The following quote from Russ Feingold, comes from Maureen Dowd's latest column on the failed Christmas Day bomber and the fact that he came via Yemen.
"Senator Feingold told me that 'this is obviously an international network and we have to start thinking about it that way rather than as a country-by-country eradication process.'”
What a terrific observation. Maybe we should start calling it something that elucidates this reality. Something more indicative of what is really going on. Something like, oh, I don't know, "the global war on terror"?
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Who's in charge here?
Today is January 2nd and up until a few days ago, I was looking forward to watching my Texas Tech Red Raiders play in the Alamo Bowl. It had been a bit disappointing as far as prestige goes, and it wasn't my hoped for match up with the Badgers, but I was still ready to see them whip 50 points on a Big Ten team. And maybe they will, but I will not be able to enjoy it because the best thing to ever happen to Texas Tech football, Mike Leach, was fired by Tech on Wednesday.
The public reason has centered on Leach's treatment of injured sophomore receiver Adam James, son of ESPN announcer Craig James. When I first heard of the suspension, I was in complete agreement with Lou Holtz on a pre-game show. He said it didn't make any sense and that there had to be other reasons that we are not hearing about. The first version out there, was that he had locked the kid in a dark closet for 3 hours. It was certainly made to seem like a hazing type of thing. As a clearer picture emerged about what had really happened, it was put forth by Tech that the real problem was not the act so much as Leach's refusal to apologize for it, presumably to the kid and more importantly, Craig James. A significant spin by the Tech administrators was that if only Mike had signed the apology, everything would be just fine. But Leach maintains that promise was never made. And it seems he had good reason to think Tech was going to fire him anyway.
When you look at it from that perspective, it does seem a bit wacky to hinge the question of whether or not to fire Leach on the basis of him apologizing to one particular parent over his treatment of a player when there was nothing even resembling physical abuse, and even psychological abuse would be debatable. Early on in the whole thing, one or two guys mentioned the "bitter" negotiations on his contract last winter. But I thought, "No way, they're all adults. That's negotiations. Who doesn't try and get all they can?"
Turns out I couldn't have been more wrong. The Dallas Morning News filed a freedom of information request last spring and got a bunch of emails that had been sent to Chancellor Kent Hance that all pertained to Leach and his contract. You don't see the replies, or anything from Hance, but the ones from big supporter Jim Sowell are certainly revealing. I think the most significant aspect of them is the degree of comfort he displays in attacking the guy who was unarguably the most popular figure ever in Texas Tech football (and I grew up watching Donny Anderson, EJ Hollub and Dave Parks.) He rips Leach in each and every email. He's not so hot. He's not done that well, he hasn't sold out the stadium consistently, he hasn't won a national championship (when he compared his salary to Oklahoma's Stoops and Texas' Brown.) Well I'd like to point out to Mr. Sowell what it is he did do. He made me proud to be from Texas Tech. He made Texas Tech notable to the point that I didn't have to constantly correct acquaintances that I didn't go to Texas Christian or Texas A&M, and that, no, I really didn't care if The University of Texas won another national championship because I didn't go there and don't really like them. He made Texas Tech football so exciting that people who were neutral began to adopt them. Sowell lives in Texas so I doubt he saw this much, but I can tell you people outside of Texas saw Leach and the Red Raiders as new and exciting. They got respect ( particularly when they scored 31 unanswered points on Minnesota,) and let me tell you that was always in short supply around here. But his biggest accomplishment was taking two and three star recruits and then going on to beat the teams who were getting the four and five star recruits. And THAT put us in position to get the four and five star recruits we could NEVER get before. Perhaps somebody should point out to Mr. Sowell that it has been, shall we say "challenging," to recruit great athletes to Lubbock. My favorite Leach story is one from a profile the NY Times did early in his Tech career. That year every single player on the squads that he faced from Texas, Texas A&M and Oklahoma had turned him down for a scholarship at Tech. He couldn't say that in recent years. Let's hope they never have to say it again. It will be interesting to see what this does to this year's recruiting class, considered Tech's best ever. Did they think that was an accident?
But what is painfully obvious from the emails is that a lot of it was about the contract. Sowell's tone in his letters are proof to me that he thought he had a like mind at the other end of the computer. You'd never write such things to somebody you even thought they might disagree. And if the demeanor of the letters isn't bad enough, Sowell seems to take the negotiations very personally. At one point Leach (or his agents) try to include a restructuring of the now infamous $800,000 bonus due on 12/31/09. They are trying to pull it into the contract extension and turn it into a deferred compensation instrument. Sowell goes ballistic and rants about a completion bonus being a not-so-completed bonus and declares that Leach has lost all "credibility" with him. But also in amongst the rants are repeated whines about the money. When Kent Hance said in recent interviews that the $800,000 bonus was at no time, part of the consideration to fire Leach, I did a spit take.
