Wednesday, September 30, 2009

"Hate Speech™" Throwdown

I've had it past my eyballs with this "Hate Speech™" stuff.

How do people get away with being taken seriously slinging labels around like this without backing them up with facts? You know, reality?

Here's Joy Behar nodding in agreement with Bette Midler as Bette tells us that Glenn Beck engages in Hate Speech and is going to turn us into Rwanda with us killing each other like Tutsis and Hutus.

First, I want to know why anyone is seriously listening to either of these people for insight on the political scene.

As I left in the comments -- I always want to ask these people, tell me something Glenn Beck has said that is “hate speech” — and it has to be in context. No “Michael Moore-ing” it.

Just once on one of these shows. Just once. What has he said that is hateful, and what is hateful about it? A real journalist would ask that question. Anyone? Bueller?

Seriously, liberals, this is a throwdown. I want to know. Back it up! Tell me something hateful he's said and explain to me what is hateful about it. Or shut your pie holes.

Let me expound a little bit ... on her talking about Free Speech is great, but ... then goes on to, and I don't know how else you can interpret this ... goes on to say that it should be reserved for "educated" people.

And they wonder why we call them elitists.

Now I could get my pocket Constitution out again and go look for the "educated" clause of the first amendment, but I'm thinkin' I'm not gonna find it.

The other thing is the "fear mongering". We conservatives get accused all the time of "fear mongering", which is shut-uppery -- it is meant to pre-empt discussion. But Bette isn't fear mongering here about Tutsi-Hutu wars here in the US caused by Glenn Beck, no, huh-uh. She's edumacated.

Hey, let's check on that. Voted "most talkative" in her High School's "HOSS" election in 1961 (a Hawiian thing -- I guess seniors vote on it). After graduating high school in 1963, three semesters majoring in drama at the University of Hawaii before dropping out. What the hell is she doing "free speaking" on national TV? Doesn't she know that right guarantee doesn't apply to her?

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Son of Promise, Child of Hope

Ask your child if he or she has been exposed to this book at school.

Barack Obama: Son of Promise, Child of Hope

'Cause I'm just a tad curious. I've got to wonder what the precedent is for such adulation of a sitting president that started well before he was even elected.

This is the moving story of an exceptional man, as told by Nikki Grimes and illustrated by Bryan Collier, both winners of the Coretta Scott King Award. Barack Obama has motivated Americans to believe with him, to believe that every one of us has the power to change ourselves and change our world.

Vagueness is the common thread of everything surrounding this man. It's moving because he's so exceptional that he movitivated people to believe in change. Wow. Cherry cream soda with that cotton candy?

What, really, is exceptional about this man? (I get that he's the first African-American to be elected President. But that was an event a whole heck of a lot of other people had a lot to do with). What has he accomplished? Motivating people to believe with him? To believe that every one of us has the power to change ourselves and change our world? What does that even mean? I mean, Hitler changed the world. Stalin changed the world. Hirohoto changed the world. Ghengis Khan changed the world. No doubt change can be good. But when it's a big box wrapped in shiny paper and you have no idea what's inside ... it's prudent to ask questions about where it came from, who put what in there, and why -- before you go diving in to the wrapper.

This is generally the job of a free and independent press, but it was so busy being motivated to believe in Him that it neglected to do that, and now calls anyone who tries a backward racist hate monger trying to foment violence. This was likely a part of the plan of the people who wrapped up that shiny box and sold it to an America that they told every single day for 8 years (and also quite frequently for many years before that) ... should hate itself. A vote for the shiny box, the huckster preachers said, was a vote for our redemption. And now that we've been redeemed, we should just keep our sorry mouths shut if we know what's good for us.

The press is so vested in this man and this presidency it knows it will lose the credibility it thinks it still has if it starts to seriously ask the questions that have been raised and answer them with something other than, "Oh, that's crazy talk! We don't need to go there!"

Monday, September 28, 2009

Can't Follow Joe Pags

Joe Pags, filling in for Beck this morning, is going on a long rant about McCrystal's "new" strategy for Afghanistan.

First of all, Joe, you can't on the one hand complain that Obama's dragging his feet on sending him the troops the General thinks he needs to carry out his strategy ... you know, trust the generals, trust the people on the ground ... while at the same time trashing the General's strategy. If you don't believe in his strategy, maybe you should be dragging your feet on comitting troops to it as well.

This kind of argument -- shallow, not well-thought-out, looking for any angle to crucify political opponents on regardless of consistency is a big part of what gives war-sympathetic Conservatives a bad name. I have come to expect better of Glenn Beck ... but it apparently doesn't necessarily extend to guest hosts.

Joe argues that the object of war is to kill more of them than they kill of us.

I guess we won in Vietnam, then.

Certainly that's an object of a battle, but it is not really the goal of war. You didn't go to war to kill people ... you decided you had to kill people for some other purpose. Overthrow a dictator, kick an invader out. Stop a threat from developing. You deplete their resources until they cry uncle. And yes, the killing bit is a part of that strategy.

But McCrystal, and Bush -- and Obama -- are right when they say hey, wait a minute. The reason Al Queda had a field-day in Afghanistan was that it was a weakly governed country that was taken over by Islamic Fundamentalist Thugs, like Somalia. They provided a safe place for Al Queda to gather, train, and grow. Like mosquitoes in a swamp.

We can go kill all the mosquitoes in the swamp, but the swamp will still be there, and more mosquitoes will come breed there as soon as we're done. The goal was to drain the swamp. The swamp is not the bad guys... the swamp is why the bad guys are there. The surge in Iraq involved much more than killing the enemy, though there was plenty of that as well. And it worked -- even many progressives are admitting as much. And so it should be in Afghanistan. If there really are decent people there, and I believe there are ... they need to have their minds changed about who we are. Perhaps then they can stop defining themselves as the opposite of the monsters they think we are, and reject the monsters that offer them security in the form of brutal, oppressive, strong-man Sharia law -- and thus reject new mosquitoes that may invade their country for that purpose.

Once they see that we're really on THEIR side dispite what they've been instructed to believe ... things will go the other way.

On the other hand, if we just pull out, it means an Al Queda win, and fund-raising, support, and recruitment will soar.

Longer School Year

Malkin makes an excellent point.
If schools wasted less time on “social justice,” “Everyday Math” crap, eco-zealotry, field trips to gay weddings and illegal alien day labor centers, rappin’, revolution, and radicalism, and searching for children’s “inner Obamas,” they wouldn’t need to make up all the squandered days and weeks during the summer.

Saturday, September 26, 2009

Sleight of Mind

So Alinsky tactics basically revolve around diversion from the subject at hand, a sort of "sleight of mind" trick that tends to work on most people for some reason which I'll leave unexplored for now.

The deal is, the Alinsky book is their M.O., and the reasons it's their M.O. is 1) they've got nothing else, and 2) it tends to work.

So the question is, how to combat it?

