The American Left and our terrorist enemies are setting themselves up for a big “I told you so” regarding the Annapolis Middle East Conference that officially starts tomorrow.  (Unofficially, it has already begun.  EuroNews article and video; AFP, “Rice in diplomatic flurry ahead of Mideast peace talks”)

In contrast to Secretary of State Rice’s “failure is not an option” statement regarding the objectives of the conference, expectations for success have been, generally, characterized as modest or even low.  (Baltimore Sun, “Failure is not an option.” by David Wood)  True, how much can be accomplished in a single day?  But as has been widely reported, the conference has been “front loaded” with “pre-negotiations” including visits by Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas to the White House. 

Just the fact that the Saudis and the Syrians are going to be present is an accomplishment in itself and may lower the threshold to their participation in the future. 

Ninety percent of success is just showing up. 
Woody Allen 

Of course, the Syrians and the Saudis have both downplayed their participation and the chances for success in their domestic (state controlled) media outlets — not wanting to appear overly friendly with Washington or Israel.  In reality, both of these Arab states see the conference as a forum for their respective positions on their own “pet” issues, especially the Golan Heights for Syria, and if they score a few diplomatic points with Washington in order to hedge their bets against a future nuclear-armed Iran, so much the better.  (Alsumaria, “Assad and Ahmadinejad: Annapolis Conference to Fail”)

What is a more disturbing than the expected negativity from Iran’s Ayatollahs is reading about the politically motivated opinions of “experts” in the US media, such as the Sun article, where reporter David Wood quotes the “heavyweights” Lee Hamilton (of the quickly forgotten Iraq Surrender Study Group) and Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was White House national security adviser under President Jimmy Carter. (Now there’s an entry on your resume that you’d like to forget!  Instead of “heavyweights,” shouldn’t he have written ”has beens?”)  It seems that these guys are on almost the same page as Ahmadinejad and Iran’s ruling Ayatollahs when it comes to prospects for Annapolis! 

Hamilton, along with Brzezinski and six other foreign policy heavyweights, wrote to Bush and Rice last month warning that failure at Annapolis “risks devastating consequences” in the Middle East because it would undercut moderates.  (Blog Editor: Kinda like in 2000, when President Clinton’s Camp David get together failed, right?)

Robert Little, also of the Baltimore Sun, quotes Aaron David Miller, a Woodrow Wilson Center Public Policy Scholar who doesn’t mind criticizing his own board members (Condi currently sits on the Wilson Center’s Board of Trustees) in his November 25, 2007, ominously titled article, “Rice’s legacy on the line at Annapolis conference.”

“She’s about a year or so away from being judged as a kind of inconsequential secretary of state,” said Aaron David Miller

That takes chutzpah from a guy who proudly lists himself on his Wilson Center bio as a ”Former Advisor to six Secretaries of State on Arab-Israeli Negotiations, 1978-2003….Expertise (in) U.S.-Middle East relations; Arab-Israeli negotiations; Arab world and Palestinian politics; Israeli politics”  (Notice that does NOT include Dr. Rice’s tenure as Secretary of State)  Let’s see, how many “comprehensive” Arab-Israeli peace accords were concluded during that period?  ZERO.  Maybe without his advice, Condi will do better than her predecessors.  She certainly would be in a better position with some bipartisan support, but no such luck.  Also, Mr. Little neglected to mention in his article that Miller has a book coming out next year, America and the Much Too Promised Land: The Elusive Search for Arab-Israeli Peace.  It would be disastrous for his book sales if peace just started breaking out all over the Middle East.  Further evidence that his opinions, to which he is fully entitled to have and communicate, may be weighted down with ideological baggage was a June 19, 2007, Washington Post op-ed that he co-authored with Robert Malley: “West Bank First: It won’t work.”  (Blog Editor: We don’t mean to imply that Dr. Miller’s writings are economically influenced, but we do find these facts about his point-of-view interesting and wish that they would have been mentioned in the Sun article.  Some aspects of his work are quite beneficial to the cause of peace, such as his work with Seeds of Peace.)

