Showing posts with label political correctness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label political correctness. Show all posts

While polls find King's 'Dream' is elusive, so are commonsense attitudes about racism

Check out this quote from a recent Pew Research finding on race in America (under the heading King's Dream Remains an Elusive Goal... ). I make a few points in reaction to it, and the circular problem of misusing racism in today's America: 
Incarceration. Black men were more than six times as likely as white men in 2010 to be incarcerated in federal and state prisons, and local jails, the last year complete data are available. That is an increase from 1960, when black men were five times as likely as whites to be incarcerated.

SIX TIMES as likely?! Some want to call that racism. They are FOOLS of the highest order. Or, sad, piteous, willing victims of narrow-minded suspicions.

The disparity of prison time for whites versus blacks is about as much to do with race bias as someone being overweight has to do with food being advertised on TV. Not to mock actual racism, but those blame, the victimhood, and the paranoia that surrounds so much allegations of racism. That is: one's weight is about them, not food ads.

With criminal incarceration, it is about people being criminals, not some grand scheme to "keep them down." Racism exists, light and hard, but to run to it every time there's a philosophical or physical scuffle is a cycle of failure. That's not to minimize the matter, when facts prove racism had a hand in some event, but unreasonable aspersions ought not to be batched in with actual racist activities. Paranoia and habitual distrust isn't a reliable source for social change.

Committing crime and going to prison is a problem that cannot be solved through blame, racial or otherwise, but through improving one's plight. That's not easy, or simple, when one is steeped in a culture of victimhood, self-pity, misleading heroes, and a habit of blaming others for your problems. Changing the response of those who cry victim when it's not the case is what will change such a disparity as this prison one, not crazed claims of rampant racism in the courts.

Such lashing out is a cycle of failure, whether it is about racism or any other suspicion of being wronged. There is an understandable lingering sense of betrayal, frustration and anger in impoverished or dysfunctional communities, but that does not prove systemic racism.

How can getting jailed for committing a crime be racist, certainly to such an overwhelming degree, without it being proven as more than a mere suspicion? These claims amount to claims of having seen Bigfoot, though. Sometimes there is racial problems, but often, it's something else. You cannot call someone a racist for jailing a black criminal -- unless they let white criminals go SIX TIMES for every black criminal, for the same crime. Is this happening? Where's the exposés on that today?

Are we to all damn our lying eyes with regard to race and racial biases, or racial hypocrisy? I hope we can recover MLK's dream, but it won't be easy while people insist on pointing the finger, like stabbing their sword at imaginary dragons.

Let freedom ring, indeed. And let REASON reign! 



- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Independence is not a thing you can enforce

HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY. Note: You cannot enforce liberty. 

The Founding Fathers, in the 1700s, understood the dire risks of pursuing liberty, and did not do so by enforcing some imagined (utopian) equality (see a Spearhead piece on equality), but by carefully separating themselves from an autocratic leader, by realizing and establishing not just a new government, but essentially a new form of government. That's a big deal. I think too many take it for granted, or only give it some general lip service today. The patriots of that age wanted to allow citizens who were law-abiding proceed in their lives, not be pinched at every turn of luck or at every respectable success.

The Founders' decision to leave the tyranny of Britain's King George was the promise of their ruin (Snopes.com), not knowing the outcome. They still took that chance. A calculated risk? Certainly. (What's the biggest risk of your life you've ever taken? Driving a car? Motocross? Bungie jumping? Or serving your country at a time of war? Saving someone from a burning building? Only the last two count.) Thanks to the Founding Fathers and many of their fellow patriots, the USA won its freedom, implausibly, from the most powerful sea and land force on the planet.

Look how far we've come, huh?

We can't say that today our leaders have the same thoughts that the Founders, or any patriots of the 1700s, had. We are a nation spoiled by our comforts, to the least engaged among us. The difference we can make is in recognizing those aspects of our lives that are spoiling us, and living beyond them.

The current Democratic chief in the White House (and by extension, those who surround him or share his ideas) has the notable trait of blaming others -- not a leadership trait. If you search for "Barack Obama blame" online, there are 58 million hits. That is the trait not of a true leader, but of an abuser, or a lowly wheeler-dealer, not a heroic and principled change agent. Of course, some of those are about average people seeing his lack of blame (Economist, unscientific poll), while others point out the irony of his claim and blame paradox (Economist article, June 2012). His rhetorical soundbites and longwinded speech-lectures too commonly amount to lies in the long run. See, just because you think something might be true doesn't excuse you when it is exactly wrong -- that's delusional. That's, apparently, a lot of Obama true believers in a nutshell. For instance, he pledged in 2009 that the ACA, or Obamacare, would help the needy and make costs go down for the middle class. Not happening.

Power grabs of one type or another have been too common since Sept. 11, sadly. Borne of concern for safety, they are obviously affecting freedoms, and it is far worse under Obama and the federal agencies under his umbrella than it had started out with under the equally security-over-liberty minded George Bush. The supposedly forward-thinking White House of 2013 is not an antidote to power over the people, but fully a part of that allegedly well-meaning, but nonetheless overbearing, attitude of enforcing fairness by playing favorites. This current condition is not in any way Americanism, it a whiff of totalitarianism.

In Texas, it seems that we've learned -- if one has no understanding of it for one's own -- that the support of abortion after 20 weeks is a right. Aborting a child after five months is a kind of liberty? For whom?! Unwilling mothers who are too dumb or delusional to decide to give up a child, in the worst way possible, before five months? Nationwide, we've seen the view that registering all legal guns is the only right thing to do, according to our president and those on the overbearing, nanny state, big government side of America. This is so, while letting arms slip into hands of known bands of killers to try and track the guns, and losing track of them (what the hell?!) is good for liberty. As well, while giving deadly arms to rogue activists akin to the Taliban, in this case, the Syrian rebels, is also acceptable. But. not entrusting Americans with their right to bear arms, a central tenet of the idea of liberty envisioned by our Founding Fathers. What liberty is Obama and the left in favor of? That which limits the rights of all in favor of coddling to the favored labels? How un-American have we gotten?

Slavery wasn't abolished by our founders and, out of context, that's shameful to me. In context, I realize that the civil war would have happened on the heels of the revolution, had that move been pushed. Still tragic, but to manage freedom from the King of England was a first step. The Founders were not perfect men. Obama is far from that himself, farther than they. That wrong does not translate well to the idea that the broad freedoms they envisioned in the 1700s were incorrect. Today, how is it that granting, to the government, more power over law-abiding citizens  somehow makes anyone more "free"? I think leaving aside slavery at the outset was a compromise, no matter how regrettable it was. We live in different times, but how dare people suggest that these times also call for a government that nannies us? That isn't liberty, that's comfort to the disinterested and lazy. We shouldn't be regarding independence as something administered by the government. Because it can only be taken from us by a government. We freed the slaves not by limiting their freedom, but by preventing their enslavement. There is a huge difference.

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Rape is rape, except when it's done by a liberal artiste

CORDES

Updated at 3:30 p.m ET

(CBS News) Republican Rep. Todd Akin on Monday apologized for the controversial remarks he made over the weekend about abortion and rape, but he said he has no plans to drop out of the Missouri Senate race despite building pressure from within the GOP.

"What I said was ill-conceived, and it was wrong," Akin said on former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's radio show Monday. "I really just want to apologize to those that I've hurt."

Akin's apology came as President Obama suggested the Republican's remarks illustrated the broad differences between Democrats and Republicans on issues like health care and reproductive rights.

"Rape is rape," Mr. Obama told reporters at the daily White House briefing Monday. "And the idea that we should be parsing and qualifying and slicing what types of rape we're talking about doesn't make sense to the American people and certainly doesn't make sense to me."

Mr. Obama added that Akin's remarks underscore "why we shouldn't have a bunch of politicians, a majority of whom are men, making health care decisions on behalf of women."

The president acknowledged that his GOP rival Mitt Romney and other Republicans have distanced themselves from Akin's statements. However, he said, "The underlying notion that we should be making decisions on behalf of women for their health care decisions, or qualifying 'forcible rape' versus 'non-forcible rape' -- those are broader issues....between me and the other party."