The answer is not to let it work by taking it away from them and forcing them back to be confronted with the whole lotta nothin' they've got.

First off, we need to be aware of it. Identify its foul stench the moment it whiffs from someone's mouth. Most of it revolves around ad hominem (attack the messenger) and moral equivalency.

"You're racist. This guy said 'X' once, so we can dismiss anything he says." Or ridicule -- the smug, dismissive laugh (you're insane if you believe that!). "You watch Fox NEWS?????!!!"

"Scare tactics." Not attacking the argument, attacking the emotion the argument evokes, intentional or not.

Yes, how to combat it?

Don't let the" sleight of mind" work.

1) Keep them on topic.

You know, I'm perfectly fine with scare tactics when there's something to be afraid of. If you have a problem with it, tell me where is the speaker actually wrong, "scary" or not?

2) Remember "innocent until proven guilty"? They call you a racist and put the burden of proof on you to prove you're not. Immediately throw it back on them to "prove" ... you know, back up with facts -- that you (or whomever they're accusing) is racist. Or with the Fox News Lies thing. Really? They do? Tell me a few. Back it up, or shut up.

3) Moral equivalency. This is probably the toughest one, because it's the one that is not directly designed to shut you up, but also to get you off topic so they don't have to discuss what you were originally talking about. So to some extent, you do have to "go there" with them. But make them come right back. I haven't come up with a good strategy for this, because it involves coming up with a few silver bullet examples I haven't come up with, but need to. I think the key here is to assertively call it "ah, the moral equivalency argument" ... and find a few examples to shatter the idea that anybody actually believes that actions have equal moral value no matter what the circumstances.

I'll have to think about those.... if you have any ideas, go ahead and leave them in the comments. They should be clear and concise ... cutting to the bone so you can get back to the subject at hand, because you don't want to spend too much time on them. You need to force them right back into the coral of the subject at hand; the cattle chute of there's only one way this argument is gonna go, and that's to its logical conclusion.

Friday, September 25, 2009

Code Language

Mark Steyn. RTWT here.
Thus, Melissa Harris-Lacewell, professor of African-American studies at Princeton, was invited on to National Public Radio to expound on the use of “racial code words” in “the current opposition to health care reform.” For example, explained professor Harris-Lacewell, “language of personal responsibility is often a code language used against poor and minority communities.”

“Personal responsibility” is racial code language? Phew, thank goodness America is belatedly joining Canada and Europe in all but abolishing the concept.

“Code language” is code language for “total bollocks.” “Code word” is a code word for “I’m inventing what you really meant to say because the actual quote doesn’t quite do the job for me.” “Small government”? Racist code words! “Non-confiscatory taxes”? Likewise. “Individual liberty”? Don’t even go there! To an incisive NPR racism analyst, the elderly gentleman telling his congressman “I’m very concerned by what I’ve heard about wait times for MRIs in Canada” is really saying “I’m unable to overcome my deep-seated racial anxieties about the sexual prowess of black males, especially now they’re giving prime-time press conferences every night.” With interpreters like professor Harris-Lacewell on the prowl, I’m confident 95 per cent of Webster’s will eventually be ruled “code language.”

Thursday, September 24, 2009

They're Drinkin' the Juice!

Heard a guy this morning pushing his book on the Obama Marriage (his third book on presidential marriages) had left with one of the hosts during the break after his speal that Barack had on occasion said, coming off the stage and whipping the crowd up into a frenzy, "they're drinking the juice!"

So I went out looking for some corraboration of that quote. Found one here (and other places)

Dan Shomon, a top aide who traveled Illinois with Barack when he was a state senator and a U.S. Senate candidate, says that Barack called Michelle once after he had made a particularly rousing speech. “They’re drinking the juice,” he told her enthusiastically. “I feel like I’m inspiring people.”

Yeah you are. Like Jim Jones.

Are you fired up? Ready to go? Fired up? Ready to go? Fired up? Ready to go? Fired up? Ready to go? Let's go do this! (sip. glug, glug, glug. thud.)

Crowder at Berkley

Stephen Crowder, the Jeff Corwin of Conservatism, goes to Berkley.

My favorite part was, while Abraham Lincoln seemed to be the hands-down winner for favorite president (frankly, I'm stunned they didn't say "Obama") the young lady they asked what party he was in said ...

Um, back then I believe he was a Republican. ... but ... that was, nominally a Republican.

Because, you know, everybody knows the Republicans are the party of racism. Hey, man, my professors say so. I don't know how they slipped that one by, bra. It's like, she happens to know the fact, but it seems like an abstraction to her. She practically refuses to actually believe it could possibly be true.

Update: While you're there, check out Klavan's "Talking Crap". These are from PJTV, which again, I highly recommend daily visits.

I'm not sure what this means...

Got a ton of hits from what had to be a crawler out of Germany last night. Well, that's gonna happen.

But I also got a couple of hits through a site called "" ... love the name. I mean, talk about say what you mean, mean what you say.

Somebody's worried that somebody else is going to find out they're reading all this horrible subversive stuff I'm putting out. :-)

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

A Progressive Idea I Like

This sunday starts Ken Burns' latest project, "America's Best Idea: The History of National Parks". I, for one, will be watching.

I am a big fan of National Parks.

And Teddy Roosevelt was to an extent, a progressive.

Mr. Burns says it really isn't about the parks themselves, but how they came about. Their story. It was a good idea then, and it will remain a good idea.

I can't tell you the times I've stood among majestic mountains or floated down an Ozark River that I didn't think, thank God, thank God ... we thought of this ... and did it.

To set aside some of the most beautiful and intriguing parts of the country for everyone's sakes, present and future generations -- to preserve some of the Wild Country. They are soul-stirring places.

I suppose one could argue that conservation is a conservative idea, and one would be correct. In the end, it is a government program, but more of a stewardship program than a social program, to ever grow in interpretation, size, and scope. It really doesn't re-distribute wealth. It just protects some natural wealth that was already here for all to enjoy.

Yes, I'm aware that land was taken from the native population and there were probably private landowners that were screwed over and that the story isn't perfect. But there it is, and here we are, and I think it's one thing that Conservatives & Progressives can agree on.

Great idea.

Speaking of Rigor - Another DC Tea Party March Crowd Estimate

In my ongoing attempt to find crowd estimates for the Sept 12 DC march that appear to be based on something other than direct rectal derivation -- one found me.

Mainly because he has a beef with the others I've found as compared to his, which comes out to about 17% of the minimal justified estimate I'd seen so far. He puts the number at ~ 135,000. Still 2 to three times bigger than I expected. But troublingly far, far off other estimates that appear to have relied on the traffic cam video.

I have not had the time to wade through the whole thing yet, as it is rather extensive and detailed (as a serious analysis based on the limited data would have to be) ... because he does attempt to take into account varying densities in different parts of the crowd.

He has links to various pictures and even some video that I have not seen before.

