When enough media outlets pound us enough with the message that someone is odious or venal or stupid one starts to believe the propaganda. “Oh man sure hope Michele Bachmann does not become the Republican presidential candidate because she’s crazy and dumb too”. Enter Stanley Kurtz at National Review Online who boils it down for us in “Bachmann Smart, Media Dumb”:

Seems like only yesterday when Michele Bachmann was supposed to be dumb… [L]ate last year, when I heard her speak at David Horowitz’s Restoration Weekend. I was sitting at a table full of professor types. We kept turning to each other and saying, “This woman is sharp, not at all the dunce she’s been portrayed as.”

Liberalism nowadays may be the last great holdout of old-fashioned prejudice. By telling themselves they’re against group hatreds of all kinds, and dismissing their opponents’ arguments as nothing but bigotry in disguise, liberals grant themselves license to despise. They swear, mock, and hate with a clean conscience, never guessing they’re turning liberalism itself into an outpost of bigotry in reverse. The flip side of liberal guilt is this hidden license to hate.

Same thing applies to Sarah Palin. Came across an article about the recent efforts to go through thousands of her emails. Some people leave comments along the lines of “she is still stupid” with no supporting evidence whatsoever. Just naked prejudicial assertion. I frankly am increasingly tired of being told whom we should like.

Walter Russell Mead has made significant contributions to our national social-political conversation with “The Death of the American Dream I” and “The Death of the American Dream II”.

The one thing I do know is that change is on its way — more fundamental, more challenging, and also perhaps more exhilarating than many of us are ready for. The health of the American economy is going to require us to move away from the credit card economics of the consumer republic.  The health of American society and democracy require that we move beyond the life of the last eighty years.  We should be looking at new ideals in which domestic partners are enterprise partners, the home is more frequently a place of business, and education moves away from big box buildings and toward forms of community schooling somewhere between home schooling and charter academies.

One way to summarize the kind of change we need.  During the farm era the focus of American domestic policy was to create the most favorable possible environment for millions of ordinary Americans to launch flourishing small businesses.  Rather that focusing on home ownership, American social policy should probably be looking at small business formation as the key to mass middle class prosperity in the next fifty years.

The American Dream is not in the last analysis a farm or a home and a good job.  It is the dream that through hard work and good choices the average American can be prosperous and independent, and that ordinary people with these life experiences can govern themselves wisely and well without the ‘guidance’ of their ‘betters’.

Even many so-called/self-proclaimed conservatives might not get this. That they confuse “progressivism Lite” with true classical liberalism and the American Dream before the vision of Thomas Jefferson lost out to that of Alexander Hamilton. Mead’s important articles remind me strongly of an important and interesting podcast by Clark Carlton on “My Two Cents on Capitalism”:

Capitalism is a modernist economic system and progressivism is a modernist palliative—not an alternative.

The only real alternative to capitalism is something along the lines of what Jefferson envisioned. This is similar to the vision of the Catholic distributivists, such as Belloc and Chesterton, and to the third way of the Protestant economist Wilhelm Röpke. The foundation of such a system is widespread property ownership and decentralized government.

I should point out here that the Greek word economia means household management.

Remember Tucson? How heated political rhetoric was somehow responsible for the shootings? How even mentioning targeting could give someone ideas? Remember the fine (seriously) words President Obama spoke at the memorial service?

Charles Krauthammer once again helps us understand better how President Obama operates in “Demagoguery 101″.

The El Paso speech is notable not for breaking any new ground on immigration, but for perfectly illustrating Obama’s political style: the professorial, almost therapeutic, invitation to civil discourse, wrapped around the basest of rhetorical devices — charges of malice compounded with accusations of bad faith.

This.

And while politicians may often distort or misrepresent the facts one does not often catch them making statement that are one hundred percent verifiably false. Jim Geraughty calls out President Obama for managing achieve a new high score for outright falsehood.

CBS’s Mark Knoller, covering a town hall on the economy with the president this morning, reports: “President Obama blames high unemployment rate on ‘huge layoffs of government workers’ at federal, state and local levels.”

This is completely wrong. Extremely and mind-bogglingly wrong. Epically wrong.

…

Again, the numbers are stable, and even indicate that local government employment is increasing, not decreasing.

