Via Malkin -- Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.):
Grijalva has called for a "targeted boycott" of his home state.
Good luck: “More than three-quarters of Americans have heard about the state of Arizona’s new immigration law, and of these, 51% say they favor it and 39% oppose it.” -- Gallup.
Of the above, GOPers and Independents favor the AZ law; Democrats are against it. I wonder if those Democrats, like Grijalva, favor border drug enforcement ... or for that matter just border enforcement.
Kris Kobach, who helped draft Arizona's immigration law:
Arizona epitomizes what every Republican — indeed, every American — should embrace: attrition through enforcement. For years, the open-borders crowd has claimed that the only two responses to illegal immigration are amnesty or mass roundups. That is nonsense. Attrition through enforcement presents an effective third option that respects the rule of law. By stepping up the enforcement of immigration laws through state-level action, Arizona has induced thousands of illegal aliens to self-deport. Need proof?
In early 2008, after Arizona’s E-Verify law went into effect, the neighboring Mexican state of Sonora sent a delegation to the Arizona legislature to protest that Arizona was causing too many Mexican nationals to return to Mexico too quickly, overwhelming the housing stock and public infrastructure of Sonora.
How's that for irony, eh?
Kobach also deals with the major criticisms of the new law in the NY Times today.
Well, partly anyway. Just check out the local editorials regarding Arizona's new immigration law. First, here's our own Wilmington News Journal -- screen caps of the only op-eds on the AZ law:
Surprise, eh? Not a single opinion in favor of the law! (You can read both articles here and here.) Meanwhile, over at the Philly Inquirer, no surprise there either: Arizona Gets It Wrong. The Daily News? Even worse with The problem with Arizona's 'papers, please' immigration law.
Funny how the latter two were just sold. Philly.com laments: New owners know money, but how about media? Put it this way -- it probably couldn't be much worse for these papers now, right?
Though, as noted previously that it's not the only reason for these papers' woes (and that of many others), perhaps if they balanced out their ridiculously slanted editorials which condescendingly mock the views and values of half their readership, as well as how they cover "hard" news stories, they might actually not bleed readers. After all, just check out this graphic. Yes, it's a few years out of date, but it shows that while major left-leaning papers have been hemorrhaging readers, centrist and right-leaning dailys have picked them up -- the latter moreso.
* Joshuapundit – Happy Birthday Trig Palin! Oh, And More Mean Spirited Trig-Truther Rot From Sully
* Wolf Howling -The Roots Of Slavery & The Races Hustlers’ Holy Grail – Reparations
* Mere Rhetoric - Obama Defense Dept: We’re Not Going To Attack Iran, And If Israel Tries We Might Shoot Down Their Jets
* Rhymes With Right - Doing My Part For Freedom Of Speech, Press, And Religion
* The Razor - Socialism=Cannibalism
* The Colossus of Rhodey - Race conundrum in education (again)
* Bookworm Room - What if American blacks don’t want to join the club?
* The Provocateur - Get Ready for the Immigration Debate
* Right Truth - Mandatory Voting?
* The Glittering Eye - The Arizona Immigration Law
* American Digest - The Circumnambulation of Queen Anne
And check out the non-Council nominations here.
The passage of the Arizona law has led to the typical overheated rhetoric and hyperbole from the Left, but it's usually always from those who don't live near the US-Mexico border, and/or have little to no understanding of the situation there.
Let's take a gander at the situation:
... when police are engaged in "lawful contact" with someone where there is "reasonable suspicion" the person is an illegal alien, [and] that the police shall make a "reasonable attempt... when practicable" to determine the person's immigration status.
Arbitrarily stopping someone on the street to "demand papers" is not "lawful contact." An example of how enforcement of the law would work would be if, say, a van was stopped for speeding on a notorious "coyote" route, and during the police traffic stop cops notice the back of the van is packed with people. It thus wouldn't be a surprise if the cops have a "reasonable suspicion" that those in the back of the van are illegals (and possibly the driver, too, though at the least he is committing a crime by transporting illegals).
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Is it possible that AZ will argue that it is "being invaded?" That it is in "imminent Danger?"
Meanwhile, Legal Insurrection points out that enforcement of the AZ law is really no different than ObamaCare.
The Philly Daily News is, well, the Philly Daily News as usual.
Locally, the new blog in town Delaware Tomorrow attempts to play the middle ground, but just ends up sounding wishy washy.
... and it's about what I expected: Not as good as the original, but still pretty darn good.
Linked at the review: Iron Man's best-ever comic stories, and three tales you should avoid at all costs (#1 is indeed the worst ever).
The post you're looking for, folks, is here.
And those would be "race as one of many factors."
After all, critics of the law are mischaracterizing what it means in the most ridiculous terms imaginable; however, why couldn't the law's supporters used the same "logic" that "progressives" use (regarding the use of race) when it comes to, say, education. Ladies and gentlemen, my blog "godfather," John Rosenberg:
As we’ve seen too many times to cite, one of the most ubiquitous excuses liberals give for why racial profiling by college admissions officers and company employment offices is not racial profiling is that race is “only one of many factors” considered. As I wrote here,
If there is one refrain that is repeated, mantra-like, over and over again by defenders of racial preferences, it is that race is only "one of many factors" in admissions decisions. The quotes are ubiquitous, as in the president of the University of Michigan, Mary Sue Coleman's, repeated assertions that “there is no effective substitute for the consideration of race as one of many factors in our admissions decisions.”
The IRS, to pick one of many examples, will not revoke the tax-exempt status of an organization so longs as it “limits its use of race to being one of many factors in making affirmative action decisions.”
Thus the face of liberalism shines upon race-conscious preferential treatment so long as race is “only one of many factors” considered in awarding the preference.
Indeed. But much like the ridiculous TSA screenings at airports, Arizona's new law must be absolutely free of ANY hint of a racial component ... and even though, as written, it is, that still doesn't stop it from being labeled "racist" by the left. Even if the governor who signed the law said the following:
Let me be clear, though: My signature today represents my steadfast support for enforcing the law -- both AGAINST illegal immigration AND against racial profiling.
This legislation mirrors federal laws regarding immigration enforcement.
Despite erroneous and misleading statements suggesting otherwise, the new state misdemeanor crime of willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document is adopted, verbatim, from the same offense found in federal statute.
I will NOT tolerate racial discrimination or racial profiling in Arizona.
Because I feel so strongly on this subject, I worked for weeks with legislators to amend SB 1070, to strengthen its civil rights protections.
That effort led to new language in the bill, language prohibiting law enforcement officers from “solely considering race, color, or national origin in implementing the requirements of this section...”
As Rosenberg writes, "Do any readers entertain the belief that liberals, who do not believe academic racial profiling is racial profiling because race is “only one of many factors,” are satisfied that the Arizona law is not racial profiling because ethnicity is “only one of many factors” police may consider in stopping someone?"
Yeah, right. Though I'd love to hear someome use that very line against a "progressive" who's screaming about the "racism" inherent in the new law!
MSNBC puts up headline: "Law Makes it a Crime to be Illegal Immigrant."
Can it get any more hilariously surreal?
Meanwhile, I wonder how much the MSM pundits will pontificate on the violence of those protesting the new Arizona law.
UPDATE: Look! Actual video evidence of anti-AZ immigration law protesters getting violent! Ah, but y'see, their protest is worthy!!
UPDATE 2: It seems so long ago, doesn't it? Here's Keithy Olbermann back during the dastardly 'ol Bush administration and then now:
I found this fascinating -- and highly unlikely:
... a few life forms could be intelligent and pose a threat. Hawking believes that contact with such a species could be devastating for humanity.
He suggests that aliens might simply raid Earth for its resources and then move on: “We only have to look at ourselves to see how intelligent life might develop into something we wouldn’t want to meet. I imagine they might exist in massive ships, having used up all the resources from their home planet. Such advanced aliens would perhaps become nomads, looking to conquer and colonise whatever planets they can reach.”
He concludes that trying to make contact with alien races is “a little too risky”. He said: “If aliens ever visit us, I think the outcome would be much as when Christopher Columbus first landed in America, which didn’t turn out very well for the Native Americans.”
Look, obviously Hawking is insanely brilliant, but why would aliens -- a la those from "Independence Day" -- seek to strip our planet of its resources ... when WE'VE been plundering them for, like, ever?? Colonization, maybe. But resources? That's silly -- especially since needed resources are available much more cheaply in space. Comets for water. Asteroids for metals and minerals.
In addition, a civilization that possesses technology far in advance of our own is likely (not definitely) to have a moral code that is also in advance of our own. In other words, they wouldn't arbitrarily seek to exterminate us. They wouldn't need to (at least not right away) -- their technology would prevent any perceived threat to them. On the other hand, if by some chance a civilization came upon an advanced technology that was superior to their own (very often speculated on in science fiction -- see the Gateway series, the Kzin in Larry Niven's "Known Space" stories, Niven and Jerry Pournelle's Footfall, and Marvel Comics' Kree race, to name just a scant few), their moral code might be "deficient" when they begin journeying to the stars, and hence might not be ready (or willing) to handle encountering another intelligent species.
Most likely, in my opinion, is what the late Carl Sagan noted in his classic Cosmos: That two interstellar civilizations, should they actually happen to meet, will most certainly be quite divergent in terms of technological prowess. There will not be a Milky Way inhabited, for instance, by the technologically equal Federation of Planets, Klingon Empire, Romulan Star Empire, and Cardassian Union!
Here's what Bubba said about rioting anarchists in Seattle back in 2001:
"I don't think anybody in America should take what a few violent people did as in any way representative of this community or of the people who are here for peaceful protests."
But, of course, 'ol Slick sure had no compunctions about blaming Rush Limbaugh, et. al. for Tim McVeigh's terrorism, or that of just about any other rightist extremist.
RELATED: CNN describes the recently passed Arizona immigration law as "polarizing." But ... the network never referred to the Obama health care bill that way -- even though most Americans were against that (while the Arizona public overwhelmingly supported the immigration bill). And here's why: D.F.T.N.
ALSO RELATED: Civil Disobedience To Become Hip Again:
Not that Tea Partiers necessarily have been practicing civil disobedience, but based on typical media coverage you would think they're the greatest threat to humanity in centuries.
Well, Barack Obama's pal Al Sharpton is glomming on to the Arizona illegal alien issue like it's a pork chop and plans to start milking it for all it's worth. It'll be interesting to see the media finger-waggers decrying the civil disorder when it's one of their favorite pets doing it.
The Rev. Al Sharpton says he will challenge Arizona's new immigration bill in court and on the streets.
Sharpton is joining Lillian Rodriguez Lopez from the Hispanic Federation to announce a legal challenge to the bill. They say activists are also prepared to commit civil disobedience to fight the Arizona immigration bill.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed the bill Friday. It requires police to question people about their immigration status — including asking for identification — if they suspect someone is in the country illegally.
Just to be clear though -- police cannot arbitrarily just come up to someone and demand "papers;" at the very least police must pull over a suspect for a traffic violation or something similar.
