News flash. It's been reported that Michelle Obama's organic garden lies on top of toxic waste. The sludge was deposited during the Clinton administration. Because no one seems to have tested the soil before MO had the garden planted, no one knew till now about its toxicity. Hmm, rush to do something, discover that the results will be dangerous for humans.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Thursday, July 30, 2009
But Roger Simon makes an excellent point about this. She saw what looked like someone trying to break in to her neighbor's house. So she called the cops, like a thoughtful, responsible citizen.
Fortunately, she says after much reflection she'd do it again. But how many people will at least think twice about it now?
Woah, someone's trying to break into my neighbor's house. Now let me think... do I know that neighbor? Is he black? Maybe I'd better not call if he's black. Wouldn't want to run the risk of being accused of being a racist. Best just let them take what they want, or kill who they want.Which actually, if you're black -- this should give you some pause. People might not call the cops to check out suspicious activity at your house now. Matter of fact, if you're white, make sure all your neighbors know you're white so that if they do see suspicious activity around your house, they'll be less afraid to call the cops. Unless, of course, it's black people trying to break into your house. Because you wouldn't want your neighbor to have to try to accurately describe them. Because mentioning their race would be ... well, racist. Unless they were white. Then it wouldn't be. You do see how this works, don't you? Do try to keep up.
Post this graphic if you'd like to buy Lucia a beer! (hey, people get virtual beers on facebook all the time.)
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
It asks, "Does the second amendment give individuals the right to bear arms?"
I answered it "yes", as did, apparently, 97% of the respondents. Which is encouraging on one level.
However, technically, the answer to the question is "no".
The Bill of Rights doesn't "give" us rights. It guarantees ones with which we were endowed by our creator. It enumerates rights the government is not allowed to violate. It doesn't give them to us.
It was horrible, remember?
But isn't that one of the ways this goverment health care plan is being spun?
There is one major difference, though.
You can't sue the government.
The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being.See ... not only are fetuses not human, babies aren't really human until they go through the "crucial early years after birth". So then at any time until them, I suppose, we can kill them as well.
I wonder what his feelings are at the other end of life? Logan's Run, anyone? After all, we must all make sacrifices for the greater good.
I say we send a bunch of positive vibes Phil's way and hope for the best!
If you need someone to contribute verbose, vacuous ideas that sound terribly intelligent but say nothing, I'm your man...
To which I had to reply:
I was going to go to the White House for that and get it from the best. But it's nice to know there's someone closer.
24. Progressivism isn't a conspiracy. It's more like a virus.If you know me at all, you know I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories. Yes to Glenn Beck (who agrees with me), and no to Alex Jones (who is a flippin' nut). But we often talk about progressivism as though it is. This is because in some ways it behaves like a conspiracy. There appears to be a concerted, organized effort pushing the country, the world ... in that direction. But it's only because so many people exhibit the same symptoms, and those symptoms include zealous activism. That zealous activism leads to formations of many groups all pushing pretty much the same ideas.
If only they put their zealous efforts into organizations that actually, you know, helped people -- rather than trying to hijack everyone else's money and behavior to help the people they say they want helped in the way they see fit (which is forcing their morals on everyone else -- something they claim to despise).... that would do far more good. And ... they'd have to help far fewer people.
Ideas are like viruses in many ways. And of course lots of ideas are good ideas. The danger in progressivism is that it masquerades as a benevolent virus, but it ultimately destroys the host.
Which is true.
Why does that mean I should disregard everything he said?
Which brings us to Things I Know #23.
23. The flaw in Thomas Jefferson's philosophy was not in what the rights of men are, or in his ideas about limited government, but rather in whom he considered to be men at that point in history.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
This isn't the first place I've read this, either (read it here, too) -- it turns out that there was way more than met the eye. It was all a cynical ruse, apparently.
This is the kind of politics that has got to stop.
I went out to DownsizeDC.org and sent my congresscritters my thoughts not only on the Read The Bills Act, but also the One Subject At A Time Act.
I reccomend you use that site. It does better than send emails to the congresscritters-- it actually takes your input and fills out the web forms on their websites. You fill out one form, it fills out all of your representatives' forms. Heh. "Representatives". If only.
Public pressure does help, but they won't hear you talking about it around the water cooler.
