Written Off

For every Chief Scott in the world, there's guys like this idiot, who sent this absolutely insane letter into the Springfield Republican, in response to the Aaron Brevoort-police shoot out a few days ago in Springfield:

The manner in which the Springfield police, the four state police officers
and the U.S. marshal killed Aaron J. Brevoort last week appalls me.

Perhaps even more appalling is the fact that this act of savage brutality
was praised by The Republican editorial, "In the line of duty, officers show
courage." (March 15).

How much courage does it take to surround a house with nine others and
shoot, as was reported by witnesses, up to 100 rounds at a man? The degree of
force used in this incident by the cops should be disturbing to everyone, as it
was to Brevoort's neighbors. Andres Salazar is one example who said he was
frightened for himself, his wife, and his 4-year-old grandson due to the
excessive amount of force used by the cops.

If this isn't an attempt to try an sensationalize just about all the stories within the story, I don't know what is. First of all, Salazar was talking about being frightened in general. That tends to happen when people are shooting guns and trying to waste each other in your vacinity.

Second, let's do some math here. If 10 people lined up around the house and were all shooting pistols, then that means they all used one clip. If the shoot out lasted 10-15 minutes, like eye witnesses said it did, then that means each officer fired one shot a minute. Excessive? No. Bad shot? Probably.

But then again, I'm sure this author was hoping for a 'fair' fight.

Another neighbor, Misael Sanchez stated that he counted 55 shell cases on
his property according to the same article. Sanchez commented upon the incident
as follows, "I was nervous. It's like something you see in the movies." There
was a daycare center on the third floor of the same building that Brevoort was
murdered at. According to the witnesses, it seems that the cops were not
shooting with any sort of restraint, accuracy, or concern for human life.
Imagine if one of those bullets would've strayed into that daycare, or another
child nearby; it is likely seeing as 55 shell casings were found on the property
of the neighboring home. With actions such as these we are forced to ask
ourselves who are the real gangs terrorizing our streets?

SHAUN LAMORY

This kind of ignorance just infuriates me. It doesn't make me mad, it makes me furious. For some suburbanite assclown who probably went to Hampshire College to be postulating about the excessive show of force that police used after being shot at. Brevoort was the one who opened fire first. He was the one who showed contempt for life. The police officers bravely did what they could do defuse the situation.

They found Brevoort's body with the chamber of the weapon open, an empty clip on the ground, and a full clip in his hand. He was killed while attempting to re-load his weapon. He wounded one Springfield Police officer to boot. He got his.

What blows my mind with regards to this letter and another written likely by the same idiot using a different name, is how all the facts in the case are completely and conveniently ignored so this nutbag can slam police officers for doing their job. The reason I posted this letter to begin with was because here, again, is a prime example of how idealogical narcissism is driving the folks on the left. There's a complete ignorance to what actually happened and instead a cute, reconstructed story is formulated and inserted so that they can paint 'cops' as the bad guys.

I'm willing to bet someone writes a letter to the editor talking about how Brevoort enjoyed picking flowers or petting the baby goats at Catskill Game Farm in his hometown of Catskill, NY. Someone will diefy him and turn him into a hero.

To me, he's another scumbag gone for good. The combination of technology and natural selection are a great thing.

Meaningless United Nations Fodder

I pick up the paper this morning and read that the Mother of All Paper Tigers, the United Nations, has issued a resolution that “bans all Iranian arms exports and freezes some of the financial assets of 28 Iranian individuals and entities linked to Iran's military and nuclear agencies.”

Oooh. The mullahs in Tehran must be quaking in their decidedly anti-Western garb.

