Dissociative Shift Principle

The Dissociative Shift Principle is obligatory wealth transfer through an independent centralized body to recipients of the authority’s choosing. Those funding the transfer are necessarily unaware of the subsequent capital distribution and the recipients are unaware of the disbursements’ true origins, as the distribution is promulgated and controlled by the overreaching central body. In short, the Federal Government usurps the credit for the riches bestowed upon the unwashed masses. Employment of this principle has been demonstrated near countless times in today’s society, as it has in generations past.

Politicians, as well as government officials and agencies, capitalize on the dissociated capital transfer to bolster the government’s importance to its now indebted recipients, creating a friendly, yet dependent bloc–a vassal class–whose allegiance is now ensured through modern serfdom. Our politicians have created and assumed the role of the new American aristocracy.

So, what does this mean for America and the eager participants in this new arrangement? Well, initially it sounds like a great deal. It’s a fair conclusion that those who really reap the rewards stemming from government-supplied benefits are those who do not pay taxes. In other words, they are getting government-provided services without having to participate in funding the programs. Yes, as tax payers, we receive some of the benefit, as well, but from a bang for your buck perspective, getting something for nothing will always trump the advantage realized by one who actually pays. As voters, the non-contributing recipients of such benefits will no doubt support such ballot proposals and the politicians who initiate them, essentially spending someone else’s money. And since the proportion of tax payers vs. non-tax payers is 43.4%, the bloc of people truly reaping the rewards will no doubt automatically push through any benefit program that they don’t have to pay for as there isn’t sufficient contention to stop it. Once the proportion shifts numerically favoring non-tax payers, our true rights as tax-paying citizens will be stifled. The tax payer will have no recourse but to accept tax hikes resulting from programs and initiatives that non-tax payers vote through.

We see how the rights of the tax payers are diminishing, but what about the rights of the non-tax paying public? Unbeknownst to them, their rights are diminishing, as well. Basically, they are allowing the government to usurp the authority and gain unprecedented control over such things as education and health care, while limiting our potential for economic gain through targeted higher taxes, which abate economic incentive.

Until now, the United States has been successful in relieving itself of a feudal system mentality and aristocratic rule with our victory in the Revolutionary War and subsequent adoption of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, the modern architects of societal reengineering have adopted aspects of this once rejected form of governance and wealth management in a concerted effort to win the hearts, minds, and now bodies of their hapless constituency.

Election

I weep for what my nation has become.

At the risk of being coarse, my take is “screw hope.” Let me tell you about my view of “hope.” Hope is for the guy in New Orleans who ignores

the warnings from the governor, the weather service and the police and stays in his trash-filled apartment to “ride out” the hurricane. He ends up on the roof, doing nothing to help himself, and “hopes” someone will save him. When it takes too long, he’s “let down.”
Hope is for the guy who “can’t find a job,” and lays around on someone’s couch, “hoping” a job will materialize out of nowhere. In the meantime, he smokes a little crack to pass the time while he “hopes.”

Hope is for the woman who has five kids by four guys. She “hopes” one of the men will come back, pay to support her and her kids. Maybe he’ll even like all of the kids, not just the one boy who looks like him. Maybe he’ll quit drinking and dealing drugs. In the meantime, she collects her food stamps and waits.

Hope is for the guy with the dead-end job who fights with his wife about him not wanting to go back to college to get his degree so he can get a better job. Instead, he hopes the union will protect his job and in the meantime, pins his hopes on hitting it big at the black jack table at the Casino Queen.

Screw “hope.”

We used to be a country of hard-working optimists. We didn’t have hope, we had confidence. We had confidence that we lived in a country that gave us no gift other than the greatest gift of all—the opportunity to succeed. We knew that if we worked hard, played by the rules and made an effort, we would succeed and no one would penalize us. We were all like the Vietnamese Boat People, who came here with nothing but a work ethic and succeeded. Wildly.

Not any more.

Now we cling to “hope.” Hope that the government will take care of our problems. Hope the that government will see that we can do nothing and that we need help. Hope that the government will take money away from “the rich” and give it to us, because we’ve been victims for so long. We’re powerless…and all we have is hope. Reagan’s optimism and confidence in ourselves as individuals and as a country are gone, replaced by “hope” that someone will make things better for us.

I’m not condemning Obama. There will always be Obamas out there, traversing the political landscape, trying to sell the masses the idea that they can make things better, that they have the solution, that success can be easy, that you can be happy and feel successful without hard work. It’s just like taking a pill that makes all that extra weight go away.

