Friday, June 26, 2009

You Mean Bush Wasn't Just a Power Crazy "Fascist"?

Huh. All that flap about holding detainees indefinitely, and how EEEEEVIL BushCheneyHalliburton was for doing it. Huh. No kiddin'? Terrorist Prisoners of war who don't belong to any nation's army are tough to deal with??? Really?????

Thank you, John Kerry

More evidence that Democrats think we're all idiots:
“Too bad,” Kerry said, “if a governor had to go missing it couldn’t have been the governor of Alaska. You know, Sarah Palin.”
Really, John? The governor of Alaska is Sarah Palin? Wow. Thanks for clearing that up. I mean, if you hadn't added that, we wouldn't have known who the heck you were talking about. And of course, it wouldn't have been nearly as hilarious. Look out George Carlin!!! Whoops. Looks like your path to the top is clear, Sir Senator.

On the other hand, John, maybe its best for you she doesn't disappear. 'Cause ya know, then you wouldn't know where she was. And as any good "war hero" knows, it's good to know where your enemy is. Otherwise, you have to spend a lot of time looking behind you.

Heh... #Two Hundred Forty Somethin'

Palin responds to Kerry.

When it's not her daughter on the chopping block, this is the way to respond!

Thursday, June 25, 2009

My Two Bits on Sanford

I wasn't really going to say anything. Another politician having an affair. Yes it's bad. No, I don't approve. There is the whole "let the man who is without sin throw the first stone" bit, and the "walk a mile in a man's shoes before you judge him" bit -- which aren't about letting people off the hook. They're about the humility of the observer(s).

The only reason I am commenting is I've seen and heard time and time again ... "yes, Democrats have affairs too BUT .... they don't run on family values." When a Democrat is caught, it's ok because he or she didn't run on family values and it isn't relevant to their job. But when a Republican is caught, it's a scandal because he or she did (presumably) run on family values.

Never mind the fact that Democrats play the family values card as well when campaigning to get votes, and then turn around and vote not to uphold them; to assist their erosion. Because the party platform dictates it.

Here's the deal. How'd the family values runners vote? Did they work to encourage family values, you know, at work? Did they stand up for those values in public even while they failed to uphold some of them in private?

If no, then, you're right. Hypocrites.

If yes, here's what I say. Give me the imperfect man who supports my ideals over the imperfect man who says they don't matter anyway.

Because they do matter whether we manage to live up to them or not.
"Sometimes the things that may or may not be true are the things a man needs to believe in the most. That people are basically good; that honor, courage, and virtue mean everything; that power and money, money and power mean nothing; that good always triumphs over evil; and I want you to remember this, that love... true love never dies. You remember that, boy. You remember that. Doesn't matter if it's true or not. You see, a man should believe in those things, because those are the things worth believing in. " - Hub, from Second Hand Lions
Update: Yeah. Crap like this.

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Ah, That Non-Partisan ACORN

Right. Just take a look at this ACORN memo.

Message: Progressives in general, and Democratic candidates in particular, need to be out front and public on an issue that is 1) progressive; 2) popular with a broad electorate; and 3) separates Democrats from Republicans. Raising the minimum wage scores in all 3 categories.

In addition we will work in 2005 to institutionalize the high school senior voter registration project we tested in the spring of 2004. By working with and through local school administrators, their national associations (including the Council of Great City Schools and the American Association of School Administrators), and the two major national teachers’ unions, our methodology is to gain access to high school seniors in minority communities through assemblies, English classes (since all high school seniors take English), and school cafeterias to register them to vote and, where possible, create volunteer voter registration opportunities for them in the larger community.

Impact the post-2010 Congressional redistricting process by building progressive electoral majorities in swing state legislative districts in states where partisan control of legislative bodies is potentially in play.

Sounding like a general "just get out the vote, we don't care if you're Democrat or Republican" kind of "Community Organization" to you?

Basically, they're going in to places where there are high proportions of liberal-leaning people, or gullible people -- who wouldn't normally get involved in politics because they don't feel they know enough -- and pushing them to go vote to cram their ideals down the rest of our throats. They give the appearance that they're not partisan by not (or I'm sure they're not supposed to) mentioning parties, but they know where they are and the demographics of the area they're working. So what if they register 3 conservatives for every 7 progressives? If 10 of them go vote, they still win net votes.

On top of that, I have a friend who actually volunteered to drive people to the polls for the Obama campaign, and he did it. That's right, we can't get the unmotivated people who would vote for Democrats because "they'll gimme stuff" to get up off their tuchuses and go vote, so we'll go pick 'em up and drive 'em.

Oh, there's more. And it gets my taxpayer money. This has got to stop.

M-heh! (BISHORL?)

Read this in the comments section on a post with about a 2006 NRC press release allegedly vindicating Mann's infamous "hockey stick" chart used by the IPCC after his team's methodology were discredited. I read the press release several times and can find nothing in it that vindicates the chart. As a matter of fact, it appears to me that it supports the critics. But that's not the point of this post.

There is a commenter named "Per" ... that fortunately has the nads and apparently the scientific background (and understands scientific method) to go toe to toe with the believers with narrow focus and their constant resorts to name calling and doing about anything but refuting what he says.

But I found this close to one of his posts rather amusing, and wanted to file it away:

If only you hadn't got your words completely wrong, and if only the words didn't mean something completely different, you would be right.

Per, here, gives an excellent example of how I feel conservatives ought to argue (just do searches for "posted by: Per"). Don't get abusive. Stick to the subject at hand. Argue facts and logic about the points without relying ad hominiem attacks against people who have made those points, and just ... give them enough rope to hang themselves. They'll come unravelled pretty quickly and become unnerved by your cool.

And you're allowed to be amused as they dangle. They're not actually hanging, after all. Just pushed from their comfort zones.

Oh, Wow! On that ...

Could Australia Blow Apart the Global Warming Scare?
Until recently I, like most Australians, simply accepted without question the notion that global warming was a result of increased carbon emissions. However, after speaking to a cross-section of noted scientists, including Ian Plimer, a professor at the University of Adelaide and author of Heaven and Earth, I quickly began to understand that the science on this issue was by no means conclusive….

As a federal senator, I would be derelict in my duty to the Australian people if I did not even consider whether or not the scientific assumptions underpinning this debate were in fact correct.

Sleight of Hand

Anybody know in all this talk of whether "deplore" or "outrage" is the better word to use to describe our feelings toward what is going on in Iran, and the big ABC special on National Health Care on TV tonight....

That Pelosi's bringing the Climate Bill with Cap & Trade to a vote this Friday?