The controversy started after Akin, a six-term Missouri conservative now running against Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill, was asked in a local interview on Sunday whether he would support abortions for women who have been raped.

"It seems to me first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that's really rare," Akin said in the interview. "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down," Akin said of a rape victim's chances of becoming pregnant.

Romney abortion view overrides Ryan in Akin response
Romney, Scott Brown rebuke Akin's rape comments
Mo. Rep. Todd Akin: Rape rarely leads to pregnancy

Romney called the remarks "inexcusable," while some Republican senators like Scott Brown of Massachusetts and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin called for him to drop out of the Senate race.

Some liberals tried to tie other Republicans to Akin's comments, noting that Romney's running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan, co-sponsored an abortion-related bill with Akin that would have limited federal funding for abortions to victims of forcible rape," rather than just rape. The FBI's definition of rape is known as "forcible rape," and it is used to distinguish between statutory rape and other kinds of rape.

Huckabee asked Akin whether he was talking about "forcible rape" when he used the term "legitimate rape."

"I was talking about forcible rape, and it was absolutely the wrong word," Akin said.

Akin said he understands that women can become pregnant from rape. "I didn't mean to imply that wasn't the case," he said. "That does happen."

While Akin acknowledged he made a "very, very serious error," he added that he's not dropping out of the Senate race.

"I don't know that I'm the only person in public office who suffered from foot-in-mouth disease," he said. "I feel just as strongly as ever that my background and ability will be a big asset in replacing Claire McCaskill... Just because someone makes a mistake doesn't make them useless."

Later in the day, Akin wrote on Twitter, "I am in this race to win. We need a conservative Senate." His Twitter message also included a link to his fundraising page.

As the Washington Post notes, the Republican Party can't force Akin to drop out of the race, but he could voluntarily resign by 5 p.m. Tuesday, or he could withdraw from the race by court order by Sept. 25.

In spite of Akin's insistence that he'll stay in the race, the pressure Monday continued to build against him. The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) told Akin Monday it would no longer financially support his Senate bid if he chose to stay in the race, a GOP source told CBS News.

Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, chairman of the NRSC, said in a public statement that Akin's comments were "wrong, offensive, and indefensible," though he stopped short of explicitly calling on him to exit the race.

"I recognize that this is a difficult time for him, but over the next twenty-four hours, Congressman Akin should carefully consider what is best for him, his family, the Republican Party, and the values that he cares about and has fought for throughout his career in public service," Cornyn said.

Meanwhile, the Karl Rove-backed super PAC American Crossroads confirmed to CBS News that it is pulling its ads from Missouri. "The act speaks for itself," Crossroads said to CBS regarding its decision to pull its ads.

The editors of the conservative magazine the National Review wrote Monday that it was time for Akin to step aside.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell also called Akin's comments "totally inexcusable."

"What he said is just flat wrong in addition to being wildly offensive to any victim of sexual abuse," McConnell said in a statement. "Although Representative Akin has apologized, I believe he should take time with his family to consider whether this statement will prevent him from effectively representing our party in this critical election."


Remember when that master of relevant social commentary, Whoopi Goldberg, said that what Roman Polanski did to a young teenager in the 1970s wasn't "rape rape"? I won't say she is as vital to anyone as this Akin dude, but, really, where was THIS sort of broad shock across the media then?!

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57496599-503544/akin-apologizes-for-ra...

Posted via email from Like, Totally Political Dude! - posterous

Rape is rape, except when it's done by a liberal artiste

Media_httpiicomcomcnw_fqgsw

Remember when that master of relevant social commentary, Whoopi Goldberg, said that what Roman Polanski did to a young teenager in the 1970s wasn't "rape rape"? I won't say she is as vital to anyone as this Akin dude, but, really, where was THIS sort of broad shock across the media then?!

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57496599-503544/akin-apologizes-for-ra...

Posted via email from Like, Totally Political Dude! - posterous

JIM CROW Laws and Hangings - Again!? Allen West threatens to reconsider his membership in Black Caucus

What is a perfect example of what is deeply wrong with American leadership? Indiana Democratic Rep. Andre Carson. He inspires irrational fear and hatred: that is one way to divide, and win elections. Not just any fear, but fear of violence and dark images from shameful times in history, to inspire hatred. 

The Congressional Black Caucus effectively agrees with "hanging from trees" comment about Tea Party movement, made by this shell of a man. Because the CBC wouldn't condemn Carson's very divisive comments, Florida Republican Allen West said he was considering getting out of that caucus. 

This guy Carson ought to be hanging himself, politically, but instead it appears he's allowed to inspire and fuel illegitimate hatred toward a grass roots movement that chiefly opposes big government since he's a liberal, a racial minority, and thus a favorite to the liberal MSM. 

Shame. Totally predictable, but a shame. The PC cowards in the mass media, from my viewing this morning, barely stepped near the outrageous part of this story: Carson's comparing Tea Partiers to Jim Crow law supporters who want to hang black men. And throughout the day this spite-stricken race-baiter didn't really get any serious sway online, outside of venues that were conservative. 

Don't think that this is just him running at the mouth about the GOP bringing back Jim Crow laws: it's filthy politicking that was used by the DNC's chair, Florida's Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, about a month ago. Something she never backed off of, that I saw. 

Welcome to the Democratic Party of the 21st Century. 
If you can't win with even the vaguest use of reason, then make your enemies out to be racists, bigots, simpletons, extremist religious zealots, or worse -- wanton killers (hangings, gun-toters, mobs, extremists, etc.). Make it easy on yourself, attack your foes without shame, don't permit them to come off as even human, if you can manage it. Because you're a liberal, the assumption is that you are open-minded, even though your words show something closer to spite, not for despicable actions, but merely those who disagree with you. There's a theme of that... you've seen it. 
What is wrong with American leadership? Indiana Democratic Rep. Andre Carson is the big example from recorded events that aired today. Who will it be tomorrow, or over the weekend? 

Enjoy, it's going to be happening all through the 2012 cycle. 

Try not to let it upset you much, just get you to be more determined to get the country to back away from this craziness. Don't get too uptight over it, because people are ruined by hatred and anger. A leader would inspire people to be concerned about issues, not fear a return to Jim F-ing Crowe laws. 

Let overbearing, spastic, fuming hatred be the failure of those who disagree with you, if they gave to be that way. Let hate sting the politicians who encourage the hot, blind dislike of people who simply hold differing views, don't let it be yours. 

You be the rational ones. And enjoy reducing their hate speech to buffoonery and exploitation of their fans. Hopefully, enough will step back from such mad-chattering jerks and lean more toward something that holds reason. 


CBC brushes Allen West’s threat to reconsider his membership aside 
HOT AIR » TOP PICKS | SEP. 1, 2011
http://pulse.me/s/1rRIC 

Too busy to bother. Read more

Posted via email from Like, Totally Political Dude! - posterous

Obama is JUST a narcissist. Like Hitler was JUST a Nazi.

Barack Obama at the University of Nevada, Las ...Barack Obama - Image via Wikipedia
I don't care what your politics: if you think Obama is brilliant, humble, sincere, honest, appreciative of his office, deserving of a Nobel and songs sung to him by schoolchildren, and that he is not a pure political operator bent on turning America in a hard left direction... you JUST DON'T GET IT. 


He is unquestionably a narcissist. He adores himself, and there were people in Chicago politics who loved him for it. They, in their own words, "protected" him from risky issues, on his way to the Senate, and to the White House. Protected. 


His narcissism is immediately evident in his lack of conventional humility in his speeches: "I" "I" and "I" everywhere with this president. It is also evident in his 


While Obama was not raised in a wealthy family, he sure seems to have ... a golden stick in his butt. (Excuse the imagery.) I have not seen such infantile attacks on news media, or opposition -- EVER -- from a top leader, certainly not another president. (You understand that unless, like Sean Penn and plenty of others who've enjoyed USA liberties yet understand few of them, you count Castro and his kind as respectable.) It would be less disturbing if this behavior was not calculated, but these verbal attacks are part of a plan, not mood-driven one-offs. It is a part of radical activism, and he's invited it into the White House. (Almost as much as the former president of the SEIU, Andy Stern.)