It's hard to say, really, which is one of the reasons there is so much controversy. The other, of course, being that leftists have an interest in portraying as few people as possible and right-ists have an interest in portraying as many people as possible.

Nobody expected the number of people that showed up to show up, and most people came of their own volition as this was organized on the local level, for the most part. Most of these people wouldn't have thought of saying, "hey, how much for an overhead shot?" I wouldn't have, and I strongly considered going.

At any rate, I'm including this analysis in my list of analyses, because it meets the test of someone having put some thought into it. Actually, a lot of thought into it. It is a valid approach. A daunting one to tackle accurately, but a valid approach, and impressive in its ambition.

As always, remember my mantra. Models are not reality. Models are representations of belief about reality. Some models are better than others at representing. I know how models are created -- they are all rife with assumptions. All of them, even the Park Service model and the traffic cam model. And even the best model is limited by the quality of its input. Sadly, we really don't have high quality input to put in any of these models for this event. Which is why so many disparate methods have been tried to arrive at some sort of estimate by brokers with any honesty in them at all.

I'd still take 135,000 people as a very respectable number. My comfort zone of 1 million, I admit, was largely based on comparative analysis -- that if there were 1 million people at Obama's inauguration, and that if 4 "Pensylvania Avenue Loads" of people marched on the mall, then there were certainly on the order of a million people there.

Perhaps not. Perhaps hundreds of thousands is a better estimate -- and from everything I've heard is where organizers are putting the number. The only critique I have of deathbymedia's analysis would be that I'd have to believe that the crowd from the 912 march around the speaking area was 83% to 86.5% (depending on which inauguration estimate you believe) less dense than the inauguration crowd. I will allow that it was significantly less dense, but not THAT much less dense, and there's the complete lack of people around the reflection pool at the inauguration to add to that.

We do not have the benefit of satellite photos (I wonder if the FBI or CIA do? Well, what do we pay them for anyway??? ;-) ) so we can't see how many are on the rest of the mall or elsewhere. Another thing to consider is that this wasn't an event for which everyone needed to assemble at a particular time or they'd "miss it" -- at no one time could you ever take a snapshot and say, "yup, that's the sum total of all the people who came". I submit that this was a much more dynamic crowd with a significant amount of flux throughout the day in any given area. There was no single event to see or miss. The point was merely to "show up" that day.

In the end, I won't try to directly dispute his numbers, as mine (and anyone's) analysis ultimately rely on certain assumptions. I think the number was higher than his. Maybe not a million. But certainly a very significant crowd.

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Wow. Propaganda.

Apparently showing in many schools. But we don't have to worry about indoctrination. It's just right-wing paranoia. God & Guns!!!!

There's a critique of it here. As in, a running rebuttal. Lessons in critical thinking for children. I'd show them this version! They might learn something about how people are manipulated.

Monday, September 21, 2009

The Spooky, Scary Rhetoric

That made Pelosi cry.... reminding her of violence in the late 70's.

What is it? That Democrat Dan White who killed the Mayor and prominent gay Supervisor in San Fransisco and got off on the infamous Twinkie Defense (which was certainly not enabled by conservative philosophy...)?

Or was that communist dude who had been a very active Democrat who ended up killing 900 of his cult followers in Georgetown, Guyana by making them drink cyanide-laced koolaid?

Why is it that most assasinations and mass murders (on very grand scales) are carried out by leftists?

I've left comments on "The Nation"'s website ... waded into the cesspool of lefty-ism to leave a nugget of sanity ... give the ole Clue Bat a swing or two. And I had to register, ergo, I'm on their mailing list. I'm on several liberal mailing lists for the same reason.

Got one today, looking for me to donate. In it, I saw this:

Just days ago, Glenn Beck led the astro-turf 9-12-09 "Taxpayer March on DC." Compared to the millions who have marched for civil rights, equal rights, and gay rights, and against the war, Beck's 70,000 would be small stuff -- except for the tens of thousands waving Confederate flags, anti-gay hate signs, and shouting "White Power!"

If there were any at all, there were more like tens. And as I've said before, the number of protestors was much closer to 1,000,000.

So I replied to the email saying to their donation request -- not if you're going to lie like that.

And then I ran across this article, "Who Is Barack Obama? And wy do people say such loopy, ugly things about him?"

As the author painted the Tea Party crowd as nuts and crazies and decried the "ugly" things, such as putting Obama's head on a witch doctor body to call his plan "voodoo health care" or signs with his face in a Hitler mustache ... pretending that this is unprecedented, that it has never happened before -- and it's all because he's black ... I submit the following reminder:

Click for larger size.

Zombietime Bookmark

It depends on what you say the meaning of the word "tax" is...

Here's the transcript between Barack Obama and George Sephanopoulos on ABC This Week this weekend. Intersperesed with my comments in green.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Probably the most definitive promise you made in the campaign is that no one in the middle class would get a tax increase on your watch.

OBAMA: Right.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Yet this week, Senator Rockefeller and several other Democrats say that this bill by Senator Baucus is a big middle class tax increase.

Do you agree and does that mean you can't sign it?

OBAMA: Well, I don't agree. I think that what they were referring to - and I haven't looked at the quotes. But I think that they were concerned about whether or not this was actually affordable. If you're saying to people, you've got to get health insurance but they can't actually afford it and they have to pay a penalty if they don't get it, then that's a pretty big burden on middle class families. That's a concern I share — making sure that this is affordable.

Well I don't know what they said, but I'll tell you what they meant. And they meant that I'm right. They always do. It's the only reasonable position to take.

But the first thing we've got to understand is you've got what is effectively a tax increase taking place on American families right now. The Kaiser Family Foundation report just came out last week. Health care premiums went up 5.5 percent last year, at a time when the rest of the economy, inflation was actually negative. So that is a huge bite out of people's pockets.

So let me get this straight ... being compelled by the government to pay money out to a program used to benefit others is not a tax increase, but rising health care premiums to private insurance companies is a tax increase?

And part of what I've been trying to say throughout this campaign - this effort to get health care done — is that if we don't do anything, guaranteed, Americans' costs are going to go up, more people are going to lose health care coverage, the insurance companies are going to continue to prevent people from getting it for pre-existing conditions. Those are all burdens on people who have health insurance right now. And...

STEPHANOPOULOS: That is true, but...

OBAMA: And so -- and so -- just -- just to close the loop on this, the principles I've put forward very clearly, when I spoke to the joint session of Congress, is that we're going to make sure that, number one, if you don't have health insurance, you're going to be able to get affordable health insurance.

Newsflash, Barack. You don't put forward anything very clearly.

Number two, if you have health insurance, we're going to have insurance reforms that give you more security -- you know what you're going to get. You know that if you're paying your premiums, you're actually going to have coverage when you get sick.

Number three, it's going to be deficit neutral -- it's not going to add a dime to the deficit, now or in the future.

You lie!

Number four, it's going to start driving down our costs over the long-term.

Dreamer.... you're nothing but a dreamer ... oh can you put your head in your hands, oh no!

