D.K. SCHWARTZ"S BLOG

Debunking the "blacks are potrayed as all criminals on TV" argument

2009-06-02T06:21:00.000-07:00

Warning: if you are now attending a college with a gender studies program you may consider shouting this at a "Black Media Reprsenation" class.

In a vdare.com article about why blondes are always bad guys in movies the great Steve Sailer writes:

A more general question is why in movies and television, murderers are far more likely to be white (whether blond or brunette) than African-American—even though, according to the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics: "Blacks were 7 times more likely than whites to commit homicide in 2002."

One of my readers recently pointed out that with non-Hispanic whites accounting for only about ten percent of the violent crime in New York City, the three Law & Order television shows were likely to feature more fictional white New York murderers in 2005 than there will be actual white murderers in real life!

Another reader pointed out:

"In the first 24 episodes of Law & Order: Criminal Intent there's only one black murderer, and she is a corrupt police officer. Make of that what you will…"

Racial activist organizations like the NAACP constantly complain that minority actors have a hard time getting roles. For some reason, though, the NAACP never brings up the most obvious ways to increase the casting of blacks and Hispanics—by making the ethnic make-up of screen criminals more realistic.

There are unintended consequences to all these good intentions. Villains provide excellent roles that actors can sink their teeth into. But minorities seldom get those great Hannibal the Cannibal-type parts.

Unfortunately, African-American actors have long been held back by what's known as Ben Stein's Law. The mordant law professor, economist, screenwriter and game show host made an in-depth study in 1979 that revealed that in any Hollywood whodunit, the whitest, richest and most respectable character usually turns out to be the bad guy.

In Rush Hour 2, Chris Tucker updated Ben Stein's Law with his "Law of Criminal Investigation: Always follow the rich white man."

It appeared that the ice was breaking when Denzel Washington won the Oscar for playing the heavy in 2001's Training Day, a role based on Rafael Perez, the affirmative action-hire rogue cop whose criminality set off the LAPD's Rampart Scandal.

But little progress has been made since. Morgan Freeman, for example, first broke through to public notice playing a vicious pimp in 1987's Street Smart. However, he continues to get cast as the embodiment of saintliness, what Richard Brookhiser calls the "Numinous Negro"—as in Freeman's Oscar-winning but embarrassing role as the holy janitor in Million Dollar Baby.

In Batman Begins, Freeman portrays an inventor—another weird Hollywood racial cliché. Just as judges are so often played by black women, Hollywood has decided that technogeeks must be portrayed by black men, the more improbable the better, as in burly Ving Rhames being the computer nerd in the "Mission Impossible" movies.

Clearly, political correctness damages black actors' careers. Because it would be “racist" for movies to show blacks as killers, since that would support the "stereotype" that blacks commit more homicides than whites, they are denied the good roles as bad guys.

And to counter the "stereotype" that black men aren't as interested as other races in computers, they get force-fed into playing nerds.

The results of 45 years of good hearted unconstionality and Black Over-repsnation

2009-06-02T05:53:00.000-07:00

Startling data on black overeprsenation i found in this brillant Paul Craig Roberts vdare.com article from August 06, 2002 with the slightly alarmist title "Abolishing America (contd.): Do Whites Have Rights?":

"The ink was hardly dry on the 1964 Civil Rights Act before an EEOC bureaucrat, Alfred W. Blumrosen, illegally and unconstitutionally subverted the statutory purpose of the law. Judicial complicity and congressional distraction enabled Blumrosen to redefine discrimination from a purposeful action against an individual to the absence of proportional representation regardless of discriminatory intent.

Thus did Blumrosen originate the system of race and gender privileges known as quotas that are thoroughly institutionalized throughout the government, private industry, and universities.

Racial quotas are so firmly entrenched that quotas prevail even in states where federal district courts have ruled against them and referendums have made them illegal.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act has been illegally enforced for 37 years. The result is a massive system of race and gender discrimination against white males in order to achieve proportional representation of racial minorities and women.

Now comes an astonishing report from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management: “Annual Report to Congress, Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program, Fiscal Year 2000,” released in April 2002. [You can read it on Adversity.net, an anti-preference organization that fights for victims of reverse discrimination, with analysis and comment. The original government version may be found here.]

This report to Congress makes brutally clear that despite the “equal opportunity” name of the program, the purpose of the federal program is to make certain there is no equal opportunity for whites in federal employment.

The report uses tables and bar charts to make unmistakably clear that federal discrimination against whites goes far beyond merely achieving proportional representation for blacks. In all 22 independent federal agencies and in 16 of 17 federal executive departments, blacks are massively overrepresented.

In the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (sic) blacks comprise 46.4 percent of the employees. The “affirmative action” or racial quota target for proportional representation (percent in Relevant Civilian Labor Force) for the EEOC is 6.4 percent black employees.

Blacks are thus overrepresented in EEOC employment by 625 percent!

And the EEOC is the federal agency that is supposed to enforce equal employment opportunity.

Blacks are overrepresented in the National Science Foundation by 504.7 %; in the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. by 538.7 %; in the Securities and Exchange Commission by 452.1%; in the Smithsonian Institution by 452.1%, in the Federal Communications Commission by 370.1%; in the Social Security Administration by 263.5%; in the Commodity Futures Trading Commission by 375%; in the Office of Personnel Management by 286.7%; and so on.

In cabinet departments, blacks are overrepresented in Department of Education employment by 464.7%; in Department of Labor by 254%; in HUD by 383%; in Treasury by 176%; in Department of Justice by 106%; in Department of State by 165%; and so on.

The push is now on in the federal government to achieve comparable overrepresentation for Hispanics and females.

If these two “minorities” achieve similar overrepresentation, there will be no room for white males in the federal government.

Did you know that the federal government pays its managers “superbonuses” for hiring, training, and promoting nonwhites? According to a lawsuit filed against the Secretary of Energy by DOE employees, a DOE boss, Anibal Taboas, staffed the Argonne National Laboratory with minorities, while reassigning white males to dead end jobs where they could be terminated under reduction in force polices.

For this achievement, the lawsuit says Mr. Taboas received thousands of dollars in bonuses.

Note that no one in the government intervenes in behalf of white males who suffer discrimination, not President Bush, no congressional committee chairman, certainly not the Justice Department or the EEOC.

Today in the United States white people have no political representation. Whites have to struggle in the courts against government opposition to claim any resemblance to equal rights.

Explicit government policies have made whites second class citizens. Whites are a dispossessed majority in their own country.

Why did the white majority allow themselves to be stripped of the equal protection clause of the Constitution? Why do whites remain loyal to the political parties that took away their rights?"

Another hidden outrage.

All the MSM wants you to know about Sotomayor:she's a non-white male from brooklyn.

2009-06-02T04:21:00.000-07:00

the media is full of highly unorginal people. Especially liberals, they all just repeat the same meme and never more than on Sotomayor.

The main meme on her goes as follows:

"it's going to be really hard for the republicans to challendge the Sotomayor nomination. They really don't have much to oppose her on."

and every time i hear this i clench my fists (this is also why i try never to listen to NPR) and for the following reasons i do:

YOU SHOULD NOTICE 2 THINGS ABOUT THIS STATEMENT:

one: SUCH a statement almost always comes from a liberal who in talking about Sotomoayor will not even see fit to mention a word of her manifestly intresting, consquential and revealing Ricci vs. Deangelo ruling in anything but the vaguest and most brief terms. It's no accident that they don't ever tell people what that case is about, cause her descion in it (and there positions on it) is outragous to the overwhelming majority of people.

two: Anyways you will always notice too that said people will usually not exsplain why the GOP has little to go against her on or if they do give reason(s) why she will be hard to oppose they will say because "she a latino women from the bronxs".

Her race and her gender is about all the MSM and liberals will say about her.

Not in one-one!-media NPR or TV report on Sotomayor have i heard mention of her any ruling she's made!

Aparently liberals really only think the important thing that people should know about Sotomayor is her race, gender and hometown. For most of the rest of us we would rather know about what kind of judge she is. But i guess this is the fundmental difference between those who are for putting race ahead of merit and those who find that dishonorable. I guess they believe we should select our firefighters and supreme court justice on race too!

The ugly reality of how the unknown civil rights movements has stripped Americans of basic liberity & given America the laws of a Bannana Republic

2009-05-27T20:46:00.000-07:00

I'm like a sucker at the momement.

Why?
Well i'll tell but the reason why may shock you and may hopeful demolish some of the largest myths you have.

The reason why is that i've been reading Steve Sailer's brillant writing on Sotomayor and Ricci and "disparate impact" and rapidly i see one after another, the most basic freedoms that are non existent today as a result of that holyiest of holy entitys The Civil Rights Movement. It's nearly as much of a third rail to speak uncoventionally about as the Holacaust is. But i following Orwells adage, will have the integrity to follow reason anywhere no matter how unpopular a place. So out with: The greatest myth in american society today is that of the "holy"Civil Rights Movement that keeps on-a-chugging today not fighting any real discrimination or racism but doing all it can to make America's claim to be a land of colorblind freedome and justice look like a terrible joke.

(don't worry i will get to exsplaining why)

Where i went to school, the civil rights movement was taught a 100 times more than the founding, Kig might as well have been Washington, Malcolm X John Adams.
But oddly they basically just hammered into us again and again the same images and basics-"i have a dream", ruby bridges walking into school, roots the movie, harriet tubman and the underground railroad.

IN the end as me and my piers leave high school i realize how we really were never even taught about the civil rights movement just the fantasty. LBJ was never mentioned, the civil rights bills were not exsplained, busing neither, and certainly not any talk of the curtailed basic liberitys and never any discussion of why people like William f. Buckley and Barry Goldwater opposed unconstuitional civil rights laws, my piers don't even know who either men are nor of any "constuitional issue in regard to civil rights laws". And i know now for ceratian there terrible education on this so called civil rights movement (that for some reason only took rights away) was not a accident. To produce hordes of children with a entireely facile view of the civil rights movement is good for the left and its agenda. They prodice adolcents who know nothing about the civil rights movements laws, nor why many whites were angered by forced and unconstuitional integration and don'tt even know what "busing" is. Rather the see the civil rights movement literally in black and whites, good vs. evil, northern liberal angels and minoritys vs. evil southern republicans (they don't about the dixiecrats).This false version of the civil rights movement is taught like the liberal creation myth, which solifidys the totally rigtousness of the left and the instinstic dark racist motives of the right forver in young impressionable adolcents minds.

For kids to be taught about the actual civil rights movement is something the left must avoid occuring by all means. The 60's fantasy they teach like sunday school t eachers tecahing scripture, covers up the wholly opposite reality of what the civil rights movement was really like.

King is symbolic as the indivdual diety of this deified movement, for those "extremist" facts about his life show his deification to be just as false. I should not here that in saying that King and the movement he was figurehead of are not the dietys we known them both as, i am not then claiming either to be absolutely bad or amoral but human and mixed like most people and things, gray rather than all white or all black. There is the life MLK lead that we all know and were taught endlessly and not very well but his actual life is rather different and his full collection of views drawl a quite different picture than the diety laid before everyday children.
In reality he was not a saint but a plagarist, a adulterer, a supporter of large scale legalized racism, a likely private communist, a non-believer in numerous basic rights and freedoms enshrined by the constuition and a hypocritical preacher who lived as a rabid adulterer after church (the FBI tapped his rooms and recorded his fallandering on the day of his death he beded multiple women and was recording shoutied "i'm f*** for jesus!"). Copious friends of MLK say (most with glee) that he was probably a closet communist and many of his closet friends and partners claim that he confessed to being one in private. The fact that some of his closest associates were Soviet connected communist party USA leaders and that he had apaulling tolitrian (soviet like) views on wealth distrubition, taxes, and other matters suggest that MLK if not a secret pro-communists was pretty close to being so. As for his support of large scale legalized racism: it wouldn't suffice to merely exsplain that he longed for extreme tolytrian racial quoatas without specficying how extreme the quoata's he favored were: he once said that if a city had a 40 percent "negro" population that then "negros" should then rightly hold 40 percent of jobs in companys in that city.

The glaring contrast between the real MLK and the mythical MLK, when the full facts are reviwed, reflects the same contradiction betweem the civil rights movement myth propogated in public schools and the civil rights movement of reality.

Where are the magical fruits of this so called movement for basic rights? where are these new rights?

(Before i answer those 2 questions let me say that the improvement in race relations and the living consditions of african americans has been a unqaulfied good.)

But where are these new civil rights?

The sad answer is that the Civil Rights Movement produced no new rights (unless i missed them) only took away rights.

For 45 years now the 1964 Civil Rights Act has been illegally enforced. Those 45 years of good hearted unconstuitionality has resulted in a massive system of race and gender discrimination against white males in order to achieve proportional representation of racial minorities and women among other causes of white guilt.

Thanks to the Civil Rights Movement:

1. you no longer have the right-as a business owner-to not let romanians (or any minority group or gender) into your store if you don't like romanians (for whatever reason). a rather basic right, me thinks?

2. if your a bank, you no longer can give loans to whom ever you want, you can and will recieve massive discrimination lawsuites if you do not give enough loans to blacks compared to whites

3. you no longer, can treat female and male employees that differently.

4. if you do not hire enough black people you may be also recieve a discrimination lawsuite.

5. the goverment can force your kid to be bused 40 miles away to a inner city school instead of the neigborhood school down the block and parents can do nothing about it.

How strangely Orwellian it is to find that the legacy of the civil rights movement is not more liberity and freedom but the stripping of the most basic rights and freedomes and an a imposition of a new rigourous kind of legalized racism that digs deeper and deeper into places Legalized racism do not belong (not that it belongs anywhere).

Getting to know Barack and Sonya vol 1.

2009-05-27T15:17:00.000-07:00

Liberals when even they can't defend there leaders judicial rulings in the Ricci case and beyond commonly resort to simply saying "well it's really a tuff and complicated and.." and most people will unthinkingly kindly nod in agreement. But these cases are incredibly simple and clear cut that 3rd graders get them-some of these case that is, the most outragous ones.

