Only a Liberal…

The media is out of control. The gap between a reporter and shock jock is narrowing FAST, and in some cases is non-existent. The latest knee-jerk reaction to statements by Will Smith is the perfect example.

In an interview in conjunction with his new movie, I am Legend, the interview steered towards his easy-going nature. Prior to the comment concerning Hitler, Will explained why he was so easy-going:

“Well, if I understand the problem then I don’t get annoyed. People driving past in the car and giving me the finger annoys my wife but it’s because they think you did something to them. They think you’re driving too slow and keeping them from getting to their daughter’s birthday party, or you cut them off and didn’t see.”

Then he used a politically incorrect example of an extremely evil man to prove his point. Smith DID NOT say what Hitler did was good; he said that Hitler most likely THOUGHT he was doing good. The fact that this is what Will Smith meant seems unimportant to the JDL (Jewish Defense League) or shock jock reporters across the world. What Will Smith meant was irrelevant to the reporters who ran with the misrepresentation. “If it bleeds, it leads” is the saying, and the fact that reporters chose to let Smith bleed without regard for reality is sickening to me.

Here’s the quote from the article by Siobhan Synnot of the Daily Record:

“Remarkably, Will believes everyone is basically good.

“Even Hitler didn’t wake up going, ‘let me do the most evil thing I can do today’,” said Will. “I think he woke up in the morning and using a twisted, backwards logic, he set out to do what he thought was ‘good’. Stuff like that just needs reprogramming.”

This is a very logical statement, despite it being about an evil genocidal murderer who deserves no sympathy. This produced response articles with atrocious, reckless headlines:

“Will Smith sees the good in Hitler - US actor Will Smith has stunned fans by reportedly declaring that Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler was essentially a “good” person.” - The Australian

I’m gonna make some TRUE statements that will cause a knee-jerk reaction in most of you. Fight the urge and read EXACTLY WHAT I AM SAYING:

• Adolf Hitler was a tremendously effective public speaker.
• According to all evidence, Adolf Hitler’s goal was to make the world a better place (be patient, keep reading).

The evil part was his criteria for doing so. Again, Hitler’s goal was to make the world more productive by getting rid of unproductive, evil people. His intentions were NOT evil; his criteria WERE. I feel compelled to be redundant for the sake of clarity: just because his intentions were good does not justify the evil he perpetrated. His crimes were viciously evil and the pinnacle of blind, racist ignorance. He was a psycho whom ignored the fact that some of his favorite musicians and composers were Jewish and decided they all should be exterminated. He was responsible for the death/torture camps like Auschwitz, which killed 75% of its prisoners upon arrival, and used the remaining 25% for free slave labor.

I have nothing but incensed despise for Adolf Hitler, but I will not attack or sit by while someone else is attacked simply because they said one seemingly nice thing about an evil man. Smith was illustrating that there is hope for goodness to spread, even when people like Hitler have existed. The Holocaust happened due to the tremendous ignorance, and speaking ability of Adolf Hitler.

It is completely possible Will Smith hates Jews, but these recent statements aren’t proof of that. The Jewish Defense League should be going after the head of Siobhan Synnot for her deliberate character-arson, and the editor of any newspaper that ran with this without due diligence.

P.S. I understand Will Smith is friends with Tom Cruise, who appears to be a certifiable fruit cake. That worries me a little, but some cursory research seemed to show that Smith seems to be and likes people to know how open-minded he is. He is being overly nice to Scientologists in this pursuit.

“Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don’t mean to do harm– but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves.” (The Cocktail Party, p.111)

Is this not PERFECT?!?! The most accurate part is “the harm does not interest them.” Liberals are constantly bragging about their good intentions with no regard for the results. The book Silent Spring is literally responsible for millions of deaths because of its condemnation of DDT, a valuable, effective agent for preventing malaria, but when used in excess it makes bird eggs a wittle thinner. Rachel Carson didn’t want to harm millions of Africans by preventing them from using small amounts of DDT to repel mosquitos; the harm didn’t interest her. She and present day liberals are more interested in ‘thinking well of themselves.’ They’d rather look and feel like they make a difference, despite the evidence contrary.

The only thing Imus did wrong was apologize. He makes a living being a shock jock, saying sexist and racIAL(not racIST) comments. Its what he does. To say it was racist towards black women to call one group of black women nappy-headed hos while calling the other group of black women cute is IDIOTIC.

You are a certifiable moron if you do not understand that. BOTH teams were primarily made up of black women. If he called all black women nappy headed hos, you could maybe make an argument. One group nappy hos… the other cute. Either he’s racist towards all members of a race, or he’s not. Was it mean to call a bunch of college girls nappy-headed hos? Of course, but there’s no crime against being mean… comedians do it for a living.

I’m not arguing whether Don Imus is a racist or not. I am just so sick of white people tiptoeing through the tulips about race. I didn’t make any black people sit in the back of a bus, I didn’t make them drink from a different water fountain, or go to a different school, or make them pick my cotton, so I’m not gonna apologize for stuff someone did long ago.

To any white person out there, if you are racist, stop being an ignoramus. If you are not, STOP APOLOGIZING. Join the KMA club.

I have been absolutely enamored with the blind hatred of President George W Bush… it really is quite amazing, especially since it comes from people who are so quick to condemn judgment of anyone. My attitude is he is a politician who panders, jukes, and says things he doesnt mean to be powerful and liked by as many people as possible. I asked myself, “Is this guy really the anomaly the liberal left claims he is? Why do they hate this man so much?” And I found the website whywehatebush.com. Ok, great I’ll get my answers…

The first statement on their homepage at the very top says “Bush stands against everything that America stands for.” Really? Everything? You’d think by luck he might stand for SOMETHING that America stands for. I think one of the things you can say about Bush is he is VERY pro-American, and some people might have some good arguments why that might be bad if overdone. Then my eyes dart over to some numbers… ok, they have some actual stats that show President Bush really is evil…

FACT: BUSH OIL
1999 - $19 BARREL
2006 - $70 BARREL

Now, hold on a minute… if I recall, he didnt take office until early 2001… what do oil prices in 1999 have to do with him? I looked up the numbers, in 2000 the price was $28, 2001 it was $23… we’ll call it $25. Evidently, $19 sounded better to them. So does a $55 increase in a barrel of oil prove he’s evil? I suppose if he’s responsible for it and there are no other factors that contribute. I’d stipulate the President of the United States doesn’t have the slightest effect on oil prices other than with policies he approves, like if he allowed drilling in Alaska or the Gulf of Mexico, prices would go down. So if Bush is credited with astronomical gas prices, is he also credited with all the electronics price decreases during his office? One might argue he has no effect on that stuff. I AGREE.
Below that there is a list of 11 things that explain why they hate Bush. #1 is vague, but #2 says,
“Bush and his cabal of henchmen lied to the American people about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, and they continue to obfuscate the truth while their companies cash in, Iraqis suffer and American soldiers die.”

Aside from the He-Man-esque “henchmen” comment, this is just silly. I have heard this echoed for years as the quintissential crime committed by Bush, that he LIED about WMD. If he lied about it, EVERYONE ON EARTH lied about it. And I quote,

“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…” — Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” — Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
So it is clear and unarguable that hating Bush for the WMD issue is IRRATIONAL if it is only pointed at Bush. There is an ENDLESS list of quotes like this at freerepublic.com and elsewhere.

Now I realize that this website is not the best criticism to analyze, but it is representative of the layman. I will get to the slightly more intellectual comments soon… one more bullet from this site:

“The Bush Administration has manipulated the media to the point of undermining the Constitutional guarantees of a Free Press.”

Are you kidding me? Do people really believe the media SUPPORTS President Bush due to his control? It’s so patently absurd as to be laughable. And if there was a SHRED of truth to this statement, Bush would have been EASILY impeached and removed from office.

That brings up another point… Bush is the worst liar in history according to the liberal left. He does nothing but lie, lie, lie. Let’s look at this rationally… we all agree that there are a substantial number of Americans who hate George W Bush, and want him out of office, including a majority of congressmen. If they have all this evidence that he lied, why have they been unable to get rid of him?

Before the Bush tax cuts that the liberals so hate, the top 5% of the rich paid 56% of the total tax bill. Now they pay 60%. You would think they’d be happy, but only a liberal would turn down more money in the effort to “appear” like they are soaking the rich. Isn’t class envy great?

I have no love for Barry Bonds. I don’t like cheaters, but let’s not pretend he’s the first, last, or only person to cheat in professional sports. The Mitchell report shows that to be true in baseball. The Mitchell report ALSO shows that taking steroids doesn’t automatically give you the homerun title. Some of these guys are very mediocre MLB players. There is a demand from much of the public to put an asterisk next to EVERY single record any of the players on the Mitchell report. Keep in mind steroids became illegal in the MLB in 2002, but not really until 2005; what you tolerate you encourage. Critics of this argument say, the MLB didn’t outlaw murder either, so the federal law against it should have been enough. I would tend to agree with that as well. Im not supporting steroid users, Im simply analyzing it from the outside.

You can look at in a much simpler way. People CONSTANTLY foul each other in basketball; offensive linemen hold. Do we go back and look at Superbowl video and determine how many penalties weren’t called on the winning team to determine if they should remain the winner? The winner of these games were “cheating” weren’t they? Their win is “tainted” just like Bonds homerun record.

As I said, I have no love for Barry Bonds. All I question is the objective consistency of the asterisk wielders. His homeruns went up surprisingly in 2000; this is also in conjunction with the Giants new ballpark… which has a very short porch in right field, perfect for a lefty like Bonds.
An interesting analysis of Barry Bonds post-1999 career concludes that 85 homeruns should be taken away based on subtracting 9-18 feet from each home run, causing those 85 to hit the warning track instead of going over.

** Image from dailywaste.com

Probably the most idiotic, misunderstood word in all political discussions is the word neocon. The way that liberals use it, you end up being surprised it wasn’t prefixed by the f word. Most liberals think this picture is a bulls-eye representation of President Bush, but think its mean to say bad things about Saddam or Iranian president Ahmadinejad.
Neo- means new, and obviously -con is conservative. Irving Kristol described a neoconservative as a “liberal mugged by reality.” By this definition, President Bush is not a neo-con, while Senator Joseph Lieberman is a perfect example. A liberal in all ways until 9/11, but thereafter subscribed to conservative stances on national defense.

Many of the other definition of neoconservatism do apply to President Bush, but the reference to this in present-day politics is almost entirely in reference to national security/defense policy. It has gotten to the point where I am thoroughly convinced the word has lost all actual meaning and now, to liberals, just means evil Bush person. The word neocon sounds evil, conjuring up the words neo-Nazi and con-man. Since President Bush has been called both a Nazi and a liar, it is not much of a stretch for some ignorant liberal kool-aid drinkers to use this term in this context without having the slightest clue what they are saying.

** Image from budz.wordpress.com/2007/01/

Admittedly not previously posted, I have been hoping that Al Gore would run at the last second and steal the nomination from Hillary/Barack, because then the fence-sitting republicans would be FORCED to take out the Global Warming Crisis issue. They choose their battles, and as of right now they’re not willing to put forth the political capital to bury the issue. They WILL be willing to if it means an easy route to the White House in ‘08. Gore’s global warming swindle would be ended by rational debate, and he would be a laughing stock for centuries. Rush Limbaugh pointed out today that Gore will NOT run because it would force him to debate the issue, and he refuses to. His arguments can’t stand up to debate, and he won’t risk his “manbearpig” being laughed at.

**Image from Wikipedia-Manbearpig of an image from the TV show, South Park.

- The debate is NOT over. Gore and others claim the debate is over due to a “consensus” of scientists. “The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).” (Naomi Oreskes, Washington Post) Ignoring the glaring “GOVERNMENTAL” part of the panel, the report is said to be a consensus of scientists because of the thousands of scientists names on the report. The problem is THEY DIDN’T SIGN IT. They were simply existing members of the “panel” and so their names were attached. Many scientists protested saying they didnt agree, and were ignored. Many left the “panel” and one sued to have his name removed. Oh, and the 3,000 panel members aren’t all scientists. Many are political appointees.
- Warming CAUSES the rise in CO2. Al Gore’s movie simply shows the correlation and implies that CO2 is the cause of the warming. His own graph shows that the CO2 follows the temperature 100 years later.

- The correlation between earth temperature and SUN ACTIVITY is stronger than the correlation between earth temperature and CO2 levels.

- CO2 levels were more than 10 TIMES what they are now during an ice age that caused mass extinction. Gore’s movie only covers the last 650,000 years. Junkscience.com - “Given that the late Ordovician suffered an ice age (with associated mass extinction) while atmospheric CO₂ levels were more than 4,000ppm higher than those of today (yes, that’s a full order of magnitude higher), levels at which current ‘guesstimations’ of climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO₂ suggest every last skerrick of ice should have been melted off the planet, we admit significant scepticism over simplistic claims of small increment in atmospheric CO₂ equating to toasted planet.”

- The IPCC put all their scientist-members’ signatures on their report, and many of the scientists resigned when the Intergovernmental panel refused to remove their names.

**Image from a slide used in a british documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle.

This great country has a fever, and it aint from SUV-caused global warming. The justice system here is far from perfect, but it has been very successful at accurately identifying criminals, reducing the number of innocent people being punished for crimes they didn’t commit. It is absolutely vital that a nation have faith in the fairness of its justice system, so as not to walk on egg-shells fearing its government. This has been achieved by the concept of innocent-until-proven-guilty and due process.

The problem is when this logic is extended to areas outside of domestic justice. Crime is not a threat to our nation, it is an unavoidable nuisance in the big picture, so we have the luxury of applying due process and assuming innocence. You cannot extend this same logic to national security. The rule of law is very powerful here in the United States, so we are able to have the luxury of a slow-moving justice system. This luxury canNOT be extended to national security; that would be suicide. We believe all humans are created equal, but that does not mean all nations are created equal. Most other countries are appallingly corrupt, relative to the United States, and to operate under any other assumption is foolish and naive.

This thought process has been applied to the WMD argument of Saddam’s Iraq. Because of Bush Derangement Syndrome, the American left has inflicted a “GOTCHA” on the Bush administration, CONSTANTLY trumpeting that there were never any weapons of mass destruction.

Let’s not forget the numerous stories of UN inspectors showing up to Iraqi facilities that had recently done “housecleaning” in preparation; let’s not forget the 500 weapons munitions containing degraded mustard and sarin nerve gas. If there was an American trial to prove that WMDs are in Iraq, and the only evidence was the degraded mustard and sarin, a wily defense attorney could argue that the weapons munitions are degraded and therefore don’t classify as weapons of mass destruction. This is essentially what has happened in the national debate, and is borderline insane, but it flies as logic and a valid argument. The key here is for Americans to detach their “due process logic” from such issues and recognize the evidence. These same Americans will find cookie crumbs in their child’s bed, and won’t hold a trial to determine whether they stole from the cookie jar.

** Image from parody article on crookedpres.com.