NorCal Lefty: 'Our Beloved Hateful Gay Talkhost is Gone! BRING BACK THE KIDDIE PORN ADDICT!'

Barack Obama: 'Mad Man' With a Tan

By L.N. Smithee

An October 24, 2008 Associated Press story detailed how the cultural influence of the Emmy- and Golden Globe-winning TV drama Mad Men has been far more extensive than its surprisingly low ratings might indicate. Within the article, there was this observation about its “elite” and “intellectual” fan base:

Fashion designer Michael Kors cited "Mad Men" as an inspiration. The show's beautifully retro-styled stars are on magazine covers. A "Mad Men" DVD was spotted at the elbow of Barack Obama aboard his campaign plane.

Being a regular viewer of the program myself (despite the fact I am still on the street side of the velvet ropes of the “elite”), the suggestion that Senator Obama is a fan of Mad Men doesn’t surprise me that much. When you take a close look beneath Barack Obama’s surface, he has a lot in common with Mad Men’s protagonist, advertising wizard Don Draper. To wit:
 

Don Draper makes his living selling dreams to the general public. So does Barack Obama.

Draper is tall, handsome, and impeccably attired. So is Obama.

Draper is cool under pressure and analytical. So is Obama.

Draper smokes. So does Obama.

Draper is married with two children. So is Obama.

Draper had a complicated relationship with his late father. So did Obama.

Draper commands respect and reaps praise for himself through his skillful use of words. So does Obama.

Women are drawn to Don Draper like a magnet, just like they are drawn to Obama.

Draper’s wife, while lovely, is (behind closed doors) independent and often hot-tempered and negative. So is Obama’s wife.

Draper’s personal history is shrouded in mystery to most people in his life by his own design. The same is true of Obama.

Draper is shady about what’s really on his birth certificate. So is Obama.

Draper lives in fear of his past coming back to haunt him. So does Obama.

Draper has helped other people keep their dirty secrets, and they, in turn, have covered for him. The same is true of Obama.

Draper’s life is tied up in hiding his true identity. The same is true of Obama.

Draper’s lifestyle is so dependent on a constant string of lies and deception, he places himself in danger of ruin whenever he tells the truth. The same is true of Obama.

However, while Obama and Draper share many traits and life experiences, some things about them are markedly different. For example, Draper restrains himself about half the time when women throw themselves at him; there is no reason to believe Obama has that Clintonesque weakness (although if evidence someday emerges of B.O. infidelity, the likely response from his defenders will be, “Look at him! Can you blame him?”). On the other hand, there is this difference: Before hitting Madison Avenue, Draper worked with both his head and his hands; any instance in which Obama has needed to scrub beneath his fingernails at the end of his work day is unknown to me.

Still, there are enough commonalities that we could call Barack Obama a Mad Man With a Tan. Obama is fond of telling his audiences stories about various individuals in his family tree (almost exclusively white, for some reason); perhaps if one dug down deep enough, we would discover that Barack is distantly related to Don Draper.

I know what you’re thinking: “L.N., Don Draper is NOT a real person!” That’s true. But neither is the Barack Obama that’s running for President.

Christo Buckley's "Yada Yada Yada": Why Elaine from Seinfeld_Makes More Sense

By L.N. Smithee

In his now-infamous I'm-running-away-from-home note to National Review posted on the cyberpages of leftist publisher Tina Brown, Christopher Buckley, conservative legend William F. Buckley Jr.'s writer/novelist son, clearly stated reasons why someone like him would -- under normal circumstances -- utterly refuse to vote for someone like Barack Obama (words in italics are Buckley's):

“He [Obama] is … a lefty. I am not."

We'll take "Christo" (as his friends call him) at his word, for the moment. His essay is subtitled "The conservative case for Obama," but for reasons I illustrate below, I think it should be instead "A conservative's case for Obama." Again, Buckley:

"I am a small-government conservative who clings tenaciously and old-fashionedly to the idea that one ought to have balanced budgets."

Obama is not, unless I missed him echoing Clinton the First on budget-balancing.