For instance, here's a message i sent to my face newsletter chain:

you may have noticed that California-the state with the massive poor latino population that the whole USA will also have soon-is in giant debt and falling apart.

You may have wondered like many other sencible Americans: "why don't they just stop paying billions out that they don't have paying to provide there huge illegal alien population 1. free health care 2. free K-12 education 3. free financial aid and 4. free welfare and unemployment services and so fourth?"

Well, actually California in the late 90's voted to ban their billions of hard earned tax dollars from going to illegal aliens, but something happened .In the eyes of Barack Obama and Sonya Sotomayor and the liberal supreme court justices, the "evil" that was this refusal to give illegals billions had to be stopped by any means.

So Obama (who has worked as "constuitional" law professor) and his supreme court pick Sotomayor, supported the Supreme Court in ignoring the most basic rights of both states and citizens, and DECLARING A STATE'S PEOPLE VOTING NOT TO GIVE THEIR MONEY AWAY TO ILLEGAL ALIENS "UNCONSTUITIONAL".

You hopefully are asking yourselves "is he joking?" now. Well indeed i'm not this actually happened. There are actually americans 2 of which are the current president and his supreme court nominee WHO THINK THAT ILLEGAL ALIENS RECIEVING BILLIONS OF TAX DOLLARS THROUGH FREE STATE RUN SERVICES MEANT ONLY FOR CITIZENS IS A RIGHT ENSHRINED IN THE CONSTUITION.

That statement alone can't stand up on its own two feet but in case you want me to back it up a little here's just a few points:

Illegal aliens didn't recieve the state run services made and paid for by citizens up until atleast at earliest the 1960's. If it was a clear "right enshrined in the constuition why did 1.not one illegal recieve free tax payer paid for service for the first 190 years of the USA's existence? 2. has anyone including the founders up until the 90's argued that illegals have a "constuitional right" to receieve tax dollars? does illegal status mean essentially nothing? and finally where in our constuition is this right enshrined?

A 3-PART MEDIATION ON SOTOMAYOR, SOFT TYRANNY, LEGAL RACISM & HAVING A PRESIDENT WHO DOESN'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT THE CONSTUITION AND HIS MEDIA MINIONS

2009-05-27T04:04:00.000-07:00

PART 1: EXCLUSIVE EMPATHY

well that emphathy post/prediction of mine was dead on wasn't it? Obama picked Sotomayor.

So "empathy" really is obvious code for not giving a damn about the constuition, and making outragous descions that most all americans deplore, denying citizens of the states the right to vote to ban illegals receieving their money, putting race before merit in regard to promoting firefighters and other such contests that should have nothing to do with race, just to name a few things this newest liberal euphism is code for.

As far as real empathy goes-the kind defined in the dictionary-Sotomayor and Obama do have alot for some people (or should i say some colors?) and none for others.

For example if your a white firefighter in New Haven who works hard studying for a test needed for a promotion to captain in a firehouse and you receive out of 70 plus test takers the 7th best score on that test (which would automaticly make you a captain) Sotomayor and Obama have no empathy for you at all.

No they don't give a damn about you at all. Well actually they do they care about you NOT PASSING AND NOT BEING PROMOTED INSTEAD OF PEOPLE WITH BLACK SKIN.

But Obama and Sotomayor do have their special brand empathy ready for you if your a black firefighter in New Haven.
If you didn't study enough for the test for promotion to firefighter captain and you get the worst score out of 70 plus test takers, Obama and Sotomayor, want to make sure you-rather than a white firfighter like the one above who passed the test-get that promotion cause of slavery, and jim CRowe and blah, blah, blah.
And in the rest of the similiar endevours in your life that seemingly require purely merit base copmeition, Sotomayor and Obama will always be there for you and your black brothers like some kind of gaurdian angels, appearing as testtime begins and with a wink and a smile lowering the bar just for you and hightening that bar right back up again when you've cleared it and it's the crackers turn and you've already gotten your job, your promotion, your acceptance letter, your award, your special treatment and your honorable mention.

PART 2: WHY THE COVERAGE OF SOTOMAYOR SHOULD SCARE YOU & HOW FAR WILL THEY GO FOR HIM? HOW FAR WILL HE GO FOR "JUSTICE"? & A RENUION WITH BRITIAN

Oh and don't forget those of us, Sotomayor and Obama, not only have no empathy for but no tolerance for, those americans who dare to write and/or speak negativly of their special "empathy" and their racist laws. If Sotomayor and Obama where to get their way-there's a good chance seeing what the media the media that informs the public has deformed to- that your website, your blog, your article, could be shut down. This has already happened in Britian, where Scotland Yard urges citizens through advertisments online to notify them not if you come across a mugging or prostuition but if you coe across or hear about "right wing extremist" websites.

We already see the soft tryanny and banning of free special that is law in newly multicultral Britian and Canada seeping into America and Sotomayors confirmation will undoubtly be a big step towards bringing the notorious "human rights tribunals" of Canada to America.

Programs like NetNanny that hotels and schools and parents use to block inapprarite sites (e.g. porn sites) from adolcents now block sites like Mark Steyn's personal website and NRO.com, respectivly the biggest conservtive website of the most mainstream conservtive magazine and the and one it's most famous writers (National Reviews colmunists no doubt). If National Review is labeled a "hate site" and blacked by NEtnanny, the whole conservtive sphere of opinion is blocked as i'm sure it is if you just try t o enter takimag.com, chronicles.com, weeklystandard.com, humanevents.com and so on.

And then ofcourse there is the memo Obama's CIA sent out (with his incentive) that asked citizens and authoritys to watch out for "right wing extremist groups" who may center around the issues of "abortion and/or immgration".

And really-one must ask, and reporters will never ask-Obama and/or Sotomayor, if your willing to deny Ricci the promotion he earned because no blacks passed, what principle of restraint is there to stop you from shutting down websites that you or the Southern POverty Law Center or LA RAZA OR the ACLU says "promotes hate against a group"?

It is hard for us conservtives-who see the persuction of a Ricci or a Mark Steyn in Canada or Geert Wilders in the Netherlands as shameful-to even believe or suspect fellow americans on the left to see such soft tryanny and loss of the freedome of free speech differently.

What really has scared me and made me look at the words that say "Soon to be banned in Canda" on the cover of Mark Steyn's America Alone differently about Obama's selection of Sotomayor is the how the media has covered it all as Obama's minions: repeating over and over Obama's official Sotomayor talking point about "her story", and the other infuraitingly dishonest assigned talking point about how "Sotomayor is hardly liberal" so much so the GOP really has nothing to say against her and awhile in these NPR and ABC and CNN segments "on Sotomayor" never even mention anything but biography and her superb affirmtive action credentials, not one mention of any of her descions nor any utterance of the name Ricci.
Everyone has know for awhile now (except apparently MediaMatters.com) that the media has a liberal bias and even bigger pro- Obama bias, bias' which are startling to those few of us who know of the news that NPR, ABC and the rest of the MSM knowingly ignore, distort or gloss over. But the unknown thing has always been for me atleast:how far will they go for this guy?
I thought there bare coverage of Rev. Wright (the ny times mention rev. wright for the 1st time 5 months after the fact) showed that if forced to by the fear that they can't get away with ignore and supressing news bad for obama they would cover it with extra liberal bias. But after Rev. Wright-as CHristopher Hitchens said-the media felt guilty for even covering Rev. Wright and resolved not to do so again. And everything since Rev. Wright suggests the well connected Hitchen's word is right.
The Uniformity o the MSM's Coverage of Sotomayor pretty much soldifies that if there is a news-story (a unusually intresting poltical story to average people as the Ricci case is) the MSM will simply shamefully not mention it. And worst of all there is no real consquence, the disserviced public knows not what they're not beiing told about Sotomayor and Obama views, and the MSM scoundrels doing there part for TEAM OBAMA don't hear the rigetous denuciations coming from the Limbaugh and Taki T. and the rest of the few of us left that know what the hells going on called consertives.
We'll see when other Ricci like scandals such as Card Check and The fairness doctrine come along again about how far the MSM will go. BUt as of now, the MSM has shown that it will do whatever it takes and supress whatever it takes for Obama and as long as that true OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS REALLY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT. Even with 60 or 61 democratic senate seats, with a left slanted media of the BUsh years the MSM would atleast cover big bills that the Dem's would have passed. And knowing that there will be MSM coverage and thus somekind of citizen reaction, enough democrats would have voted against disgraceful bills like amnesty and the fairness doctrine in fear of losing their seat and in doing so stopped such scandals from crossing over from liberal scheme into American law.
BUt now that the MSM has shown how deep its love is for there man by actually ignoring stories and bills like Ricci and the fairness doctrine, those few worried Democratic Senators that would have blocked a Fairness Doctrine in fear won't now that there is nothing for them to fear.

And so the next question, now that it seems Obama can do whatever he wants without major recourse, is HOW FAR WILL OBAMA GO?

PART 3:STATUS AND POLTICS VOL 1.: WHITES WHO DON'T CARE ABOUT RICCI & LEGALIZED ANTI-WHITE DISCRIMINATION AND THE REASON WHY

And the whites i know for the most part -who are the midwestern versions of the people in the west who decide what movies get made and right there anti-american scripts and of those in east who run the mainstream media with the journalstic intregrity and objectivty of Obama P.R. people- they don't give a damn about Ricci and affirmtive action and quoatas and so on, even when you personalize this legalized racism with the heart renching story of a Ricci, which is odd right?

Well in almost any other group on earth it would be very odd if it were ever to happen, indifference towards systematic discrimination agaginst your good group in employment and oppurtinty would be quite odd.
For a group-catholics, luddites, conservtives, blacks, hawians, watever group it may be- to be not indifferent but to support EXSPLICIT LEGALIZED DISCRIMINATION AGAINST YOUR GROUP is bizarre.

But among white americans-unlike any other such group i know of- i know of, it is not hard to find many of this group, white americans, that are indifferent and even indeed open supporters even vigorous promoters for systematic legalized discrimination against white americans.

Can anyone point towards a latino advocate to have to do better than blacks to get into in the same school?
Ofcourse you can't, cause what kind of sane group of people or just sane person wants to be discriminated against in law when they try to get into a college, get a job, or get a promotion?

So i guess many whites males are insane, they're also liberals.

When i talk about Ricci and the like to liberals they usually ask "why do you even care?", "how does affirmtive action effect you?". The questions would suggest they don't what affirmtive action is, but the reason they ask that question to me-a white male-is because they pity minoritys so much, and are so non-threatned by blacks professionals and indeed are so unfimiliar with blacks in their careers, that when these liberal elites say "what has affirmtive action done to you?" they are really saying "c'mon, you know that affirmtive action and such is just charity to minority, it's just another hand out, so we'll let 2 blacks kids go to Princetown who wouldn't have been able to on their own merit, whats the big deal with that?"

To not be threatned or offended by racist anti-white legal discrimination with most all liberal elite positions has it's status element aswell. To be in different to affirmtive actiona nd quotas and so fourth shows-such liberal elites think- how secure they are in their own careers, that they don't have to worry about compeition on uneven ground.

It's those "embarsing" whites on the perphirery-the coal miners, firefighters, truck drivers, sales clerks like Ricci-who are outraged by Leglaized Anti-white racism, liberal elites believe (somewhat correctly) and whatever those whites do or think or like, elite whites instinvily do the opposite, especially poltically.

Schwartz's rule-the newest poltical rule

2009-05-20T15:17:00.000-07:00

Schwartz's Rule

It seems that long ago a memo was sent out through the corridors of all of the kingdome of the Mainstream Media (aka the liberal media) that informed the satelliates of news organization that make of the MSM-NPR, ABC, CNN, etc-that the only Republicans allowed a place in the mainstream media had to be leftwing pro-life Republicans who has broken ranks with conservtives in some very public way and whom a large portion of the GOP despises.

David Frum (who i like but feel is sometimes misguided and too PC), seems to be the token conservtive 3 places at once everyday. Isn't it odd that he became so suddenly ubiqtous after he rightly called Sara Palin out as a joke who needs to go back to Alaska. He's the new conservtive David that the liberals love.

The other conservtives allowed to particpate in the Mainstream Media (though of only to perform the role of pussyfooting PC republican bunchbags) are Ross Douthat (the new ny times columnist, Katherine Parker (WaPo colmunist and a truthteller on Palin, who wrote a great book called "Save the Males" last year), and ofcourse David Brooks (who it isn't clear,is not currently a democrat i should add).

What is "emphathy"?

2009-05-13T23:01:00.000-07:00

When Obama says he wants a supreme court justice with "empathy", no informed person wonders for a second what "empathy" is code for. Euphimism is the liberals trademark and we all have become keen deciphery of there gasy pussyfooted rhetoric intermingled with there laughable new age academic jargon.

By saying he wants a justice with empathy-he is saying that he wants a justice that supports racial quotas, discrimination lawsuites, busing, and who doesn't give a damn for a constuition when they feel they need to do "good".

But does Mr. Ricci deserve any empathy, or is that reserved just for gays and minoritys?

Currently, Mr.Ricci- a dsxyelic who cannot read-is fighting afront the supreme court not to be given a job because of race, or to bankrupt a corporation for someone saying something "racist" to him in the hall, he's not fighting for any advanatage at all because of his race or disability, he's fighting to be treated like everyone else.

In America-the law does not treat everyone equally and is no way able to be called "color blind". We have legalized racism-the "good kind of racism", you may opine- but racism nonetheless. And this new legalized racism has human face:The Dsylexic Mr. Ricc.i

Has conventional wisdom been stoned for 50 years? and Bringing Bob Dylan down to size

2009-05-09T00:58:00.000-07:00

Once our parents die away,future generations won't get why people thought Bob Dylan or Jackson Pollock or Warhol were "extraordinary", infact they'll think conventional wisdom during the last 50 yrs quite bad, which makes sence cause hardly anyone in that time has been educated or not had there brain mashed by weed. no dis to potheaders but why are u paying so much to essentially go to bed and eat a box of pop tarts?

this was a status i came up with tonight.
i did because i read that Bob Dylan had a new album (one which i'm sure is automaticly being called "great").

