Tuesday, 06 October 2015


Ken Berwitz

Today's quote comes to us from David Jacques, who publishes the Roseburg Beacon in Roseburg, Oregon - home of Upqua Community College, where chris mercer harper killed 9 people and injured 7 others before either killing himself or being killed by police (not 100% sure which).

This is what Mr. Jacques has to say about President Obama, who has announced he is coming to Roseburg:

"Well I think the president will not be welcomed into the community. And that is not just my opinion. We talked to dozens upon dozens of citizens, some family members of the victims, our elected officials. And you may have a copy, if you don't I'd be glad to read from it on the air that our Douglas County commissioners along with our Douglas County sheriff, who is very popular, and our chief of police all came to consensus language about him not being welcome here to grandstand for political purposes."

I doubt that this information will dissuade Mr. Obama from showing up where he is so clearly not wanted.  Never underestimate the power of a supersedingly large ego.

But don't be fooled by whatever scripted, controlled event his people will no doubt concoct for your viewing pleasure.  The people there resent President Obama using their city - a city where many, many peaceful, law-abiding people legally own guns - to score cheap political points just hours after their friends and neighbors were gunned down.

Just ask David Jacques, the local news guy.....who wins Quote Of The Day honors for asking the questions, getting the answers, and bluntly explaining how his fellow Roseburg citizens feel.  

Do you blame them?

@ 14:46 PM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

With characteristic class and maturity, this is the ad Donald Trump has just released to respond to Marco Rubio's (absolutely correct) charge that he doesn't talk about policy because he doesn't know a lot about it:

Could this be more sniveling, consdescending or pathetic? 

What's next?  An "Are too!"  "Am not!" argument, followed by a  few "nyah nyah nyah's" and a food fight?

I am assuming the picture Trump used is Marco Rubio as a boy.  If I'm right, it means that the one and only impressive thing about this ad is that it makes Rubio as a child look more mature than he does as an adult (if that term even applies).

I guess it takes an ego likeTrump's to think that his already-fading poll numbers are going to be bolstered by trying to perpetuate an infantile feud he started in the first place.

Bye bye Donald.

@ 11:48 AM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

According to politico.com's Edward-Isaac Dovere, Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren are having lunch together this afternoon.  
What do you suppose they'll talk about?

Mr. Dovere imparts this intelligence after first telling us, in considerable detail, how Joe Biden is moving toward declaring his candidacy for the Presidency.

Is he right?

If so, what would a Biden/Warren ticket - presumably announced as a team very early - do to the single most important sales pitch of Clinton's campaign...that there should be a woman on the ticket?

And, as the Donald Trump media tsunami recedes back (as do Trump's poll numbers), is this the next "big story"?

Stay tuned.

@ 10:29 AM   2 comments


Ken Berwitz

Well, barring unforseen circumstances (unlikely, but still possible), I am finished with jury duty for three years.

As noted in the previous blog, I showed up on time for jury duty this morning.  But the cashier in the cafeteria - that's right, the cashier in the cafeteria - told me they screwed up and I didn't have to be there - why don't I check with the people in the jury room.

So I walked to the jury room...where I was told the cafeteria guy was right, and that things had happened too late to post online or message anyone, which effectively ended my stint as a juror.  

Sure enough, about 10 minutes later, in a now-very-crowded jury assembly room, we were advised that every case we were called for had been resolved without the need for a jury.  So go home, but check online after 5:00PM to see if anything changed (highly unlikely).  If it didn't, seeya in three years.

Before leaving, however, each of us had to have our juror card scanned.  Since I had the prescience to be sitting in the front...OK, dumb luck, since the front seats evidently are considered least desirable and, because I went into the jury room, those were the only ones left...I had mine scanned first.  

I strolled out of the courthouse, happy to have done my duty without doing any duty at all, and contemplating the fact that this is the same system which decides whether people should go to jail.

Ok, back to politics, where, if things went the way they should, the courthouse I was in could not have been able to hold all the necessary jurors.

@ 09:44 AM   1 comment


Ken Berwitz

My posting for most of today will be sporadic.  That is because I am going to court.

