Blue Collar Muse

Thanks to my friend James, who sent me the picture, we now know who BP believes should be responsible for any spills that occur on their property. It’s the folks who should have been minding the pump!!

Wonder who that was in the Gulf?

Popularity: 13% [?]

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”;

The UK Daily Mail reporting staff, at least those interested in sunglasses;

Snobby beer drinkers (and probably the women who love them);

GQ Magazine contributor Jonathan Heaf;

The staff at KOMO News in Seattle, WA – because there’s no more racist and Conservative city than Seattle;

People who don’t like Bank of America;

Punk Rockers;

The San Francisco media – who don’t just want to boot their enemies, they want them immobilized first;

Hip people who like “Fashion. Nightlife. Art. Music. Food. Charity.”;

BNET, a CBS Interactive Site – TWICE!! (see the last entry on the page – about Rugby);

The New York Daily News reports an NFL player harbors self-loathing racist sentiments against himself. Just check out the URL on this story;

Anyone working in the field of Customer Service;

America OnLine, and finally;

Global Warming proponents.

Needless to say, after Sam’s reporting and my own research, I’m convinced.

I’m convinced we give Progressives WAY too much credit for intelligent, rational thought.

SEE ALSO:

Making Stuff Up by Kate @ An Ol’ Broad’s Rambling

Popularity: 27% [?]

Let me say from the outset that I’m a fan of Mae Beavers. I appreciate her service in the Senate. I applaud her fights for Tennesseans there. I admire her commitment to sound principles. But it is precisely my appreciation of such things which are the foundation for my inability to support her current decision to jump back in the TN Senate District 17 race after dropping out of the race for Wilson County Mayor. Mae is a Conservative, but this decision is not.

As Conservatives, we believe in both individual liberty and individual responsibility. We believe that a man should be free to do what he chooses with his life and property. We also believe in the natural and obvious implication of such freedom; that a man must, therefore, also be willing to accept the consequences – for good or for ill – of exercising that freedom. The two go hand in hand. For Conservatives, it would be difficult to overestimate the importance of liberty and responsibility. They are at the core of everything we do.

Before Mae announced she was running for Wilson County Mayor, she had options. Any decision concerning what to do about remaining the Senator from District 17 was hers alone. Mae admits many people encouraged her to run for Wilson County Mayor and that such encouragement was influential in her decision not to run for Mayor. But no one forced her to make that decision. She took counsel of her family, her God, her advisors, her constituents and her self and, ultimately, she alone made the decision not to seek re-election to the Senate. She alone had the freedom to make that choice for her life.

Once made, announced and implemented, other people took into account her choice and made their own decisions. Susan Lynn chose to run for Mae’s available seat and as many as 10 candidates may run for Lynn’s seat from TN House District 57. Money was spent, momentous decisions were made that impact individuals, families, voters, the TN GOP and perhaps even Americans beyond the borders of Tennessee. While Lynn and any others who made decisions about their candidacy must also accept responsibility for their choices, the entire chain of events was set in motion by Mae Beavers’ decision. No one I have spoken with has suggested that Susan Lynn would ever have considered a primary challenge of Mae. There is no hint of the notion that anyone was considering a primary challenge of Lynn. The political scene played out the way it did because of what Mae Beavers did with her freedom and for no other reason.

But what about responsibility for the consequences of our decisions? What happens when, despite our best efforts to synthesize the information we have and turn it into to best decision possible, the inevitable happens and we make what we come to see is the wrong choice? It is precisely here that, at least in theory, Conservatives separate themselves from the rest of the population. Liberals and Progressives make excuses. I didn’t know this or that fact when I made my decision so I can’t be held accountable for it. I can’t be held responsible for my failure because I tried my best! The situation changed after I made my decision and if I had known then what I know now I wouldn’t have made my original choice. Excuses! Liberals are never responsible, they are only victims who cannot be expected to pay the price for their exercise of their freedom. Conservatives know better. Mae knows better. We choose to be responsible.

It is understood by the wise that few, if any, plans come off without a hitch. The military famously notes that no plan of battle survives the first shot. Once Mae’s campaign for County Mayor got underway, something – I don’t know what it was, changed. Mae has referenced requests from her Senate constituents that she not leave the Senate and prayer as being the agents of her decision to abandon her run for County Mayor. She has chosen to suspend her campaign for Mayor and seek re-election to the Senate instead. Here is where the Conservative notion of personal responsibility for one’s actions intersects the discussion. I contend that Mae’s Conservative principles permit her to leave her Senate seat for the Mayor’s race. They permit her to also choose to abandon her race for Mayor. But they do not permit her to return to a Senate re-election bid because there are consequences to her previous actions for which Mae Beavers, and only Mae Beavers, must be held accountable.

