Right Wing Nation

Since I’m alone for a few days, I think I’ll go on a barbecue spree. Having said that, I’m off to the Texas Roadhouse for a rack of ribs.

and timely, considering that I just published an article on student evaluations yesterday. This over-educated idiot masquerading as a professor obviously needs a crash course in ethics:

The D reported yesterday on lecturer Priya Venkatesan (also undergrad ‘90 and a Med School researcher) who, in a series of strangely passive-aggressive group emails, announced a plan to sue her students for workplace harassment based on “intolerance of ideas.”

Now if you haven’t seen this yet, even if you’re as cynical as I am, you’ll be picking your jaw up off the floor when you find out what “intolerance of ideas” means.

Few of Venkatesan’s students deny disliking her; they just say it had nothing to do with race, gender, or any other federally-protected characteristic. Rather, the lecturer embodied that special brand of neurotic pedagogical tyranny that includes making rules against questions, refusing to interact with students, and, according to the D,

cancelation [sic] of class for a week after the class applauded a student who contradicted Venkatesan’s opinions about post-modernism

Spontaneous applause during a class on literary criticism? Obviously, there is something very wrong with this picture, so outrageously shocking as to shake Venkatesan to her very core: In a class at an Ivy League university, students were paying attention. Worse: They were engaged, and they cared.

“I was horrified,” Venkatesan said. “My responsibility is not to stifle them, but when they clapped at his comment, I thought that crossed the line … I was facing intolerance of ideas and intolerance of freedom of expression.” …She canceled class because the incident caused her “intellectual and emotional distress,” she said.

Then again, being outsmarted by a room full of eighteen-year-olds must be pretty humiliating. A kinder choice would have been emitting a spontaneous snore or two, then preoccupying themselves with a more innocuous form of disrespect, like text messaging during class or ostentatious yawning.

And what does this have to do with evaluations? Well, apparently student evaluations were what pushed her over the edge into drooling idiocy. Here are a couple:

Professor Venkatesan refuses to answer questions, does not respond to questions, and lectures by reading off her notes in front of her. She did not make me a better writer, she did not explain the concepts well, but she did manage to make my life a living hell.

She offered no help in class or in office hours for papers. When handed a hard copy she read the paper, said it was great, but then gave terrible grades to many students. Later on she began refusing to grade papers and gave the reason that judging by our peer editing abilities we didn’t need her help on papers. She missed/cancelled 5 or 6 classes and as a result the syllabus was squished into 3 weeks and she changed the final project about 4 times. A TERRIBLE CLASS.

I can see how being such a slobbering moron could cause one “intellectual and emotional distress.” Of course, the lawsuit will go nowhere, no matter how much “distress” she suffered, but the degree of oblivion this idiot exhibits is, frankly, breathtaking.

I might add that I had a student a few years ago who really hated my guts — I was never sure why, but she did. She hated me like poison. She really let loose on her evaluation too (yes, they’re anonymous, but it was obvious), but it never occurred to me to sue her. Or even raise hell about it. Life goes on.

But in quite a pleasant contrast to the above idiot, we have this, from (of all places) Inside Higher Ed:

What does it mean to be an American citizen?

From all the heat generated of late over immigration, one might have supposed that some light would have been cast on this crucial question. Given the need to elevate our national dialogue over this issue, it is disheartening that this has yet to happen. It appears that the idea that is American citizenship is all but lost on America’s citizens themselves. Here our universities can be of invaluable assistance, through introducing their students to the perennial questions and issues that define American democratic theory and practice.

Any attempt to perform this task ought to begin at the beginning, with the very justification for our existence as a country—the Declaration of Independence. Its claims are meant to be universal, addressed not only to King George III, but to a “candid world.” The Declaration argues that, in the new American order, blood, creed, and national origin—the constituents of citizenship throughout history—have been dethroned. Instead, U.S. citizenship entails adherence to moral and political principles the truth of which, says the Declaration, is “self-evident” to those who reason rightly. These principles, which form what can be called the “American theory of justice,” argue for human equality; for the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; for government established by popular consent; and for the right of the people to rebel should government cease to fulfill the purposes for which it was instituted. On this basis, the United States is more than a mere address, more than its history, and more than its demographics. It is, in its essence, an idea.

Yet how many of us today, native-born no less than newly arrived immigrants, can recount the Declaration’s four self-evident truths? More crucial, how many of us have even a rudimentary grasp of the moral and intellectual foundations of the “American theory of justice”? For years, surveys have told us that the answer to both questions is precious few. This cannot help but alarm those of us who believe, with the Declaration’s author, Thomas Jefferson, that no nation can expect to be “both ignorant and free.” But neither should we be surprised at the surveys’ results, says Derek Bok. The former president of Harvard University argues in his recent book, Our Underachieving Colleges, that American higher education is not providing the democratic or civic education on which he and Jefferson deem democratic health to depend.

[ . . . ]

For the sake of the integrity of both our universities and our politics — for our citizens both newly arrived and native-born — let us begin this quest, and let us do so in the civil, fair-minded, and magnanimous manner that defines university life at its noblest.

Do read the whole thing, because it’s really good — and coming from an academic, refreshingly sane. And you might be surprised at how supportive the comments are.

Jules points to this article by Don Surber on that ever-elusive youth vote:

Young people don’t vote

At least not in mass quantities, which is why Republicans should not sweat losing the under 30 crowd today.

Marc Ambinder has a nifty chart. It shows that people 18-29 lean left not right in politics.

Duh.

Of the 18-29 group in 1992, 47% of this group leaned Republican and 46% leaned Democratic.

Today’s 18-29 group is split 33% Republican, 58% Democratic.

That’s nice.

But young people are a waste of time and energy when it comes to voting. They are not where the voters are.

That’s it. Like the four-decade succession of chicken-little-doom-and-gloom predictions, we’ve been hearing about this “youth vote” for decades now, and we have yet to see it.

In 1972, the “youth vote” was supposed to sweep McGovern into office. Uh, no.

In 1976, the “youth vote” didn’t materialize. It was the middle-aged and geezer vote (not to mention Watergate) that put Carter in the White House.

In 1980, the “youth vote” was supposed to re-elect Carter. We know how that turned out.

In 1984, the “youth vote” was supposed to bring us to a New Era with the bland and boring Walter Mondale in the Oval Office. Guess what happened instead.

In 1988, the “youth vote” was supposed to elect Michael Dukakis. I don’t think that’s what happened.

1992 and 1996? See 1976. Again, a phantom “youth vote.” And I probably don’t have to list the last two presidential elections, where again, there was no “youth vote” surge.

They have other things to worry about — like spring break and keggers. The “youth vote” is a whimsical, optimistic myth. It’s the people who aren’t pre-occupied with the latest fashions and where the parties are who decide elections. That would be the adults.

And thank God for that.

The Carnival of Ed is up.

From (where else?) the paper that brings you more idiocy than any other paper in the world, the New York Times:

In sum, I was suffering from a severe case of biobigotry

Please. Kill me now, before these liberals get any st00pider. Please.

