Excellent piece by Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media, discussing humor, in general, and the controversy over the distribution of the song parody, "Barack the Magic Negro," specifically. Should We be Allowed to Laugh?
Factors such as the color of who is saying what can matter a lot to the liberal intelligentsia. Their peculiar standards of discourse require not a discussion of what is being said, but who is saying it, and why. That is why they are cheerleaders for “hate crimes” legislation, which mandate an inspection of one’s mental condition. But it is the liberal mental condition that bears scrutiny. It used to be called political correctness but in the modern era is also known as Obamamania. It has authoritarian tendencies.
In the liberal world, a white person cannot under any circumstances use the term “Negro,” even if it originated from a Los Angeles Times article by a black liberal, as it did in the “Magic Negro” case. Here’s how the Post put it: “There is a difference between an African American writer using the word ‘Negro’ in an ironic way and the Limbaughs and Saltsmans of the world thinking it is acceptable in common usage.”
Acceptable in common usage? Remember that Saltsman distributed a funny CD. What’s more, the song notes that the term came from the Los Angeles Times article. The Post, of course, knows all of this. That is why it is so difficult to take the editorial seriously. But it does demonstrate how a major liberal paper intends to use this made-up “controversy” in order to try to influence the direction of the Republican Party. That is what this entire “scandal” is all about.
This is an issue that will no doubt come up repeatedly over the next four years. Stay tuned.
...
From me: Iraq War now Safer than Life in Obamaland
...
A look at the future of health care spending, from Barack Obama's budget director, Peter Orszag. And you thought all these bailouts were costing taxpayers a lot?
...
The current state of immigration, by Michelle Malkin.
As terrorized citizens of Mexico will tell you, all hell has broken loose. Corrupt police officials and narco-insurgents have left a horrific trail of beheaded and bullet-ridden bodies in their wake on both sides of the border. Mexican Army incursions into U.S. territory are a regular occurrence. In Monterrey, bandits opened fire and threw a grenade at the U.S. consulate this fall. A top Mexican immigration official was arrested in October carrying about 77 kilos of pot in Arizona. On a single weekend in Tijuana, 40 people were murdered, including nine victims who were decapitated. Two weeks ago, famed American anti-kidnapping negotiator Felix Bautista disappeared from the “relatively safe” northern industrial city of Saltillo in Coahuila state. No word on his whereabouts.
The apocalyptic conditions have prompted some Mexican lawmakers to revisit the country’s ban on capital punishment. That’s right. Members of the same foreign government that took America to court over our death penalty laws– and tried to block the state of Texas from executing illegal alien Death Row murderers — are now open to the idea of imposing the death penalty on the thugs on their own soil. And after years of vehement protests against the U.S. for its meager attempts at immigration enforcement, Mexico is cracking down hard on illegal Cuban immigrants caught trying to enter the country from the south. They forged an agreement with Cuba to immediately send back illegal aliens — none of that “undocumented worker” mushiness for them — and punish human smugglers.
Such lawlessness, Mexico has apparently realized, is a grave threat to its people. Without order, there can be no peace. And chaos, as I’ve argued endlessly since September 11, is an invitation for those with far more nefarious intentions. Perhaps this is why Mexico slapped a 60-year prison term on a human smuggler who helped some 200 illegal aliens cross into the U.S. from Mexico — including Hezbollah supporters.
When Mexico is taking serious steps to prevent illegal immigration, things are looking up. Give it another 100 years or so and American liberals might come around on the subject.
...
Pat Buchanan on liberal democrats' affirmative action hypocrisy:
We have a Democratic Senate that champions affirmative action. Yet not one white male Democratic senator, in a caucus that has not a single black member, has ever volunteered to step down and let the governor of their state replace him or her with an African-American.
Not one. That would be liberals leading by example, not exhortation.
If Democrats believe our institutions of power should look like America, why don't they make their Senate caucus look like America? Why do not a dozen Democrat senators resign, to be replaced by 12 appointed black Democrats, giving one-fifth of all Democratic Senate seats to a minority that gave Barack 97 percent of its vote and Barack and Joe Biden one-fourth of all the votes they received?
Why does not Gov. Paterson follow Gov. Blagojevich's lead and name an African-American of Burris' stature to the U.S. Senate?
Fellas, let's start practicing what we preach here.
Of course, the same could be said for nearly every policy they propose. And it should be.
...
Thoroughly ruinous Democrat Card Check policy not a priority. The problem: Democrat majority wants to stay in power.
Paradoxically, it's Mr. Reid's bigger majority that is now hurting him. In 2007, he got every Democrat (save South Dakota's Tim Johnson, who was out sick) to vote for cloture. But it was an easy vote. Democrats like Mr. Pryor knew the GOP held the filibuster, and that Mr. Bush stood ready with a veto. Now that Mr. Reid has 58 seats, red-state Democrats in particular are worried they might actually have to pass this turkey, infuriating voters and businesses back home.
Recent Comments