Bristol gets it: calling out hatred is not a one-way street

Bristol Palin, in only the third entry in her new blog, nails it in calling out President Obama for his selective treatment of women who have been publicly insulted.

Now, as I have previously said on my Facebook page, I am absolutely not excusing what Rush Limbaugh said about Sandra Fluke.  Calling people out for their double standards and/or selective outrage does not excuse the person on my side who says something uncalled for.

Regardless, I think Bristol Palin has a singular vantage point to make her point, as she does in her post entitled "Mr. President, When Should I Expect Your Call?" (which, for those who have forgotten, refers to President Obama's call of consolation, or something, to Ms. Fluke):

“One of the things I want them to do as they get older is engage in issues they care about, even ones I may not agree with them on,” you said.  “I want them to be able to speak their mind in a civil and thoughtful way. And I don’t want them attacked or called horrible names because they’re being good citizens.”

And I totally agree your kids should be able to speak their minds and engage the culture.  I look forward to seeing what good things Malia and Sasha end up doing with their lives.

But here’s why I’m a little surprised my phone hasn’t rung.  Your $1,000,000 donor Bill Maher has said reprehensible things about my family.  He’s made fun of my brother because of his Down’s Syndrome. He’s said I was “f—-d so hard a baby fell out.”  (In a classy move, he did this while his producers put up the cover of my book, which tells about the forgiveness and redemption I’ve found in God after my past – very public — mistakes.)

Now, unless I'm quite mistaken, Miss Palin, despite her status as the daughter of a public figure, was not herself a public figure when the insults against her began.  (Obviously that has changed at this point.)  Ms. Fluke, on the other hand, put herself out in front of a faux Congressional hearing and said what she said, and I see a huge difference there.

Again:  none of this excuses any of the comments made about either one.  As I have also acknowledged on my Facebook page, I used the word "slut" once on this blog, in reference to a celebrity, and I regret that statement.

And I do know that then-candidate Barack Obama basically said that Bristol's then-pregnancy should be kept off-limits.  And that is good.  However, a lot of people who revere President Obama totally disregarded that statement from him then, and, really, for the four years since. 

Let's face it:  Bristol Palin has received a lot of hatred ever since John McCain picked Sarah Palin to be his running mate.  Most of this hatred has been because of either her mother or her child.  And she is right to call on the president to make a statement about the insults she has received, and to call for civility toward all women, or, really, all people.  As she says:  "After all, you’re President of all Americans, not just the liberals."  Well stated.  And well worth a read.

Politics and Prizes: Are conservatives pushing Bristol, and if so, so what?

The successful run of Bristol Palin on ABC's Dancing With the Stars has caused reactions that run the gamut from delight in her success to vitriol at those awful right-wing conspirators to total indifference.  (Strangely, one person I know spends way too much time telling people that he doesn't care about things like this, which lead me to believe that he does care about things like this...)

I've written before about the haters, but now, in addition to their constant whines of "she's not a star" and various cheap shots and simply untrue statements about her character, some people have gotten it into their heads that Ms. Palin is the object of a large-scale conspiracy to cheat the system because all these Tea Partiers (I won't use their favorite term) are voting for her.

First of all, yes, there are definitely a lot of people who want to vote for Ms. Palin.  Yes, part of that, apparently, is something called "Operation Bristol", which seems to be spearheaded by online talk show host Tammy Bruce. She explained it in a recent tweet:

And in addition to "Operation Bristol", there are, in fact, a lot of other Sarah Palin fans who want to vote for her daughter, especially after the same hatred some directed at Sarah was directed at Bristol.  For both of these women, the amount of hatred some people have dished out is way, way out of proportion with their station in life.  (And yes, that was true even when Sarah Palin was governor of Alaska...some people--and I could name names, but I'm not gonna give them the attention they seem to so desperately want--threw everything in the book at her in the form of bogus ethics charges, nasty online rumors about her marriage or her fifth child, etc.  No one deserves that, even if they are a governor, or even a president.)  When I, and presumably others, see someone unfairly on the receiving end of that ugliness, we try to defend the one attacked.

Plus, Bristol is an underdog.  People love an underdog, unless they're blinded by partisan hate, and judging from the tweets every week when Bristol survives, a lot of people are so blinded. 

And, in my opinion, for what it's worth, Ms. Palin has shown a vast improvement in her dancing since this competition began.  But let's call a spade a spade.  A lot of people just like Bristol Palin, even if you don't.  (I've written about why that is the case here.)  And no amount of whiny tweets, whiny blog articles, or whatever else--such as this Tampa Tribune article linked by Free Republic (in which Bristol is unfairly characterized as having "stumbled her way through two dances" when in fact this week was her best week)--is going to keep me from voting for her.  (What will is a child wanting to vote for Kyle Massey because of having watched way too much Disney Channel.  But I digress.)

