Thinking in Print – Cogito Ergo BlogitoThinking in Print – Cogito Ergo BlogitoThinking in Print – Cogito Ergo BlogitoThinking in Print – Cogito Ergo BlogitoThinking in Print – Cogito Ergo Blogito
The old saying is that you eat an elephant one bite at a time. The concept is timeless and has application across broad swaths of society, including politics. Incrementalism is a well established tactic, particularly by the political Left and judicial activists. The idea is that you need not reach your goal in one fell swoop. It might take longer, but goals can be just as surely, and often more permanently, accomplished in several steps.
Consider Tim Graham’s NewsBusters expose of its most recent application by Jorge Ramos, a Univision anchor and the focus of Time Magazine’s, “10 Questions for Jorge Ramos”. His first question is “As a Mexican-born, naturalized U.S. citizen, what is your take on the immigration debate?” His outrageous answer is, “The Declaration of Independence says that all men are created equal, but right now millions of men and women in Arizona and in other parts of the U.S. are not being treated as equals, and I can’t believe that. Countries are judged by the way they treat the most vulnerable, and the most vulnerable population in the U.S. right now is undocumented immigrants.”
The Declaration, indeed, recognizes all men are created equal. This is a foundational principle of the country to which Ramos himself swore allegiance when he became a citizen. Yet nothing in the Declaration lets Ramos ignore US law or advocate for others to do so under the guise of equality. The equality the Declaration recognizes is that there are basic rights belonging to all men which must be equally recognized by all men. Further, no man or government is permitted to violate those rights. Ramos’ notion of equality seems to be that all men must be considered American citizens in order to be equal.
Ramos gratuitously alleges millions in the US are treated less than equally. Such a notion is indefensible. Everyone in the US must obey its laws and the laws of the states in which they are present. Insisting they do so is not unequal treatment. It is the essence of equality. All who break the law must answer to the law.
Equality requires the law to be applied the same to all men, even illegal aliens. Ramos wants illegal aliens to be exempt from some laws. That’s hardly equal. Ramos refuses to have illegal aliens abide by the same 4th Amendment Due Process protections the rest of us must rely on. That’s hardly equal. Illegal aliens and citizens alike are protected from running afoul of law enforcement because they have dark skin and a Hispanic surname. They must first be found or suspected of violating another law before their immigration status is relevant.
Of course, law enforcement might abuse its authority. It has happened before and there are precedents to deal with that. That, too, is part of equality under the law. But one cannot assume because the possibility exists in any given situation, the reality exists in all situations. Ramos’ argument depends on that assumption. It’s not that law enforcement might violate the rights of Hispanics on occasion. He must argue for a routine, near universal, violation of the rights of Hispanics. There is no evidence supporting this conclusion.
Finally, such reasoning requires Ramos to apply as valid a concept he must also condemn as wrong. Law enforcement cannot draw negative conclusions about Hispanics based on heritage but Ramos can draw negative conclusions about law enforcement based on occupation. Once again, that’s hardly equal.
It is precisely such small and incremental devaluations of language and concepts that must be exposed, condemned and corrected if our country’s heritage and strength are to endure. Ramos, and those like him, are ignorant of the most basic concept upon which this country was founded; that all men, even the King, are subject to the law. It is “Lex Rex” (The Law is King) and not “Rex Lex” (The King is Law). Rather than call Ramos on his ignorance, Time celebrates it. Such a disregard for truth by Ramos and Time serves no one, least of all the illegal aliens in our midst.
Allowing such specious reasoning to muddy the waters only means the needed solutions to such a vexing question are put off even longer while small minds rail against the very concepts established for their protection. It also weakens the strength of our nation, the same strength so many come here to be protected by, one ignorant argument at a time …
TeaPartyHD.com has a live interview up today with Nathan Tabor, the GOP County chair assaulted by Governor Spencer. Spencer, an apparent Leftist activist, crashed a peaceful demonstration in which Tabor was participating, issued threats, generally disrupted an assembly in which he had no part, shoved Tabor’s wife and then punched Tabor in the face.
