Satch at the Grappling Gobbler tournament Saturday Nov 30, wrestling up in the 56 lb class at 48.4 lbs.
Tell me. Does any of this sound familiar to you? Because it should, to you long time readers especially. Though I don’t begrudge it being repeated over and over and over again. I guess I just wish I hadn’t been so unceremoniously dismissed as an hyperbolic, unhelpful crank, one engaging in ideas characterized as “fundamentally unserious” or “pseudo-intellectual,” given their transcendence of the temporal and the pragmatic.
protein wisdom: an asshole so far ahead of his time that nobody even knew he wasn’t really an asshole after all. Or rather, he was, but for different reasons than they thought — most of them having to do with an irrational fear of sweater vests.
(h/t Terry H)
I don’t really know what it is, this pap smear thingie — and my OBGYN seemed to have a hard time figuring out what to do or where to scrape — but even though whatever she ended up doing hurt like the dickens (but don’t worry, I’m fairly certain I’m cervical cancer free; I just used my free health care as a precautionary measure), it was worth it.
Because it was free.
And, well, you know how it is with we Jews.
Next up: protein wisdom goes in for an ultrasound to see if he’s pregnant, regardless of what the lying blood tests and the recalcitrant pee strips keep telling me. The fact of the matter is, this month I’m feeling like a very fertile young woman trapped in the body of a middle-aged, stocky patriarchal oppressor, and I have a gut feeling that I may be carrying my own child, no matter what these so-called “doctors” have to say. After all, who are they to dictate what kind of care I need or deserve as my human right?
Those decisions more properly belong to the government. And as they’re too busy trying to figure out how to keep a website up and running, I figure now is as good a time as any to sneak in some superfluous tests and rule out all sort of illnesses or, in the case of a pregnancy, punishments.
Plus there’s that free thing again.
Turns out not having a full-time gig has its perks! From the bottom of my emotionally-realized uterus, Obama, thank you!
Never let a crisis (or if needs be, the anniversary of one) go to waste. And as a corollary? Make sure to bring plenty of chips, dip, music, and festive progressive cheer. After all, it’s not often you get to use the murder of elementary school children as a chance to throw a raucus set of house parties meant to galvanize your constituency into going after those in no way responsible for the monstrous act — all for potential political gain.
Christ. It’s enough to give lefties a hard on!
– Which is why they might want to bring the X, or some poppers, or — for the really adventurous — Diphenhydramine. Because nothing says “how can we throw a house part to exploit the death of a bunch of kids?” like heightened sexual arousal and vulcanic orgasms.
Ghoulish? Says you. Making a difference and enjoying the pleasures of the flesh at the same time? Now that’s Orgasming for Action!
Witness, for instance, the “civilized” fascism of the contemporary Democrat party, which is couching its totalitarian designs in the false nobility and unearned moral authority of sleazy elected officials and their army of appointed, faceless, bureaucratic lifers.
What they believe — and so are determined to act upon — is real, and it is the very essence of liberal fascism. What we are engaging in isn’t some mere set of “policy disagreements” within a completely workaday status quo DC, as some on the “right” — wishing to sound more reasoned than we Hobbits, extremists, anarchists, and domestic terrorists (read: constitutionalists) who have seen Obama and the New Left takeover of the Democrat Party for exactly what it is — have long maintained. Holding on to that position at this point, in fact, is nothing more than knee-jerk recalcitrance and should be treated as a complete surrender to the manufactured reality of the left, and the complete triumph of stubborn egoism over empiricism (Obama never was a “garden-variety liberal Democrat,” nor was he ever a “good man” who merely differed with the right on the best policies for America; instead, he is, and always has been, a revolutionary, a destroyer, someone whose entire life was constructed and molded to place him in a position to foist a progressive, Fabian Socialist, quasi-Marxist coup on our very system of governance by pressuring and breaching the Constitution, by challenging or ignoring separation of powers, and by turning the Executive branch and its administrative state into the ultimate governing authority, with the President as the supreme leader. He is, by way of Marx, Alinsky, Ayers, Cloward-Piven, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and LBJ, a Manchurian candidate with a nice pant crease and the cover of being an Historic figure in a country taught self-loathing over racial animus long ago atoned for, in ways large and small).
