"Negro Magic"?

One must wonder if the following montage of headlines is worth it to Barack Obama to become Hillary Clinton's vice president:

Obama's kin owned slaves - A genealogical report finds two slave owners among the candidate's U.S. ancestors (on his white mother's side of the family, natch)

Is Obama the new 'black'? - Barack Obama is a rising star. He's a powerful speaker and a gifted writer. He is the only African American serving in the U.S. Senate. But is he black?

That's what New York Daily News columnist Stanley Crouch asked last month, and his answer was decidedly "no." No, Crouch wasn't just employing the old "blacker than thou" canard. Nor was he concerned with the fact that Obama was raised by his white mother. Rather, he was treating blackness not just as a racial (shared biology) identity but as an ethnic (shared historical experience) one. And isn't that what the switch of terms from "black" to "African American" was all about?...

What Crouch is arguing is that what the majority of black Americans share is their ancestors' experience as human chattel, brought to these shores in the grips of chains. Slavery and segregation not only forged a rigid racial line between black and white but created a shared ethnic experience. For Crouch, the fact that Obama's father — whom Obama met only once — was a black Kenyan who came to the U.S. to study at Harvard and the University of Hawaii removes him from the traditional black American narrative.

Author and essayist Debra Dickerson agrees. She believes that much of Obama's popularity among whites stems from the fact that his family wasn't part of the slave experience and therefore elicits no feelings of historical guilt. "The swooning from white people is a paroxysm of self-congratulation," she said.

Come on, folks. Slavery ended almost 145 years ago. We stopped the whole stupidity of segregation 43 years ago. Unfortunately, the oppression of black Americans continues even today, in the form of self-imposed (leftist) racist pathology that can't be let go of or left in the rear view mirror and is about as relevant to today's black Americans as the Norman conquest of England is to their white countrymen. As the old saying goes: "You can't go forward unless you first stop looking back." In terms of race, this is akin to advocating for the holocaust to the political left. After all, if Donks starting doing that, we might actually become a colorblind society in which the content of one's character matters more than the color of one's skin, and black voters might start thinking for themselves instead of believing most of those tasteless anti-Republican/anti-conservative lies, and the Democrats might lose their iron clad grip hold on Afro-Americans and the national political viability that goes with it. And we certainly can't have THAT.

Historical guilt". Would be better described as "collective guilt." No, worse than that - racial guilt. Whites "swoon" over Barack Obama because all whites are racists because some whites inflicted slavery on some blacks in centuries past. But Obama isn't "really black" because his ancestors were genuinely "African" and not "African-American," never slaves but rather....well, never slaves, anyway. At least not in the sense of being owned by white people. And because he's, you know, an "Oreo". Or "zebra". His blood done be pluted by honky cracker genes.

Come on, folks. Don't look at me like that. I'm just trying to amplify the spirit of how the political left, which we all know, could never be racist, is talking about Obama. The dialogue is cluttered with mindless chit chat over the not so subtle but consistent theme:

TIME: Is Obama Black Enough?

LA Times: Some wonder: Is Obama black enough?

Maybe it's me, but I don't think I could possibly think of a more blatantly and perhaps more patently and blanket racist question than these. Imagine the furor over a conservative asking such a question!

How, aside from being bi-racial, is Barack Obama "not black enough"? One would have to figure that it had to do with something more than not being the decedent of a slave right? Is it because, he's well, eloquent, highly charismatic and uh, educated? Do black men forfeit their supposed 'blackness' when they drop their victim hood and do something with their lives?

Stop it! Stop looking at me like I'm a royal jerk-face. I'm not the guy saying Obama isn't 'black enough'. To me, it's just the usual overtly racist crap that flies from the left, but to them, it's a real 'test of faith' so to speak. And since libs can get away with saying ANYthing, that would explain this next quote, in which David Ehrenstein of the L.A. Times gives this crypto-Klan rhetoric an astonishing and appalling label:

As ever carbon-based life form on this planet surely knows, Barack Obama, the junior Democratic senator from Illinois, is running for president. Since making his announcement, there has been no end of commentary about him in all quarters — musing over his charisma and the prospect he offers of being the first African American to be elected to the White House.

But it's clear that Obama also is running for an equally important unelected office, in the province of the popular imagination — the "Magic Negro."

WAIT WHAT!? "Magic Negro"!? "Magic Negro". If Ann Coulter ever used that phrase we'd be picking her off the bottom of the Connecticut River. I can't think of a GOP member who would touch it with ten feet long tongs? It's too nuclear. It would end his or her political career in a heartbeat. The very same Left that has impunity to toss off such racial epithets would fall upon that hapless pachyderm and strip every last speck of PR meat from his/her bones in a self-righteous feeding frenzy of hyper-moralistic indignation. Anyone on the right using the term would have 'revealed their inherent racism' but a liberal doing that kind of stuff is, well, who cares.