Bringing Dylan Down to Size

If there is anyone those damn babyboomers will bow to it's Bob Dylan (and now also probably Obama). He is treated as diety, and has been compared to Zeus many time in fact.

This slavish auto-adoration that americans of a certain age practice, may be one of the few religouns thriving todays. We get to see how this mindlessness everytime Dylan puts out a record.

Look he's written some great stuff. Blood on the tracks, "all over the watch tower","as went out one morning" , "lovesick", "things have changed", "the death of hattie carell", "gates of eden" "you belong to me" are beatiful creations. And in reality Dylan is one of the best solo artists living in american music (which in fact there are very few) .

The bizarre things that one beholds about Dylanmania, once you listen to Blood on the Tracks which is from the 70's and/or "things have changed" (from late 90's), is that his most criticaly renowned and famous songs like "times are a changing", "ballad of a thin man", "hard rain", "like a rolling stone" are not only some of worse material but not very enjoyable to listen at all.

Everyone under 40 i know-when asked- have agreed to this sentiment and profession being as baffled as me at how overated Dylan is.

His famed period-the period that supposed to be his "prime"-from 64 to 1969 is not that good.

I often wonder if people think of that period as his golden era just because 64-69 was his best era of being photographed. AT it's heart the dylan phenmnon is really kind of just about image and coolness and having a cool icon to reflect how right the hippys cause was. He did look cool then and his inwardness and rebellious nature led people to call him a "genius" and a "poet" of the magnitude of Keats.

Warhol irrelvant

The fact that noone can do a "warhol" since Warhol makes some think he must have been great. BUt he isn't. Andy Warhol could easily have just become a intresting and innovative t-shirt designer, putting his silk screen "art" on t-shirts rather than canvas'. He would have been a noteworthy one. But he put his blown up phographs on canvas-large ones too and unfunatly rather than saying correctly that Warhol has "style", people say he's "a master".

There is this odd thing in the artworld (in part cause everyone in it seems to be a corrutaor of some sort) where artworld denizens can call artists "great" or not talk about them.

Anyways, Warhol's stuff are not moving at all, they do not make anyone(not on drugs) want to stare at them for 30 minuetes, they are not beatiful.

These people who go on and on about the symbolism of the cambells soup can are daft as hell. You don't have to have some great symbolism in mind about "the democracy of american consumerism" to have the idea of pianting a soup can.

BUt anyways, what he did took no effort and it shows. His art is heratless, no emotion exspressed. Just gloss, mindless gloss. You look at it and say "huh thats funny he just drew a dollar over and over again" and then you turn away after 3 seconds.

Warhol presonifys the mindless phenoma of getting good press for getting good press, his gallery owner calls him the greatest artist of the 200th century, so someone who lives in greenich village says, and on and on, the mindless conventional wisdom travels like the plague.
As photoshops grows more hispopularity will decline, people will see what a hoax it all was his "genius" that is.

Though he was cool and smart and funny as hell and stylish.

Guess what living person Alec Baldwin most admires?

2009-05-08T13:25:00.000-07:00

My oh my, what things you do find on the last page of Vanity Fair:

ALEC BALDWIN took the Proust Questionnaire,

"VANITY FAIR: Which living person do you most admire?

ALEC BALDWIN: MICHELLE OBAMA"

This is rather unbelivable. is it not? The whole thing reeks of desperate white guilt. We know what this white man's white burden is.

If only VF's next question where "really, Alec?"

i would guess that Alec's riposte would go something like this:

"do you know what it's like to be a black women in this country? do you know the hardship Michelle like all black women endure every single day?! she worked her way up by her bootstraps against the racist tide to PRinceton UNviersity! everyone always told her 'no', 'no you can't do it michelle' your not good', and yet she overcame it all!"

How deep is your white guilt?

If it were up to the media and the celebrity class and perhaps democrats, Michelle would have been crowned along time ago.We'd have the queen's jubilee down the Potomac,

I can see the scene: michelle waving her queen wave with her black silk gloves on, as her boat thraashes its way down the potomac, we would all bow, as the boat past, the boat of course would not be playing any "star splangled banner" racist nonsence, but rather some Public Enemy, maybe "the revoultion will not be televised". And inside queen Obama's boat, is a salon of Rev WRight and Farhkan and Chuck D, some "Ebony" Staff writers, Barak, Beyonce, Usher, sipping on vodka tonics.

But is this any suprise? OFcourse the media and white liberals love Michelle Obama. She's got it all.

1. She's Black.

Which alone alone makes her good, pure, victimized, and a hero. Also it means that when she reads Martin Amis (which i doubt she does, unlike the book worm Laura Bush who had lunch with Amis in London) it's about 30 times more impressive than when a white person reads Amis, like say the book worm Laura Bush who had lunch with Amis in London.

2. She despises America (atleast up until 2007 for some reason).

As Chris Hitchens has shown at the liberal Slate.com, she's the one who-more than Barak-was into the black liberation, anti-american, anti-white, Rev WRight stuff. Her Princeton "thesis" which Hitchens said is "unreadable" is Rev WRight style ditribe against white america/america. She ofcourse has never been proud of America outside of it electing Barak. She thinks America "a mean" country. And thats just what she's said at campiagn rallys, you can guess what she says in private about America.

3. She's got everything in her life from affirmtive action (outside her husband).

Affirmtive Action gave Michelle not only a place in the Ivy League but a career afterwards. (This is not a uncommon thing, think of how many affirmtive action Ivy leaguers went on to become hack black studies professors.)
She got a unearned place at Princeton, where she produced a "unreadable" according CHristopher HItchens, black liberationist thesis. She then got a career shutting down hospitals and companys with bogus discrimination lawsuites aka she made her money suing places for not hiring enough people with the right skin pigment. What a noble proffesion, obvilously Alec Baldwins thinks it so.

Is this the life of the most admirable person on earth?

But apparently, aids workers, and charity founders, have nothing on people who make money enforcing racial quotas on private insuitions, suing banks for not giving enough loans to blacks, and companys for not hiring enough blacks.

Is this a joke?

I wonder what Alec thinks about Mr. Ricci in the Ricci case? is he the most deplorable person living?

This is just more proof of how mad babyboomers have become.

Obama is a liar and a enemy of black educational advancment

2009-05-05T10:42:00.000-07:00

Why, Barak? why?

watch

http://www.reason.tv/video/show/777.html

http://www.reason.tv/picks/show/771.html

It's settled: obama is a fucking liar. and the kids of DC should spit in his goddamn face.

this is shameful. and our terrible media has yet to ask him about it! yet they will ask about his new dog!

A NEW LOW: my first blog comment battle (though i do triumph)

2009-05-05T10:39:00.000-07:00

The action went down like this at matt ygelisas' blog (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/05/sonia-sotomayors-iq.php/comment-page-3#comment-1590319):

daniel schwartz Says:
May 5th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
can the people who support Sotomayor, please also say

that they:

1. support suing banks for not giving “enough” loans to minoritys and find such action constuitional.

2. support throwing out the results of tests firefighters take because they don’t like the lack of passing minoritys scores and find such action constuitional.

3. That they believe it’s unconstuitional for californians to vote to pass a proposition that would deny tax dollars to go to illegal imgrants.

stand up tall and pride!
Barbar Says:
May 5th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
How do borderline illiterates wind up with opinions about who belongs on the Supreme Court?
SLC Says:
May 5th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Re Daniel Schwarz

Should one pay any attention to a fucking asshole like Mr. Schwarz who can’t even spell constitution? A visit to Mr. Schwarzs’ website (which I don’t recommend as it recalls visits to Don Blacks’ stormfront website) shows a bigoted shithead who hates Latinos.
daniel schwartz Says:
May 5th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
great arguments guys!

you really made serious arguments, didn’t you?

why don’t you address somethin besides my lack of spellchecking?

how bout’ some actually arguments? how about you tell me how i’m wrong? tell me about why the mayor of new haven is right? etc.
joe s Says:
May 5th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Would not a measure of her “brilliance” be the proportion of times her decisions are upheld or reversed at the next level compared to her peers(Sorry, I am not American and not sure if the next level is the USSC)

Now that would seem to be a qualitative metric
SLC Says:
May 5th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Re Daniel Schwarz

How about Mr. Schwarz go fuck himself.
daniel schwartz Says:
May 5th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
you are so brillant SLC

you really are such a great debater, so intellectual, not the slightest ad hominem out of you

i guess your to embarssed to pubicly affirm your absurd racist views, your fervent support for racial quotas, suing banks for not giving enough loans to black people.

but if you can’t defend yourself just call someone a racist, right?

Deciphring liberal bullshit

2009-05-05T10:03:00.000-07:00

don't you love that gasy liberal talk?

Obama on how he wants "empathy" in a supreme court justice:

"I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving as just decisions and outcomes. I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role. I will seek somebody who shares my respect for constitutional values on which this nation was founded, and who brings a thoughtful understanding of how to apply them in our time."

TRANSLATION:

Obama wants a justice that:

1. supports suing banks for not giving “enough” loans to minoritys and find such action constuitional.

2. supports throwing out the results of tests firefighters take because they don’t like the lack of passing minoritys scores and find such action constuitional.

3. That they believe it’s unconstuitional for californians to vote to pass a proposition that would deny tax dollars to go to illegal immgrants.

P.S.

on Matt Ygelisas. think progress blog i wrote in regard to a post on Sotomayor

daniel schwartz Says:
May 5th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
can the people who support Sotomayor, please also say

that they:

1. support suing banks for not giving “enough” loans to minoritys and find such action constuitional.

2. support throwing out the results of tests firefighters take because they don’t like the lack of passing minoritys scores and find such action constuitional.

3. That they believe it’s unconstuitional for californians to vote to pass a proposition that would deny tax dollars to go to illegal imgrants.

stand up tall and pride!

the responces:

Barbar Says:
May 5th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
How do borderline illiterates wind up with opinions about who belongs on the Supreme Court?
SLC Says:
May 5th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Re Daniel Schwarz

Should one pay any attention to a fucking asshole like Mr. Schwarz who can’t even spell constitution? A visit to Mr. Schwarzs’ website (which I don’t recommend as it recalls visits to Don Blacks’ stormfront website) shows a bigoted shithead who hates Latinos.
daniel schwartz Says:
May 5th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
great arguments guys!

you really made serious arguments, didn’t you?

why don’t you address somethin besides my lack of spellchecking?

how bout’ some actually arguments? how about you tell me how i’m wrong? tell me about why the mayor of new haven is right? etc.

Is Bush the gravedigger of the GOP? and the policys that can save the GOP

2009-04-28T22:47:00.000-07:00

some people call Stalin the grave digger of communism. Meaning that he gave communism such a terrible repuatation that it has been discredited-seemingly discredited.

Is George W. Bush the grave digger of the Republican Party?

Bush utterly changed persceptions of the GOP. The way people think of and talk about the GOP today is totally different from the way they did before 2000. Basically you could say the GOP went from being smart and evil(or heartless) to dumb and evil in its advesarys eyes.

He destroyed that general Gingrich Era perseption of republicans being if not the hippiest party, being atleast responcible, good managers, non-grandiouse thinking. The GOP didn't have a hip image before W., but it wasn't completly social sucide to be a young republican then-the GOP was known for old white guys on the golf course (think Bush 41), after Bush 43, the GOP became sonoymous not only with old whiter golfers but NASCAR rednecks and TV evangelists.

Image wise it will take a generation probably to redeem the GOP in people eyes.

On the issues alone-though-BUsh was (how glad i am to say was rather than is) just as bad and damaging. He made the GOP's agenda basically a terrible minutae of evangelical lefty policys that could be fairly described as Democrat Lite (a brand that includes both Bush and Mccain). Why was Bush 43 leftwing? well no right winger, could have pushed affirmtive action for lending (the primary cause of the current econmic fiasco), amnesty, 2 wilsonian wars for democracy, reckless spending, a massive and the largest domestic spending since LBJ.

So besides the tax cut, you could sum up Bush's policys as a whole as "faith based" he ran things like alot of megachurch pastors might have (someone like Mike Gerson who spends time in African missionary churchs for fun). He was evangelical bleeding heart on abortion but also apparent in his irresponcibly huge aide pacckages to Africa, stupid huge funding of church programs, wilsonians endless wars, amnesty, etc.

Also this neocon nightmare that is tainting the GOP, is essentially his fault he put it in the GOP's hands and the GOP not wanting to admit what the grassroots of the right know aboubt the war on terror being a terrible joke, have made this endless war on terror part of the GOP agenda. The Crucifiction of Ron Paul via Giullani during one of those 08 debates shows that neocon foreign policy is going to be a basic requirment of nomination contenders in the GOP for the next couple of elections.

So he gave the GOP a christian image at a time when doing so hurts the GOP so much more than it at all helps it, and gave up most of the very appealling and timely conservtive policys to replace them with dumb policys that neither the left or right likes.

those timely and appealling (especially to younger people) policys, you ask?

-Opposing racial quotas, and the kind of diastrous and ridiclous affirmtive action as seen in the Ricci case, that is enforced not only in college admissions now but lending, testing for fire fighters and many other areas were affirmtive actions does not belong at all. (This is big among young americans.)

- School Choice. The argument for allowing parents to send their kids were they want is more appealing and strong than ever. Recent stats on how bad public schools are are paticularily outragous. We spend twice as much on public school than we did 40 years ago and results have gotten worse, we spend by far more on our public schools than any other nation on earth and we rank far back in most subjects among 1st world nations. You can also hold up as a killer demonstation, the success of swedens school choice policy and of american school choice programs in D.C. and elsewhere. Also very popular among left and right, very common sence.