They want to "get even."
Don't look for this report ad nauseum on the MSM. D.F.T.N.
UPDATE: Imagine if Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin or any other of the MSM's favorite targets had uttered the following:
"And we shouldn't talk to them, try to persuade them," he continued. "We should burn them down. We should go after them with pitchforks, knives, guns, clubs we find, mace - anything, because it's appalling. You only need to read the story that ProPublica did about the hedge fund Magnetar and what they did or Michael Lewis' ‘The Big Short' or these stories about Goldman to realize these guys are corrupt."
That's Slate editor David Plotz. If he was a Tea Partier, MSNBC and co. would be trashing him for weeks on end as an example of how the Right is inciting ... well, you surely know by now since it's so predictable.
Moments after Gov. Jan Brewer signed Arizona's controversial new immigration law Friday, opponents promised legal challenges and economic sanctions against a state still reeling from the housing meltdown.
Before and after Senate Bill 1070 became law at 1:30 p.m., civil unrest punctuated by loud protests and several minor clashes took place at the state Capitol, where more than 1,500 people gathered to chant, pray and either praise or castigate the Republican governor.
At least four protesters were arrested, several after hurling water bottles at police officers in riot gear.
Just imagine the MSM reaction if these were Tea Partiers, eh?
First place in the Council category was Wolf Howling with Thoughts On Britain, Colonialism, and Multiculturalism.
First place in the non-Council category was Caroline Glick with The strategic foundations of the US-Israel alliance.
Full results are here.
I really had to ponder this Philly Inquirer editorial yesterday. It attempts to paint as sinister the Lower Merion School District's plans to send more black students to a school farther away (Harriton HS) than a closer one (Lower Merion HS) -- plans which the district claims is to achieve more diversity.
Now, let's stop right here for a second. "Progressives" have argued for years -- decades, now -- that "diversity" is an educational boon. Such an argument won the day in Grutter v. Bollinger, but similarly-based lower education plans were shot down by the US Supreme Court in 2007 (regarding Seattle and Louisville, KY). In those plans, districts sought to -- get this -- move students to different schools to achieve diversity ... just like Lower Merion apparently wants to do. And how did the Philly Inquirer opine on the SCOTUS decision then?
The school assignment programs such as those the court ruled against Thursday are designed to give children of different races and backgrounds opportunities to get to know each other better, as classmates. That kind of mixing at an early age might in fact lessen the need for other, more intrusive measures down the road. . . .
Our schools cannot truly mold children into the adult citizens we need them to be without exposing them to situations and people they otherwise might not encounter.
What does it say now?
The Lower Merion district can't very well argue that any consideration of race by it was to provide equal opportunity. Both of its high schools are well-funded and provide good educations. Plus the equal opportunity the plaintiffs seek is to attend the school closest to their homes.
Mandatory busing failed as a solution to segregated schools in America by driving families out of public schools and making them even less diverse. There's no need to let a busing plan similarly offend black students in Lower Merion schools, which are already diversity-challenged, both racially and economically.
Let's see if we can follow:
Ultimately, however, the editorial gets it right in that Lower Merion plan most likely won't withstand legal scrutiny based on the 2007 SCOTUS decision, and it would be wise to seek an out-of-court settlement. And, the [black] students and parents who are miffed at the district are legally and philosophically correct based on same. But, again, here is an example of the conundrum "progressives" face on matters such as this. Is "diversity" an educational panacea ... but only up until the time minorities believe (or wish) otherwise?
We are seeing something similar in northern Delaware of late. Ever since the federal desegregation order was lifted from New Castle County in the mid-90s, and then the passing of the Neighborhood Schools Law, we've seen demands from [Wilmington] city interests to once again have a Wilmington School District (which was dissolved in 1978 when the federal deseg order was implemented). But ... such a district would be decisively minority compared to the surrounding [suburban] districts. What about the benefits of diversity? After all, the "big four" districts in the county really only cosmetically altered their feeder patterns to abide by the Neighborhood Schools Law, one of the rationales being needed ... diversity!
It's akin to what I've opined on at times regarding HBCs -- Historically Black Colleges. If, as "progressives" insist, diversity is of such import (colleges clamor all the time about their "commitment to diversity"), then why do HBCs exist? Aren't they living contradictions to the very boon diversity to supposed to bring everybody?
Apparently so. While the MSM has been fixated on the 99.9% mythical instances of Tea Party violence and threats thereof, the popular show "South Park" -- known for its quite irreverent take on just about everything -- has censored itself because of threats from a Muslim group:
An episode of “South Park” that continued a story line involving the Prophet Muhammad was shown Wednesday night on Comedy Central with audio bleeps and image blocks reading “CENSORED” after a Muslim group warned the show’s creators that they could face violence for depicting that holy Islamic prophet. Revolution Muslim, a group based in New York, wrote on its Web site that the “South Park” creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker “will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh” for an episode shown last week in which a character said to be the Prophet Muhammad was seen wearing a bear costume. Mr. Van Gogh was slain in Amsterdam in 2004 after making a film that discussed the abuse of Muslim women in some Islamic societies.
I wonder how many marquee stories about this will be on the major networks' nightly news broadcasts, not to mention Olbermann, Maddow, Matthews and Sanchez. And if/when Fox News carries the story, they'll be criticized for "fanning the flames of bigotry."
Tea Partiers are rage-filled. They're inciting violence. They're committing violence. It's all true -- the MSM has said so (ad nauseum).
On Monday, the Christian Science Monitor bucked its mainstream peers by reporting something truthful about the TEA party movement: police officials have begun to relax security requirements at conservative rallies because of the remarkable absence of violence.
Yes, you read that right: despite nonstop media warnings about hateful protests, violence from TEA party attendants is so nonexistent that police feel safe allowing them to bring large items and sometimes even guns.
Patrik Jonnsson's article drew a refreshing contrast between violent rallies of the Vietnam era versus the new model of peaceful civil uprising:
To be sure, permitting rules and police preparedness are often developed based on past behavior at various kinds of protests. Many go back to the 1960s and 1970s when violent rallies erupted over the Vietnam War. Such protests sprung up again during the presidency of George W. Bush, when protesters clashed with police in New York City and elsewhere during large-scale demonstrations against the Middle East wars. With tea party rallies so far proving more orderly, police have given them more latitude.
This, of course, won't stop the usual suspects from continuing to trash the Tea Partiers as "hateful," "racist," and "violent," but at least we have one MSM outlet with the guts to challenge "The Narrative."
Simply, it's because your typical politicians just plain suck. Two cases in point from each side of the aisle:
It's the attitude of "You have to do this" by politicians, but then not applying it to one's self that is so aggravating to your average joe. Another relevant current news story is how the IRS is investigating Florida Senate candidate Marco Rubio -- yep, the same IRS that is headed now (remarkably) by Tim Geithner ... who failed to pay his own taxes!
And so it goes ...
Here’s a move in the right direction: launching this Earth Day is Green My Parents, a nationwide effort to inspire and organize kids to lead their families in measuring and reducing environmental impact at home. Not just on Earth Day, but every day. GMP’s initial goal is to have its first 100 youth advocates train and educate 100 peers (who will then turn to 100 of their respective peers and so on), with the aim of saving families $100 million between now and April 2011.
How? By washing in cold water, walking or biking to school/work and kicking the bottled-water habit, for example. GMP’s founders suggest that by taking simple steps like those, the average family could save over $1,000 each year.
I'm sure there are more examples than those three, and some may even make sense like biking/walking to school, but sorry -- "washing in cold water?" Forget it, especially when it comes to showering -- ans especially in the winter. (Been there, done that for three and half months in Costa Rica back in 1986. It wasn't very fun.) And, I mean, you can't win with these "progressive" Greenies. Wash in cold water and increase your chances of germ infection! Then they'll be bitching about increased health problems (and costs)!
Of course, one could also ponder how the NY Times is so proactive in its defense of "going green" when one (and probably more) of its prolific columnists lives in a 10,000 square foot home. Sort of like the Green King himself, Al Gore.
* Mere Rhetoric - Academic Linguist: Palin Speaks Like A Cognitive “Toddler,” Linguistically She’s “A Child”
* The Razor – Clinton Holds Tea Party to Higher Standards Than Islam
* The Colossus of Rhodey - Philly Inquirer offers ed school “solutions” to South Philly school violence
* Bookworm Room - Ordinary people view Rush as a dangerous Svengali
* The Provocateur - The Politics of Financial Reform
* Right Truth - Israel should set up a War Room for Propaganda
* Wolf Howling - Thoughts On Britain, Colonialism, and Multiculturalism
* The Glittering Eye - Think Small!
* Rhymes With Right - Dem Congresscritter Proposes Free School Lunches For Kids — On Weekends!
* JoshuaPundit - Stealth Jihad – GOP Senate Wanna-Be Tom Campbell’s Questionable Connections
* American Digest - The American Argument
And check out the non-Council nominations here.
Of course, you won't hear this as a major story on the big news broadcasts or on CNN, MSNBC with an ominous headline along the lines of "Hate on the Rise?"
They're the kind of obscenity-laced schoolyard taunts that could get a student suspended.
But the target of this tirade is New Jersey's Gov. Chris Christie — and the perpetrators are the state's teachers, irate over his calls for salary freezes and funding cuts for schools.
In Facebook messages visible to the world — not to mention their students — the teachers have called Christie fat, compared him to a genocidal dictator and wished he was dead. The postings are often riddled with bad grammar and misspellings.
"Never trust a fat f...," read one profane post on the Facebook page, "New Jersey Teachers United Against Governor Chris Christie's Pay Freeze," which has some 69,000 fans, many of them teachers.
"How do you spell A-- hole? C-H-R-I-S C-H-R-I-S-T-I-E," read another.
"Remember Pol Pot, dictator of Cambodia?" warned another. "He reigned in terror, his target was teachers and intellectuals. They were either killed or put into forced labor... King Kris Kristy is headed in this direction."
Yep -- I sure can see a few years from now forced labor and re-education camps all over New Jersey, where teachers and intellectuals are imprisoned! Boy -- and "progressives" are apoplectic about Tea Partiers' rhetoric regarding Barack Obama?? Oh, and the teacher who wrote the Pol Pot nonsense claimed that Christie is only trying to "kill us spiritually." Right. She also said her salary of just over $50K per year "isn't enough to make ends meet."
Our local moral fraud pandora over at the LGOMB equates the entire Republican Party because of some of those in Arizona's state legislature:
The Arizona House on Monday voted for a provision that would require President Barack Obama to show his birth certificate if he hopes to be on the state’s ballot when he runs for reelection. The House voted 31-22 to add the provision to a separate bill. The measure still faces a formal vote.
Arizona has gone birther. Ladies and gentlemen, this is the new Republican Party. And I’m really not sure how you combat crazy at this level.
"This is the new Republican Party" ... because a few state legislators enact some nutty legislation?