Achieving any progress towards Middle East peace in one day is difficult enough no matter how much diplomatic preparation has been undertaken.  Partisan reporting and criticism only make peace that much more “elusive” (to use Miller’s book title), but that’s exactly the point.  The undermining of peace efforts in order to gain political or personal advantage for 2008, and beyond, is just another obstacle that our Secretary of State, unfortunately, must overcome.

Mainstream media (MSM) apologists for the extreme left fringe (Code Pink, MoveOn.org, Air America, etc.) are, knowingly or unknowingly, subverting the nation by becoming the accomplices of their more radical ideological brothers and sisters. How? They are the “bridge” that connects them to the rest of the “body politic.” But is this really possible to do without specific intent, or knowledge? Could such a large “conspiracy” really exist except in the disturbed minds of conspiracy theory nuts?

It is doubtful that there is some secret liberal “star chamber” (other than the “war room” of the Hillary for President campaign) that is working behind the scenes to plot our national destiny. One only needs to look at the multitude of missteps taken by the recent Democratic “leadership” of Harry “the war is lost” Reid, Nancy “self-appointed ambassador to Syria” Pelosi, John “Impeachment” Conyers, Charles “tax-hike” Rangel, Hillary “Ask me a question” Clinton, and others to realize that if there is any liberal leadership cabal that they aren’t the “sharpest tools in the political shed.” However, this does not mean that the collective effect of the shrill, even rabid, Left is not effective at shaping national politics when facilitated by constant, and favorable, media access.

The Clinton strategy of “triangulation” illustrates how a noisy “lunatic fringe” on the Left works as a political strategy to shift national politics toward an overall liberal agenda. It can make what was politically unthinkable, possible. While the radical Left has generally been too delusional to carry out large scale organized, effective political activity within, or in conjunction with, the Democratic Party that does not mean that their impact has not been felt as they tilt the national political debate to the Left. In legal terms, to be guilty of conspiracy it is not necessary for the left hand to know what the right hand is doing. (Or in this case, the far left hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing.) This is why none of the current crop of Democratic candidates are willing to alienate themselves from the radical Left. They need them to make their own liberal agendas seem moderate.

The right-left political spectrum (represented by the inferior line of the triangle) is bridged by the political media (represented by the two superior, angled lines of the triangle) which if, “fair and balanced,” does not result in a skewing of political discourse.  However, if the political media caters to radical ideologies due to personal, collective, or organizational biases; the entire political environment is shifted towards the radical end of the spectrum.  The strategy of furthering a “progressive” (that’s code for “radical and liberal”) agenda within the Democratic Party is outlined in Paul Waldman’s Being Right is Not Enough.  Of course, the book’s subtitle, “What Progressives Must Learn from Conservative Success,” points out that it’s all the Republicans’ fault that such tactics are necessary in the first place.  (Amazon, Audible audio book)

CNN’s Lou Dobbs is something of a unique cable news journalist.  Personally, I find him to be rather pompous and self-important with his “War on the Middle Class” theme.  Also, he has an irritating anti-GOP bias that is, fortunately, readily transparent.  However, he does have some valid points and criticisms to make of both the Left and Right from time to time.  But yesterday, I had to hit the rewind button on my TIVO several times to make sure that I heard him correctly.

During an extended segment on Lou Dobbs Tonight October 26th episode, an almost agitated Lou discussed the defeat of ”Dream Act” legislation that was little more than a smoke screen for an illegal immigrant amnesty. He dutifully noted that both Hillary and Obama (a co-sponsor of the bill, no less) were both supporters of the legislation.  Continuing, he then went on to express his, and more than 70% of New Yorker’s, outrage over Democratic Governor Eliot Spitzer’s plan to issue driver licenses to illegal immigrants.  Plus, in an invitation to massive voter fraud, Spitzer has ordered state employees to register ”voters” on an essentially “no questions asked” policy which can conveniently be accomplished in the Great State of New York while obtaining a driver license.  It’s not hard to connect the dots here.

But the most notable of Lou’s comments came in response to a viewer who wrote in to say that she had changed her voter registration to “independent” and that she felt that Governor Spitzer, and both Senator Schumer and Senator Clinton should be “voted out” of office.  To which Lou replied that he “couldn’t agree more.”  Remember, this was on his prime time CNN news program!  Watch the video and see for yourself.

