Thursday, March 20, 2008
After the big Obama speech: the big Osama speech
Rusty is on it. Wretchard says 'We've got him now' and sparks intense theological and philosophical debate.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Nice speech. Too bad he didn't deliver it years ago, from Pastor Wright's pulpit
It's too early to know what impact Obama's speech will have on his campaign to win the Democratic nomination, or, if he's successful, his bid to win the White House.
But one thing's for sure. Obama has certainly squeezed every last ounce of usefulness out of Pastor Jeremiah Wright. For years he used Wright and Trinity Church to cement his position in the world of Chicago faith-politics, and now that the pastor's extensive canon of race-baiting and hate-preaching has come to light he's used him one last time – and to spectacular effect.
Glenn Greenwald found the speech 'riveting, provocative, insightful, thoughtful and courageous'; Chris Matthews doubtless had another of those thrills run up his leg. Andrew Sullivan was cool and objective as ever. Temporarily, at least, the speech seems to have had the desired effect, although if he wins the candidacy Obama may have to make another speech renouncing all the socialist rhetoric he employed in the latter part of yesterday's.
Cynical though I am about pretty much every aspect of Obama's campaign, I can't believe that, as Obama and his family sat and listened while Wright regaled his flock with a litany of America's sins (after insisting that he had never heard any 'controversial' remarks by Wright, he backtracked in the speech), Obama thought he would one day be able use the pastor's indiscretions to his own advantage.
But he clearly didn't worry that they would do him any harm either, otherwise he would have found another church, or perhaps had a quiet word in the ear of his mentor. Maybe he could even have stood in Wright's own pulpit, and told the worshippers of Trinity that it was time to move beyond such divisive language, and begin the process of reconciliation.
Perhaps he dismissed the pastor's revelling in the deaths of 3,00o Americans on 9/11, his blaming Israel for all the Middle East's ills and his accusing the US government of unleashing the AIDS virus to exterminate the world's coloured people as 'bawdy humour'.
And certainly, when Wright's words emerged to threaten his Presidential bid, Obama knew exactly what to do with them: he took the pastor's appeals to the basest of anti-American and racially divisive instincts, and leveraged them into an appeal for unity.
He delivered a speech in which he patronised Wright as a harmless old man driven mad by racial injustice (although apparently no more unreasonable than Obama's own grandmother), and presented himself as having risen above such foolishness, burnishing his image as a 'post-racial' figure.
Then, shortly after insisting that "race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now" he declared that it was time to stop talking about race, and move on. He even managed to get in a plug for his book.
Think about it: Obama earned himself wall-to-wall media coverage by making a speech about race which he might not have had the opportunity to make had he not at best acquiesced in, and at worst connived at, Wright's long history of racist demagoguery.
Talk about audacity.
Related: Stop the ACLU has a round-up of Obama's other unsavoury allies; Cliff Kincaid at CFP explores Obama's Marxist connections.
But one thing's for sure. Obama has certainly squeezed every last ounce of usefulness out of Pastor Jeremiah Wright. For years he used Wright and Trinity Church to cement his position in the world of Chicago faith-politics, and now that the pastor's extensive canon of race-baiting and hate-preaching has come to light he's used him one last time – and to spectacular effect.
Glenn Greenwald found the speech 'riveting, provocative, insightful, thoughtful and courageous'; Chris Matthews doubtless had another of those thrills run up his leg. Andrew Sullivan was cool and objective as ever. Temporarily, at least, the speech seems to have had the desired effect, although if he wins the candidacy Obama may have to make another speech renouncing all the socialist rhetoric he employed in the latter part of yesterday's.
Cynical though I am about pretty much every aspect of Obama's campaign, I can't believe that, as Obama and his family sat and listened while Wright regaled his flock with a litany of America's sins (after insisting that he had never heard any 'controversial' remarks by Wright, he backtracked in the speech), Obama thought he would one day be able use the pastor's indiscretions to his own advantage.
But he clearly didn't worry that they would do him any harm either, otherwise he would have found another church, or perhaps had a quiet word in the ear of his mentor. Maybe he could even have stood in Wright's own pulpit, and told the worshippers of Trinity that it was time to move beyond such divisive language, and begin the process of reconciliation.
Perhaps he dismissed the pastor's revelling in the deaths of 3,00o Americans on 9/11, his blaming Israel for all the Middle East's ills and his accusing the US government of unleashing the AIDS virus to exterminate the world's coloured people as 'bawdy humour'.