The mask has been off for some time now. So the sub rosa socialism — which was the strategy developed back during Obama’s days at Cooper Union’s Marxism conferences — has slowly become more brazen, with the attendant attempt to continue to normalize that presumptuousness so that it seems in keeping with traditional American ideals.
But one has to be willing to overlook so many things to buy into this fiction that those who do can, with confidence, be broken down into either useful idiots or complicit actors in an attempt at “fundamental transformation” — or, if you prefer, the remaking of our system of governance, a velvet revolution, a coup.
And here it is articulated, clearly and almost matter-of-factly, by Howard Dean, speaking on the roles of the private sector and the government in the arena of health insurance:
Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, a liberal Democrat, says decisions about health care should rest with the federal government, not with individual employers who pay for their workers’ health insurance.
“So, you know, this is one country,” Dean told CNN’s “State of the Union” with Candy Crowley on Sunday. “We all have to live by a set of things that are passed in Washington and agreed to by the court. We’ll see what the court does, but I don’t think a particular employer has a right to decide what kind of health care their employees are going to get. That’s now in the hands of the federal government, and that’s where it should be.”
Let that sink in for a second: the dispersed and varied choice that occurs when private employers offer health care packages to their employees — which employees are free to factor in those proffered coverages as part of the calculus for deciding upon which job to take — is, to the left’s way of thinking, illegitimate: choice, competition, private contracts, variety of coverages, all of these things, we’re told, can’t rest with private enterprises buying them and then providing them to their employees.
Instead, those decisions are all “now in the hands of the federal government, and,” according to Dean and the left, “that’s where it should be.”
The question not asked, during such propaganda pitches, is this: why should these decisions be in hands of elected officials and bureaucrats and not those who are paying for the coverages, offering the benefit packages, and allowing potential employees to weigh those plans into the overall compensation packages being offered, thereby creating competition between companies for employees, which in turn drives up wages and allows for choice and, yes, individual liberty?
And the answer — though not explicitly stated — is buried in the implied assumption that, where private enterprises and their profit-seeking are somehow crass and immoral, the government, made up as it is of smiling hairpieces who excel at making promises they have no intention of fulfilling and telling constituencies what they wish to hear, then ignoring them once they go to DC, is entirely noble, virtuous, and moral, and as a result, has the best interests of the people in mind, evinced by their willingness to make the dull rubes who don’t know what’s best for them bend to an unpopular mandate that drives up the cost of care, redistributes wealth, destroys the middle class, decreases the efficacy of our health care system, drives doctors out of business, and (the kicker) only applies to those who are under the purview of this social experiment, with the virtuous government leadership exempting themselves from their own grand designs.
Or, to put it another way: the company that takes you on, trains you, gives you a job, a career, a livelihood, and room for advancement — all while providing you with a health care plan that you’ve determined fits within the elaborate calculus of your individual choices and decisions — is evil and incapable of doing right by you. Whereas Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi? These are the people who really know and care about you.
Which, when we distill it like that, can there be any narrative more absurd than that one?
Government isn’t your Nanny. It’s isn’t your surrogate parent. It isn’t meant to take care of you from cradle to grave. It’s design is to uphold and protect the Constitution, to secure what are your natural rights, and to provide for the common defense. It is the rule of law that keeps the civil society adequately refereed — not the rogue head coach who, once hired on a temporary basis, can change the rules of the game.
There is nothing inherently moral about a government employee or elected official. Just as there is nothing inherently evil about profit-driven innovation and expansion, which creates wealth and opportunity.
This is a lesson we need to learn, in New Hampshire, and South Carolina, and Oklahoma, and Arizona, and North Dakota, and New Mexico. In California, and Texas, and New York. In South Dakota, and Oregon, and Washington, and Michigan, and then in Washington DC to take back the White House. YEAAAARRRRRGGGHH!
