Sunday, September 11, 2005

We Will NEVER Forget.

God Bless NY-DC-PA
We Must Never forget...

Monday, May 30, 2005

Memorial Day.

God Bless.

Freedom isn't free.

We will NEVER forget.

Tuesday, May 24, 2005

Democrats and Modern Slavery

Thomas Sowell is on point once again in his recent post at He has demonstrated why the Democrats and their power elite are manipulating black Americans for their own political agenda. (More Below)

Sowell says it bluntly, that Democrats have to keep blacks in a state of fear, he writes:

If the share of the black vote that goes to the Democrats ever falls to 70 percent, it may be virtually impossible for the Democrats to win the White House or Congress, because they have long ago lost the white male vote and their support among other groups is eroding. Against that background, it is possible to understand their desperate efforts to keep blacks paranoid, not only about Republicans but about American society in general.

This state of fear is reminiscent. of the same state of fear Democrats imposed on the blacks after the civil war. So it seems the Democrats are up to their old tricks again. Of course the Republicans are always branded as the "white-man's" party and as racists, a tactic that Sowell readily exposes, he writes:

Liberal Democrats, especially, must keep blacks fearful of racism everywhere, including in an administration whose Cabinet includes people of Chinese, Japanese, Hispanic, and Jewish ancestry, and two consecutive black Secretaries of State. Blacks must be kept believing that their only hope lies with liberals.

The liberals have fashioned a skewed reality out of misapplied historical facts, a sure trick of any proto-fascist organization where the memory hole has no cap. For instance, more Republicans voted for the Civil Rights act as opposed to Democrates, Sowell writes:

Moreover, contrary to political myth, a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. But facts have never stopped politicians or ideologues before and show no signs of stopping them now.

The Democrats have attempted to make themselves as the saviors of blacks but the Democratic party is the black man's greatest enemy. As Sowell says:

All black progress in the past must be depicted as the result of liberal government programs and all hope of future progress must be depicted as dependent on the same liberalism.

This is quite contrary to the facts.

Sunday, May 22, 2005

The Grand Strategy

Is the conservative movement breaking apart? Pat Buchanan seems to think so. In some ways he is right. There are stumbling blocks hampering the conservative movement today but this does not spell its demise tomorrow. The political domination of all levels of government by the Republican party and its neo-conservative philosophy does not signal the end of the conservative effort but an advancement in this great war of attrition. But the war has not ended and will not end until we witness the total and absolute destruction of the Liberal myth. But what should our next move be?(More Below).

Our next move is obvious: we must concentrate our efforts in winning the culture war. We must dig the trenchs and mount the maxim guns. Buchanan makes this same point:

But it is culture and values that matter for Mr. Buchanan, who for more than 40 years has helped shape American conservatism. In his 1992 speech to the Republican National Convention in Houston, he declared: "There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself." He is still fighting that war. "American culture has become toxic and poisonous," he says. "Take a look at what Hollywood produces today and what it produced in the 1950s. The alteration is dramatic."

Indeed. But unfortunately Buchanan and I part ways at his lack of confidence in the conservatives' ability to win the culture war:

He suggests that in some respects, traditionalists might be fighting for a lost cause. "We say we won a great victory by defeating gay marriage in 11 state-ballot referenda in November," he says. "But I think in the long run, that will be seen as a victory in defense of a citadel that eventually fell." As he later says, "I can't say we won the cultural war, and it's more likely we lost it."

It is never too late. The culture war can be won. And with such a victory the final and ultimate destruction of liberalism would not be far away. But the cancer inflicting society is a very powerful one. It has become resistant to many antidotes used against it in the past. Yet laying siege to the liberal stronghold may not be as tough as conservatives once thought, especially if we figure out which part of the wall to put the battering ram against. Thomas Sowell gives good indication where conservatives should focus their main efforts:

Indeed, the left in general has increasingly favored unelected institutions which impose their views, whether the federal courts, environmental agencies, or such national bureaucracies as the National Park Service or international agencies like the United Nations or the International Court of Justice at the Hague.

The reduction of the beauracracy, reformation of public school curriculum, and the passing of a constitutional amendment that reduces the power of the Supreme Court would strike a fatal blow against neo-liberalism. It was the "social revolution" or rather debacle, imposed by the same institutions mentioned above, that gave impetus to the conservative movement, we should turn our eyes to that history and renew our efforts against that same enemy that is with us. As Buchanan says:

Supreme Court decisions in the 1960s and '70s, Mr. Buchanan says, sparked a conservative response. "The conservative movement is in large part a reaction to the social revolution that had been imposed on this country from above, without the consent of the people, by the Supreme Court. "Frankly, you would not have a cultural war in this country if the Supreme Court had said, 'Look, free speech is one thing, but pornography is not covered by the First Amendment.'"

A needed reminder, indeed.

Thursday, May 19, 2005

Awards: MVP-Most Valuable Policeman, SPA-Stupid Parent Award

This story makes me shake my head for a few reasons:
Cops Stop High school at Risk

If you read the article a few things come to mind:
-The police did everything they could to stop this car.
-The Car was putting the students, themselves, and the police in danger.
-Police can never assume that a car willing to run over a bike, speed through a lot of teenagers, and resist arrest is just "annoyed with the police."

Even the passenger of the vehicle that hit a police bike, dragged it 40 feet, and sped down a lot full of pedestrians in reverse said: "I guess he [policeman] thought his life was in danger."

Open containers of alcohol were found in the car.

Here is the most puzzling part of the story:
Sophomore Lauren Manix, however, said she felt like she was in danger because her car was parked on the opposite side of the Mazda when police opened fire. The 16-year-old said she was in her car, ducking for cover, when the shot was fired.

Henley, 16, said she had to dodge the speeding car, yet she questioned the officer's decision to fire in the bustling parking lot.

"I definitely don't think it was necessary to shoot at the car when there were that many students around," she said.

Tanya Patterson, a parent, said she couldn't believe there was gunfire on the campus.

"That's why I moved up here, because I want to keep my kids away from this," she said after picking up her son, freshman Ryan Patterson.

She wondered why officers would put students in jeopardy trying to catch a parking lot speeder.

"Somebody innocent could have been hurt, because bullets don't have names," she said.

Review-Journal staff writer Lisa Kim Bach contributed to this report.

The student that had to dodge the car thought it was a bad idea to shoot.
-You're right, the officers should have used other tactics, maybe a U.N. tactic would work. The officers could have sent a "sterner" warning to the driver. That same student didn't think the officer should have shot with that many students around. I guess that means if the car was speeding around an empty lot, only then would it be ok to fire.

The Mrs. Patterson lady though, she kills me:
"Somebody innocent could have been hurt, because bullets don't have names."
She is right, but speeding cars in reverse, driven by drunken teenagers that 'don't like the police' do, and they would never strike students. (Except for those that had to "dodge the car."

My analysis below.

Obviously the cops acted correctly here. The car was putting many people in danger. Yes, bullets can go stray and it is a DANGEROUS thing to put people in the crossfire, but at the academy the worst scenarios are those which you have to pull your weapon in a crowded area.

One shot was fired at the car, not 10 with lots of missing, and stray bullets, but one shot. It hit the door, and it made its point.

The car stopped, all the students were safe, and the officers were safe. I find it hard to believe that there weren't students in the lot that believe the police acted properly. I would have been grateful that there were some officers willing to do the right thing and end that horribly scary situation quickly and efficiently.

Tuesday, May 17, 2005

Our Wonderful Mayor.

Normally I will comment on stories... but I think this story speaks for itself. Especially after 3 or 4 previous scandals of the same nature.

Mayor Spends Freely on City Credit Card

Monday, May 09, 2005

Fast Food Lunacy: Part 2

A few weeks ago we reported on the "Fast Food" tax that "America's First Hip-Hop Mayor" was proposing.

We thought that such an idiotic idea would soon fizzle into oblivion, especially before anyone outside of Michigan would discover our lunacy.

I mean what message are we sending, Granholm wants a 2.3% tax on physician revenue and Kwame wants the "Fast Food Tax."

Unfortunately a few people have noticed:
Business Week
Et Al... (The list goes on...and on...and on...)

Analysis Below...

With taxes that hurt Detroit, Michigan's major city, and with the Governor proposing a tax on Doctors, is it really a wonder why we are the worst performing state when it comes to jobs?

It's not always one specific policy or program that hurts or helps a state, but the mentality of the leadership. When you have arguably the two most powerful people in the state leading in the manner these two are, it is a clear formula for failure. Why is fast food being taxed? Because, like other "Sin" products, if anyone argues why, an easy counter-argument is, "Because it is unhealthy." In other words, you should pay to "hurt yourself." Add to that, the idea that obesity contributes to higher health care costs, and you have a foolproof plan for insta-tax.