Every daughter who marries the unemployed guy, or the band dude, has a dad who had hoped he’d raised her well and that she would see through the smooth-talking guys with the sweet lines, only to be crushed and disappointed when she falls for the pie in the sky promises. I feel that way about Obama and my country. I don’t blame Obama. I’m disappointed that my country bought the line, and moreover, that we bought the line simply because we’ve lost that inner confidence and optimism, and most important, our collective work ethic.

Screw hope? Screw us.

Strange Bedfellows

Dr. Jacobsen,

Your conduct regarding the vandalism of a university-approved pro-life display on campus was nothing short of reprehensible. The students who erected the display did so following all university procedures and were exercising their constitutionally protected right to free speech. You may not have agreed with them or their views on this subject, but infringing upon their free exercise was absolutely wrong, and completely indefensible.

Yet, you attempted to defend your actions, claiming that your act of vandalism was itself an act of free speech. This claim, as any first-year law student would tell you, is utterly ridiculous. Beyond that, I suspect any reasonable person would also find it ridiculous. By the twisted logic of your claim, students who disagreed, an anti-war display, for example, would be within their free speech rights if they destroyed said display. Further, applying your logic, any poster, publication, display or activity could be destroyed or interrupted by those who disagreed.

Too often we hear those on the Left call conservatives fascists. Yet we do not see conservative groups destroying displays erected by liberals. We do not see Al Franken being protected by an entourage of security people when he speaks at various universities. We do not see students throwing pies at Hillary Clinton. We don’t see the tires of cars bearing Kerry/Edwards bumper stickers being slashed. But we do see professors (supposed leaders of our youth) destroying pro-life displays. We hear professors calling the people slaughtered in the twin towers on 9/11 names like “oppressor” and “criminal” (I recently read a profile of a 72 year-old great-grandmother who died at the World Trade Center; was she an “oppressor”?). We see Ann Coulter being harangued and assaulted by college students. We see conservative speakers at universities requiring the protection of a phalanx of security personnel. We see cars bearing Bush/Cheney bumper stickers being vandalized.

So, I ask you, who are the fascists? Who is assaulting free speech? Who is teaching our young people to act like terrorists (I feel free to use that word when it applies)? Who is operating by the old communist credo of “the end justifies the means”?

Your conduct was a disgrace not only to yourself and the fine university which now has to deal with you. Your conduct was a disgrace to all teachers, and an affront to all of us who believe that the freedom of speech we enjoy in this country is vital to our nation’s continued vitality.
I urge you to first apologize to the students you attacked, and then to the students you wrongly led in this criminal act. I urge you to then resign. This would show all students, right, left and center, that above all else, at least one university professor takes the right of free speech very seriously.

Links:

It’s About Ideology, Not Oil

For all those lefties who really believe George W. Bush is nothing more than Darth Vader wedged into a Brooks Brothers suit, Musab al-Zarqawi’s warnings to Iraqi voters in the days immediately preceding the Jan. 30 elections must have been disappointing. In case you missed it, al-Zarqawi, fittingly enough, Al Qaida’s Number 2, cleared up a few things for the world in a missive to the world in general and to potential Iraqi voters specifically.

“We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology,” Zarqawi declared in a statement. “Democracy is also based on the right to choose your religion,” he said, and that is “against the rule of God.”
In case any of our friends like Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry are worried that al-Zarqawi just slipped “off-message” for a moment, it may be helpful to remember what bin Laden himself had to say on the subject in December; “Anyone who participates in these elections  has committed apostasy against Allah.”

And really, these sentiments regarding democracy are nothing new.  Consider what Sayyid Qutb, one of the pillars of “Islamic thought” had to say on the subject of democracy way back in 1957: “In the world there is only one party, the party of Allah; all of the others are parties of Satan and rebellion. Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah; and those who disbelieve fight in the cause of the rebellion.”
So Pelosi, Boxer, Reid, Dean, Kerry and the intellectual giants who can put their complete thoughts on the war in Iraq on a 36? by 36? sign to be carried a the protest du jour, can bleat all they want about “no blood for oil,” “wrong war, wrong place, wrong time” and “Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton” all they want. But this war is about terrorists trying to destroy democracy and democratic nations by any means necessary. And whether he ever acknowledges it, Bush has drawn a line in the sands of Iraq, and invited Islamic fascists of every stripe to square off against our military.

