Ottawa Traffic (part 4)

As anyone sitting in my passenger seat can attest to, in general I hate other drivers. Not all drivers mind you. There are a few who would be allowed on the roads of my country. Just most of the ones I come in contact with would not make it to that short list. So I'd like to take this post to help educate some of the people not on my short list about parking lot etiquette.

I'm not talking about regular ol' everyday mall parking lots either. I'm talking about special event, 9862 people leaving at once, type parking situations. Such as, say for example, a hockey game where the home team just won the OHL Eastern Conference Finals. The proper way to handle this mess of vehicles all heading toward 4 exists is pretty easy. Find a line and get into it. The problem occurs when 2 lines meet and become 1. The solution? The Zipper method. I've seen a brand new BMW completely destroy his own side mirror against an totally unaffected truck because he would not follow the simple Zipper method.

For those of you who can't figure out what the Zipper method entails without more detail, out of the kindness of my heart, and to help educate you poor helpless drivers I'll briefly explain it. When two lines meet and have to form a single line for the exit, the Zipper method dictates that the lead person in each of the two lines should allow one person, and one only, from the other line to proceed before they then move ahead to join the newly formed single line. For the initial two line heads, the person that takes the lead position of the newly created single line is usually dictated by the new lines angle to the original two lines, the lesser degree of change wins. These rules also include situations where the resulting single line can actually be considered the natural progression of one of the two original lines. Simple enough and when followed prevents a lot of accidents and hesitation.

Now last Wednesday, I had the good fortune to be present at an event such as the one described above. On leaving however, I managed to find not 1, but 2 people completed unfamiliar with the Zipper methodology. The first car quickly surrendered to my more favorable position (and possibly having noticed that my bumper, having been broken in an unfortunate incident involving a small block of snow that wasn't, and having not yet been repaired, is more than able to take a small bump from someone's shiny new side fender without taking any more noticeable damage). The second van however did not. The person driving, who oddly bore a striking resemblance to a certain body orifice, continued to attempt to 'double dip' as it were, even when my car was clearly in the line. He was so close to hitting my bumper that as he drove forward he had to pull severly to the right and look out his window to make sure he was clear. A few minutes after our almost incident he proceeded to change lanes into a line that was running parallel to ours; even though he could have done that anytime prior to the merging of our two lines.

The end result, he almost caused thousands of dollars of damage to his car, and no new damage to mine, and ended up 1 spot ahead of me when exiting the lot. And thanks to the insurance laws covering parking lots, my insurance wouldn't have had to pay for anything done to his van even if we had hit.

I wonder if his other car is a BMW?

Good news from Bangor

Just had to point to this good news story from the LA Times (may require login. Use BugMeNot if you got it). It's hard to read this story without at least a little tear in your eye.

Due to the size of the runway, Bangor is used for a lot of military flights either going to or coming from overseas and since May 2003, a group of residents around the Bangor Maine area have been greeting every military flight going through their airport. Handing out cookies and candy and cell phones to call loved ones and just generally being there to say hi and thanks.

What's all the more impressive is that this group of 30+ volunteer greeters, who show up at all hours of the day or night, are mostly in their 60's, 70's and 80's.

Almost nothing can stop them from showing up either. One woman, due to overwhelming arthritis, can't even shake hands; her solution, hug everyone. Another 71 year old member, was upset she had to miss 3 days for heart surgery. And then there's Bill Knight who at 83, still made the trip to the airport just hours after finding out he had advanced prostate cancer. As he said "It never occurred to me not to come"

It's nice to see stories like this for a change.

Whatta ya Know, she was lying!

This story from Yahoo! News by way of LGF shows that despite Giuliana Sgrena's previous claims, their is now satellite evidence that her car was in fact moving at speeds upwards of 60MPH when the US checkpoint soldiers shot at it.

Not that a pro-communist, terrorist sympathizing (according to her own statements) journalist's word shouldn't be taken as fact, but since every scrap of evidence appears to support the US version and NONE supports hers, I'll have to side with the Americans on this one.

And in a continuing attempt by CBS News, not to show any bias (even to facts over complete fabrications), while Yahoo! directly attributes this story to CBS News, CBSNews.com itself does not make any mention of this new evidence and instead only puts up a US/Italians agree to disagree story.