Let’s talk evaluations, starting with this article from Inside Higher Ed:

But what if the much derided Web site’s rankings have a high correlation with markers that are more widely accepted as measures of faculty performance? Last year, a scholarly study found a high correlation between RateMyProfessors.com and a university’s own system of student evaluations. Now, a new study is finding a high correlation between RateMyProfessors and a student evaluation system used nationally.

A new study is about to appear in the journal Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education and it will argue that there are similarities in the rankings in RateMyProfessors.com and IDEA, a student evaluation system used at about 275 colleges nationally and run by a nonprofit group affiliated with Kansas State University.

What is notable is that while RateMyProfessors.com gives power to students, IDEA gives a lot of control over the process to faculty members. Professors identify the teaching objectives that are important to the class, and those are the measures that count the most. In addition, weighting is used so that adjustments are made for factors beyond professors’ control, such as class size, student work habits and so forth — all variables that RateMyProfessors doesn’t really account for (or try to account for).

The study looked at the rankings of 126 professors at Lander University, in South Carolina, and compared the two ratings systems. The findings:

• Student rankings on the ease of courses were consistent in both systems and correlated with grades.
• Professors’ rankings for “clarity” and “helpfulness” on RateMyProfessors.com correlated with overall rankings for course excellence on IDEA.
• The similarities were such that, the journal article says, they offer “preliminary support for the validity of the evaluations on RateMyProfessors.com.”

It has been my experience that those who discount evaluations are bad teachers. In fact, I can think of many examples of faculty I know who discount evaluations and who are bad teachers, but I cannot think of even one counterexample. I do not know even one faculty member who is a good teacher and discounts evaluations. Not one. But I know lots of bad teachers who discount evaluations.

The most common statement about evaluations is that students care only about how easy the course is and what grade they get. But it takes little more than a quick perusal of professor ratings on RateMyProfessors.com to see that the assumption is a fallacy.

Let’s look at the categories RateMyProfessors.com uses to evaluate professors (1-5):

Easiness - Some students may factor in the easiness or difficulty of the professor or course material when selecting a class to take. Is this class an easy A? How much work do you need to do in order to get a good grade? Please note this category is NOT included in the “Overall Quality” rating.

Helpfulness - Helpfulness is defined as a professor’s helpfulness and approachability. Is this professor approachable, nice and easy to communicate with? How accessible is the professor and is he/she available during office hours or after class for additional help?

Clarity - A professor’s organization and time management skills can make a great difference on what you get out of the class. How well does the professor teach the course material? Were you able to understand the class topics based on the professor’s teaching methods and style?

Overall Quality - The Overall Quality rating is determined by the average rating of the Helpfulness and Clarity given by all users. An overall rating of 3.5 to 5 is considered good (yellow smiley face). An overall rating of 2.5 to 5 is considered average (green smiley face). An overall rating of 1 to 2.5 is considered poor (blue sad face). The Easiness rating is NOT included when calculating the Overall Quality rating.

Rater Interest - There is always that one class everyone recommends taking before graduating. As a student, how interested were you in the class, BEFORE taking it? Or how interested were you in taking this course from this specific professor.

So easiness is included, but crucially, it is not included in the overall rating. There goes the cornerstone of that major assumption about evaluations, that they are nothing more than evaluations of the ease of a course. My university evaluations are admittedly superior as rating tools: There are more questions, half of which relate to the course and the other half to the instructor, and they are more detailed. RateMyProfessors.com is by no means a rigorous tool for rating teacher effectiveness, but then, it’s a web application, and if there were twenty questions on it, nobody would use it.

I said above that a quick perusal of the evaluations would destroy the major assumption about RateMyProfessor.com, and here is an example:

We may assume that this student is a history major. Note that the student calls the professor “demanding,” and gives him only a 2 on easiness. Yet, this professor gets a glowing review. Here is another, from a different professor, at a different university, in a different field:

The first evaluation was (presumably) from a major, and an upperclassman. This evaluation is from a student who dislikes the course subject, and admits that he has a hard time with it. It also looks like this student is most likely a freshman or a sophomore, to judge from the course number (I replaced the letters, but not the first course number, because it indicates the level of the course). This student gives this professor the lowest possible score for easiness (1), yet like the last evaluator, gives the professor a glowing review. How is this possible, if evaluations are nothing more than a popularity contest, and students rate primarily on how easily they can get As?

But what this article misses is that one hears exactly the same complaints among faculty about university student evaluations as RateMyProfessors.com. It’s one of the Laws of the Faculty Lounge that if there are tenured faculty present and student evaluations come up, at least one professor will make a sneering comment. As a group, tenured faculty give little concern to teaching (which renders the whole “I want a real professor to teach my class!” argument ludicrous.). Don’t believe me? Here it is from the Chronicle of Higher Education:

Colleges are quick to argue that a college education is more about enlightenment than employment. That may be the biggest deception of all. Often there is a Grand Canyon of difference between the reality and what higher-education institutions, especially research ones, tout in their viewbooks and on their Web sites. Colleges and universities are businesses, and students are a cost item, while research is a profit center. As a result, many institutions tend to educate students in the cheapest way possible: large lecture classes, with necessary small classes staffed by rock-bottom-cost graduate students. At many colleges, only a small percentage of the typical student’s classroom hours will have been spent with fewer than 30 students taught by a professor, according to student-questionnaire data I used for my book How to Get an Ivy League Education at a State University. When students at 115 institutions were asked what percentage of their class time had been spent in classes of fewer than 30 students, the average response was 28 percent.

That’s not to say that professor-taught classes are so worthwhile. The more prestigious the institution, the more likely that faculty members are hired and promoted much more for their research than for their teaching. Professors who bring in big research dollars are almost always rewarded more highly than a fine teacher who doesn’t bring in the research bucks. Ernest L. Boyer, the late president of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, used to say that winning the campus teaching award was the kiss of death when it came to tenure. So, no surprise, in the latest annual national survey of freshmen conducted by the Higher Education Research Institute at the University of California at Los Angeles, 44.6 percent said they were not satisfied with the quality of instruction they received. Imagine if that many people were dissatisfied with a brand of car: It would quickly go off the market. Colleges should be held to a much higher standard, as a higher education costs so much more, requires years of time, and has so much potential impact on your life. Meanwhile, 43.5 percent of freshmen also reported “frequently” feeling bored in class, the survey found.

Ha! Students are idiots! What do they know? Read on:

College students may be dissatisfied with instruction, but, despite that, do they learn? A 2006 study supported by the Pew Charitable Trusts found that 50 percent of college seniors scored below “proficient” levels on a test that required them to do such basic tasks as understand the arguments of newspaper editorials or compare credit-card offers. Almost 20 percent of seniors had only basic quantitative skills. The students could not estimate if their car had enough gas to get to the gas station.

Unbelievably, according to the Spellings Report, which was released in 2006 by a federal commission that examined the future of American higher education, things are getting even worse . . .

There follows a lengthy discussion of what to do about the problem. But one thing that can be done, the one thing that is relevant here, is to start taking student evaluations seriously, and not just for teaching faculty.