Now, 80 percent of what I'd like to see is actually already in all the various bills that are in Congress. That last 20 percent is tough because we've got to figure out -- making sure that we're paying for it properly, making sure that it really is relief to families who don't have health insurance, making sure that all the various details that are out there line up. And that's going to take some time.

But I think that the effort by the Senate Finance Committee is a serious, strong effort to move an agenda forward. We've seen some positive signs from people who might have been otherwise a little bit shaky on health care, including Republican Olympia Snowe, I think, had some nice things to.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hasn't signed on yet, though.

OBAMA: Hasn't signed on, but has said that this is a legitimate effort to try to solve the problem. What I want to see is that we just keep on working on it over the next several weeks.

STEPHANOPOULOS: How about a matter of first principles, though. You mentioned these premium increases.


STEPHANOPOULOS: But they're not happening as a result of a decision by the government.

OBAMA: Right.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You were against the individual mandate...


STEPHANOPOULOS: ...during the campaign. Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don't. How is that not a tax?

OBAMA: Well, hold on a second, George. Here -- here's what's happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average -- our families -- in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I've said is that if you can't afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn't be punished for that. That's just piling on.

If, on the other hand, we're giving tax credits, we've set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we've driven down the costs, we've done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you've just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that's...

STEPHANOPOULOS: That may be, but it's still a tax increase.

OBAMA: No. That's not true, George. The -- for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase.

People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I'm not covering all the costs.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But it may be fair, it may be good public policy...

OBAMA: No, but -- but, George, you -- you can't just make up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase. Any...

But Obama can make up language and talk in sweeping, diversional arcs and apparently conclude that the government forcing people to pay money is not a tax.


OBAMA: What -- what -- if I -- if I say that right now your premiums are going to be going up by 5 or 8 or 10 percent next year and you say well, that's not a tax increase; but, on the other hand, if I say that I don't want to have to pay for you not carrying coverage even after I give you tax credits that make it affordable, then...

STEPHANOPOULOS: I -- I don't think I'm making it up. Merriam Webster's Dictionary: Tax -- "a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes."

OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam's Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you're stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn't have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition. I mean what...

What? You tell George he's "making up" a definition, he looks it up to show you that he isn't, reads you the definition, and it indicates that he's the one stretching? That statement indicates to me that Obama may be the biggest flim-flam artist ... maybe ever.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, no, but...

OBAMA: ...what you're saying is...

STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.

OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I'm taking over every sector of the economy. You know that.

That's what they're saying. And he's not denying it, either. "I'm not gonna lie to you. My critcs are saying that."

Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we're going to have an individual mandate or not, but...

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it's a tax increase?

OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.

See, what we mean to happen is what's going to happen, this we know, because we're the experts. So let's not get hung up on the so called "meaning" of "words". Oh, look I just farted another Unicorn. And the people at Fox can't see Unicorns because they don't believe in them. And they hate children and eat kittens. Hey, I'm on Letterman tonight.

Thursday, September 17, 2009

The Thing We're All Tired Of

Now... before somebody plays The Race Card on my Race Card because of the suit I chose, let me just say that the suit I chose I chose because The Ace of Spades is generally considered the trump card of all trump cards. It trumps all in the card game Spades, for sure ... and yes, I could have chosen the game Hearts and used an ace of Hearts, but somehow hearts are a bit to flowery for what someone is doing when they're playing The Race Card. Somehow, Valentines just doesn't get the picture across. Same with diamonds. I suppose I could have used clubs, but now we're really overthinking this and we're pissed off that we have to because of the fear of The Race Card. Besides, there's no song called "The Ace of Clubs", and when you talk "Diamonds" or "Hearts", it's always the Queen, not the Ace. And we wanted the Ace. And the Ace of Spades is also a special looking card, because it's the only one that gets that fancy symbol so big in the middle of it, making it look unmistakable, and The Race Card is indeed unmistakable. Spades are blunt instruments, where as hearts and diamonds really aren't, and though a club is also a blunt instrument, the spade wins here because, well we already talked about the songs and the lack thereof when it comes to clubs and that really cool lookin' thingy they call a "Spade".

I regret that the word has also been used as a derogatory term for people of a particular race, but may I point out that I, for one, have never used it in that context and that is certainly not the first thing that pops into my mind when the word "spade" comes up. Actually, it's the shovel I think of first, and then that symbol, neither of which has anything to do with race. Plus that really cool thingy on the cards has been on the cards, I think, since long before the term was used in a derogatory way toward that race, and I refuse to drop things from my culture just because some people bastardized and abused it for these purposes. On top of that, this card gets used on behalf of races other than that particular race -- it's really got nothing to do with it. Really.

On top of that since I am a conservative and I've been to two tea parties myself and am a 912 project member, and I actually listen to Glenn Beck (unlike the vast majority of his critics, if not all of them) no matter what I do or say I'm already labeled a racist and frankly, it's gotten to the point where that insult makes me yawn. That boy has cried wolf waaaaaaaaaay too many times, and I'm tired of the dance ... even though I just did it again, but this time with a hint of irritation (I hope you picked up on that) in my voice.

So here it is, the Race of Spades.

Ok, see there I was doing something I often do. I like to play with words (this time, ''Ace" and "RAce Card") and once again I wasn't thinking about how blatantly that could be taken in a way that didn't cross my mind until after I hit "publish" ... so I hereby under protest censor myself ... and having to do so I think only further underscores my point.

See you could also go back and say that when I said "boy who cried wolf" that I was using "boy" for the same purpose Maureen Dowd inserted it into Joe Wilson's "You Lie" ... instead of the long understood cultural (my culture, again) meaning of "the boy who cried wolf".

No, it was just a boy. And I believe he was white in the Euro-centric illustrations. Not that it mattered.

Jon Stewart - Balance?

I must admit, I've never been a fan although I will admit that at times he's been pretty funny. When he was on the Bush Bashing Bandwagon (see, that's called alliteration. I took journalism in high school. Ain't I smart?) Anyway, he really turned me off and had me thinking he's in the tank, left-wing all the way. I did know there was evidence to the contrary, though, that he actually does go after both sides -- and here's some.

So let's give credit where credit is due, actually ... twice. One in this bit that Morgan posted ...

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Audacity of Hos
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political HumorHealthcare Protests

And this one, which played right after it:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Arizona State Capitol Building for Sale
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political HumorHealthcare Protests

I love it...

"You've got $735 million for this year. What happens next year, when you ... don't have that, and you gotta pay rent?"

See, that's always the problem, but you know, we've gotta get through this year."

"Ok, but next year. You gotta pay rent."


"Isn't that adding to your deficit?"

"Yes. But, it will have helped us bridge the gap for this year."

"Ok. Like I say, again, next year. What are you gonna do?"

[crickets chirping]

"Ohhhhh...... my goodness. You're killin' me here."

New Banner Quote

I liked my old banner quote, but it didn't really connect well with the blog.

