Crazy vs politically motivated

At this point it seems pretty clear that Loughner was simply crazy, not motivated by partisan politics. And, nearly a week after the shooting, the right is just getting warmed up in their lectures to liberals about thinking that they are violent. Case in point, Michelle's latest article, in which she brings up a bunch of incidents in which liberals assumed right wing nefariousness which turned out to be simply crazy people. She brings up things like the windows smashed that turned out to have been a left winger who did it or the census worker with Fed written on him who turned out to have been a suicide.

Actually let's stop there. Census worker found in the cemetary, with the word "Fed" on his chest, and Michelle Malkin chastises us for not thinking that was somehow related to an anti-Government feeling?

She does kind of shoot herself in the foot by bringing up this one, though.

In April 2009, a disgruntled, unemployed loser shot and killed three Pittsburgh police officers in a horrifying bloodbath. The gunman, Richard Poplawski, was a dropout from the Marines who threw a food tray at a drill sergeant and had beaten his girlfriend. Was this deranged shooter who pulled the trigger to blame? Nope. Despite evidence that Poplawski's homicidal, racist tendencies manifested themselves years before Obama took office, lefty publications asserted that the real culprit of the spree was the "heated, apocalyptic rhetoric of the anti-Obama forces" (according to mainstream liberal Atlantic Monthly pundit Andrew Sullivan), along with Fox News and Glenn Beck (according to mainstream liberal journalist Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly online).

No see that guy actually was a right winger who was obsessed with the Government taking away his guns (and in lieu of what he did with them, perhaps he should have had his Guns taken away from him). But I will concede he was crazy (and I'll be returning to this).

But of course that's Malkin's only mistep. She doesn't bring up the other times that violence or threatened violence was directly related back to the right wing. Such as Byron Williams, Beck devotee, who planned to assassinate leaders of both the Tides Foundation and the ACLU (but was stopped thank goodness). Or the assassination of George Tiller while he was at church. Or the various bricks through the windows that weren't thrown by liberal transvestites. Or the brother of a congressman who had his gas line cut (this was an honest mistake; a tea party activist got the wrong address).

But let's go back to crazy Richard Poplowski. Of course he's crazy. And anybody who takes gun in hand to attack imaginary enemies is crazy. I mean, you'd have to be crazy to act that way. That does sort of let our buddies on the right permenantly off the hook, though. As much as they point a world in which evil liberals work to destroy America, only a crazy person would act on that world view.

This will be a Productive Two Years

From Michelle Malkin's latest article.

No more compromising deals behind closed doors. No more compromising bailouts in times of manufactured crisis. No more compromising conservative principles for D.C. party elites. No more compromising the American economy for left-wing special interests. No more compromising transparency and ethics for bureaucratic self-preservation.

Let us be clear, in case it hasn't fully sunk into the minds of Obama and the trash-talking Democrats yet: You can take your faux olive branch and shove it. Thank you.

Republicans like to explain that they are the grown ups, but this doesn't sound very grown up does it? But it does follow on from conservative philosophy. There's no real need for conservatives to work liberals to make government work, because conservatives don't believe government can work. If Government can't work anyway, why bother getting up in arms to make it work?

Case in Point

Michelle Malkin's latest article is entitled "The Three R's in the Age of Obama: Rappin', Revolution and Radicalism."

This is pretty much exactly what Liberals are talking about when it comes to a racist component to the criticism of Obama. Whether or not Malkin is racist, she surely knows that criticizing Obama in these terms will play with her audience.

The overall article is about the Burlington Township school which apparently went a bit overboard in their praise of Obama and thus justifies all of the crazy hysteria Conservatives kicked up around Obama's speech to the schools a few weeks ago. She continues by giving biased biographies of a few of his education picks and concludes, in a time honored tradition, by lamenting that our students aren't learning Reading Writing and Arithmetic. Instead they are learning Rappin', Revolution, and Radicalism.

Politics and Immigration

Michelle Malkin has a source which states that the Bush Administration refrained from deporting Barack Obama's aunt during the few days before the election.

In other words, the Bush Department of Homeland Security determined that protecting Obama from the negative publicity surrounding a potential arrest of his illegal-alien aunt was more important to the general welfare of the country than tracking down untold numbers of deportation absconders who received an extra three-day pass last week.

Yeah, except that wouldn't they also be protecting themselves? I mean yeah the right wing would see Obama as the villain in this situation, but I'm not sure how mainstream America would see Obama's aunt getting flushed out by the media and rounded up by the Bush Administration. So it's just possible they were doing this to protect themselves.

Book Banning

Let me say for the record I am opposed to book banning of any book. I hate the ideas that Ann Coulter spews for example, and I hate the way she has poisoned the well of American Politics. But she has a right to spread her poisonous lies as she sees fit.

Michelle Malkin's latest article takes on the Book Banning side of Sarah Palin. She accuses Liberals of projecting their own evil book banning ways on the innocent Palin, and then lists a number of liberals who have wanted books banned. She brings up "Unfit For Command" but fails to note the key complaint about that book, which was that it was libelous. It presented false information about Kerry designed to defame him. The ideas in the book were not the issue. And the book got out. Plenty of people read it.

Also unifying the people she chooses to accuse is that they are not public officials. They are people asking Regency, for example, not to produce libelous books. Or some sort of Border's employee who urged Border's employees to hide the book (this doesn't seem to have worked).