-Stopping mass immgration. Republicans should contanstly be telling americans when they argue against amnesty that by 2050 america will have 150 million more people and by 2100 might likely have a billion people and how terrible that will be. make this argument on a enviormental basis, "do we really need more shopping malls and ugly subdivisions? do we want less wilderness and more cars and traffic?". Thats another argument that is popular to all americans. People don't like how aesthetics have gotten in american life, and it';s a very visceral dislike that is never talked about it also fuels the green movement. People misguidedly place there disatsfications with the growth and exspansion of ugly new archeture and the demolision of great old archeture in the GREEN movement not realizing that the source of what they don't like is mass immgration and open borders and amnesty and that they should be supporting not Global Warming gas taxes that will make them much poorer for no real reason, but the anti-Amnesty movement. again very popular across the spectrum.

-Roll back our massive cold war miltrary apprartus and spending. We don't need about a third of our army and air force basis. Jihadism is not a big threat to us. We won't stop it by waring in Iraq or Afganistan but by gaining control of our borders and immgration and being much more prudent in who we let in. 9/11 wouldn't have happened if not for our horrendous immgration failure.

-A new attitude on the enviorment. This means don't join the Global warming idiots, fight cap and trade, but adopt the goals of

1. becoming less oil dependent by building nuclear plants rather than unvialbly exspensive windmills and

2.conserving america's wilderness by stopping mass immgration and opposing amnesty.

the GOP should exsplain why 1. global warming is not a fact and why if it is that we don't know how bad it will be and we can't change it either way because whatever measures we take will be nullfied by china, india, brazil and the rest of the world.

So we rather than make america alot poorer and pretend were saving anything while we squander our own wilderness becoming a latino nation of a billion which the democrats want to do, the GOP should offer americans they laternative of saving our own enviorment, not unnescarily making the nation alot poorer for nothing, and not allowing america to become a latino nation of a billion people by opposing cap and trade and gas taxes and amnesty and building a fence and stopping mass immgration and finnally enforcing our immgration laws by ending the era of sanctuarys citys and rigoursly rounding up 12-20 million illegal immgrants in the US. very popular among americans.

-Getting rid of the religous rhetoric and image by:

1. Make opposition to Roe vs. wade and Gay marriage more of a states right thing than a christian thing.

2. rather than referncing jesus on social causes talk intelligently about how bad the absence of fathers is for children. Encourage stay at home moms and 2 parent familys in the tax code , etc.

- Present a real alterntive to americans to nationaliztion of health care. Give real examples of what health care is like in Candada and how much worse things will get in regard to rationing, wiating lists, malpractice, funding. Exsplain how we cant afford it at all. Put more money into public hospitals to lessen waits rather than get rid of compeietion in the area of health care. Attack democrats on their misuse of false data, like counting illegals as the nations uninsured while not mentioning that there are to blow up the figure, not mentioning that half the uninsured can afford health care. Exsplaing how few people don;t have helath care and how those who don't actually do health care.

-Make state's rights a new main tentant. Go after the supreme courts dicatorship.

WHEN LIBERALS FIND THE CONSTUITION

2009-04-15T13:21:00.000-07:00

the democratic partys record of leglisation and goverance speaks it for itself, and one of the things it commucates to any honest reader is that the democrats have rarealy ever paused to push the constuition and basic freedom to the margins when they must "do good".

Example 1: Busing. would madison say its constuitional to force some parents child to go to a public school 50 miles away from his home when the neigborhood school is down the street in the name of achieving forced diversity? ofcourse not, totally unconstuitional, utterly totilitirian with the best intentions.

Example 2: Does anybody doubt that it's a basic freedom of a owner of a private business to decide who can or cannot enter there store? for a country club to prohibt women from golfing there? ofcourse not.

Example 3: The Employee Free choice: where upon the goverment forced banks to make a certain amount of loans to minoritys or else be sued by the goverment for discrimantion! contuitionalesque? no.

Anyways THEY DO SOMETIMES LIKE ALZEIHMEIMERS PATIENTS REDISCOVER THERE REVERENCE FOR THE CONSTUITION. but its at the funniest times and for the sillyiest reasons.

for instance.....

1. they rediscover federalism when they don't want to enforce the nations immgration laws in our major citys.

2. they rediscover the constuition when they want to make sure the man who planned 9/11 doesn't undergo any pain at all in order to extract information to save lives. cause someone responcible for 3 thousand americans deaths shall never undergo 20 seconds of simulated drowning and discomfort and because jihadisof a private businet are probably more likely to rat on their cause if we ask more kindly for secrets.

3. they rediscover the constuition to claim that gay marriage is enshrined within it (though its not at all) and is a basic human right.

just a little review: so an owners ss can't decide he doensn't want to allow women to enter his property isn't a constuitional right but gay marriage is. fascinating?

ain't the living constuition great? if you want something to be constuitional you don't need to read anything, it just is!

The "People's Party" standing up for the dowtrodden

2009-04-15T12:41:00.000-07:00

THE SITUATION:there are somewhere around 12-10 million americans unemployed, some respected liberal econmist have just issued a paper that estimates that unemployment could soon rise to 12-14 percent.

here's how the democrats-that pride old gaurdian of america's poor and dowtrodden masses respond:

THE DEMOCRATS RESPONCE: So unemployment higher than its been in 20 years? lets pass amnesty then! we have such an abundance of jobs "americans won't do" we need to turn 12-20 million illegal immgrants into citzens! brillant!

QUESTION 1#: isn't this a time when people who care about the working class should actually try to do immgration enforcment for once?

QUESTION 2#:how bout we make our major citys places that follow the nations immgration laws again so that american workers no matter what there color have a better chance of getting the few jobs out there today? i hope this is rhetorical to everyone just in case i'll answer it myself: Ofcourse!

This is really so disullioning. i have lost so much respect for the left (in there putting party above country) and the media (failing to report such a scandal rightly). Utterly appauling this is. it's the shame of every democrat. they do not want to hear about it. they refuse to critize obama, and if you confront them with what there partys doing in this case they just balk or lie or ecovocate.

And when you go so far as to also tell them that the obvious reason for there partys amnesty push is to import millions of new democratic voters they gasp in horror at such a shocking and blamspous suggestion! How dare anyone ascribe such greedy and treasounious motives to Barak "i don't believe in big goverment" Obama! A man who doesn't have a bad bone in his whole body! who would never even think of misleading, lying, misreprsenting, slandering! He would never put his party before the country let alone before the dowtrodden and most needy americans!

And all i can do when i face such piffle is ask (QUESTION 3#)"ok, if its not that obama and his party and everyone else with a brain know that 12-20 million poor latinos heavily depedent on goverment programs with astronemical illegtimacy and drop out rates would be the importing of 12-20 new democrats, then why is obama pushing for amnesty at this time? because of a abundance of jobs? what?"

That right there, ladies and gentlmen, is called striking a blow. They won't have an answer to that one cause there isn't one! and yet why doenst this question above get asked? why can't even FOX news summon it up out of there throats? surely they have a place in the far back of the white house press room.

How Liberals vs. Conservtives think and talk about taxes and why

2009-04-08T23:28:00.000-07:00

do you ever notice that when liberals talk about taxes, equality, distribution of wealth, the top 1 bayonet extends, that they seem to be living in a dream world?

They talk about "the pie" and how much the rich get and so fourth as if the pie aka the wealt of america is as unchanging and permeanat a thing as your couch. You might also notice that they refer to "the rich" as if these rich people were born rich and will always be rich and who do nothing and are nothing else than wealthy people. They never say that the rich are rich because they've become rich working as business owners who employ thousands of americans, inventors who make the things that have improved are lives and entrupueners who have competed to provide people better products and services to evreryone.

However when conservtives talk about the same topics of taxes, welath, etc they talk about such things as if they live not in the liberals dream world where the rich are born rich and will never stop being rich, and where the wealth aka "the pie" they want to cut up is unchanging, but in the real world.

They understand that while it sounds good to simpletons to tax 70 percent of a business owner with a 10 millioin dollars a year salary, that that owner employs thousands of amreicans and invests in the market and builds new franchises and creates jobs and in turn raise the living standards of the vert people liberals want to deliver 70 percent of his income to.

Liberals don't seem to be able to grasp the complexity of reality in this area.

When liberals think about the coroporate tax and how it should be higher, they again look at coroprations as unchanging entitys, they don't realize that they can and will move with all their jobs to another country if america taxes them to much.
Unlike liberals when thinking of how high the coroporate tax should be in america, conservtives, see that america like all countrys are competing to keep and attracted companys aka jobs, and that placing taxes at aat a level that willl atrract buisiness and encourage entrupership and investments will give the lower and middle class much more than what they will get from america taxing coroporations even more and thus driving said compnays out of america taking their jobs with them.

THis relates to my feeling that liberals is humans de fault position because liberals is about atleast they think-getting more stuff for themselves and conservtism is too esortic and complex for most people.

Wear your turban right

2009-04-04T06:57:00.000-07:00

i challendegde you to find a funnier paragrapg than this:

"Malkovich has recently developed his own fashion line - Mr Mudd. One of his collections drew its inspiration from the former Taliban spokesman Abdul Salem Zaeef, who was driven into exile after being accused of wearing his turban at too rakish an angle. Such a man, reasoned Malkovich, deserved to be immortalised in fabric."

its from daily telegraph article on john malkovich

thoughts

2009-04-04T05:09:00.000-07:00

1. Bill Murrays plays the same charcter in "Broken Flowers", "Rushmore" and "Lost in Translation". a glum, melancholy middle age guy around sexy younger women ala Scarlet JOhansen, the british teacher in rushmore, his ex's and their naked daughters in "Broken Flowers").

2. if you really care for someone (and would never want to not see them again), you should surely place a item of yours in some nook or cranny of their residance. so that-god forbid you break up and you need to see her a month later for some reason, you can just turn up at their place and say whatever needs to be said under the guise of getting something you remebred leaving there.

personal note: when i got dumped and left her house in shock i stupidly came back 1 minuete later to get the VCR that i had moved to her room-under the assumption that we would be together longer- so that we could watch my video cassette of "Mullohand Blouvard".

3. don't get mad at the fact that someone is still sleeping in the afternoon, you don't know how they got into that sleep scycle and they problem are working on getting out of it which is very trick for some o f us.

4. When people say "didn;t lennon(or lenin) say "life is what you do while your waiting"", or with what ever lenin or lennon quote there touting, i never know if theyre talking about lenin or lennon.

3. if i lived in LA or ever do, no matter what i did for a living, i would go to open auditions. i atleast hope you don't need to have a agent to even go to auditions in hollywood for roles other than "waiter number 2".

why? because.......
4. i have a feeling that acting is one of the easiest forms of work. I know easy work personally. I happily and leasurily, spent much of two summers in high school sitting in a chair reading philip roth and christopher hitchens/looking at women during the day for minimum wage. To be exact my job was to write down the permit numbers of middle aged windsurfers and to compassionatly tell a caravan of none english speaking mexican immgrants that they can't enter greenwood beach at this entrace. But the act of doing either of those two things took up probably less than 7 miineuetes of my entire 5 hour work day.
Anyways............
5........... i think acting is easy, finding work as one is another matter. i think training does very little in determining the success a actor has at all. I think most of what accounts for a actors success is in how much people like looking at that person specfically their face and/or heraing there voice. We like people and we like actors for the same superficial intangible things. Look at Bill Murray in his much vaunted late period renaniance as a actor in recent movies like "Broken Flowers" or "Rushmore" or "Lost in Translation" inwhich he plays essentially the same charcters literary. or JOhn Malkovich, now malkovich works very hard but compare him in the film version of "death of a salesman" when he was young and had hair to him in "being john malcovich" as the bald middle age guy we know him as most dearly

or Paul Newman or John Cusack.

6. bjork sucks. and hipsters of the world don't be afraid to admit it. stand up and tell the frizzy haired bitch, "no i don't want to do it to 'Vespertine', i spit on your grave." and walk out.

7. wen u disagree with some1 u look for flaws in that guy and if u can find flaws it can turn ur disagrement into hatred. Case in point:Bush.bush hysteria always fascinated me in how little it had to do with his actions.bush was a Republican lefty. yet judging from the hatred you'd think he had placed a cross on the white house.his dumbness was outragous, and dems then placed that outrage everywere else for 8 yrs.

8. why has barbra walters been famous for my hwole life?

something new to be outraged about

2009-04-01T01:19:00.000-07:00

as CNN does segments on how to get your arms like the first ladys and Obama going grey and Anderson Cooper talks to food exsperts" about how oranges can keep cancer away, that the dismally small number of patriotic informed americans that read the corner, are always hour by hour hearing about the real news of the day, news since inaguration day, has come to be known simply as the news only readers of conservtive magazines hear about.

One such news story that has not been covered at all, is quite shocking and outragous:

Next time your at a Marriotte Hotel or using a computer at anyother such hotel or if you happen to have NetNanny or anyother brand of Net Filter, try and see if you can visit NRO.com. The national review online, the most popular conservtive website on the web and one of the most prestigous and popular of all poltical websites. Or try to mained your way over to Steynonline.com, the website of the brillant author of the essential milestone book "america alone" (the best book on islamic radicalism and the demographic decline of west minus america bar none) and NRO colmunist, Mark Steyn. A website which pretty much stores his articles that have been published in the most respected and popular publications in europe, australia, canada and america such as Macleans, National Review, the CHicago Sun times and many other Us papers, the Ireland Times, and many other publications who don't publish articles deemed "racist" or "hate mongering" repeadtldy at that.

Noone serious figure on the left and right would charcterize NRO.com or steynonline.com as racist, hate monegering websites that minors nor anyone else needs be protected from. The notion is absurd.

Well, if you try to visit either nro.com or steynonline.com and probably many more such sites, at many hotels and high schools and colleges, or on computers using Netnanny or SiteCoach or other similiar programs, you will find that national review and mark steyn is just to hateful and racist and profane for you to have access to.

