South Carolina SAT average

WIS TV reports on the average SAT score for South Carolina:

The average score on the college entrance exam in South Carolina was 986 this year. That's down three points from last year and well below the national average of 1026 points.

The decrease again gave South Carolina the lowest scores in the nation. (My emphasis)

And who is in charge of the schools that produced this dismal result? Democratic US Senate candidate Inez Tenenbaum.

With this kind of job performance, why does Mrs. Tenenbaum think she deserves a promotion?

South Carolina voters, please don't grant her this promotion. Vote Jim DeMint for US Senate.  ¶ 10:36 PM

  Atrios defines"smear", gives example

I just screen captured the following image of Atrios' top two blogads:



The first ad gives us a definition for "smear".

The second ad gives a prime example.

Hypocrite.

And in response to the DNC ad - The truth is never a "smear".



  ¶ 10:09 PM

  Detroit News on the Bush tax cuts

This chart from the Detroit News shows two things:



1. Everyone who pays taxes got a tax cut.

2. The overall tax burden shifted toward the top quintile of income earners.

Click the image to read the article.  ¶ 5:47 PM

  Power Line hammers Star Tribune's Jim Boyd

The August 29 Star Tribune of Minneapolis-St. Paul is carrying side-by-side opposing columns, one by Power Line bloggers John H. Hinderaker and Scott W. Johnson, and the other by Star Tribune editor Jim Boyd. The Hinderaker/Johnson column is a response to an earlier Boyd column, which itself was a response to an August 18 Hinderaker/Johnson column which debunked John Kerry's excellent Cambodian adventures. Power Line has the text of both current columns here. It is well worth the time to read and contrast both columns.

Hinderaker and Johnson point out in their column that Boyd did not dispute any of the facts presented in their 18 August piece, but merely labelled that piece as a "smear". Boyd's most recent column continues in this pattern. For example:

I see the recent commentary by John H. Hinderaker and Scott W. Johnson ("Unwrapping Kerry's story of Christmas in Cambodia," Aug. 18) as part of that smear. It did not meet what I believe should be the standards of the Star Tribune's editorial pages. (Is this codespeak for "does not support John Kerry"? - Ed.)Such pieces should not appear here, and that one does so for the second time in 10 days pains me greatly.

Boyd continues with:

We have a responsibility to separate legitimate political opinion -- and the latitude is great -- from deliberate smear.

Here Boyd seems to be saying that the fine gentlemen at Power Line do not express "legitimate political opinion". What would be the basis for a claim like that, Mr. Boyd? Could it be that Hinderaker and Johnson are merely bloggers, not paid professional journalists like yourself? That would be rather elitist of you.

After this, Boyd meanders away from the topic at hand, and uses a large portion of his space to attack recent columns by former Sen. Rudy Boschwitz and Senator Norm Coleman. Then he follows with this:

I could do extensive line-by-line analysis [of the Hinderaker/Johnson column], but I will not. It would take space I do not have.

Rather a cheap dodge, especially since it immediately follows the space used to attack Boschwitz and Coleman.

Next, Boyd tries to put the "burden of proof" about Kerry's excellent Cambodian adventures on Hinderaker and Johnson:

The top of their piece is devoted to negatives: No record of this, no record of that, etc. This proves nothing. There generally are no public records of clandestine activities. The burden of proof here is on Hinderaker and Johnson, not on Kerry and not on me.

Sorry, Mr. Boyd, but you are just wrong about this. The Cambodia claims are Kerry's, and thus so is the burden of proof. You ought to know that proving the negative is nearly always impossible. If you believe that Hinderaker and Johnson need to "prove" that Kerry did not go to Cambodia, then I have a challenge for you: On one particular summer day in 1988 (I think it was August, but I am not sure, because the memory is not "seared" into me), the ship I was serving on, the USS Elmer Montgomery (FF-1082) dropped anchor near the coast of Oman so that I could join a number of my crewmates on a swimming outing on the beach. Here's the challenge - there is one aspect of this story that is false, and it is up to you, Mr. Boyd, to prove the falsity of that aspect. I will even tell you what part is false - I did not swim that day (my duty section was on duty). Now you prove that I did not. Ridiculous, huh? Well, so is your claim that Hinderaker and Johnson bear the burden of proving that Kerry did not enter Cambodia.