With the divisiveness in our politics knocked up to a whole new level with him and Mme. Speaker Pelosi leading the spurning of clarity for ideology, ticked off that everyone won't simply let him (and Pelosi and that ilk) run us like some elected monarchy, I stand back and think that God's grace will be the only thing to spare us from the twaddle and naivete. Just gone from irritating, to mystifying, to amusing. Not a happy amusing, mind you, a shameful one. It would be funny, were it not a real life story, and were it not my president swaggering about so proud of himself, compelled to realize the unproven idea of the America he wants me to live in. 

I applaud him (I do!) for bringing issues, including healthcare and the external reputation of American arrogance, to the forefront. It is how he's handling those and other issues, which is clumsy, that sets me off. His rhetoric is good, his actions aren't. The actions count more. 


So I am counting on people acting to limit the power held by him and his fellow far-leftists, come the elections of November 2010. This country deserves hot debate, but not to be a high-tax, big government, welfare-heavy, centralized nation. It is the United States, after all, not the State, of America. 




- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)
Enhanced by Zemanta

Pe-floozie drops airhead bomb, this time on illegals, which got me thinking about drugs


America's fearless House leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), in comments that can fairly be called playing to the crowd in a most profane sense, spoke at a church to a group of apparent illegals recently, telling them that deporting illegals was essentially (see site, Immigration's Human Cost) "un-American." But that was only after she informed the illegals that they are "patriotic." Yes, that's right: illegals are patriots, and our system is broken... if they leave.

She argued that forcing parents to leave the U.S. equates breaking up families, which is cruel. Nah! Is that cruel? This visit to a church was mistaken for a guest speaker engagement, I guess, but it was really a get-out-the-vote visit, the beautiful, adoring, kindly, fearless leader densely into campaign mode for 2010. Already, and we haven't even saved the planet yet, or the economy, or illegals' families. Which is most the utmost vital to our universal liberty, freedom and happiness again? Sorry -- channeling Pelosi there for a moment!

I am not being very serious, am I? The concern is, though, is Pelosi? Why would she say these things and not mean them? What kind of system would endeavor to break up families, she asked. What system would endeavor to hurt puppies? Indeed.

Who wants to willingly break up a family?
I would suggest nobody but a mean, jealous mistress (or the male equivalent). Of course, what Pelosi means is that Republicans want to break up families, and that the mission of our current immigration laws are to break up families. Not to get control of who can enter this country whenever they please, like all those old-fashioned countries like (to name a few) China, France, Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Mexico, and Cuba do. Oh wait, they barely offer immigration, let alone do they let illegals stick around! So, how is it that we are able to take all of them on, will-nilly? What's Ms. Pelosi's plan, then? No plan given? Just rhetoric? To the illegals? In her home district, in budget-throttled California?

Talk about playing to the crowd!

YouTube - Pelosi Calls Illegals "Patriotic", ICE Raids "Un-American"

I think Speaker Pelosi really means well in her mind, but it's extremely misguided. What's more scary: Biden as VP or her as House Leader, or third in line to the presidency? I think our govt is holding us hostage with these people in charge!

Next they'll legislate nap times for every workplace to keep stress levels down, counseling and required "me time" for murderers, rapists, gang members, and terrorists rather than jail time. Perhaps they'll eliminate the two-party system "just to save time" during elections, too. They seem to be trying that pretty hard, what with seniority rule (NEA-style leadership rules) legislation that self-preserving Pelosi wants to pass through Congress.

Being "cheeky" (that's Brit-speak for wise-arsed), I considered the elder Bush selecting dopey Dan Quayle as VP to be deviously brilliant -- made Secret Service especially eager to keep Bush alive! Who wanted to see Quayle as president?!! This, this though, is a whole new bag of salty chips.

Someone commented, I think facetiously, under the video, why couldn't the illegals bring their American-born kids to Mexico with them when they were removed? Fair question, I suppose, but it is also a laugh riot. People die trying to come here, but they scamper the other way -- Americans and others -- into Mexico, to avoid being jailed (or killed by an enemy) in the U.S. This is, of course, unless they are drug professionals or wealthy folks who have acres of land in Mexico and good security.

The sad state of Mexico today is a long time coming, and part of the reason that it is so bad is that, like is often the case, is the leadership put off reacting to a growing problem far too long, across recent presidencies, before they were devoted to going after the drug cartels in Mexico. Barely democratic, reasons for leaving there and coming to the U.S. are mostly economic.

If it weren't for current Mexican president, Felipe Calderon, nothing would be being done about rampant drug cartels/gangs there. It is as if they tried to dam a river after long discussions about it, and they failed, causing flooding. Regrettably, GW Bush's pal Vicente Fox may easily be called a lame aristocrat type who left the drug cartel problem alone (lame, much like Clinton was here, serving as a squatter-in-chief) only to let Mexico's criminal powers (perhaps with it driven by criminal enterprises here and elsewhere) go farther. That overlooks the fact that he was also the first non-PRI party (across history of that party and its predecessors), thus the first opposition party president since ... 1910. Off the hook? I don't know. Seems to me they could have asked us (the U.S.) for help, but I suppose one cannot blame Fox for playing it safe. As for Clinton... never mind.

In the here and now, in 2007-09 (and beyond) we face several years of death and terror, the police frightened of the thugs (assuming they are not the same, which they are not always the same) in trying to end crimes' rule, has resulted, since Calderon brazenly declared war on drug cartels. Thus making it, by backhanded insult, seem all the more foul that we should send anyone back to some border areas of Mexico.


- jR


Powered by ScribeFire.

Is Roseanne closing in on title held by irrational gay kook has-been?

Is Roseanne closing in on irrational gay kook has-been for most rampant awkward political and paranoid ranting? It appears that since neither can manage to get any TV time, they've gone another route. Or, Roseanne is just happily whining about mad Jewish self-hating stuff. Maybe she just needs better meds, who knows.

ohlmert you lie:
you say that twelve rockets were fired into israel since the end of the "war" (ethnic cleansing). Not one Israeli was hurt or killed by these rockets, and now you say you are going to go back and kill more palestinians to teach them a lesson!!!

I think rockets are being fired by your own sources, since less than ten israelis have been killed by them. You are bullshitting the world as you pocket money made from arms sales, along with bibi and your agents in Hamas. step down all men in power!
Ignoring that she knows so little about things that she rabidly regards Israel as the ones committed to ethnic cleansing when sincerity, if not logic, notes that Hamas and those on the other side of things are the evident and shameless ethnic and religious cretins, this is still a crazy rant.

I bet you thought "Betty Rubble" "actress" Rosie O'Donnell was chief crazy of big mouth, female, once humorous (outside of being humorous to watch like a chimp at zoo), liberal Hollywood lingerers. Here's some competition.


- jR



Powered by ScribeFire.

Dumb butts win: Many who played by rules see unfairness in economic recovery tactics


Bailout lament: What about me? - The Boston Globe
"What about people like me who are playing by the rules, who got a mortgage we could afford?" said [Brian] Carpenter, 52, who programs building management systems for MIT Lincoln Laboratory. "Maybe I'm too old school, but you sign on the bottom line, and you're responsible for it."

Carpenter is among the vast majority of Americans who work, pay mort gages, borrow responsibly, and now find themselves facing the bill to bail out those who didn't. Over the years they lived within their means. Now they're asking: What for?

He sees the federal committing $1 trillion to bail out banks and struggling homeowners, and nearly $800 billion to offset economic damage caused by reckless lending and borrowing. What's in it for him?
Well, clearly, this "Carpenter" guy -- if that is his real name -- is part of the problem. He contributed to the reason why the global economy is in a slump. He probably voted for John McCain in Nov. 2008. No doubt, he supported GW Bush, the worst president this nation has ever had, ever. He was happy about that needless spending on Homeland Security, the Middle East empire-building, waterboarding a million innocent small boys with brown skin in Iraq and secret prisons all over the world, depriving everyone but Dick Cheney their civil rights. Surely, this self-thinking, self-responsible jerk thought all that war mongering was totally awesome! He's probably in that camp that is angry that more Iraqis haven't died!

