Sunday, 04 November 2007


Ken Berwitz

Here, from, of all places, the (New York Times owned) Boston Globe, is a devastating first-hand account of the real Cuba and the real Fidel Castro.  Please read every word.:


My father's 'crime'

IN 2002, I joined my father at a peaceful gathering in Havana of Cubans eager to see freedom and democracy restored to our country. Forces of President Fidel Castro's regime were lying in wait, and as they set upon us, my father urged me to run. Reluctantly, I obeyed, and as I ran, I saw him and the others being beaten and taken into custody.

As they took my father away, he yelled to the gathering crowd, "Long live human rights!" So today, when debate rages in the United States about what should be done about Cuba, the question for me is deeply personal. My father, Oscar Elias Biscet, is a political dissident who has been jailed by the Castro regime for many years because of his support for democracy and human rights in Cuba.

My father is not alone. Many Cubans - both inside and outside of Cuba - have been resisting the Castro regime for decades, calling for freedom for all Cubans. But my father's imprisonment serves as a reminder of what the Cuba debate is really all about - not a debate concerning sanctions or engagement - but individual human beings yearning to be free.

My father was born and raised in Cuba, and he trained to be a medical doctor. Working in Castro's hospitals, he saw firsthand the regime's terrible policy of enforced abortions. He publicly objected to this practice, and lost his job and his license as a result. He went on to found an organization, the Lawton Foundation for Human Rights.

For his activism, my father has been punished severely by the Castro regime. He has spent almost a decade in prison, and is serving a 25-year sentence. He has been held in inhumane conditions, sometimes together with violent criminals, and at other times in isolation and total darkness for extended periods. He has lost more than 40 pounds as well as most of his teeth. His crime? Calling for respect for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Cuba.

My father has been put on trial several times by the Castro regime. Each time, the regime painted his nonviolent, freedom-loving activities as a threat to the security of the state. These illegal proceedings have been widely criticized by many, including the United Nations, which has called upon the Castro regime to release my father.

It is not easy to be the child of a prisoner of conscience. I was a teenager when my father was arrested for the first time. He has been arrested dozens of occasions since then, often without warning, often at night, and it is a frightening experience every time. Nonetheless, my father always met Castro's thugs at the door with dignity, and he has held his head high.

But more clearly than the arrests, the public beatings, the times my family was forced to hide, I remember my father telling me that we all have an obligation to stand up for our freedom. In his letters from prison, he has remained resolute and unapologetic - repeating that freedom is worth the sacrifice. I live in the United States now, and I appreciate its liberties every day. But, like my father, I yearn to live in a free Cuba.

My father has been inspired by the examples of others who peacefully and tirelessly have promoted the rights of all people. And he, in turn, is an inspiration to me and to countless others in Cuba and around the world.

I will be in Washington tomorrow with my sister to accept the Presidential Medal of Freedom on behalf of our father. In recognizing him, President Bush will honor all those who have dedicated their lives to opposing the current regime and advocating for freedom and democracy in Cuba. And this honor could not come at a better time, as the Castro regime is on the cusp of a remarkable transition.

As the debate about what to do next about Cuba continues in the United States, we must remember my father and all those oppressed by the current regime. We must rededicate ourselves to seeing this fight through to the end on their behalf.

Yan Valdes Morejon, a resident of Miami, is the son of imprisoned dissident Oscar Elias Biscet .

Don't hold your breath waiting for a rebuttal from michael moore, whose movie "Sicko" extolled the wonderful health care in Cuba and, more generally, what a great place it is to live.

Happily, the movie-going public wasn't buying this bilge, as demonstrated by the fact that "Sicko" did about 15% the box office of moore's last USA bashing BS. 

The receipts for this idiot's delight are so bad that, in recent days, they have been trying to hawk "Sicko" on DVD, as a comedy. That's not a sarcasm either, they really are.

Maybe fidel and michael should run as a ticket in the next "free" Cuban election.   



Ken Berwitz

If this were, say, January 12th, the above title wouldn't mean much.  But it is November 4th, so we've gone through a lot of headlines this year and this one must be pretty funny.

Thanks to the Associated Press and for providing the comic relief, which I think you'll find in their headline and the first couple of paragraphs I've excerpted below:.

