Jim Wallis slips, tells the truth

This is Political Correctness defined: Dissenters are to "stop talking".
In other words: "Shut up," he explained.

Taiwanese Animators on "Waiting for Superman"

What's The Matter With Menthols?

Our friends at reason.tv pose the question: "What's The Matter With Menthols?"

Joseph Califano played The Card, noting that menthol smokers are disproportionally black folks. Therefore, not banning them is somehow targeting persons of color.

We see the same argument in the opposition to Arizona's immigration law. Any behavior that is engaged in by a Victim Group at a higher rate than an Oppressor Group cannot be prosecuted, for to do so is de facto raaaaacist. Unless that behavior is self-destructive, in which case failure to prosecute the dirty money-grubbing businesses that profit from that behavior is raaaaacist. Unless those businesses are politically connected, of course. (Paging Dr. King... Dr. Alveda King...)

But, as usual, the leftists' elevation of their good intentions over all else sets up the Law of Unintended Consequences to bite them in the butt. If bad behavior disproportionately committed by members of a Victim Group cannot be confronted, it will grow more prevalent. Those who are victimized by that behavior will grow embittered toward that Victim Group, increasing prejudice rather than helping to eradicate it. Of course, since that insures repeat business for the grievance mongers, maybe it isn't so unintended after all.

Interview with a Zombie

Not with our friend Zombie, mind you...

Time Perspectives

Watch this, and think about what it's saying. Then think some more. This is about a fundamental problem that seems to be getting worse, not better.

An Entrepreneur and the Minimum-Wage

by Don Boudreaux on April 29, 2010

A.G. (who asks me to use, in this post, only his initials) is a regular reader of Cafe Hayek. He’s 28 years old and is an entrepreneur in Charlotte, North Carolina. His firm employs 25 people, 21 of whom are low-skilled workers. A.G. just sent this memo to his employees:

To All Team Members:

The schedule for next week has been posted. You may notice that hours have been cut back on your schedule. This is across the board, not just you. I don’t want anyone to think they’ve done something wrong to deserve a cut in hours, so I wanted to explain why it’s happening.

There are a couple of reasons for this:

Go here and read the whole thing.

This is the difference between us and them.

From an email going around the web:


TO MY CONSERVATIVE PALS and Liberal friends that are somewhat conservative

This pretty much describes our Country today.

If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy.
A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a black man or Hispanic are conservative, they see themselves as independently successful.
Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless it's a foreign religion, of course!)

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

If a conservative slips and falls in a store, he gets up, laughs and is embarrassed.
If a liberal slips and falls, he grabs his neck, moans like he's in labor and then sues.

If a conservative reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A liberal will delete it because he's "offended".

Another O'Keefe Undercover Video

Before he went undercover in person to expose what kind of people ACORN employs, James O'Keefe showed how willing Planned Parenthood was to accept racist contributions specifically for reducing the number of black babies:

"Racism"

A combination of events over the last few years has led me to think about "racism". Barack Obama's permanent campaign, to which virtually every criticism is labeled as "racist" is the most obvious. Janeane Garofalo asserts that the "tea-baggers" are "straight-up racist" because we oppose the radical agenda of a man who happens to have darker than average skin. (We don't know what she thinks about Ken Gladney, beaten by white union members who hurled the n-word at him in the process.) Even more bizarrely, Contessa Brewer and her posse use video of a black man armed with a semiautomatic rifle, carefully cropped to hide any of his exposed skin, while tut-tutting about the people who hate having a black POTUS, seeming downright giddy with the prospect that one of them will attempt a violent act.

But there were others.

• Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant have been subjected to the ministrations of the Canadian Political Correctness Police.
• A lifetime achievement award recognizing Bob Grant's trailblazing career in talk radio has been revoked, because of comments some have interpreted as racist.
• Don Imus returned to radio after his proverbial 40 years in the wilderness for his racially-charged remarks.
• People have been suspended from, and in some cases lost, jobs covering golf, because of a metaphor that evokes anger from the Black Community.
• An elderly member of the Kansas City, Missouri Park Board was hounded out of office because of her membership in the Minuteman anti-illegal-immigration organization, described as "racist" by Hispanic activists.
• Glenn Beck is the target of a boycott because he turned the "opposition to Obama is racist" charge on its head, and said that he thinks Obama himself is racist.

That last one cleverly exposed the double standard of what is defined "racism", and will be of great help in analyzing how the word is used. So, let's touch the Ultimate Third Rail: Racism.

First, we need to define our terms. The word "racist" has been operationally redefined to the point where it means "disagreeing with a leftist". It's tiresome. The danger is that by pretending that too many things are "racist", the word will lose its meaning, and we won't have a name by which to distinguish the real deal. I'm going to describe (if not precisely define) it briefly thus:

Racism is the belief that membership in an ethnic group determines individual behavioral characteristics, often to the point of deeming the entire group "superior" or "inferior" to others.