Had "Carpenter" been like the regulators, the high-risk banks, the investment managers, hedge fund managers, mortgage companies, the Congressional financial leadership, FMA, FHA, subprime mortgage holders, etc., over the years, he wouldn't be in this spot! He'd be getting money, not losing it! If he played along maybe he'd be getting a piece of the pie!

I hope this stimulus teaches you, Mr. Carpenter! Your RESPONSIBILITY created the mess you're in. Maybe next time you'll go along with the greedy, self-centered, politically motivated, and irresponsible flow and stop being so rational about things! If you get more progressive, as defined by MoveOn.org, Think Progress, ACORN, ACLU, and the top Democratic congressional leadership, you wouldn't have such as hard time about having to think so much, you could just agree a lot, like all those satisfied subprime mortgage customers. After all, you're not important! You're just one man. Let others handle all the thinking for you next time. They know better -- bankers, politicians, secretaries of dead Nigerian government ministers who contact you by email. Trust them all and you'll feel better!

I hope this teaches ALL of you overly individualistic, self-thinking people who refuse to ignore basic logic and accept what others tell you what makes sense. I hope you will pay attention next time someone tells you that living beyond your means is the only way to live, that pop musicians and actors are the most logical people on earth, and we ought to have only one party in this country that runs things. I hope you will, now that you've been shown how dumb it is to be RESPONSIBLE, that you will listen when someone tells you something like "I'm your mortgage advisor, I'm only here to help you."

I mean, what fool wouldn't listen to advice based on government laws built on illogical economic reasoning and greedy financial dealings? What fool would ignore the fact that once you vote people into office, it is their God-given right to tell you what to do?

I just wish you RESPONSIBLE people would snap out of it and let the government tell you how to do everything! If you would just trust government -- and by government I mean Obama, Reid, and Pelosi and their flying monkeys, not those irritating governors or Republicans -- you would be so much more better off!


- jR


Powered by ScribeFire.


Majority Whip Clyburn calls stubborn guvs racists for disliking stimulus


Michelle Malkin » Top Democrat accuses anti-stimulus GOP governors of…RAAAAACISM!
Well, Attorney General Eric Holder, here's your conversation about race: House Majority Whip James Clyburn of South Carolina is now accusing GOP governors who have fundamental misgivings about the trillion-dollar stimulus of opposing the law because they don’t like black people.

Who’s being divisive, Eric Holder? Who’s obsessed with race? Who needs to stop self-segregating and stop spreading race-based poison? Where’s the outrage? Clyburn earlier this year invoked plantation imagery to suggest that S.C. GOP Gov. Mark Sanford’s opposition to earmarks was based on RAAAACISM (another blog post by Malkin referring to black race-baiting leader, quote obtained from it below).
I cannot believe this comment from a high-placed national government leader. It is such a dumb claim, evidence of a mind enshrined in some bitter, unreal viewpoints, that I am stunned of its source. This man was appointed by his peers as a leader among leaders. His comments are more a judgment of his peers and his constituency on its own that I could ever improve on today. Not without a lot of acid pills. One would think this guy was on a school board or county council somewhere, at best. But no, James Clyburn is none other than the House Majority Whip!

Thanks, Majority Whip. You do justice to the title, though you're more polarizing than I might have imagined. Where do we get the criteria for leadership roles?!! One could say this guy is Trent Lott's reflective opposite, with this bizarre rhetoric! Only worse!! Will he step down? Does he have any HONOR? We will have to stay tuned!
“[H]e happens to be a millionaire,” Clyburn said of Sanford. “He may not need help for the plantation his family owns, but the people whose grandparents and great-grandparents worked those plantations need the help” in the form of federal money.
Wrongs were done. They cannot be forgotten. But it is always the case that weak minds offer far out or foul arguments. This is one of those. To inject slavery, racism, and plantation innuendo into this debate is about as high minded as a college course on Family Guy.


- jR



Powered by ScribeFire.

So-called progressives' cry against AM radio: anti-free market rules are pro-free speech


The recent assault on talk radio by progressives (so-called) has also produced comments that moderate reporting, or non-biased to non-media people, is boring. That's just one of the little offshoots of this odd agenda being taken up right now.

I have a serious problem with this. This is the worst of what liberalism, or progressivism, or whatever you call it, has to offer. It shows the broader goal they look toward: to run things without a care of free markets or consumer and market guided business. It's called overregulating. They are for it. I am against underregulating, but this is no better. Nooo better!

The playground rules of equal time at bat is now being pushed for radio. Have you ever listened to AirAmerica? I once listened to a ten-minute assault on Barbara Bush, back in January 2009, calling her mean and vicious and alleging all sorts of profane things about her. I think they actually referred to her as fat at one point. I mean, it was foul and just mean. Why? How appealing is it that these "radio personalities" go after the MOTHER of the current president! Little wonder this stuff dies in the free market! Crude, and more ironically juvenile than Pee Wee's Playhouse (or, for that matter, more juvenile than Glenn Beck's radio show some days, when he does the cynical, half-funny "America's favorite game show" segments)!

Since the free market does not exist for these pro-overregulation clowns, there's ongoing debate of 'conservative' radio vs. fairness doctrine for radio. Not papers & TV, but just radio! Would force far left liberal - oh wait, 'progressive' - radio on radio stations. For what? Their future economic success?!!

They call it a 'system' of companies. Bull. Air America not a company, then? It ignores the biz law of what sells ads, which certainly TRUMPS any 'BALANCE' LAW. Ask any struggling paper just how much ads determine their life or death! Or, any radio station! This smacks of collectivism, where the media would be controlled by the all-knowing, all-controlling hand of government. Period.


I would welcome more successful liberal radio, because the so-called progressives are being so oddly anti-business, anti-free market, and inferring communist ideals in their hassling of radio stations and their owners that it smacks of outright shameless envy and jealousy. They will apparently stop only short of cutting power sources to radio stations with this assault on AM radio. (I should avoid mentioning that some areas, such as Nashville, Tenn., have excellent FM talk stations.)

Think Progress » Dear Rush Limbaugh, Why Are You Hell-Bent On Protecting A Radio Market That Limits Free Speech?
(First of all, HAAA! What a headline! Can you guess where that's going? Duh!)


ThinkProgress asked the authors of the original report to respond to Limbaugh. Two co-authors, CAP’s John Halpin and Free Press’s Josh Silver, gave us this response:

Dear Rush Limbaugh:

We have a straightforward question, which we hope you will answer in a straightforward way: When a handful of major media companies control who and what is allowed to be broadcast on the commercial dial, how is that not regulation of radio content? When these same companies then push out one-sided, right-wing information 90 percent of the time, how does that uphold freedom of expression?

Those of us at CAP, Free Press and other public interest organizations do not want to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine and we definitely do not want to limit free speech. We want more of it. You and other conservatives seem more interested in protecting a system that does the exact opposite.

If Limbaugh wants a debate, let’s have it.

Go ahead and call him, debate it! Please! There's only a few of you who could manage to handle it! But debate? Good luck with that. Rhetoric as what comes from ThinkProgess will not play for success on this issue. I think it would bore his listeners if he waited until these closeted big govt freaks had the nerve to call him and offer something remotely close to a civil, topical argument about this subject.

In the piece they at once call these "commercial stations", yet bluntly claim that they "push" an agenda? How is it that they are making any money, then? Somebody must be advertising on the stations! So all the advertisers are conservatives, too, and there's some secret handshake of advertisers and listeners who support those businesses?

Their presumption falls on its face, it seems, and they surely must know it. How can dashing free market ideals for their version of a "free" (wink) media possibly pass muster under authentic public debate? These pro-controlled airwaves (oh, but ONLY radio!) people are tossing rocks, and keeping their distance, they are not offering a debate.

Liberals have most of TV in their back pockets. Viewership of news on TV is lowering, for them. MSNBC is the laughed-at geek among all TV news entities, and steeply liberal. It is rising generally, we learned recently from viewership reports, but MSNBC is comparably rising far less than FOX News. Fox News is of course another media outlet despised by liberals. This one is disliked for simply not being liberal rather than for its being rampantly conservative -- but don't try to tell any of them that, they're too busy calling it racist, fascist and owned by "the Man". These same liberals pan PBS and NPR for being too moderate, too. Shame. I like both of those, and appreciate their reporting. Funny, I thought reporting was meant to be objective as possible, but plenty of progressives -- and a few blow-hard counterparts on the far right -- call objectivity boring. So much for news reporting and "boring" old journalism!