What's going to happen here, though, is a photo-op, nothing will be resolved, but the press will tell us it is. Flashes will flash, questions will be asked by the press, Crowley will be silent or scripted ... and the next time the cops are called to investigate a break in at a black person's house and it's a false alarm, it'll be RAAAAAACISM!!!!! again.
Nothing to see here, move along.
Monday, July 27, 2009
The reason it is the quote of the day has nothing to do with Jewish ethnicity or belief, but rather, my emphasis is on the education part. Here it is:
Nice essay, Ben. As a Jew I continue to be amazed and disappointed in American Jewry's 80% support for Obama. Truly, Reform Jews are educated far beyond their ability to understand.The money part of that quote is
... educated far beyond their ability to understand.There is much truth to this in the state of today's education system in America. And probably Europe as well.
Oh, and just for the record I spent almost 10 years in college, and have two degrees and went ABD in a masters program. You can get a great education in this country if you want one. If you understand why you're there. You can also just walk out with an indoctrination diploma. I've seen how easy that can be. Over and over again.
Now let me tie in the idea of Obama's National Civilian Security Force with this quote from the campaign trail from The Woman With the Incredible Arms, Michell Obama:
Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, and informed.Oh, you'll be "informed" all right. See it in a different light now, maybe?
But remember, when Conservatives brought up Obama's associations during the campaign and warning that Obama is a radical, they were going negative, being "mean", engaging in the politics of the past, and, of course, being racist. Remember the argument that was acutally made in the media that "socialist" was a code-word for "black"?
Could it possibly be that "socialist" was really a code word for .... "socialist"?
Remember "Yes We Can"? Nice, easy slogan that catapulted our current socialist into office.
This lady wanted a consistent symbol that especially politicians would see everywhere when they came back to their home districts. Just a little campaign. She wants a sign. And the sign is to say:
Yeah, we need a better design. But it needs to be A) Simple and B) Distinctive
Saturday, July 25, 2009
At any rate, I won't even try. Just go read. He says exactly what I had to say, only he said it far better and with more humor than I could've mustered. I'll leave a taste below. (Don you snicker gear).
Last year I had a minor interaction with a Vermont state trooper, and, 60 seconds into the conversation, he called me a "liar." I considered my options:
Option a): I could get hot under the collar, yell at him, get tasered into submission and possibly shot while "resisting arrest";
Option b): I could politely tell the trooper I object to his characterization, and then write a letter to the commander of his barracks the following morning suggesting that such language is not appropriate to routine encounters with members of the public and betrays a profoundly defective understanding of the relationship between law enforcement officials and the citizenry in civilized societies.
[snip]Professor Gates chose option a), which is just plain stupid. For one thing, these days they have dash-cams and two-way radios and a GPS gizmo in the sharp end of the billy club, so an awful lot of this stuff winds up being preserved on tape, and, if you're the one a-hootin' an' a-hollerin', it's not going to help. In the Sixties, the great English satirist Peter Simple invented the Prejudometer, which simply by being pointed at any individual could calculate degrees of racism to the nearest prejudon, "the internationally recognized scientific unit of racial prejudice." Professor Gates seems to go around with his Prejudometer permanently cranked up to 11: When Sgt. Crowley announced through the glass-paneled front door that he was here to investigate a break-in, Gates opened it up and roared back: "Why? Because I'm a black man in America?"
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Probably at a hippie or a communist. (I kid. Ann and I both love the Grateful Dead).
Yeah, so she's a bit thin, but I think she looks just fine.
Turn charity back to the charitable to be dispensed only at the local level where it's really hard for the fakers to fool us.
That perfectly expresses what I've been trying to figure out how to say for quite some time now.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
There's no equivalence here - the Religious Right was for ending the separation of Church and State and the opposition was for maintaining that most fundamental aspect of our Constitution - freedom from religion.Did I read that right? "that most fundamental aspect of our Constitution ... freedom from religion."????
Sadly, I did. So I responded ...
I'm scouring my Constitution here for anything about a fundamental "freedom from religion". Nope, not seeing anything. There's stuff in the Declaration of Independence about being "endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights", "the Laws of Nature and the Laws of God", and then this bit in the first amendment that says that Congress (that is, the U.S. Congress) can pass no law respecting an Establishment of Religion (such as the Church of England, the Episcopalian Church, the Catholic Church) ... to make sure that our representative government would remain influenced only by the people and not some Religious Advisor. If "The People" happen to be religious, that's a different story. Those values can influence laws. I know that's not how it's been interpreted in the last century, but there you have it.And then, of course, there's always this:
On Gay Marriage -- here's the deal. The "right" to marry does not come from the Government. Marriage is not a government institution. As far as I'm concerned, gays can do whatever they want and call it whatever they want. But I don't want a law that tells me that I have to consider it "marriage" whether I do or not.
