It is good, every now and again, to be reminded of how stupid, or evil, or both, some people can be. Case in point is one Iraqi ex-pat by the name of Andy Shallal, who established the lefty hangout Busboys and Poets.

Shallal has put up images of Che and Lenin in his eating establishment. Two mass murderers; nothing to see here, folks, move along…Shallal, who apparently escaped from Saddam’s Iraq (or was he one of Saddam’s able helpers; Shallal seems to have an affinity for brutal tyrants) is either stupid or evil to believe what is attributed to him in today’s WaPo. From an email cited by the Post:

Guevara and Lenin “represent the struggles of working people. . . . They fought against the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few.”

If tens of millions had to be tortured, sent to gulags, or killed outright in the fight “against the accumulation of wealth,” well, hard cheese: the People must be served.

Asshole is too kind a word for a man described as “liberal activist.” Used to be, liberals fought against tyrants. Used to be, liberals fought against tyrannical regimes that claimed to be of and for the people, yet brutally oppressed them. Ask FDR, Harry Truman, JFK. They were liberals all, but knew tyranny when they saw it.

Today, the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, is an apt reminder that tyranny is ever ready to rob people of their liberty, and, in the case of Che and Lenin, of their very lives. All in the name of the people, or course.

As for Che and Lenin, sic semper tyrannis. Those who would impose brutal tyranny in the name of the people over the people must be resisted. If Shallal and others who think that celebrating tyrants is harmless, ask the women Afghanistan who live under the Taliban; ask the women in Saudi Arabia; ask homosexuals in Iran; ask the Afro Cubans in prison in Cuba, thanks to Che’s brutality, enforced by the evil Castro brothers. The list is long, and will never want for new victims — as long as tyrants have their idiot enablers, such as Shallal.

If they are going to send idiots like Eleanor Holmes Norton to be their non-voting delegate in Congress, then it’s best for the country that they don’t get real congressmen or senators, who could do some real damage. “They” being the citizens of the People’s Republic of Columbia, otherwise known as our Nation’s Capital.

The latest from Holmes Norton is a parody of what seems to motivate the Left these days: a rabid combination of hyper-nannyism and blame-the-other-guys for your own troubles. Here’s the money quote, via The Hill:

“The District has a higher HIV/AIDS rate than cities with similar demographics in large part because of riders attached by Republicans,” Norton wrote in a letter on Tuesday. Republican efforts came “at the cost of many lives and illness caused by the spread of the virus,” she said.

Damn those flinty-eyed Bush Republicans. It’s all their fault. Let’s see. AIDS is caused by “riders attached by Republicans.” Hmm; that makes perfect sense.

No, Ellie baby. HIV and AIDS are caused, overwhelmingly, by personal choices: unprotected sex, mostly of the gay kind, and sharing needles to take illegal drugs. Yes, there are some innocent victims: newborns whose mamas are or were drug users; the occasional blood transfusion. Hopefully the latter cause is extraordinarily rare, thanks to vigilant screening of blood supplies by hospitals and blood banks.

But still, if you’ve got HIV or AIDS, chances are close to certain that you’ve brought it on yourself. “[R]iders attached by Republicans” did not cause you to stick your penis up another guy’s butt sans condom; “riders attached by Republicans” did not force you to take illegal drugs.

Look, those who contract HIV have our sympathy; just because their disease is self-inflicted doesn’t mean they are less deserving of medical care. Just as those who eat themselves into heart disease and diabetes are not less deserving. But let’s not blame others for our failures. The nanny state should not even attempt to take the place of personal responsibility. Inevitably, our personal choices are what we live, and die, by.

In the world of Holmes Norton, it is all on government to prevent us from doing harm to ourselves. In this Leftworld, the nanny state exists to run every facet of our lives, to protect us from hard surfaces, hangnails, running with scissors, and other vicissitudes of life. When such protection fails, as it must, the Leftworld of Holmes Norton blame us evil Republican baby-eaters.

From Victor Davis Hanson, a quick summary of what we should be striving towards:

Republicans should be learning that instead of triangulating and seeking to ingratiate themselves as enlightened moderates, they need a strong, coherent alternative message that stresses the basics: balanced budgets; no more tax increases; energy exploration and development of more nuclear plants, natural gas, oil, clean coal, etc.; zero tolerance for congressional corruption; resolve in Afghanistan; strong national defense; confidence in American exceptionalism; an end to illegal immigration; and strict-constructionist jurists — all under the banner of restoring America’s confidence, fiscal health, international prominence, and reverence for its past.

VDH addresses his comments to Republicans, of which I am one. But these things are what all Americans should strive for.

