LOL of the Day

Liz Smith, on Sarah Palin's possible $7 million book deal:

I really don't want to write the fol lowing item, but it's happening, so who am I to quibble? The hottest thing going in the fairly supine and dormant book publishing world is the ongoing question of the memoir, autobiography, or what have you yet to come from Alaska's governor, Sarah Palin.

The governor is said to now be seeking a hot, hot, hot agent to handle the onslaught of proposals asking her to write her own story in her own way. Rumor has it she could get $7 million for such a book if she could produce same! (I didn't know anybody could get $7 million for anything anymore, unless they ask Uncle Sam.)

What could Sarah Palin, age 44, write of a life still so young? Anything she damn well wants to write. The public, it seems, is just waiting to lap it all up like that finger-lickin' moose stew.

Gosh, such a tough question. I mean, just because she's been a business owner, mayor, governor of the largest state, popular vice presidential candidate, villain of the Left, mother of five, including a Downs Syndrome child. Nah, nothing there to write about. Not like a guy who did drugs, was a "community organizer," used the Chicago Way to get into politics, voted "present" a million times, ran a vapid election campaign and managed to be elected president.

Object Lesson

Hateful:












Tolerant:











Evil:














Good:



















Dangerous:















Peaceful:

India, Welcome to the Global War on Terror

Last week, India joined the league of civilized countries by being attacked by Muslim crazies. According to this terrorist, they were supposed to fight "till their dying breath."

I guess he didn't want to do that. Maybe he wasn't as anxious to get his virgins or something.

The only terrorist captured alive after the Mumbai massacre has given police the first full account of the extraordinary events that led to it – revealing he was ordered to ‘kill until the last breath’.

Azam Amir Kasab, 21, from Pakistan, said the attacks were meticulously planned six months ago and were intended to kill 5,000 people.

He revealed that the ten terrorists, who were highly trained in marine assault and crept into the city by boat, had planned to blow up the Taj Mahal Palace hotel after first executing British and American tourists and then taking hostages.

Thankfully, as usual, the terrorists underestimated the strength of the building and so, it still stands. But the Indian government should start policing its airports and transportation better, because, as our own history shows, if they can't blow up their target, Muslim terrorists are likely to fly planes into it.

Did I say "Muslim terrorists"? Oh, I know. I'm not supposed to point out that, yet again, the Religion of Peace has tried to kill Christians and Jews.

From Stop the ACLU:

OH my what a surprise. Are you as surprised as I am? No? Good, I really am not surprised here. You know what else didn’t surprise me in the least? The fact the mainstream media kept saying “gunmen” and “hostages” even though well into these attacks it was known it should have been saying “muslims” and “Jews” but we can’t go around demonizing a whole religion for the acts of a few “wackos” (unless it’s Christianity of course, then all those viles, hateful Christians are guilty as sin by association) after all, we are the MEDIA and have to stay objective and fair.

Excuse me while I choke on the bile from throwing up a little bit in the back of my mouth for having actually written that last sentence.

One of the best scenes in An American Carol is the discussion of "radical Christians" who take over buses and blow themselves up in marketplaces. Of course, what makes it hilarious is that Christians don't do these things, just as they aren't prone to fly airplanes into buildings. But that doesn't mean the nuts at Pandagon, Echidne of the Snakes and the rest of the moonbatosphere don't think a handful of people wanting a moment of silence or the questioning of Darwinism is a greater threat to Western civilization. Look at the lies they spread about Sarah Palin ("ZOMG!!!! SHE'S A CHRISTIAN!!1!!!11!!!).

These same kooks want to talk about Dominionist theology taking over America because Pat Robertson calls us "a Christian nation" on The 700 Club. Shockingly, neither Amanda Marcotte nor Jesse Taylor have found any time whatsoever in the last few days to discuss the Muslim terrorists killing a bunch of people and holding a bunch of others hostage. I guess looking for racism in derelict shopping malls and mocking conservatives just has a higher priority with the "enlightened" "writers" at Pandagon. But don't worry. The next time a Christian anywhere complains about the war on Christmas, I'm sure those intrepid truth-seekers will be right on it!

My Thoughts and Prayers Are With Mike G. and His Family

Dana has a post up linking to a post by Jeromy Brown at Iowa Liberal that fellow blogger Mike Ganzeveld was mugged this weekend at a cash machine in Fort Dodge, Iowa.

From Jeromy's post:

I’ll try to do some more blogging this weekend while Mike recovers from a crazed attack by a bunch of disgruntled rightwing bloggers who were screaming, “Long live Sarah Palin!” They broke his hand and mashed up his face pretty well, but Mike managed to kill one and maim the genitals of another. He would have maimed the genitals of both, but as you already know one out of two rightwing bloggers are eunuchs.

The crazy thing is that only the part about the broken hand and the face is true, and it was a mugging at a cash machine in Fort Dodge, Iowa, folks. Fort Dodge. I blame the rap music. Okay, actually I mean Dana Pico blames the rap music. Let’s all hope for a speedy recovery and nice strong pain pills to tide him over in the meantime.

Dana's snarky response was awesome:

And, feeling some snarkiness license thanks to Mr Brown’s post, I’d point out the old maxim that a conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged. I’m looking forward to Mike joining the staff of CSPT as soon as his hand heals!

I was upset by the news of this crime. I don't see eye to eye with Mike on everything, but I have enjoyed reading his posts and his comments always keep me on my toes. The blogosphere has its share of nutty, bad behavior, but rarely does it compare to real life. This is a reminder of the dangerous society we live in, even in places we don't think of as being unsafe. I mean, Fort Dodge, Iowa?

Here's praying for a speedy recovery for Mike and, as Dana has said, that the criminals are quickly caught, prosecuted, and jailed for this.

Shouldn't We Get to Blame the Clintons for the Economic Meltdown...

Since their Treasury Secretary is in charge of Citigroup? I'm sure if a former Bush official were in charge of some greedy financial institution, we'd be reading blog post after blog post about why George W. Bush is, somehow, personally responsible for the debacle. Why aren't lefty blogs castigating Democrats for this mess?

Oh, wait. I remember.

Shop Til You Drop?

This is why I don't shop on Black Friday.

Sounds Oddly Familiar

I read about the verdict in this cyber-bullying case,

A Los Angeles federal jury today convicted a Missouri mother of misdemeanor charges in the nationally watched MySpace cyber-bullying case involving the suicide of a 13-year-old girl. But the jury rejected more serious felony charges against Lori Drew.

Drew, 49, was accused of violating federal computer statutes and one count of conspiracy for creating the MySpace account in the name of a fictitious 16-year-old boy and using it to engage in an online relationship with 13-year-old Megan Meier.

Meier, of Dardenne Prairie, Mo., hanged herself Oct. 16, 2006, after the fictitious boy, “Josh Evans,” told her the world would be a better place without her, prosecutors alleged.

and thought of a comment made by Jeromy Brown at this post:

to be honest, too deranged and dishonest to continue besmirching the Earth’s good soil and air with your existence

I have to admit that when Jeromy wrote that, I was shocked. Not because of the stupidity behind such hyperbole, but because it wouldn't occur to most people to write things like that, particularly over political disagreement.

Fortunately, I'm not a 16-year-old who doesn't realize there are lots of sadistic people out there in the world who like to hide behind the anonymity of the internet to say things that would get them, at the very least, a punch in the nose in real life. The slap on the wrist Drew received is outrageous.

I've seen a lot of bizarre things in the 10 years I've been trolling around the internet. I've always found it amazing the way people see anonymity as permission to behave in the most horrible fashion possible, usually over things that are not all that important. There are untold numbers of women bloggers, for example, who have been threatened with violence of every sort, and have been called crybabies or victims for pointing out the despicable nature of such acts. But these comments aren't acceptable in a civilized society, and most people recognize that.

Of course, there are whiners who behave as though such cyberbullying is directed only at them for saying unpopular things. Unfortunately, it's becoming de rigeur on the internet, so it does lose its potency after, say, the 500th attack of this nature. But even so, the Drew case should make people aware that these words, which would be actionable if said or written in real life, should not be tolerated in cyberspace.

Would a President Michelle Obama Still Have to Do the Housework?

I was going to make that "Would a President Michelle Obama Still Have to Cook the Turkey?" since I was going to write this yesterday but got busy (and, frankly, too content to write about such contentious issues).

The inspiration comes from this post by Echidne of the Snakes.

To pretend that it can be done only tells us that women can be a little more than the ever-hovering but silent and undemanding female angels traditionally assumed to take care of every successful man: they can also be the junior assistant office managers in the families of famous men.

Women can balance their own work, their partners' work, the children, the parents and grandparents, the Thanksgiving turkey, the birthday cards, the care of the sick, the need to look young and sexy, the dustbunnies under the beds, the school menus, the parental chauffeuring services. They can balance all that, somehow, while walking on the tightrope of cultural femininity, the demands of a labor market which still assumes that every worker has a little lady at home to give succor and psychological counseling and cleaning services. And then the woman-haters write how women don't have the same genius as men do, how no woman has ever invented something like the automobile or designed a great church, how women therefore are obviously biologically incapable of anything but -- well --- playing the role of Girl Fridays for famous men.

So I'm angry. How very awkward for me. But really, why can't we keep the limelight on the real question Ruth Marcus asked, for longer than one fleeting second: What can be done to make the sexual division of labor within families more egalitarian? And if we don't want to make those changes, how do we provide women with equal opportunities in other spheres of life? The answer must not focus on all the ways that women alone could somehow achieve that. Days are still only twenty-four hours long, even for us of the girly persuasion.

To my knowledge, women have always been expected to take charge of the home and the children. I've always assumed this is in part because women give birth to children and, therefore, spend a lot of time caring for them first. So, the tasks women have traditionally worked on were things that could be done with children in tow. Men, OTOH, have had the freedom--and responsibility--to go out and do the dangerous, tough things, which spurred them to greater skill and innovation in those pursuits. After agriculture was invented and animals were domesticated, men had more time to spare, and thus began inventing and philosophizing. But women still had to do the things they'd always done as far as taking care of the house and children.

So, what does all this have to do with musing about a President Michelle Obama still having to cook dinner and wash the pricey uniforms that her children will wear to their over-priced private school (can't have them attend public school. Oh, no!)? Echidne referenced this Ruth Marcus column, she noted that Michelle is "Mommy in Chief," and that she is still faced with the age-old problems women face in this life: balancing your individual needs with the rest of the family and why women must do this and men don't have to.

When Michelle Obama took to describing her new role as mom in chief, my first reaction was to wince at her words. My second reaction was to identify with them.

I was okay, actually, with what Obama said. But I worried: Did she have to say it out loud, quite so explicitly? Is it really good for the team -- the team here being working women -- to have the "mommy" stamp so firmly imprinted on her identity?

And most of all: What does it say about the condition of modern women that Obama, catapulted by her husband's election into the ranks of the most prominent, sounded so strangely retro -- more Jackie Kennedy than Hillary Clinton?

She is, after all -- by résumé, anyway -- more Hillary than Jackie. But the painful paradox of campaign 2008 is that it came tantalizingly close to giving us an Ivy League-educated female lawyer in the Oval Office but yielded an Ivy League-educated female lawyer sketching out a supremely traditional first lady role.

I'm not really sure what Marcus would have Michelle do; it's not like First Lady is a governmental role voted on by the American people or an administration post nominated by the president. She's just the president's wife. That we've decided being First Lady means something doesn't make it something.

And so, Michelle Obama, executive and attorney, is reduced to Mommy in Chief, whose biggest decision will be whether Malia gets waffles and Sasha gets the Cocoa Puffs of if it's the other way around. Ok, maybe she'll have to figure out which dress designer to use and how to conduct the First Lady teas or something, too. But we don't expect her to sit in on cabinet meetings or anything.

That trivializing of her life and accomplishments brings us back to my musing. If Michelle Obama were president, would Barack be expected to be Daddy in Chief, making sure the girls' socks matched and the homework was done? Or would he be allowed to be Something More than Mr. Michelle?

This was a question asked quite a bit during the election when the Left was constantly bashing Sarah Palin. One of the accusations hurled early on was that she wasn't vice presidential material because she wasn't a Good Mother. And how do we know she wasn't a Good Mother? Because she was a governor, which meant she had so many duties to concentrate on that she wasn't home to make the cheese dogs and discuss Alaskan energy policy on a regular basis.



So, would a President Michelle Obama be expected to discuss foreign policy while making Christmas cookies with her kidlets? I have mixed feelings about this one.

First, the Left is much more forgiving of liberal women when they don't live up to traditional expectations for women. Like my British mom told me about the Royals, "They are not people like you and me. They're better." That's the way liberals view liberal women.

But on the other hand, as this past election cycle showed, being a woman--liberal or conservative--holds you to an entirely different set of standards from those expected of men. So, in that sense, President Michelle Obama would be expected to prepare the Thanksgiving stuffing just like her great-grandmother had done it back in 1910, even as she dealt with foreign policy crises and economic questions.

In short, we are not so advanced that women are allowed not to be Mommy in Chief, regardless of what other roles in life we have.

Where's Joe Biden?

Bidentity Crisis: Where's Joe?

More than three weeks into the transition, and Vice-president elect Joe Biden generates less buzz than the non-existent first puppy.

The vice president-elect has not spoken publicly since the election, and was at Barack Obama's side just once this week as the president-elect delivered a series of grim news conferences on the economy.

Obama instead appears to be at the center of his longtime Chicago circle.

Biden was just designed to give Obama foreign policy experience (even though Biden hadn't done anything, either). His job is done.

For Thanksgiving

A young man named John received a parrot as a gift. The parrot had a bad attitude and an even worse vocabulary. Every word out of the bird's mouth was rude, obnoxious and laced with profanity.

John tried and tried to change the bird's attitude by consistently saying only polite words, playing soft music and anything else he could think of to "clean up" the bird's vocabulary. Finally, John was fed up and he yelled at the parrot. The parrot yelled back. John shook the parrot and the parrot got angrier and even ruder. John, in desperation, threw up his hand, grabbed the bird and put him in the freezer.

For a few minutes the parrot squawked and kicked and screamed. Then suddenly there was total quiet. Not a peep was heard for over a minute.

Fearing that he'd hurt the parrot, John quickly opened the door to the freezer.

The parrot calmly stepped out onto John's outstretched arms and said, "I believe I may have offended you with my rude language and actions. I'm sincerely remorseful for my inappropriate transgressions and I fully intend to do everything I can to correct my rude and unforgivable behavior."

John was stunned at the change in the bird's attitude. As he was about to ask the parrot what had made such a traumatic change in his behavior, the bird continued, "May I ask what the turkey did?"

Happy Thanksgiving!

"The Hand of providence has been so conspicuous in all this, that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked, that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligations."

—George Washington, letter to Thomas Nelson, August 20, 1778

The New Political Reality

I agree with Robert Stacy McCain, and, by extension, Matthew Yglesias when they say that, come January, Republicans will be irrelevant to the governing of the U.S.