Student evaluations are by no means perfect. Yes, there are students who care about nothing but how easily they can get As. But at least our evaluations, and the ones at RateMyProfessors.com, can be filtered. Our evaluations are done on a scantron, and on the back are four short answer questions:

1. What did you like most about this course/instructor?
2. What did you like least about this course/instructor?
3. What could the instructor do to improve the course or his or her teaching effectiveness?
4. Other comments?

The comments are linked to the evaluation scores on the other side of the scantron. Non-serious comments indicate a non-serious evaluation. In other words, one can safely ignore the evaluation of a student who answered, say, the second question with something like, “Give us all As.” And yes, you do get non-serious comments, because as I admitted, there are students who care about nothing but how easily they can get As.

However, that some students care about nothing other than the ease with which they can get As does not imply that all or even most students care about nothing other than the ease with which they can get As, nor does it discount the student evaluation as a rating tool. One would assume that somebody with a PhD would have enough basic intelligence to grasp that, but far too many do not — or they do, but would rather discount evaluations rather than face up to the fact that they might not be the brilliant teachers they think they are.

Tenured or teaching faculty, if you are a good teacher and get good evaluations, you have no reason to sneer at them. In fact, if you get good evaluations, yet claim that evaluations are nothing more than a popularity contest, then you are admitting that you are a poseur who does not take your career seriously and that you hand out As like candy. And how stupid would you have to be to do that?

Again, some evaluations are crap. But many of them can be filtered, because they are accompanied by crap comments. This is a useful, but sloppy filter, since not all students bother to write comments on the back. Still, one may filter some of the, ahem, less than useful evaluations.

Note that the same is true on RateMyProfessors.com: Each evaluation is accompanied by comments, and non-serious comments indicate non-serious evaluations. But also note that by no means are all comments non-serious. Neither are the comments on our evaluation scantrons.

At the university where I worked, student evaluations were required to be given in all classes. However, they were largely ignored for tenured (and tenure-track) faculty, but used as a major employment criterion for adjunct, or teaching, faculty. There is a certain amount of logic to this, except that it relieves tenured faculty of any review of their teaching skills. And unsurprisingly, it is always tenured faculty who sneer at evaluations. Teaching faculty do not, because if they get bad evaluations, they are not re-hired — and they shouldn’t be.

Of course, neither should the university harbor tenured faculty who consistently get bad evaluations, but that’s another topic, and addressing that problem would require at least a major redefinition of tenure, if not abolishing it altogether.

But back to student evaluations. They serve two major functions: They provide teaching effectiveness feedback for the department, school/college, and university, and they provide teaching effectiveness feedback for the faculty member. I, at least, would hold that both are equally important. At the university, they provide yet a third function.

Evaluations as school/university feedback

If evaluations are to be used administratively as teaching effectiveness rating tools, a number of issues must be addressed. Evaluations are subjective, after all. As I said earlier, some students care about nothing other than ease. Also, a statistician should design the evaluation, and not, say, a committee of teachers or the school board. Some outside agency should administer, or at least design and process, the evaluations.

Because of the nature and purpose of student evaluations, there should be no “undecided” option available to students. That is, the available options should force students to make either a positive or negative response of some degree. Student evaluations are not political polls, where “undecided” can often give useful information. Student evaluations are rating tools, and as such, should force a rating. After all, a student who, after a whole semester, is “undecided” about the difficulty of the course or some aspect of the teacher’s effectiveness obviously doesn’t have much of value to say about the course.

Evaluations have to be controlled for non-serious ratings. As I said above, one method (admittedly sloppy) is to use the comments as a context for the evaluation. This is not really possible when the administration is using the evaluations to rate teacher effectiveness, however. Another option would be to trim the evaluations, that is, remove the top and bottom scores from a teacher’s evaluations when calculating overall scores. The problem with this method is trimming too much, easy to do if one is teaching small courses of, say, only forty students (removing the top two and bottom two from forty evaluations is the maximum). The problem is that with smaller classes — say again forty students — you aren’t trimming enough data to control for the variable (but for larger classes, like 240 students, this works well).

Perhaps the best solution is to rate all faculty after all of the evaluations are in and analyzed. Calculate population means and confidence intervals for the different criteria, and compare faculty member scores not to other faculty member scores, but the population means. This will neutralize the “lazy/disaffected student factor” and rate all faculty members on the same scale.

But because evaluations are subjective, it is also important not to use them as a sole measure of teaching effectiveness. Use them, yes, but use them along with another, more objective, measure, such as test scores. If you are an administrator and you do this, I suspect you will find, as our department did, that there will be a high correlation between student evaluations and test scores.

Evaluations should be processed individually by class, and should not be processed by instructor. John Smith may be teaching Algebra and Geometry, and may get very different evaluations in the two classes. He should therefore receive evaluations for each of his classes, instead of an overall evaluation. Even if he is teaching three Algebra courses, and all are the same content, the three should be processed individually. Excessive aggregation masks differences in data, and obscures the results of the evaluations. Aggregating evaluations by class also allows the administration to spot faculty members’ strengths and weaknesses.

Evaluations as faculty feedback

Student evaluations can provide faculty with crucial information. Remember that perceptions differ on either side of the desk. You may believe that you are being clear, but that doesn’t mean your students find you clear. The same holds for almost any criterion you can put on an evaluation.

The biggest problem with student evaluations is their infrequency. Only once at the end of the semester really isn’t helpful for your current classes, although you can use the information to improve your teaching for future classes. Another problem is that they provide too little data. As an example, let’s say you read your evaluations and find that students don’t think you’re as clear as you could be. The evaluations do not tell you much about how you could improve.

For these reasons, I administered informal, short-answer only, evaluations three times throughout the semester: a quarter of the way through, around midterms, and three-quarters of the way through. I explained to students that the evaluations were only for me and them, so I could find out from them how I could better present the material, and I encouraged them to be as detailed as they felt they needed to be. I got some crap, certainly, but I also got some valuable feedback about where and how I was being unclear or unhelpful, and adjusted my teaching accordingly.

I also always asked my students when they came to office hours (after we had dealt with their problems) how I could have better presented the material they had come to ask about. Never miss the opportunity to ask your students how you’re doing. Your students are not idiots. If you ask, they will have some important things you need to hear. Stop and listen.

Also, take evaluations into account along with your students’ test (or course assignment) scores. If your students’ grades are consistently low, even if you teach a difficult course, you could be more effectively presenting the material. Poll your students even more frequently, and find out what they think you could be doing. Use the test or assignment results to tell you what your students are not getting. Keep your thumb on the pulse of the class — and you can’t do that if you’re not paying close attention.

Evaluations as consumer information

The university differs in one crucial way from the elementary, middle, or high school: University students have the luxury of choice. The student can choose his major and degree program. The student can choose his courses based in part on which faculty members are teaching them. After all, if you have to take M125 and three faculty members are teaching it, why not take it with the best of the three, or at least not take it with the worst?

