Wednesday, April 30, 2008

What is Wright all about Anyway?

To understand the Wright Controversy, let's check in with Michelle Malkin's latest article.
Obama's best-selling "Audacity of Hope" is named after the first sermon of Wright's that he heard -- decades ago -- in which the pastor of racial resentment inveighed against an environment "where white folks' greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere." Yet, only now has Obama concluded that Wright's sermons are "a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in truth."

Welcome to the Jive Talk Express.
Jive Talk Express? And some people question whether or not their might be a racial component to this furor over Jeremiah Wright.

I also like Malkin's that, "decades ago" the description of Apartheid and Apathy would be a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in the truth. Has Ms. Malkin heard of South Africa? Decades ago, they actually did have something called Apartheid. Maybe she should read up on it. And conditions here in the United States for Blacks, "decades ago," weren't all that great either.

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Who's up? Who's down?

I am once again linking to a post by Glenn Greenwald for his analysis on the sudden "discovery" of Obama's sins.
When the Right and the media assumed that Hillary Clinton was the inevitable nominee and that Obama couldn't win, the Right just "loved" Obama, and people like The New Republic's Jason Zengerle marveled at what they actually believed was the astonishing (and real) phenomenon that no "conservative writer [is] able to withstand Obama's charms." Now that it appears that Obama rather than Clinton will likely be the nominee, that has, quite predictably, reversed itself completely: suddenly the Right hates Obama and has great respect for Hillary Clinton.

And, as always, the media follows along exactly the same path. When it looked to them as though Hillary would win, the media hated her and was largely deferential to Obama. Now, the reverse is true. As Thomas Edsall wrote last week: "In a blink of an eye, the media has jumped ship from the Obama campaign and become a crucial Clinton ally." One can trace the media's complete reversal regarding Obama to exactly the moment when it appeared he would actually win.
One of the more annoying aspects of this Jeremiah Wright stuff is listening to Conservative Commentators pretend that the media are a bunch of jerks for ignoring all this stuff. They ignored it to. Rather it looks like the media and the right wing commentators were sort of in lockstep. When it seemed important to tear down Hillary Clinton, both the Media and the Conservatoids did it; now that Obama is ahead, well they are both tearing him down.

Revolutionary Fears

More on that Rios article mention above - I find it amusing that one of the posters agrees with her attack on revolutionaries by, well, calling for a revolution.
In some out-of-the-way small town in the so called "flyover" portion of the country, Federal agents will attempt to implement the new gun control laws. The person, or persons, they pick will probably be members of some right wing gun club or "militia" group. The person, or persons, will decide to fight it out. Word will spread (via cell phones and the internet) quickly.

While the fight is on-going, citizens from the surrounding area will head to this small town. Some of the local police and sheriff's deputies will resign and join in with the citizens. The Federal agents will be vastly out-numbered. A "running" battle will take place as these Federal agents try to retreat. There will be deaths on both sides.

. . . Once the fighting starts, everyone will start picking sides; and the fighting will continue.

If all of this sounds familiar, you are correct. It happened in 1775. I am afraid it is about to happen again.
Yep. Those dam hippies want to kill us so we gots to kill them - sort of. I also find it amusing that he's "afraid" that we will have another 1775 style revolution. I can't speak for conservatives, but I am proud of the American Revolution, and the sacrifices our ancestors made so that we can be free.

Oh and here's the standard disclaimer - this is just one nutcase conservative and is in no way indicative of the right wing movement. No matter how many people post or repeat these types of contacts they are of no significance to the conservative movement as a whole.

The Sixties

I always looked at the Sixties as kind of a romantic time. I love the music for one thing. But just the idea that people could organize and change the world, like they did in the civil rights movement or in the protests against the war, is very romantic to me. I know there's a dark side to the sixties, of course. But I'd rather have hope than people explaining to me that we can't really make things better for all of us.

So I'm not the target audience for Sandy Rois's latest article. She sees the sixties as a very dark time indeed.
But it’s the underlying, dark vision for America that they share that concerns me most. While Ayers and Dohrn hate capitalism, Barack chooses careful terms like “fairness” to hint at evening the score on the “wealthy.” In the ’70s, the Weather Underground wanted “smash monogamy.” Group orgies were their attempt to break down all sexual taboos. Today William Ayers is a powerful advocate for “Queering Elementary Education” and advancing the cause of gay, straight, transgender and lesbian rights. The gay journalist Andrew Sullivan has declared Barack Obama the dream candidate of the homosexual movement.