Let's see, using this rationale, I suppose we could say "Ladies and gentlemen, this is the new Democrat Party" because
This, notwithstanding pandora's very own colleague, Delaware Dem, who once lumped all Republicans together in one pot -- and actually wished them all to be shot. (This is the reason why pandora is a moral fraud.) Is his craziness representative of a "new" Democrat Party?
It's certainly no surprise that the LGOMB utilizes these sorts of tactics to smear their political enemies; after all, just look at their panoply of Tea Party coverage over the last month or so, not to mention virtually their entire archive. But it sure makes for easy pickings when folks like me want to make them look like complete fools!
Old friends Dave Burris and R Smitty, along with some others, couldn't stay away for long! They're back with Delaware Tomorrow, a center-right take on politics, First State-related and otherwise.
CNN's Don Lemon uses some rather ... interesting sentence structure to imply a tape exists of Rep. John Lewis being called the "N" word.
Or did he? You be the judge.
Seems to me Lemon only states outright that a tape exists which shows Rep. Emmanuel Cleaver being spit on. And this video does exist. But the actual "spitting" charge is bogus. Cleaver tried to back away from the claim that he said he was intentionally spat upon.
But Lemon sneakily attempts to link this actual video of Cleaver with a mythical one that shows John Lewis being called the "N" word. He refers to the Cleaver incident, then mentions John Lewis telling him (in an interview) he heard the "N" word, then says, "So the tape exists."
A tape in which where we hear the "N" word, Don? If so, please produce it immediately. Not only will you collect a $10,000 award from Andrew Breitbart, but you'll put to rest the doubts of a very many people. Otherwise, STFU -- you'll be just another Al Sharpton who got caught trying to lie about taped evidence.
L. Eudora Pettigrew begins by complaining about how the GOP is obstructing Barack Obama and the Democrats' efforts with regards to health care, but then inexplicably falls into the usual, tried and pathetically lazy tactic of "racism":
Where were those Republicans and their supporters when health care costs escalated during the George W. Bush administration and many Americans were denied health care coverage?
The reports that the new health care legislation is not clear is ridiculous; but perhaps those who make those charges don’t have the skills or the ability to read the legislation, which is on the Internet.
Racism takes many forms. Practices of racial prejudice and segregation that were overturned by U.S. law decades ago still abide; they simply have evolved into underlying behaviors that are being used by the Republicans, who are intent to take over the Congress and block any conceivable advances that can be made for the American people by the Obama administration and the Democratic leadership.
I see. The Republicans have differing views on health care, and are apt at playing politics (just like the Democrats), and this all ultimately boils down to ... RACISM!.
Pettigrew might wanna have a glance at this offering by James Taranto from yesterday:
The political left claims to love racial diversity, but it bitterly opposes such diversity on the political right. This is an obvious matter of political self-interest: Since 1964, blacks have voted overwhelmingly Democratic. If Republicans were able to attract black votes, the result would be catastrophic for the Democratic Party. Even in 2008, the Democrats’ best presidential year since ‘64, if the black vote had been evenly split between the parties (and holding the nonblack vote constant), Barack Obama would have gotten about 48% of the vote and John McCain would be president.
To keep blacks voting Democratic, it is necessary for the party and its supporters to keep alive the idea that racism is prevalent in America and to portray the Republican Party (as well as independent challengers to the Democrats, such as the tea-party movement) as racist. The election of Barack Obama made nonsense of the idea that America remains a racist country and thereby necessitated an intensifying of attacks on the opposition as racist.
L. Eudora Pettigrew: DOPE.
Well, according to "progressive" theory on race, that is. First take a gander:
"These are my people -- Americans"??? WHAT IS THIS [BLACK] MAN THINKING???
Let's journey back a couple weeks to this post:
"I hate when people tell me they're colour-blind. That is the most overt kind of racism. When people say ‘I don't see your race,' I know that's wrong. To ignore race is to be more racist than to acknowledge race. I call it neo-racism."
Got that? According to "progressive" race theory, Mr. Postell is more racist because he doesn't acknowledge his own race or that of his fellow Tea Partiers. He is a "neo-racist."
News Journal report about a University of Delaware student who was robbed:
Police described the suspects as 18 to 30 years old, 5 feet 8 to 5 feet 10 and 150 to 160 pounds. The hammer-wielding suspect wore a white V-neck T-shirt and a baseball cap, possibly with a New York Yankees logo, police said.
"Police described ..."?? Heh. They actually described more, but the ridiculously politically correct News Journal omitted some key information, as usual. Gee, guess what it is!
Here's WDEL.com's report of the same incident:
The suspects are described as black, 18 to 30 years old, 5-8 to 5-10 and about 160 pounds, and the one with the hammer wore a white V-neck T-shirt and what may have been a Yankees baseball cap.
Good thing the largest media outlet in the First State is looking out for US!!
Remember the flak that George W. Bush got for playing golf, especially during the Iraq War? Well, he only played a total of 24 times. For his entire presidency.
But hey, Obama? He's The Messiah!
And for MSNBC, baseless commentary like this runs only against the right. Think back to its coverage of Code Pink and the antiwar protests of the Bush administration. None of its commentators fretted over whether the protesters would lead to a resurgence of left-wing violence such as that practiced by the Weather Underground, the Blank [sic] Panthers, or the Symbionese Liberation Army. That would have been totally inappropriate — but no more so than what it’s eagerly doing now with conservative protesters.
Meanwhile, when real racists show up to protest, MSM coverage is [more] sparse. Too busy trying to make the point that Tea Party protests are the "real" racists, I suppose. And hey -- look at that violence directed at these protesters! Don't these folks, however abhorrent their views, have a right to peacefully assemble? I wonder what Attorney General Eric Holder thinks about this, considering his lambaste of those who questioned the probity of hiring lawyers who defended terrorists into the DOJ.
Check out how the Inquirer's Liz Willen and those whom she interviews attempt to "deal" with the issue of violence against Asian students in area schools. Here's History teacher Patrick Compton recalls his days at Lafayette High School in Brooklyn:
The ethnic sea change brought with it a spate of violence against Asian students by non-Asian classmates remarkably similar to the unrest and painful divisions plaguing South Philadelphia High.
"As neighborhoods change, schools have to change, and unless they address the needs of a new population systemically, the problems are just going to be reflected back into the schools and repeat themselves," says Compton, a resident of Burlington Township, who has spent 24 years teaching in the cavernous brick building in Bensonhurst, a densely populated area of semidetached two-family homes 16 miles from Midtown Manhattan.
"You can't just address these issues with security guards or cops in schools," says Pedro Noguera, a professor at the Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development at New York University. "They need to create a sense of inclusion, so all kids feel like part of the community."
I see. But how, again, do "isolated" Asian students provoke/instigate/beget violence against them? The school making them feel "more welcome" is terrific ... but how will that prevent violence against them -- merely because of their race/ethnicty?
That was not the case at South Philadelphia High, where 13 Asian students were sent to a hospital after violence Dec. 3 that triggered a seven-day student boycott. In interviews, Asian students said they did not feel safe, and a report released in February by a retired federal judge found "race and ethnicity" were contributing factors.
Really? How were race and ethnicity "contributing factors?" You mean to say (in plain English) that the Asian students' race and ethnicity were [part of/most of] the reason they were attacked? Isn't that ... racist? Should that not be ... a hate crime?
Asian students at the time were afraid of African American students because they had no understanding of their culture, she recalls. And African American kids mimicked Asian students, making fun of the way they spoke, until they got to know them better.
Afraid ... because of their culture? (Is this what they mean?) Why was it only African-American students? And black students making fun of Asians because of who they are? Again, isn't that ... racist?
Call me cynical, but if the situation at South Philly High was a case of white on black violence, I seriously doubt that the Inquirer -- and for that matter a huge portion of the national MSM -- would not be all over this story 24/7 for a good week or so. Don't think so? Then remember the case of Jena, Louisiana for starters. Or, locally, how a local swim club prevented a group of black children from entering its pool. And so on. And I doubt we'd be reading nebulous "reasoning" behind the strife -- y'know, how ethnic change somehow "just brings with it" violence, and how if schools don't "systematically change" [ethnic] violence won't abate.
But the wishy-washiness of this article isn't entirely Liz Willen's fault. At story's end, we read this:
This article was produced by the Hechinger Report. The nonprofit, nonpartisan education news outlet is affiliated with the Hechinger Institute on Education and the Media at Teachers College, Columbia University.
It would be remarkable to see the Inquirer, Wilmington News Journal or virtually any other MSM outlet be as vociferous in denouncing violence such as that seen at South Philly High with the same vigor that the Inquirer rips VA Governor Bob McConnell a new a-hole. I've already opined on that issue, and though I am largely in agreement with the Inquirer's stance, I do not have to resort to the standard MSM "narrative" to make the case. For instance, the Inq repeats -- AGAIN -- the unproven allegations by several black congressmen that they were called the "N" word, and also inserts a gratuitous blurb about the new right-leaning Texas history standards as being an overreaction to "perceived" liberal bias in the texts. (They write, for example, "A focus on the Confederacy will include side-by-side comparisons of speeches by Jefferson Davis and Abraham Lincoln, as if they were equals;" however, you'll likely never see an op-ed complaining about the disparity in textbook coverage between César Chávez and James Madison where the former gets more pages.)
What can one say? If conservative pundits were yapping about such during George W. Bush's presidency, these same dingbats would be screaming constitutional bloody murder:
"I did a little bit of research just before this show - it's on this little napkin here. I looked up the definition of sedition which is conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of the state. And a lot of these statements, especially the ones coming from people like Glenn Beck and to a certain extent Sarah Palin, rub right up close to being seditious." -- Time magazine's Joe Klein.
New York magazine's John Heilemann added, "And Joe's right and I'll name another person, I'll name Rush Limbaugh who uses this phrase constantly and talks about the Obama administration as a regime."
What did they keep telling us, these "progressives," during the previous administration? Oh, right -- "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." They just left off the second part during the Bush era: "... as long you don't dissent from US."
Check out m'man Fred Gregory, longtime reader of Colossus, at the Tea Party rally in Greensboro, North Carolina:
More snaps here (courtesy of a nice liberal blogger, by the way!).
Here are a few more that Fred sent me via e-mail:
Many thanks, Fred!!
First place in the Council category was American Digest with The Barrel of GoogleRands.
First place in the non-Council category was The Winds Of Jihad with Fitzgerald: The New York Times, and That Business At the Cathedral In Cordoba Submitted by Wolf Howling.
Full results are here.
If there is no way for the government to collect the penalty for those who refuse to buy heath insurance (under the recently passed bill) other than deducting it from a future tax refund ... then how will the bill "pay for itself?" I mean, all one has to do is make sure he's getting the right amount deducted from his paycheck so that no end-of-year refund will come his way, and there's no way for the IRS to collect!
"And then," as the Weekly Standard notes, "if you get sick, insurance companies are prohibited from denying you insurance coverage. In other words, the individual mandate is completely unworkable."