Yet, why should we allow our Government to tax something twice, especially when it is an essential product in our lives. Our sales tax already taxes "prepared" foods, therefore there will actually be an 8% tax on fast food.

The big question is, what will constitute fast food? Will it be certain franchises? Or certain ways of preparation? Will Coney Island's count as fast food? How about vendors? What about vendors inside the event complexes inside Detroit? Or will there be the ever famous "exemptions" which come into play? Don't put the tax inside these venues becaus

Why Do the Dem's Keep Losing?

There are a lot of explanations as to why the Dem's continue to lose elections, so here's one evidence file:

Evidence File: Michelle Malkin on Hugh Hewitt

Evidence Against:
Sen. Reid - Nev. (D)
Sen. Ken Salazaar - Colo. (D)
Sen. Charles Schumer - NY (D)

Oh wait.. I forgot... the reason they keep losing is because JESUSLAND invades the US of Canada... and over-takes the polling locations in a CRUSADE.

Silly me.

More Evidence....

I have received some criticism for my, "Make South Korea An Island" post...

I understand that obliterating North Korea with a bunch of Nuclear weapons won't solve anything...


...Will It?

Sondra K. has some more evidence to support my idea: Exhibit "B"

Ok... Seriously... I know there are some pacifist out there, but - what reason do we have to deal, plead, beg, and cajole North Korea much longer? Should we wait for them to build weapons and strike before we act? Did Pearl Harbor teach us nothing?

Funding & Change of Leadership

As I prepare to move on, I will continue to contribute to this blog. I will also help in a somewhat, 'Advisory' role next year with the print edition.

One area that I cannot help with, but need supporters help, is with monetary funding.

Our print edition is funded entirely through donations, grants and advertisements. Anything from $5 - $5000 would be a great help.

If you would like to make a donation to help us out please email either myself:

or the new editor of the paper

Emmett Thalmann @:

Thank you to all our supporters out there, and with your help we will continue to be the refreshing voice on Wayne State's campus!

Saturday, May 07, 2005

Island Making

The U.S. is often criticized for what some call our "Nation Making" policies. This is what has been occurring in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc...

Well, if objectors don't like that maybe we can change it up a bit and find a happy medium.

After reading this story: North Korea at it Again I can't help but think of a new policy for the U.S.: Island Making...(Click Link Below)

North Korea has nothing to offer the U.S. or the World. They continually "interract" with the rest of the global community through the only means possible, fear. It may soon be time to eliminate this threat and cancer on society, and the best way to do so is to make South Korea an island.

Better yet, this may be a cleaner and more efficient way of dealing with the problem: SECRET WEAPON!

Friday, May 06, 2005

What has this world come to?

This is the saddest thing I've read in a while: Call from Iraq

If I was the teacher, all I would do is ask him to leave. Our troops don't have the luxury of calling ANYTIME, what a stupid thing for this school to do.

It's a shame people can't take a little responsibility and say, "hey sure, leave the class but take the call."

Wednesday, May 04, 2005

Support Our Troops - Wear Red on Fridays

I was scanning some news sites and came across this article: Wear Red on Fridays

While reading the article a few things came across my mind:

-Why isn't there more of a show of solidarity in this country for the troops? Sure, you can be opposed to the idea of war, and this war, but support the troops please.

-Why do stories like this: "Homecoming Sign Removed" happen more than the one above?

-"We cannot let people just stick signs up," LePera said. "The city would look like a mess."

-LePera said the family might have been able to get special permission to place the sign in a specific area had they contacted the code compliance office.

So in other words: If you want to support troops don't expect students, cities, or officials to support your efforts. You must work through the bureaucracy of getting things "OK'ed" by people whom are paid by your tax dollars and protected by your friends and family overseas. The land that you CAN'T put said support and signs on is public, but that doesn't mean you have right or access to it without permission.


Sunday, May 01, 2005

Left Loves Free Speech...?

Once again, theft is the issue of the day for the Review.

In the past we have dealt with various theft of our property: Papers Stolen

The bad news is, we have begun to run out of stuff to steal.

Our latest issue hit racks last week, well the few racks we had left. We were down to 2 racks, with all others being stolen throughout the year. We now only have one left, in OLD MAIN. The current theft occurred from the UGL. The entire rack was taken... in order to.... well we aren't quite sure.

We see now that the left will stop at nothing to stop our ideas from getting out there. Sure, I don't believe that there is one giant coordinated conspiracy against us, but I think the mentality is a single strain that runs in the minds of all of our detractors.

With nothing left to steal, aside from the papers, we will have to wait and see what the new type of attacks will be.

Thursday, April 28, 2005


On Channel 4 in Detroit tonight, they highlighted the recent Michigan MEAP results.

The story, in summary, went as such:

-The MEAP scores were drastically low this year.
-Therefore State officials think it may have been made TOO HARD

HERE COMES THE DOOZEY (technical term):
-Officials are going to meet to determine how to RE-SCORE the tests.

Here is the translation of the above:

-Michigan Schools are performing just like the state economy: they are getting worse everyday.
-The test is obviously made the same way each year, but if they say it was made too hard this year it is a GREAT EXCUSE for the poor results.
-RE-Scoring the test is like applying a curve... even though many did horrible, they have to make it look like some kids did well, otherwise parents might start blaming the REAL PROBLEM... the administrators of the schools.

Wednesday, April 27, 2005

Extra Extra

The Wayne Review, Issue 5 ... has hit newstands and trashcans everywhere!

Check the usual paper pick-up places, and trashcans near them.... for the newest issue of the Wayne Review.

Let the "hate mail" commence.

The Future of Wayne conservatism.

New Members Respectively:

Wayne Conservative Union:

Emmett Thalmann

CU Board:
Joan Barrett, Gayle Mazurkiewicz

Wayne Review New Editor-in-Chief:
Emmett Thalmann

Editorial Staff:
Joan Barrett, Jason Loomis

WSU College Republicans

Nick Hawatmeh

Joanie Barrett

Rob Mahu

Jason Loomis

Students for Life:

Joanie Barrett

Vice Chair:
Gayle Mazurkiewicz

Phil McRoberts

Dianne Monaco

Conservative Spiritual Advisor:
M.C. Barsenas

Vigalante Guard:

Good luck to all the new officers!! Wayne State has finally seen a Conservative presence emerge on campus with quite a bit of gusto. Those of us leaving behind these groups look forward to seeing them have continued success and a those in charge leading a progression of the legacy we left behind.

Friday, April 22, 2005

Better Late Than Never....... maybe....

Look for Vol. 2 Issue V - next week on campus.

PDF will be available next week as well.

Tuesday, April 19, 2005

Benedict XVI

From Fox News:
Before the conclave began, Ratzinger tried to set a tone of urgency, warning cardinals, bishops and others gathered in St. Peter's Basilica for the Monday Mass that the church must stay true to itself. He spoke of tendencies he considered dangers to the faith: sects, ideologies like Marxism, liberalism, atheism, agnosticism and relativism — the ideology that there are no absolute truths.

Viva il papa!

Monday, April 18, 2005

Gov't Priorities

Mount Clemems City Commission decided tonight to eliminate their Police Department.
They are going to contract out their needs to Macomb County Sheriff's office.

Read more behind the link below...

What is more important than a Government protecting the safety and freedoms of its citizens? What should be higher on a budget than police and fire protection? No wonder Michigan is the worst state when it comes to jobs. When you have City Commissions deciding to not only cut jobs, but to also cut the ability to remain free, you end up in a no win situation.

2006 can not come soon enough.

Vandalism at Wayne.

Details are still sketchy, but there was a large incident of vandalism and mischief on the 3rd floor of the Student Center. This happened shortly after the elections for Student Council.

Things seemed to be locked down due to some type of investigation. We will be watching this situation and bringing forth any information that is solid and confirmed by University officials.

Please check back for more info...

Papal Vote

We are staying on top of the Papal Vote...for now a day has passed with votes, but no selection as of yet. For now... our only consolation is the black smoke of progress and prayer.

We at the WR are offering our prayers and hopes that the successor to one of the most influential people on earth can be placed by God to lead His Church into future glory.

We will have news as it arrives.

Voting 4 Change

Student Council elections are sometimes lost in the fray. They are pushed to the back burner of not only local politics, but school politics as well. This is somewhat unfortunate, considering the amount of control and influence a council has over the University activities during a school year.

