Happy 4th of July.

(h/t via)

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:

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:

So the IRS can’t enforce the “Individual Mandate.”

And it seems likely that you won’t keep your current health plan. (And Waxman doesn’t want to hear it.)

And guess what, we have onerous additional tax paperwork for every single business that has nothing to do with health care.

Oh, and that whole, “it will control you premium costs?” Ahhh, not so much.

Perhaps they should have read the thing.  I think that might be as good a means to “find out what’s in the bill” as passing it.

05.05.2010

Some people get downright offended when reality doesn’t match their talking points.

But I was promised right-wing violence.

You know, I’m not a Republican, I’m just anti-establishment and the Democrats happen to be the establishment.

Glommed from here. (h/t)

So, this Liberal columnist goes to a Tea Party to report on the racism everyone at the Times knows is there. Problem. He doesn’t find any. How do you report on racism when no one is shouting epithets or holding nasty signs? Here’s how; you mock and denigrate any people of color unfortunate enough to be there.

I had specifically come to this rally because it was supposed to be especially diverse. And, on the stage at least, it was. The speakers included a black doctor who bashed Democrats for crying racism, a Hispanic immigrant who said that she had never received a single government entitlement and a Vietnamese immigrant who said that the Tea Party leader was God. It felt like a bizarre spoof of a 1980s Benetton ad.

The juxtaposition was striking: an abundance of diversity on the stage and a dearth of it in the crowd, with the exception of a few minorities like the young black man who carried a sign that read “Quit calling me a racist.”

I see what you did there.  Sure, there’s a few colored folks there, but they don’t count. They’re shills, tokens, Uncle Toms by another name.

I found the imagery surreal and a bit sad: the minorities trying desperately to prove that they were “one of the good ones”; the organizers trying desperately to resolve any racial guilt among the crowd. The message was clear: How could we be intolerant if these multicolored faces feel the same way we do?

The Tea Party is, at its core, about macro-economic policy, federal government spending, and an expansive bureaucratic state.  So of course it is about race.  The gall is almost admirable, the ability to present, without even a hint of irony, the bald assertion that the key aspect of all this is some unstated invisible racist agenda.  The sad fact is, the only way you can make it about race is to just admit that to you everything is about race, which means that race is only the meaningless shibboleth you happen to use to define those who agree with you on policy and those who do not.

Then the money shot:

Thursday night I saw a political minstrel show devised for the entertainment of those on the rim of obliviousness and for those engaged in the subterfuge of intolerance. I was not amused.

So that’s the bottom line. These Tea Party people are intolerant and bigoted because you say they are intolerant and bigoted, and because you have proclaimed them as such, the unenlightened people of color who dare to stray from the accepted political boxes you have defined for them must be objectified as props, demeaned as unintelligent water-carriers, or mocked as sellouts.

I wonder what the poor black folk there think of your assessment of them?

Oh, wait, here’s one of them now. Mr. Rachel, what do you think of Mr. Blow’s column?

(Also here you can hear Mr. Blow fail to explain himself to Laura Ingram.)