When I was an undergraduate, that choice was mitigated by a lack of technology, and we were limited to word of mouth. Now we have the web, and RateMyProfessors.com, and many universities have their own forums for rating faculty. Today’s university students is far more informed about faculty than we were, and can make better choices.

Of course, there is that silly objection to students as consumers, but face it, that’s exactly what they are. The course is for them, after all, not your ego. That alone makes them consumers, and you, the provider. If you’re a godawful teacher, but your colleague is a really good teacher, then students have every right to avoid you and take your colleague’s class instead, and you would do exactly the same.

Finally, I think that student evaluations are, if anything, underused. They are certainly underused in public schools, particularly where teachers’ unions block any kind of teacher evaluation, and just as underused by universities with respect to tenured faculty who should be seriously evaluated on their teaching skills, but even more importantly, they are underused by well-meaning teachers, who could be using them as a powerful tool for improving their own effectiveness. If you teach, and if you care whether you are a good teacher, start asking your students for guidace, and take their answers seriously.

The dogs on the porch, soaking up the warmth, and as you can see from the look on Dolly’s face, totally uninterested in coming inside.

In a 6-3 decision, the SCOTUS upholds Indiana’s voter ID law (the decision is here, if you’re a law geek).

Dinner time.

You know, as in green nuts. We first have this zinger from Steyn:

The biofuels debacle is global warm-mongering in a nutshell: The first victims of poseur environmentalism will always be developing countries. In order for you to put biofuel in your Prius and feel good about yourself for no reason, real actual people in faraway places have to starve to death. On April 15, the Independent, the impeccably progressive British newspaper, editorialized: “The production of biofuel is devastating huge swathes of the world’s environment. So why on earth is the Government forcing us to use more of it?”

You want the short answer? Because the government made the mistake of listening to fellows like you. Here’s the self-same Independent in November 2005:

At last, some refreshing signs of intelligent thinking on climate change are coming out of Whitehall. The Environment minister, Elliot Morley, reveals today in an interview with this newspaper that the Government is drawing up plans to impose a ‘biofuel obligation’ on oil companies… This has the potential to be the biggest green innovation in the British petrol market since the introduction of unleaded petrol…

Then from Will Franklin, we have a link to this report (PDF). Here are the relevant data:

Increases in greenhouse gas emissions, 1997-2004

And then from Tim Blair, who quotes from this Spewsweek article:

In the summer of 2006 I went to see Congressman Rahm Emanuel, who was running the Democrats’ successful effort to regain control of the House of Representatives … I asked Emanuel, how are the environment and global warming playing out there in the heartland? Is it stirring voters? No, he replied. In the 2006 congressional elections global warming was virtually a nonissue, he said, a low-priority item way behind the war and the economy and old staples like education and health care. Global warming is an issue for the elites, he said, not for the average voter …

There is an enormous class divide on the subject. The chattering classes obsess about greenhouse emissions. The rest of the country, certainly the older and less well-off voters, can’t be bothered.

Imagine that.

It seems that spring is here (although it’s supposed to get down into the 30s at night next weekend). Click the thumbnails to get the biggie version. First, Scott’s at Sylvan Acres Farm just outside Bellefonte:

Ducks in Talleyrand Park (they’re utterly unconcerned by humans):

Cherries in front of the library annex:

The original library, just across the street:

At home, one of the plums is starting to bloom:

And the pears in front of St. Josef Stalin are in bloom (all over the county, actually):

Rather than deal with the limestone, I decided this year just to put out pots. Dahlias on the front porch:

To see all of the pictures, click on the image below.

Yeah, I know, it’s Sunday, but Sam’s had these round steaks on sale, so instead, we’re having chicken-fried steaks, with the obligatory mashed potatoes and gravy, of course.

It’s real easy.

You want relatively thin beef — round steaks or chuck eyes are good. Get out the mallet and pound the frak out of the steaks. Season flour with salt and pepper. Dredge the steaks in the seasoned flour.

Peel the potatoes (rule of thumb: 1 stick butter to 2 lb potatoes), slice them (but not too thinly), put them on to boil in salted water.

Get out a large frying pan. Heat about 1/4 c. bacon grease or other fat until hot. Dredge the steaks in the flour again, and brown them on both sides. Reduce the heat to medium, and cook them about five minutes on each side. Raise the heat to high, cook them a couple of minutes on both sides, then remove to a plate.

Put the butter and a splash or two of milk in the bottom of the mixer bowl, add the drained potatoes, and cover to melt the butter while you start the gravy.

Add enough of the seasoned flour to the fat to make a roux. Add milk, stirring constantly, until you get — ta da! — gravy. How anyone gets lumps in gravy is a mystery to me, but if you only add a little milk, then add a bunch more when it’s so thick you can barely stir it, you’ll have a major workout getting out the lumps (but they will cook out). When the gravy is done, turn the heat down.

Mash the potatoes. If you need to add a little milk, do so, but only a splash at a time, unless you want soupy mashed potatoes.

Ring the dinner bell.

What, you expected a recipe? That is the recipe!

Oh, and broccoli. Love broccoli.

Glenn Reynolds points to this rather annoying hand-wringing article by one Bill Stutz at U Penn, entitled — and I’m giving the title because you know from it exactly what kind of diaper-dumping nonsense it’s going to be — “Who is responsible for America’s swollen prison population?”

Pretty much everyone—Republican or Democrat, right or left—familiar with America’s criminal justice system agrees that our prison population is far too large.

Really? I don’t agree with any such thing. In fact, it’s fairly obvious that there aren’t enough criminals in prison (hint: that would have to do with criminals being on the streets committing crimes). And it goes down from there, into your usual strawman-baiting avoidance of, you know, crime, which as every good liberal knows has nothing to do with criminals, er, oppressed people being behind bars.

So we start with this bizarre assumption that putting criminals in prison where they can’t commit crimes is bad. I’ve never seen any justification for this, but no leaps of logic imaginable can support it. Yet, we see it all the time, and Stutz predictably sets up a great big target to shoot:

Criminal justice works badly when the voters whose preferences govern the system are not the voters who feel the effects of crime and punishment most directly.

Well no. “The voters who feel the effects of crime and punishment the most directly” are the same voters who do the most to enable and contribute to the high crime rates with which they live. On Mondays and Wednesdays, they whine about the crime (and frequently call for more gun control). On Tuesdays and Thursdays, they whine about the large number of criminals in prison. On Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays, they whine about the “racist” police and criminal justice system, and on every day of the week, they refuse to cooperate with any investigation and lift not a finger to do anything about the crime they whine about.

Would you like examples? Here we go with a few I published a year or so ago.

I’m sure you’ve heard about the executions in Newark, since the story has been all over the dextrosphere. Everybody has, however, been pointing out the elephant in the room and has ignored the great big, furry, mastodon. As an example, North Dallas Forty says:

Caveats, of course; Newark’s police could be doing their roundup of usual suspects, and it seems quite obvious that they know this guy fairly well. Besides, why does it really matter?

