Converts

It occurred to me the other day as I was listening to an interview/book promo on the TV with Bernard Goldberg. He’s the former CBS reporter who wrote Bias which “exposed” the rampant liberal bias amongst the media elite. I put quotes around exposed because it’s not like we didn’t know it was there all along. Sort of like saying Balboa “discovered” the Pacific Ocean. What, nobody knew it was there before? But I digress.

Goldberg is one of those who lived his life believing that liberalism was the enlightened point of view to which all intelligent people subscribed. All his friends and colleagues were liberals and therefore, he received a lot of positive reinforcement for his views. But then he had an epiphany. I don’t know what particular experience triggered his conversion to conservatism, I didn’t read his book. But there are others. Dennis Miller, Ron Silver and Evan Sayet come to mind, mainly because they are celebrities. (Sayet is a writer who ironically used to write comedy for leftist Bill Maher.) And their conversions were directly related to 9/11. But ask any conservative and he’ll probably be able to tell you of someone he knows who is a conservative convert. I consider myself one. Growing up in Texas in the 60’s and 70’s, being liberal was a natural, rebellious position to adopt. It wasn’t until I got serious about getting my college degree and entering the workforce that I began to question liberalism. Then I moved to Madison and found out what liberals were really like. John Wayne had a good line about it. He said “Sure, I was a socialist....when I was a sophomore in college.” The Great Communicator himself, Ronald Reagan, began as a Democrat, as did one of his great cabinet appointments, Jeanne Kirkpatrick.

So what was it that occurred to me? Where are the conservatives who converted to liberalism? The only one I could think of was writer David Brock, and I’m not so sure he actually qualifies as a convert. Brock wrote the hit piece, The Real Anita Hill (a bit nutty, and a bit slutty) when he was writing for the American Spectator. It was a reaction to her testimony that tried to sink Clarence Thomas in his bid to get on the Supreme Court. But Brock’s sudden about face may have had as much to do with him coming out of the closet as a gay man as it did about his politics. And even then, he didn’t reject all of his previous writings. He merely said he was “blinded” and mislead by right wing partisans.

Regardless, liberals convert to conservatism due to either a sudden epiphany or a slow realization that you could dub maturity. In other words, either they were mugged or they grew up. But maturity doesn’t ever seem to turn conservatives into liberals and I can’t think of any event or trauma that causes folks to go liberal.

Learn the Rules!

I just experienced another incident at the 4 way stop that makes me crazy. If you understand who has the right of way at such an intersection, then you know what I mean. It's that guy who is so gracious and patient, that he always waves you through the intersection. But he's not really being gracious or polite at all. He waves you through because he hasn't got a clue as to who actually should be going first and this is the solution to his ignorance. On occasion, I've stubbornly out waited them and then yelled, "LEARN THE RULES!!!" when they pass by. I didn't do that today, but the idiot did have that look on his face that annoys the hell out of me. It's sort of like he's going to let you go first, but he wishes you'd hurry up about it as he waves you through. And the wave has a certain impatience to it as well as a hint of command behind it. Of course, he was waiting at a full stop when I got to the intersection so it makes me wonder WTF he thinks the rules actually are.

No Controlling Authority

Understand something first. I do not own a gun and never have. But I was born with the right to own one, and if the notion ever strikes me to go buy one, I plan to do just that, without government interference. Of course the only reason anybody is talking about gun control at this time is due to the Virginia Tech shootings that killed 32 plus the shooter. And just like every other tragedy of this type, the first thing that comes up is gun control. I suppose that’s because one of the first things that people think is, “If he had tried to do this with, say a baseball bat, he’d either get too tired or sick after killing two or three people. And that makes perfect sense as long as you stop right there and never have another occasion to employ logic again in your life. “Mad man can’t get gun, tragedy is averted. End of story.” See, it all works out very nice and neat. Next issue, please.