To the readers who disagree with my blogs:  sorry, guys; they're not sentencing me.  I'm just there for jury duty.

I may try to put up this or that from my smart phone while waiting to see whether they'll accept me as a juror (writing a political blog does not, I am guessing, make me a primo candidate in the jury pool) or, if they do, when and for how long I'll be involved.

I'll let you know what's going on when I can.

UPDATE:  OK, I'm in court. But it is too early to enter the jury assembly room, so I, along with a rapidly increasing number of other potential jurors, am hanging out nearby. There are tables where you can eat and drink, but the available alternatives are a Coke machine, a Pepsi machine, a Royal Crown Cola machine, and enough sugary and salty snacks to put anyone into various forms of  food shock. But no coffee, machine -  although we are asked to be here before 8:30 in the morning.  There is, however,  a small  coffee shop  which offers every one of the things , pretty much, available in the machines, along with what I would hope to be decent coffee.  I think I will find out.

More later.

@ 07:47 AM   2 comments


Ken Berwitz

I don't have the video or transcript yet, but Senator and Republican candidate for President Marco Rubio was interviewed by Matt Lauer on the Today show this morning.

His questions were awful.  Or, put another way, just the way I'd expect them for a Republican candidate.

Just about every one, it seemed to me, was asked in a way designed to provide fodder for Rubio's opponents (think Hillary).

Rubio, to his credit, kept his composure and waded through them very, very well.  On the mass murder at Upqua Community College, for example, his response  was - paraphrasing here - "why aren't we talking about why they do this, why is it only what they use?".  To Lauer's insistence that he take a position on the House of Representatives battle for Speaker of the House, Rubio reminded Lauer that he was in the Senate.  And, believe me, there was more.

This, of course, occurred after yesterday's "town hall meeting" love-in for Hillary.

It is what Republican candidates have to deal with on shows like Today.  And CBS This Morning.  And Good Morning America.  Etc. etc. etc.

Media bias?  Naaahhh

When I have a transcript I'll add to this blog.

@ 07:40 AM   Add Comment

Monday, 05 October 2015


Ken Berwitz


Is it just me, or does Hillary Clinton's campaign logo....


..look stangely similar to the logo for Hadassah, the women's Zionist organization...





...and even more strangely like the logo of a now-defunct United Kingdom grocery story?

I have no idea what to make of this.  Maybe you do.

@ 20:04 PM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

Today's paragraphs come to us from Mideast scholar - very brave Mideast scholar - Bassam Tawil.  His latest piece for the Gatestone Institute, published just yesterday, starts this way:

We contaminate our mosques with our own hands and feet, and then blame Jews for desecrating Islamic holy sites. If anyone is desecrating Islamic holy sites, it is those who bring explosives, stones and firebombs into Al-Aqsa Mosque. The Jews who visit the Temple Mount do not bring with them stones, bombs or clubs. It is young Muslim men who are desecrating our holy sites with their "filthy feet."

These leaders, including Abbas himself, are not willing to send their own children and grandchildren to participate in the "popular struggle." They are fully responsible for sending the children of others to throw stones and firebombs at Jews. Sitting in their luxurious offices and villas in Ramallah, they demand that Israel be held responsible for cracking down on "innocent" Palestinians. Their main goal is to embarrass Israel and depict it as a state that takes tough measures against Palestinian teenagers.

These youths are not taking to the streets to fight "occupation." Their main goal is to kill or cause grievous bodily harm to Jews. When someone tosses a firebomb at a house or a car, his intention is to burn civilians alive.

It is as if our leaders are saying that throwing stones and firebombs at Jews in their cars and homes is a basic right of Palestinians. Our leaders believe Israel has no right to defend itself against those who seek to burn Jews driving in their vehicles or sleeping inside their homes.

Mr. Tawil's poignant j'accuse comes on the heels of a series of murderous actions by Palestinian Arabs in Jerusalem (see here, and here), which have left several dead, including the parents of four young children whose "crime" was driving home - and which have, understandably, caused the Netanyahu government to crack down hard.

How many of the same Palestinian Arabs who cheered those murders will now cry out at the hardship such a crackdown will cause?

