Some thoughts on Chief Minniehawhaw, and the potential implications for cleaning up the ongoing fraud and abuse of the left in academia.

Churchill’s firing doesn’t spell the beginning of the end for professors who abuse their positions, but it was a good day in Denver.

Unfortunately, I suspect that he will be paraded by the so-called progressives as a martyr for freedom of speech, and many will foolishly continue to buy it.

The Pirate Ballerina also has a roundup of links about Chief Lies-a-Lot, with a picture of a drum-beating ceremony.

This is interesting:

The fact that our state’s code is thoroughly woven with references to two specific political parties is evidence that the parties themselves act like a single, two-pronged special interest group, one that is more powerful than any labor union or trade association could hope to be. And furthermore, when one party is able to establish dominance for a period quite a bit longer than a lifespan, the probability factor for un-democratic malfeasance nears 1 (as in 100%).

I’d like to see some sort of constitutional amendment that would open things up to more parties. Of course, the chance of such a thing passing is epsilon squared, given the current power structure.

On the other hand, I wonder if we need one? It might be worthwhile to set up a foundation to look for laws like this, and challenge them in the courts on the grounds that the Constitution is silent on the very notion of political parties? It seems like, at a minimum, that you could strike down laws describing “two” or any specific number.

[Via Instapundit]

Bill Richardson might be good on space policy, but I sure don’t want him responsible for our national security:

ROBERTS: but there’s no indication that they want to get together and no indication that the international participants want to get involved, as well.

GOV. RICHARDSON: no, but you use the leverage of our withdrawal and you engage diplomacy to almost force them to get in there. get iran and syria in there. my point is all these other candidates are still talking about, even though we’ve had 160,000 troops, they’re still ready to leave 50,000 troops behind. i don’t. i move them out, deploy them around the region for contingencies, into afghanistan, so there is a difference in our approach, and i believe i got that out in the debate last night and some of your poll tested video groups have been good.

As Kathryn points out, way to go. Hand the place over to the terrorist-supporting enemy regimes that have been destabilizing it.

As Glenn notes, National Socialism was socialism, unhappy though leftists might be when it’s pointed out.

Are the Democrats taming Markos? I mean, it’s not like this is new stuff. He himself is still remembered for his f-bombing the contractors killed in Fallujah. I have to think it’s about election season, and wanting to become respectable.

Arnold Kling writes about a movie too subversive to be shown in the public schools:

As a Jew, I am certain that I missed a number of the religious aspects of the movie. There were subtle references to Christian doctrine that went right past me. Perhaps there are Christians who would be more aware of the context and, based on their knowledge, might even take offense at the film’s stance. I imagine that passionate atheists would tend to be turned off. But I think that a typical high school student could be exposed to the religion in “Call of the Entrepreneur” without being permanently scarred or corrupted.

I would argue that “Call of the Entrepreneur” and “An Inconvenient Truth” are both religious films. However, unlike Al Gore’s movie about global warming, “Call of the Entrepreneur” steers clear of sensationalism, dogma, and misleading half-truths. It is ironic that public teachers and parents are happy to see “An Inconvenient Truth” in the classroom, but “Call of the Entrepreneur” would probably be greeted with protests if it were shown.

Yes, times have indeed changed. And not in all ways for the better.

And pure gold (errr…golden).

I was just listening to Fox News Sunday, and Senator Kit Bond (R-MO) (in keeping with the grand press tradition, his party affiliation, as a Republican, must be identified–only Democrats are exempt and partyless in situations like this) just pronounced Peshawar as “Pee Shower.” Evan Bayh and Chris Wallace are smiling, but obviously say nothing.

Here’s a brave college student, defending his right to defend himself, even on campus.

Heh:

When a cat is affectionate towards you, he really means it. With a dog he’s merely sucking up. Cats are like Britons. Dogs are like the French. Dogs expend insane amounts of useless energy yet never accomplish anything – they are like liberals. Cats conserve their energy and pick their fights – they are like conservatives. Please keep up the good fight.

Why, yes, I did in fact have trouble categorizing this post.

Arnold Kling lays out his issues. I agree with almost all of them. I laid out my own problems with Bush a few days ago. One would have to be deranged (Bush deranged, that is) to think that I’m a big fan of this president.

I also agree with Arnold that Al Gore is much more responsible for the current divisiveness, going back to 2000, than Bush is. Bush is not a “divider.” If anything, he has been much too willing to compromise with the Democrats. As I’ve noted before, he’s no conservative.

I should also note (as I have in the past) that the president’s approval rating, and “right track, wrong track” polling tells one nothing useful about who will win the next election (even if Bush himself were still running). I have never approved of Bush’s performance, but I remain damned glad that Kerry didn’t win.

People who simplistically think that those who are unhappy with one party means that they’ll simply switch to the other are apparently unfamiliar with the concept that there are some, even many (and I think the numbers are growing) people who are unhappy with both major parties. It’s also foolish to try to guess about the source of the unhappiness.

Democrats delude themselves that they won last fall because people wanted out of Iraq, which is why they are having their idiotic slumber party tonight, and why Cindy Sheehan thinks that she can run against Nancy Pelosi on an “impeach Bush and withdraw from Iraq immediately” platform. No, Dems won because a lot of the Republican base stayed home, because they were disgusted with a White House that didn’t seem to want to win in Iraq, and a Congress that had forgotten that Republicans were supposed to be responsible spenders. Similarly, the media and the left fool themselves if they think that McCain’s campaign cratered over Iraq, rather than the other “I” word.

Amusingly, I suspect that many of the donkeys idiotically think that their low approval rating on the Hill is because they haven’t surrendered fast enough. I wouldn’t bet at all that the public won’t tire of them much faster than it did the Republicans, and there could be another turnover in ’08, particularly if there is a strong candidate at the head of the ticket (e.g., Fred Thompson), and a sense that the Republicans learned their lesson. That would be in keeping the the “Feiler faster thesis,” in which a political party in power wears out its welcome with increasing rapidity.