Even that is open to some misinterpretation, so I'll give a series of statements, and show where I think The Line is crossed:

1. Ashkenazi Jews have an average IQ significantly higher than that of humans as a whole.
2. People with higher IQ tend to be more successful in intellectually-demanding professions, leading to substantial financial reward.
3. The average annual income of Ashkenazim is higher than the average of the population in general.
4. Rita has to decide whether to hire Moshe or Malik for a job in which intelligence will be important.

   ---

5. Since Moshe is Jewish, Rita assumes he's smarter, and chooses him.

The Line is literally drawn in above. I think it's time to make clear something with which I'm afraid many people will disagree: Factual statements about statistics cannot be "racist". That they are true trumps all -isms. I am certain that many people will say that any statement about ethnic groups is inherently racist, at least when made by a member of The Oppressor Class. (Since I am a White Heterosexual Anglophone Male [WHAM], I am consigned to that class, although economically I don't feel like I belong with The Boss Man. I personally find that characterization to be racist, but Leftists cleverly define it such that it can only be applied to The Oppressor Class!)

Those who say it's racist to even go to Step 1 may have noble intentions: Perhaps they're concerned that merely acknowledging these facts will cause people to think like Rita the Racist. But those facts won't stop being facts just because we pretend they aren't true, and not dealing with them won't help us deal with racism. Rita has committed a horrible logical error, which needs to be addressed head-on. Trying to sidestep it, by pretending that the statistical differences in various groups don't exist, is dishonest, and empowers the true racists by letting them attack that dishonesty. It cedes to the racist the moral high ground of having the truth on his side! If we lie (even to spare some people's feelings) in arguing against actual racism, it taints everything else we may say on the subject.

Others are concerned that these statistics will breed resentment among ethnic groups that aren't as blessed as the Ashkenazim. Perhaps that's true, but only to the extent that people insist on thinking of themselves first as members of tribal groups, instead of as individuals. The variation within each group is larger than it is between groups. Those with higher IQs in any group will tend to do better economically than those on the lower end. Statistical differences in ethnic/gender group economic or educational status are the basis of the "de facto" argument behind quotas, which have perverse effects that can actually worsen the economic position of those it overtly "helps". As we've seen in Ricci, the fact that an insufficient number of applicants from protected groups pass a test is often deemed sufficient to prove that the test is somehow biased.

Furthermore, the mere possession of an ability doesn't automatically translate into performance. Everyone can learn to improve performance; hard work and sheer determination can compensate for a lack of native talent. But we have to be honest with people, and let them know that they may very well have an uphill battle to fight, rather than pretending that things will come equally easy to all. We also should admit that the task will prove too difficult for many. No amount of hard work has broken the dominance in the Men's 100m sprint by people of West African descent, and in the 10K by Kenyans and Ethiopians.

On the other hand, that can't be an excuse for giving up. It's up to each of us to be the best we can at whatever it is we do, no matter what handicaps we may have. For instance, I am near-sighted to the point that the tests optometrists normally perform to measure near vision are affected by my problems with far vision. So I wear contact lenses. But I don't complain that it isn't fair and demand that it is my right to have LASIK provided at government expense. I don't insist that the speed limit on streets and highways be reduced to the point where it would be safe for me to operate an automobile without my contacts. I don't consider it discriminatory that Major League Baseball won't hire someone with my lack of visual acuity to work as an umpire.

Rita isn't just a racist; she's also intellectually lazy, and stupid. The difference in group statistics doesn't mean that all members of one group have higher IQs than all members of the other. Rita's greatest crime is that she hasn't examined Moshe and Malik as individuals. Malik may be brilliant, and Moshe functionally illiterate, but in her prejudice she will never bother to find out.

Not only has she hurt Malik's opportunity to earn a living; she's also hurt her company's chance to hire the best person for the job. If Malik gets a job with an intelligent competitor, turns out to be better at the job, and they gain market share at the expense of Rita's company, the owners/stockholders will lose money due to her stupidity. Rita and her co-workers may not get the raises they may have gotten with Malik on the team, and some may lose their jobs. As competitive as some fields are, the whole company could ultimately go out of business, all because of one bad managerial decision.

---

I've deliberately chosen Ashkenazim for these examples so as to deconstruct some ideas that are easily conflated: "Jewish" refers to religion, ethnicity, and culture. Comedian and actor Rowan Atkinson discusses this quite seriously in his speech to the UK House of Lords opposing new "Hate Crime" legislation:

. . . Jews and Sikhs are protected from religious hatred on the basis of their race and that this Bill seeks merely to extend that protection to others. The problem that that ignores is that race and religion are fundamentally different concepts – you cannot choose your race, you can choose your religion – and even if for many the line dividing their race from their religion is blurred in the eyes of the law. A sharp line can and should be drawn.