Mae told Ralph Bristol on the radio the other day that people know her and they know that “When I say something, I mean it!” Susan Lynn and the GOP candidates for Susan’s House seat know that about Mae, too. They trusted her assertion that she wasn’t running for the Senate. They trusted that Mae’s word was good and that she would honor it. They expected Mae to be responsible for her own decisions. That’s what Conservatives do. But Mae didn’t. Her choice to once again run for Senate has thrown the lives and fortunes of men and women just as fine as Mae into turmoil and uncertainty. Mae has suggested Representative Lynn follow the Beavers’ strategy and drop her Senate bid, run for re-election to the House and do to the fine men and women seeking the TN House 57 seat what Mae is doing to Susan. To her credit, citing the obvious ethical problems of such a choice, Representative Lynn has declined to do that. She understands the Conservative notions of freedom and responsibility.

With only a couple of weeks left before the filing deadline, there remains time for Mae to stand up and accept responsibility for her actions. As a Conservative, she has two choices. She can leave the Mayor’s race and not seek re-election to the Senate or she can take up her race for County Mayor again. Either choice is honorable and require only Mae to pay for her actions and choices. But as a Conservative, abandoning the Mayor’s race for a Senate re-election bid is not an option. Not for a Conservative.

I said at the outset that I admire Mae Beavers. But my admiration for her does not mean I don’t know right from wrong. It does not mean I don’t recognize making others responsible for a bad decision when I see it. It does not mean that I should not call out bad behavior.

Please, Mae. Do not do this. Run for Mayor or step down from the Senate. But don’t give in to the temptation to abandon your Conservative principles because it seems the fastest way to political success. You are better than that. You are a Conservative. Time to act like one!

Popularity: 50% [?]

This from my friend James.  The last sentence is the key …

Cash For Clunkers vs. My Calculator

A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons of gas a year.

A vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons a year.

So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year.

They claim 700,000 vehicles, so that’s 224 million gallons saved per year.

That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.

5 million barrels is about 5 hours worth of US consumption.

More importantly, 5 million barrels of oil at $70 per barrel costs about $350 million dollars

So, the government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars to save $350 million.

We spent $8.57 for every dollar we saved.

I’m pretty sure they will do a great job with our health care, though.

It ain’t rocket science folks … just common sense …

Popularity: 65% [?]

Conventional wisdom dictates the campaign with the most money and the most experienced staff outperforms the underfunded and inexperienced campaign. But anything can happen in a campaign and often does. A couple of days, let alone weeks or months can be a political eternity when it comes to having to live with the consequences of choices made by campaigns. Which is why campaigns like money and experience. It helps cut down the number of opportunities to gaffe your way into a concession speech instead of a victory speech.

But it doesn’t always work out like that. Consider these two campaigns. One is in California, one in Pennsylvania. One is a US Senate race, one a US House race. One candidate has lots of money and political experience and the other is running her first race on a shoestring budget. Both of them put out web videos. One of them is excellent and the other … well, not so much …

Popularity: 51% [?]

As a general rule,  Conservatives and those folks who tend to fall in the “Right of Center” category aren’t known for participation in or endorsement of pornography.  Just the opposite, in fact.  Much of the beating the Right takes, sometimes even from within its own ranks, is from those who see no harm in a little skin or engaging in a bit of “adult” behavior.  It’s a shame all those uptight Christians are messing up the good thing the Right has going on, don’t ya’ know …

So why the fascination with the Tiger Woods?  I get it that Fox News has to have something for Nancy Grace and Geraldo to blather on about endlessly.  But Sean Hannity?  Rush Limbaugh?  Here in Nashville it’s Phil Valentine and Michael DelGiorno.  Who knows how many other hosts, columnists and pundits are hanging on the story as if it were relevant to the lives of Americans.  It’s not.

The only people impacted by what Tiger Woods has done are his wife, family, sponsors and fans. Moral failings on the part of political and social leaders are relevant to the day-to-day existence of Americans.  If a politician cannot be trusted to keep his promise in the most important of personal relationships, how can he be trusted with the personal relationship that exists between politician and constituent?  If a social leader such as a preacher or a teacher cannot be trusted to honor vows made to remain faithful to their spouse, what of the vows, overt and implied, to those they promised to serve?

I expect the response will sound something like, “Well, it’s news!” Really? Says who? The MSM? Don’t we routinely criticize the MSM for failing to follow up on important stories like ClimateGate, the crisis that H1N1 isn’t, the true grassroots nature of the Tea Parties, ACORN and so many more? If the MSM is so out of step with us why appeal to the ones driving this story, agreeing it is worthy of our time? Are we now adopting the standards of CBS, ABC and NBC? The longer we roll around in bed (almost literally in this case) with the MSM using the premise of newsworthiness to do so, the more cover we give them when they ignore stories they should cover. The more we perpetuate the conversation and validate it, the more credibility we bestow on the MSM for being able to pick the right stories to report on.  Instead, we should be voicing our displeasure with the MSM that, once again, they distract us from what is really important by focusing on fluff.

