The Flint crisis–dangerous levels of lead have been found in its drinking water–is a travesty, but one that the left is using to advance its agenda.
Background: Two years ago after telling the the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department in a cost-cutting move that it would stop buying its Lake Huron water by 2017 when a new Huron pipeline project would be completed, Detroit ended its agreement with Flint, which compelled the impoverished city to turn to the Flint River for its water. But somehow Flint authorities made a colossal and possibly deadly mistake by not adding an anti-corrosive that costs $150-a-day into the water supply. That toxic error allowed lead from old pipes to get into the drinking water and yes, into the bodies of Flint residents. Had that additive been used, the expert who uncovered the Flint debacle says the lead crisis never would have occurred.
Rather than uncovering what went wrong and finding out who was responsible, the left is looking beyond the Flint water crisis to intensify a long-running political battle. Businesses and governments from all over the nation are shipping bottled water to Flint. Liberal bomb-thrower Michael Moore isn’t interested. The self-described Flint native–he actually grew up in a wealthy neighboring suburb–lists his demands for Flint which include the arrest and removal from office of Rick Snyder, Michigan’s Republican governor.
Flint and Detroit Public Schools are under control of an emergency manager because of longtime corruption and malfeasance perpetuated by its so-called public servants. Until recently so was the city of Detroit. Not coincidentally these government entities are cash honey holes for Democratic bureaucrats, which is why the left hates the emergency manager law. Snyder appoints Michigan’s emergency managers. Get it?
Was Snyder–who should not be entirely blameless–the one the decision not to spend $150 on anti-corrosives? He almost certainly was not. Do Moore and Milbank care who it was? No, they would rather attack a Republican and push their idealogy.
A Students for a Democratic Society radical once mused, “The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution.”
Unbeknown to most Americans, Obama’s racial bean counters are furiously mining data on their health, home loans, credit cards, places of work, neighborhoods, even how their kids are disciplined in school — all to document “inequalities” between minorities and whites.
This Orwellian-style stockpile of statistics includes a vast and permanent network of discrimination databases, which Obama already is using to make “disparate impact” cases against: banks that don’t make enough prime loans to minorities; schools that suspend too many blacks; cities that don’t offer enough Section 8 and other low-income housing for minorities; and employers who turn down African-Americans for jobs due to criminal backgrounds.
Big Brother Barack wants the databases operational before he leaves office, and much of the data in them will be posted online.
So civil-rights attorneys and urban activist groups will be able to exploit them to show patterns of “racial disparities” and “segregation,” even if no other evidence of discrimination exists.
When governments collect data their intentions are not always benign. William the Conqueror did not authorize the Domesday Day Book–the most extensive collection of economic data during the Middle Ages–out of curiosity. The English king was seeking taxing possibilities. Fear of new and additional taxes by the populace prevented the Russian Empire–a totalitarian state, I need to emphasize–from conducting its only census until 1897.
The Post writer superbly summarized Obama’s goal in his racial data mining. By attacking the majority culture–white Americans–the most liberal president ever hopes to continue “fundamentally transforming the United States of America” and to “spread the wealth around” even while he is walking the streets of Chicago in retirement with a Republican successor in the White House. Most federal agencies, particularly activist ones such as the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, are dominated by hard-core leftists who enjoy civil service protection. Another president can only fire the top officials.
Congress can perhaps prevent this assault on most Americans by blocking funding on Obama’s twisted fairness scheme. But the Republican majorities in the House and Senate don’t seem interested in challenging Obama–campaign promises notwithstanding.
Twenty years ago if you were unhappy with a business, let’s say a check out clerk was rude to you or you were served a rotten meal, you had some effective ways of getting back. Of course these methods still exist. You can never patronize that business again and tell your friends not to do so as well.
Last week a South Bend, Indiana television reporter ventured outside of her city and traveled to tiny Walkerton, a place she probably never heard of before, where she interviewed one of the owners of Memories Pizza, a family business, who told the reporter that because of their Christian beliefs they would not cater a gay wedding–if they were was asked. The reporter found the “gotcha” story in the sticks that she was seeking in regards to Indiana’s new Religious Restoration Freedom Act.
And then the online attacks poured in Actually they’re still coming. Memories’ Yelp page has been inundated with “reviews” from people who lives almost everywhere but northern Indiana. On the other hand, a high school coach from nearby Goshen took to Twitter to suggest that Memories be burned down. She has since been suspended. As I mentioned in my post here last week, Yelp’s CEO condemned Indiana’s RFRA, although just last month his firm opened an office in Illinois–which has a similar law.
Years ago I was at a concert where Elvis Costello answered a heckler who was shouting that he should play “Clubland,” by replying with something blues singer Little Willie John once said. “I remember the good old days,” Costello quipped, “they’re gone now. ”
True, very true.
But there is some good news. Supporters of Memories Pizza and religious freedom started a GoFundMe.com drive for the owners of the restaurant–and it has received $800,000.
This line from the NYT piece about putting George Bush’s head on a pike in the HBO series Game of Thrones is simply amazing:
In the audio commentary on the Season 1 DVD release of “Game of Thrones,” the show’s lead producers, David Benioff and D. B. Weiss, pointed out that a scene showing the heads of several vanquished warriors included Mr. Bush’s, obscured under a long wig but recognizable in profile.
“The last head on the left is George Bush,” the producers say in the audio commentary. “George Bush’s head appears in a couple beheading scenes. It’s not a choice, it’s not a political statement. It’s just, we had to use what heads we had around.”
A JOURNALIST READER WHOM I’M SURE WOULD PREFER ANONYMITY WRITES: “I know this game gets tired, but imagine, just imagine the months of fury, the global advertising boycotts, the anguished Senate investigations if a network did this with our current president.”
I don’t frankly expect much better from Hollywood but I think the idea its a given that a journalist would surely prefer anonymity is a much more serious indictment of our culture than Hollywood leftists acting like Hollywood leftists.
No disrespect intended, by putting his head on a pike and then bragging about it on the DVD commentary? Not to go all gumshoe, but this new excuse doesn’t mesh with that commentary. A changing story indicates deception. The apology now is one of those “We apologize if…” fake apologies.
The original commentary says flatly that the head is George W. Bush. Now they’re saying that it just looks like him, and they only noticed that after shooting the scenes. No one noticed the resemblance before putting scraggly hair on the head and putting it on a pike? And no one noticed the resemblance before using it in another scene with severed heads?
At the time Ronald Reagan was elected I was a democrat who was a hawk on defense.
My greatest influence was a professor Ed Thomas. He had a great love of history and of original documents. He used to say about Ronald Reagan. “I’m afraid of Ronald Reagan”. He seemed to think that Reagan would turn the cold war into a hot one. I was more worried about his economic policies myself
Hindsight is 2020 and looking back now it seems clear that such a worry was unfounded but at the time a lot of people didn’t know what would come. The best experts thought the Soviets were a lot stronger than they were. Reagan had a better grasp of both the international and the economic situation than others did.
It took me a long time to figure this out. It wasn’t until the late 80’s and early 90’s that I understood just how great Reagan was.
Yesterday on the phones of talk radio , seminar callers armed with Media Matters Talking points were spinning Reagan on both National shows (such as Rush) and on local shows (Howie Carr) with a “why do conservatives love Reagan when he did xyz” trying to paint him as “not conservative”.
Their attempts to co-op the memory of Reagan are understandable, they have been unable to change our memory of the Reagan years and have also not managed to make us forget what they thought of him, to wit:
It should never be forgotten that the Left hated Reagan just as lustily as they hated George W. Bush, and with some of the same venomous affectations, such as the reductio ad Hitlerum. The key difference is that in Reagan’s years there was no Internet with which to magnify these derangements, and the 24-hour cable-news cycle was in its infancy. But the signs were certainly abundant. In 1982, the Madame Tussauds Wax Museum in London held a vote for the most hated people of all time, with the result being: Hitler, Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, and Dracula. Democratic congressman William Clay of Missouri charged that Reagan was trying to replace “the Bill of Rights with fascist precepts lifted verbatim from Mein Kampf.” A desperate Jimmy Carter charged that Reagan was engaging in “stirrings of hate” in the 1980 campaign. Los Angeles Times cartoonist Paul Conrad drew a panel depicting Reagan plotting a fascist putsch in a darkened Munich beer hall. Harry Stein (now a conservative convert) wrote in Esquire that the voters who supported Reagan were like the “good Germans” in “Hitler’s Germany.” In The Nation, Alan Wolfe wrote: “The United States has embarked on a course so deeply reactionary, so negative and mean-spirited, so chauvinistic and self-deceptive that our times may soon rival the McCarthy era.”
And in discussing Reagan’s greatest acknowledged achievement — ending the Cold War — liberals conveniently omit that they opposed him at every turn. Who can forget the relentless scorn heaped on Reagan for the “evil empire” speech and the Strategic Defense Initiative? Historian Henry Steele Commager said the “evil empire” speech “was the worst presidential speech in American history, and I’ve read them all.” “What is the world to think,” New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis wrote, “when the greatest of powers is led by a man who applies to the most difficult human problem a simplistic theology?”
Or as Jonah Goldberg puts it the only good conservative is a dead one.
While the encomiums to Reagan & Co. are welcome, the reality is that very little has changed. As we saw in the wake of the Tucson shootings, so much of the effort to build up conservatives of the past is little more than a feint to tear down the conservatives of the present. It’s an old game. For instance, in 1980, quirky New Republic writer Henry Fairlie wrote an essay for the Washington Post in which he lamented the rise of Reagan, “the most radical activist of them all.” The title of his essay: “If Reagan Only Were Another Coolidge . . . ”
Even then, the only good conservative was a dead conservative.
Goldberg is spot on. It is a simple attempt to use Reagan to hit the conservatives of today.
Craig: No, but his weight with the commoners can unbalance everything. The Balliols will kiss his arse so we must.
The American people honor Reagan’s memory so the left which hates him and always has hated him must too or at least seem to honor him. Ignore them and instead concentrate on one like this from No Sheeples here.
Ronald Reagan was a great president, perhaps the greatest in my lifetime, I wish I appreciated him more when he was in power.
Update: Interesting Palin/Reagan note from Byron York
Lee Edwards, a Reagan biographer and fellow at the Heritage Foundation, was in the audience and took note of the fact that Palin was speaking to a strongly conservative group at the Ranch Center. She likely wouldn’t be invited to speak to a more general audience at the Reagan Library, Edwards said, “because she’s not a member of the establishment, and they’re not comfortable with her.”
“The irony,” Edwards continued, “is that neither was Reagan.”
One of days I must have the Reclusive Leftist on my show on the subject of Sarah Palin and the left. We disagree on almost everything else but she has been willing from day one to call out her fellow leftists on Palin Derangement syndrome.
I finally had a chance to take a peek at her blog to see what she had to say about the last week and she wrote a series of post that confirmed her dislike of the right but were as honest as the day was long.
As soon as I heard the news Saturday and read an online article (forget where) with the gleanings from the guy’s various communiques, that was my impression. Mind control, grammar, the possible constitutional ramifications and/or mind control of said grammar, strange obsessions with the currency and its frightening message to trust in God, nonsensical ramblings: it could be a page out of Vaslav Nijinksy’s diary. It’s not just the content, but the style. Classic paranoid schizophrenia.
So imagine my surprise when I checked in on the news later last night and saw that Sarah Palin had been blamed for the shooting.
In the post she insults the tea party but that doesn’t stop her from seeing nonsense for what it is.
Later that same day she reminds us of some of the non violent memes of the lefts opposition to Sarah Palin and says:
That’s right. He was busy calling for Hillary Clinton’s death and then, when Clinton was over, foaming at the mouth about Sarah Palin. Lots of people were foaming at the mouth about Sarah Palin. There was the “art” exhibit in New York inviting people to play at shooting her with a rifle. She was hung in effigy in Los Angeles. Sandra Bernhardt said she should be raped, and not a few other people gleefully called for her death.
Was there any outrage about this at the time? Only from people like me, who were running around with our hair on fire, screaming to our allegedly “progressive” brethren and sistren “UR DOIN IT WRONG!!!!!” Everybody else seemed to think it was just fine. After all, Sarah Palin really did deserve to be raped and murdered and shot and lynched because she’s a foul c*** who needs to die, so what was wrong with saying so? Lighten up, bitch. What are you, a secret Republican?
And again she is the reclusive leftist so she makes it clear what she thinks of Sarah Palin’s political positions:
Sarah Palin is a Republican. That’s all. She’s just a silly rightwing Republican. The country’s crawling with them. Look, they’re all around you! They’re your county supervisors, state senators, congresspeople, governors, and former presidents. Remember Bush? Remember Reagan? Sarah Palin didn’t invent any of this stuff. She didn’t invent any of the ideas or any of the rhetoric. She certainly didn’t invent extremist violence, nor does she seem to be in any way connected with that kind of thing. She’s just an ordinary idiot Republican who believes ordinary idiot Republican things, like the millions of other ordinary idiot Republicans in this country.
