Technology, in all it's glory, wonder, and frustration!

Runaway Slave: The Documentary -- Coming in 2011. I hope it's not too late . . .

"Sometimes you can't tell the difference between now, and 200 years ago."
"You can be free."
"Tyranny is color-blind."
"Don't give up, don't give in. Are you tired yet? Run harder!"

Now, I'll admit I have not actually watched very much of Keith Olbermann's MSNBC show lately (although I ought to, every once in a while, I suppose) but I have, just in the past week or two, been watching Glenn Beck fairly regularly.

One observation is that Beck is very funny. Another is that Beck does his homework.

I have this rather uncomfortable feeling that Beck is pretty much on the nose regarding what's going on in this country. A really uncomfortable feeling.

I also have a feeling that Olbermann isn't anywhere close to being in Beck's league--either in terms of humor, of entertainment, or of accuracy and incisive commentary and trenchant comment on the day's news. An example:


(For a while, when I first heard this, I thought that Olbermann was talking about the demonization of the Tea Parties. But then, "of course," the Tea Partiers and the eeee-villlle right-wing are the villains of Olbermann's piece, even when they're completely, utterly, totally out of power, barely hanging on in a few, isolated media venues. OK. Sure. Right.

But I'll go ahead and DVR Olbermann for a week and (try to) watch him, side by side (or front-to-back?) with Beck. I'm not sure where this will lead . . .

Kinda Hopey-Changy poetry inspired by (actually, extracted directly from, if I am not mistaken) the JournoList propagandist e-mails which are now coming to public attention.

Yes, many leftists seem to be really quite nasty people, when left unsupervised by adults.

Because you care . . . more than they do . . .

Well? All you "blacks can't be racists because blacks don't have power" people. Guess what? People with enhanced skin melanin levels are in positions of power, now. And guess what? Turns out that people with high melanin skin content are just as prone to be bigoted--RACIST--as anybody else.

Turns out that the "racism is power" bullshit was just that--bullshit, intended to obfuscate and confuse the issue, intended to make "whitey" guilty, because everybody knew that the "crackers" would always be the ones with the power.

Oops. A bunch of white folk up and voted for the black man, didn't they?

Quite a few of them did it because they thought that then--then--they might shed just a bit of that horrible guilt that's been laid on them for what happened a century and a half ago, if not longer. They did it because they were supposed to. It was a kind of reparation. An offering of peace between the races.

Peace offering not accepted, apparently, at least by some.

Now we know. Now we know that if you're walking around judging people by nothing but their skin color, then you are a racist. Regardless of what color skin you happen to have, you are a racist.

Period.

"Power" ain't got nothing to do with it. It's all about simple, tribalist bigotry--"us" versus "them," on the most basic level. It's about getting some for "us," and taking it from "them."

Isn't it, Ms. Sherrod?

One of the most irritating of Obama's rhetorical traits is the straw man. The latest one: on the top-of-the-hour radio news, he was talking about extending unemployment benefits, and comparing that (unfavorably) to extending tax cuts "to the richest."

Well, first of all, let's talk about who all that money belongs to in the first place: taxpayers. Now, because of how the federal tax system is set up, most payers of federal taxes are "rich." Or at the very least, they are not the poor.

The poor do not pay federal income taxes.

Now, what Obama wants is to take money from the rich and give it to the unemployed. This is not charity. It is not a virtue to be "charitable" with other people's money. This is--pure and simple--Marxist-style redistribution of wealth. There is no virtue attached to this act. This is plain, blatant, naked political pandering.

If Obama was really serious about extending unemployment benefits, he would ask Congress to end a government program--close some government agency--decide between competing interests. You know, actually make the "hard choices" that all of those Washington politicians claim that they make all the time when all they're actually doing is deciding to take more money from the people who earned it, and give it to people who didn't.

Put your money where your mouth is, Obama. Propose to close some government agency, in order to fund the more-important government work of extending unemployment benefits.