This reminds me a lot of the last several years in which the toothless United Nations issued resolution after resolution designed to influence and pressure Saddam Hussein into compliance. For those who employ revisionist history about American “unilateralism” in Iraq and are in desperate need of a history lesson, here is a PARTIAL LIST of United Nations resolutions (courtesy, ironically of the “Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq” - thanks, guys, for helping me make my point):

1518 (24 November 2003)
1511 (16 October 2003)
1500 (14 August 2003)
1490 (3 July 2003)
1483 (22 May 2003)
1476 (24 April 2003)
1472 (28 March 2003)
1454 (30 December 2002)
1447 (4 December 2002)
1443 (25 November 2002)
1441 (8 November 2002) – the big one
1409 (14 May 2002) - note: "Extends the oil-for-food programme by six months," (this is my personal favorite. Kofi Annan’s cronies must have been running low on cash and apparently not skimming enough money off the top)
1382 (29 November 2001)
1360 (3 July 2001)
1352 (1 June 2001)
1330 (4 December 2000)
1302 (8 June 2000)
1284 (17 December 1999)
1281 (10 December 1999)
1280 (3 December 1999)
1275 (19 November 1999)
1266 (4 October 1999)
1242 (21 May 1999)
1210 (24 November 1998):
1205 (5 November 1998)
1194 (9 September 1998
1175 (19 June 1998)
1158 (25 March 1998)
1154 (2 March 1998)
1153 (20 February 1998)
1143 (4 December 1997)
1137 (12 November 1997)
1134 (23 October 1997)
1129 (12 September 1997)
1115 (21 June 1997)
1111 (4 June 1997)
1060 (12 June 1996)
1051 (27 March 1996)
986 (14 April 1995)
949 (15 October 1994)
899 (4 March 1994)
833 (27 May 1993)
806 (5 February 1993)
778 (2 October 1992)
773 (26 August 1992)
715 (11 October 1991)
712 (19 September 1991)
707 (15 August 1991)
706 (15 August 1991)
705 (15 August 1991)
700 (17 June 1991
699 (17 June 1991):
692 (20 May 1991)
689 (9 April 1991)
688 (5 April 1991)
687 (3 April 1991)
686 (2 March 1991)
685 (31 January 1991)

For those of you reading this who did not get Carpal Tunnel Syndrome or fall asleep from scrolling all the way down the list of U.N. resolutions on Iraq, you’ll note that aside from the meaningless nature of U.N. resolutions, the biggest threat to global warming is all of the trees that had to be cut down to print all of this worthless garbage.

Ahmadinejad, the (gulp) elected leader of Iran, may be crazy (see his wonderful list of quotes, just on Israel) but he’s not stupid. He can hold out as long as he wants against the most impotent and meaningless group since supporters of McCain-Feingold vowed to clean up the “corrupting influence of money on politics.”

So what to do? The only thing that Ahmadinejad will understand is a massed invasion force at his borders. Unfortunately, while the United States and a few non-cowardly allies could do just that, our international credibility has taken a hit over the invasion of Iraq and the reasons for it as viewed by those who employ revisionist history. And for any of those who are interested in a little legislative lesson, let’s have a look at a few Democrats who voted for the for H.J. Res. 114, the joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq after the American public, and consequently, our legislative bodies, got frustrated beyond belief with United Nations inaction, corruption and bumbling:

Biden (D-DE), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea (but let’s not forget that he voted for it before he voted against it)
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea

Interesting list.

Let’s see how that plays out in the general election.But back to my point. The United Nations can issue call of the meaningless resolutions it wants, and the Ayatollahs and Mullahs in Tehran will just fall over laughing. And Ahmadinejad will be strengthened.

You U.N. bureaucrats just keep contributing to global warming by cutting down all of those trees for your toothless resolutions. When you are serious about doing something about Iran, then you can call the United States. As long as we don’t have 535 generals running our military, then maybe something might get done.

I Am My Own Worst Problem

I have got to stop doing this.

My Saturday mornings usually begin calm and peaceful. I savor my first cup of French roast coffee, delighted by the fact that I don't have to rush off to work. Ahhhh.

Then, it happens.

Like a heroin addict reaching for the needle that I know will harm me, I pick up the Washington Post and steel myself for the latest steaming pile of dung disguised as balanced reporting. This posting will be short, but I often feel like Don Quixote, tilting windmills and railing against the obvious media bias that only I can see.

