Apparently, it's the Main Stream Media's new epithet of choice, a way to call any conservative organization you happen to be associated with, and thereby you, bigoted without actually saying as much. NewsBusters picked up on it but, to be honest, I hadn't noticed. I'm so used to hearing that I hate all people of color, especially blacks, that it almost sounded like a compliment by comparison.
I'll say it again, we're watching the former power of the irresponsible charge of racism to silence and shame evaporate before our very eyes. Oh happy day!
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Monday, August 30, 2010
Super-Citizens
You've no doubt heard this story by now. That's right, unlike the evil Bush Administration that preceded it, the current U.S. Government intends to demonstrate that it is determined to take the defense of human rights seriously. To that end, the State Department has reported to the United Nations that the country has filed suit against its own citizens as they have democratically, but still outrageously, passed laws the nature of which the world just might disapprove. I'm referring of course to Arizona's "controversial" anti-illegal immigration enforcement law.
If this weren't so sick and sad, in the Bizarro World of the Obama Administration it might almost be funny.
It occurred to me that this Administration and the liberals who populate it just might need to create a new category of citizenship altogether. That is, unlike you and I, who as mere citizens must obey the laws or face the consequences of failing to, illegal aliens could better be labeled super-citizens, quite literally above the law and not subject to it at all.
God help us.
If this weren't so sick and sad, in the Bizarro World of the Obama Administration it might almost be funny.
It occurred to me that this Administration and the liberals who populate it just might need to create a new category of citizenship altogether. That is, unlike you and I, who as mere citizens must obey the laws or face the consequences of failing to, illegal aliens could better be labeled super-citizens, quite literally above the law and not subject to it at all.
God help us.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Maxed Out Race Card
A loyal reader and good friend reminded me of the recent bit from The Daily Show. (I rarely watch it.) You may have already seen it, but just in case:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-5-2010/race-card-is-maxed-out
Enjoy!
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-5-2010/race-card-is-maxed-out
Enjoy!
Why Are We So Angry?
National Review Online's Victor Davis Hanson provides six succinct sources of that anger and each will elicit an "Amen!" from you. Your need to read them.
May I suggest a seventh source?
We Americans remain, heart and soul, enthusiastic heirs to the classical liberal tradition. That is, we think our society ought, in the main, to be organized such that it maximizes individual liberty and minimizes government, always the principal threat to that liberty. And this is so despite our undeniable and uncountable hypocrisies and departures from that creed. Insofar as we remain classical liberals, we want simply, and mostly, to be left alone. We resent it deeply when we are forced to rouse ourselves to act to restrain threats to that liberty, and most especially so when we believe that threat comes chiefly from our own government. Eternal vigilance may indeed be the price of liberty, but, as a rule, we would rather not pay it. Instead, we believe, naively perhaps, that liberty is the natural condition and challenges to it the exception. In the best of circumstances, that challenge is an ongoing nuisance. But in the worst, as they are now, it is a source of considerable anger.
May I suggest a seventh source?
We Americans remain, heart and soul, enthusiastic heirs to the classical liberal tradition. That is, we think our society ought, in the main, to be organized such that it maximizes individual liberty and minimizes government, always the principal threat to that liberty. And this is so despite our undeniable and uncountable hypocrisies and departures from that creed. Insofar as we remain classical liberals, we want simply, and mostly, to be left alone. We resent it deeply when we are forced to rouse ourselves to act to restrain threats to that liberty, and most especially so when we believe that threat comes chiefly from our own government. Eternal vigilance may indeed be the price of liberty, but, as a rule, we would rather not pay it. Instead, we believe, naively perhaps, that liberty is the natural condition and challenges to it the exception. In the best of circumstances, that challenge is an ongoing nuisance. But in the worst, as they are now, it is a source of considerable anger.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Krauthammer Nails It
Some time back I wrote here that if you debate a liberal on any subject, sooner or later he will call you a racist. In his Washington Post column today, pundit Charles Krauthammer concludes much the same thing and more, although he says it better than I could ever hope to. Consider this:
It is a measure of the corruption of liberal thought and the collapse of its self-confidence that, finding itself so widely repudiated, it resorts reflexively to the cheapest race-baiting (in a colorful variety of forms). Indeed, how can one reason with a nation of pitchfork-wielding mobs brimming with "antipathy toward people who aren't like them" -- blacks, Hispanics, gays and Muslims -- a nation that is, as Michelle Obama once put it succinctly, "just downright mean"?
The Democrats are going to get beaten badly in November. Not just because the economy is ailing. And not just because Obama over-read his mandate in governing too far left. But because a comeuppance is due the arrogant elites whose undisguised contempt for the great unwashed prevents them from conceding a modicum of serious thought to those who dare oppose them.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Who is that Mosqued Man?
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
Anyway, by now you've heard that recent polling says upwards of 20% of Americans think President Obama is a Muslim. I suspect they're wrong about that. Actually, he's both more...and less. Or so says George Neumayr in The American Spectator online. The intriguing title of his piece: "A Relativist, Wrapped in a Muslim, Inside an Agnostic". It's definitely worth a peek.
(Get it? A peek behind the mask? Never mind. Read the piece.)
Anyway, by now you've heard that recent polling says upwards of 20% of Americans think President Obama is a Muslim. I suspect they're wrong about that. Actually, he's both more...and less. Or so says George Neumayr in The American Spectator online. The intriguing title of his piece: "A Relativist, Wrapped in a Muslim, Inside an Agnostic". It's definitely worth a peek.