"On abortion, gay marriage, et al, I’m libertarian."

Judging from his vocal objection to the Born Alive Infants Act equivalent in the Illinois State Senate, Obama is to the left of NARAL, denying postnatal survivors of abortion attempts life-saving medical care. Regarding gay marriage: he supports "civil unions," but is in full-throated support of the type of judicial activists that have used sleight of hand to grant same-sex couples marriage rights by saying ‘Civil union rights are essentially the same, so the titular difference is discriminatory and thus unconstitutional’.

"I believe … that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take it all away."

Obama not only promises to deliver such an ever-expanding monstrosity, his entire agenda is dependent on his ability to create it.


All the above having been said, it is Buckley’s flush-cheeked admiration for Obama’s coolness, brains, and writing skills that overcome his own objections:

[H]aving a first-class temperament and a first-class intellect, President Obama will (I pray, secularly) surely understand that traditional left-politics aren’t going to get us out of this pit we’ve dug for ourselves. If he raises taxes and throws up tariff walls and opens the coffers of the DNC to bribe-money from the special interest groups against whom he has (somewhat disingenuously) railed during the campaign trail, then he will almost certainly reap a whirlwind that will make Katrina look like a balmy summer zephyr.

"Obama has in him—I think, despite his sometimes airy-fairy 'We are the people we have been waiting for' silly rhetoric—the potential to be a good, perhaps even great leader. He is, it seems clear enough, what the historical moment seems to be calling for."

After shaking my head at the notion of a secular prayer (uh, to whom, Christo?) and how Buckley dismissed Obama's "silly rhetoric" before embracing it in the next sentence, I pondered how Obama’s aesthetic appeal has conquered both his and colleague Kathleen Parker’s heretofore principled fight to halt the freedom-eating virus called socialism.

It all reminded me of ... a famous episode of Seinfeld titled “The Couch.” Seriously. Stay with me.

A primer to the relevant part: Jerry Seinfeld and his former-lover-now-good-friend Elaine Benes are dining at an Italian restaurant. The subject of take-out pizza came up, and Elaine, who is pro-choice, says she would never order a pizza from the “Paccino’s” chain, which is owned by a man who donates millions to pro-life organizations (for real-life background, Google “Tom Monaghan”). Jerry asks Elaine what she would do if the owner of the restaurant in which they were awaiting dinner felt the same way. She replies that she would leave. Jerry – with mischievous delight — motions the owner over, and asks how he feels about abortion. The restaurateur’s face grimaces as he rants that no intelligent person could be in favor of it. This causes an ugly scene in the place, with some patrons shouting their pro-life support and others getting up and leaving in disgust, including Elaine.

Later in the episode, Elaine has a first date with a hunky moving man that goes extremely well. The next day, she shows up at Jerry’s apartment with the status report:

ELAINE: I’m in lo-o-o-ve!

JERRY: Whoa!

ELAINE: This is it, Jerry! This is IT! He is such an incredible person! He’s real, he’s honest, he’s unpretentious…oh, I’m really lucky! […] And, the best part is, he doesn’t play games. You know? There are no games!

JERRY: No games? What is the point of dating without games? How do you know if you’re winning or losing?

ELAINE (putting on lipstick): Well, all I know is, he doesn’t like games and he doesn’t play games, you know? He has too much character and integrity.

JERRY: Ah ha. And what is his stand on ... abortion?

ELAINE (Startled, she turns to look at Jerry and accidently smears lipstick across her face): What?

JERRY: What is his stand … on abortion?

ELAINE: Well (stopping to think) … I’m sure he’s pro-choice.

JERRY: How do you know?

ELAINE: Because he, well … he’s just so good-looking.

This, however, is not a perfect parallel to the situation with young Mr. Buckley. In that same Seinfeld show, Elaine (played by the magnificent – and very liberal – Julia Louis-Dreyfus) does end up summoning the courage to possibly ruin her illusion by testing her new man. On their next date, she feigns being distressed about a non-existent female friend who “got impregnated by her troglodytic half-brother, and decided to have an abortion.”