I don't agree with either of these approaches. But they are not the same as what Sarah Palin. Palin was acting as a representative of the people when she tried to remove books she finds offensive from the bookshelves. That was government censorship as opposed to "freelance" censorship. And while some see "freelance" censorship as a gray area, government censorship shouldn't be.

The Creeping Menace - Scarves

Just so you know, eating at Dunkin' Donuts might be taboo if Michelle Malkin has her way. Apparently she feels that annoying TV Chef, Rachel Ray (I'm sorry Ms. Ray, but it's true. Your recipes are good though), is wearing a salute to Palestine around her neck in a Dunkin' Donuts ad.

So if you are going to continue eating Terrorist Donuts, just make sure not to wear a Scarf while doing so.

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.

The Horrors of Socialized Medicine

Michael Moore's new movie, which has yet to open here, is called Sicko and is about the Health Care industry. Naturally this prompts defense of our current system by Conservatives. Michelle Malkin's latest article takes her shots at Moore in her latest article, but unfortunately she's shooting blanks.

More and more people are paying for private health insurance cover, and more and more companies are making it part of the perks package. So, Britain will end up with a two-tier system before too long where the "rich" get good private cover and the poor or uninsured have no alternative to the NHS."

Moore and his rich left wing Hollywood buddies won't have to worry about the inevitable shortages and distortions of socialized medicine. They'll simply be living in their own private care universe.

So Socialized medicine is bad because the poor won't get as good a care as the wealthy. You get that? Clearly the answer is to favor a system in which the poor get no care whatsoever. Because that would clearly be better than a system in which they got less care than the wealthy.

I wonder how Michael Moore and the "Hollywood Elite" or, say, the Conservative Punditocracy are handling their health care issues right now?

Let's go Beat up some Hippies

For those of you for whom that phrase quickened the pulse and got you excited, check out this article by Michelle Malkin. It's about an organization entitled "A Gathering of Eagles," which is a non-violent group that seems to glorify violence.

What the Eagles will not stand for, however, are "violence, vandalism, physical or verbal assaults on our veterans, and the destruction or desecration of our memorials. By defending and honoring these sacred places, we defend and honor those whose blood gave all of us the right to speak as freely as our minds think."

Of course, given that the Right Wing sees anti-war protesters as about nothing but "vandalism, violence, and verbal assaults," I'm not sure how this group is going to avoid a certain amount of hippie butt-kicking.

Hey children what's that sound.

Haditha

One reason, besides neck ache, that I didn't post yesterday was that the first two articles I read where on Haditha (by Michelle Malkin and Ben Shapiro). The Right Wing is playing their regular game in regards to the events that seem to have taken place in Haditha.

Phase one: unconfirmed reports service (in this case repeated by Rep. Murtha) about an atrocity committed in Haditha.

Conservatoid Response: those reports are unconfirmed and it shows how much Democrats hate soldiers that they are latching on to them to attack our efforts in Iraq.

Phase two: the Reports are confirmed by further investigation.

Conservatoid Response: The investigation by the military isn't done yet, so the Media and Liberals should just ignore this story, until the military finishes their investigation. Presenting this evidence to the American people just shows that they hate the military. This response works for any new evidence in between now and the time the Military finishes their investigation.

Phase three (possibility A): Despite clear evidence, the military takes little to no answer

Conservatoid Response: Total silence, or a continuation of their response to Phase 2.

Phase three (possibility B): The military holds those soldiers responsible guilty and punishes them.

Conservatoid Response: See the system works; but this is an old story now, and any continued discussion of it only shows how the Media and Liberals hate soldiers.

When is the right time to discuss the implications of Haditha? Never, according to our friends the conservatives. It's always either too soon or too late.

I've seen the future and, boy, it's rough

One of the things about reading so much conservative commentary (as I do), is that you get a feel for what's coming. Not always, but sometimes.

This week some 19 Democrats voted with the Republicans in favor of cloture. Here's atypical response from Conservative columnist and bloggist Michelle Malkin.

And thanks to the principled Democrats who know you and your record best for standing up in your defense.

So that's nice for a change.

Of course the moment those Democrats disagree with Malkin, one presumes they will be back to being unprincipled or batshit crazy.

The more typical response I will hear all weak will be to happily piss on Kennedy and Kerry and Democrats in general for failing to stop Alito. I expect I will get to catalogue many examples of that. And I will.

But like the song says, "I would rather drink 6 razor blades, razor blades from a paper cup."

In Which Bryant Imagines Himself as a Typical Conservative Commentator Imagining what It Must Be Like to Work At the State Department

"Hmmmmm, I've sat around being useless all morning. I think after lunch I'll start actively working to destroy America. But before I do, let me check out Townhall.Com and see if they have any helpful advice."

"Hmmmm. Here's an interesting article by Joel Mowbray about the plight of Domestics hired by Saudi visitors to the US. Hmmm. Mowbray seems to suggest we, here at the state department, start an aggressive campaign to investigate conditions for domestics, and to set free those that are being mistreated. Ha ha ha! Hasn't he forgotten that we are evil? Does he expect us to just open the boarders to helpless innocent victems?

"Now Michelle Malkin, she has the right idea. It's not our place to let in innocent kind hearted young girls cruelly aboused by their Saudi Masters It's our job to facilitate the infiltration of evil terrorists, with bogus religious visas."

That was fun, but now I'm back to normal. It is a little bizarre for a conservative asking the State Department to study the abuse of immigrants. Usually conservatives pretty much only care about those immigrants who are abusing the system.