Me, I figure Barack Obama is "black enough" based on his hyper-NeoBolshevik voting record. The Left will like him because he's good at doing what he's told. That's sort of what the left likes out of their minority "constituents"). However, he's really brought nothing to national politics and the only reason he's running for the Oval Office so early in his career is because he has some incredibly unique political traits all rolled up into a nice Afro-American package. Oddly enough, even that isn't enough to even the folks who should support him more than anyone.

But it will be enough to get him on the '08 Donk ticket with Mrs. Clinton, who will need all the "Negro magic" she can get.

Perky Katie being poked for not being 'nice' enough to John Edwards

CBS's Katie Couric has come under scrutiny after her interview with John and Elizabeth Edwards. She apparently wasn’t nice enough. I was impressed Couric actually asked some actual questions.

Couric challenged their decision by asking pointed, difficult questions.

J. Edwards feigned shock when Couric suggested he was putting work before family. Work is what he did as lawyer. Being President wouldn’t be work, it would be service.

The women of the View seemed very impressed by this obviously rehearsed response. If Edwards doesn’t think he will be “working” as President he definitely has no business in the office.

Couric asked the hard questions and she put the dilemma in proper perspective.

The View perspective: Couric faced the same situation and she kept working.

ROSIE, JOY and ELIZABETH: Couric was not on the campaign trail- she was a newscaster with flexibility in her job. She was home every day with her family, supporting her husband. Her husband, who actually had the cancer, was with his kids. Couric was not the person who was going to die.

The women then suggest that McCain’s skin cancer and Giuliani’s prostate cancer are the equivalent of E. Edwards’s metastasized cancer. They suggest that there is a double standard at play because people don’t have concerns about the men in the race that actually had cancer.

Remember when Rudy got out of the Senate race when he was diagnosed because he didn’t know how his cancer story was going to play out. Now he knows his cancer is “cured”. I would bet good money that if Rudy’s cancer came back, he would be out.

McCain has had skin cancer. No one has suggested the occasional removal of skin cancer will result in his untimely death. There is no double standard here. Do not compare apples to oranges.

In the end, the Couric interview was simply good practice for the John and Elizabeth Edwards. After all, Joy observed, the republicans are much more insensitive than Katie Couric could ever be.

Romney Taps Into College Students for Dollars

Romney seems to be doing quite an impressive job of tapping into the rather sizable College Republican population in the country by bringing them onto the campaign as fundraisers and allowing them to keep up to and in some cases more, than 8% commission on the total money they raise. Pretty innovative stuff.

BOSTON (AP) — A millionaire thanks to his work as a venture capitalist, Mitt Romney is acutely aware of the motivating power of money. His presidential campaign hopes it will have a similar effect on college students, which is why it's offering them a cut of their fundraising.

Participants in "Students for Mitt" will get 10 percent of the money they raise for the campaign beyond the first $1,000. While candidates often offer professional fundraisers commissions up to 8 percent, campaign experts believe the Massachusetts Republican is the first to do so with the legion of college students who have historically served as campaign volunteers.

"For the kids that want to get involved in a political campaign and they don't want to spend their summer painting houses, they can help the campaign and themselves at the same time," said Romney spokesman Kevin Madden.

For more on the program, read here.

Romney has been aggressively lobbying for the support of America's Conservative College Students for some time now, paying nearly $25,000 to ship as many as he could down to CPAC in Washington, D.C. earlier this month to take part in the annual straw poll. Romney won the poll with 21 percent of the vote.

Governor Patrick Coming to Western Mass To Hammer Legislators

In an effort to turn up the heat on state legislators who aren't supporting taxes on new businesses, Deval Patrick's going to be touring the state having more of those silly town meeting moonbat pow-wows to push his new policy. In fact, he's planning on 'suggesting' names of some legislators who need to be 'lobbied' according to Mass Live. That'll go over like a fart in church.

"At the outset, we believe that our supporters and supporters of these ideas ought to be talking to their own legislators," Patrick said late yesterday afternoon. "As we do our own polling and we develop a sense of who is supportive and who is on the fence and who's elsewhere, then we'll be targeting particular legislators - you bet."

Patrick said he hopes legislators don't resent it.

Call me crazy, but I think they will. Just a tad.

Petrolati said yesterday it would be counterproductive to effectively raise taxes on businesses, especially when the state's economy is slowing.

"What I'm hearing is that people don't want new taxes," Petrolati said.

For once in my life, I agree with Tommy Petrolati. Hell is chilly tonight. While Patrick is partly right that many legislators are out of touch with their districts, on this particular issue (business taxes), most aren't, which is a political anomaly in this state.