What I got from the emails is that Sowell, and Myers and probably Hance, were extremely resentful of Leach because of all the personal popularity he enjoyed and the cult of personality threat that he presented to them. He used it (perhaps, like a club) during the negotiations and they hated it. It put them in a position where they had to sign him, and he knew it. The newest and hottest addition to Tech traditions, pirate paraphernalia, was most identified with the coach, not the school. It was the coach who was featured on the cover of The New York Times Magazine, not the University. 60 Minutes did not do a segment on the Tech athletic department. When Texas Monthly did a story on the success of UT athletics, it had the entire staff on the cover (Texas Inc.) This fall the cover was a giant eye-patched portrait with LEACH, in what is likely the largest legally permissible font size, plastered edge to edge. If you were to quiz casual fans in every non-Big Twelve state, Leach would be the most recognized or known, including Stoops or Brown. And all this popularity was the problem. That's what made Tech sign a deal they couldn't live with. They either really couldn't afford it, or they simply couldn't live with paying it to Leach. The old saying is that whenever somebody like Hance declares that "it's not about the money" you can rest assured, it's about the money. But in this case I think the money was secondary to the power. I think the situation bears more than a little resemblance to the Green Bay/Brett Favre situation of two years ago. You've got a guy who is an employee of the organization who has succeeded in elevating his profile and perceived influence far above anybody else in the organization, including his bosses in particular. This employee holds all the cards in any negotiation. The fans worship him and see his happiness and continued employment by the organization as crucial. His bosses think otherwise. The question they keep asking themselves is, "Who's in charge here?" And increasingly the answer was, the employee. Then it becomes a matter of time. How long are they willing to live with that situation? They'd lived with it long enough, fans be damned.
The public reason has centered on Leach's treatment of injured sophomore receiver Adam James, son of ESPN announcer Craig James. When I first heard of the suspension, I was in complete agreement with Lou Holtz on a pre-game show. He said it didn't make any sense and that there had to be other reasons that we are not hearing about. The first version out there, was that he had locked the kid in a dark closet for 3 hours. It was certainly made to seem like a hazing type of thing. As a clearer picture emerged about what had really happened, it was put forth by Tech that the real problem was not the act so much as Leach's refusal to apologize for it, presumably to the kid and more importantly, Craig James. A significant spin by the Tech administrators was that if only Mike had signed the apology, everything would be just fine. But Leach maintains that promise was never made. And it seems he had good reason to think Tech was going to fire him anyway.
When you look at it from that perspective, it does seem a bit wacky to hinge the question of whether or not to fire Leach on the basis of him apologizing to one particular parent over his treatment of a player when there was nothing even resembling physical abuse, and even psychological abuse would be debatable. Early on in the whole thing, one or two guys mentioned the "bitter" negotiations on his contract last winter. But I thought, "No way, they're all adults. That's negotiations. Who doesn't try and get all they can?"
Turns out I couldn't have been more wrong. The Dallas Morning News filed a freedom of information request last spring and got a bunch of emails that had been sent to Chancellor Kent Hance that all pertained to Leach and his contract. You don't see the replies, or anything from Hance, but the ones from big supporter Jim Sowell are certainly revealing. I think the most significant aspect of them is the degree of comfort he displays in attacking the guy who was unarguably the most popular figure ever in Texas Tech football (and I grew up watching Donny Anderson, EJ Hollub and Dave Parks.) He rips Leach in each and every email. He's not so hot. He's not done that well, he hasn't sold out the stadium consistently, he hasn't won a national championship (when he compared his salary to Oklahoma's Stoops and Texas' Brown.) Well I'd like to point out to Mr. Sowell what it is he did do. He made me proud to be from Texas Tech. He made Texas Tech notable to the point that I didn't have to constantly correct acquaintances that I didn't go to Texas Christian or Texas A&M, and that, no, I really didn't care if The University of Texas won another national championship because I didn't go there and don't really like them. He made Texas Tech football so exciting that people who were neutral began to adopt them. Sowell lives in Texas so I doubt he saw this much, but I can tell you people outside of Texas saw Leach and the Red Raiders as new and exciting. They got respect ( particularly when they scored 31 unanswered points on Minnesota,) and let me tell you that was always in short supply around here. But his biggest accomplishment was taking two and three star recruits and then going on to beat the teams who were getting the four and five star recruits. And THAT put us in position to get the four and five star recruits we could NEVER get before. Perhaps somebody should point out to Mr. Sowell that it has been, shall we say "challenging," to recruit great athletes to Lubbock. My favorite Leach story is one from a profile the NY Times did early in his Tech career. That year every single player on the squads that he faced from Texas, Texas A&M and Oklahoma had turned him down for a scholarship at Tech. He couldn't say that in recent years. Let's hope they never have to say it again. It will be interesting to see what this does to this year's recruiting class, considered Tech's best ever. Did they think that was an accident?
But what is painfully obvious from the emails is that a lot of it was about the contract. Sowell's tone in his letters are proof to me that he thought he had a like mind at the other end of the computer. You'd never write such things to somebody you even thought they might disagree. And if the demeanor of the letters isn't bad enough, Sowell seems to take the negotiations very personally. At one point Leach (or his agents) try to include a restructuring of the now infamous $800,000 bonus due on 12/31/09. They are trying to pull it into the contract extension and turn it into a deferred compensation instrument. Sowell goes ballistic and rants about a completion bonus being a not-so-completed bonus and declares that Leach has lost all "credibility" with him. But also in amongst the rants are repeated whines about the money. When Kent Hance said in recent interviews that the $800,000 bonus was at no time, part of the consideration to fire Leach, I did a spit take.