To wit, today's headlines that appear above the fold are:

Detainee Alleges Abuse in CIA Prison: (Irritable Elephant note: I don't care if
they hung you by your toenails. If you end up in Gitmo, odds are that you'd like
to fly a plane into an office building in Washington. Call Nancy Pelosi -
collect - and I'm sure she'll find some ACLU lawyer to represent you).

At Walter Reed, Bush Offers and Apology - accompanied by a photo of the President shaking hands with a poor, unfortunate solider with and artificial arm. (Irritable Elephant note: this is exploitative photojournalism. You could as easily have show the President at his press conference at Walter Reed. And is the President REALLY responsible for the abhorrent conditions that our brave veterans face? Or are there about 1,000 levels between him and those two are truly responsible?).

Ex-Partner of Giuliani May Face Charges: (Irritable Elephant note: The headline is NOT "Bernard Kerik May Face Charges." Just another chance to take a swipe at the Republican Party).

Is this media bias? Let's examine what is BELOW THE FOLD and yet still merits front-page attention:

Rock Creek Fish Head Home - really? Will there be a party? Can I come?

Iraqis United Behind Heroine on Arab 'Idol'" - This could not possibly be a positive story about the plight of Iraqis. This must be some mistake.

Housing Crisis Knocks Loudly in Michigan - Some bla bla bla about foreclosures. I don't really give a damn.

Above the fold: REPUBLICANS ARE THE DEVIL!! HIDE YOUR CHILDREN!!

Below the fold: meaningless drivel and pop culture crap.

I am personally torn between canceling my weekend subscription to the Post (lowering by blood pressure) and keeping it as fodder to prove the glaring, menacing media bias against which this Don Quixote will continue to rail.

Where are you, Sancho Panza? Will you join me?

Pelosi To Visit Syria

Nancy Pelosi really does think she's President.

"WASHINGTON (AP) - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will visit Syria, a country President Bush has shunned as a sponsor of terrorism, despite
being asked by the administration not to go.

"In our view, it is not the right time to have these sort of high- profile
visitors to Syria," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters Friday.

Pelosi arrived in Israel on Friday in what is her second fact-finding trip
to the Middle East since taking over leadership in the House in January.

Her repeat trip, an indication she plans to play a role in foreign policy,
is also a direct affront to the administration, which says such diplomatic
overtures by lawmakers can do more harm than good....."

Syria's more than welcome to keep her, too.

Pension Piggies

This certainly won't be the last hike. Here piggy, piggy!

The Massachusetts Board of Retirement agreed yesterday to hike pensions of
about eight of the 17 active and retired college presidents who asked for the
increases to mirror a boost that former University of Massachusetts president
William Bulger won in court.

In November, the Supreme Judicial Court
boosted Bulger's annual pension by $17,000, to $196,000, after factoring in his
housing allowance. State pensions are calculated based on a percentage of the
average of a worker's top three earning years before retirement.
The 17 other
college presidents had asked that their housing allowance be counted as salary
in calculating their pension.

"We made the decision based on the Bulger decision, which said housing
allowance can and should be factored into a pension," said state Treasurer
Timothy Cahill, who chairs the board.
The pension board agreed to set a
retroactive date of July 2002 to begin factoring in the housing allowance.
That's when the board was first notified about the issue.

About 8 of the 17 presidents retired after July 2002 and will be eligible
for the higher pensions.
Among the former or active college presidents who
requested an increase is former Holyoke Community College president David
Bartley, who asked for a $12,000 increase of his $138,000 annual pension.
Bartley retired in 2004.

Not to be crass here, but why is it Treasurer Tim Cahill is a complete and total pussy about everything he's involved with? If Cahill wants to be Governor someday, and let's be honest, if Deval Patrick continues on the road he's on, he may have a shot at the Donk nomination in 2010, then he should step up to the plate for the tax payers and put his foot down. That would make a statement. He should file a counter suit to this or do SOMETHING other than roll over and scream "uncle!!!!"