Really though, what happened to "Together" We Can? Deval's made himself enough enemies in these early months. It probably wouldn't serve him well to make more.

Moonbats in Full Flight

Deval Patrick's new web site has garnered a little criticism over the past 48 hours or so, but for anyone curious as to how this web site was any different from his campaign web site.. well, uh....

Yes, everyone, 9-11 never happened, at least according to the 'community activists' on Deval Patrick's web site. Don't believe me, follow this link.

Secretary of State Bill Galvin has even chimed in with his feelings on the matter here. Apparently the web site has been publishing your address, phone number and all sorts of personal information. If the left hates the Patriot Act so much, they must be having a hemorrhage over this one!

It's that time of year where the moon bats like to spread 'em!...... The wings that is.

Speech Codes for Professors?

Rarely does a day go by when we aren’t assaulted by some story of censorship on a college or university campus or even in general by the left. Just last week the Western Massachusetts Republicans had their Calvin Coolidge Banquet interrupted by a bomb threat.

Where do we draw the line? For those of us that think free speech is an okay thing, even when it means I have to listen to someone whose opinion I may detest, it’s a difficult question to grapple with. When it comes to students being able to voice their opinions on a college or university campus, there is no line and nor should there be. However, what about professors, especially those employed at state universities? Should we maybe institute a litmus test?

Many people in academia these days subscribe to the views of Herbert Marcuse, who would say that it’s okay to censor views that are deemed ‘oppressive’ (see Conservative). For Example, Marcusianists would argue that largely conservative religious views regarding safe sex should be censored because they function as a repressive social mechanism to sexual minorities.

Last October, there was a batch of students at Columbia University who charged the stage of an anti-Illegal Immigration speaker, claiming that he had zero right to speak. Leaders of the group said later on Fox News’s Hannity & Colmes that the speaker was ‘spewing hate’ and that their actions were justified because the speaker’s views were unacceptable.

Depending on the circumstances, censorship can either be a heckler’s veto (like it was in the case I just mentioned) and other times it’s through more official channels. Despite their rhetoric, College and University campuses are becoming notorious for their speech codes. Prohibited speech is really anything that supposedly make someone, especially minorities, fell uncomfortable. There are even some campuses where certain jokes are banned!

Marcusian regulations would say these speech codes are a-okay and even in most cases beneficial because they allow minorities the freedom to express their views instead. Full-fledged free speech cannot exist they claim, because oppressive views might be instilled in minorities and they will, as a result, be intimidated to the degree that they will fall silent. Most levelheaded, common sense people see the problem with these views and they rarely hold up in court.

But really, what about professors? Students don't just naturally behave this way. They have to learn it from somewhere and many times today, their world views are spoon fed to them by a decidedly liberal academic elite.

The University campus should be an entirely open marketplace of ideas and debate. Some of my best friends in college were professed Democrats whom I rarely agreed with anything on, but found ourselves to be quite a dangerous beer pong team. Former State Representative and 2001 Mayoral Candidate Paul Caron was an ardent Democrat. His roommate at Springfield College, few people know, was Craig Shirley, who is one of Washington D.C.’s most pre-eminent power brokers. Shirley’s clients include Ann Coulter, Zell Miller, and just about every major Republican think tank in Washington. He’s an executive board member at the Patrick Henry Center as well as the American Conservatives Union, the same group that puts on the annual conservative Woodstock known as “CPAC”. Imagine what those conversations must have been like?

Competing ideologies amongst students on campus should be welcome. However, there should be some ground rules in place. In the 1950’s, Nobel laureate Friedrich Hayek said that the constitution of liberty that professors who oppose the principles upon which their position rests should forfeit their position. He gave an example of a communist, relevant to the time he was writing, who advocated for the overthrow of the American system and the imprisonment of the enemies of the Proletariat, including his fellow intellectuals. According to him, if such an individual were given power, they would send a majority of their coworkers and the rest of us as well, to the gulag or to the gallows.

Perhaps most importantly, Hayek said that ‘tolerance shouldn’t include the advocacy of intolerance’. A professor’s job depends on the existence of free society and it, under no circumstances can or should advocate for the destruction of that society. The constitution of a free society should not be a suicide pact or the blessings of liberty become the means of its undoing and we’re all worse off in the long run

Understanding Hayek’s argument is important. There is a huge difference between believing that certain change, even radical change, to the status quo is necessary and believing that the freedom one has to speak should be unconditionally denied to all who disagree.