Israel acknowledges problems with peace talks

Negotiatior's admission comes at outset of U.S. Secretary of State's visit

updated 1 hour, 1 minute ago

JERUSALEM - At the outset of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rices latest diplomatic mission to the region, Israels top negotiator acknowledged on Sunday that there were problems trying to frame a blueprint for a peace deal with the Palestinians.

The two sides are at odds over whether the blueprint should spell out ways to resolve issues that have derailed peace talks in the past namely, final borders between Israel and a future Palestinian state, sovereignty over disputed Jerusalem, and a solution for Palestinians who became refugees after Israels creation in 1948.

Israeli and Palestinian teams have been meeting in hopes of reaching the outlines of a future peace agreement, which they hope to present at a U.S.-hosted Mideast conference expected later this year. .

The creation of Israel, as a modern, secular state, was agreed to by the United Nations in 1947 - arguably the last thing this sorry organization ever did for the country.  Israel became a state in 1948.

Since then "palestinians" (a ludicrous term, since Israelis, Jewish and non-Jewish, are as much palestinians as Arabs in Gaza or Judea and Samaria, which is known as the west bank), have been at war with Israel.  They do not consider Israel a legitimate state.  Most "palestinians" want Israel to disappear with every Jew gone or dead, preferably dead.

The world - from different perspectives depending on which parts of it we're talking about, has tried to produce a solution to this issue for the last 59 years without success.  It is 2007 and Israel still intends to exist while "palestinians" still intend to end Israel with all Jews either gone or dead, preferably dead.  No difference at all.

"Peace talks" between Israel and "palestinians" have gone on for 40 years.  They have never resulted in anything but Israel making tangible concessions in return for promises that it would be recognized as a sovereign state and left alone in peace, then finding it gets neither.  That remains unchanged, because the intent of "palestinians" remains unchanged.  No difference at all.

So what does the headline say?  that Israel "Acknowledges" there are problems with peace talks?  Like they didn't think there was a problem making peace until the last day or two?

And what does the sub-head say?  That this is some kind of "admission", as if the negotiator had been claiming there was a peace deal all this time and now has to reverse field and change the story?

And what does the lead paragraph say?  That . "Israels top negotiator acknowledged on Sunday that there were problems trying to frame a blueprint for a peace deal with the Palestinians"? .  As if the negotiator had, until Sunday, told us there was complete accord between the two parties?

Ok, I admit it is black humor.  Very black humor.  But if you can't laugh at the way this article is written - while shaking your head in amazement at the naivete of the writer and the editor who allowed it to be published as is - then you have no sense of humor.


Ken Berwitz

Have you noticed how, as the news gets better from Iraq, the war in Iraq gets less and less press coverage?

Here, courtesy of the Associated Press, is a case in point:.

Thousands Return to Safer Iraqi Capital

BAGHDAD (AP) In a dramatic turnaround, more than 3,000 Iraqi families driven out of their Baghdad neighborhoods have returned to their homes in the past three months as sectarian violence has dropped, the government said Saturday.

Saad al-Azawi, his wife and four children are among them. They fled to Syria six months ago, leaving behind what had become one of the capital's more dangerous districts west Baghdad's largely Sunni Khadra region.

The family had been living inside a vicious and bloody turf battle between al-Qaida in Iraq and Mahdi Army militiamen. But Azawi said things began changing, becoming more peaceful, in August when radical anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr ordered his Mahdi Army fighters to stand down nationwide.

About the same time, the Khadra neighborhood Awakening Council rose up against brutal al-Qaida control the imposition of its austere interpretation of Islam, along with the murder and torture of those who would not comply.

The uprising originated in Iraq's west and flowed into the capital. Earlier this year, the Sunni tribes and clans in the vast Anbar province began their own revolt and have successfully rid the largely desert region of al-Qaida control.

At one point the terrorist group virtually controlled Anbar, often with the complicity of the vast Sunni majority who welcomed the outsiders in their fight against American forces.

But, U.S. officials say, al-Qaida overplayed its hand with Iraq's Sunnis, who practice a moderate version of Islam. American forces were quick to capitalize on the upheaval, welcoming former Sunni enemies as colleagues in securing what was once the most dangerous region of the country.