Vote 4 Change, won a landslide victory in the recent Wayne State elections. Their slate, although only 10 strong, was able to get all of its members elected. This, in spite of attacks from other candidates and groups, is a GREAT victory for WSU Students. We want to congratulate the V4C crew on a hard fought and worked campaign, and look forward to the good things to come.

For analysis and editorial click below.

For the past few years, the Student Council has been run and ruled by the same type of mentality: "Cater to the needs of friends and special interests." For a school that is so rooted in liberal ideology and mind-set, it is disconcerting to think and see how lopsided and intolerant the Student Councils of past have been.

The Vote 4 Change slate hopefully will change this. Looking back, the past 3 years have been pretty much the same old thing year after year. Now though, V4C has brought diversity, of the right definition, to the University community. If you look at the make-up of the V4C slate you will find a diversity unmatched in recent years by any council. Regardless of how you categorize this slate, they are diverse top to bottom. Everything from liberals, conservatives, Greeks, ethnicity, religion, major, student groups, class, residence, etc... they are different.

WSU has been needing this for a long time. Monochrome councils do not serve the school, regardless of hue. This applies not only to race but "hue of thought" as well. I do not think, nor would I support, a completely Conservative minded slate. I think that there needs to be a representation of all ideas on campus and on the council.

We have an amazing Dean of Students, who is willing to allow all students the opportunity to express their ideas and thoughts, in legitimate manners, on campus. The Student Council should be in the same mind-set, not only in allowing events to occur, but actively seeking them and promoting them. V4C will hopefully be that type of council.

Leading up to the elections, The Wayne Review, College Republicans, and Students for Life, had all either officially endorsed Vote 4 Change, or at least supported them in their campaign. Although there was no way to officially announce this, several members of the slate appreciated our support even if they were not of the same political and social persuasion.

The Wayne Review and myself, would like to wish the Vote 4 Change good luck in the coming school year, and hope that they hold firm to their promises and their platform of changing the way things operate around Wayne State. In a time where there is such a push for an active and vibrant campus life, this slate could be and should be the one to really bring that to fruition.

Wednesday, April 13, 2005

NAACP + SS = Confusion

Tonight at Wayne State, there was a panel discussion hosted and sponsored by the NAACP.

There were a couple of mixed messages sent.

1. Social Security is not in a crisis, it is fine, it just needs to be fixed, or it will become a crisis, the President's plan is bad, it will make Social Security collapse because the stock market is shaky, we should change Social Security in another way, like adding taxes or upping the age for collection.

Now some of you may say, "Wow, bad grammar again." But that is my point, listening to this panel made my head spin. I felt dizzy, which is how the readers must feel after that run-on-sentence they just read, because the issue kept spinning.

2. Republicans are unethical and hate old people and black men. Why? Because if they weren't they would simply make the wage threshold (any income above this level is not used to pay into the SS system) from 90,000 to a higher amount.

My question is, how many people who make over 90,000 need to worry about SS? Probably zero. If so, raising that threshold puts more money in, but it will also take more money out. Also, why do they need a solution to something that isn't a problem?

There was no press, and the panelists contradicted each other. The worst thing was during the Q&A. On separate occasions there were long pauses after questions were asked before someone answered. Yet, once questions were answered, the panelists on more than 2 occasions said, "I don't think I answered your question but..."

Maybe it was good that there WASN'T any press.

Super Size My Tax??

America's "First HIP-HOP Mayor" is sparking more controversy. During a speech today he slipped in a comment or two about the ever controversial "Fast Food Tax."

This has been floating around since January, and the idea is to put a 2% tax onto all fast food purchases.

The obvious implications of this are stunning and horrifying enough... but supposedly there is an even deeper and more vile situation which runs in the shadows. Allegedly the reasons behind the tax, which is coupled with a new property sales tax, are that the city is looking for new revenue sources to fund the newly proposed budget. This is a budget that was supposed to have cut-backs and eliminations within it, to fit into the current city income structure.

Why does the city need more revenue if it is proposing a reduced budget that is supposedly lower and leaner than previous ones? Why are there new revenue sources proposed? We aren't 100% sure, because the City has been vague on this.

More analysis to come after Kwame answers press questions on this tomorrow...

Saturday, April 09, 2005


Lately I have been criticized for my discussion on numbers and facts.

Here are some hard numbers:

3069 - The total number of signatures collected in a 2.5 week period by Michigan College Republicans. These signatures were petitions to the U.S. Senators from Michigan, asking them to consider LOOKING at Social Security reform.

2103 - The 2nd place total from the State of Arizona.

667 - Wayne State's contribution. This placed Wayne State 3rd nationally for individual school results.

Congratulations to the Wayne State University College Republicans. Maybe the Michigan US Senators will consider at least LOOKING at Social Security reform.

Thursday, April 07, 2005


The point of an estimate number, is obvious. It is a guess on the amount of SOMETHING.

Sometimes estimates are wrong, think about that time that you were given an ESTIMATE on how much something would cost... it ended up being more didn't it?

Or sometimes, when you are promised something with an estimate number... it usually ends up being less... it's a theory and practice all in one.

Never though, believe the estimate to mean "This is how many...."

For example... the Marches... where an estimate is given BEFOREHAND.... the number is usually not true. Especially if it is in the name of the event.

Now... let us take the current example of estimation. The Pilgrimage to Rome. The two places that you should listen to estimates from are the Vatican and the Italian/Roman authorities. Sure they could have an agenda and be wrong, but it's an estimate remember.

Now, when you have the same people giving the same numbers (within a short time frame) the number should be the same. Sure day to day, it might change based on observation and data, but for the most part it should stay within some sort of pattern, flow, or relative size.

Analysis Below....

Let us see if we can detect a pattern...

CBS/AP Report (4-4) 2mil.. ok... 2 days after the death, Ill accept this
BBS NEWS REPORT (4-4) Hundreds of Thousands? As in not millions? Hmmm... the 18k an hour also only puts about 432k people in a 24 hr period past the Pope... seems a lot lower than the Million that other sources have reported.
CNN (4-7) Ok I know things change.. but in 3 days.. they found 3 million more people coming to ROME?

Here is the point. Sure its hard to guess how many people are coming...I'll grant that. What is disappointing is that it's obvious some are not willing to talk about how EXTRAORDINARY this whole situation is. It's the POPE, people are religious, this man changed the face of history.

Just give the numbers... don't be afraid.. it may sound like alot... because it IS!
This is the most momentous social/traditional event in the modern era. God Rest Reagan, but it even surpasses his funeral. As it should. Don't play games with numbers... if you aren't sure... use MILLIONS... not hundreds of thousands, or a low ball number.

Wednesday, April 06, 2005

Students For Life Display

While we figure out our funding/publishing issues, we will try and keep somethings up to date on the blog.

One of those things that cannot be overlooked is the recent Students For Life display on the lawn outside of State Hall.

Over 150 white crosses were made, and displayed on the lawn to represent abortions that happened last year.

The display was the classic "Cemetery of the Innocents." And along with the classic display came the classic vandalism. Several different incidents, and 2 that lead to both police fines, and University Charges.

It's amazing how the left is all for free speech and free expression as long as it isn't "right wing conservative christian propaganda!"

Monday, March 21, 2005

To our Readers...

I want to write a note concerning our lack of publishing.

We have had some internal issues that have created a little bit of chaos within the ranks of the Wayne Review.

We apologize to our supporters, readers, and contributors who look for us each month. We know that many of you looked for an issue at the end of February and failed to find one.

A number of things have contributed to the reasons behind why we didn't print an issue. We had one ready to print, and unfortunately could not do so.

We are planning to print the remaining of the year on a somewhat normalized schedule. Meaning you can expect 2 more issues hopefully.

Because we are self supported and funding is a primary concern, we sometimes face situations that back us into a corner. I hope that this does not discourage those who support us, because we will take this in step and continue to fight forward.

Thank you, and I speak for the entire staff of the Review in saying we appreciate your readership and support.

-Joe Koss

Wednesday, March 02, 2005

Segway Scooters.

Alright, this entire post should be in capitals to emphasize my joy, but I was informed by the grammar police that I can no longer do that. I will also refrain from "type-speaking."

But Segway has launched its new line of scooters! I found this while browsing [WizBang!] blog. Kevin always has an interesting blog, and this definitely hit my interest. How does this affect you? Well it really doesn't. Considering most of the scooters cost more than a semester at Wayne, we aren't talking about Segway's target audience here.

I sort of like the Golf version though. Being a golfer, I have always wanted an individual mode of transport on some of the "Cart Required" courses. This may be a market that the company is trying to break into, considering how Kevin explains that they have had poor sales since their introduction.

