Book Review: Comrade J, Or Why The Left Really Are Useful Idiots

Think the Cold War is over? Think Russia is our ally, our friend? Think it's just U.S. incompetence that leads to major stories about U.S. incompetence? Did you think nuclear winter was true and not just propaganda? Think Russia doesn't spy on us anymore?

Well, have I got a book for you.

Comrade J: The Untold Story of Russia's Master Spy in America After the End of the Cold War is a fascinating read about ongoing espionage between the Russians and the U.S. Sergei Tretyakov was a high-level SVR (formerly KGB) agent who had worked in Canada and the U.S. spying and recruiting for the Soviet Union and, after the breakup of the U.S.S.R., Russia.

Tretyakov tells a fascinating and believable tale about the procedures and theories behind spying and how recruiting typically worked. For example, spies typically work with "unofficial contacts," who may not have any idea that they are giving useful information to the Russians, but who believe they are just exchanging information with an "ally." Former Deputy Department of State head Strobe Talbott was named as one of these. Tretyakov was quick to point out that Talbott was not a spy. Most of us would recognize Tretyakov's description of Talbott as a useful idiot (my word, not Tretyakov's), and that description fits many, if not most liberals and their attitude toward the U.S. with regards to foreign policy.

Indeed, so much of the information in Comrade J confirms what most conservatives would tell you about our enemies both inside and outside the U.S.: they wish to destroy the United States as a superpower. Short of that, they will embarrass the U.S. at any opportunity to damage U.S. credibility. Shockingly, Tretyakov frequently recruited informants who were not from the U.S., but from supposed U.S. allies like Canada, Germany and Japan. These were people who would never betray secrets about their own countries, but who felt justified to betray the U.S., which has helped countries around the world for more than half a century.

Tretyakov explains a variety of techniques used by Russians to spy on the U.S., most of which require research skills as opposed to James Bond-style intelligence. Much of the intelligence business was about reading U.S. newspapers and other publications (I'm sure in 2008, this includes American bloggers, particularly on the Left). Tretyakov even used the Freedom of Information Act to gain reports from Congressional committees. These reports contained information Tretyakov used to make other deductions about U.S. military strength and positioning.

What made Tretyakov turn on Russia, spy for the U.S. and, eventually, defect? Tretyakov says that his disaffection with Russia became absolute during the presidencies of Boris Yeltsin and Vladamir Putin, a period which brought in the thugocracy that now controls Russia. It was one thing to spy for the Soviet Union when he was protecting the people, according to Tretyakov. It was another thing to spy for corrupt officials who were lining their own pockets while millions of common Russians struggled to get by. My problem with this explanation is that I don't really believe Russia today is any different from the former Soviet Union in this regard. Top officials always lived much, much better than the common Russian. The real difference I see is in the level of crime aimed at ordinary citizens.

The second reason Tretyakov gave is more plausible to me: he wanted his daughter to have a better life and didn't think it was possible in Russia. After so many years in the West, it is doubtful to me that Tretyakov and his family would have adjusted well to life in Moscow (his daughter even says this). Certainly, the opportunities might not be there. I can understand someone defecting for the sake of his children.

There are, of course, those who are skeptical about Tretyakov's claims of recruitment and success, and there is a place for that. There may be places where Tretyakov plays up his own importance or role in various events to bolster his story. But overall, Comrade J is most believable and should give Americans pause about what they say or think about their own country. It certainly justifies questioning the patriotism of some people, particularly those who think patriotism is defined as opposing our country.

Here is an example of the useful idiot zone:

Sergei Tretyakov has been interviewed on CSPAN and NPR's Fresh Air and elsewhere this week, and I have had such mixed feelings about him. How has he helped his countrymen by betraying his country and defecting to the US? How would Americans view someone who defected from Bush's America, in a similar intelligence position, to Putin's Russia?

The moral relativism of the Left is incredible to behold. What was the solution, according to this commenter? To continue spying for a corrupt Russian government which could--and would--kill you for any or no reason? There's simply no comparison between Russia and the United States. Our critics do not have to worry about being gunned down in the street for disagreeing with American policy or exposing corruption. Perhaps that would be a difference these moonbats could understand, but don't count on it.