“Revolution” versus “change.” “Capitalist pigs” versus “the wealthy.” “Smash monogamy” versus “other definitions of family.” The revolution of the ’60s and ’70s was bolder in language and action, but today’s manifestation is in some ways more threatening because terms are hidden, intentions blurred and the “opiate of the masses”—at least right now—is not religion, but Barack Obama.
I remember the fifties myself. The late 40s and the 50s when men like McCarther and Nixon roamed the land tarring every progressive and every liberal with the same brush - communist. And they used language very similar to this, as I recall. Moscow might talk about smashing the state, while American leftists might talk about economic justice but it's the same thing. You see if all progressive impulses lead inexorably to the darkest aspects of the 1960s, to bombed ROTCs and "group orgies" well, any liberalism, any progressivism must be stamped out.

Which I guess is Ms. Rios's point.

Thursday, April 24, 2008


Well Hillary Clinton won in Pennsylvania. Obama couldn't "close the deal" as the media are putting it. I have to admit I find it kind of frustrating. Part of it is that I support Obama over Clinton. Part of it is the role personality or character seems to have played in this race. I'm not an expert; I can't dissect exactly why Obama lost. But I suspect it has something to do with this kind of thinking, exhibited in Hugh Hewitt's latest article.
The Ayers-Dohrn rhetoric of late last year was rotten. Some of the Jeremiah Wright sermon excerpts have been rotten. Dohrn referred to America as a “monster” last year. Ayes accuses the country as it exists today of a litany of terrible sins. Pastor Wright said G-D America.

Barack Obama seems like a very nice guy with a good heart and a wonderful family. He is obviously bright and extremely well spoken. He's a down-the-line leftist with the most left-leaning voting record in the Senate from 2005-2006.
Obama has some friends that the Hugh Hewitts and the other conservative leaning people of this nation don't like (and in Ayers case it's just a person he met with). That's not going to change. And if Hillary is the candidate, well, we'll be hearing about Vince Foster, shredded Law Records, and Whitwater. And if we'd of put up Edwards we'd be hearing about Channeling Dead people in court, expensive haircuts, and how rotten trial lawyers are.

We can put up anybody we want; no liberal or Democrat will ever win when the election is about "Character." Which puts McCain, basically promising to continue the unpopular Bush Policies, in the White House.

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Listening to the Commanders

For years people supporting President Bush have praised him for listening to the generals. As opposed to nasty liberal presidents who don't listen to their generals. Well lets see how William Kristol spins the elevation of General Petraeus to be head of U.S. Central Command.
Bush has done the right thing, overriding opposition from within the Pentagon. He deserves congratulations--and thanks.
So apparently listening to the Generals is good and overriding the Pentagon (largely run by Generals (and those who hold the equivalent rank)) is even better.

See what Republicans like about Bush is that he listens to the generals when they tell him what he wants to hear!

What Planet is Michael Medved writing from?

Michael Medved writes a pitying article about how hard it is to be a Republican believer, but his observations don't line up with reality.
Imagine that George W. Bush told a public forum that he had “felt the enveloping support and love of God” since childhood, and that on “many, many occasions” he “felt like the Holy Spirit was there with me.”

It’s not hard to imagine the derisive tabloid headlines: “Bush: God Is With Me” or “Prez Sees Spirits” or “W. Talks About His Imaginary Friend.” Howard Dean might comment: “It sounds like Bush is once again saying that he talks to God, so we better watch out. The last time that happened, he took us to a war based on false intelligence.”
First of all Bush talks about his faith all the time, and usually without comment. He's a lame duck President with a failed Presidency; unless God tells him to invade Iran, who cares what he believes?

Secondly Bush's presidency is a good example of why we should be concerned about the religiousity of our Presidents. The existence of a religious feeling, such as Hillary Clinton expressed, isn't the problem. The problem comes when, in Bush's case, it becomes a metaphysical get out of jail free card, an excuse and exoneration of any dumb and evil thing that Bush wants to do. McCain, while a very bad choice for President, at least doesn't suffer from this particular malady.