Only it isn't funny. This is serious.

Update: Could Australia Blow Apart the Global Warming Scare?

Broad Support for Government Run Free Healthcare

From yesterday's news .
A commanding 85 percent of Americans want "fundamental changes" in American health care, according to a recent New York Times-CBS News poll.
Which is about as meaningful as saying that 85% of Americans want something "different" for dinner. It doesn't tell us what they want for dinner. And rest assured, they don't all want the same thing.

This is how politics works. You use really vague language to justify cramming your plan down everyone's throats.

It might have something to do with the fact that the media has been telling us how horrible our health care system is for so long even though the same poll shows us that 77% of us are happy with it. Which is more than are in favor of a "government run health care option".

72% are in favor of a government run health care "option". But only 57% are "willing" to pay higher taxes to make that happen. When you start specifying a dollar amount, $500 a year ($42 a month) ... that number drops to 43%.

So when it's free, there's broad support. When it's not free, but you don't specify a price, that support is much less broad. And when you specify an annual amount that is lower than a lot of families monthly insurance premiums, less than half want to do it anymore.

Socialism. It works until you run out of other peoples' money. And this is why.

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Worst Possible Motives

Progressives: Always at the ready to ascribe the worst possible motives to anything anyone who isn't progressive ... is doing.

Guilty until proven innocent. Which is actually the opposite of the true Classical Liberal position is. That's because classical liberals are now called "conservatives". Which is why I won't call progressives liberals (I don't know if y'all've noticed that).

Sad thing is, then the progressives set the standard of proof so high that it is impossible for the non-progressive to be "proven" innocent.

Just an observation.

Monday, June 22, 2009

Apologies all around

More linky goodness. Seems to be my lot in life the last few days. But this guy nails well what my buddy Mark hit on a few weeks ago.

Here is the great rub in any discussion of America and slavery: Of course slavery is wrong. But if America should apologize for slavery, should not the rest of the world as well?

The rest of world — from Africa to South America to Asia to Europe — took part in slavery, and slavery continues to exist in some of those places today. But America was the first regime founded upon the principle of natural equality, the only principle by which slavery can be rejected as a genuine wrong.

Unlike the rest of the world, America was destined to a conflict over slavery not because America's founding principles are bad, but precisely because they are good. To paraphrase Lincoln's second inaugural address, slavery in America would cause blood to be drawn either by the sword or the lash.
About time we wrest control of the conversation about the character of our country back from the apologists. In more areas than this one.

Meantime these clowns in Congress engage in what amounts to self-congratulating moral masturbation while the country burns to the ground around them.

About that they spend with one hand and point with the other. "But Bush! But Neocons! But ... But Halliburton!!!!!! Hey, look! We apologized for Slaaaaavery! Again."

Oh well. Perhaps the Democrats have a collectively guilty conscience.

Sinking Welfare State

I guess I'm Mr. Link Poster lately. Oh well.

This one's a good analysis
The U.S. welfare state is weakening; insecurity is rising. The sensible thing would be to decide which forms of public welfare are needed to protect the vulnerable and to begin paring others. Our inaction poses another dreary parallel with GM. It was obvious a quarter-century ago that GM the auto company could not support GM the welfare state. But the union wouldn't surrender benefits, and the company acquiesced. Inertia prevailed, and the reckoning came. The same cycle, repeated on a national scale with sums many multiples higher, would be correspondingly more fearsome.

Sunday, June 21, 2009

You Can All Join In

I saw this on Facebook today. Kind of innocuous. In a way.
Let’s break a Guinness Record! 90 Million facebook users in 1 group
Except for this … here’s the deal. All you have to do is join. And you can become a part of “this”. Click the “Join” button. That’s it. Check the box. You are a part of something "big".

This is how we got Obama as President.

I will not be joining that group.

I smell a backlash.

Newsweek unhappy with Obama's lack of "Transparency" . In which the administration does in legalese what Obama does daily in front of the podium teleprompters.

ABC's Democrat Disneyland for National Health Care promotion

Chicago Tribune's John Cass on Obama's political play with Investigator Generals

And of course, the story I mentioned in my last post

All from today.

An Encouraging Sign

Las Vegas Review Journal editor Sherman Frederick woke up.
I pushed the DMV clerk the paperwork. She shoved it back and said I didn't have to fill out that form if my address remained the same.

"No, I want to change party affiliation."

"Oh," she said. "Had enough of the president, have we?"

"Up to here. I quit."

Republicans offer our only hope in slowing the Obama "change" juggernaut before the America of unbridled optimism and opportunity goes the way of the buffalo. I don't want my great-grandchildren growing up in cradle-to-grave government care, where only the privileged few may afford a car, or own a home, or get non-rationed health care.

The only institution positioned to stop the progression of the Obama welfare state is the Republican Party, coupled with independent-minded Americans like me.

Second, the popular myth that the Democratic Party is the party of tolerance and big-tent ideas is spectacularly false.

A fiscal conservative such as myself is treated by Obamaniacs like a ringing cell phone in church. "Shhhh!" they say. The only debate among Democrats is how fast and how deeply to run up the national debt. Any Democrat who questions deficit spending or a limit to federal power is simply not invited to the party.

And finally, I have reservations about abortion. Now, I know that there are many Democrats who call themselves "pro life."

But being a "pro life" Democrat doesn't mean you're "anti-abortion." It means that you are "abortion tolerant." The rationalization goes like this: "Abortion is the law of the land. Abortion is wrong. But abortion must be supported and expanded."

It's hardly an intellectually honest position, but all "pro life" Democratic office holders must toe that line. The moral dilemma is further compounded by the Democratic Party ethic that taxpayer money must be used to fund abortion, here and abroad.

Thursday, June 18, 2009

Not Telling The Truth

"Let me also say that -- let me also address an illegitimate concern that's being put forward by those who are claiming that a public option is somehow a Trojan horse for a single-payer system. I'll be honest; there are countries where a single-payer system works pretty well. But I believe ... that it's important for our reform efforts to build on our traditions here in the United States. So when you hear the naysayers claim that I'm trying to bring about government-run health care, know this: They're not telling the truth." --Barack Obama
Yup, and remember when those baseball players were convinced to take steroid/drug tests "just to see how bad the problem is" by telling them that the results would never be released such that a player could be identified?

Let's also look at some typical Obama semantic posturing here. First, the statement:
"I believe ... that it's important for our reform efforts to build on our traditions here in the United States."
We are to assume by implication that he means a competetive system. But he didn't actually say that. He didn't actually specify anything. He could be talking about progressive traditions. New Deal traditions. Whose traditions? Wiggle, wiggle.