Obama's Peaked and It's All Downhill From Here

I hate to admit it, but Dana may have been right that Hillary Clinton would be a more difficult candidate for John McCain to defeat in the fall. I never thought so, given her past and inability to speak the truth. I thought Barack Obama would be a much more formidable candidate, because as a "clean, articulate African-American" (the words of a Democrat), he could present the face of black America that appeals to guilt-laden white liberals.

And, in fact, that's what Obama did for months. Mr. HopeN'Change was so inspiring that man-crushers have gone to great lengths (and are willing to take great lengths) to defend the guy. And we aren't really talking about just supporting various political positions. Guys like Jeromy Brown support Obama in all sorts of other positions, too.

Unfortunately for Jeromy and all the giddy girls squealing over Obama, Mr. Post Racial may have peaked a bit too soon. I guess Jeromy would know about that, too.

The survey suggests that Mr. Obama, the Illinois Democrat, may have been at something of a peak in February, propelled by a string of primary and caucus victories over Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, and that perceptions of him are settling down.

Mr. Obama’s favorability rating among Democratic primary voters has dropped seven percentage points, to 62 percent, since the last Times/CBS News survey, in late February. While that figure is by any measure high, the decline came in a month in which he has come under withering attack from Mrs. Clinton and has had to respond to reports that his former pastor had made politically inflammatory statements from his church’s pulpit in Chicago.

What this means is that Obama looked great when we knew nothing about him, his beliefs, or his past, but as those things become well-known, he becomes a less attractive candidate. And, frankly, he should be a less attractive candidate. This is a man who thinks having children is punishment, he supports criminalizing free speech, he has previously championed quotas (see previous link), he has wanted to ban guns, support pornography, and wants to raise taxes and back out of the war in Iraq. One or more of these positions will get him in trouble in the general election.

Lefties will (and do) scream that we can't "paint Obama as a racist" because he supported Rev. Wright for 20 years, but the fact is that there are only two explanations for Obama's presence in Wright's church: either he supports Wright's positions--some of Wright's positons somewhere--or he used the church as a cynical attempt to look "black enough." Either way, he's a liar. The question that should be asked (and won't be) is, "Which of Rev. Wright's positions do you agree with?" I won't hold my breath waiting for that one.

The truth is, we don't have to worry about painting Obama as a racist. His positions will turn off enough people.

Bash the Rich and Excuse the Poor

That's pretty much the argument Anthony McCarthy makes at Echidne of the Snakes.

According to McCarthy, the problem is that rich people just don't get punished harshly enough for legal behavior.

It’s rather remarkable how successful the cover up of the crimes of the rich has been, considering that everyone knows it. In polite society the agreement is that it is one of those things that isn’t mentioned. Part of the cover up is achieved by our vaunted government of laws simply making many of the favorite methods of theft invented on behalf of the wealthy un-illegal. If someone can explain to me how most of the forms of “new financial instruments” are different from the kinds of things that con men on the sidewalk can get jailed for, it would be most interesting. That is the form, the major distinction between sidewalk shell game hustlers and blue chip hustlers is that the swells are the world class swindlers. Theft by the rich is and just about always has been legal. None of this is news, though. Not because it couldn’t be but because in just about every case nowadays among most of the English Speaking Peoples the “news” in on the scam.

It's the typical "rich people don't get punished like poor people" argument. Unfortunately, McCarthy doesn't explain how making various financial instruments illegal makes life easier for poor people. No, like a lot of leftists at Echidne's site, Anthony just blathers on about the unfairness of drug prosecutions between the rich and poor, or how rich people can afford better lawyers. In other words, he whines, he cries, but he sheds little light into how he thinks these situations can or should be improved.

For example, he quotes this article, then quickly glosses over the point. The argument made in the article is that poverty persists because the numerous manifestations of poverty (malnutrition, inadequate housing, lack of education, high crime rates, etc.) discourage any attempts to change. In and of itself, this is an interesting argument, but Anthony doesn't even touch it. Instead, he focuses on this quote:

In the community of people dedicated to analyzing poverty, one of the sharpest debates is over why some poor people act in ways that ensure their continued indigence. Compared with the middle class or the wealthy, the poor are disproportionately likely to drop out of school, to have children while in their teens, to abuse drugs, to commit crimes, to not save when extra money comes their way, to not work.