Yesterday was a “bad news day” for Iranian President Ahmadinejad as news of the 30,000 lbs “bunker buster” bomb became common knowledge with the funding requests to produce and deploy a weapon that has been under development for years. (Well, seriously under development since Clinton left office, when the term “penetration” resumed its primarily military, rather than sexual, significance when discussed in the Oval Office.) In a defense “supplemental” budget item, the B2 bomber would be retrofitted to deliver this weapon. Having a credible conventional weapons capability that could destroy underground nuclear facilities could be the “big stick” that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice needs to jump start serious negotiations.  (Fox video Special Report)

The Iranians are not a state I think that will change its behavior….just through talking to them.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Oct. 24, 2007

Naturally, the Democrats, and Ron Paul (R?-TX), are already complaining about this weapon and threatening to “defund” it. Why? Because, they are the Party of Defeat! Anything that could potentially contribute to a US victory in the War on Terror is an anathema to virtually every major Democratic Party leader, with the possible exception of Joe Lieberman, who was forced to run as an independent when challenged by a left-wing fringe candidate from within his own party.

This new weapon system would provide “strategic and tactical flexibility” for political and military leaders according to sources familiar with the capabilities of this “unconventional-conventional weapon.” There will be no need to “go nuclear” in order to terminate, or seriously degrade, Iran’s nuclear ambitions once this weapon system is deployed. It may even help our spineless European “allies” rapidly evolve into vertebrates with regards to their dealings with the religious dictatorship in Tehran. After all, an armed strike against Iran’s apocolyptic facilities would almost certainly degrade Iran’s ability to export oil. “Junkies” can become quite compliant when their “supply” is threatened.

While a single weapon system may not represent a military solution to the Iranian theocratic dictatorship’s intransigence in negotiations to end its nuclear weapons capability, it could certainly be the “catalyst” that results in a “paradigm shift” in our dealing with the current Iranian regime.

Oh, by the way, this is also a weapon that is rumored to be increasing UBL’s “pucker factor.” It’s hard to enjoy paradise with 72 virgins while you are entombed for eternity in a collapsed cave.

(Editor’s note and correction: At the time this post was written, this incident was little more than a CSPAN video.  Reporting on this incident has taken on a life of its own in media outlets around the world.  Therefore, it has now been “widely reported.”)

Condi’s confrontation with a “Code Pink” protester yesterday during a congressional witch hunt  hearing was not widely reported.  CSPAN was there, and the video shows that the woman got her “blood soaked” hands  within inches of Secretary Rice’s face before being hauled off by security personnel while screaming “war criminal” over her shoulder.  (CSPAN video, Frank James in Baltimore Sun column “The Swamp” )

The attacker’s Code Pink sisters were attired in their usual frumpy pink sweat shirts – looking like they were hung over from an all-night Ellen DeGeneres marathon sponsored by NOW – while the woman that menaced Secretary Rice was dressed in dark pants and dark blouse.  This clever disguise confused the  Keystone Cops Capitol Police who apparently concentrated their attentions on the “uniformed” wackos, giving the ”camouflaged” Code Pinker an opening to get up close to Condi.  If all it takes is a change of clothes, minimal use of a hair brush, and a bath in the last 48 hours* to foil security on Capitol Hill — no wonder Condi isn’t too keen on responding to Congressional subpoenas!  (Where’s Blackwater when you need them?)

Is “menaced,” or “assault,” too strong a word?  The Sacramento CBS outlet, Channel 13, titled their report, “Condoleezza Rice Attacked At Capitol Hill Hearing.”  Blood is a biohazardous material that can carry any of a variety of infectious diseases.  What if the attacker’s hands had been covered in some caustic or hazardous chemical agent?  Even if it were only “simulated” blood, like a phony explosive device or toy gun, when used in this fashion during the commission of a crime it is certainly a form of terroristic threatening designed to provoke a fearful reaction in the victim.  Of course, Dr. Rice, was nonplussed by the incident and can be heard exchanging pleasantries with the non-delusional individuals around her as the “Pink Ladies” were carried out of the hearing room loudly protesting that they were being injured.  (A resistance tactic they picked up from their friends in Al-Qaeda?)