If Jews and Sikhs are protected from criticism of their religious beliefs or religious activities, then that is a wrong and the idea of extending that to other religions is also a wrong. To criticise people for their race is manifestly irrational but to criticise their religion, that is a right.

Disagreeing with or criticizing Judaism (or related ideas such as Zionism) isn't anti-semitism, but hatred of people of Jewish ethnicity (which may be based on envy of their economic success) simply because of that ethnicity is. So it isn't fair for Malik to invoke "Islamophobia" as a parallel to anti-semitism. There is no such thing as the "Muslim race".

It also isn't reasonable for for those who complain that other ethnic groups don't do as well economically to conclude that "de facto discrimination" or some vague Zionist Conspiracy must be the cause. As much as we may like ethnicity and intelligence to be statistically-independent variables, the fact is that they are not. If we want to help Malik's ethnic group, we have to start with an honest assessment of the facts as they are, not how we'd like them to be. What part does the culture to which Malik belongs play in these statistical differences? Are there elements of Jewish culture that could help them to do better, were Malik's community to adopt them? We know that Jewish culture places a high value on education; scholars have traditionally had high status in Jewish communities, allowing them a better chance to attract mates, and pass their genes along to the next generation. Even if there is a genetic component to this phenomenon, it can be shaped by culture. (But we must tread lightly here; we are perilously close to talking about eugenic effects, which fact if noticed tends to cause brains to short-circuit due to some sort of Godwin Governor.) By contrast, Malik may have been accused of "acting white" if he did well in school, and been physically menaced for it.

People have seriously described Bill Clinton as the "first black president", and questioned the "blackness" of Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Michael Steele, and even President Obama! In the last case, it's not his white mother that is of concern; most people identified as "black" in the US have some European ancestry. He's actually excluded from being "black" based on his African father! According to this definition, "black" isn't about ethnic origin, but about family experience; someone without ancestors enslaved in the United States doesn't qualify.

"Black," in our political and social reality, means those descended from West African slaves. Voluntary immigrants of African descent (even those descended from West Indian slaves) are just that, voluntary immigrants of African descent with markedly different outlooks on the role of race in their lives and in politics.

I made similar points about the difference between voluntary and involuntary immigrants myself. That definition of "Black" excludes not only Obama, but also Powell, whose Jamaican parents came to the US long after their forebears were freed from slavery there.

While Rice and Steele don't share Obama's and Powell's pedigree problems, like Powell they belong to the "wrong" political party (although Powell's endorsement of Obama may have helped him to gain some cred). Perhaps the best-known epithet applied to such people is "Oreo" (black on the outside; white in the middle). Again, they "act white". "Black" and "white" in this context clearly refer to culture, as well as (instead of?) ethnicity. Dr. King's Dream of a day when his grandchildren would be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character, has become a nightmare, in which people who have a certain color of skin are told that they must behave in a certain way as a result thereof, lest they lose their "authenticity".

---

We expect Political Correctness from the entertainment, political, and educational elites. But there is also a civil war between Anti-Idiotarian factions involving charges of racism. As part of his effort to distance himself from "right-wing extremists" such as "Nirthers" and advocates of Intelligent Design, Charles Johnson has gone after various people as racist-by-association, for the sin of appearing at anti-jihadist conferences attended by representatives of organizations he has decided are "racist". In my opinion, many of those groups do indeed have racist members, (virtually every large group will have one sort or another) but also have many others who would more accurately be called "culturalist". But the "mainstream" is afraid of being labeled "racist" by the Johnsons, Garafolos, and Brewers of the world, so people must either choose to work with "racists" or with those who walk on eggshells lest they have that tag applied to them.

It doesn't help that some of the "racists" involved have used racially-loaded terminology. Some of them explicitly decry the assaults on "white culture" by immigrants that refuse to assimilate into it, or a President who hates it. But before we declare these people to be actual racists, we ought to try to understand what they mean. Then we might even helpfully suggest better ways of expressing themselves on the subject.

If "Jewish" and "Black" can refer to culture as well as ethnicity, isn't it possible that some of the "racists" who wish to defend "white culture" aren't racist after all? When we paint them with the same broad brush as the actual racists, we aren't helping out. We're abandoning the people who want to defend what they believe are positive cultural values, to be lumped in with the true racists. This may come back to haunt us. When the populace of a country finally tires of politically-correct multi-culturalism, perhaps due to widespread economic troubles that a politician can blame on the outsiders, they may react as the Germans did in the 1930s, by installing an actual fascist, racist, and ultimately murderous regime. That would be a huge step backward for us all.

Let us take care that when we identify specific individuals, who have made specific statements that are demonstrably racist, that we limit the criticism to those items. Let us be clear that we don't support judging people by their ethnicity, but we may find ourselves on the same side of some issues with those who do, when it comes to defending ourselves from another threat. That doesn't mean we endorse their entire platform.

If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons. -Winston Churchill

To attack an entire political faction by association is the same sort of intellectual laziness that Rita the Racist committed by ascribing to the individuals attributes of others in their groups. We can do better than that.
[Click on the title above, or date stamp below, to see the full article.]

Whittle vs. The Narrative

I don't normally bother to comment on just every "Afterburner" episode Bill does on PJTV. The link is over there in the sidebar, and I figure most people who come here go there. Insty links to most of them too.

But this one is a must see. Bill eviscerates MSNBC and the rest of the MainScream Media as the dishonest scum that they are. Set aside 15 minutes, pop yourself some popcorn, and enjoy a good old-fashioned ass-whoopin'. (Bill is the one doing the whoopin'.)

So why are we here......again?

Got this from a friend. Don't know who sent it to him but I do know it's worthwhile...


OK, as we all know I'm not the big history buff type person, but... with the homeschool thing I have to learn this stuff, so... we're reading about the Declaration of Independence. We bought reproductions of the Declaration as well as some other historical documents when we were in DC last year. I went outside to smoke and brought the Declaration with me to read it. OMG folks! OK, I had a fairly decent education as a child but chose NOT to pay any attention to history, so I was essentially reading this for the first time...

As we all know, (even I knew this) it starts:
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Then the often quoted:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Then... the part that we have obviously forgotten all about in the past 233 years.
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

This is so true! We sit in our own shit because it's warm and soft even though it stinks... (I know that was kinda crude, but true)
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

So, what we have to do is....
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

The rest of the document goes on to detail the abuses by the King, then to declare the independence of the states as I'm sure everyone else knows about the document, but it was all news to me!!! So this is why we study history, so we're not doomed to repeat it, right?? Then WHY IN THE HELL ARE WE HERE AGAIN!!!!!!!

Am I insane, or is today a time in the course of human events that it is necessary for us to dissolve the political bonds that have connected us to another???

Of course you can keep your coverage...

Our old buddy Don tipped us off with this analysis of ObamaCare. I normally rely on Muscle Daddy to dig through lengthy legislation, because he can do that without reflexively grabbing an icepick to stab his eyes out. What's a mere Monster to do? Well, I can whip out my digital hi-lighter and see if I can connect some dots.
This particular provision grabbed my eye:

SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.

(a) Tax Imposed- In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of--

(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over

(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.

This sounds troubling. If you don't have "acceptable health care coverage", you get stuck with an extra 2.5% marginal income tax. But what does "acceptable health care coverage" mean? Subsection (d) lists Medicare, Medicaid, Armed Forces, and VA, as well as these:

(A) QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN COVERAGE- Coverage under a qualified health benefits plan (as defined in section 100(c) of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009).

(B) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE; COVERAGE UNDER GRANDFATHERED EMPLOYMENT-BASED HEALTH PLAN- Coverage under a grandfathered health insurance coverage (as defined in subsection (a) of section 102 of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009) or under a current employment-based health plan (within the meaning of subsection (b) of such section).
. . .
(G) OTHER COVERAGE- Such other health benefits coverage as the Secretary, in coordination with the Health Choices Commissioner, recognizes for purposes of this subsection.

So what's in 100(c)?

(1) ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE- The term ‘acceptable coverage’ has the meaning given such term in section 202(d)(2).

Good grief. So what does section 202(d)(2) say?

(A) QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN COVERAGE- Coverage under a qualified health benefits plan.

(B) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE; COVERAGE UNDER CURRENT GROUP HEALTH PLAN- Coverage under a grandfathered health insurance coverage (as defined in subsection (a) of section 102) or under a current group health plan (described in subsection (b) of such section).
. . .
(G) OTHER COVERAGE- Such other health benefits coverage, such as a State health benefits risk pool, as the Commissioner, in coordination with the Secretary of the Treasury, recognizes for purposes of this paragraph.

It's déjà vu all over again! Nowhere does anything define "a qualified health benefits plan".

How about that "grandfathered" business in 102(a)? Check out the reassuring title, then the gory details:

SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.

(a) Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage Defined- Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ‘grandfathered health insurance coverage’ means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
. . .

Note that the only coverage "grandfathered" is individual coverage, which is explictly not group coverage (like most employer-based plans are) according to the prior 101(c)(2):

(2) INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE- The terms ‘individual health insurance coverage’ and ‘group health insurance coverage’ mean health insurance coverage offered in the individual market or large or small group market, respectively, as defined in section 2791 of the Public Health Service Act.