Because Newark is a sanctuary city, in which its ordinances specifically prohibit law enforcement officers from asking about immigration status or cooperating with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Which is likely why this guy, despite having been indicted for numerous other crimes, was still walking the streets, free as a bird, versus being detained and deported, as US immigration law requires.

I’m not picking on him. Every other comment I’ve seen on this has made the same point. But that particular elephant is rather miniscule compared to this one (I’ll quote it in full, since the CNN page will go away soon — and as always, emphases are mine):

NEWARK, New Jersey (CNN) — A third suspect was arrested in connection with the execution-style slayings of three college students in a schoolyard, Newark Mayor Cory Booker said Friday night.

That suspect, identified as a 15-year-old male by officials, was arrested earlier Friday. Additional arrests are likely to be made soon, officials said.

The crime shocked residents of Newark, New Jersey, galvanizing them to express their outrage at the city’s street violence.

Earlier Friday, an undocumented immigrant pleaded not guilty to murder and other charges.

Jose Carranza, 28, was being held on $1 million bond.

Another 15-year-old was arraigned on Thursday and pleaded not guilty in a closed hearing.

County Prosecutor Paula Dow said she wants the teen tried as an adult.

Carranza and the teen are charged with three counts of murder, four counts of first degree robbery, one count of attempted murder, various weapons offenses and one count of conspiracy to commit the act of robbery, prosecutors said.

Booker said there was no indication of gang or narcotics activity in connection with the slayings.

Wearing an orange jail jumpsuit, Carranza spoke softly through a translator. He had surrendered Thursday to Booker, who attended the arraignment.

“He knew maybe if he turned himself in to me he would be safer, but my focus was to get him off the streets,” Booker said Friday morning during an appearance on CNN’s “American Morning.”

Carranza had been using a bogus Social Security number, Sheriff Armando Fontoura said. Carranza is an undocumented immigrant from Peru, his lawyer acknowledged in court.

Carranza had been scheduled to appear in court Monday to answer two previous indictments. One accuses him of sexually assaulting and threatening to kill a 13-year-old, a girlfriend’s child. Another charges him with an array of assault and weapons offenses.

Police earlier said they were looking for two juveniles and one adult who may have been involved in the shootings, Newark’s daily newspaper, The Star Ledger, reported in its Friday editions. Fontoura confirmed to CNN that was the “ballpark” age range of those being sought.

Newark Police Director Garry McCarthy said his office was “close to piecing the entirety of this event together.”

Ballistics evidence, information from the shooting’s lone survivor and a fingerprint lifted from a beer bottle at the scene led to the major break in a case that has outraged a city numbed by street violence.

“There seems to be no motivation, no provocation,” Booker said, calling the crime “evil.”

“This was just a disgusting, vicious attack and it’s troubling,” Booker said. “What they were attacking, [was] not only these amazing children and their families but what the core of Newark is really about.”

Prosecutor Dow downplayed any racial motive.

“We are pursuing this as a horrendous robbery that went terribly wrong,” she said. “The mayor has made clear that given the great diversity of this city and the large influx of all nationalities, we, as a people, need to come together and not make race an issue. Here, it certainly is not.”

The first break in the case came when the first teenager was taken into custody at about 11 p.m. Wednesday.

Much of the information that authorities have collected has come from the lone survivor of the attacks, Natasha Aeriel, 19.

“She’s been incredibly helpful,” McCarthy said. “There have been identifications made, and she’s been of great assistance to us at this point, in spite of her condition, which fortunately is improving daily.”

Aeriel is under heavy guard at a hospital, where she is recovering from gunshot and knife wounds.

Authorities have asked for the public’s help in the rapidly developing case. A $150,000 reward is being offered for information.

Newark has become accustomed to violence but the slayings on Saturday night touched a nerve.

The four friends, ages 18 to 20, were shot while listening to music at the schoolyard.

Three of them — Terrance Aeriel, 18, Dashon Harvey, 20; and Iofemi Hightower, 20 — were forced to kneel against a wall and were shot in the head, execution style.

Authorities have said robbery appeared to be the motive.

While Newark has seen 60 homicides this year, the schoolyard killings stood out because the victims, by all accounts, were good kids. All four were enrolled at Delaware State University or were in the process of enrolling.

The great big mastodon doing the polka in the middle of the room is this:

Carranza had been scheduled to appear in court Monday to answer two previous indictments. One accuses him of sexually assaulting and threatening to kill a 13-year-old, a girlfriend’s child. Another charges him with an array of assault and weapons offenses.

This scumbag was indicted for molesting a 13 year-old, and (I quote) “an array of assault and weapons offenses.” Why wasn’t he in jail, where he belonged? Who is the idiot judge who let him out so he could execute four teenagers, and why hasn’t this been addressed in the news?

I believe the answer may lie in this passage:

The crime shocked residents of Newark, New Jersey, galvanizing them to express their outrage at the city’s street violence.

Note that the target of the outrage is the violence — and note that the target is not the criminals who perpetrate, and are therefore responsible for, the violence. This is the sort of muddle-headed, amoral victim-cult thinking that produces calls for more gun control. Don’t blame those who commit the crimes. Blame the guns. Or even more idiotic, blame the crime.

Knock, knock. Crime, guns, and violence aren’t the problem. Criminals are.

There are lots of examples of this moronic babble. Here’s another, courtesy of Back Talk:

BALTIMORE — Black men in the United States face a far more dire situation than is portrayed by common employment and education statistics, a flurry of new scholarly studies warn, and it has worsened in recent years even as an economic boom and a welfare overhaul have brought gains to black women and other groups.

[ . . . ]

Incarceration rates climbed in the 1990’s and reached historic highs in the past few years. In 1995, 16 percent of black men in their 20’s who did not attend college were in jail or prison; by 2004, 21 percent were incarcerated. By their mid-30’s, 6 in 10 black men who had dropped out of school had spent time in prison.

Again, note that the author of this story identifies incarceration as a problem, all by itself, as if someone had waved a magic wand and poof! popped all of these poor black men into prison. Note that the real problem isn’t incarceration; the real problem is that these men are criminals. Also note that being criminals, they belong in prison.

But I got off track, didn’t I? Well, let’s get back to that mastadon: This shifting of responsibility off those who are solely responsible onto “society” or guns or crime or incarceration becomes destructive when it filters up into the criminal justice system. After all, the judge could have denied this guy bail.

Of course, that’s next door in New Jersey, and although it’s horrifying, we here in the Alleghenies can shake our heads at put it down to more liberal idiocy — or should be able to. However, it seems we have something like that going on here, courtesy of our (supposedly) conservative Republican prosecutor’s office:

The trial, scheduled to begin today, of a man charged with kidnapping and raping a woman while on work release from Centre County’s jail was called off when the two sides reached a plea agreement.

Under the terms of the agreement, James A. Green will plead guilty to aggravated assault, and will be sentenced to 18 to 36 months in state prison, to be served after he completes his sentence in Centre County Correctional Facility in March 2008.