Obama is not even a little bit right. Will anyone call him out on this?

Good question.

For the record am not accusing him of lying because that requires being able to divine what someone is thinking. We can be generous and suggest lazy ignorance combined with a desire to say whatever in order to score political points with a particular audience.

You can tell a lot about a person by the pronouns they {sic} use.

Victor Davis Hanson invites us to notice something about the speech our president gave after Osama bin Laden was killed in Pakistan:

The problem of first-personalizing national security is twofold. One, it is not consistent. Good news is reported by Obama in terms of “I”; bad news is delivered as “reset,” “the previous administration,” “in the past”: All good things abroad are due to Obama himself; all bad things are still the blowback from George W. Bush.

Ace of Spades HQ takes this a step further and compares the heavy use of the first person singular pronoun with a speech then President Bush gave after the capture of Saddam Hussein.

President Bush’s speech is completely outwardly directed. He speaks of the momentous occasion and gives all credit to the military and the intelligence community. There is no attempt to highlight his part in the story. Quite a contrast.

I know the above seems harsh. But we need to be clear about the nature of this administration.

Even if we disagree with an idea – even find it repellent – we must try to understand it on its own terms. In other words understand it as the person who holds that idea understands it. Otherwise we are engaging in not much more than a kind of solipsism. Reality is not much more than a projection of our own minds.

There is a lot of solipsism going on right now.

Victory Davis Hanson offers his usual perceptive and insightful brilliance in his recent article “The American Soviet”.

We are living in another Soviet, a 21st-century sort in which we nod to official pieties and mouth politically correct banalities while in our private lives, for our safety, well-being — and sanity — we conduct ourselves according to altogether different premises.

…

In the American Soviet, only two questions remain. Do these double lives of ours make a sort of sense: Is it that the official utopian rhetoric about love among the masses offers psychological compensation for our private self-interested skepticism about the nature of man? Or is the daily lie a modern Western rather than an enduring human phenomenon — our 21st-century leisure and affluence infecting us with intellectual and moral boredom, in which we long ago outsourced our collective morality to our bureaucratic overseers as we busied ourselves with far more enjoyable private indulgences?

Much is being made lately of high gas prices. And we need to keep in mind that while the Obama administration is not (solely) responsible for this it has done nothing to improve the situation. And this administration and its defenders are engaging in rank demagoguery.

*(For the record the price of gas began to drop from a high of about $4.00 in mid-2008 during the Bush administration and continued to drop after Barack Obama was elected president. It began to climb again pretty much right at the beginning of 2009. It remained steady in the $2.40-2.80 range for a while. And then began to spike in early 2011. Take a look.)

Check out “Are Sky-High Gas Prices Good?” again by Victor Davis Hanson.

And “The Media Don’t Get Economics” by Conrad Black:

The Treasury and Federal Reserve are playing with dynamite, running unheard-of deficits like this. All decent people hope it works, but anyone who has proceeded determinedly and with sure step from Grade 2 to Grade 3 arithmetic can see the risk. Even the existing measurements, which assume that these trillions of dollars of new debt will somehow be retired, confirm a 20 percent rise in the money supply — but the media, which are rarely slow to unload on public personalities in tight corners, have given this wild monetary rise a relatively free pass, to the enhanced peril of almost everyone in the world.

And “Why Isn’t Obama Celebrating High Oil Prices?” by David Harsanyi:

The administration, of course, isn’t at fault when oil prices spike; it just seems to make matters worse. Or better, if you happen to be an environmentalist. So why isn’t it celebrating? Though the left may be wary of the political consequences, it has been pining for high fuel costs for decades. So here they are. Let’s see how the economy responds.

And when some would demonize petroleum companies Larry Kudlow brings the noise in “The Left Hates Oil Companies”:

I read somewhere that either Exxon or the whole oil industry pays more in taxes than the bottom 50 percent of the whole income-tax system. So while president Obama is out there ragging on oil companies to remove so-called tax subsidies, it’s odd that he doesn’t mention how much in taxes the energy firms actually pay to Uncle Sam.

And so on. Dear readers will recall my views on energy and the environment. I support wholeheartedly(?) efforts to find alternative renewable sources of energy. But (a) we need to be honest and realistic about some of these alternatives currently being promoted and (b) a ruined economy – which is where we are heading – is unlikely to develop any of these.