The video was pulled from YouTube but TeaPartyHD was able to capture it before it came down. The video of the assault is spliced in with a live interview with Tabor. Governor Spencer was contacted and offered the opportunity to speak for himself and explain his actions. He refused.
But if you listen to the Progressives and those enjoying the Kool Aid they are vending, it’s the Right that is violent and racist. The “old sayings” are too numerous to list exhaustively but “It takes one to know one”, “Methinks thou doest protest too much!” and “The pot calling the kettle black!” come to mind – just to start. The takeaway here is that Democrats, Progressives and Leftists are the party of violence, division and criminal activity.
From ACORN and their criminal enterprise to Governor Spencer and his complete disregard for the values that made America great – it is the Left that Americans should be afraid of. This is true whether the Progressive in question is Governor Spencer punching out a man because he doesn’t approve of his views or if the Progressive in question is Barack Obama assaulting the values that made our country the envy of the world because he doesn’t approve of individual and economic Liberty.
This is making the rounds on the Interwebz, as it should.
Helen Thomas has been a staple in the White House Press Corps for years. She is one of the main filters through which information passes on its way from being made to being reported by Hearst Newspapers. It is not particularly unreasonable to believe that a person with such misinformed and toxic opinions would be able to accurately report the news without bias.
Even if I allow, and I do, that all people have a bias which colors their processing of information, Thomas’ bias is seemingly both strong and wrong, based on her statements. Thus we have even more reason to be leery of anything which might emanate from her pen or mouth, regardless of whatever esteem in which she might be held by others.
Her reference to Palestine as “occupied” and her identification of the proper “home” of the Jews as Germany, Poland and the United States is pathetic and horrifying. That a person in such a position should hold such an ignorant view of history and world events is stunning. We often hear charges of media bias leveled. We seldom witness such strong evidence supporting such charges.
A friend notified me the other day that some daring, bold, fearless and undaunted champion of Progressive thought had chosen to blog about Ron Ramsey’s new television ads. The author is Sam Jones and his blog post is titled “Ron Ramsey Commercial Represents Racist, Neo-Nazi Slogan”.
Ramsey’s ads feature the tag line, “If Washington doesn’t like it, we’ll give them the boot!” Sam’s premise is, you don’t really know what “give them the boot” means. While most understand it to mean “dismissal from employment or from a place that one is in” as, indeed, it is defined in the “Idiom” section of The Free Dictionary, Mr. Jones prefers a different understanding.
According to Sam, at some time and somewhere (he doesn’t say or link when or where) Neo-Nazis and Skinheads used the phrase to indicate how they treat people they don’t like. Rather than actually citing racists using the term, Mr. Jones references his personal response to a single scene from the film American History X as proof the phrase is filled with racist overtones. Next Sam applies the universally known, understood and accepted rule for understanding what people mean when they talk known as “polysemous interpretation.”
“Polysemous” is a term used by media critics in the academic field of communication studies to express “diversity of meanings.” When a mediated representation is not clearly defined, such as the rhetoric used in the Ron Ramsey campaign ad, it allows for and basically represents all of the possible diversities of meaning. And, therein lies the problem.
Ron Ramsey’s message resonates with racists, Neo Nazis, and Skinheads who hate Barack Obama (read, “Washington”) because he is Black, and Ron Ramsey’s message resonates with racists, Neo Nazis, and Skinheads because it literally copies a popular Skinhead and Neo Nazi Slogan (read, “Give them the boot”).
Sam concludes, “The case can easily be made (and the fact that it can easily be made is problematic) that Ron Ramsey’s political consultants have scripted him to represent racist, Neo Nazi rhetoric in his campaign ad.”
Being the only non-racist Conservative in existence and the only person on the planet unaware of the latent racism in common American idiom I decided to do a little research of my own. One can never be too sure. After all, you know how clever those Neo-Nazis and Skinheads can be! I Googled the phrase “give them the boot” and braced for my laptop to overload its capacity to filter out the hate and bile. This is what I found.