And certainly, when Wright's words emerged to threaten his Presidential bid, Obama knew exactly what to do with them: he took the pastor's appeals to the basest of anti-American and racially divisive instincts, and leveraged them into an appeal for unity.
He delivered a speech in which he patronised Wright as a harmless old man driven mad by racial injustice (although apparently no more unreasonable than Obama's own grandmother), and presented himself as having risen above such foolishness, burnishing his image as a 'post-racial' figure.
Then, shortly after insisting that "race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now" he declared that it was time to stop talking about race, and move on. He even managed to get in a plug for his book.
Think about it: Obama earned himself wall-to-wall media coverage by making a speech about race which he might not have had the opportunity to make had he not at best acquiesced in, and at worst connived at, Wright's long history of racist demagoguery.
Talk about audacity.
Related: Stop the ACLU has a round-up of Obama's other unsavoury allies; Cliff Kincaid at CFP explores Obama's Marxist connections.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
I have a nightmare: Obama to give 'major' speech on race
Barack Obama is to give a speech on 'the larger issue of race' in the primary campaign tomorrow. Among other things he'll apparently attempt to defend the inflammatory preaching of Pastor Wright. Jim at Gateway Pundit has the details.
Clearly Obama thinks it's time for some damage limitation, but he'll need to choose his words carefully, particularly with regard to Wright. JammieWearingFool reports that the pastor of disaster has an approval record of just 8% with voters nationally. The good news is that as Wright has never had a national approval rating before, this is a record high figure.
I wonder if he'll be taking questions afterwards?
Ace has a post on the MSM airbrushing Wright's comments, and lots more Wright stuff.
Clearly Obama thinks it's time for some damage limitation, but he'll need to choose his words carefully, particularly with regard to Wright. JammieWearingFool reports that the pastor of disaster has an approval record of just 8% with voters nationally. The good news is that as Wright has never had a national approval rating before, this is a record high figure.
I wonder if he'll be taking questions afterwards?
Ace has a post on the MSM airbrushing Wright's comments, and lots more Wright stuff.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Clooney sells watches while the Chinese shoot monks
Update: An expanded version of this post is up at Pajamas Media
The Beijing Olympics take place in August, and Tibetans are courageously taking the opportunity to draw attention to their plight, and bring international pressure to bear on China. And if his previous form is anything to go by, the Tibetans should soon be able to count on the high-profile support of Hollywood star George Clooney in their struggle for freedom.
After all, the man annointed by the media as the ‘heart-throb with a conscience’ has been pretty outspoken about China's indirect responsibility for the on-going genocide in Darfur. Here's his most recent protest:
Sorry! Wrong protest. Here’s Clooney’s latest attack on China, delivered in his capacity as ‘ambassador’ for Olympic partner and official timekeeper Omega (I couldn’t find video):
"I have talked with Omega (about China) for over a year and will continue to talk to Omega," Clooney told BBC Sport.
"I have and will go to the places I and China do business and ask for help."
Get the message, Wen Jiabao? Coming through loud and clear, People's Liberation Army? Gorgeous George is going to “continue to talk to Omega”. He’s going to “go to places” and “ask for help”.
We’ve yet to hear from Clooney on the specific issue of Tibet, but he’ll surely take an even stronger stance than he has over Darfur, given that this time Chinese are doing the shooting themselves, rather than merely supplying the ammunition.
We can perhaps hope for something along the lines of the blistering attack Clooney launched on Nestle last year, when it was politely pointed out that his commercial activities on behalf of a company that’s been criticised for its policies in the third world didn’t sit well with his self-appointed role as global crusader for the oppressed (more on the Nestle connection here).
Here's the full, unedited transcript:
"I'm not going to apologize to you for trying to make a living every once in a while. I find that an irritating question."
Okay, it wasn’t that blistering. However, Clooney has on other occasions been genuinely outspoken in his condemnation of perceived injustices – namely those he feels have been committed by the United States, and specifically by the Bush administration.
He’s been among the most high-profile critics of the Iraq war, which is of course his right, although as Austin Bay has pointed out the similarities between the case for invading Iraq and Clooney’s own justification for US intervention in Sudan somewhat undermine his position.
And as blogger Scolai has pointed out, Clooney has nothing to say about the US intervention in Afghanistan. He was asked recently whether, in the context of Afghanistan some wars were justified he replied “I’m not the guy to answer that.” An odd answer from someone who certainly appears to be the go-to guy if you want to know which wars aren’t justified.