But as soon as you start to ask the obvious questions, don’t be surprised when things turn ugly. Next time you hear this sort of thing, try making the following point: Start out by establishing what many experts in the field will confirm, namely that it is very near impossible to stop a committed, suicidal terrorist. That includes the Chos of the world along with Islamic terrorists everywhere seeking out their little slice of heaven, complete with 72 virgins. They cannot be deterred, even by their own destruction. You can seldom identify them or their plans ahead of time. That’s right; there is not a single thing in this world that can stop somebody like Cho. Except, perhaps somebody else who happens to be there and also has a gun.

Be sure to step back after you say this because even if the person you are talking to does not leap for your throat with both hands, there is still the danger that they will spontaneously combust and explode. You do not need to supply the follow up logic concerning police response time, concealed carry laws or the reassurance that criminals get from knowing their victims are unarmed. They already know those things, which is why they stand a good chance of detonating on the spot. In fact, when they leap to the obvious conclusion about where you are heading with this, deny it.

“I’m not advocating anything! I never said we should all go around packing heat did I? I’m not for turning it into the old west again. All I said was, there is one, and only one way that a guy like that could be stopped. I just stated a fact. Draw your own conclusions.” And step back, again.

“Everybody armed? That’s crazy,” they’ll say.

You should reply, “No, what Cho did was crazy, I’m just trying to deal with it.”

Couldn't Resist

One of the reasons why I even write this blog is so that I don't always feel compelled to rant at politicians and journalists individually. But when I read today about the reaction by Quad City barbers to a story about John Edwards getting a couple of $400 haircuts, I just couldn't resist. I wrote to John Edwards campaign and gave him a bit of advice on how he should deal with this embarrassing detail. He's been called "The Breck Girl" by Rush Limbaugh for years now, and the subject of a popular You Tube video that shows him fussing over his hair for five minutes with the song I Feel Pretty dubbed over it. If he were to take my advice he would score big points and reverse his image as a preening, vain metrosexual.

In the article, the barbers were aghast that anybody would pay $400 for a haircut. In their world that's not even possible. The average cost around town was $10-$12, but they also mentioned that you can get one for $7.50 from a supervised, student barber. What I told Edwards to do was go to Bettendorf walk into the local barber college and say, "I hear you can get a haircut here for $7.50? I'd hate to tell you what I've been payin'." Then get the haircut and, maybe even tell the supervisor to take a walk. And the best thing that could happen would be to get a slightly bad haircut. He'd come out looking like he had a sense of humor and a lot more connected to the common man he purports to represent. Oh, and his hair will grow out. Won't happen, no huevos.

Fraud or Faux Fraud?

Recently there were articles in both the New York Times and the Wisconsin State Journal that addressed the issue of voter fraud. At least that's what they said they were doing. The gist of both articles was that when they finally looked at the number and nature or the total prosecutions for voter fraud, they were forced to conclude that it was a non-issue. There were heavy handed suggestions that Republicans had only pursued this issue because it afforded them the opportunity to suppress minority voting. And in that regard they linked it to a study that showed when picture ID's were required, voting by both blacks and hispanics dropped significantly, and by more than whites.

The main reason for their conclusion was the fact that there were only about 120 cases where charges were filed, and only 86 convictions. They didn't give a detailed breakdown, but it seemed from my reading that the largest group of offenders were convicted felons. And if you didn't get the point before, they helpfully described the 14 cases in Milwaukee as " most black, poor, Democratic and first-time voters." Often, they simply hadn't understood the terms of their parole. So, the point was, if there aren't many convictions, then it really can't be a problem.

To me, that's like saying since there are very few arrests and convictions of people for spray painting graffiti, then we really must not have a graffiti problem. One person responded to that analogy by saying that we can see the graffiti. We know there's a problem there. I thanked him for making my point. There is no visible effect from voter fraud. Unlike other crimes that actually supply the impetus to launch an investigation, nobody even knows a crime has occurred in voter fraud. Which brings me back to the preponderence of felons voting in the cases they did pursue. Well that makes perfect sense to me. It's the one type of voter fraud where you have something to work with, namely the cross referencing of voter rolls with the list of convicted felons. Seems easy enough to me. And since they found so few, I'd even acquiesce that felons are not a significant problem.