Warning – small children, Christians, ladies, Progressives, Democrats and others easily offended by graphic scenes of racial hatred and violence should not, under ANY circumstances click through to the following sites. I did, taking one for the team in the name of journalistic and personal integrity. I had to put in an after-hours, emergency call to my therapist. The first 10 pages of Google results revealed the following partial list of polysemous Internet racists.
Salon author Glenn Greenwald encourages Progressive Democrats to give “Blue Dog” Dems the boot. Check out the actual URL. It reads “blue-dogs-die”;
Mike Turner caught me. I’m tired of running and I just give up. I’m publicly admitting that I’m a R.A.C.I.S.T. – I’m a Republican Against Crazy Ignorant Stupid Twits!
As reported in the City Paper and in a TN GOP presser today, Turner, the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, (I’d call him Representative Turner but I don’t think anyone wants his views to be representative of theirs) put his big big ol’ Democratic foot in his big ol’ Democratic mouth yesterday when at a press conference he said:
“‘We’ve got a lot of bills on states’ rights here, state sovereignty and all that,’ he added. ‘We went through that fight once before. All of a sudden, we have a black man elected president and everybody wants to start acting like something’s wrong with our country. I didn’t agree with a lot of things George Bush did, but I wasn’t ready to secede from the union.’
“Asked to elaborate afterward, Turner said, ‘I think some of the people who are against Obama are just against Obama because he’s African-American.’”
Really, Mike? You think the 10th Amendment and the Bill of Rights are synonymous with secession? You SERIOUSLY think that? You believe that people who oppose Obama are racists? To quote your Party’s leader in the US House, “Are you serious? Are you SERIOUS?” Based on what, Mike? Any facts to go with that irresponsible allegation? There’s a simple way to tell. It’s really easy, Mike. Just produce “some of the people” you reference so it can be verified that they indeed are both “against Obama” and that it’s “because he’s African-American.” I can tell you that there are a host of intelligent, thoughtful, principled, rational and patriotic people who are against Obama and his agenda. I can produce them by the thousands. Just visit any Tea Party, Mike. Except those folks only fulfill half your description because they are “against Obama” based on his policies not his pigment. It’s his methods not his melanin. But unless you can produce more than your own allegations, perhaps you should just keep your ignorance to yourself.
But that doesn’t fit with standard Democratic battle strategy so you actually publicly made one of the saddest and most ignorant comments I’ve heard from a politician in any party in years. Tell me you were just frustrated and misspoke, Mike. Tell me you just blurted out the first stupid thing that entered your mind and that you regret it. Tell me you understand how ignorant and foolish you realize your remarks publicly reveal you to be. Tell me it was only by accident that you slandered, libeled and tarred millions of Americans with your bile, ignorance, bitterness and hatred. Perhaps there’s an explanation that tells me it was all just a “youthful exuberance” or some other dalliance that should be overlooked. Better yet … tell all of Tennessee. They are watching, Mike, and wondering what sort of man says such things.
I don’t think there’s an explanation possible, Mike. And I don’t know there’s a fix. How can you work with me when you hold such a low opinion of me? And how can I work with you given your revelation of how much integrity you lack? But what do I know? I’m just a R.A.C.I.S.T.. But the Crazy, Ignorant, Stupid, Twits I oppose now have you as their poster-boy. I suppose we’ll see which of us pays the worse price for our views.
In today’s Liberty Action Report ALG President Bill Wilson notes
… the assessment was actually a “political document,” designed to “fuel the public’s perception of ‘rightwing extremism,’ nothing more. And … a deliberate intimidation campaign against the American people under the guise of protecting them …
In defining “rightwing extremism,” the Department of Homeland Security memo targets “groups, movements, and adherents… that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority” and “groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”
Right to Lifers, veterans, 2nd Amendment supporters, 10th Amendment supporters, 4th Amendment supporters, people believing in Government Transparency, State Sovereignty, State’s Rights and more were pilloried as possible terrorists, racists and advocates of anti-government or anti-establishment violence. In the opening of the DHS report we read
Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.