However, you'd be amazed at what other sites were not blocked at the same time, you can geuss

heres the post from nro.com's "the corner:

Marriott, Me, and More [Mark Steyn]

Lots of mail re the blocking of websites. It's not just my own, but NRO, too. A reader writes:

A year or so ago, I purchased Net Nanny for my home PC. It blocked NRO's "The Corner", due to "some hate content". So, for fun, I went to Al Jazeera dot com, and of course it was NOT blocked. I emailed support, pointing out the execution videos pass their filter, but not NRO. They very explained that they didn't support blocking of Arabic language sites, which didn't really answer my question, of course. When pressed, they refused to identify which content on NRO was "hate". In the end, they refunded my money rather than answer my question.

So a jihadist snuff video is perfectly safe for your kids. But Jonah's objections to the New Deal? Whoa, can't let them get anywhere near that. That pretty much confirms my suspicion that "Net Nanny" and the like are not child-friendly filtering services but just the twilight west's usual self-loathing limp-wristed politically-correct illiterate nitwits.

Whoops, I seem to have just upped the "hate content."

journalism in the US?

2009-03-31T11:01:00.000-07:00

has anyone heard anyone in the media ask if the last stimulus worked?

this is the left

2009-03-31T10:37:00.000-07:00

I found the base of the Democratic Party.

i tripped upong this delicious video. It's a meeting for the new "radical party" in NYC. middle aged babyboomer refugees of the green party in a room plotting "what must be done" to takeover the country. It's hilarious, especially the latinos at this meeting and what they say. By the way its run by hunter college professors who begin the session by reading out the party's new manifesto. By my count the ratio at this gathering was 84 percent jewish, 10 percent latino and 6 percent goyim. What a suprise.

I loved how upfront they all were about emphasizing this point: "we need to radicalize the blacks and latinos, we need more and more latinos in this country! dowtrodden, disadvantage, they're already communists probably and don't even knoww it, all we need to do is organize them and bring them to the polling booths, set up some free lunches, get this amnesty bill past, ok people! we need to go down into the ghettos and register these people, like acorn, perferably people who can't read, or who hate america, lets get the gangbangers active poltically, in the bottomline, this is the main way we can push socialism on america" Right they are.

http://fr.truveo.com/A-Radical-Party-Part-2-15-Street-Manifesto-Group/id/80661025

However amazingly, 44 minuetes into this video link, one of the marxists in the audience says something very true. He was talking about "regular" people and how americans (i.e. those regulars in the hinterlands) weren't smart enough to adopt communism.

He says "i went out and tried to be with these peoples! i sat in diners with these people..........and i don't know America anymore. i dont know this america. i and i think we don't even know america anymore"

how i wish someone had stood up at that moment and asked him to answer the question of why he no longer knew america. but then again leftists would never follow such a question to its unpolite conclusion.

my last status/open for answers

2009-03-31T10:35:00.001-07:00

Daniel Schwartz Nations are built on loyalty of the heart. does anybody think that the hispanics rapidly becoming the main inhabitants of the southwest and our citys have any strong heartfelt affinity with the american people circa 1932 or 1789? or those who died in the civil war? our founders? our hereos? do they care more about cinco de mayo or the 4th of july?

Slogan or Reality? POltics or Country? Lies or Truth? Oh the questions the treasonous face from Kabul to the rio grande.

2009-03-30T03:49:00.000-07:00

When Obama's sets a date for a big press conference inwhich he'll present his policy on a subject he and his team have been nworking on for months, don't except to be able to tell anybody what obama's policy on that subject is, the day after you've watched that press conference (and read that white house press realese). (And this is the very vagueness disguised as articulatness that makes so many peopl ga ga. Personally i prefer presidents with a lexicon they can fit into the back pocket of there levi's who give to you, straight and ungrammaticaly correct, but i guess alot of white liberals love watching black men talk properly and act presidential no matter how substanceless and gasy.)

That's why i'm not suprised -the day after obama "unvieled" his afgan policy- to find that this is the headline to Fred Kaplan's piece in slate today:

"Do You Understand Obama's Afghanistan Policy? Me Neither."

Well, he's sending more troops which is bad enough. lets hope he gives up on dmeocracy and signs some quite agreements with the taliban, god knows his/our media won't let americans know if he does.

Afganistan will show alot about dmeocrats and my theory about what treason bastards they are who put poltics befor ecountry evry time.

"lets go fight the good war! kill bin laden!" has been the best slogan for the democrats for the past 8 years, and i'm sure theyre notw illing to give it up even if they know that "the good war" is the unwinnable hopeless war that we must get out of fast and stop wasting so much needed money in every month.

why is it hopeless? well wait till tommrow ill tell you and the answer will be alot more substance than anything you've ever heard obama say.

Close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears and keep on shouting "He's so articulate! He's so articulate!" you don't want to know what cardcheck is

2009-03-30T02:55:00.000-07:00

Liberals are in crisis, everyone i know no longer has there neat little talking point of the week. Why? Paul Krugman is critizing Obama. oh no! He even came on NPR to break the news. Krugman-who has always been a non partisan free thinking econmist who happens to be more to the left-said that obama had done 3 more idiotic and wasteful "paulson plans".

As i listened in t he car, i felt the sudden urge listening to krugmans common sence critqiue, to stand straight up threw the moonroof of the toyato and give Mr.Krugman a stand-O. And i felt the same way when david frum spoke the truth about Palin late last summer.

Whats the proper metaphor for this momentous occurence in liberaldome? caine and abel? yoko and the beatles? a smarter man could do the job.

A lot of democrats listening to krugman on npr must have been thinking "man, why ya' rain on the parade paul! if you don't have anything nice to say about barak then shut youor yapper! " and then the tears slowly slide down there checks.

Anyways, this krugman eruption has put liberals off gaurd. nothing to defend, nothing to attack (taking Rush out of context was so 3 weeks ago).

so what have they resorted to, "ya know, i watch obama's press conference and hes answering these questions and i think to myself 'god, bush couldnt even answer any of these', this guys just in another league." No matter if obama is boring, mendaious, deviously vague and evasive and supremely unitrested and uncapable of syaings omething you don't know or havent heard a thousand time sover, just think of your favriote BUshism and rejoice. And so no matter how badly obama does, or how obvious it is that he's wasting tons of money irresposncibilbly with a giant debt and lying about it everytime he goes on Tv to tell us he's not going to waste a damn and isnt going to use the crisis for unrelated projects, democrats can remain silent and happy, plugging there ears , closing there eyes, like children to drown out the news that obama's wrong and republicans right, shoutingover and over again "wow this guy's so much smarter than bush! wow this guys so much smarter than bush!".

They don't want to know what card check or the fairness doctrine is, when you tell them, they don't believe.

When you mention how much obama is increasing the debt and the billions he's spending on rebuilding palestine and tatto removal undre the guis eof stimulating the US econmy and not a dime on the shovel ready project of building a border fence-they just say "bush inherited a surplus and he put us in this huge dbet in the first place".

YOu tell dmeocrats about all the ridiclous things there party is doing and trying to do, what there making us pay for-illegals mortages-what they want to do-add 20 million illegals to the citizenry with the highest unem[lpyent rate in 20 years- or when you tell the that the last stimulus had no discernable impat on the econmy. They just say "well the republicans want to do nothing"

then you tell them infcat the republicans have madwe alternative proposals and they say "i havent seen that" and they dont wnat to see that like they dont wnat to and wont see what card check, or the fairness doctrine or amnesty is or would do or why the democrats want to pass them, cause then they would have to be outraged with the democrats and that simply isn't a option.

so liberals for the next 4 years will watch COUNTDOWN and Racehel maddow and re read their bushisms, and not read about that amnesty bill or what obama's doing to DC public schools or how absurdly he is wasting there money and how appalling the debt is, etc. and they get by just fine at there cock tail partys saying "my god, could you imagine if bush had tried to answer that question?"

and so now i know

What happened to the american people(1687-1968)?

2009-03-24T00:02:00.000-07:00

Watching "Dr.Stranglove or how i learned to love the bomb" today something curious happened. I lay there-affectionatly positioned behind a beatiful female in my bed. The scene before us was one inwhich George C. SCott was speaking in "the war room" to the president about the nuclear situation over russia.

"Ya know these people we're really americans" i half whispered in my female companions ear.

"I think the 50's we're probably the really last decade of the americans"

"yeah, thats true" my female companion said, assuredly knowing what i meant.

ME: "we aren't americans, we're.. children of the world"

HER: yeah we are.

ME: i mean do you feel like a attachment to american history to the american people of the past, does our generation? our generation has the most trivial and nebulous national ideitity and only by default of being born here. And we certainly don't have any blood and soil pride about being american. do you know anyone who really has that? its like "i was born here" thats it. being american, to us, is a mere tecnocality by happenstance.

HER: its true.....

How did this happen, that the american people no longer exist?

well ofcourse, the usually suspects: the 60's, hippies, multicultrilism, hedonism, leftist professors, rock n' roll, cultural rot, etc. thats all true.

but another factor contributing to the loss of american idenity/pride/etc., is that 1. you can't love a nation you feel you don't know and 2. you can't love a nation that hates itself.

When i think of the chicago of my lifetime-one unrecognizable from my fathers chicago- i picture the most typical of chicago scene: A busy intersection, in my specfic case, i picture the bustop on the intersection of Western and Touhy Avenue. Gritty. Ugly. Heartless. Pollutted. Hungover. (Within view theres) One visible specmin of the old chicago a old /granite/ cornershop/apartment building that would have been have been generic when built but now stands out for its possesing actual arctecturial "charcter". The shop there is a old family owned lunch and breakfast restruant with boothes from the 70s thats going out of busines, and soon enough the propertier of the whole edfice will give way like all the others like him to devleopers. Next to it and everywhere else in the vincinty you can see what replaced other building like it. Another typical american landscape ravaged by modernist archeture and developers trying to make a quick buck. You have severely ugly modern condos with fake looking bricks built without any care or uniqiness intermixed with McDonalds and other such franchices. You got a ugly new Bank of America, ads covering in its tainted blackned windows of smiling people of different colors other than white, a striking contrast with the broken down, unfiendly/mean, thuggish, beleagured, bedraggled, blighted and smug faces down on the street. You got a traffic jam, smog, heat, conjustion, honking horns, spanish shouting, ringtones blaring, a public bus' pulling up on the corner letting out grey fumes from its exhaust pipe as it stops to pick up the representives of the new chicago: young black and latino hip hop kids who know or care about nothing and have no ideas and never read a book, who go to schools that are in fact absurdly overpriced day care centers to socialize, then you have poor decreipt white elderly persons with canes, a fragile frustrated looking hipsterish young professional without a mac book in his /walkingpouch/ and PC garbage in his head, a few crazy bedraggled homeless people hopped on crack, and then en mass you have the new primary inhabitants of chicago: hispanic migrants grouped together: short dark indigenous looking mexican men who work as dishwashers and metal collectorsa in baseball hats and dirty 2nd hand clothes, obese middle aged mexican women in big mickey mouse t-shirts and spandex capris, with worn disgruntled faces, with a flock of young kidss pread around her, after a day of cleaning houses, none speaking a drop of english.

There is something that effects you about seeing hispanics like these. They are like aliens or 2nd class citizens so alienated-by choice ofcourse-so alien-with no desire to be otherwise. It is as if you see eachother threw a plate glass partition. To an extent its this wya with black and latino youth today in the inner citys. These people came here to work thats it. not to assimilate in the true meaning of the word. They may adopt a fondness for our trash TV, but nothing else deeper than that.

So whats so depressing about the mexican migrants who care nothing for america and Mcdonalds and Banks of America that fill chicago? well they represent to one a country devoid of anything deeper than money and work and materialism, there is no heart, nothing to truelly identify with, nothing to do die for at all.

In america today, we are surrounded by people and things that care nothing for america, that we feel detached in everyway from, wheather it be the huge impersona; corporations who are now utterly devoid national loyalty that we come across in the form of the generic franchices they place in the monsterous shopping malls that have scourched so much of our earth, or the hispanics that now are the core of our major citys, their conclaves totally cut off from the america that they will soon inherit, they have no desire to assimiliate, they feel no affinity to the old america, to the amreica people circa 1920 or 1856 or those who perished in the civil war or our founders, or our heros:Polk, jefferson, adams.
It would be a lie though to say they had no feeling for america or its history, heros or its past, they most certainly do have feelings for those things. Those feeling being: resentment and hatred.

nevermind that hispanic immgrants are en masse joining and exspanding and seething and remaining threw the generations in americas underclass, what makes mass hispanic immgrantion (and perhaps all 3rd world or non european immgrantion) such a diaster and calamity-in my view- is a matter not of the pocketbook or a matter of statstics or a matter of genetics but a matter of the heart.

Nations are built on loyalty of the heart. The truth is that if you knew like i do that John Adams is in your lineage and if you know your scottish ancestors built this nation, love of nation is going to come naturally. It's that emotional, visceral blood-and-soil, "land of my fathers" attachment and pride that is the essential core of any nation and amreica is no excepation. Wheather for good or ill, race and history matter, people are tribal, people idenitify and group together with people who look like them, who share a history or a realigoun, etc and this is why every nation has a ethno cultural core and must have one. Once a nation loses a ethno cultural core-as happened in the Austro-Hungriaian empire and is happening today in France and the netherderlands-etnic strife occurs and nation breaks apart violently. Look threw history and you will find really no evidence to debase such a idea that just 50 years ago would have been undebatable(common sence). But look threw history for evidence that nations without ethno cultural cores fall apart or that (ethnic and religous) diversity leads to violence and strife, and you can hardly find a year that won't suffice to provide a example.

The responce is that we americans being so proggesive from our brutish ancestors have evolved-in our age of affluence- beyond all this unseemly, unprogressive things like enthno- cultural cores or enthic strife. And even if the white liberals who spout this drivel are really "post racial" in their own rights (which they surely aren't e.g. ask them to send there kid to a latino school), it is just them who matter in figuring out wheather enthic strife and tension and division and even violece could come to america. are the black and hispanic demographics projected by the ny times to bring in an end to the white european majority (in america) by 2050 as "post racial" ? The answer that we all know even without looking at the statstics that confirm are assumptions to that question is: Not at all. Race and enthno-centricity is supremly important to non whites.