As for Billy Bulger.. how the feds haven't caught him or jailed him yet is completely beyond me. No one has done more to spit in the face of tax payers than Bulger. Not Dukakis, not King, not that cross-eyed vegtable Tommy Taxes or anyone. It goes to show how backwards your state is when someone like Bulger can get away with what he's gotten away with.

Why the MassGOP hasn't been, isn't, and perhaps will never be all over this, is a tragedy.

The Health Care "Crisis", Insured Stupidity, et all

Why is health care so expensive? Paradoxically, it’s because it’s so cheap! We are grossly over-insured when it comes to health care. This is largely due our managing to shift the cost of our health insurance to others (employers and the government). We perceive a “free lunch”; so why not make it steak and lobster? But there is no “free lunch”, there never is.

Can you imagine the cost of auto insurance if it had to cover our vehicles as comprehensively as our health insurance covers our bodies? It would have to cover routine maintenance, fuel costs, minor repairs, all normal wear and tear, on top of any catastrophic damage. And how well would we care for our cars if insurance paid for all of these things? What would happen to the cost of an oil change if we were all free to demand synthetic oil and super premium filters for a mere $15 out-of-pocket co-pay?

I’ll bet you could never sell such a stupid idea to your employer. Only the government could push such an economically ignorant plan. Of course this was a logical response at its inception to another stupid government plan, Wage & Price controls. Since employers couldn’t raise wages to attract talented people, when the IRS ruled that employer provided health care insurance was tax deductible, employers turned to this form of Other Compensation. Now they’re stuck with it and face the prospect of being forced farther down this road with plans like Mitt Romney’s, requiring them to provide it whether they want to or not.

I talked to a friend yesterday, who has been without health insurance for some time. What strikes him as particularly surreal is his doctor’s inability to determine what amount he owes him for his services in cash on the day of service. He has no idea what the drugs he prescribes, the procedures he recommends, or the tests he requests, will cost my buddy. He can’t even price his own services. He is utterly clueless about the cost structure of his industry, and has little incentive to find out. The consumer can’t shop around, because the system is so dysfunctional.

I'd also like to touch on the “right” to health care. I know several newly minted physicians. One of my best friend’s sister is getting ready to start her residency requirements. I’ve met her roommates and classmates, aspiring doctors all. They are all superlative people. I’ve never met a better group of people. By what “right” do we propose to take the fruits of their long years of sacrifice and dedication to education? Don’t they have a right to the well deserved benefits accruing to their astronomical investment of time, effort and money? Do we really think these intelligent people will not respond to having their services hijacked in the name of manufactured “Rights” by those unwilling and unable to do what they do? Anyone capable of becoming a doctor is capable of becoming just about anything else they might choose. Creating a powerful disincentive can only be counterproductive in the long run.

The latest wrinkle in this long sad tale is the “New” idea of socialized medicine. The same people that have screwed health care up now use its being screwed up as justification to further screw it up. You know, because the government is just so efficient at running things like education, mail delivery, issuing licenses, and all the other many wonderful things they do. To paraphrase Dr. Thomas Sowell, “Why do those that think health care is expensive now think it will somehow be cheaper after we add a layer of government bureaucracy to it?”

Give individuals the money and access to health insurance. Then they are the paying customers. If an insurance company gives poor service, consumers can take their business to another insurance company. If a doctor charges too much, they can shop around. If the consumer demand existed for up front pricing, it would be available. Suddenly a $5,000 deductible doesn’t sound out of line, does it? Maybe if we had to shell out the $1,000 for a MRI, we’d be more amenable to the $300 CT Scan instead. If we all had to pay for our own insurance, the incentives would straighten things out in pretty short order. If health insurance worked like home owner’s insurance or car insurance, everything else would start making sense, too. The answer isn’t more government. The answer isn’t forcing employers to absorb the costs. The answer isn’t to confiscate the services of doctors. The answer is to return the costs and responsibilities to the consumer and let the magic of the invisible hand make things right again.