Not suspecting she might think differently than he does, the boyfriend’s sympathetic response was: “You know, someday ... we’re going to get enough people in the Supreme Court to change that law.” A shattered Elaine frowns and sobs, knowing that even though her moving man really moved her, he was not, alas, "The One" for her.


In real life, however, unlike the fictional Ms. Benes, Mr. Buckley, Ms. Parker (and now, Ms. Noonan) resist letting their better judgment dissuade them from hastily diving into a whirlwind relationship they may regret in leisure — at least four years, maybe even eight. In their lavishing praise on Mr. Obama’s smarts, they seem not to have considered the possibility that the Senator’s genius towers over theirs so completely, he may have (in The One’s own words) “hoodwinked” them into buying into a philosophy that is the antithesis of all they held dear – that is, of course, until he became all they held dear.

If you believe, dear reader, that last sentence is an unfair postulate, well, that's just tough. What else is there to think when all of a sudden, people who have made their living making sense show symptoms of having succumbed to an epidemic of blind faith in an individual representing the polar opposite of their worldview? Could it be possible that all along, they trumpeted the virtues and values of Goldwater, Reagan, and Thatcher simply because they failed to find sufficient eloquence flowing from the likes of Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and Ken Livingstone? One would like to think not, but in light of recent events, who could know for sure?

Again, I turn to the ultimate show about nothing to express my feelings about these endorsements about nothing of the campaign about nothing. It is as if Christopher Buckley simply wrote, "I was born into conservatism, I've always been a fan of John McCain, I wrote a speech for him, yada yada yada, I'm voting for Obama."

Foolish Fiore Fouls Up Facts in Silly Sarah Slam

By L.N. Smithee

Mark Fiore, political cartoonist and animator, did his part in furthering the MSM sneers at and about Alaska Governor Sarah Palin in this cartoon, which I found on SFGate.com, the website of the San Francisco Chronicle.

Unlike many lampoons of Palin, Fiore holds back on viciousness, cruelty, and obscenities. Still, in his minute-and-a-half long cartoon, there are two grand ironies. The first: Mr. Fiore portrays the Governor as deceptive (yet clueless) on the topic of Afghanistan by suggesting she Bowdlerized (or, as we say in the Cyber Age, “Dowdified”) Barack Obama’s statement about “air raiding villages and killing civilians.” In fact, she did NOT mischaracterize Obama’s words — in the context of the remark, its preamble, and its conclusion, Obama was at that moment suggesting — regardless of his intention — that air-raiding civilians is the war strategy currently in place due to the lack of available troops.

If anyone is the victim of such sins of omission, it is Palin! PDS sufferers have maliciously Dowdified her words from the beginning of public awareness about her, from her request for prayer that God would bless the war effort, to her statements regarding NATO, to her opinions on creationism and its appropriateness for school curricula, to her campaign speeches about Obama’s terrorist connections, to the non-existent “quote” in which she did NOT say “I can see Russia from my house." (Charlie Rangel, the guy in charge of setting tax policy who says he can’t do his own taxes, repeated that lie in the midst of calling Palin “disabled.”) There is no twisting of words too small for Palin-haters to perform and pass along as factual.

The second irony: Mr. Fiore also faults Palin for mistakenly referring to General McKiernan as “General McClellan.” Yet, throughout the cartoon, the actress voicing Palin refers to her stubbly, plaid-wearing, snowmobilemachine-riding hubby as “Pat.”

There may be a Pat Palin somewhere, but the First Dude’s name is “Todd.”

Mr. Fiore, here's a tip: If you're going to be correcting someone on getting names wrong, you darn well better get the names right yourself.

Toni Morrison - Nobel Prize Whiner (10 year anniversary edition)

By L.N. Smithee

Note: Ten years ago today I published the essay below on Free Republic.com in response to reading a commentary on the pending impeachment of then-President Clinton written by African-American novelist Toni Morrison, winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1993. In it, she refers to Clinton as "our first black President."