But don't worry, they still have up their one sided fluff piece from 60 Minutes where Sgrena got to tell her version on a internationally televised program. (Thankfully they did not include the part where she told of them stopping, while being fired upon by a US tank division, to help an old blind Iraqi woman with her 6 small grandchildren find their way home. All while dodging Special Forces sniper teams I might add. Lord knows they tried but being television there were time constraints.) I wonder when they'll do a full follow-up with all the physical evidence that directly contradicts almost everything she said in her ever changing 'story'.

If you can stomach it, here is a copy of one of her versions of the "truth". She even drops hints as to her credibility by titling it "My Truth" (nudge, nudge, wink, wink).

"Sorry" excuse for a book

Saw this story on Little Green Footballs.

Looks like the loon over at SorryEverybody.com has managed to hit the print button on his computer and has made a hard copy of the sad rants and pics from his site.

Now available at Amazon.com, "Sorry, Everybody : An Apology to the World for the Re-Election of George W. Bush". (Oddly enough, the new copies are only going for 8 cents more than the used copies.)

And if that long winded title wasn't enough just wait for his followup: "Sorry Everybody 2: An Apology to the World for Bringing Women's Rights, an End to Oppression, Financial and Physical Aid and Democracy to the Middle East, which we as Good Lefties Know is Incapable of Handling Such Modern Concepts and We are Sure Would have Preferred to Remain Under Their Previous Systems" forward by Fidel Castro.

Weekly round up

It's been almost a week since my last post! Actually it has been since I'm writing this on Saturday but the timestamp is from when I created the draft post. I really need to get home more often. I'll try to post a little more often next week. Scouts honor!

Anyway, even though I haven't written any posts I have been bookmarking a bunch of stuff. So here goes my mini blog storm (more of an overcast light drizzle really).

----------------------------
First up is a continuing topic around here, Media Bias.
Powerline and Fox News have good little writeups about a recent ABC/Washington poll. The Washington Post claims the poll shows the public does not support any changes to the filibuster rules in the Senate. The problem stems from the fact this question was not even asked. Their claim come from the results of this question:

"Would you support or oppose changing Senate rules to make it easier for the Republicans to confirm Bush's judicial nominees?"

Asked like that everyone who believes in democracy should say "No" as it seems to be extremely one-sided (oddly enough the number was only 66%). In contrast, in a Republican sponsored poll when asked:

"Even if they disagree with a judge, Senate Democrats should at least allow the President's nominations to be voted on,"

81% responded with a yes. While neither question is perfect (the references to specific political parties should have been left out of both), at least the Republican one better represents the actual issue in the Senate.
The poll does cover other issues more clearly but again, as the Powerline post points out, while trying to hide bias behind the 'science' of polls, the Washington Post fails to point out that while more self identified Republicans than Democrats voted last year, more Democrats than Republicans were polled.

----------------------------
Next up, the attacks on President Bush's proposed UN ambassador, John Bolton.
Once again Powerline and Fox News (just a bit further down on the same page as the poll info), this time joined by Little Green Footballs point out that two of Bolton's most adamant accusers have a little history of their own.

The first, Frederick Vreeland, is not only a former ambassador to Morocco (a very tough and dangerous job I'm sure) who may have had occasion to work with Bolton in the early 90's, but also a member of an organization dedicated to fighting Bush's agendas, both foreign and domestic.

The other, Melody Townsel, while not a former ambassador to anywhere, not to be out done is also a member and former head of an anti-bush group and has publicly admitted to being a multitime plagiarist.

And these are the two star forwards the Democrats are using to try and derail the nomination. I guess they're holding the closet Satanist back for when the vote hits the floor.

----------------------------
May as well finish up the Fox News page I keep linking to. At the bottom you'll notice another interesting article about a North Carolina Wesleyan College prof who believes it is her job to

".. teach the truth about 9/11 ... This is a war by the extreme right wing motivated by the Zionists to quash academic freedom."

in her course titled "9/11: The Road to Tyranny".

You just can't make this stuff up.

----------------------------
Newsmax.com has a nice little article about the double standard between Liberal and Conservative reporters/hosts. Just comparing some of the comments some conservative radio hosts have made that have got them in hot water, or fired, with some of the Liberal comments. Read then an decided for yourself if you see anything out of balance there.

For something a little more up to date try this LGF post about Air America, for at least the second time, playing the sound of gun shots while speaking about what should be done about President Bush.

You just got to love the lefts idea of tolerance.