On a side note, while in D.C. last month, I went to a newly opened Segway showroom at the mall in Georgetown. The things are quite cool, just a little out of my price range.

Some people seem to think that this a Photshop deal, but I went to the Segway site and confirmed that they are indeed the new models.

Tuesday, March 01, 2005

Why can't we file suit against IDIOTS?!

All right, seriously, I think that Armageddon is upon us. I found this story, linked from Drudge... "Garage Jumping."

So pretty much a bunch of genius kids decide to thrill seek by jumping from parking structure to parking structure. A kid falls 6 stories, and sues the city and the owner of the parking company for not putting up fences to keep him from jumping. Shouldn't he throw God in the suit to and file suit for the whole GRAVITY THING?

More below..

Alright, here is the part that kills me: the News station is writing its story from the view that the city IS AT FAULT. Look at the words they use:
-"There are no safety fences in place on the parking garage."
-"... making little effort to correct a potential deadly risk."
-"refused to comment about their responsibility"

Since Bargfrede fell, the City of Orlando erected a partial fence but there's still room for someone to take a dangerous dive."
So this whole thing is from a segment or series called "PROBLEM SOLVERS." Their lead title is "GARAGE JUMPERS."

The problem is not that someone was hurt but instead that this can take place or does take place really.
SHOULDN'T the problem be that people do it and then file SUIT?!? Shouldn't the rest of the city be PISSED that tax dollars, time, money, and resources are going to be spent to prevent and pay for kids jumping gaps where they can fall 6 stories?!?! Ok I know there are plenty of other instances of more insane suits filed than this, but this is one example. I mean, they are mad because the city offers parking and yet they don't build fences with tax dollars to keep their KIDS from jumping across them.

I wonder if they can throw the suit out because the boys didn't pay to enter the structure. Wouldn't that be a doozey. Sorry, case dismissed you didn't pay entrance therefore you can't claim damages because you were trespassers.
Hot Coffee? WHAT? High Parking Garages that hurt when you fall from them? WHAT?
I wonder if I can file suit against a city if while Car Surfing??

The idiocy of some people... and the people that support them... Sometimes I wonder why God doesn't just hit "Force Quit" on some people... (For you windows users that would be Ctrl-Alt-Delete.)

Tuesday, February 22, 2005

A Voice of Reason?

I have deep rooted feelings about academia being underminded. Ward Churchill is a great example of academia gone wrong and unchecked. The South End article in today's edition is shockingly observant, intelligent, and right on target. Great job!

Friday, February 18, 2005


A quick note:

For those that want to read up to the minute blogging from CPAC... go here:

Everyone else go here: The Red Button.

Thursday, February 17, 2005


Howard Dean, the man is a walking news story.
The New York Post reported recently that Dean wants Dem's to stop referring to themselves and the party as "Pro-Choice." Here is his quote:
I don't think we should use 'pro-choice.'
The Post explains that Dean said this because he feels the term implies that the party and it's members are "too pro-abortion."

Umm What?

Right Wing News talks about the Dean statements from the post article in their recent post: Howard Dean's Abortion Subterfuge

RWN lists various reasons why this is just absurd. But the best comment, actually came in the form of a 'comment' from Christopher Taylor on RWN blog:

"It's almost as if he's admitting that the Democrat Party's primary problem is that people are accurately perceiving their true nature." -- Christopher_Taylor

I don't know what to make of Dean's statement More below...once I figure this out...

I guess that Dean is worried that with this "shift" to the 'right' that this country displayed in the last election, that he wants to deflect attention from some hot button issues. Maybe, it is the old idea that if you say it enough times, you will start to believe it. Maybe if Dean can convince Democrats that they aren't "Pro-Choice" then they are simply something else... and therefore innocent of all attacks from the "Pro-Life" crowd.

I don't know, it seems to me that this is style over substance. Changing the meaning of Word's is clearly Clintonesque though, so who knows, maybe he can work wonders. I used to have some respect for him, but I guess I wish the big "D" could get people in their party like they used to... (i.e. Truman, Kennedy, etc...)

Wednesday, February 16, 2005

FIREFOX.... please.

It has come to my attention that anyone who uses INTERNET EXPLORER has been missing out on half of the WEBsite. The right side, which contains quite a bit of info... is missing.

Now I thought that everyone had switched from Explorer but I guess not. If you havent... go here:

Get Firefox!

Everyone I know that switches loves blocks pop-up's very nicely, loads faster, and is just a much cleaner browser.

Plus you get our whole site :)

Lights OUT Hockeytown!

Well, it is official. The NHL season has been cancelled by Communist Party Leader Gary Bettman. After several concessions by the NHLPA, the league (Read: upper echelon of the NHL) were unable to understand economics well enough to strike a deal. This was a clash between philosophical takes on economic markets. Unfortunately for now, we as fans lose, the players lose, and the owners lose. Read more below...

What has been lost in all of this "LOCK-OUT" talk, is that many of the owners are at odds with the whole situation. There are a few teams, teams that run their business well, that did not want this lock-out or much of a structure change. The players, they simply want their fair share. Sure you can call them greedy, and yes many of them make more than you or I put together, but that is not the point.

Generally I am not a union person, but in this situation, it is not a typical union situation. In fact, it is reversed. The union is asking to keep a free market free, while the league is looking for a more pluralistic or egalitarian (if you will) market. Gary Bettman simply screwed up a long time ago, and now that the league is in a whole, or should I say, part of the league, he is trying to use this lock-out to strong arm the players to fix his damage. Luckily the players have someone like Mr. Goodenow to protect their interests and their fair share at a free and open market.

It's just sad that it had to come to this...

Thursday, February 10, 2005

Privatizing Social Security

I was doing some cleanup to my various websites and fixing some of the RSS feeds (all very technical) when I came across this gem from the South End. As most people know I'm not on campus that often (being a graduate student and working F/T and all) so I hardly ever read The South End, but now I'm reading it on-line.

Nevertheless, the writer of this story just doesn't have any of the facts straight. Allow me to correct some of his inaccuracies: Social Security will no longer exist if something isn't done (the warning comes from both sides of the aisle as well as independents); the stock market can be quite volatile at times, however, there are safe places to invest your money, including mutual funds, government bonds, and so on; nobody said there wasn't risk involved, life is a risk; I fail to see how social security is the Democratic Party's greatest achievement; when we pay into social security we are paying in for ourselves not other people (at least that was the plan); Al Gore couldn't find a nickel in the U.S. Mint let alone a lock box, as senator he approved for funds to be removed just as everyone else did; one Republican? that's it?; no one said it was foolproof; finally, maybe he should actually read the proposal and history of social security.

CNN (gasp) has a good sum up of Bush's plan so far.

Facts, not muckracking... now that's good journalism.

Prop. 2.... going to court.

While scanning The Michigan Review I found a post about this article: "Same Sex Benefits In Court"

Many people said before they voted on Nov. 2, that as soon as it passes, it will be in court. They were pretty much right. It will be interesting to see how this goes, considering the challenge is to the interpretation of the reach of the law, and not directly to the core of Prop. 2.

This affects Wayne State, in that, WSU has a policy of giving "domestic partnership" benefits to same sex couples who are employees. Wayne State has also filed an amicus brief along with other Universities due to their coverage statements. This could serve to be an interesting little case.

This is Wayne States statement of coverage:
Same Sex Domestic Partner Benefits

Employees represented by the AAUP-AFT, Staff Association and Professional & Administrative unions; the Graduate Employees Organizing Committee and all non-represented employees may add their same-sex domestic partner to their medical and dental plans. Eligible employees may also take advantage of the reduced tuition benefit for your partner.

The link for that is:

Wayne State's Domestic Partnership Definition

Definition of Domestic Partner

Domestic partners are defined as two individuals of the same gender:

* who are both 18 years or older and,
* who are not related by blood and,
* who have resided together continuously for at least six months and,
* who have agreed to be jointly responsible for each other's welfare

The link:

The Towers... Which ones?

Alexandra Cervenak makes some really good points in Thursdays edition of The South End. Her Op-Ed: OPINION : No kitchens in new dorms is a deal-breaker is a good critique of the new dorm building, the TOWERS. I would agree with her critique of the facilities.

There are a lot of problems with this new facility, Ms. Cervenak lists a few of them, and isn't simply being picky. For the most part, Wayne has done a good job recently of trying to create a modern and traditional campus, yet with the Towers project, they seem to forget where they were going.

More Below...