Finally, after libelling Hinderaker and Johnson for 1½ columns, Boyd writes this:

I have now read his biography and a number of other things, and I believe there is ample evidence that he was at least very near Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968...

So, Mr. Boyd, are you finally conceding the point that Kerry did not actually enter Cambodia? Or are you missing the point entirely? Kerry's whole Cambodia tale was meant to illustrate his epiphany about the US government being willing to break the law (send troops into Cambodia) and then lie to the American people about it. The problem with your claim is that it was not illegal for Kerry to be "very near" Cambodia, and that if he didn't actually enter Cambodia, his tale about his epiphany falls flat. If he didn't enter Cambodia, the government did not break the law, and it had nothing to lie about, and Kerry had nothing left to base his claim about his sudden disillusionment with the government on.

I think it is a good thing that the Star Tribune is publishing these two columns side by side. That way, readers can compare and contrast the two, and can see who actually is expressing "legitimate political opinion", and who is actually smearing whom.  ¶ 11:01 PM

  The Real Dream Team

The US men's Olympic basketball team lost again today, and can now do no better than the bronze medal. Actually, I'm kinda glad. Can we now stop calling these NBA prima donnas the "Dream Team"?

In my opinion, the real Dream Team of this Olympiad is the US Women's Softball team. In spite of the fact that Coach Mike Candrea's wife fell dead from a brain aneurysm less than a month before the games, he and his phenomenal athletes absolutely dominated the rest of the field in Athens. They achieved a nine game sweep, while outscoring their opponents 51-1.

(Note: I actually typed the above comments before linking to www.usasoftball.com, where I found the graphic below, depicting the next Sports Illustrated cover.)



Obviously, the editors at Sports Illustrated are highly intelligent and perceptive. Congratulations to the team that SI is calling the greatest of all time (subscription required).  ¶ 11:17 PM

  More slanted reporting from the MSM

This Associated Press article about Max Cleland's visit to Crawford was published in The State (Columbia, SC) in print and on line. The print version carried this sub-headline:

"Democrats send ex-Senator to Bush to protest Kerry ads, but he's turned away".

But the body of the article claims:

Texas state official and Vietnam veteran Jerry Patterson said the Bush campaign asked him to travel to the ranch, welcome Cleland and accept his letter to Bush.

“I tried to accept that letter and he would not give it to me,” said Patterson. “He kept rolling away from me. He’s quite mobile.”

Gee, I thought headlines were supposed to indicate what the article was about, not the opposite.

The article also said:

Patterson, who spoke with the president by phone, said the campaign asked him to give Cleland a letter for Kerry written by the campaign and signed by Patterson and seven other veterans.

The article failed to mention that Cleland refused to accept the letter from Patterson.

I am really getting tired of being lied to by the MSM.  ¶ 3:27 PM

  Propaganda from Madison

Google News linked to this column by Dave Zweifel in The Capital Times of Madison, Wisconsin. Some excerpts:

Al Franken is going to have to add another chapter to his book, "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them."


The chapter, of course, would recount the outright falsehoods that the self-described "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" have perpetrated upon this election campaign.

The lies are being exposed daily. Not only are Vietnam veterans stepping forward to express their outrage, but newspapers ranging from the likes of the New York Times to the Chicago Tribune have debunked the claims by conducting extensive interviews and examining the inconsistencies in the statements by the veterans themselves.