Oh and speaking of solipsism and understanding the motivation for something repellent I decided not to go there in this post. Too dangerous.

Aw shucks let’s go there. But others will do the talking for me.

H/T Ace of Spades HQ

My wife is a teacher and former state worker. Many relatives on my mother’s side of the family are teachers and public/state workers. For some reason almost no one on my father’s side is a teacher or public/state/government worker. And when University Baptist Church two years ago began to offer/provide medical insurance for ministerial staff – read that again – our family declined. Would it save some money each year? Yes. But (1) the insurance my wife is able to provide is much better and (2) if we stay with her insurance then the state of Louisiana will provide medical insurance when we retire. If we go with insurance through the church we save a little now and lose a lot later.

By the way my wife (a) contributes to her retirement and (b) pays part of the cost of our medical insurance. Because she provides nearly all insurance for our family she takes home about 2/3 of her salary. No fooling.

So on the one hand we are a family that is counting on the type of pension and insurance coverage after retirement that is bankrupting states. On the other hand we contribute now to that pension and insurance coverage later.

There is a great deal one can say about the political battles taking place in states such as Wisconsin Ohio Indiana and New Jersey. What frosts my mug is summarized well by James Taranto:

It’s quite striking the way almost every lie the left ever told about the Tea Party has turned out to be true of the government unionists in Wisconsin and their supporters.

The Mainstream Media is doing everything it can to mislead and misinform/underinform the American people. I commend to you “Wisconsin Myths and Facts” by Matthew Shaffer that refutes about 90% of the propaganda we are being asked to believe about the situation in Wisconsin.

Victor Davis Hanson recently wrote an excellent piece comparing teachers to other workers. What I appreciate is he does not run down or denigrate teachers. No nonsense about how teachers have cushy jobs or only work ten months a year and so on. Only that they have it better than they used to. And better than most of the American workers whose taxes pay for teacher salaries and benefits:

So, yes, teaching is a noble profession upon which the future of our youth rests. It is not easy, and it is not as lucrative as the law or medicine. No doubt day-traders and the architects of hedge funds can make more in an hour than a sixth-grade social-studies teacher earns in a year, without either the caring or the commensurate work. Yet in comparison to most workers in the private sector, teachers are, in terms of working conditions and compensation, blessed — which is why we are told of Wisconsin that the problem is not really one of renegotiating wages, benefits, and pensions.

In these lean times, amid the furor and name-calling, we forget that teachers are not the wretched of the earth. They are often noble sorts, and that is reflected by what they make, how long they work, and the conditions under which they toil. If you doubt that, ask the almond farmer, roofer, or welder whose taxes pay their salaries.

Nicely put.

The more one thinks about it the more troubling it becomes.

The speech President Obama gave in Tucson Arizone was excellent. But that is not the same as praising the person who gave it.

Conservative reaction to the speech has been mixed. Most of it was positive and complimentary. Some was critical. I thought the critics were being excessively negative. But now?

The problem is context. What happened before and after the speech? And what has President Obama said and done before and after?

Victor Davis Hanson – who has spoken well of the speech – helps me see how this episode has been used in order to strength the president politically:

In logical terms, how are we to use a moment to reexamine political speech when the moment was explicitly declared not to be connected with political speech at all?

How can a president subtly distance himself from the macabre and revolting behavior of his left-wing base while simultaneously editorializing on unhinged invective in general (e.g., without an embarrassing extreme, there is no occasion to call for moderation from others)?

Why did five days of presidential silence follow the shootings (so unlike instant editorializing about the Mutallab and Hasan incidents), when the likes of Paul Krugman, Frank Rich, Andrew Sullivan, Sheriff Dupnik, and the New York Times rushed in to scavenge political capital amid the carnage? All that might have been bridled with a brief word or two from the White House, a brief Sister Souljah moment admonition to the New York Times to cool it for a while. We know that would have worked, because the Times within hours after the successful Obama speech was calling to cool what it had helped arouse, apparently realizing that its demonization and its refutation of demonization hand-in-glove were politically useful.

And why not some therapeutic confessional of past (and in many cases quite recent) presidential culpability?