Radical Islam poses a similar threat as communism did decades ago. If in power, its adherents would silence dissent and kill many dissenters. Should professors with this view forfeit their right to tenure, a privilege dependent upon Western ideals of tolerance and free inquiry? This discussion is difficult because it strikes at the heart of many of the ideas we hold dear. We didn't like it when it involved communists and, to our credit, we still don't like it today. But it's a discussion we must have nonetheless.

DevalPatrick.com raises privacy issues

Looks like ABC-5 in Boston has picked up on the sham of Deval Patrick's "Civic Engagement" web site as well.

Team 5 Investigates Janet Wu discovered that when people register to participate, it discloses their home address as listed in the Massachusetts voter database. Wu found that anyone could enter a name and a town and find the street address for any registered voter. For some searches, unpublished phone numbers were revealed.
Team 5 Investigates entered the name of a woman with a restraining order against a stalker. Her full address popped up on the Patrick campaign Web site.


Galvin said that he is concerned about privacy issues and worried about misuse of the information.

"I think we're all concerned about people's private information getting public. Just to be clear, this information did not come from my office," said Galvin. "We know elderly voters in particular (are) concerned about people finding their address, what apartment they're in."

Can you say privacy issues?

Morningstar said if anyone has a complaint to lodge, she welcomes them to go online and register their concerns, but she said the campaign has no intention of taking down the new page

Dear Miss Morningstar,

I'll go online so you can voter ID me, maybe even make a contribution, and file my complaint. Thanks for all your 'help'.

best,
Afternoon moon

Buckle up folks, it's going to be a long four years.

How Modern Liberals Think

Great lecture on Modern Liberal thinking. The best part is his commentary on Flushing Korans Down the Toilet. How does that work? Enjoy.

Me, Myself and I

A new study has proclaimed today's college students "more narcissistic than ever."

The study was done by five shrinks, who examined responses from over 16,000 respondents between 1982 and 2006 on a written personality test called the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. If you Google it, you’ll see that the NPI was published in 1979 and has hundreds of paired statements, one reflecting narcissistic traits and other reflecting non-narcissistic traits. The person taking the test chooses which of the two statements they agree with. The results are tabulated and according to the definitions and standards of the NPI, they gage the subject’s overall level of narcissism.

Regardless of the validity of the NPI, the results are pretty eye opening. According to the test, two-thirds of subjects have ‘above average’ narcissism scores, a 30% jump from 1982. The main point is that there’s been a highly significant trend in the increasing percentage of college students scoring ‘above average’ on the test.

I was an Industrial/Organizational Psychology student in my graduate years and have been a college Residence Hall Directors during and since then. I always have been very skeptical regarding the validity of all those paper-pencil tests taken by college students, but, you can’t argue with the base conclusion. I see it every day myself.

Narcissistic Personality Disorder is defined as (according to the DSM) “a pattern of grandiosity (exaggerated claims to talents, importance, or specialness) in the patient’s private fantasies or outward behavior, a need for constant admiration from others; and a lack of empathy for others.” The study says that narcissists “are more likely to have romantic relationships that are short-lived, at a higher risk for infidelity, lack emotional warmth and to exhibit game-playing, dishonesty and over-controlling and violent behaviors.”

As a Resident Director at various academic institutions for years now, I can say it pretty much does an effective job of capturing much of the essence of our youth culture of today, especially as reflected (and indeed created) by the mass media and Hollywood.

What alarms me most is what’s in store for our future. The children my wife and I meet with on a daily basis are severely emotionally stunted. They have absolutely zero ability to resolve conflict (a student came up to tell me that another student had taken a number 2 in the bathroom and refused to flush it and that I should do something), poor communication skills, an insatiable ability to sensationalize even the most trivial of matters and can be at times entirely vicious towards others.

I sometimes wonder if my Residents have ever been told ‘no’ in their lives. Roommate disputes sometimes involve Parents. And increasingly Lawyers are becoming involved. All over the fact that someone left their hair-straightener on. Roommates have fights not person to person, but on AOL Instant Messenger, sitting no less than four feet from each other.

In perhaps the most recent incident of the incredible levels of narcissism I’ve seen in our college aged youth; I recently had the opportunity to judge a Karaoke competition on campus with a few other administrators.

You’d think Karaoke would be a giant funfest, with people making fun of themselves, or at least having the ability to do so. I know I would never take anything I did seriously while singing “Return of the Mack” on the mic.

Not these girls.

The first act approached us during the intermission asking why their scores were lower (they were actually higher). Before I could squeeze and answer out (I didn’t even remember the score I gave them, that’s how little I cared about it), I was asked if I gave them a low score because they were black. No joke. It didn’t end there.