There's plenty of talk about "bipartisanship," but that's just more Democrat bullshit trying to cover their asses and drag Republicans into making sorry-ass deals to get some pork for their constituents. If Republicans are smart, they'll allow Democrats to actually govern for the next two to four years and give Americans that government they supposedly voted for. Giving Dems bipartisan cover shouldn't be in the negotiations.

Democrats don't need Republicans to pass a single piece of legislation over the next two years. They have such big majorities in both houses of Congress, that they can do what they want. And that's what should scare the pants off all Americans.

One of the keys to organizing a GOP resistance will be denying Obama and the Democrats the mantle of "bipartisanship" for any of their key measures. That is to say, House and Senate Republicans need to make sure that they whip the maximum number of "no" votes on Obama's agenda items, so that in 2010, they are in position to hang that agenda around the Democrats' necks in the midterms.

Taking the Civics Test

The test is here. I scored 93.94%.

Evidently, most people--including, I assume those unfortunate Obama voters who didn't know who controls Congress--didn't do so well.

Kevin Drum notes that everyone did badly, but Baby Boomers did somewhat better.

Other ISI findings, by the way, include these: the more education you have, the better you do; it doesn't matter much what kind of university you went to, whether you go to church, or what your politics are; watching lots of TV is bad for your score; and reading lots of history is good for your score.

That 50 Miles Makes a Huge Difference

In crime rate rankings, that is.

CITIES OF 500,000 OR MORE POPULATION (33 CITIES)

Lowest Crime Rate

1. Honolulu, HI

2. New York, NY

3. El Paso, TX

4. San Jose, CA

5. Austin, TX

6. San Diego, CA

7. Seattle, WA

8. Los Angeles, CA

9. San Antonio, TX

10. Fort Worth, TX

Ranking Highest Crime Rate Ranking

1. Detroit, MI

2. Baltimore, MD

3. Memphis, TN

4. Washington, DC

5. Philadelphia, PA

6. Milwaukee, WI

7. Indianapolis, IN

8. Dallas, TX

9. Columbus, OH

10. Houston, TX

Notice that New Orleans, even smaller, is still the worst. Hmm.

The McCain Campain Ads that Didn't Run

I haven't spent much time in Coulda Shoulda Woulda Land since the election because there's not much point. In a year with everything against him, John McCain did incredibly well (and had a real chance to win until the financial meltdown). But, as most conservatives were well aware, there were plenty of ads that should have been run but were not because everything (skinny, community organizer, Jeremiah Wright, celebrity) was racism.

What if the McCain campaign had run ads using footage of Barack Obama dancing with Ellen DeGeneres to show his coziness with celebrity? Or followed up on its Paris Hilton ad with others featuring Donald Trump and Jessica Simpson? All of that was on the drawing board of Fred Davis III, the advertising whiz that John McCain has used for almost all of his campaign media and one of the most talented conservative political operatives in America...

"My favorite ad of the campaign was as simple as it could be," Davis said. "And it started out something like, 'Long before the world knew of John McCain or Barack Obama, one of them spent five years in a hellhole because he refused early release to honor his fellow prisoners, while the other one wouldn't walk out of a church after 20 years of the guy spewing hatred towards America.' And the last line was, 'Character matters, especially when no one is listening.' " The ad never ran, however, because McCain ruled the topic of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the preacher of Obama's Chicago church, out of bounds shortly after he locked up the Republican nomination.

McCain's campaign was called racist from the get-go and don't think Obama didn't use fears of racism throughout his campaign, both against Hillary Clinton and John McCain. In fact, if times get tough, we'll be hearing that criticism of Obama as president is racism.

Davis says that concern about race played a major role in the entire aesthetic of McCain's ads. The photographs of Obama that the ads used, for instance, which often showed Obama elongated and smiling, were carefully selected, he recalls. "We chose them with only one thing in mind, and that is to not make them bad pictures because bad pictures would be seen as racist," Davis says. "How many shots in their ads did they use a John McCain [photo] looking decent and smiling?" He says the campaign also agonized over the music in the ads, paying special care not to play drum-heavy tracks that could be seen as an African tribal reference. "We were held to a totally different standard," he says.

The Affirmative Action candidate was held to a different standard. Will the Affirmative Action president be held to a different standard, as well?

Blacklisting?

Most students today learn about the evils of McCarthyism and the Hollywood blacklist. The point, of course, is that taking away someone's livelihood because of their political beliefs is wrong.

So, where do all those Hollywood types, who are always telling us how Republicans want to bring back the age of McCarthyism, to defend those who supported Prop 8 in California? Seems like some want a return of the blacklist.

Other targets include Film Independent, the nonprofit arts organization that puts on both the Los Angeles Film Festival and the Spirit Awards; the Cinemark theater chain; and the Sundance Film Festival.

In Film Independent's case, the board has defended the continued employment of Richard Raddon, the Mormon director of the L.A. Film Festival who donated $1,500 to support Proposition 8. Cinemark is under siege because Chief Executive Alan Stock gave $9,999 to support the same-sex marriage ban. And in a sign of a powerful ripple effect, Sundance, perhaps the American institution that has done the most to support gay filmmakers and gay cinema, is being targeted because it screens films in a Cinemark theater...

Gregg Araki, director of the critically acclaimed gay cult hit "Mysterious Skin" and an influential figure in "new queer cinema," has said he won't allow his films to be shown there, while others, such as "Milk" producers and gay activists Dan Jinks and Bruce Cohen, say they're going to "study in depth all the facets of our specific situation before making a decision."

Araki says Raddon should step down. "I don't think he should be forcibly removed. The bottom line is if he contributed money to a hateful campaign against black people, or against Jewish people, or any other minority group, there would be much less excusing of him. The terrible irony is that he runs a film festival that is intended to promote tolerance and equality."

Many liberals hate it when you point out that free speech includes speech with which you disagree, and that if one actually supports free speech, it naturally means that you support others' rights to it. That means that I may not have wanted to see Brokeback Mountain or Milk, but I respect and support the right of others to do so.

This concept seems to be lost on much of the Left, who thinks that disagreement equals "hate speech" and such must be suppressed. They'll tell you that supporting traditional marriage is "hate speech" but wanting to alter marriage irrevocably is "tolerance." But I can't see anything more intolerant than telling someone that they don't have the right to support propositions with which they agree because some subsection of society has decided it's wrong.

From Jeff at Protein Wisdom:

(I)n order to make such a lynch mob palatable, the framing has to be manipulated to turn a disagreement over beliefs and public policy into something far more sinister — namely, “hate” or an abuse of civil rights.

But of course, the question of gay marriage is only a civil rights issue to most of those who support it; to most of those who support a ban on gay marriage, the issue is not one of civil rights or hatred at all, but rather one of public policy, a fidelity to the sanctity of the traditional definition of marriage, and (in some cases) a check against what they believe to be a legalized slippery slope. To others, the issue is, in fact, a religious one, insofar as it goes against the teachings of their church — but religion should only matter to marriages sanctified by a church.

The Left likes to talk in terms of "hatred" for this group or that issue, rather than support for some traditional notion of the subject. But the fact is that, while there are many homophobic people who, I'm sure, voted for Prop 8 out of hatred, there were far more who voted for Prop 8 because they believe the traditional notion of marriage--between one man and one woman--is the one they wish to support. Some may do this out of tradition. Some may do it out of a religious obligation. Some may do it because it makes the most sense to them. But regardless, it's not hateful to think traditional marriage is what we should be supporting.

On the other side, though, blacklisting is permissible as long as it only hurts certain people.

Obama vs. Catholics

Remember when pro-lifers sounded the alarm on Barack Obama's extremely pro-choice record? Remember the liberals who came unglued when I pointed out that Obama wasn't just for abortion before birth, but actualy thought it was permissible to allow babies who survived abortion to die? And remember when conservatives pointed out that Obama has promised that "the first thing he'd do as president" was sign the Freedom of Choice Act into law, which would sweep away all state restrictions on abortion, including parental notification, waiting periods and informed consent?

Well, I guess some people are finally beginning to realize what it means.

What in the world were these bishops talking about, claiming that religious freedom in America was under attack? Keep up the hysterics, boys, I thought as I scanned the latest story, and this will be birth control all over again: Your lips are moving but no one can hear you. And the most ludicrous line out of them, surely, was about how, under Obama, Catholic hospitals that provide obstetric and gynecological services might soon be forced to perform abortions or close their doors. Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Chicago warned of "devastating consequences" to the health care system, insisting Obama could force the closure of all Catholic hospitals in the country. That's a third of all hospitals, providing care in many neighborhoods that are not exactly otherwise overprovided for. It couldn't happen, could it?

You wouldn't think so. Only, I am increasingly convinced that it could.

Like Catholic Charities in Boston, Catholic hospitals will simply shut down rather than be forced to perform acts against their beliefs. That's one thing about that Big C Catholic church: when they say abortion is murder and they won't perform them, they mean it.

Though it's often referred to as a mere codification of Roe, FOCA, as currently drafted, actually goes well beyond that: According to the Senate sponsor of the bill, Barbara Boxer, in a statement on her Web site, FOCA would nullify all existing laws and regulations that limit abortion in any way, up to the time of fetal viability. Laws requiring parental notification and informed consent would be tossed out. While there is strenuous debate among legal experts on the matter, many believe the act would invalidate the freedom-of-conscience laws on the books in 46 states. These are the laws that allow Catholic hospitals and health providers that receive public funds through Medicaid and Medicare to opt out of performing abortions. Without public funds, these health centers couldn't stay open; if forced to do abortions, they would sooner close their doors. Even the prospect of selling the institutions to other providers wouldn't be an option, the bishops have said, because that would constitute "material cooperation with an intrinsic evil."

Who would be the ones hurt if Catholic hospitals close? Why the poor, of course. The same people that we're told need taxpayer-funded abortions. I guess there are those who think no hospital is better than hospitals which don't kill inconvenient babies.

As the author points out, the good news is that FOCA, in this form, has not been voted on in 15 years, and there are a number of pro-life Democrats in Congress now. There's no way of knowing whether FOCA would even get sent to a President Obama for a signature. But that's the same thing we said about McCain-Feingold and we all know where that got us.

Plenty of Catholics voted for Obama on the appeal of "change" and a disaffection for George Bush and Republicans in general. Somehow, I don't think FOCA was the "change" they were believin' in.

LOL of the Day

Via Brothers Judd, this post:

The polling data on these voters released last week by John Zogby may have confirmed what many of us had suspected for months - - that millions of Americans who supported the Obama candidacy knew essentially nothing about him - - but that doesn’t dismiss the fact that Obama sold people on the idea of “change.” And based on the left-wing reaction to the Clinton re-emergence, “change” was taken to mean not merely a reversal of the past eight years, but an un-doing of the past couple of decades.

This has left-wingers outraged. Obama spent much of the past two years vowing to end the “senseless war in Iraq.” As he stood on stage with Hillary Clinton and John Edwards for those seemingly never-ending Democratic debates, he took every opportunity imaginable to remind us that he was the only candidate who had always opposed the war in Iraq. Yet, now he may be about to appoint a “war supporter” to head up the Department of State. That’s not “change,” and it’s not hopeful - - at least not to those who have been caught-up in the Obama trance.

Similarly, Obama spent a lot of time and energy earlier this year brutalizing Mrs. Clinton in front of fearful blue collar workers, assuring them that “free trade,” and Mrs. Clinton’s previous support of the “N.A.F.T.A.” agreement, were the reasons that jobs were moving overseas and their futures were uncertain. He also assured voters that “N.A.F.T.A.” would be reigned-in when he became President. Yet now, Obama has appointed as his Chief Of Staff Rahm Emanuel, a man who, along with Bill Clinton, bucked the Democratic party’s wishes, and helped bring about the N.A.F.T.A. agreement in the 1990’s.

And then there is Obama’s selection of Timothy Geithner for Treasury. When the news broke last Friday afternoon that the New York Federal Reserve Chairman had been tapped for the new administration, Wall Street surged upward and ended in plus territory. Seemingly, Obama’s choice provided some calm and assurance to a financial world gripped with the fear that Obama would actually attempt to radically realign America’s economic structures, as he promised from the campaign trail.

Yet once again, Obama’s selection of a man who arguably has ties to both the Bush Administration, and the centrist policies of the Clinton Administration, is a slap in the face to those who were hypnotized by his campaign rhetoric about impugning “the rich.”

And after months of running against the “failed policies of George W. Bush,” Geithner’s selection painfully suggests to the Obamanicas that maybe, just maybe, Bush 43 wasn’t such a failure after all.

It would be reassuring if Obama were not the radical his past has suggested, but it will be way more fun watching liberals defending what they've opposed for eight years.

Why Aren't We...

Going after the lenders?

This discrimination is at the core of a number of lawsuits advocates have filed across the country over the last year. Several of the cases focus on a particularly devious practice: Without borrower knowledge, many mortgage brokers received a commission from the lender for persuading a borrower to accept a higher loan interest rate than what the bank was otherwise willing to offer. The lawsuits claim that such commissions were paid more often in loans to African-Americans and Latinos than in loans to whites, revealing, again, that lenders often charged borrowers of color more than their white counterparts. As these suits progress, and the groups suing gain access to lenders' and brokers' records—e-mails, internal memoranda, training materials, and other documents—we are likely to learn more about the practices of the lenders who are the defendants and about the industry in general.

Discriminating lenders were not the only problem with the housing market that courts should now address. Mortgage brokers rushed into poor communities with exotic subprime loans during the early part of this decade, because these communities were underserved by traditional banks. During the height of the market, nearly half of all subprime loans went through a broker, compared with only 28 percent of prime loans. Brokers also dominated loans made to borrowers of color: 64 percent of African-American borrowers used a broker, compared with only 38 percent of white borrowers.

The problem with this wasn't the mortgage brokers per se. It was that many prospective borrowers wrongly assumed that the brokers were working in the borrower's best interest. But in most states, mortgage brokers do not owe any duty to the borrower to find the best possible deal. Many brokers relied on borrowers' ignorance of the mortgage market to pursue higher commissions and other financial perks for themselves. In much of the country, there's no legal remedy for this. But a few states require that brokers avoid conflicts of interest and pursue the best deal for the borrower. These states include California, home to about one-quarter of the mortgages in the United States that are in some stage of foreclosure. The Department of Justice, the state attorney general, legal-services attorneys, volunteer lawyers, and law students should all be poring over California loan documents to smoke out the brokers who violated their legally mandated duties to their clients. If a significant number of loans in California alone could be altered, consistent with the borrowers' abilities to pay, either through litigation or its threat, the federal government wouldn't have to pay as much for a national bailout.

To date, none of the proposed homeowner-rescue plans acknowledges that a significant number of the homeowners who are in distress were the victims of predatory and illegal practices. Opponents of the plans currently on the table raise three serious objections: First, any massive loan rescue would be costly; second, borrowers in good standing might intentionally default on their mortgages to benefit from a bailout; and third, investors holding securities backed by subprime loans will balk at loan modifications that diminish their already depreciated investments and will sue to stop such efforts.