The Philly Inquirer's Dick Polman is a lefty, but he's not a looney lefty. In a recent op-ed, he takes the MSM to task for its complete absence on Barack Obama's revelation that the CIA is actively attempting to assassinate a US citizen:
Ten days ago, The New York Times and The Washington Post filed extraordinary stories - based on leaks from anonymous government officials - that Obama had OK'd a CIA hit on an American citizen. Granted, this particular citizen is the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, a New Mexico native who currently resides in Yemen, where he's apparently aiding al Qaeda in some unspecified capacity. But this is the first time that an American president has specifically targeted an American for CIA assassination. (Back in January, there were also reports that a clandestine military unit has been compiling hit lists of American citizens.) In other words, not even George W. Bush authorized CIA hits on Americans.
The thing is, if Bush had ever put the hit on an American, you can rest assured that liberal groups, and the Washington press corps, would have demanded to know, with great specificity, how such an extrajudicial decision had been determined - and whether the decision had dangerously broadened the playing field for executive overreach.
Precisely, Dick. The self-righteous hypocrisy is mind-boggling.
And that's the thing -- you won't even get a dribble of an answer from "progressives" on matters such as these. Bring it up here and you get banned from commenting. Former Colossus "Energizer Bunny" commenter Perry continues to call George Bush, Dick Cheney, et. al. "war criminals," but when shown that former prez Bill Clinton's actions in Kosovo were also illegal (Wesley Clark admitted as much), what is the response?? NOTHING.
Check it out:
Assuming you are correct, Hube, no, I would not now support Clinton’s Bosnia policy. We would need the support of the UN and a NATO like coalition or the like before intervening anywhere.
But ... George W. Bush had a coalition of nations to assist the US with the Iraq invasion!
Even after I showed I was correct, Perry outright ignores what I wrote (proved) and then writes this:
I support opposing ethnic cleansing, and stopping it if possible, but believe it is neccessary to go in with a coalition of nations. In Iraq, there was no ethnic cleansing involved, nor were they an imminent threat to us, therefore the invasion was not justified.
This is what a perfect example of what the modern "progressive" does. Perry first says "if I was correct," he wouldn't have supported Clinton's Bosnia actions. When shown I was correct, the response is the immediate above. And check it:
Y'see? Modern "progressives," who constantly claim to be so "thoughtful" and "nuanced," cannot even admit to the very simple fact that if George W. Bush is a "war criminal" for his actions in Iraq, then Bill Clinton is too -- for his actions in Bosnia and Kosovo. They can justify Clinton's actions all they wish (usually on humanitarian grounds) -- but then they have to grant that Iraq invasion supporters can do precisely the same! Once issues of internnational "legality" comes into play, the "progressive" argument against GW Bush is lost; that is, if you "argue" similar to people like Perry.
The Messiah at a Democratic fundraiser last night: “You would think they should be saying thank you.”
Who was he speaking to? Why, Tea Partiers at rallies across the country. He also said that the Tea Parties have "amused" him.
"Thank you?" For what, exactly? Is this The Messiah's well-established narcissism coming to the fore again? And I sure hope he continues to be amused by those Tea Partiers -- right up through November.
Meanwhile, over at CNN, anchor Rick Sanchez thinks Iceland is too cold to have volcanoes.
Via Seton Motley at the MRC (via e-mail):
President Barack Obama is now attempting to alter the terms of his central campaign promise – a pledge that families making less than $250,000 per year will not see “any form of tax increase.”
Obama now claims his pledge only applied to income taxes, as evidenced by this excerpt from his most recent weekly radio address:
“And one thing we have not done is raise income taxes on families making less than $250,000. That’s another promise we’ve kept.”
Obama broke his “any form of tax increase” pledge when he signed the healthcare bill, which contained seven tax hikes that unquestionably hit some families making less than $250,000 per year.
This is not the first time the White House has attempted to dodge the “any form of tax increase” pledge.
On April 1, 2009, when Calvin Woodward of the Associated Press (“Promises, Promises: “Obama Tax Pledge Up in Smoke”) pointed out that Obama’s increase in the federal excise tax on tobacco violated the pledge, White House spokesman Reid H. Cherlin said:
“The president's position throughout the campaign was that he would not raise income or payroll taxes on families making less than $250,000, and that's a promise he has kept.”
Compare that to Obama’s central campaign promise:
“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.” (Dover, NH) [Transcript] [Video]
Exactly one year ago, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs was asked if Obama’s pledge applies “to the health care bill”. Gibbs replied:
“The statement didn’t come with caveats.”
The White House has some explaining to do.
The president and vice-president revealed their latest tax returns today, and it shows that at least one of our top two head honchos abides by what he preaches.
The Obamas had a gross income of $5,505,409 and donated $329,100 to charity. That's just about six percent, almost double the amount for the average American. And this doesn't even take into account Obama's Nobel Prize award, which he donated to charity in full. Good for him.
On the other hand, Delaware's own Joe Biden made $333,182 and only donated $4,820 to charity -- a paltry 1.5%. (That's Biden at left demonstrating the amount he donated.) This puts Mr. "It's Patriotic to Pay Taxes" in league with Al Gore, who has had an even lower percentage. And, not to mention, it means Biden is certainly consistent!
The Rev. Sturgis Poorman of Bryn Mawr thinks that today's illegal immigrants are just like ... escaped slaves of two centuries ago:
It seems that many people who oppose immigration reform do so because it might allow those here illegally to be given a path to legal residency. They say that those who have consciously broken a law of our country should be punished, not rewarded.
One hundred and sixty years ago, Congress passed a law that also dealt with people who were in certain states illegally. It was called the Fugitive Slave Law.
The law, which required the return of escaped slaves to their masters, was, in retrospect, a bad law. Our current immigration laws, which require the return of more than 12 million illegal immigrants to their countries of origin, are similarly flawed.
The dopey aspect of this letter is more than obvious; how one can compare those brought to America in bondage seeking basic human freedom ... to people who already have their freedom but merely seek a better financial situation is beyond me. If the rev. believes that all illegals should be able to pay a fine and stay here (which he does), fine. But say so without making a comparison to those who were forcibly yanked from their homeland and sold into slavery.
The Rev. Sturgis Poorman: DOPE.
Mere Rhetoric - Obama Wrecking US Diplomatic Credibility, Squandering Diplomatic Capital In The Middle East
Bookworm Room - Getting a closer look at why liberals continue to feel that blacks should be held to a different standard
American Digest – The Barrel of GoogleRands
Rhymes With Right - Can One Fairly Judge Yesterday’s Deeds By Today’s Standards?
The Glittering Eye - The Gold Rush
Right Truth - A Nation Dividing
The Colossus of Rhodey - What makes good teachers?
The Razor - The Mythical Primary Care Physician Shortage
The Provocateur - China’s Currency Manipulation
JoshuaPundit - Reflections On Yom HaShoah, Holocaust Memorial Day
Wolf Howling – A Tale Of Two Conservative Parties – Part 1: The UK
Americans are now pretty evenly divided about whether they would rather have Barack Obama or George W. Bush in the White House. 48% prefer Obama while 46% say they would rather have the old President back. Bush had atrocious approval ratings for his final few years in office, particularly because he lost a lot of support from Republicans and conservative leaning independents . . . These numbers suggest some peril for Democrats in making Bush a focus of their messaging this fall. A lot of folks who contributed to the former President's low level of popularity now like Obama even less.
If you see any human hair laying around, it's probably due to members of the LGOMB pulling theirs out.
... he did make some logical points. Mike Huckabee, that is:
Huckabee told The Perspective, the College of New Jersey’s student magazine, that it’s not his place to tell someone how to live, but he argued against the legitimacy of civil unions.
“There’s a real level of being disingenuous on the part of the gay and lesbian community,” he said. "That would be like saying, well there's there are a lot of people who like to use drugs so let's go ahead and accommodate those who want to use drugs. There are some people who believe in incest, so we should accommodate them. There are people who believe in polygamy, should we accommodate them? ... Who gives you the right to say that a Polygamist is not just as right in his argument as is the person who wants same sex [marriage]?”
Now it's pretty ludicrous to compare gays who wish to join together ("marriage" of a civil union) to drug users (with, perhaps, the exception of users of very mild ones). But his point about incest and polygamy is on the money: If same-sex couples were allowed to "marry" -- and even join in civil unions -- then why can't incestuous couples (adults, mind you) and polygamists (again, adults) likewise be granted the same "right?" If the 14th Amendment (as I've often argued) grants equal protection to gay Americans to enjoy the same benefits as straight couples ("benefits" regarding taxes, health insurance, etc.), then why cannot that same protection to afforded to these others?
A medical technician killed himself after being suspended from work after someone complained that he made a politically-incorrect joke about a black friend. Roy Amor, 61, who was devastated at the prospect of losing his job making prosthetics, shot himself in the head outside his house.
He was facing a disciplinary investigation after suggesting to the black colleague that he ‘better hide’ when they noticed immigration officers outside their clinic. It is understood that the man was a close friend of Mr Amor and was not offended. However, it was overheard by someone else who lodged a formal complaint.
Do you think that, for instance, if these cretins continually called someone names and demanded his/her dismissal from a position ... and then the person did what Mr. Amor did -- should they be held accountable? After all, said cretins continually and perpetually blame conservative media for the acts of random [rightist and leftist] nuts who commit acts of violence, right?
The alleged leader of a terror plot to bomb Jewish synagogues in Riverdale and shoot down military aircraft upstate is a "hate-filled, anti-Semite" who called Osama bin Laden his "brother," prosecutors allege in court papers filed today.
James Cromitie also told a government informant that he wanted to shoot former President Bush "seven hundred times," saying the 43rd commander-in-chief "is the anti-Christ and if Allah does not kill him then a brother will," the papers charge.
I blame the hate-filled rhetoric coming from Democratic congressmen and their allies at MSNBC and other MSM.
Elsewhere, I blame the hate-filled rhetoric of Obama and the Democrats in Congress regarding Wall Street for the following*:
The mortgage chief of the second largest U.S. bank was mobbed by angry borrowers after he invited customers to speak to him if they feared foreclosure of their homes.
The JPMorgan Chase executive was at a congressional hearing Tuesday in Washington when a lawmaker asked him who mortgage borrowers could turn to if they felt his bank's employees were not helping them hold onto their homes.
"Come to me," said David Lowman, chief executive for JPMorgan Chase's home mortgage business in response to the question from Massachusetts Democrat Barney Frank.
Minutes later, around 50 borrowers burst from the audience and presented Lowman with a six-page document alleging his bank reneged on a pledge to help struggling homeowners.
The activist who organized the protest said Lowman did not want to talk and left the hearing.
"He ran. He ran like a dog with its tail between his legs," said Bruce Marks of the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America (NACA), which helps homeowners avoid foreclosure. "He was scared to death because he doesn't really want to talk to homeowners."
*(NOTE: Actually, no I don't, as some nutty "progressives" may believe. I only post this stuff to make the moronic "progressives" -- who constantly and persistently claim that Fox News, talk radio and GOP politicians are the "cause" of the occasional violent act by a deranged rightist -- look like complete fools. Because it isn't just those who hold conservative beliefs who may attack someone. Both sides of the spectrum have their loons, no matter what the "progressive" dolts say.)