Where are the calls for Congressional investigation over this security breech?  It isn’t hard to imagine that some Democratic congressional staffers didn’t have some inkling that this attack was getting ready to happen or even shared an “after action” green tea and veggie wrap with the protesters during lunch.  Wouldn’t that make them complicit in a conspiracy?  Are restraining orders, at least, being sought against those involved to prevent them from returning to Capitol Hill for an encore performance?

Is the lunatic fringe of the Left finally being rejected across majority of the non-psychotropic drug taking political spectrum?  After Bill Maher’s recent outburst at 9-11 conspiracy protesters in his audience, calling on his security personnel to “kick ass,” we have to wonder if there may be some hope for some small measure of political sanity in our nation.  Wait a minute!  Was Bill advocating torture?  Call the ACLU!  On the other hand, it may be an isolated incident of Maher’s becoming “older and wiser” or just an unanticipated side effect of testosterone replacement therapy.

*Code Pink supporters are not known for their attention to hygiene.  Maybe soap causes global warming?

Between the Democratic media consultants and their mainstream media brothers and sisters, the “politics of personal destruction” are alive and well. So, in an act of mercy, Secretary of State Rice accepted the resignation of Richard Griffin, the State Department’s Director of the Diplomatic Security Service, thus ending his career of 36 years in government service. Mr. Griffin, once Congressman Henry Waxman put him in the cross hairs of his congressional “inquiry,” may not have initially appreciated that accepting his resignation was indeed merciful. However, once targeted, he contracted (according to an unconfirmed source) the equivalent of a “political Ebola virus” — a highly virulent, and an almost always fatal and highly contagious condition — that leaves those surrounding the afflicted with little choice but to isolate themselves from the source of the “disease,” or perish. (Read John Broder’s article in the International Herald Tribune)

The Diplomatic Security Service is an unsung hero in the War on Terror. A war that the Left, for example Senator John Edwards, insists is little more than a bumper sticker slogan. This small agency has been instrumental to many victories in this global conflict. Unfortunately, since most of their successes remain classified, their political cushion of past accomplishments is severely limited. With the current anti-Bush, anti-military, anti-American hysteria that holds sway in the main stream media; military and political leaders are only as good as their last mistake. In Mr. Griffin’s case, the last “mistake” was failure to keep private security contracting out of the headlines, most notably what is becoming commonly known as the “Blackwater scandal.”

We are not trying to make excuses for the inexcusable, but we cannot encourage government officials to “think outside the box” or make command decisions while being given inadequate resources and incomplete intelligence and then punish them when there are poor outcomes. This is the “fog of war.” There are fine lines between accountability, loyalty to subordinates and “witch hunts.” Given the caustic congressional “oversight” environment, Condi had little choice but to accept Griffin’s resignation and move on. After all, she has a long “to-do list.” Hopefully, she will short-circuit Waxman’s self-righteous, self-important oversight crusade and remove his self-serving pandering to the lunatic Leftist fringe from the mainstream media “radar screen.”

If we are to achieve victory in the War on Terror and regain sanity in our domestic policies, our mass media outlets must stop acting like PR shills for the radical Left. Are there any suggestions about how this can be accomplished?

Secretary of State Rice’s and Secretary of Defense Gates’ recent visit to Russia was widely reported as confrontational and as having made little, or no, progress.  (See the links in our post, “Putin postures, Condi walks the line.”)  There were even reports of a new “cold war.”  But after the international press corps packed up and left Moscow, a different picture is now emerging.  Once again, the mainstream media’s reporting may be ”accuracy challenged.” 

Russia Profile has a series of columns today, in their “Weekly Experts Panel“ introduced by Vladamir Frolov and entitled: A New Opening in U.S.-Russia Relations?  The German news agency, DPA (Deutsche Presse Agentur), also released an op-ed today: “Russia says US suggestions on missile defence are ‘interesting’.”  Compare it to the Russian News Agency’s, Novosti, article.  They are well worth the clicks.

