Thursday, July 31, 2008
It's not so much a living hell ...
... It''s just a dying fiction.
Congress is all too ready to apologize for something it had nothing to do with, but I'd much rather hear it apologize for all the pork it's extorted out of us for so long and its willfully ignoring the country's energy issues until the problem loomed larger than Gojira and threatened their fleecing ability. Fie on them and a pox for all, I say.
Beyond that, we've got the anointed one Sen. Obama waxing less then poetic on what a horrible place the US has been in the past (hereafter referred to as BBO or Before Barack Obama). Yes, we need to "acknowledge" what a bad country we've been, since, apparently in the Senator's assessment, the Civil Rights act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, all the other various and sundry attempted legal remedies, the land that was granted to my grandfather in compensation for that taken from his ancestors after it having been promised in treaty, the way modern High School history books emphasize Uncle Tom's Cabin more than Chancellorsville and all the other examples one can come up with off the top of their head certainly doesn't count for anything. Because when it comes to pandering, one can never have enough.
But if we really want to get ethnic and minority on this topic I have to say that I claim greater moral authority to speak on this than the Senator. Since his mother is white (not a descendant of US slaves) and his father is Kenyan (not a descendant of US slaves) I fail to understand his frequent use of first person plural in discussing past racial injustices. Hell, his ancestors most likely either sold the slaves to traders in Africa or bought them once they reached this shore. I, on the other hand, as a card carrying citizen of the Muskogee Nation have direct ancestors that experienced the closest thing to a national policy of genocide ever visited upon any people living in this land. As such, I claim the moral high ground and declare that past transgressions are to be delegated to history, to be studied and acknowledged as historical fact in the context of both the contemporary world and what the nation has done to rectify these issues. They will no longer be available to be employed as scapegoats to excuse bad behavior or levers to extort pity or payment.
Now, quit yer bitchin' and get back to work.
Congress is all too ready to apologize for something it had nothing to do with, but I'd much rather hear it apologize for all the pork it's extorted out of us for so long and its willfully ignoring the country's energy issues until the problem loomed larger than Gojira and threatened their fleecing ability. Fie on them and a pox for all, I say.
Beyond that, we've got the anointed one Sen. Obama waxing less then poetic on what a horrible place the US has been in the past (hereafter referred to as BBO or Before Barack Obama). Yes, we need to "acknowledge" what a bad country we've been, since, apparently in the Senator's assessment, the Civil Rights act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, all the other various and sundry attempted legal remedies, the land that was granted to my grandfather in compensation for that taken from his ancestors after it having been promised in treaty, the way modern High School history books emphasize Uncle Tom's Cabin more than Chancellorsville and all the other examples one can come up with off the top of their head certainly doesn't count for anything. Because when it comes to pandering, one can never have enough.
But if we really want to get ethnic and minority on this topic I have to say that I claim greater moral authority to speak on this than the Senator. Since his mother is white (not a descendant of US slaves) and his father is Kenyan (not a descendant of US slaves) I fail to understand his frequent use of first person plural in discussing past racial injustices. Hell, his ancestors most likely either sold the slaves to traders in Africa or bought them once they reached this shore. I, on the other hand, as a card carrying citizen of the Muskogee Nation have direct ancestors that experienced the closest thing to a national policy of genocide ever visited upon any people living in this land. As such, I claim the moral high ground and declare that past transgressions are to be delegated to history, to be studied and acknowledged as historical fact in the context of both the contemporary world and what the nation has done to rectify these issues. They will no longer be available to be employed as scapegoats to excuse bad behavior or levers to extort pity or payment.
Now, quit yer bitchin' and get back to work.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Talk, it's only talk ...
... Comments, cliches, commentary, controversy
So many are looking at the digital spike the LA Times has driven into the Edwards affair allegation and questioning why supposedly poor sourcing has left them so cautious when a similar problem with the McCain allegation earlier did not. Silly rabbit, trick like these are not for kids, but for sophisticated trained professional journalists. Fortunately for my three or four readers, I managed to swipe a glance at the official journalist manual of standards and found the applicable loophole.
You see, right now the National Enquirer is reporting that Edwards has not only had an affair with the lady in question, but has even sired a child. However, no independent objective quality evidence to support this allegation has delivered to their offices. Therefore, the allegation is poorly sourced and should not be reported or commented upon. In the McCain affair, however, the New York Times and others never actually alleged that any affair took place. You see, the story in that case was that such allegations had been made and these allegations were made by more than one person and directly reported to the news paper. Therefore, the news that allegations had been made was absolutely true, had multiple sources and was directly known to the reporter (since it was directly to the reporter that these allegations had been made).
Once you think about it the difference is so obvious. No wonder conservatives are viewed as lacking in nuance.
So many are looking at the digital spike the LA Times has driven into the Edwards affair allegation and questioning why supposedly poor sourcing has left them so cautious when a similar problem with the McCain allegation earlier did not. Silly rabbit, trick like these are not for kids, but for sophisticated trained professional journalists. Fortunately for my three or four readers, I managed to swipe a glance at the official journalist manual of standards and found the applicable loophole.
You see, right now the National Enquirer is reporting that Edwards has not only had an affair with the lady in question, but has even sired a child. However, no independent objective quality evidence to support this allegation has delivered to their offices. Therefore, the allegation is poorly sourced and should not be reported or commented upon. In the McCain affair, however, the New York Times and others never actually alleged that any affair took place. You see, the story in that case was that such allegations had been made and these allegations were made by more than one person and directly reported to the news paper. Therefore, the news that allegations had been made was absolutely true, had multiple sources and was directly known to the reporter (since it was directly to the reporter that these allegations had been made).
Once you think about it the difference is so obvious. No wonder conservatives are viewed as lacking in nuance.
Friday, July 25, 2008
California sunlight ... the song remains the same
Mickey Kaus, in discussing the stealth scandal of John Edwards and the rumored fruit of his loins, brings up points that Jon Fine made in Business Week. Mainly that the MSM determination to mimic the wise monkeys of Toshogu may be predicated on a desire to protect the Democrat's prefered choice for Attorney-General and that if the story wrer true that it reveals him to have orchestrated an "elaborate cover-up" with the complicity of the MSM.
Hmmmmmm, an A-G being deeply involved in a major cover up with the help and knowledge of powerful agents? Now, where have I heard that one before?
Hmmmmmm, an A-G being deeply involved in a major cover up with the help and knowledge of powerful agents? Now, where have I heard that one before?