If you don't like that people are voting for Bristol, talk to ABC, which allows audience voting to determine half the score, or to Fox, which started the audience-determined reality competition craze in this country with American Idol.  They know that the audience voting is what keeps people watching, and occasionally the audience isn't going to vote for the judges' favorites.  Remember Kris Allen?  Steve Wozniak?  Sanjaya?

(Aside:  Firefox's spellchecker does not flag "Wozniak".  Somehow I'm not surprised.)

Besides, do you folks think that people are just stupid? Or that Bristol is somehow undeserving of public support because--gasp--she's related to a conservative?  Do you really think that accolades aren't given to people on the other side of the political spectrum, simply because they are on the other side of the political spectrum?

Take, for example, the Mark Twain Prize for American Humor, which has previously honored such comedy legends as Richard Pryor, Bob Newhart, and Bill Cosby.  To whom was this prestigious prize given this year?

Tina Fey.

Tina "I can see Russia from my house" Fey.

Really?

Tina Fey, while a talented writer, actor, and comedian, almost certainly got this award, along with a good portion of her name recognition, for impersonating one Sarah Palin, and for the damage that did to public perception of Governor Palin, who, as much as SNL-watchers might want to believe it, is not an idiot.  Other than that, Ms. Fey had a fairly nice career, but nothing to compare with last year's winner, Mr. Cosby.  Can you tell me that politics--specifically, left-wing politics--did not play a role in this?

Don't believe it?  The Washington Post seems to.  And so does Ms. Fey:

A lot of Sarah Palin in today's Style section. It was inevitable: First, there was Tina Fey, launched to zeitgeist heights by her Sarah Palin imitation, receiving the Mark Twain Prize, and of course it came up in her acceptance speach, as she "offered some mock hands-across-the-political-divide commentary," writes Paul Farhi.

The rise of conservative women in politics, [Fey] said pointedly, is good for all women, "unless you don't want to pay for your own rape kit . . . unless you're a lesbian who wants to get married to your partner of 20 years . . . [or] unless you believe in evolution." The lines played first to nervous laughter and then to not much laughter at all.

Or, if you like, we can go back a few years to when the Dixie Chicks won multiple Grammy Awards for their song "Not Ready to Make Nice", basically a collective thumbing of their noses at people who did not care for Natalie Maines's anti-Bush statements.  Given that the song did not receive a lot of airplay on many country stations, it certainly didn't win because of a groundswell of support from radio listeners.

And, oh yeah, how about last year's Nobel Peace Prize?  You might recall that it was awarded to President Obama, partially because, as Thorbjørn Jagland put it, "no one could deny that 'the international climate' had suddenly improved, and that Mr. Obama was the main reason."  In layman's terms, President Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize because he was not George W. Bush.

These three examples are just the first ones that came to mind.  I could find more.  A lot more, I'd bet.

So, yeah, at least part of Bristol Palin's success on Dancing With the Stars is political.  But don't ever tell me that the other side doesn't do this too.  And don't complain because our side is doing it back.

Tea Party revisited

Funny, I thought by now everyone understood what the Tea Party stood for, and what policies it supports.  But recent events have convinced me that this is not the case.

I cross-post many of my articles at the Austin Post (such as this one, which I totally expect to be rated about (-3) within 24 hours of its approval...this is Austin, after all), and that site has featured, in the last couple of months, multiple articles about the Tea Party.  But as I have not written for the site lately, I thought it might be good to have an article at the Austin Post about the Tea Party by someone who actually knows what he is talking about.

For example, a recent article on the Post's site made the following assertion in its very first paragraph:

The NAACP made a good stab at defining the values of the Tea Party by calling them racists. It’s a simplistic judgment but fair, considering that the Tea Party’s main activities are 1.) opposing every issue supported by a black president, and 2.) hating immigrants of color.

Do you see the logical fallacies at work here?

Let's start with point 1.  "I oppose President Obama's policy stances, ergo, I am a racist."  No, I'm sorry, it doesn't work that way.  (But then, we've heard this argument since before the presidential election.  Somebody ought to write about that particular issue.  Oh, wait:  someone did.)   Yes, I definitely oppose President Obama's policies; they represent an unprecedented-in-peacetime grab of power by the federal government.  But that certainly does not mean I am racist, or that I would not support any black president.  (I hear some people are trying to convince Herman Cain to run in 2012; having heard him talk about policy before, I could get behind his ideas.)  I would have been just as opposed to these policies if they had been implemented by Hillary Clinton, for example.  (But that would have made me a misogynist, wouldn't it, though of course all the people who so virulently hate Sarah Palin are never called that, except by conservatives, who of course have no standing to speak on anything.)