----------------------------
And finally, on the lighter side and in keeping with the Air America theme comes this story (from The Radio Equalizer via Michelle Malkin). Apparently, they're not doing to good in the ratings; anywhere. In some of the markets it's so bad the only places they're actually playing is the lobby of their stations (and from what I've heard even they're tuned to Rush Limbaugh between 12 and 3).

Academia

For the record let me first state that I am not now nor have I ever been Catholic.

The reason I felt I had to state that is that I've been doing a little online reading about Galileo recently (I have no idea why but that's just the beauty of the internet) and found myself just astounded at the number of sites that talk about his troubles with the Catholic Church of the time as a simple battle of Good (Academia) vs Evil (The Church).

Even online encyclopedias retell the story in the same manner leaving out the 'minor' fact that his troubles did not start with the Church of the time, which in general accepted Galileo's works without problems, but rather with fellow 'educated' persons at the Universities. In fact it got so bad that he had to leave his work within the education system to find independent employment that allowed him the freedom to study as he wished. It was these academics that in fact first called him a heretic and essentially demanded the church take actions against him. Their reason? He was disproving all the theories that they had based their lives upon and had been teaching for so long. Of course the version taught in schools and most repeated online is that the church in a fit of rage demanded he stop and when he would not, sent him before the Inquisition and sentenced him to house arrest for the remainder of his life.

While the Inquisition part is true, even at that time many in the church did not see his actions as all that opposed to religious teachings. It was the power of the rabble rousers from the Universities that essentially forced the churches hand and made them take action.

Now what does this have to do with anything today? Well first off, I was just a little ticked off seeing only the PC "religion is evil" version being printed up everywhere. Secondly, I felt it's about time for people to "wake the hell up!" to what many of the so called institutions of learning are really all about.

Until schools are taught by self programmed computers, human bias will inevitably sneak into the education system. Good universities will admit this up front and be open about it. Sure my university profs had a certain way of looking at things but I find it difficult to think of one who let that influence their teaching or marking style to any degree that made me feel uncomfortable if I disagreed with them. Of course I was mostly in business or computer courses so there was a lot less 'touchy feely' teaching going on. On the other hand, I had a high school English teacher who was so openly bias that a friend and I played connect four for an entire term and somehow managed to get the exact same mark as every other test we had. Essentially if you were in the drama club you got an 85+, but otherwise it was 75-. We were already at the 75 mark so we figured why bother.

The problem is academia as a hole (not a typo) refuses to admit that a lot of what is taught is just a certain professors opinion as to how something does or should work. These so called bastions of free thinking are often the best example of the exact opposite. Little worlds where politically correct thought is more important than critical thinking.

Take for example the recent decision by the AUT (a British Union for people involved in Higher Education) to boycott Israeli universities until they admit their government is wrong in it's actions towards the Palestinians. Link here.

Or academia's hero worship of people like Ward Churchill for 'sticking it to the man' or in the more modern parlance 'speaking truth to power' (Don't bother to look at the fact that he is a know plagiarizer and essentially got his job due to his highly suspect claim of native American status) while demonizing Harvard President Larry Summers for simply raising the question as to why there a fewer women in scientific fields. A legitimate question that any intelligent person involved in those fields should be asking themselves but instead, because it was taken as an attack on academia's 'sacred cow' of equality for all, was seen as an affront to humanity and even led to his own professors holding a no confidence vote against him (although an empty exercise with little or no actual affect; another of academics favorite activities).

You know, I'll say it right here, right now; MEN AND WOMEN ARE DIFFERENT!
Does that mean women are bad at science and men are bad at the more liberal arts? No. It means there are differences in both biology and development between men and women and we should try to determine what, if any, affect they have on a persons future abilities.

This is what an unbiased scientific approach is meant to be used for.

If you want to see the academic bias in full effect just try talking about the Theory of Evolution in an online forum. Almost without fail, the proponents of evolution will begin attacking any of the alternatives put forward with a strength that can only be compared to religious zealotry. I'm not saying Evolution is not possible or even probable, just that to any true scientist, you must leave room for alternative explanations. A theory is a theory because it cannot be proven to a 100% certainty and you must always leave space for something that may come along later that better fits the facts. When an academic allows theory to become fact in their minds, then in my opinion they have lost all claims to be educators.

Time to go back to watching some "Top Gear" episodes where the experts are a bit more honest in presenting their opinions as opinions instead of facts.