I heard a quote today that pegs it, what I'm doing. What this is about, personally.

And here it is:

“I prefer to be true to myself, even at the hazard of incurring the ridicule of others, rather than to be false, and to incur my own abhorrence.” - Frederick Douglas

Cost Estimates of Government Programs

When medicare was proposed, it was estimated that by 1990 it would cost 12 billion dollars a year.

When 1990 came around, it came in at 107 billion dollars a year.

So what if they cut 200 billion from this health care bill and get it down to 800 billion. Anyone care for a bill for 7.2 trillion? Any takers?

In 1900, the Federal government consumed less than 5% of the GDP.

Today, it's over 28%.

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Daniel Hannan

Saw this Brit European Parliament member this morning on the news talking about Jimmy Carter's, Maureen Dowd's, and all of Left America's "Wilson's a Racist" charge this morning, and I liked what I heard. This guy seems like a reasonable, fair and balanced guy. Decided to look him up.

I found that he has a blog on the London Telegraph site, and I found this strongly worded video that frankly makes me wish he were American and representing my district. (Incidentally, he's giving British Prime Minister Gordon Brown a serious tounge lashing).

Tuesday, September 15, 2009


I just love this one.

From a very funny website, like a conservative version of The Onion ... People's Cube.

The Fourth ACORN Tape

San Bernadino.

Oh my. "We say we're non-partisan". Not, "we are non-partisan."

Still listening.


Ok, same basic premise. Politician/pimp. Prostitute girlfriend, running from a mean old pimp, trying to get started with a house in San Bernadio... 15 12 to 15 year old girls coming in from El Salvador to work as prostitutes....

This lady says that she's not your typical ACORN employee (although ... after the other three tapes and all of the voter registration fraud ... one has to wonder) and her supervisor would shoot it down, but on the other hand she's not sure her supervisor doesn't "do this on the side".

And then go on to tell about how she shot and killed her husband after laying the groundwork to make sure her defense of abuse would be backed up....

Now ... you know... I don't mind a woman killing an abusive husband in self defense if she can't get away from him safely. But listening to this woman, her story ... with the "laying the groundwork" comment and how matter of fact and proud she seemed of it all ... ya gotta wonder. If she truly feared for her life, I'll back her on it. The story she told sounded more like she provoked him into the final fight where she shot him ... after "laying the groundwork". Hmmmm.

She also names Politicians ACORN is working with to .... lobby for health care. You know, a non-partisan housing "Community Organizer" group.

How Many People in the D.C. Tea Party Protest?

It appears that the Park Service no longer does crowd estimates, but it made an exception for the Obama inauguration. The Capitol Police used to, but don't anymore, either -- at least not officially.

It appears that if someone got an estimate from "the" Capitol police, it is more likely that they got an un-official off-the-cuff estimate from "a" Capitol police person. More likely, the people making the estimate were basing it on the Park Service's estimation of the crowd at the Obama Inauguration.

The argument on Malkin's blog and the comparative photos combined with the USA Today's explanation of how the crowd was estimated at the Obama inauguration -- it is clear that one million is a reasonable estimate for this crowd.

Update: These guys are thinking like me, only they're a bit more rigorous and explain some of their rigor-osity ;-) . They basically agree with me.

Nother update:
These people also published their methodology to follow. Certainly at the extreme lower end, there were at the very, very least 500,000 people there at the time the photo in question was taken. But they don't know if it was taken at the height of the crowd or how many people were on sidestreets. This one seems to show a possible max using the time-lapse analysis, adjusted way down for possible margin of error, to 1.2 million -- again close to the number I think is probably closest to reality. Something on the order of a million people.

Update, the Third:
Another estimate, alluded to by Glenn Beck on 9/16, that I hunted down. This is also one that actually defends itself and lets us know how they arrived at their numbers. I respect these the most. This one estimates 1.7 million -- which I could believe.

Update, the fourth (9/23): This guy found me and linked his analysis, coming up with a significantly smaller number at 135,000. He certainly put a lot of effort into it, and as such it qualifies as an estimate to link whether you buy it or not. I talk about my take on it here.

Things not to believe: Anyone who says there is an official park service, DC Police, or fire-department estimate. There are estimates BASED ON previous estimates from the park service and/or police, however. My guess is that people misread and are incorrectly attributing the estimate directly to official services -- none of which has been or will be done.

There is also a picture from the Promisemakers march in 1997 that was first circulated as a picture from this event and that opponents are using to "debunk" the high counts. A bogus picture does not debunk all the valid pictures or especially the traffic cam time lapse. It may have been circulated by the opposition for this very purpose -- like the tactic of inflating estimates preceeding the march so that actual counts will fall short and they can call it a failure. I'm not saying that's what happened here, but it is certainly plausible and would be Aninskyesque. (Of course, I've also read some of the "debunkers" claim it is from the Obama inaguration -- which clearly it isn't since the trees are fully leafed out ... and they wouldn't be on Jan 20).

Clearly, if there were 1,000,000 people at the Obama inauguration, there were certainly that many last Saturday.

So somewhere between 1 million and 2 million, with decent arguments for 1.2 and 1.7 million. When somebody says "10's of thousands" they should be asked to back it up with something, anything. There were no "official" estimates, so where did theirs come from? That is a fair question.

Technically, I suppose, it was 10's of thousands. About 100 10 Thousands.

Even if it were as few as 500,000 ... that's still 5 times more people than my wildest dreams, and 50 times more than what I've read is typically considered a "success".

For the inauguration, DC Mayor Fenty estimated 1.8 million, but that was based on more than what was seen on the mall. This included estimates of side streets and the parade route as well.

The Washington Post had used an arial photograph for it's inauguration estimate and estimated about a million on the mall, and apparently an Arizona State journalism professor revised that down to about 800,000.

Either way, it is quite clear that the number of people there Saturday is easily comparable. There were a ton of people there, and "tens of thousands" doesn't begin to cover it.

It was way more than just significant, and I believe we have been heard.

What they do about it will be interesting to watch.

Monday, September 14, 2009

Rotten Acorn

This one may have to become a sidebar as well.

Rotten Acorn dot Com

Joe Wilson and Congressional Ettiquette

Huh. I'm still in favor of a brief, sincere apology, but I didn't know about this.

Did you know that every Dem in the senate once booed George W. Bush during an address in 2004, and hissed and said "No" during another in 2005?

Gotta wonder if this has been brought up in the MSM at all.

I was taken aback by this bit in the article, though, as Glenn Thrush muses:
So why the outcry over Wilson?

I think it's because Congressional Republicans have used the health care debate to vent a deeper, uglier contempt for Obama that verges on the personal.

They've done little to discourage the party's fringes from questioning Obama's legitimacy to serve through the birther movement, fitness to govern through the death panel canard -- and even the territorial integrity of the US under a Democratic president through Texas Gov. Rick Perry's flirtation with secession.