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

I Got a Headache This Big

Actually I really do have a headache. Very busy day today. But I did want to point you to an article by Robert Scheer on McCain. I agree with him in the whole, although I think he points too much to the racism/sexism angle. Yeah there are people who just won't vote for a black man or a woman, but I don't know how large a block they are. And it's hard to tell, because the sort of people who wouldn't vote for a black man or a woman are also the sort of people who wouldn't vote for a Democrat.
By so unabashedly embracing the most glaringly failed U.S. president ever, McCain has surrendered the right to be considered an independent candidate, judged on his own merits and personal history. A vote for McCain is a vote for that rancid recipe mixing religious bigotry, imperial arrogance and corporate greed that he had stood against in the run-up to the 2000 presidential election, when he challenged George W. Bush, but to which he now has capitulated.
Yep, that's pretty much right.

Monday, April 21, 2008

I-Pod 10

1. R.E.M., "Oddfellow's Local 151"
2. Tori Amos, "After All"
3. The Velvet Underground, "Oh! Sweet Nuthin'"
4. Eurythmics, "I Need A Man (Remix)"
5. Daniel Ash, "Sea Glass"
6. The Art of Noise, "L.E.F. (The Mark Brydon Mix)"
7. Curve, "Coast is Clear"
8. Buffalo Springfield, "Special Care"
9. Tom Petty, "Don't Fade on Me"
10. Lost Witness, "Song to the Siren (Did I Dream)(Fable Mix)"

Ask the Real Questions

I'm kind of torn on this article from Media Matters from America on the last Presidential Debate between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. On the one hand, I totally agree that the debate was awful. On the other hand, I'm not sure I agree with their diagnosis of what should have been asked.
Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos didn't ask Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton whether they would continue the Bush administration's torture policies, or their views on wiretapping Americans without a warrant or on the validity of Dick Cheney's assertions that he is a separate branch of government.

And yet -- after yet another presidential debate came and went without a moderator asking a single question about some of the most serious issues of our time, issues that go to the heart of who we are as a nation -- some in the media defended ABC's focus on political controversies by asserting that substantive issues have already been hashed and rehashed.
Those are key Constitutional questions. But I don't know that a debate on those issues would be very revealing. Rather I'd rather see McCain get asked those questions; he'd tied himself pretty closely to a rule breaking and constitution ignoring administration. How does he feel about rule breaking and constitution ignoring?

On the other hand asking Clinton and Obama those questions just gives them an opportunity to condemn the Bush White House - which they both have done in the past. It doesn't really go to the differences between these candidates.

Free Ride

There's a book put out by Media Matters about John McCain's relationship with the Press. Specifically how comfortable he is with his press cronies. Salon did an interview with one of the authors recently, and it's worth checking out. It's interesting that they go to some length to point out that they are critiquing the Press more than McCain. That said, it's hard to write this kind of book without mentioning the negative stories you think the Press is ignoring. That's one of the differences between the Liberals and Conservatives. A Rush Limbaugh or an Ann Coulter is gleeful at pointing out the flaws of Liberals - they live to tear down Liberals. While a Liberal going after a Conservative has to kind of apologize for it. Consider this;
With McCain, what you see when the character question comes up is three letters: POW. And that, as far as many in the press are concerned, is the beginning and the middle and the end of John McCain's character story. All you need to know is he suffered greatly and showed courage as a POW in Vietnam. That's certainly part of his story. But it's only a part.

The fact that McCain has this volcanic temper and can be extremely vindictive is something that people in Washington know, people in Arizona certainly know; both places are littered with people who have been the target of his ire, and if we're going to talk about character, then that's part of his story too. We should be able to see the good side and the bad side. One of the things we see about McCain which is different than the way other candidates get covered is that he gets defined by the most noble thing he ever did, the most praiseworthy parts of his character. Other candidates often get defined by the stupidest or least noble thing they ever did.
He's not wrong. Liberal politicians (even moderate liberals like Clinton or Obama) are defined by their worst moments; John McCain is defined by his most noble. Forever and ever.