Did you catch that? This SOB is going to get 18-36 months for kidnapping and raping a woman. And note that this isn’t the result of a jury trial. This is the result of a deal between the defense and that (supposedly) conservative Republican prosecutor’s office here in Centre County. Oh, but it gets worse:

According to court documents, Green was on work release from the county jail when he contacted a woman he knew and she met him at his Philipsburg home.

Oh yes, you don’t need to clean your glasses. He was slumming on work release when he raped her. On. Work. Release. So who is the idiot judge who is responsible for his sentence? (I don’t know, but I am going to find out.)

Now yes, I know all about plea bargains, and that they’re necessary. But here’s what you don’t know about Mr. Sloane. He ran on the Republican primary ticket for Judge of the Court of Common Pleas. And while he was running, he said this (sorry, it’s a CDT blog, and they’re morons — you have to scroll down the page to find it):

What can judges do to make protection from abuse orders more effective? The question came a week after a State College woman was shot to death by her estranged husband, who was under a PFA order to stay away from her and not possess guns.

Steve Sloane, an assistant district attorney who is running for judge, said he tells people that a PFA “will not protect you,” and he added:

“All a PFA does — it gives us a way to punish you once it happens.”

Sloane said courts should fast-track domestic violence cases so victims don’t back out of them after initial emotions subside.

Note that the rape case has been postponed umpteen times — thanks to Sloane — and note that although he said, and again, I quote, “All a PFA does — it gives us a way to punish you once it happens,” he thought it would be a good idea to give a rapist 18-36 months. But perhaps rape isn’t as heinous to Sloane as domestic violence. Or perhaps he was merely being a lying politician.

Fortunately for us here in the County, Sloane only got 6.56% of the votes.

And a note to Mike, his boss: We didn’t elect you so you (or your representatives) could slap violent criminals on the wrist. If that’s what we’d wanted, we would have elected a Democrat.

And as for those who believe that the criminal justice system penalizes minority criminals more than white criminals, put down the kool-aid. There’s a very simple reason there are more minorities in prison: Minorities commit more crimes. And here’s another reality check for you:

Politics, Imprisonment, and Race, at La Griffe du Lion:

We all know that African Americans are imprisoned disproportionately to their numbers in the general population. According to the last decennial census a black man was 7.4 times as likely to be found behind bars as was his white counterpart. In the language I’ll use today, we would say that the disparity or incarceration ratio was 7.4. State-by-state, the figures varied widely from 3.1 to 29.3. But contrary to expectation, the highest disparity ratios turned up mostly in politically progressive states, while the smallest ratios were mostly found in conservative states. Though the numbers change a bit from year to year, this racial-political pattern of imprisonment endures. One of the questions I will answer today is, why?

Many here today have devoted their professional lives to eliminating racial disparities in prison and elsewhere. And most of the rest of us are philosophical allies sympathetic to this ideal. It must be disconcerting, therefore, to find the greatest black-to-white imprisonment ratios in your own ideological backyards. But be assured this is not the result of your unconscious, repressed racism, but is rather the innocent product of your goodwill — an accidental consequence of liberal philosophy applied to criminal justice.

So let’s get out the cluebat.

No, the number of criminals in prison is not a problem. There aren’t enough criminals in prison.

If you really are concerned about crime in your neighborhood, stop whining, get off your lazy ass, cooperate with the police and get the criminals off the streets and thrown in prison where they belong.

Otherwise, STFU.

but apparently it isn’t. Glenn Reynolds gets it, though:

Note that the impact of these denunciations is to discredit those who reflexively play the race card on Obama’s behalf, and to ensure wide circulation of the ad beyond North Carolina.

Exactly. Had McCain said nothing, the only people who would have seen that ad would have been in North Carolina. Because McCain denounced it, every network has run it, it’s gone viral all over the internet, and everybody is talking about it. By denouncing the ad, McCain greatly increased the number of people who (will) have seen it, defanged the race card that the disingenuously “post-racial” Obama will play again and again in the general election, and increased his standing among voters as the candidate who takes the high road.

McCain wins all the way around.

Insightful, too: Barry Obama’s Acceptance Speech

Let’s see, McCain has been running races — and winning them — since 1982, yet people who have never run for office, much less run and won, seem to know much more about campaigning than he does.

I find that fascinating.

First, Scott’s for two roasted pork sandwiches with horseradish, then to the Creamery to get a milkshake, and a half-gallon of Happy, Happy, Joy, Joy, coconut ice cream with chocolate chips and buttered toasted almonds.

Now for a nice nap.

This has to be a joke.

Advice to Obama and Hillary on how to win Indiana.

Off to Scott’s!

so much depends
upon

a red wheel
barrow

glazed with rain
water

beside the white
chickens.

Off to do errands. Sam’s. Must do Sam’s. Did not last week. Then off to Scott’s!

Scalia on 60 Minutes:

“People who believe the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision giving the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush was politically motivated should just get over it, says Justice Antonin Scalia.

Scalia denies that the controversial decision was political and discusses other aspects of his public and private life in a remarkably candid interview with 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl, this Sunday, April 27, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

“I say nonsense,” Scalia responds to Stahl’s observation that people say the Supreme Court’s decision in Gore v. Bush was based on politics and not justice. “Get over it. It’s so old by now. The principal issue in the case, whether the scheme that the Florida Supreme Court had put together violated the federal Constitution, that wasn’t even close. The vote was seven to two,” he says, referring to the Supreme Court’s decision that the Supreme Court of Florida’s method for recounting ballots was unconstitutional.

Furthermore, says the outspoken conservative justice, it was Al Gore who ultimately put the issue into the courts. “It was Al Gore who made it a judicial question…. We didn’t go looking for trouble. It was he who said, ‘I want this to be decided by the courts,’” says Scalia. “What are we supposed to say — ‘Not important enough?’” he jokes.”

[ . . . ]

“On the abortion thing, for example, if indeed I were…trying to impose my own views, I would not only be opposed to Roe versus Wade, I would be in favor of the opposite view, which the anti-abortion people would like to see adopted, which is to interpret the Constitution to mean that a state must prohibit abortion.” “And you’re against that?” asks Stahl. “Of course. There’s nothing [in the Constitution to support that view].”

Another Szechuan dish, dry-fried beef. Kuo calls it spicy beef. It’s a simple, homey dish, high in the yum! factor. This is one of those things you want to eat slowly so you can savor it. This would be a great picnic dish, since it’s as good at room temperature as it is hot. I have several recipes for this, but this one is the simplest, and my favorite.

It’s spicy, but you can adjust that. Beware: it’s a simple recipe, but you can easily ruin it. Follow the directions.

Szechuan peppercorns. Not peppercorns, and not hot, but unique, with no substitution. You can find them at any Chinese grocery. They look like peppercorns, kind of, except they’re kind of a pinkish brown color. They have a vaguely citrus-y flavor, and leave a tingling, numbing sensation. Do. Not. Overdo. These. They can very easily overpower anything else.