Others respond by saying or atleast thinking, "genocide, racial, ethnic strife couldn't happen in 2009 or in the first world. thats all so african.".

So to those who think this business of enthnic strife and the importance of enthno cultural cores and diversity resulting in strife, is just a african or 3rd world thing and to those who think th ese things to be all so 19th century. i'll restrict myself (in finding examples to prove my point) to the developed world (aka europe and america) and to the last 10-15 years of history in such places, in .

"The way to prevent unrest, is to be very careful in who you let in"-Micheky Kaus

Why Republicans for Amnesty/Open Borders have no brians aka The Snake eating its own tail

2009-03-02T01:17:00.000-08:00

In American Poltics it seems to be something like a rule that the most obvious exsplanations, answers and solutions (usually in regard to issues that make white people uneasy like race and immgration) cannot and will not be said or written in the mainstream media media.

Usually the reason why your barber Lou can so often give you a more common sence anyalsis than the entire media is mere fear and corruption. The denizens of DC-NYC poltical and social life who monopolize poltical anlaysis have dinner partys to worry about being invited to, valuable relationships (with poltical powerplayers) they don't want to needlessly squander (by unnescarily speaking truth) or else they live in constant fear of angrying the PC police on the right and left (who theyre friends are) and being marginalized in turn, relagated away from mainstream eminence to the great but obscure websites like Vdare.com (hence Steve Sailer).

But sometimes the reason the obvious is ignored is simply mysterious. For instance, why is it that no one recognizes the tragic stupidity of consertives for open borders or amnesty.

I recently watched a "principled" liberterian argue against a border fence and immgration laws all together, going so far to tell the crowrd before him that he felt the distinction between america and mexico should ideally be one as trivial as that between maryland and conticutt, basically a mere techinuilty.

Could this man not see why his "principled" ideas were- in this instance- self defeating. It would be hard to believe that such consvetives and republicans as George Will, John Mccain, George Bush, Lindsey Graham who support amnesty don't grasp the most basic effects the policy they advocate would have. Do they not know who they would be granted citzenship to in the millions? Do they not know what most 8th graders could figure in a few minuetes? that virtually making 20 million poor latinos citizens (overnight) equals something like the de facto importation of atleast about 16 million new democratic voters who will help bury conservtism.

Karl Rove who in a matter of a few years has gone from being known idoticlly as the great "evil genius" of american poltics to being a guy who is self evidently not very good at his job, would argue with the same myopic logic that made him assure us mccain would win in 2008, that latino immgrants are social consertive and thus are natural republicans. Rove's mind operates like a bad computer unable to do two things at one time. Thus Rove cannot grasp that while latinos may indeed be religous (atleast when they arrive) that they are also poor, and while they may be not amused by gay marriage, they are more willing to vote for free health care than too ban gay marriage and to cut theyre employers taxes.

The fact that anybody who professes to care about conservtism, free markets, limited goverment, indivual liberty can't see how those principles are imperiled by a open borders policy in regards to the southern border and/or the granting of amnesty for 20 million poor urban and uneducated latinos who are remaining poor urban and uneducated even after they become citizens is a bad idea, suggests strongly that said person is probably weak minded.

And i don't think poor urban and uneducated latinos gets across fully the type of people i'm talking about and just how destine they are to vote democrat from now until enternity.

These people will vote republican when either they win the lottery or the Republican party becomes the true party of Huckabee, social conservtive and progessive on demoestic policy. In other words they will vote republican only when the republican party dies and becomes simply Democrat Lite. You can forget all about those fine old liberterian conservtive principles, the term vouchers will become as archaic as the term viceroy, and the names of Hayek and Adam Smith, Rothbard and Mencken will be as foreign to the ear as Carletoon S. Coon. And if only the liberterian idiots and the compassionate conservtive blowhards like George Bush and his lame crew Micheal Gerson and William Kristol and John Mccain and Norman Podhoretz could see how there "hardcore liberterian principles" and their "compassionate conservtism", respectivly obliterated conservtism and libertianism and America itself. There faces would melt right off like the wird Nazi with the scar on his palm did at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark.

THE TIME FOR HISPANIC IMMGRATION PANDERING ON THE RIGHT IS OVER. THE CONSERVTIVE MOVEMENT IS NEARING WHAT ALMOST CRETAINLY BE IT'S DEATH IF IMMGRATION IS NOT HALTED NOW OR IF THE DEMOCRATS APALLING AMNESTY BILL IS PASSED. ERECTING A BORDER FENCE, ABOLISHING THE 14th AMNEDMENT, ENDING CHAIN MIGRATION, CUTTING OFF ALL ENTITLMENTS TO ILLEGALS, VIGOROUSLY GOING AFTER SANCUTAURY CITYS, ILLEGAL HIDEOUTS AND BUSINESS' WHICH EMPLOY ILLEGALS AT THE STATE AND FEDERAL LEVELS MUST BE RIGHT NOW THE NUMBER ONE Priority of all republicans and of all real american patriots or in the very least of anybody who even remotely gives a damn about the enviorment, national unity, national soveirgnity, patriotism, decreasing suburban sprawl, improving the schools, lowering the debt, better and cheaper health care, lower taxes, better neigborhoods, the black community, limited goverment, indivual liberty, school choice and a colorblind scociety with colorblind laws. For all of these causes the enviorment chiefly among them are imperiled by illegal immgration and in truth legal and illegal mass immgration in general paticularily from latin america and the 3rd world where 95 percent of those who have immgrated to america since 1965 have come from.

The fact that there are even republicans let alone democrats or any americans advocating granting 20 millions citzenship to illegals in addition now to the free health, public education and welfare we alreday provide illegals free of charge is a absolute disgrace. We in 2008 also give hispanics a republican candiate not to be forgotten.

HAVE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. THE DAY THE TREASONOUS DEMOCRATS PASS THERE DISGUSTING AMNESTY BILL IS THE DAY WE SAY GOODBYE TO AMERICA ON IT'S LONG TRIP TO BECOMING A NIGHTMARE THAT OUR GRANDFATHERS WOULD NOT RECOGNIZE AND WOULD NOT WNAT TO EVER RECOGNIZE AS THAT GREAT COUNTRY THEY LIVED IN.

Heres a video that shows you quickly how appaling and treasnous that amnesty bill is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H01N7y8QO-c

John Derbyshire, telling it like it is

2009-03-01T12:29:00.000-08:00

"Radio Derb with your host John Derbyshire" (a british Tory emigre turned average Joe/middle class hero) is one of those things that gives one hope and makes life signficantly more enjoyable. The commentary peppered with great brutal anglo humour is the most refreshing dose of common sence avialable to us.

heres this weeks RadioDerb, a dman good one i might add:

http://radio.nationalreview.com/radioderb/post/?q=NmM3ZmYxODdkNmI4YzI2Y2YyNjhmMzg0MzBhNTA5NjM=

Note: Derbyshire and Steve Sailer are kind of a great pair. Sailer also tells it how it is in very much the same way. BOth are a few of the rare conservtive who can speak truthfully on racial shake down artists, illegal immgration, and other similiar issues. Derbyshire writes a column for National Review and does his radio show and keeps a diary at NRO.com. He also writes for "the american conservtive" whose film critic is Steve Sailer who keeps a brillant blog Isteve.com and writes for the equally valuable Vdare.com which has a great blog aswell.

Apalling liberal bias vol. 1

2009-02-28T23:41:00.000-08:00

It's hard to listen to NPR (which i once religous did) and the rest of the Mainstream (Liberal) Media once you know about the news such media organizations including even FOX news refuse to cover for purely poltical reasons. This gets to why liberals-although most acknowledge that there is a left wing bias- have difficulty grasping the full scope of liberal media bias because liberals don't read National Review or any of the other conservtive websites,blogs and magazines that actually cover the storys the MSM shame-facedly ignore.

One of the easiest ways to sort out reasonable liberals from unreasonable ones is to ask if they think the media has a left wing tilt. It's one of those oddities -like why kansas city is actually in missouri -that the big media watchdog entinties are run not by conservtives but by liberals so nuts that they claim to cover and expose a media with a ergegious right wing bias! These include Mediamatters.com (which seems to be operated by the producers and interns of MSNBC), Eric Alterman who wrote a book and writes a regular column in The Nation magazine entitled "What Liberal Media?", and Crooksandliars.com run by John Amato (who is for the record a part time member of Duran Duran's back up band). These people must have the hardest jobs around: trying to convince the world, like raving homeless people, that the media has a right wing tilt. Why don't they try something easier like becoming priests, joining the flat earth scociety or try becoming door to door scientology missionaries.

I have pity also for the figureheads of the liberal media, Keith Oblerman, Rachel Maddow, NPR and the whole rest of the gang. They used to be journalists when we had Bush in the oval office. Back then they actually reported inconvient news. They actually asked tuff questions rather than ask the chief executive about his dog. Now Oblerman and Maddow and the rest of the crew are a cross between being Obama staffers and pure RADIO FREE EUROPE style propgandists. They too have a seemingly hard job for they will spend the next 4 years ignoring news inconvient to "the One", calling republicans racists, and covering how great obama is.

Its far too infurating and time consuming to be a watchdog myself. Also I am a real person and not yet a member of the media bubble. i try to avoid the propgandists but sometimes like yesterday i turn on NPR.

So from time to time when i can't help but be scandalized by the bias i'll try to keep a tab of the bilge on this blog.

Instance 1.

i will provide about a 100 of these but heres just one of many

this is news the liberal media refuses to cover. and if you can find it reported on NPR or ABC or NBC or even FOX i will pay you good money

Obama's housing bill which will have taxpayers pay for other people's mortage in order to save them from impending foreclosures will include illegals!

In other words, tax payers who have done the hard work and saved to pay their own mortages and avoid foreclousre will not only be paying for the irresponiciblity of fellow citizens but now also reckless and irresponciblee illegals.

So now american tax payers pay for illegals to get free health care, free welfare checks and food stamps, free loans for college tuition.

and yet no one covers it! you will never hear this story on NPR for example because that would be too intolerant and mean of course. Such news that everyone would be intrested in learning about doesn't past the taste test of the ivy league liberals who decide what news gets reported for such people are the same shameful americans that march arm and arm with illegals brandishing signs that read "la reconquestdora!" at May Day immgration rallys. Liberals like Obama who did just that in CHicago in 2006 and likes to boast of doing so to latino audiences after he demans that those against giving 20 million illegals free helath care and citzenship and welfare and driving licences to stop practising "the poltics of hatred and intolerance".

Instances 2.
i turn on NPR yesterday, what are they reporting on? Obama's stimulus.good but what about it?

maybe they'd like to tell americans something that don't know that they'd like to know like how in Obama's stimulus there is 3 billion dollars for tatatto removal programs.

maybe they could report that Obama has been woefully failing to uphold his promise to cut wasteful spending and programs by stuffing his stimulus full of outragous pet projects that have nothing to do remotely with the econmy let alone stimulating it such as the above.

but instead they don't even mention any of that which people would like to know about and talk about how great the stimulus is, reporting on how it will help build new roads.

Stuff non-white people like

2009-02-28T22:22:00.000-08:00

I just read/listened to "Stuff What People Like" by Christian Lander, which is hilarous and the best piece of anthropology since Gibbon's "The Decline of the Roman Empire". I highly recomend getting it on audiobook. Just a note: in truth the book should be titled "stuff yuppies like".

The Book made me think:there should be and will never be a "Stuff Black People Like" cause making generalizations about people who aren't white is racist of course. But i don't subscribe to such double standards. i don't treat people differently according to the color of their skin. so:

Stuff Black People Like

1. Not Swimming

This is weird but true. Black people don't swim. For instance, at my school we had two pools for when we swam in gym. The pool that was deepests at 5 feet for almost every black kid in class and the regular pool for the whities and the 3 other black kids in my class.

J school is for idiots

2009-02-28T22:15:00.000-08:00

The San Fransico Chronicle may die by the end of this week. Rocky Mountain News said goodbye today. The NY times has basically taken out a second mortage. Newsweek may be dead in 2 years. Newsweek! In a decade it's foreseeable that Clevland, Milwauke, Minnapolis and other similiar major american citys will have no daily newspapers.

Conclusion:

If your heading off to Journalism school next year, your either dumb or nuts or extremly confident about your writing ability and/or the future of online journalism.

If you have a loved one planning to go to J-School please stage a intervention. seriously.

Bobby Jindal is a really nerdy robot

2009-02-28T02:11:00.000-08:00

on Jindal:

1. he has a weird face.

2. it is a odd phenmon how asians in the south tend to have the thickest southern accents of all.

3. In case anyone wants to bemoan america as a racist nation in any of sly ways people/liberals like to call america a racist nation, remind them that in 2012 there is a good chance there will not be a white candiate running for presidnet of 75 percent white nation, and not even latino vs. black, black guy vs. indian catholic.

4. on the matter of JINDAL, MICHEAL STEELE, AND CLARENCE THOMAS, why is it that conservtives of color so upset liberals and make them role their eyes?

5. He can never be president. far too weird looking, not enough facial cementry, not leading man enough.

6.The GOP doesn't get it: you have to try to debunk the negative sterotypes of republicans not embrace them at every turn. Jindal strikes most people as simply nerdy particularily in his responce to obama. Nerdy Jesus Freaks from India, despite what some may think, actually is another republican caracture (hence Dinesh D'souza and Ramesh POnnuru).

a list all the different types of republican caractures:

1. hockey moms into jesus with annoying folksy accents who love hugging and smooches.

2. Jesus Freaks

3. pro life nuts.
4. Old greay catholics

5. coroporate stooges in their 50's , golfer, badly dressed, balding, cigar smoking, heart diease, divorce, estranged kids, listens to Rush Limbaugh.