Similarly, he’s silent on the Bush administration’s $15 billion initiative for AIDS relief in Africa (as, of course, are his friends in the media, an oversight recently criticised by Bob Geldof in Time magazine). Clearly, Clooney’s crusading is selective to say the least. I can’t put it any better than Niall Stanage in this 2006 profile:
Films aside, what many journalists refer to as his ‘‘activism’’ tends to comprise involvement with worthy but largely uncontroversial causes (like the Bono fronted Drop The Debt campaign) and nebulous statements about peace or holding the powerful to account.
In his 2006 National Review piece ‘Phoney Baloney’, Mark Steyn memorably ridiculed Clooney’s self-declared ‘bravery’, and his double standard of attacking easy political targets in the US while ignoring more complex and controversial issues. (Not sure how long the link to Steyn's website is good for; you can also find the article here).
Steyn’s piece is the greatest takedown of pompous celebrity activism ever committed to print or web: it should be carved in cement outside Grauman’s Chinese Theatre. He writes:
By comparison [with earlier generations of Hollywood activists], Clooney’s [activism] is no more than a pose — he’s acting at activism, new Hollywood mimicking old Hollywood’s robust defense of even older Hollywood. He’s more taken by the idea of “speaking truth to power” than by the footling question of whether the truth he’s speaking to power is actually true.
When interviewers turn to the subject of his politics, Clooney invariably talks about the influence of his journalist father, and it’s easy to think that his activism is driven at least in part by a sense of guilt over his success in the often superficial and ephemeral movie business. He alludes to as much in this spectacularly smug and self-serving 2006 interview with clearly-smitten Guardian journalist Emma Brockes.
(You should read the whole thing before reading Steyn’s piece. You can’t help thinking that Clooney is more interested in attracting the opprobrium of 'right-wingers' than he is in actually doing good; he wears the 'traitor' label like a badge of honour.)
So why the apparent double standard? Why the relative silence from Clooney over China?
He could conceivably make the argument that 'engagement' with unpleasant regimes is more useful than punitive measures – which, after all, is the position taken by Western governments with regard to China and other countries.
But no amount of photo-shoots and drinks parties featuring Clooney modelling expensive watches are going to affect China's policies towards Tibet or Sudan. On the other hand, the public severing of his links with Omega would attract worldwide publicity on a scale similar to that generated by Steven Spielberg’s recent decision to snub the Games.
Maybe, like all those corrupt politicians and corporate scoundrels that inhabit his films, Clooney simply has his price.
But there's another possibility, which is slightly more charitable. Perhaps Clooney needs the money so that he can continue to fund worthy documentaries and 'political' feature films which, while well-received critically, aren’t necessarily successful in terms of box office receipts.
How ironic if would be if Clooney was reduced to compromising his principles so that he could make more films in which those principles are so blatantly flaunted.
*Note that the linked BBC report refers to protests in 'another part of China', which suggests it considers Tibet to be 'part' of China. Slip-up, or a reluctance to offend as the BBC prepares to send hundreds of its employees to cover the Olympics?
Update: Thanks to Jim for linking.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Can the BBC work a Bush-bashing line into the Spitzer affair? Of course it can!
There's only one thing the BBC enjoys more than attacking George Bush, and that's reporting on Americans attacking George Bush. You might think that dragging both the President and the Iraq war into the Spitzer scandal would be a tough sell, but the BBC manages it in the person of the very first New Yorker quoted in a 'vox-pop' on the affair, one Ian Cunningham:
"I like him. He's a local, he's smart and he's willing to turn on his own class – Wall Street.
"I don't think he should step down. If we won't impeach the president for an illegal war I don’t think he should go for something more minor, the world's oldest profession."
So Cunningham 'likes' a man that cheated on his wife with hookers for several years, and has brought shame on her and their children.
He admires Spitzer for being willing to 'turn on' Wall Street (an unfortunate choice of phrase given the circumstances of the governor's demise), as if Spitzer was the first attorney general to make a name for himself by prosecuting, and persecuting, prominent business figures.
And note the way he quaintly dismisses prostitution as "the world's oldest profession" – although if you read his words carefully he may in fact be referring to philandering public officials, rather than prostitutes.
But what's really disturbing is the fact that the BBC has decided that Cunningham's remarks about President Bush and the war are somehow pertinent, and presents them as if they were established facts rather than leftist rhetoric. The invasion of Iraq wasn't illegal, and no-one outside the MoveOn/Code Pink crowd and the lunatic fringe of the Democratic party is talking seriously about impeachment.