Via Pajamas Media:
In this instance, the suspect appears to be a conspiratorial 36-year-old from the Pacific Northwest named Jason Levin. He started promoting the site on April 8 on his personal Twitter account, but failed to do an adequate job of covering up his personal information when he registered the domain five days earlier. He later attempted to cover his tracks, but the original information was quickly disseminated around the internet by those who wondered who was behind the group.
When contacted by Pajamas Media, Levin confirmed his involvement in the effort, stating, “Our stated intentions, or ‘manifesto’ as some of the conservative bloggers have called it is absolutely sincere.” He claimed to have operatives in tea party groups in every major city.
Levin concluded with a taunt: “Good luck stopping us. See you on 4/15.”
Levin apparently is a 9/11 Truther, a huge fan of Keith Olbermann, loves ObamaCare, and hates Fox News, Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck.
Big surprise all that, eh?
George Silberzahn thinks that the News Journal -- wait for it -- shouldn't print letters to the editor ... from conservatives.
I have been reading The News Journal for quite a while and have seen an effort to print letters to the editor which present all sides of opinion, for which I laud The News Journal -- but, and it's a big but -- recent letters have been filled with statements about politics and the health care reform law which are the result of talk radio bias and simply not correct.
I think The News Journal has the responsibility to either not print letters which are ignorant of facts or outright lies, or point out which statements are not true, and why they are not true, in order to properly serve those like me: The reading public that buys The News Journal.
Indeed. Let's leave it to the illustrious News Journal to determine the accuracy of folks' letters ... the near-monopoly on print media that won't even print the race of a criminal suspect for fear of "offending" someone's politically correct sensibilities. Just so Mr. Silberzahn will be spared from opposing points of view. As if there hasn't been a copious quantity of misinformation in the letters column from liberals -- not to mention the dang paper itself.
George Silberzahn -- DOPE.
The AP via Philly.com criticizes conservatives for using the "wrong" video to disprove the allegations that some [black] members of Congress were the subjects of racial slurs:
What does the video show? Not much. Indeed, new interviews show that a much-viewed YouTube recording cited as evidence by conservatives was actually shot well after the time in question.
A reconstruction of the events shows that the conservative challenges largely sprang from a mislabeled video that was shot later in the day.
Well, gosh. So conservatives were using a wrongly timed vid to back up their claims that there were no racial epithets uttered. Obviously the proof is on them to prove something happened! But ... they're not the ones making the accusations! The congressmen (and their aides) are. Is not the burden of proof on them? Despite the erroneous video mentioned here, there still has not been any video/audio evidence of racial slurs being hurled at the congressmen. We've already shown that Jesse Jackson Jr. was taping the entire walk to the Capitol by the congressmen; you mean he doesn't have anything on tape? Why not? Why should we just take the word of these lawmakers -- especially when their allegations just happen to fit neatly into the MSM narrative that Tea Partiers (and other protesters) are fringe bigots?
Newsbusters has more.
UPDATE: Heath Shuler, a white [Democrat] congressman from North Carolina, was mentioned in the AP article as supposedly hearing the racial epithets hurled by the Tea Partiers. Except that, well, he didn't.
George Leef over at Phi Beta Cons ponders:
In today's Pope Center Clarion Call, Jay Schalin writes about a very important piece of research that has just come out of the UNC system. It's a report on "The Impact of Teacher Preparation on Student Learning," and finds that students perform better if they're taught by "non-traditionally" trained teachers rather than those with education-school pedigrees. Teach for America wins high honors.
What explains why teachers who have not specifically studied to become teachers (Teach for America people have earned degrees in actual academic disciplines) tend to impart more knowledge than ed-school types?
One reason is that TFA only takes graduates of top universities — an intellectually gifted group of people. In contrast, the students drawn into your standard ed-school program are generally among the least gifted at any college or university. Smarter teachers are better at engaging with students, motivating them to learn.
Another reason is that TFA teachers have not been put through the ed-school processing plant, where you find weak and dubious courses having far more to do with politics than academics and professors you would hardly entrust your children to — for example a professor of "science instruction" who questions the objectivity of science, saying that it depends more on "factors like power, culture, race, gender, and ethnicity."
I've opined numerous times here and elsewhere that, by and large, ed schools need a LOT of work (meaning, "improvement") in prepping teachers for what they'll face in a classroom. And Leef is certainly correct that way too many [new] teachers aren't exactly the brightest folk, whether in their subject area or in general. It certainly makes sense that teachers with a greater knowledge base would be better at engaging with students ...
... but is that a given? How often is this the case?
I ask because over my many years in the public schools I have seen rather brilliant people get "eaten alive" by modern public school students, and for some it was enough to send them looking for another career. And I often wonder how many education professors have actually taught in [public] schools -- and if they did so for more than five years.
So, by "smarter teachers," I hope Leef also means "street smarts." The best combination (I've found) for teachers is to be an intellectual who's "hip." This means you can relate to the kids, and once you "have them" (metaphorically, obviously), your intellect (hopefully) will then "grab them" ... make them intellectually curious!
Today the Washington Post suggests that the US Post Office needs to drastically change its business model in order to survive. Little surprise, that.
Whenever I think of the "service" that government-bureaucracy entities provide, compared to their private counterparts, I always think of the classic film "Brazil." While the flick overall is a clear homage to 1984, the scenes where protagonist Sam Lowry (Jonathan Pryce) attempts to get simple renovation work done in his home are classic. Only government workers are permitted to do the work, and hence there are constant delays, excuses and, of course, poor work and service. Robert DeNiro plays Harry Tuttle, a "covert capitalist" who does similar work "on the side," and saves the day, so to speak, for Lowry.
While a quite "artsy" film, "Brazil" is a superb allegory for the pitfalls of government totalitarianism, mild and extreme.
The asinine Alan Grayson.
I wonder how the MSM would treat this if the parties were reversed? And, how would a GOP politician who crashed such a meeting be treated by "progressive" meeting-goers?
Go read this letter to the editor in today's News Journal. It's from a teacher.
HOW WE WILL SUCCEED: By infiltrating the Tea Party itself! In an effort to propagate their pre-existing propensity for paranoia and suspicion ... We have already sat quietly in their meetings, and observed their rallies.
The way the MSM is all over the Tea Party with a fine tooth comb, you can be sure this plan will work to at least some degree! And it won't matter at all to them the actual truth of the matter.
The White House is disputing a report from one of Israel's leading newspapers that claims the Obama administration is denying visas to Israeli nuclear scientists.
The Israeli newspaper, Maariv, reported this week that the Obama administration has stopped issuing visas to scientists working at a nuclear research center in Dimona, citing a professor who doesn't work at the center.
White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said Saturday in an e-mail to FoxNews.com that "the story is wrong."
We'll keep you posted.
UPDATE: Fellow Watcher's Council member JoshuaPundit calls BS on the story above.
UPDATE 2: Roger Simon notes that the "Visa Policy For Israeli Nuclear Scientists Did Not Begin With Obama Admin":
This morning (Pacific time) I was able to reach Dr. Alfassi in his office at Ben Gurion University in the Negev. Apparently, my report — and the newspaper’s — was inaccurate. The professor informed me that while it was extremely difficult for scientists who worked at Dimona to obtain U.S. visas, this was not a new policy of the Obama administration. This problem has been going on since 9/11.
Dr. Zeev Alfassi did say, however, that "He knows of at least one case of a scientist who was not able to attend a conference in this country because of this system. European scientists, he said, did not have this problem."
Towards Israel, that is, and a favorable one at that:
In any event, if Gen. Petraeus really does want to set the record straight in a way that reassures supporters of Israel, it is a very simple thing to do. He just needs to say that America's bias in favor of Israel is not a "perception" but a reality; that it will always be a reality unless and until Palestinians and their Islamist backers unequivocally acknowledge Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state and convincingly foreswear terrorism (aka "resistance"); that until those conditions are met, the United States realizes that there can be no resolution of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict; and that, if we are truly to "live our values," we have no alternative but to favor a Western-style democracy over a would-be Islamist regime that glorifies violent jihadists, endorses sharia principles, and inculcates anti-Semitism in its people through its control of the media, the schools, and other institutions.
It's quite simple, actually. Somebody tell Obama and Co.
From the WaPo:
As word of [Mohammed al]-Madadi's fate traveled quickly through Washington's diplomatic community, the reaction at Arab and Muslim embassies was twofold. There was widespread agreement that Madadi appeared to have done a dumb thing. But many think that profiling was involved, and that the situation would not have gone so far if Madadi were not Arab.
"We all share the same concerns about profiling of Arabs and Arab Americans in a time of strong anxiety, particularly in the air travel industry," said one ambassador. Enhanced security, he said, is in "everyone's best interest, and we hope and expect the security procedures are implemented uniformly."
One of his colleagues was more blunt, saying that the incident "never would have happened if [Madadi] were Swedish."
Indeed! How dare everyone react to a middle-eastern man named Mohammed who said he tried to set his shoes on fire in an airplane's restroom! I mean, what were they thinking, the insensitive bastards??
It's not enough that nutrition labels have to be on all food packages these days. No sir. Now they gotta be on the front of all food packages:
Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Kathleen Sebelius said today that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is developing a new regulation that would require food manufacturers to display nutritional information on the front of packages.
“Busy shoppers will be able to go into grocery stores and have some easy to understand information on the front of packages giving them quick data on what is a healthier choice,” said Sebelius at the U.S. Capitol.
Because we all know how difficult it is to, y'know, lift up that cereal box and look at the back of it. Doing so might add a total of a whole 30 seconds to your trip to the grocery store.
Unstable Mental State over at the LGOMB:
I know you’re really shocked to hear this. This week sort of feels like a “I told you so” type of week. Two different incidents of unstable people threatening lawmakers because of radicalization over health care reform. Now we get some results of a new survey about people who support the Tea Party.
These are the same people who carry racist signs, yet deny that one of their own could possibly have spit on a Congressman or call him a n****r (it’s obviously the Congressmen, his staff and the reporters who are lying). This is not a group with a coherent message other than “we’re mad.” Well, here’s what they’re mad about – black president who’s smarter than they are.
Still sticking to the narrative that those congressmen were spat on and called the "N" word. Despite not a scintilla of evidence. But even more chuckle-inducing is the "proof" of the Tea Partiers' [supposed] racism -- a link to a university's "Institite for the Study of Ethnicity, Race & Sexuality." Where are the specific questions that were asked from this survey? Don't know -- they're not available! All we're left with is a professor's "results" of Tea Partiers' views on race. Which should make you skeptical, if not for what's noted above, then from his concluding paragraph:
Preliminary analysis also reveals race affects the ways in which blacks and whites perceive the president, his policies, and how he’s handling his job. To illustrate, 75% of blacks have confidence in the president; 58% of whites share this appraisal. Likewise, where 90% of blacks think the president is doing a good job on the economy, 55% of whites agree with this appraisal. And the most recent hot-button issue, health care reform, received support from 86% of blacks versus only 36% among whites.