If the allegations from the Swifties are lies, as Mr. Zweifel claims, then why is Kerry retracting some of his earlier statements, such as his Christmas in Cambodia tale, and his contention that he was wounded by enemy fire on Dec. 2, 1968? Also, how could the Swifties second ad be a lie, when most of it consists of Kerry's own recorded testimony? Finally, Mr. Zweifel must not read NY Times articles in their entirety, or he would know that the "paper of record" has actually confirmed the verity of some of the Swifties' claims.

The New York Times last week connected the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to none other than Karl Rove, Bush's chief political aide...

Yes, and I personally am under the control of the Bush campaign as well, and here is the proof: my wife's mother's brother's granddaughter is the "girl from the University of Texas" whom George H. W. Bush wanted to see when he met the US Women's Olympic Softball Team in Athens. So, obviously, I am intimately connected to the Bush campaign and under their control.

Some theorize that the real reason these Vietnam vets are doing this is to get even for Kerry's vehement anti-Vietnam War rhetoric after he got out of the Navy and led the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. They claim that he insinuated that the U.S. military was killing babies and women and committing other atrocities. (Emphasis mine.)

The line above in bold exposes Mr. Zweifel's own lack of integrity. Mr. Zweifel, when one is speaking under oath before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, one is not "insinuating". It is called testifying.

  ¶ 1:39 PM

  Kerry's "God's Honest Truth"

Power Line has posted an excerpt from a Kerry speech in Minnesota, that contains this line:

I am absolutely telling you the God's honest truth with regard to what happened over there [in Vietnam].

I couldn't begin to count the number of times I, as a child, tried that line on my mother. It never worked.  ¶ 12:13 PM

  Jim DeMint for Senate

I have just added a link that you can use to donate to Jim DeMint's campaign for election to the United States Senate from South Carolina. (Note: I have done this voluntarily, and have not accepted any payment from the DeMint campaign.)

Here are the reasons I have done so:

1. Democrat filibusters on confirmation of federal judges. The US Constitution dictates that federal judges appointed by the President must be confirmed by a simple majority of the Senate. In other words, the framers of the Constitution indicated that in order for a federal judge to be seated, that judge must be approved by at least half of the Senate plus one. Quite a few judges who have been appointed by President Bush to federal circuit courts would meet this requirement, but Democrats in the Senate are using Senate filibuster rules to increase that requirement to 60% of the Senate. They are blocking these apointments because they believe that the judges disagree with them on certain political issues, such as abortion. Democrats like Ted Kennedy decide whether or not to support a particular appointee not based on that person's honesty, integrity, fairness, and ability, but on whether or not that person agrees with him on political issues. In fact, Kennedy has gone so far as to delay the confirmation of one judge in an attempt to influence the outcome of a particular case before the court, at the behest of a group that has supported his reelection campaigns financially.

Seems to me that the Constitution of the United States ought to supercede Senate parliamentary rules. We need to increase the Republican majority in the Senate so that Senate Democrats will be unable to skirt the Constitution. Fritz Hollings has finally decided to retire (Hallelujah, and it's about time!), and we in South Carolina have a tremendous opportunity to replace an old Democrat embarrassment with a capable Republican who will support the President's judicial nominees.

2. Tort reform. I got a decent raise at the beginning of this year, but my take home pay actually went down. How did this happen? The increased cost of my family's health insurance more than made up for the raise I got.

The cost of medical care is being driven up by greedy trial lawyers like John Edwards, who use the threat of lawsuits to extort huge sums of money from doctors and their insurance companies. The cost of defending against these lawsuits is so prohibitive that insurance companies often settle just to avoid the cost of litigation. Trial lawyers know this, and will pursue a case even when they know that there was no wrong done by the doctor, and even when they know that they could never win in court.

The settlement money doesn't appear out of thin air. It comes from the premiums paid to the insurance companies by doctors. The money that doctors pay their insurance premiums with also does not appear out of thin air. It comes from you and me, their patients.

