Brush With Greatness

Not me, mind you. But my best friend works in Radio.   In Kansas City.   Where Glenn Beck was broadcasting from today.

So he went and got the copy of Arguing with Idiots I got him signed.  Got to shake his hand. 

"Very cordial, soft spoken, very nice."

I'm not surprised.

My buddy's met and had pictures with lots of rock stars.  One who I'm even a big fan of (John Hiatt -- oddly, he doesn't remember that one).  Plus thanks to him I've seen the Rolling Stones, David Lindley, and Jackson Browne.

I know.  Glenn's not a Rock star.  Actually that's kind of a funny mental picture :-D

There are some perks to being in radio.

I've Been Waiting Years For Someone to Say This

Thank you, Ann. Now ... can we get some of our other conservative pundits to grow half the balls Ann Coulter has? Please??????
Hat tip to WhiteHawk (via email).

While engaging in astonishing viciousness, vulgarity and violence toward Republicans, liberals accuse cheerful, law-abiding Tea Party activists of being violent racists.

Responding to these vile charges, conservative television pundits think it's a great comeback to say: "There is the fringe on both sides."

Both sides? Really? How about: "That's a despicable lie"? Did that occur to you simpering morons as a possible reply to the slanderous claim that conservatives are fiery racists?

If I were her editor, I'd have her change "Republicans" to "Conservatives" ... but Ann is both and less inclined to acknowledge the difference than I am.

Nattering

So Obama was on "The View".  Eh.  Ho hum, really.   Do I think it was very "Presidential"?   No.  Do I think it's a big deal?  No. It doesn't bug me if a President does something like this every now and again.  This one seems to like the spotlight, for sure.  But we already knew that.

I have so many much deeper and far more serious with this man being President that I think it's a waste of time to do much beyond maybe mentioning it, and I wouldn't be mentioning it, probably, if I hadn't been so irritated by Laura Ingraham in the car this afternoon.

I mean ... Laura's a smart gal.  But I've never been a fan. I like hearing her interviewed, but her radio show just doesn't interest me.  If I happen to get in the car in the middle of the day that's what's on, but half the time I turn her off.  And it really hit me why today when I heard her going on and on and on and on and on about Obama on the View.  Seriously.  It's not a whole lot better than talking about spoiled young actresses going to jail.

It's the nattering.   Sean Hannity is the same way.   I agree with their points, most of the time, but at some point you either have to let the dead horse just be dead or find a new, relevant angle.

Now part of me gets the Alinskiness of it all ...#9, Never let up.  Keep the pressure on.   Great.  But there's plenty of far worse transgressions than the non-transgression of going on The View.  I'll take a vain president whose worldview is more closely aligned with mine and is basically principled and gets the job done.  I don't care how often he or she preens.  But it does get annoying, I understand, when you can't stand the person doing the preening.

So.... enough nattering.   I don't care about Michelle's shoulders.  I don't care that she's going to France.   I don't care that Obama's spending his 49th birthday home alone while she goes to France.   Big, Fat. Hairy.  Deal.   Can we talk about the Fundamental Transformation of America, and the President's world view and his administration's strategies and actions and what it all means -- and how it is at odds with the idea that is America?

Sowell on the Constitution and the Supreme Court

RTWT here.

There is no point arguing, as many people do, that it is difficult to amend the Constitution. The fact that it doesn't happen very often doesn't mean that it is difficult. The people may not want it to happen, even if the intelligentsia are itching to change it.

When the people wanted it to happen, the Constitution was amended 4 times in 8 years, from 1913 through 1920.

What all this means is that judges and the voting public have different roles. There is no reason why judges should "consider the basic values that underlie a constitutional provision and their contemporary significance," as Justice Stephen Breyer said in his dissent against the Supreme Court's gun control decision.

But, as the great Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said, his job was "to see that the game is played according to the rules whether I like them or not."

If the public doesn't like the rules, or the consequences to which the rules lead, then the public can change the rules via the ballot box. But that is very different from judges changing the rules by verbal sleight of hand, or by talking about "weighing of the constitutional right to bear arms" against other considerations, as Justice Breyer puts it. That's not his job. Not if "we the people" are to govern ourselves, as the Constitution says.

Moderation Seems to Be the Key

That's it.  I've turned moderation back on for all posts.  I'm tired of dealing the Chinese spam.  Sorry for the inconvenience.

Sowell is THE MAN!!!!