To an economist, this is irrational behavior. It might make sense for a wealthy person to quit his job, or to eschew education or develop a costly drug habit. But a poor person, having little money, would seem to have the strongest incentive to subscribe to the Puritan work ethic, since each dollar earned would be worth more to him than to someone higher on the income scale.

Anthony then bemoans the fact that rich people have more money and better resources to support drug habits. But drug use is only one of the issues of poverty. The biggest predictors of poverty are education, sexual behavior, and work habits. People who do not finish high school, have children before marriage, and who change jobs frequently (or don't have jobs) are much more likely to be poor than people who finish high school, delay having children, and stay at a job more than six months. I suppose it's much more satisfying for liberals like Anthony to complain about "the rich" than to actually try to figure out how to end poverty.

Democrat Implosion?

I wouldn't want anyone to think I want the Democrats to win in November, but, frankly, I think handing Al Gore the nomination because he's seen as a uniter, not a divider would be both insulting and permanently damaging to the Democratic Party. Are these people crazy?

Well, I don't think they are that crazy, but the 100 Years War for the nomination between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama highlights the flaw in their nomination process; namely, dividing your delegates into too many parts is more likely to fracture your party rather than unite it. Democrats would be loathe to agree with anything Rush Limbaugh says, but he is correct when he says that the votes of Democrats don't matter; only the votes of superdelegates matter in this race.

The hand wringing among Democrats has begun (see this Democratic Daily piece for an example), and I can't blame those on the Left for their anxiety and nervousness.

How Not to Support Moderate Islam

GetReligion has a nice critique of this Newsweek edit--er, article which ostensibly tells about intolerant Christians and tolerant Muslims. The problem is, the article does more to bolster the theory of Muslim extremism than that Christians are intolerant. I can't do a better job, so head to GetReligion for the story.

What it does note, however, is how many journalists put on their blinders where Christianity and Islam are concerned. So desperate to portray Islam as inclusive and peace-loving, reporters downplay the numerous frequent violent episodes triggered by Muslim intolerance for difference, free expression, or individualism. Equally, journalists desire to portray Christians as Inquisition-and-Crusade-causing, blood-thirsty hypocrites that they turn the mildest expressions of difference as violent or intolerant. Such excesses do little to bolster the MSM's flagging reputation as bastions of truth and objectivity.

Don't Question Their Patriotism: Hollywood and the War in Iraq

I wouldn't say Hollywood is stupid...wait, yes, I would. Hollywood is stupid to continue to produce anti-American crap like Stop-Loss because (a) Americans won't buy it and (b) they lose any credibility when they try to tell us how patriotic they are.

Via Memeorandum,Nikki Finke says,

I'm told #7 Stop-Loss opened to only $1.6 million Friday from just 1,291 plays and should eke out $4+M. Although the drama from MTV Films was the best-reviewed movie opening this weekend, Paramount wasn't expecting much because no Iraq war-themed movie has yet to perform at the box office. "It's not looking good," a studio source told me before the weekend. "No one wants to see Iraq war movies. No matter what we put out there in terms of great cast or trailers, people were completely turned off. It's a function of the marketplace not being ready to address this conflict in a dramatic way because the war itself is something that's unresolved yet. It's a shame because it's a good movie that's just ahead of its time."

Emphasis mine.

What is wrong with these people? Americans don't want to see anti-American movies, not because the war is on-going, but because they dislike films that bash our country relentlessly. As DRJ at Patterico's Pontifications points out, Hollywood needs to realistically judge its markets and stop cramming this sort of thing down our throats. We don't want to see it.

And as Jaime Sneider of the Weekly Standard says, Hollywood produced plenty of box office hits during World War II. They just weren't America-bashing films. But remember: don't question their patriotism!

Stupidity on the Right

It's not often I criticize the Right, but here it comes. When a Senate candidate legally changes his name to Pro-Life, I draw the line.

A Senate candidate has legally changed his name to Pro-Life and will appear on the ballot that way this year, state election officials say.

As Marvin Pro-Life Richardson, the organic strawberry farmer from Letha, 30 miles northwest of Boise, was denied the use of his middle name when he ran unsuccessfully for governor in 2006 because the state's policy bars the use of slogans on the ballot.

Now, though, officials in the Idaho secretary of state's office say they have no choice because Pro-Life is his full and only name. He says he will run for the highest state office on the ballot every two years for the rest of his life, advocating murder charges for doctors who perform abortions and for women who obtain the procedure.

