Whoa. Its a great time to be an American when people have a union crying about physical intimidation. Wal-Mart workers of Loveland, CO, I salute you!

And Hillary Clinton wants to be sure she has the right to vote as soon as she is done serving her sentence. Good game.

Flawless victory. Fatality.

Wait, I just figured out Karl Rove's plan. The Daily Kos et al work for him and are dragging the dems further down to make it even easier for reps. Brilliant!

Classic bumper sticker understanding combined with a good blue state education. There's 121 more.

your wife will be forced into prostitution by the government.

How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin. -Ronald Reagan

Slow your roll MH, this post isn't about communism. This post is about being taught what to think versus being taught how to think. Its a little bit about extracting ideology to real world application. It also touches on what I like to call bumper sticker understanding. The inability to think about a situation in terms that are too big to be a slogan on a bumper sticker: "No war for oil", "Wage peace", etc.

The two posts that brought this concept to the forefront of my attention again were: This one in which Prof. Reynolds puts forth a point, really a quip, about Prof. Churchill looking like a stereotype. This quickly evolves into a long post about the angry left and the view that it is self-destructive and defeating to behave this way. He provides numerous links to other opinions, including dissents. Notice the complete ideas, dissenting views, and the depth of information and examples both from history and recent history. But mostly notice the links.
Contrast with the reply from Mr. Zuniga. No links; not even to the post to which he is referring. No dissenting opinion. (Its moderated negatively and removed if you try to post some in the forums.) Just one-liners from the Dean wing of the DNC. He doesn't even really refute at what Prof. Reynolds was getting. His reply obviously stemmed out of the "screw them" bit in Prof. Reynolds' post, tagging him as part of the situation the professor was describing. The point was fringe elements of both parties and Mr. Zuniga tries to turn it into a post about the war.

I hope the difference is clear. One site wants to tell you want to think. One site wants to be an echo chamber. One site doesn't want you to use your critical thinking and common sense. One site doesn't want you to hear rational opinion from the other side. One site only operates in points that will fit on a bumper sticker. This is not a comment on the abilities or intelligence of the writers. The writing styles reflect on the intended readers and the effects intended there on.

One site wants the audience to read their opinion and adopt it exactly without question. The other wants to provide their opinion and influence the audience, but also provides the tools to formulate the audience's own.

What's my point? I don't know. I just happened to read these two blogs and this is how it came together in my mind. I want to extrapolate this and apply it to every democrat/leftist out there, because that is how all the loudmouths sound and behave, but that isn't fair. And plenty of republicans/rightists do this too. But it was just striking to me that Mr. Zuniga replyed in what was just about the worst possible way to Prof. Reynolds' post, and then his forums ran wild with him.

P.S. Not too much coverage of the Iraqi election over at the dailykos. Must be going VERY well.

P.P.S. As of 3:00 PST, nothing on slashdot either.

It seems to me, that making all discussion about the Auschwitz memorial about what Cheney wore to the memorial is far more degrading and offensive to to what happened than what Cheney actually wore.

There is a reason they didn't position Joan Rivers on the red carpet; that they also didn't have, idiots. Is the comments of the Washington Post fashion writer really relevent to the memory of maybe a million people murdered? All I can conclude is that democrats are shallow assholes. Or possibly that they are so anti-semitic that talking about the holocaust or Nazi Germany at all makes them so uncomfortable that they have to talk about anything else, such as what coat a 60-something heart patient is wearing. Assholes.

Fixed. Now if it could just tidy up the rest of the house. Doubtful. The ACLU isn't really about what it claims to be about. Never was. This is becoming more clear every day.

I enjoy the WSJ Opinion Journal's "Best of the Web Today" almost daily. Great one today which I'll paraphrase and add my own bias to because its my journal damnit.

The ACLU on its page about "Free Speech" the ACLU claims that:

It is probably no accident that freedom of speech is the first freedom mentioned in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The Constitution's framers believed that freedom of inquiry and liberty of expression were the hallmarks of a democratic society.

Of course, this isn't true at all. Those three little dots edit out something that is, oh, I don't know, pretty central to what we do here in America. As we all know, the First Amendment actually reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So the ACLU's statement isn't actually true. Religion was first and how the state should deal with it is layed out plainly and specifically. Of course the ACLU has proved time and time again that they aren't comfortable with people exercising their religion, and religion tends to stand in the way of progressivist goals, so its really about time they just tried to write it out altogether. The Anti-Christian Lawyers Union does it again!

Sweet update: Ouch! A Californian dis's the ACLU and an AC shows up to say something about "redneck" states. Racist and divisive! There's your healing Dayton. Don't forget AC, the party of New England ALWAYS loses.

If you go to a fast food place alone, don't take a four-person booth. That is all.

We have suicide by cop. We have suicide by misadventure. Welcome to suicide by ideology. I'm sure everyone has seen the SF gun story by now. I just had to comment though. PLEASE DO IT. Bush only lost California by 1.1 million votes. I can only hope it goes something like this:

Step 1. Ban guns
Step 2. Sensible please flee the Bay
Step 3. Criminals move in
Step 4. Criminals euthanize everyone that remains
Step 5. The United States government retakes San Fransisco by force
Step 6. The California State Constitution is amended so that noone is ever allowed to speak of it again

Between the idiotarians and career criminals being gone, that should about make up the difference and turn California red. Now I don't wish for anyone to die. But if this is how these people want to kill themselves, once again I am forced by my kind and understanding heart to allow it to happen. I am not one to think I know whats best for these folks. If they see fit to turn SF into DC, so be it.

The arrests begin. Who will bail me out? Suspicion of incitement to racial hatred. Not suspected of a race based crime. Not suspected of incitement of a race based crime. Incitement of mere racial hatred. Not far now from being arrested for merely being incite-ful. Doubleplusungood.

Chinaman
Chinaman
Chinaman.

Step 1. Status: COMPLETE.

"If they, for whatever reason, decide to do this, it's not only wrong, they will rue the day they did it, because we will do whatever we can do to strike back," incoming Senate Democratic leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) said last week. "I know procedures around here. And I know that there will still be Senate business conducted. But I will, for lack of a better word, screw things up."

And that, everyone, is Democrats. Stupid. As far as I can tell, they typically screw things up, but this time he was kind enough to report that he intended to do it. And isn't this the guy who said Justice Thomas' opinions are poorly written? Nothing demonstrates mastery of the English language like the phrase "for lack of a better word". Just another example of projection. I'd link to the specific examples, but they are numerous and hopefully obvious. Think, "why does he think he knows so much about people he has never met and who do not make themselves public figures?"

Very welly done blue state. I love the last line particularly. So how much is all this paperwork costing the government and HR departments?