This problem has progressed to crisis levels. Doctors who can no longer afford their insurance premiums are finding other ways to make a living. And it is not just bad doctors. A newly minted MD faces overwhelming odds that he or she will face at least one frivolous lawsuit during his or her career. College students who have an interest in becoming doctors are seeing this, and are choosing other careers. The result of this is that there are now many areas in the country where is it very difficult to find a doctor. The OB/GYN field has been particularly hard hit. (Note that John Edwards made his fortune suing OB/GYN's.) Pregnant women are being forced to forgo prenatal care for themselves and their babies because there are no OB/GYN's nearby. And we can thank trial lawyers like John Edwards for that.

Here is what Jim DeMint says about the issue:

We have a health care crisis in America. Health care costs and insurance premiums are skyrocketing, businesses are dropping coverage, doctors are being forced out of practice, and people cannot afford and access the care they need. That’s why Jim believes that the best way to reduce costs and improve access is to empower individuals with more freedom and options.

Jim supports expanding and enhancing personal health accounts that empower consumers, eliminating frivolous medical lawsuits that increase costs and reduce access, establishing refundable health care tax credits to help low-income Americans afford insurance, and modernizing Medicare so retirees can choose between competing private health plans.

3. Free trade. Trade barriers rarely do more good than harm. Economist Walter Williams illustrated this by discussing sugar tariffs, which were enacted in order to protect American sugar producers. The immediate result of this is that hte price of sugar in the United States is about 200% higher than the world market price. The impact of this goes farther than your daily morning cup of coffee. The price of sugar also affects candy manufacturers. According to Williams, in 1970 candy manufacturers employed about 15,000 people in the Chicago area. Today that number is nearer to 8000, primarily because the candy manufacturers could not afford to continue buying sugar in the United States.

Jim DeMint understands that increasing the cost of doing business is bad for the economy. Here is what he says about it:

We must reject isolationism and recognize that our current economic problems are a direct result of our own misguided policies, which are sucking the life out of American businesses. That’s why Jim has a jobs plan that includes specific measures designed to lower U.S. business costs.

4. National security. Jim DeMint is committed to waging the war on terror. Unlike John Kerry, he understands that appeasement will never work. Terrorist fanatics are wholly committed to the obliteration of all who do not share their medieval world view, and are willing to die to achieve their goals. Negotiating with these fanatics is not an option.

There are other reasons that I support Jim DeMint's candidacy for the Senate, such as his stance against abortion, his support for lower taxes, and his support for individual retirement accounts under the control of citizens, not the government. But the four that I expounded upon above are the ones that I personally feel most strongly about, and Jim DeMint is right on every single one of them. I believe that Jim faces a serious challenge from his opponent, Inez Tennenbaum. She is a popular Democrat (in 2002, she received more votes statewide for State Superintendent than Republican Mark Sanford did for Governor) who is distancing herself from the national party, and is presenting herself as a conservative. You can help tremendously by clicking on the link above and donating to the DeMint campaign.  ¶ 6:29 PM

  John Kerry confuses John Kerry with Bob Kerrey

For most people, it would be excusable to confuse Senator John Kerry (D-MA) with the former Senator Bob Kerrey (D-NE). But not if you are John Kerry.

The Volokh Conspiracy points to a January 29 press release from the Kerry campaign that claimed that John Kerry is the former Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI). (I read this press release about an hour ago, but it has now been pulled from the Kerry website.) Volokh also points to a March 24 press release and an August 6 press release claiming the same thing.

Robert Tagorda at Red State did a little digging, and found out that John Kerry was a member of the SSCI from 1993 to 2001.

I did a little digging and found:

- From 1993 to 1995, the Vice Chairman of the SSCI was Senator John Warner (R-VA).

- From 1995 to 1999, the Vice Chairman of the SSCI was Senator Bob Kerrey (D-NE).