Image over Substance

Carol Platt Liebau's latest article argues that the American people want and deserve style over substance.
Normal Americans are tuning in to get a gut feel for the candidates – to decide whom they like and trust, whose views they generally agree with and, of course, whom they can best tolerate seeing on television every night for the next four years.

That’s why last week’s debate was actually the most informative of the entire season. For once, along with all the wonky canned policy responses, it offered real, new insights into the candidates as human beings, and forced them to answer the “character questions” that are central to shaping everyday voters’ gut-level decision making.
Of course these kinds of "character questions" have given us eight years of George Bush and are poised to give us four years of John McCain (who would sure like to invade or bomb Iran). Because of course it is only the Democrats who have "character questions." The sainted McCain, despite having very bad policies and programs, doesn't have to worry about having his character questioned.

So when Liebau writes in praise of the idea that character matters and that these kind of gotcha characters reveal character, well, she already knows that the press is disinclined to go after her candidate.

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Screw Conservatives

Another crowd pleasing post title, I'm sure. But this is a continuation of a post on Monday in which I speculated it would be nice if we treated candidates, like the war-mongering John McCain who wants to invade Iraq, with more charity. There's a reason why we won't actually do it, and Glenn Greenwald brings it up in his latest post.
When the Right inserts personality-based trash into our political discourse -- and when they build up their leaders based on mythological themes of heroic, morally upstanding character imagery -- it isn't an "ad hominem" attack to highlight the deceit that lies at the heart of those claims, to document the actual character of those individuals. It's a necessary response for debunking the manipulative, substance-free character themes that are outcome-determinative in our elections, for neutralizing the twisted attacks that predominate.

Put another way, where someone advocates "Principle X," one can either (a) contest the validity of Principle X or (b) insist that Principle X be applied equally to its advocate. Opting for (b) does not preclude (a), nor does it make one hypocritical to insist upon equal application of a principle to which one objects. To the contrary, method (b) is a means of advancing (a); that is, one way to demonstrate the depravity of a principle it to apply the principle to its advocates.

Here, "Principle X" = the Right's notion that our elections should be decided based on petty personality-based themes -- euphemistically known as, justified and glorified as, "character issues." Decrying that principle while simultaneously subjecting the Right to it is not "hypocritical" or "contradictory" but, instead, is a means -- the only means -- for undermining it.
He's not wrong.

And more to the point, I firmly believe that what McCain wants to do is wrong, both morally and practically. He clearly desires to continue the war in Iraq until we achieve some sort of transformative victory and he clearly desires to invade Iran. He might not be able to, but he wants to. And he might get to. And both of those desires will weaken our already struggling country and will cause untold misery to our own troops and the people of Iraq and Iran (and probably elsewhere). So it's a moral imperative to do what we can to keep McCain out of the White House.

So while I oppose violence or illegal activities, and favor democracy, I'm pretty ok with a little name calling and pointing out McCain's weaknesses.

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Tuesday Beats

Actually this isn't a normal beats column because I am pointing you to a website and a Podcast. It's good! The website is Resident Advisor, and it's an Electronica/Dance website. The podcast is their regular podcast, in which a rotating string of DJs comes in and mixes a mix for them. The latest is Todd Terje, and it's great. I mean this is a solid mix of like nu-disco, I guess I'd call it. Starts with MIA doing "Paper Planes" and ends with one of the few Bruce Springsteen Tracks I like --> I'm on Fire. So check it out. You can get the Podcast off of I-Tunes, just go to the Podcast section and search for Resident Advisor. There's a whole slew of them, many quite good, but this one I really liked.

Monday, April 14, 2008

What is the Measure of a Man?

William Kristol's latest article for the New York Times compares Barack Obama to Karl Marx, in a backhanded kind of way, dealing with some comments that Obama made last week.
. . . it’s one thing for a German thinker to assert that “religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature.” It’s another thing for an American presidential candidate to claim that we “cling to ... religion” out of economic frustration.

And it’s a particularly odd claim for Barack Obama to make. After all, in his speech at the 2004 Democratic convention, he emphasized with pride that blue-state Americans, too, “worship an awesome God.”