Another act came up on stage and sang Pat Benetar’s “Love is a Battlefield”. Well, not really sing. In fact, she didn’t know any of the words, so she did what comes to mind whenever any of hear Pat Benetar, and that was to whip out those glow stick thingies and whip them around. She was also dressed like Mrs. Jetson and Bob Marley’s rape baby. She was awful and the first judge said so, and she ran off stage crying.

The last round of the night featured a pick a number, get a random song format. One of the finalists received “Girls Just Wanna Have Fun” by Cindy Lauper. She was a girl who attends and all-girls school. She fumbled over a few of the words despite the audience literally singing (err, screaming) the entire song along with her. Well, one of the judges said she should probably know the song, because as most any reasonable adult male above 35 would figure, it’s sort of a late teenage girl ‘anthem’ (as he deemed it). She called him a sexist and broke down crying.

Again, all true stories.

Despite all of that, I am at odds with a few assumptions within the study. The main source of my disagreement is that they state that the roots of the increase in narcissism are found in the ‘self-esteem movement’ of the 1980s. They’re quite right to take a shot at the educational establishment, who’ve completely lost their minds altogether, and should be held fully responsible for the empty, vacuous ‘self esteem’ education we have to deal with today. However, I feel the true source of American narcissism is the liberation movements of the 1960s.

The core ideas of the 1960s counter-culture movement emphasized individual ‘freedom’, ‘personal growth’ and utopian dreams of a ‘new’ and ‘better world’. When these ideas were applied in real practice, they resulted in promiscuous sex, drug use, violent rebellion against the so called ‘bourgeois lifestyle of family, work and patriotism’, all while managing to leave self responsibility rolling in the dirt somewhere back in Albuquerque. It was all about doing what ‘felt good’. The self-esteem movement is an offshoot of this and as a result, it has produced the fine young ladies I got to judge during that Karaoke contest.

It is easy for anyone not enamored with "the Age of Aquarius" to see that today's youth merely reflect the shallow and selfish worldview bequeathed to them by their parents' generation. I have talked about narcissism on this blog frequently because I feel it’s what is driving our culture into the ground, but I feel the problem is a shade deeper.

Despite that, I don’t know if narcissism on its own is really the biggest problem in American culture today. We’ve always had narcissists. They’re usually so busy talking about themselves that they never really have much of an opportunity to do anything detrimental to society. The biggest problem is a mutated form of narcissism I like to call ‘hyper-narcissism’.

Hyper-Narcissism is when narcissism becomes dangerous. It’s when people mask their narcissism with altruism. It’s a graduated form of what I discussed above and has manifested itself all throughout our culture at the micro and macro level.

I remember sitting through a plethora of college leadership programs and workshops in both my graduate and undergraduate years. Nearly all of them ended in the same thing; some dumb-ass crying about how ‘amazing’ everyone was, how they ‘were impacted in so many ways’ by people they met two hours ago, etc. None of that sobbing and ‘thanking’ was really ‘thanking’. It was saying nice things about other people in order to hear more nice things about themselves. It was a tit for tat game with the person getting the most compliments getting bragging rights.

Even as a Resident Director and a graduate student, I was amazed at how co-workers desperately tried to validate the importance of themselves through other people and procedure. In one meeting, over RA awards, Directors would literally maul each other ‘advocating’ for their employee. Really, it wasn’t ever about the employee getting the award; it was about the RD looking like a great supervisor because their employee got the award.

In today’s world, if self-worship was a religion, it would be unprecedented in size. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska) held a press conference last week to tell us that he had nothing to tell us. Governor Deval Patrick literally sought out the media to let everyone know his wife had depression. And in the latest act of political vanity, President John Edwards called a press conference and then scheduled a 60-Minutes interview to tell us all about his wife’s battle with cancer. Why? “Because we wanted everyone to hear it from us.” They said. A press release would have done fine. That way people know but it’s not in a flaunted manner. But nope, it was an excuse to get in front of the TV camera so ‘their supporters’ could hear it ‘from them’. Give me a break.

In nearly all of these cases, we have people justifying their egomaniacal behavior in the name of doing something good for others. Here’s where we as a culture are beginning to walk a slippery slope and literally consume itself from within. It seems everything is geared towards us nowadays. You Tube. My Space. We cannot have a government that is based on individual beauty contests and not on the common good.

We’ve kicked many bad habits in the past as a culture, but can we kick ourselves?

More Legislative Double Standards

They win an election, promising to bring honor back to Washington. Now, they break a promise not to hold votes "open" past the alloted time. Some background:

On their first day in the majority in January, Democrats amended the House rules to mandate that a vote "shall not be held open for the sole purpose of reversing the outcome of such vote."

Under earlier GOP rule, Democrats routinely attacked Republicans for extending the voting time, often citing the 2003 vote on the Medicare prescription drug bill that was famously held open three hours. And Hoyer himself was one of their foremost critics.