It has since vanished from FR servers, but I recently recovered it, and decided to repost it in light of the fact that Barack Obama -- along with those who are determined to make sure he is elected President -- is bludgeoning people with no discernible racial animus with the charge of racism simply because they challenge his truthfulness and his judgment. The Morrison piece -- published in the October 5, 1998 edition of The New Yorker magazine -- is a preview of what we can expect if President Obama gets himself into a scandal.

---

African-American men seemed to understand it right away. Years ago, in the middle of the Whitewater investigation, one heard the first murmurs: white skin notwithstanding, this is our first black President. Blacker than any actual black person who could ever be elected in our children’s lifetime. After all, Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald’s-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas. And when virtually all the African-American Clinton appointees began, one by one, to disappear, when the President’s body, his privacy, his unpoliced sexuality became the focus of the persecution, when he was metaphorically seized and body-searched, who could gainsay these black men who knew whereof they spoke?

---

The Toni Morrison quotes that have so enraged clear-thinking people across America were just a symptom of the greater disease among the glitterati that have been expressing mere disappointment at the sins of President Clinton, but revulsion at truth-telling of Kenneth Starr.

Morrison's article in which she stated her patently ridiculous opinion that Bill Clinton, "white skin notwithstanding ... is our first black President" was only part of a larger collection of essays apparently solicited by the New Yorker magazine. In its "Talk Of The Town" feature immediately after the table of contents, short editorials were presented that were billed as being from "the experts on human folly." Who were these "experts"? Psychotherapists? Sociologists? No, mostly writers of fiction and the superstars of the coffee-and-a-good-book crowd: Nobel Prize-Winning Morrison ("Paradise", "Beloved"), Pulitzer-winning Jane Smiley ("Moo", "A Thousand Acres"), Janet Malcolm ("The Silent Woman: Sylvia Plath… "), Lorrie Moore ("Who Will Run The Frog Hospital?"), Louis Begley ("About Schmidt"),and Ethan Canin ("For Kings and Planets").

When the scales fell from my eyes in my early adulthood, and I came to the realization that conservatives were not all racists, murderous profiteers and religious fanatics (not to say that conservatives like that don't exist), I began to see the ways their polar opposites simply do not acknowledge the existence of problems with their philosophies. The October 5, 1998 issue of the New Yorker is Liberal Tunnel Vision 101.

I would like nothing better than to lambaste them all, but because time and space is limited, and Morrison's view is particular offensive to me as a black man, I will only comment on her part of the New Yorker's crime against logic.

The reason Morrison so adeptly denies facts about the investigations of the President is because she carefully made certain she would not have to face them. She begins her piece by saying that she embarked on this past summer as one in which she would "do selective radio listening, read no newspapers or news magazines, and leave my television screen mercifully blank…It was a lovely summer and I was pleased with the decision to recuse myself from what had become since January The Only Story Worth Telling…"

(At reading this, I thought to myself, "She didn't even turn on her old pal Oprah?")

"I was eager for information," she insisted, "yet suspicious of the package in which that information would be wrapped," referring to the "ratings-driven, money-based" visual and print media. How to survive summer without dying of information starvation? "I decided to get my news the old-fashioned way: conversation, public eavesdropping, and word of mouth."

The great thing about getting your information that way is you get to choose friendly mouths to get the spin you want. Get a load of the things she said she didn't want to hear from the sources she distrusted: "I [was] fearing at any minute I might have to witness ex-Presidential friends selling that friendship for the higher salaries of broadcast journalism; anticipating the nausea that might rise when quaking Democrats took firm positions on or over the fence in case the polls changed." It doesn't seem to matter to her whether those dreaded people were truthful-just that they not switch sides. She continues: "I imagined feral Republicans, smelling blood and a shot at the totalitarian power they believe is rightfully theirs; self-congratulatory pundits sifting through 'history' for nuggets of dubious relevancy."

Present in Morrison's view of those who are "judging" Clinton is the standard liberal assumption that those casting the stones are not only not without sin, but habitual practitioners of whatever they condemn. "Women leaving hotels following trysts with their extramarital lovers tell pollsters they abominate Mr. Clinton's behavior. Relaxed men fresh from massage parlors frown earnestly into the camera at the mere thought of such malfeasance." Morrison doesn't even modify those statements with anything as half-heartedly fair as "I'll bet."