. . . What does this mean for Obama’s presidential prospects? He’s disdainful of small-town America — one might say, of bourgeois America. He’s usually good at disguising this. But in San Francisco the mask slipped.
I don't know the full specifics surrounding Obama's poorly chosen words. I do know that if you poll Americans on issues, taking out the politicians and parties, "liberal" positions tend to do well. And yet many people have a very negative opinion of liberalism.

I am interested in the idea that this offhand comment of Obama's is somehow more revelatory than all of his other comments. The assumption in politics is that anything noble or admirable about a politician can be ascribed to stage dressing; they want to look admirable. Whenever we see anything base or mean about a politician that's their real self. Thus Obama's unfortunate comments are the real him; his comments on believing in an Awesome God are fake.

Do we have that tendency in other people we come in contact with? Or with ourselves? Is the real me the one that trips over Lupita (my dog) and then yells at her? Or the one that plays with her and her pink stretchy thing?

There's something called charity which allows you to believe that your friends at their best are the real them. Perhaps it wouldn't be a bad thing if we had some charity for our politicians as well.

Why does Kevin McCullough Hate the Truth?

Kevin McCullough despises the truth. This assumption can be made on sound reasoning and easy logic. Anytime someone works to oppose something - it is assumed.

Kevin McCullough's latest article, for example, takes Barack Obama to task for despising marriage. What is his proof? Well Obama is opposed to work place discrimination, he is in favor of allowing homosexuals to work openly in the military, and is in favor of repealing the defense of marriage act.

Or, in short, Obama does not hate gays sufficiently to love marriage.

Wednesday, April 09, 2008

No Atheists for President

According to Michael Medved's latest article. Apparently because most of us believe in Christianity and because some of our public ceremonies (notably the Pledge of Allegiance) invoke a creator, an atheist President would either not do those ceremonies or would be a hypocrite. Then he says this bit.
On one level, at least, the ongoing war on terror represents a furious battle of ideas and we face devastating handicaps if we attempt to beat something with nothing. Modern secularism rejects the notion that human beings feel a deep-seated, unquenchable craving for making connections with Godliness, in its various definitions and manifestations. For Osama bin Laden and other jihadist preachers, Islam understands that yearning but “infidel” America does not. Our enemies insist that God plays the central role in the current war and that they affirm and defend him, while we reject and ignore him. The proper response to such assertions involves the citation of our religious traditions and commitments, and the credible argument that embrace of modernity, tolerance and democracy need not lead to godless materialism. In this context, an atheist president conforms to the most hostile anti-America stereotypes of Islamic fanatics and makes it that much harder to appeal to Muslim moderates whose cooperation (or at least neutrality) we very much need.
What's hilarious here is that even the mention of making some of the substantive foreign policy changes that might make us slightly less hated in the middl east provokes cries of caving to terrorists, and the reminder that these people are crazy and we must accomedate them. Hell even the election of Keith Ellison, Muslim, to the U.S. Congress was portrayed in some right wing circles as a foolish capitulation to animals who would never stop hating us no matter what we do (and of course the only reason to elect a Muslim is to appease fanatics. It's not like Mr. Ellison could actually appeal to voters any other way).

So when it comes to invading their countries, maintaining bases over there, supporting oppressive regimes, supporting Israel, ignoring the plight of the Palestinian people and electing Muslims to the U.S. Congress, well we shouldn't let the terrorists affect any of those decisions because they are just animals and unreasoning. But elect an atheist President? We better not do that if we want to stay on their good side.

Tuesday, April 08, 2008

War Without End

I should say one thing about John McCain. I disagree with him on policy. His policies, are, for the most part, those of his party and the current President. And they are policies that have done enormous harm to this nation and it's citizens. So I cannot support him, and won't. But his political style is certainly an improvement over the current occupant of the White House. He seems to actually believe that his colleagues on the left are patriotic Americans who can serve this country. Coming from the Party of Ann Coulter that's quite a nice thing to see.