Tiger Woods cannot do a single thing that impacts my life.  He does not vote on legislation that limits my individual or economic Liberty.  I do not look to him for advice or guidance on how to live my life or conduct my affairs (no pun intended). I’d listen to him about backswings but there are others I can listen to if he’s not available.  My favorite golf gear will have a celebrity endorser tomorrow if a sponsor drops Tiger today.  I’m out nothing and my life is neither better or worse because of his behavior.

Unless I’m free to use Tiger’s misfortune to engage in endless talk about things I’d never talk about on the radio, around the water cooler or at home.  Things like: male conquests of multiple partners; what these women were doing that lured him from his home; these women were attractive with large breasts; there must be pictures online! This is what radio hosts, writers and pundits who focus on politics are talking to their audiences about.

Why? Are there not enough excesses going on in Copenhagen that may destroy the world’s Economy? Have the Senators in DC taken a break from their efforts to destroy the US Economy?  As I mentioned, I expect breathless, interminable discussion of Tiger and his affairs from Nancy Grace and Geraldo.  But why from political commentators? Why indulge in discussing, dissecting and deriding an athlete’s sex life?. And with all the attention being showered on these women, how long before one of them sells salacious secrets to a tabloid? How long before one gets a reality series? How long before one or more of them actually poses for Hustler or Playboy? Are we not responsible for prolonging the discussion and creating new stories and opportunities?

And it’s not just Tiger Woods. Kobe Bryant, Dennis Rodman, Madonna, Brad Pitt, Michael Jackson … on and on.  We can’t get enough of the dirty details.  While not pornographic in the traditional sense of the word you can see it from there. So much so that I wonder if we’ve not forgotten sound advice like “Whatever is pure, lovely and of good reputation – think on these things!” Instead, those of us traditionally seen as supporting good and decent behavior have immersed ourselves in gossip, speculation and as close as many of us are going to get to involvement with porn.  Of course, when you factor in that famous rabbi’s teaching that it’s what’s in the heart that drives our behavior, perhaps we’re not so immune to pornography after all.

Popularity: 100% [?]

Yesterday, NewsComa broke a story about a GOP staffer who Forwarded an email containing a picture which she found racist and offensive. She broke the story at 10AM and, according to the timeline posted over at Silence Isn’t Golden, with a little help from the Lefty blogosphere, “in the span of about six to six and a half hours, everyone knows just how much racism exists within the TNGOP.” Big press from the Left on Right wing racism!

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.

Will Lefty bloggers condemn this Democrat and call for his firing? Will the Media cover this on the news like they did the story of the GOP staffer? Will the Left police their own? Will this be written up and front paged at Daily Kos, Wonkette, and Think Progress? And what will the TNDP do? Will Chip Forrester lead the way and not merely call for the firing of this staffer but fire first and comment later?

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.  Other bloggers start posting 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: It’s around Noon and the first confirmation of the email is coming out.  Southern Beale, a popular Left wing blogger, admits she received the email in question.  And Post Politics picks up the story.

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.

SEE ALSO:

Yet another email controversy from the General Assembly by Michael Silence @ No Silence Here;

I am ready for my close up Mr. Demille by The Rep @ Camp4U;

Popularity: 54% [?]

If you’ve read this far, you are either looking for some info to reinforce your values or to rebuke the selfish, money grubbing corporate elitists. Regardless, the question is vital and important, whether or not your personal choice of answers is supported. It’s vital because, while the question is being asked and answered in the states, it is also the strategy being employed by the President to address the financial challenges faced by the country. It is illogical to assume the results seen at the state level will not be those seen at the national level, too.

Art Laffer and Stephen Moore have written “Rich States, Poor States” for the American Legislative Exchange Council. The good folks at Net Right Nation pointed me at a Wall Street Journal column based on their work.

“Soak the Rich, Lose the Rich” tells what happens in states which enact high taxes, especially on the wealthy, and what happens in states which consciously enact lower taxes, especially on the rich. In a modern day rendition of “Atlas Shrugged”, no one should be surprised to find the wealthy tend to flee from where they are seen as merely a payday. It remains for the states so foolishly engaged to see whether they understand the real world implications of such events.

Laffer and Moore refer you to their research on New York and California and how they are faring. They also mention Texas and Tennessee and how they are faring.

Should whatever taxes you have be raised or lowered in these times? Should your state have an income tax or not? And what bearing does this information from the state level have on our national debate? At a minimum, it ought to make us consider again whether an Income Tax, high or low, is the best way to collect our needed revenues. It ought to keep us talking about the idea of the Fair Tax and its elimination of taxes based on earnings and its move to taxes based on consumption.

