want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro...in front of that government house the door was usually
open and the older people and the kids - and there is always at
least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch - they didn't
have nothing to do. They didn't have nothing for their kids to do.
They didn't have nothing for their young girls to do.
because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do
they do? They abort their young children, they put
their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick
cotton. And I've often wondered, are they better off as slaves,
picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they
better off under government subsidy? They didn't get no more
freedom. They got less freedom."
You may agree with the Bundy family's claims on that grazing land or disagree with them. You may condemn, or look the other way, at Senator Harry Reid's son's designs on that land for his big solar deal with China.
But no matter where you are on any of this, let's understand that bundy is a stone cold ignorant racist jerk of the first order.
cliven bundy wins Quote Of The Day honors for making his stone cold ignorant racism so clear. I hope he's proud of it.
To the Bureau of Land Management - you should leave this man among his cattle...if, for no other reason, so that he has the opportunity to commune with creatures of a similar intelligence level.
As you may have heard, a just-released New York Times poll shows incumbent Senator Mark Pryor (D-AK) leading Republican challenger Tom Cotton by 10%.
If these data are accurate, they tell us that Pryor, who was considered particularly vulnerable this year, is actually doing quite well...and, by extension, if he's doing better than expected maybe other Democrats might be as well.
But what you may not be aware is that the poll is so skewed that the Times embarrassed itself by printing it.
In 2012, Mitt Romney beat President Obama in Arkansas by 24%. Therefore, any reasonable person would expect, a poll which asked who people voted for in 2012 would show roughly the same disparity in Mr. Romney's favor.
However, among the sample used for the New York Times poll, Mitt Romney won by only 1%.
Think about that: the Republican candidate won by 24% in the real world, but by 1% in the Times poll. Democrats did 23% better here than they did in the real world. (And its pro-Democrat skew is not restricted to Arkansas either. Click here to see for yourself.)
Anyone wondering why Mark Pryor did so well in this poll?
Anyone wondering how the Times could have published this joke as if it had any credibility?
Earlier this month, during a series with the Boston Red Sox at Yankee Stadium, Yankee pitcher Michael Pineda was found to have a foreign substance - probably pine tar, on the back of his wrist - which he could rub onto his pitching hand to better grip the ball, maybe make his curve and slider break more sharply too.
The story received a lot of press, and Boston Manager John Farrell was criticized by fans for either not noticing the shiny, dark area of tar which was plainly visible, or noticing it but not doing anything about it (note: Boston pitchers have been accused of using pine tar this way as well - though a lot more discretely).
Last night Michael Pineda pitched against the Red Sox again - this time at Boston's Fenway Park, where the fans would be furiously screaming if he tried anything like that again.
And in the second inning, a shiny, dark area suddenly appeared; this time on the side of Pineda's neck. 100% visible. The umpires checked it, determined it was pine tar, and tossed him out of the game. I assume (and, though I am a long-time Yankee fan, hope) Pineda is suspended for it.
Could this man be dumber?
Ok, back to politics, where the question "could this man be dumber" cannot be overused.
Here are a few highlights. Please pay particular attention to the paragraphs I've put in bold print:
least 1,000 hospital patients are dying needlessly each month from
dehydration and poor care by doctors and nurses, according to an NHS
deaths from acute kidney injury could be prevented by simple steps
such as nurses ensuring patients have enough to drink and doctors
reviewing their medication, the researchers say.
15,000 and 40,000 patients die annually because hospital staff fail
to diagnose the treatable kidney problem, a figure that dwarfs the
death toll from superbugs like MRSA.
report comes less than a year after the NHS watchdog NICE was forced
to issue guidelines on giving patients water after it found that
42,000 deaths a year could be avoided if staff ensured the sick were
highlighted how old and vulnerable patients can be left on wards
without fluids, quickly becoming too weak from dehydration to request
a drink from nurses, which hastens their deterioration.
of the failings identiﬁed in the report related to basic medical
care, such as checking of electrolytes, performance of physiological
observations and adequate senior review," the researchers found.
How can this be? How can this happen? Are doctors and nurses indifferent to their patients' health? Or are they overwhelmed by the system as it is, and forced to make decisions as to who will and will not be helped?
How can seniors, in particular, be treated this way? Has a conscious decision been made that, with limited resources, they are the ones who fall to the back of the line? And, if so, does that mean the people making these decisions are, in fact, "death panels"?
Take a good, long look at what you just read. Because it is not at all out of the question that, before too long, you will be reading the same about hospitals not in Britain, but in Boston. And New York. And Chicago, and Kankakee, and Podunk Station.
THE NEW YORK TIMES & THE SUPREME COURT MICHIGAN DECISION
Since the previous blog discussed an excellent (if belated) editorial by the Washington Post, let's go to the other side and look at a foolish, even bizarre, one from the New York Times.
As you are probably aware, The Supreme Court ruled, yesterday, that Michigan - and, therefore, other states as well - was within its constitutional rights to allow voters to ban the use of criteria such as race and gender in college admission policies.