1 lb. shredded beef

Marinade:

4 T. dark soy sauce
1 T. dry sherry
1 t. sugar

oil
4 dried chilis (I use 9 — or you could use chili oil for the oil instead)
2 c. shredded celery stalks
1/2 c. shredded carrots
1 t. salt
2 t. sesame oil
1/2 t. szechuan peppercorns, ground

YMMV, but I find beef stir-fry in the store to be cut way too thick. Get thin-cut beef (round, whatever), and slice it thinly across the grain. There’s no reason to spend a lot of money on an expensive cut of meat. Round works great.

Toss the beef shreds in a bowl, add the marinade ingredients, mix well, and let sit for an hour or two.

Heat the wok, add a couple of tablespoons of oil, stir the beef, and dump it into the wok. Flip the meat around in the wok for anywhere from 4-6 minutes over medium-high heat, until it’s quite dark, and most of the marinade has cooked away. Now, here’s where you can ruin it, so pay attention. Turn the heat down to medium low, and continue to flip the beef around for another 5 or 6 minutes. The beef will start to look dry — the key here being start. That’s when you’re done with it. Remove the beef to a plate.

Wash out the wok.

Open the window and turn on the fan. Heat the wok, add a couple of tablespoons of oil, and toss in the chilis. Turn the heat down to medium low (this seems to cut down some on the chili fumes), and flip them around until they turn dark red. Turn the heat as high as it will go, toss in the celery, carrots, and salt, and stir-fry for a minute or so. Add the reserved beef back, sprinkle with the Szechuan peppercorns, and flip around to mix everything and get the beef hot. Drizzle the sesame oil over and stir, then serve.

From the (!) LA Times:

Sen. Barack Obama continued accepting donations from oil company executives and employees last month even as he aired ads in which he stated he took no oil company money, his campaign finance reports show.

Obama has taken at least $263,000 from oil company executives, family members and employees since entering the presidential race last year, including $46,000 last month. At least $140,000 has come in chunks of between $1,000 and $2,300, the maximum permitted under federal law.

Not that there’s anything wrong with taking contributions from oil companies — unless you’re telling voters that you’re not, and you have your tongue so far up the ass of the anti-business idiots you can’t get it out.

I see Hugh and Ed have pretty much given the minutes (Geraghty gives his account here), which is good, because while I was on the phone, the dogs had to go out, then come back in, then go back out, etc. Here, however, was McCain’s grab-em-and-hold-em line:

I will be Hamas’s worst nightmare.

(Yeah, I did kind of go off on the commenters. I really am getting sick as hell of these young, narcissistic, self-obsessed little brats. They’re getting to be as annoying as the hippie wannabes.)

Lasted thirty minutes, and I just got off. I’ll address a few of the issues raised in a future post, but something really needs to be said. There were three questions about the North Carolina Wright ad controversy. McCain answered. The second question pushed. McCain answered. The third question was a glitch, after McCain had left the line.

Look. Let it go.

McCain made his point very clearly. He does not think going personal is appropriate for his campaign. He said that the issue itself was worthy of discussion, but that it was the tone of the ad that made it unacceptable. I thought that was pretty clear and concise, but apparently others did not.

One more time, folks. Drop it.

You may not agree with McCain, but that really doesn’t make much difference. He’s making the decisions, and he’s not going to change his mind. You’re wasting your breath.

I happen to agree with McCain here, as I did on the “Barack HUSSEIN Obama” introduction issue. If McCain continues to take the high road, and focuses on the issues instead of personality, that’s going to help. Let’s look at the 2004 gubernatorial race in Indiana. We had the incumbent, Joe Kernan, and the challenger, Mitch Daniels. The day of (and the day after) the election, I talked to quite a few faculty — nearly all Democrats, of course. The one thing I heard most often from those who voted for Daniels — the Republican — was that they did so precisely because he ran a clean campaign, and Kernan ran a dirty, negative campaign.

McCain knows that people are going to drive this issue home, and feel free. You aren’t part of his campaign. But don’t try to push him to do it, because he’s not going to, and because he needs to keep the campaign clean and focused. And I’m 100% behind McCain on that.

So by all means, blog it, push it, drive it home. Just drop trying to change McCain’s mind. It ain’t gonna happen.

Crime? Corruption? Big city machine politics? No, those are symptoms. The root cause can be summed up in two numbers, the total presidential primary votes.

Democrats: 429,578
Republicans: 21,421

Maybe I’ll write a book. What’s the Matter with Philadelphia?

I haven’t given out the rubber nose in some time, and there are some serious contenders here — and they’re both Republicans. They both got way too much of the st00pid, so without further introduction, here are our winners.

First up is an Indiana Republican (well, he’s from Crown Point, and the close proximity to Chicago explains part of the st00pid, but by no means all), Tony Zirkle (and make sure you go look at the photo, because this is so st00pid, you might think it’s a spoof). I’ve bolded the st00pidest of the st00pid.

U.S. Congressional candidate Tony Zirkle is facing criticism from one of his primary opponents, and a host of people on the Internet, for speaking at an event over the weekend that celebrated Adolf Hitler’s birthday.

Zirkle confirmed to The News-Dispatch on Monday he spoke Sunday in Chicago at a meeting of the Nationalist Socialist Workers Party, whose symbol is a swastika.

When asked if he was a Nazi or sympathized with Nazis or white supremacists, Zirkle replied he didn’t know enough about the group to either favor it or oppose it.

“This is just a great opportunity for me to witness,” he said, referring to his message and his Christian belief.

He also told WIMS radio in Michigan City that he didn’t believe the event he attended included people necessarily of the Nazi mindset, pointing out the name isn’t Nazi, but Nationalist Socialist Workers Party.

The Crown Point Republican spoke in front of about 56 “white activists” at an event honoring the birth of Hitler. The German leader was responsible for the genocide of millions of Jews and others during World War II.

Zirkle said the group asked him to speak to discuss the effect of pornography and prostitution on young, white women and girls.

Zirkle is running against Republican Luke Puckett of Goshen and Joseph Roush of Plymouth in the May primary. He lost twice before in primaries to former U.S. Rep. Chris Chocola and has made doing away with pornography and prostitution his top campaign plank.

What is there to say? Is he really so ignorant that he doesn’t know who Hitler was, or can’t connect the swastika armbands with Nazis? Is that even possible?

And I bolded his platform issues because it brings us to our other Clown Award winner (take a bow!), Rep. Paul Broun, who has introduced a bill:

“Allowing sale of pornography on military bases has harmed military men and women by escalating the number of violent, sexual crimes, feeding a base addiction, eroding the family as the primary building block of society, and denigrating the moral standing of our troops both here and abroad,” Broun said.

And what is this “pornography” this bozo’s bill addresses? Playboy and Penthouse.

Andrew Stuttaford and K-Lo are arguing back and forth about this on the Corner. Here’s what I sent them:

First, being “degrading” or “dehumanizing,” both wholly subjective, and not capable of being objectively classified, is a great criterion for banning something in a tyranny, but not in the United States. Sorry, but as horrified by the nanny state as I am, I’m getting really sick of daddy state supporters. These are not children. They’re adults. It makes no difference how “degrading” or “dehumanizing” one may believe the sales of Playboys is; in a free country, adults are free to purchase. That’s what makes it a free country. But the really fundamental problem with bot the nanny and daddy state is that there are no adults, only children who are told what they can and cannot do, because they are not allowed to make up their own minds. Sorry, K-Lo, but no, I have zero interest in living in that country, no matter how well the intentions of the daddy state may be.

