I don't usually subscribe to conspiracy theories, but this doesn't make sense. on the one hand we have a guy who is evil and apparently very selfish in the person of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and on the other we have a angry opportunist who would sell his soul for the Presidency in the person of Barack Obama. And the two are supposed to be like white on rice in their personal lives... I mean... like black on beans.
So what explains Wright's seeming refusal to keep a low profile at least until the people have voted in November? Is he really so mean and self-centered that he's willing to destroy any chance for Obama to be elected simply because he fancies himself to be some sort of savior to the black community? He certainly possesses enough hate, but what would he gain?
Just this moment, they started speculating on Fox & Friends as to Wright's reasons for being so outrageously provocative the week before another crucial vote?
Well, here's one possibility. Barack Obama has been criticized for being inexperienced and his motives and character have recently come into question as well. But he is admired in some circles for his loyalty to Wright, and what does he get for that loyalty but an apparent kick in the teeth?
What happens if Obama continues to maintain his loyalty and hold his tongue and Wight continues to be an embarrassment and more? Wouldn't Obama come out smelling like a rose if there were to be a final straw and he "reluctantly" had to condemn Wright in no uncertain terms? In one instant, his inexperience and wimpiness become a thing of the past, and his "good character" takes center stage. Hope is restored.
In that moment when all seemed lost, Obama fells the dragon and Camelot is saved.
It's just a thought, but I wanted to advance it because it would explain an awful lot. The idea came to me last night while my wife and I sat there speculating about what could possess Wright to be so careless and so unconcerned about his prodigy, and it finally dawned on me that he and Obama might not be as bright as some people think, but they might be more clever than anyone has imagined.
Will it work in the ultimate sense? It's hard to say. Cynics will certainly dissect all of it, and my theory will surely be raised. But it might be worth a shot given that Obama has fallen so far, so fast.
For my part, I won't be pleased to be right for the very reason that such a plan could succeed. I can see a lot of suspicion, but such a conspiracy could be very difficult to prove, and since people naturally want to assume the best, especially about a guy they pinned all their hopes on to begin with, a substantial number of voters could be won over and won back.
All the analysis on Fox & Friends has been of the sort that no one understands how Wright can do what he's doing, and everyone assumes that Wright is a renegade, but the discussion concluded with not a single other reason for Wright's actions being advanced, at least not one that makes any sense,
]]>I'm sitting here listening to Ole Reverend Wright talk to the National Press Club in Washington, and he's saying that what's transpired is not an attack on him, it's an attack on the black church, and that he hopes it will result in the black church no longer being invisible, and that it will start an honest dialogue about race.
Well, not if I have anything to say about it, it won't.
First off, our professional victim is sort of Wright... er... right - it is an attack on the black church - Trinity Church specifically. But he's wrong that it's not an attack on him, and I'd be happy to demonstrate that personally were I to be given the opportunity.
As I said in an earlier post, my conception of "the black church," was one of spirituality set to up-tempo gospel music. It was an absolute shock for me to hear such a vicious man as Reverend Wright say the things he said from a church pulpit, and it was a bigger shock to learn that his church is not alone in hosting such "sermons."
And now that Wright is being lauded and applauded by a seemingly wide cross-section of black people, my feeling is that it is setting race relations back decades. Which brings me to the point that I've also attempted to make before: I have no interest in racial dialogue. That's not to say that I have no use for black people - or Hispanics, or Asians (I married one, God damn America), it is to say that race is over for me. I allowed myself to get sucked into it when I was younger, and I've come to my senses.
See, no one in my family ever had anything to do with the mistreatment of any member of any other race, and it took me a long time to realize that i have no responsibility whatsoever for what blacks experienced. So I will not accept any guilt. But I'll take it further - even if your family has a history that goes back to the days of slavery, you have no responsibility now either.
Blacks, whether it's conscious or not, have an interest in maintaining a "racial dialogue," because it gets them special favors even as it continues the evils of discrimination. So please, include me out. Reverend Wright can rant all he wants, and believe me, he is as I write, but this "reasonable bigot," only has my attention insofar as I can deride and, hopefully, minimize him.
Interestingly, the magnificent and irreplaceable Jackie Mason was on earlier this morning, and he left with a memorable observation - Jackie said that Barack Obama tells us that the Reverend Wright took him into his church, baptized him, married him to Michelle, tutored him and counseled him - for twenty years... but he didn't hear a word Wright said.
Well, I'm done, and so is Wright. He's now answering questions, and I must say, they are direct and specific, the sort of questions Barack Obama should have to answer, and from what I've heard, Obama will have almost endless explaining to do now. For example, I just heard Wright say that Louis Farrakhan is not his enemy - that "he did not put me in chains, he did not make me a slave, and he did not make me this color."