Liberals lay claim to the majority of large newspapers in the nation, and seem to be doing just fine with not forcing "balance" on those media. So, what gives? Not debate, that's for sure! Can you imagine if conservative talk radio hosts started insisting that such action be taken to level the playing field on television, or in major newspapers, what would happen? Can you imagine if someone allegedly legitimate tried -- seriously, not as a joke -- to petition HBO to have a counterbalance to the Bill Maher show?

How is it that AM radio, which is for some the mocked poster child for old technology, gets so much attention from these folks for abuse of free markets? Isn't this a bit like hilariously odd, like a liberal faction of our government demanding that we invade the Phillipines?

Perhaps they are doing this since they simply want to win the ubiquitous debate, not actually have one. You know, like Chavez holds elections, and supporters take control of gov't buildings while the election happens to show their support. They'll debate it, but only on their terms. "I'll debate you any time! Just submit the questions three days ahead of time, please!"

I really wish I could resist reacting to any particularly stupid fringe ideas for control, at either edge, but I cannot help it when they are conceptually bizarre and insincere as this is. Who'd have thought that AM radio was the chief threat to the First Amendment!


- jR


Powered by ScribeFire.

(rev. Feb. 24, 2009)

Real estate developer says Hamas and Zionists just need to shake on it


Mind-numbingly ignorant opinion piece in the Central Florida major paper:

Consider this: A one-state resolution for lasting peace -- OrlandoSentinel.com
As one who was born and raised in Jerusalem, I am against splitting the city into two parts. For the love of Jerusalem, I am strongly against giving the corrupted Palestinian Authority any role in the most sacred city in the world, Jerusalem.

For true and everlasting peace, a one-state solution with equal rights for Arabs (Christians and Muslims) and Jews is the only logical solution. As we all love America and the American system, why can't a similar one-state system be created in Israel?
Stunning. I am amused (read: awestruck and stunned in a bad way) that this guy ever visited or looked into the particulars of the region, let alone that he visits regularly or cares about it at all. Mr. Lufti and his kind of fundamental misunderstanding of the divisiveness of extremist Arab-Palestinian factions who flatly hate all Jews is a primary reason why the area is still a hotbed of terrorist missiles being hurled into Israel. Such ignorance is why Hamas keeps their munitions in neighborhoods, victimizing their own people by provoking Israel with terrorizing missiles, leading to a reaction that forced Israel, in order to not be the patsy of terrorists, to shoot at neighborhoods where Hamas hides their offices and their missiles. They do it because some folks aren't confused by the facts: they only see what's in front of their face. Life plots out like a bad TV show to thse folks, I suspect.

Palestine as it is right now is like an idiot's dysfunctional farm: animals are freely wandering everywhere, eating at the dinner table and pooping there, too. There was here and there glimmers of hope, but Hamas seems to have thoroughly evacuated that kind of plan, and this guy seems to respect that. One-state solution would translate to Jews being trounced upon by fundamentalist, Israel-hating people. It is part of the stated goals for these folks!

Once the pigs, ducks, mules, etc., (that is, Hamas) are thrown from the house and back into the mud, and someone imports some REASON into the fray in Palestinian areas and their leadership and politics, this thing can be sorted out. There can be no balanced agreement when one side's leadership prove tiem and again that they are, to be sure, unbalanced.

As this guest opinionator argues, that a one-state solution will work in Israel, simply overlooks -- mind-numbing fundamentally overlooks -- the influence of groups such as Hamas. These folks care about one thing: beating Israel and Jews. It is not about nation-building or community organizing, no more than drug cartels give money to the poor is community organizing. Such extremists want to be killing Jews and ruining public images of Israel, using their victimized neighbors as bait while they are doing it. Hamas and those similar seem incapable of functioning properly without victimizing the innocent and killing Jews.

I wonder, seeing this lack of awareness, if this real estate developer, is good at the low end of his game: screwing over subcontractors every day he goes to the office and looking for reasons to cheapen materials and cheat customers, to fatten his own wallet -- if you'll pardon the stereotype of which examples of its factualness do exist. That's the Hamas way, after all: cruel and selfish, whatever works to make the most of it, human decency be damned. Real estate devs don't obsess over killing people (as far as I know), at least.

I wonder if Mr. Lufti has bought out any retirement communities and booted the residents recently, for spare change each, and then sold it for his own financial profit, or further developed the land for elites such as himself? That's popular among "his kind": real estate developers, I mean, not terrorist sympathizers.


- jR


Powered by ScribeFire.

Iran's leader: A warm Merry Christmas, dear future charcoal under my bombs!


Government rebukes Channel 4 for Ahmadinejad broadcast - Times Online
Mr Ahmadinejad surprised many by reining back on rhetoric and offering the British people his warm wishes. In the speech he sent his congratulations to “the followers of Abrahamic faiths, especially the followers of Jesus Christ, and the people of Britain”.

He said that the ills in the world had come about through nations failing to follow the teachings of the Prophets, including Jesus.

Israeli groups and anti-homophobia campaigners criticised Channel 4’s decision. Ron Prosor, the Israeli Ambassador to London, said: “In Iran, converts to Christianity face the death penalty. It is perverse that this despot is allowed to speculate on the views of Jesus while his Government leads Christ’s followers to the gallows.”

Mr Ahmadinejad once told a Western audience that his country had no homosexuals. Gay men have been filmed being hanged from cranes in Tehran, the country’s capital.

Peter Tatchell, the human rights campaigner, said: “Ahmadinejad’s apparently reasonable words are pure propaganda.

“His actions are devoid of love, justice, humanity and brotherhood. They involve the brutal repression of his own people.”


That's two, be-ahhhitch! Go figure: significant swaths of
the media are fundamentally philosophically and politically
dull-witted, just like here in America. NBC, MSNBC and CNN
must be so proud of Channel 4 today. Yay, acceptance
of nut-job fundamentalist Islamic pseudo-rulers!

Another piece on the TimesOnline site recites portions of the speech from the beloved uncle of all terrorists, and notes why it happened at all.


“If Christ was on earth today undoubtedly he would fight against the tyrannical policies of prevailing global economic and political systems, as He did in His lifetime.”


President Ahmadinejad’s message will be aired by Channel 4 as an alternative Christmas message to the traditional speech by the Queen. The message, which the President has given in Farsi, will be subtitled in English.

God rest ye, merry gentlemen at Channel 4. May your search for oneness with liberalism fallen off the tracks wind you up in a home, where you will get 24-hour care.


- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

Race and politics still taboo: NY Times' Friedman wrote this drivel... half-drivel


Isn't it a bit goofy that some crystal-clear white liberal guilt is the predominant reflection of one longtime NY Times columnist's upon Barack Obama's win? The regular NY Times nay-sayers would think not; it is clearly a liberal, politically correct (favoring not the poor white guy, but favoring everyone else except him and the slovenly rich) newspaper despite its other reputation, as a publication for superior journalism.

Thomas L. Friedman leads from some white liberal joy into a commentary on some real (in his mind) reasons for the Obama win. I am amazed at what this guy does not see, based on his insight for what he does see.

Finishing Our Work - NYTimes.com
This moment was necessary, for despite a century of civil rights legislation, judicial interventions and social activism — despite Brown v. Board of Education, Martin Luther King’s I-have-a-dream crusade and the 1964 Civil Rights Act — the Civil War could never truly be said to have ended until America’s white majority actually elected an African-American as president.

Let every child and every citizen and every new immigrant know that from this day forward everything really is possible in America.

How did Obama pull it off? To be sure, it probably took a once-in-a-century economic crisis to get enough white people to vote for a black man. And to be sure, Obama’s better organization, calm manner, mellifluous speaking style and unthreatening [sic] message of “change” all served him well.

