Some surprising support for McDonald v. Chicago’s outcome

Daily Kos: Why liberals should love the Second Amendment.  Yeah, you read that right. 

It’s definitely an interesting piece, and well worth the read.  However, if you live anywhere outside of Kos’s house of Krazy, you’ll scoff at some of the author’s reasoning.  The premise is centered around liberals’ love of the constitution. (hmm, in my Constitutional law classes, liberals were often talking about how to reform, or do away with entirely, the Constitution.  If you love something, why are you always trying to read it in a way that it was clearly not intended to be read?)  The author makes a pretty big deal about the First Amendment in particular, which, I’ve noticed, liberals don’t seem to be too fond of these days.    But, otherwise, the author makes some really good, refreshingly libertarian points.  Read the whole thing.

Advertisements

Hey, what do you call a conservative who’s winning an arguement?

A racist.  (ba dump bump!)

I didn’t even have to start an argument against a commenter who followed me here from my new distractor blog hangout, Corporette (which is really fun for fashion tips for professional women) to already be winning it. She just dropped in, accused me of being a racist, extremist, radical, etc., gave absolutely no examples or support of why she thinks that way, and dropped back out.

If you want an example of the shallowness of the liberal mindset, please read Pamela’s comment, and my response, in my “about me” section.  Feel free to chime in here or there if you disagree with either of us.

“All this black woman knows is Obama is the chosen one and he is black.”

“Unhyphenated American” Lloyd Marcus takes on racists who can only see the presidency through the spectrum of race:

I received this message on Twitter from a black female, “Lloyd Marcus “F– you!”, in response to my opposition to Obama. This woman is obviously a non thinking racist who refuses to take an honest look at her black idol president. She has chosen to ignore Obama’s long list of offenses of shredding the Constitution, governing against the will of the American people and using Chicago thug tactics. All this black woman knows is Obama is the chosen one and he is black. So shut up! Whites who dare to criticize or question Obama are racist and blacks who “don’t get it” are Uncle Tom traitors to their race.One would think such small minded racist thinking would be limited to the uneducated, non achievers and welfare entitlement junkies. Unfortunately, I personally know highly educated and successful fellow blacks who feel the same about Obama as the knucklehead who sent me the “F– you!” note.

Read the whole thing.  As I’ve said before, liberals have to keep “their” groups in the party, and they will do whatever they can to keep down any black, gay, or woman who dares to be outspokenly conservative.  People like Mr. Marcus gives me hope that this will not work for much longer.

Let’s all give some props to the good folks at Hallmark

for managing to field complaints from complete idiots with apparent grace. 

A local chapter of the NAACP is upset because a Hallmark graduation card, with a “solar system” theme, uses the word “black,” followed by what they have interpreted as the word “ho.”  Really. (video at the link).  Hallmark pulled the card. 

When I was a senior in high school, I stage managed a play version of “School House Rock” at the children’s division of our local community theater.  Three elementary school aged, home schooled* sisters were in the cast.  The play closed on the most fun, rocking song of the show, “Interjections!”  where the whole cast joined in.  You can read the lyrics here, and be shocked by an supposed children’s program making liberal use of the NSFW word “Darn.”  Or, you could if you were the mother of these three sisters, who approached me at a rehearsal to tell me that her daughters could not be in this song due to the use of that word.  I laughed in her face.  It was simply absurd to me. 

But not as absurd as it would have been if I had been working a customer service line at Hallmark, and a person had called in to tell me that they heard the word “black hole,” in a space context, and still understood it to mean “black ho.”  Kudos, Hallmark customer service rep who fielded that call!

* Before any home school advocates jump on me, I just want to say that my first tastes of home schoolers really came from some odd families in that town who apparently believed that theater was the only acceptable activity that their children could participate in outside of the protected womb of the home.  They were clearly doing it wrong, and it left a bad taste in my mouth about homeschooling.  Since then, I have had the opportunity to work with some kids from homeschooling groups in my current town, and they are far more well adjusted and sane.  It’s changed my mind so much that, should we have kids, we may even consider taking this route with them someday.  (Although I’m not sure these kids are really homeschooled they seem to be more of a very flexible private school group that calls themselves homeschooled.  Either way, I was really impressed with them.)

A warning from the left

Stephanie Hitt, at American Thinker, braved a Chicago meeting of the forgotten left wing radicals.  Speakers included Cindy Sheehan and Bill Ayers.  And they can’t understand how they’re no longer relevant. 

I braved a flood of radical leftist whining, disdain, and petulance. Calling themselves a band of “disinviteds,” the three leftists spoke on censorship, free speech, and the revocations of their invitations to speak at various events.   

What started off as a diatribe against the infringement of their right to free speech and their proclaimed right to be heard quickly turned to a litany of complaints against the government, and really, the “Military Industrial Complex” in its quest to suppress free speech and political activism. 

…..