Dudes, the guy's one of my biggest heroes.  I go to him because he gets it in a way few do, and he's brilliant with the words to describe it.

I get it, but I often lack the verbal clarity.   He has had more ... what's the word?  Oh yeah.  Experience.  ( <--- seriously, go read it.  It's relevant.)

But wait.  He's a black man, and I'm a Tea Partier.  Ergo, I'm clearly a racist (just ask the NAACP or anybody to the Left of John McCain), so it would be impossible for me to look up to a black man -- what's up with that?

Had a conversation with a woman at work today.   Apparently she forgot my answer the first time she asked several months ago, but she asked "why is there a picture of Sarah Palin on your wall?"   Another good friend and female co-worker (who knows me all too well) said "because she's hot."

I said well, she is that, but that's not why.  (Ok it's part of the reason why, I won't lie.)  But not the main reason.

I'm a supporter, I told her.  She (the one who asked the question) couldn't believe it.  I have a piece of art on my wall that she created and gave me years earlier.  It's a bit of photo art of a Kamakura Buddha.  Yeah.  Me.  I like the Grateful Dead and Eastern Philosophy.  And Buddhas.  Especially that one.

Neither woman was a supporter of Palin.  The friend who knows me well (who is also fairly conservative -- and also not really in to politics) related that she was all about McCain until he picked Palin.  And the one who asked the question says she's not into politics at all and she never voted before she got married ... but now she does ... get this ... to cancel her husband's vote.

She said "I won't send you my cartoon of her then.   You wouldn't appreciate it."   Then she described it to me.  It said something about we didn't go through X number of years of women's suffrage to put Sarah Palin in the White House.

I said "I don't get it, anyway.   Is it because if she doesn't agree with you then she's not a real woman?"  She looked puzzled for  a second and replied "Let me think of another way to put it." and fumbled around for a few seconds.

I said "You can't, because that's exactly what they meant."

What it really, of course, boils down to is that she doesn't believe in abortion as birth control, she doesn't sound like most people they know, and she's way too pretty -- and she's everything women's suffrage was really about (she was the Governor of a State for crying out loud!) and that pisses them off.   She's supposed to be agnostic but maybe (for now) give appropriate bows to Christianity to be culturally significant, demand a woman's right to kill her baby at any point during a pregnancy, think that being a wife and a mother is somehow a form of slavery ... oh, and she's supposed to look like Helen Thomas.   What she is is educated, independent, successful, and apparently embraces femininity and has some moral values conflict with their worldview.  It's the last two that kill them, for all their talk of "diversity".

And what does all this have to do with Thomas Sowell?  Well of course conservative blacks like Thomas Sowell are also, according to the Left -- not "real" black people.  Which is of course extremely racist.  Who says people of one race have to think a certain way except for people who believe that race determines what conclusions an intellect will settle on?

The same people that think gender determines what conclusions an intellect will settle on, that's who.

The same people who really want everyone to think the same way, and that is the way they think.  The same people who believe that the proper way to run a society is to put "experts" (defined in the end as "those who agree with me philosophically") in charge of telling us all what we will do, how much we will get paid for it, what we can eat, and how much to work for our neighbors.   It's a top down state religion, which is why they can't have competing religious ideas floating around out there, especially ones that teach individual responsibility and individual redemption (they do go hand in hand).

Right now Christianity is the target because it's the widest spread here.  But all religions are competitors to the religion of state, and they'll be targeted one by one until they're small enough to take down two by two, and three by three until there is only the State.

Look at me.  Look at the State. Now back to me. I am on a horse.  Watching 1984.

Oh-oh, Morgan. I may have acted in haste.

But I'm only following the Obama Administration's lead, and after all, they like to lead, don't they?

I'm referring to an earlier post where I gave Morgan Freeberg the Quote of the Week award before the week was over.

And here I find on one of my new favorite blogs (one that I was steered to by Morgan himself several months ago) .... a valiant contender on Dyspepsia Generation.  And it is this:

Those whose goal is to increase the scope of government cannot be trusted to do anything other than increase the scope of government.

I know it is obvious, but sometimes the obvious needs to be stated.  You know, forest for the trees and all.

It's so beautifully blunt.

I may at least have to call it a tie.

(also in the spirit of modern times.  "Everyone's a winner!!!!"   Well, these two are anyway.)