And then the next line:
So when you hear the naysayers claim that I'm trying to bring about government-run health care, know this: They're not telling the truth.
Well maybe you are, maybe you aren't. Extending the benefit of the doubt, no, maybe you're not trying to bring about government run health care, so when people say that without any evidence to the contrary, perhaps they're not telling the truth.

However, it doesn't make arguments that government-run health care will nonetheless be the effect, the end-result... invalid.

Obama is Right

No, don't adjust your screen. That's what I said.

In my continuing effort to give credit where credit is due, I'll say this.

I think it's good to take a hands-off approach regarding the Iranian election controversy. When he says that if we are seen as meddling in this, it will hurt -- he's right.

Of course, the powers that be over there have already accused us of meddling, which is no surprise. If they can create the illusion over there that these people aren't really mad, the U.S. just got them all riled up over nothing ... they can justify cracking down on it to most of the population..

Saw an Iranian woman on Fox News this morning basically saying the same thing. She's proud, she's excited, she knows it could turn out ugly, but stand back and let it take its course. I personally know a couple more Iranian women here in the U.S. who see it the same way.

Here's the deal. She also said they're using the internet, watching Fox News, twittering what they see to others, etc... so illusion is going to be harder to pull off.

So it's hurry up and wait. Barack is right.

It's All About Her

This really offends my sensibilities.

"Sir" and "ma'am" have always been quite respectful ways to address adult males and females, respectively.

Pelosi, Boxer, Waters ... all California Congress Critters who think waaaaaaay too much of themselves....

Here's a man who has spent his life serving his country. And in the military, "sir" and "ma'am" are literally drilled in to your head to show respect when addressing people.

But Queen Boxer uses it in a not-so-passive ... aggressive moment to slap down the General during his testimony. She, whether she knows it or not, is trying to discredit his testimony. She doesn't care what he's saying, she just likes sitting where she's sitting and being filmed doing it. She's ready for her closeup, Mr. Deville.

Question. When he addressed male Senators, did he say "sir" or "Senator" most of the time?

I know military folks, and I'd bet dollars to doughnuts I know what the answer is.

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Things I Know #22

22. There are many bad arguments for things that are nonetheless true. However, no argument will change a falsehood into a truth.

This came to mind while pondering the fact that sometimes I cringe at some conservatives' arguments, while I actually agree with their conclusions.

Sometimes there are just better arguments to be made.

Added to the "Things I Know" series.

Friday, June 12, 2009

I'm no social scientist, but I play one in the media

Along the same lines of my last post, I read this article this morning. In it, the author argues why Sonia Sotomayor may be correct about a Latina woman (yes, Bob Herbert, I am aware that's redundant, but her words, not mine) making wiser decisions than a white man. In the end, she says:

Now I am no social scientist, and this argument may be riddled with empirical holes. But it strikes me as intuitively obvious that in order to succeed in a white man's world, women must learn to see both sides in ways that men do not.
It is filled with empirical holes, and yet you forged ahead anyway in an unscientific manner. The thing is, sociology isn't really a science, so claiming the banner of science wasn't going to work anyway.

What other reasons can we think of to explain this?:

one popular trick among High School creative writing teachers is to assign students to write an essay imagining that they were to switch genders, and describe what it would be like to live for one day as a member of the opposite sex. The results are almost always exactly the same: all the girls in class write long and detailed essays demonstrating that they have spent a great deal of time thinking about such questions; roughly half the boys refuse to write the essay entirely.
Could it possibly be that social standards encourage girls to express these ideas while others discourage boys from engaging in the same? A lack of willingness to express these ideas in writing may have more to do with fearing what your friends will tease you about later. It doesn't mean boys can't, and don't, think about it. And apparently half of the boys forge ahead anyway. Besides, once again we're talking about law in the highest court in the land here. Murder is murder no matter who did the murdering. Either they broke the law. Or they didn't. Equal. Protection. Under. The. Law.

It seems to me some people want it both ways. They want there to be no differences between men and women unless said difference casts women in a better light than men. To suggest men might be better at something, anything, is heresy. To argue the converse is "enlightened thinking". Most of the flap over this Sotomayor thing is, in fact more about pointing out this double-standard and trying to get society to address it and come to grips with it. Unfortunately, anybody who brings it up is immediately dismissed as a racist or a sexist. And that -- right there -- is the problem. There's a huge elephant in the room that one side refuses to even acknowledge exists.

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Pimp My White Mayor

So ... I'm watching (not a normal show for me to watch, but the wife has it on) ... "Pimp My Ride". Sounds kinda fun. Gonna fix up an old Chevy Malibu that needs it in a bad way.

Host goes to meet the guy who won the ride pimpin' ... guy's workin', in school. Seems like a nice enough guy. Kinda funny. Well enough spoken, forgiving the "mutha-f****" he said to the camera that they had to bleep out.

The host gets to chatting with him about the small Southern California town they live in out in the Mojave desert. Asks what's the mayor like.

I have not mentioned it to this point, but both the host and the winner of the pimpin' happen to be black.

What's the educated, or getting educated young black man answer?



Imagine if the races were reversed. The uproar. The outrage. The firings. The sponsorships dropping. Sotomayor fans, this is the stuff we're talking about.

Martin Luther King, Jr. looked forward to a day when a man would be judged not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character.

Looks like we have a ways to go. MLK Jr. would shake his head in sorrow and disgust. Not even talkin' the talk, much less walkin' the walk.

Let's Review

My attention was recently drawn to a post of mine from last October, before the election.

I'm with Palin. "I told ya so!"

On the Drumbeat "Party of No" Mantra

When the Party in Charge is the Party of Stupid... don't you kind of need a "Party of No"?

Seems like the children with the kumbaya, hopeandchange, yes we can (even if they have no clue how other than trying to get everyone to like us) attitude are in charge, and the party that actually has a few adults in it is out of power.

And do you know why little kids' first word is often "No"?


What will you do? What WILL you DO?

(from a Karl Malden American Express commercial ca 1980.)

I heard the audio of this on the radio yesterday. At a press conference yesterday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs repeatedly refused to answer questions pertaining to whether or not Gitmo detainees would be released if found not guilty.

Maybe, just maybe ... Gitmo was well thought out after all, and Bush wasn't just rounding up innocent brown-skinned civilians he didn't like and holding them forever like the evil "dictator" he supposedly was. Perhaps the options with respect to what to do with these people was actually thought out by the Bush Administration. It doesn't appear to have been thought out by the Obama administration. Just close it. It's Evil™ . BushHitlerCheneyHalliburton™.