The president handled the situation in a way much to his political advantage. His poll numbers jumped. Fair enough. But even though she had categorically nothing to do with the shootings those of Sarah Palin – who often criticizes this administration and is potentially a political opponent – fell. Truly amazing.

Once again Barack Obama gave a great speech. But one also must evaluate that speech within the context of everything else this president says and does.

It is understandable that many classic liberals aka conservatives were quick to praise his speech in Tucson. One gets tired of disagreeing with someone most of the time and is glad to seize upon something positive. See? I don’t have this knee-jerk reaction against everything Obama says and does. I’m able and willing to give him credit when due.

But if the president deserves credit for what he said it is only fair that he also bear responsibility for what he failed to say. For five days he said nothing to defend those who were being attacked by the left wing media. How long did it take for President Bush to speak on behalf of Muslims/Islam? Eventually President Obama said:

Let’s remember that it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy – it did not – …
That we can question each other’s ideas without questioning each other’s love of country…

But it was four days too late. The damage had already been done.

Health Care Summit

It is with some reluctance I post anything relating to the recent shootings in Tucson Arizona. But will attempt to be as positive as possible.

Let me try to get the negative out of the way first. Yes some very foolish and ghoulish people have quickly been trying to use the incident to score political points in order to shame and silence political opponents. They have been well answered and refuted by many much better writers.

But there have been several – also on the left end of the political spectrum – who have so far done an excellent job of warning against the impulse to exploit the Tucson shootings for political gain.

• President Obama. Well said and well done sir. Thank you.
• Rachel Maddow.
• Jon Stewart.
• Howard Kurtz.
• Barbara Walters.
• The New Republic.
• Jake Schafer.

And many others I am sure.

Let me share something. There are plenty of public and political figures whose views I cannot stand. But the last thing in the world I want is for any harm to come to them.

Why?

Well first of all for the simple reason that they are human beings.

Also because one of the things that makes America great is we debate issues and then vote. Not a single shot was fired when power was transferred from George Bush to Barack Obama or from Nancy Pelosi to John Boehner. That is how political and social change is supposed to happen in the United States. In an orderly and peaceful manner.

There is a third reason. I can probably speak for most if not all classical liberals aka “conservatives” when I say we do not want to see political opponents hurt or killed. What we want is for our ideas to prevail and for their ideas to be defeated and discredited. What we want is for a majority of fellow Americans to think “man President Obama’s vision for remaking America is the pits” and/or “wow the best way to prosperity and security is through limited Constitutional governance”.

Violence against politicians does nothing to help persuade the American people that one way of governance is better than another. We can be more specific. Does any rational person seriously think shooting a member of Congress will help repeal ObamaCare? If anything it turns political opponents into martyrs and creates an environment in which out of respect no one wants to vote against what the dead/injured politician(s) support(s).

At the risk of waxing negative let me address the “heated rhetoric” rhetoric.

When some say the Tucson shootings were caused by “vitriolic rhetoric and hate speech” we need to stop and think for a moment.

On what basis do some describe some political speech as vitriolic/heated/hateful/violent? I submit that the only thing that is truly vitriolic/hateful/heated about the political speech in question is that the person complaining about it simply says so.* Disagreeing strongly with a politician or a political party or the government currently in power is not in and of itself vitriolic or violent or hateful.

*(I am aware that some dear readers will try to bring up examples. I would ask first how hard one has to look to find any examples of genuinely excessive political speech that says “this person is evil / this person needs to die / we need to take arms and overthrow this government”. Strong principled disagreement is not hate.)

Also how is current political speech somehow worse than in previous generations? Remember the 1960′s and early 1970′s?

But that is a secondary point – to say “oh yeah? you did it first and worse!” The primary point is this.

What classical liberals aka “conservatives” want is for their ideas about good governance to prevail – to persuade the voting majority of Americans that individual liberty and limited government are superior to leftist governance and statism. Social chaos and political violence do nothing to advance this goal.

Several times on this website I have written about the importance of the urban-rural divide in our nation. That in my opinion our country is becoming more divided along urban/rural lines than along racial/ethnic lines. It just so happens – although it is not just so and deserves consideration – that the urban poor are predominantly people of color.