Is he seriously suggesting that there wasn't plenty of ugly personal contempt for GW Bush from the Democrats? Really? Does he think we have the attention span of gnats? People on that side of the aisle are so prepared to interpret any opposition or challenge to the man as "personal" (read, "racist").

I can see where one might consider the question of legitimacy to serve might be considered personal, although it wouldn't be considered personal if not for his race. After all, we do have that natural born citizen law for a reason and if we can't verify without raising the spectre of racism, what good is the law?

Other than that, how is any of the rest of that personal? Can we not disagree with this man at all without being dismissed as racists? Death Panel "Canard"? Has this argument not been made intelligently many times whether you agree with it or not? And how is succession "personal"?

This morning Juan Williams, being interviewed on Fox stated without blinking that no one questioned the legitimacy of Bush's presidency. Seriously? I mean, I know they think I'm an ingorant, back woods, racist, idiot. But seriously???

At least a million people marched against the government's massively accelerated power grab under Obama. It's not Obama. It's the power grab.

Dr. Tiller vs Jim Poullion

Factiva search, press coverage:
Stories in the press about Jim Poullian's murder: 19
Stories in the press about Dr. Tiller's murder: 643
But there's no bias in the press.

Obviously, according to the press ... Dr. Tiller's murder is the fault of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Rielly ... these right wing "gun nutters" who worship the sky fairy.

And Jim Poullian's murder? One crazy guy who showed up with a gun. Anybody in the Leftist media have anything to do with that? Wow, that ceiling has cobwebs. Do you think that picture would look better over there? My, look at the time.

Anyone? Keith? Janeane? Rachel?

Ah, I see how this works.

Crowd Estimate from Park Service Reported in England

Do we to go overseas to get reports of honest crowd estimates, outside of Fox & the Blogs?

Update: (9/16) It appears that the Park Service no longer does crowd estimates, but it made an exception for the Obama inauguration.

The Capitol Police used to, but don't anymore, either -- at least not officially.

More in this new post.

And another analysis here.

But Where Were These People When Bush Was Spending?

I'm reproducing this comment I left on The Rott's blog, mostly because I think people who know the answer but are fumbling for words might benefit from this, and because it's really burried at comment #52 in a thread that grows older by the minute. Not that a lot of people drop by here. But some people do. Web searches brings half of them. (photo from El Marco) And I keep hearing this question:

I do know quite a few American liberals who ask, fairly, why the Tea-Parties are such a recent phenomenon, given that G.W. Bush did absolutely nothing whatsoever to control the deficit for 8 long years.

Personally, I think it’s just a partisan thing. The deficit could grow and grow exponentially but, if a Republican of any race won in 2012, the Tea-Parties would stop overnight.
Well let me answer that, fairly.

Many of them were right here, saying the same thing. Most of us supported Bush because of his stance on Radical Islam. A lot of us muttered [right here on these pages] about many things Bush did. But with the incredible unfair vitriol that was leveled at him, many of us defended him strongly where we agreed with him. Pardon the pun, but people have black AND white — you don’t agree with everything anyone else does.

If you actually go to one of these things (and I’ve been to two and seen footage of many more), Bush’s spending is condemned. It is not blamed on one party. It is blamed on both, and efforts by partisans to use these for their personal political benefit are rebuffed. The speakers and the people there will tell you — it is not Democrats or Republicans, it is BOTH of them and has been for a long time. We are fed up with government size and spending. We’ve been pushed over the edge.

Now let’s put it this way. Most of us here were AGAINST the Economic Stimulus package and the bank bailout under Bush, and, might I add, a Democratically controlled congress. And we said so. Now imagine this. Suppose you let your kid use your credit card when he went off to college, and you didn’t complain much here or there when he spent on some frivolous items because he was studying hard and getting good grades. You mentioned it a few times, but you weren’t going to have to take out a second mortgage on your house yet.

What if, at the change of a semester he suddenly tripled the amount he was spending and vocally made plans to max the thing out on stuff he’s wanted forever but you wouldn’t buy for him before — to where you were not only going to have to re-mortgage your house, but his future house too to pay for it?

You’d drive right up to the school, snatch the card from his hands, and cut it in a million pieces, give him a good chewing out, and cancel the credit card just to make sure he didn’t try using the numbers he’d memorized.

And that, my friend, is the answer to that question.

Let me add to that ... that much of Bush's spending was on the war, which is spending with a time horizon. This administration's vastly more monstrous spending is largely on social programs, which never end.

Fourth ACORN Tape

Beck says there's a fourth tape being released tomorrow.

Update: 4th tape.

More on the Joe Wilson Shindig

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now friends, what is racism?

racism /ray-sizm/ n.

  1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
  2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
But they can't say that. So they make up this "subtext" thing and pawn it off on that.

ACORN - Third Tape

There is a third tape. This one in New York. And perhaps more. I can't find a link right now, but I'm sure there will be one. I'll update later. Meantime, check out Breitbart's BigGovernment.Com. Update from brother jeffmon: New York, New York.

Perhaps they should change their name to MULCH.

You know all this "Bush stole the election" crap ... it's definitely projection. They know they've been involved in voter fraud as well as other corruption for years, and it really pissed them off that they still lost elections. So they assumed, or at least accused, the other side of doing what they were doing as they painted fake halos over their devil horns.

I would not be surprised to find out that indeed this last presidential election is the one that was "stolen". Not saying it was. But I would not be surprised.

These tapes are strong evidence that honesty is not a priority with these people. They will say or do anything they think they can get away with to advance their goals. Anything.

Sunday, September 13, 2009

912 March on Washington

You have got to go check out the pictures and discussion at Malkin's place (ht to Morgan)

There were a LOT of people there.

Glenn was saying the estimate he had gotten at around noon Saturday was around 60,000. He thought there were more, but stuck with the estimate.

I'm beggining to think there were a LOT more. Still looking for other estimates.

Update: Looks like Park Police estimate is about 1.2 million. Wow.

From Larry, who went with me:

On the first photo on Michelle's post, do you see the tower in the middle? That's the tower that surmounts the Old Post Office Building, which is where the NEH is housed. I used to walk along Pennsylvania Avenue to get to work. The crowd in that picture is HUGE. Funny that some leftist bloggers criticized the photo on grounds of the flags at half mast. The flags are still at half mast in honor of the victims of 9-11. On basis of the streaming video and other photos, I'd feel comfortable estimating the marchers at 800,000-one million. Some bloggers are pointing out that when the march was over, there was almost no litter on the streets or National Mall, a sharp contrast to Inauguration Day, which left tons of refuse on the streets. It figures.

Re: the bit about the trash. Knowing what I know about the contrast in the mindsets of the two cultures clashing here, I believe it.

Saturday, September 12, 2009

Jefferson City 9/12 Event

Sadly, this thing was slapped together with only two weeks to spare. I can't complain ... I didn't do any slapping of my own, and many thanks to those who did something where I did little. I thank the organizers for organizing. Thanks to Diane and Phil for all they did.