How many members of the Palestinian Authority - which signed a "unity agreement" with hamas, a terrorist group whose charter demands the vaporizing of Israel and death of all Jews everywhere, not just in Israel - will join in the crying?

Mr. Tawil wins the "Paragraphs Of The Day" award for his combination of perception, logic and courage.  How I wish other Muslims of good faith - and I am 100% sure there are a great many - would be as outward in joining him.

@ 19:12 PM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

Hillary Clinton is a human being.  Everyone knows that.

But she is a de-humanized human being.  And everyone seems to know that too....even her.

What is a de-humanized human being?  In Ms. Clinton's case, it means that, due to her comportment over many years, she comes across as scripted, focus-group tested, opportunistic, and therefore phony and dishonest.

Not surprisingly, Ms. Clinton wants to re-humanize herself - especially since the odds are excellent that she will soon be running against the very, very humanized Joe Biden.  

But, ironically, her attempt on this morning's Today Show was a clinic in how NOT to do so. Specifically, she engaged in a televised "town hall meeting" which had all the spontaneity of a moon phase....complete with a fawning TV host, in the form of Today co-host Savannah Guthrie.

Kyle Drennan, of newsbusters.org, has an excellent piece on this fiasco.  Let me show you just a couple of excerpts:

Throughout a live townhall event on Monday's Today, Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton was treated to one softball after another from her adoring supporters at NBC. One sycophantic fan set the tone: "Secretary Clinton, you've had a lot of tough questions this morning. This may be the toughest one you get all day. But many years ago we saw another Clinton at his inauguration play an instrument and have a song. What song or instrument would you play at yours?"

Moments later, attendee Esther Dickinson proclaimed: "Well, first, I want to thank you for your candidacy, you're such a role model for women my age. And so thank you for putting yourself out there."

Co-host Savannah Guthrie - who interviewed Clinton prior to the townhall event - wrapped up the infomercial by wondering: "You often say you're not running because you're a woman, you're running on the merits, and one of your merits is that you are a woman. So my question is, what are the merits of a female leader? What does a female leader bring that a man doesn't?"

As the hour-long segment ended, fellow co-host Matt Lauer remarked: "It was interesting to see her in that type of a situation, in that kind of forum. I thought the questions were good." News anchor Natalie Morales chimed in: "Really great questions, a very informed crowd..."

What a great idea.  Let's throw a "spontaneous" town hall meeting - among Hillary loving voters and a Hillary-loving host.  That'll be sure to make everyone see Hillary as a warm, fuzzy human being.

I'll just bet it convinced, oh, about one or two dozen people nationwide.

Ok, let's talk honestly:  

-Every recent poll shows Hillary Clinton with less than 50% in New Hampshire and losing to Bernie Sanders. This means there are a lot of New Hampshirites skeptical of a Clinton candidacy.

-But in this "town hall meeting", all but two questions to her are love-fests, and the two which aren't, provide opportunities to rail against income inequality and war - both of which - suh-prahz, suh-prahz - are major parts of Ms. Clinton's campaign strategy.  

-And that is before we get to the fact that, in New Hampshire, which went Democrat by just 5% in 2012 - 46% voted Republican - there was not one question during the entire "town hall meeting" which came from Hillary Clinton's right.

Does what you just read come across as spontaneous?  Credible?  Does it in any way re-humanize Hillary Clinton?  Or does it look like just the latest scripted, focus-group tested, opportunistic, and therefore phony and dishonest, dog and pony show?.

If this is the best her campaign staff can do, it's little wonder that her poll numbers are heading south faster than a snowbird after the first frost.

@ 15:41 PM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

How would you like to see some posters, and a cartoon, all which narrowly address an issue, and skim over all its facets, just to make a dramatic point?

If you're interested, I've posted six of them below.  Every one was sent to me in the past few days:

ATTN:'s photo.

Republican Bigotry, Hate, Fear, Lies and Distortion's photo.

Occupy Democrats's photo.

National Association for Gun Rights's photo.

Occupy Libtardis's photo.

Glenn McCoy's photo.

Ok, there they are.  You decide which are and aren't fair, which do and don't make a valid point.

Have fun....