Chris Christie is New Jersey’s governor-elect. He won in a three-man race, besting incumbent Jon Corzine by about 4 percent.

Close? In Virginia, maybe, a four percent spread would be considered close. In New Jersey, which went for Obama by 15 points last year, this is a tidal wave. A turn against Democrat corruption and bribery of the electorate. A turn against the huge tax burden imposed by Democrats in New Jersey (highest property taxes in America). And, I daresay, a turn against Obama’s leftist policies.

Was this a referendum on Obama? Not personally; they most likely still like Obama. He’s a smooth talker, at least with a teleprompter. But his policies? Not so much. Therein lies the problem for Obama and Democrats nationally: they can’t keep pushing big government and more taxes. Voters don’t like these things. A lot.

I heard a liberal commentator refer to Christie’s win as a being a “squeaker.” Well, liberals, that pig won’t squeal. This election was anything but a “squeaker.” It was a solid defeat for Democrats, locally, and nationally. New Jersey, as here in Virginia, saw voters rebel against too much government. Against high taxes. Yes, this is Obama’s core: government doing everything and spending other people’s money doing it.

Next year, there will be at least 48 Democrat representatives who must face reelection, representatives who were elected in districts that had gone for Republicans in 2000, 2004, and, yes, wait for it, 2008. These cats are nervous, or should be: if they go along with horrendous increases in taxes and government control that have been sewn into the sausage that is the House version of the health care “reform” bill, then these Dems could also be gone this time in 2010.

Voters in New Jersey and Virginia have been paying attention. Obama says he was watching a basketball game last night, rather than focusing on the election returns. Keep watching, Barack. You’ll have plenty of time for that after January 20, 2013.

Dede Scozzafava, (RINO-NY) has shown her true colors. From the Watertown Daily News, this sums it up:

Please join me in voting for Bill Owens [the Democrat] on Tuesday. To address the tough challenges ahead, we must rise above partisanship and politics and work together. There’s too much at stake in this election to do otherwise.

She’s right. There’s too much at stake in this election. What’s wrong is that Scozzafava, who yesterday seemed to be appealing to Republican Party unity, today shows she’s content to support another vote for Nancy Pelosi in the House.

She may be a sore loser, having been drubbed by Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman in the polls. She is, no matter what else, just a loser who simply did not have the personality or campaign to appeal to conservatives in the north country of New York. And, take it from this New York City native who went to college upstate, New York’s 23rd CD is a different country that New York City.

It is conservative; American; not terribly “cosmopolitan.” Not fertile territory for Democrats, who have not won the seat for over a century.

As for whether Scozzafava is viewed as a sore loser, the tally will be in this Tuesday night. If Doug Hoffman wins, this should send a warning shot over the bow of the Obamatons: we’re taking back America, one election at a time.

Honoring himself, not the fallen brave

A real leader might have gone without the press entourage. Might have; President Bush met with the families of some of the fallen, and in private. It’s what a leader does: give comfort; don’t seek the limelight. Obama again demonstrates a lack of class, even as his drooling acolytes in the media claim the opposite. A class act would not have had any pictures taken; a class act would not have the ludicrous picture of a civilian giving a military salute.

In case he didn’t know, it is disrespectful of those in uniform to render a military salute when you are not in uniform. Especially when you’ve never been in uniform. But that’s small point, and perhaps some of the his staff, like retired Marine Commandant James Jones, could give Obama some private advice on this score.

Is there a political message in Obama’s trip to Dover? Of course, everything Obama does is calculated for his personal gain. In this case, it seems likely that the trip, “honoring” the military, is really a continuation of the left’s continuing drumbeat of “peace now” at any price. The incessant focus on the costs of the war (e.g. the Washington Post’s egregious “faces of the fallen”) may be preparing us for “McChrystal Lite,” with the message being “this war is too horrible to commit 40,000 more Americans to; let’s get it done on the cheap.”

Look, friends: war sucks. It is horrible. Men die, and so far, in Afghanistan, they appear to be dying to keep the opium flowing. However, they are also dying to prevent the Taliban’s resurgence. That’s a very good thing. And no, Barack and Hillary, there are no “moderate” Taliban.

So, Barack, make a damned decision. All in, or all out. No more of these half-assed, politically calibrated measures. Man up for once in your life. And whichever way you go, stand tall.

Shocked, shocked, we are: Iran has rejected the sweetheart deal brokered by the pro-Iran IAEA, the pro-Iran Russkies, the feckless French, and, Obambi the Appeaser and his outstretched hoof.