"I think it's just and I think it's proper to have Pro-Life on the ballot," he told the Idaho Press-Tribune of Nampa. "If I save one baby's life, it's worth it."

I'm not advocating taking away this man's right to change his name, but being a nut doesn't help the pro-life movement.

PC and the Burger

Perhaps Quickie Burger wasn't the best name choice for burger joint owners near the University of Michigan campus. But it wasn't the name that got them into trouble. It was their logo.

The Stonewall Democrats, a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender caucus of the University's College Democrats chapter, has taken offense with the restaurant's logo and recently began circulating a petition to sway the owners to change the logo.

LSA senior Kolby Roberts, a member of the Stonewall Democrats who has led the effort, said he finds the logo's message inappropriate and offensive.

"I have a problem that you take a women riding a hamburger and you put it next to the word 'quickie,' " he said. "It just seems like it's not putting a good message out there for the objectification of women."

Maybe I'm missing something here. Is a woman riding a hamburger particularly sexy? If so, I can think of a million new ad campaigns for McDonald's, Wendy's, and Whataburger. And what about Hooters? Maybe they don't have those in Michigan.

Perhaps we should all breathe a sigh of relief that all sexism has been vanquished and we are left protesting stupid things like a cowgirl riding a hamburger.

The Out of Control Sex Offender Panic

It's hard to write anything in favor of sex offenders, but when talking to children in a public place leads to arrest or giving someone a hug leads to six months in prison, even the most ardent protector of children has to say our society has gone insane.

I believe in protecting children from predators. Real predators. The kind who want to molest children or harm them in other ways. But hugging people, talking to children, and even teenagers engaged in consentual sex can be branded sex offenders and forced to register yearly with the state and barred from working or living in certain places. In short, if a man holds a child's hand, that man can be accused of sexually abusing the child, even if there's no evidence of this.

This is to say nothing about false abuse claims by wayward, angry teenagers or overzealous teachers or other officials. Let's face it: if you are a teacher, minister, or other child care professional, you are required by law to report suspected abuse. The problem isn't so much the professionals; the problem is the law.

Laws in most states lump everything--including hugs, horseplay, regular family affection and consentual sex--into the same sexual abuse category. Why? Because it's much easier to ensure real sexual offenders get caught if the net is cast very wide. Unfortunately, it catches a lot of people that we wouldn't typically consider sexual offenders.

I'm not in favor of loosening laws in such a way as to allow actual molesters to go free, but it seems to me that calling hugs sexual abuse is far from reasonable. Our national hysteria over child sexual abuse isn't so much catching predators as punishing the unsuspecting.

Sure, They Issue a Correction, But the Headline Stays the Same

Blogs are known for their political bias, but journalistic sloppiness, while common is unacceptable. Take this example from Think Progress, which accused John McCain of plagiarizing a 1996 speech by Rear Admiral Timothy Ziemer.

As Amanda Carpenter at Townhall.com points out, Think Progress isn't any more unbiased than Media Matters. Both are leftwing shills. Think Progress is "an arm of the leftwing Center for American Progress," and, as such, doesn't particularly care if it gets facts straight.

That's why, when Think Progress was informed by the John McCain campaign that it was, in fact, Ziemer who plagiarized a a 1995 speech by John McCain, the story still remained up with the same headline at Think Progress.

Journalistic integrity? Not by a long shot.

Did Bigot Wright Hurt Obama?

No, according to this Wall Street Journal poll.

The latest survey has the Democratic rivals in a dead heat, each with 45% support from registered Democratic voters. That is a slight improvement for Sen. Obama, though a statistically insignificant one, from the last Journal/NBC poll, two weeks ago, which had Sen. Clinton leading among Democratic voters, 47% to 43%.

While Sen. Clinton still leads among white Democrats, her edge shrank to eight points (49% to 41%) from 12 points in early March (51% to 39%). That seems to refute widespread speculation -- and fears among Sen. Obama's backers -- that he would lose white support for his bid to be the nation's first African-American president over the controversy surrounding his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. of Chicago.

But, as Ed Morrissey of Hot Air points out, the Wright flap may not have affected Democrats--who were polled about the controversy--but the poll says nothing about what independents and Republicans who might have been trending Democrat say.