@ 11:40 AM   1 comment


Ken Berwitz

Ok, I admit this is one of those things that you can find humor in, even though it isn't really funny.   But after being shut out of blogging for three days, I'm in the mood.  So here goes.

As you probably know, McDonald's dropped its "You deserve a break today" slogan many years ago, in favor of "I'm Lovin' it".

But, at least for one of its Hong Kong locations, they better never change to "I'm noticin' it".

Excerpted from Gloria Chan's article at South China Morning Post:

Police are trying to confirm the identity of a homeless woman who was found dead in a 24-hour McDonald's outlet at a public housing estate in Kowloon Bay yesterday morning.

The woman, aged around 50 to 60 years, was found slumped over her table in a quiet corner, 24 hours after she entered the restaurant at Ping Shek Estate, while other customers were unaware what had happened.

Well, when they say "in a quiet corner", they certainly mean it.

And the fact that this is a 24 hour location (no "hey lady, you have to leave now"), and knowing the air quality of Hong Kong (which, despite the name of the city meaning "fragrant harbor", is terribly polluted), it could have been weeks, maybe months, before anyone noticed.

There is no truth to the rumor that the last thing the manager said before they carried her from the restaurant was "TAKE-OUT!"

Ok, enough.  Next bad joke is yours. 

@ 10:29 AM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

Here is a note to the world's richest barroom loudmouth, Donald Trump, in the form of excerpts from John Merline's article at Investors Business Daily:

Donald Trump has boasted that he's "leading every poll and in most cases big." Not anymore. The latest IBD/TIPP Poll shows him in second place, seven points behind Ben Carson.

The nationwide survey found that 24% of Republicans back Carson, compared with 17% who say they support Trump.

Marco Rubio came in third with 11% and Carly Fiorina fourth at 9%. Jeb Bush, once considered a prohibitive favorite, ranked fifth with just 8% support, which was a point lower than those who say they are still undecided.

The IBD/TIPP Poll has a proven track record for accuracy, based on its performance in the past three presidential elections. In a comparison of the final results of various pollsters for the 2004 and 2008 elections, IBD/TIPP was the most accurate. And the New York Times concluded that IBD/TIPP was the most accurate among 23 polls over the three weeks leading up to the 2012 election.

Other polls show Trump's support slipping in recent weeks. The Real Clear Politics average of six national polls shows him falling from 30.5% in mid-September to 23.3% by the end of the month. That average does not include the IBD/TIPP findings.


"Things appear to be catching up with Trump on multiple fronts," said Raghavan Mayur, president of TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence, which conducts IBD's monthly poll.

Still think they all love you, Donald?  That this is just a Trump-fest of a cakewalk to the nomination? 

Personally, I think the time to figure out how to leave, while pretending you're still on top, is rapidly approaching.  You know, the one you alluded to on Meet The Press on Sunday, when you said that if your numbers fall enough you'll just go back to your business life.

Get ready...

@ 08:33 AM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

I take no pleasure at all in posting that title.  But it is the nicest thing I can say about debbie wassserman schultz today.

Fresh from accusing - about 90% directly, but with a tiny bit of weasel-out room - Marco Rubio of attended a fundraiser at the home of a nazi sympathizer - an absolute lie...

... schultz is now claiming - with the same tiny bit of weasel-out room - that Jeb Bush is flip and indifferent to mass murders like the one which occurred at Upqua Community College this week. 

Here, with a major hat tip to John Hinderaker of powerlineblog.com, is what Schultz tweeted yesterday afternoon at 4:09:

A message for Jeb Bush: 380 Americans have been killed in 294 mass shootings in 2015 alone. "Stuff" doesn't just "happen." Inaction happens.