The report’s contents were was prepared specifically to
… provided to federal, state, local, and tribal counterterrorism and law enforcement officials so they may effectively deter, prevent, preempt, or respond to terrorist attacks against the United States.
If the information in the report is truthful, verified, vetted and corroborated, perhaps it might even be useful to law enforcement for that purpose. But what if it wasn’t? Worse still, what if it was based, in a significant measure, on information from Left wing blogs, Left leaning media outlets and crackpot, conspiracy websites? I think it’s a safe bet no one from either side of the aisle would be comfortable so demonizing huge portions of the American populace on the basis of such sources.
Unfortunately, based on the information provided by DHS in response to the ALG FOIA request, it appears Janet Napolitano’s DHS has done exactly that. The response provided to ALG by DHS notes that sites like the Huffington Post, MSNBC, the NY Times, the LA Times, the Southern Poverty Law Center and other left leaning media were cited to support the DHS conclusions. There were also appeals to articles and segments from the more generally acknowledged as right leaning Fox News and World Net Daily. But the single largest number of citations were from the website What Does It Mean.
Described by Wilson as a “kook website”, What Does It Mean is currently reporting all private computers in the US are being commandeered by the Government by means of the Cash for Clunkers program; is reporting the destruction of a “radio to god” which permits humans to speak to god; is selling a $38 book theorizing influenza has its origin in outer space and is part of God’s final judgement on the earth, and; is selling yet another book, “Dirty, Filthy Christians” libeling Christians as members of the largest death cult in history.
I’ve visited the site. There is no way on earth (pun intended) this site could be mistaken for a serious news site. Yet links to its reporting are the most numerous entries in the DHS response to the FOIA. That it might even be possible, let alone likely, that millions of Americans were libeled by their own Government based in part on information from a site of this sort is outrageous. Heads should roll. Starting with Janet Napolitano’s.
At the same time that story was breaking, in what can only be seen as a historic case of irony, a Democratic staffer sent an email that was even worse.
Titled “Smiles for Monday”, this email made fun of Racism:
Child Abuse:
The Elderly and Aging:
and the Mentally Handicapped.
There’s more, of course, with vulgar language (including a couple of **F** bombs), quasi-nudity, and the Left’s puzzling fascination with Nazis.
What remains to be seen is whether the Left in Tennessee, and nationally, is willing to take a stand against Racism in Principle or show themselves merely interested in exploiting Racism by Party.
I’d like to think there would be an identical response from the Left to this event. But I’m a realist. I have no doubt those on the Left with integrity and character will come out against this Democrat just as they did against the Republican. But I hold no hope anything approaching the howling multitudes on the Left calling for the head of a GOP employee will bother to clean up their own stable and remove the beam from their own eye. I guess the next six and a half hours will show us just how much Racism exists in the TNDP, won’t it?
Blue Collar Muse
UPDATE: It’s 11:00 AM – emails sent out to several other Right of Center bloggers in Tennessee.
UPDATE: It’s a little after 11AM. Otherbloggersstartposting it up. Most of them get the point of my post. What is the Left and the TNDP going to do about this? Is their outrage partisan or principled? See comments for the initial responses.
UPDATE:The story hits Nashville is Talking! Christian Grantham correctly reports the email came from a staffer from Karen Camper’s (D – Memphis) office. Since we’re than close, let’s jump the timeline and report that the staffer in question is Blake P Graves.
UPDATE: Graves, too, realized his email may have been a bad idea. Shortly after he sent it, he sent the distribution list the following under the Subject “So sorry about that last email”, “Everyone, please excuse that e-mail I sent, I totally missed the words used in it. So please accept my apologies for that e-mail. Nonetheless, have a great Monday!” Since the entire email was just pictures, one can conclude that Graves was unconcerned with the message communicated by the pictures he sent, but was concerned only that the language included in the text on the pictures might be found offensive to some. He says he “totally missed the words used” in the pictures? Excuse me? How is that even possible, let alone a valid defense. That sounds like “I didn’t read the bill but I voted for it anyway!” Good heavens!!