She then displays her denial of the importance of the President not committing felonies while being the Chief Executive. "At another point, the story seemed to be about high and impeachable crimes that we have had some experience with: the suborning of federal agencies; the exchange of billion-dollar contracts for proof of indiscretion; the extermination of infants in illegal wars mounted and waged for money and power. Until something like those abuses surfaces (sic), the story will have to make do with thinner stuff: alleged perjury and "Lady, your husband is cheating on us."

Where to begin a refutation of that nonsense?

First of all, which President had the "experience" of being threatened with impeachment for any of the above "high and impeachable crimes that we have had some experience with?" Secondly, at what point was Starr's investigation of Clinton's misdeeds about any of those things? Thirdly, if Morrison had been paying any kind of attention to the hearings regarding the campaign funding scandals, she would have recognized that there is reason to believe that as we speak there is subornation of Janet Reno's Justice Department-just ask Louis Freeh and Charles LaBella. But Starr can't get his hands on this scandal, and neither can any other independent counsel, thanks to Reno's curious discounting of her trusted investigators' judgment.

As for "alleged perjury," with Morrison presumably using the sleazy lawyer argument that lies told under oath are not perjury unless it is material to the case in which a witness is under oath, there is no credible reason for anyone with half a brain to argue that the lies told about Monica Lewinsky were peripheral to the Paula Jones suit. If Clinton truthfully stated that he and Monica engaged in the same sexual act in the workplace that Jones says she was crudely given the opportunity to perform years ago, that fact would not go unnoticed by the jury. But more importantly, the slender examples that Jones gave of "reprisals" for not becoming one of the then-Governor's harem (most memorably the notion that she was singled out not to receive flowers on Secretaries' Day) would have picked up considerable weight upon the truthful revelation that Lewinsky's silence was thought to be insured by her promotion to a Pentagon assistant position for which she was not eminently qualified.

On top of all of that, don't forget this very important point-the Lewinsky affair (as well as the Willey overtures) took place while Clinton was awaiting word on whether or not the suit was going to begin during his term in office or not. So rather than being about something that happened long ago, Jones' legal action was about piggish and prosecutable activities that were still Clinton's modus operandi, and -- for all we know -- might still be going on right now. After all, we have already been burned once, thinking that after the Flowers revelation and confession Clinton's alleycatting days were all in his past.

In order to save his own political or financial hide (or both), the chief law enforcer of the country conspired to deny a private citizen her day in court. And he lied to everyone in the country in order to do so. And he lied under oath before a grand jury, an action that his friend and former business partner Susan McDougal chose a contempt-of-court sentence over. And he continues to shade the truth in every public or private statement. But in her ignoring the fact of impeachable offenses committed by the President, she does not even mention the fact that the reason these questions were even asked was the probability that he has a pattern of abusing his privileges as a powerful boss of women -- actions usually thought to be purely the domain of rich male chauvinist white men.

Which brings us to Morrison's tortured comparisons of the President's legal troubles to that of the slavery victims and stereotypical ghetto losers that she celebrates.

Clinton, says she, is "[B]lacker than any actual person who could ever be elected in our children's lifetime." I guess that is a slap at Republican Colin Powell, who is assured of widespread initial support for a Presidential run if he chooses. Morrison continues, "Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness; single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald's and junk-food loving boy from Arkansas." But this painting Clinton in tones deeper than his own pale-to-pinkish red has less to do with his background and choice of diet as it does his carnal activities. She goes on: "[W]hen virtually all the African-American Clinton appointees began, one by one, to disappear, [ i.e., Lani Guinier, Mike Espy, Joycelyn Elders, and of course, Ron Brown] … the President's body, his privacy, his unpoliced sexuality became the focus of the persecution … The message was clear: 'No matter how smart you are, how hard you work, how much coin you earn for us, we will put you in your place or put you out of the place you have somehow, albeit it with our permission, achieved. You will be fired from your job, sent away in disgrace, and-who knows?-maybe sentenced and jailed to boot. In short, unless you do as we say (i.e. assimilate at once), your expletives belong to us.' "

Morrison is on a roll and keeps going. "[T]he elusive story left visible tracks: from target sighted to attack, to criminalization, to lynching, and now, in some quarters, crucifixion."