I seriously considered going to DC. I could have. I could have spent the money and it would have hurt, and I'm not sure I shouldn't have anyway. But I do have a job, and my wife had been gone for several days, and we had a chance to babysit my grandson (which I took three hours out from to go to this thankyouverymuch) and ... I know. I would have liked to be one more head in the headcount at DC. Excuses.

But I wasn't. I had to do SOMETHING. So Larry and I drove down to the Jefferson City, MO event... I would guess at least 200 people, probably no more than 300 people, showed up on the south lawn of the Missouri Capitol on a pretty evening, where we had respectfully and thankfully defer to National Guard Graduation Ceremonies in the afternoon AND compete with a Missouri football game....

It was pretty nice anyway. Like the Columbia event last spring, the people there were polite, sincere, regular Americans who know something's terribly wrong with the way the country is being run, and it ain't because there aren't enough social programs, laws, and taxes.

If you think this movement isn't grass roots, you believe it because you've been instructed to and you want to believe it. This is real grass roots. Nobody's being paid to be there. ACORN knows it. It embarrasses them. And all the other tax or Soros funded psuedo "grass roots movments". This is regular folks, plain and simple.

We had everyone there from History professors, to IT workers, to a guy who runs a small computer business who is running for office in SE Missouri. Lots of women and kids. A teacher. Retired vets. Disenfranchised Christians. Recovering Progressives. It ran the gammit.

There were a few of the "Ludens Cough Drops" crowd there. But as my friend Larry said, it goes to show that Conservatism has a pretty big tent. The principles are consistent if some of the fringe beliefs wander. Belief in the liberty and sanctity of the individual and his capacity and personal -- not public -- duty to his fellow man reigned supreme.

This lady, though ... the one with the "Stop Wasting Our Money" sign ... I really identified with. She stood and listened and occasionally applauded like we did for about an hour and a half and then left, apparently by herself. I thank her for showing up. I could easily imagine like me, she was fed up and just had to do something.

Just hold up a sign that says "stop". .... "stop" .... "stopppppp" ...

I talked to several people, who, like me, really wanted to go to DC and add a head to the head count. For whatever reasons, we couldn't. Usually having to do with employment and family obligations. So the rest of us came here.

Larry made a donation to a grassroots organization and collected a copy of "The 5000 Year Leap" ... a book I have bought but haven't yet started.

I intend to start it soon.

Sorry about the bad panoramic stitching. I left my wide angle lens at home and stitched this from three shots at a bad angle. The three shots were taken within 5 seconds. Best I could do with what I had.

Friday, September 11, 2009

The Divide, in a Nutshell

Just finishing up Thomas Sowell's "The Vision of the Anointed" ... and I ran across this:
The habit of looking at policy issues in terms of the goals they proclaim and the values they represent, not to mention the unconstrained options they assume, leads in a wholly different direction from an analysis of the incentives being created, within the constraints that exist, and the probable outcome of such incentives and constraints.
Does that not get directly at the heart of the divide between Progressives and modern-day Conservatives?

If I am against a health care bill Progressives propose "to provide access to basic health care for all", then I simply "don't care about people". If the bill doesn't say that elderly or terminally ill patients access to certain procedures that may lengthen their lives must be reviewed by bureaucrats, then Sarah Palin is an idiot for saying that that is precisely what would happen, or she's "lying".

In fact, she has gone the route of the latter portion of the above Sowell excerpt. She has looked at the available evidence, at the history of socialized medicine in other countries, at the writings and words of the policy makers advising the president, and at the laws of economics and drawing a conclusion based on the available information.

They speak as if the legislation itself is a magic wand, not realizing they are Mickey Mouse in The Sorcerer's Apprentice. As if the intended outcome is all that matters, and they are convinced they can keep everything under control.

Thus their side ends up arguing over what the intent of the bill is (and in my opinion many are being coy about the entire intent, but that aside ...) and the actual wording of this particular piece of legislation (obfuscated by the fact that there is more than one piece of legislation and none have been "finalized") -- and to what end the philosophy that is shaping this legislation -- as evidenced both by what those driving it have in the past said their intentions were, much of the vagueness in the legislation, and some of the specifics in the legislation itself -- will likely lead.

As my dad used to say when we said "but I didn't mean to ..." he would reply "well you didn't mean not to". In matters of grave consequence, those are words to consider.
Once we drop the assumption of a wonderful specialness of [Progressives] -- which is to say once we acknowledge " a decent respect for the opinion of mankind" as the Declaration of independence put it -- the whole picture changes. In social life, the more fundamental a truth is, the more likely it is to have been discovered long ago -- and to have been repeated in a thousand ways to the point of utter boredom.
Which is to say, as I have in the past, that the conservative worldview is not sexy, and doesn't sell well. It must be painstakingly taught as we civilize each generation of children into the next generation of civilization.

When they run into the flashy feel-good trinkets of the Progressive worldview, the easy path to a feeling of self worth, of self importance, they follow the dark side of the force and are consumed by it like a junkie on opium, constantly looking for their next hit of psuedo superiority.

Easy that path is and rewarding it feels. But take it you must not.

Glenn Beck - Smarter Than the Average Bear

Ok, I have to admit I didn't see this coming.

Nother Update: The strategy is actually Breitbart's.

Yesterday, Andrew Breitbart & Glenn Beck coordinated the debut of James O'Keefe's hidden camera expose of the corruption at an ACORN office in Baltimore. What they basically did was go in to get help disguising his girlfriend's (posing as a prostitute) income so that they could file taxes and show legitimate income so they could buy a house... and got further advice about how claiming underage illegal alien prostitutes as dependents would help them on their taxes.

So they release this "bomb" on the air, and my first reaction was that ACORN would claim it was an isolated, non-typical event by a couple of rogue officers... who would be fired and that would be that.

Outside of Fox, the mainstream media didn't touch the story, which Glenn expected. It fits a well known pattern.

What I predicted and what I now pretty much know Beck & Breitbart expected happened. The two women at the Baltimore office were fired. Rougue workers. Nothing to see here. We took care of it. Move along.

What I didn't know, and Beck & Breitbart didn't let on, was that they were holding on to a second video tape, basically the same scenario -- in a Washington DC ACORN office. Which they released today, after ACORN did it's little bullett dodge.

This is a game of journalistic chess. Glenn may be over-dramatic at times, but he's apparently way, WAY smarter than people give him credit for. This is a brilliant move both against ACORN and the Mainstream media. To ACORN, it's "Oh really? Then what about this?"

And to the rest of the media, it's "ok, are you going to ignore this one, too?"

If they have a third tape .... oh man. Update: There is.

Incidentally .... this tactic seems to be working: Did you see Crowder Undercover?

Wednesday, September 09, 2009

If you want to know what my policies are

just look at the people I surround myself with ... paraphrasing Barack Obama on the Campaign trail.