- From 1999 to 2001, the Vice Chairman of the SSCI was Senator Richard H. Bryan (D-NV).


You just can't make this stuff up.

(Hat tips to Red State, Captain's Quarters, and the Volokh Conspiracy.)

ADDENDUM: The Republican National Committee has recently pointed out that while Kerry (John, not Bob Kerrey) was a member of the SSCI, he was absent from 76% of the SSCI's public hearings, and that in 1994, the year following the first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, Kerry did not attend a single intelligence committee hearing. (His attendance records for the closed-door meetings can only be released by Kerry - don't hold your breath.)

The San Francisco Chronicle (!) carries this quote:

"It's difficult to take John Kerry's claims about his intelligence experience seriously when one of his credentials is completely made up," said Republican National Committee spokeswoman Christine Iverson. "If he had shown up for Intelligence Committee hearings he would notice he wasn't vice chairman."

Then there's this from the Wall Street Journal:

Kerry's Identity Crisis
Remember when John Kerry went to the prom and got doused with pig's blood? Oh wait, sorry, that wasn't Kerry; it was Carrie, Sissy Spacek's character in the eponymous 1976 film. We regret the error.  ¶ 4:40 PM

  Finally!

I've been trying to update my Recommended Reading links since 3am. Blogspot has apparently been down all day. DOS maybe? I don't know. Finally got it done though.  ¶ 9:56 PM

  More Kerry Prevarications

Yet another Kery lie comes to light, this time from New Hampshire's Union Leader:

Here is what Kerry said about [Mary Ann] Knowles during his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention on July 29:

“What does it mean when Mary Ann Knowles, a woman with breast cancer I met in New Hampshire, had to keep working day after day right through her chemotherapy, no matter how sick she felt, because she was terrified of losing her family’s health insurance? America can do better. And help is on the way.”

What it means is that John Kerry is fibbing. As Union Leader correspondent Scott Brooks reported on Sunday, Mary Ann Knowles did not have to work through her chemotherapy for fear of losing her health insurance. Employed by Elderhostel, the Boston-based non-profit travel organization for people 55 and older, Mary Ann had 26 weeks of paid disability at her disposal. More was available for a long-term illness. She did not have to work through her chemotherapy. She chose to.

It should be obvious to all by now that Kerry cannot be trusted to tell the truth about anything.

(Hat tip: La Shawn Barber)  ¶ 12:16 PM

  Why were we bombing the Taliban?

From Donald Sensing:

I am reminded of a dinner I attended just after the campaign in Afghanistan began. Another guest commented that it "wasn't fair" for US pilots to fly with impunity above Taliban positions, dropping bombs. I bit my tongue. Later, another guest said that the bombing "wouldn't intimidate" the Taliban.

I dived in."We're not trying to intimidate them," I said.

"Then why are we bombing them?" came the question.

"To kill them," I answered.

Bravo, Rev. Sensing.  ¶ 1:58 AM

  War Heroes

These Marines (and one sailor) are genuine war heroes.  ¶ 1:55 AM

  Poetry

My daughter requested I write another poem. I asked her if one about Kerry would do, and she said yes. So here goes:

The Senator from Massachusetts
Raised the ire of more than a few vets
He won Purple Hearts three
Then he left Nam early,
And left behind all the men of his units.

But his scratches wre all self inflicted,
No enemy had interdicted,
He dreamed up this scam
To get out of Nam,
Now his ambition does grow unrestricted.

As Prez he hopes to be elected,
But his lies have not gone undetected.
Swift Vets will tell you,
His tales are not true,
And as Prez he should not be selected.  ¶ 11:26 PM

  Kerry's Cambodia Confusion

I just read this Kerry quote at Roger L. Simon:

"I remember spending Christmas of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real."

Kerry, in his apparent eagerness to slander any and all Republicans, can't even remember that on December 25, 1968, the President of the United States was a Texas Democrat named Lyndon Baines Johnson.

