NPR Digging its Own Pit

Lately NPR fired one of its political correspondents, Juan Williams, for making what they considered an offensive remark. This created a firestorm. Here is my reaction to it.

The most important point that can be made about the whole scenario is that it was news about the news. If you rely on me for your opinions and something happens to me, you will care about that something because I will care about it. That is exactly what is happening here. Fox, NPR, MSNBC, and everyone else along the spectrum are bouncing up and down because they get to talk about themselves. If I were NPR, as soon as this dies down, I’d fire someone else.

There has been a lot made as to the nature of his comment. Those who find it offensive simply view the world in a very different way than I do. But perhaps the biggest problem is that we don’t see “Muslim” the same way.

There are American Muslims. These are tolerant people who are content to live and let live. They are no less dedicated than their Mideastern counterparts, but they are less likely to strap on bombs and commit suicide. These are not the people that would cause fear in an airplane.

Middle Eastern Muslims are. These are the people who killed thousands of American civilians in one day by flying planes into buildings. These people celebrated when we died. They are not tolerant. They are not okay with you believing differently than they. They hate Christians, they really hate atheists, and they believe in eternal reward for killing you. If Juan or any other American finds themselves on a plane with people who dress to identify themselves as this type of person and feels fear, that would be perfectly normal.

We use the term “radical Muslim” to describe those kooks who want to kill us. I move to change our vocabulary. Let’s start using “Muslim” to describe that person since the majority of Muslims across the world believe along those lines. Then we’ll say “American Muslim” for the nice tolerant people who have devoted their lives to Allah.

Middle Eastern Muslims aren’t sympathetic toward you. Juan William’s gut reaction was informed and educated.

Let’s talk about prejudice for a moment. It is prejudice to refuse to fly Muslims because of what some of them did. It is NOT prejudice to feel a little hesitant when you do. Prejudice is behavior. I can feel and even think anything I want. You can’t call me a bigot until my behavior follows. Every human has tendencies toward prejudice. That’s not a problem until you act.

A more salient point: favoring a certain race/religion/gender over another is just as bigoted as the opposite.

William’s comments were made on Bill O’Reilley’s show, and anything said on it must be taken with a pillar of salt (I wanted to say “grain of salt” but grains of salt got offended.) (Lot’s wife was fine with it.) For NPR to punish him for something spoken beyond their hallowed airwaves is foolish.

I love NPR. While my friends let their brains fry on Radio from Hell or Chunga and Mister, I enjoyed the enlightenment and intellectual stimulation of Morning Edition. I always recognized a liberal bias but I was okay because it wasn’t overt. Now it is. Now NPR cannot claim they are an objective news organization. They put politically correct above honest reporting. They have a bias toward Muslims that is both unwarranted and unacceptable by objective news standards.

NPR has dug their own pit. It’s sad. Do they have the right to fire Williams? Sure they do. They’re not Congress—the First Amendment can’t restrict what they do. Further, Williams is a millionaire and a big-government liberal. If he has less of a platform to speak on I’m just as happy about it. Unfortunately now he’s at Fox making even more money.

But do you see the problem? They created news, then they reported news, and you listened. You cared. And they can do it with any issue out there.

In summary, Williams’ firing was a self-serving act by a news organization, and it benefitted everyone involved. NPR showed their true colors both as a puppet for the liberal viewpoint and a human resource disaster, colors which taint their high-quality productions. Williams’ remark was a natural response of anyone so hated and hunted as we Americans are. Finally, we need to change our vocabulary, because it’s not the minority of Muslims we need to fear; those in the minority are our friends.

I'm Concerned. Are You?

I’m very concerned. It seems like every day something weird is happening in my country’s government. I mean, weird stuff happens all the time, but this is beyond what we’re used to. Here’s what I’m talking about.

Rep. Rangle wants a free pass on a severe ethics violation. If you don’t want to be known as corrupt, Mr Rangle, don’t act corrupt. Instead of apologizing for your illicit activities and paying the price, which very well might be the removal of your power, you “cut a deal,” thereby spreading your corruption to the entire ethics committee. Richard Nixon welcomes you home.

President Obama “appoints” the new health czar. Normally these appointments go through Congress, but he bypasses that little tiny step. “The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away.” His reasoning was that Republicans would stop the nomination. First, that makes no sense because Republicans are the minority. Second, that’s the whole point, isn’t it? Find someone everyone can be pleased with.

Elena Kagan is even considered as a Supreme Court Judge. First of all, never been a judge. She’s the Dean of a College and the Inspector General. When John Roberts was nominated there was concern because he’s supposedly a conservative, but at least he stated that his job was to be an “impartial umpire.” Kagan has stated that she will rule however she wants. Law Schmaw. I know we don’t like to say this, but that opinion is wrong.

Democrats take the Presidency, the House, and the Senate. They fail to repeal both No Child Left Behind and the Patriot Act, which they screamed so loudly about during Bush’s reign. This became a lot less surprising when they included features in the Healthcare bill and in the Financial Reform bill that involve more privacy intrusions than the Patriot Act ever had. Outstanding, people! You’ve proven that all you want is power.

Maybe it’s a scratch-my-back issue. If you don’t repeal the crap the Republicans passed, then they agree not to repeal the crap the Democrats pass.

The Federal government sues Arizona. This reminds me of a story. Once a man had a daughter who was raped every day for a week. On the eighth day she slapped the man who raped her. The father stood up and yelled at his daughter, “Stop that! That’s my job!” I just don’t see how the Federal government can react in any way but to hang its head in shame for failing so dramatically. They are supposed to be the pillar of our freedom, a body built to unify Americans under one head. Instead they are acting in the most divisive way possible to prolong the problem without a solution.

Former Illinois Governor Blogojovich is being tried for corruption. While it is very important that he receive a fair trial and that he be allowed to present his defense, there’s no doubt what the verdict should be. Fair doesn’t mean he has a 50/50 shot of getting off, it means he’s treated with dignity as he goes down the toilet. Power and money seems to buy a lot of strange verdicts.

I am very concerned. I have been for a while, but the irresponsibility is reaching a very shrill pitch. I want us to find solutions, even if it means not advancing agendas. I, along with 86% of Americans who disapprove of Congress, am feeling very frustrated.

Politicians Kill Metaphors

Perhaps what we really need is a Constitutional amendment stating that if a politician ever waxes poetic they get booted out of office instantly. Somehow, the humanistic arts, benevolent shows of creativity and wit, get twisted into campaign dramas. It just isn’t right.

So some clown called Boehner who, according to wikipedia, actually passed his name on to his children, rose up to occupy a high Republican pedestal on account of all the other Republican politicians were smart enough to keep clear of it. And this guy makes some remark that the stimulus money is like killing an ant with a nuclear bomb. See what I mean, this is poetry to these guys. Blunt, crass, and inappropriate. Should be booted.

But before we boot him let’s consider his metaphor for a moment. Stimulus packages from all origins over the past five years were a poor idea to fix a natural problem that plunged us into worse debt than we have ever known. Killing an ant with a nuclear bomb would be a waste of expensive material, cause more harm than good, and the same effect could be accomplished by letting the ant walk into a field of Off Chalk.

Maybe my original analysis was wrong. Blunt and crass, sure, but perhaps more appropriate than we all thought.

But my eyeing his metaphor critically is hardly overreacting, that’s just what I do.

What would be overreacting? Remember, this is a politician speaking, and no matter who you are, there is always someone to stomp. So Barack Obama, whose dignity always falls second to his opportunism, picks up these words and turns them into a bat with which to swat at a high-ranking member of the opposition party.

Can you believe it? he says, This Republican thinks that the economic crisis is an ant. A tiny little ant. How out of touch can he be? He must not understand you people, like I understand you. This metaphor demonstrates that my policies are superior because I can use someone else’s words against them.

And for a moment, Carl Rove smiled.

It was one thing when a Republican conceived of an ill metaphor. It was another when the President took that metaphor and made everyone dumber.

Do you really think the Republican thinks the economic crisis is the size of an ant? Or did it simply fit his comparison well? Do you think he’s out of touch? Any more out of touch than you or anyone else in Washington? I’ll tell you who’s out of touch, and that’s anyone letting this President do their thinking for them.

I hope there are so many more bad examples of this so that when someone intelligent pops up, we won’t even hear the brainless attacks against them.

Oil Spill

Normally over a big news-making thing like BP’s oil spill in the gulf, I’d make a big deal out of it pretty quickly. It’s been months and this is the first I’ve written about it. The reason is that it makes absolutely no sense to me. I have too many questions to say anything intelligent. For instance:

Why is oil “gushing?” Why isn’t it sitting in the ground? Are the pumps still on? It seems to be exerting a lot of effort to push its way into all five thousand feet of heavy water sitting on top of it. I don’t understand.

Why can’t people help? Why are entities that aren’t necessarily BP or Barack Obama forbidden to do things? There are great ideas and enough at stake that the private sector could come up with a lot of money to do them. Why isn’t that allowed?

Why did environmentalists think that drilling at five thousand feet was a better idea than one thousand feet? Why aren’t they taking any heat for their legislation?

Is it really that hard to plug a leak? It’s giving us a hundred thousand barrels of oil each day, let’s see what a couple thousand barrels of cement could do.

How is it nobody stepped up until the leak had been going for a month? Does no one with power care? What do the powers-that-be stand to gain from this?

Can you really call it pollution when one natural substance infiltrates another natural substance, just because it’s unsightly?

A platform blows up, and a mile away a leak springs. This seems like it should be starring Bruce Willis or Harrison Ford, perhaps it should be directed by Michael Bay. This just doesn’t make sense.

Again, rehashing the point that BP somehow let it go on for months. How did they not jump on top of this problem immediately? How did they not have a contingency plan to cover this?

The word “crisis” just sued for abuse. It seems that it doesn’t like being used 24/7.

Hasn’t Louisiana suffered enough?

Anyway, you can appreciate that I am flabbergasted by the whole situation. If you’re not, please write in and help me figure it out, because we’ve taken more drastic measures for smaller problems. We invaded Afghanistan to find one dude. We spent more than our economy is worth to save it. Maybe I’ve finally figured out the hallmark of modern society: exhausting ourselves with minimal effect.

The Question: Expediancy or Principle?

In a long political career, a senator learns to bend with the wind. One who cannot be expedient will be ostracized by his fellow lawmakers and one who does not stand on principle is ousted by his constituents. I cannot say whether he is sincere or not, but today I appreciate and agree with Orrin Hatch.

Hatch, a Republican Senator from Utah, sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee and has participated in her hearing. Following is his statement in regards to Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan:

"I have carefully examined Solicitor General Elena Kagan's record, actively participated in the entire Judiciary Committee hearing, and considered the views of supporters and opponents from Utah and across the country. Qualifications for judicial service include both legal experience and, more importantly, the appropriate judicial philosophy. The law must control the judge; the judge must not control the law. I have concluded that, based on evidence rather than blind faith, General Kagan regrettably does not meet this standard and that, therefore, I cannot support her appointment.

"Supreme Court Justices who, like General Kagan, had no prior judicial experience did have an average of 21 years in private legal practice. General Kagan has two. The fact that her experience is instead academic and political only magnifies my emphasis on judicial philosophy as the most important qualification for judicial service.

"Over nearly 25 years, General Kagan has endorsed, and praised those who endorse, an activist judicial philosophy. I was surprised when she encouraged us at the hearing simply to discard or ignore certain parts of her record. I am unable to do that. I also cannot ignore disturbing situations in which it appears that her personal or political views drove her legal views. She promoted the Clinton administration's extreme position on abortion, including the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion.

"As Dean of Harvard Law School, she blocked the access by military recruiters that federal law requires. And she took legal positions on important issues such as freedom of speech that could undermine the liberties of all Americans.
"General Kagan is a good person, a skilled political lawyer, a brilliant scholar, and was a fine law school dean. I like her personally and I supported her to be Solicitor General. But applying the standard I have always used for judicial nominees, I cannot support her appointment to the Supreme Court."

I agree with every point Hatch makes in this statement. Her rejection of John Roberts' “objective umpire” idea makes her a very spooky appointment for the Supreme Court. Someone who wants to forward an agenda needs to run for Congress. Of course, to do so requires some charm, and as Kagan has exuded none of that, this appointment is her only chance at acquiring power.

My concern is that Hatch knows his constituents in Utah want to read exactly what he wrote. After his buddy Bennett was recently ousted by voters tired of soulless senators, Hatch's position is grim, so a loud pronouncement like this may bolster his support back home. Again, this statement may be about principle, but it could just as easily be his only chance to keep his power.

Borrowing from Bush

Borrowing from Bush (Part 1)

Barack Obama was once hailed as the anti-Bush, a fantastic orator, and an original thinker. He has now proven all of these accusations wrong. In the political arena, he has exonerated himself from excellence.

Now our wondrous President, Patrick Henry wannabe extraordinaire, has insulted everyone who disagrees with him, betrayed everyone who agrees with him, and patterned his administration after his supposed rival, George W Bush. Did anyone else think it was strange how well those two got along during the transition? That’s because they’re clones.

In response to the oil disaster, President Obama recently gave a speech in which he declared himself open to any ideas that will end America’s “addiction to oil.” Doesn’t that start to make you think? Are we really addicted to oil? Well, we couldn’t survive without it. Our economy would die. Thousands of workers would be unemployed. We couldn’t visit our Grandmothers. Does that really mean we’re addicted?

Let’s say you fed your children peas. That’s all. You never fed them anything else, but you did offer them carrots and beans if they chop off their arm and leg. They never do this so you feed them peas. Then one day you say to them, “You’re addicted to peas!”

America’s dependence on oil is hardly an addiction. Most of us resent it, the way your children resent peas. We’re stuck with it, but that doesn’t mean we like it. And after years and years of despising OPEC and dreaming of a market not dependent on the fertile crescent of instability, we are no closer to achieving alternate fuels. Sure they have natural gas, but have you seen the cost to convert? Sure we have electric, but have you seen the price of those vehicles? It’s an arm and a leg!

So your comment, Mr Obama, hardly says anything about us. It says a lot more about you, and who you get your phraseology from. Your comment comes straight from Bush’s 2006 State of the Union Address, in which he said “America is addicted to oil.” At the time we let the phrase slide because he was talking about alternate fuel and domestic production. Then he went ahead and proved that he wasn’t actually interested in welcoming ideas.

It’s not that Obama’s usage of the phrase is less forgivable, it’s that after four years we’re tired of it. Obama is in the middle of telling us to come forward with our ideas to end our addiction. The Gulf oil spill was the target of dozens of offers of aid or ingenuity, all of which were summarily ignored. So why should we get all excited that you’re going to start listening to ideas now?

We’ll go on being dependent. You’ll go on saying we’re addicted. And you’ll go on borrowing from Bush, Mr Obama. Mr Bubama.



Borrowing from Bush (Part 2)

Some have thought that Obama introduced a revolution of sorts, a liberal giant to squash the small-minded conservative policies that had riddled the political landscape for eight long years of Bush.

I contend the opposite. It seems to me that beyond anything else, Obama’s goal has been to do everything Bush did and see if he can avoid sharp criticism. Here’s what I mean.

War: Remember the deep scowls Bush received for his “surge” in Iraq? One of Obama’s first moves was to create a surge in Afghanistan. The opposition party howled for years about how unjust Bush’s war on terror was, now that they inherited it, they’re just as happy to keep it going in both nations and not a word spoken in dissent about our Nobel Peace Prize winning President.

Spending: Sometimes we forget that TARP was Bush’s idea. Many people equate wild spending with liberal policies but the original two stimulus packages were harbingers of what would come. Bush set a world record for deficit spending. Any change between administrations? Haven’t noticed any. Obama has left Bush’s deficit record in the dust like Michael Phelps competing against a five-year-old. It’s all the same path.

Sequestering information: Bush’s tendency to work behind people backs where the public couldn’t scrutinize was terrifying. Then along came Obama, full of government in the sunshine, clarity, and openness. Or he was during the campaign. Then his rule began and all those bright images got put away in the back cupboards of the back rooms he makes deals in.

Stubbornness: While Georgie was in charge, he got his way, and the only other person to get his way was Dick. Together they stonewalled dissenters in such a way that they couldn’t matter. Thankfully all that changed with the coming of Obama, for whom bipartisanship means “completely agreeing with me no matter what party you’re from.”