But there also may have been something of a “Buffett effect” that countered the supposed “Bradley effect” — white voters
telling pollsters they’d vote for Obama but then voting for the white guy. The Buffett effect was just the opposite. It was white conservatives telling the guys in the men’s grill at the country club that they were voting for John McCain, but then quietly going into the booth and voting for Obama, even though they knew it would mean higher taxes.
I guess we ought to thank God, then, that we did not elect a woman, or an Hispanic, Native American, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or someone else. Bobby Jindal, don't expect such a big deal should you be elected to a higher office, because you're just a damned Republican, first of all, and second, it's all about the blacks versus the whites here in the good ole US of A!

Friedman then noted the following, which I think is accurate, fair enough, and not nearly as myopic as his Obama win comments (that fact says soemthing about his perspective, indeed):
Somewhere they also knew that after the abysmal performance of the Bush team, there had to be consequences for the Republican Party. Electing McCain now would have, in some way, meant rewarding incompetence. It would have made a mockery of accountability in government and unleashed a wave of cynicism in America that would have been deeply corrosive.
What I find curious is that he, as everyone seems to, refers to Obama as our first black president. He is, by appearances, our first, indeed. However, Obama's mother and thus half his lineage and half his family is white. Why is this not something to be pointed out, and why do such great writers (though not great thinkers, zing). Is being of mixed race lineage still taboo for the liberals, for crying out loud? Not much to sing about for the white liberals who wish to relieve their racist guilt, then, is there? So where does Friedman fall on the scale of taboos -- pro-mixed race or still afraid of the idea? I suspect he has no issue with mixed race, it's just that liberals like to avoid talking about such things. (It's like seeing something in another's teeth at a Manhattan cocktail party -- best that you say nothing, and love them for the toothy grin they give you, spinach and all. Aw, love them! Take them off my invitation lists! Love them!)

I guess it is a good for a writer to see things through myopic glasses than to suspect the whole gamut of reasons why Obama won, why GOP congressmen lost out, and why people blame a president for all their problems. I would rather contemplate it all, but I guess you can't win Pulitzers if you work that hard.

Troubling.

As for Friedman's piece, be sure to read the last two paragraphs, for the ideas within them. He could have left all the other crap out of it.

I hope we see a new age of public service in the vein of what I saw in Israel. Americans, college-educated or not, around me in my little depressing world are quite selfish little turds. In Israel, they would be the ones getting low-end jobs, or scared shitless in the required military service, prompting change in their attitude. We could use a little scared-shitless in our youths these days that doesn't involve video games or misused firearms.

- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

The fall of rational liberalism, in 1968


What's wrong with liberal ideals? Part II

For American liberals, there seems to be selfish, ridiculous, outright ignorant, and spoiled-brat viewpoints on many issues that extend far beyond social fairness into a desire for the contortion or destruction of harmless traditions. Being assaulted are: the idea of marriage, First and Second Amendment rights, instilling a revamped "Fairness Doctrine" onto radio (but conveniently not on TV broadcasts or print media), and other such self-serving, limited sight, or non-issue issues. There are energetic evocations from the liberal end of politics that, like it or not, verge on Socialist ideals. And not positive ones, either. There's a running list of conservatives in Hollywood on the Internet, for instance. What, pray tell, for? Leftist Fascists can use it for reference? What?

Jeanne Kirkpatrick, who some on the left regard as a vicious Reagan Era ideological attack ogre, recorded her lack of taste for liberal ideas publicly - at a GOP convention during Reagan's leadership. Kirkpatrick was a Democrat, and at one time considered herself a liberal. The liberals went too far, from civil rights to running naked through the streets having sex rights. No, not literally, figuratively. They went a bit kooky, frankly, and somehow the rational liberals let to kooks and goof balls take center stage. Have a look at some reflections on her and that long ago time known as the early 1980s, in this posting and the links within it.

I took the following from a Time magazine article dated Nov. 13, 2008. It fairly well explains why I am freaked out by today's liberalism, though it loses some value in its desire to keep it short by bundling everything together with the Vietnam War protests. Perhaps there's something in this for you, too. Read this, read the whole piece since it goes somewhere with the liberalism definition. Then contrast that with Kirkpatrick, and you'll understand where I am coming from, almost. (Yes, the anonymous-author-of-this-blog me, "jR".)

Right up front I want to point out that I was not old enough to vote, not even old enough to wear underpants, in 1968. Second, I am white. My ideas, flatly, do not align with the comment on racial freedom (equaling riots and crime), but I suppose some folks saw it as such, in the racial sense, in some locations. I was not raised with any racial epithets passing the tongues of my parents. Never, ever. Perhaps some similar feelings are held today to some degree, by some far-flung whites, but not by me or the majority. If there's evidence I am wrong about the population at large, then feel free to pass it along.

Obama, if he is to personify the next wave of positive change, will be a sensible leader akin to FDR and Reagan, he will not be like clueless Carter or tread-too-lightly Clinton or, say, Abbie Hoffman as president. The parallels to JFK that Obama gets are missing the point: JFK stepped into office when the greatest social upheaval was television for the masses. Yes, there was civil rights activism, and we know how far things went after JFK was elected, racial and social equality became the great change of the 1960s, but this was after JFK was elected. We have more issues today - Obama must work at being FDR and Reagan.

The New Liberal Order - TIME
By the beginning of the 1960s, though, liberalism was becoming a victim of its own success. The post-World War II economic boom flooded America's colleges with the children of a rising middle class, and it was those children, who had never experienced life on an economic knife-edge, who began to question the status quo, the tidy, orderly society F.D.R. had built. For blacks in the South, they noted, order meant racial apartheid. For many women, it meant confinement to the home. For everyone, it meant stifling conformity, a society suffocated by rules about how people should dress, pray, imbibe and love. In 1962, Students for a Democratic Society spoke for what would become a new, baby-boom generation "bred in at least modest comfort," which wanted less order and more freedom. And it was this movement for racial, sexual and cultural liberation that bled into the movement against Vietnam and assembled in August 1968 in Grant Park.

Traditional liberalism died there because Americans — who had once associated it with order — came to associate it with disorder instead. For a vast swath of the white working class, racial freedom came to mean riots and crime; sexual freedom came to mean divorce; and cultural freedom came to mean disrespect for family, church and flag. Richard Nixon and later Reagan won the presidency by promising a new order: not economic but cultural, not the taming of the market but the taming of the street.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Kool-Aid's good in Miami these days

I can't do this for all of the tasteless endorsements out there, but I can try to get through just one of these strange coming-out announcements by some one-sided newspapers. I've decided to pick on the Miami Herald. Actually, I think they forced me into it -- their endorsement of Obama is just so full of holes!

---
We are, as always, living in a time of mirrors which reflect the same facts to alternative opinions.

"Voters of all races and ages were drawn to his promise to discard the culture wars and seek pragmatic solutions for problems instead of relying on ideology and worn-out slogans."

So "Change we can believe in" is not worn out? How about the "hope" slogan - that was used since 1992 by the Democrats alone! This is just more "Yay for the mouths that keep talking" -- even though they say so little and are condescending and smug and incapable of humility of most any kind - and do so with a big, cheery smile! SUCKERS. You leftists deserve Obama's childish blind ambition and the higher taxes he'll bring with him. JUST leave me out of it. I don't have any wealth to share.

---
Again with the alternative mirror! "McCain has much experience in foreign policy and a hero's life story.... McCain was among the first to call for more troops [in Iraq]. He draws strength from the success of the 'surge.' Today, though, Iraq is stable, but the war itself remains a huge and costly error. The invasion was a strategic mistake; the surge a tactical success."

The Herald - shocking, seeing its partial role as an international newspaper -- has an utter lack of a realistic world view. (That, or is this horrifically dumbed down for elementary-level reading?) We all know that entering Iraq was a mistake - in retrospect. You apologists (what else can I call it?) for America's strength and actions are beyond ignorant beyond the fact that intelligence was wrong (and you cannot leave it at bad intel, accusing Bush of outright crime). Obama's magic wand (lacking a record and saying ANYTHING to be elected) will be put to the test, day one! Will you be there to test him?

---

Wow. Shocking. A note for those "brave" enough to track facts: Barack Obama was not a U.S. senator in 2002-2003, though he was likely running for U.S. Senate at the time.