Frankie Keough Gets Three Years

Frankie Keough was sentenced to three years yesterday. That's right, three year for swindling an entire agency for nearly a decade.

As one of the best-known public figure caught in a federal corruption dragnet in Springfield, Keough pleaded guilty in January to conspiracy, extortion, mail fraud, witness tampering and perjury charges linked to his tenure at Friends of the Homeless Inc., which runs two shelters in Springfield.

In an apology moments before Ponsor issued the sentence, Keough expressed a mix of anguish and self-contempt.

"I've asked myself how I arrived in a place like this," said Keough, who was jailed in August 2005 after admitting bail violations. "Quite frankly, I don't have an answer," he added.

After getting dozens of letters in jail from friends and former supporters, Keough, a college football star and former five-term city councilor, said could not bring himself to read them.

"They would just remind me of how grossly I have failed," he said.

It may be the understatement of the decade.

In perhaps the most ridiculous 'legal' basis for a slap on the wrist sentence, Judge Ponser said the following:

Ponsor also expressed concern that Keough's wife and son had struggled during his 20-month absence.

Defense lawyer Daniel D. Kelly of Springfield cited an unspecified medical condition of Keough's son, Griffin, while asking that his client be sentenced to home confinement.

Not only did he steal thousands upon millions of dollars from the HOMELESS agency in the city, he resorted to petty theft too, stealing mattresses, TV's, appliances, etc. Who gives leniency to the people whom he stole from?

Only in Springfield...


By the way, on a completely unrelated and utterly random note.... Frankie Keough barrs a striking resemblence to WWE Smackdown! Superstar Fit Finlay:


I'd bet, in a fight, Finlay would win. By a lot.

Hillary's Vagina v. Grumpy/Primped/Gigolo

Tony Blankley, on the inevitability of President Hillary Rodham Clinton:

With every passing week it becomes more likely that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic Party nominee for president. This thought, alone, should provide the strongest possible motivation to the Bush Administration and the Washington Republicans to get their acts together so that the eventual Republican nominee for president doesn't start the general election campaign in too deep a hole.

That's probably not going to happen. When at any time in the past two years has the Bush Administration had its act together? The congress are too busy trying to run away to ever notice Clinton moving behind them within length of a telephone chord.

The polls that show half the country saying they won't vote for Hillary should be discounted. At the election, the choice will not be Hillary or not Hillary -- it will be Hillary or someone else. And that is what the campaign is about. ...

Moreover, Hillary's strengths are not yet as appreciated as they will be. Don't get me wrong, personally I find her and her candidacy detestable as the worst form of unprincipled, ruthless, nihilistic, mud-throwing demagogic politics. But for the Democratic Party electorate (and some Independents and soft Republicans) her apparent strengths will become more persuasive.

For example, the same 'strengths' that the donk congressional candidates had this year, like, uh, not being Republicans. Even more, she's the polar opposite of George W. Bush.
And, you know, Clintons always, um, pound Bushes.

Currently she suffers by the media's focus on her lack of spontaneity, charm or pleasant voice - particularly when compared with Obama and, to some extent, Edwards. But charm is not the only path to the American voter. Richard Milhouse Nixon won more national elections than any politician in our history (two vice presidents, three presidential nominations and two presidencies - three if you count the stolen 1960 election against Kennedy). He didn't have any charm - but he was smart, shrewd, highly political, hard working and ruthless. Sometimes the voters are looking for what they think is competence rather than a love affair.

Well, Tony, you should triple underline 'ruthless'. Hillary's a lot like Nixon, but the biggest difference between them is whereas Nixon's ruthlessness was incompetent, Hillary and the rest of the Clinton Workshop are, well, well oiled to say the least. That machine ran roughshod over every scandal pursuer and rings around the poor, stupid, hapless GOP for eight nearly intolerable years.