And as 30,000 additional U.S. forces arrived for the crackdown in Baghdad and central Iraq, the American commander, Gen. David Petraeus, began stationing many of them in neighborhood outposts. The mission was not only to take back control but to foster neighborhood groups like the one in Khadra to shake off al-Qaida's grip.

The 40-year-old al-Azawi, who has gone back to work managing a car service, said relatives and friends persuaded him to bring his family home.

"Six months ago, I wouldn't dare be outside, not even to stand near the garden gate by the street. Killings had become routine. I stopped going to work, I was so afraid," he said, chatting with friends on a street in the neighborhood.

When he and his family joined the flood of Iraqi refugees to Syria the streets were empty by early afternoon, when all shops were tightly shuttered. Now the stores stay open until 10 p.m. and the U.S. military working with the neighborhood council is handing out $2,000 grants to shop owners who had closed their business. The money goes to those who agree to reopen or first-time businessmen.

Al-Azawi said he's trying to get one of the grants to open a poultry and egg shop that his brother would run.

"In Khadra, about 15 families have returned from Syria. I've called friends and family still there and told them it's safe to come home," he said.

Sattar Nawrous, a spokesman for the Ministry of Displacement and Migration, said the al-Azawi family was among 3,100 that have returned to their homes in Baghdad in the past 90 days.

"In the past three months, the ministry did not register any forced displacement in the whole of Iraq," said Nawrous, who is a Kurd.

The claim could not be independently verified, but, if true, it would represent a dramatic end to the sectarian cleansing that has shredded the fabric of Baghdad's once mixed society.

The head of the ministry is Abdul-Samad Rahman, a Shiite appointed to his job by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who is accused of promoting the Shiite cause to the detriment of Sunnis. Under Saddam Hussein, the Sunni minority ruled and heavily oppressed many in the Shiite majority.

Part of the inflow can be attributed to stiffening of visa and residency procedures for Iraqis by the Syrian government.

Mahmoud al-Zubaidi, who runs the Iraqi Airways office in Damascus, the Syrian capital, the flow of Iraqis has almost reversed.

What were once full flights arriving from Baghdad now touch down virtually empty, he told Al-Sabah, the government funded Iraqi daily newspaper. Now the flights are leaving Damascus with more passengers but the volume of travel is off considerably.

On average, 56 Iraqis civilians and security forces have died each day so far in this very bloody year. Last month, however, the toll fell to just under 30 Iraqis killed daily in sectarian violence.

More than four months after U.S. forces completed a 30,000-strong force buildup, the death toll for both Iraqis and Americans has fallen dramatically for two months running.

Across Iraq Saturday, 18 people were killed or found dead in sectarian violence, well below the year's daily average. .

Virtually every news organization subscribes to the AP and gets its dispatches.  How many do you figure will use this story?  How many do you figure will make it a lead or near-lead story?

To address this question, note how Iraq has fallen back in the news as the troop surge has taken effect.  That's where you'll find your answer.

Here's the problem:  If the troop surge is working, and fewer people are dying, and more Iraqis are coming back into the country than fleeing it, then (gasp!!) President Bush did something right and (double gasp!!!!) the Iraq war may be winnable.

That possibility is so far afield of the political model which mainstream media have pushed on us all this time, that many news venues will look like fools if they report it.  So I am betting they either won't report it at all, or will mention it in passing the next time there is a setback in Iraq - say, a "successful" car bombing in a market or an al qaeda IED hitting a military convoy. 

Then they can slip it in, amid the bad news, and say "see, we report both sides".  Pathetic.

And while we're on the subject, has anyone recently heard from senate malaise leader harry reid on how the surge is a failure and the war is lost? 

Which side are these people rooting for, anyway?


Ken Berwitz

I think it would be fair to say that does not like the Washington Post. 

If you had any doubt about their feelings regarding the Post, the following piece should disabuse you of it. 

That said, however, the sweetness-light folks have posted key findings from the latest ABC/Washington Post poll which was just released, and have put up a very thought provoking commentary about them.  Essentially they feel the poll is cooked and the people are ignorant.

Here, see for yourself:.

