On the political violence front, Spanish “green energy” companies are threatening people with mail bombs. (h/t)

South Carolina handily nominates a black dude to run for the 1st congressional district.  But, oh noes, he’s a Republican.  The GOP also nominated an Indian woman to run for governor.  And now, apparently even when the Democrats in South Carolina nominate a black dude, it’s still the Republican’s fault.

Going on with the racism meme.  Remember the OMG racist tea party posters with Obama as Hitler? Well a congressional candidate, who won her party’s nomination, cribbed the same posters for her campaign.  Of course, it’s in Texas. . . what?  She’s black?  And a democrat?  head ‘splode.

Then Oliver Stone makes a cinematic love letter to Hugo Chavez, and it predictably bombs. . . in Venezuela.  You can tell Stone’s a Socialist because he obviously doesn’t care about making a profitable movie.

As much as Obama is pushing the idea of Executive Power, 90% of what he’s doing is just utilizing the powers already granted to the executive by  a lick-spittle congress.  People screaming abuse of power are, often, the idiots who granted the bureaucracy such an expansive role during the prior dozen or so administrations.  And here’s the beauty part; the Republicans, should they gain control in Congress, might roll back some of the President’s policy decisions, but they aren’t going to do jack about limiting the President’s power.  See, they know that they’ll get to play with Obama’s autocratic toys themselves in two and a half years, and they’re salivating over the prospect.

Of course, they’ll only use the bloated Federal Government to “fix” things, and everything that goes wrong is going to be the prior administration’s fault.

Remember this post?  Someone new needs to be smacked.  Apparently, Mr. Ed Shultz, over at MSNBC, wants Obama to “act like a dictator” when talking about the whole BP oil spill fiasco.  He joins the growing list of leftists who are  blindly demonstrating that there’s a really good point to the argument that progressives don’t really “get” the idea of a constitutionally limited government with strictly enumerated powers.

(h/t)

Congressman Rep. Bob Etheridge (D-NC):

My first thought, he seems rather touchy about supporting Obama, doesn’t he?

Of course there’s the official response:

“I have seen the video posted on several blogs. I deeply and profoundly regret my reaction and I apologize to all involved. Throughout my many years of service to the people of North Carolina, I have always tried to treat people from all viewpoints with respect. No matter how intrusive and partisan our politics can become, this does not justify a poor response. I have and I will always work to promote a civil public discourse.”

Funny how politicians always “profoundly regret” getting caught being the vile little asshats they are. And that “poor response” borders on criminal assault. And people were worried about Tea Party violence. . .

(h/t)

When Helen Thomas inadvertently said what she really thought about Jews in Palestine, it’s clear that she had no idea she was saying anything particularly controversial. Even though she was directly channeling classic racial supremacy logic. So, one wonders how the left can tolerate this kind of thinking when they’re supposed to be all about multicultural racial/ethnic/religious tolerance?

It’s because the left tolerates bigotry all the time, just bigotry about the right things: politics and class. The nature of Israel as a Jewish state presents the left with a category problem that they are unable to effectively deal with. All an anti-Semite has to do is remember to replace the word “Jew” with the word “Israeli” and the left would be stymied in any attempt to critique the Protocols of the Elders of Zion— I mean it’s a legitimate critique of Israeli policy, isn’t it?

So you’re going down the road, minding your own business and a cop pulls you over. He says you’re speeding, you say you were going five miles under the speed limit. He writes you a ticket anyway. You take it to court and discover that there’s no radar gun, no laser, just the cop’s word you were going 75 in a 60 zone. No evidence other than police testimony. They’d throw the case out, right?

Not in Ohio.

The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled a trained officer’s “visual estimation” of a vehicle going over the posted speed limit is enough to convict a motorist.

[...]

“A police officer’s unaided visual estimation of a vehicle’s speed is sufficient evidence to support a conviction for speeding in violation of [state law] without independent verification of the vehicle’s speed if the officer is trained, is certified by the Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy or a similar organization that develops and implements training programs to meet the needs of the communities they serve,” wrote the state justices.

In other words, if the cop writes you a ticket, as long as he took the right courses, you have no recourse at all. But it’s ok because we know that a cop would never pull anyone over just because of the way you look, the car you drive, or what your bumper stickers happen to say. Giving police the ability to issue arbitrary citations based on nothing but their own informed opinion, and allow that to be the sole basis of a conviction, I’m sure nothing bad can come of that.

Oh, by the way, fellow Ohioans, our supreme court is elected. And for the record the following justices are responsible for this decision. Think about that when they’re up for re-election: Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, Lanzinger, and Cupp.

Mourn for the Mainstream Media, they’re having difficulty remaining profitable.  What’s an industry to do?  Do you come up with new business models?  Do you try to exploit the new technologies that are supplanting you? Do you try and determine what changes in your product might actually improve the public’s appetite for what you’re trying to sell?