But the one they really don't want to talk about is non-citizens. I had an exchange of emails with a columnist who was trumpeting the NYT's conclusion. We went back and forth about five times. In my very first note I mentioned that the type of fraud that held the most potential was from non-citizens. I pointed out that we have something like 41,000 illegal aliens in Wisconsin and who knows how many legal alien residents, none of whom are eligible to vote. Couple that with a complete lack of safeguards at Wisconsin polls (No ID needed, just bring in your utility bill!) and you've got a very reckless situation. I mean these people DO have a dog in this fight and, I would think, be motivated to effect the political process. Then think about the fact that the Wisconsin Presidential election in 2000 was decided by some 6,000 votes, and some 10,000 in 2004.

But no matter that I kept asking about that type of fraud, he simply wouldn't address it. He wouldn't respond on that point, but continued to hammer away with his arguments on any other point I had made. We don't have a master list of non-citizens to cross reference. Virtually the only way you'd catch one voting is if somebody else turned them in or directed suspicion their way. Of course the columnist is a liberal, so it was hard to tell if he was just stubbornly refusing to concede a point or if he was too worried about being politically incorrect by casting aspersions on hispanics.

The flaw with the study showing that voting among minorities dropped with the introduction of a photo ID requirement is that it did not address why they chose not to vote. Furthermore, they were never qualified as to their legal status either. I mean, I know this is an off-the-wall notion, but is it possible that this percentage of people who decided not to vote, did so because they were, in fact, non-eligible voters who decided, now, they might get busted? So perhaps that study was actually proving the point that we DO have a problem. I think one group dropped by ten percent and the other by six. Either way that's a significant number. But the libs assume it's just poor ignorant legal voters who were "intimidated" to the point that they were disenfranchised, while perhaps they were just intimidated into not voting illegally.

THE Story II

Just an update on Day 5 of the Don Imus story. He was finally fired yesterday after 5 days of tortuous, wall to wall coverage. This of course presents a real problem for Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, namely how to keep both the story going and their faces in front of a camera. The Governor of New Jersey was seriously injured in an SUV crash while on his way to (you guessed it!) the meeting between Don Imus and the Rutgers women's team. John Corzine may have been critically injured but it was still a distant second to THE story, after a mention (second) at the show's opening, they didn't give details of his accident until a full twenty minutes into the Today show. I believe the direct quote was "MY LEG, MY LEG" But there are signs it may finally be coming to an end. It only occupied the first twenty minutes today, where the Imus had taken up a full hour every other day this week.

An interesting detail emerged from the Corzine story:

"Bobby Juska of Forked River, who was on the scene of the accident, said Corzine's legs were hanging out of the window after the accident. He said, "The governor was screaming 'My leg! My leg!'"
The governor does not usually wear a seat belt, a law enforcement official told the Associated Press, but it is unknown whether he was wearing one at the time of the crash.

Update!! I guess the trooper was going 91 mph, and was possibly reading his Blackberry.

Raising Awareness

We all know that there are some words that have a meaning far removed from their original intent. "Diversity" is a good example. It used to mean a collection of different things, opinions or viewpoints. Now it means just the opposite. When a liberal complains that a school board or a city council "is not diverse enough," they mean there are not enough liberals for their tastes. Their idea of diversity is to have a black liberal, a Hispanic liberal, a gay liberal, a native American liberal and an Asian liberal. The only kind of liberal they don't care about would be a white liberal. I mean white liberals are OK, they're just not "diverse enough." Of course far worse than a white person of any stripe, would be a black conservative. Black conservatives have no diversity at all. Despite being different, indeed, they are the anti-Christs of diversity and are welcomed nowhere.