Unfortunately I don't know if his party is going to let him stick to it. Consider Rush Limbaugh's response to speech McCain gave on Friday (I believe).
He [McCain] said, "Let us argue with each other then. By all means, let us argue. Our differences are not petty, they often involve cherished beliefs, and represent our best judgment about what is right for our country and humanity. But let us remember, we are not enemies." Yes, Senator McCain, they are our enemies. The left is the enemy of freedom and liberty in this country and they don't need to be worked with. They need to be defeated. It's just that simple.
I've often wondered how Limbaugh thinks they are going to defeat the left in this country. But let it go - that is what the Rush Limbaugh's in McCains party want to see. They don't want the slightest hint of compromise with Democrats. They want to see the Democrats (except Lieberman of course) defeated and humiliated, their beliefs mocked, their policies eliminated. And if McCain doesn't want that (and they seem to think that he doesn't) well he's not the candidate for them.

So there's the calculation. Should McCain woo the base by going after the Democrats or should he try to get the centrists by sticking to his guns?

Monday, April 07, 2008

Sometimes things are Complicated

Just finished reading Sean Wilentz's latest article for Salon (well I finished it sometime in the last two hours) and I'm not sure what I think. It is about how if the rules in the Democratic Party Primary were more like the rules in the general election, Clinton would have already won and Obama would be out to lunch.
Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats in primary states choose their nominee on the basis of a convoluted system of proportional distribution of delegates that varies from state to state and that obtains in neither congressional nor presidential elections. It is this eccentric system that has given Obama his lead in the delegate count. If the Democrats heeded the "winner takes all" democracy that prevails in American politics, and that determines the president, Clinton would be comfortably in front. In a popular-vote winner-take-all system, Clinton would now have 1,743 pledged delegates to Obama's 1,257.
My initial response was very negative. I don't like the winner-take-all approach because it puts the minority under the rule of the majority, particularly in the large states. In a state like California or Texas or Florida, you could have millions of votes essentially not counting because they had the temerity to vote for the wrong person.

But upon reflection, that is how our general elections are done. You can't win half a state in the General Election; it's winner take all (except in Maine and Nebraska where the electoral votes go to the candidate who eats the most Cod and Corn respectively (no just kidding, here's the real answer). So are we kneecapping ourselves as a party when we run our primary process differently from the general election? I mean if we know that Florida is going to be winner take all in the general election, and we know that the majority of the voters in Florida prefer, say, Hillary Clinton, what is the strategic value of giving those of us who prefer someone else a voice?

But perhaps there is a moral value to it. The Democratic Party Primary process of proportional representation is more democratic than a winner take all system. So perhaps the Democratic Party is leading the way towards changing the way we settle presidential elections. One can only hope.

Friday, April 04, 2008

The Court of World Opinion

I know this is kind of pointless, but I am going to point it out again. Mona Charen's latest article takes the old canard that Democrats want to be hippy dippy buddies with all the terrorists of the world, while Republicans are hard headed realists.
Well, everyone likes to be loved, but Democrats seem more than a little obsessed with America's international reputation. Recall that in 2004, John Kerry described the matter as "primary" to the presidential race. "Foreign leaders" were apparently tapping Kerry on the shoulder at restaurants to express their dim view of his country.

Why is it so important to win an international popularity contest? If America is not popular in the world, what are the other nations going to do to us? Stop buying our products? Kick us out of the U.N.? Vote us off the island?

Actually, some of those consequences, particularly the U.N. bit, don't sound so awful.
OK, once again, it's not about being liked. It's about having allies when we need them. We are the biggest baddest nation on the planet, but we are not all powerful. Hell our military adventures in just Afghanistan and Iraq have strapped our resources, both military and economic. We need allies, nations who share our goals and who want what we want internationally. And we aren't going to get that by insulting and belittling them. We aren't going to get it by adopting a "go-it-alone" attitude.

The truth is, it's the Republican's go it alone attitude, their childish machismo that is pathetic, not the Democrats willingness to work with other nations.

Chucking Eggs at Exclusionary Republicans

OK so I have a new hobby - chucking eggs at Republicans. Not the verbal eggs I've been chucking at them for a few years now. No I'm talking about the straight from a chicken eggs. Little white pearls of culinary versatility.

My only problem was that I don't know who is a Republican Party member by sight. Nope. But I have a great solution to this problem; I'll just go to the local Republican Party meetings - sure to be plenty of Republicans there. I called up the local Republican Party Chairperson and asked if I could attend and chuck eggs in the middle of the meeting.

He refused to tell me when and where it was.

Can you believe it? Those Republicans are exclusionary. They want to exclude people who are going to throw eggs at them. This is like Selma Alabama all over again.