The New York Times, being a decidedly liberal-left publication, is, of course, thrilled at this ruling, because it celebrates equality and reaffirms Martin Luther King's famous ideal of people being judged not by the color of their skin but the content of their character, right?
Uh....nope. The Times, being today's version of liberal-left, is outraged by it.
You can read the paper's entire editorial - with its remarkable title, "Racial Equality Loses at the Court", by clicking here. But let me give you a few "highlights":
blinkered view of race in America won out in the Supreme Court on
Tuesday when six justices agreed, for various reasons, to allow
Michigan voters to ban
race-conscious admissions policies in higher education.
"This case is not about how the
debate about racial preferences should be resolved. It is about who
may resolve it."
so, Justice Sonia Sotomayor responded, in a stinging 58-page dissent.
"Our Constitution places limits on what a majority of the people
may do," she wrote, such as when they pass laws that oppress
response to her pointed rebuke, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. wrote
a terse concurrence chiding Justice Sotomayor for questioning her
colleagues' "openness and candor." Yet the chief justice's
own words on race show no true understanding of what she called
America's "long and lamentable record" of rigging the political
game against racial minorities. "The way to stop discrimination on
the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race,"
he wrote glibly in a 2007 case striking down school integration
efforts in Washington and Kentucky. "Things have changed
dramatically" 50 years after the Voting Rights Act, he wrote last
year in Shelby
County v. Holder, which struck down a provision of that act.
quotes represent a naive vision of racial justice. As Justice
Sotomayor put it, "we ought not sit back and wish away, rather than
confront, the racial inequality that exists in our society."
As you can see, the Times is 100% in Justice Sotomayor's corner on giving preferences to minorities, even after 50 years of the United States passing laws to insure they have full legal redress against discrimination.
Remind me: Isn't Ms. Sotomayor the one who said "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a White male who hasn’t lived that life"?
We are supposed to be lectured on equality from someone who has told us, in so many words, that, because of her Latina ancestry, she is better able to judge things than White men? How does that differ from a KKKer telling us White people, by virtue of the richness of their experiences in western civilization and their skin color, are smarter and more productive than Blacks or Latinos?
But this is all lost on the Times' editorial board. Just as the simple truth of Justice Roberts' view that you stop discrimination by stopping discrimination, not by creating more of it as Ms. Sotomayor and the Times would like.
It's funny (in a strange, not ha-ha way) how the world has changed in recent times. When I was growing up the ideal was that all people should be treated equally, and the racists who demanded that there be different sets of rules based on skin color were all on the right.
Boy, has that changed. Look at who the two-sets-of rules people are now. And marvel at the fact that the left wing racists we are seeing today, actually think they are the tolerant ones.
Anyone remember the "deal' President Obama and Secretary of State, John Kerry, made with Syria, through its Russian puppeteers? Click here to remind yourself of just how ridiculous, how naive, how ineffective, how one-sided in favor of Syria and Russia it was.
Well, that "deal" was cut about 7 months ago. So now we can look back and see how things have worked out.
The answer, of course, is that they has not worked out. Not at all. Estimates of the Syrian dead now hover around the 150,000 mark, Lebanon has been crushed by something like 1,000,000 Syrian refugees, and the chemical weapons Syrian President bashar al-assad was supposed to turn over? Not only does he still have them, there are credible reports that he is openly using them.
Things are so bad there, and al-assad is so much stronger, that the Washington Post could not take it any longer. Here are the first two paragraphs of yesterday's editorial - and be assured that the rest is every bit as disdainful:
AL-ASSAD is feeling confident enough to schedule
an election six weeks from now that will extend his term as
president by another seven years. And why not? Three years into the
country's civil war, Syrian government forces continue to make
significant gains against rebels. This week they are reported to be
to recapturing the city of Homs, once considered the capital of
the resistance. The regime has returned to using chemical weapons
with impunity: Half
a dozen attacks involving chlorine gas have been reported by
opposition forces since last month. Though Mr. Assad is blockading
the delivery of humanitarian aid to 4 million civilians in defiance
of a U.N. Security Council resolution, there has been no reaction.
Sad to say, this is a case study for anyone who wonders why the United States has lost so much credibility as a world power during Barack Obama's presidency.
And the fact that this editorial, coming over half a year since the "deal" was struck, is such a rarity in mainstream media is a case study in just how far those media are willing to go to cover for this woefully incompetent, inept administration. (Think about it: how many stories on Syria have you come across in print or broadcast media over the past three months?)
Looking at our Syria "deal", negotiated with Russia, does anyone wonder why vladimir putin did not think twice about expropriating Crimea from The Ukraine? Or of massing his troops at its other borders, presumably so they will be able to move in and take more at a time of his choosing?
The United States used to be respected and feared. Now it is neither. You tell me: is the world safer or less safe for it?
Supreme Court delivered another setback to affirmative action
Tuesday, easing the way for states to bar public colleges from
considering race in admissions and to prohibit officials from taking
race into account in hiring and contracting.
decision upheld a constitutional amendment in Michigan voters
approved in 2006, banning preferential treatment based on race,
gender, ethnicity or national origin.
outcome of the case was not a shock, but the lopsided, 6-2 vote
signaled the court's continuing rightward shift on issues of race.