But another term that has come to mean anything but it's actual meaning is "raising awareness." Take Leonardo DiCaprio and Sheryl Crow. Please. They are both ga-ga over Al Gore and his freight train of fear. Cheryl Crow has teamed up with environmental wacko Laurie David to tour the country (in a bio diesel bus, of course) playing at colleges across the country to "raise awareness about global warming."

Now are you under the impression that global warming is not being talked about enough these days? Is this a subject about which nobody is interested? My casual observations say otherwise. In fact, it seems to be the most overblown, over hyped issue in the world. The last thing anybody needs to do about it is "raise awareness." I say that because even if you believe it's really happening and that it's mankind's fault, the issue should be about what to do to solve or reverse it. But instead we get our awareness "raised." This accomplishes something very important. It puts millions of people into a panic about something they have no control over, unless you count killing yourself and your family for the good of the planet. That would be a good thing in their eyes, but anything short of that is lame.

And why does it always fall to a Hollywood liberal who is usually a high school graduate, at best, to educate us on the issue? Because they have time on their hands and a guilty conscience. They are busy bodies whose own lives are both blessed and cursed. They make lots of money, but their personal lives are, to put it plainly, shit. They are in search of something that will make them feel much better about themselves. And unfortunately, that seems to be making you feel worse about yourself and your lot in life. Their lives are so empty that they need somebody to tell them they are really doing something for the greater good. And since they are really big stars, quietly delivering meals on wheels to shut ins just won't do. No, they require massive good deeds to match their massive egos. They could forgo all the private jet trips and reduce the amount of carbon they generated, but telling people about a trip you didn't take really doesn't elevate your stature in Hollywood. Crisscrossing the country so that you can appear at a demonstration, or present a slide show, now that's activism a publicist can sink his teeth into. Oh, and you should buy some carbon offsets to take care of all that jet fuel you burned. For the uninitiated, carbon offsets are financial instruments that turn actual carbon emissions into a mixture of oxygen and distilled water that can be used to irrigate organic produce in Africa. There is also some evidence that they cure AIDS.

So when Leonardo and Sheryl come to town and raise our awareness, we can go on a carbon offset shopping spree. We'll have those glaciers advancing in no time.

THE Story

Ok, just two quick things. First, there is one, and only one news story today. The Today show opened with it for a full hour. There is nothing more important than this story and the main stream media has pounced on it. I am of course referring to that issue that is at the forefront of EVERYBODY'S thoughts and concerns: Whether or not Don Imus should be fired or merely suspended for calling the Rutgers womens' basketball team "nappy headed hos." The importance of this issue is only magnified by the multiple nuances swirling about. This matter cuts to the very core of who we are and how we view ourselves as a nation. The outcome will have repercusions for generations to come. On the other hand, I have no idea why he's on the air to begin with. He's not funny, even when he's not being a racist.

Ther best part was when Al Sharpton said that this kind of language needs to never be heard on the airwavwes again. But I don't believe he really thinks that because it would mean he'd be out of a job along with Jesse Jackson. They are both racial ambulance chasers and the only reason anybody talks to them at all is to hear their outrage on things like this. Without a Don Imus, or a Michael Richards to feed them controversy, we wouldn't even know who they were.

The second thing is Barack Obamba has joined John Edwards in boycotting the presidential debate that is being sponsored by Fox News and the Congressional Black Caucus, of which he is a member. It makes you wonder if the strategy is to pander to the Fox hating left, or to avoid a situation where you might say something stuipid or get caught making a girly sounding scream ala Howard Dean.

Conspiracy!!