(Get it? A peek behind the mask? Never mind. Read the piece.)
More Numbers
Michael Barone instructs us, again, as to why elections are important to us not just for ideological reasons. That is, they are important not only because the candidates we elect represent, we hope, what we think government should and should not do, and then legislate accordingly. They are also important for structural reasons, and this is especially true at the state level.
As you know, 2010 has been a national census-taking year. Most of us have filled out the form by now. Our every-ten-years national census is a constitutional requirement. Its purpose is to determine the apportioning of the 435 seats that make up the U.S. House of Representatives. Our Founders decided that representation in that body, to be most fair, must be according to population. "One man, one vote" is the shorthand phrase that captures the idea that we all must be represented more or less equally in the House. The Constitution mandates that no state shall have less than one representative in the body. So, sparsely populated states like Wyoming will get one representative, regardless of its population relative to the other states. While states with big populations, like California, will get many more. The census will determine if they get more than they did ten years ago, or fewer. Ohio, which has suffered a population loss relative to the other states, will likely lose a seat or two.
But that's only part of the problem. Within each state, for the principle of "one man, one vote" to hold, the voting district lines will have to be redrawn to accommodate shifting demographics. In my state of North Carolina, the census will tell us whether relatively more people now live in Charlotte than in the Raleigh-Durham area, for example, and the district lines will have to be redrawn accordingly.
This is where raw political power comes in. How do you draw those lines? Again, according, to the Constitution, they must be drawn such that people are represented more or less equally. But, as we know, some areas of a state are more heavily Democrat in their party orientation and others more Republican. Is it possible to draw the lines in a manner such that a particular district might end up with relatively more Democrat than Republican voters and vice versa? You bet it is.
Imagine a state in which the voting population is split exactly down the middle in its party orientation. Imagine also that, after the census results are in, it learns it will be apportioned 10 representatives to the U.S. House. All things being equal, we would expect there to be five districts that tend Democrat and five that tend Republican. But all things are rarely equal, and how those district lines are drawn might make the actual outcome 6-4, or even 8-2, to the advantage of one party over the other.
So, who draws the lines? Each state is different, but it boils down to whoever controls the state legislature and the governorship. Can you see now how very important state and local elections are?
Back to Barone. He thinks that what appears likely to happen during this fall's elections will redound greatly to the Republicans favor, not only ideologically, but in this structural area as well. The GOP, as a result of the election outcome, will likely control more state legislatures and more governorships than previously. This will put them in charge of redrawing the district lines once the census results are in. Significantly, once redrawn, these new lines forming new districts will remain steady until the next census is taken ten years from now.
Barone's a conservative, to be sure, but he's also an honest analyst. So, I don't think he's just trying to be a cheerleader. His analysis, however, does not counsel complacency. To the contrary, it demonstrates how very critical our vote this fall will be, and not just our votes for those running for national office.
As you know, 2010 has been a national census-taking year. Most of us have filled out the form by now. Our every-ten-years national census is a constitutional requirement. Its purpose is to determine the apportioning of the 435 seats that make up the U.S. House of Representatives. Our Founders decided that representation in that body, to be most fair, must be according to population. "One man, one vote" is the shorthand phrase that captures the idea that we all must be represented more or less equally in the House. The Constitution mandates that no state shall have less than one representative in the body. So, sparsely populated states like Wyoming will get one representative, regardless of its population relative to the other states. While states with big populations, like California, will get many more. The census will determine if they get more than they did ten years ago, or fewer. Ohio, which has suffered a population loss relative to the other states, will likely lose a seat or two.
But that's only part of the problem. Within each state, for the principle of "one man, one vote" to hold, the voting district lines will have to be redrawn to accommodate shifting demographics. In my state of North Carolina, the census will tell us whether relatively more people now live in Charlotte than in the Raleigh-Durham area, for example, and the district lines will have to be redrawn accordingly.
This is where raw political power comes in. How do you draw those lines? Again, according, to the Constitution, they must be drawn such that people are represented more or less equally. But, as we know, some areas of a state are more heavily Democrat in their party orientation and others more Republican. Is it possible to draw the lines in a manner such that a particular district might end up with relatively more Democrat than Republican voters and vice versa? You bet it is.
Imagine a state in which the voting population is split exactly down the middle in its party orientation. Imagine also that, after the census results are in, it learns it will be apportioned 10 representatives to the U.S. House. All things being equal, we would expect there to be five districts that tend Democrat and five that tend Republican. But all things are rarely equal, and how those district lines are drawn might make the actual outcome 6-4, or even 8-2, to the advantage of one party over the other.
So, who draws the lines? Each state is different, but it boils down to whoever controls the state legislature and the governorship. Can you see now how very important state and local elections are?
Back to Barone. He thinks that what appears likely to happen during this fall's elections will redound greatly to the Republicans favor, not only ideologically, but in this structural area as well. The GOP, as a result of the election outcome, will likely control more state legislatures and more governorships than previously. This will put them in charge of redrawing the district lines once the census results are in. Significantly, once redrawn, these new lines forming new districts will remain steady until the next census is taken ten years from now.
Barone's a conservative, to be sure, but he's also an honest analyst. So, I don't think he's just trying to be a cheerleader. His analysis, however, does not counsel complacency. To the contrary, it demonstrates how very critical our vote this fall will be, and not just our votes for those running for national office.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)