But more to the point, nobody has brought up one important issue here.

Priorities.

Like 90% of the people in the US, this politician has absolutely no sense of proportion or priorities. These men and women are deployed, and are regularly under fire. That — their lives, that is — is top priority. Whether they are, in some ethereal way being subjected to second-hand degredation or dehumanization from Playboy is, well, utterly trivial by comparison.

It’s a big wordy, considering that “Wotta maroon!” would have sufficed.

Identity politics, as Mark Steyn points out:

Stanley’s analysis below is correct - and dear old Nora Ephron’s sneer over at The Huffington Post about whether Pennsylvania’s embittered white men are more racist than they’re sexist or vice-versa gets things completely upside down. The embittered white men are just about the only demographic weighing these candidates on their merits. The significant proportion of women and blacks in the Democratic base for whom identity politics trumps all is what’s stopping either candidate from gaining the momentum that would have emerged in a contest between two squaresville dead European males. It’s the identity-uber-alles blocs that prevent the black guy from finishing off the feminist or vice-versa.

Identity politics could very well bring the Dems crashing down in November, precisely because so many in the Borg Queen and Obamamorons camps are there solely for personal reasons. We have those who are voting for Hillary because they have ovaries, and we have those who are voting for Obama because he’s black. Whoever gets nominated, the result will be a lot of pissed off Democrats.

Just a couple of months ago, the press was trumpeting the fragmentation of the GOP, yet the fragmentation is healing, as all but the most rabid McCain haters are coming around. When Rick Santorum endorses McCain, the “disunity” is over. The party of fragmentation is the Democrats, because fragmentation can only come out of identity politics, and pet issues for pet special interest groups. The only way unity can come out of identity politics is to run a three-headed, transgendered, multiracial lesbian, and that, I’d love to see.

Actually, what I’d love to see is the liberals getting a clue, and figuring out that their multiculturalist identity politics will do nothing but splinter them and the nation, but Democrats seem to be severely allergic to clues.

So sit back and enjoy the show, because it will only get better — or worse, if you happen to be a realistic Democrat.

Bull Dog Pundit has some interesting commentary on yesterday’s primary, discussing what the primary has to say about what will happen in November. But here is what caught my eye:

What shocked the hell out of me is that Hillary Clinton [won] Montgomery and Bucks County - 2 of the 4 “bedroom counties” collaring Philadelphia.

That’s a sit up and take notice moment. So I thought I’d head over to the state election results and check those counties.

Bucks County:
62.6% - 37.4%, Clinton - Obama

Montgomery County:
50.7% - 49.3%, Clinton - Obama

Chester County:
44.8% - 55.2%, Clinton - Obama

Delaware County:
44.6% - 55.4%, Clinton - Obama

She butchered him in Bucks County, and won by a slim margin in Montgomery County. McCain could carry those two counties in November, since to a large extent, McCain and Hillary connect with the same voters. But the Bull Dog has even more interesting news:

Obama only won 7 counties - Philadelphia (a given, and a 65-35% margin was way to small), Chester and Delaware county (the other 2 “bedroom counties), Dauphin (where Harrisburg is), Lancaster (where nearly all of the Democrats are inner city minorities. And don’t get fooled. When you hear “Lancaster” you may think of the Amish, but that’s outside the city), Centre County (where Penn State is) and a small county next to it [Union County, where Bucknell University is located].

What Obama needs to worry about if he’s the nominee is that Lancaster and Dauphin county will go Republican (a lot more Republicans), and many of the Hillary voters in Chester and Delaware could easily go to McCain.

And even if Obama wins the 4 “bedroom” communities, it very well might not be a big enough margin to make up for his obvious lack of support in the rest of the state. The reason Ed Rendell, and every Democrat presidential candidate since 1992 has won PA is because they racked up big enough margins in Philly and the “bedroom counties” to make up for the rest of the state. If Obama can’t do that, he’s in deep, deep trouble.

I think Obama is in trouble now. He’s not very bright, for one thing. He makes stupid statements, and then doesn’t have the intelligence to figure out that they were stupid statements, or understand why, so he spins — and basically repeats the stupid statements. His campaign staff, being cut out of the same crowd of over-educated idiots, are no help, and he’ll continue to do this all the way up until the election.

Obama also has no guts. He’s weak, and he whines. He didn’t want to debate Hillary in North Carolina, and he didn’t want to answer questions (actually, that’s happened several times already). He may be able to get away with that running against Hillary for the nomination, but not against McCain.

Obama runs fine as long as everybody is crying and fainting and trying to touch his robe. But he gets frustrated when he’s not being venerated, and he stumbles.

Many of those Hillary voters will pull the lever for John McCain in November, mainly because McCain has all the attributes they liked about Reagan (patriotism, strong national defense, and yes, social issues like guns and abortion), and where they deeply distrust Obama

Exactly. McCain can win without Pennsylvania, but Obama can’t. I’m not saying McCain will win Pennsylvania, but if Obama is the Democrat, and if McCain campaigns hard in the right places, it’s certainly possible — possible enough that the Democrats should be nervous.

Gotta get a prescription refilled and grab some lunch.

Whoever wins in November, the 5th Congressional District here will have the honor of providing the US House with one of the ugliest Representatives.

That’s Thompson, the Republican, on the left, and McCracken on the right. Thompson is younger than I am — but he doesn’t look it.

Everybody by now knows the Borg Queen won Pennsylvania 55-45, right?

Here are the results from my precinct.

Well, I was partially right about Cahir. Local results:

But McCracken won statewide, which is a good thing. He’ll be easier to beat in November than Cahir would have been. I was a little nervous about him.

And it looks like voters were sick of the Shaner-Walker war (no doubt getting multiple flyers every day for three weeks had something to do with that, not to mention the "which is worse" DUI-stalking scandals). Thompson is the Centre County party chairman. He didn’t do a lot of campaigning (though some), but he had Peterson’s endorsement. I got a total of seven robocalls from Peterson about voting for Thompson. And it doesn’t look like the bread label idea worked for Stroehmann.

The results were a little less skewed though the winner was the same district-wide:

And it looks like Scott Conklin, the incumbent conservative Democrat, got 650 write-ins on Republican ballots.

At least, that’s what they said. No line, no wait. But what is Huckabee doing on the ballot?

As everybody in the US knows, today is our primary. I rather like the idea of being an informed voter, and there are a couple of races I don’t care that much about, but thought I’d read up on before I walk across the street to vote, so I went to the county webpage to download a sample ballot — a PDF file, of course.

Guess what? The damned ballot file is corrupted. I thought maybe I needed to upgrade Acrobat, so I downloaded the latest and installed it (it takes as long to install as Photoshop does). I tried again. Same error.

So I’m going to walk across the street and vote.