WP Poll Respondents Hopelessly Uninformed

November 4th, 2007

From the DNCs lickspittle minions at the Washington Post:

Poll Finds Americans Pessimistic, Want Change

War, Economy, Politics Sour Views of Nations Direction

By Dan Balz and Jon Cohen
Sunday, November 4, 2007; A01

One year out from the 2008 election, Americans are deeply pessimistic and eager for a change in direction from the agenda and priorities of President Bush, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Concern about the economy, the war in Iraq and growing dissatisfaction with the political environment in Washington all contribute to the lowest public assessment of the direction of the country in more than a decade. Just 24 percent think the nation is on the right track, and three-quarters said they want the next president to chart a course that is different than that pursued by Bush.

Overwhelmingly, Democrats want a new direction, but so do three-quarters of independents and even half of Republicans. Sixty percent of all Americans said they feel strongly that such a change is needed after two terms of the Bush presidency.

Dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq remains a primary drag on public opinion, and Americans are increasingly downcast about the state of the economy. More than six in 10 called the war not worth fighting, and nearly two-thirds gave the national economy negative marks. The outlook going forward is also bleak: About seven in 10 see a recession as likely over the next year

At this point, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), the Democratic front-runner, holds the edge in hypothetical match-ups with four of the top contenders for the Republican nomination

Clinton finds herself atop all candidates in terms of strong favorability in the poll, 28 percent said they feel strongly favorable toward her

Overall, the publics sour mood is evident not only in the desire for a change in direction but also in assessments of those who control the reins of power in Washington

In follow-up interviews, people were quick to find fault with what they see in Washington and to express their desire for something different. I think Bush has been extremely polarizing to the country, said Amber Welsh, a full-time mother of three young children who lives in Davis, Calif

Whatever their dissatisfaction with the Democrats, however, a majority of Americans, 54 percent, said they want the party to emerge from the 2008 election in control of Congress

The Democratic Party holds double-digit leads over the GOP as the party most trusted to handle the three most frequently cited issues for 2008: Iraq, health care and the economy. The Democratic advantages on immigration and taxes are narrower, and the parties are at rough parity on terrorism, once a major Republican strong point.

There are other signs suggesting that the political landscape has become less favorable to Republicans than it was at the beginning of Bushs presidency. By 50 percent to 44 percent, Americans said they favor smaller government with fewer services over bigger government with more services long a key Republican argument. But support for smaller government is significantly lower than it was before both the 2000 and 2002 elections.

In the new poll, support for allowing same-sex civil unions is up significantly from 2004. A majority of respondents, 55 percent, now support giving homosexual couples some of the legal rights of married heterosexuals.

There is a more even divide on another hot-button issue: Fifty-one percent would support a program giving illegal immigrants now living in the United States the right to live here legally if they pay a fine and meet other requirements; 44 percent would oppose that

Lets see. We have clearly turned a corner in Iraq and appear by all measures to be winning the peace.

The US economy has now experienced six years of uninterrupted growth, averaging more than 2.8 percent a year since 2001. The stock market is higher than ever.

Real after-tax per capita personal income has risen by 12.7 percent, an average of over $3,800 per person, since Mr. Bush took office.

Unemployment has been at lower rate than Clinton claimed possible for years. There has been job growth for fifty months, the longest period on record.

And yet the respondents to this poll believed we the Democrats would do a better job handling the war and the economy and of course health care.

More amazingly still, the Post claims that those polled are concerned about the negative tone in Washington. But they nevertheless intend to vote for Democrats (like Pelosi and Reid) and elect the woman who invented the politics of personal destruction President.

And lo and behold, the poll finds that a majority just happen to be for bigger government, gay marriage, amnesty for illegals and every other issue that the Democrats and their media lackeys like the Washington Post endlessly espouse.

Whats not to believe?


S&Ls Gila Monster has pointed out in a comment that while the Washington Post failed to reveal the demographics behind this poll, their partners in crime at ABC did manage to provide a link (pdf file).

And lo and behold, page 7 of the report reveals that this WP/ABC poll over-sampled both blacks and Democrats.

Out of the 1,131 adults polled, 598 called themselves Democrats or Democrat-leaning independents and only 436 identified themselves as Republican or Republican leaning independents.

Gee, what a surprise..

Sometimes I think that the average Joe and Jane in this country are pulled and pushed and propagandized and polarized to the point that there is a vast, insurmountable gap between what they perceive and what is real.  

