UK's police must need to increase their anti-terrorism statistics

Modern police forces around the world have targets to achieve across the issues that most concern the public or, more importantly, the want-to-be-seen-to-be-tough politicians.

One of these targets must be dealing with terrorism. How else can one explain why police would prosecute this case?

A British man who said on Twitter that he would blow up an airport if his flight was delayed by snow was convicted on Monday of sending a threatening message and made to pay STG1,000 ($A1,646).

Who did he send the Twitter to? Only those people who follow him, which they chose to do. It's hardly a public threat.

Paul Chambers, 26, insisted his post on the micro-blogging site was a joke. But a judge at Doncaster Magistrates' Court in northern England found him guilty of sending an offensive, indecent, obscene or menacing message over a public telecommunications network.

District Judge Jonathan Bennett said the message "was of a menacing nature in the context of the times in which we live." He ordered Chambers to pay the fine and court costs.

The message is not a sign of the "menacing nature in the context of the times in which we live"...the judgement is! How pathetic.

Chambers was arrested in January after he posted the message saying he would blow up Robin Hood Airport near the large town of Doncaster "sky high" if his flight, due to leave in a week's time, was delayed.

Chambers, from Doncaster, said he made the post when the airport was closed by snow and he feared his travel plans would be disrupted.

"It did not cross my mind that Robin Hood would ever look at Twitter or take it seriously because it was innocuous hyperbole," he said.

An airport employee came across the tweet a few days later, but security staff there decided it was not a credible bomb threat. Nevertheless, they passed the message on to police. Chambers was arrested two days before his flight was due to leave.

How did the airport employee come across the tweet? Kudos to the security staff who used more than two brain cells and worked out it was not a credible threat.

Chambers, who lost his job at a car distribution firm after his arrest, said he was considering an appeal.

This should send a chill down people's spines. The guy lost his job because of a joke tweet? What sort of place has the UK become?

News of the conviction sent a ripple of outrage across the Twittersphere, with some users retransmitting the message: "This absurd judgement is enough to make me want to blow up Robin Hood airport"

Everyone with access to Twitter should be sending messages like the one above.

I can't get over how insane this situation is. The bloke lost his job becasue of a joke! That's unbelievable.

(Nothing Follows)

Collapse of standards - Example 54390442

Two stories today demonstrate the ongoing collapse of standards in today's values-free, morally relativistic world.

First, thanks to Tiger Woods:

What's in a word?

Well, for Internet searchers, many aren't quite sure.

When Tiger Woods apologized today for "transgressions" after Us Weekly posted a voice mail of the world's No. 1 golfer talking to an alleged mistress, confused readers flooded Google with searches of the 14-letter word in search for clarity.

Google Trends, which lists in real-time the fastest rising searches on Google, lists "transgressions" as No. 1.

The search engine gave the query its highest ranking: volcanic.

To help you out, I've reached over to the Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary on my desk for the definition:

• an act, process, or instance of transgressing: as a: infringement or violation of law, command, or duty b: the spread of the sea over land areas and the consequent uncomfortable deposit of sediments on older rocks

(We're pretty sure he meant the first part.)

What has happened to the standard of education when people don't know what trangression means?

I've mentioned my 20 x 20 question before (ask your teenager what 20 times 20 is; 90% won't say 400) and this is another example of not teaching the basics.

The next example comes from the world of cricket. Apparently, retired English captain Michael Vaughan has taken up art.

First it was tennis legend Martina Navratilova, and now former England cricket captain Michael Vaughan is using his sporting skills to produce art.

Vaughan, who led England to Ashes glory in 2005, has created a series of paintings by throwing paint-spattered cricket balls at canvasses, in a technique dubbed artballing.

The works -- with titles such as "Six!" and "Power Play" -- went on display Wednesday night at a gallery in London's upmarket department store Harrods.

"With my art it's been good to get away from cricket and switch off those thought processes required to captain at the highest level, the day-in day-out questioning of yourself and the team - the art is quite therapeutic," he said.

Vaughan, 35, who retired from professional cricket in June, admitted he first became interested in art when teammate Ashley Giles took him to trendy London galleries during rain-delayed Test matches.

"I tell people what I'm doing and they raise an eyebrow and say 'Oh, really?'. But then they see the finished works and it really takes them aback, which is great," the former batsman said.

A work entitled "183" commemorates his Ashes Test innings in Sydney in 2003, with a maroon ball spot for every single he scored, a red spot for every two, a pink spot for his fours and a solitary green spot for his only six.

Navratilova held an exhibition at Roland-Garros, home of the French Open Grand Slam tournament, in 2007 of her works produced by hitting balls soaked in paint against canvases, and bouncing them on canvases on the ground.

Check out the so-called 'art'...



All that's missing is a government grant.

When bouncing painted balls against a canvas counts as art then there's nothing that doesn't.

In the bottom left (Vaughan's right) you can see that he signed the 'art', as well. Is he beyond embarrassment?

(Nothing Follows)

More to drive the cultural left nuts

I think that ninemsn is doing its best to try and put up a poll question that gets a favourable response for asylum seekers but the Australian public refuses to co-operate.

The other day I posted their poll question "Should the army get asylum seekers off the Oceanic Viking?" which went 3:1 in favour of using the army.

Today's question is "Should we adopt a softer approach to asylum seekers?". So they've turned the question from being hard - use of the army - to soft.

The previous 3:1 has blown out to 7:1 against the asylum seekers.



This is also at a time when it is being reported that 20 people may have lost their lives when a boat traveling to Australia capsized northwest of the Cocos Islands.

Australians are generous to a fault but we really get riled up when people take the mickey out of us, which these so-called asylum seekers clearly are.

Andrew Bolt has more on their non-real asylum seeker status and how the despicable Greens tell lies in order to further their agenda.

(Nothing Follows)

This will drive the cultural left crazy

So there's a bunch of Sri Lankan economic refugees and assorted ex-Tamil Tiger terrorists living on the Oceanic Viking somewhere off of Indonesia in a political tug-of-war between crap knows who but mainly involving Australia's prime minister, Kevin Rudd, trying to look compassionate, tough and statesmanlike all at the same time; a stance that he has failed spectacularly to achieve, which comes as no surprise to those of us who think he has little diplomatic skill and a decidedly nasty streak about him.

So here's the boat. There's 78 Sri Lankans camping on it.



Now, here's the bit that will drive the cultural left crazy.

Outspoken Liberal MP, Wilson Tuckey, suggested that the government may need to call in the army in order to remove the Sri Lankans from the boat and place them in detention in Indonesia.

Cue the usual whinging and carry on from Australia's left.

Here's the current status of ninemsn's poll on the issue - Should the army get the asylum seekers off the Oceanic Viking?