Contract? Sign one. Same with heterosexual couples. Works for me. Forcing people who don't consider it "marriage" to consider it "marriage" is, in fact, forcing your values on them. Admit it.
Now I ain't sayin' ya gotta be religious. But it certainly doesn't sound to me as if our founders had a government in mind that had freedom from religion as a fundamental aspect.
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."— John Adams, October 11, 1798
I'm gonna expoundarate a little here. I think I finally get the what's behind the exaggeration that the Christian Right is foisting it's values on everyone else. It really boils down to two things ... abortion, and gay "marriage". They'll add a third now, which they call "stem cell research" -- but that's an intentional overstatement. This issue really boils down to the abortion issue, because what the religious right is really opposed to is embryonic stem cell research, and even that has never been illegal. Federal funding for it, beyond existing lines -- has been. But in and of itself, any private funder has always been able to donate to embryonic stem cell research, new lines or not. And the religious right, as far as I can tell, has never been against non-embryonic stem cell research. But it all gets lumped together by the secular fundamentalists as "stem cell research", and they want you to believe that the religious right is irrationally opposed to all of it to marginalize their position.
And last I checked abortion is still legal through all 9 months of pregnancy, and our illustrious president is even fine with leaving a baby who lived through a botched abortion to die outside the womb. So I don't see as to where the Religious Right has really had much effect on it. And as far as the stem cell research goes, they managed to outlaw federal funding for new lines of embryonic stem cells. We do get to tell the government what they can and can't do with our money. And a ton of that money comes from people who think abortion, the ultimate source of embryonic stem cells ... is murder.
The gay issue is a bit different, since there probably some states that still have sodomy laws on the books which would technically make it illegal to be a "practicing" gay. Of course, there's also laws on the books in a lot of places that would make a lot of stuff heterosexual people do illegal as well.
But all of these problems are problems only because of government intrusions. As I said, marriage is not a government institution. So the government defining marriage just shouldn't be a part of the equation. Government should also not be involved in medical research. If it weren't, people would not have to worry about their tax dollars going to support things that they believe -- and the Constitution says it will not inhibit the free exercise of their religion -- makes them an accessory to murder. Wanna fund abortion? Donate to your favorite abortion charity yourself!
Besides, it's really not a stretch, what Christians (and others!) believe concerning abortion. As I've said before, the fetus is undeniably human, and undeniably alive. So why is murder not a religious question, but abortion is? After all, one of the 10 commandments is, "thou shalt not kill". Does that make murder a religious opinion? "Thou shalt not steal." Does that make theft a religious opinion? "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." Does that make libel a religious opinion?
I think it's much more of an extremist view to reject any restrictions on killing this living human thing, any time, for any reason than what we see from the religious right -- and yet any attempt to do so is met with howls of protest, ridicule, and ... dare I say it ... intolerance and hate.
In his address, titled "Climate Change and What We Are Doing About It and Is It Worth It?", Tripp said ozone depletion used to be the big scary global crisis, "but that is largely solved and there is some question whether it ever existed. They don't talk about it anymore."
Now global warming is the world's existential crisis of the day, but even that has changed. Since 2002, data proves the world has actually been in a cooling phase, defying expert predictions.
To get around that, the moniker "global warming" has quietly been dropped in favor of "climate change," Tripp said. "Global cooling. When was the last time you heard that in the press?"
"Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem," he said. "Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years. ... There are indications, there are options, but if you are looking for hard scientific facts, you are still a long ways away."
Here's what gets me...
Schumer, who led the effort to kill the amendment, issued a statement saying its defeat means "lives have been saved."I'd like to see where Chucky gets his numbers. I wonder just how, backed up with hard numbers, the repeal of the "assault-weapons" ban threatened ... or more accurately, how has it affected the actual safety of New Yorkers. Have violent crimes involving "assault weapons" gone up in New York since the repeal of the ban?
"The passage of this amendment would have done more to threaten the safety of New Yorkers than anything since the repeal of the assault-weapons ban," Schumer said. "If this had passed, it would have created havoc for law enforcement and endangered the safety of millions of New Yorkers. We will remain vigilant to prevent any legislation like this from passing in the future.”