Though we’ve still been under the weather, Satchel gutted it out and competed in two tournaments this weekend, the first the Grappling Gobbler in Johnstown CO Saturday, the second the Hall of Fame Classic in Broomfield on Sunday. As some of you in the past have (incomprehensibly to me) noted that you have no interest in this kind of stuff — and would prefer I just post things of interest to you — I respectfully ask that you try to refrain from making public your complaints of how I’m using my site (when clearly what I should be doing is servicing your needs and your needs only).
In the Johnstown tournament Satchle took first in his weight class at 50, then wrestled up at 56 and finished fifth in the 8 man bracket. Kids on the tournament circle tend to be more evenly matched than kids who wrestle just duals; consequently, Satchel’s having to give up 8 lbs in the 56 bracket really hurt him, particularly against the eventual second place winner, who cut weight to move to the 56 bracket and was likely closer to 58 when wrestling began (Satch weighed in at a whopping 48.4!). Satch took a nice shot on him off the whistle but was unable to turn the corner and lift — not because of technique but because the bigger kid was able to simply overpower him and drive him back, pancaking him and getting a head and arm pin.
There’s a reason, after all, that weight classes exist, and this was a clear example of why that is. That being said, I don’t mind Satchel wrestling up against bigger kids, because it toughens him up and makes going against kids his own weight that much less grueling — and he’s routinely beaten a number of kids in the low 60s and even the 70s. But this particular 56 lber was very skilled — and had it not been for a freakish kid (one who my guess is will be the eventual state champion in the 55 or 60 class this) — Satch’s 56 lb opponent would have won the tournament outright.
Wrestling continued on Sunday at a Hall of Fame tournament in Broomfield, this one sanctioned by a different body and requiring the use of headgear (Satchel almost never wrestles in headgear, though I bought him a nice Cliff Keen Tornado this weekend, which he didn’t mind wearing — a good sign).
Satch took first in the 55 division — though he only had to face a single opponent — 3 times — and whom he beat in all 3 matches with 3 quick pins. She was tenacious and had a very nice bridge, but Satch was too quick and strong for her, though they were evenly matched in weight (a benefit, as I noted earlier, of spending so much practice and dual time wrestling kids that significantly outweigh you).
My wife wasn’t around for the first match, but it looks remarkably like the other two, the videos for which we do have:
Gun ban surprise — with a complicit (or is it just ignorant and opportunistic) GOP helping lead the way?
Say it ain’t so, Orange Johnnyius! From Dudley Brown, National Association for Gun Rights:
Will your Congressman vote to let President Barack Obama ban wooden stocks and to allow a massive crack-down on firearms manufacturing?
I hope not, but that’s what the Republican-controlled House may be on the verge of doing in a vote that could come later today.
Let me explain.
Last week, I told you about how Chuck Schumer tried to pull a Thanksgiving trick on gun owners.
Schumer was caught red-handed trying to sneak a massive gun ban expansion through the U.S. Senate.
Schumer’s plan calls for extending the so-called “undetectable” gun ban of 1988.
Additionally, he wants to expand it to crack-down on 3D-printing and outlaw manufacturing certain types of receivers, gun moldings, and plastic magazines.
Fortunately, Schumer encountered a set-back.
It sent the gun-grabbers scrambling to find a new strategy to get this anti-gun legislation passed before a crucial December 9th deadline.
The bad news: Insiders are now telling me they’ve found one.
Republican House Speaker John Boehner is prepared to bring it up for a vote in the House on Monday afternoon.
If Boehner allows it to come up for a vote and pass, it would give Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, and the rest of the anti-gunners in the Senate the vehicle they need to tack on all of the expanded gun control they’re hoping for.
But it gets worse.
If the so-called “undetectable” gun ban is expanded at all, experts warn that the Obama administration is prepared to use it as an excuse to outlaw as many firearm components as possible — even wooden stocks.
With twenty-five gun control Executive Actions taken so far, President Obama and his disgraced Attorney General Eric Holder are holding their breath.