(click to embiggen)

Queue-jumping asylum seekers have very little support from the Australian people. We have a strong sense of fairness and these people are well past what we consider acceptable.

Now, would the cultural left accept the result of the poll?

Surely they would twist it into an example not of Australia's fairness but of its inherent racism?

No doubt there'll be much chatter among the chattering class over the injustice of it all.

(Nothing Follows)

George Carlin - the planet is fine...but the people...?

Comedian George Carlin was never one to toe the politically correct line, which he demonstrates in spades in this terrific piece in which he takes aim at the type of people who take themselves oh so seriously because they drive a Prius, wash infrequently to save water and, basically, 'care' so much about the planet that they curl up into the foetal position and cry themselves to sleep every night because of the horror and devestation of planetary destruction.

The reality is that they simply imagine this to be the case and react to their imagination rather than dealing with the facts.

Either that or they're with Al Gore, who is trying to convince the world to introduce emissions trading schemes so that he can increase the profits of his carbon offsets company.

Here's Carlin. There's some biting stuff in there.



(Nothing Follows)

Immigrants attacking Indian and Chinese students proves Australia is racist

The Indian community in Australia staged a quite large and noisy protest to highlight the fact that many of them, and particularly students, are being targeted in deliberate racist attacks.

Our Prime Minister has been forced to intervene in a diplomatic spat with India over the attacks.

Over the last week I have been watching the media reporting to see whether they're reporting on who the perpetrators of the attacks are.

Not one report has provided the information that is most salient to the crimes - that they're being mostly carried out by immigrants to Australia, mainly from Africa.

So what do we have now?

The nitwit leftists who jump on any opportunity to kick Australia and accuse it of being a nation of racists are howling from the rooftops.

In the People's Republic of Victoria, Rob Hulls has introduced new hate crimes legislation:

HATE crime could soon be an offence in Victoria as the State Government moves to crack down on violent attacks against Indian students, homosexuals and other targeted groups.

Under a plan being pushed by Attorney-General Rob Hulls, judges would have to take into account "hatred for or a prejudice against a particular group of people" as an aggravating factor when sentencing offenders.

Tougher sentences would apply to crimes deemed to be based on victims' race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

Of course, the only problem with such legislation is that the government will never have the courage to charge anyone other than white, male Australians.

The Chinese never miss the chance to put the boot in and take advantage of a situation:

THE future of the $15.5 billion overseas student industry is under threat after the Chinese Government went public with concerns about violence against its students in Australia.

Battling to contain the damage arising from attacks on Indian students, university vice-chancellors fear Australia's third-largest export industry may face sanctions from the Chinese and Indian governments.

Chinese embassy counsellor Liu Jin yesterday said his Government was intervening to ensure the safety of Chinese nationals.

"There are over 130,000 Chinese students in Australia," he said. "They have, on the whole, had a good study and living environment in Australia, but attacks on Chinese students also occurred in recent years.

"The Chinese embassy and consulates in Australia attach high importance to the safety of Chinese students … It is hoped that the Australian Government will provide better protection to international students from China and other countries and ensure their legitimate rights in Australia."

At least we have a Prime Minister who can tell the Chinese to pull in their heads in their own language. Not that he has the balls for that.

Not letting an opportunity to get her noggin into the media again, Australian minor Bollywood starlet, Tania Zaetta, has 'begged' Bollywood to stop a boycott against Australia.

Aussie Bollywood star Tanya Zaetta has pleaded with the Indian film industry not to boycott Australia over the spate of attacks on Indian students in Melbourne.

The actress, who appeared in the Melbourne-produced Bollywood movie Salaam Namaste, said she was "horrified" to hear of the race violence but added that any boycott would do more harm than good.

“I understand completely Indians being upset over the recent racial attacks, I’m appalled by them myself," Zaetta told ninemsn.

"It makes me ashamed to be Australian when you hear about attacks on people of other cultures.

"But I think everyone needs to take a deep breath and calm down. Bollywood boycotting Australia will only drive the two countries further apart."

Zaetta is 'ashamed to be Australian' due to attacks that are mostly carried out by a country whose intake of immigrants exceeds any other in the world on a per capita basis.

Why can't the truth be told?

Australia is among the least racist nations on earth. Not that you'd know that from reading the media.

(Nothing Follows)

Motoring developments in US and India make a stark contrast

Here's something to think about...in the developed world we're oohing and aahing about the really cool GM/Segway P.U.M.A on the not unreasonable grounds that it is a really, really neat piece of kit...

The GM/Segway P.U.M.A.



...while in the emerging market of India everyone is captivated by the release of India's "Model T", the Tata Nano, and with good reason - it looks like a fair thing.

The Tata Nano

I like the comment in the first video about there being no other country in which the Nano could have been built.

All the world thinks that China will be the next big thing but I reckon it's India that will be the long term winner due to its greater innovation and Westernised institutions left over from the British Empire.

(Nothing Follows)

Message from the left. Shut up.

Andrew Klavan kicks a goal with this brilliant analysis of today's left wing policies.



Seems like the left has simply taken Joe Dolce's idea and put it into effect.



And seriously, can you understand how this tune was #1 all over the world?

(Nothing Follows)

UK - Gay voters now more likely to vote Tory than Labour

This is a pretty interesting article from UK LGBT magazine Pink News on the growing support for the Tories over Labour.

If gays are starting to understand that it's the conservative side of politics who are the real champions of equality and freedom then how far behind can other left-leaning demographic groups be?

Gay and lesbian voters are now more likely to vote Tory rather than Labour, a poll has suggested.

The survey of 1,800 gay men and women found 30 per cent said they intend to vote

Conservative at the next general election.

It was conducted by the Gaydar consumer panel for the Outright Consortium last month.

Labour and the Liberal Democrats each took 18 per cent of the vote, while 17 per cent said they will not vote and nine per cent were undecided.

At the last general election in 2005, 33 per cent voted Labour compared to 21 per cent who voted Conservative.

Unsurprisingly, 73 per cent said the next election will be fought on the state of the economy. Ten per cent said unemployment would be a key issue and five per cent cited immigration.

Fifty-nine per cent of respondents felt Gordon Brown was not doing a good job as prime minister.

In terms of finance, 24 per cent of those questioned were most worried about losing their job in the recession, compared with 20 per cent who were concerned about paying their mortgages.

However, 22 per cent said they were not worried at all.

Although 71 per cent blamed the banks for the recession, 72 per cent said they were not planning to change financial services providers in the near future.

Just over half (51 per cent) said the recession had impacted on their spending, with 35 per cent admitting to making the biggest cutbacks in their social lives.

Here are some interesting responses from among the comments to the article:

• I'm gay and I vote Tory- so a few respondants have met their first one! We vote Tory because we like being treated as equals- no extra nanny state 'help' for us...we also like to walk neighbourhoods without being beaten up- breaking news- we feel safer in Tory neighbourhoods like Surrey than on Council Estates in Hull. Conservatives live and let live...more than can be said than in many Labour voting areas.