Despite being the least focused and least strident of the three speakers, Cindy Sheehan was in many ways the most insightful. In addition to admitting that her speech was freer under Bush (under Bush, she never spent a night or more than eight hours in jail and never had a restraining order issued against her; under Obama, she was once jailed for 52 hours, and the White House has a restraining order against her), she also questioned why under Obama, the antiwar movement doesn’t seem as important or interesting. In my favorite analogy of the night, she said she felt like the Maytag Repairman of activists. Without actually answering these questions or even expressing a curiosity about this apparent irony, she was able to at least posit that the antiwar movement, when it was popular, was really an anti-Bush movement and that without Bush, no one seems interested in protesting progressive issues. 
 
Neither Bill Ayers nor Sunsara Taylor was as thoughtful or reflective as Ms. Sheehan, instead blaming censorship and the declining support for radical activism not on the lack of interest in their retreaded “think speak,” but on some conspiratorial notion that people are not able to share their ideas freely. 

It’s a fascinating piece, and I urge you to read the whole thing.  But one thing I kept thinking was that, when these folks were useful, they were lauded and cheered.  Now that they are not, and the now-in-power left suddenly sees the necessity of so many of the hated Bush’s hated policies, they are swept under the rug. 

It could happen to us, too. 

Out of power, many Republicans are eager to embrace the Tea party and its limited spending rhetoric.  When they were in power, however, things were quite different.  When the Republicans return to power, they will be sorely tempted to spend and grow government, and the tea partiers will be forgotten and marginalized. 

This is not a bit to say that the Republicans shouldn’t return to power; when the only alternative is the left, it is necessary to our way of life that they do.  Remember that the Tea party is nothing like the radicals represented by Cindy Sheehan and Bill Ayers, who always appeared somewhat as kooks.  The Tea party, however, is highly representative of America, and many, many citizens share its values.  It will be up to us to remain dedicated and cooperative to ensure that we are not pushed to the sides and marginalized like this when the Republicans suddenly have an incentive to turn their backs on us.

Want to Feel Really Sad About the Reasoning Ability of the Left?

Then I suggest that you read this Maclean’s article, an interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and then read the comments.  Specifically, focus on the comments against Ms. Hirsi Ali.  Their logic would be funny if it weren’t so scary. 

Now, I don’t know too much about Ms. Hirsi Ali.  I haven’t read her books, though I’ve read a few articles on her and she sounds like a compelling figure.  She grew up in an Islamic family, in Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia, and Kenya.  As a child, she was forced to have a clitoridectomy.  She fled her family to the Netherlands at age 22, in order to avoid an arranged marriage, and since then, she has written a great deal about the horrors of Islam.  The Muslim extremist who murdered Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh for making a film about Islam’s treatment of women left a note promising that she would be next, and she continues to require continuous security protocols. 

All of that information would be enough to make her sound like a fascinating and heroic figure.  But that’s until you read the comments and learn the other side of the story, from Islam’s defenders.  There you will learn that the actions of Islam towards women like Ms. Hirsi Ali is also found in the Christian church.  There are no links given to Christian clitoridectomies or forced marriages, but apparently they are rampant.  We learn that she is a well-known liar.  We know this because, after all, she lied to avoid the arranged marriage.  This shows her true character and that she can’t be trusted.  Her family (the ones that mutilated her) were not even that religious or extreme.  We know, because they say so.  The few people who have committed violent acts in the name of Christianity, who are currently in prison or, in the case of Timothy McVeigh, in the ground due to law enforcement actions made up of mostly Christians, show that Islam and Christianity are exactly the same.  She, by inciting the wrong people, is responsible for what happens to her.  She’s just after money, because she needs so much of it to pay for her protection (a frivolous luxury item, to be sure). 

In law, we sometimes talk about whether or not an off-the-wall argument passes the “smell test”- that is, can you say it with a straight face, seriously expecting that someone might buy it.  I’ve seen judges dress down attorneys who make arguments that clearly don’t pass this test.  None of these arguments come close, but none of the people writing them are attorneys duty bound to support a client in the best way possible; they can choose their side.  Why do they choose a side with, and even advocate with, such flimsy arguments?

Do Conservatives Ever Do This?

Ann Althouse points to a request from Organizing for America (which is basically Barack Obama, Inc.) requesting that supporters phone radio stations and give some (humorously shallow) talking points about why they like Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court.  

Althouse and her commenters do a pretty great job at picking out why this is a stupid idea, but it’s hardly new.  They even have a name, likely coined by Rush Limbaugh: “Seminar Callers.”  What I’m honestly wondering is: does anyone know if conservatives have tried to do the same thing?  Maybe not radio (since calling liberal radio shows tends to be pretty impossible), but even concentrated, talking points laden letters to the editor and such?  I tried several bing searches, and, while I found the calls to action for liberals pretty quickly, I couldn’t find any results for similar calls for conservatives, and I can’t recall ever having seen any in my daily perusals.  I’m pretty curious, though.