Handled nicely by Ed Morrisey over at Hot Air.

I'll be missing this

Too bad. But family first. Going out to the Parental Units' place this weekend. Long planned family gathering.

Still... first one west of the Mississippi. Love to go. Something I need to learn more about.

Why So Scared of a Public Plan?

"Why so scared of a public plan?" asked the headline.
  • Economics.

  • Supply and demand and the price curve.

  • Unintended consequences.
From a consumer point of view, free health care, or artificially very low priced health care, means demand for it goes way up. People go to the doctor for every little thing. New and creative ways of justifying every little problem as a medical ailment to be covered are developed. Why?

Because there is a disconnect between the people paying for health care and the people receiving it at the service end. Disconnects lead to frivolous choices.

On the other end of the bargain, you have medical professionals who know they will be paid whatever the going rate is for a treatment. So the incentive to raise the price of that treatment is high. Health insurance has already done this to a large extent, except there is a downside to the insurance company and potentially, in the form of rate increases, to the customer. With government health care, if I get a treatment that costs a bundle, my insurance rate doesn't go up, everybody tax rate goes up. There's no downside to raising prices. When pricing is disconnected from supply and demand, when the income is guaranteed, charge as much as you want! And what will have to happen to pay for that? Tax increases. Again.

The flip side of this is that the Government will probably see prices going up and dig down just to this level and say "oh, Doctors are charging too much. We will only pay this much." Or "we won't pay for that procedure at all." Or both. Now you've got government controlling prices ... and we've seen how well that works over the past 100 years.

Now citizens would be taxed an exorbitant amount and promised health care in return, but their choices will be limited by government bureaucrats. Only the wealthy (if there are any left) will be able to pay for treatments that fall outside of what the government will allow (if they allow private plans or treatment outside of the government plan -- which have been denied in other social medicine countries in the name of "fairness"). And this is all better ... how?

Wednesday, June 10, 2009


Haven't looked too much at the site yet, but you've gotta love (at least I do) the banner graphic. Palin (or a convincingly similarly built and dressed stand-in) ... mountains, big dipper... domestic energy supply.

Wonder if they'd mind me linking them in the sidebar with this graphic? Nice badge.

(Afterthought: David Letterman is an idiot. The only place Palin looks "slutty" in the least is in Letterman's fantasies when he's at the Playboy site reading the list of people he wishes he could "hate-****". I think she looks classy without looking pretentious.)

This would make a great T-Shirt

Interview with the author here.

Don't know how long that link will work.

Presidents and Leisure

I've caught wind of, but haven't read (and frankly don't want to), Maureen Dowd's recent column "Can The One Have Fun?" ... where she defends Obama's leisure time but trashes Bush's leisure time.

Just want to go on the record as saying that I've got no problem with presidents taking leisure time, going to New York, beach, surfing, whatever ... this silly "Date Night" flap is just that... silly -- as far as Mr. and Mrs. Obama's trip and the security being on the taxpayers' dime. I'm good with that. That's the way it should be. President can't just go anywhere in a Smart Car® and a Groucho Marx mustache. (Though maybe this one ought to try a Karl Marx disguise ... sorry, couldn't help myself. Besides, he'd just look even more like himself. Ooops! Did it again. I'll stop now.)

Now if we paid the Press's way to go cover the date, I'm not so good with that part of it.

The rest of it, I'd really rather Conservatives shut up about it (yeah, I said "shut up", but I think I'm making my case). It's a non-issue, and trying to make it one just makes us look petty. Because, well ... it's petty.

Besides, there's plenty of valid stuff to complain about with this guy.

Bill Shatner Whittle's latest

A must see. Go watch. Now. Ahead, warp speed. Engage. Make it so.

Things That Really Bug Me

This Post will be a repository for Things That Really Bug Me
  1. People who use the word "proof" when what they're talking about is "evidence".
  2. People who say "I could care less" when what they really mean is "I couldn't care less".
  3. People who zoom up beside you on the right on the highway to cut in line right before a construction zone when they should have merged way back when everyone else did.
  4. People who think that "not knowing how to cook" is something to be proud of.
  5. People who throw garbage out of car windows.
  6. People who use the word "dialectic" very frequently at all.

Tuesday, June 09, 2009


The yang to the yin of Empathy. The flip side.

Hat Tip goes to TOTUS - Barack's Obama's Teleprompter's Blog.

With a little parody enhancement by yours truly. Just to make sure the Clue Bat connects solidly with the ball.

Monday, June 08, 2009

Top Million?

Well how do you like them apples? Here at "The Blog That Even Fewer People Read Than The Blog That Nobody Reads" (TBTEFPRTTBTNR), we are comforted to know, assuming that there are far more than a million websites out there, that we made the Top Million, apparently. Well as evidenced by this Statcounter-recorded hit. By whatever criteria they used. We'll take it.

Apparently an inquiring mind somewhere in the Ukraine wanted to know.

Hatchet Job Headlines

I saw this link from another story in the Baltimore Sun to which someone had sent me a link.

Look at the language here. "Accused" of "lifting". As if some sort of crime had been comitted here. Plagarism that Gingrich might be upset about.

So, was she accused by some publisher who wants royalties? Is Gingrich insisting on proper crediting when he is paraphrased in a sentence or two? Is she being sued? One would think.

But no, it's some Huffington Post blogger doing the "accusing" of the "lifting".

And the Baltimore Sun prints it as "News" with a potentially scandalizing headline.

This is a hatchet job headline to a quite uninteresting piece of "news" that nobody should be surprised about. Palin and Gingrich are on the same team, with similar world views. Should it be surprising that they make some of the same arguments and perhaps borrow from each other? Or perhaps borrow from the same sources? There's like, zero story here, except to have the words "accused" and "lifting" associated with "Sarah Palin". They're never done. They must have a Pocket Alinsky in their back pockets.

I'm starting a new post tag. "Hatchet Job Headlines". These are negative headlines which suggest something that the story does not back up that are simplistic, sensational, and designed to re-enforce a negative image the media is building against a person or cause they don't agree with.

I need to come up with another for Positive Propaganda headlines for global warming fluff pieces and the like. Something like Positive Propaganda Press or the like. But I don't like that one because it needs to reference the headline. Something more like the bookend alliteration in Hatchet Job Headlines would be better, so that they can mirror each other at some level.

Friday, June 05, 2009

Rotten Tomatoes

So I'm putzing around at Morgan's place, as the three of you regular readers know I often do... and it's not just for the bikinis and Hooters girls ;-)

And I see this cathartic post. And my response turned into the post you are about to read if I haven't scared you away already.