Or, IS EXTENDING UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS NOT AS IMPORTANT AS ANYTHING ELSE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES right now? Because that is exactly, precisely what Obama is saying. If you're one of those current unemployed whose benefits have or are about to run out, how do you NOW feel about Obama's naked political pandering, instead of his actually making tough decisions on your behalf?

This one collects a lot of threads flying around the past couple of days and weaves them into . . . well, I don't exactly know. Probably that I don't trust Obama and the Democrats in Washington (or most of the Republicans there, for that matter) half as far as I could throw them.

I've thought for some time that the liberty community has been marginalized from the various avenues and expressions of political power, to the extent that the tactics that they--we--must apply have a great similarity to those of an insurgency--in this case, a political (no, not yet a military) insurgency against totalitarian, neo-feudalist "progressivism." In 2010, the "progressive" neo-feudalists hold all of the traditional avenues of communications and levers of power. The goal of the insurgency against the neo-feudalists is nothingn less than insure that they do not succeed in (re-)creating their favored, class-stratified society of lords and peasants. The tactic is--should be--to re-take as many of those traditional avenues of communications and levers of power--and to build alternatives to those avenues and levers--so that the neo-feudalists do not succeed. Richard Fernandez goes down a similar intellectual road: Pawn to King Four, Pawn to King Four.

But a secure base does not have to be defined by geography. It can be built on human terrain and augmented, subject to some constraints, as a meme in cyberspace. Therefore a conservative strategist who is concerned that Charles Krauthammer’s dire prognosis will happen cannot go far wrong building up a widespread, grassroots organization with extensions into the online world. This is separate and distinct from building up the ordinary party machinery. In that way even if the traditional political forms of conservatism are scattered, defeated or machined out of existence in 2010 and 2012 there may survive a core of opposition that can organize a series of coalitions against the men who would be permanent leaders. But more importantly it will remove the temptation to go for the whole hog. By strengthening the grassroots on terms not bound to the party affiliation but independent of the leftist infrastructure, conservatism can create a defense in depth. This has a stabilizing effect. The further complete and total victory is placed from the grasp of even the most ambitious activists of the Democratic Party the less likely they are to persuade their more moderate colleagues to roll the dice. And that’s good. Because all realistic worry about one side completely dominating the other can be effectively dismissed to the probable benefit of everyone. Politics was never meant to be winner-take-all.

Now, it's my fervent hope that the political insurgency stays 100% completely peaceful--fought through votes, words, and persuasion. But, honestly, I don't think that decision is in entirely the hands of liberty-community of insurgents--I think it's in the hands of the neo-feudalist "progressives" in power, who intend to just keep pushing, and pushing, and pushing, and pushing in full knowledge that at some point, somebody, somewhere, will push back. That will then give them an excuse to really crack down--on people like me who want everybody in this country to pursue their dreams to the best of their abilities without government or anybody else really getting in the way any more than is absolutely necessary. In these days, thoughts like mine qualify as dangerous, fringe radicalism, I'm afraid. And, I'm not the only one who's starting to think rather dark thoughts, actually. See America's Ruling Class -- And the Perils of Revolution -- which begins thus:

As over-leveraged investment houses began to fail in September 2008, the leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties, of major corporations, and opinion leaders stretching from the National Review magazine (and the Wall Street Journal) on the right to the Nation magazine on the left, agreed that spending some $700 billion to buy the investors' "toxic assets" was the only alternative to the U.S. economy's "systemic collapse." In this, President George W. Bush and his would-be Republican successor John McCain agreed with the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama. Many, if not most, people around them also agreed upon the eventual commitment of some 10 trillion nonexistent dollars in ways unprecedented in America. They explained neither the difference between the assets' nominal and real values, nor precisely why letting the market find the latter would collapse America. The public objected immediately, by margins of three or four to one.