No, these policies include a quadrupling of our budget deficit (with similar deficit numbers over the next ten years) via countless stimulus packages that do not appear to have stemmed the tide of unemployment.  Remember when the unemployment wouldn't go above 8% if the first stimulus package were passed?  Neither do I.  But with unemployment firmly entrenched above 9%, our government continues to spend as if there is no tomorrow.  Since the federal government apparently hasn't the will to cut any government spending (except, of course, for defense), the only other way, in the minds of many, to raise federal revenue is to raise taxes.  A lot.  More on that momentarily.

The policies I oppose also include a healthcare plan that tells my employer exactly what has to be included in our health insurance plan, regardless of whether we want all of it or not.  It keeps people who have been using health savings accounts for years from using them for certain items.  It also does a bunch of other things that burden individuals and employers, including small employers in many cases; see here for more information.

Our president's policies also include, though it hasn't been passed yet, a cap-and-trade (referred to by many, including me, as "cap-and-tax") plan that would drive utility rates up quite a bit.  Don't believe me?  Maybe this will convince you:



And since we're talking about costs to the consumer, let's add taxes into this discussion.  Now, we could debate the Laffer curve all day and try to determine where the midpoint is for balancing tax rates and revenue growth, but the fact is that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts (referred to by most as the "Bush tax cuts") spurred growth and job creation in what was becoming a economic slowdown.  Let's see...we're in something a little greater than just a "slowdown" now; what do you think allowing these tax cuts to expire (in effect, raising taxes) will have on job creation?  Hmmm...

(Yes, there's still time for Congress to attend to the issue of whether they want to raise everyone's taxes...a few people have spoken about where we currently stand, including one Sarah Palin.)

Oh, and before you get the impression that I'm just a selfish so-and-so who doesn't want to help anyone, let me say two things:  1) I worked, and continue to work, very hard to get myself out of the debt I've run up, following (for the most part) the fairly simple ideas put forth by Dave Ramsey; and 2) I've addressed in a previous post (which did not appear on the Austin Post) what I believe my responsibilities as a Christian are to others.

Then there's the incredible government intrusion into the car industry under the guise of "saving" GM and Chrysler.  Word to the wise:  they weren't too big to fail.  If it had come to it, parts, or all, of the companies would have been sold to more profitable automakers, many of whom probably could have done a better job of running them.

And, of course, there is the federal government's stubborn refusal to do one job specifically given it in the Constitution:  to protect our borders.  Per Article IV, Section 4:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

But instead of protecting our borders against illegal immigration, the federal government has sued a state that tried to solve their own problem.

And this brings us to the other main assertion made about the Tea Party:  that we "hat[e] immigrants of color".  Personally, I don't hate anyone, and I don't think anyone has a problem with immigration--as long as it is legal.  The author of this Austin Post piece, in saying that the Tea Party hates immigrants in toto, has made us into a bunch of white supremacists.  Far from it.  But there is a proper way to enter this country, just as there is a proper way to follow every law in this country.  How would the author of these defamatory accusations like it if I and, say, 12 million of my best friends all decided not to pay our taxes for, oh, ten years or so, and then we all held rallies to demand that our tax liability be totally forgiven?  No?  Then why should others be allowed to break existing laws with impunity?

And since the person in question also wondered why "the Tea Party can’t formulate a convincing argument why immigration is harmful" (I will assume he meant to say illegal immigration), I'll answer.  First of all, I'll refer this person to the article I wrote three months ago in which I pointed out the following:

• Phoenix is the "number two kidnapping capital of the world" (Mexico City is #1).
• Suspected human traffickers shot a deputy in Arizona.  Just the shooting is bad enough, but human trafficking is reprehensible.
• Some other stuff.  Read the article.

What wasn't in that article was that I know someone whose family was affected by a kidnapping relating to a Mexican cartel.  Thankfully, the kidnappers in that case were totally inept, and so the person affected is fine now, albeit a bit shaken up, I would imagine.

I'm not gonna say any of the stuff that has been said for years such as "they're taking our jobs!!!!11!" because I'm all for people working.  But there is a correct way to do it.

In closing, I welcome discussion about these topics.  To borrow a phrase from the person who wrote the previous Austin Post article, get to know some tea partiers; they're great folks.

Or keep calling us names.  But just realize that it says a whole lot more about you than it does about us.

Requiem for a Friendship, Part Three

I have been writing, mostly for purposes of catharsis but also for a very important reason that will be revealed at the end of this column, about how a friendship of mine has suffered death by a thousand cuts from political and religious discussion between another party, herein referred to as "Friend", and myself.  Part One covered the beginnings of these discussions, while Part Two showed how the intensity level was ramped up to 11 when Christianity came into it.  Given that both Friend and I are Christian, and given the level of sniping in our discussions, I'm sure the two of us presented a wonderful picture of what Christianity should be.

(Note:  in the interests of clarity, I am presenting my quotes in red, while Friend's will be in blue.)

I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.