I'll tell you something else - it's Stalinist! Stalin wouldn't let anybody throw eggs at him. He wouldn't let any disrupt his meetings. The Republicans are just like Stalin.

One other things, I'm sure I will see the support of Rush Limbaugh for my attending Republican Meetings and chucking eggs at them. Look at these remarks on his "Operation Chaos."
Lake County Elections Supervisor Michelle Fajman said challenges to voters can be made by party officials armed with voting records for the past 10 years. The challenge process would work like this: Voters must declare their party affiliation in spring primary elections. Local party officials watching the polling locations then could check the names of voters against a list of all registered voters that shows past party declarations. Fajman said any voter whose party affiliation is challenged can either decline to vote for the party in question or sign an affidavit, swearing under oath that they voted in the last election for a majority of the regular nominees of the party."

This is incredible! This is Stalinist! Party officials at the polling place trying to read your mind and determine your intent by comparing your votes and your registration for the past number of years? "She said a grand jury could investigate anyone who signed a false affidavit, but challenges are rare. Fajman said she hasn't received any indication of state or local Democrats mounting a serious voter challenge at present." So there you have it. The Democrat Party. I don't know if they all wear brown shirts in the Democrat Party in Indiana or not.
Yep. You see Rush wants to disrupt the Demcoratic Primary Process; that is his stated aim. Screw up the Democrats. And he's aflame with rage that the party seems inclined to resist his disruptive plans. So naturally he would be equally angry at my local Republican Party Chairperson's exclusionary tactics to keep me from chucking eggs at Republicans.

Thursday, April 03, 2008

Learning Our History

Nina May's latest article is addressed to Barack Obama and it encourages him to learn American History; specifically the history of Blacks in America. If you find it a bit odd for a white woman to lecture a black man on his history, well you aren't alone. But let's look at what she says.
There was a big problem with Barack’s mea culpa speech in Philadelphia, defending his racist pastor, Jeremiah White. He failed to mention that over 300,000 white Americans gave their lives to end slavery. He didn’t mention that in 1854, abolitionists left the Democratic Party and founded the Republican Party specifically for the purpose of ending slavery and giving equal rights to all those who had been in bondage. And when he does mention the 3/5ths clause in the Constitution, he totally got it wrong, the way most Americans do. News flash . . . it was the abolitionists who insisted on it so that the slave holding states could not have their slaves counting as constituents so they could get more pro-slavery representation in congress. This is one of the most powerful battles fought by whites, to end slavery, which has been mischaracterized as being racist.
OK let's tick this off.

1. You think it's wrong that Obama failed to mention the 300,000 White Union Soldiers who gave their lives to free the black man. What about the 258,000 White Confederate Soldiers who gave their lives to keep the black man a slave?

2. You reference that the Republican Party was created, in part, by abolitionists seeking to free the slaves. But don't you think it's also notable that following the Civil Rights Acts of the 1950s and the 1960s, Southern White segregationists quit the Democratic Party in droves, to join the Republican Party? Why is that? Unless, perhaps, the Republican Party's character had changed between 1860 and 1960?

3. Finally you defend the 3/5s compromise as a victory for abolitionists. What tripe. A victory for abolitionists would have been, well, abolishing slavery. What the 3/5 compromise was was a compromise, a compromise necessitated by the overall racism of the United States at that time. It was certainly better than counting slaves equally would have been; and of course there were noble people of that time fighting to end the abomination of slavery. But the culture as a whole wouldn't accept it.

To put it another way, if America had been as noble as May paints it, the 3/5 compromise would not have been necessary. So maybe it's May that needs to take another look at history, without the ideological blinders of Conservatism.

There's Nothing Left to Say

Ann Coulter's latest column compares Barack Obama's book, "Dreams from my Father" to Mien Kampf.
Has anybody read this book? Inasmuch as the book reveals Obama to be a flabbergasting lunatic, I gather the answer is no. Obama is about to be our next president: You might want to take a peek. If only people had read "Mein Kampf" ...
At this point, it's important to point out that Ann Coulter is a lone lunatic who's antics do not relate to the millions of fine upstanding Republicans who buy her books and keep her on TV. Beyond that, what else can you say? Ann Coulter is desperate; whatever they try to convince themselves, they know that both Obama and Clinton are strong candidates and their guy has an up hill struggle ahead of him.