Anthem

This type of pop isn't typically my gig, but half of that is because it's usually fluff I can't identify with.   And I don't watch American Idol, so I had no idea who this woman was.  But she's a married, mother of three former contestant on the show, and she and her husband are Tea Partiers, I would say.  They wrote this song in about 5 minutes last fall after hearing one too many disdainful dismissals of the Tea Party movement by our politicians and talking heads.  I think in the interview I read it was something Pelosi said that was the last straw.

She's good.  This is well done.  It's slick.  And the fact that she's completely hot doesn't hurt at all.

I went out and bought the MP3 from her at iTunes. Krista Branch, ladies and gentlemen:

Quote of the Week

Goes to Morgan, in response to this his own example, which I'll present first, because context is everything:

Last “sexual harassment training” I was forced to attend, they said something I found interesting and it’s probably the same thing they said at yours: The intent of the offender doesn’t matter, it’s the perception of the accuser that decides everything — and “these rules are put in place to provide a workplace that is comfortable for everyone.” SAME BREATH.

And now for the quote:

So a whack-job paranoid stranger with a random vendetta can end your career at any second. By bitching, the easiest thing in the world to do. Boy that really makes me feel comfortable. How ’bout you?

Blue Ribbon.

On the Sherrod Saga

The point of Breitbart's article was that the Racism charge is so volitile, so damning, that it becomes a guilty-until-proven-innocent charge.  And and if you are white and on the right, no amount of evidence to the contrary will ever be acceptable to the left as proof of innocence. Anything that could possibly be be rationalized through whatever painful contortions -- of any conservative white man is seen as "proof" of the racism the left is certain roils just beneath the surface.

The point is CBC and the NAACP have less evidence of racism in the Tea Parties than this and demand zero tolerance from a group that has no head, is beholden to no leader, to no power structure -- and yet here is a lady speaking at one of their events saying something -- yes, taken out of context like the media takes conservatives out of context -- that no amount of context could ever exhonorate a white man of had the races been reversed.

Frankly, I think everybody was shocked at the NAACP's and the Obama Administration's reaction from Breitbart to Sherrod to Glenn Beck.  It does reveal that Beck is inside their heads, and they are hypersensitive right now.  But they put themselves in this position.

What else can Tea Partiers do? We know we are not racist, and yet every day in the media the drumbeat continues, and something is driving that drumbeat. What we saw in the JournOList emails the other day gives us a glimpse into at least part of what's driving that -- agenda-driven journalism without regard to the truth. "Call 'em racist, we don't care if they are or not. That'll keep 'em busy for a while." Heck even Mary Frances Barry underscored that point the other day.

The fact of the matter is is that the vast majority of the race baiting is coming from the left, because they've got so many people on their side who are way too into Alinsky. I think people are finally starting to see it. And it is one big reason that the Tea Parties have only gotten bigger rather than fizzle out as especially Democrats had hoped and actively fought for.

Arizona Law being challenged today

Go take a look at this CNN story (soon, as the related videos might change) and take a look at the two videos in the left sidebar.

The first "related" video on the left sidebar could be considered journalism, showing the effect the law is having on some people's decision making in Arizona. Of course, the government isn't "forcing" them to do anything, and the law would only affect his wife if she got caught breaking another law.

The second video is pure propaganda, and shame on CNN. In light of the JournOList story breaking this week, it is clear that much of the media is involved in advocacy "journalism". America embraces Latinos and all others who come here legally. When you break the law, however, we have a problem with that. It's got nothing to do with your being Latino. This incessant drumbeat of substituting "immigrant" for "illegal alien" or "illegal immigrant" (or even "Latino" for "illegal immigrant") to confuse the argument is so blatant, everyone is on to it.

UPDATE: Someone commented on the story that Article VI Section II was the argument that the opponents of the law will try to use to justify that the Federal Government has the authority to trump the state law. So I went and looked:

Article VI Paragraph II

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

The law is not contrary to Federal Law, the law specifically echoes Federal Law. Since the Arizona law does not contradict Federal Law, this clause would not apply. If the feds don't want to enforce the law, it doesn't change the fact that it is the law. If they want to repeal the federal law, then they could do that (see where that proposition would get them at election time) ... but then again, if they repeal the Federal Law, then what federal law would this law be contrary to?
I also know of no treaty we have with any countries that say you can come on in here in viloation of immigration law and we won't do anything about it.

And as for the 14th Amendment argument ...

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

By definition, the people in question are not citizens of the United States.