For more on the academic background of the Galileo conflict you can look at Jonah Goldberg's article here or this write up by Dr. Kirsten Birkett.

Line(s)

Now about those McDonalds lines I was mentioning earlier.

I don't know how it is everywhere else (although I have been to Mcdonalds in 7 Provinces, at least 1 State and 3 European Countries) but what happened to the concept of a line for every cash. It's a rather simple system which apparently is just a little too complex for most people in Ottawa to get a hold of. Unlike, say, Burger King or Wendy's with their nice little ropes or rails to guide you to the teller, at McDonalds you get to choose whichever teller you prefer and stand in their line. It's like a little lottery or competition. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose but as a whole there is less time wasted.

Sure, someone who came after you may luck out and get a faster line, but that's life. At least this way not everyone is held up by the guy on his cell phone, or chatty co-eds who aren't paying any attention to the rest of the world causing everyone else to be forced to endure the cashier's monotonous chant of "may I help the next person please".

I guess it's just the socialist in us Canadians that wants everyone to suffer equally.

And another thing. If I walk into your empty fast food restaurant and stand as far away from the counter as is physically possible while looking a the menu DO NOT utter the words "I can help you over here". If I was ready to order I would walk up to the counter and order. Same for if I have questions about the nutritional values of your food. Unless you think I'm blind, which the act of looking over the menu hopefully indicates otherwise, I do not need an audible cue to find the counter.

/rant off

Canadian Roundup

I thought it was about time to write up a little something about all the current scandals going on in Canadian politics today (from ad-scam to judicial appointments to odd media blackouts) but before I began writing I decided to take a quick trip over to Captain's Quarters. The result, I decided that instead of re-inventing the wheel I'd save my strength for something as important (like the lines at McDonalds) and instead post some links to the Captain's already excellent coverage of all things Canadian. And this just represents the news since Monday.

It's hard to believe that he actually lives south of the 49th parallel.

While these posts often covering a bunch of different issues I just decided to group them under a few general topics.

Odd uses of Judicial powers to prevent 'free speech':

• The Latest In Publication Bans
• Where Is Jan Vahey? Where Is The Canadian Press

Direct Ad-Scam news:

• Boulay Made Money From All Sides
• Adscam Middleman Netted $1.7M Without Catching A Fish
• Two Lines Of Inquiry Approaching Martin

General Liberal Panic

• Martin Offers Elections ... In December
• Martin To Plead Case On Television
• Liberals Panic, Cancel Opposition Days
• Liberals Fail To Secure May 19th Opposition Day

Developing Scandal

• Liberals Handed Out Judgeships For Political Favors

Election News

• Painfully Slow Audits At Elections Canada? Mon Dieu!

You can check out the Captain's Quarters Archives for even more scandal related news.

My Obligatory 'Daily Show' Rant

I was watching the Daily Show last night (it was actually Monday's show since I PVR them and watch them in batches throughout the week) when, once again, the level of hypocrisy displayed nearly made me gag.

Sure, I know that Jon Stewart is hopelessly left leaning (although he often tries to pretend to be a centrist) and I know many of the 'news' stories will be anti-conservative with no more fact checking than is used by such paragons of reporting as The Enquirer or The Star, but sometimes a joke is just a joke and there is a lot of humour in the show.

On a side note: even though they are an admitted 'fake' news show, I'm sure Stewart, as well as everyone one staff, know that when they report something it is generally accepted as fact unless specifically stated otherwise. Especially when he prefixes the story with "and we're not making this up...". My problem with this is that they often take extremely bias, completely unsubstantiated and more likely than not, anti-conservative story and report it as truth. In a normal media outlet they would have all been fired long ago but using the cover of 'fake' news they are all perfectcovered from any responsibility.

But back the my problem with Monday's show in particular. This kind of relates back to his Crossfire battle of a few months ago where he, as a guest on the show, made issue with the fact they basically have political pundits on to spout the left or right talking points of the day with no real debate or benefit to the viewer. While this is often true of most political talk shows, and something I wish more interviewers would challenge their guests on, Stewart actually appeared angry with their lack of real discourse and accused them of "hurting America". When challenged on some of the questions he asked his guests Stewart reverted back to the "but we're just a fake news show" to duck out of any responsibility (I'm paraphrasing here).