The fact that the Constitution does not allow for acknowledged felonious Presidents to escape impeachment inquiries is lost on Morrison. Instead, she says the real story is what the Office of Independent Counsel -- if not Starr himself -- represents. "Such concentrated power may be reminiscent of a solitary Torquemada on a holy mission of lethal inquisition. It may even suggest a fatwa. But neither applies. This is Slaughtergate. A sustained, bloody, arrogant coup d'etat. The Presidency is being stolen from us. And the people know it."

Morrison forgets that the only blood shed so far that can be connected to the inquiries into Clinton's behavior is that of Vincent Foster, his old ally from the Little Rock days and personal friend and partner of Hillary's. If Starr is to be believed by liberals when he agrees with the President, Foster chose the instrument of his own destruction when he took his own life. And remember that the Independent Counsel Statute was renewed with Clinton's lawmaking pen over the objections of a GOP minority during his first term. Clinton also chose the instrument of his destruction. He was not "crucified"-- far from it. He got a running start, took a Jordanesque leap, and climbed up the cross.

And whose "arrogance" is responsible for this sorry situation? Starr's? Gingrich's? It is to laugh. The Presidency has not been "stolen"-- if it eventually is lost by Clinton, it is because he threw it away. The anger at Starr is incredibly misplaced. If Clinton represents everything a good President is, his first responsibility to those who love him is not to screw it up. If that meant being without fellatio for eight years, wouldn't that have been a small price to pay for his country's progress? Even the most cynical of Clinton critics can't think that he wanted to be leader of the free world just for the groupies. But revelations about his getting sex not only after hours but during hours with women he would discard like whores make him seem like someone who is capable of being that elephantine a cretin.

Richard Nixon seemed to actually believe that a President was above the law. Hillary Rodham, among others, made sure that was a fatal mistake on his part, but some two decades later, her own husband decided that a President is only subject to the law if he is caught -- and not simply caught, but caught red-handed.

Now, hopefully, he will discover the same lesson he should have learned long ago, and the bar set in 1974 will be raised rather than lowered for future Presidents.

I would like to close with this message to Toni Morrison:

If you think that Clinton is all but black, I say, Toni, thanks for nothing. If this reflects your attitude about the inabilities of our people, you are still on the plantation, dearie. You still think we can't rise above our backgrounds (presuming, as the likes of you do, that we are all born poor and abused and have a defeatist attitude). You don't think of your own people as having future potential, you think of us as having unremovable shackles perpetually preventing us from being seen as anything but homo sapiens' also-rans. You can't think in terms of equality that is earned -- only that which is granted to the lowly by the high and mighty at the threat of violent revolution. You worship Clinton-types because they kowtow to curry your favor and get your vote, not because they view you as equals. You hate blacks like Ward Connerly, Clarence Thomas and Alan Keyes because they want to compete before the playing field is "leveled" the way that many Asian and European peoples who have ventured to America have; your type wants to be fed at the breast of white America, never satisfied that the time for weaning has arrived, yet wailing that it will never come.

In short, despite your fame, talent, wealth, and accomplishments, you are not an example of the solution. You are part of the problem.

I am sorry about the length of this. Congratulations if you made it to the end. I just had to get this out of my system.

----------------------------------------------------
In the posts in the original Free Republic thread, there were an interesting exchange of comments. One particular post remained in my memory. In italics below is the original comment, and my reply follows:

---

Perhaps you could express an opinion on a theory I have come to after much thought about the subject. I have come to believe that much of the attitude of liberal black Americans stems from the way that slavery was ended in this country. It's almost as if they don't feel like they've earned it because it was given to them, not taken by them.