When this majority discovered that virtually no one in a position of power in either party or with a national voice would take their objections seriously, that decisions about their money were being made in bipartisan backroom deals with interested parties, and that the laws on these matters were being voted by people who had not read them, the term "political class" came into use. Then, after those in power changed their plans from buying toxic assets to buying up equity in banks and major industries but refused to explain why, when they reasserted their right to decide ad hoc on these and so many other matters, supposing them to be beyond the general public's understanding, the American people started referring to those in and around government as the "ruling class." And in fact Republican and Democratic office holders and their retinues show a similar presumption to dominate and fewer differences in tastes, habits, opinions, and sources of income among one another than between both and the rest of the country. They think, look, and act as a class.

Essential reading for anyone who cares about what happens to this country, what happens to this world, or what happens to themselves.

The main, pre-eminent reason why I'm registered Republican is not that I think Republicans are wonderful and amazing--I don't, and they're not. But I think they're somewhat better than Democrats, who are a toxic and dangerous combination of utterly clueless about economics and utterly arrogant about being Right About Everything All Of The Time despite overwhelming objective evidence in the real world to the contrary. When Democrat policies fail, it is inevitably because We Have Not Tried Hard Enough. But as Einstein said, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is a good definition of insanity. The Republicans are the Stupid Party. The Democrats are the Insane Party.

I think the "progressives" (aka the "ruling class" aka the "neo-feudalists") that dominate the Democratic Party but are also entrenched as the "moderate" wing of the Republican Party, are courting a popular rebellion right now. An actual, real, live, bullets-flying-in-the-air and angry crowds throwing Molotov cocktails at riot police kind of popular rebellion. And they have absolutely no clue how close they are to it, right now. There are an awful lot of people all over this country who have Just About Had Enough of the "ruling class." If that "ruling class" doesn't pull their collective heads out of their collective asses, then the people will at some point do it for them. The former will be much the preferable road to go down--for everyone. I am not advocating this--far from it--in fact the very thought that it could get this bad scares the hell out of me.

An armed revolt is never, never, NEVER the first, second, third, fourth, or even fifth option to bring a "ruling class" into alignment with the larger population. But that larger population is starting to find its options being limited by that "ruling class." This is an exceptionally stupid thing for the "ruling class" to do, but that's what they're hell-bent on doing right now. The people of this country are much, much angrier than the "ruling class" seems to want to realize. That situation is extremely unstable and untenable. It will change. The change will begin--peacefully--this November, when the "ruling class" begins to be expunged from Congress.

One of my fears is that the "ruling class," in an attempt to hold onto power and further disenfranchise the greater population, will choose to affect the November elections with massive vote fraud and voter intimidation. If that should happen--if that sort of thing should even be widely suspected by the people, then we will have turned the corner into an even more dangerous phase, and it will truly be time to begin to batten down the hatches for what could be a very, very ugly few years in this country. I do not predict. I do not advocate. I'm just afraid of the continuing, persistent stupidity of the "ruling class."

Related: What To Do?
You Say You Want A Revolution?

But let's say that they want to try something just a little more subtle than the baton-wielding-thug approach to stealing the election. What about some kind of October Surprise? Is something really scary coming in October? -- I'm inclined to believe that something quite nasty, financially, might very well happen in October. There is something of a pattern--a previous history--which is a bit ominous . . . the article itself is a bit rocket-sciencey to me, but the implication that October might not be a lot of fun for investors is one that I'm quite receptive to . . . one of the questions that suspicious and cynical people like me insist on asking is: will whatever happens happen in spite of or because of this current government's policies? Are they planning on some kind of October economic disruption? Or is even bigger game than that afoot?

Why Obama Just Might Fight Iran -- Michael Totten, a subtle and astute observer of things Middle Eastern, weighs in . . .

Nuking Westphalia: Obama’s Deep Convictions Point to War With Iran -- Which brings to my mind this dark, wild, conspiracy-theory thought: Is a war with Iran this year's October Surprise to ensure Democrat (or at least, "progressive") control of Congress? Would you put it past Obama and "never let a crisis go to waste" Rahm Emmanuel? Really? Really-really? Governments in trouble throughout history have often turned to external enemies to suppress internal dissent. And what country wears a black hat (or turban?) for Americans--those common Americans who are coming to despise Obama and everything he stands for--more than the mullahs of Iran?