Cities as place of life and culture or fear and despair

Ross Douthat – It’s about class and urban versus rural

Once again urban versus rural

Growing urban-rural tension

This morning noticed a couple posts at Afroconservative that introduce and explain a new movement within classic liberalism aka conservatism called urban conservatism.

These conservatives reside in and/or work in the inner cities and apply conservative solutions towards inner city problems (e.g. inmate re-entry and educational reform). They acknowledge liberal policy failures and are making pragmatic attempts to reduce government waste and redistribute public funds in a way that leads to less government dependency. Urban conservatism is not synonymous with ‘black’ conservatism. The inner cities are a melting pot of different races and cultures; therefore, the urban conservative movement is color-neutral. While many of them are ‘black’, there are Hispanic and White ‘urban’ conservatives who are diligently working within the liberal framework. Urban conservatism also has a counterculture component. These counterculture initiatives include discouraging unwed and single-parenthood, promoting marriage, and encouraging self-employment/entrepreneurship (silver rights)- all as a means to reduce poverty.

But urban conservatives – as well as black conservatives – also challenge other conservatives in some ways:

As of late, urban conservatives have been at odds with other conservatives as a result of certain platform positions that are center-right in nature. Urban conservatives argue that the public-private balance in urban America unfortunately tilts heavily towards the public sector, therefore, having a ‘pull the rug approach’ is unrealistic.

One can see this particularly in another satirical post entitled Urban Conservative vs Nelvin Ziplock:

I said, “Look, bro, wait-sorry, look man, I’m not angry with you. I think you’ve been confusing race-consciousness with ‘urban conservatism’. Urban conservatism, like conservatism, is about policy and the individual—not color—we just have an inner city focus.  We believe in state’s rights and local centralized planning as opposed to calling on out of touch bureaucrats to help with the social maladies in some communities– just like you!  The difference between us and you is that we don’t believe in the whole one-size-fits-all policy approach.  Look, we’re all in this together.  It’s cool to criticize liberals in regards to their policy failures, and the same talking points that you say all the time sound cool too, but conservatives need to step their game up and present viable, solution-oriented policy alternatives. (emphasis added)

That last sentence is important. Yes leftist/statist aka liberal policies instead of helping cities and/or the poor and/or people of color have helped create and encourage many of the social problems we see in our cities.

But so what? What will classic liberals aka conservatives offer instead? Will they engage or abandon our cities?

Urban conservatism. A movement worth noting. And encouraging.

Oh noes! Not another political post!

Yeah yeah but how can I not take the opportunity to say something positive about someone I often have criticized?

Was listening to National Public Radio yesterday afternoon. [ed - why?!?] Report about the presidential procession through South Asia. I was genuinely impressed by what President Obama had to say about free trade and about strengthening political and economic relations with India.

I thought “wow – preach it brother!”

Part of me does wonder “how much of that is carefully crafted National Progressive Radio propaganda?” And one could cynically note that presidents who are having trouble with their domestic agenda often look for success internationally.

But others who are not on the political left have also noticed. Bret Stephens at the Wall Street Journal writes:

Barack Obama gave a terrific speech yesterday to India’s parliament, perhaps the best one of his presidency and potentially a true compass for the rest of it.

…

The president gave a terrific speech. Not that it was particularly eloquent. But for all my cavilling, he stood up for free trade, free markets and free societies. He also finally beat an honorable and unequivocal retreat from his July 2011 withdrawal deadline from Afghanistan.

Yes. Well done and well said Mister President. Thank you!

Addendum: Do not fail to read the last paragraph of the piece by Stephens.

Bigot?

The Lucy Fallacy.

In The Lion The Witch and The Wardrobe by C. S. Lewis the youngest Pevensie child finds her way into the magical world of Narnia through the back of an old wardrobe. After she returns to this world she excitedly tells her older brothers and sisters about what she found. They do not believe her.

The next day again Lucy enters Narnia through the wardrobe but this time Edmund follows after her and discovers that Lucy has been telling the truth. Lucy finds Edmund and looks forward to when both of them can tell Peter and Lucy about Narnia.

But Edmund betrays her. When Peter and Susan ask Edmund to confirm Lucy’s account he says “Oh yes Lucy and I have been playing – pretending that all her story about a country in the wardrobe is true. Just for fun of course. There’s nothing there really”.