They’re hoping House Republicans will sign-off on renewing the so-called “undetectable” gun ban.
If they do, then Holder and Obama will be free to unleash another tidal wave of Executive Actions and regulations to crack down on as many firearms and components as possible. [my emphasis]
Please contact your Congressman immediately and urge him or her to oppose extending the so-called “undetectable” gun ban.
*** The congressional switchboard can be reached at (202) 224-3121. Ask to be connected to your Congressman.
When you speak to them, let them know that a vote to reauthorize the so-called “undetectable” gun ban is a vote for more gun control and less freedom.Urge them to reject Barack Obama and Chuck Schumer’s anti-gun agenda by refusing to allow the so-called “undetectable” gun ban to come up for any vote.
The left is constantly looking for ways to massage a law – by removing from it its prior historical context and legislative intent (see my previous post for more of this “fundamentally unserious” carping on our failure to address the systemic perversions of language and hermeneutics that keep moving us ever leftward, but which are not nearly important to discuss or consider as, say, Chris Christie’s potential popularity with overweight Hispanic voters who didn’t like their teachers) — and so it is unsurprising that our feckless GOP leadership, hoping to look “strong on reasonable gun control” and fearing how the press would spin their refusal to support an “undetectable gun ban” (HOW CAN YOU EVIL PUPPETS OF THE PRO KILLING MACHING GUN LOBBY ALLOW ICE BULLETS AND PRINTED PLASTIC ZIP GUNS THAT WILL BE USED TO MURDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STUDENTS TO BE LEGAL?), either can’t or won’t see the opening this provides the anti-second amendment forces that need the slow and steady repeal of firearm ownership by private citizens if they are, in the end, ever to “nudge” us into Utopia.
Because, well, some people just don’t nudge easy, it turns out.
No worries, though. Bill Ayers had a solution for that and, though he’s just some guy Obama knew from the neighborhood, chances are Obama’s study of subversive leftwing radical groups, inculcated in him during his time as a campus Marxist and critical race theory adept, brought him face to face with Prairie Fire, just as sure as it left him with a well-worn, likely heavily dog-eared copy of the works of Alinsky and Cloward-Piven.
– My mentioning of which is, of course, unhelpful. But, you know, deal with it. Pussies.
Without beating you over the head too much with an explication of the failings of textualism as an approach toward legitimate (rather than expedient and self-serving) interpretation, I’ll try to place it in some — ahem — context, especially for those who believe a “critical reading” of a text like that of the “Gettysburg Address” can be shorn of its context and read in a populist manner based on how reasonable people, kept ignorant of context and the historical and social complexities of the time of its composition, delivery, etc., might conceivably be able to “re-imagine” the “meaning” once freed from all that ancillary stuff that is, like, over 100 years old and such.
From the WaPo, Valerie Strauss:
Imagine learning about the Gettysburg Address without a mention of the Civil War, the Battle of Gettysburg, or why President Abraham Lincoln had traveled to Pennsylvania to make the speech. That’s the way a Common Core State Standards “exemplar for instruction” — from a company founded by three main Core authors — says it should be taught to ninth and 10th graders.
Let me interrupt here to note that, pace the headline of the WaPo piece, such instruction on how to teach the address is not an “odd approach,” but is rather an intentionally incoherent and illegitimate one, designed — and yes, designed is the correct word here, because the purpose of such curricula as exemplified by this example is to strip, deconstruct, then re-imagine an intended, historically-specific and intended text, from a particular contemporary political stance that, were the actual historical and social context appended, would prove nonsensical (and this applies even if the contemporary political stance is merely to remove the historical political realities that surrounded the construction and delivery of the original utterance — to retrofit the meaning of the original into the usurped meaning of the leftist rewriting of that original.