Going after the lawbreakers helps to address these concerns. It would not only lower the cost of the rescue plan by reducing the number of borrowers needing help, it would also direct assistance only to those people who were victims of illegal conduct and insulate the loan modifications from litigation by investors looking to preserve their investments. Investors won't challenge loan restructuring when the underlying loans were made on illegal terms. You don't lend your horse to Jesse James and then sue the stagecoach he robbed to get it back. Investors will have to redirect their fire from the borrowers to the brokers and lenders who did the fancy loan footwork—and perhaps the ratings agencies that blessed it.

There's been a lot of finger-pointing as to who is responsible for the subprime mortgage mess we're in. Democrats, specifically, deserve a very large helping of the blame, since it was their regulations that allowed and encouraged the sorts of lending practices that created this problem.

Borrowers, willing to believe in the Tooth Fairy, deserve another heaping helping of the blame. You can't believe that an interest-only loan is a good investment. I'm sorry, I don't believe that anyone is so ignorant as to not understand such loans on expensive homes are very risky. I think people took these types of loans knowing they would be kicked out in 3-5 years, but at least, they would get to live in a nice home until then.

But then there's the lenders, who were not merely compelled to offer loans to unqualified borrowers. They made the loans knowing they could shuffle them off to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and, eventually, the taxpayers. There was little or no risk in these situations, so why shouldn't the lenders make the most ridiculous loans possible? And just as the banks have used the bailout money to buy up other institutions, it's perfectly obvious that some businesses are not going to do the right thing now, just as they didn't do it before. Why aren't we pursuing criminal charges?

Lunatics on the Left

Liberals can be cute in that puppy-peeing-on-the-carpet earnest way they have about them, but then, you have the lunatics who think Iran is wonderful (even as they have to keep their heads covered because women are stinky, y'know) and the useful idiots who compare America with Hitler's Germany. Stop the ACLU has the analysis.

One question: what will these people do when Obama doesn't reverse all (or almost any, really) of George Bush's policies?

Forced Unionization and Bailing Out the Auto Industry

Bismarck sent me a link that went to this video:



I live in a right-to-work state, so, I'm always amazed when I hear about people who are forced to pay union dues, then watch the union use their money for candidates and positions they don't support.

Barack Obama is a big union supporter, and has promised to do everything possible to force companies to accept the unionization of employees (whether those employees want it or not).

All of this comes to mind while watching the Big 3 fat cats fly to Washington on private jets to ask for taxpayer money to bailout their companies...again. Regardless of how much more a worker for Ford makes versus a Toyota employee, the bottom line is that Ford, Chevrolet and Chrysler aren't making cars people want. That's why they are losing money. I can't see why we should be on the hook for more terrible business practices.

Everybody Deserves a Trophy

Down in this comment thread, Thomas Tallis said the following:

Actually, the reason Democrats claim to want universal health care (most don't, or we'd have it already) is twofold - first, it would cost the country less in the long run and in the fairly short run; preventative medicine is much, much cheaper than the alternatives; second, the accusation that Democrats believe in a "nanny state" is partly accurate - Democrats are into the idea of taking care of people, that one of the jobs of the state is to care for its citizens. Whether 1) that's true or 2) desirable or 3) sustainable is something people can have an honest debate about. What's not open for debate is that this:

The reason Democrats want universal health care is because, like Social Security before it, it will shift an entire generation to the Left.
is one of the dumbest things I've ever read, and I've read a fair amount of dumb things. Congratulations on your totally unsubstantiated tinfoil hat conspiracy thinking! It's a riot!

I always like when someone tries to make their political party sound all altruistic, like it's not about getting votes by promising, oh, say, 95% of Americans are gonna get a tax break or something ridiculous like that.

The fact is, Democrats are always looking at ways to create more straight ticket voters, the sorts of voters who don't bother thinking about each candidate, but who reflexively vote for one party. Of course, Republicans do this, too, but given the fact that Democrats controlled the purse strings for the vast majority of the 20th Century, it's safe to discuss this in terms of their giveaways.

Social Security, the most successful entitlement program to date, made one generation beholden to the Democrats by eliminating most elderly poverty in this country. Of course, the fact that it was a Ponzi scheme and the Day of Reckoning is coming was irrelevant in the 1930s. FDR wasn't too concerned about my kids being forced to pay for all those people who thought having kids was a problem (and their old folks, to boot).

But to argue that universal health care is the latest way Democrats are trying to create a permanent Democrat voting bloc is neither original nor crazy. Just as each party will try to prevent Social Security reform when the other party is in power, universal health care has the same political risks. Whoever gets it passed will be a savior for at least a generation, until all the wheels start falling off and the engine stops running.

I could go into the reasons universal health care doesn't work and is, in fact, being changed because it is bankrupting most countries that have it, but I've discussed that before (see here, here, here, here, here, and here for a few examples). But the fact is, Americans think the idea of somebody else paying for their health care is a great idea. Most Americans don't have experience with socialized medicine and the downsides of it (say goodbye to new drugs and hello to 12 hour waits to see a doctor you didn't choose!), so they won't realize till it's too late that socialized medicine can be summed up in two words: it sucks.

How is it possible that we've gone from a large majority of Americans supporting private medicine (67% in 1998) to a similar majority insisting on socialized medicine (55% in 2006)? I suspect there are a couple of reasons:

1. Democrats have spent 15 years telling us we need universal health care and that Americans want it.

2. Everybody deserves a trophy.

What's that? You haven't heard of Everybody Deserves a Trophy? Then maybe you don't have kids in sports, where even the last place losers get trophies.

I'm using EDT as shorthand for the moocher class we've created in America, where people think they deserve something without having to actually do anything to get it. You see this in many areas in life, but we've now got a whole generation of 20-somethings who have been raised to think they deserve a certificate just for showing up (perfect attendance!). So, if people think they deserve praise just for existing, why not assume that the government is going to make all those tough decisions about things like retirement and health care, too?

Look, I've lived without health insurance and it sucks, there's no way around that. But the government already has programs to cover the poor, the elderly, and even children. The idea that able-bodied adults are not capable of either buying health insurance on their own or getting a job with benefits is ridiculous. My beef with the insurance industry is that once you'd had something like cancer, you couldn't even buy catastrophic insurance.

I could be a hardliner and point out that insurance shouldn't be paying for doctor's visits and pills, because doing that just encourages more of both. That's why most insurance charges some sort of fee for emergency room visits; people were (and still are) using the E.R. like their general practicioner. The fee keeps that down some.

But I'm not even going to go that far. I agree with rules that require insurance companies to offer insurance at reasonable rates (don't ask me what that is) for everyone. And I don't even mind mandatory insurance requirements, although it doesn't work very well for car insurance, as anyone who's been hit by an uninsured motorist knows. But once the government starts paying the bills, it will start telling you the kind of care you can get, when you can get it, and how much you get to have. That's called rationing.

In Everybody Deserves a Trophy land, it's just unfair that some people don't have insurance and that they might have to pay full price for their birth control pills. But one thing my experience has taught me is that pain (in the form of not having insurance) will spur you to change (we found a job with excellent insurance). Once the government offers health insurance, companies will stop, and that means that we all may get the same trophy, but no one will want that ugly, cheap, stinky thing on their mantle.

Happy Endings

Sent to me by an old friend:

You are driving down the road in your car on a wild, stormy night, when you pass by a bus stop and you see three people waiting for the bus:

1. An old lady who looks as if she is about to die.

2. An old friend who once saved your life.

3. The perfect partner you have been dreaming about.

Which one would you choose to offer a ride to, knowing that there could only be one passenger in your car?

Think before you continue reading. This is a moral/ethical dilemma that was once actually used as part of a job application.

You could pick up the old lady, because she is going to die, and thus you should save her first.

Or you could take the old friend because he once saved your life, and this would be the perfect chance to pay him back.

However , you may never be able to find your perfect mate again.

The candidate who was hired (out of 200 applicants) had no trouble coming up with his answer. He simply answered:

'I would give the car keys to my old friend and let him take the lady to the hospital.

I would stay behind and wait for the bus with the partner of my dreams.'

Sometimes, we gain more if we are able to give up our stubborn thought limitations. Never forget to 'Think outside of the Box.'

HOWEVER...

The correct answer is to run the old lady over and put her out of her misery, have sex with the perfect partner on the hood of the car, then drive off with the old friend for a few beers.

God, I just love happy endings!

A Start

This video outlines the Southwest-to-Northeast-Rail corridor that is supposed to be operational by 2013 (I'll believe that when I see it.)



The rail line goes through some of the heaviest populated parts of the city and can take people to the airport, as well, which is a big plus. But this is only a start. It isn't particularly useful for me because the stations are nowhere near where I live, and I'm not sure how close they are to places people really shop. If Tarrant County adds buses around these stations, it might be more helpful, but I'm not certain what the plans are.

Certainly, Fort Worth and Dallas desperately need transportation alternatives to cars. The roads that have been planned are toll roads (I won't use those) and most people are not going to be happy with that. The current freeway system is completely inadequate for handling the traffic, and that will only get worse with time.

This is a good and exciting first start for mass transit here.

Now That the MSM Are Acknowledging Their Bias...

What are they going to do about it?

WPA 2.0

Obama's job creation program sounds an awful lot like the We Piddle Around program from the 1930s.

"We'll put people back to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges; modernizing schools that are failing our children; and building wind farms and solar panels, fuel-efficient cars and the alternative energy technology that can free us from our dependence on foreign oil and keep our economy competitive in the years head," he said.

Compare that to

Between 1935 and 1943 the WPA provided almost 8 million laborers to build public buildings, projects and roads

Is this any different?

From The Other McCain:

This is nothing but orthodox Keynesianism, and it won't work, because Keynes was wrong. The secret to economic growth is not government "investment," it's increasing the capital supply. And it's not exactly a secret, either.

But--but it's Uber-Obama Keynesianism so it's bound to work this time!

Go to a thriving Southern or Western state (North Carolina, Arizona, Texas, etc.) and you'll find yourself traveling on well-maintained modern roads, occasionally obstructed by construction of improvements -- extra lanes, upgraded exit ramps, repaving, etc. Now travel around the Rust Belt states and note the general dilapidation of the highways. You can't miss the poorly-designed freeway ramps built 40 years ago, or the narrowness of highway shoulders because the state went cheap on right-of-way acquisition.

It's hard to argue against roads and bridges, and if Obama is determined to expand the government, this is a better way than hiring a bunch of bureaucrats to decide if someone making $40k a year is poor or not.

But when Obama announces the "raking leaves in the park" initiative, we'll know where he got that idea from.

Trolls

Why do trolls try to get banned? I've been at a couple of sites recently where someone bragged about creating so much trouble on someone else's site that the person had been banned. That behavior leaves me scratching my head. What is the point?

I'm sure if you want, you can get banned pretty quickly at most sites. But I fail to see the point of that. When I go to liberal sites, I like to argue and debate a topic or else drop a comment and move on. I can't imagine being proud of being such an annoying jerk that you get banned.

Whiners

I really hate whiners.

Last month, mike g complained that I had referenced a post at Iowa Liberal without the courtesy of a link. I could think of two occasions when this had happened: one I deliberately didn't link and the other, the link was broken.

But in an attempt at civility, I decided to link while knocking down every argument in this post. And what did that get? More of the typical non-arguments.

Well, ok. I won't bother linking to ya anymore, even while snickering at the pathetic arguments made (Republicans wrote the legislation the last two years? Really?) But when reality sinks in that your party is in charge and you still try to blame Bush/Republicans/conservatives/Christians/the sun/the moon, you'll at least be able to retreat to your echo chamber in peace.

Killing Conservatism?

This is frightening.

The reason Democrats want universal health care is because, like Social Security before it, it will shift an entire generation to the Left. Worse, once implemented, it will be nearly impossible to eliminate, and change will become a third rail.

Republicans would face the same problem with healthcare that they currently do with Social Security, persuading people to trade one in the hand (the current system) for two in the bush (a reformed system). And we see how well that has worked out. Combine Obamacare with plans to take away the tax-advantaged status of 401(k) plans and IRAs and you would end up with government responsible for both healthcare and retirement. The big-government constituency would grow and deepen. And remember that fewer and fewer people are paying the incomes taxes that would help pay for increased government services. That breakage of the linkage between taxes and government "benefits" creates toxic incentives for more of both — and an economy more shackled than ever by taxes, debt, and regulation.

People like the idea of something for nothing. And the fact that more and more of the tax burden is being shouldered by a smaller and smaller fraction of the population makes it more attractive to the moocher class. Sadly, these same people will be shocked and perplexed when knee replacements, heart surgery, cancer drugs and MRIs become unavailable to them because the cost is too high. But rationing is the only way socialized medicine controls costs. Sure, it's not too bad for children; but if you are 63 years old and want a hip replacement, you won't get it.

John McCain's healthcare plan was perhaps the most provocative policy proposal of the entire 2008 campaign. Too bad he could neither fully explain how it worked nor persuasively argue why it was better than Barack Obama's plan. Also too bad since his plan would have smartly reduced healthcare costs by getting companies out of the healthcare benefits business and empowering individuals to buy insurance on their own. This would have helped fix what economist Arnold Kling calls the insurance vs. insulation problem: "Insulation relieves the patient of the stress of making decisions about treatment. The patient also does not have to worry about shopping around for the best price. The problem with insulation is that it is not a sustainable form of healthcare finance."

Republicans need to do all they can to block Obamacare. It is not only terrible from the patient's point of view, but a disaster for the GOP.

Speaking the Truth

Michael Steele:

"The problem is that within the operations of the RNC, they don't give a damn. It's all about outreach ... and outreach means let's throw a cocktail party, find some black folks and Hispanics and women, wrap our arms around them - 'See, look at us,' " he said.

"And then we go back to same old, same old. There's nothing that is driven down to the state party level, where state chairmen across the country, to the extent they don't appreciate it, are helped to appreciate the importance of African-Americans and women and others coming and being a part of this party, and to the extent that they do appreciate it, are given support and backup to generate their own programs to create this relationship."

Demographics are the new politics.

Headed to a City Near You: The Bad Manners Police

Via Lone Star Times, comes this.

Practicing bad manners by refusing to give up your Sun Metro seat to an elderly or disabled person could get you in trouble, and not just with Mom.
Starting this week, the police could become involved, too.

The City Council on Tuesday voted 7-0 to adopt a new ordinance that makes it a Class C misdemeanor for an able-bodied person younger than 65 to deny a seat to elderly or disabled passengers in specifically marked areas of each Sun Metro bus.

Violators of the new ordinance could be fined up to $500.

What about pregnant women? When I was pregnant with my oldest daughter, I took a trip to England to visit relatives and was surprised at how many people would not give up a seat for me. Amusingly, elderly women were most likely to give me their seats. But men, generally, would make it a point not to look at me, even with my protruding belly at eye level. ;)

Frankly, I think mandating good manners in this way is silly. But can't you see the incremental creep here? First elderly and disabled, then pregnant women, then the obese, then...