Banning discrimination by race, gender or ethnicity or national origin is a rightward shift??????????????
I keep re-reading those words, trying to figure out how it could be, given that the corollary, allowing discrimination based on those criteria, would then be more centrist in nature. Do the folks at politico.com think intentional discrimination is a centrist position? (Actually, the truth is that discrimination, these days, is far more a left wing position than right wing. But that deserves a full blog, not just a squib within this one).
Let me ask another question: if preference based on race, gender, ethnicity or national origin is centrist, then does it follow that the segregated south, which engaged in overt racial discrimination - something I have always thought of as despicable - had a valid point? Gender-wise, does it mean that the companies my wife applied for work at, with her newly acquired college degree, were correct in primarily being interested in how many words a minute she typed?
Let's remember that this is not the 1950's or 60's, when overt discrimination was rampant and few serious laws offering redress for such discrimination were on the books. This is 2014, over a half century later.
Yet, as can be seen above, believing in equality apparently is a very thorny issue to some people. I happen not to be one of them. Are you?
Oh, one other thing, in the form of a quick one-question quiz: which President initiated race-based affirmative action? Was it FDR? Was it JFK? Was it LBJ?
Uh....no. Actually it was RMN. That's right, Richard Nixon. His "Philadelphia Plan", in 1970, was the first of its kind. And, at the time, it was a damn good idea. Many people, with consummate ignorance, write Nixon off as an ultra-conservative. In fact, as proven by the Philadelphia Plan, his endorsement of the Equal Rights Amendment, implementation of wage-price controls, the EPA, OSHA and détente with China among others, Nixon was actually a remarkably successful social engineer.
For the second straight year, birds have, for some reason, taken up residence in our chimney.
Last year they stuck around for a couple of weeks - which was more than plenty. This year it is already over two weeks and they are still happily ensconced among the soot and ashes.
I keep telling my wife that they'll be gone any day now. She keeps giving me the rolling-eye look and complaining that their incessant chirping is in competition with her TV shows (NOTE: my wife read this and says I have it all wrong: she can hear the shows, it's just that she wants them out. "By this time, either they pay rent or leave").
Apparently ornithology is no match for The Voice, The Real Housewives of (pick a city) and American Idol.
If anyone has a good idea as to how to send them on their way, unharmed of course, I'm all ears...assuming I can hear you over the chirps.
Ever hear of Philip Bump? If not, you will - he is the Washington Post's latest hire for its "The Fix" web site.
Dailycaller.com's Brendan Bordelon has the lowdown on Bump - who is an aggressively far-left hatchet man if there ever was one - and you can read it by clicking here. But, in the meanwhile, here's just a taste:
to the political blog San Jose Inside, in 2009 Bump worked for
the South Bay Labor Council (SBLC), a Silicon Valley-based union
group with a penchant for making the political personal.
for his part, was SBLC's political director and administrator of
"San Jose Revealed," a pro-union website which published
vitriolic hit pieces against the Council’s perceived enemies.
his direction, "San Jose Revealed" published the personal address
- obtained under spurious circumstances - of a frequent target of
pro-union groups. This individual's home was later vandalized, with
property destroyed and defiled with swastika graffiti.
also reportedly published a map to the house of a deputy district
attorney who prosecuted violent Bay Area gangs for a living, shamed a
local business owner's daughter for an unpaid garbage bill and
posted the Match.com dating profile of an opposing local politician.
of even his most recent articles for The Wire - one mocking
former Republican governor Jeb Bush’s bank account, one admittedly
the conservative Heritage Foundation for "making Obamacare work,"
still another suggesting
inherent racism in the Republican Party - reveals a talented writer
with an unapologetically progressive bent.
Just what the Washington Post needs to even things out. An ultra-leftist, to bring it back from it's overload of conservative personne....oh, wait.
On a more serious note, it is not easy for a paper like the Washington Post to lurch leftward - not considering where it is right now. But lurch leftward it most certainly has.
Congratulations guys. I assume you know who and what Philip Bump is, so I assume you got what you wanted.
Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site,
third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser,
or using web beacons to collect information.
At "Hopelessly Partisan" we discuss all issues, big and small. Such as:
-Will President Obama end the pretense that he cares about the constitution, and simply declare himself King?
-Could Secretary of State Kerry possibly be less effective?
-How many people really signed up for ObamaCare?
-Now that lois lerner has been cited for contempt will mainstream media finally start covering the IRS scandal?
-When will Russia invade The Ukraine?
Right down to:
-Is Joy Behar's first name proof that her parents were funnier comedians than she is?
-Does anyone but the lowest-information crowd believe al sharpton's account of why he was a rat for the FBI?
-Is there a girl 5 - 10 years of age who cannot belt out a complete rendition of "Let It Go"?
In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.
So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of "The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics", and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.
And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!