UPDATE @ 14:31 – Buzz in the blogosphere is that Graves is “just an intern”. The point presumably being that Interns should not be taken seriously or held accountable or that things done by lower level functionaries, you know – like 20 year secretaries, aren’t actionable. Obviously most of those calling for the head of the GOP staffer believe only that GOP missteps should lead to tumbles. They are wrong. Beyond that, they seem also wrong about Graves’ status at the General Assembly. His title is “Temporary Legislative Assistant”. According to my sources, all interns ceased to be active on the Hill a month or so ago. Only full time state employees remain. Roger Abramson and Left Wing Cracker are wrong. The “Temporary” in his title does not refer to a “Temp” as in a Temp Employment Service. It means he does not yet have a permanent location. He is filling in “temporarily” at Rep. Camper’s office covering a vacation or an illness or something of the sort. But his title of “Temporary Legislative Assistant” makes him a full time state employee. As to his politics, you decide. At his FaceBook page, he lists himself as Politcally Liberal.
So say the irrational, Fruit-Loops, Left leaning pundits who opine it’s only Federal spending done by white people that I support. But let a man who is 16% black start spending wildly and it’s only then I suddenly head for the high dudgeon. I know, stupid and ignorant, but as long as we have a 1st Amendment, there will be those who use it irresponsibly.
Anyway, thanks to my friend Doug at Stixblog who got it from another friend, Steve, at No Runny Eggs, (in the interests of full disclosure, both of these guys are white) there is now a simple visual explanation of at least part of the reason people are screaming far louder now that President Obama is spending than they were when President Bush was spending. Please note, this comparison assumes rational understanding of the public record. It assumes you can recognize the objections to GWB’s spending sprees when you see them clearly pointed out. It also assumes there’s a reason the response to spending by the current Administration is so much more severe than response to Bush spending was. It also assumes you are in touch enough with reality to understand race has no bearing on the matter.
Let’s take a federal spending, national debt producing road trip …
Why is it Liberals never have to live by their own values? You’d think if a particular behavior on the Right is bad, it would be bad if Liberals do it, too. But you’d be wrong. They destroy Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but blame Bush and Co for the Housing Crisis. They steal our money via taxes but pillory corporations for making a profit. And they call people racist for doing what they do with no shame at all.
Recently, Liberals again charged Republicans with racism for passing around a parody of a Democrat calling Barack Obama “The Magic Negro”. How ironic the original comment, when printed in the LA Times as uttered by a Democrat, was not racist. But when Republicans make fun of them, using their own words, it’s not the guy who made the original comments who is racist. Oh, no – it’s the evil GOP.
Or, we can all agree that parody, satire and caricature have their place and that’s all it is and go on about our business. You get to choose, Tommy. Racism or parody? But it must apply equally and you must call your boys on it, loud and long and first! Until then, please shut the heck up! Your faux self-righteousness is keeping the adults from their work.
I’m not holding my breath. My opinion of the Left is that they would look at the work of their side and proclaim it an excellent use of parody and caricature and be proud of it while continuing to denigrate the Right for their racism. That such behavior would be considered hypocrisy or racism is unfathomable to them. Minds that small seldom have room for more than a thought or two at the same time.
I started out commenting on a Lefty blog which strenuously disagrees with me on my stand that Obama is not my President. A commenter took exception to my contention
… Obama will be the President; but he will never be my President. Obama wants what he is unwilling to give. To get the job, Obama divided us. Now on the job, he yearns for unity’s strength. But leopards don’t change their spots. As he ran, so will he govern.
As proof of Obama’s unifying ability, the commenter, Ice, offered
“Obama divided us” — patently false, since Obama united us into a majority, the first majority to elect a Democrat since ‘76. Also demonstrably false, in that Obama’s rhetoric was uniting, and his plans and specifics were both appealing to the majority and specifically aimed at the majority.