This is Progress?

eHarmony Forced to Offer Same Sex Dating Service.

eHarmony, a Christian-targeted dating website, gets sued by a gay man demanding that the business match him up with a same-sex partner. The New Jersey Attorney General intervenes on behalf of the gay plaintiff and forces eHarmony to change its entire business model. To be clear: The company never refused to do business with anyone. Their great “sin” was not providing a specialized service that litigious gay people demanded they provide.

These sorts of suits always irritate me because they are invariably brought by someone just wanting to make a fast buck. Are there really lots of gay people clamoring to use eHarmony's 29 dimensions of compatibility to find a life partner? Somehow, I expect that homosexuals looking for love go to LGBT dating services.

Shakesville is exasperated, but for different reasons.

Another aspect of this story that is irritating me is that "winning," in this case really means setting up a portal for LGBTQI folks to send their money to a group that hates them. In case you weren't aware, eHarmony is run by a evangelical with strong ties to the ultra-right wing Christian community. He was buddies with James Dobson, for Maude's sake (although he's "distanced" himself from Dobson, for a variety of reasons). Let's just say they were probably voting Yes on 8.

Maybe this will set up more protests, complete with threats and press coverage, for the No on 8 crowd.

California Supreme Court Set to Overturn the Will of the Voters (Again)?

One of the differences between the Left and the Right is our approach to problems. When liberals lose, they call people names, issue threats, march in the streets and assault people. They threaten the tax exempt status of churches which have the nerve to preach from the Bible. They try to intimidate businesses and get employees fired for the audacity of supporting causes with which the Left disagrees.

The Right is not like this. Before the election, there were claims that if Obama won, angry, white McCain supporters would riot, burning down businesses and possibly killing people (ok, I made that last part up, but the link about rioting was real). Of course, McCain supporters did not do this. They accepted the election results and, in fact, have stated that Obama is America's president, not just the Democrats'. There's a statement you've never heard from the left.

But if there was a situation that could induce angry protests, this just might do it.

The California Supreme Court agreed today to review legal challenges to Prop. 8, the voter initiative that restored a ban on same-sex marriage, but refused to permit gay weddings to resume pending a ruling...

Gay rights advocates argue that the measure was actually a constitutional revision, instead of a more limited amendment. A revision of the state Constitution can be placed before the voters only by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature or a constitutional convention.

Lawsuits to overturn the initiative contend it was a revision because it denied equal protection to a minority group and eviscerated a key constitutional guarantee. Supporters of Proposition 8 counter that it merely amended the constitution by restoring a traditional definition of marriage.

Crushing the will of the voters for the second time in a year would, quite possibly, cause the sort of uproar we're always warned that conservatives are guilty of. Frankly, I find it disgusting that the court seems to be so hellbent on defying democracy.

Is Kathleen Parker Trying to be Andrew Sullivan

I have to agree with Jonah Goldberg that this "let's eat our own" schtick that has infected certain pundits, causing them to debase and denegrate certain factions in the GOP. Here's from Parker's column today:

As Republicans sort out the reasons for their defeat, they likely will overlook or dismiss the gorilla in the pulpit.

Three little letters, great big problem: G-O-D.

I'm bathing in holy water as I type.

To be more specific, the evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP is what ails the erstwhile conservative party and will continue to afflict and marginalize its constituents if reckoning doesn't soon cometh.

If Kathleen Parker wants the Republicans to become the permanent minority she remembers from her youth, that's her opinion. But I fail to see how mocking and sneering at a certain faction of the party is going to make us a majority.

Calling committed Christians "oogedy-boogedy" will get you a lot more invites to Chris Matthews show (and probably Keith Olbermann's), and that may be the point. But as Jonah Goldberg writes, it's getting old really fast.

I don't know what's more grating, the quasi-bigotry that has you calling religious Christians low brows, gorillas and oogedy-boogedy types or the bravery-on-the-cheap as you salute — in that winsome way — your own courage for saying what (according to you) needs to be said. Please stop bragging about how courageous you are for weathering a storm of nasty email you invite on yourself by dancing to a liberal tune. You aren't special for getting nasty email, from the right or the left. You aren't a martyr smoking your last cigarette. You're just another columnist, talented and charming to be sure, but just another columnist. You are not Joan of the Op-Ed Page. Perhaps the typical Washington Post reader (or editor) doesn't understand that. But you should, and most conservatives familiar with these issues can see through what you're doing.

For the record, I have no problem with arguments about how the GOP has become too religious. I ended my book with pretty much that argument. I opposed Mike Huckabee vociferously because he seemed the quintessential rightwing progressive imbued with a rightwing social gospel. These are all good arguments to make and they have good responses to them. But please drop the nonsense about how the G-O-D people or the Palin people are low brows and beasts. There are low brows and beasts everywhere, on every side of the ideological spectrum. Maybe if you got more ecumenical hate email you'd realize that.

Parker's not courageous or "speaking truth to power." She's a whiner. She gets hate mail? Really? Gosh, like no one who writes anything anywhere doesn't get that. Left, right or centrist, you're gonna get a large volume of hate mail from time to time. Some people will argue that you should be dead or (if a woman) raped. Others will try to threaten your livelihood. Some people are low enough to say disgusting things about your family and children.

Well, guess what, Kathleen? Time to put on your big girl panties and stop acting like a whiny baby. You're no martyr. Just a whiner. You don't like the fact that Sarah Palin was hugely popular with the base and you aren't.

There are arguments that can be made about the place of religious people within the GOP, or the emphasis the party should place on social values. But insulting a committed constituency isn't going to grow the party at all. But maybe, like Andrew Sullivan, you aren't really all that concerned about the party.

The Parallel Universe Inhabited by Democrats

That's really the only explanation I can come up with for posts like this one.

Bush got nearly all of the appointments he wanted along with a blind eye turned to rampant illegal surveillance. I can’t think of a single case outside of SCHIP where there was a substantial ideological debate that would fall into the category of gridlock inducing partisanship. “Liberal” Democrats routinely fell in line and cow-towed to any and all Republican demands not to mention the fact that several Bush proposals were stymied by Republicans and not Democrats. That’s why I find this pearl-clutching by the wingnuts over the trad and ritualistic kid-glove treatment Obama is receiving from the press completely baffling considering that during the Bush administration the media ran right along with the idea that anyone who disagreed with the president’s policies was a seditious coddler of terrorists. How dare they question our Commander In Chief during war time!? The press has always been more deferential to Republican presidents than it is to Democrats and pretending that the media is perpetually stacked against them has been part of the radical right MO for the past twenty years and it is absolutely ridiculous to recommend bipartisan ship after eight years of the most partisan administration this country has ever seen.

I've been blogging the last two years, which has included post after post after post after post with examples of biased and negative coverage in the MSM and the fact is, the MSM is overwhelmingly positive when it covers Democrats and overwhelmingly negative when it covers Republicans. I'm not just talking about campaign coverage, which was so lopsided that only a complete idiot would believe the coverage was fair. No, I'm talking about coverage of every issue for the eight years George W. Bush has been president.

Let's put the above mentioned statement in perspective: When Democrats swept Congress in 2006, Nancy Pelosi promised civility and bipartisanship. But that's not what we got. Instead, we got massive spending bills, calls to slowly bleed our military dry (and thus lose the war in Iraq), and the filibustering of Bush's judicial nominees. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have tried repeatedly to steamroll over Republicans and the sitting president by threatening, insulting and cajoling them at every turn. This includes multiple attempts to defund the war (without taking the blame for it) and rolling back various measures such as the Patriot Act and FISA laws.

If Democrats haven't accomplished these things, it's not for a lack of trying. The fact is that a presidential veto has prevented a variety of disasterous and foolish legislation from becoming law. But in no way does that constitute Democrats rolling over (or, more laughably, the press fawning over Republicans).

This is why I think Democrats inhabit a parallel universe, one where Democrats haven't been in charge of Congress for two years and are responsible for what has come out of it. Rather, they must live in a world, like those set in comic books, where Republicans are always evil geniuses who seemingly defy all laws, both manmade and natural, to win every battle until the end when Captain Democrat figures out how to save the world. Because in the real world, the MSM has never been nicer to Republicans than Democrats and Dems have run Congress like the Keystone Cops. And arguments that contain hyperbole like "eight years of the most partisan administration this country has ever seen" just sounds like someone who's been out of touch for a while.

How Obama Got Elected

You gotta visit this site and watch the video to understand Obama voters.



See what's important?

The site adds results from the Zogby poll, which shows how uninformed Obama voters in general were. These are the people telling us we have to give Barack Obama a chance. Why? Because they were too stupid or busy to actually pay attention to the election but just decided to vote for Obama anyway?

Ed Morrissey says,

It’s not that the voters couldn’t absorb data provided to them by the Tanning Bed Media; these voters quite obviously learned plenty about Sarah Palin. In the video, the subjects demonstrate that by assigning every stupid thing said on the campaign trail to Palin whether she said it or not. Meanwhile, no one can figure out what Barack Obama said, how he conducted his campaign, or his political history.
As for the video, without the Zogby poll, it would be hilarious but without context. Anyone can find fools for “man on the street” interviews; Jay Leno does it as a regular staple for the Tonight Show. Zogby’s poll shows that Ziegler’s video is no anomaly. Wait for the end, where the ignorant endorse their favorite media outlets, which is the real highlight of this project.

Norm Coleman Wins Minnesota Senate Seat

This is good news. The bad news is that the closeness of the race (Coleman wins by 215 votes) triggers an automatic recount. Can Dems cheat their way into another seat?

Yes, they can!

What Pro-Choicers Do Not Accept About Pro-Lifers

Pro-life supporters do not believe the government should support abortion, considering it to be a barbaric and antisocial practice. They believe that private citizens should and will support mothers and babies both before and after birth, and that this in and of itself should encourage women not to kill their children.

Many pro-choicers do not understand this simple concept. They argue that if we want to reduce the number of abortions, we need governmental mandates to subsidize women and children through direct support (WIC, AFDC, tax credits) and indirect support (regulations on business requiring paid leave, for example). The argument is that pro-lifers do not really want to reduce the number of abortions because they don't typically support more government interference in these areas.

But it really does miss the point, doesn't it? Most abortions are not sought by the poor, who would takethe most advantage of government subsidies. They are sought by middle and upper middle class white women who would most likely want the abortion regardless of government support for women and children. As much as pro-choicers hate to admit it, these abortions are about convenience versus inconvenience. Not just the inconvenience of a nine-month pregnancy, but the inconvenience of a lifelong commitment to someone else who might interfere with other life goals (for example, career advancement, educational pursuits).

Poor women desire abortions less often than richer women because having more children does not change their lives as dramatically. If you make $20,000 per year as a clerk, have two children, get both WIC and AFDC, and live very close to the vest, another child, while inconvenient, is not earth-shattering. These women make other sacrifices to make their lives work.

The women who typically seek abortions are well-to-do, the kind who see 2 a.m. feedings and daycare as threatening to their financial well-being and privilege. For a woman, say in college or working on a professional certification, the rigors of childrearing can interfere with their ability to concentrate. For the professional woman, a day's absence from work can harm the client or one's chances of advancement. For the woman with two almost grown children, the desire for life outside dirty diapers and teething and the pursuit of her own interests--career or otherwise--might justify abortion.

But to put it simply, greater governmental support wouldn't really change the decisions of any of these women. Their decision to abort or keep the child is based on internal factors, not external ones. Which is why pro-lifers do not believe any of the proposals pro-choicers trumpet would reduce abortions at all. And why they look at greater restrictions on abortion as a better way to reduce abortions.

The New Tolerance How Not to Show Tolerance and Respect

I'm not sure why any group would think they could go into a gay neighborhood and try to convert homosexuals to heterosexuals, particularly after the passage of Prop 8. It just seems to me that emotions are so high that it doesn't take much--even just prayer and singing--to rile people up and start fights.

Having said that, I've watched street ministers work hostile crowds on college campuses and it's amazing to me that there are people willing to take such abuse on the off chance that someone will listen and change his or her mind and behavior. In any event, this one didn't go too well.

UPDATE: I've changed the title to this post to reflect my opinion that, while I don't condone harassment and assault, going into a well-known homosexual neighborhood right after Prop 8 passed wasn't merely a dumb thing to do. It was a highly disrespectful thing and was probably designed to get the results shown on the video.

The Fawning Press

The other day, I was standing in the checkout line at WalMart, waiting to put about 100 bucks worth of groceries on the conveyor belt (it was actually more like $140, but still) when I decided to scan the magazine headlines out of sheer boredom.

The Obamas' New Life! blared the headline from People Magazine.


"New home, new friends, new puppy! All about the move to the White House," read the tagline. "New home, new friends, new puppy?" Who writes this stuff? It sounded like something off of Blue's Clues or maybe a sentence out of Barney's mouth. Granted, we are talking about People Magazine, not a more austere periodical. But still. When does the fawning stop? Not soon enough, evidently.

There were other magazines on the racks: the obligatory plastic strips covering Cosmo's latest "How to Keep Your Man Happy In Bed So He Doesn't Run Off With That Slut Next Door" article; holiday cookie recipes from Betty Crocker, Word Find puzzle books. But mostly, there were the blaring "Teh One Has Arrived!" magazines.

Look, I know these things aren't aimed at me and the four other sane people in the U.S., but is it possible for the MSM to be slightly less obvious in their genuflection? When Howard Kurtz notices the adoration, you know it's deep.

Perhaps it was the announcement that NBC News is coming out with a DVD titled "Yes We Can: The Barack Obama Story." Or that ABC and USA Today are rushing out a book on the election. Or that HBO has snapped up a documentary on Obama's campaign.

Perhaps it was the Newsweek commemorative issue -- "Obama's American Dream" -- filled with so many iconic images and such stirring prose that it could have been campaign literature. Or the Time cover depicting Obama as FDR, complete with jaunty cigarette holder.

Are the media capable of merchandizing the moment, packaging a president-elect for profit? Yes, they are.

What's troubling here goes beyond the clanging of cash registers. Media outlets have always tried to make a few bucks off the next big thing. The endless campaign is over, and there's nothing wrong with the country pulling together, however briefly, behind its new leader. But we seem to have crossed a cultural line into mythmaking.

For anyone still arguing that we just need to "give Obama a chance" before criticizing him, ask yourself this question:

Would John and Cindy McCain have been given this much fawning attention?

I thought not.

The First Step in Solving Your Problem Is To Admit You Have One

The good news in Deborah Howell's latest column is that she actually admits there is a bias problem in the media.

But some of the conservatives' complaints about a liberal tilt are valid. Journalism naturally draws liberals; we like to change the world. I'll bet that most Post journalists voted for Obama. I did. There are centrists at The Post as well. But the conservatives I know here feel so outnumbered that they don't even want to be quoted by name in a memo.

Ed Driscoll quotes James Lileks who has, perhaps, the best answer for this:

The first question in any J-school application ought to be "do you want to change the world?" And anyone who answers yes gets kindly turned away. Your job is to describe the way the world changes. Not pretend you're there to nudge it along towards utopia.

The bad news in Howell's column is that many journalists are still in denial.