The unit — “A Close Reading of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address“ — is designed for students to do a “close reading” of the address “with text-dependent questions” — but without historical context. Teachers are given a detailed 29-page script of how to teach the unit, with the following explanation:
The idea here is to plunge students into an independent encounter with this short text. Refrain from giving background context or substantial instructional guidance at the outset. It may make sense to notify students that the short text is thought to be difficult and they are not expected to understand it fully on a first reading — that they can expect to struggle. Some students may be frustrated, but all students need practice in doing their best to stay with something they do not initially understand. This close reading approach forces students to rely exclusively on the text instead of privileging background knowledge, and levels the playing field for all students as they seek to comprehend Lincoln’s address.
First, before I grow annoyed, let me say this: there are perfectly legitimate reasons for teaching “close readings” of texts “with text-dependent questions” and without — initially, at least — providing any historical context. But those reasons are rather advanced, and speak to things like learning how to construct an argument, how to create a narrative voice, how the text’s narrative is designed to function — often on multiple levels — depending on speaker voice, tone, and specific machinations reserved for the study of, say, narratology. Which is to say, the legitimate reasons to work such an assignment should be relegated to advanced studies in composition and argument — and certainly not to “History/Social Studies,” where the very names of the discipline suggest that to ahistoricize and de-socialize an important document is to do it violence from the perspective of those areas of study. Learning, say, how someone like Hayden White approaches an historical text, or how a geneology differs from a narrative for purposes of ascertaining potential bias in a written history — these are questions that fall outside the purview of examination of a primary text for purposes of history / social studies, at least if the objective is to try to deliver a true “close” and “critical” reading of that text.
What is happening here, however, is that Common Core seems to be, for whatever their reasons (be they ignorance or cynicism, political naivety or political opportunism), intentionally conflating questions of compositional bias with questions of historical and social importance — a conflation that makes no sense when the object is a primary text being studied in a discipline that necessarily militates against such perversions.
The Gettysburg Address unit can be found on the Web site of Student Achievement Partners, a nonprofit organization founded by three people described as “lead authors of the Common Core State Standards.” They are David Coleman, now president of the College Board who worked on the English Language Arts standards; Jason Zimba, who worked on the math standards; and Susan Pimental, who worked on the ELA standards. The organization’s Linked In biography also describes the three as the “lead writers of the Common Core State Standards.”
The unit is listed on the Web site under History/Social Studies Lessons. However, Appendix B of the Common Core English Language Arts standards lists the address under “Informational Texts: English Language Arts.” The lesson is available for teachers around the country to use; it is, for example, on New York State’s Common Core Web site, Engage NY, as an exemplar for teaching the Gettysburg Address to ninth- and tenth-grade students. (When you click on the document, the unit is labeled as a “draft.”)
The unit reflects the overall approach to the Common Core standards, which emphasize the “close reading” of text in order for students to be able to analyze and gain meaning for the written word [my emphasis]. This mission is clearly stated in the “Revised Publishers’ Criteria for the Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts and Literacy, Grades 3 – 12,” written by Coleman and Pimental to help education publishers create new resources for the standards. It says in part:
At the heart of these criteria are instructions for shifting the focus of literacy instruction to center on careful examination of the text itself. In aligned materials, work in reading and writing (as well as speaking and listening) must center on the text under consideration. The standards focus on students reading closely to draw evidence and knowledge from the text and require students to read texts of adequate range and complexity. The criteria outlined below therefore revolve around the texts that students read and the kinds of questions students should address as they write and speak about them.
The standards and these criteria sharpen the focus on the close connection between comprehension of text and acquisition of knowledge. While the link between comprehension and knowledge in reading science and history texts is clear, the same principle applies to all reading. The criteria make plain that developing students’ prowess at drawing knowledge from the text itself is the point of reading; reading well means gaining the maximum insight or knowledge possible from each source. Student knowledge drawn from the text is demonstrated when the student uses evidence from the text to support a claim about the text. Hence evidence and knowledge link directly to the text.
– All of which sounds high-minded until one recognizes that there is no “text itself” without the presumption that behind that text was an intentional agency whose meaning will on the majority of occasions be best understood by recognizing that, in the example of a public address by a President, the meaning the speaker wishes to supply is tied to context of its delivery, its stated intent, and its historical situatedness.