So, are whites in general racist due to their lack of support for Barack Obama at the moment? I wonder what a similar survey would have looked like (race-wise) say, in 2007 regarding George W. Bush? You think the race ratios would be reversed somewhat?
And how does the prof conclude that "Preliminary analysis also reveals race affects the ways in which blacks and whites perceive the president ..." Is it race ... or the president's policies? Why couldn't the conclusion be that "Preliminary analysis also reveals that the president's policies affect the ways in which blacks and whites perceive the president ..."?
Probably wouldn't look good for an "Institite for the Study of Ethnicity, Race & Sexuality."
Union Memo Hints At NJ Gov.'s Death.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie isn't laughing about a teachers union's memo that hints of his death.
The memo is the latest salvo in a war of words between Christie and the union over wage and benefits concessions.
The Record of Bergen County obtained the Bergen County Education Association memo that includes a closing prayer:
"Dear Lord this year you have taken away my favorite actor, Patrick Swayze, my favorite actress, Farrah Fawcett, my favorite singer, Michael Jackson, and my favorite salesman, Billy Mays. I just wanted to let you know that Chris Christie is my favorite governor." (Link.)
How 'bout that? Will this be front and center on the MSM broadcasts today? Of course not. I'm sure the union has "good intentions" and it was "just a joke." Of course, if this was a Tea Party memo that got out, well ... you know what would happen.
First place in the Council category was Bookworm Room with Redefining the word racist so that it suits ME.
First place in the non-Council category was Cato Unbound with The Rise of the New Paternalism.
Full results are here.
From fellow Watcher's Council member JoshuaPundit comes head-shaking news: Obama's New Policy: All Israeli Nuclear Workers Now Refused US Visas.
NRG/Maariv reported today that the Israeli government was stunned when every nuclear technician at Israel's Dimona reactor who had submitted visa requests to visit the United States for ongoing university education in Physics, Chemistry and Nuclear Engineering had their visa applications summarily rejected, specifically because of their association with the Dimona reactor.
This is a new policy decision of the Obama administration. Up until now, it was routine for Israeli nuclear scientists and technicians to receive such visas and to study at US universities.
Israeli security officials have confirmed that these technicians are being denied visas solely because of their employment at the Dimona reactor.
Not only are employees at Dimonas taboo, but reportedly the US has an unofficial embargo on selling anything to be used at the site.
Professor Zeev Alfasi, the head of Nuclear Engineering at Ben-Gurion University in the Negev stated that "the United States doesn't sell anything nuclear-related to the Dimona reactor, and that means absolutely nothing. Radiation detectors, for example have to be purchased now in France because the USA refuses to sell these to Israel."
Do people still think that Obama is a friend of Israel? I mean, are they out there??
Maybe The Messiah had a recent pow-wow with his old "spiritual mentor" Jeremiah Wright and his former campaign advisor Tony McPeak. We all remember how they feel about the Joooooos.
How to pay for health care and turn our deficit around? Easy -- just institute a Value Added Tax.
Economists prefer taxes on consumption rather than taxes on income, labor, and investment. You can argue that America today has too few of the former and far too many of the latter. But when [Paul] Volcker talks up the VAT, he isn't advocating a major, perhaps even constitutional tax reform that would replace the income tax with a national sales tax or VAT (the two are different because the VAT is assessed at each stage of production). He wants to augment the current tax system with a VAT. This would be a significant increase in the tax burden and complete America's transition to a social democracy similar in almost every way to those in Western Europe.
What's funny is that even while liberals advocate higher taxes as a solution to our problems, they ignore the fact that Europe, which is already governed along lines that liberals prefer, faces the same problems. The UK has the income tax and the VAT, but its 2009 deficit- and debt-to-GDP ratios were greater than America's. Liberals say the only way to avoid a Grecian fiscal crisis is to hike taxes and institute a VAT. Well, Greece has had the income tax and a 19 percent VAT for years, and look where they are today. Here in the states, California has a sales tax, business tax, and one of the highest top income tax rates in the country. It's still bankrupt.
No amount of tax revenue will stop a politician from spending the additional dollar, and a VAT doesn't stop politicians from making promises they cannot keep. The better way to bring America's long-term fiscal picture into balance is through dynamic economic growth and fiscal prudence. You need low taxes for one, and changes to entitlement law (raising the retirement age, pegging benefits to inflation, means-testing, restructuring Medicare) for the other. Most of all, you need to stop spending money you do not have. No new taxes need apply.
Years ago, in the era before blogs (the early 'net days), on various electronic b-boards I frequently argued for a national sales tax -- but as a replacement for the federal income tax. I always have believed that the 16th Amendment is in too much of a conflict with 13th (for reasons I won't get into now), and a national sales tax at least allows for people to make choices on how to pay their federal taxes by choosing what things to buy for themselves.
If The Messiah and Co. are thinking about a VAT in addition to the 16th Amendment, then you can kiss economic growth for the forseeable future goodbye ... not to mention the Democrats' chances in 2010 and 2012.
A black man who had grown tired of the incessant barking of a dog that reportedly dislikes minorities was arrested Monday night after he slashed its face, police said.
Andrew Owens, 58, was arraigned Tuesday in City Court after spending the night in jail. He admitted to the crime, police said.
"The dog reacts to black people, Hispanics, anyone who is not white," owner Paul Tocco said. "She always barked at him. He (Owens) was well aware the dog didn't like him, and he knew to stay away from her."
And here's the fun part: Tocco has been bombarded by the media inquiring about the "prejudice" of his dog:
After an initial report about the incident appeared on The Journal News' Web site Tuesday afternoon, Tocco said, he got bombarded by media calls, with many reporters asking about his dog's attitude toward nonwhites. This upset him.
Tocco said he never trained Jenna to behave this way. He said he didn't think it was fair to call his dog prejudiced.
"I never said the dog was prejudiced," Tocco said. "I said it doesn't like minorities. I think it's unfair to the dog that you're publicizing that she's prejudiced."
If Tocco is telling the truth -- that he never trained his dog to not like minorities -- why is it so unreasonable that dog doesn't like certain types of people? How many times have you encountered a dog that, say, didn't like men? Or women? Or kids? Slate did an article about this back in 2003.
But it sure is hilarious to hear how the media is ever so anxious to jump all over something that smells of anti-black racism. It shouldn't come as a surprise even if the subject is a mere pet; the MSM ran and ran and ran with the story of black congressmen being called the "N" word and being spat at -- despite there being not one scintilla of evidence to prove such allegations.
Why would Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell omit a reference to slavery in proclaiming April as Confederate History Month? But more significant (in my view), why did McDonnell resurrect the month in the first place?? It had been eight years since a month had been so designated.
It shouldn't be a problem to study the Confederacy -- let alone acknowledge it. But since slavery was a huge part of the nascent-yet-never-fully realized nation, doing so has to be done delicately. And McDonnell bungled this whole matter like a rank amateur.
He deserves to be blasted for it.
01. The Thin Red Line (Malick, 1998) (Good WWII flick, but "Saving Private Ryan" is better.)
02. Short Cuts (Altman, 1993)
03. Trois couleurs: Rouge (Kieslowski, 1994)
04. Breaking the Waves (von Trier, 1996)
05. The Age of Innocence (Scorsese, 1993)
06. My Own Private Idaho (Van Sant, 1991)
07. Eyes Wide Shut (Kubrick, 1999) (This movie just plain SUCKS. It shouldn't be in the top 500 let alone the top-freakin' ten!)
08. Trois couleurs: Bleu (Kieslowski, 1993)
09. The Ice Storm (Lee, 1997)
10. Goodfellas (Scorsese, 1990) (A true classic. Watch it every time I am able.)
11. Being John Malkovich (Jonze, 1999)
12. LA Confidential (Hanson, 1997)
13. Sense and Sensibility (Lee, 1995)
14. The Double Life of Véronique (Kieslowski, 1991)
15. Safe (Haynes, 1995)
16. All About My Mother (Almodóvar, 1999)
17. Unforgiven (Eastwood, 1992) (Overrated, but still good. Should be lower on the list.)
18. The Remains of the Day (Ivory, 1993)
19. Pulp Fiction (Tarantino, 1994) (Brilliant flick. Like Goodfellas, I never miss it.)
20. The English Patient (Minghella, 1996)
21. Chungking Express (Wong, 1994)
22. Close-Up (Kiarostami, 1990)
23. The Grifters (Frears, 1990)
24. Barton Fink (Coen & Coen, 1991)
25. The Piano (Campion, 1993)
26. Secrets & Lies (Leigh, 1996)
27. A Taste of Cherry (Kiarostami, 1997)
28. Ed Wood (Burton, 1994)
29. Lost Highway (Lynch, 1997)
30. Happy Together (Wong, 1997)
31. Mother and Son (Sokurov, 1997)
32. Magnolia (Anderson, 1999)
33. Howards End (Ivory, 1992)
34. Les amants du Pont-Neuf (Carax, 1991)
35. The Long Day Closes (Davies, 1992)
36. The Silence of the Lambs (Demme, 1991) (Anthony Hopkins scares the sh** out of me in his role as Hannibal Lecter.)
37. Naked Lunch (Cronenberg, 1991)
38. Heavenly Creatures (Jackson, 1994)
39. Lone Star (Sayles, 1996)
40. Raise the Red Lantern (Zhang, 1991)
41. Edward Scissorhands (Burton, 1990) (WTF????)
42. Naked (Leigh, 1993)
43. Fargo (Coen & Coen, 1996)
44. Schindler’s List (Spielberg, 1993) (Why is this not in the top ten? Are you kidding???)
45. Husbands and Wives (Allen, 1992)
46. Beauty and the Beast (Trousdale & Wise, 1991)
47. The Truman Show (Weir, 1998) (Another WTF???)
48. La belle noiseuse (Rivette, 1991)
49. Miller’s Crossing (Coen & Coen, 1990)
50. Sátántangó (Tarr, 1994)
51. Jackie Brown (Tarantino, 1997)
52. Rushmore (Anderson, 1998)
53. Rosetta (Dardenne & Dardenne, 1999)
54. Dead Man (Jarmusch, 1995)
55. Groundhog Day (Ramis, 1993)
56. Underground (Kusturica, 1995)
57. Flowers of Shanghai (Hou, 1998)
58. The Wind Will Carry Us (Kiarostami, 1999)
59. Starship Troopers (Verhoeven, 1997) (OK, now I know this list is full of sh**. While the book is fantastic, the movie is simply awful. Unless, that is, you like cool FX and adult cartoons.)
60. Thelma & Louise (Scott, 1991) (So far, the only one worthy of its actual place on the list -- that is, a bit less than halfway.)
61. Wild at Heart (Lynch, 1990)
62. Days of Being Wild (Wong, 1990)
63. The Player (Altman, 1992)
64. La cérémonie (Chabrol, 1995)
65. Beau travail (Denis, 1999)
66. The Talented Mr. Ripley (Minghella, 1999) (And underrated flick, I think this actually is one of Matt Damon's better performances on film.)