Do the findings of this poll show this to be the case?  Well, you see the data and you see the commentary.  Judge for yourself.

Bilby It's always a good idea to find the poll itself and look at the questions asked and the methodology. I saw one reported a few weeks ago about the S-CHIP controversy in which the claim was made that even when presented with the strongest opposing arguments 65% approved of it and hoped congress would override Bush's veto. Only when I looked at the PDF of the poll did I see that over 70% of those polled knew little or nothing about the issue, and the "strongest argument" for the pro side was the lie that without the bill passing children now covered would be thrown off. (11/04/07)


Ken Berwitz

I hope you're big on straight talk.  Because since I am reporting what Rudy Giuliani said, that is precisely what you are getting. 

Here is Mr. Giuliani's take on Hillary Clinton's waffling disaster during this past week's debate, along with a short commentary on her, husband's performance regarding our military when he was in the oval office:.

Giuliani Impersonates Hillary, Says Bill Clinton Had Head in the Sand

November 03, 2007 12:13 PM

ABC News' Jan Simmonds reports:  With an Elvis impersonator crooning just two floors below him, Rudy Giuliani, R-N.Y., took aim on Friday at both Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

Speaking at a town hall in Berlin, New Hampshire, Giuliani first set his sights on Hillary Clinton and used humor to answer a question about Clinton's much analyzed debate response on whether she supported a plan to grant driver's licenses to illegal aliens in New York state.

"Oh gee I can't figure out what to think," said Giuliani satirizing Clinton.

"Don't pick on me by asking that question. That's a gotcha question. Do not pick on me for asking that question.  Now let me see what I think. Let me see First put up your hands and tell me what you think.  Then I'll tell you what I think. Are you for it or against it?  Ok, you're not gonna tell me.  So I'm for it, for it.  I am against it.  I'm for it and against it.  And I wanna be your president."

After having his fun, the former New York City Mayor got serious.

"Okay, all kidding aside, I am against it," he said. "It's a terrible mistake. You don't give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants."

Giuliani did acknowledge that he at least could respect Barack Obama, D-Ill., who said he supported the license plan.

"I at least respect somebody who answers the question and I watched that debate the other night and Hillary Clinton could not answer the question," Giuliani said.  "It was like double talk.  This and this and this."

"If you can't take a position on driver's licenses, what the heck are you gonna do about war and peace, and difficult decisions in crisis?" he added returning his attention to the Democratic frontrunner.

Giuliani was not done with the Clintons though.  Next to draw the former mayor's ire was the former president, Bill Clinton, whom Giuliani took umbrage with over how he cut the military and intelligence agencies' budgets while he was in the White House.

"What Bill Clinton did to you in the 1990's most Americans don't even know.  They don't even know the worst thing that he did," said Giuliani.

"The worst thing that he did was not any of the stuff that got all the attention and sometimes exaggeration and who knows what.  The worst thing he did was to cut our military and intelligence budgets. That is the worst thing he did."

Noting that Clinton "slashed" both the agencies' budgets, Giuliani charged that the former president had his "head in the sand."

"And now as I said, I don't pretend that he (Clinton) could predict September the 11th.  People are not prophets, even presidents," said Giuliani.  "But he did have his head in the sand.  He was cutting those military budgets and intelligence budgets while Islamic terrorists were killing Americans."

"Over 500 before September 11th.  The first attack on America was not September 11th, it was 1993.  And then Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, and then Kenya, and then Tanzania, and then the attack on the USS Cole, to which we didn't even respond.  So let's not go back to that."

Ending his Clinton focus, Giuliani noted, "Hillary Clinton really wants to take you in reverse to the 1990's. She thought things were wonderful in the 1990's and there was only one thing missing in the 1990's and it was the socialized medicine she couldn't do for us.  So now she wants to take us back to the 1990's and give us the socialized medicine too.  Let's not let her do that." .

That's Rudy Giuliani.

Straight talk and common sense;  i.e. you know what he said after he's through speaking and you can clearly understand why he said it.

What a refreshing change from the Clintons THAT is. And how nice it would be to have it in the White House.

