gets hard, but it is always difficult to get out of Egypt, for the Red Sea always stands before you with discouraging dimensions. And even after you've crossed the Red Sea, you have to move through a wilderness with prodigious hilltops of evil and gigantic mountains of opposition. But I say to you this afternoon: Keep moving. Let nothing slow you up. Move on with dignity and honor and respectability.
Martin Luther King, Jr., 1957
Godspeed.
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
China is an old empire. It contains a variety of regions, religions, and ethnic groups forcefully brought under the control of the empire. Some regions are restive.
Tibet has been in the news recently, protesting Chinese control and the government attempts to eradicate Tibetan culture and identity. But they are not alone. Muslims in Xinjiang have been agitating for several years. They now are in full protest mode. Story here from The Times of India.
Can China remain intact? Probably. The central government has a near monopoly on force and no compunction against using it. Every dollar you spend on Chinese goods helps the government of China crush dissent.
Tibet has been in the news recently, protesting Chinese control and the government attempts to eradicate Tibetan culture and identity. But they are not alone. Muslims in Xinjiang have been agitating for several years. They now are in full protest mode. Story here from The Times of India.
Can China remain intact? Probably. The central government has a near monopoly on force and no compunction against using it. Every dollar you spend on Chinese goods helps the government of China crush dissent.
Category: US in Iraq.archive.iv
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Authentic American hero and proven military sage, General Barry R. McCaffrey, US Army (Ret.), testifies before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today. You can watch the hearing live on C-SPAN3 right now.
McCaffrey is always worth watching--and not merely because of his exemplary military service; more compelling, he expertly combines his unwavering patriotism and institutional optimism with an experienced and exacting eye, which translates into a willingness to engage in straight talk and tough love.
His penchant for brutally critical analysis continues to tempt partisans and unfriendly journalists to cherry-pick his statements, using select portions of his assessments to buttress the drumbeat of U.S. failure in Iraq.
You may read a previous example of this practice noted here approximately a year ago: The Real Barry McCaffrey Stands Up (which may be helpful for context).
McCaffrey appeared on C-SPAN's Washington Journal this morning. I expect an individual dedicated link later today--which I will add at that time.
Must See TV.
McCaffrey is always worth watching--and not merely because of his exemplary military service; more compelling, he expertly combines his unwavering patriotism and institutional optimism with an experienced and exacting eye, which translates into a willingness to engage in straight talk and tough love.
His penchant for brutally critical analysis continues to tempt partisans and unfriendly journalists to cherry-pick his statements, using select portions of his assessments to buttress the drumbeat of U.S. failure in Iraq.
You may read a previous example of this practice noted here approximately a year ago: The Real Barry McCaffrey Stands Up (which may be helpful for context).
McCaffrey appeared on C-SPAN's Washington Journal this morning. I expect an individual dedicated link later today--which I will add at that time.
Must See TV.
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Peter Wehner, a former deputy assistant to President George W. Bush, and currently a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, writing this morning in the Wall Street Journal, asserts that Barack "Obama's record reveals him to be a doctrinaire liberal." Mr. Wehner picks up on a point with which Bosque Boys readers are familiar, but furthers the discussion with an enumeration of offensive policy positions and a helpful analysis of how the Republican candidate, John McCain, might address this unexpected opportunity:
"Mr. McCain needs to present a compelling case on the foundational beliefs that divide liberalism and conservatism – on matters like the size and role of government, competition and accountability in education, health care, and whether higher taxes encourage or retard economic growth. Mr. McCain also needs to force a debate on the proper role of the judiciary, the protection owed to unborn children and the rights owed to unlawful enemy combatants, and whether promoting liberty should be a central aim of American foreign policy in combating militant Islam.
"Mr. McCain needs to become an educator-in-chief on matters of political philosophy. He won't be able to fulfill that role nearly as well as Reagan, who was a philosophical conservative in the way that Mr. McCain (and most other Republican politicians) is not. And Mr. McCain himself has, until now, been sui generis on matters of conservatism. His challenge is to make his case well enough to convince Americans not only that Mr. Obama is a liberal, but that having a liberal in the White House would do real damage to our country."
We welcome this constructive addition to this increasingly vital and relevant conversation.
"Mr. McCain needs to present a compelling case on the foundational beliefs that divide liberalism and conservatism – on matters like the size and role of government, competition and accountability in education, health care, and whether higher taxes encourage or retard economic growth. Mr. McCain also needs to force a debate on the proper role of the judiciary, the protection owed to unborn children and the rights owed to unlawful enemy combatants, and whether promoting liberty should be a central aim of American foreign policy in combating militant Islam.