Journalists bristle at the thought of their coverage being viewed as unfair or unbalanced; they believe that their decisions are journalistically reasonable and that their politics do not affect how they cover and display stories.

Tom Rosenstiel, a former political reporter who directs the Project for Excellence in Journalism, said, "The perception of liberal bias is a problem by itself for the news media. It's not okay to dismiss it. Conservatives who think the press is deliberately trying to help Democrats are wrong. But conservatives are right that journalism has too many liberals and not enough conservatives. It's inconceivable that that is irrelevant."

Journalists weren't trying to help Obama win? Really? That's a rather difficult whopper to swallow when so many journalists admit they vote for Obama and when studies show coverage of Obama was overwhelmingly positive compared to John McCain's. This isn't even bringing up Howell's other column in which she admits the WaPo's coverage was undeniably favorable to Obama.

Journalists could do a lot to rectify the bias most Americans see if they tried to be more even-handed in their coverage and more critical of their own behaviors.

The biggest problem in the campaign coverage was the MSM's incuriosity about Barack Obama and their reluctance to dig for dirt. They had no problem trying diligently to portray Sarah Palin as unqualified and unfit to be president (when she wasn't running for the job), but completely dismissed the relevance of arguments about Obama's experience (or lack thereof), his voting record, his past, etc.

Comparing, for example the questions Charlie Gibson asked Barack Obama versus Sarah Palin, it's difficult to disguise why Obama was given softball questions while Palin was scrutinized on the finer points of public policy.

The problem isn't just the perception of bias. It's the fact that many journalists have abandoned objectivity and actively slant their coverage the way they decide it should go. In other words, many, if not most, journalists think their job is to change opinions, not just present information for readers/viewers/listeners to chew on. Until Howell can admit that the problem is journalists' behavior, not the public's perception, there will be little change.

Has George Bush Really Been a Social Conservative?

The left has castigated George Bush as having been in the pocket of social conservatives, but has he really?

Not according to this article from The American Conservative.

President Bush has supported some family issues, from the 2001 increase in the Child Tax Credit to increased funding for abstinence-only sex education. And the Bush administration did put a halt to allowing the United Nations to dictate American policy in terms of women and children.

But in many other areas, George Bush cannot be called a "family values president."

Even before the end of his first term, however, there were signs of trouble. Trying to find a middle way that would placate social liberals, the White House backed federal funding for certain forms of stem-cell research. Most pro-life and pro-family groups favored a total ban. Meanwhile, HHS projects to promote marriage and fatherhood were moving instead toward a punishing noncustodial fathers, pleasing feminists, and creating perverse incentives for divorce.

Most curious was this revelation:

The Bush administration also refused to embrace a broader package of pro-family economic initiatives. The proposed Parents’ Tax Relief Act, sponsored by Sen. Sam Brownback and Rep. Lee Terry, would make the Child Tax Credit permanent and indexed to inflation, double the personal income tax exemption for children, give parents at home a tax benefit equal to that given to daycare users, encourage home-based businesses, and treat full-time parenting as real work relative to Social Security credits. The bill has enjoyed broad support from pro-family groups, small business associations, and home-based entrepreneurs. But the Bush domestic policy team turned up its collective nose, insisting that any new tax relief should go to corporate America, not parents and children or even family businesses.

While George Bush has certainly been more pro-family and pro-life than any Democrat would have been, his record is certainly a mixed bag.

The Gay Enemies List

Stick up for traditional marriage? You'll end up on the gay enemies list.

A National Protest Against Prop 8 organized by JoinTheImpact.com is scheduled for this Saturday. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which opponents say donated more than $20 million to the Yes on 8 campaign, has already become a focus of protests, with demonstrators gathered around Mormon temples not only in California but across the country.

group being singled out for criticism. African-Americans, 70% of whom voted yes on Proposition 8, according to a CNN exit poll, have become a target. According to eyewitness reports published on the Internet, racial epithets have been used against African-Americans at protests in California, directed even at blacks who are fighting to repeal Proposition 8. Said Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, "In any fight, there will be people who say things they shouldn't say, but that shouldn't divert attention from what the vast majority are saying against this, that it's a terrible injustice."

The vast majority? I doubt that seriously. If there were a national referendum, I'm pretty sure that the number of Americans who support traditional marriage would be more than the 52% who supported it in California.

In addition to protests, gay activists have begun publishing lists online exposing individuals and organizations who have donated money in support of Proposition 8. On AntiGayBlacklist.com, individuals who gave money toward Proposition 8 are publicized, with readers urged not to patronize their businesses or services. The list of donors was culled from data on ElectionTrack.com, which follows all contributions of over $1,000 and all contributions of over $100 given before October 17. Dentists, accountants, veterinarians and the like who gave a few thousand dollars to the cause are listed alongside major donors like the Container Supply Co., Inc. of Garden Grove, Calif., which gave $250,000. "Anyone who steps into a political fight aimed at taking away fundamental rights from fellow citizens opens themselves up to criticism," said Wolfson. "The First Amendment gives them the right of freedom of speech and to support political views, but people also have the right to criticize them."

Does this mean it's ok to use these same guerilla tactics against gun control supporters?

The Left has become obsessed with intimidating opponents into obeisance. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about gay marriage or the latest political campaign. This isn't about persuading anyone or changing minds. It's about shutting up those with whom they disagree. We cannot let them win this fight.

EBay Find of the Day

Enough of this grumpy politics stuff. Here's something really important!
1963 LeMans Tempest sells for $226,521

The eBay auction for this 1963 Pontiac LeMans Tempest started out innocently enough. Obtained after owner died. Appears to have original interior but no motor, no transmission. Body has a little rust and some dents. There's stuff in the trunk, but no key to open it. Opening bid nine days ago was a mere $500. After one week, eBay seller 123ecklin will pocket $226,521 before auction fees. What happened between Day 1 and Day 9 is an amazing story.












The car's plexiglass windows, unusual suspension setup and a dash plate bearing the name of a racetrack tipped the owner to its racing history. But what he didn't know is that the car is one of only six 1963 Pontiac LeMans Tempest Super Duty coupes ever made. Hemmings recently did a story on the rare cars in which they listed all ever built. This one looks to have been driven by Stan Antlocer and was the fastest drag car in 1963 before disappearing.

Reading through the questions on the auction gives us reason to believe the seller truly didn't know the car's provenance. In his answers, he seems both surprised by the car's potential value as well as overwhelmed by the attention. He turned down an offer of $160,000 to end the auction early because he feared getting negative eBay feedback. That decision paid off. With only seven minutes remaining, the highest offer was $95,000. When the virtual gavel fell, eBayer ccsi2000 had bought a very rare, if a little rusty, LeMans for $226,521. Thanks for the tip, Trevor!

H/T: The Other McCain.

The New Feminism

Reclusive Leftist has laid out some rules for developing a new feminism, one not based on ideological unity, but inclusiveness and development of thought. Sounds intriguing.

Hillary for Secretary of State?

Apparently, Teh One considers rival Hillary Clinton as the top contender to be Secretary of State. Allahpundit says she's better than John Kerry or Bill Richardson, but I think even Spongebob Squarepants would be a better SoS than either of those two.

Oddly, a quick scan of liberal sites turns up nothing on most liberal sites and only one feminist blog even mentioned the possibility. What gives? I made the assumption that Hillary supporters would be very excited that she was offered the top spot, or that they would at least be commenting on it.

I'm sure this is just a bone being thrown her way, but it's amusing watching the moonbatosphere not discuss it.

Democrat Lite

Christine Todd Whitman blames social conservatives for John McCain's loss.

I call bullshit.

McCain didn't lose because of Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin actually made McCain's loss less of a landslide because she energized the base and caused them to come out and vote in an election when they otherwise would have stayed home.

McCain lost for two reasons, and neither can be blamed on social conservatives.

1. He ran a horrible campaign--John McCain couldn't focus on a single message for his campaign. First he was the war hero whose experience had made him right on national security issues even against his own party. Then he was for energy independence (although not drilling in ANWR, which made no sense). Then he was going to swoop in and save Wall Street. Then he was not the guy who hung out with Bill Ayers. Then he was Joe the Plumber. Because McCain barred the use of the poisonous Jeremiah Wright early in the campaign, it was difficult for him to argue why Obama--who is the most unqualified person to ever reach the presidency--was too big a risk for America.

2. Bush fatigue--It is very rare for a party to hold the presidency after eight years. Americans are fickle things, wanting change no matter what. The unpopularity of George W. Bush hurt McCain and Republicans in general. Couple that with the "making history" aspect of electing Barack Obama and there was virtually no way for John McCain to win.

Whitman's argument that the Republicans need to save the party by becoming Democrat Lite is absurd and impossible. Social conservatives tolerate people like Whitman because it helps them elect candidates who take their concerns seriously. Jettisoning the single most reliable group of Republican voters would be suicide.

Matt Lewis notes,

In my estimation, the argument over whether or not the GOP should be a fiscally conservative party -- or a socially conservative party -- or anything else -- is a false choice. We might argue over which positions to stress during a given election season, but abandoning any wing of the conservative movement would be a disaster for the GOP.

This may not be the time in history to emphasize conservative social values, but it's simply foolish to talk about abandoning them.

More Tolerance from the Left

White powder sent to Mormon temples in Utah, L.A.

Letters containing a suspicious white powder were sent Thursday to Mormon temples in Los Angeles and Salt Lake City that were the sites of protests against the church's support of California's gay marriage ban.

The temple in the Westwood area of Los Angeles was evacuated before a hazardous materials crew determined the envelope's contents were not toxic, said FBI spokesman Jason Pack.

The temple in downtown Salt Lake City, where the church is based, received a similar envelope containing a white powder that spilled onto a clerk's hand.

The room was decontaminated and the envelope taken by the FBI for testing. The clerk showed no signs of illness, but the scare shut down a building at Temple Square for more than an hour, said Scott Freitag, a spokesman for the Salt Lake City Fire Department.

None of the writing on the envelope was threatening, and the church received no calls or messages related to the package, Freitag said.

Because sending stuff that could be mistaken for anthrax isn't a threat in itself.

But it's ok, because mainly, the No on 8 folks go for simply trying to run people out of business.

About 70 people gathered at the legendary El Coyote Cafe in Los Angeles' Fairfax District Wednesday morning for a community sit down/brunch to hear Marjorie Christoffersen speak about why she gave $100 to Yes on 8 via the Mormon Church. Marjorie, a lifelong Mormon, is the niece of El Coyote's founder and daughter of the current owner. She receives a salary as a floor manager. El Coyote has 89 employees, many of whom are gay...

Well, El Coyote is involved because 10% of what Marjorie makes from El Coyote goes to the Mormon Church as required tithe, and that $100 she gave to Yes on 8 was in part money paid by gay clientele--and her income was used to strip their rights.

If you don't like a business, you're certainly entitled to go somewhere else. But to be clear, the traditional marriage amendment wasn't about stripping rights; it was about restoring the rights of the people to have laws they choose, not the kind that the leftest-leaning court system in the land wants.

Silencing Talk Radio

It's no secret that liberals want to silence talk radio. They can't compete, so they want to eliminate the competition.

With the election of Barack Obama, reimposition of the unFairness Doctrine is a top Democrat priority. And no wonder; talk radio allows conservatives to have an active voice in the arena of ideas. Given that most journalists are liberal and many news outlets are abandoning objectivity (see their incuriosity about Barack Obama, for instance), talk radio and Fox News Channel (and some blogs) are the only conservative outlets that spread the information liberals don't want you to know.

There's little doubt that the Supreme Court would strike down the Fairness Doctrine as an improper restriction on free speech, but litigating this case would take time (Dick Morris says two years), and by that time, talk radio would be dead. A Pyrrhic victory.

Smear merchants like Media Matters spend hours documenting "errors" and "slights" they perceive on talk radio. If you go to the link, you'll discover just how outrageous their claims are. If Media Matters actually cared about sexism, they would have prominent articles about the outrageous smears and slams by idiots like Keith Olbermann and Andrew Sullivan. Instead, MM is only concerned with things conservatives say. Liberal lies get a pass.

But then, to liberals, truth is lying and lying is truth. Welcome to Newspeak.

Democratic Civility and Tolerance

Weren't we told that Obama supporters were civil and tolerant and McCain supporters were violent? I'm sure that was the meme we were told before the election.

Well, Catherine Vogt wasn't greeted with tolerance at her junior high when she decided to conduct a tolerance test.

Catherine Vogt, 14, is an Illinois 8th grader, the daughter of a liberal mom and a conservative dad. She wanted to conduct an experiment in political tolerance and diversity of opinion at her school in the liberal suburb of Oak Park.

She noticed that fellow students at Gwendolyn Brooks Middle School overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama for president. His campaign kept preaching "inclusion," and she decided to see how included she could be.

Vogt created two T-shirts. One said "Obama Girl" and the other said "McCain Girl."

A funny thing happened on the way to inclusion. When Vogt wore the "McCain Girl" shirt she was called "very stupid" by classmates and told by a teacher that she was "very surprised" Vogt would back McCain. She even received death threats.

When Vogt wore the "Obama Girl" shirt, she received nothing but compliments.

So much for inclusion, eh?

Did Barack Obama Lie about His Draft Registration?

Debbie Schlussel thinks so.

Why does any of this matter?

If Obama faked his Selective Service registration card, this is a felony. Felony for the Commander in Chief? Say it ain't so! I'm sure our friends on the Left will be really concerned about this.

Feminism's Palin Problem

I've written before about the double standard so prevalent among feminists when it comes to the treatment of women they like and women they don't like.

Hillary Clinton treated in a sexist manner? Up in arms!

Sarah Palin treated in a sexist manner? Well, she deserves it!

It's amusing, and a bit sad, watching women eating their own this way, particularly since it plays into some of the worst stereotypes about women (think: catfight), which is why Echidne's defense of Palin was rather refreshing.

The question has zero to do with Sarah Palin as a person. The question has everything to do with Sarah Palin as a spoonful of that amorphous mass called womanhood. When sexist commentary is acceptably used with Palin it allows sexist commentary to be used on all other uppity women, then on all women who are not-so uppity, then on the women who have been made into doormats.

The comments get particularly amusing, especially when one man tries to defend the use of "Caribou Barbie" as a "rhetorical flourish," as opposed to a sexist stereotype that demeans all women.

Way too much of the criticism of Sarah Palin has centered on things other than her qualifications for the vice presidency, which were as good as Barack Obama's. No one criticized Obama for not being home to take care of his kids. We haven't been treated to numerous pictures of him conducting interviews while making cheesedogs for his children. And no one asked Obama to explain his foreign policy experience, his understanding of the Bush doctrine, intricacies of abortion law (although, as an attorney, he should have a built in advantage here), which newspapers he reads, etc., etc. No, we weren't treated to Obama getting hoist on his own petard because the MSM didn't want Obama to be shown as an empty suit. But portraying Sarah Palin as a bobbleheaded slut best suited for porn movies was just political mischief-making.

I'm glad to see Echidne point out that it hurts all women when these stereotypes are used. I wish more of her commenters could bring themselves to acknowledge that.