Now I could be wrong, but I'm willing to bet everything I own that no one ever enslaved the reverend or even put him in chains... not that there's anything wrong with that... in his case.. so to speak. but that's just my glib guiltlessness talking.
UPDATE: Having just posted the above, I next came upon this terrific bit of commentary that, I feel, greatly expands on the point I was attempting to make
]]>I haven't posted much of late, but that doesn't mean I haven't been writing. The fact is, if I posted most of the pieces I've done in the last few weeks, it would read like a nonstop diatribe against Barack Obama with any comic relief being provided by warming wackos. But there are only so many ways to say what an absolutely terrible person Obama is, even if there are virtually limitless examples.
So instead of posting, I turned my attention to others' blogs. I normally don't do much on the "outside." Some people might think it's because I'm self-centered or that I have little regard for what they are saying, but that's just a small part of it. The real reason is that I can say and do what I want here, but on other people's blogs, I need to respect their approach, and that almost always involves biting my tongue since the Johns they attract in the spirit of "dialogue," the ones they seem happy to accommodate, are people who, mostly, should be garden mulch.
I don't mean to say I'd like to kill them (at least until I get the official word that the shooting has started), but what I'm trying to say is that they generally have such little intelligence, so little reasoning ability, and thus so little to offer in the way of thoughtful argument that they'd serve a far higher purpose if they were fertilizing crops.
But as I said, I did venture out again, and it wasn't long before I encountered the kind of stupidity and bigotry that I don't have to deal with much here. So what's a person to do with irrational people who build on each other's mindlessness? The answer, at least for me is, level or leave. I virtually always choose the latter option because I respect my host, and because there have been occasions when I've crossed the line and very much regretted my lack of discipline.
Worse, when I read the comments from the sort of people other bloggers are willing to entertain, it sometimes and wrongly makes me question their judgment. I say "wrongly" because I realize full well that I was, for a long time, exhilarated at the prospect of taking on liberals, and while that ceased to be fun for me, many of my friends elsewhere still enjoy the "fish-in-a-barrel" carnival aspect of it.
But here's how liberals argue - at least the less insane ones - they start with a point which may even have some validity. They then quickly spiral upward and outward into a swiftly swirling, expanding cacophony that becomes impossible to control, much less address. And not only does the original point get obscured by their own devices, it's the way they want it. It's the "Tornado Technique," and it's fueled by obfuscation. In their minds, liberals win arguments with numbers, no matter that any particular assertion bears no relevance to their original point.
It's really a concrete method of putting symbolism ahead of substance - quantity over quality. Liberals are simply incapable of calm and logical argument, and there's a good reason why, even if there's a sane liberal out there - those who are capable of discerning reality from fantasy seem aware enough to know that their argument won't stand up to cold scrutiny. Indeed, no liberal argument will.
In other words, every one of those "funnel points" can be demolished individually, and that's why many conservatives find it enjoyable - it's like a buffet. It doesn't matter where you start, just dig in and begin shredding. OK, so that makes it more like a medieval buffet, but there used to be real restaurants which catered to that theme. Do they still exist?
Anyway, it's clear that an increase in the number of tornadoes isn't the result of "global warming," it's because of an increase in hysterical frenzy among liberals who know that when the swirling stops, conservative arguments will be the only ones left standing... and liberals always want what they want, reason and principle be damned.
So I want liberals to know that I hear them, and that I really do get their over-arching message. It's simple: "God bless America? No, no, no, God damn America!?"
]]>I am outraged. I now detest Barack Obama for having the arrogance to be elitist when he has absolutely nothing to be elitist about. But at the very moment I start to feel this way, the Anti-Obamists accuse him of giving Hillary a covert finger.
He did nothing of the sort. That doesn't mean that the comment in which he scratched his face with his middle digit wasn't noteworthy, because the more meaningful gesture came when he brushed his shoulder as an indication of complete dismissal with regard to Hillary (not that she doesn't richly deserve it).
People should understand that Obama's dandruff gesture is really about how he feels toward everything and everyone who disagrees with his positions. He's so filled with contempt that he has no regard for you whatsoever, and believe me, I know whereof I speak.
But the difference between Obo and me is that I'm where I deserve to be, and he's already enormously exceeded his abilities, and he has for exactly the reason Geraldine Ferraro said he has - because he's black. he's the Great Black Hope.
In the extremely unlikely situation where some white fool could have ascended to where Obama now stands, he'd certainly be finished at this point after having said the sort of incredably stupid and condescending things Obama has said... although to be truthful, any white guy who bowled a thirty-seven would never be able to show his face in public again, anyway.
]]>
Today, let's turn our attention to David Brooks, the formerly token Conservative-lite columnist for the New York Times (Bill Kristol now makes two). In his most recent column Brooks opens with this: "Back in Iowa, Barack Obama promised to be something new - an unconventional leader who would confront unpleasant truths, embrace novel policies and unify the country. If he had knocked Hillary Clinton out in New Hampshire and entered general-election mode early, this enormously thoughtful man would have become that." Anybody got a problem with that? Because I do. "Enormously thoughtful?" Brooks considers Obama to be enormously thoughtful? Where's the evidence? Since Brooks goes on to discuss where Barry went wrong, he doesn't offer any of his own examples of Obo-brilliance. I, myself, couldn't think of any or I would have presented them, because as you know, I'm nothing if not objective. So correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't all the trouble the Obama has gotten himself into been due to a lack of thought? And then haven't all his explanations actually "compounded the felonies?" I realize there's a slim possibility that Brooks was being facetious or that he was merely pandering to the Times' audience, the overwhelming majority of which could never be accused of being enormously thoughtful, but as one who is rather familiar with Mr. Brooks, I have to say that I think he believes what he said. That raises the question then: Can a man who's not enormously thoughtful himself discern that quality in someone else? If Brooks was being accurate, should he not have said that "From what I can tell, Obama seems to be enormously thoughtful, which may not be saying much? You want enormously thoughtful, David? I'll give you enormously thoughtful: I bet you'd marry Barry if you could... and you lived in Massachusetts?... or you got a sex change... then you could title your column, Our Miss Brooks?! That said, I recommend that you read Brooks' commentary. Once you get past the first paragraph, he's enormously thoughtful (the Times must be so dismayed) in documenting many of Obama's enormously thoughtless moments... I never thought I'd say this, but thank God for long election seasons - it's given us time to realize that America's Messiah is actually a very bad man.
I did it my way. Just when the warming hysteria was picking up steam four or five years ago, I was busy labeling it hooey, and I did it based on no evidence. I didn't need any. It was up to the poli-scis to provide the evidence. And they hadn't. In fact, they still haven't. Not one thing you've heard about the "reality" of "global warming," CO2, or Al Gore stands up to either scientific scrutiny or the rules of evidence. Gore himself is actually a little troll inside a puffy plastic blowup doll.
Lately, you may be hearing stories about how the world hasn't warmed in a decade and that a cooling trend is just over the horizon. To me, this is bad news, and not because whether it's hot or cold, warm-mongers will claim it's due to "global warming." It's because I want the planet to warm those 8T degrees. For the uninformed, that's not modern slang for "80," it's Degrees Turner, and I want to see us warm up those degrees The Mouth of the South promised because:
A) We need the warmth, and...
2) That still won't prove any of the warming is anthropogenic (I'll pause while liberals look that up).
And since the rest of you have been good enough to follow my reasoning this far, here's a...
Bonus: If Ted Turner's right, I'd pay good money to see life imitate the picture he painted, wouldn't you? I mean, most of the people on Earth dead, and the rest eating each other, and not for fun and pleasure like we do now? If you made a movie about that, no one would believe it and the reviews would be terrible. And if you think the real estate market's bad now, imagine LA with three million homes and two million of them vacant!? It would pretty much kill flipping as we know it.
In other words, I want to beat these so-called scientists at their own game... er... scam. I want warming theoreticians to collapse under their own weight (they're all fat, you know), so if the climate cools, that settles nothing. These hotshots will still be watching and waiting for their next opportunity to profit from fear.
Gorecarthyism ought to be more than enough right now for people to turn a blind ear to the dirtbags.. oh, and by the way, they'll still be dirtbags even if they turn out to be right, because science is built on skepticism and debate, and they want none of that. Consensus is meaningless to the true scientist, since all it takes is for one person's discovery to upset the whole Apple Cart Theory.
You know that one, I heard it on Jeopardy; it's about how when a cart collapses under the weight of too many fruits, it's mathematically possible for at least one apple to fall up. Of course, when that actually happens, they'll need a new term since it's semantically impossible for something to fall anywhere but down, at least in the Northern Hemisphere.
So let's not be thrilled that temperatures worldwide might be decreasing, because cold cills... I mean, chills, and that's all it will do to warming blather - chill it, when what's really required is absolute zero.
If the world cools, the only satisfaction we'll get is that then we can make our own documentary showing scientists floating on ice slabs off the Bahamas, and polar bears standing onshore laughing at them. And if you ask me how they got on those ice floes in the first place, I won't know a thing.
Me (watching an eco-wacko ad with a polar bear floating on a piece of ice the size of a thimble): These warming idiots are getting dumber and dumber... the depraved politicians and the lyin' scientists. I won't even call them scientists...
Wife: And they want to dictate to ALL of us about that Kyoto Bowl.
Me (laughing): It's not the Kyoto Bowl...
Wife: What bowl is it?
Me: (more laughing): It's no bowl,
Wife:
Me: That's a restaurant, You mean the Kyoto ACCORDS.
Wife (laughing harder than I): I think the Kyoto Bowl's out of business.
(pause)
Wife: This is why I don't talk in public.
]]>