This post is a lot of fun, and I ran out of rotten vegetables by #12, not realizing I was going to have to ration them.

Thank goodness this is a virtual medium and I was just able to copy and paste more virtual spoiled produce, much like the Government has done with our money supply ... but I digress.

I read this one:
12. Feminists who reply, without a trace of reservation, that yes there is something sexist about a gentleman holding a door open for a lady.
and, combined with a few other things I've seen and read and thought about over the past few days, I had a flash of insight.

Progressives are supposed to be all over "multiculturalism" like white on rice (Whoops! Sorry. Slipped there. I'll try to be more careful. I've insulted brown rice and wild rice everywhere. Even though wild rice isn't technically rice. How can I even say that about wild rice? I know. I'm a ricist. ... Well, this could get old, fast).

Think about it. In my culture, we have a reverence for women and hold them in a special place. We open doors for them. That is my culture. And in a truly respectful multi-cultural environment, the one the Progressives say they want ... the action would be met with "oh, isn't that a neat expression of respect his culture gives women?" and that would be that. The woman would walk through the door, and everybody would smile and go on with their day.

But what's really going on here ... why we can't do that particularly if we're white males ... is that we have been claimed as a part of the Progressive's "culture"... in other words, the rules they are making for their culture are to apply to us as well. We are seen as theirs to dictate to. Christianity is not really tolerable because they are trying to eradicate it from their culture, and they see it as theirs to eradicate. Marriage is theirs to re-define, see?

So as long as we're not obviously from another country, particularly one where a different language is primarily spoken, or a different religion is prominent, or has a different predominant racial makeup ... we are to behave as if we were a part of the Progressive culture, the new society they are trying to create. They will show deference to the groups I just mentioned to show everyone how magnanimous and tolerant they are of "diversity" as they define it, but at some level it's a kind of condescension -- "oh, look, isn't that quaint that 'they' do it 'that way'". It is, in effect, the elitism they crave deep down. It's "Goodperson Fever" (as Morgan dubbed it) all over again. Goodperson Fever is really a symptom of elitist disease. "Look how tolerant I am. Of them. Not you. You need to behave as I do. I am better than you. But not better than them. Which is what makes me better than them. Even though I'm not. And you. For not being like me.

Which makes their behavior indistinguishable from the self-righteous religious zealotry they purportedly hate.

The Liberal Telling of America's Story

From Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism", which I highly, highly recommend.

This paragraph just jumped off the page at me.
In the liberal telling of America's story, there are only two perpetrators of official misdeeds: conservatives, and "America" writ large. Progressives, or modern liberals, are never bigots or tyrants, but conservatives often are. For example, one will virtually never hear that the Palmer Raids, Prohibition, or American eugenics were thoroughly Progressive phenomena. These are sins America itself must attone for. Meanwhile, real or alleged "conservative" misdeeds -- say, McCarthyism -- are always the exclusive fault of conservatives and a sign of the policies they would repeat if given power. The only culpable mistake liberals make is failing to fight "hard enough" for their principles. Liberals are never responsible for historic misdeeds, because they feel no compulsion to defend the inherent goodness of America. Conservatives, meanwhile, not only take the blame for events not of their own making that they often worked the most assiduously against, but find themselves defending liberal misdeeds in order to defend America herself.
This is exactly the position I find myself in again and again (that last sentence), but I've never been able to articulate it this well.

And of course, how Liberals have transferred the mantle of the Party of Intolerance and Bigotry to the Republican Party was a hat trick. Anybody who reads history....

Glenn Beck Common Sense Comedy Tour

At the last minute yesterday I decided I'd really like to see Glenn Beck's Common Sense Comedy Tour Live event at our local theater. Good thing I didn't wait any longer. I bought one of the last four tickets. I've never been to one of these things.

I'm a Glenn Beck "Insider" (the name he gives to those who subscribe to his website) and I listen to the show a few times a week. I find Glenn entertaining, generally well researched, willing to admit mistakes when he's wrong, and on top of things.

I was not disappointed. Glenn makes it feel like he's your neighbor, just talking in your living room. Well if your living room happened to be a packed theater.

It was great. The guy was funny, engaging, level-headed. Tamed the few nuts in the crowd ("Revolution!", one guy yelled at one point. "Yeah, I remember my first beer", Glenn responded. "Glenn for President", shouted another. Glenn dismissed that one joking, "We'd run out of missiles."). If you believe in the best American values before Progressivism took hold in the early 1900's, you have a lot to agree with the guy on. Personal responsibility for you and yours and where your life goes pretty much sums it up.

The second half of it he came out dressed as the Founders would've dressed, but stayed in Glenn Character and used it to illustrate how far we came and how quickly, dropping plenty of jokes along the way about how they came up with the most successful model for a free society ever but couldn't figure out zippers. He also did a visual aid with three audience members (the one he picked for "sweet liberty" was appropriately a very cute, sweet-looking young lady) to illustrate the Totalitarian to Anarchy scale and where the founders decided the sweet spot was... and what's happened since.

People who insist that Glenn is racist or a gay hater or some sort of wild conspiracy theorist or a Republican hack or a "hater" -- as soon as you hear that talk coming out of someone's piehole you can be certain they've never spent an honest hour listening to the man.

If you get a chance to go even to one of the encore (taped) performances of the live broadcasts, or an actual live broadcast. Do it. If you think even half the stuff I say on this blog makes sense, you won't be disappointed.

Update: 7/02/2009

Here. In Beck's own words from the book he was promoting on this tour:

It's not just the political class who has mastered the art of deception. There are other potentially deadly masters who will seek to exploit your frustration and sense of desperation. Many will warn you of government tyranny; they'll talk of secret societies, vast conspiracies, shadow governments, and the need for violent action. I urge you to stay away from these individuals and those ideas.

There is no "star chamber" that needs to be found and destroyed, there is no global conspiracy playing out. The individuals and groups that propagate thoes lies have their own agendas, but, like all radicals and revolutionaries, they will eventually seek to impose their rules and lifestyle on us all.

Make no mistake, a revolution is required to restore America, but it's a revolution that can be fought with the weapons of democracy. This is not a call to arms or violence, it is a call to once again tether ourselves to our core principles and values. Treachery and treason abound from those who profess allegiance to America. Truth, the "first casualty in war" is in short supply -- make it your polestar.

Just Trying to Keep Up

So, to date, we've heard from Barack Obama that America is not a Christian nation or a Jewish Nation or a Muslim nation .... and definitely not, in no way, not Not NOT a Christian nation.

... but we are one of the largest Muslim nations in the world.

Does that about cover it?