Turns out the mullahs were doing exactly what they wanted to: pretend to agree to cease-and-desist, have endless talks about nothing with the fools from Obamaland, and, then, at the right moment, go back to square one.

You can read all about it here, and here are some key words:

The long-awaited Iranian answer appeared to dash hopes that Tehran would be willing to quickly embrace engagement with the West on its nuclear program.

Key words among those key words are “long-awaited.” Iran’s game plan is to simply extend the talks indefinitely, appearing to agree, then reneging. The Iranians know that the West, nominally led by Obambi, will not have the stomach to do what must be done: bomb the crap out of Iran, until they surrender. Destroy their military, decapitate their leadership, until they surrender. No, not on Obama’s watch. His only tool is talk; he lacks the courage to do anything else. Mustn’t disturb his leftist base.

Iran knows this will never happen, and the Russkies, by providing world-class anti-aircraft technology to Iran, will ensure that Israel will not be able to destroy Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

The central point? Absent an American foreign policy that is backed by military force, Iran will not change its course. Pretty speeches from the (TOTUS) TelePrompTer of the United States will not change their course.

Last night, Charles Krauthammer had this to say about the Ditherer-in-Chief:

I want to point out one thing about what Obama had said when he talked about “the long years of drift.” There is something truly disgusting about the way he cannot refrain from attacking Bush when he’s being defensive about himself. I mean, it’s beyond disgraceful here. He won election a year ago. He became the Commander [in] Chief two months later. He announced his own strategy — not the Bush strategy, his strategy — six months ago, and it wasn’t off-handed, it was in a major address, with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense standing with him. And now he’s still talking about “the drift” in the Bush years. What’s happening today is not a result of the drift, so-called, of the Bush years, it’s because of the drift in his years. It’s because of the flaws in his own strategy, which is what he’s actively examining.

The more Obama drifts, and votes “present,” the more Americans can see him for what he is: an impostor, a phony, an egoist who does not give a damn about our men and women in harm’s way. Who only cares about his own standing, about having the media and Hollywood and other liberal bastions continue to bow and scrape.

By the way, if the previous administration was so lousy in its prosecution of the war in Afghanistan, why on earth did he keep Bob Gates on as Secretary of Defense?

Best two-word description of Obama’s foreign policy, from Charles Krauthammer’s interview with der Spiegel. Here is a tasty extract, with the good Doctor K. shredding Obama’s “realism”:

SPIEGEL: Are you saying that diplomacy always fails?

Krauthammer: No, foolishness does. Perhaps when he gets nowhere on Iran, nowhere with North Korea, when he gets nothing from the Russians in return for what he did to the Poles and the Czechs, gets nowhere in the Middle East peace talks — maybe at that point he’ll begin to rethink whether the world really runs by international norms, consensus, and sweetness and light, or whether it rests on the foundation of American and Western power that, in the final analysis, guarantees peace.

SPIEGEL: That is the cynical approach.

Krauthammer: The realist approach. Henry Kissinger once said that peace can be achieved only one of two ways: hegemony or balance of power. Now that is real realism. What the Obama administration pretends is realism is naïve nonsense.

Read the entire interview; one of the best treatments by a civil but sharp-minded opponent of Obamatude.

Science score by race

The Wall Street Journal has an important discussion up today on the sad state of math and science education. We lag behind a goodly number of other developed nations, and this is not a new phenomenon.

One factor that does not get mentioned in the WSJ discussion is race. It turns out that, at least since 1970, blacks and hispanics have depressed our averages in science, and, I’d be willing to bet large, math. On science, the chart shown here (source document) is depressing evidence of the lack of progress among blacks in the period 197-1999. Whites did not improve, but remain about 17% ahead of blacks.

The differences between whites and blacks have been essentially static over the 29 years covered by the data; chances are that nothing significant has changed since 1999.

So, without blacks we’d be a better country, math and science-wise? Likely. But we don’t have that choice. The question before the house ought to be, “how do we improve black and hispanic achievement in math and science?” The worst choice would be to dumb down math and science education so that blacks and hispanics appear to be doing as well as whites.

The second worst choice would be to simply throw more money at schools with large numbers of black and hispanic students. Washington, D.C. schools come to mind: mostly black; most per-capita expenditures of all major school systems; continuing lousy results, well below national standards.

The best choice? Maintain standards, fast-track the brightest, stop pretending that all students have the same abilities, and stop trying to prepare everyone for a college education that they can not possibly benefit from.

It’s not important that everyone do well in math and science. It is vitally important that we have enough bright students who can lead our nation in math and science, regardless of any racial calculus.

It’s ok if blacks are under-represented in the sciences, just as it is ok for whites to be under-represented in pro football and basketball.