Wednesday, April 02, 2008

Why Clinton Is Still Running

This is from a post from the consistently brilliant Talking Points Memo a few days ago.
Hillary doesn't want to run for president in 2nd or 3rd gear. It's beneath her dignity. And I don't mean that sarcastically. It really is. She's a powerful United States senator, former First Lady, etc. She wants to win. And if she's still in it she wants to run full bore with the money you need to run a serious campaign, the crowds, poll numbers, etc. She's not some Huckabee figure who's going to hang around with little chance of winning

It really is all or nothing. You've got to convince your supporters, donors and to at least some degree the media that you're really in it, and in it with a shot. Otherwise you face the classic problem of a cascade failure. Poor fundraising generates bad press stories, which depress turnout at rallies, which create more bad press stories and eventually no press stories, etc. It's no different from the precarious position any campaign faces when the odds aren't looking good.

And so we have this vicious cycle in which the longer Hillary's odds become the further she has to up the ante to keep her candidacy credible -- in other words, the more forcefully she has to question the legitimacy of the nomination process and the more aggressively she has to push the idea that Obama can't win the general election or is not qualified to be president.
There it is. Clinton can't afford to play nice; if she stays in she has to play to win. And since she's determined to stay in, she's going to bloody Obama up before the election pretty good.

Questions for Michael Medved

1. Do you like a nice salad?

2. If your answer is yes, are you aware that Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian? How do you feel sharing a preference for salad with one of the most evil men in history?

3. If no, are you aware that Atilla the Hun never ate one salad (as far as I know)? How do feel sharing a disdain for salad with one of the most evil men in history?

This is inspired by Michael Medved's latest article, in which he takes Obama to task for failing to burn Jeremiah Wright at the stake.
5. In the teaching of Reverend Wright and his adult education classes, as well as the Sunday school of his church, there’s a major emphasis on the Black identity of Jesus Christ. The stained glass windows at the church identify Jesus with the dark skin tone of sub-Saharan Africa. To your church, the racial identity of Jesus matters a great deal. Does it matter to you? Do you personally believe that Jesus was black?

6. If you don’t think he was black, have you done anything to correct the misimpression your little girls would have received in church?

7. If you think it’s true that Jesus was black, then you obviously believe that most Jews of First Century Judea also looked like today’s Africans. If that’s true, do you agree with Minister Farrakhan that Twenty-First Century Jews and Israelis are imposters and interlopers with no ancestral connection to the Holy Land, and that black Africans represent the true Israelites and Chosen People? Do you believe that your many Jewish supporters would feel comfortable with this religious vision?
Nice. I particularly like the bit about explaining to his daughters that Jesus really was nothing like them at all. "You see little girls, Jesus was really as white as the driven snow, the way most white Christian Churches portray him. So don't be thinking that you might have something in common with the savior of all mankind."

I'd like to believe that most people are smart enough to see through these particular questions, but I guess they probably aren't.

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

I-Pod 10

1. Goo Goo Dolls - "Naked"
2. U2 - "New Years Day (Special U.S. Remix)
3. The Beatles - "Dr. Robert"
4. Pet Shop Boys - "Some Speculation"
5. Lemon Jelly - "'95 aka Make Things Right"
6. Justice, "One Minute to Midnight"
7. Disto Funk, "Maelstrom"
8. Mack Facts, "The New Flesh"
9. The Majority, "One Third"
10. Frente, "Reflect"

Convert or Die!

I guess it should be more convert or we die. That's the subject of Cal Thomas's latest article, and it's not much of a surprise. Cal Thomas has been writing "Muslim Menace" articles for years now. This one is notable for it's denunciation of the idea of a moderate Muslim.
We should be listening more to what they are saying instead of investing too much faith in “moderate” Islam. Faith in moderate Islam may be the biggest counterfeit faith of all.
Again it's unclear what Cal Thomas is suggesting. He speaks approvingly of Muslim's converting to Christianity; but beyond that what solution does Thomas envision to our Muslim Problem? As always he is long on end of the world religion baiting but careful not to make any suggestions on what to do.