Whiskey Fire

Civility

I kind of agree that Spike Lee should not have tweeted George Zimmerman's address. But then, I'm old enough to remember hearing in some detail about how if you are so foolish as to have your personal information in any way publicly accessible, you deserve what you get.

So, yeah, bad on Spike Lee.

Though it's not like he shot an innocent kid and walked -- let's keep some perspective.

This from Jacobsen is, well, astonishing, from the not-crazy point of view:

Spike Lee’s most famous film was Do the Right Thing, about racial tensions which spill into violence....

Zimmerman is married.  What happens when someone goes to the house and confronts his wife, relatives or neighbors?

I don't know, what happens when your kid is murdered for the crime of being a young black man in the wrong place at the wrong time?

The central incident of the plot of DTRT is the killing of Radio Rahim by two white cops who completely misunderstand the community they are assigned to protect.

It's rather breathtaking, the demand here to respect the rights of Zimmerman, and the blithe dismissal of the more than legitimate outrage of the black community -- given that this is the most straight-up racist incident to disgust sane people since, what, Howard Beach? Bernhard Goetz? Abner Louima? Amadou Diallo? What am I missing?

My own theory about how to improve racial relations would be to stop shooting black people on flimsy pretexts, and to prosecute anyone who shoots black people on flimsy pretexts as if, like, someone's "wife, relative, or neighbor" had been killed, instead of just some sort of expendable hoodie-wearing animal.

Call me crazy.

 

Patriotism!

The blind Tuckerfucker finds a nut.

At a Santorum rally, the Saddest Place on Earth, a couple of jokesters had beef and caused a ruckus. What happened was, two dudes kissed. Each other. In front of everybody. And, of course, they got kicked out for it.

Funny.

What interests me strangely is that the crowd chose to express their disapproval of the two guys smooching by chanting "U-S-A! U-S-A!"

So, there you have it -- patriotic chants ward off gay germs.

If only Ted Haggard had recited the Pledge of Allegiance often enough, he would have saved himself a lot of bother.

 

 

Good Lord! The Kid Who Was Being Stalked May Have Fought Back!

If I'm walking on a public street, and you creepy stalk me for no reason, I will be within my rights to throw at you.

Hence... and?

Big paranoid guy in truck with gun still went after skinny kid with Skittles because of race paranoia.

Big paranoid guy in truck with gun still walked away from killing a kid because of racism.

It's about race.

Just saying.

So, Uh, Let's Talk about Racism

So Trayvon Martin got shot. Why did he get shot? Racism. Why did his killing get covered up? Racism.

It's actually not much of a mystery.

Unless you're a right wing blogger! In that case...

Clearly the lesson we need to take from this tragedy is that Barack Obama is a racist.

I shit you not.

Rick Moran.

... if we had a president instead of a race baiter, he'd look nothing like Obama.

Why should the leader of the free wold dive head first into a racial controversy that has been blown far, far out of proportion by those who seek to use the death of a young black man for their own personal agendas?

A Hispanic man shoots a black kid where no one knows the exact circumstances in which the shooting occurred and where we are likely never to know what happened. Instead of waiting for the facts, narratives have replaced truth and we have a full blown racial incident when it isn't even clear that race was a factor.

Obama could have said - should have said - "no comment." Instead, he sought out an opportunity to stoke the fires of race hate.

Malkin.

What do Trayvon’s race and looks have to do with anything? The political opportunism undercuts the very “seriousness” Obama purports to display.

ALLCAPS!

I THINK OBAMA DOESN'T CARE ABOUT DEAD BLACK MALE FETUSES BECAUSE HE CAN'T EXPLOIT THEIR DEATHS FOR VOTES.

OBAMA IS SCUM. RACE-BAITING SCUM.

Right.

Rush Limbaugh did an excellent job of demonstrating the extent to which Modern Conservatism depends on misogyny. These horrible idiots are wonderfully adept at showing how much Modern Conservatism also depends on racism.

The garbage explanations for why Martin's murder is not racially based would be comical, if they were not so horrifying. Malkin:

The Al Sharpton/New Black Panthers Party-led mob is forging ahead with its polarizing racial profiling narratives despite the fact that the alleged shooter is Hispanic and multiracial.

That the killing can't be "racist" because the killer is "Hispanic" is... nuts.

Geraldo Rivera should quash that straight up. But besides that, uh, I've lived in South Florida?

South Florida is not integrated, in the sense that the Balkan nations have in the past not always gotten along.