 --I Corinthians 1:10

My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

 --John 17:20-21

My interpretation of these particular verses is not that every Christian is going to agree on everything.  Good grief, even Paul had a bitter argument with Barnabas (Acts 15:38), such that they went in totally different directions.  But they both held onto their Christianity, of course.  As time went on, I feared that my discussions with Friend were getting less and less Christian.

In the wake of our quite recent (at the time) discussions of whether Jim Wallis's viewpoint that a government-controlled healthcare system was the best way to provide the best care for this country (unnecessary reminder:  I disagreed with Mr. Wallis), I posted multiple links on my Facebook page addressing the Wallis/Glenn Beck situation, as well as addressing the "Obamacare" bill, which was passed that same week in the Senate.

In the first of those links, Shane Vander Hart took on Mr. Wallis's viewpoint, which Mr. Vander Hart called "akin to wealth distribution".  Friend, of course, could not take this affront to his ideological brother lying down, and so, very quickly, Friend's comment appeared stating, "The problem here is that Shane doesn't know what the gospel is."

(Side note:  it appeared, at least to me, that Mr. Wallis and Friend share the unfortunate tactic of talking down to the opposing side of their respective arguments.  And by the way, I decided to let Friend's comment go unchallenged because I felt it would be a rehash of the same discussion we had just had.  And yes, there was more to Friend's comment, including a book recommendation.  'Cos a guy who hardly has the time to blog is going to rush out and read a long book that, I'm sure, would just mirror Friend's viewpoint anyway.)

The next one, by another friend of mine, Dr. Melissa Clouthier, really got Friend's dander up.  To wit:

More of this horsecrap that calls objecting to the tyranny of the rich "childish". Cut it ouit. [sic]

Gee whiz, I didn't even know I was supporting the tyranny of the rich.  But, as we've seen, this isn't the first time that phrase has slipped into our conversations.  Friend wasn't done, either; within three minutes another comment had appeared:

She says that working for the common good is immoral. ALL CIVILIZATION involves people giving up freedom for the common good. Claiming otherwise is a libertarian fantasy.

Please stop posting this intelligence-insulting, immoral drivel.

And that was where things really started to unravel, because I had had it.  (It may come as a surprise that a blogger does not enjoy having his viewpoints called either intelligence-insulting or immoral.  But it shouldn't.)  My comment was very direct:

Your continued assault on my viewpoint as "intelligence-insulting" is insulting to me. Discuss this civilly or stop commenting on my posts. I value your viewpoint, but it is NOT necessary to belittle my mindset as part of such a discussion.
And I fail to see how our paying for benefits that a lot of irresponsible people failed to plan to pay themselves is at all working for the common good. What we are doing is allowing some people to sit back and let others pick up the slack for them. It's the ant and the grasshopper all over again.

And if you don't like the ant/grasshopper idea, consider Paul's statements in II Thessalonians 3. We are not to be idle, not working for "the bread [we] eat". And far too many people are doing just that and living off the government's largesse.

Is letting people who could be taking care of themselves leech off the system what you think Jesus meant for us to be doing? Because that's exactly what this bill is going to facilitate for a lot of people.

I don't believe Friend's response held to my request for Friend to discuss things civilly:

"a lot of irresponsible people failed to plan to pay themselves"

"the ant and the grasshopper"

"people who could be taking care of themselves leech off the system"

If you think that these things describe the health-care situation in the USA or describe civilization generally, then you are either ignorant or callous.

You grossly misused the scriptures.

Again, your advocacy of those who treat the poor as children for their desire to be protected from the rich is insulting.

The rich of the USA have been playing you for a long time, painting libertarianism as "noble" and "adult". Buying into that means that you have abandoned your sworn duty to stand with the poor: you continue to paint 99% of the world as "mere children" because they don't trust the rich. That sickens me.

I responded:

You cannot throw out a statement such as "you grossly misused the scriptures" without justifying it.

And just because I don't trust government doesn't mean I've thrown myself into the arms of "the rich". This issue is not black-and-white, regardless of how you would like to frame it.

And then Friend, rather than justifying the earlier statement, referred me to a status update Friend had posted linking to an N.T. Wright essay which--big surprise--mirrored Friend's viewpoint.  Big deal.  I can find links that back me up, too.  And I guess that was what I had been doing when Friend butted in to tell me that my opinion was "horsecrap".  But at this point, I was not going to continue to play with Friend in this way.  I had read the Wright essay days before (and I did reread it), and while I didn't agree with it, I did notice that it in no way justified Friend's assertion that I misused scripture, which--and maybe this is just my opinion--should not be an assertion made lightly, particularly without justification.  But in any case, I was not going to continue this ridiculous "he said, Friend said" back-and-forth discussion.