Why Do They Only Find Democrat Votes in Recounts?

I wouldn't want to accuse anyone of cheating, but it is curious that in most recounts of recent memory, Democrats seem to be the only beneficiaries.

In 2006, there was the disgraceful Washington governor's race, in which votes were "discovered" that favored the Democrat candidate.

Now, we have the Democrat leading the Republican in Alaska, where early ballots seem to be the reason. And we have the Minnesota Secretary of State--a Democrat, of course--doing everything possible to throw the election to Al Franken, including the inclusion of tainted ballots.

Now, I know Democrats will scream and howl about "selected not elected," but everybody with any common sense realized that Democrats were determined to find enough votes to declare Al Gore the winner no matter how far they had to stretch a chad to do so. But surely someone else should notice how missing or uncounted ballots always seem to favor Democrats.

UPDATE: Allahpundit notices the same curious phenomenon.

Selective Outrage

You gotta hand it to the people who run Pandagon. Aside from just being a bunch of leftwing nuts, their selective outrage is astonishing. It's even more surprising that so many sycophants eat up their clueless rants about Republicans, conservatives, religious believers and anyone else who lands within range of their spittle.

For example, there's this Pam Spaulding post on the killing of a woman by the KKK in Louisiana.

If the Republicans don’t clean out the bigots, mouthbreathers, and domestic terrorists in their midst, patriots like this filth in Louisiana will be party leaders before long.

There's nothing in the story to tie this group, which calls itself the Dixie Brotherhood, to the GOP, except that Louisiana went for John McCain.

I dunno. Maybe Spaulding needs to check her history books, because the Klan was filled with Democrats for the vast majority of its history, right up to the present, including sitting Senators. And when Barack Obama talked about white people in Pennsylvania--a Democrat state--having "antipathy towards those who don't look like them," he wasn't talking about Republicans, Pam).

But, hey, why let facts get in the way of a perfectly good smear?

Spaulding's selective outrage, like the rest of the cartoon characters at Pandagon, is way too easy to spot. It's like doing Seek N Finds for first graders. Sure, I understand her anger at the KKK. Normal people are angry at their disgusting behavior. But oddly enough, Spaulding doesn't cast a single aspersion towards the haters who have threatened, insulted and tried to intimidate (by publishing names, addresses and phone numbers of those who donated to Yes on 8) those who think traditional marriage is a good idea. I guess it's ok as long as it's a good cause, like overturning the will of the people.

But let's see what happens when we rewrite Spaulding's post to reflect the sort of outrage she should have displayed:

If the Democrats don’t clean out the bigots, mouthbreathers, and domestic terrorists in their midst, patriots like this filth in California will be party leaders before long.

Wow, that actually looks good! Too bad we'll never see a post castigating "bigots, mouthbreathers, and domestic terrorists" from the Left at Pandagon.

Get Ready for Four Years of This

My sincerest wish with the election of Barack Obama was that the left would finally have to shut up about race; that the elevation (the right word, really) of a black man to the presidency would finally put to rest all the "America is a downright racist country" arguments.

But I was wrong.

Now, we'll get four years of stories like this.

Many conservative pundits and Republican officeholders on the national stage have reacted to the election of Barack Obama as a promising step forward in the history of race relations and democracy in the U.S. But gaining much less coverage from the national media are local reactions that are far less accepting and positive.

Away from the spotlight, many local newspapers around the country have covered recent incidents of racially-motivated reactions to last week’s election, from flags hung upside down to the dangling of nooses and cross-burnings. As we noted last week, a couple in northern New Jersey who had an Obama sign on their front lawn woke up to find the charred remains of a cross out there. Local residents today announced a "unity march" to protest the still-unsolved incident.

Look, I find racist remarks and demonstrations to be as offensive as anyone. And, frankly, it couldn't possibly have been unexpected that there would be jerks who would make their ideas about race and a black president known to the world. Welcome to the arena of free speech where you have the right to be as offended as the next person.

But stories like this one, about second and third graders chanting "Assassinate Obama" deserve way more scrutiny than they are likely to get from the likes of Pam Spaulding who's licking her chops at the idea of smearing the GOP as the party of the KKK (psst, Pam. The KKK isn't in anybody's party. They're equal opportunity!)

After reading the story about grade schoolers, I had a lot of questions, none of which were answered in the article.

1. Where did the kids hear the word "assassinate"?

2. Who told them that killing the president was a good thing?

3. How many kids are we talking about here?

4. Since the article had a big picture of a Mormon temple with it, is there any evidence that shows this was a Mormon attack on Barack Obama, or just a bunch of kids who were mimicking someone they'd heard, either in person, on the radio or on television?

5. Why hasn't the school bothered discussing the badness of killing a president before now? Is it ok if the president is a white guy?

6. Did the people, including media types and the usual talking heads, display equal disgust and anger when books and movies were made about assassinating George W. Bush?

Don't think for a minute that the Secret Service isn't going to be on super duper extra high level security alert for the next four years. Yes, there are whackos who won't like Obama because he's black and those nuts will probably try to take him out. But guess what? If he weren't black, there would still be nuts who tried to take him out. It happened to Ronald Reagan. Or you could ask George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton or George W.Bush about slobs wanting to kill the president.

But for God's sake, try not to smear whole religious groups or the GOP over the behavior of a few jerks. I don't blame all Democrats for the numbnuts who produced Death of a President and Assassination.

Stealing Elections

Democrats are desperate to get their veto-proof majority in the Senate, and they're not above cheating to get it.

Let's face it. We've watched the Democrats steal and attempt to steal elections for generations. They're famous for it. From Tammany Hall to the Chicago Machine to Lyndon Johnson's infamous box 13 down to Al Gore's shameless attempt to steal the 2000 election, we've watched it happen. Now, they're trying to do it again.

They're counting votes that were in the back of someone's car. Doesn't Minnesota have standards for counting ballots? Evidently not if it's an insult to humanity like Al Franken stealing the election.

Now, the Democrat Secretary of State--who is doing as much as he can to help Franken--has the audacity to say that incumbent Norm Coleman is trying to steal the election. Are we through the looking glass? What is this jerk smoking? Someone stop him before it's too late.

Where Was the Joke?

I've read all the stories about Michael Barone's supposed joke that the media wanted Sarah Palin to abort Baby Trig. I see a lot of truth in the statement, but no joke at all.

A roomful of academics erupted in angry boos Tuesday morning after political analyst Michael Barone said journalists trashed Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republicans' vice presidential nominee, because "she did not abort her Down syndrome baby."

Did any of the booers actually read posts and comments from the moonbatosphere following Sarah Palin's selection for V.P.? I did, (also see here and here for other posts on the subject) and support for Sarah Palin not killing an inconvenient child was virtually non-existent.

Obviously, Barone said bluntly what academics and others don't want to hear, but that doesn't make it any less the truth. Democrats in general and the luny Left in particular were disgusted at the sight of Baby Trig, and they didn't mind saying that it made one "question Palin's judgment" that she gave birth to a Downs Syndrome baby when she didn't have to. That's no laughing matter.

It's Not April Fool's Day But It Ought to Be

Saudi Arabia to lead U.N. Faith Forum.

This is the same country that doesn't allow women to drive or even wear Western dress, let alone vote.

Saudi Arabia, the oil-rich Islamic kingdom that forbids the public practice of other religious faiths, will preside Wednesday over a two-day U.N. conference on religious tolerance that will draw more than a dozen world leaders, including President Bush, Israeli President Shimon Peres and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

Don't bring your Bible or say, "God bless you" in Saudi Arabia. Don't wear a cross. Don't celebrate Christmas. But we're going to waste time and money going to a religious tolerance conference sponsored by one of the main oppressors. This is what the U.N. is good for and why Barack Obama wants us to be more involved with them?

The Future of the Republican Party

David Brooks sees it as a fight between Traditionalists and Reformers.

To regain power, the Traditionalists argue, the G.O.P. should return to its core ideas: Cut government, cut taxes, restrict immigration. Rally behind Sarah Palin.

Well, as Patterico notes, cutting government and taxes and reforming immigration sounds good to me. I don't know anyone who considers supporting Sarah Palin to be a "core value," although many with traditional values do like her very much.

Who are the Reformers?

The other camp, the Reformers, argue that the old G.O.P. priorities were fine for the 1970s but need to be modernized for new conditions. The reformers tend to believe that American voters will not support a party whose main idea is slashing government. The Reformers propose new policies to address inequality and middle-class economic anxiety. They tend to take global warming seriously. They tend to be intrigued by the way David Cameron has modernized the British Conservative Party.

Moreover, the Reformers say, conservatives need to pay attention to the way the country has changed. Conservatives have to appeal more to Hispanics, independents and younger voters. They cannot continue to insult the sensibilities of the educated class and the entire East and West Coasts.

Well, I agree with some of these ideas, too. I don't think we can simply ignore environmental concerns, but neither can we enact policies (as Obama will most assuredly do) that devastate our industries.

The biggest problem Republicans will have is luring Hispanics to the party. Culturally, Hispanics have far more in common with Republicans than Democrats. But immigration makes it very hard for Latinos to vote for the GOP. Unless that changes, we will be in a permanent minority.

I am an "enforcement" person when it comes to immigration, a position that has gotten me thrown off a board for being "racist." My position is that we should enforce the laws we have; if we don't want to enforce those laws, then change them. One thing that should be changed quickly is to drastically raise the number of people who can come here from Mexico legally (I'm talking about an exponential change). The only way to encourage people to come here legally is to make it easy enough to discourage taking the risk of coming illegally.

I don't want to reward illegals for breaking our laws, but the last two years has shown that balking at immigration reform is worse.

So, IMO, I see no reason Republicans shouldn't champion smaller government and allowing the personal freedom that comes with keeping your own money. At the same time, we should work towards tax credits and rewards that encourage industries to go to cleaner technologies, including coal, wind, water, and nuclear energy. We will have to make considerable concessions to Hispanics in the area of immigration (I think raising or lifting the cap on the number of Mexican immigrants might do it) to get their attention and start building their trust in the GOP before they become entrenched in the Democratic Party.

Mostly, the GOP has to find a way to be the loyal opposition to Barack Obama and the Democrats running Congress. I don't think that will be terribly hard, because many of the same policies they champion will hurt Hispanics specifically (who are typically at the bottom of the ladder economically and will lose their jobs if wage hikes force job cuts) and hurt others, including small business owners, generally. But just being against Democratic policies will not be enough. We will have to come up with reasonable, attractive alternatives to their ideas. The field is wide open now, and I don't think it will be that difficult to find those ideas.

Happy Veterans Day!

Those who have served our country deserve our respect and honor.

48 to 52

Certainly not PC (in that we're all supposed to be oh, so happy that Teh One is gonna be president), but funny as hell.

Imagine That!

Number of black voters who view society fair and decent nearly doubles after election.

I wonder if they asked women if they felt the same.

Answer to the Question: Dems Are Sore Losers

Yesterday, I asked this question at Common Sense Political Thought:

I’ll admit that I’m lazy and don’t want to take a lot of time to research this, so I’ll just ask it of our resident Dems and liberals: can you cite me any examples of liberal blogs saying that George Bush was a good man and that we needed to give him a chance before crucifying him? I’m looking for links for 2000 and 2004.

I’ve seen multiple examples of conservatives making this argument (Patterico has gone to a lot of effort to cite examples of Barack Obama’s decency, only to be castigated by other conservatives), but I truly don’t remember liberal bloggers of any stripe making this argument in either 2000 and 2004. Any examples?

The question was not a trick; I was genuinely interested to see if liberals knew of any examples of leftwing bloggers who had been willing to give George Bush the benefit of the doubt in either 2000 or 2004. I figured it was better to ask the question and discover there were no examples than to write a post and have a barrage of "You moron! X said Y!" comments.

Well, guess what? My unscientific survey of popular liberal blogs hasn't turned up any examples. Instead, there are:

-- comparisons with the Taliban

-- calls for secession

-- the ever-present name-calling,such as "homo haters"

-- More name-calling; this time liars and bigots

-- Even more name-calling! This time, those who voted for George Bush become Timothy McVeigh

-- Most bluntly, the American voters are dumb as posts.

I wonder how these liberal bloggers feel about American voters now. Do they still think they are dumb as posts? Homophobes? Liars? Bigots? Candidates for admission to the Taliban?

I suspect that, even though voter turnout was essentially the same as 2004 (sorry, Pho, but you were wrong, yet again), liberals would claim that the voters were more enlightened, smarter...or something.

But meantime, as Orrin Judd notes,

and, no, it isn't fair that it is only Republicans who are expected to be--and will be--magnanimous in defeat. But, the fact of the matter is that the American political system and to some degree the society generally has been infected since Florida 2000 and if the election of a Democrat can just drain some of the pus out it's all to the good.

Well said.

Transitions of Power

I was fascinated by this story about the transition from the Bush administration to the new Obama administration.

(T)he days since Tuesday's election have shown a striking level of comity following the rancor of the campaign, enhanced by President Bush's months-long efforts to pave the way for a smooth transition and President-elect Barack Obama's preelection determination to move quickly.

"Ensuring that this transition is seamless is a top priority for the rest of my time in office," Bush said in his weekly radio address yesterday. "My administration will work hard to ensure that the next president and his team can hit the ground running."

Bush has created a transition coordinating council, populated by experts from inside and outside the administration, and has streamlined the process for obtaining security clearances for key transition officials. National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell flew to Chicago on Thursday to deliver Obama his first daily intelligence briefing.

The Obama team has begun submitting names to the FBI for expedited security clearances, which is allowed under an intelligence reform law passed in 2004. Officials said that more than 100 positions, down to the level of undersecretary, are eligible under the statute.

Bush's chief of staff, Joshua B. Bolten, said the White House is even preparing a "tabletop" exercise to simulate how Obama's national security officials should respond in the event of a terrorist attack.

"If a crisis hits on Jan. 21, they're the ones that are going to have to deal with it," Bolten said in an interview taped for broadcast today on C-SPAN. "We need to make sure they're as well-prepared as possible."

Likewise, the administration is laying the groundwork for an unusual level of access to the Treasury Department and other agencies involved in attempts to stabilize the foundering economy. White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Friday that Treasury is preparing office space that will allow Obama aides to sit alongside current administration officials.

Fratto said such efforts are intended to send a signal that Treasury's approach will not change too abruptly when Obama takes office. "They don't want to surprise markets; they want to try to make sure that they have predictable information for markets," he said.

Hmm, no signs of BusHitler dictator for life there. But you know, Dick Cheney is so sneaky, they just want us to think George Bush is trying to help Barack Obama.

Well, ok, no, I don't think that. In fact, I think it shows, yet again, what a good and decent man Bush is--not to mention careful and thoughtful--that he has been planning the transition of power for months.

One thing I wondered was if Bush's behavior was an anomaly in a city filled with partisan bickering and long knives. Happily, it was not.

One day after the divisive election's official end, the president-elect attended a prayer service in Austin, Texas...