(I'm still confused as to whether this week I should or should not be using his middle name. Is there some website I can go to with stoplight statuses of what's ok to say?)

Thursday, June 04, 2009

Gas Prices up 26%?

Yup. Gas prices, over the last few weeks have gone up 50 cents a gallon.

It's that evil guy in the White House and his Oil Buddies!!!

Wait, this time it's not?

Wednesday, June 03, 2009

Things I Know #21

Phraseology inspired by longtime friend and practical brother -- Mark.

# 21. Racism is a part of the history of every race. (corollary: Bigotry is a part of the history of every culture.)

This in response to the tired Leftist charge that racism is a part of "our" history, as if it were something uniquely American, even uniquely "white American" -- that we must now remedy by punishing people who never were racist -- with racism. Or substitute sexism, or whatever your pet "ism-ism" is.

He responded thus:

Of course bigotry and racism are part of our history. Same for Hutus and Zulus, Sunnis and Shias, Protestants and Catholics, Kurds and Iraqis, Incans and Mayans, Pawnee and Sioux, British and Irish (seriously- the British thought the Irish were a lower breed), etc. etc. etc. Holy shit, every country has these issues. To point at white guys is to point back at yourself. I don't believe there is any "reverse" to racism, and bigotry is certainly not the sole domain of the caucasian.

Pot Calls Kettle "Black"

Sotomayor Critics Are Race-Baiting - By Jesse Jackson. No joke. By Jesse Jackson. Rich.

It's really more like the pot calling the silverware black, since none of the criticism I've read had anything to do with her race.

But Jesse can find racism in everything.

Even this post, probably.

After Things I Know #16. If you look for something hard enough, you will surely find it. Even if it's not there.

Tuesday, June 02, 2009

A further thought

If you happened to read my last post, you may have noticed Mr. Herbert's dancing around the issue, the ridicule, derision, & dismissals of anyone with an opposing point of view, the misquoting, the context trimming, the bald-face assertions of opinion as common-knowledge on things that it turns out are highly questionable....

And stop and think that these are the people who wrote articles daily for 8 years saying that Bush "stole" the 2000 election, that he was illegitimate, that he was a idiot, that he was an evil genius, that he "lied" about Iraq having WMD, that he authorized a "torture regime", that he didn't care about black people, that his federal response to Katrina was not proper, that his anti-Kyoto stance caused Katrina, that Cheney "outed" Valarie Plame through Scooter Libby. Every day. New York Times. Washington Post. Los Angeles Times. CNN. MSNBC. Every day.

We had a highly disrespectful television show called "That's My Bush". We had a fantasy movie Fahrenheit 911 by Michael Moore that cleverly edited Bush's words to project what the Left wanted to believe about him, but couldn't find actual, in context words to do it because it wasn't even remotely true. And you had fans of the movie talking about it as if it were fact. Then there was Oliver Stone's "W" fictionally portraying the left's vision of the man. What other president has had this done to them especially while still in office? Anything close? All of this fiction posing as documentaries, or the flat, shameless derision in "That's My Bush". And what really got under their skin is that Bush didn't respond to any of it. Which doesn't fit the narrative of King George, Fascist Dictator and Squelcher of Dissent. And thus they saw his modesty as arrogance, and his decisiveness as rashness.

But if you do a little research, you find that every Florida recount, even by the New York Times ... put Bush on top. Constitution says he wins. Bush believed what every major intelligence agency in the world told him and what Saddam Hussein wanted the Arab world to believe. Clinton CIA appointee George Tenet told him the case was a "Slam Dunk". You find out the CIA waterboarded exactly three highly involved terrorists after double-checking legal issues and trying other less aggressive avenues. You find out that it was Richard Armitage leaked Plame's role in sending her husband to Niger and he didn't even really realize it at the time, and that Wilson did find evidence that Iraq tried to buy yellow-cake from Niger and it was in his report. And that Scooter Libby went to jail to satisfy the blood thirst of a bitter and vindictive Democratic witch hunt for contradicting himself on a timeline on when he said what to whom many months earlier in a non-crime that was dismissed by the courts. You find out that the Democratic governor of Louisiana refused the initial offer for federal aid for Katrina. And that there is no consensus on Global Warming, and that the countries that signed Kyoto aren't even following it.

But if you repeat it often enough, it "becomes" true. And when 80% of the people in the media belong to the political opposition and they feel cheated (2000 election) and their motivation for getting in to Journalism is to "make a difference" rather than to report the facts ...

You can start to see that perhaps America has a distorted view of the 8 years of the Bush presidency.

And it's not due to the alleged Republican control of Fox News.

And so Obama has quietly re-established the military tribunals he called an "enormous failure". He's come face to face with the fact that perhaps there really is no better place than Gitmo for the fellows at Gitmo (though they'll find another place all the same). Gitmo will remain open indefinitely, until such a time as we feel it is safe to close it - which was the Bush administration's position as well.

It turns out Pelosi and others knew about the waterboarding and only howled when it became politically advantageous. Feigning innocent ignorance. So apparently it wasn't as big a deep, dark secret as she and others made it out to be.

We will remain in Iraq as long as necessary, withdrawing troops when they are no longer needed. And apparently that evil practice of rendition implemented by Bush Bill Clinton is OK (again) ... now. Plus no habeus corpus for POWs at Bagram in Afghanistan -- which is different from Gitmo ... how? (I think maybe the beds aren't as nice in Bagram) We still have the Patriot Act. The CIA can still wiretap. But now that we are under The One, it's just all for our protection, not a Facist powergrab by BushHilter CheneyHalliburton.

A tale told by idiots, full of sound and fury. Signifying nothing.

Glenn Beck recounted an interview with George W. Bush back around the time of the election. Bush assured him, (paraphrased) Don't worry about Obama. When he gets here, he will see that his choices are very limited. Looks like George was right about that.

Bob Herbert - Incoherent Hypocricy

So I read this this morning in Pravda The New York Times... Bob Herbert sneering at Karl Rove and Newt Gigrich for .... uh, sneering...
It’s hard to fathom the heights of hypocrisy currently being scaled by the foaming-in-the-mouth crazies who are leading the charge against the nomination. Newt Gingrich, who never needed a factual basis for his ravings, rants on Twitter that Judge Sotomayor is a “Latina woman racist,” apparently unaware of his incoherence in the “Latina-woman” redundancy in this defamatory characterization.
Um, Ralph, can you queue that Sonia Sotomayor quote, please?