Hey, it works

Breitbart and Carlson are using Alisnky #4 to turn the tables on the Left.   "Make them live up to their own rules."   The light they are shining in the dark corners where progressives feel comfortable and let their hair down is causing them to scatter, as seen yesterday in the White House and NAACP's reaction to the Shirley Sherrod video.

In more light shining news,

Carter & Clinton appointee Mary Frances Barry in Politico:

Tainting the tea party movement with the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for Democrats. There is no evidence that tea party adherents are any more racist than other Republicans, and indeed many other Americans. But getting them to spend their time purging their ranks and having candidates distance themselves should help Democrats win in November. Having one’s opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness.

“… than other Republicans and indeed many other Americans” (but we won’t even mention Democrats). Some of the most racist people I know are Democrats.

And Journ"O"List member Spencer Ackerman shows that journalists not only know this but are willing to engage in it themselves:

I do not endorse a Popular Front, nor do I think you need to. It’s not necessary to jump to Wright-qua-Wright’s defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically.


And I think this threads the needle. If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.

Anyway, the truth clearly doesn't matter to these people, results are all they’re after. Almost like they’ve read Saul Alinsky or something.

Well, so have some of us now.  Only we won't lie.

Malaprops and "Refudiation"

When someone focuses on your malaprops rather than what it is you are saying, especially when your malaprop combines two words with essentially the same meaning so it is really unambiguous ... it's a good indication that they don't have a good "refudiation" for what it is you are saying.

Of course, Sarah Palin didn't call for the prohibition by government force of the building of the Mosque.  She called on peaceful Muslims to come out against the display of insensitivity against and the symbolic dominance over the predominant American culture given the nature and circumstances surrounding what happened there.

I think a majority of Americans probably agree with her.  And there's nothing wrong with that.

What's Unconstitutional About It?

A good question was asked by someone at the last 9/12 group meeting I went to concerning the big Health Care Law that the Missouri (and various other states') Health Care Freedom Act is designed to combat.  This guy is a stickler on the Constitution, and what he was urging people to do was to have an answer -- he wasn't actually questioning whether it was unconstitutional.  This is a good point.  When pressed, be ready to back your arguments up.  And I ran across this today from the Cato institute, which reminded me.

There's probably more, but the most glaring is this:

The Federal Government has some power to regulate interstate commerce. But it does not have the power to force you, the citizen, to buy anything just to remain in good legal standing as a citizen. What a horrible precedent this would set! What else can the government force you to buy? And from whom can they force you to buy it is the next logical question -- as it can set up regulations to regulate companies it doesn't like out of compliance with whatever mandate.

But back to the issue.

Obama campaigned on no tax increase for anyone making less than $250,000 a year. He also campaigned on no individual mandate to buy health care.

To make sure it wasn't a tax increase, what they passed is an individual mandate. Which as I mentioned above, is unconstitutional because the Federal Government has no power to compel anyone to buy anything just to stay out of jail, essentially.

So the lawsuit is based largely on the fact that it is a individual mandate.

So now the Administration is saying it is a tax. Whoops.

Now there may be other unconstitutional things in it, I haven't gone through it page by page like some have. But if it's a tax, then Obama's guilty of a bait and switch. Actually, either way it's a bait and switch because he campaigned on no tax increase and no individual mandate.

And either way, it's a weasel on his part. When someone won't let you pin them down on what it actually is, they're trying to pull the wool over your eyes. It's not this, it's that. No, it's not really THAT, it's this.

It's not a crap sandwich, it's a pre-digested protein sandwich, and it even contains some vitamins, minerals, and fiber! Well, you know, what does it really matter because in the end it comes out as crap anyway? Let's not argue over ideolgical ideas of what food is, shall we? What's important is that America not go hungry. Why do you want to deny sandwiches to poor people?!!!!

Anyway, if you have more arguments other than the individual mandate as to why it's unconstitutional, feel free to comment away.  This was just a quick one.

Anonymous Comments Off

Sorry about that.  I wanted to make it easier for people to comment, so I turned Anonymous comments on several months ago.  But I'm tired of dealing with the Chinese spam.   So off it goes.

It accepts OpenID and stuff.

This might not fix it.  We'll see.  I have moderation turned on for posts older than 1 week.  If it doesn't stop, I'll have to turn moderation back on for everything.  Which I don't want to do.   But...

Funny, when I was searching to see if there was a way to specifically block this spam, I found an article entitled "how do I block this Chinese spam"

The first reply was "your problem is with spam.  There's no need to use the word 'Chinese' in the title.  Please edit the title of your post."