• Too right it's for real. And there's plenty of us who "admit" to voting Tory, more all the time in fact. Gay people as a group ought to find Conservative ideas about liberty and individualism more attractive than the collectivist alternatives.

• I'm happy to 'admit' it too. One of the reasons you are seeing the overt change in position on gay issues is that there are so many gay poeple in the Tory party these days. Equality legisation came from Europe not from Labour and whoever was in power would have had to introduce it - that argument is long dead as far as I'm concerned. I am however concerned that what Labour has done economically to this country will haunt us for generations, gay or straight, and I find it incredible that so many gay people who seem to use this site have failed to educate themselves on the politics that affect their lives so greatly. How much corruption needs to be exposed before people realise that New Labour was merely a vehicle for Tony Blair's ambitions and that Gordon Brown is just the patsy that was handed the smoking gun when Blair had set the country into a terminal downward spin?

• "I've never met a gay person that votes Tory" - Ah bless - what a funny little world Stuart and his red-rinse old dears inhabit! Its a generational thing Stuart - us younger gay men (younger in body and/or in mind) who look forward with optimism and will be voting in a new Tory government in our 1000s next year have no interest in harking back to all that class-war, gays-as-victims, blah blah politics of the last century and the 1980s - who is interested in the 1980s? Life, the world and politics has moved on - blue is the new red. The 21st Century Conservatives are very much in tune with the 21st Century gay man and woman - look at any london borough council or the Mayor's office or local conservative party office and you will find scores of conservative gay politicians, advisors and organisers. So don't look back and be a bitter old has-been, look forward and join the in-crowd, vote Conservative!

(Nothing Follows)

Baby boomer parents can't let their children grow up and face reality

I see hundreds of resumes per year and interview a stack of people.

What I see in the Gen-X and Gen-Y crowd is enough to make your head spin. They can't write above the level of a 12 year old or do basic mathematics and have no concept of history other than those events that run down Western civilisation.

But, boy, do they have a terrific opinion of themselves and their abilities.

All of which leads to a level of narcissism and lack of self awareness probably unparalleled in the history of history.

I blame the parents and so does Victor Rozek:

File this one under "just when you thought you'd seen everything." As the millennial generation comes of age, the 76 million children spawned by industrious baby boomers are entering the workforce. But unlike past generations, they are not coming to the workplace alone. They are bringing their mommies and daddies.

Reliable sources report that corporate mangers and HR departments are being monumentally annoyed by Boomers who accompany their children to job interviews, review their job offers, intervene on their behalf in salary negotiations, and badger the boss when their nestling fails to be promoted. And they can be irritatingly insistent.

Danielle Sacks, writing for Fast Company, reports that "Last year, when a 24-year-old salesman at a car dealership didn't get his yearly bonus because of poor performance, both of his parents showed up at the company's regional headquarters and sat outside the CEO's office, refusing to leave until they got a meeting." Saner minds prevailed, and they didn't get a meeting with the CEO. What they got instead was a meeting with security which, quite appropriately, escorted them out of the building.

Much has been written about narcissistic boomers raising spoiled, self-indulgent children. And why not? More than any other generation, boomers rode the crest of the American experience. They flourished during a time when middle class jobs were plentiful and well paid. Healthcare, education, and housing were affordable. Sun tans were healthy, energy was cheap, credit was abundant, ecological systems were not noticeably collapsing, and everyone thought the party would go on forever. Being the model of self-indulgence themselves, the boomers assuaged their guilt by showering their nippers with toys. Cars, clothes, computers, flat screens, iPods, cell phones, Wiis; the millennials got whatever they wanted (whether they worked for it or not), all the while being told how wonderful they were.

For millennials, the taste of failure was unfamiliar. Coincidentally, school standards fell, allowing kids to graduate with grades they did not earn, while parents were quick to challenge any teacher who dared reprimand or flunk their progeny. High school transcripts were considered so unreliable that many universities began distrusting reports of glowing grades. As a result, when these kids enter the workforce, they are "simply stunned when they get any kind of negative feedback." So says Cindy Pruitt, a professional development and recruiting manager. Sacks writes that one of Pruitt's summer hires broke down in her office after being told his structure on a memo was "a little too loose." Now, for most of us having "loose memo structure" is not career threatening but, said Pruitt, "I practically had to walk him off the ledge." An act of kindness to be sure, because she probably wanted to push him off the ledge.

According to beleaguered managers, millennials are only comfortable receiving positive feedback. They want it early and they want it often, and when it is lacking, watch out for Mom. After a 22-year-old was denied a promotion, "his mother called the human resources department the next day." In fact she called 17 times and left increasingly shrill messages: "You're purposely ignoring us" or "you fudged the evaluation" and then "you have it in for my son." If the company didn't have it in for her son before, they certainly did after.

Hard to know when it all started. Maybe with Nathaniel Branden, the groundbreaking psychologist who began the Self-Esteem movement in the 1970s which, like many worthy ideas, was soon twisted by lesser minds beyond all recognition. Chalk it up to unintended consequences. Brandon wrote extensively about the value of self-esteem in human development. Self-esteem, he argued, was essential to psychological well being, achievement, and healthy relationships. It necessitated six practices: self-acceptance, self-responsibility, self-assertiveness, living consciously, living purposefully, and living in integrity. Note that these "practices" require that an individual make moment-by-moment choices and has a profound commitment to a disciplined course of action. Thus, self-esteem can be nurtured, but cannot be provided by outside sources such as parents or teachers.

But somewhere along the line, a great many parents and educators came to believe that the best way to nurture self-esteem was to ensure that children not be allowed to fail. And since failure is a frequent by-product of competition, competitive situations were defanged so that losers could feel good about themselves. In little league sports, for example, everybody got to play and, win or lose, everyone was awarded a trophy. From a young age, kids were taught that performance and reward were not linked. Not coincidentally, it was about the same time that fathers started haranguing coaches about playing time for their "stars."

In school, kids grew up being complimented for everything including putting their shoes on the correct foot. When they got into trouble, parents interceded, and teachers who dared discipline kids got into hot water. By the time millennials went off to college, the explosion of personal communication technology made it easy for parents to keep in touch with their kids no matter where they were. Just when young people should have been establishing their independence, they found it difficult to break away from parental influence and easy to rely on it. Sue Shellenbarger, writing for the Wall Street Journal online, reports that "a study at Middlebury College, Middlebury, VT, set for release at an August meeting of the American Psychological Association, found college freshmen are in contact with their parents more than 10 times a week." That this is a topic for psychologists should serve as a cautionary tale.

