Of course there is no lack of hypocrisy to be found among us all. Still one can’t help but imagine the vitriol and accusations of hatred and intolerant bigotry that would be hurled had it been an outspoken liberal canned from a conservative production. If tolerance was evenly demanded and practiced honest conversation might follow.
Aug 27 2012
In the aftermath of the Family Research Council shooting, prominent voices on the Left have not tapped down their violent rhetoric against their opponents. Two Baby Boomer celebrities have taken to Twitter to hope pro-life, pro-family individuals and U.S. Congressman Todd Akin suffer a drowning or a same-sex rape, respectively.
I’m sure someone will say they were just kidding, or taken out of context.
Sure, that’s it.
Jul 31 2012
1. Why do you believe the Tea Party wants Barack Obama to be a one-term president? (please select one answer from the list below)
a) Because the Tea Party is racist
b) Because the Tea Party is racist
c) Because the Tea Party is racist
d) Because the Tea Party is racist
e) Because the Tea Party is racist
f) Because the Tea Party is racist
Several times while watching the Olympics I have heard Morgan Freeman’s voice come on the air and pitch the Visa card. Perfectly acceptable in spite of the fact that he has recently taken the liberty, virtually unchallenged, of labeling an entire group of Americans as racists, with nothing more than his own personal assertion as proof. Of course anyone who may take exception to that is also labelled a racist. This from the tolerant left.
On the other hand the president of Chick Fil-A can make a statement about his support of traditional marriage. He is then vilified in the press, boycotts of his business are called and he is told by the mayors of Chicago and Boston that his business is “not welcome” in their towns. This also from the tolerant left.
I welcome someone who can explain how and why this is not a double standard.
(Hat tip to Larry Elder)
Mar 24 2012
MSNBC sinks to new low, starring Karen Finney.
This isn’t even “opinion journalism.” It’s just idiotic. By the way, the “30″ she mentions in this abbreviated clip is probably the 30 states that have or are making some kind of “stand your ground” law protecting people who defend themselves from criminal prosecution.
I don’t know the facts of the case in question. The shooter may indeed simply be a murderer and not a person acting in self-defense. I have no interest in defending his actions if that’s the case.
But this conflation of conservatives protecting their constitutional rights with guilt for murder is not even risible…. it’s just complete, total hate speech, funded and disseminated by MSNBC, the hate speech network.
Aug 19 2011
The previous post in this series is here.
Powerline has a brilliant article by Professor Malcolm from George Mason University Law School. Normally, in these series, I don’t merely link, and I try to provide some original content and analysis.
But this article so perfectly captures the supine British attitude towards evil that I had to include it here.
Aug 10 2011
This video is really scary. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Angelic faces and voices, selling pure poison.
Jul 31 2011
Likely voters hold a dismal view of the news media, generally regarding reporters as biased, unethical and too close to the politicians they purport to cover, according to a new poll for The Hill.
A full 68 percent of voters consider the news media biased, the poll found. Most, 46 percent, believe the media generally favor Democrats, while 22 percent said they believe Republicans are favored, with 28 percent saying the media is reasonably balanced.
For more, check this out. It’s a solid piece of social science, not just someone’s anecdotally based opinion. The author, Professor Tim Groseclose, is the Marvin Hoffenberg Professor of American Politics at UCLA.
Jul 30 2010
You tell me who is practicing hate speech here.
Imagine if the roles were reversed…
If the speaker was a gay minister, speaking gently of our responsibility to pray for our unfortunately confused brethren who don’t understand that Jesus was for gay marriage, saying that tactics of intimidation aimed at straight people are wrong, and the speaker was being shouted down by conservative bible-thumpers carrying signs saying things like “Gays hate God” or some such, you’d have seen this all over the evening news.
But the intolerant Left almost always gets a pass.
Jul 28 2010
In case you have not yet read this or if you have been living in a bunker and do not know the name Dr. Thomas Sowell … here is his latest, and quite brilliant commentary. It should be required reading.
Many of the wonderful-sounding ideas that have been tried as government policies have failed disastrously. Because so few people bother to study history, often the same ideas and policies have been tried again, either in another country or in the same country at a later time – and with the same disastrous results.
One of the ideas that has proved to be almost impervious to evidence is the idea that wise and farsighted people need to take control and plan economic and social policies so that there will be a rational and just order, rather than chaos resulting from things being allowed to take their own course. It sounds so logical and plausible that demanding hard evidence would seem almost like nitpicking.
In one form or another, this idea goes back at least as far as the French Revolution in the 18th century. As J.A. Schumpeter later wrote of that era, “general well-being ought to have been the consequence,” but “instead we find misery, shame and, at the end of it all, a stream of blood.”
The same could be said of the Bolshevik Revolution and other revolutions of the 20th century.
The idea that the wise and knowledgeable few need to take control of the less wise and less knowledgeable many has taken milder forms – and repeatedly with bad results as well.
One of the most easily documented examples has been economic central planning, which was tried in countries around the world at various times during the 20th century, among people of differing races and cultures, and under government ranging from democracies to dictatorships.
The people who ran central planning agencies usually had more advanced education than the population at large, and probably higher IQs as well.
The central planners also had far more statistics and other facts at their disposal than the average person had. Moreover, there were usually specialized experts such as economists and statisticians on the staffs of the central planners, and outside consultants were available when needed. Finally, the central planners had the power of government behind them, to enforce the plans they created.
It is hardly surprising that conservatives, such as Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in Britain and President Ronald Reagan in the United States, opposed this approach. What is remarkable is that, after a few decades of experience with central planning in some countries, or a few generations in others, even communists and socialists began to repudiate this approach.
As they replaced central planning with more reliance on markets, their countries’ economic growth rate almost invariably increased, often dramatically. In the largest and most recent examples – China and India – people by the millions have risen above these countries’ official poverty rates, after they freed their economies from many of their suffocating government controls.
China, where famines have repeatedly ravaged the country, now has a problem of obesity – not a good thing in itself, but a big improvement over famines.
This has implications far beyond economics. Think about it: How was it even possible that transferring decisions from elites with more education, intellect, data and power to ordinary people could lead consistently to demonstrably better results?
One implication is that no one is smart enough to carry out social engineering, whether in the economy or in other areas where the results may not always be so easily quantifiable. We learn not from our initial brilliance, but from trial-and-error adjustments to events as they unfold.
Science tells us that the human brain reaches its maximum potential in early adulthood. Why, then, are young adults so seldom capable of doing what people with more years of experience can do?
Because experience trumps brilliance.
Elites may have more brilliance, but those who make decisions for society as a whole cannot possibly have as much experience as the millions of people whose decisions they pre-empt. The education and intellects of the elites may lead them to have more sweeping presumptions, but that just makes them more dangerous to the freedom, as well as the well-being, of the people as a whole.
Next Page »