A quote from Hoyer:

"House Republican leaders proved once again today that they will stop at virtually nothing to win a vote, even if that means running roughshod over the most basic principles of democracy such as letting members vote their conscience and calling the vote after the allotted time has elapsed," Hoyer said.

"They ought to be ashamed of themselves, but when it comes to holding votes open and twisting the arms of their own members they clearly have no shame,’’ he went on. “These back-alley tactics have no place in the greatest deliberative body in the world. They might be the lifeblood of the tin-horn dictator, but not a world leader. It's an embarrassment.”

So what does Hoyer say today?

Asked Wednesday night whether Democrats would keep to the time limit, Hoyer paused, then pointed out that many votes can run a few minutes longer for various reasons. Pressed further by a reporter who pointed out that Democrats themselves had often criticized Republicans on this very point, Hoyer said, "It won't be open three hours. How about that?"

"How about 30 minutes?" the reporter asked.

"I won't guarantee it," Hoyer replied.

Also missing from the Democrats campaign promises-results. Prior to the election, Ms. Pelosi offered 6 things that would be changed by Democrats in the first 100 hours of the new session. To date, the Democrats are 0-6. I recall what a big deal was made about the Democrats getting things thru the House in 50 or 60 hours-but where are they now?

Perhaps we should hold some Senate hearings to see if the Democrats lied to the American people..

Just one of those stories

For me, reading the newspaper has become like conducting surgery, especially in the past few years. Even on the Internet, some stories are becoming so blatantly opinionated that you need to read the same story from four or five different sources just to get an even-Steven look at whatever it is they're trying to write about. Sometimes, the stupidity of the author is only out done by the stupidity of the person whom the story is being written about.

Rarely do these two forces of stupidity unify to produce a piece of functionally idiotic journalism that is so idiotic, that no matter how hard you try, there is literally no way that you will come away from the story NOT retarded.

I stumbled across an interesting story on the front page of Mass Live today which can be found here. When people talk about stupidity in the media, all you have to do is look at a story like this for 'proof'. Not only is the headline entirely misleading, but some of the content is flat out laughable. Sure, you can follow the link but I'd much rather put this on display for you to take a look at.

Hagel: Some see impeachment as option

Yes, as you can tell, this is going to be one of those stories that glorified the only Republican with 'common sense'. The guy who made an announcement that he had no announcement last week, GOP media whore & Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel.

WASHINGTON (AP) — With his go-it-alone approach on Iraq, President Bush is flouting Congress and the public, so angering lawmakers that some consider impeachment an option over his war policy, a senator from Bush's own party said Sunday.

"Go it alone"? That's sooo 2003. The president is 'flouting' Congress and the public, and because he's such a completely miserable prick, he's got people so steaming mad that even members of his own party are considering impeachment in congress, which is an absolutely absurd claim.

Meanwhile, the Senate's No. 2 Republican leader harshly criticized House Democrats for setting an "artificial date" for withdrawing troops from Iraq and said he believes Republicans have enough votes to prevent passage of a similar bill in the Senate.

"We need to put that kind of decision in the hands of our commanders who are there on the ground with the men and women," said Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss. "For Congress to impose an artificial date of any kind is totally irresponsible."

So now we're three paragraphs deep, and not one mention of impeachment or Chuck Hagel. Just some good old fun-making of Republicans before ripping the Trent Lott Monster out of the closet to scare the kool-aid drinkers.

GOP Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a frequent critic of the war, stopped short of calling for Bush's impeachment. But he made clear that some lawmakers viewed that as an option should Bush choose to push ahead despite public sentiment against the war.

"Any president who says, I don't care, or I will not respond to what the people of this country are saying about Iraq or anything else, or I don't care what the Congress does, I am going to proceed — if a president really believes that, then there are — what I was pointing out, there are ways to deal with that," said Hagel, who is considering a 2008 presidential run.

OH there he is! Hagel's so good at making the lefty media swoon for him.

I'm a big fan of pro wrestling. Before you laugh, consider how close to politics the two really are. Wrestlers are just like politicians except wrestlers usually don't try to portray themselves as seriously. One of the cardinal rules of wrestling is to never give the fans too much. Always give them a reason to tune in next week. If two guys are feuding and come into physical contact with each other before the scheduled match is supposed to happen, there's no reason to watch the match. Same thing with politics. Always give the media a reason to come back to hear the rest of whatever you don't have to to say. No one does this better than Chuck Hagel, the same guy, as I already mentioned, who called a press conference to let everyone know he was making an announcement that he didn't have an announcement yet.