What is it about her that’s so special? What could it possibly be that makes this utterly ordinary idiot Republican somehow a billion times worse than all the rest?
He just wanted to talk about the dangers of right-wing hate. Okay, fine. That’s cool. Let’s talk about it. But still: how do you leave out the sentence about Oswald? As a writer, how do you do that? I couldn’t. It feels obligatory. You write this highly-charged essay, you make a big deal about how ugly the right-wing stuff was in Dallas, you evoke the horror of the president’s death; even if you want your takeaway message to be about the dangers of superheated rhetoric, how do you leave out the undeniable historical reality that Oswald was cut from an entirely different bolt of cloth? Even if you tuck it in as a parenthetical throwaway (”of course, ironically…”), you still have to acknowledge it. Don’t you?
I had just about persuaded myself to forget about it—chalk it up to a single editorial decision not to muddy the main point—when I learned today that Eric Boehlert wrote an extremely similar essay in 2009: A President was killed the last time right-wing hatred ran wild like this. It’s exactly the same argument RFK Jr. makes, and with exactly the same stunning omission. No Oswald! Oswald has simply disappeared. He’s gone. And everything that motivated the man is gone. No Cuba, no Fidel, no Soviet Union, no Marxism, no Communism, no nothing. There’s not even a nod to Oswald’s real motive, which was the inchoate longing to be somebody, to be a great man, to be important.
Read this whole essay, yeah it’s hard on the right, but it’s honest and fair and from the left.
I will never agree with the Reclusive Leftist on religion, abortion, George Bush and a million other issues, but boy do I respect her.
Update: Thanks for the lanche Glenn but thanks even more for linking to Violet, honest leftists should be celebrated. BTW Insty readers make sure you read all three of her posts on the subject.
Update 2: A lot of readers think that I’m giving Violet too much credit. Remember a lot of us on the right were once on the left, it took a while for us to get it, its not a switch. If you want to let people find their way to truth the best way is to encourage them along the way.
Tim Blair has a must read post today about how obsession, comparing the “Jewish conspiracy” fetishes in the Arab world with the Palin obsession of the left, it skewers all the right people and closes thus:
If Palin’s “extreme rhetoric” causes murders, perhaps we should be keeping an eye on media leftists, for they seem most taken by the popular Alaskan grandmother and Facebook pundit. Bizarrely, they also imagine that others – including 22-year-old drug-sucking gamer burnouts like Loughner – follow her with similar obsession.
More likely is that Loughner was simply a goon with a gun. Meanwhile, the broader case remains unexamined. If the “extreme rhetoric” of Palin and others leads to greater violence, we should see that reflected in homicide statistics. But the murder rate in the US keeps falling, according to the Washington Post last May: “For the third consecutive year, violent crime has declined in the United States, including a 7.2 per cent reduction in homicides.”
For two years now, I have been called ignorant, racist, angry and violent by the left. The very foul-mouthed protesters of Bush dare to now label my words as “hate speech.”
Last week, the left quickly blamed the right for the national tragedy of a shooting spree by a madman who never watched Fox News, never listened to Rush Limbaugh and likely did not know who Sarah Palin is.
Fortunately, the American public rejected out of hand that idiotic notion that the right was responsible.
Rather than apologize, the left wants to change the tone of the political debate.
The left suddenly wants civil discourse.
Don’t hold back Don tell me what you really think.
Meanwhile on the left we see the civility used when jealous of being unable to match the hits of a single law professor in Tennessee.
On Thursday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that they were surprised by the applause at the memorial pep rally on Wednesday for the victims of the Tucson shootings.
I will say that I read the speech several times and thought that there wouldn’t be a lot of applause if any. I think many of us thought that. But I think there was a celebration, again, of the lives of those who had been impacted. Not just at that grocery store but throughout the country. And I think that, if that is part of the healing process, then that’s a good thing.
Then why was it printed on the Jumbotron?
my first thought was: “It has to be a photoshop, not even this administration can be that crass and/or foolish.”