67. Fallen Angels (Wong, 1995)
68. The Big Lebowski (Coen & Coen, 1998) (A classic. Period.)
69. Titus (Taymor, 1999)
70. Vanya on 42nd Street (Malle, 1994)
71. Crash (Cronenberg, 1996)
72. Ulysses’ Gaze (Angelopoulos, 1995)
73. Van Gogh (Pialat, 1991)
74. Babe (Noonan, 1995)
75. Before Sunrise (Linklater, 1995)
76. A Brighter Summer Day (Yang, 1991)
77. Boogie Nights (Anderson, 1997) (Great performances by Burt Reynolds and Mark Wahlberg.)
78. American Beauty (Mendes, 1999) (Really too "artsy" for my tastes, but -- as usual -- Kevin Spacey is sensational.)
79. Dead Man Walking (Robbins, 1995) (A pretty good film if you can get past the fact that Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon are two of the biggest tools in Hollywood today.)
80. Kundun (Scorsese, 1997)
81. Porco Rosso (Miyazaki, 1992)
82. Smoking/No Smoking (Resnais, 1993)
83. The Crying Game (Jordan, 1992)
84. Gattaca (Niccol, 1997) (I love intelligent scifi and this film is just that!)
85. The Nightmare Before Christmas (Selick, 1993)
86. Trainspotting (Boyle, 1996)
87. Trois couleurs: Blanc (Kieslowski, 1994)
88. Bullets Over Broadway (Allen, 1994)
89. Everyone Says I Love You (Allen, 1996)
90. Eve’s Bayou (Lemmons, 1997)
91. Goodbye South, Goodbye (Hou, 1996)
92. Se7en (Fincher, 1995) (Not for the faint of heart!)
93. Carlito’s Way (De Palma, 1993)
94. Romy and Michele’s High School Reunion (Mirkin, 1997)
95. Un coeur en hiver (Sautet, 1992)
96. The Straight Story (Lynch, 1999)
97. Dong (Tsai, 1998)
98. JFK (Stone, 1991) (Wait -- are freakin' KIDDING ME??? I fell asleep TWICE attempting to watch this revisionist bullsh**.)
99. A Summer’s Tale (Rohmer, 1996)
100. Edward II (Jarman, 1991)
Obama is "fake macho."
•The Colossus of Rhodey – “You have to trust your gut”
•Right Truth - Truths About the Democrat Health Care Bill
•Mere Rhetoric – Anti-Israel WH Officials Targeting American Jews With “Leaked” Dual Loyalty Smears
•Bookworm Room - Redefining the word racist so that it suits ME
•Rhymes With Right - A Constitutional Convention?
•Wolf Howling - The War On Religion
•The Provocateur – The Politics of Self Esteem
•The Razor – The Rot at the Heart of the Roman Catholic Church
•The Glittering Eye – Quis Custodiet…
•American Digest – Dust in the Wind and the Summer of 77
•Joshuapundit – A Change Of The Guard Is Badly Needed In The GOP
And be sure to check out the non-Council nominations too!
Calif. Rep. Maxine Waters on the Tea Partiers.
Make sure your mouth isn't full of a drink. You'll ruin your keyboard.
So says liberal talker Randi Rhodes:
So now they're saying oh, you know, we're going to accuse them of doing everything we did. And that's how people become these victims ... You know, it's like - an idea that, you know, people listen to him. They listened to him because, Joy, they have no choice. He's on every radio station. He's on - they have no choice.
Indeed! Rush must be utilizing a special carrier wave in his braodcasts that compels people to keep on the station which carries his show! ROTFLMAO!!
VAN SUSTEREN: Why do you think that there was such — and I don't want to use a term that overstates it, but there were an awful lot of people who didn't like it. More people were unhappy, I think, with the bill, the health care bill, than were happy with it. Why do you think that?
SEN. HARRY REID, D-NEV, SENATE MAJORITY LEADER: Because the loud minority made a lot of noise. Now that the legislation passed, it is amazing how much different people attitude is. I mean traveling on an airplane people are so nice to me. We have people — it wasn't that way before . . .
. . . So everybody acknowledges with rare exception that what we did was terrific, and if there are some problems in out years we'll be happy to look at them.
In his home state, a "rare exception" is 62%.
I don't know if "toast" is an appropriate moniker for Reid so early in the year, but it ain't far off ...
I thought Olbermann was MSDNC's marquee pundit?
Things are bad when your substitute kicks your ass in the ratings ...
Which is lamer? This, or last year's All-Star Game first pitch?
UPDATE: The Weekly Standard Blog asks quite a few good questions about The Messiah's basketball abilities -- are they really as good as we've been led to believe?
1. Why wear shorts on Air Force One in Europe -- and regularly not wear ties at events of a somewhat formal nature -- and then wear a tie to play hoops?
2. Has President Obama ever played basketball on a team in a meaningful way? Sports Illustrated describes his having been on the "jayvee as a sophomore" at his high school in Hawaii, having made "second varsity" as a junior -- SI explains that the "school fielded multiple teams in some sports" -- and having finally made the varsity during a season spent "largely on the bench" as one of the "pine-riders." (And this is Hawaii -- hardly a rival of Indiana or North Carolina when it comes to hoops hotbeds.)
3. As a lefty, why release your jump-shot from the right side of your head?
4. Can the president dribble with his right hand at all (and I'm not speaking figuratively)?
5. Why was it that Clark Kellogg, whose shots were repeatedly flicking the bottom of the net as he built up a P-O-T-U (H-O-R-S) lead -- much of it off-camera -- barely able to draw iron after that? (This is not a tough question.) Relatedly, has President Obama recently played in a basketball game, or even a shoot-around, in which someone actually tried to beat him? I would love to see such a game take place.
Jonathan Kay of the [Canadian] National Post experiences the unintentional hilarity of a "Whiteness workshop." The premise:
Sandy, Jim and Karen work at a downtown community centre where they help low-income residents apply for rental housing. Sandy has a bad feeling about Jim: She notices that when black clients come in, he tends to drift to the back of the office. Sandy suspects racism (she and Jim are both white). On the other hand, she also notices that Jim seems to get along well with Karen, who is black. As the weeks go by, Sandy becomes more uncomfortable with the situation. But she feels uncertain about how to handle it. Test question: What should Sandy do?
My own answer, announced in class, was that Sandy should approach Jim discreetly, explaining to him how others in the office might perceive his actions. Or perhaps the manager of the community centre could give a generic presentation about the need to treat clients in a colour-blind manner, on a no-names basis.
The problem with my approach, the instructor indicated, lay in the fact that I was primarily concerned with the feelings of my fellow Caucasian, Jim. I wasn't treating Karen like a "full human being" who might have thoughts and worries at variance with the superficially friendly workplace attitude.
Moreover, I was guilty of "democratic racism" -- by which we apply ostensibly race-neutral principles such as "due process," constantly demanding clear "evidence" of wrongdoing, rather than confronting prima facie instances of racism head-on. "It seems we're always looking for more proof," said the instructor, an energetic left-wing activist who's been teaching this course for several years. "When it comes to racism, you have to trust your gut."
You will never encounter a bigger bunch of hooey than by sitting in such a "workshop." I mean, just consider that term "democratic racism." "Race-neutral principles of due process" is a symptom of this concept? Well sure, if you subscribe to this gobbledygook; after all, it's the logical outgrowth of "Critical Race Theory" which has as one of its foundations the idea that the American (and Western, for that matter) political system -- equal justice for all, due process, equal rights ... even freedom of speech -- is still oppressive if it doesn't take into historical account the plight of minorities. This is at the heart of "white privilege" -- since whites have constructed the very system under which we [all] live, it inherently will "maintain" the dominant culture (or race).
Just witness how Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream has been perverted (from the article): "I hate when people tell me they're colour-blind. That is the most overt kind of racism. When people say ‘I don't see your race,' I know that's wrong. To ignore race is to be more racist than to acknowledge race. I call it neo-racism."
What does one say to that? That to ignore race makes you more racist than acknowledging it? Are you kidding me??
Such damned-if-you-damned-if-you-don't theorizing can only come about by people with an extreme amount of free time on their hands, not to mention some pretty destructive ideas for modern Western society. The First Amendment, for these folks, would be conditional; the speech of the dominant culture (whites) would suffer greater legal scrutiny (or, be subject to more constraints) than that of minorities. In 1992, for example, lawyers used Critical Race Theory to argue against the right of a person to burn a cross (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul). Mari Matsuda and Charles R. Lawrence III argued that "when acts of speech are acts of intimidation and threaten violence, backed up by a historical force, then those words become a mechanism for social control and domination." But the US Supreme Court didn't buy the argument, saying that banning certain speech -- even hate speech against a particular group -- violates the First Amendment: "St. Paul has no such authority to license one side of a debate to fight freestyle ..." and
"Let there be no mistake about our belief that burning a cross in someone's front yard is reprehensible. But St. Paul has sufficient means at its disposal to prevent such behavior without adding the First Amendment to the fire."
You can probably see why such theories have remained largely confined to the world of [leftist] academia since, if utilized by contemporary Western (but mostly American) societies, the race grievance industry might become the largest sector of the economy virtually overnight. "Historical claims" of discrimination by virtually every group imaginable would have hearings in courtrooms across the land for virtually any claim imaginable. What chronological limit would be established for their compaints? How far back could grievances go? 300 years? 400? 1,000? 5,000?
liberal jurist Alex Kozinski (of the far-left 9th Circuit Court of Appeals) has said that Critical Race Theorists "have constructed a philosophy which makes a valid exchange of ideas between the various disciplines unattainable." UPDATE: (Thanks to Soccer Dad for elaborating on Kozinski's politics. Kozinski should be dubbed "unpredictable" if anything, not (exclusively) liberal.)
The radical multiculturalists' views raise insuperable barriers to mutual understanding. Consider the Space Traders story. How does one have a meaningful dialogue with Derrick Bell? Because his thesis is utterly untestable, one quickly reaches a dead end after either accepting or rejecting his assertion that white Americans would cheerfully sell all blacks to the aliens. The story is also a poke in the eye of American Jews, particularly those who risked life and limb by actively participating in the civil rights protests of the 1960's. Bell clearly implies that this was done out of tawdry self-interest. Perhaps most galling is Bell's insensitivity in making the symbol of Jewish hypocrisy the little girl who perished in the Holocaust -- as close to a saint as Jews have. A Jewish professor who invoked the name of Rosa Parks so derisively would be bitterly condemned -- and rightly so.
Those in "lower" education may be familiar with the sort of "workshops" that Kay willingly put up with. I know I have. Within the last decade I've attended "workshops" where I was informed that, as a white teacher, it was my fault that minority children in my class (and school) don't succeed, and even told, simply, that "all whites are racist." We were also told one time that an incident that was completely race-free had been perceived by minority students as racist ... and so we "had to accept their reality." Now read above what Kay encountered again!