I really don't know how to answer that because I was never given a history lesson -- in school or out -- about the ways in which America screwed black people. I don't remember the first time I learned of slavery (in retrospect, I do remember, but it's beside the point -- LNS), but I never viewed the institution of it as some sort of commentary on my worth as an individual. I think perhaps some of the reason I have been insulated from blind outrage is the fact that in my Biblical education, the chosen people were also, on and off for long periods of time, enslaved. I really don't know, and wish I could explain it to you.

John Hope Franklin wants us all to believe that we can talk racism to death. Rubbish. Racism exists in America, and always will. If we were all overnight changed into the same skin color, the focus would move from skin color to hair color, or eye color, or nose size, or something else. It is human nature, and humans will never be able to eradicate it any more than the 13th Amendment ended slavery in other countries besides the USA.

One thing I will agree with is that victory and accomplishment is sweeter if you earn it than if it is handed to you. As I alluded in the post, Asian and Europeans in the past have suffered indignities and discrimination. The Asians and Europeans may not have been enslaved, and the Jews could always conceal their lineage by changing their names, true -- but at some [time] between the Lincoln Administration and today, there must have been a point at which the rising black American was at the same level as the [other immigrants'] peoples whose descendants today lead industry giants and multinational corporations without the benefit of virtual partnership (or sponsorship) of the government.

When was this moment? God only knows. But I know this, also: In 1869, six years after the Emancipation Proclamation, when the Trans-Continental Railroad's golden spike historically connected the east and west American coasts in Promontory Point, coming from the eastern side of the tracks (according to accounts in the textbooks I was given) were mostly black laborers. Coming from the western end were mostly Chinese laborers, who were still persecuted and harassed and murdered for undercutting American-born workers wages. Fast forward to today: while some black activists fume about their ancestors never getting their forty acres and a mule, other blacks are bemoaning race-based preferences disappearing at U. of California campuses. Chinese activists are upset about the UC campus situation, too -- because of lower standards for other minorities, excelling Chinese applicants were rejected a UC education. Morrison and her crowd should be asking "What did the Chinese immigrants do differently that might work for blacks?

If anyone is tempted to use some sort of "Bell Curve" theory to apply to this set of facts, do us both a favor and save it. Thinking that genetics doom individuals to lower classes does nothing but foster racism and cause the defeatism that minorities need to overcome.

The Good Ol' Fair & Balanced San Francisco Chronicle...NOT!

After watching Governor Sarah Palin far exceed expectations (lowered or otherwise) last night, I was wondering how my the hometown rag San Francisco Chronicle would handle the truth. Would it just pretend what had just happened had not happened, and say Joe Biden embarrassed her and drove the last nail in McCain's campaign? Or would they concede that the spontaneous Palin combustion they were awaiting with bated breath didn't occur?

Below is the answer (click to enlarge images).

If you're unfamiliar with the Chronicle, believe me when I tell you at first glance, this front page was surprisingly close to being balanced. However, upon further review, not so much. Note the pull quotes highlighted in red:



Here's the context in which the Palin's remark was made, in response to this question from moderator Gwen Ifill:

"Senator, you have quite a record, this is the next question here, of being an interventionist. You argued for intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo, initially in Iraq and Pakistan and now in Darfur, putting U.S. troops on the ground. Boots on the ground. Is this something the American public has the stomach for?"

The portion of Biden's answer relevant to Palin's response is below:

Senator Biden: “...With regard to Iraq, I indicated it would be a mistake to -- I gave the president the power. I voted for the power because he said he needed it not to go to war but to keep the United States, the UN in line, to keep sanctions on Iraq and not let them be lifted...”

Governor Palin: "Oh, man, it’s so obvious that I’m a Washington outsider, and someone just not used to the way you guys operate, because here you voted for the war, and now you oppose the war. You’re one who says, you know, as so many politicians do, I was for it before I was against it, or vice versa. Americans are craving that straight talk, and just want to know hey, if you voted for it, tell us why you voted for it, and it was a war resolution. And you had supported John McCain’s military strategies pretty adamantly until this race, and you had opposed very adamantly Barack Obama’s military strategy, including cutting off funding for the troops, that attempt all through the primary. And I watched those debates, and so I remember what those were all about..."