What I got from the emails is that Sowell, and Myers and probably Hance, were extremely resentful of Leach because of all the personal popularity he enjoyed and the cult of personality threat that he presented to them. He used it (perhaps, like a club) during the negotiations and they hated it. It put them in a position where they had to sign him, and he knew it. The newest and hottest addition to Tech traditions, pirate paraphernalia, was most identified with the coach, not the school. It was the coach who was featured on the cover of The New York Times Magazine, not the University. 60 Minutes did not do a segment on the Tech athletic department. When Texas Monthly did a story on the success of UT athletics, it had the entire staff on the cover (Texas Inc.) This fall the cover was a giant eye-patched portrait with LEACH, in what is likely the largest legally permissible font size, plastered edge to edge. If you were to quiz casual fans in every non-Big Twelve state, Leach would be the most recognized or known, including Stoops or Brown. And all this popularity was the problem. That's what made Tech sign a deal they couldn't live with. They either really couldn't afford it, or they simply couldn't live with paying it to Leach. The old saying is that whenever somebody like Hance declares that "it's not about the money" you can rest assured, it's about the money. But in this case I think the money was secondary to the power. I think the situation bears more than a little resemblance to the Green Bay/Brett Favre situation of two years ago. You've got a guy who is an employee of the organization who has succeeded in elevating his profile and perceived influence far above anybody else in the organization, including his bosses in particular. This employee holds all the cards in any negotiation. The fans worship him and see his happiness and continued employment by the organization as crucial. His bosses think otherwise. The question they keep asking themselves is, "Who's in charge here?" And increasingly the answer was, the employee. Then it becomes a matter of time. How long are they willing to live with that situation? They'd lived with it long enough, fans be damned.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
The Myth of Idealogical Purity
There has been a parade of editorials and political cartoons depicting the Republican party as conducting some sort of purge, evicting anyone who dares to stray from some ideological standard that they claim is being set by radical right wingers. In short, that is bullshit.
The first thing that you will note on these stories, columns and cartoons, is that they are being told, written and drawn by dedicated liberals. Most annoying, (and a dead give away that it is bullshit) is the approach they take. Never do they display the delight they must surely be experiencing as they observe the self destruction of the party they love to hate. And “hate” is precisely the appropriate term to use. They won’t use it though, because they like to think that they are above that sort of thing. If you believe them, (and I don’t) they don’t hate ANYBODY.
No, they are in a constant state of anguish over the loss of the "loyal opposition,” even though they don’t consider them loyal at all, and never did. They just think it’s a doggone shame that the GOP has gone and shot themselves in the foot. “Why heck, who are we going to engage in a reasoned debate? It’s just terrible the way those Republicans have turned their party over to the right wingers and thrown out anybody who even looks moderate.” Their sympathy is touching.
But sympathy isn’t all they have to offer. They also give lots of advice. Heartfelt advice. Advice designed to put conservatives back on the track to regaining, if not an outright majority, then at least a more respectable minority percentage. They purport to be very concerned about our future and want nothing more than a robust opposition. They will say things like, “The system works best when there are two vibrant parties in the debate.”
But what they really mean is, “The system works best for us when we argue from a far left position and you take the slightly left-of-center position.”
Do yourself a favor and go re-read anything you might have digested during the 2008 presidential campaign. The GOP, trembling in fear, nominated the most “moderate” guy who was running. The man who proudly put his name alongside Russ Feingold in naming the campaign finance reform that conservatives abhorred. The guy who sent conservatives straight up a wall with his amnesty for illegal aliens. The man who spent the previous eight years as the Democrats favorite Republican, always willing to take a shot at the sitting president, to the opposition’s delight. And it was really gratifying when Democrats then showed their appreciation by demonstrating respect for this model of moderateness. It must have had something to do with moderate Republicans like Colin Powell, who publicly advised his fellow Republicans to moderate their views and nominate a real moderate. Say, somebody like John McCain for instance. That would be much more to his moderate liking, than say, Rush Limbaugh, to whom, he advised, we should all stop listening. Anyway, all I know is the Dems were respectful of McCain as a candidate and Colin Powell stood directly behind our candidate. And then stuck a shiv in his back. But at least the Democrats waited until McCain was nominated before they started chanting “Bush’s third term.”
The first thing that you will note on these stories, columns and cartoons, is that they are being told, written and drawn by dedicated liberals. Most annoying, (and a dead give away that it is bullshit) is the approach they take. Never do they display the delight they must surely be experiencing as they observe the self destruction of the party they love to hate. And “hate” is precisely the appropriate term to use. They won’t use it though, because they like to think that they are above that sort of thing. If you believe them, (and I don’t) they don’t hate ANYBODY.
No, they are in a constant state of anguish over the loss of the "loyal opposition,” even though they don’t consider them loyal at all, and never did. They just think it’s a doggone shame that the GOP has gone and shot themselves in the foot. “Why heck, who are we going to engage in a reasoned debate? It’s just terrible the way those Republicans have turned their party over to the right wingers and thrown out anybody who even looks moderate.” Their sympathy is touching.