But one thing to keep in mind is that if this sort of garbage is flung around often (and maliciously, even if done "professionally") you don't have to just sit there and be harassed and intimidated (at least here in the US, that is). There is ample legal precedent for recourse against a "hostile work environment."
Right here. I knew it'd come about eventually!
Henry Payne at Planet Gore:
On April 1, the Obama administration’s EPA issued final rules forcing automakers to increase their vehicles’ fuel economy by 40 percent in five years. The next day, the very same EPA favorably reviewed an ethanol fuel mandate that would force autos to get up to 5 percent worse fuel economy.
You can’t make this stuff up.
Follow us here. By the same date — 2015 — that the new 35.5 mpg EPA mandate is due to go into effect, oil companies are also mandated by Congress to double the amount of corn ethanol use (from 2007 levels) to 15 billion gallons. The current mandate of a 10 percent ethanol mix in fuel won’t get us there, so the powerful corn lobby is demanding EPA increase the mandate to a 15 percent ethanol mix.
Trouble is, a gallon of ethanol is 30 percent less efficient than a gallon of gas meaning that the more ethanol you mix in, the worse your gas mileage. Department of Energy studies show steadily decreasing fuel economy as ethanol blends rise from so-called E10 (fuel composed of 10 percent ethanol and 90 percent gas) up through E15 and E20 — with E20 suffering a 7.7 percent fuel efficiency loss.
Energy Secretary Steven Chu, knowing all this, still favors the use of ethanol.
My God. Do any of these cretins have an original thought? Do they all write from the same script? Do they have even the slightest clue as to the actual truth of their supposed "facts?"
Meanwhile, their viewer/readership continues to dwindle. And they'll keep making excuses for it, still failing to grasp the actual reasons for the plummet.
Francine Strauss of Philly thinks -- just like the MSM -- that the Tea Parties are no better than the "flash mobs" which have been plaguing Philadelphia recently:
After reading about flash mobs in Philadelphia, it has occurred to me that the tea-party gatherings are, in fact, flash mobs, too. Instead of using violence, although there has been some, their charismatic leaders use verbally violent speeches to incite their followers, who are essentially people angry about life in general and are being led to funnel that anger into a cause.
It is an adult flash mob, brought together by texting and the Internet, and just as dangerous as the mobs roaming South Street because they are adults buying into misinformation and misplaced anger.
Uh huh. No need for me to shred this idiot's letter -- just read the reader comments (at the link above) that follow the letters printed!
Where's the MSM in reporting on this inciteful rhetoric by Greenpeace?
And we need to inspire, engage and empower everyone in between... from the AirPlotters stopping the expansion of Heathrow by purchasing bits of the proposed runway to the volunteer activists that have been making life hell for fossil fuel lobbyists in the US.
Emerging battle-bruised from the disaster zone of Copenhagen, but ever-hopeful, a rider on horseback brought news of darkness and light: "The politicians have failed. Now it's up to us. We must break the law to make the laws we need: laws that are supposed to protect society, and protect our future. Until our laws do that, screw being climate lobbyists. Screw being climate activists. It's not working. We need an army of climate outlaws."
The proper channels have failed. It's time for mass civil disobedience to cut off the financial oxygen from denial and skepticism.
If you're one of those who believe that this is not just necessary but also possible, speak to us. Let's talk about what that mass civil disobedience is going to look like.
If you're one of those who have spent their lives undermining progressive climate legislation, bankrolling junk science, fueling spurious debates around false solutions, and cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission, then hear this:
We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.
And we be many, but you be few.
You can just imagine if this was posted on a Tea Party website!
In other Liberal Hate Rhetoric news today :
Headline in today's Philly Inquirer: Threatening letter does not alter Capitol security plan.
But in the actual article we read:
Despite being among dozens of governors to receive threatening letters from an extremist group, Gov. Rendell is not changing his routine or ordering special safety measures for the state Capitol, administration officials said Friday.
"Threat letters are not uncommon, and the governor is going to go about his normal routine," said spokesman Gary Tuma.
Tuma said the Capitol Police had increased their vigilance, but Pennsylvania is not heightening security, as other states have.
Rendell was among at least 30 governors to receive letters this week from a group called Guardians of the Free Republics.
Its Web site says its members want to "restore" America through "behind-the-scenes, peaceful reconstruction of . . . institutions of government without controversy, violence or civil war."
The group lists as goals ending foreclosures and tax prosecutions, and states it will do so "without public proclamations or provocative actions against a general public that is mostly unaware of the hijacking of their free de jure American republics, and their hapless media."
FBI Special Agent J.J. Klaver said the letter, which was lengthy and contained petitions seeking the governor's removal, did not advocate violence. Nonetheless, the FBI is warning police that the call to remove governors could provoke violent acts from others.
So, let's recap: Rendell's spokesman says that such letters are "not uncommon," and this letter in question specifically does NOT advocate any violence of any sort. In fact, what the letter implies, if anything, is that these governors should be aware that the group will do everything it can ... to make sure they're not re-elected if they don't wise up. That sounds pretty democratic and as American as apple pie to me!
But, y'see ... this D.F.T.N. (Doesn't Fit The Narrative) for the paper, thus the headline -- which is quite consistent with much of what its editorial cretins (and their cohorts at the Daily News) have been spewing for weeks.
Obama checks off only the "Black, African Am., or Negro" box on his census form.
Obama's mother is white.
Something tells me that if Obama did the opposite, the MSNBC.com article would not be as ... gracious (or joking) in its reporting. Nor would the usual race-grievance people and groups be sympathetic.
After all, Ann Coulter was so warned a little over a week ago not to "spread hate;" 'ya think shouting "We need another Holocaust" and "We love jihad! We love killing" qualify?
No word on any arrests. And no wonder -- hate crimes laws face quite a conundrum when the perpetrators are "aggrieved minorities" themselves!
The substantial Nancy Willing posts on CRI's Lee Williams and the (local) growing Karen Weldin-Stewart scandal:
The chair of the House Banking and Insurance Committee announced Thursday he wants Delaware Insurance Commissioner Karen Weldin Stewart to publically [OUCH - for real -Lee Williams still needs an editor] answer allegations of impropriety that were raised by the Caesar Rodney Institute, as well as allegations she failed to sufficiently regulate a local insurer.
Um, Nance? Did you read the title of your own post? "The Truth Will Out! The General Assembly Will Hold Public Hearings On The That Swirling Dervish Of Controversy Herself, Insurance Commissioner Stewart."
Hire an editor yourself, Nance. It'll help make yourself look a LOT less foolish. (And we have a screen cap of the post title if -- unsurprisingly -- Willing tries to edit it.)
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver's charge that he was spit on is bogus.
Talk about trying to retract your story! LOL!!!
OK, so my daughter texts me the other day saying she didn't get in to her school's National Honor Society. I thought that quite strange, as she has over a 3.9 GPA. Not being a complete moron, I'm aware that, these days, the National Honor Society puts some emphasis on stuff like community service in addition to academics. (Personally, I think that is a bunch of bullsh**, but more on that later.) Daughter says that she had filled in every section with requisite information. Hmm.
I send an e-mail to the school's Honor Society advisor and ask how the students are judged, etc. (Oh, and being a teacher myself and a total NON-helicopter parent, I was extremely polite and non-accusatory ... FYI.) Here's what I thought is, well, astonishing for a group the dubs itself an honor society: Only 25% of a student's application is based on academics. The other three categories are, 1) community service, 2) leadership, and 3) character. A faculty group judges each application. The school's society is in adherence to the national group's standards.
When I got into my high school's honor society, it was based solely on one's academic achievement -- your GPA. So were the college honor societies into which I was inducted. I can understand certain aspects of the "character" and "leadership" categories, but community service?? And even so, why is GPA (currently) given equal footing with such?
In my only semi-snarky line to the advisor, I asked, based on the info above, why the group wasn't called the "National Good Citizenship Society" since academics is such a small part of the whole package. The answer was that the group is "in line" with what universities want.
I see. 'Nuff said, eh?
That's Rep. Phil Hare (D-IL). Yep, at approx. 48 seconds in:
'Ya think if a GOP rep. had said something like that in reference to, say, police not giving Miranda warnings to criminal suspects because "he's worried about the rising crime rate" ... that Olbermann, Matthews, et. al. would be screaming "fascist" and other such stuff?
Hmm ... the guy who won seems familiar ...!
First place in the Council category was The Colossus of Rhodey with The inanity of the rest of the West.
First place in the non-Council category was The Doctor is In with In the Doldrums.
Full results are here.
Washington DC, in order to comply with the Supreme Court's Heller ruling from 2008, established a quite labyrinthine set of rules and regulations by which one could legally purchase a gun:
A Washington Post article last summer found it took “$833.69, a total of 15 hours 50 minutes, four trips to the Metropolitan Police Department, two background checks, a set of fingerprints, a five-hour class and a 20-question multiple-choice exam” to possess legally a handgun in Washington D.C.
And one must travel outside the District to purchase a gun and then pay $125 dollars to have the city's only licensed firearm dealer transport it in for you. Also, registered guns must be kept unloaded and either disassembled or locked with a trigger-lock.
Dick Heller, the same guy who challenged DC's total ban on handguns, was unsuccessful (so far) in challenging these new regs:
U.S. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina found that the new regulations were crafted to make the streets safer and aren't so restrictive that they violate the Second Amendment guarantee of a person's right to own a gun for self-defense.
Is Judge Urbina "make the streets safer" bit valid? DC "has the highest gun homicide rate in the country – five times the average rate." So how did its restrictions and total ban create safe[er] streets? Meanwhile, there's plenty of evidence that less restrictive gun laws make for safer streets. Urbina's "reasoning" isn't unlike the majority SCOTUS decision in the Grutter v. Bollinger affirmative action case that agreed there are educational benefits to a [racially] diverse student body. But the National Association of Scholars shredded the University of Michigan's research (the Gurin Report), essentially making a mockery of the university's claims.
Solid evidence for less restrictive gun laws? So what.
Pathetic evidence for the eduational benefits of diversity? Sounds great!
It's likely Heller will appeal this recent setback all the way to the SCOTUS. Again.
I've (among others) asked "Where is the evidence that black members of Congress were called the 'N' word?" Andrew Breitbart even offered a $10,000 prize for such evidence. Why was Breitbart so confident that no one could take his cash? Maybe due to stuff like this:
That's Jesse Jackson Jr. recording every moment of the accusing congressmen's walk to Capitol Hill that day. Does anyone think that had Jackson Jr. filmed someone uttering the "N" word that it would not be front and center on MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC etc. etc. etc. for weeks on end? If so, get your strait jacket on. Now.
No, we didn't see such from the networks -- because there has been no evidence. None. That still hasn't prevented the MSM from repeating the without-evidence accusations time and time again, though, and locally, moral fraud and one of the LGOMB, pandora, has ridiculed the notion that such evidence is even needed -- we should just take the word of these politicians ... and "eyewitnesses" (who just happen to be the politicians' buddies, by the way).
Sorry. No dice.