In other words, among the fellate Obama crowd, whether their candidate sat in the pews absorbing bigotted speech for 20 years is irrelevant. I'm not sure if independents will feel the same way when given choices. As Larry Kudlow has said recently, this election is shaping up into a classic Left-vs.-Right battle. We'll see which approach the American electorate prefers.

Does This Matter?

That Barack and Michelle Obama gave a little over $77,000 to charity in 2005 when they earned over $1 million?

I don't know if it does or not. The Obamas were quite stingy with their largesse when they were struggling to get by on a quarter of a mil. And, seemingly, they've given more money as Obama's presidential prospects have become clearer. Perhaps I'm just cynical.

Byron York at National Review points out something different that the tax returns reveal.

Something else that strikes me about the returns is their relation to Michelle Obama's tales of her and her husband's struggle. When I saw Mrs. Obama at an appearance in Zanesville, Ohio last month, she was telling a group of low-income women — the median household income in the county in which Zanesville is located was $37,192 in 2004, well below the state and national medians — about how hard it can be to keep things together. Her talk often touched on money. "I know we're spending — I added it up for the first time — we spend between the two kids, on extracurriculars outside the classroom, we're spending about $10,000 a year on piano and dance and sports supplements and so on and so forth," she told the women of her own household expenses. "And summer programs. That's the other huge cost. Barack is saying, 'Whyyyyyy are we spending that?' And I'm saying, 'Do you know what summer camp costs?'"

The women nodded in agreement, although the Obamas were spending what amounted to nearly a third of a Zanesville resident's annual income on piano and dance lessons. Nevertheless, Michelle Obama portrayed herself and her husband as going through a lot of the same struggles as the women and their families. She conceded that she was doing fine financially, but only after Barack Obama hit it big with his books.

But that's not exactly true, Michelle. Most people would live quite comfortably on a quarter of a million dollars, as I pointed out here. Even with their student loans, the Obamas did quite well. Complaining about $10,000 for extracurricular activities probably won't resonate well with average Americans.

A Founders' Quote for Those Who Hate Christians

"If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if
without it?"

-- Benjamin Franklin

Happy Easter!

Of course, Easter isn't really about chocolate bunnies and Easter eggs.

For God so loved the world that He gave His only Begotten Son, that whosoever should believe in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.--John 3:16.

He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.--2 Corinthians 5:21

And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.--Philippians 2:8

It's a time to embrace the enormity of our unworthiness and the glory of God's gift to mankind.

The Concise Moonbat Stereotype of the Right

From Amanda Marcotte at Pandagon:

Remember that the major motivating factor for many war supporters, especially those left, is this sense that they aren’t real men and someone is going to discover this any day now. So they have to wave guns, wear camouflage, rail against the feminists rejecting their manly property claims over uterine real estate through abortion, and of course support any and every war that comes along to prove that they’re real men.

I like this stereotype of war supporters because it not only marginalizes female war supporters--I dunno, are women trying to prove they're real men, as well?--but because it includes all the other contemptible traits of conservatives that drive moonbats moonbatty. Gun ownership--the horror! Wearing camouflage--it's like a secret hand signal! Supporting life--OMG! They just want women barefoot & preggers! Supporting America--get the smelling salts!

I needed a good funny like this. It's always great watching fruitless Amanda Marcotte shriek like the jealous spinster she must be. I say that because it's the most logical conclusion to explain why she's so obsessed with the reproductive habits of other people. I mean, if it's all a "choice," why does she care that a man includes the fact that he's a family man in a lawsuit? I don't believe for a moment that Amanda is as braindead as she often appears to be. Surely even she knows that plaintiffs in lawsuits bring in various information that they think helps support their claims. In this case, a librarian at Ohio State University is suing the school because he was accused of sexual harassment for recommending the book The Marketing of Evil by David Kupelian for a freshman reading list.

Scott Savage, who said he resigned because of personal and professional attacks on his character, asks for his job back and for OSU to be forced to change its sexual-harassment policies.

OSU is "an aggressive proponent of the homosexual lifestyle by virtue of its practices and policies," Savage says in the lawsuit, filed in federal court because he says his civil rights were violated.

"OSU is therefore a naturally hostile environment to the expression of traditional Christian beliefs and morality."