No, silly. You run to the government.  Of course the State will help you, after all, why wouldn’t they want to have some measure of control on the media?  I mean, with all the bad information out there, wouldn’t it be better if some well-meaning avuncular state senator was there to define who was a real journalist or not:

Senator Bruce Patterson is introducing legislation that will regulate reporters much like the state does with hairdressers, auto mechanics and plumbers. Patterson, who also practices constitutional law, says that the general public is being overwhelmed by an increasing number of media outlets–traditional, online and citizen generated–and an even greater amount misinformation.

“Legitimate media sources are critically important to our government,” he said.

He told FoxNews.com that some reporters covering state politics don’t know what they’re talking about and they’re working for publications he’s never heard of, so he wants to install a process that’ll help him and the general public figure out which reporters to trust.

Yeah, that will never be used to vet journalists for ideological purity. It’s only to prevent confusion, really. Besides, it’s just one wingnut state senator who’s intimidated by the Drudge report, it’s not like some huge federal agency is trying to get its regulatory hooks into the news media. I mean, why should this concern anyone? (h/t Instapundit):

Establish a “journalism” division of AmeriCorps. AmeriCorps is the federal program that places young people with nonprofits to get training and do public service work.87 According to proponents, this proposal would help to ensure that young people who love journalism will stay in the field. “It strikes us as a win-win; we get more journalists covering our communities, and young journalists have a chance to gain valuable experience – even at a time when the small dailies where they might have started are laying reporters off.”
[...]
Provide a tax credit to news organizations for every journalist they employ. This could help pay the salary of every journalist. Although the proponent of this idea died before it had been fully developed, one speaker noted it is one way to subsidize journalists without the government picking one paper over another. [How do you define a journalist for the purpose of this rule? See the above wingnut state senator for that.]

Hey, but with all the talk of Government money flowing into media companies, it’s not like a news organization might slant its coverage in favor of the people cutting the checks. Only the tinfoil hat brigade would worry about that.

Why should we worry abouy people saying things like this?

So I don’t—I, I—I’m worried about this, it’s why I have fantasized—don’t get me wrong—but that what if we could just be China for a day? I mean, just, just, just one day. You know, I mean, where we could actually, you know, authorize the right solutions, and I do think there is a sense of that, on, on everything from the economy to environment. I don’t want to be China for a second, OK, I want my democracy to work with the same authority, focus and stick-to-itiveness.

Or this?

It would be good…if (Obama) could be dictator for a few years because he could do a lot of good things quickly.

Well, the reason is, sometimes the elite intellectual authoritarian fantasizing gets out of hand:

Aligning political interests is supposedly a good thing.  If you can form a coalition based on common goals, you can more likely achieve them.  The problem with this is that it’s very easy for those with political agendas to forget what exactly those goals are, and form such coalitions based solely on achieving political power.  What’s the diff, you ask?  Well, if your goal shifts from, say, saving the planet from global warming, to forming a coalition of power that can forcefully take the policy steps you think should be taken, it becomes very easy to hijack your whole movement.  Consider Charlie Stross’ point:

Let’s take the environmentalist side first. A large subset who believe that consumer capitalism is incompatible with long-term human survival. For their purposes, consumer capitalism is an unchanging and unmodifiable whirl of resource extraction trapped in a positive feedback loop such that increasing economic activity and prosperity can only be maintained by increasing the rate of resource extraction and the resulting polution and production of waste.
[...]
Those at the bottom of the economic wealth distribution curve receive the message “we need to reduce economic growth” and interpret it as “you’re never going to get your fair share of the pie”. And when those at the top of the heap hear it, they interpret it as “your share of the pie is too big, so we’re going to take a chunk of it away”.

The upshot is that much environmentalist rhetoric frames an important signal (limited resources and/or the danger of pollution) in terms of a faulty or obsolete economic model to produce a warning message that offends most of the people it’s meant to convince by implicitly threatening their perception of their future status.

Stross is not talking about opportunistic politics, and he’s to the left of this here crazy blogger, but just looking at that analysis you can see why environmentalism is such a attractive posture to take for certain people who have more interest in attacking certain economic models than they do the environment. And as the current incarnation of Cap and Trade rolls down the pike, anyone with a true environmentalist agenda will find themselves on the sidelines wondering what the hell happened.

The EPA is hosting a contest called “Rulemaking Matters!” (Gotta love the gratuitous exclamation point.)

This video contest provided an opportunity for the public to explain federal rulemaking and motivate others to participate in the rulemaking process. Entrants created a short video, not exceeding 90 seconds in length, explaining why rules are important, why the average American should care about federal regulations, and how people can participate in the rulemaking process.

You know I think we should all care about this, but somehow I think my reasons for that differ slightly than the EPA’s. So what kind of entries are they getting?
Here’s a few (h/t Instapundit)

From Reason.tv:

And from The Heritage Foundation:

« Previous PageNext Page »