And so, from the thousands of words said in the debates, this is what the front page editor of the Chron came up with.

It may be an outrage to you, but to me, it's just another day here in Pseudo-Utopia-by-the-Bay. It's nice to know it must have killed everyone at the Chron (with the exception of Debra J. Saunders) that Palin didn't melt in a puddle of tears. Oops!

In the words of Limp Bizkit:

"Life is overwhelming,
heavy is the head that wears the crown
I'd love to be the one to disappoint you
when I don't fall down."

Yeah, Fred Durst is not Plato, Socrates, or Shakespeare, but the words fit the occasion.

Oprah Winfrey's Liberal Bias "A ha! Moment"

September 5, 2008

Something that I suspected for many, many years was confirmed this morning if Matt Drudge's sources are correct. Oprah Winfrey, the most powerful and prominent female civilian in America as well as the most powerful and prominent black civilian in America for many years, has held a grudge against the man who was -- until the meteoric rise of Senator Barack Obama to Democratic Presidential Nominee -- the most powerful and important black person in America; Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. To wit (bold mine):

BIG DILEMMA: OPRAH BALKS AT HOSTING SARAH PALIN; STAFF DIVIDED

Fri Sep 05 2008 08:55:46 ET

Oprah Winfrey may have introduced Democrat Barack Obama to the women of America -- but the talkshow queen is not rushing to embrace the first woman on a Republican presidential ticket!

Oprah's staff is sharply divided on the merits of booking Sarah Palin, sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT."Half of her staff really wants Sarah Palin on," an insider explains.

"Oprah's website is getting tons of requests to put her on, but Oprah and a couple of her top people are adamantly against it because of Obama."

One executive close to Winfrey is warning any Palin ban could ignite a dramatic backlash!

It is not clear if Oprah has softened her position after watching Palin's historic convention speech.

Last year, Winfrey blocked an appearance by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, timed to a promotional tour of his autobiography.

Oprah and executive producer Sheri Salata, who has contributed thousands of dollars to Obama's campaign, refused requests for comment.

Developing...

Oprah's reported block of Palin as a guest reveals that she's not an advocate for women, she's an advocate for liberal women. The fact that she's only an advocate for liberal blacks has been clear for years. Think of the long list of conservative blacks that have been on her program:

Want me to list 'em again? (Bata bing!)

I've called this an "A ha!" moment in the spirit of something that is frequently said on the show (Yes, I have watched the show -- it and she are not without value and I have indeed learned some things from the show, especially from Dr. Mehmet Oz). But in reality, it was more of a Freddie Blassie "I KNEW IT, I KNEW IT, I KNEW IT!" moment. If you are a fan of novelty records from the seventies or professional wrestling, you know what I am talking about. If you aren't, Google "Freddie Blassie Pencil Neck Geek" and you will be on the track to getting it.

Well, get going!

Jeremiah Wright Joins With Clinton Pal Tyson, Gets Own Brand of Chicken

April 29, 2008

CHICAGO (LNS) — Controversial pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright has just admitted that the rumors are true, and that he is now in cahoots with the Clinton campaign.

In a statement released this afternoon, Wright admitted that he grew tired of the fawning over Barack Obama “as if he was some sort of some sort of new savior! I only have one black savior, and that is Jeeezus!”

The final breaking point came when in a private meeting, the Obama campaign refused to allow for any sort of cabinet position for Wright. “He said I could not be his right hand or his left hand man, so I decided that if he wanted to be treated like a messiah, I would oblige him by betraying him for thirty pieces of silver.”

The current value of thirty 90% Pre-1965 $1000.00 US silver coins is around $360,000.00. But as a sweetener to the deal cut with longtime Clinton supporter Don Tyson of Tyson Foods, Wright will be paid to endorse his own brand of poultry.

Sometime before the November election, check the meat section of your local supermarket. There you will find “Rev. Wright’s America’s Chickens!” Future TV and radio advertisements will feature Wright in his signature booming voice declaring, “AMERICA’S CHICKENS!….Bring ‘em home…to ROAST!”