Hiring companies are just the latest targets of boomer angst. Shellenbarger recounts the dismay of a recruiter. "It's unbelievable to me that a parent of a 22-year-old is calling on their behalf," says Allison Keeton, director of college relations for St. Paul Travelers. After taking many calls from parents "telling us how great their children are, how great they'd be for a specific job," she's started calling this generation "the kamikaze parents--the ones that already mowed down the guidance and admissions offices" and now are moving into the workplace.

For their part, corporations find themselves coping with four dissimilar generations of employees. They are looking for ways to help them understand each other, while adjusting traditional practices to accommodate an increasingly needy workforce. This being America, they turned to inter-generational consultants in the hope of finding feel-good solutions. Why the other three generations have to be subjected to forced encounter groups is not clear. Maybe corporations could save themselves some money by simply giving the problem kids a time out. Better yet, send the parents to bed without their martinis.

The whys of parental intervention are as complex as individual families, but there are a number of theories. Perhaps boomers simply forged strong and lasting relationships with their children. Perhaps their offspring are hapless and unable to stand up for themselves. But the theory I like best (since I know a number of boomers with dependent adult children) is voiced by Shellenbarger. "Parents may fear kids will never leave the nest and want to give them a push." Statistics support the fact that more adult children are staying home longer. The Census Bureau says "11 percent of adults ages 25 to 34 still live with their parents, up from 8.7 percent in 1980." And with the economy in the tank, more kids will find home-cooked meals and laundry service a pleasant alternative to homelessness.

Ultimately, whether the children of boomers are so unprepared for life that they need their parents to run interference for them; or their parents simply want to ensure their kids get the best possible break, misses the point. As a friend of mine who facilitated personal growth workshops for young adults was fond of saying: "Adults don't have Mommies and Daddies; they have ex-Mommies and ex-Daddies." Perhaps the best we can say is that although all millennials may not have had a happy childhood, a number of them appear to be having a long one.

The notion of an extended period of almost-adulthood during which grownup responsibilities are postponed is a relatively modern invention. Things weren't always thus. In 1793, William Parker joined the British Navy at age 11. A year later, he had his first taste of war. By age 20, he was captain of his own ship.
As far as we know, the Admiralty wasn't pressured by his parents to give him the promotion.

How are these people going to cope with the massive downturn in economic good fortune that the world now faces, which will be made all the worse by unwise, immoral spending programs being undertaken by the world's major economies?

(Nothing Follows)

Sharpton channels Muslim cartoon outrage

Has anyone else made the connection between the outrage over the Islamic cartoons by Muslims and Al Sharpton et al's outrage over the New York Post chimp cartoon?



That's one of the reasons I call these groups soulmates though at least Sharpton's group has only called for people's figurative heads and not literal ones.

From a free speech point of view there's absolutely no difference between their reactions.

People should be protected.

Ideas should always be open to debate.

It seems to me that Al Sharpton should unclench his fist...

It's instructive that people on the right would never have made the connection between the NYP cartoon and Obama - because we're pretty much race blind and have been for years - while the vile race baiters on the left use it as a cudgel to promote their racist agenda.

And in the immortal words of Forrest Gump:



(Nothing Follows)

Are people running out of patience with their politicians' spending?

Is this the type of stuff that gets people worked up and off their bums to push back against their political masters?

The problem in the world was caused by too much spending based on easy credit due to artificially low interest rates.

Can someone name one country that is not looking to try and spend its way out of its spending-induced problem?

President Obama gave his non-State of the Union to which Peter Schiff responds:



I don't see how things are going to get better before they get much worse.

As Schiff points out, without savings there is no ability to fund investment.

I still think we'll see 10% unemployment and inflation in the USA and across Europe. Australia will hit 8%/8% and potentially crack double figures.

At what point are people going to get so fed up as to 'chuck the bums out'?

(Nothing Follows)

Hollywood's history of supporting the worst people and ideas in the world

Gerard Jackson may well qualify as a curmudgeon but he's also someone who understands completely why the world is in the financial mess it's in.

He also understands why the world is also in a cultural mess.

On one hand there's been a bubble created in financial markets due to rapid expansion of the money supply and availability of artificially low interest rates.

On the other hand there's been a bad ideas bubble created in Hollywood, the institutions of the cultural elites, especially universities, and the mainstream media.

The term 'McCarthyism' is one that has come to be reviled due to McCarthy's zeal for tracking down communists in Hollywood.

What's never acknowledged is that Hollywood was indeed infested with communist agents at the time, as Jackson points out.

Digging through some old magazines I came across an attack on Elia Kazan by the author of the Culture Vulture column (The Australian Magazine 19-20 September 1998) in which he used the word "odious" to describe Kazan whose crime was to reveal the names of Hollywood Stalinists. Now the left is very hot on free speech, especially for the left. But having a totalitarian mindset means that they define 'free speech' as complete agreement with their current 'party line'.

I know that many of us have heard or read about the fiendish Senator McCarthy and his Hollywood blacklist that denied work to patriotic American actors, producers, writers and directors because they had allegedly been associated with the CPUSA (Communist Party of the United States of America). Because of this infamy the mere mention of his name causes 'progressives' to turn apoplectic, even as they defend — as does Steven Soderbergh, Ed Asner, Benicio Del Toro, Robert Rederford, Sean Penn, etc. — sadistic leftwing killers like Che Guevara and Fidel Castro.

While Hollywood’s celluloid intellectuals blame McCarthy for the blacklisting and excoriate HUAC (House of Un-American Activities Committee) they overlook the simple historical fact that McCarthy was a Senator and was not elected until 1947 while HUAC had been set up in 1934 by Democrats.

At the time of the HUAC hearings McCarthy was running his own investigation into communist infiltration of the State Department and the military. He had nothing at all to do with any hearings on communism in the film industry which were conducted in the House of Representatives. Moreover, these investigations started in the 1940s and were requested by actors and studio executives, mainly as a reaction to the Communist Party's own blacklist, something the likes of Redford, Soderbergh, and the truly hateful Clooney would never think of mentioning.

The American left assiduously cultivate the myth that the CPUSA was never a threat to America anyway and that those associated with it were honest people motivated by idealism and a love of liberty. (Our left has used the same tactic to defend the treasonable activities of the Australian Communist Party). It follows that it is both absurd, as well as slanderous, to suggest that these people would use their positions in Hollywood to promote tyranny.

But the collapse of the Soviet empire and the subsequent opening of some the KGB's intelligence archives revealed the real story, the one the left is still trying to suppress by ignoring it. We now have the evidence that the CPUSA was, like the Australian Communist Party, fully controlled and financed by the Kremlin. In short, it was just a branch of the CPSU (Communist Party of the Soviet Union). This is one story that you can bet your last dollar on that neither Soderbergh or Clooney will ever film. After all, that would be the patriotic thing to do.