Lucy is devastated but refuses to back down. She knows what she saw and experienced. And no one can stop her from speaking or knowing the truth.

Peter and Susan are concerned and approach the Professor. Is their sister all right?

“That is a point,” said the Professor, “which certainly deserves consideration; very careful consideration. For instance – if you will excuse me for asking the question – does your experience lead you to regard your brother or your sister as the more reliable? I mean, which is the more truthful?”

“That’s just the funny thing about it, sir”, said Peter. “Up till now, I’d have said Lucy every time.”

“And what do you think, my dear?” said the Professor, turning to Susan.

“Well,” said Susan, “in general, I’d say the same as Peter, but this couldn’t be true – all this about the wood and the Faun.”

“That is more than I know,” said the Professor, “and a charge of lying against someone whom you have always found truthful is a very serious thing; a very serious thing indeed.” (50-51)

Could it be madness? Oh no. One has only to look at Lucy and talk with her to know she is not mad.

So Lucy is normally truthful. She is obviously not insane. There is only one conclusion. She must be telling the truth.

Here is the point.

Imagine for the moment that the issue is not Narnia. The issue is the real world. Society politics economics and religion. And whether or not an individual person is a racist / bigot / dupe / warmonger / Klingon agent / whatever.

“You think Obama is a terrible president? You must be a racist. You think Islamism is a threat to life and freedom? You must be a bigot. You said or you think x with which I strongly disagree? Then you are stupid and/or evil.”

We see this all the time no? Especially since 2008.

Juan Williams just happens to be a most famous current example. Someone with an impeccable record as a “liberal”. Authored three books dealing with the African-American struggle and the history of the civil rights movement. No one ever had reason to think he was a bigot. And then he says one thing – one single honest confession – not so much about Muslims but about his own fears and anxieties. And how we should not fear or condemn Muslims as a whole because of what some have done in the name of Islam.

Contrast this with the dreadful misrepresentation of his comments by Alicia Shepard ombudswoman for National Public Radio.

Suddenly Williams is a bigot. The entire story of his life is somehow rendered null and void because of a single comment he makes that a small number of people do not like.

Which itself raises another issue which is who decides what is offensive or hurtful?

Which makes more sense? That when someone says something you find offensive and yes possibly racist or bigoted then goodness gracious they must have been one this whole time even though everything they were and said and did would contradict that impression? Or that gee maybe the other 99.99% of this person’s words and actions carry more weight? And either you misunderstand what this person said and need to consider it more carefully or it was a momentary departure from this person’s true nature and character?

If a white person mugs and insults an African-American man how much should we blame that man if out of his hurt and anger he cries out “you d*mn cracker!” Might not be the best example but you get the point. Most people think I am a good husband and father. Make no mistake I have my bad moments. Do those bad moments mean I am not a good husband and father?

If what Juan Williams – just to stay with this example – said was indeed genuinely bigoted then to what extent can we say “that was really stupid and thoughtless Juan but hey we know that most of the time you are a great guy so apologize everybody their lesson and we move on”?

Vivian Schiller “apologized” for suggesting that Williams is nuts or just greedy. Was that enough? Maybe it was. But if so where does that leave Williams?

Now apply this to white people who criticize the current federal government. Not just the African-American president but the rather white Congressional leadership.

You have a white person who has never given you reason to think s/he is a racist. Gets along great with black people. Sometimes worships at African-American churches. In college chooses to live in a dorm that is predominantly African-American because he is interested in “minority and third world issues”. Even participates in a few protests about how the university treats minority students. Participates in the Big Brother program. Has an African-American “little brother”. Visits and does things with that little brother not just during the year he lives in that dorm but for the next three years when it is no longer expected. After seminary accepts a call to a small congregation made up mostly of people from other countries including people from African nations. Ministers with them. Visits them in their homes. Eats with them. Invites them to his home. Lets his children play with their children. Asks one African to preach for him when he is out of town. Serves on a prayer breakfast planning committee on which a few African-American clergy serve and gets along with them just fine. His wife becomes a public school teacher and accepts a position at a school that is about 98% African-American. Performs brilliantly. The kids love her. Parents love her and beg the principal to put their kids in her class. She gets along well with her African-American colleagues. She and her husband pull their children out of a mostly white private school and place them in a school that is 66% African-American. Let their kids hang out with African-American friends and classmates and go to their homes for birthday parties. Let their daughter date an African-American classmate. Oh and he sometimes prays for the president publicly when leading worship for his congregation.