Lets take the name. Alexandra says:

Before I continue, I need to clear something up. Of all the names in the world, Wayne State University decided to name its new development the Towers, which is of course horribly similar to the already existing apartment building University Towers.

She is right, there isn't much more to say. I mean, couldn't Wayne State have found SOME Alum. or donor to name the building after? Or maybe (Insert Conspiracy Music Here) they named it sooooo horribly as to prompt someone to donate a bunch of money to change it?

Next, the fitness facilities on every other floor. Ok I haven't measured the distance from the doors of the new TOWERS building to the Student center, which you can walk through, and then to the Rec. & Fitness center... but we are talking what, a mile, at most two from door to door? (Note to non-WSU people: the distance from the new dorm to the state of the art Rec. & Fitness center is negligible. We are talking a 30 sec. walk if that.) WHAT IS THE POINT OF FACILITIES ON EVERY OTHER FLOOR? Seriously? Like Alexandra said, why not laundry or kitchen, or even pool tables and ping-pong tables... something anything, but not facilities the students already have EASY EASY access to!

I just feel that Wayne missed on this one. They are wasting time and money on things that they THINK will draw people in, but in actuality, won't. If you want students to stay on campus and relate to one another, make campus a place that they can call home...

"So which towers do you live in again? 'Cuz I went to Room 345 in the Towers.. and it wasn't you? ... Oh not UT, but just T? Why didn't you say that!"

Wednesday, February 09, 2005 How about if I talk real slow

(***Update: I forgot to link to Mr. Czerniak's website. This post below is responding to this post, and Mr.Czerniak responded here.)

Did I say Mr. Czerniak indicated the speech was bad? I don't recall. The point of making that statement was to show Mr. Czerniak that the contradiction he thinks he has found is an illusion. More below.

Why is this so? Because in his post Joe never said why President Bush's approval ratings went up. This is what Joe said:

Bush has an approval rating of 57%. Not bad... but I thought after that "horrible?" State of the Union speech he gave. Heh, maybe people do want to control their own lives and money... whoda thunk it?

Now Mr. Czerniak may draw whatever subtexts he wants from the text cited above, but he's drunk on scotch if he thinks this implies a contradiction held on Joe's part.

Now Mr. Czerniak has pointed to the last sentence and drawn an inference as to its meaning and then from that meaning juxtapose it to to this sentence in the paragraph Joe cited:

The [approval rating] increase appears to be related to the Iraqi elections...

Where is this contradiction Mr. Czerniak is harping upon? In some fantasy-land?

Perhaps what Joe meant was that President Bush's approval rating did not decline, therefore people were not displeased with the message of his State of the Union address. As a matter of fact, that seems the more plausible inference.

Mr. Czerniak has drawn his inferences from air and mist. Perhaps he should read Copi more closely.

Q.E.D. You're kidding, right?

My last two posts somehow vanished while I tinkered with them, so I'm just going to repost it all under one larger article, since Joe has begun posting again.

With that said, let's get down to this business with Jeffrey Czerniak at He attacked Joe's recent post. But was this attack unfounded? You better believe it, read on.

In his recent post, Mr. Czerniak thinks that he has found a contradiction in Joe's latest post. I think not, let's examine the context.

If Joe was to contradict himself, then he'd have to claim both A and not-A. Mr. Czerniak thinks that he has done this by the appended statement:

"...Heh, maybe people do want to control their own lives and money... whoda thunk it?"

The implication or suppressed reference, whichever you like, drawn by Mr. Czerniak is that Joe is refering to Social security and other domestic programs. But the article appears to contradict Joe's claim, the article states:

"The poll shows little change in Bush's job approval rating on the economy or on Social Security."

Of course Mr. Czerniak leaves out the fact that Joe referenced this statement to the recent State of the Union address, Joe writes:

"Not bad... but I thought after that "horrible?" State of the Union speech he gave."

If the State of the Union address was apparently so bad then why has his approval rating gone up? Well the rating did not go up because of President Bush's proposals in the State of the Union address, but notice, they did not go down. As a matter of fact, they stayed the same:

"The poll shows little change in Bush's job approval rating on the economy or on Social Security."

So apparently President Bush didn't say anything that intersting, but nothing so bad that people disapprove.

Nice try, Mr. Czerniak, but try again.


My blog The Hardline (

W - 57%

Was reading around the iNet today....and found the most recent Gallup poll.

Bush has an approval rating of 57%. Not bad... but I thought after that "horrible?" State of the Union speech he gave, Heh, maybe people do want to control their own lives and money... whoda thunk it?

A new CNN/USA Today/Gallup survey shows that President George W. Bush's approval rating has increased to 57%, up from 51% three weeks ago. The increase appears to be related to the Iraqi elections, which the poll shows went better than most Americans expected. In general, the public is more positive now than it was before the elections about the way Bush has handled the situation in Iraq, as well as how the war is faring for the United States. The poll shows little change in Bush's job approval rating on the economy or on Social Security.



My point is this: If Bush gave a SOTU that was "horrible," as claimed by the left due to its content, then why would the Iraqi elections be enough to boost his numbers? If you have a positive event, the Iraqi Elections, and a negative event, the SOTU, you would have a wash, and therefore the poll numbers would stay the same. Since the Iraqi elections pushed the number up first, and the SOTU had such bold new ideas in it, regardless of your view on them, the speech would have to have some impact on them. Clearly, this shows the bias of Gallup, it is easy for them to make such bold statements without backing them up. Therefore, it is just as fair for me to say, Gallup is wrong and biased, the SOTU did help and the Iraqi elections were only part of the upward push.

Tuesday, February 08, 2005

Race against time.

A few blogs have been posting this quote by columnist Mark Steyn:
If I had six or seven centuries to work on things, I wouldn't do it this way in Iraq or Afghanistan. But the "war on terror" is more accurately a race against time - to unwreck the Middle East before its toxins wreck South Asia, West Africa, and eventually Europe.

I saw it at Powerline - "A Race Against Time"

I think that what we fail to forget not only in Iraq, but the Middle East in its entirety is that we, the U.S. and its Allies, are trying to un-do 50, 100, 1000 you pick, years of gridlock, infighting, splits, and religious bastardization.

The Full Steyn Column is here: "I hate to rain on Europe's parade but.."
If you care... there is more below.

A lot of people on the left are calling out with a new cry since the success of the Iraqi elections. "Bush didn't even want them." "It was all Sistani." Wait, someone in IRAQ spoke up and demanded freedom? That is bad? We want to mock it?
Now of course if we look deeper at "WHO" Sistani is... we see maybe why Bush and the US Admin. was worried over a declaration of action from a man like Sistani. He is someone who is not a hardline Iranian style Theocratic ruler, but he is the highest ranking Shia religious figure.

This BBC article outlines his role since the fall of Saddam: "Ayatollah Sistani"

The point is that the US is trying to remove decades of religious pressure, fighting, and deals. What is a good time table for that? I'm sure someone like Sen. Kennedy would say 1 year, but maybe a few years is more likely, and maybe we wont see full democratization for a decade. Even here in America, it took from 1776 to 1787 (1789) to really actualize our full version of a Republic. It's easy to sit back and criticize how Iraq isn't enough like the US yet, but that really isn't the intention of this War.

Steyn said it right:
The obsession of the anti-Americans misses the point: it's not about America. Surely even Fisk and the other "experts" aren't so obtuse that they can't see that the one undeniable fact of the election is that there are millions of Iraqis who want change. That doesn't mean they want to turn Basra and Kirkuk into Cleveland and Buffalo, only that they want something other than the opposing cul-de-sacs of secular pan-Arabist dictatorship and death-cult Islamism, which dead-end alternatives are all the region's had to offer for decades.

Sunday, February 06, 2005


"Global Warming is...GOOD!?" One scientist, who in the past has been admonished by the "Enviro-munity" has written another book: "Global Crises, Global Solutions" which may spark a new set of controversies.

What Lomborg claims is that Global Warming is a type of global effect, but it must be placed in the context of the world we live in. He tries to explain that all changes to our environment have both negative effects, but also positive ones, and therefore we must evaluate both when making judgment on the effects of such change.

Wait, What? You mean, we can't simply just FREAK OUT and yell at people for how BAD it is that we affect the environment? Is a scientist really going to tell us, that we can put things into a perspective and not simply make rash generalizations and claims based on a single set of theories?

Here is an excerpt:
"Q: There are advantages to global warming?

A: Absolutely. I come from Denmark, and there it's pretty cold. The environmental assessment of the impact of global warming in Denmark is that overall it will be slightly positive. We'll have better agricultural production. We'll probably have better forestry. We will, however, also have more flash rain. That will be a negative."