There is also the little matter of the Hollywood left-wing blacklist, the one we never hear about. Those who were on this list were anti-communists who suffered for their beliefs because they identified Stalinist toadies. Morrie Ryskind was one such person. He was an award-winning film writer until he told a congressional committee the truth about communists in the film industry. Suddenly he was unemployable.

And just in case you think this blacklist is dead, some years ago two young leftwing writers on the Sony Studio Lot had Robert Montgomery’s name taken off a building because he had been a "friendly witness" for HUAC. Needless to say, Clooney and the rest of the Hollywood left remained unmoved by this intolerant act of leftwing bastardry. Their silence is not surprising considering the degree of leftwing intimidation that comes from the Hollywood elite.

(This reminds of a very revealing complaint by Clooney: "There used to be three networks. Now there's hundreds and hundreds." He believes that news broadcasting should be restricted to three networks controlled entirely by people who agree with him. Tom Hanks is another example of Tinseltown's political intolerance. He called Mormons who support California’s Proposition 8 of being "un-American". It logically follows from this that conservatives are also "un-American").

Now one might say that it is all history now, water under the bridge and all that. But then such a person would have no idea of the left's capacity for hatred and revenge, specially the Hollywood left and its fellow travelling media mates, even those in Australia. This was made sickeningly clear when the Hollywood left blocked the distinguished director Elia Kazan's nomination by colleagues for the lifetime achievement award given each year by the American Film Institute and the Los Angeles Film Critics Association.

Kazan who had directed such masterpieces as On the Waterfront, East of Eden and A Streetcar Named Desire and who had won two Oscars as a director was ignored in favour of the left-wing Norman Corman who won lasting fame for Attack of the Crab Monsters, Swamp Women and other masterpieces of schlock. So heavy was the stench of hypocrisy that even The New York Times felt impelled to comment on Hollywood's vindictiveness.

The famed then 87-year-old Kazan's unforgivable crime was to have truthfully told the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities in 1952 that he and eight of his friends had been fellow members of the communist party, from which he had resigned in disgust. Some of these men later admitted that Kazan told the truth. Nevertheless, until his death in 2003 at the age of 94 Kazan remained a political leper among Hollywood's politically correct.

These are same people who in October 1997 streamed into the Motion Picture Academy of Arts and Sciences in Berverly Hills to see Hollywood Remembers the Blacklist, a film glorifying unrepentant Stalinists who wanted to turn the US into another Gulag. Needless to say, these are also same celluloid intellectuals who support cop-killers and murderous dictators – but only so long as they are socialists.

What is worthy of note here is the hypocrisy, political stupidity and moral baseness of these leftists. No wonder they feel comfortable supporting the Democrats.

It was Otto Katz who bragged: "I discovered Hollwood". Katz was a Comintern agent sent by Stalin to turn Hollywood into an instrument of Soviet policy. He arrived in 1934 and was a great success with Hollywood leftists who fell over themselves to do his bidding. Some of those Stalinists lived long enough to attend the Hollywood Remembers the Blacklist love-in where they were enthusiastically greeted by the glitterati.

As proof that there is a divine providence, Katz (who was said to be implicated in the murder of Willi Münzenberg) was arrested in Prague in 1948 and became a victim of the Rajk-Slansky purges. He was tortured for months before being tried. He was convicted of treason and hanged the next day, His body was burnt and the remains put in a sack which was later dumped on the roadside. Not a tear seems to have been shed by his Hollywood pals. This would make a terrific film. It’s a great pity it will never be made.

The double standard of the elites can also be shown in how they treat Castro versus how they treated Pinochet.

(Nothing Follows)

Gitmo detainees. What would Che do?

The left has been bleating on for years about the 'shocking' treatment and 'illegal' detention of terrorists at Guantanamo Bay.

Never mind that Alain Grignard, deputy head of Brussels' federal police anti-terrorism unit, said "At the level of the detention facilities, it is a model prison, where people are better treated than in Belgian prisons."

There is a reason that terrorists enter looking like they've caught a serious dose of anorexia and leave looking like the Michelin Man.

Now that Obama is president and has order the closure of Guantanamo within 12 months the question is what should be done with them?

The left wants to give the terrorists the same rights as US citizens and moving them to the US mainland.

Leaving aside that extraordinary position, what is a very possible outcome of doing so?

Let's imagine for a moment that one of the masterminds of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, is moved to somewhere like Fort Leavenworth.

Let's suppose that his lawyer appeals that his client has been denied fair justice because he wasn't read his Miranda rights.

Then let's suppose that the court upholds the appeal and orders KSM released into the community. You'd think there'd be a heap of Americans who'd want to do him some physical damage and perhaps continue his waterboarded simulated drowning except this time without the board and without the simulation. No doubt there'd be hundreds of liberal organisations who would be prepared to protect him. Columbia University would be a good place to try if the United Nations turned him away.

Naturally, KSM would fear for his life if he were returned to his homeland.

So what does he do?

He claims political asylum...

Farfetched? Maybe, but it just goes to show that people haven't thought this whole issue through very hard.

But back to the main question.

Given that the left wants to shut down Gitmo then what should be done with the prisoners.

Is there someone who has shown the way previously on what to do to prisoners?

Someone who the left looks to for inspiration?

Someone lionized by Hollywood?

Of course there is...



...Ernesto Che Guevara.

What would Che do?

Oh, yeah.

He'd have them shot.



And then want to make sure they were dead.



Which just goes to show how leftwing positions tend to clash with themselves.

Mind you, it's worth remembering that under the Geneva Conventions the US had every right to execute them rather than send them to Gitmo.

How would China or Russia have treated them?

Or even France or Germany?

Not anywhere near as well as the United States has, that's for sure.

(Nothing Follows)

Australian culture blamed for African's killing of Asian man

I have been giving the UK a decent bollocking over the last few months because of its cultural capitulation to the violent, racist, misogynist terrorism supporters and perpetrators in its midst known as the Muslim community.

However, here in Australia we have our own problems, as exhibited by the following ridiculous story...

An African migrant who viciously bashed a father to death with a full bottle of wine in a random attack has been jailed for eight years.

Leong Lim, 45, was walking home from a pokies venue when he was attacked in a Springvale park and repeatedly hit over the head with a bottle of Passion Pop on March 3 2007.

A Victorian Supreme Court judge said on Wednesday that Australian culture was partly to blame for the attack.

The court was told the 16-year-old attacker, identified only as AO, had been drinking in the park with his friends in the lead-up to the bashing.

Mr Lim, a Malaysian father-of-four who was in Australia to make money to send to his family, died of a severe head injury.

AO also stole Mr Lim's wallet and mobile phone.

He was originally charged with murder, but pleaded guilty to manslaughter and armed robbery.

On Wednesday, he was ordered to serve a minimum of four years in prison.