So if this guy says “Obama is the worst president I have seen in my life” there are some who would conclude that oh my gosh this guy must be a racist?!?

Or does it make more sense to conclude this guy opposes the Obama administration for reasons that have zilcho to do with race?

How does one statement or conviction that offends manage to cancel out the entire rest of a person’s life and character?

Dang people. Even Jesus ate with sinners! And he forgave them too!

This is what has astonished me about the left especially since 2008 and their sense of absolute empowerment. That many on the left will turn on and condemn their neighbors and friends quite suddenly when that neighbor or friend says or does something that goes against the leftist agenda.

Of course do note that now there are some at National Public Radio who are telling us that oh yeah actually Juan Williams has been an odious bastard for a long time and we are not surprised. Odd. Do not recall them ever expressing such concerns until now. They are rewriting the story of one man’s life and character perhaps because at some level they realize that they are committing the Lucy Fallacy.

I am not going to drink coffee at 4:38 p.m.

Yeah yeah am supposed to stay away from political topics. But two words.

Juan Williams.

I have listened to National Public Radio for years. Like it most of the time. Especially “Car Talk” and “Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me”. No one can credibly deny that it leans hard to the political left. Although I had to work hard to “filter” out the bias it was still thorough in its coverage of the issues.

But boy did they cross a line when they fired Juan Williams. Let me put it this way. I am impressed that the supposedly vile and narrowly partisan Fox News has Williams on some of its programs where he is allowed to expressed his liberal(? slightly left of center?) views. I was even more(?) impressed that National Public Radio would allow Williams to appear on Fox News. “Wow. They must hate Fox News. And yet they allow Williams to do this. Have to give them credit”. Now we know that the opposite was true. They hated it. They tolerated it because they had no other reason to fire Williams. Then they got their reason.

Therein lies the problem. Let us assume for the sake of argument that Juan Williams crossed a line and damaged his credibility such that National Public Radio had to let him go. Then how can they not also do the same with at least half of their correspondents and analysts?!? That they would single out Williams is outrageous hypocrisy of the highest order.

Remember. When National Public Radio fires an African-American man with excellent credentials because he expresses an opinion it is not about race. But when millions of Americans disagree with the president not to mention Congress it must be about race. Sure that makes sense. Heads we win tails you lose.

Several have written that this is just one more reason why the federal government does not need to subsidize National Public Radio with taxpayer funds. Let me state clearly and for the record that it does not receive only 2% of its funding from the government. It receives fifteen percent. The 2% figure is a fiction based on how much it receives directly. The other 13% is indirect through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Unless one believes in money laundering most people would say that other 13% very much counts.

In just one week there have been more posts and articles on this than one can list in one place.

National Review Online offers at least four good pieces.

• “The NPR Test Case” by Andrew McCarthy – do not skip this one
• “Let NPR Pay Its Own Way” by the editors.
• “The Closing of NPR’s Mind” by Rich Lowry
• “Defund State Sponsored Media” by Michelle Malkin

Anything the always brilliant and thoughtful Ann Althouse on this topic is worth reading. Especially “I spoke hastily and apologize”:

Apologize? You can’t just apologize unless Williams could just apologize. NPR CEO Vivian Schiller must resign. And don’t you just love the notion that ordinary human feelings are mental disorders that should be kept hidden? In NPR’s delightful vision of the future, no one will dare to speak about how they feel and every inappropriate twinge that breaks through your self-protective numbness will be medicalized and treated. Imagine a country that adopts a psychiatric treatment model for political dissent.

Weekly Standard is a goldmine of hard hitting pieces on this topic. Especially “National Pathetic Radio” by Stephen Hayes. The wise and insightful Anchoress aka Elizabeth Scalia is your one stop for about two dozen comments and other pieces. Follow the magic links.

Some good links and commentary at Gay Patriot in “Of Juan Williams and the Imminent Defunding of NPR”.

*Do not miss “They Came for Juan Williams. Why This Is a Turning Point” by Barry Rubin at Yid with Lid.

That should keep you busy for a while.