Final thought: In a time of declared war, don't Presidents assume additional "emergency" powers? Do you really think that Obama wouldn't jump at the chance to seize additional power under pretext of "saving the world from a nuclear Iran."

Yeah, I do think he, and the Democrats, could be that cynically power-mad.

Serious Human Beings -- Doctor Zero writes:

We are about to conduct an election about the very philosophy of our government. It is our last chance to avoid the Great Crash which Obama has brought to our doorsteps… but which would have lurked twenty or thirty years in the future even without him. The Obama presidency has begun a fundamental transformation of the relationship between Americans and their government. The groundwork for this transformation was laid over many years, by politicians from both parties. Government bloat has accumulated for decades. The State isn’t really changing all that much under Barack Obama. It’s working to change us.

Without really thinking about it very much, the American people have basically repealed the entire Constitution--at least, they continue to elect both Democrats and Republicans who continually pass laws, enforce those laws, and judge those laws with little or no regard to the actual, easily understood (to a NORMAL person) text of the Constitution. Some people have decided that this is, perhaps, not such a good idea any more. Those people are called, collectively, The Tea Party.

For the NAACP and their allies and apologists: Note the total lack of any kind of racial statement or implication in the above statement. "A Nation of Laws, Not Of Men" mean that the laws--starting with the Constitution, are actually understood and rigorously, aggressively enforced on EVERYBODY.

The Charge of Racism: It’s Time to Bury the Divisive Politics of the Past -- This was part of what "Hope and Change" was all about, wasn't it? Wasn't it?

I am saddened by the NAACP’s claim that patriotic Americans who stand up for the United States of America’s Constitutional rights are somehow “racists.” The charge that Tea Party Americans judge people by the color of their skin is false, appalling, and is a regressive and diversionary tactic to change the subject at hand.

President Reagan called America’s past racism “a legacy of evil” against which we have seen the long struggle of minority citizens for equal rights. He condemned any sort of racism, as all good and decent people do today. He also called it a “point of pride for all Americans” that as a nation, we have successfully struggled to overcome this evil. Reagan rightly declared that “there is no room for racism, anti-Semitism, or other forms of ethnic and racial hatred in this country,” and he warned that we must never go back to the racism of our past.
. . .
On this subject, I can recommend the statement issued by a man I was proud to endorse, Tim Scott, the GOP candidate from South Carolina’s First Congressional District. Tim, poised to become the first African-American Republican Congressman from the former Confederacy since Reconstruction, is himself a sign of a hopeful, truly post-racial future for our country. It gives added meaning to his warning that “the NAACP is making a grave mistake in stereotyping a diverse group of Americans who care deeply about their country and who contribute their time, energy and resources to make a difference.”

The only purpose of such an unfair accusation of racism is to dissuade good Americans from joining the Tea Party movement or listening to the common sense message of Tea Party Americans who simply want government to abide by our Constitution, live within its means, and not borrow and spend away our children’s futures. Red and yellow, black and white, this message is precious in all our sights. All decent Americans abhor racism. No one wants to be associated with any organization that is in any way racist in sentiment or origin. I certainly don’t want to be. Thankfully, the Tea Party movement is not racist or motivated by racism. It is motivated by love of country and all that is good and honest about our proud and diverse nation.

Like President Reagan, Tea Party Americans believe that “the glory of this land has been its capacity for transcending the moral evils of our past.” Isn’t it time we put aside the divisive politics of the past once and for all and celebrate the fact that neither race nor gender is any longer a barrier to achieving success in America – even in achieving the highest office in the land?

Why is it that Sarah Palin consistently--consistently makes more sense, and sounds more unifying and--dare I say--Presidential--than the current occupant of that office, who seems to be daily shrinking in stature as the cold, implacable force of reality continues to impose itself on his lofty dreams of Hope and Change?

There are those on the right who are--with some justification--outraged by the broad-brush dismissal of the Tea Party movement of the NAACP as "racist." (And no, don't try to quibble that the NAACP was accusing "some elements" of racism. This was intended to smear the entire pro-liberty, small-government movement, and in many circles it has done so.)