But of course, Cunningham is exactly the kind of American whose viewpoint the BBC reflects in its daily reporting on the country. He appears to be utterly amoral, ignorant of basic facts, hostile towards big business and happy to repeat lies. If you look at the picture you can actually feel the arrogance and the self-righteousness.
In short he's every inch the modern Democrat.
"I like him. He's a local, he's smart and he's willing to turn on his own class – Wall Street."I don't think he should step down. If we won't impeach the president for an illegal war I don’t think he should go for something more minor, the world's oldest profession."
So Cunningham 'likes' a man that cheated on his wife with hookers for several years, and has brought shame on her and their children.
He admires Spitzer for being willing to 'turn on' Wall Street (an unfortunate choice of phrase given the circumstances of the governor's demise), as if Spitzer was the first attorney general to make a name for himself by prosecuting, and persecuting, prominent business figures.
And note the way he quaintly dismisses prostitution as "the world's oldest profession" – although if you read his words carefully he may in fact be referring to philandering public officials, rather than prostitutes.
But what's really disturbing is the fact that the BBC has decided that Cunningham's remarks about President Bush and the war are somehow pertinent, and presents them as if they were established facts rather than leftist rhetoric. The invasion of Iraq wasn't illegal, and no-one outside the MoveOn/Code Pink crowd and the lunatic fringe of the Democratic party is talking seriously about impeachment.
But of course, Cunningham is exactly the kind of American whose viewpoint the BBC reflects in its daily reporting on the country. He appears to be utterly amoral, ignorant of basic facts, hostile towards big business and happy to repeat lies. If you look at the picture you can actually feel the arrogance and the self-righteousness.
In short he's every inch the modern Democrat.
Lines on the demise of Eliot Spitzer
With acknowledgement to E.J. Thribb. (More here and here.)
So. Farewell then,
Eliot Spitzer.
They called you
'The sheriff of
Wall Street'.
Keith's mum says
Your downfall
Was poetic justice.
Does this mean
You're going to be
Run out of town?
So. Farewell then,
Eliot Spitzer.
They called you
'The sheriff of
Wall Street'.
Keith's mum says
Your downfall
Was poetic justice.
Does this mean
You're going to be
Run out of town?
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Gazans driving Caterpillars; Rachel Corrie spinning in grave
For the past few years Palestinian sympathisers and Israel haters have been waging a campaign against US construction equipment maker Caterpillar, on the grounds that it builds the D9 earthmovers used by the Israeli Defence Forces.
Campaigners say the IDF uses the bulldozers to illegally demolish Palestinian homes. The IDF says it uses them to demolish buildings used by terrorists as firing positions, and to dismantle booby-traps and fill in weapons-smuggling tunnels.
A D9 famously ran over and killed the flag-burning US activist Rachel Corrie in Gaza in 2003, spawning an entire canon of sub-standard poetry and drama. The pro-Palestinian International Solidarity Movement claimed she was 'murdered' while trying to protect Palestinian homes, producing a series of contradictory and apparently faked photos to support their claims. (HT for that last link Israel Matzav.)
The IDF says its troops were clearing weapons-smuggling infrastructure, and that there was no way the driver of the D9 could have seen Corrie. Corrie's family and others have tried to sue Caterpillar but failed, and she has become a hero of the Palestinian 'resistance' movement, and its official PR arm.
Whatever the truth of that particular incident, it's fair to say that, in the eyes of the anti-Israel lobby, Caterpillar's name is Mudd – or maybe that should be Earth. In 2004 Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch said:
Caterpillar betrays its stated values when it sells bulldozers to Israel knowing that they are being used to illegally destroy Palestinian homes. Until Israel stops these practices, Caterpillar’s continued sales will make the company complicit in human rights abuses.
So it comes as something of a surprise to see Palestinians clearing up the damage caused by last week's Israeli strikes on Gaza with… a Caterpillar:
Apologies for the picture quality – it's a screen grab of a video, which is itself pretty ropey (or maybe it's my monitor…) on the BBC's website. But if you click to enlarge it you can clearly see 'CAT' on the engine cowling, and 'CATERPILLAR' along the top of the windscreen.
The BBC video is here (if that doesn't work the page is here – click the 'Watch' button below the photo). The Caterpillar appears briefly at 50 seconds, but there's no commentary. There's another version, with commentary, here (the page is here). It's edited differently, and the Caterpillar appears at 46 seconds. The branding is clearly visible in both clips.