I'd bet Bucks to Bagels there's been no discernible negative impact, and that there may very well have been a positive impact.
I hit this article linked from the NRA-ILA website. There were only two comments out there, both against. And I felt the need to respond.
Commenter #1: Conservatives argue state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution – and now 36 other states have resolutions affirming their sovereignty.
This conservative sponsored law is an attack on state sovereignty.
Commenter #2: The gun permit argument is not one of law abiding citizens vs outlaws; it is one of temperament. I have a ccp and I know how easy it is to get one. In utah, the permits are passed out like candy. There are many citizens who do not possess the temperament to handle themselves, their auto, much less carry a loaded weapon. I believe a state should be able to determine who carries a concealed weapon within their borders.
Me: Yes we do argue state soveriegnty under the 10th ammendment. But state soveriegnty does not negate the other 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights. State soveriegnty is subject to the Constitution -- the rights that we already have that are guaranteed by the Constitution (they are not *granted* by it, they are guaranteed to be protected. In all the states.)I might add that the 13 colonies refused to ratify the constitution without this Bill of Rights, guaranteeing their citizens that these specifically layed out rights could not be taken away.
The Constitution doesn't specify that the right only applies to those who somebody else deems fit to "handle themselves". You follow the law, you're fine. You don't follow the law, you're not -- just like anything else.
Palin has incurred more than $500,000 in legal bills, one of the reasons she listed for her abrupt resignation earlier this month before the end of her first term as governor.It has nothing to do with her being governor, and everything to do with the assault on her character by her political enemies - due to her role in the recent Presidential election. Nobody's donated to the fund because she's the governor of Alaska. That charge is absurd on its face. Besides, if it were not for her high profile, she wouldn't be subject to this legal and, and effectively financial ... harassment.
Thomas Daniel, an investigator for the state personnel board, wrote the July 14 report, details of which were reported by The Associated Press on Tuesday evening. Palin established the fund a few months ago. An ethics complaint was then quickly filed about whether the governor was allowed to establish a legal defense fund.
In the report, Daniel asserts that Palin had an unfair fundraising advantage over ordinary citizens because she was a public official and her fund was raising money by trading on her status as governor by soliciting donations and contributions. He determined these donations could be considered improper gifts under Alaska law and recommended that Palin refuse to accept payments for the fund.
Instead, the report suggested that Palin seek reimbursement from the state for the cost of ethics complaints that have been dismissed.
This is about weaking the will of the citizen politician of lesser means than the normal political class. This is something we should not tolerate.
Why should the taxpayers be forced to pay the fees, when plenty of people are willing to donate volutarily to defray her costs? Which do you think is more ethical?
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
From Thomas Sowell:
With politicians, confusion is their most important product. They confuse bringing down the price of medical care with bringing down the cost. And they confuse medical care with health care.Seriously, go read the whole thing. Very good article
Monday, July 20, 2009
Aragorn: You have some skill with a blade.
Eowyn: The women of this country learned long ago, those without swords can still die upon them. I fear neither death nor pain.
Aragorn: What do you fear, my lady?
Eowyn: A cage. To stay behind bars until use and old age accept them and all chance of valor has gone beyond recall or desire.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
See, it's not just you arguing with your friends and co-workers. With progressives, it's not about rational discussion. Never has been. This from a good article by CNN's lovely Gloria Borger.
... back in 1987, when Judge Robert Bork came before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he did answer questions. He also came with a long, scholarly record that outlined an obviously conservative judicial philosophy. He lost. And he lost ugly.
Looking back, Bork told CNN's Campbell Brown this week, his honest approach was a big mistake.
"I think I could have been more intelligent in my approach and more aware of what was taking place," he said. "I kept responding to questions as if it was a rational discussion, which it wasn't. I think I would have taken that into account more if I were to do it over again."
Friday, July 17, 2009
But there was this facebook "poll", you see, asking if you would support Palin for President in 2012. I saw one facebook "friend" answered it "No". And like I said I try to stay away from politics for the most part on facebook ... but when I see stuff like this, I feel the need to not Shut Up. To Stop an Echo. Not everybody thinks Palin's a crazy idiot.
Like me, for instance. Perhaps I should just lay it all out in one place.
So why do I like Palin?
- She is against government waste, and has demonstrated a willingness to take it on -- and win
- She is anti-big-government
- She is for stronger States' rights, as originally outlined in the constitution
- She is practical about energy independence
- She defends the second amendment
- She is for tough foriegn policy with countries that intend to do us harm
- She respects our military men and women in far more than just lip service
- She doesn't look down on people of lower social class
- She respects human life
- She generally pisses all the right people off (militant feminists, government expansionists, socialists, people playing the corruption game in politics in either party, anti-Christians, and the all-abortion, anytime for any reason people....)
And why do people hate her so much?
- She's Pro-Life (that's probably #1 on their beef list)
- She's a successful woman who has done it with out denouncing men, and is not one of the militant feminist crowd.
- She is popular and is a danger to progressives in both parties because of it
This is why she was targeted for destruction by the Left and their propaganda arm in the mainstream media, and it's also why some Republicans are also involved in the pirhanna fest.
But what do we read from people commenting on why they dislike her?
- She's an idiot (based on ... ???)
- She's only popular because she's pretty (only ugly women need apply, I guess)
- She dresses like a slut (really????)
- She's not her son's mother (not true)
- She's a Christian (so? And hasn't about every other president at least claimed to be one?)
- She banned books (not true)
- She said she's had foriegn policy experience because "I can see Russia from my house." (never said that)
- She slashed the budget for special needs children (that would be her predecessor, whom she defeated)
- She cut funding for pregnant teens (she cut the amount of proposed increases but still increased funding)
- She's a hypocrite because her daughter had sex out of wedlock (how does that make her a hypocrite?)
- She spent $250,000 on a wardrobe for campaigning (not true)
- She doesn't read the news (based on her being skiddish about the question in the Couric interview once she realized this was a hatchet-job. There would be no 'correct' answer.)
- She didn't know what Charlie Gibson's freshly coined "Bush Doctrine" meant (of course, nobody but Gibson knew what it was because he made it up for the interview)
- She abused her office to force a police officer -- who had threatened one of her family members - to be fired. (apparently not)
- a host of other charges which were also not true
- and now, of course, "She's a quitter."
And of course none of the stuff that's actually true has anything to do with the merits of her stances on issues, except that her stance on issues is opposite of those who used these "arguments" ad nauseum . I've never seen so much fake dirt dug up on a person, and at the same time any real dirt on Barack Obama got swept under the rug via the Race Card. And we got that brilliant Joe Biden for a vice president instead.
I understand the knee-jerk "she's a quitter" response. She did quit. But if you listen to her reasons and not the political punditry's speculations ... the constant stream of frivolous ethics complaints was crippling her ability to govern, bogging down the state government, and bankrupting her family (half a million in legal fees defending herself against all of these things, all of which she was cleared of - but she still owes the money for defending herself).
And imagine going to a baseball game with your 14 year old daughter while in town for a charity, and some nationally broadcast late night TV host jokes about you dressing like a slut and your daughter getting knocked up at the game. This was coming from everywhere. Political activist organizations ... probably people active in the DNC, and some people in the RNC, news papers, "entertainment" shows. These aren't reasons to quit, mind you, but they also weren't the reasons she gave. The reasons she gave are consistent with letting the governor's chef go, getting rid of the governor's private jet, and refusing the "bridge to nowhere" funding ... while she was the governor. She quit because it was the best thing for Alaska, and the best thing for her and her family. Can't argue with that reasoning.
She may not be the most articulate person in the world. But if we wanted articulation, style over substance, we probably would have elected someone like Barack Obama, heaven forbid.
But the fact is barring a bunch of the country waking up to all this, she probably won't be running in 2012 if ever, at least not for President. She will be organizing and otherwise being politically active, using her pull to garner support for conservative political candidates.
What's not to like?
Thursday, July 16, 2009
The federal government isn't following California, it's already there, but it has printing presses.
This is going to end ugly.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
It went so spectacularly wrong that she used it several other times in prepared speeches to hoards of people -- because, of course, that's what you want in a Supreme Court Apointee. Good judgement. "Hey, I shouldn't have said that, that went wrong." Followed by "Oops, I did it again ... and again ... and again ... and again."
No, she believes what she said, or it wouldn't have come up so much.
But following in the recent American tradition of completely ignoring candidates' records and associations and rhetoric and going ahead and putting them in office anyway to do as they please ... she should obviously be approved immediately.
She's a trojan horse, just like Obama.
The Alinsky-ites have bubbled to the top of our system. It's only over if we let it be over. Wake Up, America.
Monday, July 13, 2009
1) Be politeThese first three will quickly reveal a glaring deliniation between the rational one and the emotional one. I learned this as a kid from my brother Jeff. He "got it". I didn't. At the time. If people would just stick to these three, it would be enough 80% of the time. Your opponent's head will likely behave like a boiled egg in a microwave.
2) Remain as calm as possible
3) Stay away from ad hominem. It's their favorite, and they'll look pretty petty in short order if you refrain from it. They can't help themseleves.
The next few are about fairness. They're really related to the first three, though, as your opponent's idea of "fair" is "I get to make zingers, and if you do you're mean and stupid."
4) Don't let them put words in your mouth. If they claim you said something you have not said, call them out on it.The last ones are wrong turns you don't want to travel down. They'll get you off topic and mired down in things that have nothing to do with the point you're attemptint to make.
5) Don't put words in their mouths. Argue with what this person is saying right now, not the other 10,000 self-described liberals you've argued with over the years.
7) Don't let them get away with massive generalizations, like "Fox News Lies" or "you're being mean". Make them give you examples, or tell you how you're being mean.All the while, never, ever forget the first two rules, especially. Calm. Polite. Firm, but calm and polite.
8) Of course, this means you shouldn't use them either. But don't worry. You shouldn't have to. The facts are on your side. Use them to back up your observations.
9) Speaking of facts, bone up on them. Get informed.
10) Remember that ultimately they want to force their moral code on all of the rest of us, while accusing anybody with a moral code, especially a Christian-based one ... of trying to foist their moral code on everyone else. Point this out to them and don't let them forget it.
Friday, July 10, 2009
This story was good, though, from the sarcasm angle....
Really, where would we be if a bumpkin like Palin were president? With her brainpower, we probably would be stuck with a Cabinet full of tax cheats, retreads and moralizing social engineers.And this one, a bit more serious, sums things up pretty well. Here's a couple of good snips from it:
Palin likes gambles. Her career is filled with firsts. In 2006, Palin became the first woman governor in Alaska history (as well as the youngest). In 2008, she became the first woman to appear on a GOP presidential ballot. And on July 3, she probably became the first governor with a 54-percent approval rating to resign from office for reasons having nothing to do with scandal or appointment to another job.Why, oh why are conservatives so mean?
Last year, in the space of eight weeks, the media said Palin was a Buchananite (she wasn't), a member of the Alaska Independence Party (nope), a book-banner (wrong again), and a biblical literalist who believed dinosaurs roamed the Earth several thousand years ago (an utter fabrication). When it wasn't mangling facts, the press did its best to undermine Palin's accomplishments, from selling Governor Murkowski's jet to finally pulling the plug on the Bridge to Nowhere to pushing through a natural gas pipeline with bipartisan support. The denizens of leftwing fever swamps accused Palin of infidelity and questioned her most recent pregnancy. Feminist activists denied Palin her womanhood because she did not share their politics. Comedians made fun of her accent, clothes, smarts, and good looks. And in a craven attempt to preserve their ties to the media, the campaign operatives who had promoted Palin to John McCain later turned on her, telling reporters (on background, of course) that Palin was an incompetent "rogue" "diva" who may have been suffering from postpartum depression.
Palin-hatred is visceral and unrelenting. "Our state was inundated with opposition researchers trying to dig up dirt, the Democratic blogosphere up here making stuff up," Palin told me. The file on my desktop labeled "Insult List" is an attempt to track every foul thing that's been said about Sarah Palin since she rose to national prominence. At the moment, the list is seven single-spaced pages long. Palin's been called, among other things, a "bimbo," a "cancer," a "farce," a "jack in the box," a "provincial," a "maniac," an "airhead," "Lady Gaga," and "political slime." And that's just a small taste of the G-rated stuff. The blue material is far worse.
Monday, July 06, 2009
Exposed in the relentless Palin attacks is not just political bias, but unmitigated class bias. The American mainstream media in its current free-fall is begging for more comeuppance when it continues to berate the values and lifestyles of the folks in flyover country who in simpler times used to be considered valued customers.I don't think we'll be hearing much more from Palin until after her last day in office. Then she'll probably expound. My guess is that she is honestly protecting her family, doing right by her state by getting out of the way -- the barrage of firepower from the Left was interfering with her job, and she could no longer govern the way she was elected to govern before extraordinary events decended upon her last fall. Plus I'm sure she has another role for herself in mind, it's just not clear what that is. My hunch? Still the Public Speaking circuit.
While "empathy" and "tolerance" may be liberalism's highest values, Miss Dowd offers her conservative victims none. They are caricatured, demeaned and dehumanized. They are to be mocked and ridiculed to the point where the other students point and laugh. The MoDo template is so simple and repetitive it could be written into a software program.
So it's official. I subscribed to Twitter ... to follow her Twitter feed.
- You've got rabid lies about the "real mother" of her son Trig
- You've got Katie Couric getting snippy with her on national TV as she dug for damning soundbites
- You've got
Matt Lauer'sCharles Gibson's condescending interview looking over his glasses
- You've got jealous Republicans stabbing her in the back
- You've got David Letterman casually calling you a slut and joking about your daughter's sex life
- You've got $500,000 in legal defense expenses defending herself against frivolous lawsuits, none of which has stuck except by harassing her and putting her half a million dollars in debt.
- You've got the recent Vanity Fair article ...
If I were a parent I think I just might be worried about my kids -- just a little.
I have one progressive family member who often asks why Conservatives (Limbaugh, Coulter) have to be so "mean". As if her side is all angelic peaceniks.
Sunday, July 05, 2009
This is a sobering assessment from David Warren of the Ottowa Citizen.
Frankly, I think the harassing lawsuits and legal bills had much to do with Palin resigning, but I think this is really the crux of it.
How can Americans fight this?
I don't think they can. For not only has the Democrat party - committed in the main to the "second American revolution" I began to sketch above - control of the White House and both Houses. The Republican party is pulling itself apart. Only half of it is willing to fight: the other half thinks the only way back to power is to accommodate this revolution.
The half that is willing to fight are involved in the Tea Party movement, and are probably "r"epublicans rather than "R"epublicans. And that half really has no leader, although I'd say most probably look to Sarah Palin for at least some of their inspiration. It's these people that made her campaign rallies bigger than Obama's at some of the same venues.
I'm not quite sure what Mrs. Palin has in mind. To take her at her word, she's not interested in running for office, higher or otherwise. And that may be true right now, and not true later. But I think as she said there are other ways to lead, and she likes speaking. And people like to hear her speak. Sounds like a match made in capitalism heaven. And the message she's selling is the right one, or at least solidly on the right track in my opinion. So more power to her.
To fight what David Warren is talking about will take real grassroots people, not politicians. Only a strong, loud, unified voice from a large part of the population will change those politicians, or which politicians get elected. Which is why I also begun to speak, firmly but politely -- on these issues to awaken some of the lemmings following the progressive leaders' movements. Most of them aren't deep thinkers. They're just following the people they perceive are the deep thinkers. We need to change their perception.
This is what Glenn Beck is trying to do with his re-incarnated version of Thomas Paine's "Common Sense", and his tour this summer. I think that's what Palin is hoping to do on a larger scale, if only by inspiring the rest of us to do what some of us little people have started to do.
I guess it's an ounce of "Hope" for "Change" ;-) But it's going to take more than us "Hoping". We're going to have to work for change. Heh. In more ways than one.
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Another Gibbs/Whitehouse press conference dustup. This time a reporter from CBS News ... and Helen Thomas of all people, are a bit irked about the "setup".
“What the hell do they think we are, puppets?” Thomas said. “They’re supposed to stay out of our business. They are our public servants. We pay them.”Totalitarian states don't work that way, Ms Thomas. The sections of the coral are moving in to place one by one, slowly, so as not to scare the cattle. But it looks like even some in the MSM are even starting to notice that something's amiss.
Ms. Thomas should look up the nearest Tea Party and go voice her concerns with the rest of us.
I'm not sure what all the evil laws are that the Social Conservatives have gotten passed as far as cramming their ideals down "America's" throat -- even though all the polls keep saying we're a center-right population. So what do people mean when they talk about social conservatism?
Defense of marriage and pro-life, basically. And where social conservatives lose is by making the wrong arguments and allowing the opposition to frame the debate.
Most social conservatives are also pro-limited government. But the opposition frames it as wanting to "force" your values on the rest of the country. The key is to frame your socially conservative arguments in the context of limited government. And stay consistent with the Constitution.
Here's the Defense of Marriage soundbite we should stake out and stick to as conservatives, as it is philosophically consistent with our limited government position:
Marriage is not a government institution and therefore government, [especially the Federal government] has no business defining it one way or another.
We can expound from there, but that is the base position that is consistent with the Constitution and limited government.
Why is the government involved in marriage to begin with? Why do I need permission from the government to marry as a consenting adult? The government adopted what has been understood worldwide, for the most part since history began as the nucleus of a family, I would say mostly for legal purposes. Spouses have obligations to one another that are recognized as contractual, and they have obligations to their children. The government has flipped this on it's head by requiring that I get a license to do it. My church, my community, my family ... they are the ones who should be doing the approving or disapproving.
I have no legal problems with gays saying they have adopted a similar social convention which involves a similar contract between same-sex couples. Same tax breaks (whole other discussion, though, really)... anything the government should be involved in as far as contractual obligations go.
Whether or not private sector employers or insurance companies or hospitals want to consider them family should be left to those institutions. It is none of the government's business what my definition of a family will be.
Which brings me to point #2 on the matter... this isn't about rights. It's about acceptance. The gay movement says it wants tolerance -- and it has that. What it wants is acceptance, by force if necessary. Take the word "Marriage" out if it in the legal documents, and I'm good with it. Domestic Partnership is fine by me, and they can even call Marriages "Domestic Partnerships" and gay people can even call their Domestic Partnerships "Marriage" if they so desire -- that's fine. Free speech and all. They can call it whatever they want. And I can call it whatever I want.
What I DON'T want is a law that says "Marriage means this". Once this is done, the door is open for me to be tried for a "Hate Crime" if I say that it is something different, or especially if I teach my kids that it is something different. As Andy Rooney said once, thinking gay marriage is wrong is not hate, it's an opinion.
Tolerance and acceptance are not synonymous. In a free country, my point of view, my culture, my religious beliefs, whatever you want to call them should never be put in the position of being outlawed if they don't directly interfere with someone else's life, liberty, or property.
All consistent. Not cramming my values down anyone's throats.
And on the pro-life issue ...
Is it really such a stretch to have the opinion that life begins at conception that it is lumped in with belief about walking on water and reincarnation? I mean, we are talking about an observable, physical event here. But bring to bring that up as an argument is grounds for immediate dismissal as a religously zealous hack. Progressives have shut the pro-lifers out of the debate on that end. As well as the other end. To ask for an inch on either end in the Progressive handbook is akin to them being asked to give up the entire battle.
I don't think kids having to get permission from their parents to get an abortion is a bad thing, and I definitely (like most of the rest of America) think late-term abortions ... when it's not a choice between mom's life and the baby's ... are just wrong. And that's where the line in the sand is. It is not social conservatives who haven't been willing to compromise on this issue. Our esteemed president apparently doesn't think it's wrong even to let a baby die outside the womb after a botched abortion attempt. If we can't even ban partial birth abortions -- who is cramming whose values down everybody's throats?
And whose throat is ultimately being sacrificed in the process?
Again, we're not talking about whether or not we believe there was a big bang or an old bearded spirit waved his hand and created everything. We're talking about something that is undeniably alive, and undeniably .... human.
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
In the article we read how Chief Justice Roberts is "planting seeds" and is "increasing mastery of the judicial machinery". Comfortingly, it says that foreshadows "a widening gap between the Democratic-led political branches and the Supreme Court. Indeed, the court appears poised to move to the right in the Obama era."
Well as my wife would say (mimicking a former southern friend of ours) "Thank the Sweet Baby Jesus."
The argument seems to be that Roberts is coaxing Kennedy to the right. The evidence? Kennedy votes with Roberts 92% of the time.
It couldn't just be that they happen to agree on these things, I guess.
It does mention Thomas and Scalia might be the two justices most "in play" -- and to back this up, it notes "Justices Scalia and Thomas are apt to follow what they understand to be the original meaning of the Constitution, even when the consequences might not align with their policy preferences."
I dunno about you, but it sounds to me like the Bushes chose wisely. A very concise job description, really.
But the very last bit in the article stuck out to me. It says:
"The Constitution, it turns out, means what Justice Kennedy says it means."
I know what he's saying, but he has to agree with at least four other justices. So it's not really that simple. If Roberts is successful in persuasively arguing for a more originalist interpretation of the Constitution .... there may be hope.