My problem with this whole idea is this, when you have a celebrity on to talk about their latest endeavour, sure the interview should be light, but when you have a political guest on, which is often the case of the Daily show, and he/she begins spouting the same 'talking points' from the other shows, your role as interviewer is different. You don't need to harass your guest, but at least challenge them to explain their statements. Otherwise, you are just as guilty as Crossfire or any of the numerous political talk shows in "hurting America" and the democratic process. Just because you tell jokes doesn't give you a free ride. Bush tell jokes (usually prettycorny) so why does he get a pass from the Left?

Anyway, back to Monday. His guest was Robert Reich (just view his written works to guess his political slant). When questioned about the lack of direction of the current Democratic party Reich gave the standard 'talking points' answer about health care and education. This is the exact thing Stewart complain about on all the other shows but sits there and accepts on his own. Saying your party want to improve health care and education is not a direction, its a platitude. Unless, the opposition has declared they want to destroy health care and education. A direction is "we want to improve health care by doing A), B) and C). Direction requires a plan with real objectives not just grand ideas that everyone in their right mind agrees with. Although I will give him credit for admitting the Dems have absolutely no plan for social security but to say no to whatever the Repubs offer up. Of course, he then loses it by stating, like every other Dem pundit, there is no Social Security problem and it's all just a big charade put on by republicans to scare voters.

I personally have a problem with "talking heads" on all sides of politics but I have more of a problem when they are given national exposure to flaunt their ideas with absolutely no challenge. I'm not saying I expect Jon Stewart to attack his guests during an interview, but I would like to see a little bit more of a discussion versus the just giving them a podium to stand on, unless, of course, they are coming on to talk about non-political issues like say a recent memoir or a recent world event (for example the Tsunami).

Honestly, I have the same problem with guest on shows like Oprah who are permitted to tell a very bias one sided story without any challenge even when all the facts point in the exact opposite direction.

Basically my view all comes down to the immortal words of Stan Lee, "With great power comes great responsibility".

Who should the US send to the U.N.?

If you're a Democrat, apparently not someone who might dare to question the legitimacy of an organization who spends the majority of it's time making backroom deals for personal profit, sexually abusing those they are sent to protect, or writing numerous resolutions targeting the only true Democracy in the Middle East while ignoring genocidal dictators throughout the world.

It's about time someone on the left realizes that without the US, the U.N. has no power. For almost all major combat initiatives they require US military assistance. For almost all aid deployment they require US donations as well as equipment. You just have to look at the recent Tsunami to see exactly what the U.N. can really do. While the U.N. was still holding strategy meetings to discuss what should be done, the US and Aussies were on the scene with manpower, equipment and supplies helping the people directly.

Even after the U.N. decided to get involved they spent most of their time mixing their meager supplies in with US Aid trucks and supplies so that they could claim they were working. Some people even went so far as to suggest the American's and Aussies should wear the blue U.N. insignia to not confuse the populace. As if a person who just lost their home and family and has no food or water really care what color helmet a person is wearing.

It is this type of system that President Bush is looking to send Mr. Bolton into. I for one look forward to seeing someone with a little power be willing to act as a voice of reason for an out of control international body instead of just being the "yes man" I'm sad to say Canada, through it's ambassador, has become.

And don't even get me started on how they select who gets on the different commissions such as 'Human Rights'.

Read Mark Steyn's article on the subject that inspired this whole rant, here.

The Unbiased Media Strikes Again

Another shining example of the type of slack reporting that has begun to run rampant in today's media outlets.

Today, getting the story first is more important that getting it right which leads to articles like this seal hunt story from the Boston globe (by way of Michelle Malkin).

Essentially, the 'reporter' using her own blatant bias toward the subject of seal hunting in Canada, pre-wrote and submitted a story about the violence and bloodshed of Tuesday's hunt including descriptions of the bloody waters, the age of the seals, the number of hunters, etc..
The article appeared in the following days paper (for those keeping track at home that would be Wednesday).

Problem is, the hunt did not begin on Tuesday but was delayed till Friday due to poor weather.

The saddest part of this story is that while it shows an obvious bias that reporters should be trying to keep out of their work, as Michelle shows, this is not an isolated case. It seems lately, a lot of precognitive reporting has been going on.

Bet you didn't see this one coming!

I don't much like swearing, in RL or online, but sometimes you just have to say to yourself WTF!

In a conspiracy theory that even goes further out to left field than my personal favorite (that my ferret Miller, is in fact the source of all evil in the world; a theory I might add, that has yet to be disproven), Antje Vollmer, vice-president of the German parliament, has actually put forward the idea that President Bush, gave Poland such a strong role in the rebuilding of Iraq just to weaken the Pope's political power. Oh and did I mention that the other part of the evil American plan, as she sees it, was to actually start prosecuting those pedophile Catholic priests. You know, instead of ignoring them like every other good nation does. All this, just to take down the Pope.

I honestly can't see why the US government would really care which way the Pope came down on any political issue, especially the war in Iraq. It's almost sad to say, but the Pope was (and the new one is most likely to be) one of the most respected, revered but ignored people in the world. While the whole worlds listens when the Pope speaks, how many of the Pope's other edicts, from abortion to birth control to homosexuality, did anyone, from Catholics to Atheists really take heed of.

Few, if any, developed countries have changed their opinions on particular topics based on the Vatican's viewpoint. Politician's may use the Pope's words when they are convienent, but even admittedly Catholic politicians seem to have no problems supporting policies that directly oppose the Pope's stands.

I'm sure it would have been nice to have the Vatican's approval for the war in Iraq but in practical terms it's the same as me wanting the approval of my dentist about a car I've already bought. It's not something I'm overly concerned about.

Check out Chrenkoff for more on this story and check out the first link in his post to see some more example of those zany German and their Anti-American rantings.

The Ban has been lifted

Apparently, it is once again legal up here in Canada to read the web page of an American commenting on our politics. Although it may not be directly tied into Captain Ed's revealing the complete and utter uselessness of a one country publication ban on a public inquiry (and then again it just might), Justice Gomery has lifted the ban Jean Brault's testimony at the ADSCAM inquiry. You can check out CTV and CBC for a Canadian view.

Suffice it to say, it does not look good for the Liberals. With Brault's testimony, we have been given insight into someone who had first hand knowledge of the inner workings of the entire scandal. From the hiring of phony employees which were in fact Liberal party workers, to large sums of cash changing hands in the most seedy of ways (hidden money drops with unmarked envelopes full of cash??). It sounds like something you'd see in an old black and white Hollywood gangster movie.

I must confess I was a day or two behind Captain Ed's revelations about the banned ADSCAM testimony, but once I read it I was of course caught up in the same quandary as all the other politically motivated Canadian bloggers, "Do I truly want to risk a fine or jail time for even mentioning Captain's Quarters?"

As it turned out I played it safe by not mentioning it, but I didn't go to the extreme of removing him from my Blogroll.

If nothing else comes of this, it may show once and for all that while most things in Canada are on a considerably smaller scale then our neighbors to the south, when it comes to high level government scandals, we're leading the way.

Watergate? Ha! Amateurs!

If you don't have a story, use statistics!

The oldest trick in the book. If you can't make something sound bad with plain old English (or your language of choice), use science or statistics.

In the same vein as the old Dihydrogen Monoxide scare that pops up from time to time, check out this article from USA Today. At first glance it seems to be portraying a pretty bleak picture of Afghan and Iraqi vets, that is until you look at the numbers a little closer. Here is a very interesting breakdown of the article from The Mudville Gazette (just to be clear, despite the title this is a blog and not a newspaper homepage).

The only problem, as shown by the analysis of the numbers the USA Today article sites, is that the numbers for veterans are actually BELOW the numbers for these same disorders when compared to the United States as a whole.

Just another case of sloppy journalism on USA Today's side, or a deliberate attempt to once again use whatever means to make the current American administration look bad. I'll leave that one up to you.

Thanks again to Little Green Footballs for the original link.

This is not an April Fools joke

Just take a look at this page for Jane T. Christensen, Associate Professor of Political Science North Carolina Wesleyan College. First of all, in all honesty, the page looks like it was done as part of a grade 6 introduction to web design. Sadly, if you look at some of the other faculty pages you see she is not the exception. Secondly, I'm all for academic freedom and all that but this is just crazy.

When a professors personal beliefs take this much control of their teaching life it's time for a sabbatical. As a teacher, in any subject, your job is to help your students understand how to make their own decisions not to force feed your opinion down their throats. It's fine to make your opinion known, but when that opinion becomes the only thing you are teaching, you are doing a disservice to both your schools and your students.

It only gets worse when you actually read her course curriculum and the final exam.

It shouldn't matter if you a pro or anti Bush, this type of abuse of a teaching position as a personal pulpit should turn your stomach.

Thanks to Little Green Footballs for the original story.