And so I left the discussion at that point.  I hoped that by not firing back, yet again, at Friend, some modicum of civility might be restored.  For a little while it seemed that my hopes were well-founded, as for a few days, there was no further sniping between us.  But then I posted two things that put the final nails into the possibility of future civil discussions.  The first was a link to this post, in which I pointed out that a lot of the MSM were falling over themselves trying to call Tea Party protesters racist.  Friend, of course, had to chime in, saying that I was being "disingenuous, at best":

The tea parties and related gatherings have been full of overt expressions of racism. Lots of people are testifying that similar expressions were made Sunday. Indisputable audio evidence doesn't exist (I assume). Why shouldn't we take the observers at their word?

It is hard for honest, informed people to disbelieve that the Republican southern strategy has used racism to develop opposition to federal social spending. It doesn't surprise us, then, that the tea partiers display overt racism: they are the base to which Republicans have been appealing for 45 years.

So when Olbermann points this out, you distort his words to be "you are all racists."

You also try to exempt Republican leaders from responsibility for this. When Beck, Palin, O'Reilly, and Bachmann sow the wind and reap the whirlwind, then we should recognize it as such. I don't think that any of them want to see violence, but its childish of them pretend [sic] that they haven't contributed to it.

Did you, gentle reader, notice the smooth way that Friend transitioned from "honest, informed people" in one sentence to "us" in the next?  Apparently Friend started this discussion with the preassumption that Tea Partiers and/or Republicans do not fall into the category of "honest, informed people".  Also take note of the way that apparently, to Friend, only conservatives might possibly have followers whose viewpoints are unacceptable.

But Friend's postscript went back to the usual tactic of telling me what I should and should not post.  Quoth Friend:  "If you want to convince honest people of your belief, then don't cite Breitbart. It makes you seem like a partisan hack."  (Note:  I am indeed partisan.  I am not a hack.)

I, having grown weary of the same shtick from Friend, fired back with both barrels:

It is obvious to me that you see in people, and groups of people, only what you want to see. While I will agree that early proponents of the "southern strategy" appealed to some people's racism, for you to say that racism is still what motivates the base of Republicans is totally baseless. Regardless of what the Dems' talking points might be, states' rights and racism are not the same argument.

So yeah, I'm inferring an accusation of racism from both you and Olby. On top of that, I'm inferring a great deal of condescension from you every time you call one of my viewpoints "childish" (and you do it a lot).

And no, I don't think Palin and Bachmann are fomenting ideas of violence. (I haven't seen much of O'Reilly or Beck in a while except for Beck's continued dust-up with Wallis.)

In short--and I hope I'm misreading this--your comment is saying that yeah, Republicans are racist thugs. And I will remain in total disagreement with that conclusion.

p.s. And if I'm a partisan hack for citing Breitbart, you are just as much of one for citing HuffPo.

Friend never responded to this statement.  I can only hope Friend decided that this discussion was just as unproductive as the previous ones, but future events led me to believe that this was not the case.
The second event which put the nails in the coffin was my posting of a Michelle Malkin column about the same events I mentioned in my post.  Ms. Malkin's column took the viewpoint that the left had manufactured a fake hate-crime to pin on the Tea Partiers.

And how did Friend respond?  Of course, by attacking the messenger.  "You need to stop referencing Malkin. She is a demonstrated liar and bigot..."  At this point, I was incredibly tired of being told what not to post.  I certainly didn't tell Friend not to post the Frank Rich NYTimes column from the following Sunday (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28rich.html?hp) which, as one might expect at this point, called the Tea Partiers racists.

No, I decided that the Christian thing to do in this case was not to engage Friend in any discussion whatsoever.  I changed the privacy settings so that, presently, Friend is no longer able to see my posts, thereby leaving Friend unable to comment on them as well.

But, with that said, Friend's status updates still appeared on *my* Facebook news page.  And two of those updates crossed a line.

The first:

Nevermind that she and the right-wing media establishment are willfully misinterpreting the U.S. president, but Sarah Palin is a Constantinian, not a Christian. I quote: "I don't understand a world view where we have to question whether we like it or not that America is powerful."

Friend, who are you to question whether someone else is a Christian or not?  Last I heard, God was in charge of making that determination, and you certainly are not God.  Was Governor Palin's statement Constantinian?  Perhaps it was.  But neither you, nor anyone else in this world, gets to make the call on her character.  Your statement was incredibly arrogant and infuriating.

The second:

Mark Davis is a damnable racist, and both the Dallas Morning News and WBAP happily give him platforms for his wickedness. I am furious at him for how much he loves to hurt black people and I'm likewise frustrated at the society that makes our local media essentially untouchable.

Other than that Mark Davis hosts a show at WBAP in Dallas/Fort Worth, I know absolutely nothing about him, but again, Friend, who do you think you are to refer to a person as "damnable"?  IT'S NOT YOUR CALL.  (Given your leanings and your previous postings, Friend, I'm inclined not to believe he's even a racist, but I'm not having that discussion.)

So, Friend (and I know you're reading this), why did I change my privacy settings to let you read this particular post (and, of course, the other two parts through the links posted above)?  Because you and I are still fellow Christians.  First of all, as a Christian, I feel that it is important to call you out for your statements above, which, in my opinion, were decidedly not Christian.

Secondly, and more importantly, I feel called to end this bitterness.  Several of my comments to you in our Facebook discussions were not exactly Christian in nature either, and I feel that we both owe it to God to apologize.

So I'm sorry.  I'm not sorry for my viewpoints, but I am sorry for the way I defended them at times.

And what of you, Friend?  Do we reconcile, acknowledge that we are going to disagree on certain issues, and move forward, or do we part ways now?  It's your call.

Obama, Hayward take leisure time...guess which gets reported?

When it comes to the gulf oil disaster, Barack Obama and Tony Hayward have basically been two sides of the same coin.  Neither appears to be helping the situation very much, at least for the residents of the gulf coast states affected.  Just ask Bobby Jindal.

Well, what did I see shouted at me as the top AP headline when I checked my mail this morning?  (Yes, I use a web-based mail a lot...that way spammers leave my home address alone.)  The top headline, complete with a picture of Tony Hayward looking embarrassed at the recent congressional hearings, read "As oil spews in Gulf, BP chief at UK yacht race".  Oh, here's a fun passage from this totally impartial article:*

In a statement, BP described Hayward's day off as "a rare moment of private time" and said that "no matter where he is, he is always in touch with what is happening within BP" and can direct recovery operations if required.

That is likely to be a hard sell in Gulf states struggling to deal with the up to 120 million gallons of oil that have escaped from a blown-out undersea well.

So, apparently Mr. Hayward took a bit of leisure time and attended a sporting event (I'm not going to debate here whether yachting is a sport).  

The coverage Mr. Hayward's excursion has received, of course, is as opposed to the coverage of President Obama, who, it has been said, has been fully engaged in this mess since Day One.  And how did he choose to engage himself in it last night (that would be Friday, June 17, 2010, or Day 60, for those keeping score at home)?  That's right:  he attended a sporting event!

After hunkering down for several weeks to deal with the oil spill, President Obama finally made it out of the house for some fun – and showed up at the Nationals game on Friday night.

(It should be noted that the preceding quote came from the Washington Post's Nationals blog linked by Liberty Scout through the link above.  The blog goes on to point out that coming soon on President Obama's agenda is to congratulate the Los Angeles Lakers at the White House.  Busy times, indeed.)

So, Tony Hayward gets pilloried for attending a yacht race, and Barack Obama gets his usual fawning coverage for attending a baseball game.  That doesn't quite seem fair, does it?  I mean, if either of them were effective at all in solving this huge problem in the gulf, I suppose the disparity in coverage would be justified.  But they haven't been.

And, while this is apparently Mr. Hayward's first leisure time in quite a while, that can't quite be said for certain other people:



Draw your own conclusions as to what I think of the media coverage of this mess.

*Sarcasm detectors for reading articles on my blog may be picked up in your grocer's freezer, if you don't already have one.

Sarah Palin is in Austin tonight (and I am not going)

Yeah, you read that right.  I am not going to be attending Sarah Palin's Heroic Media speech tonight in Austin, though I would genuinely liked to have been there.  But priorities are priorities, and with Mrs. Snowed not well and two little Snowflakes running around and wanting some attention, home is where I need to be tonight.  Some other time, perhaps, Governor.

In the meantime, though, I still remain an ardent supporter, in general, of her conservative principles, and since obviously I'm not doing a whole lot of blogging these days (that real life thing just gets in the way sometimes...), I'll just link to other people who are.

Like Josh Painter:

Sarah Palin speaks tonight at 6:30 p.m. at the Austin Convention Center. Ticket sales ended at noon today. The fundraiser is sponsored by a nonprofit pro-life group, Austin-based Heroic Media, formerly known as the Majella Society. The organization places TV, Web billboard ads targeted to women with unplanned pregnancies, hoping to connect them with pregnancy resource centers in an "heroic" effort to save the lives of their unborn children:

In a posting Monday on its Facebook page, Heroic Media said: “The numbers keep growing tremendously for the Sarah Palin event this Thursday! Thanks Austin for such a great response!!”

Because Heroic Media celebrates the heroism of motherhood, the group’s president, Brian Follett, said it was fitting to invite Palin to speak. “Sarah’s faith and commitment to protecting life at every stage is evident in her words and actions,” he said, according to KLBJ-AM.

Palin, the 2008 Republican nominee for vice president, fervently opposes abortion. According to The Huffington Post, she once wrote in an election questionnaire: “I believe that no matter what mistakes we make as a society, we cannot condone ending an innocent’s life.”

In a 2009 speech to a pro-life crowd, Palin said that “for a fleeting moment,” she considered having an abortion after discovering that son Trig would be born with Down syndrome, according to the Washington Post. But, she said, “I had just enough faith to know that my trying to change the circumstances wasn’t any answer.”

Travis County Democrats are attempting to use the governor’s Austin appearance to raise money for its candidates and causes.

In an ironic message to Democrats, Sarah Weddington -- the Austin attorney who argued the landmark Roe v. Wade case before the U.S. Supreme Court -- accused Gov. Palin of spreading “a message of political pandering and fear mongering”:

“It is of vital importance that we never return to the days pre-Roe v. Wade when women often ended up doing self-abortions or having illegal, back-alley abortions.”

Self-abortions? Illegal? Back alleys? Who is really fear-mongering here? We believe it's clear to all who value human life that the culture of death is no match for the light of life. Good will ultimately triumph over the forces of evil, and there is no more effective spokesperson for the forces of light and life than Sarah Palin.

- JP

Not all libs are misogynists, but some sure are...

Courtesy Andrew Breitbart's Big Government:

When people try to convince you that conservatives are hate-filled so-and-so's (whereas liberals are, of course, filled with love and understanding for their fellow man), you should direct them to the following video compiled by the Media Research Center's Culture and Media Institute.  The not-exactly-timely-but-who-cares video spotlights five incredibly offensive attacks by (mostly well-known) liberals on conservative women.

(Aren't you male, Snowed?  Yeah, but I'm married to a conservative woman, and if anyone spoke this way about her, I would not be happy.)

Some of these attacks have been covered in this blog before, such as the incredibly stupid comment about Willow Palin by a prominent late-night host I do not wish to mention.  Others were made by people like Chuck Nice (who?) and Keith Olbermann.  It's a veritable smorgasbord of hatred toward conservative women.



The CMI's full report contains more accounts of this type of attack against conservative women.  Sadly, it's all too common.

Dallas Tea Party to Olbermann: Show up or shut up!

Courtesy Fox Nation:

Keith Olbermann, for the uninitiated (and, honestly, I envy you uninitiated types in this instance), think that tea partiers are racists, among other things.  Apparently the folks at the Dallas Tea Party saw an easy opportunity to:  1) disprove Mr. Olbermann; and 2) be snarky at the expense of Mr. Olbermann and his employer, sometime-news network MSNBC.  The result is the following video inviting Keith Olbermann to come to the Dallas Tea Party rally on Saturday, February 27.



And will Mr. Olbermann come?  I'm guessing he won't, given that he thinks all Texans are idiots.



At this point, though, I don't think Keith Olbermann cares enough about the truth to want to hear or see it, when it's much easier to be a bombastic ideologue.

Proof neither side has a monopoly on hate or compassion

How do you get a whole bunch of people on the left to show how much compassion they really have for other people?  Well, apparently the only thing that has to happen is for Rush Limbaugh to be admitted to a hospital with chest pains.

And then, the rejoicing on the left begins!

I really hate to link to this stuff, but you have to see some of this stuff for yourself if you need convincing.  Plus, I will not quote these comments unedited.

From (sigh...) Democratic Underground:

TheCowsCameHome
Maybe there is a God after all.
(the text of this message was deleted by the poster before I got a chance to quote it)

BlueIdaho
I'll say it...
That fat bastard deserves to drown in his own hatred.

joeunderdog
Seriously folks. Please send sympathy cards to the hospital.
Never has it had to admit such a despicable load of **** onto its wards. Do the other patients get a reduced rate now?

From Twitter:

Bane117 Rush Limbaugh rushed to hospital w/ chest pains. Santa actually listened this year. (link)

netsharc Rush Limbaugh's been hospitalized, God, prove your existence by killing him please?  (link)

23jr Yessssssss!!!!!!!!!! Rush Limbaugh admitted to Honalulu hospital with chest pains.  (link)

Oh, I'm gonna stop there.  This whole thing is just too infuriating.  Stay classy, libs.

And to my readers:  just remember that when the media and the government cry out that the Republicans are spreading hate--and they will--you know that sadly, there appears to be enough hatred to go around.

A Teacher's Crusade Against a Palin-Slandering School Library

Adrienne Ross, who runs the blog Motivation: Truth, is a public-school teacher who happens, as I do, to support Sarah Palin.  To her surprise, she saw a display during "Banned Books Week" which read "Sarah Palin + Banned Books = Censorship."  This referred back to the long-dispelled myth that Sarah Palin sought to ban books.  As might be expected, Ms. Ross was surprised, and not in a good way, by this display, and she wrote about it; you can see her original thoughts here.

Well, as can be seen in the previous link, Ms. Ross had more than enough information to refute this display's assertion, and she attempted to speak to the librarian.  As days went by, she worked her way up the chain to the superintendent in an effort not only to have the display removed (because eventually it was anyway--Banned Books Week, as you might imagine, only lasts a week) but also retracted.  As of her last writing on this subject, this effort has been futile; you can read about it here.

Perhaps it's just me, but I can't imagine a similar stonewalling occurring in a situation in which the maligned person was, say, Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.  Maybe I'm wrong, but this is a country in which a supposed news organization is taking time out of its day to fact-check comedy shows.

Hopefully I will be able to follow up with good news; in the meantime, I'd recommend checking out Ms. Ross's blog to all my readers.

Edited to add:  Thanks a lot, Blogspot, for the way you shortened the title in the URL.

Is Sarah Palin one of us?

There was enthusiasm for two people in the 2008 Presidential election: Barack Obama and Sarah Palin. But while Obama was praised for his pragmatism by the intelligentsia (of both sides), Palin was savaged for her "inexperience".

Who is "one of us", and who isn't? Who defines the answer to that question, and what does it mean? Thomas Sowell nails it.

In Which I Eat a Mixture of Crow and My Own Words...To a Point

Recently a friend delivered a rebuke to me regarding my recent postings and their apparent discord. In my last two postings, I pretty much stated that President Obama benefits from a cult of personality, and then I said that I don't terribly appreciate the messages sent by several people (mostly the MSM) who said that we should all be not only happy about Obama's inauguration, but that there was basically no room for dissent. Like I said, President Bush had people protesting on his very first day. Whether that was a reaction to the lousy treatment some Republicans gave President Clinton or a boiling over of feelings about perceived injustices in the Florida debacle (and like my friend, I would prefer not to revisit that), it was nothing less than tacky.

So let's return to my friend's assertion. Is there a conflict in decrying boorish behavior from one side while pointing out what I believe to be a rather superficial reason why the leader of the other side inspires such loyalty? Perhaps, if my own behavior in doing so may be found to be boorish in and of itself, which makes the $64 question whether I was.

To be sure, many people were inspired by the optimism Barack Obama presented. I myself remarked on another forum in 2004 that Obama was like Bobby Kennedy in terms of his hopefulness. However, there are many people who never looked beyond his personality, or who went for Obama simply because Bush was blamed for everything that happened in the past eight years, deserved or not. It's those people to whom I referred with the video. These are people like Demi Moore, who said in this video, “I pledge to be a servant to our president and all mankind.” This type of sentiment was never directed toward President Bush, and to me it seems a little creepy. This movement appears to include a lot of people who posted on this site and told "the world" that those of us who thought Bush was a better president than Kerry would have been were, among other things, "witless", "bastards", "idiots", "blind", and much, much worse, and then tries to foment unity with those same people they slammed four years earlier. They came across as a movement which can't think for itself. Again, I don't refer to all Obama supporters in this manner, but a lot of them qualify. And yes, it ticks me off.

But was my referring to that movement as a cult of personality boorish and/or rude nonetheless? It probably was. Is it my place to repay rudeness in kind? I would hope not, but I did. The person I respect most once said, "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." I definitely did not do that. Regardless of how I feel about it, it was not good form. So to my friend I say: do please accept my apologies for pretty much acting like a jerk. And call me on it again if it recurs. (And in addition, I will also acknowledge that a fair share of Sarah Palin's supporters belong to a similar cult of personality. In both cases, the actual policies of the cult's subject need to be examined; otherwise, you might be following the wrong person...)

With that said, what, then, should be the best way for me to act toward an administration with which I don't agree? Andy Levy has a pretty good list of how NOT to behave. The last item, I think, applies here:

DON’T use the fact that many on the left behaved abominably for the past eight years as an excuse to behave the same way. America needs adults. And if it bothered you when they did it, it’s a good sign that you shouldn’t do it.

Good grief, even I had a fairly good list of how to act in the current political climate. It's a pity I didn't follow my own advice.

And, as my list says, I do believe that policies and programs may be opposed, but Obama is my president. Romans 13:1-7 says "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor." Does it mean I fall into lockstep with him? Of course not. But it does mean he deserves the honor of the office, whether or not somebody else (or, say, a whole group of somebodies) refused to give Bush similar treatment.

To expand on this: "submit" is not the same as "obey". Not all leaders deserve to be obeyed, certainly. (Robert Mugabe, for instance.) A rethinking of the Christian response to civil government may be found here. It's worth pondering.

In the meantime, it is time that I started doing a bit more measuring of my own words. And it is time to be more responsible--not because of Obama, because God expects it of me.

(All biblical quotations are taken from the NIV. All copyrights acknowledged.)

Maybe this has only occurred to me...

Am I the only one checking places like Facebook to see if there are groups popping up with names like "My dog is more qualified to be senator than Caroline Kennedy"?

Or does that argument not work if you have a "D" after your name?