More behind the PERMALINK...

Now it wouldn't be fair to assume or even proclaim that this scientist is correct and all others with a more "cynical" view on Global Warming are wrong, but I do think it is important to consider all well founded arguments.

Q: Do you think that global warming, like predicting the weather, is complex and chaotic? Or is there some sort of linear pattern we can take from the data? How do we know which we're dealing with?

A: It makes sense to try and predict it. That's how we've gotten to where we are. We try to use science to understand how things work. But just like we use scientists to be better able, we should also use economists to tell us how much this is going to cost and how much good is it going to do. And that is exactly what the Copenhagen Consensus and my new book is about.
We can do fairly little about global warming at a fairly high cost. Maybe there are other things we'd like to be spending our money on doing first.

Lomborg is essentially trying to ease back on most enviro-claims. It is a responsible approach. I think it could be said as such:

  1. If Theory A: "Global Warming will kill us all in 50 years" is '0' on a spectrum, then Theory B: "Global Warming may be helpful" would be '100'
  2. We must consider all theories with in the spectrum equal, unless that theory lacks evidence.
  3. Other factors must come into our analysis of "course of action" besides simply preservation of current 'Status Quo'.
  4. The environment is important to maintain and preserve, but 'Status Quo' levels (@ current time) are not paradigmatic nor is a move into a "worse environmental state" necessarily a solely bad thing.

Like I said, I am not going to go and burn Styro-foam in my back yard for fun, but it does place the environmental debate into a context and more logical approach. It is only fair, and although I know it won't get much "play" it's good to know someone out there is thinking it.

Saturday, February 05, 2005


We all know that Blogging has hit it big time. That is a story of the past.
The new story is this: "When will some Blogs become "Credible" news sources?"

Michelle Malkin
wonders if Conservatives will have to break-down barriers in this medium, just like others.

She talks about "Blias"(My word for Blog Bias or when some source takes one blog over another based on bias and lies) in her most recent tag: "Google: Not so fair and balanced."

More behind the PERMALINK (Links to other sites as well)...
I think we all know that certain sites are going to get more credibility from places like Google, before others. Blogs are a scary place... especially when it comes to "credibility issues."

Look at last weeks "Insta-Rage" incident.

I think Mrs. Malkin is right, in that it is probably wrong to consider the DU a news source, but at the same time, a few of the Blogs many of us would consider "news credible" could be suspect as well.

I am not going to name names, but I think for someone like Google, it is really difficult to have a team that sits and determines which BLOGS "make the cut." I would say "Of course throw Michelle and LGF in the mix as legitimate but Google has to look at the big picture, they have to have some possibly, and should err on the side of "NON-Admittance" as opposed to admittance.

But those are just my thoughts..

**UPDATE**: Several people have different takes on this.
Libertarian Girl actually agrees with me.
Say Anything also has a similar take.
Basil's Blog is the funniest though, he offered to become a NEWS WRITER for Michelle so that she can EDIT his stuff out of the news cycle and therefore have an EDITORIAL POLICY on actual NEWS.

Friday, February 04, 2005


So there is this stupid situation that occurred in the 'sphere (oh no, WHOM do I credit for that word?) not to long ago.
I found out about it on: WizBang!
Let me summarize it as such:

A 13yr old named Austin has a blog, and posts a picture that he got from another blog. He then HAPPENS to be read by a bunch of people and gets linked by InstaPundit.

From there, it gets ugly. This guy Jordan, from a Blog that I won't link cuz I think he has received enough traffic from this, complains FOR Matt (Blogs for Bush).

The contention wasn't even really the USE of the pic, or the non-credit, it was over the TRAFFIC that Austin "STOLE" from Matt. This happened because a "famous" blogger (Glenn Renyolds) posted it on InstaPundit. BLOG TRAFFIC STEALING? I don't think that could even be considered intellectual property?

The long and short of it is, some guy gets a little blog-sessive and freaks out on a 13yr old. It reminds me of some really weird Comic Book Convention where some kid comes up and buys the last of a "Rare comic" and some guy goes bonkers, or maybe one of those role playing tournaments like "Pokemon" or "Magic" where you see some 11 yr old beat a 25yr old and the older guy goes nuts and pulls out a rule book.

I am not saying that we shouldn't follow the "rules," I am all about rules. But where do we draw the line? and When do we choose what rules to follow? I know for a fact that all bloggers stretch the rules when it comes to COPYRIGHT, sure it's all fair use, but in doing so, we can't say it's ok for US in THIS instance, but not in THAT one.

Below are all the links to make sure I am not STEALING anything.

"Austins Blog"
"Blogs for Bush"
The Dictionary

Wednesday, February 02, 2005

The Importance of being a Democracy.

Before Christmas, the Wayne Review reported about the importance of the Ukrainian elections.

The Wayne Review wrote an editorial which stated:
"The situation in the Ukraine is not something remote and detached from what is going on in the rest of the world."

Many people scoffed at this, and some just glanced over it not giving it another thought.

This article: "Iran and China linked to Ukraine Missle Sales" may just explain how important that election was.

Monday, January 31, 2005

Captain Obvious Award

The Captain Obvious Award goes to...

Beautiful Atrocities has the best post, simple, short, and to the point...

Rest behind the link...

Ok the jokes are endless here, the obvious story line is just beyond comprehension. Did it really need to be said? I mean, this was a headline for a good 2 hours on

Obviously there will be some discussion as to the degree of what the affect will have, yet there is clearly and has always clearly been a causal link.

I know the left is good at Monday Morning Quarterbacking, well so is the right, but come on, is there really a contingent of people out there that read this story and said, "Wow, they are right, this might be bigger than Iraq, Haliburton and Oil!"? Is there?

Evil SUV's Strike AGAIN!!

Attention: ALL SUV owners... remove the engines of your SUV immediately.

SUV need to come with a warning that they make strike at any time and without cause or reason. Drivers are left helpless to their wanton bloodlust and thirst for death and destruction.

Michelle Malkins describes the SUV horrors.


I am smewhat at a loss, but then again, I shouldn't be considering the source.
"UN Delcares Sudan, Not a Genocide"

I am not quite sure what it is then? A civil war? This is the problem with the U.N., we know they are corrupt and dirty, so it's hard to say where their hands and pocket books are. Obviously not on the side of the group that is on the wrong end of the "Non Genocide."

NO RESPECT! (Dangerfield Style.)

I was thinking about the Iraqi elections.

Lots of people said we shouldn't be in Iraq. Their reasons varied. One strong argument MANY made, now I am sure many will claim they never used this argument, is that the people did not want us there and that we were evil occupiers.

I guess almost 8 Million people are wrong. They just figured maybe if they vote we will leave?

Anyways, the funniest thing I've seen so far has been on WIZBANG!

"We're Sorry!"

More behind the cut below...

I think this satire sums it up. There are and were a lot of people that didn't support this election process. Sure Iraq isn't "POOF!" a magical democracy or republic. We aren't talking Club Med. But WMD's, suppression of tyranny, and War on Terror aside, the U.S. minus our political agendas did send brave men and women to a place, and we have helped them forward their struggle for independence, freedom, and liberty. It won't match the U.S. right away, but maybe one day. We can dream can't we? Isn't that the point, that we try and make a better life for our future generations?

Sunday, January 30, 2005

Iraqi Voting...

We needed to say something about Iraqi voting.
I couldn't have made a better post than:
Michelle Malking - Iraqi Voting

Saturday, January 29, 2005

A Rebuttal of's Attack

(It's come to my attention that Jeffrey's last name is Czerniak and I have therefore updated "Mr. Jeffrey" to "Mr. Czerniak"- M.C.B.)

Friday, January 28, the author of the blog, Jeffrey Czerniak, wrote a critique of my previous post "Sarah Ryley's Argument: An Objective Analysis". Mr.Czerniak's critique,entitled "M.C. Barsenas' objective analysis: An objective analysis" is severely defective and has therefore compelled me to compose an immediate response. I have examined Mr. Czerniak's counter-arguments, and written my responses below. Enjoy.

Counter-Analysis 1

Mr. Czerniak writes:

Barsenas claims that President Bush did not use the word "mandate" in his inauguration speech.

False. This is what I actually wrote:

Ms. Ryley claims that President Bush used the word "mandate" to justify his policies, an "air of infalliability" in his administration, and clearly indicate that President Bush feels his mission is dictated by God.