It’s an ingenious strategy, one that carries the added benefits of freeing an oppressed nation, ridding the world of a tyrant of historic proportions and sending a message to places like Syria (which in all likelihood is now storing Saddam’s WMD) that tyrants must now toe the line. And that’s working; hasn’t Mr. Qaddafi been on his best behavior lately?

Our friends on the left seem to be missing the point of all of this. They refer to the people who are shooting RPGs at our troops and who are beheading everyone in sight as “insurgents.” They also cry about how terrible the war is, and how every day terrorists stream into Iraq to fit the “occupying forces.” Uh, that’s exactly what we want them to do. Come to Iraq, and take on the greatest military force the world has ever known. Invite your friends. Unfortunately, for nearly all of them, it’s a one way trip.

But they don’t realize these terrorists are flocking to fight U.S. troops in Iraq to stop democracy. And they’re in a panic because the impotence (politically, obviously) of the Clinton administration lulled them into believe they could attack the world’s foremost proponent of democracy and peck away at it endlessly. What the terrorists didn’t foresee was an American president willing to set up a battleground on their turf, with the prize of a major Middle Eastern nation’s political future as one of the prizes to go to the victor. Rather than blowing up your local Starbucks, or ripping through your neighborhood elementary school with AK 47s and grenades, the terrorists are on their heels, on the defensive, trying to protect their own turf from “the wrong ideology” that is democracy.

In Praise of Insensitivity

My daughter came home from school last week with a collection of artwork she had completed during the early part of the Christmas, I mean, “holiday” season.

The collection—done in the usual media, Crayola, water color and construction paper, of second grade—was pretty typical, Christmas trees, candy canes, wreaths, presents…

And a detailed rendering of a menorah.

A menorah. Hmm….we’re not Jewish, and our kids don’t go to a Jewish school. In fact, they attend a public school that’s fairly politically correct, although certainly not to the degree of those that routinely make the headlines each “holiday season.”

I guess the correct, contemporary reaction to this would have been to be offended—or at least make such a claim—and then rage, loudly and publicly about being hurt, being excluded, yammering about separation of Church and State, contacting the ACLU, etc. Talk about power, by raising enough of a stink I could have probably gotten some sort of apology from the school district, perhaps a check (to a disturbingly large and growing number of people, that’s what it all comes down to these days…getting a check). At the very least, I could’ve probably been granted the privilege of selecting my daughter’s teacher for next year.

After all, there’s great power in being offended. Construct any case for being offended on any grounds related to race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, height, weight, hair color, religion (well, except for any form of Christian) now matter how convoluted, get an attorney, go to court or threaten to, and the world will beat a path to your door…like three kings, bearing gifts of overwrought apologies, promises of sensitivity training programs, and of course cash.  The argument need not make sense, and its validity is secondary to someone having the nerve enough to advance it.

Think about it. Oppose the legalization of gay marriage and supporters of the idea of twisting the basic meaning and definition of what constitutes a marriage will be offended, and claim you hate gays. Your opposition is nearly a form of the much-dreaded “hate speech.”

Observe a holiday that is observed by about 95% of Americans and the 5% who do not observe it, for reasons involving religion, lack of religion or sheer contrariness, and you’ll be accused of being insensitive.

Try to encourage Spanish-speaking grade-schoolers to learn English, the most valuable tool any immigrant—legal or otherwise—can have in seeking success in this country, and you’ll be accused of being insensitive, and not caring about the native culture of these kids.

Well, don’t worry about this American. Tell my daughter—we’re Catholic—about Hanukah and the significance of the menorah, have her make a drawing of said menorah, and I’ll applaud it. As I see it, we probably should have taught her something about the Jewish faith. Let the NHL team from Vancouver come to town and while I may or may not go to see them play, I certainly won’t be out in front of the Savvis Center carrying a sign protesting the name “Canucks.” That name is a term applied to French-Canadians, a term many of those French-Canadians view with the same revulsion that black Americans have for the “n word.” And I have every right to be offended, as my mother’s side of the family is packed with French-Canadians.

And let’s hear it for Condoleezza Rice, who after being called an “Aunt Jemima” by a nitwit DJ in Wisconsin had no reaction, and expressed no offense. Hats off to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas who to date has not taken offense to Harry Reid’s condemnation of the judicial opinions which Thomas has written. Reid called them “poorly written” and “embarrassing.” Thomas had no reaction. And let’s have a round of applause for George W. Bush, who still has not taken offense to then-presidential candidate John Kerry’s reaction to late campaign polls showing Bush in the lead. A frustrated Kerry whined to his campaign staff “How can I be losing to this idiot?” Here’s two sets of cheers for Secretary of State Colin Powell who failed to take offense when that racist DJ in Wisconsin called him an “Uncle Tom” and who reacted to UN accusations that the U.S. is “stingy” with aid to victims of the tsunami (wait, they’re not “victims,” they’re “people living with the effects of a tsunami”), with a mere and accurate “The United States is not stingy.”

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the offense/sensitivity game is that those who seem to be in a perpetual state of being offended are constantly distraught. Those who let “offensive statements” or actions roll off their backs seem to be at peace with themselves. Or at the very least, they’re stable enough to focus on dealing with the important matters at hand.

Of course, no offense intended.

Hitler Reborn: Eugenics All the Rage in The Nether…

Cries of anguish can be heard throughout the land when a Nativity scene is placed on government property. Dominating the headlines, news about “gay rights suppression” when marriage definition amendments are proposed becomes the concern du jour. Human rights leaders decry the abuses by militant regimes of neighboring opposition groups. But nary a word is uttered when news of government-sponsored child killing becomes a matter of routine civil procedure. Do these act of barbarism spring forth from our struggling, third-world neighbors?

No.

Instead, the assault against humanity originates from none other than the enlightened, freedom-embracing, Dutch members of European society. But this thinking is nothing new to Europeans. Seventy years ago this was attempted with the 1933 passage of the “Law for the Prevention of Progeny of the Genetically Unhealthy.” This historic predecessor was promulgated by none other than the soldier of human rights, stalwart hero of the downtrodden, protectorate of the disadvantaged: Adolph Hitler. Back then, it was call “eugenics.” Now, it’s called “merciful.” Call it whatever you like, it’s still the same thing. The Dutch, it would seem, have blown the dust from their copy of “Mein Kampf” and are now embracing some of the felled dictator’s core philosophies. Like the Phoenix rising from the ashes, Hitler’s brainchild resurfaces in modern, post-war Europe.

Groningen University Hospital has decided its doctors will euthanize children under the age of 12 if those doctors believe a child’s suffering intolerable or if the child has an incurable illness. Incurable? Diabetes is incurable. AIDS is incurable. Spinal Bifida is incurable. Though differing in physical severity, none of the three guarantee a life without worth. Which of the three would qualify as an affliction punishable by death and who will make this determination? Odd when you think of it—they punish the disease by killing the child. Of course, these champions of genetic excellence would have you believe their motives are pure and beyond reproach. But let’s boil it down to it’s roots. In fact, it has very little to do with the interests of the afflicted. Actually, it has nothing to do with their interests at all. If the pediatric killers were to speak the truth (and don’t hold your breath waiting for that), what you would hear them say is that it is convenient. It is cost-effective. It represents closure for the real victims: the relatives, the care givers, the government. Once eliminated, the true victims of the handicapped youngster’s affliction are freed from the tremendous burden of providing for the child’s substantial needs.

The nineteenth-century English displayed far more empathy and concern for “the Elephant Man” than do the modern Dutch for their own afflicted children. At least the Victorian Britons didn’t kill Joseph Merrick. He managed to die all on his own—a luxury not afforded to the Dutch handicapped.

But the Dutch’s penchant for murdering their ailing and handicapped children should come as no surprise to anyone. They have been unflinchingly goose-stepping their way to this point for years. Beginning with killing terminally-ill people who were deemed competent and still requesting death, this was modified to include murdering folks who weren’t even terminal—they had incurable illnesses or handicaps. Not to exclude anyone, those who were merely depressed could now be killed on request. Garnering even more power still, doctors could now kill the incompetent, such as an Alzheimer’s patient—as long as they had asked for it while they were still “competent.” But with their newfound mandate to murder children, doctor’s can now use their own discretionary principles when determining the life or death fate of a malady-ridden child—when determining the worth of a child’s life. Now, they truly are judge, jury, and executioner. Finally, they have achieved a significant milestone toward attaining the status of “God.”

Soylent green anyone?

They Got the Beat

BBC Correspondent Barbara Plett apparently had been having difficulty coming to grips with the deteriorating health of Yasser Arafat. In such a tenuous emotional state had she arrived that she began crying as he was airlifted from his compound in Ramallah. Indeed, truly a heart-wrenching experience for even the most staid political journalist. Yet she was befuddled by the lack of concern and solidarity of the local population. I’m sure she must have mused about how such a great embattled leader—a true patriot of peace and middle east cultural harmony—could be overlooked during his most trying personal times. I suppose that when one is caught up by the inescapable overwhelming emotional build-up of such a situation, it’s easy to forget that the “people’s hero” being carted off was single-handedly responsible for the violent deaths of countless numbers of his own people’s children. Compelling them to strap explosives to their person, infiltrate evil Israeli military complexes like buses, shopping malls, and schools and ignite the “bomb of peace and unity” in the name of “Allah” for the collective societal benefit of the Palestinians.

Since when do presumably rational, clear-thinking individuals accept—no, make that embrace—someone in a position of power who has focused his entire political career developing a single exportable commodity—death? It’s utterly amazing that people who are fortunate enough to enjoy a public forum—a forum with which to imbue their readership with their personal philosophical beliefs—would abandon all semblance of reason and backhandedly endorse the most heinous aberration of mankind. Hardly the noble savage to which the leftists are so fond of likening this creature. Instead, he is a murderer—plain and simple. He advanced his pointless agenda through brutal attacks on the most vulnerable and innocent members of society. He killed children. What more needs to be said? And we are expected to extend sympathy for his cause? I think not. Well, at least not all of us will. There is, however, Barbara Plett. She will take up his cause. As will Jacques Chirac, the so-called “leader” of the downward-spiraling, socialist stronghold of Europe—France. And Jesse Jackson, who extends a welcoming hand of understanding and solidarity to the verminous leader. The man orders the deaths of hundreds, and Jackson greets him with a smile and a handshake. What a flattering image for Dr. King’s protégé. The U.S. military would face ceaseless denouncements from those on the international stage for even mistakenly engaging in such action. Yasser Arafat is heralded and bestowed honors of peace and political equality.

It’s inexplicable how Arafat, whose name is synonymous with terrorism, can somehow be transformed into an embattled hero for these hapless leftists. Yes, now even a man who publicly calls for the destruction of an entire state of people can be heralded as a hero and a “peacemaker” (as affirmed by the Nobel organization). It’s odd how the term “genocide” can selectively be assigned depending on race and religious orientation. That was, after all, the goal this “peacemaker” so ardently sought.

Indeed, Arafat enjoyed the rich fruits brought forth by weak politicians and myopic “journalists” who actively rewrote history while the events were still unfolding. They turned a blind eye to the innocents lost only to embrace a man with genocidal aspirations that were thinly veiled by proclamations of peace and purported desires for sovereignty and country. Yet both were ritually rejected at every opportunity.

Hollywood Heroes, Real Life Cowards

So, we were all supposed to sit up, take note and express our admiration and appreciation for the courageous stands taken by the “artists” that make up Hollywood in “speaking out” against George Bush, the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism? We were supposed to think Natalie Maines was a heroine when she slammed our president from across the waters? We were supposed to take heed and admire Tim Robbins when he railed against “the chill wind” he sees blowing across the U.S.? We were supposed to find inspiration in the brave “stands” taken by Alec Baldwin, Jeannine Garafolo, Susan Sarandon, Barbra Streisand, Rosie O’Donnell and co., against the Evil John Ashcroft and the PATRIOT Act.

So, we’re all to believe that the Intellectual Giants who populate Hollywood and comprise the American music industry are true lovers of artistic freedom and free speech?

Try telling that to Dutch Director Theo Van Gogh. Well, actually, it’s too late. It’s too late because he was shot by yet another fine example of what fundamentalist Islam is giving the world. Oh, and after he was blown off his bicycle by the gunfire of the Moroccan-Dutch Islamic psychopath, Van Gogh had his throat slit, was stabbed and then, just for good measure, his attacker tacked a five-page screed to Van Gogh’s chest using a large carving knife. The mini-manifesto so thoughtfully attached to Mr. Van Gogh’s lifeless body was filled with the usual vitriol from our Muslim pals, you know, “America will be punished,” “the blood of the infidels will flow in rivers,” “the screams of pain will blah, blah” and so forth. Not a particularly original bunch of writers, these Islamic fundamentalists.

Well, a couple of weeks later there are no “screams of pain” here in the U.S. In fact, it’s pretty quiet. Especially in Hollywood. Hmmm.

One has to wonder:  Where are the courageous minions of the entertainment industry? When is Leonardo DiCaprio going to decry the brutal slaying of Van Gogh, whose Capital Offense was to make a 10-minute film which commented on the Dark Ages state of existence for Muslim women? When is Rosie O’Donnell going to condemn Van Gogh’s murder? Is Alec Baldwin preparing a speech condemning the lack of respect for artistic freedom on the part of fundamentalist Islam shown to us by Van Gogh’s slaying?

It doesn’t look likely. Rosie, Alec, Leonardo, Susan & Tim, Natalie, Jeannine, Barbra and the other Brave Defenders of Artistic Freedom are silent. They may play heroes on screen, and they may act like heroes during their concerts, but when the bullets start flying and the knives start slashing—even 5,000 miles from Hollywood—they prove themselves to be cowards. Unvarnished cowards.

This was an easy one too. Van Gogh wasn’t an American. Van Gogh wasn’t a Bush administration lackey, an American soldier, or a lover of things American. Heck, he probably wasn’t a big fan of our president. But he was an artist, and as the grand nephew of the famed painter who bore the same last name, one could easily argue that he was something of a poster child for artists the world over and their artistic freedom. But still, Hollywood remains silent.

Maybe they’re afraid some Islamic crackpot will paint a target on some actor’s back. Maybe they think Van Gogh got what he deserved because he failed to “show tolerance” to Muslim culture. Maybe they didn’t like Van Gogh’s films. Maybe—though they all claim to be True Artists and Students of the Arts—they didn’t even know who Van Gogh was. Or maybe they just don’t care.

But far more likely they’re not just cowards, but they’re so consumed by their hatred of George Bush and of the America he and the 60 million plus Americans who voted for him that they cannot bring themselves to condemn Van Gogh’s murderer, because doing so would align them with Bush and put them into the “terrorists are evil” camp.

So in three years, when they come out from under the blankets and start campaigning for Hilary Clinton, and when they start railing against whoever dares to run as the Republican nominee, remember their disgraceful silence when one of their own was attacked. Remember their utter failure to answer the challenge when their precious artistic freedom was assaulted. Remember them as the cowards and hypocrites they’ve shown themselves to be.

Jesse…Hello? Al…Are You There? Mr. Mfume??

Last week, the media and pundits of every stripe were abuzz over statements made by a Wisconsin disc jockey. The intellectual giant, broadcasting from one of the nations staunchest enclaves of liberal thought, referred to National Security Advisor and soon-to-be Secretary of State Dr. Condoleezza Rice as an “Aunt Jemima” and soon-to-be ex-Secretary of State and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell as “Uncle Tom.”

Needless to say, the comments of the disc Jockey, John Sylvester of WTDY-AM in Madison, drew a great deal of attention (which is why he used the slurs) and generated condemnation by many.

Pundits, members of the Bush administration, local officials and WTDY management condemned Sylvester’s racial slurs against two of the nation’s highest achievers (no, not just two of the nation’s highest achieving African-Americans).

But missing from the chorus were the normally shrill and always loud voices of so-called civil rights leaders Rev. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Kweisi Mfume. Odd.

The silence of these three is both surprising and telling. After all, the trio is quick to protest all types of affronts, grievous or not, to the African-American community. Jackson (we’ll dispense with “Rev.” and such titles…after all, we don’t see “Dr.” in front of Ms. Rice’s name anywhere in the mainstream media, do we?) has been quoted ad nauseam about his self-appointed duty to protect the rights of “his people” and about “respect” being shown to African-Americans. Jackson will go to any length to protect thugs, criminals and all manner of ne’er do wells from what he calls “racism,” no matter how unworthy the “victim” or how inappropriate the charge of racism may be (all too often, Jackson is concerned not with racism, or the welfare of “his people,” but with deflecting any criticism of any African-American and with getting protection money from large corporations seeking to fend off his dubious or patently false charges of racist conduct. But I digress…). But where is he now, when Ms. Rice and Gen. Powell are being slurred?? Where is the outrage of Jackson, Sharpton, the entire NAACP and for that matter, the liberals who profess to be the protectors of minorities?

Not only did Sylvester slur these two exemplary high achievers, he compounded his offense by initially refusing to apologize with Dr. Rice (who was undergoing surgery at the time of the broadcast insults) or Gen. Powell. In fact, Sylvester went one step further, apologizing instead to the makers of Aunt Jemima products.

Yet Jackson, Sharpton, Mfume, Nancy Pelosi etc. remained silent.

Sylvester maintained that Dr. Rice and Gen. Powell deserved the racial slurs because of their subservient role in the Bush administration (apparently this genius doesn’t think that presidents have always had the last word – even with the most senior cabinet members).

This charge is beyond ridiculous. Gen. Powell has long been seen as a dissenting voice in Bush’s cabinet. In fact, senior administration officials have on several occasions been irritated by Powell’s unwillingness to fall lockstep in place behind Bush. And the relationship between Dr. Rice and President Bush is especially notable in that Dr. Rice is completely at ease in disagreeing with Bush. In fact, it’s no secret that Dr. Rice disagrees with the president on The <p>Ultimate Litmus Test, the Sacred Cow of the Left, abortion. To call either of these two cabinet members subservient is to betray an utter and thorough ignorance of the nature of their relationships with the president.

Race aside, Dr. Rice and Gen. Powell have earned the respect of all Americans. Both have been lifetime overachievers who rose from humble beginnings to excel. Both value hard work, dedication and commitment to excellence. Both are stellar examples of what anyone willing to work and sacrifice can achieve. Both have packed nearly incomprehensible accomplishments into remarkably few years…see for yourself:

Resume – Condoleezza Rice (born November 14, 1954)

  • Became Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, commonly referred to as the National Security Advisor, on January 22, 2001, under President George W. Bush. She is the second African American and first woman to hold the office.
  • Born in Birmingham, Alabama, she earned her bachelor’s degree in political science, cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of Denver in 1974; her master’s degree from the University of Notre Dame in 1975; and her Ph.D. from the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver in 1981. She is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and has been awarded honorary doctorates from Morehouse College in 1991, the University of Alabama in 1994, the University of Notre Dame in 1995 and the Mississippi College School of Law in 2003.
  • At Stanford University, Rice is a tenured Professor of Political Science, Senior Fellow of the Institute for International Studies, and a Fellow (by courtesy) of the Hoover Institution. From 1993-1999 she served as the Stanford Provost.
  • From 1989 through March 1991, the period of German reunification and the final days of the Soviet Union, she served in the George H. W. Bush Administration as Director, and then Senior Director, of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council, and a Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. In 1986, while an international affairs fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, she served as Special Assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In 1997, she served on the Federal Advisory Committee on Gender—Integrated Training in the Military.
  • Rice was a member of the boards of directors for the Chevron Corporation (which named an oil tanker Condoleezza Rice after her, later quietly renamed Altair Voyager), the Charles Schwab Corporation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the University of Notre Dame, the International Advisory Council of J.P. Morgan and the San Francisco Symphony Board of Governors. She was a Founding Board member of the Center for a New Generation, an educational support fund for schools in East Palo Alto and East Menlo Park and was Vice President of the Boys and Girls Club of the Peninsula. In addition, her past board service has encompassed such organizations as Transamerica Corporation, Hewlett Packard, the Carnegie Corporation, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Rand Corporation, the National Council for Soviet and East European Studies, the Mid-Peninsula Urban Coalition and KQED, public broadcasting for San Francisco.

But  Jackson, Sharpton, Mfume, Pelosi and The Left stand silent as these exceptional people are insulted by a publicity-hungry self-described Liberal.

Why? Because Jackson, Sharpton, Mfume, Pelosi and the others who claim to be the champions of minorities don’t care a whit about minorities. They care only about the minority vote. So to them, Gen. Powell and Dr. Rice are the enemy. They do not embrace the Liberal mindset and worse, both achieved through sheer diligence and hard work and without “the helping hand” of government programs or affirmative action.

And perhaps even worse, President Bush has assembled the most truly diverse cabinet in U.S. history. And that cabinet is diverse not merely racially, but in gender, age and thought. That last bit of diversity is especially notable. Would John Kerry have appointed anyone to his cabinet who was anti-legalized abortion? Would Kerry have appointed anyone to his cabinet who was anti-legalized gay marriage? Did Bill Clinton&mdash;the self-described “first black president”&mdash;allow for any diversity of thought in his cabinet? Would Bill Clinton ever have considered appointing a Republican to his cabinet (remember, Bush offered Dem. John Breaux of Louisiana a cabinet position. Breaux flatly rejected the offer. So much for “reaching out.”).

The answer is a resounding “NO.”

So, through their silence, Jackson, Sharpton, Mfume, Pelosi and the entire Left has exposed its true feelings on racism and civil rights: As far as they’re concerned, protection from racism and the preservation of one’s civil rights is subservient to political orientation.

So while the Left makes noise about protecting minorities, it’s actually the Republicans who are doing something for minorities. It’s the Republicans who are not only putting minorities into top cabinet positions, they’re putting the best, most qualified people into those positions, regardless of race. It’s the Republicans who speak out and condemn the John Sylvesters of this world, the robe and hood cross-burning crowd whose existence should disgust any reasonable person.

Keep talking, Jesse, Al, Kweisi, Nancy and company. You’re true colors are starting to show.

What Happened?

Ron Artest is sorry. Really.

In case you missed it, the Indiana Pacers star/badboy/thug was involved in a free-for-all last Friday night near the end of a game against the Detroit Pistons in Auburn Hills, Mich. An on-court shoving match quickly grew into a fight between players from both teams. Artest—who recently was suspended by his team for two days for requesting a few games off to recuperate from a “hectic schedule,” which at the time centered around the launch of his new rap album—walked away from the battle, and laid down on the scorer’s table, evidently in an attempt to show he was too cool to be intimidated.

A Detroit fan took exception to Artest’s laying down on the job, and launched a cup of beer at the player. Artest exploded, ran into the stands and began passing out free knuckle sandwiches to every paying customer he could reach. Well, the sandwiches weren’t exactly free; Artest will soon be paying millions of dollars for them.

Several fans were punched as the battle raged on. Artest did the most damage, though teammates Stephen Jackson and Jermaine O’Neal managed to get in their licks too.

NBA Commissioner David Stern laid down the law less than two days two days later, suspending Artest for the next 72 games, while giving Jackson a 30-game unpaid vacation and O’Neal a 25 game suspension. In all, nine players were disciplined. The incident was so out of bounds that local authorities are now preparing to file criminal charges in the matter.

This isn’t a sports site, and really, I’m not going to comment extensively about who was right in this NBA meets Jerry Springer episode (yes, at one point a chair was thrown, making it an officially sanctioned Springer party). I will say that whoever threw the beer ought to get soaked with the normal legal penalties one would in such a case, and that any fan who stepped on the court ought to face trespassing and whatever other charges are the norm (and in most arenas and stadiums, the penalties for stepping on the field of play are announced over the PA system). And Artest probably got what he deserved. Certainly, getting bombed with a warm Old Style was no picnic, and anyone would get mad about such treatment. But punching a customer—in this case a fan—is dead wrong.

Anyway, after Stern announced the suspensions—fittingly enough, at Madison Square Garden—Artest said “I respect David Stern, but I don’t think he has been fair with me in this situation,” blah, blah.

Then he closed his comments:  “I also regret and apologize to fans who were upset by what happened.”

By “what happened”? So, Mr. Artest didn’t do anything…neither did his teammates, nor the opposing Pistons players, nor the fans? No one did anything. It was no one’s fault. I just “happened”?

This is another example of a disturbing trend, the new non-apology. It’s the same thing every time. No matter what the offense:  a borderline psychopathic powderpuff football game in Chicago, a “wardrobe malfunction” at the Super Bowl halftime show, or a mass murder, the perpetrator gets cornered and has no choice but to apologize. But it’s never “Yep, I lost my head and killed 12 people, and yep, it’s on film and I did tape a confession. I was wrong and I apologize to everyone I hurt when I did this. I am sorry for what I did.” No, in today’s world, it’s always “I apologize to anyone who was hurt or upset about what happened.”

That’s a couple of steps away from a real apology, in which one acknowledges wrongdoing, recognizes the injury he/she has caused, and accepts responsibility for his/her wrongful actions. The “what happened apology” is always preceded by “to anyone who was hurt” or “if anyone was offended by,” etc. So what’s being said is “OK, maybe some people were hurt or offended” which implies that it’s their fault for being so sensitive. What’s also being said is “well, it wasn’t my fault…it just happened.”

Wrong. “Happened” applies to occurrences that are beyond anyone’s control. Weather “happens.” Earthquakes “happen.” Lunar eclipses “happen.” Bill Clinton lying “happens.” Sprinting into the crowd and an NBA game and slugging a few fans—obnoxious or not—doesn’t “happen.” It’s something you, Mr. Artest, did. Deliberately planning a “wardrobe malfunction” and making a boob of yourself in front of 140 million viewer doesn’t just “happen,” it’s something you did, Mr. Timberlake and Ms. Jackson.

So by saying “what happened” what you’re really saying is that the incident was beyond you control. And since it was beyond your control, it wasn’t your fault. And since it wasn’t your fault, but you’re sort of apologizing, you’re really apologizing for something that wasn’t your fault. All of which means that really, you are the victim. You are the good guy.

That’s not an apology. That’s not accepting responsibility. In fact, those that are mouthing these non-apologies are simply arrogant.

And if anyone’s offended by that, I’m sorry.