As I said in an earlier post, what an ignoramus.

UPDATE: According to Power Line, this quote was published in the Boston Herald on October 14, 1979.  ¶ 1:03 AM

  Kerry's lawyers trying to intimidate TV stations to keep them from running anti-Kerry ads

Instapundit links to sites that document how Kerry is using lawyers to try to suppress anti-Kerry ads:

1: Human Events Online has an image of a facsimle letter sent from Kerry's lawyers to TV station managers concerning an ad placed by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (the same group I wrote about here.) The letter claims that the ad is bogus, stating that none of the people in the ad served on either of Kerry's two boats. Well, no one in the ad claimed to have served on the same swift boat as Kerry - they are fellow skippers, who commanded swift boats themselves, alongside Kerry's. Also, the lawyer letter claims that the doctor in the ad is a fraud, because he is not the one who signed the medical report concerning one of Kerry's Purple Hearts. In fact, the paperwork was signed by a Hospital Corpsman (an enlisted medical aide).

2: Club for Growth has .pdf images of another letter sent from Kerry's lawyers to station managers, this time conerning one of their ads. This ad makes statements about Kerry's support for a 50 cent per gallon gas tax, and also states that Kerry has voted for higher taxes 350 times. This lawyer letter claims (wrongly) that these points are lies, and encourages station managers not to accept the ad.

Please follow the links, view the ads, and read the letters. It seems that Kerry must be really desperate if he thinks he needs to resort to suppressing the first amendment rights of citizens who don't want him to be President.

UPDATE: Captain's Quarters has the full text of a letter sent to station managers rebutting the claims made by Kerry's lawyers about the ad from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The letter also describes the events behind Kerry's Bronze Star, and two of his Purple Hearts, and explains how Kerry's applications for these awards were fraudulent.  ¶ 11:08 PM

  Letters to the troops

SlagleRock's Slaughterhouse is requesting letters of thanks for the troops to be written by grateful citizens. These letters will be printed out, hand carried to the Middle East by a soon to be deployed Tech Sgt (USAF), and distributed to the troops on the front lines. Here's mine:

Dear Defender of Freedom,
I just wanted to say thank you for your courageous efforts to defend the freedom we enjoy back home. You truly are appreciated. News of your great works is getting back home, in spite of the tendency for the mainstream media to only report the bad.

As a Navy veteran, I know how it is to be away from home for extended periods. But I was lucky to only see one day of combat in my six years of service, so I really can't identify that well with your situation.

I have only one request of you: Please return home safe to your family after your job is finished.

My family and I are very proud of you, the magnificent job you are doing, and the great way you are representing all Americans overseas.

Thank you again, and please be safe.

Mike Dayton
Gilbert, SC

P.S. My wife wants to add a few words:

As a mother, I understand how really hard it can be to be separated from your loved ones, so know that you are in my heart, and I am truly proud knowing that you are there keeping me and mine safe. Hang in there, take one day at a time so it's not so overwhelming. And know that you do have a proud country to come home to. You are doing a fantastic job, and I will never take our troops for granted.

Love in Christ,
Mom

  ¶ 12:54 PM

  Terrorism roundup

Jeff Quinton at Backcountry Conservative has a roundup of today's terrorism news from the blogs.  ¶ 9:36 PM

  Kerry was for the Buckeyes before he was against them

Having just left Ohio, John Kerry claimed, before a crowd of University of Michigan supporters, "I just go for Buckeye football, that's where I'm coming from." I guess he took a clue from the angry reaction of the crowd. He then said, "But that was while I was in Ohio. I know I'm in the state of Michigan and you got a great big M and a powerhouse of a team." But the damage was done.

What an ignoramus. How could we possibly elect a man who doesn't even know what state he is in? Kerry's campaign has turned into one long gaffe. All the better for George Bush and the United States.

UPDATE: The gaffe continues in Michigan.  ¶ 9:09 PM