First, what Mr. Czerniak has done here is a straw-man fallacy, that is, he has composed an argument that appears to be mine but is actually a different or weaker one. Not only has he committed a fallacy, he has misrepresented my statement by claiming that I argued something that I clearly did not. Perhaps Mr. Czerniak did not examine the arguments more precisely, for if this is not the case then Mr. Czerniak has claimed that I've said something that I clearly did not say, and this is lying.

(For the rest of the article, click the link below)

Mr. Czerniak writes further writes:

This is true. But Vice President Cheney used it right after the 2004 election:

President Bush ran forthrightly on a clear agenda for this nation's future, and the nation responded by giving him a mandate.

I fail to see how this has anything to do with my argument at hand and once again Mr. Czerniak has committed a straw-man fallacy. I did not argue whether or not President Bush or any member of his administration said "mandate", I challenged Ms. Ryley's conclusion that by using "mandate" President Bush feels his administration is on a mission from God. By asking Ms. Ryley to cite where "mandate" is found in President Bush's speeches, I have asked for some type of context so that a more clear analysis can be done. Furthermore, notice that Vice-President Cheney uses the word "mandate" not in a religious sense as Ms. Ryley seems to imply, but in a political sense, the mandate coming not from God, but the people of the United States. Again, this does not detract from my argument because it fails to address the real argument asserted.

Counter-Analsys 2

Mr. Czerniak's in his critique of my second analysis challenges my assertion that Hitler did not rest the bulk of his beliefs on some theocratic framework. He takes a single quote from the Mein Kampf and from that concludes that the remainder of the Mein Kampf is somehow representative of this statement. But that Hitler believed that God commissioned him to destroy the Jew does not mean Hitler rested on a theocratic platform as Ms. Ryley seems to imply. In Paul Johnson's history book "Modern Times", particularly on pgs. 342 and 343, Johnson analyzes not only Hitler's Mein Kampf, but also his so-called 'Second Book' of 1928 and his earlier speeches. The central thread throughout all of these texts is the notion of race-purity. Hitler claimed that the Jew had corrupted the pure Aryan bloodline of the German peoples and therefore had to be eliminated. Hitler did not say "The Jews are evil and must be destroyed because God said so.", no, he said "The Jews are evil and must be destroyed because they are a corrupting force of the pure Aryan bloodline...oh, and because I believe it to be the will of God." What Mr. Czerniak has done is lifted a quote out of context and made a superficial patch over Hitler's real motivations which was racial purity, not a theocratic mission.

Counter-Analysis 3

Mr. Czerniak attacks the validity of my argument regarding liberty and God's will. He writes:

Barsenas absurdly claims

Well, if Ms. Ryley believes that liberty and freedom are good, and further that God is good, then she must, by logic, believe that freedom and liberty would be willed by God.

I don't know of any form of formal logic that would ever lead you to draw that conclusion. Could you please explain what type of syllogism this is? It shouldn't be a problem for you, since you insisted that we're the ones lacking critical thinking.

Apparently Mr. Czerniak is unschooled in logic, so allow me to instruct him in deductive validity.

1) If God is all good, then he wills only good things
2) God is all good
3) Therefore, he will's only good things [by modus ponens, a valid deductive form]

4) If God is all-powerful, then he can will anything
5) God is all-powerful,
6) Therefore, he can will anything [by modus ponens, a valid deductive form]

7) If liberty is good, then God will's it[by premises 1-6 by hypothetical syllogism]
8) liberty is good
9) Therefore, God wills it [from 7 & 8, modus ponens, a valid deductive form]

I have employed valid deductive forms (hypothetical syllogism, and modus ponens)therefore if all the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. Perhaps Mr. Czerniak is confusing the truth of the premises from the logical form. If so, then he is prima facie confused. I suggest he read Schaum's Outline of Logic so as to ensure he is engaged in clear-thinking.

Counter-Analysis 4

Mr. Czerniak writes in his critique of my fourth analysis:

Barsenas asks,

Is Ms. Ryley implying that the only way to spread liberty and freedom is by use of force? There is no reason to believe that.

cough... Revolutionary War... cough... War of 1812... cough.... Yeah, absolutely no reason.

Mr. Czerniak has once again committed a straw-man fallacy and misrepresented my argument. Mr. Czerniak seems to imply that I am denying the usage of war for the spread of freedom and liberty. This is false. I deny Ms. Ryley's assertion that the U.S. military will be flooding the Third World to spread freedom, by denying that force is the only way to spread freedom. Furthermore, Mr. Czerniak seems to imply that I am denying that there has never been any use of force to spread freedom. Again, false, I am denying that the use of force is the only way to spread freedom. Also, take a clear look at the wars Mr. Czerniak cited. These were not wars were the American people went out of the colonies, traveled to..say, Bolivia, and used their forces to topple the Spanish rulers. This is the sense that Ms. Ryley is implying, that the U.S. will be "flooding over the third world" and using force to liberate it. Instead, these wars were fought for the American people by the American people, it's accidental effects, as Aristotle would call them, was the spread of freedom elsewhere, but not its primary cause. Finally, Mr. Czerniak should consider the non-violent resistence of Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr., both of which produced freedom and independence for many.

Counter-Analysis 5

Mr. Czerniak in his critique of my fifth analysis writes:

Barsenas sees no reason to believe that we are facing "stagnant wages, decreased job opportunities and diminishing funds for education".

False. I argue that there is no reason to believe Ms. Ryley's claims regarding these issues because Ms. Ryley did not provide any evidence for them. And most important, I deny Ms. Ryley's suppressed implication that President Bush is somehow neglecting to repair the problems or is indeed, the source of the problem, or further that under President Bush it will get worse. Mr. Czerniak has committed, once again, a straw-man fallacy, and has attacked an argument that I did not advance.

Counter-Analysis 6

In his critique of my sixth analysis, Mr. Czerniak writes:

Barsenas asks,

Also, how does Ms. Ryley justify the assertion that the Republican Party is attempting to deny "all rights" to "non-heterosexual" (whatever that is, seeing as how a rock constitutes a non-heterosexual)?

I think the Federal Marriage Amendment, sponsored by Republican Marilyn Musgrave, is quite clear about which rights it denies for non-heterosexual couples. Barsenas also asks

How has the Republican party shamed homosexuals?

Well, Mr. Barsenas, Senator Rick Santorum has associated homosexuality with incest, bigamy, and adultery. You yourself associated homosexuality with pedophilia and rape in your analysis. I believe it's fair to say that both you and Santorum are trying to shame homosexuals.

Mr. Czerniak's criticisms hit far from the mark, once again descending into a straw-man fallacy. First, I attacked Ms. Ryley's assertion that racism is equivalent to objecting to homosexual marriage, that the Republican Party is attempting to "...obliterate all rights of non-heterosexuals", and to shame homosexuals into resignation. What has Mr. Czerniak done? Constructed an argument ne'er a shadow similiar to my own. I did not deny that the Republican Party was moving to halt homosexual marriage from being legalized. As a matter of fact, it never came up. What I denied was Ms. Ryley's ludicrous statement that "...the Republican Party’s biggest agenda is to obliterate all rights of non-heterosexuals, silencing them by shame, resignation and the desire to enjoy the same rights as everyone else." Ms. Ryley did not temper her assertion by pointing out that the Republicans are trying to block homosexuals from marriage, no, she asserts that Republicans are attempting to block "all rights of non-heterosexuals". Even more ludicrous, she claims the Republican Party is attempting to shame homosexuals into resignation. I asked her to produce evidence for this supposed Republicans agenda because she cited none in her article. But what does Mr. Czerniak do? He not only attacks the wrong argument, he produces evidence that has no bearing on the argument and commits a fallacy to top it off.

I asked for evidence that the Republican Party had this agenda, but Mr. Czerniak gave me one Republican. This commits the fallacy of composition, that is, the notion that a single part is reflective of a whole. So Mr. Czerniak's argument commences as such:

"Senator Santorum is a Republican, and is belligerent to homosexuals. Therefore all Republicans are belligerent to homosexuals."

This is clearly absurd, because a person could use the same logial form to produce this argument:

"John Doe is a black person, and he robs stores. Therefore, all black people rob stores."

Senator Santorum's actions does not in any necessary way reflect the whole of the Republican Party, nor do Congresswoman Musgrave's backing of the Federal Marriage Amendment, regardless their party alignment. Mr. Czerniak will have to try again.

Furthermore, Mr. Czerniak accuses not only the Republican Party and Senator Santorum of shaming homosexuals, but also directs his accusations against me:

You yourself associated homosexuality with pedophilia and rape in your analysis. I believe it's fair to say that both you and Santorum are trying to shame homosexuals.