"Sen. Obama's early dissent amid the war fever of 2002-03 took courage." That is some cheery wordplay by the Miami Herald. Since he was not a Florida state senator at the time, either, they ought to have been accurate. But why, when they can get by being half-accurate. Obama, however, was apparently running for U.S. Senate when he entered state senate in Illinois (1998?). He had political agents falling all over themselves to give him a boost, after all. A no-brainer.

"His insistence that U.S. power be focused on the conflict in Afghanistan -- which he rightly calls the central front of the war on terror -- represents a better, more effective use of military resources." So, since we got in there, and we were wrong, it would be right to exit, and let them tear each other apart. Who cares if after 30 years of a terrorist regime they would fall into total anarchy and be overtaken by Iran? Go for it, Iran - that's the Herald's stand.
With 90 percent of Americans telling pollsters that the nation is heading in the wrong direction, it is no surprise that both Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain have staked their presidential candidacies on the promise of delivering change. Both have qualities that qualify them to lead the country, but they differ significantly in temperament and on many issues. Even the way they have run their campaigns is indicative of their judgment, decision-making and leadership styles.

When he began his campaign in February of 2007, Sen. Obama was viewed as an upstart. He built his candidacy one victory at a time, aided by an excellent campaign staff and fueled by an impressive ability to raise funds on the Internet. He displayed inspiring eloquence and a sure grasp of detail on issues. Voters of all races and ages were drawn to his promise to discard the culture wars and seek pragmatic solutions for problems instead of relying on ideology and worn-out slogans.

Foreign policy differences

Sen. McCain also showed strength in the primaries. Deemed political roadkill at one time, he revived his fortunes with a strong showing in New Hampshire and clinched victory in Florida with straight talk and a surer feel for what voters wanted. A turning point came during the Republican convention, when he chose a long-shot for a running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, out of an apparent need to appease the right wing of the party. For all of her rhetorical skills on the campaign trail -- particularly in the attack mode -- Gov. Palin appears to know little about the issues and simply is not qualified to be commander in chief.Much has been made of Sen. Obama's relative inexperience, particularly in foreign policy. His résumé is thin, but he surrounds himself with experienced advisors -- as evidenced in his choice of Sen. Joe Biden to be vice president -- and with people who offer differing points of view. His style is to build consensus and seek workable, pragmatic solutions -- a refreshing change from the last eight years.

Because of the current administration's incompetence, arrogance -- or both -- American prestige abroad has never been as low. The effusive response from audiences during Sen. Obama's recent tour of Europe suggests he could help restore our lost influence. Clearly, traditional U.S. allies are more than ready to work with an American president who replaces unilateral policies and preemptive wars with vigorous diplomacy on behalf of common interests.

Sen. McCain has much experience in foreign policy and a hero's life story dating back to his days as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. An avid supporter of the war in Iraq, Sen. McCain was among the first to call for more troops. He draws strength from the success of the ''surge.'' Today, though, Iraq is stable, but the war itself remains a huge and costly error. The invasion was a strategic mistake; the surge a tactical success.

Sen. Obama's early dissent amid the war fever of 2002-03 took courage. It reflects a clear-eyed appreciation for the proper use of U.S firepower and a cool temperament that rejects employing military force except as a last, necessary resort. His insistence that U.S. power be focused on the conflict in Afghanistan -- which he rightly calls the central front of the war on terror -- represents a better, more effective use of military resources.

Sen. McCain has long been an outspoken supporter of Israel, and so has Sen. Biden, whose selection as a running mate for Sen. Obama should erase any doubts about where the Illinois senator stands on this important issue.

Closer to home, Sen. McCain strongly supports Bush administration policies on Cuba. Sen. Obama also supports the embargo, but would be more likely to dissolve recently imposed restraints on travel and remittances to Cuba. On Latin America, the biggest concern with Mr. Obama's policies involves his failure to support the Colombia free-trade pact, which Sen. McCain champions. Anti-trade rhetoric and protectionist policies are not going to help the United States overcome the current economic crisis.

That crisis overshadows all other concerns, domestic and foreign. Sen. Obama deserves credit for supporting the administration's rescue package instead of siding with some Democrats who draped themselves in the mantle of Main Street populism and refused to go along. Well before this crisis developed, he called for regulatory reform and demonstrated a clear sense that the economy was headed over a cliff.

A clear choice


Indeed, the way the two candidates responded to the economic meltdown offers a lesson in contrasting styles of leadership. Both have put forth a series of worthwhile policy options, but where Sen. Obama was calm, Sen. McCain was frantic. He first put his campaign ''on hold'' and suggested he would cancel the first debate, and then suddenly decided to take part even as the first bailout deal cratered. He said the fundamentals of the economy were strong, then a few days later vowed to ''name the names'' of those responsible for the financial crisis.

In other elections, voters have complained of having to make a choice between two bad candidates.
That is not the case this time. The nation is fortunate to have good candidates and a clear choice. Sen. Obama represents the best chance for America to make a clean break with the culture wars and failed policies of the past, and begin to restore the hope and promise of America as the world's greatest democracy.
And he smiles nice, too. If only presidencies were suitably made in Hollywood, this would be a good endorsement. But in the real world, this fawning over a professional candidate who is auditioning, at great expense, for world adoration, is worthy of campy fiction. I knew the Herald had liberal leanings, and not the good kind. This endorsement emphasizes it.


- jR

'Taking care of (Obama's) business, every day...'

I get twisted up when I think that a professional candidate, a man who has run for three and held two offices in a period less than three presidential terms, may be president. It just has an air of deception to it -- not on Obama's part, while his being disingenuous certainly has a hand in it.

It is a shame that it comes down to him and a long-time leader and individual-thinker -- McCain (I can still hope for the maverick to be there, in his soul, can't I?), because Obama is no dummy and I have genuinely liked him, in hits and misses, during the campaigning. His smug language, and his smug grins, I can do without; his glib brushing off of credible criticisms, and refusal to take a stand on any number of things, I do not appreciate. He is no world-class leader, in short.

Obama has enjoyed the crudest of attacks on McCain, Palin, and even "Joe the Plumber" by surrogates who are falling all over themselves to be insulting and outrageous and insulting for him, so he need not say anything controversial.
The media is doing it for him. By contrast, where's the attack machine that makes fun of Biden the flake, and Obama the indecisive and naive? Not on TV, folks. Not even on Fox News!

That Obama avoids anything controversial is nothing new. How he will avoid candid and awkward face time when the heat gets turned up if he becomes president, I cannot be sure. If he wins, perhaps he will redefine the job an elected honorable chairmanship: staff and surrogates would do all of the tricky work and make all the statements he thinks might dirty his reputation, or he would simply move to something less controversial (just like the old days in the state senate). Won't miss those great chats at the podium, though, with foreign leaders. Just what those will be about -- who knows! Redistribution of wealth? Eek!

It seems, based on what people who worked with him have said, that the party gave Obama lots of protection, going all the way back to his first state senate run. He didn't only cover himself with it, he didn't bat an eye to use that cover against anyone to get where he wanted to be. That's called blind ambition. Ambition is admirable to a point, but me-thinks Obama has taken it too far. Politicians who are given too much coverage to travel within without the friction usually given are not generous in their leadership, they are often autocratic. Hitler was given a role in government, and then some added power, then he took more. I am not trying to say he is in other ways similar to Hitler, such as ideologically or in mental stability, most people understand that Hitler came to power because they were trying to shut him up. Obama is not the same deal, but I lack another example of such a sheltered political rise, frankly. He takes a position, then changes it, and has not even got a voting record to fall back on. He is a perfect candidate in one sense: he has little shame and is not bothered by not having a long record of consistency or of voting, period.

Obama has been given a lot of latitude in his political career. He used it, calculatingly, and coolly, and he is handling this campaign with excellence. He has also been given some golden advantages. The economic crisis, while hardly the fault of the GOP, nor GW Bush, and certainly not McCain, is like the final gift for Obama in his campaign against GW Bush. Too bad McCain cannot also campaign against GW Bush, however inaccurate it is in any case.