Ugh!   ALL of the spam I'm getting is from China.  So I think if it were my post, I'd edit it to say "How do I block this f*cking Chinese spam?"

I work closely with three Chinese ladies.  Love 'em to death.  But the spam is Chinese, and I'll freaking call it Chinese if it's Chinese.

Czech it out

Last week someone read me a great piece -- echoing my thoughts on the matter very concisely -- attributed to a Czechoslovakian newspaper.

“The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president.

"The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.

"The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.”

The quote is correct in what it says, IMHO. The attribution is not entirely correct, so we should clarify.

The quote is passed around with the tag "Author Unknown". If it had been an actual column in a Czech newspaper, obviously the author would be known.

Turns out what it was was a COMMENT left on an article from that Czech newspaper on the web on an article summarizing that week's events in Prauge (where Obama had been to sign some treaty).  That story apparently appeared on 4/28/2010.  The exact same comment (which again, I agree with) appeared on a Reuters article a few months earlier.

So we don't know who said it. Could've been an American for all we know. It doesn't change the truth of what it says, but we always need to remember to check things out. Or in this case, maybe "Czech" things out.

It's Official

I'm goin' t' DC on 8/28 for Glenn Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally.   I agree with him that the country needs a solid base of principles to re-build on top of.   Plus I just want to add to the numbers as well as see this thing for myself.  All proceeds beyond the cost of putting the rally on are going to the Special Operations Warrior Foundation.  Nice touch.

We'll see how this goes.  Bus trip with our local 9/12 group.   Driving all night Friday night, and crashing in Virginia Saturday night before doing an about-face Sunday morning. 

Now I find this truly stunning.

The rally will cost about $2 million.  And Leftist Logic goes thus (according to a few articles I've run across on it, including on HuffPo):

Again, the "logic" goes like this.  Since Glenn Beck isn't funding the whole thing ... he's STEALING money from SOWF.

Not mentioned, or glossed over is that Mr. Beck IS donating $1Million.... but that doesn't seem to matter to these people.  What they're pissed about is that that many people are going to be showing up, and they are people who obviously disagree with the Left.  Only the Left is allowed to put on big shows to raise money, I guess.

So it goes like this.   Imagine I had a huge hospital bill, and people wanted to raise money to help me pay for it.   Someone gets the idea to put on a big show, and after the cost of putting the big show on, the rest of the proceeds would go to pay on my hospital bill.

Day 1, I got nothing.  No show on Day 2, then on Day 3 I got nothing.   But if they put on the show on Day 2 and raise enough to cover the cost of the show + $n, I get $n to pay on my hospital bill, and I'm better off than I was before.  If they don't cover the cost of the show, they lose money, and I still got nothin' (Beck will cover any difference, but the show's already paid for at this time so that's not an issue).  And I 'm no worse off than I was before.

Only the Left could spin this thing in some sort of sinister light.  "He's paying for a Tea Party rally by stealing money from SOWF!!!!"   Er, em... no.

He's having a 9/12 rally, which is about values and principles (and I ask you lefties, are your politics based in values and principles?  So why can't we base our politics on our values and principles?)   Nobody's being coerced to come.  Nobody's being coerced to donate.  Everybody who donates knows that this show is the catalyst for the fundraising, and that it will be paid off first.  It's all strictly voluntary, and I'm shelling out nearly $300 of my own money just to get there and back and spend the night in a hotel.  None of that goes to anybody but gas stations and a hotel.  It's STIMULUS!!!! :-)

So people are voluntarily giving money to put on a show that will benefit SOWF, and the Left is pissed about it because they don't like who is giving the show and who is going to go there for it.

Hey.  He's "raising awareness".   He's "making a difference".   Or is that only justification for whatever Lefties do?  (and they do what they do by actually coercing others to pay for their "charity" through taxes).

Tell me.  Did you get a tax return this year?   WHY ARE YOU STEALING FROM POOR PEOPLE????