It's what's known as a 'backhoe loader', rather than the notorious, almost larger-than-life D9, but a Caterpillar it most certainly is. This must be what they call the 'circle of earthmoving': Caterpillars knock the buildings down, Caterpillars come along and clear up the mess, and so it continues…
You've got to hand it to Caterpillar’s Mid-East sales rep. Talk about playing both sides – the guy has to be in line for 'salesman of the year' and a weekend in Vegas.
There are several websites, including Stop Caterpillar, devoted to attacking Caterpillar, and calling for boycotts of its products (I for one will certainly have pause for thought next time I'm out shopping for a 150,000lb earthmover). You can see some endearingly pathetic photos of a demo in England here.
The United Methodist Church in the US is running a disinvestment campaign against Caterpillar. The General Synod of the Church of England, under the leadership of the hapless Rowan Williams, voted to do the same in 2006, but was snubbed by its investments advisory group.
Among leftist opponents of Israel, Caterpillar has become a by-word for the perceived injustices visited on the Palestinian people. Maybe someone ought to tell the Palestinians.
Related: Business as usual at the BBC
Thanks to all who linked. In Berlin for a few days so not much time for blogging. I was at the Holocaust memorial shortly after hearing of the attack on the seminary in Jerusalem. Maybe I'll have some thoughts when I get back.
Campaigners say the IDF uses the bulldozers to illegally demolish Palestinian homes. The IDF says it uses them to demolish buildings used by terrorists as firing positions, and to dismantle booby-traps and fill in weapons-smuggling tunnels.
A D9 famously ran over and killed the flag-burning US activist Rachel Corrie in Gaza in 2003, spawning an entire canon of sub-standard poetry and drama. The pro-Palestinian International Solidarity Movement claimed she was 'murdered' while trying to protect Palestinian homes, producing a series of contradictory and apparently faked photos to support their claims. (HT for that last link Israel Matzav.)
The IDF says its troops were clearing weapons-smuggling infrastructure, and that there was no way the driver of the D9 could have seen Corrie. Corrie's family and others have tried to sue Caterpillar but failed, and she has become a hero of the Palestinian 'resistance' movement, and its official PR arm.
Whatever the truth of that particular incident, it's fair to say that, in the eyes of the anti-Israel lobby, Caterpillar's name is Mudd – or maybe that should be Earth. In 2004 Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch said:
Caterpillar betrays its stated values when it sells bulldozers to Israel knowing that they are being used to illegally destroy Palestinian homes. Until Israel stops these practices, Caterpillar’s continued sales will make the company complicit in human rights abuses.
So it comes as something of a surprise to see Palestinians clearing up the damage caused by last week's Israeli strikes on Gaza with… a Caterpillar:
Apologies for the picture quality – it's a screen grab of a video, which is itself pretty ropey (or maybe it's my monitor…) on the BBC's website. But if you click to enlarge it you can clearly see 'CAT' on the engine cowling, and 'CATERPILLAR' along the top of the windscreen.The BBC video is here (if that doesn't work the page is here – click the 'Watch' button below the photo). The Caterpillar appears briefly at 50 seconds, but there's no commentary. There's another version, with commentary, here (the page is here). It's edited differently, and the Caterpillar appears at 46 seconds. The branding is clearly visible in both clips.
It's what's known as a 'backhoe loader', rather than the notorious, almost larger-than-life D9, but a Caterpillar it most certainly is. This must be what they call the 'circle of earthmoving': Caterpillars knock the buildings down, Caterpillars come along and clear up the mess, and so it continues…
You've got to hand it to Caterpillar’s Mid-East sales rep. Talk about playing both sides – the guy has to be in line for 'salesman of the year' and a weekend in Vegas.
There are several websites, including Stop Caterpillar, devoted to attacking Caterpillar, and calling for boycotts of its products (I for one will certainly have pause for thought next time I'm out shopping for a 150,000lb earthmover). You can see some endearingly pathetic photos of a demo in England here.
The United Methodist Church in the US is running a disinvestment campaign against Caterpillar. The General Synod of the Church of England, under the leadership of the hapless Rowan Williams, voted to do the same in 2006, but was snubbed by its investments advisory group.
Among leftist opponents of Israel, Caterpillar has become a by-word for the perceived injustices visited on the Palestinian people. Maybe someone ought to tell the Palestinians.