But sympathy isn’t all they have to offer. They also give lots of advice. Heartfelt advice. Advice designed to put conservatives back on the track to regaining, if not an outright majority, then at least a more respectable minority percentage. They purport to be very concerned about our future and want nothing more than a robust opposition. They will say things like, “The system works best when there are two vibrant parties in the debate.”
But what they really mean is, “The system works best for us when we argue from a far left position and you take the slightly left-of-center position.”
Do yourself a favor and go re-read anything you might have digested during the 2008 presidential campaign. The GOP, trembling in fear, nominated the most “moderate” guy who was running. The man who proudly put his name alongside Russ Feingold in naming the campaign finance reform that conservatives abhorred. The guy who sent conservatives straight up a wall with his amnesty for illegal aliens. The man who spent the previous eight years as the Democrats favorite Republican, always willing to take a shot at the sitting president, to the opposition’s delight. And it was really gratifying when Democrats then showed their appreciation by demonstrating respect for this model of moderateness. It must have had something to do with moderate Republicans like Colin Powell, who publicly advised his fellow Republicans to moderate their views and nominate a real moderate. Say, somebody like John McCain for instance. That would be much more to his moderate liking, than say, Rush Limbaugh, to whom, he advised, we should all stop listening. Anyway, all I know is the Dems were respectful of McCain as a candidate and Colin Powell stood directly behind our candidate. And then stuck a shiv in his back. But at least the Democrats waited until McCain was nominated before they started chanting “Bush’s third term.”
Friday, October 9, 2009
How Noble
Good God almighty! Barrack Hussein Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize this morning. Ten months into a presidency that has just recently drawn criticism for having done absolutely nothing, the idiots in Stockholm couldn't resist giving the award to the most ridiculous recipient since Yassar Arafat. Apparently repeating a lot of empty cliches and not being George W. Bush was all it took. Jimmy Carter has got to be kicking himself. He spent ten years building houses and compromising world wide security with his counterproductive visits to North Korea to get his. Of course, they are both chasing Al Gore who also has an Academy Award and a Grammy to boot. Broadway is still trying to figure out a way to slip him a Tony. As the only living Democrat president to not win it, Bill Clinton is on suicide watch.
The Nobel awards for the sciences have retained a modicum of impartiality, due to the fact that they have to deal in facts. The prizes for Peace and Literature have no such constraints, and have simply and blatantly been un-American for years. When they gave it to Jimmy Carter, the message was, "You shouldn't have thown him out for Ronald Reagan." When they gave it to Al Gore, the message was, "You should have elected him instead of Bush." And today the message is, "You finally got it right!"
Here's a trivia question. From what speech does the following quote come?
"The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, ..."
That would from Harold Pinter's acceptance speech for the Literature prize in 2005.
And then there is this quote from the man in the street:
"Obama won? Really? Wow," said David Hassan, 43, of Pine Brook, New Jersey. "He deserves it I guess, he's the president. He's a smart guy and I guess he's into peace."
Well there you go.
I think it will now be safe to refer to this award as The Nobel Prize for Left Wing Politics. Seriously. There is no connection to "peace" at all. Carter got it for being openly opposed to the policies of George W. Bush. Gore got it for producing a movie about global warming! Yassar Arafat got it because he said he'd stop blowing up innocent civilians, even though he did nothing of the sort. Betty Williams got it despite saying that she'd like to kill George Bush, twice. Meanwhile, Mohatma Ghandi never got one.
The Nobel awards for the sciences have retained a modicum of impartiality, due to the fact that they have to deal in facts. The prizes for Peace and Literature have no such constraints, and have simply and blatantly been un-American for years. When they gave it to Jimmy Carter, the message was, "You shouldn't have thown him out for Ronald Reagan." When they gave it to Al Gore, the message was, "You should have elected him instead of Bush." And today the message is, "You finally got it right!"
Here's a trivia question. From what speech does the following quote come?
"The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, ..."
That would from Harold Pinter's acceptance speech for the Literature prize in 2005.
And then there is this quote from the man in the street:
"Obama won? Really? Wow," said David Hassan, 43, of Pine Brook, New Jersey. "He deserves it I guess, he's the president. He's a smart guy and I guess he's into peace."
Well there you go.
I think it will now be safe to refer to this award as The Nobel Prize for Left Wing Politics. Seriously. There is no connection to "peace" at all. Carter got it for being openly opposed to the policies of George W. Bush. Gore got it for producing a movie about global warming! Yassar Arafat got it because he said he'd stop blowing up innocent civilians, even though he did nothing of the sort. Betty Williams got it despite saying that she'd like to kill George Bush, twice. Meanwhile, Mohatma Ghandi never got one.