6. Catholic Indian-americans.

7. Christian Asians who are really smart and organized.

8. Bubba and the good ole' boys and joe six pack too.

9. west virgina

10. the few cowboys left

11. recovoring crack and meth addicts or former pornstars who have turned to jesus.

12. Don King (question: is Don King still a republican?) and 50 cent

MY MCCAIN AD

2008-10-14T17:33:00.000-07:00

I'm not scared of people supposedly saying Obama is a muslim, especially cause liberals are the only people who i hearing telling me that ppl say obama is mulsim. If i were to hear someone saying that though, i like 99 percent of americans would think it laughable.

what does scare me is Barak Obama being annoinated a healer/redeemer of america, who people truelly believe cannot and never has tried to decieve or polarize in the name of poltical points. Especially because under his patina of niceness and charsmia, Obama has made some despicable remarks (which i'll show in my next post) and put out some very sly lies. While Joe Biden has just all out been lying shamelessly. Slyness is Obama's speciallity. along with hazyiness, convinsing people to support him because they like him but not because they esepcially like or even know how he wants to change america, and his amazing abilty to talk completly differently on an issue and presenting himself in a completly differently light dependning on whatever audeince is before him.

the icon like devotion obamaniacs have for their leader is offputting considering how much merely has to do with a fetisization of his skin color. Electing a black guy, like marching in a May Day Amnesty rally with a "this is not your land" sign, these things put liberals in the spot they always want to be in: the ultra progressive subversive cutting edge. THere beyond patriotsm, man. Waving a flag is not something a black lesbian lit major from Brown does. They don't believe in borders or nations, or right or wrong or even truth. cause it's all subjective, man. They're not Americans. they're citizens of the world! they're all one step away from working for the ACLU! Honestly, the prospect of having someone who could very well be the head of the ACLU right now: Obama, as president is lightyears more distrubing that that dumb gal with pretty good stances, Sara Palin. but to be honest if Sara Palin is dumb because of the answer she gave on the Bush doctrine, then by that standard most women in america are morons. put them in that Gibson interview, with that guy coming at you like a hawk. most women would run out of the room for a court order!

What scares me is having to watch how blantantly obvious it is that the DEmocratic party's meal ticket is econmic distress. They're playing this fincial meltdown perfectly: keeping there econmic plans extremely hazy like Mccains because they know americans won't go ga ga over gov. run health care and French style big govrement the way americans will go ga ga for Obama ....just being so Obamalicious.

Obama will ride this crisis into the presidency even though he would anyways cause Mccain and Palin have run a awful campiaign and haven't even challenged Obama to delve into his any of his plans, making the huge mistake of going after BIll Ayers instead of running commercials with scripts like this that i wrote and sent to the MCcain camp today, tell me what you think:

voiceover: "THE NEXT PRESIDENT WILL INHERENT A MASSSIVE DEBT AND A ENTITLMENT and SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM IN CRISIS THAT WE CAN"T AFFORD. MCCAIN WILL BALANCE THE BUDGET, CUT PROGRAMS THAT DON"T WORK, GET OUT US OUT OF THE DEPTHS OF DEBT.

UNLIKE OBAMA, MCCAIN DOESN"T JUST TALK THE TALK, MODIFYING HIMSELF FOR EVERY AUDIENCE AS OBAMA HAS BUILT HIS CELEBRITY DOING. OBAMA STARTED RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT 2 YEARS INTO HIS FIRST SENATE TERM BECAUSE ONE SPEECH HE MADE IN 2004.

BUT WHAT DOES OBAMA PROMISE TO DO? HE"LL SPEND MORE ACROSS THE BOARD. THINKING HE CAN FIX THINGS LIKE OUR BROKEN EDUCATION SYSTEM BY THROWING MORE CASH AT MEDIOCRE BEAURCRATS. AND DON"T FORGET THE PORK THAT WILL BE OUT OFCONTROL WHEN THE DEMOCRATS TAKE ALL THREE BRANCHES. THAT"S RIGHT HE"LL BEEF UP BEAUCRACY BUT WON"T GIVE YOU SCHOOL CHOOSE. HE"LL PUT US DEEPER IN DEBT WEAKENING THE DOLLAR EVEN MORE. THEN HE'LL THROW AWAY THE BEST HEALTH CARE IN THE WORLD TO ADD THE BIGGEST ENTITLMENT OF ALL, WHICH WE CAN NEVER REMOVE, ON TOP OF ALL THOSE OTHER ENTILMENTS WE CAN"T AFFORD: FRENCH STYLE GOV. RUN HEALTH, PUTTING US ON THE FAST TRACK TO HAVING NO FREE MARKET HEALTH CARE AT ALL, CREATING HIGHER TAXES AND DECREASING QUALITY OF CARE.

IS THIS WHAT WE NEED IN A TIME OF ECONOMIC CRISIS? A CHARMING UNTESTED LEFTIST PROFESSOR WHO STARTED HIS RUN FOR PRESIDENT WITH 2 YEARS OF SENATE AND D.C. EXSPERIENCE UNDER HIS BELT, PROMISING TO SINK US DEEPER IN DEBT AND GIVE US EUROPEAN STYLE BIG GOV.?
THE ANSWER IS NO. VOTE MCCAIN."

more effective than BIll ayers right? Have you even heard MCCAIN make these arguments?!

America's future? look to Peter Hitchen's Britian

2008-10-05T19:08:00.000-07:00

A chilling post on Peter Hitchens Mail on Sunday blog, by the name of "80m Britons, and no one you can trust. A future I’m glad to miss". This is really why i think we need to control the border:

Our Brussels masters predict that Britain will soon be the most crowded country in the whole of Europe. Presumably this is what they want, since it is their laws that have destroyed our borders and abolished British citizenship and British passports (that wretched puce thing in your pocket is an EU passport, not a British one, and the further east you go, the easier they are to get).

The European Commission says there will be almost 80million people crammed into our landscape by 2058. Just imagine all that concrete, the thousands of square miles (or square kilometres as they will be by then) chewed up by bulldozers.

Imagine the unending 24-hour whoosh and grind of traffic, the bulging trains, the seething, noisy, litter-strewn parks on hot summer Sundays, the crowded schools, the endless waits at enormous polyclinics to see a doctor you’ve never met before and will never see again, who probably doesn’t have English as a first language, and the multicultural schools where half the class will always be from somewhere else. I’m quite glad to think I’ll be dead by then.

I’ve always been unmoved by arguments that immigration ‘benefits’ the country economically. Maybe it does, if you eat at restaurants rather than working in them, and then hurry away to expensive areas where no immigrants live. But for most people it’s an unmixed curse.

For the migrants themselves it is often a journey into exploitation and squalor, miserable pay and ten-to-a-room living conditions. It holds down wages and puts unwanted pressure on services, transport and housing which are already under strain.

But there’s something else about it that is profoundly, heartbreakingly sad. When so many of our fellow creatures don’t speak our language, don’t understand our laws and customs, don’t know our history, can’t read our facial expressions or work out when we’re joking, we live at a lower level than we did before.

This was summed up for me by an article in a magazine for Poles working in Britain. Please don’t take this as some kind of rant against Poles. If this country is going to be repopulated by anyone, I’d like it to be Poles, whose hard work, resilience and general civilisation can teach a lot of our own young people a useful lesson.

the war on boys and our educational crisis

2008-10-04T14:10:00.000-07:00

If the teacher unions ruled the world (which they almost do) this is what they'd make school children everywhere do for their dear leader, the bold protectorate of their monopoly, Mr.Obama.

http://www.blip.tv/file/1312572

I luridly rembeber begiging made to do this degrading type of sing along nonsence a couple times a year at my elementray school up until some absurdly embarrsing age. I hated it.

I believe there's alot to this argument about the feminization of boys and the war on boys. I often felt growning up that i was a boy attending a girls nursery school.

This video is quite persuaive in that respect. Call me crazy but i could see it shown a couple decades from now in the trial of one the boys in this video who grew up to be a gay child molester.
The acts shown in the video would strike me as just fine if they were doing this sort of thing in a girls school. There's something very peverse and disturbing about seeing these epicene little boys in this video, in their baby blue Obama t-shirts swaying gayily. It's seems like they've already been thorougly sterilized and stigmatized for their male agressive, compeitive instinstics. This is a national epdmic in my view. They've gotten rid of dodgeball which most young boys devootely love and look forward to because it's too "mean spirited and agressive" a game. They've replaced it with sing alongs about Obama and flowers and love.

This is what you get when you only let people who go to teacher college teach: a bunch of women, who are pretty dumb punishing boys for not acting like little girls. That's just elementrary school. Then when they get to high they don't learn their constuition but learn about the evils of America and get indoctrinated into liberalism. Entire generations are being despoiled.

American education is in crisis, and it's not even being talked about in the presidential race.

2008-10-04T12:46:00.000-07:00

I think i rather agree with this assesment of Palin and the presidency. intellectual capicty does not equal a good president. common sence and good instintics and judgment do. Harry Truman vs. Jimmy Carter case and point. The idea that she'll nuke russia is absurd. so indeed i would say i'd rather have a president Palin than a presidnet Obama.
though i do wish polticians were more intellectual and candid. Infact in my perfect world, the best non fiction writers would be polticians.

here is a good segment of John Derbyshires September Diary on National Review Online

the ny times magazine interview you must read

2008-10-04T10:46:00.000-07:00

below is by far, in my view, the best, most heated and fierce debroah solmon ny times magazine interview ever conducted.
The interview is with Charles Murray, who just wrote the great and real short "real education". He is a undoubtly a national treasure whom i find its nearly impossible to disagree with. i love how bold he is on Palin at the end. i really think this interview ended up with intellectual blows exchanged.

a must read.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/magazine/21wwln-Q4-t.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Although attending college has long been a staple of the American dream, you argue in your new book, “Real Education,” that too many kids are now heading to four-year colleges and wasting their time in pursuit of a bachelor’s degree. Yes. Let’s stop this business of the B.A., this meaningless credential. And let’s talk about having something kids can take to an employer that says what they know, not where they learned it.

You’re not the first social scientist to knock the liberal arts, but you may be the first to insist that only 20 percent of all college students have the brains and abilities to understand their assigned reading. Eighty percent are not able to deal with college-level material, traditionally understood. Someone can sit down with Paul Samuelson’s textbook and stare at the pages and know what most of the words mean. That does not mean that they walk away from it understanding economics as it is taught in the textbook.

What do you propose that 18-year-olds do instead of trying to learn the difference between macro- and microeconomics? Oh, the world of work out there!

I’m sure you’re aware that unemployment is very high right now. There are very few unemployed first-rate electricians. I can get a good doctor in a minute and a half. Getting a really good electrician — that’s hard. If you want jobs that are in high demand, go to any kind of skilled labor. And by labor, I mean things that pay $30 or $40 an hour.

Do you see your new book as an extension of the “The Bell Curve,” which caused an uproar in 1994 by suggesting that people are only as promising as their I.Q. scores? In many ways, it is a distillation of things I’ve been thinking since “The Bell Curve.”

Europeans have historically defined themselves through inherited traits and titles, but isn’t America a country where we are supposed to define ourselves through acts of will? I wonder if there is a single, solitary, real-live public-school teacher who agrees with the proposition that it’s all a matter of will. To me, the fact that ability varies — and varies in ways that are impossible to change — is a fact that we learn in first grade.

I believe that given the opportunity, most people could do most anything. You’re out of touch with reality in that regard. You have not hung around with kids who are well in the lower half of the ability distribution.

Have you? For nearly two decades, you’ve been at the American Enterprise Institute, the conservative think tank in Washington. Why would a self-declared libertarian, the party that glorifies individualism, spend his career on the dole? But I am not spending my career on the dole. People are voluntarily giving money to A.E.I. — there is no government money — because they think the work we do is valuable.

Aren’t think tanks basically welfare for intellectuals? Actually, the interesting thing there is the extent to which it’s the think tanks in the last 15 years that have been producing the stuff that has had the most effect on the debate, as opposed to colleges.

What do you make of the fact that John McCain was ranked 894 in a class of 899 when he graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy? I like to think that the reason he ranked so low is that he was out drinking beer, as opposed to just unable to learn stuff.

What do you think of Sarah Palin? I’m in love. Truly and deeply in love.

She attended five colleges in six years. So what?

Why is the McCain clan so eager to advertise its anti-intellectualism? The last thing we need are more pointy-headed intellectuals running the government. Probably the smartest president we’ve had in terms of I.Q. in the last 50 years was Jimmy Carter, and I think he is the worst president of the last 50 years.

Obama Youth: guess what black fraternities do on there free time

2008-10-03T16:12:00.000-07:00

this is good news for all those condenscding, naive people who think black people will stop complaining about racism and do better if Obama gets elected.

but for me this is just scary, scary and bizarely hilarious. obama fans beware this may make you slightly embarssed for a moment.enjoy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUEQz5dltmI

this does a lot in the way of legitimazing the argument of my next evanstonian columnm as you'll see when i post the thing.

the rise of obama youth. not a shock to me.

p.s.

how many millions of wasted hours can be atrributed to youtube?

why not GUilliani?

2008-10-02T19:57:00.000-07:00

Mccain should have picked Rudy.

conservative ideas are getting horrible press these days, they need polticians who have the intellect to adovocate for them succefully. Palin doesn't. Rudy does.

Rudy would have strengthned Mccain's maverick argument, extended his indepdent voter reach, and he would have defintly streghtned Mccain's now abandon and discredited exsperience argument.

education, immgration?

2008-10-02T19:54:00.000-07:00

why was immgration and education not brought up in the debate questions!?

a scandal.

The Vp debate

2008-10-02T19:43:00.000-07:00

Biden killed. He pushed every one of the right buttons.

If people could really talk truthful now, conservtives like me would be saying to there liberal freiends "you think it's hard to listen to Palin? I believe in the posistions she so severly fails to defend and argue for. you don't know how much i cringe!"

she did not have a big gaffe, she did not turn in a embarrsing performance in general but she turned in a losing performance.