And no doubt, she's 'nowhere near as charming as her husband' and 'has all of her husband's slickness and none of the salesmanship that allowed him to get away with it,' she's got two huge advantages:

1.) A Vagina

2.) She's Not a Republican

The first will be so mind-blowingly intimidating to the second, that whoever the 'he' is that gets to face her, he won't DARE think of waging the kind of campaign she's guaranteed to. The media will do plenty to insulate her as well. It won't matter what he says or does; he's going to be gobbled up by her cult of personality, and the overwhelming power of her preemptive coronational procession. It doesn't matter who it is. It doesn't matter if it's jowly flavor of the week Fred Thompson. It doesn't matter if it's primped as a poodle Mitt Romney. It doesn't matter if it's Rudy Giuliani, male gigolo. Just like that Rick Lazio did in their 2000 Senate race, they'll spend months needlessly justifying or apologizing for the fact that they, too, don't have vaginas.

The Center Right will stay home because they'll just be frustrated. "Independents" will be dazzled by her 'competence', her hand-waving, and unmatched Bush hatred. Oh and like here in Massachusetts with Deval Patrick's blackness, they'll swoon for her, well the novelty of electing a woman to the presidency. The Cook-wing of the Donk party will be rustling themselves out of tequila comas and dragging themselves out of their organic gardens to exact the ultimate revenge for the 200 election.

Congressional Republicans need to stop treating the base of their party like they have AIDS. If they continue on the path they're on, the 2008 election is over. Period.

If Reagan could be resurrected or genetically cloned, he'd have a shot at the Vagina in '08, but none of the actual candidates, as of right now, really has a prayer. They don't have a vagina. Voters are that shallow and the Clintons will play right to it. They're the Washington Generals to Hillary's Harlem Globetrotters. If the movie Rocky were real, it would be like what would happen if Rocky faced Apollo creed for real. They're beaten. The media's playing coy with her for now, but give it some time and they'll prop her fallopian tubes up on a mantle an worship them. For now, These guys have all been beaten, and they don't even know it.

Well, McCain probably does....

These idiots need to wake up.

And the Train Keeps On a Rollin'

The Deval Patrick administration LITERALLY can't get through a day without something ridiculous happening. This was in today's Globe.

Two commissioners on the state's quasi judicial labor relations board are accusing Governor Deval Patrick's chief labor aide of interfering with the agency on cases involving two unions that endorsed Patrick and donated heavily to his gubernatorial campaign.

The two commissioners, Paul T. O'Neill and Hugh L. Reilly, asserted in interviews with the Globe that Suzanne M. Bump made an inappropriate call about a case involving the Boston Teachers Union and pressured the commission to approve a pending petition by Service Employees International Union, Local 1199.

Of course, Bump and company denied it.

"There is not a single instance of my telling them to make a decision on anything," said Bump, a former legislator from Braintree who served as Patrick's liaison with labor during the campaign.

In late January, O'Neill and Reilly said, Bump made an irate phone call to commission chairman John F. Jesensky after the agency made its initial ruling that the Boston Teachers Union was violating the law with its threats to call a strike. They said she complained to him that she had not been given notice before the decision was made in the case.

Bump "clearly communicated her extreme displeasure, and we clearly got the message that she was unhappy," O'Neill said in an interview this week. Jesensky, who was also appointed by Romney, declined to comment, but O'Neill and Reilly said the chairman briefed them on the call.

About a week later, O'Neill and Reilly said, during a review of the commission's budget, Bump expressed strong support for a petition pending before the commission by Service Employees International Union, Local 1199, which spent more than $600,000 last year in support of Patrick's candidacy.

Under state law, the Labor Relations Commission is an independent, quasi judicial panel that resolves labor disputes and enforces state labor laws. The commission falls within Bump's agency for budgetary reason, but under statute is "in no respect subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

The two commissioners said Bump's discussion of the SEIU contract and the teachers dispute constituted "inappropriate" interference. Reilly said it also raises "ethical improprieties." O'Neill said the agency plans to take their complaint to the governor.

The Deval Patrick Administration is truly the gift that keeps on giving.

"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.