That ticked the media off, the one group whose support he had been cultivating for years. I'm sure this is a nice way to get some attention. Just like Bill Richardson likened a fence on the Mexican boarder to the Berlin Wall last week, Hagel's going to say, or at least imply, something crazy enough to hopefully get the media's attention. Welcome to the totally pathetic world of wanna-be Presidential campaigns.

That comes after the House narrowly passed a bill Friday that would pay for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan this year but would require that combat troops come home from Iraq before September 2008 — or earlier if the Iraqi government did not meet certain requirements.

On Sunday, Hagel said he was bothered by Bush's apparent disregard of congressional sentiment on Iraq, such as his decision to send additional troops. He said lawmakers now stood ready to stand up to the president when necessary.

Nice of our author to leave out the hundreds of millions of dollars in pork barrel spending the Democrats pig piled into the bill. Almost every major newspaper in the nation crucified the bill, including some of the more liberal ones. The Lowell Sun even went as far as to call the bill 'treasonous'. But 'both sides' isn't useful when you're trying to get a point across.

The second paragraph is more of that sexy wording. Bush's "apparent" disregard, as if his acting in what he feels is the best interests of the country is somehow being taken for downright contempt for the entire legislative branch of Government.

In the April edition of Esquire magazine, Hagel described Bush as someone who doesn't believe he's accountable to anyone. "He's not accountable anymore, which isn't totally true. You can impeach him, and before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment. I don't know. It depends on how this goes," Hagel told the magazine.

Someone tell me what Hagel means by "He's Not accountable anymore, which isn't totally true." That's Chuck-N-Cluck for what again?

Look, I make no secret of the fact that I'm no fan of the Democratic Party and it's politics. But my loathing for their antics pales in comparison to my raging hatred for political grandstanding on the left or the right. Chuck Hagel frequently gets in front of TV cameras to say a whole lot without really saying anything at all. He'll say anything, including saying nothing, to get the media's attention and make himself the center of the show.

"We have clearly a situation where the president has lost the confidence of the American people in his war effort," Hagel said. "It is now time, going into the fifth year of that effort, for the Congress to step forward and be part of setting some boundaries and some conditions as to our involvement."

Wait who has a disregard for the Democratic process? The legislature or the executive branch? Sounds like both to me.

"This is not a monarchy," he added, referring to the possibility that some lawmakers may seek impeachment. "There are ways to deal with it. And I would hope the president understands that."

Now, we're making outrageous statements and following them up with threats. Someone get the hook.

So what's the point of this whole thing, well, there really isn't one other than to point out to any politicians or members of the media who are out there that it's stuff like this that makes watching and reading the news as enjoyable of taking one of those really sharp shits. Not only is there opinion plastered all through this story on the part of the author, there's enough crazy comments from Chuck Hagel to lambaste him for an entire election cycle.

The headline said Chuck Hagel said others feel impeachment is an option. I didn't hear much from others, just a whole lot from him, without, of course, saying it.

"Define What 'Is', is..."

When I Use a Word, It Means Precisely What I Want It To Mean. Nothing More. Nothing Less."--Humpty Dumpty

If you search for the name 'Jessica Lynch', you're going to find the words hero or heroine plastered all through the top 10 results. you will find the word heroine or hero prominent in the description of the top ten results. I support the troops, the war in Iraq and the broader conflict in the War on Terror, but could someone explain to me please, why Jessica Lynch is a hero(ine)?If getting captured and getting save now meet the criteria for 'above and beyond' duty? What ever happened to those guys who had no regard for their own livelihood or safety? I forgot. Those were the guys that saved Jessica Lynch. Who are they again? Heroism just ain't what it used to be I guess.

In fact, so many words in our language have been so watered down and genuinely raped of their meaning, it's hard to take the concepts behind them seriously. Once upon a time, the words we spoke held great meaning. Now, they're either casually misapplied or watered down to the point where they lose their original meaning entirely. I guess speaking ain't what it used to be.

Remember when 'Bigot' and 'Racist' used to mean people that held an irrational hatred of others based on the color of their skin or their ethnicity? They were truly despicable people. Today however, it generally means you don’t agree with someone of another race. You’re against affirmative action? Shut up, you’re a racist. Even more confounding; only white people can be racists and bigots. The hateful language of Louis Farrakhan is perfectly acceptable; since he’s black, he can’t be racist or bigoted.

Gay used to mean happy, light, frolicking in the meadow and the like. But this is a word that has been twisted beyond recognition. It's so bad, that if you use the thesaurus in MS Word, there aren't any other alternatives by way of synonyms. Now, it means homosexuality. My point is not to argue about homosexuality, but to point out the twisting of the language. Even the geniuses at Microsoft in Washington can’t find a way to deal with the unbelievable versatility of the word gay.