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” - Sonia Sotomayor
So apparently it's ignorant redundancy when a White European American Male uses "Latina Woman" ... but when a Latina uses it, it's not. (Perhaps that's the "empathy" they're looking for) When a Latina suggests a female hispanic (don't want to get in trouble with Herbert's cluelessness and redundancy cops) would make a better judge than a white male ... calling her a racist is not defamatory -- unless the same deference to the benefit of the doubt would be given a white male making the converse statement.
Karl Rove sneered that Ms. Sotomayor was “not necessarily” smart.
Notice he said "not necessarily" smart, not that she isn't smart (although the actual context is that Charlie Rose said that she was "very smart", to which Karl responded "not necessarily"). And by Bob Herbert's own yardstick, our Latina is clearly clueless and incoherent, so maybe Karl is on to something. (I also seriously doubt that Karl "sneered", but it fits the mass character assasinating narrative Bob's working up here.)

Herbert goes on to say:
It turns the stomach. There is no level of achievement sufficient to escape the stultifying bonds of bigotry. It is impossible to be smart enough or accomplished enough.
I guess we're ignoring Reagan apointee Sandra Day O'Connor and Bush 41 appointee Clarence Thomas.

Again, I've yet to see anybody complain that she's unqualified because of her race or gender. Her apparent ideology (content of her character)? Yes. Race or gender, no. Well, except for the people who argue that her race and gender are very important components in what makes her qualified. But that's not the opposition.

And yet opposition to her on grounds that in her own words she indicated her race and gender would make her a better judge than a white male is "racist". And we're just supposed to say, "yeah, you're right" and ignore the fact that if a white male had said the converse, he would have been disqualified instantly. Somewhere, the Bob Herberts of the world have to know this, but it doesn't compute in their Progressive worldview so it is just thrown out to the curb with the trash without a second thought. As if it were not even worthy of a second thought.
The amount of disrespect that has spattered the nomination of Judge Sotomayor is disgusting. She is spoken of, in some circles, as if she were the lowest of the low. Rush Limbaugh — now there’s a genius! — has compared her nomination to a hypothetical nomination of David Duke, a former head of the Ku Klux Klan.
Really? What did Rush actually say? Go listen for yourself. In context. Hyperbole? Sure. Got the point across? Yup. It's clear that Rush has more going on between his ears than Mr. Herbert does here.
Ms. Sotomayor is a member of the National Council of La Raza, the Hispanic civil rights organization. In the crazy perspective of some right-wingers, the mere existence of La Raza should make decent people run for cover. La Raza is “a Latino K.K.K. without the hoods and the nooses,” said Tom Tancredo, a Republican former congressman from Colorado.
Imagine an organization whose mission it was to promote the interests of white people called "The Race". Just for a moment. Because it seems to me that now, again by his own standards, Herbert is ignorant of the Spanish language. That's literally what "La Raza" means. Just sayin'.
Are we supposed to not notice that these are the tribunes of a party that rose to power on the filthy waves of racial demagoguery?

  • Lincoln. - Republican. Martin Luther King Jr. - Republican.
  • 1854. Democrats passed the Kansas-Nebraska act that overturned the Missouri Compromise... allowing the importing of slaves into the territories.
  • After the Civil War, 23 blacks (13 ex-slaves) were elected to Congress. All as Republicans. (The first black Democrat wasn't elected to Congress until 1935.)
  • Democrats opposed the "40 acres and a mule" after the Civil War. Vetoed by Democrat Andrew Jackson.
  • A little lesson here... in 1867, 170 people, 150 of them black, formed the Texas Republican Party. Not the "Black" Texas Republican Party. The Texas Republican Party.
  • The Emancipation Proclamation? 100% of Republicans voted for it. 23% of Democrats voted for it.
  • 14th Amendment? Every voting Republican voted for it. No Democrats voted for it. (Maybe this is why they're not concerned with "equal protection").
  • 15th Amendment, guaranteeing Blacks the right to vote? Same scenario as the 14th Amendment.
  • In 1872 during congressional investigations, Democrats admitted creating the KKK in an effort to stop the spread of the Republican Party and to re-establish Democratic control of the southern states. Blacks, who were solidly Republican at the time, were the primary targets of the KKK's violence.
  • Southern Democrats (such as Al Gore's father, Al Sr.) debated against the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
  • At least a majority of Democrats (64%) voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act (80% of Republicans voted for it).

There's more.

The deal is, the Republicans as a rule (far, far more than the Democrats) have been for equal treatment, and have been demonized in the past 30 or so years as being racist for not wanting to go beyond that and elevate minorities to a special status. It is not the Republicans being inconsistent. It's the Democrats buying minority votes and convincing them that they are dependent on Democrats to keep those mean Republicans from putting them back under the boot.

I am not saying there are not racist Republicans, nor am I saying all Democrats are, or were, racists. Lefties can point to examples But you can't ignore the numbers and the trend over our history.

Where were the right-wing protests when Ronald Reagan went out of his way to kick off his general election campaign in 1980 with a salute to states’ rights in, of all places, Philadelphia, Miss., not far from the site where three young civil rights workers had been snatched and murdered by real-life, rabid, blood-thirsty racists?
Just what is Bob insinuating here? That Ronald Reagan must be a racist because he kicked off his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, where 16 years earlier real-life, rabid, blood-thirsty racist Democrats in the KKK snatched and murdered three young civil rights workers?

It was always silly to pretend that the election of Barack Obama was evidence that the U.S. was moving into some sort of post-racial, post-ethnic, post-gender nirvana.
Pretty silly indeed when you consider that race and gender seem to figure prominently in the decisions this administration makes, and that is no different from the way Democrats have operated ever since they subjugated minorities as slaves of the Democratic party.

Klavan - Why are Conservatives So Mean?


Sowell Alert - BISHORL

Another conservative among my ring of most respected conservatives, Thomas Sowell is always worth keeping up on. But this is a good BSIHORL (See Freeberg: Best Sentence I've Heard or Read Lately themed posts).
Racism has never done this country any good, and it needs to be fought against, not put under new management for different groups. - Thomas Sowell
The article is here.

Monday, June 01, 2009

The Party of Racism is not what most think

This is a back-dated post inserted here to link to for future reference.

The Democrats have PR down to an art. How else do you explain the fact that Republicans are reflexively known as the Racist party that doesn't care about black people?