The intensity of the wingnut screeching that "this may be bad, but it's not racial!" is disturbing, but instructive.

Trayvon Martin was murdered because of racism, and the murder was covered up because of racism.

Just face it.

The definition of "racism" is not "calling obvious racism, racism."

No, the definition of racism instead has to do with innocent young teenagers getting murdered.

Let's not pretend this is tricky.

 

OK Then

According to science, we should let poor children starve to death, because if we don't, they will grow up to steal our refrigerators.

Disclaimer robbed from SN: ‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard. We are aware of all Internet traditions.™

This Is a Great Book Review

So a book has emanated from somewhere in the general vacinity of Senator Jim Inhofe. The thesis of this book is that climate change is a hoax.

I will not read this book. Nobody will read this book. Even future historians specializing in The Great Stupiding will avoid this book, no matter how perfectly it advances their thesis.

Some Townhall flunky has however reviewed the book. Perhaps he has done so under compulsion, as part of some sort of far-right hazing ritual. "Thank you sir, may I have an Inhofe," to paraphrase Kevin Bacon.

Facts are stubborn things. So said John Adams, and Senator Jim Inhofe agrees in his inaugural book, The Greatest Hoax. The title refers to the senator’s oft-cited proclamation that anthropogenic global warming is the “greatest hoax” ever perpetrated on the American people.

Facts!

The Federal Reserve probably would give global warming a run for its money in that regard

We have gone downhill at an impressive velocity.

but Inhofe’s point is well-taken: the greenies on the left are relentless in their pursuit of global control of everything related to the environment. Which is to say, everything.

Because the big bucks are in academia and the civil service, and not Big Oil. That makes sense.

For a book written by a politician, it is surprisingly long on facts and short on self-adulation. It features no less than 408 footnotes and a useful index.

Mr Bennet: Why, Lizzy, this letter from Mr. Collins-Inhofe contains 408 footnotes and a useful index.

Elizabeth: (Facepalm)

Inhofe’s penchant for research lends him credibility. As with any stark partisan, his credibility is maligned constantly by the opposition, so research serves him well. As Inhofe notes, environmentalism has become a religion, for some quite literally. And the personal attacks he describes go far beyond the pale.

His penchant for research has led to the publication of multiple meticulously prepared and rigorously critiqued papers in this area of inquiry. 

Hahahaha.

It is a curious thing that a political movement, purportedly based on science, inspires such rancor. Inhofe ably makes the case that the science is not settled, which does not endear him to environmentalists. The green orthodoxy pursues apostates with a zeal on par with seventeenth century Massachusetts Puritans. Where is the removed, scientific objectivity? Clearly it is not afforded to people like Inhofe.

Wait, where and how does Inhofe make this case? I mean, that's key, right?

The case is what?

Inhofe maintains an admirable equanimity about the predictable name-calling and slander he’s endured.

That's nice. But, like, the science...?

Ultimately, Inhofe used righteous indignation to his advantage and came out the victor in the ensuing public relations battle.

Fucking awesome. Uh, again, evidence?

Inhofe takes great joy in pointing out that climate change alarmism of the seventies ironically foretold global cooling disasters.

Wrong!

(JUST TO NOTE. You don't need advanced math to prove who is wrong or right about what was said in the 70s about warming/cooling. You just need to go look.)

Inhofe rightly attributes this rise of modern green fascism to Al Gore. Al Gore pulled a Lazarus maneuver with his political career by anointing himself the great prophet of climate change.

Inexplicably, people bought it, and somehow he won a Grammy, an Emmy, an Academy Award, a Webby, and a Nobel freaking Peace Prize for his movie about a boring Powerpoint presentation he made one time. Just to be clear, that is all true, no exaggeration.

The free market sucks!

Even worse, Inhofe reveals that George W. Bush’s administration spent three times more than Bill Clinton’s in researching climate change.

OK then....

Where the book falls short is insufficiently attacking the root of the green movement. Inhofe is right to label the UN its progenitor, but he does not explicitly state that environmentalism is only a rouse for the globalist erosion of nation-states. He seems to give his adversaries the benefit of the doubt and assumes they really only want to save the world from climate change.

If it helps, I hope you drown...?

Marco Rubio, Bapto-Catholic, Condemns Catholic Church In Cuba

Sweet Blood of Jesus, is there anything actual for which sad Senatorial sack Marco Rubio might denounce the Roman Catholic Church? Anything at all?

Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio said Wednesday that he is “deeply concerned” that the leadership of the Catholic Church has “negotiated themselves a space of operation” in Cuba “in exchange for looking the other way,” and expressed concern that Pope Benedict XVI’s upcoming trip to the island may “reinforce that arrangement.”

Rubio, a Catholic, said during a discussion at The Heritage Foundation that the Catholic Church has “negotiated a political space for themselves in exchange for their moral imperative.”

Volunteering an example, Rubio said, “last week… the church invited — the cardinal invited — Castro thugs to come into the church and remove people.”

Rubio also denounced the church for “actively participating in exiling dissidents,” sarcastically adding, “somehow exiling someone to Spain is a humanitarian measure.” (SEE ALSO: Marco Rubio was a Mormon once)

During the event, Rubio discussed Cuban oil exploration and expressed concern that the Communist government may in the future find a new source of revenue in oil exports. He said that a greater concern, however, is the potentially devastating effect of a Cuban oil spill on his state’s environment.

Will not be arsed to see what Sen. Rubio's position on BP oil spills might be, but why would one expect him to be any less hypocritical? Speaking of, from the Wiki:

Rubio attends Catholic Mass as well as a Southern Baptist church in West Kendall, Florida.^[34][9][35].

Apparently some of us can have it both ways.

— M. Bouffant (Also at Tedium Central, w/ video of Rubio babbling which, between TypePad's pickiness & TheDC's cheesy embed code, won't display here.)

Right Behind You, Professor Farnsworth

I don't want to live on this planet anymore, either.

And, now for some tweety levity, I weigh in on what's really destroying Murka:

--vacuumslayer

Good Timing There, Fella

Signs that you are dealing with a dingaling: approving use of the terms "brokered convention," "bully pulpit," "classical liberal," or "federalism."

"Written by Jonah Goldberg" is also a bit of a clue.

Federalism — the process whereby you push most political questions to the lowest democratic level possible — has been ripe on the right for years now.

"Ripe" is precisely the right adjective.

The main advantage of federalism is more fundamental than the “laboratories of democracy” idea. Federalism is simply the best political system ever conceived of for maximizing human happiness. A one-size-fits-all policy imposed at the national level has the potential to make very large numbers of citizens unhappy, even if it was arrived at democratically. In a pure democracy, I always say, 51 percent of the people can vote to pee in the cornflakes of 49 percent of the people.

Fuck your cornflakes.

Politics doesn't get more vicious than at the local level. (O'Brien doesn't carry off Faustus Kelly, but the premise, selling your soul to the devil to win a by-election, remains inspired.)

To the broader point, do we really want very happy local communities -- say, ones in Florida -- to be making crazy laws about who can shoot whom?

Not only does that mean more people will be happy, but the moral legitimacy of political decisions will be greater.

Lynching, for example -- what better proof do we have of how well "federalism" guarantees the "moral legitimacy" of decisions taken at the local level that make local individuals happy?

The problem for conservative and libertarian federalists is that whenever we talk about federalism, the Left hears “states’ rights” — which is then immediately, and unfairly, translated into, “Bring back Bull Connor.”

Right. Unfair. Gotcha.

The rest of Goldberg's piece is a reasoned, concise analysis of what would happen if a local community in say Detroit were to declare Sharia Law.

Ha! Fooled you! No, it's just more wanking.

A Left-Right federalist compromise would make America a happier, freer, more prosperous and interesting country.

Sort of like Somalia!

Spot the Logical Problem in the Thomas Sowell Column!

It's very subtle -- look sharp, now.

Here is how Democratic Policies have Failed to Improve the Lot of Minorities, despite the Obama Ascension.

One of the things that turned up, during a long-overdue cleanup of my office, was an old yellowed copy of the New York Times dated July 24, 1992. One of the front-page headlines said: "White-Black Disparity in Income Narrowed in 80's, Census Shows."

The 1980s? Wasn't that the years of the Reagan administration, the "decade of greed," the era of "neglect" of the poor and minorities, if not "covert racism"?

More recently, during the administration of America's first black president, a 2011 report from the Pew Research Center has the headline, "Wealth Gaps Rise to Record Highs Between Whites, Blacks and Hispanics."

While the median net worth of whites was ten times the median net worth of blacks in 1988, the last year of the Reagan administration, the ratio was nineteen to one in 2009, the first year of the Obama administration.

It's verrrrry mysterious.

We also learn that blacks did well after the massive economic stimulus that was WWII, but that because nothing ever happened worth mentioning regarding drug laws, now lots of black people go to jail. This is because of food stamps.