I responded with the following and thought to bring it back here to get my readers’ take on the matter. I have edited my comment to keep it relevant to the discussion at hand. The offer I make Ice is open to any reader who disagrees with me. Any parties interested in adding support to my contention are welcome to do so as well. Discussion to take place in Comments. Please abide by the rules as outlined in the post.
Ice -
As far as Obama uniting or dividing us. I will grant you that he won the election. He even did so by being the first Democrat in 50 years or so to win with over 50% of the vote. Nice to finally have a majority on your side for once, I’m sure. But a 52-48 victory, while a majority is hardly evidence of Unity. It is still true that almost half of the country did NOT vote for him – tens of millions of people.
The reasons they did not, with apologies to your completely unsupported assertions that 5% of those voting against BO (more in some states) did so because of race, are grounded in issues and policies. It is here that Obama divides America. That divide is a scary one because a large portion of it is a divide between the “Producers” and the “Give me what you Produce-ers”.
Obama’s clearly Socialist leanings driving his “Spread the Wealth” ideology are divisive. And unnecessary. This is America (for a little while longer, anyway). Anyone can be whatever they want – isn’t that part of Obama’s draw? Why then shoot for the brass ring of “I’ll take whatever Government can coerce from Ken to give to me” and ignore the far more valuable gold ring of “I’ll work hard and make my own way and enjoy the fruits of my own labor”? Isn’t that what Barack, your hero, did? Why not emulate him, and by extension the Right wing principle of self reliance? Unless you believe the Left wing principle that you are not capable of succeeding on your own and have to be propped up by Government taking from your betters to support you in your inability.
I don’t happen to believe that. So many of BO’s supporters do. They voted “Gimmes” for themselves without considering the meaning of their vote. Or worse, because they actually agreed with the meaning of their vote.
Success is a heady thing. Once you’ve had a taste, it lingers for a while. You begin to play the “What if?” game. “I’ve done well in THIS area. What if I do as well over there? Or over there?” It is Obama that doesn’t want you thinking that way, not me or the Right. We want you taking counsel of your dreams! We want you to think about what could be instead of what is! We want you to be unsatisfied with your current state and strive for something better – as much better as you can imagine. We just think you should do it yourself – and then enjoy the fruits of your efforts knowing that you earned and deserved your success. It wasn’t taken from someone else who earned it and deserved it and given to you who has not.
To put forth effort, successful or not, to draw people to yourself based on that premise, sows division within the country that may take years or generations to wash out. Unlike most you may encounter, I am more than willing to debate you – on the issues, on the facts. I won’t be disrespectful or dismissive to you unless you treat me that way first. You interested? Be careful – the truth is not really on your side, here.
I’ve outlined one issue by which Obama has divided us. You can respond by showing how this is not divisive. But stick to the issue of how taking what is mine by force to give to someone else who has not earned it is not divisive. I’d be even more fascinated to see you turn this into something unifying.
Once we’ve finished this one, you can choose a point on which you believe Obama has brought unity to the country and we can debate that. Fair enough? (Editor’s note: This offer was made to Ice, elseblog. If this post generates intelligent debate without snark, I’ll extend that offer to some here.)
No more assumptions about my motives, no more making unsupportable claims, no more emotional responses with no factual foundations … just a discussion of the issues. If you think you can do that … I LOVE that sort of thing. I have to say it’s because most people end up finding they prefer the end results of Conservative principles more than Liberal ones. That’s not my fault … It’s just the nature of the discussion …
The old saying is that you eat an elephant one bite at a time. The concept is timeless and has application across broad swaths of society, including politics. Incrementalism is a well established tactic, particularly by the political Left and judicial activists. The idea is that you need not reach your goal in one fell swoop. It might take longer, but goals can be just as surely, and often more permanently, accomplished in several steps.
Entries (RSS)