Forgetting that, in her haste to put up this slithering, sneering lie, schultz did not come close to getting the numbers right, Here is what Jeb Bush said – with a larger-than-necessary segment of what came before it, so there is no question at all about context:

the tendency when we have these tragedies that took place yesterday, it's just heartbreaking to see these things, but this is the broader question of rule-making I think is an important point to make. That whenever you see a tragedy take place, the impulse in the political system, most, more often than at the federal level, but also at the state level, is to 'do something,' right? And what we end up doing lots of times is we create rules on the 99.999 percent of human activity that had nothing to do with the tragedy that forced the conversation about doing something. And we're taking people's rights away each time we do that, and we're not necessarily focusing on the real challenge. So if we have people that are mentally ill, to the point where they go into the vortex and they don't come out and they're hateful, and they're in isolation, and they kill people. The impulse in Washington is take personal rights away from the rest of us. And it won't solve the problem of this tragedy that is just heartbreaking to see. Maybe we ought to be more connected in our communities. Maybe we ought to have greater awareness of the mental health challenges that exist all across this country. Maybe there's a better way to deal with this than taking people's human, you know, personal liberty away every time we, you know, kind of require people to do something.

Moderator: And I remember right after Columbine. And this is a long, long time ago I was listening to the radio, and they were talking about how schools you're not allowed to have prayer vigils. But the second - being allowed to pray, I should say, or have, you know, Christian or Jewish or whatever faith-based groups on these public education schools. But then the guy said, you know it's funny that you send a guy there with an Uzi or a handgun to shoot a bunch of people, the first thing they do after the tragedy -

BUSH: Of course.

Moderator: - prayer vigil, whatever the faith-based group is and always to say that you should do that on the front end, maybe you wouldn't have these tragedies on the back end.

BUSH: Yeah, it's, we're in a difficult time in our country, and I don't think more government is necessarily the answer to this. I think we need to re-connect ourselves with everybody else, it's just, it's very sad to see. But I resist the notion - nd I did, I had this, this challenge as governor, because we have, look, stuff happens, there's always a crisis, and the impulse is always to do something, and it's not necessarily the right thing to do. 

As anyone even remotely interested in the truth can plainly see, Jeb Bush's use of that term was not about the Upqua massacre, it was a general observation that things are always happening which make us want to do things to prevent them - often things that take our rights away - but the remedies we come up with are not necessarily the right ones.

debbie wasserman schultz certainly knows this.  But she put out that vile, intentionally dishonest tweet anyway.

Interestingly, the fact that her tweet came at exactly 4:09 PM may have some relevance here.  As you probably know, there is a product called Formula 409.  It promises to clean and disinfect just about anything.

I suggest debbie wasserman schultz take a large amount - if possible, at 4:09 this afternoon - and slosh it around her mouth.  Maybe that will clean and disinfect her there, and she won't talk like a lying snake anymore.

On the other hand, that's probably not going to work.  I doubt Formula 409 is that strong.

@ 07:59 AM   1 comment


Ken Berwitz 

The dismantling of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign continues. 

Excerpted from Colleen McCain Nelson and Peter Nicolas's article in yesterday's Wall Street Journal: 

Some Hillary Clinton donors are defecting to Joe Biden, resisting entreaties from the Democratic front-runner's campaign to stand by her despite slipping poll numbers.

A few of the fundraisers have gone public with their presidential preference. Others have quietly decamped and signaled their intentions to the Draft Biden 2016 super PAC that is working to prod the vice president into the race for the White House.

In the meantime, the Draft Biden organization is securing commitments as the vice president's public standing is on the rise, while Mrs. Clinton appears more vulnerable. A Wall Street Journal/NBC poll released this week shows that Mr. Biden is running stronger than Mrs. Clinton in head-to-head match-ups against leading Republican candidates.

Marc Lasry, a billionaire hedge-fund manager who is raising funds for Mrs. Clinton's campaign, said he hasn't heard from anybody who would support Mr. Biden. "Everybody I speak to and deal with are still huge supporters of Hillary," Mr. Lasry said.

Tick tock tick tock tick tock 

Drip drip drip drip drip drip. 

The article goes on to say that Vice President Biden may wait until after the October 13 debate before entering the race - that it is too much to simultaneously announce/start the campaign apparatus going in earnest and prepare to debate Ms. Clinton.  We'll see. 

But it is looking more like it’s Joe's time for show time.  

@ 07:52 AM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

If you think this blog is primarily about how many illegals are going to be voting in the 2016 elections, you are wrong.  That is the junior partner in what you are about to read.