Expanding the government/power of president: Bush was deeply hated for federalizing schools with No Child Left Behind. Also for the problems unleashed by the Patriot Act. What about his federal takeover of airline security? Right along that warpath comes Your Buddy Barack, who snatched healthcare, student loans, and likely in a few more weeks, Big Oil. Just what our Constitution says he should do.

Judges with no experience: This was the icing on the cake. One step before John Roberts, Bush tried to nominate a close political ally who was so scary looking I purged her name from my mind and refuse to look her up. He got so much flack for putting up a nominee with no judicial experience that he put her away and got a real judge. Obama pulled Elena Kagan, who only looks scary in a lovable, John Lovitz sort of way, but also has no judicial experience. For some reason there’s no problem with her.

What else would you conclude but that Obama is trying to do all the same things Bush did and get away with it. That’s a bet he’s winning quite well.

I think anyone who looks at the facts can’t escape the logic that if two men march down the same trail they’re going in the same direction. I think that both these Presidents are eye to eye, no matter how partisan politics have skewed our paradigms.

Take a Bullet for Obama

Obama is no stranger to threats. Early on after the election the FBI stopped an assassination plot. He’s a target: he’s Black; he’s pushed a very radical agenda; he’s against gun control. The man needs protection. And I contend that the best protection would come from conservatives.

You might think, “What? Surround him by the very people more likely to bump him?” Well, you’ll have to clear your head a bit. I dislike him but I’m not going to kill him. In fact, I’m making the case that the most politically expedient thing for me to do is to protect his life with all I’m worth. Why?

Think about it for a moment. The minute Barack goes down, what’s the first thing that happens? Eloquent Joe becomes President. That would be a move even many Obama fans would find unpalatable. It would be a big f.ing deal, for sure. Then the guy would have to pick a vice. You can’t trust Cheney's prodigy to say two brainy sentences together, you think he’s going to do the nation justice with his selection? Obama’s political enemies would stand together to protect him with this at stake.

But aside from the amusing, what would the fallout be from an Obama assassination? We see today here and there the racism flag waved at political dissidents for daring to disagree with a black man. It’s transparently foolish but in the emotional wake of such an event, that idea would gain ground indefinitely. If the President is assassinated, racial tensions would explode, and there are those poised to take advantage of such a situation. The blame game begins. Suddenly the trail goes: Racist >> Disagree >> Plot >> Kill. You and I and anyone else standing firmly in the “disagree” category finds themselves trapped between Racist and Plot, one step away from being killers ourselves. Blame. Politicians you cannot trust will use blame to set traps that ensure anyone who opposed him will be silent or silenced.

Now Obama goes down as a hero, the first black man to rise to the nation’s top office, and racist white men destroyed him for it. He’s a martyr, a magnificent angel who died for the people. His agenda isn’t radical anymore, it’s equity and justice and anyone who thinks otherwise can see the paragraph above. Remember how Michael Jackson went from the chairman of the Freaky Monster Society to beloved father and respected inspiration in one night? That’s all it takes, and suddenly it’s politically incorrect to say anything about him other than what a beacon of divine light he is. You think Obama receives no media criticism now, just wait until his death.

The aura of martyrdom and the upwelling of emotion resulting from it will be so magnificent that Obama’s ghost could rest assured that his agenda won’t die with him; rather it will swell. People would scramble to take his place, to pick up where he left off, to make sure his legacy would not die. This emotion will be no more than a tool of the most diabolical politicians. These devious politicians will play on sincere emotions to get their way and increase their power. Important rights will cease to have meaning, and his political adherents would be glorified.

Proponents of this administration would have very little to lose from the death of President Barack Obama except a good speaker. One wonders if the more treacherous-minded do not recognize the advantage provided by his race, youth, and charisma.

That is why I say he couldn’t do better than to have a troop of Conservatives serving as his body guards. They aren’t going to touch him. They aren’t going to let anyone else do anything to him. They have too much to lose if something goes wrong. The best thing, right now, for those who love small government and interpret the Constitution narrowly is to make sure that the current serving president lives a long and healthy life. The alternative would be disastrous.

I pray I never have to say, “I told you so.”