John Hawkins reminds people of what the liberal protests under Bush looked like.

Thank you, Joe Wilson

When I woke up this morning and read the Drudge headline linking to a story that Republican Congressman Joe Wilson called Obama a liar, my only thought was "it's about time." It's about time that Republicans play by the only rule book that works--that of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals that asks the question, "Does this particular end justify this particular means?" The answer in the case of Joe Wilson's truthful expose of Obama is "yes."

Republicans cannot get heard, the public is being lied to or ambushed about Obama's health care plan and the only thing that matters is that it not pass. Period. End of discussion. The MSM does not cover Republicans except in a negative light, Republicans are not even included in health care talks at the White House and they have nothing to lose as they are already in the minority. Shouting out during the President's speech forces the issue. It forces the MSM to cover it, just as bloggers and talk radio exposing Van Jones and his subsequent resignation forced the MSM to cover that story. Of course, the MSM will cover the Wilson story in a negative light, but in the back of many citizen's minds, they will wonder, "is Obama lying, is there some truth to what Wilson said?" At least someone is bringing this possibility to light.

Those of us who do not toe the liberal line must stand up--just like Mr. Wilson. We are all radicals now.

Washington Examiner: For the Left, war without Bush is not war at all:

Not too long ago, some observers worried that Barack Obama would come under increasing pressure from the Left to leave both Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, it seems those worries were unfounded. For many liberal activists, opposing the war was really about opposing George W. Bush. When Bush disappeared, so did their anti-war passion.

I just saw on Drudge that 710 military deaths have occurred in the Afghanistan region thus far, yet the news on this topic currently is rare. It only matters if a Republican is in the White House, it seems.

Why shouldn't white men be angry?

Neo-neocon: "They're white. They're men. They're angry at Obama. Why, they must be angry white men."

And the rest of us who are not men who are against Obama's policies, we're white men too!

Alec Baldwin: supply-side economist

WSJ: Tax me if you can:

We're constantly told that taxes don't matter to business and investors, but listen to that noted supply-side economist, Alec Baldwin. The actor recently rebuked New York Governor David Paterson for threatening to try to help close the state's $7 billion budget deficit by canceling a 35% tax credit for films shot in the Big Apple.

"I'm telling you right now," Mr. Baldwin declared, "if these tax breaks are not reinstated into the budget, film production in this town is going to collapse, and television is going to collapse and it's all going to go to California." Well, well. Apparently taxes do matter, at least when it comes to filming "30 Rock" in Manhattan.....

According to the Motion Picture Association of America, nearly 40 states have corporate tax carve outs or generous cash rebates to lure movie studios to their states. In Michigan, producers negotiated a 40% tax credit on their production costs. A bipartisan bill introduced in the Texas legislature last week and supported by Governor Rick Perry would allocate $60 million into the Texas Film Incentive Program. Members of the Screen Actors Guild held a rally last week in front of the state capitol urging the tax breaks.

In some cases these state tax credits exceed a company's tax liabilities, which means that Disney, Dreamworks and others can get a net cash subsidy from state taxpayers. "In many states, today, movie producers actually pay a negative tax," says a Tax Foundation report on the subject.

Don't you love the hypocrisy? Small businesses and investors are the bad guys and supposed to pay ever higher tax rates according to liberals like Baldwin, but those in the movie industry think that their work is so worthwhile they should be subsidized by state taxpayers. They say they create jobs so they should have a lower tax rate. Isn't this what small businesses do? What's the difference except that the Hollywood elite think that taxes are for thee and not for me?

And what happened to "spreading the wealth around?" Isn't this the change they voted for?

The Lone Libertarian

I read with interest a short question and answer session with John Stossel in TownHall magazine on how he became the lone libertarian in broadcast news. One question posed by Mary Katharine Ham asked "Is the media as hostile to conservative ideas as a lot of conservatives seem to think, or does your success belie that idea?"

Stossel replies, "I would say it's as hostile as most believe it is. Remember, I came in as a liberal, and I was trying to be what I thought was objective. I certainly did not do the point-of-view reporting as I do now. I'm the, to my knowledge, lone libertarian in the mainstream media, and I take some heat for that. To my knowledge there are zero conservatives...on the networks."