Some of Jim commentators suggest it was closed captioning. Assuming that is correct it seems to me odd that the “applause” tag would have been fed into the feed if the jumbotron was simply for the audience (who being there could see it without being told). Also since the remarks were prepared remarks it suggests that those applause markers would have been pre-programmed too. A bit tacky to say the least, but I don’t know for sure and a little digging from people there can establish the truth. I’m willing to give the admin the benefit of the doubt till then.
What IS much more interesting is Charles Johnson’s reaction. Not that he is hitting Jim Hoft, at this point anyone right of media matters is the enemy to Charles. What is absolutely classic is this bit:
Since Hoft likes to float these smears and then delete them when it finally sinks through his dense cranial matter that they make him look like an idiot, here’s a screenshot:
Little Green Footballs is becoming littler by the day.
Interesting note, do a bing search for “jim hoff” deleting posts and you get 39 results. Do the same with “Charles Johnson” instead of “Jim Hoff” and you get 89,100 results as of 5:07 p.m. today. That isn’t just projection, that’s a 12 screen multiplex with features offered in 3D. UPDATE: It would help if I spelled Jim’s name right. The corrected search is below.
I’m certainly not inclined to take Mr. Johnson’s word concerning Mr. Hoft (who I met at Blogcon and had the pleasure of interviewing) when it comes to bad form by a blogger, but he is welcome to provide actual evidence to back the slander libel up. Till then it is just another case of Mr. Johnson signaling that he continues to need our prayers. Remember while there is life there is hope and no soul is worth abandoning.
Plus I like happy endings.
Update: It’s been pointed out that slander is spoken and libel is print, corrected to reflect that.
Update: BIG correction I misspelled Jim name, the search should have been “Jim Hoft” redid the post with the right spelling and redid the search. Number of results is 3120 vs Johnson’s 89,100. My very big bad.
Update 2: Revenge is a dish best served ironic:
Yesterday Charles Johnson was praising this far left crackpot for blaming conservatives for the Tuscon shootings.
Today that same freak was arrested and charged with with threats and intimidation and disorderly conduct.
Jim finishes with this gem:
UPDATE: Fuller will undergo a psychiatric evaluation. Charles is still on the loose.
Mr. Fuller at least has an explanation for his actions having recently suffered the trauma of a gunshot wound. No word on what Mr. Johnson’s excuse is.
I’m in the process of writing a critique column for the Examiner on the media’s reaction events in Arizona but if spend the entire day working on it I suspect it will not compare to this post by Elizabeth Scalia the Anchoress.
“Today was supposed to be set-aside for the victims,” someone posted on twitter, “Palin decided she is one of them.”
No. Sarah Palin made a statement that was contextual, relevant and appropriate to the day. The press, if they really wanted to put the day aside for the victims, could have simply reported that Palin made a statement, and moved on. In truth, they could have utterly ignored Palin’s statement altogether, because she really is not part of this story.
But they did not, because they cannot. Where Sarah Palin is concerned, the mainstream press and the political pundit class are like 14 year olds obsessing over the social order of the cafeteria, and especially that stupid new cootie girl, ewwww.
They are the spiteful, malevolent and immature teenagers in “Carrie,” armed with pig-blood and just looking for any opportunity to pour it.
They are repulsive in their clique; one wants to take them by their shoulders and shake them and say “grow up! GROW UP!”
Read the whole thing, is it the best piece I’ve seen on the subject. Also not to be missed is NeoNeocon’s piece.
I believe that, like her or hate her (and I’ve gone on record saying I don’t think she’s a good candidate for the 2012 presidency), Palin chooses her phrases carefully and knows what she’s doing. And I would guess that, as a religious Christian and strong supporter of Israels and Jews, Palin knows exactly what the blood libel is and has an awareness of the history behind the use of the phrase.
I am wondering how it would feel to be reeling from hearing the dreadful news of the Tucson assassination/massacre, and then almost immediately to find oneself accused of inciting it by press and an opposition solemnly and sanctimoniously intoning the charge in transparently hypocritical hope of elevating the tone of political discourse while simultaneously pointing the finger of bloody guilt at their hated opponent. You know, the phrase “blood libel” might just come to mind.
What is most remarkable about these death wishes is that they were done in the open and often with the identity of the person not hidden. The identities of the tweeters and the people who “liked” the Facebook pages were readily identifiable in many cases.
Why do these people, many of whom are professionals, feel no fear in expressing such death wishes in the open?
Because they know that the media will never call them out for death threats against Sarah Palin. I will be delighted in a show like Morning Joe proves me wrong.