The court was told AO came to Australia from Ethiopia at the age of 12 to flee violence between troops from his homeland and Somalia.

He witnessed people being killed and his family lived in extreme poverty, the court was told.

But Victorian Supreme Court Justice Paul Coghlan said it was a culture of drinking alcohol AO learnt after he arrived in Australia that led to him being in the park that night.

"Drinking of this kind is more a product of our culture than the culture and background from which you come," Justice Coghlan said.

"It is imperative that our community take a stand.

"It needs to become clear to our young men and women that enjoyment of life and position in society is not to be measured or driven by ever-increasing consumption of alcohol."

Justice Coghlan described the attack on Mr Lim as "vicious and sustained".

He said AO bent over Mr Lim's body and shook it.

But Justice Coghlan said AO, who was tried as a child in the Supreme Court, had shown some remorse.

The court was told AO was convicted and fined last year in the Children's Court over a similar attack in which he seriously injured his victim. That attack happened just six days after Mr Lim's killing.

Although he ordered AO to serve a minimum of four years in prison, he will be eligible to serve the sentence in a Youth Justice Centre.

It's terrific that the piece of human excrement showed 'some' remorse, isn't it?

What has happened to society when a clearly violent individual is able to get away with murder by receiving such as short sentence?

How is it that someone who had supposedly fled violence and death should take advantage of the free society he now finds himself in to commit murder?

Why is it that when an African kills an Asian a Victorian Supreme Court Justice can still find a way to blame the attack on Australian culture?

That says far more about the culture of the court than of Australia.

The Somali and Ethiopian communities have made quite a name for themselves in Victoria for the level of violence attributed to their members, a fact that has been scandalously covered up by the Victoria Police but has come to light due to the good work of a few journalists.

And talking of communities, the fact is that these groups stick together like glue and hardly interact outside their group (apart from driving cabs, as they seem to have taken most of those jobs).

So how does it come about that in just 4 years an Ethiopian lad can be so corrupted by the Australian culture of enjoying a drink?

Where are his parents in all of this?

Why am I and my fellow law abiding, decent Australians having our names dragged through the mud for the actions of one piece of murderous crap like AO?

AO needs to be put away for the rest of his life and Justice Paul Coghlan needs a good kick in the arse.

(Nothing Follows)

What do the results of the American civic knowledge test say about society?

It says something about the power of the United States' impact on Western culture that an Australian blogger sitting thousands of miles away can take the Intercollegiate Studies Institute's American civic knowledge test and score 90.9% (30/33) against the average score of 77.5%.

Things like the Scopes Trial and Roe v Wade are probably well known to everybody that has had the good fortune to avoid a modern education.

Most people would know that the president is also Commander In Chief of the United States military.

However, it seems that there is a lack of knowledge of key areas of American history among those who really should possess that knowledge to help inform their decision making.

US elected officials scored abysmally on a test measuring their civic knowledge, with an average grade of just 44 percent, the group that organized the exam said Thursday.

Ordinary citizens did not fare much better, scoring just 49 percent correct on the 33 exam questions compiled by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI).

"It is disturbing enough that the general public failed ISI's civic literacy test, but when you consider the even more dismal scores of elected officials, you have to be concerned," said Josiah Bunting, chairman of the National Civic Literacy Board at ISI.

"How can political leaders make informed decisions if they don't understand the American experience?" he added.

The exam questions covered American history, the workings of the US government and economics.

Among the questions asked of some 2,500 people who were randomly selected to take the test, including "self-identified elected officials," was one which asked respondents to "name two countries that were our enemies during World War II."

Sixty-nine percent of respondents correctly identified Germany and Japan. Among the incorrect answers were Britain, China, Russia, Canada, Mexico and Spain.

Forty percent of respondents, meanwhile, incorrectly believed that the US president has the power to declare war, while 54 percent correctly answered that that power rests with Congress.

Asked about the electoral college, 20 percent of elected officials incorrectly said it was established to "supervise the first televised presidential debates."

In fact, the system of choosing the US president via an indirect electoral college vote dates back some 220 years, to the US Constitution.

The question that received the fewest correct responses, just 16 percent, tested respondents' basic understanding of economic principles, asking why "free markets typically secure more economic prosperity than government's centralized planning?"

Activities that dull Americans' civic knowledge include talking on the phone and watching movies or television -- even news shows and documentaries, ISI said.

Meanwhile, civic knowledge is enhanced by discussing public affairs, taking part in civic activities and reading about current events and history, the group said.

One wonders what the breakdown of knowledge is by demographic.

Younger people (less than 30), it seems certain, would score poorly on this test.

Would there be a difference between Democratic and Republican voters?

I suspect there would.

Anyway, take the test for yourself and see how you go.

Oh, what three questions did I get wrong?

4-What was the main issue in the debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas in 1858?

I knew it was about slavery but picked the wrong answer.

7-What was the source of the following phrase: “Government of the people, for the people, by the people”?

How I got this one wrong is beyond me...

8-In 1935 and 1936 the Supreme Court declared that important parts of the New Deal were unconstitutional. President Roosevelt responded by threatening to:

It was quite unfortunate that Roosevelt managed to overcome the Supreme Court's ruling, which continued America's poor economic recovery post the depression. I picked the wrong option.

Would the same result be reflected in Australia, Canada or the United Kingdom?

Probably.

There is a debate happening in Australia at present regarding the citizenship test that immigrants must pass in order to become Australians.

I'd make it as hard as this civic knowledge test, myself, but with the cultural equalitists now running the show that seems an unlikely outcome.

(Nothing Follows)

Everything is amazing right now and nobody's happy

Here's a great video of comedian Louis CK on Conan O'Brien putting today's 'tough times' into context.

A great quote:

"Everything is amazing right now and nobody's happy"



"We live in an amazing, amazing world and it's wasted on the crappiest generation of spoiled idiots"

This generation just voted in the least experienced, most radical presidential candidate ever.

One wonders whether these Gen X and Y narcissists will ever gain the one thing generally lacking on the left - wisdom.

(Nothing Follows)

Why attack Mormons for Proposition 8?

In 2000, the people of California voted 61-39 to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. Earlier this year, four activist judges decided that the will of the people should not be followed in this case and overruled their will.

The result was Proposition 8, which would insert the following into the state's constitution: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

It led to the largest fundraising campaigns ever seen on a state proposition with nearly $75M being contributed to both sides with the No side getting around $2M more than the Yes side.

The result was a narrow win for the Yes vote:

Yes: 52.2%
No: 47.8%

There were over 12 million ballots cast.

Needless to say, the side that professes to promote peace, understanding and tolerance took off this false mask and let the intolerant, ugly reality of their position see the light of day.

The abuse has been astonishing including attacks on old women, threatening phone calls to people who voted yes and organised attempts to affect people's businesses by campaigning against their suppliers and customers.

One thing is for sure, these people do not come from the conservative side of politics.

What has been most amazing, though, has been the attack on the Mormons.

I don't have a religious bone in my body but I have never met a bad Mormon. They are always helpful and polite even if sometimes a tad too effusively so.

Here's the trick.

The Mormon population of California that is eligible to vote is around 400,000.

The winning margin was over 600,000.

So why attack the Mormons?

Clearly, because it's more politically correct than attacking a more legitimate target - black and Latino voters.

Both of those groups are heavily against redefining marriage by about a 2-1 margin and, ironically, the increased black participation in the election due to Obama running worked against Proposition 8's opponents though I do not believe that black voter turnout was decisive in this regard.

The Mormons raised $20 million dollars to support Proposition 8.

How is that any different to the money that was raised from Hollywood in opposition?

The left, if nothing else, is bigoted against organised religion. Has been for years and the Mormons are an easy target.

Here's something else to think about. There are twice as many Muslims in California than Mormons.

Do you think they would have voted No on Prop 8?

Of course not.

So why don't the angry, ugly left attack Muslims?

The answer is obvious - they're cowards.

I rather suspect that the United States has gone about as liberal as it can in places like California and that if Proposition 8 is voted on in the future then it will be defeated again, probably by a larger margin.

People are sick of the dysfunctional liberal policies that have seen a power crisis, tax increases and alarming loss of businesses from the state to other, more tax friendly, states.

I also think that Obama knows this and will try to govern from the centre-left in the same way that Clinton did from the third year of his first term onwards after getting kicked by the electorate due to his destructive early liberal agenda.

(Nothing Follows)

As goes California...so goes the United States...

Once upon a time the state of California led America in terms of innovation and especially in the area of information technology in the way that Detroit was a leader in the automotive field.

Now, the government of California is run by the Baby Boomers' generation - a group of narcissistic, economically ignorant, intellectually immature individuals who never worked out that a sound economic environment enables compassionate policies to be enacted, a bit at a time.

In this terrific article by John Koltin published in New Geography he details his 25 plus years in California and the decline that has brought the state to its economic knees.

It should be no surprise that a few decades of extreme left politics has led to such parlous times, as it has happened all around the world where socialist policies have been implemented in countries that had sound enough economic conditions. Russia, Zimbabwe and Cuba are clear examples.

If the same policies take root in Washington then there's no doubt that the US could begin a decades long decline into a mediocrity similar to France.

Twenty-five years ago, along with another young journalist, I coauthored a book called California, Inc. about our adopted home state. The book described “California’s rise to economic, political, and cultural ascendancy.”

As relative newcomers at the time, we saw California as a place of limitless possibility. And over most of the next two decades, my coauthor, Paul Grabowicz, and I could feel comfortable that we were indeed predicting the future.

But much has changed in recent years. And today our Golden State appears headed, if not for imminent disaster, then toward an unanticipated, maddening, and largely unnecessary mediocrity.

Since 2000, California’s job growth rate— which in the late 1970s surged at many times the national average—has lagged behind the national average by almost 20 percent. Rapid population growth, once synonymous with the state, has slowed dramatically. Most troubling of all, domestic out-migration, about even in 2001, swelled to over 260,000 in 2007 and now surpasses international immigration. Texas has replaced California as the leading growth center for Hispanics.

Out-migration is a key factor, along with a weak economy, for the collapse of the housing market. Simply put, the population growth expected for many areas has not materialized, nor the new jobs that might attract newcomers. In the past year, four of the top six housing markets in terms of price decline have been in California, including Sacramento, San Diego, Riverside, and Los Angeles. The Central Valley towns of Stockton, Merced, and Modesto have all been awarded the dubious honors of the highest foreclosure rates in the nation during the past year.

Even with prices down, many of the most desirable places in California are also among the most unaffordable in the nation. Less than 15 percent of households earning the local median income can afford a home in L.A. or San Francisco. In Santa Barbara, San Diego, Oxnard, Santa Cruz, or San Jose, it’s less than a third. That’s about half the number who can buy in the big Texas or North Carolina markets. Moreover, state officials warned in October that they might have to seek as much as $7 billion in loans from the U.S. Treasury. This is a disappointing turn for a state that once saw itself as the harbinger of the future.

Not surprisingly, few Californians see a turnaround soon. In the most recent Field Poll in July, a record high 63 percent of Californians said they are financially worse off than they were a year ago, while a record low 14 percent described themselves as better off. Poll director Mark DiCamillo called it “the broadest sentiment of pessimism we’ve ever seen.”

Of course, California can still attract many newcomers, particularly young and ambitious people who dream of a career in Hollywood or Silicon Valley. The problem is that when you grow up and have failed to secure your own dotcom or television series, life in Texas, Arizona, North Carolina, or even Kansas starts looking better. According to real estate analysts, the only thing preventing the current outflow from being worse is that homeowners cannot sell their residences in order to move.

All of this suggests a historic slide of California’s role as a bastion of upward mobility. In 1946, Californians enjoyed the nation’s highest living standards and the third highest per-capita income, noted journalist John Gunther. As recently as the 1980s, Californians generally got richer faster than other Americans did. Now, median household income growth trails the national average while the already large divide between the social classes—often bemoaned by the state’s political left—grows faster than in the rest of the country.

Today, notes a recent Public Policy Institute of California study, California has the 15th highest poverty rate in the nation. Only New York and the District of Columbia fare worse if the cost of living is factored in. Indeed, after accounting for cost of living, L.A., Monterey, and San Francisco counties—all places known for concentrations of wealth—have poverty populations of 20 percent. “San Francisco,” says historian Kevin Starr, a native of the city, “is a cross between Carmel and Calcutta.”

The Political Roots of the California Ascendancy

You can blame many factors for California’s fall from grace: too much immigration from poor countries, the impact of global competition on technology and aerospace industries, the end of the Cold War, failing schools, and the 12 years of political control by the Texas-centric Bushes. Yet other states have weathered similar storms and still gained ground on the Golden State.

The real problem lies in the decline of the state’s political culture. “Our society may be evolving spectacularly but our politics are devolving,” suggests Starr, the state’s most eminent historian. “California is in no way a role model for anyone from outside the state.”

For much of the 20th century, California—already blessed by climate, topography, and fertility—was also relatively well governed. California’s schools, universities, and infrastructure were considered among the finest anywhere. From the 1920s on, its prevailing ideology was a kind of business-like progressivism. Californians in both parties embraced the idea that government could be a positive force in the economic and social life of California. However, they also embraced the latest notions of scientific management. One report from the administration of California’s Republican Governor Hiram Johnson, produced in the early part of the 20th century, stated that the goal was “to systematize the business of the State of California.”

California’s state government laid the foundation for its remarkable ascendancy. Progressivism’s pragmatic orientation, the melding of science and technology into government, the large-scale investment in infrastructure, and a strong nonpartisan tradition produced spectacular results. In his famous book Inside USA in 1946, Gunther gushingly described California as “the most spectacular and most diversified American state … so ripe, golden.”

Another Republican California governor, Earl Warren, who served between 1943 and 1953, epitomized progressive virtues—pragmatic in policy, nonpartisan in approach, and activist in his manner. Later on, as the GOP became more conservative, the progressive mantle shifted to the Democrats. Under Governor Edmund G. “Pat” Brown, elected in 1958, the state continued with an aggressive program of public works, a rapid expansion of higher education, and the massive California Water Project.

Like his Republican progressive predecessors, Brown advocated civil rights for minorities but also promoted business interests, notably in real estate development, Hollywood, aerospace, and agribusiness. Equally important, the Democrat embraced the traditional good government principles of the progressives. Shortly after taking office, Brown initiated a thorough reorganization of state government, attempting to make it more businesslike. California, Brown himself noted, needed “to apply the latest concepts of management, organization, and cost control just as modern corporations have done.”

As they say, read the whole thing.

(Nothing Follows)

America - look out for so-called intellectuals.

When one looks at the multitude of things that threaten the very foundation of the way we live one finds a particularly insidious threat that is unrecognised by the largely self-appointed members of the group.

That group is intellectuals.

The threat is what I have been calling intellectualism.

Intellectualism, as I define it, is the belief that those people with high IQs are, by definition, better equipped to provide leadership to the world and prognosticate on matters of morals than those below them in the smarts stakes.

Marxism in all its forms - socialism, communism, environmentalism - is an example of intellectualism at work.

Marx and his modern day followers believe that the world can be ordered according to their will and it's no surprise to see a preponderance of high IQ people being sucked into this alluring fallacy.

Intellectualism is currently in the process of breaking down Western Europe.

Intellectuals have always held a higher cultural place in Europe than in the United States and it's one of the reasons that Europe looks down its nose at America.

America, on the other hand, knows that being smart is only half the battle and that getting off your butt and succeeding is what drives society forward. Therefore, Americans celebrate those who are successful above the intellectually capable.

People like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are undoubtedly extremely smart people but intelligence does not correlate with wisdom, as our university faculties prove time and again.

It is most certainly true that the anti-intellectual positions taken by places such as the Discovery Institute play into the hands of the anti-religious intellectuals who are driving the secular movement in Europe. That's why the Discovery Institute is on my top 10 list of institutions that destroy the world - they inadvertently cause the Christian values baby to be tossed out with the belief in God bathwater, and that spells serious consequences for Europe.

The coming conflict in Europe, brought about by failing economies, with its large number of immigrants who have assiduously failed to integrate into the local culture will be made all the worse due to people's lack of understanding of morality and common values system.

Dawkins, for example, is among the many atheists who believe people can choose their own values - as he outlines in The God Delusion - even giving a list of the 10 he chose (which, embarrassingly for him I suspect, came from an atheist website).

It may be a sign of intelligence that one can choose those they feel most comfortable with but how wise is it for there to be no underpinning values system that stitches society together, epecially in times of national crisis?

Tom Sowell, a great thinker himself, brings us this piece describing intellectuals and their history of being on the wrong side of issues at nearly every opportunity.

Among the many wonders to be expected from an Obama administration, if Nicholas D. Kristof of the New York Times is to be believed, is ending “the anti-intellectualism that has long been a strain in American life.”

He cited Adlai Stevenson, the suave and debonair governor of Illinois, who twice ran for president against Eisenhower in the 1950s, as an example of an intellectual in politics.

Intellectuals, according to Mr. Kristof, are people who are “interested in ideas and comfortable with complexity,” people who “read the classics.”

It is hard to know whether to laugh or cry.

Adlai Stevenson was certainly regarded as an intellectual by intellectuals in the 1950s. But, half a century later, facts paint a very different picture.

Historian Michael Beschloss, among others, has noted that Stevenson “could go quite happily for months or years without picking up a book.” But Stevenson had the airs of an intellectual — the form, rather than the substance.

What is more telling, form was enough to impress the intellectuals, not only then but even now, years after the facts have been revealed, though apparently not to Mr. Kristof.

That is one of many reasons why intellectuals are not taken as seriously by others as they take themselves.

As for reading the classics, President Harry Truman, whom no one thought of as an intellectual, was a voracious reader of heavyweight stuff like Thucydides and read Cicero in the original Latin. When Chief Justice Carl Vinson quoted in Latin, Truman was able to correct him.

Yet intellectuals tended to think of the unpretentious and plain-spoken Truman as little more than a country bumpkin.

Similarly, no one ever thought of President Calvin Coolidge as an intellectual. Yet Coolidge also read the classics in the White House. He read both Latin and Greek, and read Dante in the original Italian, since he spoke several languages. It was said that the taciturn Coolidge could be silent in five different languages.

The intellectual levels of politicians are just one of the many things that intellectuals have grossly misjudged for years on end.

During the 1930s, some of the leading intellectuals in America condemned our economic system and pointed to the centrally planned Soviet economy as a model — all this at a time when literally millions of people were starving to death in the Soviet Union, from a famine in a country with some of the richest farmland in Europe and historically a large exporter of food.

New York Times Moscow correspondent Walter Duranty won a Pulitzer Prize for telling the intelligentsia what they wanted to hear — that claims of starvation in the Ukraine were false.

After British journalist Malcolm Muggeridge reported from the Ukraine on the massive deaths from starvation there, he was ostracized after returning to England and unable to find a job.

More than half a century later, when the archives of the Soviet Union were finally opened up under Mikhail Gorbachev, it turned out that about six million people had died in that famine — about the same number as the people killed in Hitler’s Holocaust.

In the 1930s, it was the intellectuals who pooh-poohed the dangers from the rise of Hitler and urged Western disarmament.

It would be no feat to fill a big book with all the things on which intellectuals were grossly mistaken, just in the 20th century — far more so than ordinary people.

History fully vindicates the late William F. Buckley’s view that he would rather be ruled by people represented by the first 100 names in the Boston phone book than by the faculty of Harvard.

How have intellectuals managed to be so wrong, so often? By thinking that because they are knowledgeable — or even expert — within some narrow band out of the vast spectrum of human concerns, that makes them wise guides to the masses and to the rulers of the nation.

But the ignorance of Ph.D.s is still ignorance and high-IQ groupthink is still groupthink, which is the antithesis of real thinking.

Well said.

George W Bush, long derided as being a Texan yokel, reads more than one book per week (over 60 per year) on history, politics and philosophy.

Who among his critics knows that fact?

How many books do his critics read?

(Nothing Follows)