Friday, October 2, 2009
A Swing and a Whiff
When it comes to things that really matter, liberals are always quick to be on the other side of the United States. If you’re talking about energy consumption, they’ll recite statistics to show that we consume a disproportionate share of the world’s resources. Rather than seeing it as a result of our superior accomplishments, they view it as proof of our avarice. If you were to point out the technological advantages that US citizens enjoy, they will try and make you feel guilty because there are so many poor souls in Africa that have never even seen a computer. The average person in the US who is living below the poverty line, has a car, a color television, a VCR and air conditioning. But to liberals, where that line sits on the continuum of lifestyles from destitute to luxurious is of no interest. The very fact that there is a “poverty line” and that some are below it is more than they can stand. Everyone else should be hanging their heads in shame at their embarrassment of riches.
All of which makes their attitude about the 2016 Olympics, that much more befuddling. Now don’t get me wrong. When I put the Olympics into the category of things that don’t matter, I mean really matter. Yes, where they are, does matter. It’s always a huge boost the local economy and infrastructure. And I am a sports fan, although I have given up hoping to see more of those sports that I prefer to watch such as boxing and judo. I’m afraid we are permanently condemned to watch every single second of figure skating and “women’s” (they’re all girls) gymnastics.
But this morning Chicago was shot down as a site for 2016, despite a personal appearance and appeal from our Apologist in Chief himself, Barrack Obama. But this is one case where we truly have had more than our fair share. In the modern era, there have been 29 summer Olympics and 20 winter games. The US has hosted 4 summer events (St. Louis, Atlanta and Los Angeles twice.) North America has had six (Montreal and Mexico City.) Out of only twenty winter events the US has hosted 4 times (Salt lake City, Squaw Valley and Lake Placid twice.) North America has hosted 5 (Calgary) but that will be six after Vancouver in 2010.
In the meantime, South America has never hosted either games, even once. And if there was ever an event that should carry an element of socialist “spread-the-wealth” thinking, it would be the Olympics. It’s truly international, and again, it really doesn’t matter. It’s mostly all about national pride anyway, and liberals are never proud of the United States, particularly when we are doing something obnoxious like winning a disproportionate share of the medals, like we usually do. Well they were devastated today when Rio got the nod. But I feel that’s mostly because Obama took it on as a personal mission, and they are deeply invested in BHO’s success of failure.
All of which makes their attitude about the 2016 Olympics, that much more befuddling. Now don’t get me wrong. When I put the Olympics into the category of things that don’t matter, I mean really matter. Yes, where they are, does matter. It’s always a huge boost the local economy and infrastructure. And I am a sports fan, although I have given up hoping to see more of those sports that I prefer to watch such as boxing and judo. I’m afraid we are permanently condemned to watch every single second of figure skating and “women’s” (they’re all girls) gymnastics.
But this morning Chicago was shot down as a site for 2016, despite a personal appearance and appeal from our Apologist in Chief himself, Barrack Obama. But this is one case where we truly have had more than our fair share. In the modern era, there have been 29 summer Olympics and 20 winter games. The US has hosted 4 summer events (St. Louis, Atlanta and Los Angeles twice.) North America has had six (Montreal and Mexico City.) Out of only twenty winter events the US has hosted 4 times (Salt lake City, Squaw Valley and Lake Placid twice.) North America has hosted 5 (Calgary) but that will be six after Vancouver in 2010.
In the meantime, South America has never hosted either games, even once. And if there was ever an event that should carry an element of socialist “spread-the-wealth” thinking, it would be the Olympics. It’s truly international, and again, it really doesn’t matter. It’s mostly all about national pride anyway, and liberals are never proud of the United States, particularly when we are doing something obnoxious like winning a disproportionate share of the medals, like we usually do. Well they were devastated today when Rio got the nod. But I feel that’s mostly because Obama took it on as a personal mission, and they are deeply invested in BHO’s success of failure.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Violence and Racism
I have been a critic of liberals and liberal policy ideas ever since I stopped calling myself a liberal. Yes, I once considered liberalism to be the enlightened path and considered myself one of the enlightened. But in all fairness, at the time I was living in West Texas and it was probably about 35 years ago. And at that time in West Texas, if you were young and had long hair (I was and did) you were absolutely liberal by comparison.
But I have found the past few months to be an infuriating time to be a critic of liberalism. Not because liberals are currently holding all the power (although they don't seem to be holding it very firmly or getting what they wanted out of it.) What's been so maddening has been the constant parade of accusations of racism and incitement of violence through our "incivility." I said back when Obama won the election that many people voted for him for many different reasons. And one of them, without a doubt, was the notion that we, as a country, could put to lie the idea that we are a racist nation.
But far from putting that notion behind us, liberals have resorted to crying racism more than ever. Last week Jimmy Carter, a man whose presidency could be called a failure by most any standard, put his mind reading powers on display and declared that the opposition to Obama's health care reform was due to racism plain and simple. What did he offer as evidence? Nothing other than his perception. He wasn't alone. Here are some quotes from the talking heads from just the past few weeks:
CAMPBELL BROWN: (music) ...vicious, racist imagery attacking our first African-American president.
LAWRENCE O'DONNELL: (newsroom noise) Gentleman Joe Wilson has done much to make the racist history of South Carolina jump back into our present consciousness.
CANDY CROWLEY: (b-roll) Critics think this is about resistance to a black man as president.
JAMES CARVILLE: People are upset with President Obama because of the color of his skin. Who cannot believe that?
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Could there be a refusal to accept the legitimacy of Barack Obama as president because of his race?
WOLF BLITZER: A small but disturbing minority within the tea party movement is also blatantly anti-black.
JOHN RIDLEY: When you talk about racial image, this is not just standard debate.
ELAINE QUIJANO: (b-roll) A small but passionate minority is also voicing what some see as racist rhetoric.
JOHN AVLON: Hitler. Communism. Racism. All this ugliness is bubbling up.
ANDERSON COOPER: There is an undercurrent of racism in some of the criticism of the president.
JUAN WILLIAMS: An attack on somebody because you really don't like the fact that they are president or because of their race.
ROSS DOUTHAT: Clearly Barack Obama's race plays some role in the kind of anxieties that are roiling the political right.
CLARENCE PAGE: (outdoor noise) People are not just mad at Obama. They are mad at Jesse Jackson. They are mad at Reverend Wright. They are mad at Al Sharpton. They are mad at people who have nothing to do with Obama except they all happen to be black.
The references to Joe Wilson, the S. Carolina congressman who jumped up an yelled "You Lie!" to Obama during his address to congress, have been particularly numerous, despite the fact there he did not stand up and shout "You're black!." Maureen Dowd not only saw racism, she heard it, writing that there was an unspoken word that followed. She heard "You lie, boy!" Obviously the word "boy" was spoken in one of those frequencies that only dogs and NY Times columnists can hear. Calling somebody a racist is, in one way, similar to accusing somebody of rape. It's an easy charge to make, all you have to do is say it outloud. And the accused is reduced to lame responses like "Some of my best friends are black," in a vain attempt to prove a negative.
When it comes to backing up their charge, liberals have found a few convenient incidents that they consistently point out. The most common, it seems, is the poster of Barrack Obama depicted as the Batman villain, The Joker. They claim the racism is evident in the fact that the character wears white pancake makeup, which they claim is the equivalent of a sort-of-reverse blackface. At first, they claimed the image was the work of right wing racists, but that was before it was revealed to be the work of a 20 something year old Palestinian-American who happened to be a supporter of far left loony Dennis Kucinich. Left wing wack job Joel McNally used the Joker image as an example of racism along with a description of one that actually would have been racist. It showed Obama as a witch doctor with a bone through his nose. But he couldn't seem to find a picture, so I guess we'll just have to take his word, that at one time, there was such a picture and that an actual individual person carried it. No doubt evrybody else at that place was thinking it. McNally was determined to draw clear lines to the racist heart of those who oppose Obama, so he zeroed in on Michelle Malkin who had spoken at a tea party in his home town of Milwaukee. The proof of her racism was a quote ("I've never been so proud in my lifetime to be part of this angry mob!") and the titles of 3 books she wrote. One was called "In Defense of Internment: The Case for Racial Profiling in World War II and the War on Terror." The other two were termed "racially tinged." Their titles were "Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals and Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores" and "Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks and Cronies." I guess you have to read them to understand their true racist nature, because I sure don't get it from the titles. He then launched into a guilt by association bit where he points out that Malkin's columns have appeared on a web site deemed as a "hate" site by the Southern Policy Law Center. In other words, her writings aren't racist, but some of the people who read them are.
But the worst of this has been the suggestions about violence. Nancy Pelosi got all choked up the other day, talking about her fear of the strident rhetoric on the health care debate. She invoked the memory of the assassination of Harvey Milk and the mayor of San Francisco decades ago, saying the tone was frighteningly familiar. The epitome of this nonsense culminated with a speech by the latest disgrace from the Kennedy family, congressman Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island. Never has there been a more fitting description of a person who woke up on third base and thought he hit a triple.
He too, blasted the tone of incivility and then linked it, of course, to the assassinations that took his two uncles JFK and RFK. Then he dropped this bomb:
“George Wallace didn’t need a gun to pull a trigger. We just need to be mindful of the wisdom of people … who have been through these ugly periods in American history. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
First, does anybody else find it astoundingly ironic (and idiotic) that he puts forth an image of a racially intolerant George Wallace as leading to violence, when Wallace himself was shot and paralyzed in an assassination attempt? But make no mistake, he didn't conjure up that image by accident. He's merely advancing the storyline of a long running, fraudulent myth that his uncles were killed by the "forces of intolerance", with a heavy implication that racists were involved. Always be sure to include an association with Martin Luther King. They all died for the same reason, at the hands of the same rednecks.
JFK was a cold warrior to the core. He spent the day before his death bragging to the defense industry in Fort Worth about how much he had boosted military spending and expanded our forces in Viet Nam. Despite Oliver Stone's demented fantasy, he was NOT about to pull out of Viet Nam (only to be thwarted by a right wing assassin.) Conversations that JFK taped with a Whitehouse taping system (And hasn't he gotten free pass on that particular pactrice compared to some other presidents?), show him and RFK being quite apprehensive about Martin Luther King and what he possibly meant for their political futures. They were brought in to the civil rights movement, maybe not kicking and screaming, but certainly with great caution and apprehension. JFK was murdered by an avowed communist who had previously defected from the US Marine corps to Soviet Russia. After returning to America, he spent his time agitating for Fidel Castro. Three weeks before he shot Kennedy, he took a shot at right wing general Edwin Walker with the same gun he later used on Kennedy. RFK was killed by a drunken anti-Zionist who hated his support of Israel. The point is neither were killed by or for the benefit of racists. But that has never stopped the unimpressive collection of remaining Kennedys from making that ridiculous claim.
But what has been so infuriating about all of this is that all the people who are opposing Obama's policies, opposed those same policies when espoused by any other liberal, white or black. They opposed socialized medicine when Bill and Hillary put it out there. They opposed higher taxes when Walter Mondale tried being "honest" and said he'd raise taxes. The same people have opposed these ideas for DECADES, not just the nine months that we've had a black president. But apparently the consistency of the opposition is overlooked entirely. It must all be due to racism. There is simply no other explanation.
But I have found the past few months to be an infuriating time to be a critic of liberalism. Not because liberals are currently holding all the power (although they don't seem to be holding it very firmly or getting what they wanted out of it.) What's been so maddening has been the constant parade of accusations of racism and incitement of violence through our "incivility." I said back when Obama won the election that many people voted for him for many different reasons. And one of them, without a doubt, was the notion that we, as a country, could put to lie the idea that we are a racist nation.
But far from putting that notion behind us, liberals have resorted to crying racism more than ever. Last week Jimmy Carter, a man whose presidency could be called a failure by most any standard, put his mind reading powers on display and declared that the opposition to Obama's health care reform was due to racism plain and simple. What did he offer as evidence? Nothing other than his perception. He wasn't alone. Here are some quotes from the talking heads from just the past few weeks:
CAMPBELL BROWN: (music) ...vicious, racist imagery attacking our first African-American president.
LAWRENCE O'DONNELL: (newsroom noise) Gentleman Joe Wilson has done much to make the racist history of South Carolina jump back into our present consciousness.
CANDY CROWLEY: (b-roll) Critics think this is about resistance to a black man as president.
JAMES CARVILLE: People are upset with President Obama because of the color of his skin. Who cannot believe that?
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Could there be a refusal to accept the legitimacy of Barack Obama as president because of his race?
WOLF BLITZER: A small but disturbing minority within the tea party movement is also blatantly anti-black.
JOHN RIDLEY: When you talk about racial image, this is not just standard debate.
ELAINE QUIJANO: (b-roll) A small but passionate minority is also voicing what some see as racist rhetoric.
JOHN AVLON: Hitler. Communism. Racism. All this ugliness is bubbling up.
ANDERSON COOPER: There is an undercurrent of racism in some of the criticism of the president.
JUAN WILLIAMS: An attack on somebody because you really don't like the fact that they are president or because of their race.
ROSS DOUTHAT: Clearly Barack Obama's race plays some role in the kind of anxieties that are roiling the political right.
CLARENCE PAGE: (outdoor noise) People are not just mad at Obama. They are mad at Jesse Jackson. They are mad at Reverend Wright. They are mad at Al Sharpton. They are mad at people who have nothing to do with Obama except they all happen to be black.
The references to Joe Wilson, the S. Carolina congressman who jumped up an yelled "You Lie!" to Obama during his address to congress, have been particularly numerous, despite the fact there he did not stand up and shout "You're black!." Maureen Dowd not only saw racism, she heard it, writing that there was an unspoken word that followed. She heard "You lie, boy!" Obviously the word "boy" was spoken in one of those frequencies that only dogs and NY Times columnists can hear. Calling somebody a racist is, in one way, similar to accusing somebody of rape. It's an easy charge to make, all you have to do is say it outloud. And the accused is reduced to lame responses like "Some of my best friends are black," in a vain attempt to prove a negative.
When it comes to backing up their charge, liberals have found a few convenient incidents that they consistently point out. The most common, it seems, is the poster of Barrack Obama depicted as the Batman villain, The Joker. They claim the racism is evident in the fact that the character wears white pancake makeup, which they claim is the equivalent of a sort-of-reverse blackface. At first, they claimed the image was the work of right wing racists, but that was before it was revealed to be the work of a 20 something year old Palestinian-American who happened to be a supporter of far left loony Dennis Kucinich. Left wing wack job Joel McNally used the Joker image as an example of racism along with a description of one that actually would have been racist. It showed Obama as a witch doctor with a bone through his nose. But he couldn't seem to find a picture, so I guess we'll just have to take his word, that at one time, there was such a picture and that an actual individual person carried it. No doubt evrybody else at that place was thinking it. McNally was determined to draw clear lines to the racist heart of those who oppose Obama, so he zeroed in on Michelle Malkin who had spoken at a tea party in his home town of Milwaukee. The proof of her racism was a quote ("I've never been so proud in my lifetime to be part of this angry mob!") and the titles of 3 books she wrote. One was called "In Defense of Internment: The Case for Racial Profiling in World War II and the War on Terror." The other two were termed "racially tinged." Their titles were "Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals and Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores" and "Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks and Cronies." I guess you have to read them to understand their true racist nature, because I sure don't get it from the titles. He then launched into a guilt by association bit where he points out that Malkin's columns have appeared on a web site deemed as a "hate" site by the Southern Policy Law Center. In other words, her writings aren't racist, but some of the people who read them are.
But the worst of this has been the suggestions about violence. Nancy Pelosi got all choked up the other day, talking about her fear of the strident rhetoric on the health care debate. She invoked the memory of the assassination of Harvey Milk and the mayor of San Francisco decades ago, saying the tone was frighteningly familiar. The epitome of this nonsense culminated with a speech by the latest disgrace from the Kennedy family, congressman Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island. Never has there been a more fitting description of a person who woke up on third base and thought he hit a triple.
He too, blasted the tone of incivility and then linked it, of course, to the assassinations that took his two uncles JFK and RFK. Then he dropped this bomb:
“George Wallace didn’t need a gun to pull a trigger. We just need to be mindful of the wisdom of people … who have been through these ugly periods in American history. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
First, does anybody else find it astoundingly ironic (and idiotic) that he puts forth an image of a racially intolerant George Wallace as leading to violence, when Wallace himself was shot and paralyzed in an assassination attempt? But make no mistake, he didn't conjure up that image by accident. He's merely advancing the storyline of a long running, fraudulent myth that his uncles were killed by the "forces of intolerance", with a heavy implication that racists were involved. Always be sure to include an association with Martin Luther King. They all died for the same reason, at the hands of the same rednecks.
JFK was a cold warrior to the core. He spent the day before his death bragging to the defense industry in Fort Worth about how much he had boosted military spending and expanded our forces in Viet Nam. Despite Oliver Stone's demented fantasy, he was NOT about to pull out of Viet Nam (only to be thwarted by a right wing assassin.) Conversations that JFK taped with a Whitehouse taping system (And hasn't he gotten free pass on that particular pactrice compared to some other presidents?), show him and RFK being quite apprehensive about Martin Luther King and what he possibly meant for their political futures. They were brought in to the civil rights movement, maybe not kicking and screaming, but certainly with great caution and apprehension. JFK was murdered by an avowed communist who had previously defected from the US Marine corps to Soviet Russia. After returning to America, he spent his time agitating for Fidel Castro. Three weeks before he shot Kennedy, he took a shot at right wing general Edwin Walker with the same gun he later used on Kennedy. RFK was killed by a drunken anti-Zionist who hated his support of Israel. The point is neither were killed by or for the benefit of racists. But that has never stopped the unimpressive collection of remaining Kennedys from making that ridiculous claim.
But what has been so infuriating about all of this is that all the people who are opposing Obama's policies, opposed those same policies when espoused by any other liberal, white or black. They opposed socialized medicine when Bill and Hillary put it out there. They opposed higher taxes when Walter Mondale tried being "honest" and said he'd raise taxes. The same people have opposed these ideas for DECADES, not just the nine months that we've had a black president. But apparently the consistency of the opposition is overlooked entirely. It must all be due to racism. There is simply no other explanation.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Fast Food Worker Syndrome
I just got back from lunch where I experienced a victim of Fast Food Worker Syndrome. If you don't know what that is just read the conversation that I've recounted below. The cause of this behavior is that all fast food workers are drilled with a script that they are supposed to recite, without fail, to each and every customer that comes in their door. I suppose they are after consistency in the treatment of their customers, which sounds like a good thing. But the result is less than endearing to the typical person like myself. Maybe it's because I have heard the script before and I already know what information they are going to ask of me. Anyway here's exactly how it went at Popeye's Chicken today:
FF Worker: "Can I take your order?"
Me: "Yes, I'd like a two piece combo, spicy, with mashed potatoes and Cajun gravy for the side.
FF Worker: "You want that mild or spicy?"
Me: "Spicy."
FF Worker: "And what do you want for a side?"
Me: (Giving him a very irritated look) "I said I wanted mashed potatoes and Cajun gravy."
FF Worker: "OK, you want that mild and dark meat?"
Me: (Giving him an I-can't-believe-you're-asking-me-this-again look) Spicy!
FF Worker: "Do you want dark meat?"
Me: "I suppose"
FF Worker: "And what kind of drink do you want?"
Me: "Root beer"
You would have to be there to appreciate how stupid that last question was because when he asked me, I looked around the restaurant, and sure enough, the soda machine is on my side of the counter. That's right, you get your own drink.
FF Worker: "Can I take your order?"
Me: "Yes, I'd like a two piece combo, spicy, with mashed potatoes and Cajun gravy for the side.
FF Worker: "You want that mild or spicy?"
Me: "Spicy."
FF Worker: "And what do you want for a side?"
Me: (Giving him a very irritated look) "I said I wanted mashed potatoes and Cajun gravy."
FF Worker: "OK, you want that mild and dark meat?"
Me: (Giving him an I-can't-believe-you're-asking-me-this-again look) Spicy!
FF Worker: "Do you want dark meat?"
Me: "I suppose"
FF Worker: "And what kind of drink do you want?"
Me: "Root beer"
You would have to be there to appreciate how stupid that last question was because when he asked me, I looked around the restaurant, and sure enough, the soda machine is on my side of the counter. That's right, you get your own drink.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)