The way I read this definition, when President Obama says "you'll be able to keep your existing coverage", he's hiding the fact that for most Americans with health insurance today, the coverage they'll be allowed to keep won't prevent them from paying the 2.5% tax for "freeloaders" who don't have "adequate coverage".
[Click on the title above, or date stamp below, to see the full article.]
I've barely begun to read this bill. I think the average person who manages to read the whole thing will be begging for a "death panel" to put him out of his misery. MuscleDaddy, I have no idea how you do it.

CA: What is CIFTA, and why you should care.

The Blogger Formerly Known As MuscleDaddy has done another of his detailed analyses of what Big Brother wants to do forto you. This time, it's about the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms (CIFTA) treaty. Why does it matter? Because if it is signed and ratified by the US, it will make a lot of US citizens criminals, for the "crime" of reloading their own ammunition, even if it's only for their own personal use, and they never sell it to anyone. What with legislators laughing at the very idea of reading bills before they're voted into law, there's a huge risk that this beast.

I can't really do it justice by pulling quotes. Get over there and read the whole thing. But not too close to dinnertime.

Obama, Unions, Card-Check and Dept. of Labor Cuts

A little dot-connecting math...

The sum of this...

Obama Slashes Union Enforcement

"President Obama today unveiled a paltry $17 billion in cuts to the $3.4 trillion federal budget, about half of which will come out of defense spending.

But buried in the budget documents released by the White House today is a 9 percent cut in the unit of the Department of Labor that is in charge of regulating unions."

"Under the leadership of Elaine Chao during the Bush administration, the Labor Department's Office of Labor-Management Standards took its job of policing unions seriously. Its actions led to 929 convictions of corrupt union officials and to the recovery of more than $93 million on behalf of union members. Yet the Obama administration has proposed slashing its budget from $45 million in 2009 to $41 million in 2010, citing an insufficient "workload" for the office."

... PLUS -

HR 1409 - Employee Free Choice Act of 2009 - to abolish secret-ballot in union-adoption,

"Employee Free Choice Act of 2009 - Amends the National Labor Relations Act to require the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to certify a bargaining representative without directing an election if a majority of the bargaining unit employees have authorized designation of the representative (card-check) (Unions get to see the names of those voting for&against, in the name of 'fairness' - MD.) and there is no other individual or labor organization currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit."

Equals......?


Come on everyone, stay with me:

* Giving Unions the names of those employees voting "Nay" to installing the Union...

Combined with

* Stealth budget-cuts to the unit that investigates corrupt Union practices...


...Anyone? Anyone?.... Bueller?


- MuscleDaddy

4 Dead in apparent attempt on Dutch Monarch

(This one is still developing, so by the time you read this the numbers may already be off - MD)

Royal Motorcade: Four Dead As Car Hits Crowd

At least four people are reported to have been killed and around 13 hurt in The Netherlands after a car careered into spectators watching a royal motorcade.

People were flung through the air after the car swerved across police railings

A photographer said the small car appeared to be deliberately driving at high speed toward an open-top bus carrying Queen Beatrix and her family in the western Dutch town of Apeldoorn.

As I said above, this is still developing (anyone out there who's ever been a first-responder knows that 5-hours can pass in a flash and is not enough time to sort things out) and the casualty-count jumped by 2 while I was reading - there is nothing more known in any specific way other than that this has happened.

That said...

Within-the-fold, you'll find some stills and a link to a video shot as-it-happened (they're disturbing - one of the victims is apparently a little girl - , so don't click-in unless you're sure).








Link to the Video

[Click HERE to see the visuals.]

A couple of points:

1) As is plain by the pics and video - that car was moving fast (enough so that the front was already smashed-in when it ran through the last spectators and into the statue on the corner)

2) Holiday/Government-Event-Motorcades operate pretty much the same way everywhere - slowly, and with a great effect on travel-speed of the surrounding roads.

Based on these two data-points, I'm going to have to agree with the above-quoted photographer and say that this had to have been deliberate - there simply would have been no opportunity for that kind of speed otherwise.

So what you've got is a lone male, approximately in his mid-to-late 20s, who made a 'kamikaze run' at the Dutch Queen's motorcade bus, through a crowd.

That may not be quite enough to assign blame to the Netherlands' recent Geert-Wilders-and-Spreading-Islamic-Violence problem...*definitively*.

But, if I were a betting man...

- MuscleDaddy

Arlen Specter admits to what we've long known...

Specter To Switch Parties

Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter will switch his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat and announced today that he will run in 2010 as a Democrat, according to a statement he released this morning.