------- Update------
You know, as I recall listening to him over the last year or so Glenn started talking about this rally last summer.  A vague idea forming in his head.  Wasn't quite sure what he wanted it to be.   Clearly, it was going to have something to do with ideology.  And I think last November he decided to take it in a different direction.... not an overtly political rally, but one about values and principles.    And as the numbers got crunched he realized it was going to be expensive (I think $600K for security alone).   So he thought, hey, maybe people will help, and decided he was going to solicit donations from people who wanted to help make it happen.  When the response was better than he expected, he realized more might come in than he needed, and he didn't want it to be a money maker for him, so he decided any excess would go to a charity he picked, the Special Operations Warrior Foundation.   It wasn't designed from the beginning as a charity, but it  ended up benefiting a charity.  Yes, it is an ideological rally that will also benefit a charity.

As I asked before, is it only ok for the left to have ideological rallies?   Is it ok to give overflow donations to help put it on to a charity?    I'm goin' with "yes" and "yes".  

Wrong Argument

I hate this.  It's probably the main reason I never really cottoned to Hannity and some others -- though I'm sure he's a nice enough guy.  Even though I agree with most of their conclusions, a lot of times they have the wrong argument.

This morning, listening to Fox & Friends we had Juan Williams ... who is not beyond reason ... arguing the left side over this poll where 55% of those polled thought the word "Socialist" applied as a valid description of Obama.

Juan framed Obama's defense in terms of what he has accomplished, and the opposite side got sucked into that argument.

Juan's argument went something like this:  Well, he didn't completely take over the banks or the auto industry, and he "helped out" capitalist firms so he's a capitalist, not a socialist.

Never mind that true capitalists don't believe in the government bailing companies out.

Whether or not he's a socialist isn't determined by how much successful he has been in pushing his ideals through or even how much of them he's even tried to push through.  Whether or not he's a socialist rests on his ideology -- what he believes.  From his influences, his associations, and even his own words (when he's not spinning them to hide his ideology) .... he's clearly drenched in Marxist ideals.

So if you want to argue whether or not he's a Socialist (and if you ask me, socialism, communism, fascism, nazisim are all flavors of Marxism just as cherry, rasberry, and strawberry are all flavors of red Koolaid^® - I won't split hairs over their technical differences) you need to start with influences, associations, and words and tie them to the incremental steps he's favored in pushing America in that direction.  The fact that he hasn't managed to turn the country into a complete Socialist model in two years doesn't mean that's not where he would like to see us go.

I always find it amusing when we level the Socialism charge against some progressive, other progressives come out of the woodwork to ... practically in the same breath ... tell us that 1) he's not, and 2) there's nothing wrong with Socialism and we're just "afraid".

I find this quite telling.   Let's see.   He's not a socialist, yet you support him and you support socialism.   I see.  Makes perfect sense.

Twisted Logic

So I see this story in what is apparently a UAE paper, "The National".   Now I'm not saying the UAE is progressive.  But this is progressive logic.  They know how the Left thinks and how to play them like a fiddle.

It's a story about an Al Queda bombing in Uganda.

Here's the road back to "The West's seven-richest countries", with of course The United States right on top of that pile ... and why they're at least partly "to blame".

Uganda was attacked for having peace keeping troops in Somalia.   Al Queda's in Somalia because it's a weak country, and Al Queda likes to take advantage of weak countries.  Apparently the "seven-richest" westerns have given a ton of money to African countries, but not as much as they said they would.   Ergo, the African countries aren't as rich as they would have been (if more wealth had been redistributed to them), leaving them weak and grumpy, and it was some local dispute that triggered Al Queda to launch the attack .... and of course it wouldn't be there if the Western countries had been less un-greedy.  If they had been as generous as they pledged.  If they had given more money.

The West’s seven-richest countries are partly to blame. In 2005, they pledged to double their aid to Africa’s poorest countries by this year; they have fallen $18 billion short. Why, when many of these countries were ready to project their power and invade Iraq, are they so impotent when it comes to addressing Somalia’s woes?

So there you have it.  It's not completely the fault of the people who carried out the attack.  (Funny, I thought it was.) Naturally, it is the United States and it's six rich buddies in the West.

And let's answer that last question for our UAE friends, shall we?

Perhaps it was because Somalia didn't invade and annex a soveriegn country and lose the ensuing war the UN sanctioned to fight back against this most blatant breach of international law -- and then proceed to break the cease-fire agreements it signed to end the hostilities and ignore the barrage of UN resolutions (17 of them) while firing on the planes that flew to enforce them after their leader slaughtered several hundred thousand of his own people because he didn't like them.

Oh, that? 

There just might be a slight difference in circumstances.

So I'm a racist, then, eh?

The NAACP has lost all relevance to anything noble.

And now might be a good time to bring this back up: