The Truth Is Out There

Bill Whittle's latest video is out. Like "Open Blogger" notes at Ace of Spades:

Have you ever had an incomplete thought rattling around your mind? You can almost put it into words but it remains elusively amorphous? Bill Whittle has the uncanny ability to take that pile of mental toothpicks and glue them into an Eiffel Tower of reason.

The video starts out a little on the feisty side, with an unflattering characterization of Pacifica Radio. But it gets good at about 4 minutes, and he brings the whole thing together by the end of the piece. Wow.

I keep a button tuned to Pacifica Radio, just to check up on what is going on with the Far Left from time to time. Every once in a while, they have something that sounds reasonable on the station. But they also run some really challenging programming, like interviews of representatives of such victim groups as the "National Man-Boy Love Association" or the "Bondage and Discipline Community" (the latter persecuted more through ridicule and misunderstanding than through legal action. Their feelings are hurt.) I wrote down some of the details of programming I caught before and during May Day last year. Whew.

Dennis Prager has observed that (at least in the United States) people who accept the concept of faith in the realm of religion are more likely to look for realism in other areas of life. Those who reject religion in which God is the final authority on morality often accept the irrational easily in many other aspects of life, including politics. Pacifica Radio is a case in point. I don't think your typical Baptist radio station would be likely to run a program claiming that if you get Lyme disease, you should be grateful that Kudzu vine has taken over the South, because it took over so that it could cure you (how is not clear). The belief that we should listen to the "wisdom of plants" rather than turn to Western Medicine (because it is based too much on reason) is "one of many truths" on Pacifica Radio, where they make fun of Baptists.

So, is there anything you could do to help keep people like those who run Pacifica Radio from taking over the country? In 2010, Bill Whittle wrote an interesting piece called The Iceberg which may give you some ideas.

The "Debt Ceiling Crisis" and the Left's addiction to demonization

Frank J. Fleming has a little fun with the exaggerated language from the Left:

Wow, that whole debt-ceiling debate was scary. For a while there, it looked like a few radical extremists were going to keep the country from going further into debt. And then where would we be? Without all the free stuff we like, because some people are stuck on the primitive notion that a budget should balance? I think you can say without hyperbole that people who think like that are literally terrorists, except a million times worse.

What makes people think the government should spend less money than it brings in? Probably racism. Also, a lust for violence. Because there is no logical reason for the government to spend less. None.

I do know one reason people keep bringing up as to why we should spend less: Because otherwise we leave the debt for future generations. But no one ever explains why that’s a problem.

Read the whole thing. Heh.

The New Civility in Washington D.C.

Well, that didn't last long.  Why is it that almost certain that when liberals (or Democrats) accuse conservatives (or Republicans) of some sin, it is a sin which they have just committed themselves or are planning to commit in the near future?

Relatively moderate Democrat Steve Cohen compared Republicans to Nazis with regard to the health care bill.  Even though Hitler promoted government-run health care.  He later said that he was really only comparing their lies to Nazi propaganda.  But they weren't lying.

Ironically, Cohen had at one time been attacked in an extremely uncivil manner by more liberal Democrats and was defended by conservatives and libertarians.  I heard as a guest on Dennis Prager's program -- TWICE (once when being smeared by his Democratic primary rival (with references both to the KKK and to his Jewish heritage - go figure) and again after his election when his request for membership in the Congressional Black Caucus was rejected even though he represents a majority-black district. I thought he sounded pretty reasonable and have read mostly good things about him.

He seems to have changed.  Note Cohen's ridiculous comparison of the Tea Party to the KKK (with a little reminder of the Nazis thrown in) on radio in the first video here. This vicious, bigoted characterization was accepted nonchalantly by the hosts of the program, probably because they are used to stereotyping Tea Partiers as the wrong kind of white people.  They've chosen their designated villain, and no evidence is necessary.  (Update:  one of these Young Turks is evidently ideological enough to be tapped to come on board at MSNBC after Olbermann's departure).

The second video includes an earlier news report about his Democratic Party primary rival connecting Cohen to the KKK.  This is way too ironic to make sense. Maybe he developed Stockholm Syndrome after he was elected due to pressure by the liberal Democratic juggernaut in the 111th Congress.

Congressman Cohen's speech on the house floor presented an opportunity for a civility test for liberals. Would they speak out against what Cohen said? Jon Stewart did.  (language alert)

Iowahawk is not what most people would call a liberal, but this is very funny. Note the recycle link at the bottom of the piece.

Are there any better ideas for increasing civility in Washington D.C.? How about a return to the principles of classical liberalism?   Some advice from George Washington would probably not hurt, either.

"All Racism, Only Racism, 24 Hours a Day"

The reason for those bogus charges of Tea Party Racism?  Insufficient empathy and diversity among liberals!

Timothy Dalrymple:

It is essentially a failure of imagination. Liberals cannot imagine themselves into a way of thinking in which conservatives do what they do and believe what they believe for good reasons. And since they cannot believe that conservatives are motivated by rational beliefs and admirable motives, they must appeal to darker, more primitive impulses to explain their behavior. The racist motive presents itself as a natural and convenient explanation.

Case In Point

Chris Matthews focuses on race as the obvious explanation for the nomination of an Indian-American by the Republican Party in South Carolina. Sounds shockingly malicious, but then maybe it's just the "liberal failure of imagination" concerning the motives of conservatives.

In Hollywood, racism is all about politics. In Illinois, too.

"Think Progress" is so heavily invested in portraying the Tea Party as racist that they use liberal-produced "Crash the Tea Party" signs as evidence of Tea Party racism.

Now Al Queda is racist, too. There are lots of possible explanations for the President's new "racist AQ" theme. But perhaps partly because multi-culturalism dictates that all religions are morally equivalent, it is forbidden to mention Islamic extremism as a motive for terror in the Obama administration.   Racism falls under a different category in the liberal mind.

I Write Like . . .

Margaret Atwood?  Heh.    I used three paragraphs from my 2 posts on Confucius.  No quotes.

Try it yourself.  Just for fun.  Via Crooked Timber, a rather philosophical progressive site.

United States vs. Arizona: Politics in the DOJ

Amid Crises, Obama declares war - on Arizona.

There are several cases in which the Department of Justice seems to be choosing its cases based on political considerations rather than the law. Now the Department of Justice has filed a case against the State of Arizona concerning its new immigration law.  The President has compared the law to Chinese abuses of human rights.   He has emphasized the possibility of racial profiling in his condemnations of Arizona, but the actual case against Arizona is based upon federal preemption, and does NOT mention racial profiling, apparently. Arizona's law would short-change federal enforcement resourses in other states, or something.

But Arizona has not started enforcing the "problematic" provisions of its new law, while Rhode Island has. So why isn't the Obama crowd boycotting Rhode Island and calling them racists?

(a) Rhode Island has actually been enforcing the same procedures that allegedly make the Arizona law controversial, and (b) those features (checking immigration status when there is reasonable suspicion to do so, referring illegals to the feds for deportation) have already been upheld by the courts. (Indeed, reasonable suspicion is not even required for the police to be able to ask about a person's immigration status.)

Well, Obama has some company in decrying American immigration policy, which the administration is failing to enforce. Interesting op-ed here:

Attorney General Eric Holder finally filed that long-rumored lawsuit challenging Arizona’s new immigration law. In his opinion, only the federal government has the legal authority to “enforce” (read “completely ignore”) border security. If the Obama administration were convinced that Arizona would treat illegal immigration the same way the feds do, they wouldn’t have bothered to sue.


Unfortunately, Arizonans seem to take the rule of law seriously. And this is a big problem for Team Obama. Holder is worried that trained and knowledgeable local cops will actually prove that the law is enforceable, blowing his boss’s cover. Remember President Barack Obama’s claim last week that our borders are “just too vast” for us to secure them through enforcement, with fences and border patrols?


The border’s too big. The hole in the Gulf is too deep. The recession is too stubborn. Maybe we should find the president a smaller, easier-to-manage country to govern. You know - send him to the minors for a few years. . . .

Personally I think that the reason the Obama administration is going after Arizona but not Rhode Island is that Arizona passed its law during this administration. This is a challenge to Obama's rhetoric and plans concerning immigration. Hence the political selectivity in the filing of lawsuits by the DOJ.

Obama's positions on immigration are not totally unreasonable. And we do need an immigration law which allows for more rational legal immigration and assimilation, without people living in the shadows of society due to an uncertain legal status. But going to war against a state which wishes to help enforce federal law, misrepresenting the population and the state government as racist, is not the action an ethical administration should take.

On the lighter side: Democratic County Supervisor: "Arizona's law might have been justifiable if it was a border state". You know, like Rhode Island. Lots of other stupidity is also evident surrounding this case.

UPDATE: The Secretary of State indicates that the suit was filed under the direction of the President. No attempt to insulate DOJ decisions from the rest of the administration here.

More "racist" immigrant policies have also been in  force in the liberal stronghold of Madison, Wisconsin.    Oops.  The City Council doesn't want to be bashed like Arizona.  The threats by Holder have made them think twice about their current policies.

NASA's new mission is studiously ignored by The Media

Scott at Powerline:

Readers who get their news from the the mainstream media are remarkably ill informed. Much of what they "know" isn't true and much of what they don't know is important. Take the case of what Byron York calls "the NASA (non) feeding frenzy."

You know the story. The guy whom President Obama has put in charge of NASA reports that he has been tasked by President Obama with missions having nothing to do with space exploration. Perhaps the foremost of these missions is to make the Muslim world feel good about itself.

York originally reported the comments made by NASA administrator Charles Bolden to Al Jazeera several days ago. Yesterday York ran a Nexis search to see whether the news had made it into the mainstream media. York's search produced this (utterly predictable) result:

Total words about the NASA Muslim outreach program in the New York Times: 0.

Total words about the NASA Muslim outreach program in the Washington Post: 0.

Total words about the NASA Muslim outreach program on NBC Nightly News: 0.

Total words about the NASA Muslim outreach program on ABC World News: 0.

Total words about the NASA Muslim outreach program on CBS Evening News: 0.

Scrappleface got the news.

Paul at Powerline: WHY THE SILENT TREATMENT?  Perhaps because the press realizes that this is a window into the thinking of the Obama administration? Read his arguments.

"You'll be able to keep your own insurance" was the most important political lie of the last year.   But NASA's new mission is the most revealing truth. The MSM understands this, which is why it's been so resolute in keeping it out of sight.

It was a dark and stormy night

Winners of the 2010 Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest. Including one Dishonorable Mention.

Via Cassandra, who also links an accidental, multi-author effort in which she participated in 2004. Inspired by her purchase of a new car. Some people are more "into" automotive engineering than others.

The Declaration

What Jefferson Wrought   Some interesting history.  Plus commentary on the details:  This document  is not just an emotional call to revolution.    And it was the work of more than one man.

Looks like we need a little more emphasis on history.   Have you considered taking 10 minutes to read the Declaration aloud as part of your Fourth of July celebration? I know a few people who have this family tradition.  It would be nice if we could bring back some more community traditions for this holiday. Sissy Willis started a new community activity this year: she invited readers to Tweet the Declaration.

If you're having a quiet day, how about  comparing the Declaration to the old Soviet constitution? The two documents produced very different results.

Bill Whittle produced a powerful piece on the Declaration back in March.  With an excellent suggestion for making our history come alive.   Recommended.  

Here's an Annotated text of the Declaration of Independence. And a video about the Fourth of July, with attention to the contention and factionalism which were so prevalent at the time. The complex government structure which divided power between various branches was intended to decrease dominance of one faction over another. James Madison advocated an approach to government based in "reason, benevolence and brotherly affection."

Have a great Fourth of July.

Update - Wretchard, a naturalized Australian with a keen appreciation of the importance of the American Experiment, writes:

Both Thomas Jefferson and John Adams died on the 4th of July, 1826. Though both men were on their deathbeds, each made an effort through the night of the third to survive until the 50th anniversary of the Declaration. . . .

Daniel Webster, who came on the scene after the Founding Fathers had already passed into legend lamented that “we can win no laurels … earlier and worthier hands have gathered them all.” But he was wrong; history comes back offering each new generation a new set of heights to climb. In that sense the Declaration of Independence will forever remain unfinished business; an enterprise well begun which has not quite been completed. . .

Read the whole thing, watch the video.  The Declaration seems to be on people's minds this year.  A copy with the early drafts is linked here.   You could do a little extra credit on your "citizen's required reading for the Fourth of July". (This year, your holiday probably extends into the 5th).  Captain Ed also has a reminder of the Declaration's world-changing significance, followed by the words themselves.

Calvin Coolidge on the 150th anniversary of the Declaration.  This speech by an almost-unknown president is recommended by a lot of folks.  

Historical Tidbits: The Founders risked a lot.  Book:  A Monticello Sampler.  

The Sub-prime Times Square Bomber

Canadian human rights activist Mark Steyn applies his typical dark humor to the Times Square Bomber incident.

The story of the Times Square bomber reads like some Urdu dinner-theater production of Mel Brooks’ The Producers that got lost in translation between here and Peshawar: A man sets out to produce the biggest bomb on Broadway since Dance a Little Closer closed on its opening night in 1983. Everything goes right: He gets a parking space right next to Viacom, owners of the hated Comedy Central! But then he gets careless: He buys the wrong fertilizer. He fails to open the valve on the propane tank. And next thing you know, his ingenious plot is the non-stop laugh riot of the Great White Way. Ha-ha! What a loser! Why, the whole thing’s totally — what’s the word? — “amateurish,” according to multiple officials. It “looked amateurish,” scoffed New York’s Mayor Bloomberg. “Amateurish,” agreed Janet Napolitano, the White House amateurishness czar.

Contessa Brewer makes her bigotry concerning the hoped-for identity of the bomber clear.
Captain Ed:

Brian Maloney gives us this entry for the Someone Left the Irony On Department, in which Contessa Brewer tells Stephanie Miller that she’s really unhappy that she couldn’t use the Times Square bombing attempt to prove Tea Party “bigotry.” Never mind that this clip shows the bigotry of Brewer in relation to conservatives — that all of the opponents of Barack Obama and the Democrats are somehow the equivalent of the Hutaree militia in Michigan. Brewer really wanted a way to smear conservatives, and now she’ll just have to wait a little longer:

Listen to the video at the link. In her mind, the bomber is a typical example of an immigrant who wants to become an American citizen.  ( Never mind that he went to Pakistan for terrorist training).  She really seems to have no clue how much she has insulted typical immigrants, or made suspicion of them more likely.  AMAZING.

Yes, Contessa, there do seem to be a lot of people who want to “justify writing off people who believe in a certain way” as either terrorists or racists. Your network employs more than a few.

The young Contessa can't help it. She was taught in school to close her mind to thinking outside the progressive catechism. She is upset that "there are a lot of people who want to use terrorist intent . . . as justification for really outdated bigotry." On the other hand, the form of bigotry she reflexively expresses is the New Hotness and needs no justification. All her friends think like that. James Lileks:

Good people not only don’t judge before-hand, they want to refrain from judging after-hand, so they can theoretically judge someone who didn’t do it, but might.

Steyn applies a little reality to Mayor Bloomberg's similarly bigoted speculation about who was responsible for the bombing attempt.  But first, he lets some air out of the exaggerated fear of prejudice against Muslims among those on the Left.    The Left once again demonstrates that it is easier and more satisfying to stand up against a threat that's not very threatening than against a really dangerous imminent  threat:

As for the idea that America has become fanatically “Islamophobic” since 9/11, au contraire: Were America even mildly “Islamophobic,” it would have curtailed Muslim immigration, or at least subjected immigrants from Pakistan, Yemen, and a handful of other hotbeds to an additional level of screening. Instead, Muslim immigration to the West has accelerated in the last nine years, and, as the case of Faisal Shahzad demonstrates, being investigated by terrorism task forces is no obstacle to breezing through your U.S. citizenship application. An “Islamophobic” America might have pondered whether the more extreme elements of self-segregation were compatible with participation in a pluralist society: Instead, President Obama makes fawning speeches boasting that he supports the rights of women to be “covered” — rather than the rights of the ever lengthening numbers of European and North American Muslim women beaten, brutalized, and murdered for not wanting to be covered. America is so un-Islamophobic that at Ground Zero they’re building a 13-story mosque — on the site of an old Burlington Coat Factory damaged by airplane debris that Tuesday morning.

So, in the ruins of a building reduced to rubble in the name of Islam, a temple to Islam will arise.

And, whenever the marshmallow illusions are momentarily discombobulated, the entire political-media class rushes forward to tell us that the thwarted killer was a “lone wolf,” an “isolated extremist.” According to Mayor Bloomberg a day or two before Shahzad’s arrest, the most likely culprit was “someone who doesn’t like the health-care bill” (that would be me, if your SWAT team’s at a loose end this weekend). Even after Shahzad’s arrest, the Associated Press, CNN, and the Washington Post attached huge significance to the problems the young jihadist had had keeping up his mortgage payments. Just as, after Major Hasan, the “experts” effortlessly redefined “post-traumatic stress disorder” to apply to a psychiatrist who’d never been anywhere near a war zone, so now the housing market is the root cause of terrorism: Subprime terrorism is a far greater threat to America than anything to do with certain words beginning with I- and ending in -slam.

Incidentally, one way of falling behind with your house payments is to take half a year off to go to Pakistan and train in a terrorist camp. Perhaps Congress could pass some sort of jihadist housing credit? . . .

Read the whole thing.

UPDATE: Now we get beyond cultural issues to the really serious political issues: Read the first link, to a piece by Richard Clarke concerning the inevitable bomb plot which DOES NOT fail. He worries, among other things, that counter-terrorism officials will be blamed, even though these attacks are extremely hard to stop:

The reason such attacks are hard to stop is rooted in the identity of the attackers. They often seem to be successful or well-educated members of society, uninvolved in any form of radicalism. But then, the drip-drip of terrorist propaganda -- either on the Internet or circulated through friends -- has its effect. They quietly make contact with radical groups overseas, perhaps even traveling abroad for training and indoctrination. They throw away the life they have made in the West and agree to stage an attack. Faisal Shahzad, the alleged Times Square terrorist, fits that profile, as have others in the United States and Europe.

The second link suggests one of the things that Clarke fears: firing the head of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano. Partly because she does not seem to recognize the profile of past attackers which Clarke describes, and partly because of the brazenly political nature of her rhetoric.

And contact between would-be attackers and radical groups has not always been as "quiet" as Clarke suggests. The Underwear Bomber's father, at great personal risk, went to a U.S. embassy to warn about his son. But the son still got on a plane bound for the U.S. Napolitano said "the system worked". And the Times Square bomber went to a terrorist training camp:

Napolitano's rhetorical slip is a little too serious to be palmed off with some linguistic woolgathering. She has made clear repeatedly that she believes people with Gadsden flag bumper stickers are a greater threat to domestic tranquility than out-of-the-closet terrorists who receive training and material assistance in foreign terror centers. She has been wrong about this every time, and she will continue to be wrong until Americans actually die.

This is an obvious politicization of her office. (Napolitano's favored targets -- health care protesters and disgruntled veterans -- are distinguished not by their propensity toward violence but by their opposition to the administration.) But if you believe in the necessity of a Homeland Security Department, every day Napolitano is in charge of it creates an actual risk to life and property. Napolitano has a positive burden of proof: She needs to demonstrate some understanding of how to do her job, or she needs to be fired, for the security of the United States and the safety of the American people. . .

It's one thing when Contessa Brewer is judgmental only against politically-approved targets. It's another thing when Janet Napolitano is similarly blinded by politics.

MORE on the irrational belief in higher education that today's political violence is most likely to come from the Right.  And these people call themselves "Reality-Based".  

The Morning After

The big Tax Day Teaparty is over. Tea Partiers were egged in Boston by some of the "violent radicals" among the progressive mevement. Spurred on, no doubt, by the bigoted language of politicians on the Left.

Some thought from newpaper columnist James Lileks, No Taxation without Satirization:

A Rasmussen poll says 66% believe we’re overtaxed. Hmm: 47 percent don’t pay federal income tax. So 19% feel overtaxed? This either means they think they’re getting totally jobbed when it comes to taxes on cigarettes or lottery lump-sum payouts, or they have a great fellow-feeling for the taxpayers who do shovel the shekels to Uncle Sugar, and believe those guys need a breather. If nothing else, it suggests there’s a general mood afoot that believes the government hoovers up too much, and not because it has so many obligations. It raises taxes for the same reason they say a dog, er, does that thing it does: because it can.

But at least a dog comes when it’s called. Add high taxes and feeling that government just might put its own needs ahead of yours, and you have discontent. Add the sense of overtaxation with the realization that we still have to go cap-in-hand to China to borrow the occasional trillion, you get something: an entirely new opportunity for the Republicans to squander.

Read the whole thing.

Roger Kimball with some thoughts on Hayek and others who saw situations similar to ours today:

President Obama would be proud of me: this morning, it being the 15th of April, I got out my check book, searched the innermost recesses of my savings accounts and lines of credit, and with a few strokes of the pen helped to “spread the wealth around ” . . . .

“But,” you point out, “taxes haven’t really risen yet.”

Precisely. And yet even so here’s an ordinary slob like me feeling like Boxer in Animal Farm. What happens when the taxer-in-chief really gets going?

It was at this point in my musings that I thought about the 19th-century English essayist William Hazlitt: “those who lack delicacy,” he pointed out, “hold us in their power.” Early on in the Obama administration, Governor Mitch Daniels spoke about Obama’s “shock and awe statism.” . . . we now see just how much in earnest Obama was when, a few days before the election, he told his followers that they were on the threshold of “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

The point is that Obama and his coterie have moved with dazzling speed on every conceivable front to transform the country. And he’s only, remember, 15 months into it. The rest of us stand about dazed and confused, exclaiming (as our two-year-old daughter is wont to do): “What just happened? ” Read on for two important observations by Hayek about how government is now affecting you life - psychologically as well as financially. Compare with the typical progressive theories about economics and power.

And think about what is happening in Greece.

Dangerous, Violent Groups Overtake America

Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats promised that we would come to love Obamacare once the bill was passed. But, instead of helping us understand the bill, Democrats and the mainstream media turned their primary attention, the very next day, to completely destroying the reputation of the Tea Party Movement.

The "brave" walks past Tea Party protesters

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus made a provocative, unnecessary walk past protesters, hoping to capture on video a reaction which could be use to discredit the protesters. They didn't get any video, but they DID get members of the Black Congressional Caucus to report incidents of racial epithets and spitting. James Clyburn (the congressman who accused Bill Clinton of racism during the Presidential primaries) was prominent in making these charges. Check here for his definition of racism. Oddly, despite the ubiquitous video equipment present during the "congressional walk past protesters", no epithets could be confirmed. But the bogus charges got out into the mainstream media in an unusually fast, seemingly coordinated manner. In an effort to further divide America, this event was followed by a similar provocative "walk", led by Nancy Pelosi carrying a giant gavel, after the vote on the health care bill.

Democrats and the media seemed alarmed about the "threatening" attitude of the protesters and they repeated, and in some cases amplified, charges of racial epithets used against black congressmen. Video here. They tried to blame Republicans for "inflammatory language". Yet they downplayed or failed to report the arrest of an Obama supporter for threatening to kill a Jewish congressman and his family as well as other violence directed against Republicans and conservatives or libertarians.

Glenn Reynolds points out the hypocrisy. John Hinderaker points out that most recent political violence has been by liberals. Why haven't the incidents of attempted murder (some of which sent elderly bus riders to the hospital) by activists near a Republican convention in 2008 received more media attention? Andrew Breitbart reflects Alinsky tactics back toward the Democrats, with his offer to pay for proof of a racial epithet during the "walk" now increased to $100,000.

The first Alinsky president is now using surrogates to split this nation into two hostile parties so he can puppeteer the have-nots against the perceived haves. The non-response to my $100k challenge is a tacit acknowledgement that the Congressional Black Caucus and Barack Obama don't have the stomach for doubling down.

Leftists are not used to conservatives using inflammatory, Alinsky-type speech against them.  Democrats are starting to back off their claims about the incident.

Oh, No! Militias!

Now the press and Democrats are having vapors over "Christian", "Right-wing" Militias. Some perspective is in order. If a Lefty actually kills someone for similar motives, it doesn't make big news. And these groups are not always what they seem on the surface. Though some of those all-white militias can be sort of threatening.

Other Threatening Groups

Master of satire Iowahawk points out other menacing, violent groups in America.

At the Media Violence Project, our charter is to protect public safety by researching, documenting and raising awareness about the ever-increasing wave of violent, disgusting crimes perpetrated by members of the American news media. It is a largely thankless task -- often requiring a cast iron stomach -- but if our work has prevented one more American child from falling victim to a criminally insane anchorman or newspaper reporter, it will all have been worth it. . . .

Shocking as they are, these incidents scarcely scratch the surface of the global crime wave caused by rampaging journalists. Our in-depth biennial 30 minute Google search uncovered a seemingly endless catalog of journalist-related crimes, astonishing as much for their depravity as their number. The reasons behind this phenomenon are complex, according to Media Violence Project staff psychologist Divad Egrub.

"Journalism school leaves these people ill-prepared for life in conventional society," explains Egrub. "They see typical American people expressing normal opinions, and it causes confusion. In time, they become boiling cauldrons of paranoia and rage. This triggers a 'fight or flight' reaction, and sometimes they simply lash out." . . .

As bad as these case are individually, collectively they represent only the tip of a vast, bloody iceberg of media brutality. Most experts believe that the overwhelming majority of media crimes are never reported. "Think about it," says Egrub. "We are actual relying on reporters to report on the crimes of reporters. All we really know about are the cases other journalists were too incompetent to cover up. For every one of them there are likely dozens lying on the media's cutting room floor."

Politicians: An Even Greater Menace?

And yet, Americans may be facing an even worse wave of domestic attacks from the only organized group arguably even more violent, stupid and useless than the news media: elected public officials.

In response to growing public outcry, the board of the Media Violence Project earlier this morning established a new affiliate organization, the Center for the Study of Politician Sociopathy. What our comprehensive 15 minute Google search revealed was an explosive outbreak of violence that, if trends continue, may actually eclipse the media public safety crisis by November. . . .

"There's an deep undercurrent of anger, alienation and frustration in Congress, as well as America's statehouses and city halls," explains CSPS study director Vadid Grube. "They feel that voters are no longer listening to them. Then come the drugs, followed by the extensive, journalist-like paranoid fantasies. And then... snap." . . . .

What you can do to protect yourself and your family

"Americans are accustomed to viewing their political representatives in an idealized light," explains Divad Egrub. "We assume them to be clean, friendly, hard working, nonviolent criminals, peacefully thieving away at the public trough and diligently extorting bribes from special interest groups. The politician takes advantage of this gullible trust to draw an unsuspecting constituent within striking distance. Before you know it, the constituent is dealing with an erupting volcano of psychosexual rage."

Read the whole, brilliant thing. It's full of links which put the inflammatory, often false, news stories about the Tea Party Movement in perspective. If we can survive the violence of journalists and politicians, we can certainly survive the occasional nut case from the Right or the Left. Republican politicians, and even conservative commentators and bloggers, are used to death threats and threatening or intimidating actions at their homes.

But while people take violent language from the Left and violent actions by leftist extremists in stride, as a normal part of life, the Right is expected to "control" its extremists by refraining from criticism of their liberal counterparts. "Shut up,"  he explained.

The fact is that, unlike conservatives, modern liberals have had little quarrel with political violence. This is best demonstrated by their support for card check legislation, the entire point of which it to abolish the secret ballot so that union goons can use the threat of violence to extend union power and thereby enrich the Democratic Party. (If you doubt the truth of that proposition, try to think of another reason why the Democrats want to eliminate the secret ballot in union elections.) The beating of Kenneth Gladrey by union goons--more specifically, the lack of any interest in it by anyone in the Democratic Party, the media, or on the Left generally--shows how hypocritical the Democrats' current pacifism is. If the day ever comes when conservative groups start hiring goons, we can take the liberals' purported fears of violence more seriously.

So far, the smear campaign against Tea Partiers doesn't seem to be working out quite as planned. Except among some of the Democratic base, who seem more fired up (oops, is that inflammatory?)  than before, perhaps even more than the Tea Partiers. So much for "bringing America together".

President Obama Proposes Massive Spending Cut

Tigerhawk has the scoop.

Maybe the President could also take a hard look at another legislative body. But we don't anticipate that. Who knows what they'll come up with next?

Al Gore cancels Copenhagen appearance: Too late to save polar bears?

Re-cap of the ClimateGate controversy, with some historical background here. Tim Blair reports on tragic activists disappointed by Al Gore's cancellation of a personal appearance in Copenhagen. Quoting Mark Steyn:

It may well be that Warmergate has come along too late. I won’t pretend to know the motivations of Jones, Mann and their colleagues, but judging from recent eco-advertising their work appears to have driven worshippers at the First Church of the Settled Scientist literally insane. A new commercial shows polar bears dropping from the skies onto city streets and crushing the cars below …

As the ad explains, “An average European flight produces over 400 kg of greenhouse gases for every passenger. That’s the weight of an adult polar bear.”?Oooookay. It’s A Warmerful Life: every time they call your flight, a poley bear loses its wings.

Blair observes:

Meanwhile, tragic activists who’ve flown to Denmark in the hope of shaking Al Gore’s hand may have killed their share of bears for nothing:
Al Gore has canceled his $1,209-a-handshake appearance in Copenhagen.

Al Gore staunchly refused to debate anyone concerning global warming even before ClimateGate broke. Guess there's no chance of a debate now.

Steyn has a list (somewhat different from mine) concerning how the science became settled. Read the whole thing.

The science is so settled it’s now perfectly routine for leaders of the developed world to go around sounding like apocalyptic madmen of the kind that used to wander the streets wearing sandwich boards and handing out homemade pamphlets. Governments that are incapable of—to pluck at random—enforcing their southern border, reducing waiting times for routine operations to below two years, or doing something about the nightly ritual of car-torching “youths,” are nevertheless taken seriously when they claim to be able to change the very heavens—if only they can tax and regulate us enough. As they will if they reach “consensus” at Copenhagen. And most probably even if they don’t.

How did we reach this point? Ah, well. Like the proverbial sausage factory, you never want to look too closely at how the science gets settled.

He then gets kind of technical. And he considers the quality of the data with which the CRU was working to be an even greater scandal than their attempts to "hide the decline" - don't stop at the "how the science was settled" list.

The Deceiver website (Motto: Do as you say or we'll say what you do) broke the news about Gore's cancelled appearance, and also has some Global Warming news about Sting.

Tigerhawk on the "moral imperative" to stop global warming via control of the world's economy:

How about we do a bunch of easy stuff first with deregulation and money that is already committed, like making it a lot easier to build nuclear power plants and spending that "stimulus" money on a massive upgrade of electrical grid instead of repaving 12 miles of highway in each Congressional district? Maybe some experimental seeding of the Arctic atmosphere with reflective particulates. All cheap, reversible stuff that will give governments some chance to show competence.

No, really.

When you start with a massive transfer of wealth and an almost gleeful deconstruction of consumer capitalism, you are bound to trigger equally massive resistance, almost no matter how swell your science and how scary your predictions of catastrophe. That is so obvious, one is forced to wonder whether the real point is the massive transfer of wealth and the deconstruction of consumer capitalism.

60 Years of Communism in China

Interesting angle on the 60th anniversary of communism in China by Tim Blair. Follow the last link. Why does China now have so much money?

Remember, the parades and most of the other official celebrations were apparently "out of bounds" for the people, and the government brought in female models for the parades. There's some real image-consciousness in China these days. Diverts some of the attention from The Revolution's murderous past and not-entirely-glorious present. They're still pretty much in denial about Mao.

Update: Another group of marching military women here. Follow the link to photos of the big spectacle.

High Art

Maybe Hollywood needs to learn not to take itself so seriously.

UPDATE: By Hollywood "taking itself seriously", I mean things like movie mogul Harvey Weinstein saying,

Hollywood has the best moral compass, because it has compassion.

before getting all emotional about Roman Polanski winning the Legion of Honour in France, where the people have "incredible love and affection" for him. (Though current polls in France run about 70% in favor of Polanski's return to face the justice system. Maybe Weinstein is thinking instead of the love for Polanski among all the more "grown-up" and sophisticated intellectuals in France).

Allahpundit responds concerning the type of compassion shown in Weinstein's world. Actually, his crack is a bit harsh, I think. But Weinstein's high regard for the importance of "art" clearly figures into his support for Polanski.

Like many liberals, Weinstein's compassion likely flows toward the face he sees in his mind, Polanski's. His concern is for the immediate suffering of his friend rather than the non-immediate, though highly predictable, suffering of future child victims of "artists" if the rule of law regarding sexual abuse of minors is not respected. He probably really believes that he is being more compassionate than people who want to uphold the rule of law.

And Remember: Art belongs to the world. Polanski belongs to the world.

Weinstein also cited Hollywood fundraisers for disater victims as evidence of Hollywood's superior compassion. These are a good thing, but glitzy fundraisers are not more "compassionate" than the actions of those who donate money to the fundraisers with no recognition, or those who provide hands-on help.

Of course, it's often not possible for the denizens of Hollywood to be compassionate toward strangers in the way other people are compassionate toward strangers. It's too dangerous for them to leave a highly controlled environment - fans, paparazzi, etc. often interfere with normal compassionate actions of the famous.

Mark Steyn, naturally, puts it more pithily:

Let us agree that Hollywood bigshots have "compassion" for people in general, for people far away in a big crowd scene on the distant horizon, for people in a we-are-the-world-we-are-the-children sense. But Hollywood bigshots treat people in particular, little people, individuals, like garbage. To Polanski, he was the world, you are the children; now take your kit off and let's have a "photo shoot."

A parallel concern for Hollywood's image is the pictore of the "stage mother from hell" who signed permission for her 13-year-old daughter to participate in the "photo shoots".

Roger L. Simon reports his personal discomfort concerning other supporters of Polanski in Hollywood, where he works. Intellectuals in Europe have joined in, too. Steyn again:

France's Society of Film Directors warned that the arrest of such an important artist "could have disastrous consequences for freedom of expression across the world".

Really? For the past two years, I've been in a long and weary battle up north to restore "freedom of expression" to Canada. On Monday afternoon, in fact, I'll be testifying on this very subject at the House of Commons in Ottawa, if France's Society of Film Directors or Debra Winger would like to swing by. Please, don't all stampede at once. Ottawa Airport can only handle so many Gulfstreams. If only I'd known how vital child rape was to "freedom of expression," my campaign could have taken off a lot earlier. (emphasis mine)

Steyn also summarized the famous tragedies faced by Polanski during his life, and puts them in perspective.

Simon laments that the police did not act decades ago, so this sordid subject could have been dealt with when it was more appropriate. I wonder if the police were concerned about backlash from the liberal elite even back then? I'm not really certain of the timeline, but I believe that it was at about this time that a prominent leftist on the East Coast fled to France after having been charged with killing his girlfriend and stuffing her body in a trunk. He also had a lot of support on the Left. He lived a quiet life in a small town in France for many years before the law started to catch up with him. Funny how people like this can get other people to support them financially, too. One of the perplexities of life.

In the case of Polanski, it appears that pressure from both the Left and the Right may have affected how prosecutors and the judge acted. Prosecutors were rather lenient toward him at first, allowing him to plea to reduced charges with an agreement to submit to therapy. But then they seem to have decided they had to "do something" (due to public outcry) to make it look like they were not giving him special treatment. Polanski thought that he would be in for something more than 90 days in therapy. When he recently tried to get the charges dismissed, lawyers cited the laxity of prosecutors in trying to bring him to justice as a reason for dropping the charges altogether. Thereby almost forcing them to defend their reputations. Politics makes all sorts of situations more complicated.

Why good men and women inadvertently hurt each other

My first attempt at liveblogging:

Today on Dennis Prager's "Male/Female Hour", he is having a terrific conversation with Alison Armstrong, who normally concentrates on helping typical good women understand typical good men. She is very easy to listen to.

Today, she also explains to men things like the centrality of feelings to women, the "misdemeanor file" and the "rage monster".

When hurt, women often say they are "hurt" or that their feelings are hurt, while men are "crushed". Alison explains why.

Dennis: Men say "What did I do?"
Alison: And women say, "As if you didn't know". Because if he were a woman, he WOULD know.

Alison discusses the differences between men and women in terms of the "human animal" and the "spiritual animal". For example "women are not built to focus" (they CAN focus, but most of the time they don't walk around in a "focused" state). They typically have "diffuse awareness" unless they are in a situation where they need to focus. Women are aware of many things which are going on at the same time (which comes in especially handy when caring for small children). Men often don't understand this. They expect women to habitually focus like they do.

Dennis on all the things women think about at one time: "That's my theory, that if we got your brain for a day, we'd all kill ourselves". UPDATE: Listen here, starting at about 3:55. for a little back and forth on this topic.

Aside: I believe that I often think more like a man than does the typical woman - in some ways. But much of what Dennis and Alison are saying seems so obvious once it's pointed out. And I know that my awareness is "diffuse" much of the time. So I guess I still have a "girl brain".

Dennis: Some of the differences between men and women which are so pronounced today may be culturally enhanced. Whereas males are raised to control themselves and to fight their natures, females are often not expected to fight their natures at this time in American history. Alison agrees: "Women need to learn to control their inner cavewoman, just as men must control the inner caveman".

The only call taken this hour was listener "Bobby": "My God, Thank you that I am gay."

Dennis: I don't feel depressed when I talk about these differences with Alison. There are solutions to the problems caused by differences between men and women.

You can see a list of major topics and guests for Dennis' upcoming radio broadcast near the top of the page here, or listen to Dennis online here. You can order podcasts of specific shows (without commercials) here. Free audio highllights are here.

Other regular features each week (besides the Male/Female Hour) are the "Happiness Hour" and the "Ultimate Issues Hour". If you don't like the topic he's talking about during other hours he broadcasts, wait half an hour and tune in again. He discusses a wide range of issues with a wide variety of people.

I generally prefer to listen to Dennis talk with someone else on the radio rather than to read what he has written. I have the opposite reaction with some other people. I don't get too excited about him on TV, either, usually. Though if he and a conversation partner were allowed to talk freely without interference from a moderator, I think I would feel differently.

How to make conservatives less angry

A while ago, Frank J wrote about why liberals are still angry. Now he gives some advice to liberals (like Rachel Maddow, for example) about how to make conservatives less angry:

Liberals finally have a chance to block conservatives from government forever, but we can’t accomplish that if they’re always angry and keep trying to stop us. That’s why it’s important that we all do everything we can to stop conservative anger. I know many of you are already doing some of the items I outlined, but we need further efforts to stop this dangerous anger from crazy conservatives — anger which stems from them talking about the issues.

See if you don't find some handy tips at the link.

Are you a racist? What would a celebrity say?

Andrew Klavan explores racism, American culture and the current form of dominant liberalism.

Liberals have not been the same since the sixties, a decade of profound social changes. And putting aside the sad story linked, have you ever wondered why there is so much nepotism in Hollywood today? Don't they believe in Equal Opportunity in Hollywood?

On a more somber note, VDH laments the fact that the word "racism" has been devalued by frequent misapplication. And he believes that, ironically, President Obama's election has increased racial polarization:

As I wrote often, the election of the “healer” Barack Obama, I felt, would make racial relations worse, despite the bipartisan appreciation of his historical candidacy. Why? Obama had, by his voting record, proven the most partisan Senator in Congress. His career in Chicago was predicated on racial-identity politics. His 20-year membership in the racist Rev. Wright’s pulpit was predicated on the need for establishing street credibility and racialist credentials. I was not convinced by Michelle Obama’s campaign rhetoric that I was in error.

And his offhand remarks on race—more calls for victimization studies in the schools, calls for reparation (withdrawn when the media publicized them), and unfortunate slips, from the Pennsylvania stereotyping to “the typical white person” flippant, second-nature remark—did not disabuse me of that initial impression. Nor did Chris Matthews’ tingle or Newsweek’s “A god.”

In other words, I thought it would be very difficult for a candidate who had seen problems in terms of racial identity to transcend his past, however elegant and moving the rhetoric. In contrast, there are dozens of major black political figures, and, I believe, the vast majority of Americans of all races, who see race as incidental rather than essential to their personas.

Again, nothing these past nine months have persuaded me that my fears were misplaced. And now we witness a new development in which the serious and once legitimate word “racist/racism” tragically has lost all currency (despite the continual presence of racists and racism). In political discourse, it means nothing other than a tactical move to obtain political or careerist advantage. (By the same token, “Nazi” means nothing now either. It too has devolved from a descriptive term of a nightmarish philosophy that engineered the murder of 6 million and started a war that led to 50 million dead to a debating tool to end debate entirely).

ACORN: Advocates for "Social Justice" in Real Life

ACORN has been around for a long time. Serious problems have been reported in this organization for a long time. An idealistic cause does not guarantee ideal results. But good intentions, at this time in American history, are often viewed more favorably than good results, especially in the press.

Partly because its charter is so idealistic, ACORN has often successfully deflected legal challenges and serious scandals. Especially in its earlier years, it employed Alinsky tactics to coerce organizations (such as banks) to institute policies it promoted as furthering Social Justice. It posed a serious public relations threat to many organizations. No one wanted to be seen as persecuting advocates for Social Justice (as opposed to justice before the law). Few wanted to take on the powerful friends of ACORN in government and the unions. So the government grants kept coming despite serial scandals which came and went quickly in the news. ACORN developed a strategy of blaming its disadvantaged workforce for most of its ethical breaches.

ACORN's problems have long run much deeper than the "helping child sex slavers avoid taxes on a brothel" videos and multiple charges of voter registration fraud. But long-standing problems are getting new scrutiny now. Why are these champions of social justice covering up embezzlement, trying to get around minimum wage laws, mistreating disadvantaged employees, persecuting whistleblowers and failing to pay for employee health care? Etc. Since the prostitution videos, people are suddenly interested. Sad that it took something like that to generate interest. No wonder President Obama is taking the stance now that he has barely heard of the organization.

The IRS is finally breaking ties with ACORN.

Satire alert:

Frank J. Fleming writes political humor at IMAO.us and has always looked for an excuse to dress as a pimp, but never thought of "sting operation."

Jay Leno runs an ad for ACORN.

Lessons for College Activists: Why did the sting work?