Most important, it ought to help us understand any plan, state or federal, attempting to tax its way into prosperity will fail, because it depends on the willing participation of those being taxed. The currently wealthy will avoid the taxes and the nature of the tax discourages the creation of new wealth. Time need not be counted on to tell us that about the President’s plan. We can see it in Laffer and Moore’s research. Then again, there are none so blind …

Popularity: 23% [?]

I wanted to title this post “Nancy Pelosi is a Truther” but I thought that might be over the top. But it would be clearly applicable if one accepts the definition of “Truther” as one who seriously, passionately, publicly and vociferously believes something that normal people find incredulous. Like 9/11 was an “inside job”; like it was a bomb and not a plane that hit the Pentagon on 9/11; like Nancy Pelosi didn’t know about enhanced interrogation techniques, apparently until sometime last week.

Now that she’s aware of them, she’s shocked and appalled, and did I mention that she knew nothing about them until recently? The briefings she received shortly after 9/11 as a member of Congress were given by the CIA who lied to her or misled her or led her to think the situation was one way when it is now revealed to have been another way. This entire issue is beginning to look and feel like l’affaire Lewinsky. One can believe that Speaker Pelosi is telling the truth and everyone else connected to the matter is lying in their best inside the beltway conspiratorial fashion. Or one can believe that everyone else is telling the truth and the politician at the center of the storm is lying to protect herself. When one frames the issue like thaaat …

Incredibly, instead of ‘fessing up and moving on or at least trying to defuse and deescalate the national conversation that is starting up over this, the Speaker wants to turn up the heat. She wants “Truth Commissions” to get to the bottom of what happened and when and who is to blame. Seemingly lost on her is the possibility the Commissions, pretty well accepted by the Right as a purely political hammer, will be used to hammer the Speaker herself.

Pelosi’s assertions that she was unaware of enhanced interrogation are easily shown to be untrue at best and outright lies at worst. But that’s her story and she’s sticking to it. An author at Redstate is willing to take her at her word and give her the Commissions on the theory that any damage that could be done to the Bush Administration almost 8 years after the fact would pale in comparison to the carnage the GOP could wreak on Madame Speaker for the events of the last 8 weeks. Mark Impomeni, writing in “Bring on the Truth Commissions” notes,

Under these circumstances, and with adversaries this pathetic, Republicans should welcome Nancy Pelosi’s truth commission. Half of the commission’s time will be spent trying to untie Pelosi from her own statements about what she knew and when. That’s a bargain Republicans should be willing to take. And the American people will get a fuller picture both of the lives that were saved by enhanced interrogations, and of the Democrats’ willingness to say and do anything to gain power.

Shall we get to the bottom of this sordid mess, then? Shall we, as a nation, delve into what was known by whom and when? Shall we empanel the Speaker’s Truth Commission? And what will come out if we do?

Blue Collar Muse

Popularity: 13% [?]

That’s a rather startling question. It’s also going to be a very offensive question to a large number of people. I understand all that. But it’s irrelevant. The only question that matters is “No, really, does he?” Joan Swirsky writing at Canada Free Press thinks he does. Among the points and quotes she includes in support of her premise is this:

Historian Victor Davis Hanson also noticed something odd about Obama’s apology tour. “Despite this fresh climate of atonement, there was a complete absence of a single apology from any other foreign leader…not a word came from Britain about colonialism…nothing from Germany on the Holocaust…not a peep from France about Algeria or Vietnam. Turkey was mum on the Armenian killings…Russia said nothing about the 30 million murdered by Stalin…Nothing came from China about the 70 million who perished under Mao…Mr. Medvedev said nothing about Putin’s brutish rule…We saw no concrete evidence of any help — or hope and change — from any foreign leader. Zilch.”

In addition, Hanson continues, “We hear nothing about our Gettysburg, or our entry into World War I. Iwo Jima and the Bulge are never alluded to. Drawing the line in Korea and forcing the end of the Soviet monstrosity are taboo subjects. That we pledged the life of New York for Berlin in the Cold War is unknown. Liberating Afghanistan and Iraq from the diabolical Taliban and Saddam Hussein is left unsaid. The Civil Rights movement, the Great Society, affirmative action, and present billion-dollar foreign-aid programs apparently never existed. Millions of Africans have been saved by George Bush’s efforts at extending life-saving medicines to AIDS patients — but again, this is never referenced.”

Don’t like the thought that the man in the White House might be less fond of your country than you are? Think it’s preposterous? Merely saying it or denying it doesn’t make it so. Give Swirsky a read and let her make her case and rebut what she has to say. That’s the way it’s done. Then come back and let me know what you think.

Popularity: 11% [?]