Old dogs don’t learn new tricks.  The Democrats, in accordance with their “death by a thousand investigations” strategy since the 2006 election, are calling the liberal dinosaur, Congressman Henry Waxman, back to active duty.  (Waxman has a history of attacking Condi.  See our blog post from earlier this year, Democratic Witch Hunt Targets Condi.)

Within a few hours of each other, all the “usual suspects” in the mainstream media: the New York Times, Associated Press, Washington Post, Los Angels Times, CBS, Politico.com - and Iran’s Press TV - were touting the day’s left-wing fringe talking points about investigations of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice by the oh-so Honorable Henry Waxman, now that he is the Chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.  In a letter to Condi, he’s complaining that the State Department, and specifically Dr. Rice, is “wrong to interfere with the committee’s inquiry” into corruption inside the Iraqi government and the recent Blackwater brouhaha.  Lucky for us this letter was conveniently provided to the press in a fine example of Congressional discretion and a clear demonstration of how Congress can diligently guard classified subjects currently under investigation.

What’s the supposed basis of his theatrical outrage?  State Department officials asked Congress; along with their myriad of staffers, all of whom are famous for rigid compliance in their handling of sensitive and, dare we say classified, information; to treat the information that they would provide as a “state secret.”

Let’s get real.  These are ongoing investigations by the Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) and other military and civilian agencies.  And in a country where any of the potential witnesses can get “whacked” faster than a “snitch” in a Sopranos rerun; keeping secrets can mean the difference between a successful investigation and another “intelligence failure.”  Henry is trying to parlay this into some type, any type, of scandal and more television “face time” as he pompously presides of his so-called “oversight” hearings.

C’mon Congressman, there’s a war to fight — and in case you forgot — WIN !    Can’t your political grandstanding take a backseat to national security just once?  Please?

Please note: As far as we are aware, there’s no underlying racial implication to the expression, “The Black Swan.” Rather, it is the title of Nissam Nicholas Taleb’s book, The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable, released in April, 2007. With a penchant for citing philosophers and writers that (with luck) most of us haven’t heard about since freshman Philosophy 101 and Western Civilization 101, the book describes how we all handle, or mishandle in many cases, situations that involve the highly improbable, or what the writer terms “black swans.”

Taleb is a Wall Street refugee who is reinventing himself as an author and philosopher.  How well has he done that?  That’s up to the individual reader, and we suspect, how closely one feels that his treatise confirms, or refutes, their own ideas.

So, how does this impact Condi? In a variety of ways, but the most direct application is 9-11, which he uses as an example of a “black swan” phenomenon.   (NYT Op-ed, from Fooled by Randomness blog)  If Taleb’s theory gains widespread acceptance, there are negative political implications for those, mostly Democrats, who are trying to assign blame for the attack in order to gain political advantage. A key part of their strategy for 2008 will be to try and attach President Bush’s lower approval ratings, fueled by the non-stop 9-11 and War on Terror-related liberal media attacks that pass for journalism these days, to any prominent Republican – Condi included. She is especially vulnerable to being targeted due to her high profile in the current administration and reputation for a “Teflon” coating that keeps her approval ratings considerably above those of many of her colleagues.

However, Condi herself is a “black swan.” Her personal history of growing up in segregated Alabama, seeking higher education, teaching, administering, and a life of public service is itself a highly improbable career trajectory. But when coupled with her ability to ascend to the Presidency one day, her status as a “black swan” is a certainty.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s book is available at Amazon, Barnes&Noble, and in downloadable audio at Audible.com

US News and World Report’s (USNWR) Washington Whispers, edited by Paul Bedard, has, from time to time, provided tantilizing hints of happenings inside the beltway, and most interesting to us, glimpses into Dr. Rice and her “inner circle.”  His most direct mention of Condi 2008 in Whispers, prior to his column this weekend, was May 30, 2005.  (link)

Rice Wants It–But in Draft Form
Political associates of Secretary of State Condi Rice are stirring the 2008 presidential pot on her behalf. While she takes the high road, they’re pushing her name out there. “She definitely wants to be president,” said one. But, the friend added, Rice isn’t planning on quitting to run. “She wants to be drafted,” he said.