Related: Business as usual at the BBC
Thanks to all who linked. In Berlin for a few days so not much time for blogging. I was at the Holocaust memorial shortly after hearing of the attack on the seminary in Jerusalem. Maybe I'll have some thoughts when I get back.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Rezko: This guy really IS bad news
Barack Obama endured his first truly hostile press conference yesterday, and he didn't care for it much.
MSNBC's First Read reports:
Questions centered on why his campaign had denied that a meeting occurred between his chief economic advisor and Canadian officials as well as questions on his relationship with Tony Rezko, a Chicago land developer and fast food magnate, now on trial for corruption charges.
This is interesting stuff. Not before time, Obama is beginning to face serious scrutiny about…
Whoaaa! Back up there!
Tony Rezko is a fast food magnate? That's a new one on me. And it's probably a new one on many of Obama's supporters.
The Democrats seem happy to overlook the fact that Obama has links to a property developer with a shady past, despite that fact that many of them are signed up to a system of political thought which holds that all property is theft (they don't have a problem with the shadiness).
It doesn't bother them that Obama may have been taking tainted money. Hell, they'd be happy for him to take money from Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and probably the Devil himself if it gets their man into the White House.
But now it looks like he's been taking fast food money - and for the left, fast food epitomises all that's wrong with America. It's where corporate greed meets physical greed. It's poisoning the children, polluting the air and it entails the deaths of animals. Animals with big eyes.
The evils of fast food are a favourite subject for everyone from elitist culture columnists to shock-doc film-makers - but that's not to say that all Democrats are anti-burger. If the beef in question has been humanely reared (ideally the restaurant should be able to tell you the name of the cow it came from, and the date it attained nirvana), doesn't have an unacceptably high carbon footprint and is served to you by a French waiter, then you're in the clear.
But what I've seen of Rezko suggests to me that the meat for his burgers is unlikely to be locally sourced from 100% organically reared cattle. More likely it arrives by tanker from wherever it can be cheaply acquired - possibly from the developing world - and is pumped into the kitchens of his restaurants through a hose.
Rezko has the blood of innocent livestock, and the elevated insulin levels of a generation of young Americans, on his hands. It's time for Obama to quit stalling, and tell the voters whether or not he's ever knowingly eaten a Rezkoburger.
HT Instapundit. Protein Wisdom has a good round-up of slightly more serious reaction, and Sister Toldjah has an even bigger round-up.
Thanks to Don Surber and JammieWearingFool for linking
MSNBC's First Read reports:
Questions centered on why his campaign had denied that a meeting occurred between his chief economic advisor and Canadian officials as well as questions on his relationship with Tony Rezko, a Chicago land developer and fast food magnate, now on trial for corruption charges.
This is interesting stuff. Not before time, Obama is beginning to face serious scrutiny about…
Whoaaa! Back up there!
Tony Rezko is a fast food magnate? That's a new one on me. And it's probably a new one on many of Obama's supporters.
The Democrats seem happy to overlook the fact that Obama has links to a property developer with a shady past, despite that fact that many of them are signed up to a system of political thought which holds that all property is theft (they don't have a problem with the shadiness).
It doesn't bother them that Obama may have been taking tainted money. Hell, they'd be happy for him to take money from Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and probably the Devil himself if it gets their man into the White House.
But now it looks like he's been taking fast food money - and for the left, fast food epitomises all that's wrong with America. It's where corporate greed meets physical greed. It's poisoning the children, polluting the air and it entails the deaths of animals. Animals with big eyes.
The evils of fast food are a favourite subject for everyone from elitist culture columnists to shock-doc film-makers - but that's not to say that all Democrats are anti-burger. If the beef in question has been humanely reared (ideally the restaurant should be able to tell you the name of the cow it came from, and the date it attained nirvana), doesn't have an unacceptably high carbon footprint and is served to you by a French waiter, then you're in the clear.
But what I've seen of Rezko suggests to me that the meat for his burgers is unlikely to be locally sourced from 100% organically reared cattle. More likely it arrives by tanker from wherever it can be cheaply acquired - possibly from the developing world - and is pumped into the kitchens of his restaurants through a hose.
Rezko has the blood of innocent livestock, and the elevated insulin levels of a generation of young Americans, on his hands. It's time for Obama to quit stalling, and tell the voters whether or not he's ever knowingly eaten a Rezkoburger.
HT Instapundit. Protein Wisdom has a good round-up of slightly more serious reaction, and Sister Toldjah has an even bigger round-up.
Thanks to Don Surber and JammieWearingFool for linking
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Get the message out!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)