Each man (President Bush and Al Gore) addressed the nation Wednesday night. Gore said he was disappointed but not bitter, and Bush promised to earn the respect of all Americans "whether you voted for me or not."

In a conciliatory gesture, the president-elect made calls to Democratic leaders in the House and Senate -- Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Missouri, and Sen. Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota -- and took a call from the Rev. Jesse Jackson -- who, during the Florida election dispute questioned the legitimacy of a Bush presidency.

Bush also received his daily national security briefing from the CIA and was slated to meet with his senior advisers to continue planning his transition from Texas governor to the nation's 43rd president.

The president-elect will travel Sunday to Washington to begin a series of meetings that will include his former rival, Gore, as well as President Clinton and a bipartisan group of congressional lawmakers. Bush and Gore are slated to meet Tuesday.

Bush and Gore are slated to meet Tuesday, and Cheney said the meeting was one of "great symbolic significance..."

White House Chief of Staff John Podesta plans to meet Monday with his replacement-to-be, Andy Card, a former transportation secretary in the Bush administration, to lay the groundwork for the Clinton-Bush meeting and to discuss other transition arrangements, including a proposed memo of understanding to allow access by Bush aides to information protected by privacy privileges or national security concerns.

Gosh, sounds so cozy. Too bad Dems didn't really mean it.

Why Don't They Just Start Erecting the Statues?

Plans Underway for Obama Holiday.

Plans are being made to promote a national holiday for Barack Obama, who will become the nation's 44th president when he takes the oath of office Jan. 20.

"Yes We Can" planning rallies will be at 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. every Tuesday at the downtown McDonald's restaurant, 1100 Kansas Ave., until Jan. 13. The goals are to secure a national holiday in Obama's honor, to organize celebrations around his inauguration and to celebrate the 200th birthday of President Abraham Lincoln, who was born on Feb. 12 1809.

At 7:30 a.m. on Inauguration Day, Obama Cake will be served at the downtown McDonald's, and a celebration is scheduled for 8 p.m. to midnight Jan. 20 at the Ramada Hotel and Convention Center, 420 S.E. 6th.

I expect legislation requiring every house to have an Obama picture in a prominent place any day now.

Obama: Economy Is My Top Priority, So I Plan to Wreck It

Admittedly, Barack Obama has not promised to wreck the economy, but judging from his plans to overturn many Bush policies, it's the only conclusion we can come to.

Not only is he planning to rescind the Mexico City Policy, which prevents taxpayer-funded doctors from talking about abortion to women in other countries, but also the ban on embryonic stem cell research, a process that has become more obviously brutal, barbaric and unnecessary in light of new research on the use of adult stem cells. But if Obama never saw a baby that shouldn't be killed if Mom decided she didn't want him/her, why should he get squeamish about using embryos? Pro-abortion types don't even acknowledge the humanity of embryos, so this is no surprise.

Even more than the life issues Obama will trample on, his hard left environmentalist bent will criple American industries, particularly the auto industry.

The president-elect has said, for example, that he intends to quickly reverse the Bush administration’s decision in December to deny California the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from cars.

California had sought permission to require that greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles be cut by 30 percent between 2009 and 2016, effectively mandating that cars achieve a fuel economy standard of at least 36 mpg within eight years. Seventeen other states had promised to adopt California’s rules, representing in total 45 percent of the nation’s automobile market. Environmentalists cheered the California initiative because it would stoke innovation that could benefit the entire country.

“An early move by the Obama administration to sign the California waiver would signal the seriousness of intent to reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil and build a future for the domestic auto market,” said Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Before the election, Obama told others that he favors declaring that carbon emissions are endangering human welfare, following an EPA task force recommendation in December that Bush and his aides shunned in order to protect the utility and auto industries.

If California can demand much higher EPA ratings for vehicles, the effects on the already shaky U.S. auto industry would be devastating. There's no doubt that high gas prices spurred demand for more fuel-efficient vehicles, but harsh regulations could create unsafe cars designed purely to meet EPA standards.

Some related reforms embraced by Obama’s transition advisers would alter procedures for decision-making on climate issues. A book titled “Change for America,” being published next week by the Center for American Progress, an influential liberal think tank, will recommend, for example, that Obama rapidly create a National Energy Council to coordinate all policy-making related to global climate change.

The center’s influence with Obama is substantial: It was created by John Podesta, co-chairman of the transition effort, and much of its staff has been swept into planning for Obama’s first 100 days in office.

The center’s new book will also urge Obama to sign an executive order requiring that greenhouse gas emissions be considered whenever the federal government examines the environmental impact of its actions under the existing National Environmental Policy Act. Several key members of Obama’s transition team have embraced the idea.

Such policies will cripple American industries and ban growth in a variety of areas. Obama may consider the economy his first priority, but the subtext is that he plans to wreck it in order to satisfy extremists on his side.

Now That the Election Is Over, We Can Admit We Were Biased

Dana has a post leading back to this Hot Air entry by Ed Morrissey concerning the admission that the Washington Post's campaign coverage was undeniably tilted to favor Barack Obama.

Stories and photos about Obama in the news pages outnumbered those devoted to McCain. Post reporters, photographers and editors — like most of the national news media — found the candidacy of Obama, the first African American major-party nominee, more newsworthy and historic. Journalists love the new; McCain, 25 years older than Obama, was already well known and had more scars from his longer career in politics...

When Gov. Sarah Palin was nominated for vice president, reporters were booking the next flight to Alaska. Some readers thought The Post went over Palin with a fine-tooth comb and neglected Biden. They are right; it was a serious omission.

As Ed says,

The hell with Joe Biden. Howell never answers the real issue here — why did the Post, and the rest of the national media, go on the attack with Sarah Palin and not with Barack Obama? The two candidates had a similar amount of time in politics, and Palin had more executive experience than Obama. Obama ran for the top job, while Palin ran for VP. And yet the national media parachuted dozens of reporters into Wasilla and Juneau looking for dirt and scandal, coming up with a tanning bed in the governor’s mansion (which Palin bought herself) and the Troopergate story that turned out to be a nothingburger and was already known prior to her nomination.
Where were the Post reporters doing the same thing in Chicago? Why didn’t the Post want to look at the files of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Barack Obama’s only executive experience prior to his run for the presidency? The media never bothered to make a hundredth of the effort on Obama that they did with Palin, and they had two years to do it.

This was the outrageousness of this campaign; not that Joe Biden wasn't scrutinized the way Sarah Palin was, but that Barack Obama was never scrutinized the way Palin was. As I said in this post, Sarah Palin was given far more substantive questioning than Barack Obama ever did. Both McCain and Palin were subjected to questioning that was designed to trip them up. And then there's the moonbatosphere which constantly stretched the most innocuous statements by Sarah Palin into huge faux pas.

In short, there was a media conspiracy to elect Barack Obama, regardless of his experience (or lack thereof) and politics. And far too many Americans bought the dream.

Punishing Supporters of Traditional Marriage

Gay marriage supporters aren't just angry that more Californians support traditional marriage than the court-ordered expanded version. They want to punish them.

This has become a standard tactic of the Left. Cram the agenda through the courts (it's easier to persuade a few judges than thousands of voters). If voters have the temerity to object and go through the electoral process to restore the status quo, vilify and threaten those who hold traditional values.

Behind the scenes, the mood is turning increasingly ugly. "If they're going to vote away my rights based on fear and ignorance and prejudice, I'm going to give them something to be fucking scared of," read a message posted on the online bulletin board Queerty.

The truth is, no one "voted away" anyone's rights. What they did was restore the rights of the millions of Californians who believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

Liberals have gotten used to using a perverted court system which redefines words and ideas for particular agendas rather than using persuasion of voters and legislators to create consensus.

If Californians want gay marriage, then let them approve it either through the legislature or the ballot box. It's that simple. In either case, it would be an expression of the will of the people, not the dictates of a minority.

This is what, on a national level, the amendment process for the Constitution is all about. Black people and women both had to go through it in order to gain important rights. But since the 1960s, it's been treated as legitimate for courts to "discover" rights never seen before and force the majority to accept them. This brings about results for the plaintiffs rather quickly, but sets up resistance and long term hostility from those forced to accept these judicial fiats.

My views on gay marriage are still evolving. But one thing I do know is that I don't want courts making determinations that citizens should be forced to make (and I use "forced" because that's what I mean).

I truly detest the attempts to demonize the Mormon church because its members actually believe strongly enough in traditional marriage to give millions for its defense and then go out and vote on it. The No on 8 crowd are completely dishonest when they try to say that it was the LDS church which gave the money. It was not. Just like citizens of every political persuasion, Mormon adherants can spend their money supporting issues that they deem important.

And I'm pretty sure that ads like this one didn't help:



People who support traditional marriage don't do so to be vindictive or hateful. They do it because they believe strongly that marriage has a particular history and purpose that is not served or honored by changing the definition. I heard many arguments from the Yes on Prop 8 folks, which included points regarding what children are taught about marriage and family. I really can't disagree with this. I don't want the schools contradicting what I believe about the importance of family and marriage.

This isn't the last round on the issue of gay marriage. I just think that persuading people rather than trying to overturn their will is more likely to achieve better results.

Nothing to Do Now But Wait for Their Ponies

Via Brothers Judd blog:


Best part is the ticker running across the bottom of the screen.

Slow Dawning

If it weren't so funny, I'd almost feel sorry for the feminists with all their shiny optimism about the Obama presidency.

I was a little surprised to see so much "We got teh power!" coming from the feminists, knowing that this election wasn't about breaking the glass ceiling, but about breaking the race barrier. Sure, Barack Obama promised that "the first thing he'd do" was sign the Freedom of Choice Act, but there are already questions about lowering expectations so Dems don't scare too many people away too quickly. But, evidently, the misogyny directed to both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin are ok with some women, the Honorary Males, while other Obama enthusiasts are starting to feel a little squeamish at the direction Obama is headed with his top picks (are there any women anywhere? I don't think so!).

No, these women are basking in the reflected glory of Teh One and telling themselves that their issues are gonna matter over the next four years.

Poor girls.

They're willing to give blow jobs to presidents just to keep abortion legal, so tossing their vote to a candidate who never once condemned the sexism directed at Clinton or Palin is not a big deal. And they'll tell themselves that picking Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff will be just ducky. He really wasn't going all misogynist on us when he said women upset with the treatment of Hillary Clinton should just "stick to their knitting."

But they'll get it eventually. Their issues just aren't that important!

Are You Better Off Than You Were Four Years Ago? Hell, Yeah!

In fact, almost everybody is.

-- In 2004, 8 percent of the electorate earned $15k or less; that dropped to 6 percent in 2008, a 25 percent decline

--In 2004, 15 percent made between $15k-$30K; that dropped to 12 percent in 2008, a 20 percent decline

--In 2004, 23 percent made $30k or less; that dropped to 18 percent in 2008, a 22 percent decline

--In 2004, 11 percent made $100k-$150k; that rose to 14 percent in 2008, a 27 percent increase

--In 2004, 4 percent made $150k-$200k; that rose to 6 percent in 2008, a 50 percent increase

--In 2004, 3 percent made $200k or more; that rose to 6 percent in 2008, a 100 percent increase

--In 2004, 18 percent made $100k or more; that rose to 26 percent in 2008, a 44 percent increase.

Something to bookmark for the next time we hear how everybody has done so much worse under George W. Bush.

We Have Nothing Comparable

Britain's grotesque holiday, Guy Fawkes Day.

Lesson From the Obama Campaign: Using the Internet

I found WLS's analysis of the Obama campaign's internet usage to be both on target and fascinating.

Their use of connectivity really had its first impact on the campaign of Howard Dean, which was staffed with a huge number of young and internet saavy supporters. But their version wasn’t sufficient “mature” to overtake the establishment run campaigns of Kerry or Bush. The 2004 campaigns were still run the way campaigns had been run in the 20th Century — paid advertising, direct mail, phone banks, etc.

The people who began assembling Obama’s campaign apparatus in 2007 knew they could build a better mousetrap.

The internet wasn’t seen by them as a device simply for dispensing information to their supporters — it was a lifeline back and forth between the campaign and the supporters. Email addresses linked to PDAs and cellphones put the campaign always in contact with its supporters. I read that the Obama campaign gave away signs and bumper-stickers in exchange for getting someone’s email address, understanding that the lost revenue for the trinket could be more than made up for later on if that person was prompted to donate $10, $20 or more to the campaign through a link sent via email.

So, while Karl Rove and the GOP had their direct mail lists, and neighbor-to-neighbor 72 hour turnout operation, Obama quietly built a viral networking and fundraising juggernaut. It was 20th Century technology v. 21st Century technology.

It has forever shattered the concept of public financing for Presidential campaigns. I didn’t understand until this election that the amount of money available to a candidate who accepted public financing was whatever amount of money taxpayers had checked-off on their tax forms. I knew that was where the money came from, but I had assumed that some statute established how much the candidates got. Not true — it simply depends on how much is in the “kitty” for that year.

But Obama showed that if you have a million donors, and you can get them to give you an average of $100 over 60 days, you already have $100 million dollars and you didn’t do anything except hit a “Send” button on a computer and collect your money from the credit card companies.

Given that a Presidential campaign lasts nearly 24 months now, accumulating a few million email addresses in this wired-world seems like a no-brainer. It’ll be political malpractice in the future for any candidate to not seek to copy what the Obama campaign first saw the utility of.

I had no idea until I read this post how the amount of money a candidate got from public financing was determined. But the analysis makes sense: using e-mail appeals, a candidate spends virtually no money and can channel money into high-dollar fundraisers if necessary.

Obama used such innovative advertising techniques (my personal favorite was advertising in games) that it was nearly impossible not to be hit by an ad.

There's a certain irony that the man who gave us campaign finance reform was so hamstrung by it. And oddly enough, this election was an object lesson for why money does make the difference in a campaign. I have no doubt that, had Obama taken public financing, the race would have been a squeaker (Obama may have won, say, 50-48 or something like that). It was Obama's ability to run a cable channel, air an infomercial and run five times the number of ads that John McCain ran that made a big difference.

My Sentiments Exactly

This post from Reclusive Leftist sums up quite nicely the way I felt listening to Barack Obama last night.

The rules are different for women than for any other oppressed group. Consider if the shoe were on the other foot: if this were the election of the first (white) woman president, but she’d won by waging a grossly racist campaign against not one but two African-Americans. A campaign where the word “nigger” became the standard term of reference for the two AA candidates. A campaign where the AA candidates were ridiculed and slandered as shiftless and lazy and dumb, where the historic nature of their achievement was completely denied.

In those circumstances, would African-Americans be expected to put all that aside and weep with joy that a (white) woman had finally been elected President? Of course not.

In a patriarchy women are expected to abase themselves utterly. But I don’t play by that rule.

Happier and Funnier

Conservatives enjoy humor more than liberals.

The researchers picked out a variety of jokes — good, bad, conventional, absurdist — to look for differences in reactions between self-described liberals and conservatives.

They expected conservatives to like traditional jokes, like the one about the golfing widower, that reinforce racial and gender stereotypes...