It seems to me that if a plaintiff is accusing a defendant of being hostile to "expressions of traditional Christian beliefs" that the plaintiff would provide background information about himself. In that context, stating that he "is a devout Christian, married for 18 years and the father of eight" doesn't seem crazy to me. But I suppose if you are anti-children, you have to take your hatred where it can go.

Bad News for Jeromy Brown

According to this Rasmussen poll, bigot Jeremiah Wright has done some damage to Barack Obama, although it's difficult to tell how long-lasting.

The good news for Obama is that his numbers have stopped falling since his speech on Tuesday. The bad news is that they haven’t bounced back.

In the week before the media frenzy over Wright, Obama and McCain were essentially tied in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll. Less than a week later, and two days after Obama’s speech, McCain had opened a seven-point lead over Obama. Significantly, by Thursday’s polling, McCain had pulled slightly ahead of Obama among unaffiliated voters. McCain also enjoys unified support from Republican voters while Obama only attracts 65% of Democratic votes at this time.

Obama’s favorable ratings have also fallen below the 50% mark since the world learned of his former Pastor. This can be seen as part of a larger trend that began shortly after Obama’s victories in the Wisconsin Primaries. At that time, just before Hillary Clinton began raising questions about her competitor, Obama was viewed favorably by 56% of voters nationwide. That had slipped to 52% just before Pastor Wright’s views became big news and to 47% just before Obama’s speech. Two days after the speech, Obama’s favorables remain at 48%.

My crystal ball is pretty foggy these days, but these poll numbers tell me a couple of things. First, like Shelby Steele noted, some of Obama's appeal has been in what characeristics people project onto him. That is, how much they identify with him, his views and opinions, his experiences and so on. As we learn more about Obama's behavior, his scant legislative record, his associations (such as Wright), that picture of Obama is changing and becoming less a reflection of what supporters what to see in Obama and more of who Obama actually is. This isn't to say that many supporters won't or don't like who Obama is; it's simply saying that he's an untried commodity and the general dissatisfaction with government among the electorate makes him more attractive that way.

The second thing that these numbers don't tell us is how long-lasting the bigot Wright's speeches will have on Obama's popularity. Already, there's this FOX poll, which says that a majority of people don't believe that Obama agrees with Wright's views. This is the argument Jeromy Brown has tried to make: it's ok to hang out with a bigot for 20 years as long as you don't march in the streets with him. I don't believe that for a minute. I'd like to see a press conference where reporters asked Obama if he thinks the government invented AIDS to get rid of black people or if Obama agrees with other batshit crazy statements by Wright on Israel (link courtesy of Common Sense Political Thought).

Jeromy accused me of wanting to "tar him with an angry black man talking crazy shit that we’ve all heard angry black folks talk before, and getting white people to be afraid." But the fact is, Obama chose to listen to this for 20 years. There's no evidence--other than his speech the other day--that he didn't agree with Wright. And I'm not just talking about publicly denouncing and embarrassing Wright. I don't tolerate bigots, but I can understand that others don't have my intestinal fortitude. I'm still looking for the witnesses who will tell us about Obama shaking his head and telling them that he disagreed with some scintilla of Wright's blather.

This is why I don't buy the argument that Obama didn't ever, ever agree with Wright's hyperbole. A better argument, IMO, would be to ask what effect that agreement would have on Obama's presidency. Perhaps it would have none; perhaps it would have a lot. It certainly goes against the "unity" talk.

Regardless, November is a long time away, and there will be more. Oh, wait. There already is.



What happened to that articulate guy who wanted to unite all of us? Psst. This ain't the way to do it, even if Melissa McEwan has decided that we're all racists. Maybe that's the sort of unity Obama is going for.

March Madness...I Got the Fever!

Dan Wetzel has this terrific column on the NCAA tournament and how March Madness will cost companies millions of dollars in lost productivity as workers try to sneak a peak at their favorite schools.

I confess that the first two days of the NCAA tournament are my favorite sports events, even more than the Super Bowl or the World Series. I love the fact that obscure schools get television time along with the powerhouses and for a couple of days, those schools need to be reckoned with.

The beauty is in the diversity of the participants. The schools come in all shapes and sizes, from 30 different states and the District of Columbia. This year’s field includes giant public schools and little private ones; bastions of liberalism and conservative, religious institutions. They come from small towns (Rock Hill, Starkville, Emmitsburg) and giant cities (Los Angeles, Washington, Miami).