Rape used to have a meaning, too. It was the horrible act of forcing one's self on a woman without her consent, usually employing force or the threat of physical violence. Most women used to know immediately when they were raped. Now consensual marital relations are argued to be a form of rape. If you've had sex with your wife after a few, you're technically committing rape. Some young women now discover they’ve been raped only after being informed by counselors weeks after the fact. Incredible job of a word trying to hit a moving concept.

Child abuse used to mean the cruel mistreatment of children without regard to their welfare. Now it can be smoking in their presence or giving them a spanking. In fact, its current meaning has become so elastic that no two state agencies here in Massachusetts can seem to agree on what they should use for a definition. Like porn, the state bureaucrats 'know it when they, uh, see it'. I guess it just depends on who you draw and when.

Poverty used to mean you couldn't’t earn enough to support yourself. Poor people didn’t have food, or phones, or cable TV. They didn't have Doctors, heating in the winter or A/C in the summer. Now, 'poverty' is applied to people who have cable and a TV, Microwaves, automobiles, housing, heating, A/C, cell phones, free medical care, some day care, plenty of job training and they even get some meals free with food stamps. Thanks, LBJ.

Jeez, even being 'rich' is different these days. It used to mean you had money which pretty much did all your business for you, instead of you doing all your business for it. Now, rich people are just whomever so happens to have, or have the appearance of having, a greater income than yourself. My parents made a good living in Connecticut, but I guess the government thought they were rich, because between state and federal income taxes and social security they'll never see, more than half of their paychecks were confiscated. That's before they contributed to health insurance and retirement. Go figure; they were rich, but they couldn't have ever scraped up enough money to leave town.

Nazis, once upon a time, were a bunch of idiots who thought exterminating Jews and conquering Europe was a good idea. Now, a 'Nazi' is anyone that doesn't agree with you, especially if you're a Republican or conservative. Any time you talk about military power: "NAZI!" If you ever decide to run for office as a member of the GOP, just run and wait for it, because it's coming baby, with absolutely no effort on your part, either.

Ah how about Respect? It used to be something you earned by projecting a sense of integrity. You didn't demand it on anyone because you had to work for it. Now, if you don't give some douche-bag without a job, education or a clue, the courtesy normally reserved for heads of state, you're disrespecting them. Chalk up another casualty to moon-bat land which ripped and twisted a word that was just minding it's own business.

'Tolerance' meant putting up with something specific that you might not like, but isn't really worth causing a stink over. I put up with my Aunt Sis' excessively wet kisses on the cheek at Thanksgiving. Today, tolerance means you have to not only accept and embrace, you must 'celebrate' it no matter how offensive it may be to you. If you're not sanctifying it or 'celebrating' hard enough, you're intolerant. I guess the people redefining these words never had to sit next to my Aunt Sis at Thanksgiving Dinner.

The word 'lie', used to mean that you were saying something you KNEW was false. Today, if you have ever had to make a decision about something, no matter how urgent the situation may be, if you get a single teeny, tiny word wrong, you my friend, are a total 'liar'. Everything you ever have said was a lie, you can't be trusted again and friends, it goes to the fiber of who we are as Americans. That is except when you're a Democrat who perjures himself. Oaths of office mean nothing. It's amazing how this word has turned into verbal play dough.

Who could forget Misogynist? That used to involve hating and treating women poorly. Today, it means not agreeing with a 'feminist'. If you believe homemaking is alright and something you might want to consider, if you're a dude, you're a misogynist because you're lazy. If you're a woman, you're a self-loathing sellout bimbo.

And my personal favorite, 'phobias'. Remember when homosexual behavior was considered a psychological disorder? That was wrong. But now, its anyone who doesn't agree with the homosexual agenda who has the psychological disorder. Millions of Americans now need counseling. I wonder if the state will cover it? 'Xenophobia' means that you're messed up in the head if you think Illegal Immigrants should stop breaking the law. Islamophobia isn't having what Webster's Dictionary would term a 'rational fear of Islamic people" but an irrational feat of Islamic people. It's the ultimate verbal two-fer. I'm better than you and my words are bigger.

I'm sure there are more than a few things I've overlooked here, but I would like to make the main point of my argument clear: We've carelessly used hyperbolic words to get impact and emotional charge out of people, but as a result have left these words without any real power anymore. Its the 'boy who cried wolf' on repeat as someone says something and we get no response when perhaps one is needed. It breaks my heart when a woman is raped, really raped, and we pause to wait for the inevitable shading we've come to expect. If there really is someone who's profoundly racist, like a David Duke, the term racist doesn't have the sting it did long ago. Our language has become so diluted that eating chickens is now compared to the holocaust (thanks PETA freaks).

I think it's true: All the King's horses and all the king's men cannot put our language back together again.