Palin's white flag comment i felt was out of line. You shouldn't be saying such things about people who think we should leave in 16 months or tommrow! the costs are huge, the patriotism card falls flat in this vein.

and she diverted so many questions!
good grief.

no palin, please.

the opinion polls will show if people are really buying Palin's folskyness.

In praise of staright forwardness and candor

2008-10-01T18:19:00.000-07:00

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=palin+cbs&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wv&oi=property_suggestions&resnum=0&ct=property-revision&cd=2#q=palin%20cbs%20reads&emb=0

First of all as the above video demonstrates, Palin is embrassing often. To be honest she looks to me like a hockey mom stuck in a bad dream where she is running for vice president and has to answer all the press' questions when she really desperatly just wants to say "i don't know!" and go home and play with her baby, Trig.

But i also think Palin views things in a clear way that is often muddled by academics and people who fancy themselves as "intellectual". Some may laugh when she says that she wouldn't question Isreal if they attacked Iran's nuclear facilties because she as she says she sees Amnejihad as a "bad guy" and Israeli's as good guys. I don't. In fact it's quite refreshing to hear people calling it like it is in that way.

There is one area inwhich i think her being opposite of Obama is a good thing and that is that she doesn't bullshit cause she isn't agile enough to bullshit. Obama is spectacular at not answering questions and giving supremly hazy ones when he does answer, and it's because he's so articulate. Palin and Bush's minds unlike Clinton's, for instance, don't allow them to lie like Clinton did.

There are many issues where Palin's clear sightdness is infinetly preferable to Obama's harvard educated intellect. Palin just see's what has to be done, bottom line(and her instinics i think tend to be pretty good):

immgration? Build a fence. Deport those caught. Penatlize empoleyers who hire illegals. Stop giving wel fair to illegals.

Iranian nukes? Iran must never get nukes. The things the iranian theocrats have said and done make that unacceptable and we will do whatever nesscary to stop them from acquiring nukes.

Diplomacy with Iran? The europeans have tried it for 4 years and it's been proven futile. The Iranians have broken every treaty and agreement theyve gone into on such matters.

Making education better? Give Parents the power of choice with vouchers, make schools compete. Tv's and radio's have gotten better and cheaper only because they've had to compete, why exzempt something as important as education from such productive compeition?

Lowering Energy prices? Advance altertive energys but also drill for oil that we have untapped. we are going to buy oil, why not put money in the treasury in Washington D.C. rather than ones in Tehran and Riyadhi?

Obama on the otherhand will answer these questions differntly for whatever paticular audience he is speaking for. For Obama, when asked why he sat in the pews of a america hating reverend who happened to be his mentor he gives a 40 minuete speech on race and doesn't answer the question though he impressive all the Ivy league intellectuals. It was a elouqnt speech writing like a Harvard dissertation, but it's core points where fraudglent and deplorable and it compeltly avoided the question of why he stayed in Trinty UNited for 20 years.

I think it's about time we gave a little praise to straight forwardness and transperency given that it is so rare among Polticians.

RIP Sara Palin, vice presidential candiate

2008-09-30T01:53:00.000-07:00

How starnge it is to watch the Palin pick unravel so rapidly from a imaginative, sure handed move on Mccain's part to a failed ploy recognized as such by all of the left and now a noticable segment of conservtism's intellectual millieu. It's seems the tipping point was the moment Palin opoened her mouth without a cue card to guide her.
I senced during the convention, that the flaughting over Palin was a overblow, nervous, prouncement. Unsupringly to me, slowly and quitely but surely, many of the right's smartest intellectual commentators, have begun to confess that they too cringe everyother time Palin opens her mouth. But also for many conservtives who felt burned by Bush, the fact that Palin is now being taught about foriegn affairs by adivers the same exact way Bush was tutered by his daddys friends 8 years ago raises serious alarms.
The defection was heralded and led first by the dolce and gabana of conservtism David Frum and David Brooks, probably the two most respected conservtive writers today, who exspressed deep skeptism early on, but made truely stubstancial by Kathleen Parker and Kathyrn Jean Lopez of Nation Review who, with rembarcavle ballzyness proposed in columns this week that Palin be dropped. I am very sympathetic these two and find these defections honorable in the upmost, almost.....award worthy. Critizing your party in these partisan days should be recognized thoroughly.

National Review being the most esteemed and widely read conservative publication on the planet, the news of the National Review lady's calling for Palin to be dumped, has made major headway in the MSM and even more so in the blogsphere. It was my dad at dinner who told me actually. So it must be everywhere. It's seem embarrsingly obvious to mention but: This spells ruin for Mccain ( and his already lofty presidential hopes).

True to the times, Mccain took a risk and lost his shirt. He forgot, it seems, 1. that the media largley has exzempted him, from the abuse and vitrol they dish out to all other conservative polticos and 2. that she would have to talk off stage.

When Palin did the convention and gave a speech that was just right, it looked like a brillant pick. Only Frum and Brooks had the immediate forsight then to see, having themselves been burned by Bush, that Palin would have to face the press and that it would be downhill from then on. But also they like me, resented the Palin pick for her folsky banalties played into a damaging sterotype the GOP has unfairly acquired as a philostine, anti intellectual party.

But even if Palin where a talker, who could hold up her own against Katie Courac of all people, the pick had glaring flaws.
1. Palin nearly undermined Mccain's entire exsperience attack on Obama. Contrasting Palin to Biden and Obama was inescapable for lefties and righties and in that transcation, Obama came out by contrast looking tested and wise and considerably less risky.
2. The publicity over Palin's newly born downsydrome child raises obvious questions over her abilty her abilty to serve at the highest level while being a babies mother, evoking the disturbing image in some, of Palin having to step outside a national security meeting to breast feed!
3. Palin was such a obvious and bad bid for Hillary supporters. Somehow Mccain didn;t realize that Hillary supporters would venomsly hate Palin for a number of reasons. It would seem John didn't get the memo about how Hillary supporters would be infuraited if another women was picked instead of her.

The Mccain camp must have known how much liberals would hate, mock and belittle Palin. They didn't realize it would seem, that conservtives are not isolated from America's firecly liberal pop culture. They didn't realize special SNL skits about their VP, and even a trainwreck like Linsney Lohan bashing their VP would have a negative effect upon those they excepted to be Palin's fiercest cultural defenders..

It seemed for a little while that the media was doing Mccain a favor by igniting a full on culture war against Palin and her red state ilk. But that notion rested on a assumption aswell that Palin could at least hold her own and wouldn't embarass herself. As soon as it became apparent the Gibson interview was not just a fluke performance by Palin, the vicious attacks on her gained credence and the avalanche on her has ensued.

The whole breast feeding hockey mom who would just happen to be your Vice President schtick, was bizarre and unappealing on various levels and not just for liberals but to many conservatives aswell.

The only possible thing that can save Mccain's campaign and save Palin from going down as the most peculiarly stupid VP pick in history is a suprisingly formidable performance on THursday with Biden in the VP debate. Though i like most, see little chance of that.

The bottomline is rather simple. The Mccain camp shouldn't have picked a Vp as if they have been asleep for the last 5 years. They should have learned how tired Americans are of Bush's supposed idocy and his fanstintsic inarticulatness. To pick Sara Palin evokes much of that same embrssment and anger is to simply just remind millions of Americans of how much they are embarrsed to have BUsh a president and how much they don't want another supposed intellectual midget in office.

It is true that BUsh wasn't as dumb as people thought he was and that he genuinly does have a deslexia type problem with assemblying sentences but i, like most americans am very tired of having to talk once again of the people that run our goverment as if there our 2nd grade students, that theyre smart but they just don't show it.

Somewhere, sometime soon, i think a southerner will sum the Palin pick up best, "They done fucked up".

The Abortion Card

2008-09-28T00:24:00.000-07:00

90 percent of downsydrom babies are aborted.

I think it's amazing Palin hasn't talked about this.

IN General I wish everyone including Republicans would talk more about what this supposedly evil thing called revoking roe vs, wade is? It's remberarkable how many people and women have no idea what it entails.
Revoking Roe vs. Wade is a attempt not to end roe vs wade but to simply bring it to the state level and allow states to decide on it. If roe v. wade were revoked, nothing would change in the places angy liberals live most. In blue states like NY, california, illinois, as well as most states abortion would remain as legal as the sky is blue. I have felt confident for a long time that if people new what revrsing Roe meant it wouldn't be nearly as much the divisive issue it is today.
I remeber it was quite a suprise to learn that roe v. wade being revoked didnt mean my sisters and ex girlfriends would be round up and sent up to evanglical concertraion camps in wyoming.

The stunning un outargeousness of revoking roe. vs wade is rembercable and it underscores what has long been the sinister primary scare tactic of the supposedly immiculate Democartic party, which for 40 years has tried to terrify women from voting republican by claiming republicans will nomiate supreme court justices who will revoke roe v. wade. This is nothing more than a scare tactic.
Reagan and the BUsh's had the white house for 20 years and there wasnt a single school prayer uttered in those 2 decades, and there wasnt a single women prevented from having a abortion.
The supreme court for nearly 20 years has had numerous chances to revoke roe v wade, they havent done it.

Andrew Klavan

2008-09-28T00:04:00.000-07:00

just read a revelatory, clarfying piece in CITY JOURNAL by the novelist Andrew Klavan, on what underlies liberalism. It starts off with a devastingly truthful opening, probably one my favriote introductory paragraph of all time:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_2_diarist.html

"The thing I like best about being a conservative is that I don’t have to lie. I don’t have to pretend that men and women are the same. I don’t have to declare that failed or oppressive cultures are as good as mine. I don’t have to say that everyone’s special or that the rich cause poverty or that all religions are a path to God. I don’t have to claim that a bad writer like Alice Walker is a good one or that a good writer like Toni Morrison is a great one. I don’t have to pretend that Islam means peace.

Of course, like everything, this candor has its price. A politics that depends on honesty will be, by nature, often impolite. Good manners and hypocrisy are intimately intertwined, and so conservatives, with their gimlet-eyed view of the world, are always susceptible to charges of incivility. It’s not really nice, you know, to describe things as they are.

This is leftism’s great strength: it’s all white lies. That’s its only advantage, as far as I can tell. None of its programs actually works, after all. From statism and income redistribution to liberalized criminal laws and multiculturalism, from its assault on religion to its redefinition of family, leftist policies have made the common life worse wherever they’re installed. But because it depends on—indeed is defined by—describing the human condition inaccurately, leftism is nothing if not polite. With its tortuous attempts to rename unpleasant facts out of existence—he’s not crippled, dear, he’s handicapped; it’s not a slum, it’s an inner city; it’s not surrender, it’s redeployment—leftism has outlived its own failure by hiding itself within the most labyrinthine construct of social delicacy since Victoria was queen."

Palin Premonition

2008-09-27T23:37:00.001-07:00

I have a feeling Palin's debate with Biden, who himself is not of the most displined mind, has a good chance of producing a gaffe or just a embarrsing Palin performance that will break Mccain's campaign.

I'm not a Palin hater. I hated the SNL parody of her great convention speech and i would prefer many more Palin's opposed to anymore Tina Fey's. I would love Palin as a wife. One of Palin's greatest assests, besides a great smile, is her personialtys abilty to point out that there's 2 kinds of femnists. There's the urban, pretencious, man hating, perpetually complaining kind ala Tina Fey and then theyre's the stoic, hard working, indepdent, frontierswomen kind as is Palin incarnate.

I like alot of her policies and i think she is a genuine reformer. I generally have extra respect for women in poltics, mostly cause they have to wear such gaudy colored pant suits all the time. I must confess though that her voice(she could be like a gentile Fran Drescher) does drive me up the wall and in general her various folksy banalties reminds of every school teacher i've ever hated. The MSM has been brutal on her and played to Mccain's hand by inciting a culture war against unpretenious, hard working, pious salt of the earth americans who make this country great in their own subtle way.Butwhile she is probably smarter than liberals think, i don't think Palin is very sharp of the cuff or otherwise. It would be a bit scary to have a president Palin but i am absolutely certain that in this day and age of medical innovation she will never ascendend to the oval office. John McCain is looking vigorous and hardly a few years away from passing on.

It must be a left wing conspiracy that this year they finally allowed the candiates to ask eachother question during the debates. It's a good change but i feel confident Biden will use it like Charles Gibson to tease a gaffe out of Palin. I'm sure BIden and his aides are plotting away as i write this, above D.C., crafting questions about what the president of Yemen's name is for sweet Sara.

on the debates

2008-09-27T23:18:00.000-07:00

Mccain certainly did not look like a man a few years away from death. He looked vital. But the debate was even which helps Obama.

Mccain could have done better on taxes and iran. He missed alot of oppurtinties, esepcially on not attacking Obama's tax policy or exsplaining his tax policy. He should have mentioned in regard to Iran diplomacy that such diplomacy with Iran has been proven futile for the last 3 years as the European's have tried and failed to do what Obama wants to do more of. Mccain should have put out the facts also that Iran has broken all there agreements and treatys before. Is Amnejihad just waiting to shake a American presidents hand in order to give up his nuclear pursuit?

Ironically Obama gave a much more compelling case for why Iran must not get nukes. Mccain should have exsplained how easily Iran could give nuclear material to Hezbollah who can make dirty bombs which by lobbing into Israel can make 80 oercent of that nation unliveable. He should have mentioned that Iran blew up a jewish community center in Argentina and that if they were to get nukes we would be setting a precendent on nukes which would allow anyone to acquire nukes.

I think Obama did the best he could, Mccain will win the next debates because he can improve on his first debate performance which was itself pretty good.

It was defintly the best poltical debate i've seen in 8 years.

Aside from policy, we have nominated two very likeable people.

1

2008-09-27T23:13:00.000-07:00

Matthew Yglesias wikipedia entry inspired me to start blogging.

i once had a blog but it was really just a dumping ground of essays.

i plan to make this one a authentic blog full of frivlous myraid thoughts.