It’s a tournament where there is a team from Manhattan, Kan., but not Manhattan, N.Y. – the Little Apple one upping the Big Apple. Where terms such as Hoyas, Tar Heels and Hoosiers make sense and it’s great to be a Boilermaker, a Sooner or a Cardinal.

Because of America’s obsession with underdogs and upsets, it is the time of year we gladly become Delta Devils and Toreros; when you can be a South Alabama fan even if you thought all of Alabama was south.

This is where atheists cheer for Oral Roberts, where everyone loves the Drake (or hates the Drake, if they screw up your office pool) and you might cheer for Kent State, even if you have no idea who Kent is or when exactly we named a state after him. It’s an event so bizarre that a place such as Kansas, generally congenial, friendly, harmless Kansas, is to be feared.

I must confess that, this year, I have a vested interest in that David-vs.-Goliath analogy. My alma mater, the University of Texas at Arlington, is making its first appearance in the tournament. Proud? You bet!

Of course, as Wetzel points out, the tournament isn't just about the amusing spectacle of Portland State beating Kansas. It's also about the gambling.

What the NCAA never wants to admit is that much of the tournament’s popularity is due to gambling and not just in legal Las Vegas sports books that are overloaded this weekend. It’s the office pools that serve as a great equalizer when Maria from human resources gets the better of all those CSTV junkies because her dominant state flower formula magically predicts the 12-over-5 upsets.

We illegally wager the GNP of a small country on this tournament. But no one ever seems to do anything about it, probably because at this very moment inside the J. Edgar Hoover Building in Washington, home of the FBI itself, a bracket is getting passed around.

And if Belmont gets up on Duke or Austin Peay puts a scare into Texas you can bet there will be muffled cheers from their federal cubicles just like in every other office.

When I worked at the paper, we had 2 different pools. There was the sophisticated pool, where wannabe experts picked their brackets and winners were determined by some mathematical computation using skills most reporters claim not to have.

Then there was the other pool, which was $1 a pick, and everybody drew names from a hat. The randomness of your pick, and the fact that people like me had the same chance as the sports reporters who covered the teams, was the greatest appeal to me.

Because the truth is, I never watch college basketball except during the tournament. Like a lot of sports that I would call "amusing," I only watch the "important" events. Wimbledon. The Kentucky Derby. The Super Bowl. That sort of stuff.

None of that will stop me from cheering for my Mavericks tomorrow, though. Mine might be the cheers or groans one hears from the cubicle.

Obama's Appeal

Shelby Steele has, yet again, another excellent analysis, this time of Barack Obama's appeal.

But whatever her (Geraldine Ferraro's) motives, she was right: "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position." Barack Obama is, of course, a very talented politician with a first-rate political organization at his back. But it does not detract from his merit to say that his race is also a large part of his prominence. And it is undeniable that something extremely powerful in the body politic, a force quite apart from the man himself, has pulled Obama forward. This force is about race and nothing else...

How to turn one's blackness to advantage?

The answer is that one "bargains." Bargaining is a mask that blacks can wear in the American mainstream, one that enables them to put whites at their ease. This mask diffuses the anxiety that goes along with being white in a multiracial society. Bargainers make the subliminal promise to whites not to shame them with America's history of racism, on the condition that they will not hold the bargainer's race against him. And whites love this bargain -- and feel affection for the bargainer -- because it gives them racial innocence in a society where whites live under constant threat of being stigmatized as racist. So the bargainer presents himself as an opportunity for whites to experience racial innocence.

This is how Mr. Obama has turned his blackness into his great political advantage, and also into a kind of personal charisma. Bargainers are conduits of white innocence, and they are as popular as the need for white innocence is strong. Mr. Obama's extraordinary dash to the forefront of American politics is less a measure of the man than of the hunger in white America for racial innocence.

Jeromy Brown would never admit the truth in Steele's statement, but there's no doubt that Obama's appeal lies in what white liberals--and it is white liberals to whom he aims his appeal--think supporting him says about them. Indeed, there can be little else that explain it because, as Steele points out, his policies are hardly distinguishable from Hillary Clinton's. The fact is, Obama makes white liberals feel good about supporting him. They think supporting him says that they have overcome their racist tendencies (because, by virtue of being born white, they must be racist).