Wow, zero, that's unbelievable. Imagine what would happen if there were zero women or minorities in broadcast news, what a ruckus that would be. There is already an uproar that there are so few but what if there were....zero. There is no excuse for zero conservatives except censorship and discrimination. There is no other explanation. If you are conservative or libertarian and want to go into broadcast news-- what are your chances? Zero or possibly a tiny percentage being that there is one libertarian. So why bother--but then, isn't that the idea?

Cognitive Simplicity--a Liberal Trait?

I often laugh when I read things written by liberal bloggers who try to interpret something that I have written. Granted, it doesn't happen often since this blog, hopefully, stays below the radar of most of the extreme lefty bloggers as it is small and targeted to people who tend towards being independent or libertarian types who believe in small government, something many on the left have no interest in (I acknowledge that the right also has problems with small government but that is another post!). That said, I have to point out the absurdity of some of the comments made by those of the far left persuasion to my recent PJM column that addressed a question by a male who said he had assertiveness problems and felt guilty even taking up space on the sidewalk. One of the several suggestions I made was the following:

I have seen this fear of manliness in many modern husbands and fathers. Some men today are afraid of appearing like their own fathers, whom they thought of as unfair, controlling or condescending to women—the son swears he will not act the same way. Unfortunately, he often goes to the opposite extreme of letting his wife or others run all over him. These men are often doing dishes, watching the kids and earning much of the money all the while feeling guilty if anyone is unhappy with them.

The problem here is not the man doing the dishes and watching kids (most modern men do nowadays, thank goodness!) but that some men act against their fathers and allow themselves to be doormats without saying a word to anyone. It is the guilt and harshness with themselves and the subsequent negative feelings that are the problem. Sticking up for themselves by setting boundaries and limits with others is reasonable. I would give the same advice to a woman who was supporting the family fully, caring for the children, cooking dinner and all the while feeling guilty that she was not doing enough.

Apparently, the above ideas are too complex for some liberals. For example, several of the comments at PJM that followed after Firedoglake linked there saw my response only in black and white:

Sundown asks:

Why do you think that men who do dishes aren't masculine? I say that's a very outrageous idea.

and Courtney says:

Oh, the HORROR of men washing dishes and spending time with their own children. Why is it that when women do the dishes, they're doing their wifely duty, but when men do the dishes, they're graciously "helping out" and "emasculating" themselves?? GROW UP. If a sink is full of YOUR dirty dishes, YOU WASH THEM. Same goes for YOUR OWN CHILDREN.

One of the commenters refers to me as Phyllis Schlafly in order to make it look as if I think women should be stuck in the kitchen while men go to work. If that is not black and white thinking, I don't know what is.

Another liberal, David Niewert talks about being a stay-at-home dad and states the following:

And there were moments — whispered comments, offhand remarks — where I was reminded that a lot of people, both men and women, privately viewed stay-at-home daddies as wimps or out-of-work losers. Sort of like Dr. Helen.

Niewert takes my statements out of context and projects his own liberal agenda onto them--look, he says, "she thinks stay-at-home dads are wimps!" I have never said that, nor have I ever thought that. If Niewert were not such a simplistic thinker, he would have done more than glance over Jane Hamsher's post on the PJM column and would have actually analyzed my post himself to see that I was responding to a man who was having assertiveness problems--and the man's problem was possibly a response of guilt to his own father being controlling and condescending towards women.

Some men are so guilty in that manner that they will not stand up for themselves in psychological ways with women or others. Apparently, this complexity of thought is more than Niewert or his cohorts can be expected to manage. My column had nothing to do with thinking that stay-at-home dads were wimps--and everything to do with men feeling that they are not allowed to express their feelings, something I thought liberal men were into. Apparently not. Men, in their book, are supposed to be the strong silent types that do dishes, watch kids, work all day, and never ever mention how they feel about anything. So much for escaping rigid gender roles.

For more on the supposed "cognitive complexity" of liberals, see this study on the traits of conservative vs. liberals here. My favorite line from one of the researchers is the following:

Conservatives don't feel the need to jump through complex, intellectual hoops in order to understand or justify some of their positions, he said. "They are more comfortable seeing and stating things in black and white in ways that would make liberals squirm," Glaser said.

Apparently, Glaser doesn't read liberal blogs.