Obama talks of how the election is about all of us, that it is not about him. Well, it seems to be about him an awful lot. He cannot even define the change he made the center of his campaign. Sadly, change from eight years of GW Bush is all a lot of people care about. But for what? Spreading the wealth? No thanks. I know how business works, and good businesses want to expand, not sit on their butts, so they will invest back into their business, which means more jobs. In his world, that investment would instead go to the government, in the form of taxes, for all but the smallest of small businesses. That's bad economics.

This campaign, such as it is with this giant financial "gift", is only the prologue, though. What about after the campaign? Where is the sign of the excellence while in office? He lacks a record of doing much other than campaigning and speaking and writing books about -- himself. But this campaign is not about him, it is about "us."

Barack Obama is going to make things change. Because change is always good. Just ask 1977-1980 what they thought of Jimmy Carter's work as president. That was quite a change. Twenty-one percent loan rates and Billy Carter. Change, change, and more change. And less change in your pockets.

Boston Herald: NY Times kisses liberal butt and seems to enjoy the smell

OK, that's not EXACTLY what the Boston Herald guy says. My headline is a bit more attention-grabbing.
My favorite line: "These aren’t the actions of bad journalists. These are the actions of bad people."

Leftist media sire hypocrisy - BostonHerald.com
When the story first broke that Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards had cheated on his cancer-stricken wife and sired a baby with a bimbo on his campaign payroll, The New York Times [NYT] refused to run it.

But when the news hit that not the president, not the vice president but the daughter of the vice-presidential nominee is pregnant, the Times ran five -- count ’em, five -- stories about it. In one day.

When the daughter of a vice-presidential candidate turns out to be 17, unmarried and pregnant, of course that’s news. But it doesn’t come close to legitimizing the all-out media assault (there is no other word for it) the press has unleashed on the Palins.

So-called “reporters” on CNN and MSNBC have speculated on Gov. Palin’s fitness as a mother. Sally Quinn from The Washington Post says that Palin should “rethink her priorities” and turn down the VP job. US Weekly -- owned by the same people who put fawning faux-Jesus photos of Barack Obama on the cover of Rolling Stone -- calls the Palin story “Sex, Lies and Scandal.”

The Atlantic, once a respected, thoughtful voice of the American left, has actually promoted the lunatic -- and utterly disproven -- theory that Gov. Palin wasn’t pregnant with Trig at all. Trig is really Bristol’s son, and the governor of Alaska took time out of her schedule fighting against hack GOP congressmen and oil company insiders to fake a pregnancy on her daughter’s behalf.

According to Steve Schmidt of the McCain campaign, mainstream media organizations are demanding to see medical reports on Gov. Palin’s amniotic fluid and a DNA test on little Trig.

These aren’t the actions of bad journalists. These are the actions of bad people. From the set of MSNBC to the pages of The Boston Globe-Democrat, there are people willing to do anything to elect Barack Obama, up to and including the trashing of a 17-year-old girl.

But remember: Barack Obama is, as one San Francisco columnist put it, the “light bringer” who will heal our partisan divide.

Mind you, there is not an overwhelming bias to the left in the media: Consider how MSNBC was quick to pull Keith Olbermann off of his night job as anchor for major political news (see entry above). So they are hardly overwhelmingly biased at MSNBC. They are only highly biased at MSNBC, not overwhelmingly biased.

I don't know how Pat Buchanan -- a regular commentator on the network -- can stomach being in the room. I guess with age comes great intestinal fortitude, for some. Of course, you'll note that he is typically facing off against the unproclaimed liberals, such as Olbermann and Rachel Maddow. Seriously -- I keep hearing about how Olbermann refuses to commit to a political view, but every time I watch him, it is nothing but liberal angles, biases and favoritism.

Barack Obama is not half-white and is not a monkey, but McCain is not at all black and is a dancing monkey

Having a hard time with that title? That's the point, sorta.

Can you imagine if the political correctness monitors of Esquire magazine's editorial board let slip, ever, that the Obama campaign was "monkeying around", "dancing like a monkey", or some other primate-related thing? What kind of chants of racism there would be? What morose steps toward apology there would be? Oh, they would never! But McCain can be a monkey, because he's a white man! Duh!

Esquire Endorses Barack Obama for President - Election 2008 - Esquire
[McCain] gave a brave speech in Virginia, and he seemed genuinely interested in prying his party from the clutches of corporate avarice and theocratic lunacy. If he had held to the substance of that speech, instead of merely to its form, he might have been as transformational a figure on his side of the aisle as Obama has been on his. However, McCain has spent the past few years dancing like a monkey on a string, making brave noises in public that he later abandoned in private.
Here Esquire magazine's editors are, calling the McCain campaign dancing monkeys. Somehow, so long as you are not black, being called a monkey is OK. And, I should note, Esquire magazine is run by liberals.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Campbell Brown: use of middle name 'race-baiting'; dumb-baiting is OK

Commentary: Race-baiting wrong, but so is over-reaction - CNN.com
NEW YORK (CNN) -- Look everybody, we all know we are in uncharted territory here. Never before has there been an African-American presidential nominee. So without question, race is going to be a part of the conversation.

Race-baiting doesn't have to be and yet it is happening in this campaign. Twice this week, surrogates for Republican candidate Sen. John McCain have made a point of calling Democratic candidate Sen. Barack Obama, Barack "Hussein" Obama.

The implication here is clear. It's foreign sounding. It's Muslim sounding. It's un-American sounding. It's dangerous-sounding. What it is, is race-baiting. And that is what is dangerous.
Incredibly, Brown said this in a "No bias, no bull" commentary during her show, "Election Center". It ought to be called "Election Left", not center. Yet she says the "implication" is "clear"? What a screwy, classless PR job she's doing for the Obama campaign! To someone who lacks her - either closed-minded or intentionally ironic - bias, this was a glorious bait-and-switch effort to cast a bad light on McCain by knee-jerk political correctness and hypocrisy of the finest sort.

First, how is it that Hussein is foreign, yet Barack Obama does not sound that way? Wha? What Brown could not say, somehow, is that Obama's middle name is Saddam's last name, and that is the real reason the use of it sets off Obama fans. It is as if fate itself is going to force this man into the White House, despite a lack of leadership, military work, or even ever having run something aside from his campaigns.

What liberals are frightened of - I can only guess as I do not consider myself very liberal about much of anything - is that using "Hussein" will turn some simpletons otherwise sold on the two-year-old national politician Obama. This is a bit ironic - tragic, even - since Obama cannot seem to be first to comment on anything, including his own friendships and policies.

Why not just come out with it, Campbell Brown: Stop adding to the fakery managed so well by the Obama campaign and say, of the middle name, "it sounds like an enemy's name" instead of putting up the sensational term "race-baiting". Air your real worry rather than adding to the misinformation. Stop, for goodness sake, stop taking shots at McCain for these folks who are doing what? using Obama's given name against him? That is absurd for all but the most simple-minded. Absurd!

If people can hurt Obama's chances with his own middle name, he is way too insecure to be worthy of the Oval Office. You are servicing liberals by joining in that crazy talk, and ought to be brought out into the light as a propoganda voice of theirs, plain and simple. Of, get the act straight and stop playing to their tune.

This reminds me that Brown was only a burgeoning national face as an NBC desk anchor a few years ago. She replaced the coldly dumped Paula Zahn (disappeared without a trace months earlier), who was not so good, either, in my opinion. Zahn was dropped without a peep, so I guess I am not alone in feeling that way. It appears that CNN is convinced the 8 pm hour must have a woman who better suits an entertainment reporter, doing news that is far too deep for their thinking.

To her credit, Brown did have a clue about something that Larry King, the king of call-it-in hosting, couldn't grasp (see prior post). Thanks for this goes in part to her grandfather:
But let's also be careful here and use our heads. Some Obama supporters on the left are up in arms over something McCain said at the debate Tuesday night -- when he referred to Obama as, "that one."

McCain: It was an energy bill on the floor of the senate, loaded down with goodies. Billions for the oil companies. And it was sponsored by Bush and Cheney. You know who voted for it? Might never know. That one.

Some people have interpreted that comment as having racial undertones. Give me a break.
With that, there's some hope for her. Consistency? Not a chance. Good writing? Umm, no. But some slim glimmer of hope that she just might pull out a decent piece of journalism now and then.

Powered by ScribeFire.