How about this Obama appointee who Harry Reid wants to get approved today as a Regulatory Advisor, Czar, or whatever, who has said, among many other things....

In what sense is the money in our pockets and bank accounts fully ‘ours’? Did we earn it by our own autonomous efforts? Could we have inherited it without the assistance of probate courts? Do we save it without the support of bank regulators? Could we spend it if there were no public officials to coordinate the efforts and pool the resources of the community in which we live?... Without taxes there would be no liberty. Without taxes there would be no property. Without taxes, few of us would have any assets worth defending. [It is] a dim fiction that some people enjoy and exercise their rights without placing any burden whatsoever on the public fisc. … There is no liberty without dependency. - Cass Sunstein

Tuesday, September 08, 2009

Perspective from Sowell

What Obama Says vs. What He Does
Consider the "stimulus" legislation. Here the administration was successful in rushing a massive spending bill through Congress in just two days-- after which it sat on the President's desk for three days, while he was away on vacation. But, like the medical care legislation, the "stimulus" legislation takes effect slowly.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that it will be September 2010 before even three-quarters of the money will be spent. Some economists expect that it will not all be spent by the end of 2010.

What was the rush to pass it, then? It was not to get that money out into the economy as fast as possible. It was to get that money-- and the power that goes with it-- into the hands of the government. Power is what politics is all about.

Monday, September 07, 2009

In an Alternate Universe ...

... where Van Jones was a conservative who had done similar things, Glenn Beck would win a Pulitzer.

Instead, as Glenn predicted, they will be coming after him, personally.

With baseball bats aimed at his head.

Sunday, September 06, 2009

Time to Whip out the Clue Bat

After watching this lady, who (as Morgan said) nailed it, a youtube link to this woman came up, and I watched it.

She asks if the congressman really thought that a public option was the only way we can "keep these insurance companies honest".

The congressman answers
I think first of all we have to end the monopoly that the insurance companies have ... in our country.
Stop right there. I hear this all the time. But look ... insurance companies is plural. It's plural to the tune of 1,300 companies. How, I ask, does that qualify as a "monopoly"? Mono -- one. 1,300. "Why do you keep using that word? I do not think it means what you think it means." So that's a straw man. One that people evidently buy, though.
I want doctors, nurses, and patients making medical decisions, not insurance companies.
Ok, nice thought. That sounds great. Hold that thought.
Insurance companies attempt to ration care every day if you will, by denying claims people otherwise should be covered for.
Well ... first of all, technically, no. They are denying payment for certain medical procedures. If you can come up with the money, or if you have enough family and friends to take up a collection to help you pay for it ... you can go get it done. And whether or not that procedure should be paid for is subjective and probably based on the contract you have with your insurance company. And governments, when they get involved in health insurance and health care, tend to forbid you from paying for health care yourself. It makes them look bad, and ultimately, these people are really about deciding what's "fair". To them, it's not "fair" that you have more money.
We're gonna change that system, and we're gonna, by creating this health insurance exchange, we're gonna give consumers much more power and choice in choosing their health care plans, and again, providing transparency and competition in the process, taking away that monopoly power from insurance companies.
There's that word again.

How is that going to work?

How about this? Repeal the laws that don't allow people to buy insurance across state lines so that these insurance 1,300 companies actually have to compete with each other. I heard a lady from California say she has a choice of 6 insurance companies due to laws restricting competition.

A "public option" merely adds a government, "Post Office" version of a health insurance company, and it involves government in something it should not be involved in. As I've said before, it is an inherent conflict of interest when a competitor makes and enforces the rules. And in the end, just like a private insurance company, the Government Option will have to decide which claims to pay and which ones not to. Let me repeat that. Government. Making. Decisions. How's that Cash for Clunkers money comin' out? Good damned thing that's not heart surgery they're waiting on.

If a private insurance company behaves unfairly and it has to compete with other insurance companies, people will stop using that insurance company. It has something to lose. Government has nothing to lose. To "fix" problems it will simply demand more and more taxpayer money, while politicians add layer upon layer of tangled laws so that they can say they're "doing something". And all an insurance exchange does is add a government middle man demanding payment for whatever it deems should be provided, driving costs up, not down.

Plus, ultimately, we all know that this is just a foot in the door to moving to a single-payer government health-insurance, health care system that will be a real monopoly. Run by the government.

But then this woman, the one who asked the question in the first place, jumps in and has this bit of "wisdom" ...
The difference between opponents and proponents of health care reform ... we are ... worried about our neighbor. We're worried about the health and the welfare of people around us. And the opponents, are worried about themselves, and about the bottom line. And to me it's been like the most striking difference, and I personally think it's the saddest.
How about this, your smug highness? To me, proponents are all about appearing to be morally superior and beating their chests about what they intend vs the opponents, who realize that despite what you intend, the social cons of going down that path outweigh the pros.

We don't hold a sexy position that'll get us pats on our heads, which is why it's much harder to get people to listen to us and see where we're coming from.

We realize that when you remove financial incentive from the consumer so he is insulated from it, and demand service from the producer, demand for services will go up and one of two things will happen.

Either the price will rise, or services will become scarce. The demand/supply ratio will skyrocket. One of those two things has to happen.

It's happened in Canada. It's happened in Germany. It's happened in England. I'm sure it's happened in Cuba. And it will happen here, too.

I made a new word

muppify /mup'-uh-fye/ : 1) to alter one's voice toward the manner of a muppet, especially, but not limited to, the Kermit the Frog orMiss Piggy direction. Often used to denote a certain smug self-assuredness while ridiculing what is being. adj. muppified n. muppification

John Birch Race Cops

As I was re-reading that last post, it occurred to me that there are far too many people who would read:
He just walks like one and talks like one.
(referring to Mark Lloyd and "communist") and scream RAAAAAAAAACIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

See, it turns out Mark Lloyd happens to be black, and I happen not to be, of course setting up the scenario for a RAAAAAAAAAAACIST charge. All I have to do is refer to a non-white with a charge of being something other than something I consider a good quality in a human, and whomp, there it is!
[muppify]Well of course you're talking about race. "Communism" is just a wing-dinger code word for "black". Besides, we all know what you meant when you said "one". RAAAAAACIST!!![/muppify]

Just like the John Birch Society saw communism under every stone, Progressives see RAAAAAACISM behind anything they don't like. And they'll contort logic in unimaginable ways to get there. And they're proud of that ability. It shows their intalektuwolizum.

This works because we let it work, or because too many people let it work.

Next time it happens to you, try this. The normal response to it is to defend yourself -- that's what they want, to put you on the defensive. Their presumption is "well it's just understood" and you're guilty until proven innocent -- which by their rules you never will. Advantage, them.

So next time, instead of defending yourself against an opponent who has thrown logic out the door before entering the room, insist instead that defend their statement so everyone can hear the twisted "logic". Advantage, you.

This speaks to one of Morgan's Things I Know ... #272 and I think perhaps 248 applies as well. It worked with "Fox News Lies".