 Paul Goldman and Mark Rozell, writing for politico.com, have put up an angle on the tidal wave of illegals into this country that I admit I never thought of...but which is so logical, and rings so true, that it seems to me the Republican Party had better do something about it damn fast....if there is anything they can do about it damn fast.

 From Mr. Goldman and Mr. Rozell:

 Illegal immigrants-along with other noncitizens without the right to vote-may pick the 2016 presidential winner. Thanks to the unique math undergirding the Electoral College, the mere presence of 11-12 million illegal immigrants and other noncitizens here legally may enable them to swing the election from Republicans to Democrats.


The right to vote is intended to be a singular privilege of citizenship. But the 1787 Constitutional Convention rejected allowing the people to directly elect their President. The delegates chose instead our Electoral College system, under which 538 electoral votes distributed amongst the states determine the presidential victor.


The distribution of these 435 seats is not static: they are reapportioned every ten years to reflect the population changes found in the census. That reallocation math is based on the relative "whole number of persons in each state," as the formulation in the 14th Amendment has it. When this language was inserted into the U.S. Constitution, the concept of an "illegal immigrant," as the term is defined today, had no meaning.


This math gives strongly Democratic states an unfair edge in the Electoral College.

And this, of course, is before we talk about the fact - and I absolutely, unequivocally, 100% believe it to be a fact - that, due in large part to the states which insist on their being no serious voter ID mechanism, there are many illegals aready casting votes in elections. 

What can the Republican Party do about this, other than a constitutional amendment - which a) is not going to happen, and b) even if it did, would not be in place by the 2016 elections? 

How about pushing through legislation that requires the census count to be adjusted by how many illegals the census bureau tells us are in each state? How about that being in place by 2016 - thus lowering the states which get more representation based on illegals and raising the ones which get less? 

If Democrats want to come out against this, let them do it. Let them show the legal voters of this country that they WANT illegals to affect the Presidential election. 

If President Obama wants to veto such legislation, make him exercise the veto. And then USE it to show legal voters that the destiny of their country is being take away by him, and the Democrat Party. 

Short of removing illegals from the country, that is, it seems to me, the best they can do....and I hope someone comes up with an idea that is better than mine. 

Many, many thanks to Paul Goldman and Mark Rozell for this invaluable insight!!

@ 07:46 AM   1 comment


Ken Berwitz

Elizabeth Warren. Ward Churchill. Andrea Smith. Jamake Highwater. And now Taffe Reed.

Wow, a few more and they can start their own tribe.

Excerpted from Blake Neff's article at dailycaller.com:

Dartmouth College announced Thursday that Susan Taffe Reed, who attracted scorn and ridicule for claiming membership in an Indian tribe regarded by other Indians as bogus, will no longer serve as the director of the school's Native American Program.

When Taffe Reed's appointment was announced last month, Dartmouth proudly noted her work as president of the "Eastern Delaware Nations" (EDN). But while that tribe name may sound legitimate, it turns out EDN is actually just a non-profit corporation, and it is not recognized as a legitimate tribe by the federal government, the state of Pennsylvania (where it is headquartered), or by most other Indian tribes.

Criticism (and mockery) of Taffe Reed escalated after a blog post on the website FakeIndians analyzed the genealogical records of Taffe Reed's ancestors, claiming it showed them to be of purely European extraction with no Indian admixture. Taffe Reed has argued that the blog post isn't entirely accurate, but also hasn't produced a detailed rebuttal to it.

Dartmouth's Indian students an alumni celebrated Taffe Reed's un-appointment on their Facebook page, though some said they wished she would leave the college entirely rather than simply being slotted into a separate job.

And in case you wonder why people would make this claim when they have no indian roots, read this excerpt from an article by Dr. Dean Chavers - himself a full-blooded Lumbee Indian - about his uncle, who worked at Martin Marietta: 

But when the affirmative action thing came about in the late 1960s, somebody looked on his records and saw that he was Indian. He was immediately given the additional duty of identifying and working with other Indians at Martin. All of a sudden people who had never claimed to be Indian said they were. They thought it would help them with promotions, job opportunities, and advancement. Some of them were obviously not Indian.

In 1976, I met with the two gentlemen at Lockheed in Sunnyvale, California, who were in charge of affirmative action. I was working for the Indian Center of San Jose at the time, setting up an education program. During the meeting they told me Lockheed was the largest employer in the Bay Area. They proceeded to pull out this big computerized logbook (they were using the old IBM 360 in those days) of several hundred "Indians" who worked there.

I was amazed. As we went through their list, I recognized none of the people they had listed. By that time I had been in the Bay Area for eight years, and had met most of the urban Indian leaders in San Jose, Oakland, San Francisco, and outlying cities. I had served a term on the board of the Intertribal Friendship House in Oakland, worked as the Mainland Coordinator for the Alcatraz occupation, taught for three years at Cal State Hayward, and worked at the Indian Center for several months. I still wonder about the real ethnicity of the people at Lockheed who were claiming to be Indian.

The affirmative action managers were happy. They had met their quota of Indians-exceeded it in fact. Meeting the quota was a federal requirement. Almost all their funds came from the federal government for defense contracts. However, to be a Lockheed Indian, all one had to do was check a box.

In other words, the reason was that, due to a well-meaning government policy (or one designed to sew up Black votes for Democrats - your call) they got something out of it. Period.

 It reminds me of that funny - but apparently prophetic - scene in "Ghostbusters" where Winston Zeddemore, played by the excellent actor, Ernie Hudson, comes looking for a job. Janine, the secretary, played to the hilt by Annie Potts, asks him "Do you believe in UFOs, astral projections, mental telepathy, ESP, clairvoyance, spirit photography, telekinetic movement, full trance mediums, the Loch Ness monster, and the theory of Atlantis?" And Winston answers, "Uh, if there's a steady paycheck in it, I'll believe anything you say."

 Maybe someday there'll be an affirmative action program for Jewish people of Eastern European extraction. If that ever happens I'll be in great shape...unless a Taffe Reed or Elizabeth Warren suddenly discovers she came from the same shtetl, and takes my job away from me.

 Or maybe Ward Churchill will suddenly discover his real name was Ward Synagoguehill.

@ 07:42 AM   2 comments


Ken Berwitz

On Saturday morning, when I realized the blog had gone dark, I wrote four posts - expecting to be able to put them up in a matter of hours.  

Little did I know it would be 48 of them.

The following four blogs are what I wrote at that time.

@ 07:41 AM   Add Comment


Ken Berwitz

Hi, remember me?

In 1945 Billy Wilder made a terrific movie, starring Ray Milland, called "Lost Weekend".  

In his case it referred to a man on an alcoholic binge.

My lost weekend was a little less exotic...and certainly less refreshing.   It had to do with some kind of a computer crash.

But - albeit missing a few days of my recent posts, which I am assuming will be retrieved in the next day or two - we're back.  With a lot to catch up on, which I will start doing a bit later on.

Good to see you again.

@ 07:00 AM   Add Comment

Multi-Year Archive
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.

Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.


At "Hopelessly Partisan" we discuss all issues, big and small. Such as:

-Could President Obama's Iran "deal" be worse?

-With Hillary Clinton sinking like a rock, what happens if/when Joe Biden jumps into the race?

-How much are the email and Clinton foundation scandals causing Hillary's downward plunge? What can she do to stop it? Anything?

-When does Zimbabwe stop whining about "Cecil" and take responsibility for giving hunters permission to kill lions...for $50,000 each?

-When will media talk about how many new jobs created in the Obama years are part-time rather than full-time?

Right down to:

-Does Donald Trump actually pay money to the person who does his hair?

-Could Tom Brady possibly come across as less honest? Less sincere?

-Will I win or lose my $10 bet with Toy Insurance Bob that the Yankees will win more games than the Mets this year?

In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of "The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics", and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!


Crooks and Liars
Daily Kos
Media Matters
Talk Left
The Huffington Post
Think Progress


  Drudge Report
  Real Clear Politics
  The Hill


   American Spectator
   Daily Caller
   Free Republic
   Front Page Magazine
   Hot Air
   National Review
   Power Line
   Town Hall
   Weekly Standard

About Us  
Blog Posts