JJ When I look at Rudy one word comes to mind. Douche Bag Ok, that’s two words. He said it himself though A Republican, playing a Democrat, playing a Republican! (11/05/07)


Ken Berwitz

Several days ago I blogged about the University of Delaware's insane thought control policy which included, among other things, instructing White students that they are racists because all Whites are racist.  Every one.  No difference from one to the next. 

It is hard to overstate the sick idiocy this requires.  Illustratively it equates Ted Kennedy and David Duke.  And, I suppose, makes them both twice as racist as (half White) Barack Obama.  Or something.

Yeah, it's looney-tunes, and then some. 

But with the light of day disinfecting this sickness, it suddenly has healed.  Here, from the invaluable - which spearheaded the school's reversion to academic sanity -  is what I'm talking about:.

Victory at University of Delaware

University President Ends Mandatory Ideological Reeducation Program

November 2, 2007

FIRE Press Release

NEWARK, Del., November 2, 2007After an intense campaign led by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), the University of Delaware has dropped an ideological reeducation program that was referred to in the universitys own materials as a treatment for students incorrect attitudes and beliefs. The programs stated goal was for the approximately 7,000 students in Delawares residence halls to adopt highly specific university-approved views on politics, race, sexuality, sociology, moral philosophy, and environmentalism. Following FIREs campaign, which called the attention of the national media and the blogosphere to the Orwellian program, university President Patrick Harker terminated the program, effective immediately.
FIRE applauds President Harker for recognizing the chilling nature of this program and ending it, FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said. Under the First Amendment, state institutions have no right to impose mandatory ideological training on their students. We are thrilled that this unconscionable and invasive program is gone, but we will be keeping an eye on the University of Delaware to make sure future programs respect the individual right of conscience of its students.
Under the program, students were required to attend training sessions, floor meetings, and one-on-one meetings with their Resident Assistants (RAs). The university also instructed RAs to ask intrusive personal questions during one-on-one sessions, including When did you discover your sexual identity? A student who responded, That is none of your damn business, was, according to the universitys own materials, written upalong with the students name and room numberas having one of the wors[t] one-on-one sessions.
The programs materials stated that the goal of the residence life education program was for students in the universitys residence halls to achieve certain competencies that the university decreed its students must develop in order to achieve the overall educational goal of citizenship. These competencies included: Students will recognize that systemic oppression exists in our society, Students will recognize the benefits of dismantling systems of oppression, and Students will be able to utilize their knowledge of sustainability to change their daily habits and consumer mentality. And in the Office of Residence Lifes internal materials, the program was described using the harrowing language of ideological reeducation, including referring to the program as treatment and defining learning as specific attitudinal or behavioral changes.
Following FIREs initial press release, the universitys administration first chose to defend its invasive and unconstitutional residence life education program. However, in a statement released late yesterday, President Harker stated, I have directed that the program be stopped immediately. No further activities under the current framework will be conducted. Harker also called for a full and broad-based review of the programs practices and purposes.
While FIRE commends Harkers decision, concerns remain about some aspects of life in the residence halls. For example, FIRE would like to know if RAs are still required to immediately report [a]ny instance that is perceived by those involved as being racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, or otherwise oppressive.
The assistance of the Delaware Association of Scholars was critical in the effort to eliminate the program, as was the willingness of Delaware students and RAs to attest to their experiences under this treatment program. The case also drew vast attention from the blogosphere, dramatically increasing the pressure on the university to either justify or abandon its thought reform program.
Universities often cannot defend in public what they try to do in private, and the situation at Delaware was no exception, Lukianoff said. While we are pleased that this program is over, it is stunning that it ever existed at a public university in the United States. FIRE will continue to monitor the situation at Delaware and to fight against other ideological reeducation programs at schools across the nation..
First, let me commend FIRE (the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) for its yeoman work here  Without them, U of Delaware students would almost certainly still be subjected to this goebbelsian garbage. 
But I do have one quibble with their account of this turnaround.  They give far too much credit to patricia harker, the president of the University.  Wasn't she the one who thought this was just fine, until FIRE and others embarrassed her into reversing field? 
I will never be a state official, certainly not in Delaware.  That's damn lucky for Ms. Harker.  Because if I was, I would make it my life's work to remove her from her presidency.  And I would do everything I could to insure that she never had influence over students again.

Buy Our Book Here!

Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.

About Us

Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.

At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!