Indeed, the conservatives did rate the traditional golf and marriage jokes as significantly funnier than the liberals did. But they also gave higher ratings to the absurdist “Deep Thoughts.” In fact, they enjoyed all kinds of humor more.

“I was surprised,” said Dan Ariely, a psychologist at Duke University, who collaborated on the study with Elisabeth Malin, a student at Mount Holyoke College. “Conservatives are supposed to be more rigid and less sophisticated, but they liked even the more complex humor.”

One possible explanation is that conservatives’ rigidity mattered less than another aspect of their personality. Rod Martin, the author of “The Psychology of Humor,” said the results of the Boston study might reflect another trait that has been shown to correlate with a taste for jokes: cheerfulness.

“Conservatives tend to be happier than liberals in general,” said Dr. Martin, a psychologist at the University of Western Ontario. “A conservative outlook rationalizes social inequality, accepting the world as it is, and making it less of a threat to one’s well-being, whereas a liberal outlook leads to dissatisfaction with the world as it is, and a sense that things need to change before one can be really happy.”

It all depends on your outlook on life. Faith that God is in control helps, too.

Black and Female

This post at a leftwing site reminded me of something I'd wanted to blog about but forgot before now. It's Barack Obama's story of Ann Nixon Cooper, a black woman who "had her dream filled" yesterday.

She was born just a generation past slavery; a time when there were no cars on the road or planes in the sky; when someone like her couldn’t vote for two reasons - because she was a woman and because of the color of her skin.

But that's not true. If Ann Nixon Cooper had been Adam Nixon Cooper, he would have had the right to vote from the day he was born. But as Ann Nixon Cooper, she wasn't able to vote...until all those white women helped get the 19th Amendment passed, making it possible for women of all colors to vote.

This was one of those burrs under the saddle for me last night. It was a historic event that a black man was elected president. But the election also proved that it is still not possible for a woman to be president (or even vice president) in this country. So, when Barack Obama claims history for a black woman and dismisses the sexism that still pervades our system, that should create a new frown line for every woman in America, regardless of race.

Changing Roles for Republicans and Democrats

What you supported, you now oppose, and vice versa.

The Toughest Voter

Via Don Surber, we find the toughest voter in America.

Heidi Parker, 38, of West Virginia, delivered her seventh child yesterday morning and voted yesterday afternoon...for John McCain!

It took back and forth phones calls involving her husband Matthew, social workers and nurses at a hospital in Maryland and local and state election officials in West Virginia. Ultimately, the Jefferson County Commission voted to allow two clerks -- one Republican and one Democrat -- to hand deliver a ballot to Parker in the maternity ward of Frederick Memorial Hospital. She was expected to cast her ballot Tuesday afternoon.

County Clerk Jennifer S. Maghan said it was the fourth ballot delivered this election to voters who had been hospitalized unexpectedly. That hasn't happened in the past six elections, Maghan said.

Kinda puts to shame all those people who went to get manicures instead of voting, huh?

Today's To Do List

1. Go buy guns.

2. Plant a garden.

3. Check out library books on canning.

4. Get all my money out of the stock market.

5. Might as well take all money out of the banks, too.

6. Stock up on food, water and fuel.

7. Prepare for the Obama presidency.

Quote of the Day

I get the e-letter and daily founders' quote from The Patriot Post, and this morning's pick is particularly appropriate:

"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm."
—James Madison, Federalist No. 10

Congratulations to Barack Obama

I was not and am not a Barack Obama fan, but he will now be my president and so I hope he does well. I'm also happy for him because, in the shadow of his grandmother's death, his victory is some comfort.

Having said that, I agree with Dana, who said:

Our friends on the left gave President Bush no peace, no room, made no attempt to give the man a chance. They hated him for his win in 2000, and hated him even more in 2004. In the end, they got him in the 2006 elections, and finished the job tonight. While we ought to be politer than the left, we should still follow their lead, and give Mr Obama no peace, and no room to maneuver, as little freedom of action as possible.

We won’t win all of the battles, and probably will lose far more than we win. But when Bill Clinton, who ran as a moderate, took a hard left turn in 1993 and 1994, guerrilla conservatism spanked him hard in 1994; that’s what we need to try again.

Tomorrow, I will contact my local Republican Party and start working on 2010. My hope is that the GOP will reassess what has happened and change in positive ways.

But "President Obama" still makes me throw up a little in my mouth.

UPDATE: John McCain's concession speech shows what a class act he is.

UPDATE: Compare and contrast Barack Obama's loooong and rather boring speech. I know that (a) Obama gets the right to bask in the limelight a bit and (b) some people like this kind of thing, but my bet is a lot of people are going to be rolling their eyes at Obama's Baptist-minister style delivery before his first year in office is over. His speech is typically in passive voice ("A wall has come down" as opposed to "We took this wall down") which is a weak form. Some of his speech was very good; the parts where he talked about healing rifts and becoming more bipartisan. And he had especially kind words to say about John McCain. Too bad it doesn't go with the campaign he waged.

Something Serene and Soothing for Election Night

I like bunnies a lot. I hope others do, too.

Fairness Doctrine: Schumer Compares Talk Radio to Pornography

I'm not sure Chuck Schumer has ever studied First Amendment law. If he had, I doubt he would have compared talk radio to pornography.

“The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air. I am for that… But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.”

The difference is that pornography is not protected speech. Period. But political speech and commercial speech have some First Amendment protection. Schumer's contempt for the marketplace of ideas is deplorable.

Bias? What Bias?

Those silly conservatives. They actually believe, as do a majority of Americans, that journalists want Barack Obama to win and are writing that way to achieve the desired results. But conservatives know that the bias isn't just about Barack Obama; it is pervasive and covers a variety of issues.

But according to Matthew Yglesias, we're all delusional. There's no liberal bias in the press because:

1. A former Republican congressman has a program on CNN.

2. William Kristol has a column in the New York Times.

3. The NYT published another opinion piece on media bias in election coverage.

4. Media Matters says so.

Seriously. Yglesias gets paid good money to write this stuff? I'm amazed at the willful blindness of the Left when it comes to bias. So, I'll repeat this slowly: having a couple of conservative columnists--whose opinions are left on the Opinion page--does not make up for the bias in reporting on display on any given day on any given issue.

It's really pathetic when someone who holds himself out as knowledgable uses the tired old canard that "everybody has biases." The difference is that journalists are supposedly taught to minimize their biases in their writing. Most people accept that we all have subconscious opinions, but we don't expect news stories to have deliberate bias, such as the decisions about placement, graphics, headlines, and substance.

I honestly expect better arguments than these from "respected" bloggers on the Left. To argue that allowing a former Republican to have a cable program proves there's no media bias is hopelessly shallow and silly. Do we get to itemize every single television show that has a liberal and/or Democrat at the helm as proof of bias? Does Yglesias consider The Daily Show or The Colbert Report examples of liberal bias? Does Yglesias count the nightly news programs from ABC, CBS and NBC? Do we get to tabulate every columnist as another example of liberal bias?

My guess is that Yglesias and the moonbats would say "no," using a variety of reasons for excluding one or the other of these examples. But arguing that The Daily Show is an example of liberal media is no less legitimate than saying that William Kristol's NYT column proves there is no bias.

Saddest of all was this comment down in the thread:

I think the ultimate demonstration of the lack of a liberal bias can be seen in the way the MSM has treated Palin. If a man or woman with her obvious lack of competence and compulsive propensity to continually spew outright lies had been the Democratic candidate for vice president, the MSM would have mercilessly mocked her, not dissimilar to the way it did Al Gore, who was clearly competent and, if one actually fact checked his public statements, was not prone to telling lies, despite the MSM’s disingenuous and biased attempts to claim otherwise.

Which universe do these people inhabit? If I used drugs, I'd want some of what that person is on!

Disenfranchisement!

I'm sure we'll be seeing a lot of that later, particularly if John McCain wins the election. Somehow, somewhere, lots of Democrats will be prevented from voting or their votes won't count and it will be the evil Karl Rove and Diebold who did it.

Meanwhile, in the real world, a woman very nearly didn't get to cast her ballot because of a T-shirt.

Ginger Hurley could not have picked Sarah Palin out of a sea of hockey moms when she vacationed in Alaska this June.

For 10 days, Hurley fished and kayaked. She took a "flightseeing" excursion over Mount McKinley and a harbor cruise around the glaciers. She even picked up a few T-shirts. She did not visit the governor's mansion.

But by October, the association between the state and its governor, the Republican vice-presidential candidate, was so strong it nearly kept Hurley out of the voting booth.

The 40-year-old Houston Realtor was wearing one of her souvenir T-shirts when she went to cast her ballot at a Cypress polling place Oct. 26. A poll worker told her she would have to change the shirt if she wanted to vote.

Hurley, who votes in every election, is familiar with poll site etiquette. She knows not to wear campaign paraphernalia. She's never run into trouble before.

What, she asked, was wrong with her light blue cotton T-shirt, emblazoned with a moose head, fishing poles, and the words "Seward, Alaska"?

The word "Alaska," a poll worker answered.

"She said it could be misconstrued as support for a candidate," Hurley said.

She argued with the poll worker, but neither one backed down. The worker told Hurley she could go into the bathroom and flip her shirt inside-out. She even offered duct tape to cover the offending word. Hurley refused. Finally, outraged, she stormed out of the polling place.

"I couldn't believe she wouldn't let me vote because of my vacation T-shirt," Hurley said this week. "Every time I talk about it, my blood boils."

Cooler heads prevailed in the parking lot, and a campaign volunteer urged Hurley to check with the precinct judge overseeing the polling site.

The judge took a look at the shirt and let her vote. She didn't even need duct tape.

But Hurley said she felt unnecessarily harassed by the poll worker. Hurley did vote for the candidate from Alaska, but she said that had nothing to do with her choice of attire.

"I felt like I was being singled out," she said. "I don't think they would have given it a second look if it were a Delaware T-shirt."

Most newspapers ran stories in advance of early voting that informed voters not to wear campaign attire to the polls. I've seen people turned away or told to remove gear of their favorite candidate before being allowed to vote. But being told that "Alaska" on a shirt qualifies as campaign clothing? That's just silly. I couldn't imagine what would have happened in 2000 and 2004 if poll workers had tried to stop Texans from wearing T-shirts emblazoned with our state's name. That would have been sacreligious! ;)

Vote Early

And, if you're a Democrat, vote often.

Down in this comments thread, mike g really attacked Bismarck for explaining how stuffing the voter roles leads to voter fraud. But the above linked column by John Fund explains how the mechanism works. The money quote:

He (Jimmy Carter) and other supporters of stricter safeguards to protect voter integrity recognize there are two civil rights in play here. One is the right to cast a ballot without fear or intimidation or artificial barriers. We fought a great struggle in the 1960s to eliminate poll taxes, literacy tests and pass a Voting Rights Act to protect the right to vote. But all Americans have another civil right — the right not to have their ballot canceled out by someone who shouldn't be voting, is voting twice or may not even exist. You can be just as surely disenfranchised by someone canceling out your vote as if someone blocked your entry into a courthouse door where a polling place was located.

I'm sure there will be voter fraud committed this year, particularly in strategic places. And we will not hear a peep from the Left about disenfranchisement. Why? Because when ineligible people vote, they invariably vote Democrat, and making Barack Obama president is the most important thing to them.

But don't let stories of landslides or calling the election early stop you from exercising your right to vote. It's important that all eligible people vote, whether John McCain wins today or not.

Barack Obama's Grandmother Dies

I was very sad to hear that Barack Obama's grandmother has died.

I never wrote about Obama's last trip to see her because it seemed so personal, and anything I might say would be taken as political.

My prayers are with Obama and his family as he copes with the joy and pain of this time.

The Polls

In a nutshell, not good.

Sure, it's still possible for John McCain to win, but unlikely. Unless, of course, all the racists vote for him. And if Obama wins, that means racism has been vanquished! Because voting for Barack Obama because he's black isn't racist, you see.

Well, I'll be voting for John McCain in the morning, not because I agree with everything he says, but that he's right on the important issues (the war, judges). I won't be voting for him because he's a white guy.

But I will also be voting against Obama because he'll be a disasterous president. We'll look back on this election in awe, not because of Barry's Obamaness, but because of the marketing of the presidency and how many people were willing to sell out their country for a feeling.

Meet the Obamacar

Here's what we'll all be expected to drive once Barack Obama's energy policy makes prices skyrocket.

An air-powered car? It may be available sooner than you think at a price tag that will hardly be a budget buster. The vehicle may not run like a speed racer on back road highways, but developer Zero Pollution Motors is betting consumers will be willing to fork over $20,000 for a vehicle that can motor around all day on nothing but air and a splash of salad oil, alcohol or possibly a pint of gasoline...

The air car can tool along at a top speed of 35 mph for some 60 miles or so on a tank of compressed air, a sufficient distance for 80% of consumers to commute to work and back and complete daily chores.

Notice anything missing from this vehicle (besides style)? A backseat. Yep. The Obama car emphasises the single person (ok, you can have your partner with you). But no kidlets. Because in Obama's economy you can't afford them. Which is acceptable, since Obama promises to wipe away all those nasty (and popular!) hurdles to abortion. We don't need all those people, anyway.

"Skyrocketing" Energy Prices Under Barack Obama

It's no secret that environmentalists want high energy prices because this reduces consumption. Just look at the way driving patterns altered last summer when gasoline hovered between $4 and $5 per gallon.

To put it another way, environmentalists believe it is acceptable to hurt the poor with high energy prices if it results in a "greener" planet. This is why environmentalists like cap and trade, which would decimate the American economy and bring our country to its knees.

Both Barack Obama and John McCain have talked about energy policies which include some form of cap and trade, but Obama has admitted his policies would make energy prices "skyrocket."

The problem is not technical, uh, and the problem is not mastery of the legislative intricacies of Washington. The problem is, uh, can you get the American people to say, “This is really important,” and force their representatives to do the right thing? That requires mobilizing a citizenry. That requires them understanding what is at stake. Uh, and climate change is a great example.
You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.
They — you — you can already see what the arguments will be during the general election. People will say, “Ah, Obama and Al Gore, these folks, they’re going to destroy the economy, this is going to cost us eight trillion dollars,” or whatever their number is. Um, if you can’t persuade the American people that yes, there is going to be some increase in electricity rates on the front end, but that over the long term, because of combinations of more efficient energy usage, changing lightbulbs and more efficient appliance, but also technology improving how we can produce clean energy, the economy would benefit.
If we can’t make that argument persuasively enough, you — you, uh, can be Lyndon Johnson, you can be the master of Washington. You’re not going to get that done.

There are, of course, people who are all right with people having to choose between gas for their cars and food. They will argue that people should live next to their jobs and/or make the sacrifice. They'll blame Ronald Reagan and talk about how selfish we are, all the time they are jetting here and there leaving a ginormous carbon footprint for the good of mankind.

I'm all for looking for alternatives to foreign oil, but crashing the economy "for the good of the planet" is a non-starter. U.S. citizens want cleaner air and water, but not if it means living like a third world country.