False. Mr. Czerniak is confusing association with equivalency, I did not say that homosexual acts and rape and pedophilia are equivalent, but certainly they are all associated. Let me demonstrate.

Homosexual acts are sex acts done between people of the same-sex. Heterosexual acts are sex acts done between people of opposite sex. Rape is sex with a person unwilling to engage in sex. Pedophilia is sex with children. Beastiality is sex with animals. Incest is sex with very close blood relatives, and so on.

There is one underlining feature shared by all of these things, namely, that they are sex acts. Aristotle would call this a genus, I simply call it a category, namely, a category of sex acts. I did not make a moral statemenet about each act nor did I equivocate them. I pointed out that rape ( a sex act) and pedophilia ( a sex act) are all regulated by legislation. This merely establishes that there is no prima facie reason to reject the idea that homosexual acts can be regulated; because this would cast doubt on whether we can legislate rape and pedophilia. The morality of homosexual acts is an exhaustive study in ethics, it is, however, not the subject of my refutation.

Counter-Analysis 7

In his critique of my seventh analysis, Mr. Czerniak writes:

I will grant Mr. Barsenas his claim as soon as he himself defines God in a manner which all the world's religions can agree with 100%.

Mr. Czerniak is responding to my flat-out rejection of Ms. Ryley's definition of God. My response to Mr. Czerniak is: No. I will not play Mr. Czerniak's epistemological game, because it descends into absurdity. Mr. Czerniak challenges me to produce a definition of God by which all the world's religions can agree one hundred percent, but my question is, why? Why must I accept this criterion for producing a definition of God? If all the world's scientists disagreed on whether the world was flat or spherical, would this somehow change the reality of the earth's shape? If everyone in the world who used the Gregorian calendar denied that today is Saturdy or that tomorrow is Sunday, would that somehow make it false according to the Gregorian calendar? Nobody has to agree on a definition for that definition to be epistemologically certain or even for it be true. And if Mr. Czerniak hopes to say that this epistemological standard is only applicable to religion, then why should I accept that arbitrary designation? What Mr. Czerniak is asking for is a variation of epistemological relativism and no clear-thinking person has to accept that, yes, even reject it out of hand, immediately, once-for-all.


A Correction to vII i.4...

In our most recent issue we have failed to properly credit the news sources that we got certain pieces of news from.

The stories in question are on issue 4's "BACK END." They are news summaries taken from different sources.

While we have always been diligent in giving due credit to news and photos, we have faltered in this specific situation. The rest of the paper though is filled with various credits given to authors and photographers. This was an oversight and not a deliberate attempt at dishonest journalism.

There are many instances of papers "relaying news" and this was the attempt of this piece. Normally we would state that "Such and such news agency reported that...." The oversight as we have said was not intentional. We were not looking to pass off these stories as our own.

Although many will see this as minor and trivial, we do not. We take honesty and integrity seriously. This is the reason why we are running this immediate correction and apology.

This was brought to our attention by a reader and behind the cut below you will find the original email as well as the links to different sites that hosted the original pieces.

Thank you for your understanding.

-The Wayne Review Editorial Staff

To the editors...

Because the Wayne Review's mission statement commits it to "publishing an
intellectually honest journal of review that employs all facets of
journalistic integrity," I was surprised to see such blatant acts of
plagiarism on your "back end".

The Goran Markovic story was copied from the Australian Associated Press,
the "super toddler" story was copied from BBC News, the "Stacey's mom"
story was copied from the Associated Press, and the CIA sculpture story was
copied from Wired News (links to the proof are below).

Certain sentences were copied verbatim, and absolutely no citation is
present. Say what you will about the South End, but when they publish a
news report by another news organization, they let you know.

Jeffrey Czerniak
Senior, Mathematics,10117,12014552-13762,00.html,1284,66334,00.html

Friday, January 28, 2005

New Issue: January (v2i4)

The Newest Issue of the Wayne Review is out.

To get a PDF version email me: and I will send you one.
To get a hardcopy: Pick one up at Wayne State or email me for subscription costs.

Sunday, January 23, 2005

Sarah Ryley's Argument: An Objective Analysis

I know Joe doesn't like us to comment on the South End's activities too much, but I could not contain myself after reading an article by Sarah Ryley, entitled Inaugural speech signals dark times for America, the world. I analysed thearguments of Ms. Ryley and have come up with this completely objective analysis. Enjoy.

Analysis 1

Ms. Ryley claims that President Bush used the word "mandate" to justify his policies, an "air of infalliability" in his administration, and clearly indicate that President Bush feels his mission is dictated by God. Ms. Ryley failed to cite where exactly President Bush said "mandate" because that would provide the astute reader with some context and would more then likely dissolve Ms. Ryley's argument.

Analysis 2

Sarah Ryley claims that governments that consider themselves to be ordained by God "have always been marked by a dark shadow over history". She gives two examples: Osama Bin Laden and Adolf Hitler. Unfortunately, neither of these men are "governments". Adolf Hitler ran the government of Germany and his government was called the Nazi party". If Ms. Ryley paid more attention in History 1300, she'd know that Hitler actually reduced and eliminated religious education in German schools. Further, if Ms. Ryley had read Hitler's Mein Kampf, she'd know Hitler was motivated not by God, but an Aryan myth system of his own invention. Osama Bin Laden has never even ran any government, and is a lunatic terrorist that lives in a cave. Furthermore, Ms. Ryley fails to explain how these men serve as relevant analogies to President Bush's style of governance or his usage of the word "mandate". Ms. Ryley also fails to consider that the Founding Fathers of the United States make numerous references to God in the Declaration of Independence. The Founding Fathers were a dark shadow over history?

Analysis 3

Ms. Ryley used her keen observation skills to remind us that President Bush said "freedom"27 times and "liberty" 15 times. Furthermore, Ms. Ryley claims that President Bush seems to imply that America is immortal and the earthly manifestation of God's will. Well, if Ms. Ryley believes that liberty and freedom are good, and further that God is good, then she must, by logic, believe that freedom and liberty would be willed by God. Further, President Bush's conviction that freedom and liberty are immortal ideals does not imply that American is immortal.

Analysis 4

Ms. Ryley claims thatU.S. forces will be "sweeping over the Third World". Why should we believe that? U.S. forces didn't sweep over the Third World in President Bush's first administration. Why would he do so now? Is Ms. Ryley implying that the only way to spread liberty and freedom is by use of force? There is no reason to believe that.

Analysis 5

Here is an extensive quote from Ms. Ryley:

Bush’s optimism refuses to acknowledge the harsh existence that many of us are experiencing at home — one of stagnant wages, decreased job opportunities and diminishing funds for education, while inflation steadily climbs and healthcare becomes as unaffordable to the employers as it is to individuals. Those of us who aren’t cushioned by wealth know that life is only going to get harder as the new “ownership society” will be offered no relief from the more impermeable federal government.

Why should I believe any of these claims? The simple fact is Ms. Ryley provided no evidence for any of these claims and worst of all seems to be implying that President Bush has no plan to address any of these issues.

Analysis 6

Again I quote extensively from Ms. Ryley's article:

And while Bush tells us that we “must abandon all the habits of racism, because we cannot carry the message of freedom and the baggage of bigotry at the same time,” the Republican Party’s biggest agenda is to obliterate all rights of non-heterosexuals, silencing them by shame, resignation and the desire to enjoy the same rights as everyone else.

First, a person's belief that same-sex couples ought not have legal marriage does not constitute a sufficient nor even necessary condition for being a racist. The reason being that when a person is racist, he has an irrational hatred for a person based on some perceived illusory quality. Everyone knows that the gradients of melanin in one's skin does not affect the intelligence of that person. Also, how does Ms. Ryley justify the assertion that the Republican Party is attempting to deny "all rights" to "non-heterosexual" (whatever that is, seeing as how a rock constitutes a non-heterosexual)? How has the Republican party shamed homosexuals? By calling them big dumb gay-heads? That is a ridiculous assertion on Ms. Ryley's part. Furthermore, not everyone shares the same sexual rights. Pedophiles and rapists are not permitted to explore there sexuality (thank God). I challenge any liberal to offer a real and tenable definition of "equality" since they seem to use it so much, they obviously must know what it means.

Analysis 7

Lastly, Ms. Ryley claims that God is "a universal term that describes what is outwardly and inwardly beautiful" ? That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard in my life. A daisy is a pretty flower, but it certainly is not God. I just...don't even know how to approach this absurdity.

Analysis Complete:

Ms. Ryley needs to take a course in critical thinking because something is very wrong with her claims and their justification.