So yesterday I walk into my pub and am immediately met by a young woman who I have known for several years now. She is a smart and ambitious woman of 25 who Mrs. Morant and I have "adopted." Her real parents, in addition to being somewhat dysfuntional, don't live in Madison. Michelle is also a big liberal, who knows better than to try and engage me in a political debate. While she is firm in what she considers to be the "right" political philosophy, she is usually far better informed on the details of Anna Nicole Smith than she is on current events. She keeps current only on those things that seem to interest 25 year old females, and that's not politics. Experience has taught her that if she is going to argue with me she had better bring her lunch and she had better be informed. So she seldom picks a fight with me on such matters. Now I like Michelle, and that was what was so disheartening about what she said.

She hands me a newly burned DVD and tells me, "Just watch it. And watch it with your wife. She'll enjoy it more than you." So I ask, "What is it?"

"It's a conspiracy DVD."

Michelle has always been into conspiracies. She wrote a college paper on the Kennedy assassination and is convinced that Oswald did not act alone. So I said "Kennedy?"

"No," she replied, "nine eleven."

This ruins my day. I am absolutely stunned. Of course these wacko theories have been going around since nine twelve, but this is somebody I know. And she is wide eyed with conviction. "I was never one of those who thought this was possible. But this is scientific evidence! There is actual scientific evidence on that DVD."

"Like what?"

"Lots of stuff. It's all these little things that come together."

"And who do these little things all point to as being behind this?"

"The Government."

"Michelle, a conspiracy like that would have to involve thousands of people."

"Exactly."

"And they've all managed to keep it secret?"

"Yes."

"In six years not one of the thousands has broken ranks and talked? Why not?"

"They're afraid they'll be killed!"

"By?"

"The Government."

When I point out to her that the Government is not a monolithic institution of robots, but comprised of individuals, she accuses me of being naive. "The government is a huge and powerful organization. They can do anything they want and get away with it, " she says. "You can't tell me you're 50 years old and don't believe the government is capable of stuff like this."

All I can think of is how can she be so STUPID. I'd like to use a less harsh word, but stupid really is the best one. I try to have her look at the big picture so that she can see for herself how ludicrous this notion is. "Michelle, two people can keep a secret, if one of them is dead. This government can't keep the legitimate secrets that are held by the designated secret keepers! Ever heard of the NSA warrantless wiretapping? Yeah? So has Al-qaeda. That same government wasn't able to keep the CIA extraordinary rendition program secret either. So the people you think are the most incompetent boobs in the world, the ones you think got it completely wrong on Iraq, lead by the biggest moron who ever held public office, were able to execute the most diabolical, cynical mass murder in history without leaving a clue. They would have had to have explicit detailed knowledge of the 9/11 attacks in advance. I assume, if it's the government, that some elements of the military would have to have been involved. I mean you gotta have explosive experts right? And these guys would be just fine with one of the planes slamming into the Pentagon? And the politicians who are in on it would be OK with a plane slamming into the Capitol, which is where the Pennsylvania plane was headed. And how did they sneak thousands of pounds of high explosives into the World Trade Center ahead of time? And how were they able to plant them, with detonators, in all the right places? And why did they even have to plant them in the first place? What, crashing the planes into the buildings and setting them on fire while killing hundreds on impact wasn't enough?"

If all you're doing is providing a pretext for war (that's the non sequitur motive) why do you have to bring the whole building down? Oh, and then there's building No. 7. That's the one that collapsed on it's own after the two towers went down. The wackos are fond of saying that it would have been impossible to have happened without explosives. Of course we've never had two buildings of that size collapse under any circumstances, so I don't know to what they are using for reference.

Look, it's one thing to go around speculating on the Kennedy assassination. Sort of harmless fun. But this is insanity. And why did they do it? Oil, of course. You see Dick Cheney only has a net worth of between $30 and $100 million. Obviously that's not enough. He decided he had to murder thousands of his fellow Americans so that Haliburton could prosper even more. And even though he has yet to get his hands on that Iraqi oil, he will soon enough. Then they'll be going after the Iranian oil.

I wrote all this before viewing the DVD so that I could commit to paper the things I knew I'd be thinking while I watched it. I'll write Conspiracy Part II after I watch it.