Therefore, to claim that we can draw evidence of anything other than that which respects how texts can be structured to achieve a particular goal of either making clear or disguising the intent behind it, is silly: learning how words can be used outside of their specific contexts — and that involves the intent that created them and placed them in that context — is merely a primer on how to learn to “interpret” without appealing back to the production of the text and the agency of that production.
Or, to put it another way, it is a crash course in creating “close readers” who are being trained to kill the author in order to claim that a text’s “plain meaning” can be ascertained without acknowledgment that behind it lied some agency intent on communicating a desired and intentional meaning.
I ran a post last year by an English teacher who was getting professional development in teaching the address to students. Jeremiah Chaffee wrote in part:
This gives students a text they have never seen and asks them to read it with no preliminary introduction. This mimics the conditions of a standardized test on which students are asked to read material they have never seen and answer multiple choice questions about the passage.
Such pedagogy makes school wildly boring. Students are not asked to connect what they read yesterday to what they are reading today, or what they read in English to what they read in science.
The exemplar, in fact, forbids teachers from asking students if they have ever been to a funeral because such questions rely “on individual experience and opinion,” and answering them “will not move students closer to understanding the Gettysburg Address.”
(This is baffling, as if Lincoln delivered the speech in an intellectual vacuum; as if the speech wasn’t delivered at a funeral and meant to be heard in the context of a funeral; as if we must not think about memorials when we read words that memorialize. Rather, it is impossible to have any deep understanding of Lincoln’s speech without thinking about the context of the speech: a memorial service.)
Precisely correct: close reading of “words” must first assume that the words are words — are language — and with assumption comes the prerequisite of acknowledging intent. Having acknowledged intent, we allow that the possibility exists that a writer or speaker is breaking from contemporary convention and reworking language in a way that defamiliarizes it — something we find often times in great and transformative works of literature.
But in specifically occasional addresses or speeches meant for public consumption and built on the hope that the message as intended is clearly understood and so clearly delivered, removing the context and pretending the words exist in what Chaffee calls an “intellectual vaccuum” is, as I noted above, not only incoherent, but rather obviously intended to legitimize as intepretation something that is nothing more than an act of creative writing, the end goal of which is historical revisionism.
It is important that we see this and immunize ourselves against it.
Lincoln wasn’t an egret. And his address wasn’t etched on a shoreline by the talons of some feeding birds. Yet to read the Gettysburg Address in the way Common Core advocates is to approach the text just that way.
It’s wrong when opportunistic prosecutors or justices do it. And it’s wrong when it is allowed to pass itself off as “critical reading” or “close reading, ” the implication being that it delves more thoroughly into a text by disallowing the author of that text any control over what it means.
That way lies madness. Or at the very least, the progressivism we see now.
Which, I told you so. But fuck if you’d listen, you networked lawyers who have conspired to keep our eyes on the local and not really examine the structural that continues to drive us toward tyranny. Because traffic!
More’s the pity.
…The outfit Mitch McConnell and Karl Rove find much more important to hector, malign, and vilify than they do Democrats — who as we know by now, the convenient myth-making and propagandizing to the contrary, are Democrats only in the sense that they aren’t establishment Republicans.
Establishment Republicans are the new Democrats (mostly of the JFK variety), while today’s Democrat party — often unbeknownst to those who vote for it out of traditional, laziness, or rote fidelity — is the product of the New Left’s takeover over the Party that, a mere 40 years ago, they decried as hopelessly bourgeois and ideologically putrid, impotent, and vapid. Asks the Hobbity arsonistic anarchist terror-front on the fringes of society:
As the 2014 Republican primary elections near, an interesting question has been raised in party politics.
Should all Republican senators be re-nominated after each term?
The Republican establishment in Washington thinks so. In fact, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) recently announced it will oppose all conservative candidates who challenge Republican incumbents in primaries regardless of the circumstances.