And similiarly, this makes it more difficult to attack Obama because his supporters will play the race card at any possible challenge. Witness Jeromy Brown's response at Common Sense Political Thought to my post on Obama, Jeremiah Wright, and black liberation theology:

And do you think Barack Obama holds Wright’s views towards white people? Are you afraid Barack Obama is a secret Black Panther? Do you think he will usher in some new era of racism towards white people? Is there any scrap of evidence for any of that besides Obama’s church attendance? Do you think there’s the slightest tiniest chance that Obama understands when blacks vent their feelings the same way he understands when whites vent theirs…much like he said in his speech?

The underlying assumption of Brown's comment is that anyone pointing out the obvious racism of Obama's spiritual mentor must be fearful of black power (fear of a black man) and unwilling to accept their own racist views that they don't like Obama...because he's black.

I dislike Obama because I think his radical and liberal policies are bad for the country. And, yes, I think if you sit in the pews listening to a racist minister for 20 years, you probably accept many, if not all, of his views. Obama himself tried to equate his grandmother--a woman he didn't choose to be related to--with his minister--a man that he embraced willingly as an adult.

As Jules Crittenden said, it's hard to tell if Obama's speech was more condescending to white people or black people. And worse,

large parts of America and the press apparently don’t have a problem with someone occupying the White House who not only has a platform that ranges from warmed-over socialism to dangerously naive foreign policy views and lacks much in the way of meaningful professional preparation for the job, but on top of that, has a spiritual counselor who is a raving anti-American bigot. None of which points are actually about race. They are about qualifications and judgment.

Obama lacks judgment as demonstrated by his choice of spiritual mentors, as well as various silly foreign policy statements he has made. He lacks understanding and wisdom and experience.

Which isn't going to persuade Obamamaniacs. After all, Bitter Scribe's answer to criticism of Obama is to point out religious leaders on the right who have said horrible things! *gasp* They will continue apologizing for black racism and excuse Obama's ties to it in ways that would be completely unacceptable from white candidates. There is a double standard here, you see.

The Race Card Is Played...At Last!

The media are making quite a lot of Barak Obama's entry into the real world of politics. No, I'm not talking about the sloppy, wet kisses the press has thrown at Obama for months. I'm talking about the actual scrutiny this man who wants to be president may be getting because his mentor, Jeremiah Wright is a bigot.

I guess Obama believes the cooing of people like Jeromy Brown, who want to fellate the presidential candidate. How else to explain his ridiculous attempts to dismiss questions about the role Wright has played in shaping Obama's opinions and positions through 20 years at his church? Yesterday, we were even faced with the spectacle of moonbats using Clintonian techniques to try to dismiss criticism of Obama's choice of churches. I mean, please. Does it truly matter if Obama attended the July 22 meeting or not? Wright spewed his hatred of white people week after week. This isn't something Wright saved up for when Obama was strategically missing from the pews.

Now we have Obama giving his Mitt Romney religion speech, and liberals seem to think it will put the whole thing to rest. Gosh, Obama wants to transcend race! He doesn't care about race! He makes white liberals feel all squiggly inside, and that's not guilt!

I can honestly say I don't care that Obama is black. Like most white Americans born after 1960, I grew up in desegregated schools and have lived with and been friends with many black people over the years. Does that mean I don't think racism exists in America? Nope. I know there are people who hate other people for being black, but I also recognize that the reverse is true and that there's no justification for that, either. You can argue all you want about lunch counters, drinking fountains, and housing, but the bottom line is that until we accept that racism has existed but we don't condone it these days, we'll never get past it. And, by the way, some people will never get past it, which is the poison Rev. Wright was preaching and Barak Obama was lapping up week after week in his church.

Don't tell me that Obama didn't like blaming someone else for his failures (however few they may have been) or those of people he cared for. It's much easier to blame some institutionalized racism or sexism for failures or difficulties than to accept responsibility. Both Barak and Michelle Obama have had the opportunity to attend institutions that would have laughed at my application. Did race play a part in that? Probably, but I think having terrific grades and better accomplishments played a bigger role.

But what do I know? I'm just a white woman who, according to Rev. Wright, have never seen discrimination.

Thank God for Men

I must say I agree with this Brad Paisley video: