Thursday, November 27, 2014

Secretly, he's one of us

Recall that O repudiated not only Jeremiah Wright but the entire civil rights establishment, an entire generation of black leaders from Jesse Jackson to the Black Caucus.

He said the country had changed and they just could not or would not see it.

In substance if not in these words, he said their claims or beliefs that the country was still full of and dominated by white racism were not only wrong but very wrong and impediments to further black progress.

In effect if not in these words, he said black leadership and black people need to stop scapegoating whites for everything wrong in their lives and move on.

Without, of course, absurdly insisting there is no white racism at all, or that it never causes actual harm to blacks individually or collectively.

After his personal repudiation, Rev Wright gave an interview in which he claimed in substance that Obama was just lying to America, disguising himself to get into the White House.

Other black leaders took the same line.

Yesterday afternoon on MSNBC XM radio I listened as a girl host discussed with a member of the Black Caucus the gap between O's public comments on the events at Ferguson from the killing of boy Brown to the demonstrations and riots after the non-indictment and the reaction of the Black Caucus.

From the outset, while expressing the deepest sympathy for the Brown family and insisting people have a protected and inviolable constitutional right to demonstrate that the forces of the government must scrupulously honor, O had called for calm and restraint, insisting demonstrations be lawful and peaceful.

Though far from blunt, O had insisted on the need for law and order, denounced violence and crime, insisted on positive and lawful political action, and repeated his view that while there is in fact white racism and it sometimes affects law enforcement and creates injustice this is not the usual case.

As for the readiness of black communities to see injustice and racism in law enforcement when it is not there - a readiness he has displayed on occasion himself -, he again attributed that to the legacy of slavery and past racial oppression, characterizing is as a misperception that he and his AG would take action to help correct, while also acting to further ensure law enforcement actually is fair.

In contrast, like pretty much the whole of the liberal and black leadership, punditocracy, and media, the BC has been shouting bigoted denunciations of white racism, individual, murderous, and institutional, since the killing hit the news.

Its reaction to the non-indictment was to furiously condemn persistent and widespread white racism and injustice in the law enforcement system, continuing its constant and groundless insistence that Brown was in fact murdered by Officer Wilson because, of course, Wilson is a racist.

And its reaction to the demonstrations and violence has been to justify them and even not at all subtly threaten more of the same.

The BC rep on the radio show explained the difference between the view taken by O and the view taken by the BC in exactly the same way that Jeremiah Wright had explained his repudiation.

In a nutshell, secretly, he's one of us.

Wednesday, November 26, 2014

Got milk? Get rid of it!

Milk study in Sweden

Fermented milk good, the straight thing not good at all.

Bad for bones, bad for Type II diabetes, bad for general aging.

Some say we should skip it, altogether.

On BBC radio just now the study's author confessed he has quit drinking milk because of the study, though he used to drink 2 or 3 glasses a day.

He says one observational study is far from conclusive, however.

Scientists in the pay of the dairy industry take a much dimmer view of the study even than that.

You would think they were Republicans and he Obama.

Letting the chip on his shoulder run his mouth? Maybe so. But maybe not so much as all that.

Obama lectures America about the justified anger towards law enforcement in minority communities

This is how Breitbart and much of the right would have us understand what is happening:

As the black leaders involved find it more awkward to justify this latest outburst of minority hate and lawlessness by pointing to the Brown shooting they are changing the subject.

With every day that passes it becomes more painfully obvious that whites have not accepted and are not going to accept that demonstrations demanding justice in the specific matter of the Ferguson shooting are warranted or in the least credible, much less weeks of violence, looting, and destruction of property.

With every day that passes it becomes more painfully obvious that such demands were from the beginning a false flag, just like Tsarist pogroms motivated by nothing but hate appealing for pseudo-justification to phony, lying excuses like Jewish ritual sacrifice of Christian children.

So the usual suspects, joined by O himself, have changed the story and now depict all those demonstrations and crimes in and around Ferguson and lately even in other cities as the result of justified outrage for - ritual sacrifices committed elsewhere than in Ferguson, in other cities, on other occasions, in other times.

We are watching and listening as the chief law enforcement officer of the land, not the AG but the President of the United States, gives speeches in justification and excuse for the racist delusions and hatreds that have for weeks moved people to crime.

He sounds now, at the end of his presidency, like those liberals who refused to denounce Jeremiah Wright, Black Liberation Theology, or even Louis Farrakhan, and unlike the Obama of those days who make a special, nationally broadcast speech to assure white America that he was not like Wright and Farrakhan, or even like Jesse Jackson, and his feelings about race and attitude toward white people were quite different.

Two years left and no more elections to face, we get to see the real Obama, and he's not what we thought but what we were warned.

But read the actual quoted remarks of the president and judge for yourself.

That's just not what he's doing.

He's not echoing Jeremiah Wright shouting "God damn America," or Al Sharpton at his most furious and vicious, much less Louis Farrakhan.

I'm not saying there is no chip on his shoulder or that he is not, like all the rest of us, scarred and askew regarding matters of race.

We all have really sore corns on that foot.

But it just does not appear he has passed over to the dark side.

Absolutely not.

He still seems much more, and much more sincerely, Martin Luther King than Malcolm X.

And if we want to see the day when blacks don't pile out onto the street in an outburst of violence based on racial hatred and "perceptions" the president disagreed with and correctly labeled the root of the problem we had better think hard about what he has recommended be done to try to correct them.

I posted this at Breitbart.

You are reading these remarks as though they were by Jeremiah Wright or Rev Al in his worst Tawana Brawley days.

I don't see that.

He is saying the demonstrations and violence are based on a perception inherited from an earlier age of widespread injustice in law enforcement that is today mostly wrong, though of course some unfairness remains.

And that measures need to be taken to make people feel the system is fair, as well as to correct such unfairness as continues to exist.

Well, if the last weeks are any indication, he's sure as hell got that right, no? 

Without flat out calling the black people of Ferguson racists who hate whites and are bigoted against the police, he is addressing that very problem in a way that stands a chance of helping.

He is not suggesting anyone do a single thing that does not make good sense, all the more so in the wake of these horrific events.

Yes, he seems sometimes to have a racial chip on his shoulder that makes him personally too quick to see racism in whites when it just isn't there, including in the behavior of law enforcement.

Remember the Gates incident?

All the same, is he really much quicker to wrongly see racism than whites looking at blacks, black leaders, and even at him?

If I am reading him correctly - and Lord knows I don't read minds all that well, so I may not be - he is the same guy we voted for and the guy I was glad to vote for, even on this ultra-sensitive matter of race.

And if I am reading him right he is a lot less irresponsible, unjust, inflammatory, or inflamed than any number of black or liberal writers who have been launching into furious tirades since the Ferguson shooting first occurred about white racism, white racist cop murderers, the murder of boy Brown, institutional racism, and blah, blah, blah.

The Congressional Black Caucus and the whole gamut of the US civil rights establishment is taking that same anti-white, racist line.

He's just not one of those people.

He drew a line between himself and them in 2008 and it's not at all clear we have enough reason to say he has crossed it to join them on their side.

Not at all.

And, by the way, the immigration thing he did was a good and fair thing to do, however we may (and I do) deplore the way it was done.

Only a crackpot or the usual American nitwit wants to deport everybody here illegally.


Would that name be less damning if the congress had signed on?

PS. I contacted the White House on the Internet again today to say "good work" and to tell O I'd vote for him again.

This is maybe the third or fourth time I have done that, over the years.

I'm thinking he gets way too much hate mail to be good for anyone's mental health.


The best way to diminish the severity of hatred and mistrust of whites and police in black neighborhoods is to put a stop to the constant hate propaganda of the left and of the established black leadership. 

Of those O makes no criticism beyond what is implied by his remarks on "perceptions," as cited above.

That not only lets down the whites of this country but goes far to explain why the internet has exploded, since Ferguson, with white anger at him in comments and posts that - mistakenly, I think - attribute to him the same hateful and racist attitudes we still see in Al Sharpton and the Civil Rights establishment on their most pig-headed and bigoted days.

What? Winter, again?

Every year the news is full of stories of weather interfering with holiday travel from Thanksgiving through New Years.


Winter, again.

Just like last year.

Thanksgiving travelers bedeviled by bad weather

This is how it works. Attack of the race-baiters.

Rename Squaw Island, Indians demand

First you make them back down over silly, little things it doesn't seem worthwhile or even dignified to resist.

But then they're on the slippery slope toward the big stuff.

This is only a surprise because we are so far from our frontier society roots

Hiker Photographed Bear Before It Killed Him

Unlike animals in comics, cartoons, or Disney films, real animals are dangerous and sometimes outright deadly.

And that is why people carried firearms or other weapons when moving about in the North American wilderness.

The idea that you can hike safely from Georgia to Maine along forest trails is rather a new and rather questionable notion.


When people who have no idea who you are and know nothing about you, have not the least idea of anything about you, hate you solely because of the color of your skin, isn't that racism?

When those people impute all sorts of terrible things to you, both crimes and atrocities of centuries ago and evils of today, solely because of the color of your skin, and shame you and blame you and hate you, and even propose to punish you or demand reparations from you on their account, isn't that racism?

Well, then?

Thanksgiving storm

Winter storm Cato

Not more than an inch expected in Pittsburgh and surrounding communities over the next 48 hours, says The Weather Channel.

Eighteen to twenty-four inches expected in pretty much all of Massachusetts, including Worcester, where I was born and lived the first twenty-some years of my life.

Knew I left for a reason.

It's not actually much colder up there than here, if at all, because of the influence of the Gulf Stream on that side of the mountains.

But it's a lot snowier and hurricanes have more impact.

What about that Chef's Salad?

FDA to require consumers be given nutritional information

Even the popcorn stand.

Even booze.

Portion sizes for some very popular foods have about doubled in the last twenty years, with the calorie load of a typical order rising more or less that same amount.

Portion distortion

Enter, an epidemic of obesity at all ages, accompanied by epidemic Type II diabetes and other health problems directly traceable to weight.

This is by no means only an American problem, but this is a step toward an American solution.

The rules will take effect a year from now, and in the meantime will face a slew of legal and political challenges.

Expect the right to shout "Totalitarianism! Dictatorship!"

The Heritage Foundation yesterday described the new rules as "A shocking power grab that ignored the plain language of the law," says The Times.

But not everybody on the right feels quite that way.

This morning on his show Joe Scarborough seemed on board.

Menu labeling became a legal requirement as part of the Obamacare package in 2010, aka The Affordable Care Act.

The FDA has been working on final regulations since then, held up constantly by fierce opposition from pizza chains and theaters.

Almost there, now.

By the way, Tom Harkin, who was involved in drafting this part of the ACA, says the regulations "closely mirror our intent."

7 changes to expect with the new calorie label law

By the way, the average woman should eat around 2,000 calories a day to maintain a healthy weight and stay healthy, all around.

For men, kick that up to about 2,200 calories.

Per day, not per meal.

Think of that when you're considering a Whopper (650 calories), small fries (238 calories), and Pepsi (140 calories) for lunch (1,028 calories, total).

Maybe you should have their Caesar with grilled chicken and dressing (450 calories) and maybe a roll.

And instead of their cinnamon roll for breakfast (300 calories) you might settle for an English Muffin (140 calories).

Guess it depends on what you plan to have for supper.

Or after supper.

Just a thought.

Tuesday, November 25, 2014

Bullshit makes the world go around

Half the world is insufferably stupid and the other half fantastically deluded or pretending to be.

Yes, I am thinking of religion, morals, and their offspring, political ideology.

Of these fantasies, some are more benign than others.

How different the world would be if the Buddhists had successfully proselytized Saudi Arabia before the birth of Mohammed, for example.

How much safer, less violent, and less cruel.

On the other hand, the notion that polytheism is less violent than monotheism is not true of all cases.

The religion of the Aztecs, for instance, was far more bloody than the Catholicism of the Spaniards who put an end to Aztec violence.

About the arrival of Catholicism being something of a rescue for the Native Americans of the region Mel Gibson was quite right.

Though of course he said that as a Catholic believer who thinks of missionaries as saints, martyrs, and heroes.

I was just thinking of all that horror the Spanish stopped.

As the attacks on his movie made clear, neither of us complies with the PC thought police on this point.

Interesting, isn't it, the hypocrisy of 20th Century liberals who denounce the 19th Century liberals for their conviction of the cultural superiority of the West even as they do their level best to foist their feminist and gay rights agendas on the entire world?