Switch? Oh, right – he still *technically* has an “R” following his name

Specter's decision would give Democrats a 60 seat filibuster proof majority in the Senate assuming Democrat Al Franken is eventually sworn in as the next Senator from Minnesota. (Former Sen. Norm Coleman is appealing Franken's victory in the state Supreme Court.)

Obviously he sees that, having betrayed the trust of his base and (perhaps permanently) damaged the Conservative movement in Government to the fullest extend he would be allowed from his current position – this is the only he would be able to continue pounding nails into America’s coffin – Well played, Sir.

"I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary," said Specter in a statement. "I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election."

Nope...Leaving the low-hanging-fruit for Anderson Cooper…
(aw dang, there’s a phrase and a name we’ll never be able to use together again..eww)

He added: "Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans."

“…the Republican Party has moved far to the right”?

Apparently, Obama’s not the only one who has been “unaware” of the over half-million citizens protesting at Tea Parties around the country.

NewsFlash, Sparky:
The reason you’d have the proverbial “snowball’s chance” if you ran as a Republican in 2010 is because (following your stellar example) your party has become almost indistinguishable from the Opposition.

If you think that constitutes a shift to ‘the right’, then clearly it’s time for your handlers to up-the-voltage.

Specter as a Democrat would also fundamentally alter the 2010 calculus in Pennsylvania as he was expected to face a difficult primary challenge next year from former Rep. Pat Toomey. The only announced Democrat in the race is former National Constitution Center head Joe Torsella although several other candidates are looking at the race.

I can just envision how that conversation went…

“So, Arlen – here’s the thing: This Toomey-guy ain’t much, but he also didn’t tank his credibility by crossing-the-aisle to vote for the Great Generational Theft Act the way you did either.

“You an’ me been friends for a long time so I’m gonna tell you straight:
You’re Done. Screwed. Fini - Drop-the-curtain, stick-a-fork-in-you, It's Over."

I mean really, at this point you’d have a better chance running as a Demo… hheeeeyyyy….”

The precariousness of Specter's political position -- a Republican in a Democratic-leaning state -- was on display earlier this year when he was one of three GOP Senators to back President Barack Obama's $787 billion economic stimulus plan. That vote was strongly condemned by conservative Republicans and Toomey used that vote as the launching pad for his candidacy.

Nnnoooo… what was on display was his complete lack of spine, conservative-chops or ability to look ahead farther than 6 months into long-term repercussions.

Because of the shrinking Republican vote in the state, Specter was seen as a dead man walking politically in the primary with polling showing him trailing Toomey by ten or more points.

That statement is just nonsensical – “Fewer-Republicans-Voting” is the reason “More-Republicans-Would-Vote-For-Toomey”?

Someone needs to check his math… then work on that ability to find his own nose.

The bar for Specter to run as an independent was also extremely high due to the rules governing such a third party candidacy.

Because an independent candidacy would make all of the requisite palm-greasing much more difficult.

That left a Democratic candidacy as Specter's best option if he wanted to remain in the Senate beyond 2010.

Being the only way for a person without any firm personal positions to get elected – clearly, it’s the best way for him to go.

The "MD-Take" ?

ANYONE who changes their political affiliation while in office should be immediately recalled.

Period.

- MuscleDaddy

Ok – so Holder called us a “Nation of Cowards”…

Holder: US a nation of cowards on racial matters…

...and all across the inter-web-netubes, everyone is expressing offense, outrage and… Surprise?

The first-two are a given – no one can say anything about anyone (either individually or as a demographic) these days without offending and outraging someone else – it’s part of the Politically Correct culture of victimhood in which we live. (never mind that I can’t even think of an alternate-universe in which it would be the AG’s place to speak officially on such a topic)

But …Surprise? Why surprise?

I mean, I suppose I can see someone being ‘surprised’ that such a statement of derision and scorn for the American people would be coming from “The Office of the Attorney General of The United States” – IF one were somehow able to separate the Office from the Man holding the Office… I guess.

But remember that Eric Holder is an Obama appointee – and not to a ‘throw-away’ position, handed out for the appearance of “bi-partisanship” (Gregg-and-the-powerless-Commerce-Position comes to mind).

Someone in the AG spot has REAL power – he’s The Top Law Enforcement Officer in the country – able to make Final decisions about Who comes under What Charges and Which laws are going to be Enforced ‘today’ - and you’d just better BELIEVE that the President is going to be sure that he and THAT appointee see eye-to-eye.

So understanding this means only asking yourself a series of questions:

Can you think of another US President...

- who has so long supported America hatred?

- who has so consistently shown disrespect for America’s symbols?

- who has openly associated with those committed to America’s downfall?

- who has so plainly voiced his disdainful opinion of small-town America?

- who has so openly written of his negative opinion of “White People”?

- who thinks that the Typical White Person is, at his heart, a bigot?

And, playing it straight, there’s an old saying that goes something like ‘In a successful marriage, a husband and wife may have different likes, but their hatreds must be in alignment.’

So what do Michelle’s closely-held beliefs say about the man she’s been married to for all these years?

So now we have an Obama appointee to the Office of Attorney General who believes that, when not ‘forced’ together by the legal outcomes of the “civil rights struggle”, white people deliberately have “no significant interaction” with anyone else.

(and make no mistake, that’s what he’s saying; show me someone who thinks that the Civil Rights movement – as necessary as it was at the time - was about anything other than forcing minority-inclusion into ‘white’ society, and I’ll show you a shameless revisionist)

…which only means that he’s echoing opinions and beliefs that his boss has held to all of his life

– which would have been a pre-requisite for landing the job in the first place.

Again – Surprise?

I just don’t get the ‘Surprise’.


- MuscleDaddy

P.S. – This was my favorite part:

"We work with one another, lunch together and, when the event is at the workplace during work hours or shortly thereafter, we socialize with one another fairly well, irrespective of race.

And yet even this interaction operates within certain limitations.

We know, by "American instinct" and by learned behavior, that certain subjects are off limits and that to explore them risks, at best embarrassment, and, at worst, the questioning of one’s character."

Easy for him to say – I don’t see the AG getting hauled into HR and losing his job & his family’s main source of support, because he asked “Why do black people seem to…” in the break-room.
Would that a ‘questioning of character’ were actually “at worst”.

Britain Wakes Up ...

...Hand-wringing apologists in 3...2...1.

Anti-terror code 'would alienate most Muslims'

So basically, it goes like this:

In Britain, the level of scrutiny you receive from the government is largely dependent on both the history of your personal actions and with whom you are known to associate.

To me, this sounds reasonable enough - very
"Trust-People-To-Do-What-You've-Seen-Them-Do".

The problem with that approach comes when you factor in Political Correctness and what aspects of their behavior you "mustn't see" because any such acknowledgement is inherently 'insensitive', 'judgemental' or 'discriminatory'.

It seems that someone at the Home Office had an epiphany - realizing that responsible adults (and particularly those responsible for the safety of others) are actually supposed to:

- make judgements,

- discriminate between good/bad/safe/harmful,

- and should do so based on the evidence put before them, regardless of the feelings or sensitivities of themselves or others.

Apparently, once the light died down and the host of angels ran out of breath, the decision was made to start paying attention to people's words and actions, and actually apply them as behavioral red flags to the existing Terror Code - and specifically when determining who should be subject to greater scrutiny as an "Extremist".

The measure (called 'Contest 2') would define extremists as those who "hold views that clash with what the government defines as shared British values."

(meaning essentially that the minority doesn't get to decide what's normal/acceptable for, or in opposition to, the rest of the country)

The meat of this is defined as:

According to a draft of the strategy, Contest 2 as it is known in Whitehall, people would be considered as extremists if:

• They advocate a caliphate, a pan-Islamic state encompassing many countries.

• They promote Sharia law.

• They believe in jihad, or armed resistance, anywhere in the world. This would include armed resistance by Palestinians against the Israeli military.

• They argue that Islam bans homosexuality and that it is a sin against Allah.

• They fail to condemn the killing of British soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan.

So, if you're living in Britain and you advocate the overthrow of the government, armed religious war against non-muslims, following a law other-than & to-the-exclusion-of the law of the Land, killing gays (because that's the only acceptable treatment for those who sin against Allah) , and/or cheer-on the killing of British soldiers abroad - you will be identified as an Extremist.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me - in fact, I'm a little surprised something so common-sense could come from government at any level.

Now, I can already see the 'thought-police' arguments coming 'round the bend - but let's bear in mind that what we're dealing with here is not some nebulous, double-plus-ungood preference against unhappiness.

This is a matter where it's the simplest thing in the world to draw a broad, straight line between words and actions, usually culminating in the fiery deaths of civilian commuters - and not the least because such actions are almost universally preceded and followed by these very words and sentiments.

Just like "Not all Muslims are suicide bombers, but all suicide bombers are Muslims" - it also follows that "Not all people holding extreme views/beliefs commit mass murder, but all mass murderers hold extreme views/beliefs".

If the bombing/mass-murder parts are the actions, and we know about these only after-the-fact - then what becomes the common-theme predictor to preventing/opposing the actions?

"Those who advocate the wider definition say hardline Islamist interpretation of the Qur'an leads to views that are the root cause of the terrorism threat Britain faces."

Again - take what you've seen people do - when you take any random sampling of religious murders/executions across the world, are we talking about Lutheran, Norwegian grandmothers?

"Ed Husain, of the Quilliam Foundation thinktank, said the root causes of terrorism were extremist views, even if those advocating the views did not call for violence.

Husain, once an extremist himself, said: "Violent extremism is produced by Islamist extremism and it's only right to get into the root causes."

"Root Causes".

Now, here in the US we're more accustomed to those on the Left shrieking about 'root causes' in terms of 'American Imperialism', 'Heartless Capitalism' and 'Evil Conservative Policies' as being the "root causes" of terrorism - but that only works when you disconnect 'A' from 'C'.

I am willing to stipulate right here that those can be "root causes" of indignation, anger and even outrage.

But at the same time one would have to also stipulate that billions of people all over the world feel these very same things over a myriad of conditions every day - and yet do not feel a moral imperative to slaughter innocent bystanders by the hundreds.

So what is the "root cause " of the decision to transform 'ourage' into 'murder'?

If this could remotely be considered a one-off situation the answer might be 'mental illness' generally, or 'psychosis' or 'sociopathy' more specifically.

But this cannot be - even remotely - considered a one-off situation.

And even even opponents to 'Contest 2' have to step carefully to avoid admitting it.

"Inayat Bunglawala, a former spokesman for the Muslim Council of Great Britain, said such plans would affect many British Muslims."

"That would alienate the majority of the British Muslim public. It would be counterproductive and class most Muslims as extremists."

It's obvious that she's trying very, very hard not to say this - but is trapped by the imperative of having to create a sense of wide-spread victimization.

Roll back up to that list - according to one of the more vocal opponents to the common-sense 'Contest 2', that list would class most Muslims as extremists.

Now that's a very 'Horse's Mouth' moment there.

Most. Muslims.

And the proof, as they say...

"The Contest strategy (of which this proposal is "2" - MD) was put in place in 2003 as the UK beefed up its response to the threat of al-Qaida inspired terrorism. But the security service's assessment shows no drop in those they consider dangerous and the UK's terror threat level remains at severe general."

And with the PC-taboo on the identifying features of Islamic-Extremism hampering efforts, who would have thoght such a thing?

"In a speech in December, the home secretary, Jacqui Smith, said the government's counterterrorism strategy had to include challenging nonviolent extremist groups that "skirt the fringes of the law ... to promote hate-filled ideologies".

Good Morning, Home Office.

Let me put some coffee on for you.

- MuscleDaddy

I'm a Geek For Seeing This Comparison...

...but all I can think of is the liar's paradox from the "I, Mudd" episode of Star Trek.

"Al-Qaida No. 2 blames Obama for Gaza fight"

Apparently, Ayman al-Zawahiri - in support of the "Palestinians" - got on the airwaves and accused Obama of "not doing anything to stop" Israeli incursions into Gaza this week.
(looks like someone took Obama's "Office of the President-Elect" seriously ...)

He goes on to refer to the on-going conflict as "Obama's gift to Israel" before he takes office later this month.

Right now, in newsrooms and University faculty lounges across the globe, Lefties are staring blankly into space with smoke coming out of their ears and a small 30-GOTO-10 script echoing as it bounces around in their angry, angry little skulls:



"But, supporting Palestinians is Good."
"But, he is Critical of The One"

"But, slaughtering the Zionist Oppressor is Good"
"But, he is critical of The One"

"But, defying the BusHitlerBurton Indutrial complex is Good."
"But, he blames The One"

"ExplainExplainExplainExplainExplainExplainExplain...."
============================================
...almost as good as Harry Reid refusing to seat Burris - and being called 'Racist' for it.
(when everyone knows that Democrats can't be racist!)


At least, amid all of this, one thing is certain:

Al-Zawahiri won't be getting any NBC interviews anytime soon
... what with his being "so highly critical of President-elect Obama" and all...

Heh - Good Times.

- MuscleDaddy

Multiculturalism Drops the Mask

The council of Caerphilly, Wales has instructed municipal employees to avoid using the word "British":

The idea of “British” implies a false sense of unity – many Scots, Welsh and Irish resist being called British and the land denoted by the term contains a wide variety of cultures, languages and religions.

The advocates for multiculturalism have admitted what many of us have known all along. The entire point of their enterprise is to divide people into ever-smaller tribes, to emphasize our differences and make them points of conflict.

A sense of identity as "British", transcending tribal identities, uniting people under the common culture of Anglo-Saxon common law, Greco-Roman natural philosophy, and Judeo-Christian ethics, fueled the United Kingdom to become the preeminent power in the world. The "American" sense of identity, on the same foundations, allowed a former British colonial possession to take her place.

The name "Britain" itself comes from "Britania", the name the Roman Empire gave the province. A famous Roman maxim is "Dividae et impera" ("Divide and conquer"). Only by being divided into petty squabbling factions can we be defeated.