I can think of few strategies that would be more effective in creating actual racism among white Americans than falsely accusing them of racism. How would you feel if, in some public meeting, someone in the corner stood up and accused you of something both false and vile--and many in the room actually believed the accusation? A natural human reaction is anger--anger at the person accusing you. From there, it is a short step from being angry at an individual to being angry at the group to which the individual belongs. The urge to form tribal groups is very strong in human beings, and this tribal urge is the source of so much hatred, envy, anger, tragedy and misery in the world. And no person--no one-- on this Earth, regardless of skin melanin content or political views, is immune to this tribal urge.

I am outraged by what the NAACP has done. But after the first flush of anger, my sentiment after even a moment's consideration changed to sorrow--which I posted yesterday. I deeply regret that there are so many in the black communities of this country who believe--because that's what they're told, over and over and over and over again--that a major reason they can't get ahead in life is an overwhelming, pervasive racism within the white communities of this country.

I have lived in several of those majority-white communities. I know some level of racism exists, but it is not rampant, and it is generally rather vigorously opposed--by other whites in the community when it occurs. But racism exists in every community. The attempts by minorities to place a veneer of "power-wielding" over the simple concept of racism demeans and diminishes the serious and ultimately undesirable, if not self-destructive nature of the tribal impulse.

Over the past forty years, race has become a marginal issue--or not an issue at all--for most whites. It is difficult (given the subculture in which they live) for blacks to believe, but most white people go through their entire day without once giving a second thought to the race of the people they deal with--blacks, Asians, whatever. The main reason race in this country remains as big an issue as it is, is there is a prominent and vocal segment of the minority black community who along with their other leftist allies and enablers, insist on ripping open the old wounds--loudly claiming all the while that they're doing it to speed the healing process between the races.

The reason why it is impossible to hold a serious conversation with blacks about the problems of tribalism (Or, according to Attorney General Holder, why we are a "Nation of Cowards") is exactly, precisely, because many blacks insist that it is impossible for a black person to be racist--and some of those same people insist that it is impossible for a white person to not be racist.

This of course is mere sophistry. (That's a word that means "bullshit" but sounds a lot more erudite and polite.) And it is dangerous, perilous sophistry for a minority to engage in, because it presumes that the target population will react with equanimity, calm, and grace to the continued slanders and insinuations--if not actively agree with them, bow their collective heads, and vow to be better.

This is a hand that has now been quite overplayed. Where the accusation of "racist" does not evoke a positive "giggle factor" among those that blacks and their leftist allies accuse, it simply makes people angry. The word "racist" has simply become as unproductive in discussion of racial issues as the word "nigger" has become--and for many of the same reasons. It is no longer a descriptive term. It is merely an epithet.

If the NAACP, the President, other prominent black individuals and organizations, and their leftist allies persist in these reckless characterizations of widespread, rampant white racism in the political right, they will re-ignite the tribal instinct of white Americans that has--to a great extent--been suppressed since the early 1960's.

Do they really, really want to go there? I don't. I want a world where we have better things to do than worry about how much melanin people have in their skin.

I was a young boy when Martin Luther King gave his speech where he implored people to judge others by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. I listened, and I thought that was a good idea. I didn't care how much melanin he had in his skin, I cared about the quality of ideas in his head.

It seems that all too many leftists and blacks have decided that skin color should be more important than character.

Only the most naive person would dare to say that racism does not exist, and only a fool would say that racism is a good thing. Racism is a terrible waste of people's time--people's energy--people's lives. We have better things to do than to engage in racism, and we have better things to do than accuse people (if not directly, than by association) of racism.

Moving forward on this issue requires a general agreement on several points:
1: Anyone can succumb to tribal prejudice--call it "racism" if you want, but we all know what it is, and there is no amount of melanin in your skin which can make you immune to it;
2: It's a bad thing to judge people merely by their appearance;
3: It will be a better world if we judge people by what they do, not what they look like.

There. That wasn't hard, was it?

UPDATE: Edited for clarity and coherence.