Let's review....
  • Lincoln. - Republican. Martin Luther King Jr. - Republican.
  • 1854. Democrats passed the Kansas-Nebraska act that overturned the Missouri Compromise... allowing the importing of slaves into the territories.
  • After the Civil War, 23 blacks (13 ex-slaves) were elected to Congress. All as Republicans. (The first black Democrat wasn't elected to Congress until 1935.)
  • Democrats opposed the "40 acres and a mule" after the Civil War. Vetoed reversed by Democrat/National Union Party President Andrew Jackson Johnson after Lincoln's assasination.
  • A little lesson here... in 1867, 170 people, 150 of them black, formed the Texas Republican Party. Not the "Black" Texas Republican Party. The Texas Republican Party.
  • The Emancipation Proclamation? 100% of Republicans voted for it. 23% of Democrats voted for it.
  • 14th Amendment? Every voting Republican voted for it. No Democrats voted for it. (Maybe this is why they're not concerned with "equal protection").
  • 15th Amendment, guaranteeing Blacks the right to vote? Same scenario as the 14th Amendment.
  • In 1872 during congressional investigations, Democrats admitted creating the KKK in an effort to stop the spread of the Republican Party and to re-establish Democratic control of the southern states. Blacks, who were solidly Republican at the time, were the primary targets of the KKK's violence.
  • Southern Democrats (such as Al Gore's father, Al Sr.) debated against the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
  • At least a majority of Democrats (64%) voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act (80% of Republicans voted for it).
There's more.

The deal is, the Republicans as a rule (far, far more than the Democrats) have been for equal treatment, and have been demonized in the past 30 or so years as being racist for not wanting to go beyond that and elevate minorities to a special status. It is not the Republicans being inconsistent. It's the Democrats buying minority votes and convincing them that they are dependent on Democrats to keep those mean Republicans from putting them back under the boot. I am not saying there are not racist Republicans, nor am I saying all Democrats are, or were, racists. Lefties can point to examples But you can't ignore the numbers and the trend over our history.

Democrats went from protecting slavery to rejecting citizenship to blacks, to actively persecuting them and then finally, after figuring that battle was lost, to pandering to them as a permanent voting block. The Democrats are perpetually buying that voting block off.

There was a discussion I had last fall with a couple of co-workers. One a Democrat transplanted here from the Northeast, the other a Missouri boy who isn’t so much a Democrat, but he did vote for our Democrat governor. He’s what I’d call center-right.

At any rate, when I pointed out the things contained in the link in my comment above, the answer came back “well, they switched roles since the 1960’s.”

I don’t buy that.

What happened is that the racists switched parties. Not because the Republicans were suddenly racists, but because A) the Democrats switched to minority advocacy where Republicans stuck to the equal treatment under the law argument, and B) people aren’t one-dimensional, and the racists had other opinions that were more conservative in nature as the Progressives gained dominance in the Democratic party.

So they have come and pitched their tents on the fringes of our camp. We can accept their support where they agree with us, but of course the vast majority of us who tend to vote with the Party of Lincoln and Martin Luther King, Jr, the party of the first black congressmen — all ex-slaves …. those of us who have always embodied the “All Men Are Created Equal” arguemnent … are kinda stuck with them. We must make it clear to them and to our detractors that that point of view isn’t welcomed in our tent. And it’s up to us to try to change their minds. Remember, these are the holdouts whose minds we couldn’t change when they were Democrats.

And then of course there’s my own anecdotal observation that I know several fairly prominent Democrats in my county who are some of the most racist people I know.

Sister Sonia Moment?

Color me confused.

I'm reading a lot of commentary on both sides of the aisle about Sotomayor. On one side, I see people bringing up relevant facts that are cause for concern, and I see the other side talking a lot about race and negativity and meanness that anyone would oppose their candidate.

I read things like this from Michael Kinsley in the Washington Post:
"The 'activists' -- the ones who want unelected judges to step in and enforce their personal views -- are those who believe that reverse discrimination in any form violates the 14th Amendment and the various civil rights laws."
I guess it's completely irrelevant that those "personal views" happen to line up perfectly with "equal protection". I have to wonder how discrimination based on race and gender does not violate the equal protection clause in 14th amendment? I mean, it's not like nobody's right here. Completely glossed over. It's just one "personal view" vs another, equally valid "personal view" in their eyes.

Only theirs is more valid. Because. It is. Cause yours is mean. And stuff.

But that's the out Lefties tend to take when presented with such dilemmas.... "well, both sides do it" -- and true as that might be it ducks the issue at hand altogether. Yes, both sides oppose each others candidates, but what is the substance of their respective arguments?

"Listening, via the media, to the debate inside the Republican Party, you also have to wonder about the party's commitment to a colorblind society."
Really? How so? Tell me something a Republican has said that suggests the party isn't committed to a colorblind society. I think Judge Roberts said it quite well:

"the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race" - Justice Roberts
And what you get in rebuttal is self contradictory "logic" like this:

"I suspect that it would be impossible to arrange an affirmative-action program in a racially neutral way and have it successful. To ask that this be so is to demand the impossible. In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way. And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently."- Justice Blackmun
There's the rub, I suppose. Kinsley thinks the government should be shaping a colorblind society. It should not. It should be a color-blind government. It's not the government's job to shape society. It may be yours and mine, by persuasive argument and deed and example. But it's not the government's job. We shape government, not the other way around. Give the government the power to shape society, and watch the abuses flow and Liberty fall by the wayside.

Basically, Justice Blackmun was arguing for affirmative action and his own argument acknowledged why it is such a bad idea for the government to get involved in trying to shape society even if it is to compensate for sins of the past.

When one side starts talking about how the other is "playing politics" or is "racist" the other side is without addressing how and why, you know they don't have an argument. The Democrats' argument is, essentially, "we're in power, we'll do whatever we want regardless of your silly "Constitutional" [spit] arguments." Which is certainly not the Change™ that moderates voted for.

And today I see the same kind of thing in Bloomberg of all places, which looks like a hatchet-job on Cheney ("negative narrowness", "brooding", "throwback", "exclusionary", "scaring people") and saying, basically, that Republicans need a Clintonesque "Sister Souldjah" moment where they denounce some unspecified "wilder rhetoric" over Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

Today it’s the Republicans who are subsidiaries of a narrow base. They could start broadening their appeal by rejecting some of the wilder rhetoric over President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic selected for the high court.
Could someone point me to this "wilder rhetoric"? Because I, frankly, haven't seen or heard anything but concern over statements about Latino women making better judges than white men and appeals courts making policy. If those aren't cause for concern for anyone who cares about the Constitution and equal protection, then we obviously speak different languages.

And as to his final statement:

As painful as this may be for many Republicans, the Clinton and Obama models are better for them today than those of Cheney and Gingrich.
Again, what has Cheney or Gingrich said that wasn't well reasoned, and calmly argued on its merits? Explain your answer.

Yeah, remember those questions on the tests? The ones where they expected you to back up your answers?