At the time, this was an exciting development and many Condistas spent countless hours speculating as to who Bedard’s source might have been.  However, his reporting on this occasion is not quite as encouraging, being entitled Maybe Someone Should Ask Condi and he goes on to quote Tom Holt, of ThinkCondi.net, in a somewhat mocking manner –  just as the BBC reporter, Richard Allen Greene, couldn’t help but make the following observation about CPAC 2007, earlier this month.

Even Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state who has never even hinted that she might run for president next year, has a lone enthusiast hopefully bearing a red balloon saying “Condi ‘08″.

FYI, we didn’t attend CPAC, as a group, this year for a reason — it finally dawned on us that it is the Republican Party that nominates presidential candidates — and while it is always great fun to go “rub elbows” with those who share common ideological ground, we have to target our very limited resources in a very focused manner.   (There were, however, some very dedicated Condistas — from a variety of groups — that attended CPAC at their own expense to keep the message in the public eye.  Our hat’s off to them.)  The BBC’s Mr. Greene betrays his political perspective by his mischaracterization of a “lone enthusiast.”  He obviously didn’t spend much time at CPAC with the National Black Republican Association (www.NBRA.info).  The individual Condistas that attended CPAC were inundated with requests for more Condista materials.  It was a tactical decision, perhaps even a blunder, to decide not to try and compete with the well-financed machines that Mitt, Rudy, and others were fielding at CPAC this year, but there is a “method to our madness.”  (More on that later.)

By the way, Mr. Greene did go on to make the observation: “That puts Ms. Rice at least one supporter ahead of the man who announced on Wednesday that he is running for president - Senator John McCain of Arizona.”  McCain, whose support in the polls has always mystified us, because we have NEVER been able to find McCain supporters at any of a number of conservative and Republican events.  (As opposed to the many anti-McCain activists.)  The Arizona Senator’s supporters are like the aliens that crash landed in Roswell, New Mexico.  A majority of Americans (surprisingly) believe that they exist, but no concrete evidence that they are real has ever been uncovered.  Of course, considering the number of dead people that voted for Democrats in recent elections, maybe we shouldn’t be surprised.  (Just kidding, well, uh, sort of.)

Getting back to Paul Bedard at USNWR, we have, since our inception, looked to the ONLY successful presidential “draft” of the twentieth century, that of President Eisenhower as a model of how to “draft” Condi.  If one carefully studies history, they will discover that the war hero and NATO Commander (at the time), was quite reticent to accept a nomination by any party.  See our post of March 25, 2006.  (Hat tip to Josiah Schmidt for the original research.)  However, unlike the “Draft Eisenhower” movement, we are not the political heavyweights with “deep pockets” that ultimately convinced “Ike” to run.  (Draft Eisenhower)  Every Condista across the country is going to be working, each with their own individual talents, to line up the support that will be necessary to pull off what will be only be the third Republican “draft” in the past century — Eisenhower and Goldwater were the first and second, respectively.  Compared to those who drafted Ike, we’ve got a long way to go.  So, it is too early — for us — to ”ask” Condi.  (Although it almost appears to be a ritual with Sean Hannity everytime she appears on his radio show.   Of course, it can’t be such an awful question that she doesn’t keep returning for return engagements, right?)  Paul, one day it will be the right time to ask — and we’ll be here, along with many others.  Meanwhile, Secretary Rice’s efforts towards peace in the Middle East, coordination of diplomatic and military efforts around the globe, etc. are keeping her “dance card” pretty full right now.  Distracting her with any concern of an election at this time would politicize everything she is doing.  However, will she ultimately make that decision?  For that, we’ll quote, yet again, Mark Goldblatt of the American Spectator:

“…she’s said that she has no plans to run, that she won’t run, that her real ambition is to become commissioner of the National Football League. But I believe Rice is first and foremost a patriot, and if a case were put forward that campaigning for president were an act of service to her country, rather than service to her ego, she might reconsider.”

