More on the Joe Wilson Shindig

Let me say this upfront. I think it would be good for Joe Wilson to stand up in front of Congress and say, "it was inappropriate of me to shout out during a House address by the president. I'm sorry. It won't happen again."

As an aside I've got to say I've watched British Parliament on CSPAN and they show no such decorum. I kind of found it refreshing in a way. But we don't do that here, and everybody knows it, and so should Joe.

And as I've said before, if that were Nancy Pelosi shouting out at President Bush, she'd be called a hero by the left. And they know it.

The day after the outburst, it was reported that Joe Wilson's opponent suddenly raised $250K. At Saturday's Tea Party, my professor friend Larry said that over the next 48 hours, Joe Wilson got $750K. Combine that with the well over 1 million people at the Capitol, and I think some people are trying to say something.

As one sign said, "Can you hear us now?"

This morning on Fox, where they of course only present one side of the story as everyone knows has been instructed to believe, I heard Juan Williams trying to tell us how Joe's outburst was racist, talking about a "subtext" in the disdain (as if we can't have disdain for bad ideas or lying presidents ... if they're black) and he said that nobody had done that to George W. Bush or questioned the legitimacy of his presidency.

Bwhahahahahahahahahaha!!!! It is true, nobody in the chamber shouted out during a Bush Presidental address, but tacking on that second bit, he showed his hand. As I've said before, Joe shouldn't have shouted out (and I'm not saying I would have been able to restrain myself, but he did break protocol. Bravely. If he were a lefty. Alas for him, he is not.)

The blonde called it after the inteview was over and said "he might want to amend that statement".

And this "subtext" shit. I mean really. I'm going to point to, as evidence to make my case, something that nobody can detect but I know it's there, and I'm going to give it a name so that you can more easily believe it's there. But the only evidence I have to back up that it is there is the difference in skin color and the fact that one of them said something negative about the other.

Now politicians say negative things about each other all the time, and so do other people. So all that is left after that is race. The accusation of unfairness is made solely based on race. Joe said something negative about someone. Since Joe is white, and the other person is not, it must be racism.

Now friends, what is racism?

racism /ray-sizm/ n.

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

But they can't say that. So they make up this "subtext" thing and pawn it off on that.