"Mr. McCain needs to become an educator-in-chief on matters of political philosophy. He won't be able to fulfill that role nearly as well as Reagan, who was a philosophical conservative in the way that Mr. McCain (and most other Republican politicians) is not. And Mr. McCain himself has, until now, been sui generis on matters of conservatism. His challenge is to make his case well enough to convince Americans not only that Mr. Obama is a liberal, but that having a liberal in the White House would do real damage to our country."
We welcome this constructive addition to this increasingly vital and relevant conversation.
The story is making the rounds of the blogosphere that Hillary was fired from her position on the Watergate Hearings. Or, in another variation, that she was not fired, but when the procedures ended her boss would not give her a letter of recommendation. Only one of the blogs I've read this information on linked to the actual source. The source is Jerry Zeifman, Former Counsel, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, who would have been Hillary's boss during the Watergate Hearings.
Here is his article in Accuracy in Media.
The essay opens:
I have just seen Hillary Clinton and her former Yale law professor both in tears at a campaign rally here in my home state of Connecticut. Her tearful professor said how proud he was that his former student was likely to become our next President. Hillary responded in tears.
My own reaction was of regret that, when I terminated her employment on the Nixon impeachment staff, I had not reported her unethical practices to the appropriate bar associations.
Hillary as I knew her in 1974
At the time of Watergate I had overall supervisory authority over the House Judiciary Committee's Impeachment Inquiry staff that included Hillary Rodham-who was later to become First Lady in the Clinton White House.
Here is his website,
The article of interest is most of the way down the page and entitled
HILLARY'S WATERGATE SCANDAL
The opening paragraph reads:
In December 1974, as general counsel and chief of staff of the House
Judiciary Committee, I made a personal evaluation of Hillary Rodham
(now Senator Clinton), a member of the staff we had gathered for our
impeachment inquiry on President Richard Nixon. I decided that I could
not recommend her for any future position of public or private trust.
We'll see if this story develops further.
Here is his article in Accuracy in Media.
The essay opens:
I have just seen Hillary Clinton and her former Yale law professor both in tears at a campaign rally here in my home state of Connecticut. Her tearful professor said how proud he was that his former student was likely to become our next President. Hillary responded in tears.
My own reaction was of regret that, when I terminated her employment on the Nixon impeachment staff, I had not reported her unethical practices to the appropriate bar associations.
Hillary as I knew her in 1974
At the time of Watergate I had overall supervisory authority over the House Judiciary Committee's Impeachment Inquiry staff that included Hillary Rodham-who was later to become First Lady in the Clinton White House.
Here is his website,
The article of interest is most of the way down the page and entitled
HILLARY'S WATERGATE SCANDAL
The opening paragraph reads:
In December 1974, as general counsel and chief of staff of the House
Judiciary Committee, I made a personal evaluation of Hillary Rodham
(now Senator Clinton), a member of the staff we had gathered for our
impeachment inquiry on President Richard Nixon. I decided that I could
not recommend her for any future position of public or private trust.
We'll see if this story develops further.
For those of us who cannot speak or understand Arabic, MEMRI TV provides an invaluable service. MEMRI records Arabic television then provides English translation across the bottom of the screen. Here are some examples of the hate-filled stuff being seen in the Arab world.
#1722 - Hamas Cleric Wael Al-Zarad Calls for the Annihilation of Jews and States: If Each Arab Spat on the Jews, They Would Drown in Arab Spit
Al-Aqsa TV (Hamas/Gaza) -
February 28, 2008 - 00:02:42
#669 - Palestinian Friday Sermon by Sheik Ibrahim Mudeiris: Muslims Will Rule America and Britain, Jews Are a Virus Resembling AIDS
Palestinian Authority TV -
May 13, 2005 - 00:04:56
#1049 - Film Seminar on Iranian TV: Tom and Jerry - A Jewish Conspiracy to Improve the Image of Mice, because Jews Were Termed "Dirty Mice" in Europe
Channel 4 (Iran) -
February 19, 2006 - 00:03:20
To see these and many, many more, go to the website of MEMRI.
#1722 - Hamas Cleric Wael Al-Zarad Calls for the Annihilation of Jews and States: If Each Arab Spat on the Jews, They Would Drown in Arab Spit
Al-Aqsa TV (Hamas/Gaza) -
February 28, 2008 - 00:02:42
#669 - Palestinian Friday Sermon by Sheik Ibrahim Mudeiris: Muslims Will Rule America and Britain, Jews Are a Virus Resembling AIDS
Palestinian Authority TV -
May 13, 2005 - 00:04:56
#1049 - Film Seminar on Iranian TV: Tom and Jerry - A Jewish Conspiracy to Improve the Image of Mice, because Jews Were Termed "Dirty Mice" in Europe
Channel 4 (Iran) -
February 19, 2006 - 00:03:20
To see these and many, many more, go to the website of MEMRI.