Negative campaigning is just a fact of life these days on the American political landscape.  Once a political figure starts being viewed as a potential candidate, it is almost a certainty that the attacks and mudslinging will follow.  Take this CBS News graphic, for example.  Newt isn’t even declared and he’s included in negative mainstream media coverage!

When Condi becomes a candidate will she be able to become the next Teflon President?  (Reagan was the first.)  See our homepage post on Anita Kumar’s St. Petersburg Times article.

What are the most likely areas that the jackals of the liberal media machine will focus on?  How can we best prepare for the negative attacks — because you know it’s coming.

Last spring, in a public, State of Washington, post-secondary school, Bellevue Community College (BCC), a mathematics instructor, Peter Ratener, wrote a mathematics problem on an examination as follows:

Condoleezza holds a watermelon just over the edge of the roof of the 300-foot Federal Building, and tosses it up with a velocity of 20 feet per second. (Adobe pdf formatted image of the test question)

Gee, I wonder to whom he was referring? Of course, after being publicly chastised by the Chairman of the BCC Board of Trustees (Adobe pdf formatted document) and later by the entire Board of Trustees (Adobe pdf formatted document); Mr. Ratener, in a public apology (Adobe pdf formatted document), claimed that it was all just a big misunderstanding in a drawn out mea culpa that, while it may have been truthful and sincere, sounded more like the infamous “some of my best friends are black” explanations that were popular with country club liberals who sent their kids to private schools during the Civil Right movement of the 60’s and 70’s. Although, I have to give him an “A” for originality by extending his apology to include what amounted to “even some of my parents best friends are (were?) black.” He explained that he really wanted to use the comedian Gallagher in the question but thought that students these days wouldn’t remember him. So, the name “Condoleezza” just popped into his head — along with the idea of tossing a watermelon off of a Federal Building. Please. It would have been better to just say, “I screwed up and I apologize.” The convoluted logic almost leaves us with the impression, “Does this guy really think that we’re that stupid?”

In this case, if we take this instructor at his word, the incident in question was a lapse of judgement, albeit a serious and offensive one, that appears to have been responded to by the institution’s administration in a reasonable manner. He was suspended a whole week without pay. But instead of accepting this decision and moving on, Ratener has now become something of a cause celeb with whining about “academic freedom” and “freedom of speech” (FIRE article) that make us doubt the sincerity of this teacher’s apology in which he wrote: “I immediately took ownership of the problem.” Yeah right.

There is a tolerance of racially offensive public displays as long as the target is on the right-hand side of the political spectrum. Granted, this is not a major issue from our perspective of Dr. Rice as a potential presidential candidate, but it is just another fine example of the liberal “double standard” when dealing with racial questions and “conservatives of color.” (HNN article, Inside Higher Ed article, Blog - Right on the Left Coast - post)

By the way, you’ll never guess why the final arbitration for this teacher’s suspension had to be delayed. He and his family were vacationing in — France. How cliché. (Seattle Times article)

Robin Williams is Candidate Tom Dobbs

The concept of a female president is increasingly finding it’s way into popular culture. Robin Williams, while promoting his new movie Man of the Year, a comedy about a comedian that runs for President and wins, spoke about the race in 2008 during an interview with Susan Wloszczyna, of USA Today.

The comic believes that 2008 could bring a female candidate into the presidential race. And who better than Oprah Winfrey.

“It would be great to see her in a debate,” Williams says. “It would be a pay-per-view debate, her and Condoleezza Rice. And once the Stanford stuff drops …” He holds out his hand, as if halting traffic. ” Girl, I tell you, mm, mm.’ Two brilliant black women going at it. It would be amazing. And if they have a talent section, I know Condoleezza would win that because of the cello. No one has seen Oprah do an interpretative ballet.”

(Interviewer) Yes, but she could do a scene from “Beloved.”

(Williams) “It would be great if she did a scene from “Beloved” while Condoleezza played the cello. You could pay for the whole election that way just with the CD, DVD, ancillary rights - and the sweater.”

Official movie website, Universal Pictures website, opens this weekend, Friday, October 13, 2006. (Isn’t that supposed to be bad luck?)