RINOThe NRSC believes that once a Republican is elected to the U.S. Senate, that senator should be re-nominated after each term. They don’t think voters should ever elect someone new who better reflects their views.
They don’t care how long the senator has been there, what their record is, or if they’re unpopular back home and could cost the party the seat. They believe in lifetime nominations and would probably eliminate primary elections for incumbents altogether if they could.
The goal of the NRSC is no longer to win back the Senate, but rather to protect incumbents no matter how liberal they are and regardless of whether they are likely to be defeated by a Democrat in the general election.
Instead of building a new Senate, they’re working to protect the old one.
What do you think? Take our short “Republican Primary Survey.”
PRIMARIES ARE GOOD
We strongly disagree with the establishment. We believe primary elections are good for the party because they empower voters with choices.
We also believe primaries are good for incumbents because they provide accountability. As Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) said, “primaries are good” because “they make us all better.”
We don’t object to the establishment taking sides in primaries, but we believe it’s bad for America when they blindly support all incumbents.
Being a U.S. senator is not an entitlement; it’s a privilege that must be earned in each election.
Some senators have been in office for decades and have lost touch with the voters and their principles. Many have voted for bailouts, more debt, tax increases, and funding for Obamacare.
If we want to save this country from the career politicians who are destroying it, we must elect new leaders. It’s that simple.
Change in Washington means changing the people we send there, and that sometimes means changing the Republicans we send there.
This is what we believe, but we want to know what you think.
We also want to know which Republicans should be replaced by conservatives and whether you think conservative Americans should refuse to donate to the NRSC given its bias against principled candidates.
Your feedback will help guide us as we make more candidate endorsements and work to change the Senate in 2014
We needn’t continue to fool ourselves with labels –nor let those invested in “rebranding” old labels confound us or confuse us with their rhetorical sleight of hand: Karl Rove and his attendant corporatists – many of them tech industry liberals, many of them big business lobbyists looking to work with whatever party to diminish their own competition and lobby for propitious law and regulation to solidify their power and profit — have taken to forming groups with the name “conservative” in the title. Jeb Bush, who not too long ago noted that he used to be a conservative (that is, until the TEA party extremists coopted the title from him), is now once again calling himself conservative — as is Governor Chris Christie — this despite the fact that they represent big government solutions, embrace the idea that “compromise” is an end in itself, are enamored with “across the aisle” coalition building with rank leftists that forever move a conservative country leftward, and are distrustful (and often openly hostile) to the base of the Republican party who make up the majority of actual conservatives and erstwhile Reagan Democrats, the very constitutionalists and adherents to a stable rule of law and checks on government and the separation of its powers that today marks them as “potential domestic terrorists.”
The modern GOP ruling class is shameless and shameful. And this insipid and rather hamfisted attempt to simply start calling themselves conservatives — with the express intent to “rebrand” center-right big government statism as “conservative” while marginalizing the conservativism of constitutional government, free market capitalism, individual autonomy, federalism, and a tri-partite separation of powers that are at odds with one another, creating stalemates and impinging on change (as the Framers hoped would be the case in an adversarial system) that is based in classical liberal philosophy and Enlightenment principles, not the debilitating and proto-authoritarian projects of a permanent entitled ruling class and their army of bureaucratic social engineers.
– Which headline, I take it, is supposed to ooze of irony — but which misses the central fact that Obama, by dint of being black, can’t commit a racially insensitive faux pas. Nor be a racist.
I know this because, if he’s taught me nothing else, Spike Lee has taught me this.
And Spike Lee is, like, the late-twentieth-century’s very own Frederick Douglass. Except without the having been subjected to slavery-thing, and with a rather uneasy fetish with Michael Jordan’s shoes, not to mention a rather unhealthy public distrust of Whitey, without whom he’d probably still be some broke ass wannabe film maker.
Really. I expect better of Andrew Malcolm, who must certainly know that no standard is so sacred to the race-baiters and the identity politics aficionados as is the double standard. Without which the whole enterprise would be revealed for the manipulative, immoral, cynical, and often times criminal racket it is.