This weekend was the first of two scrapbooking retreats that I attend in a row. Something happened this weekend that I don't recall ever happening before at any of the multiple retreats a year that I've gone to over the last nine or ten years.
Political conversation.
Not just once. Several times. In various groups of people. And always mainly about the Orwelliffically-named Affordable Care Act.
To me this is more proof that, unlike other government actions and overreaches, this one is hitting real people where they live. When a bunch of middle class, mid-western women--who seem far more interested in TV shows and pop music than politics--who are on a getaway weekend to indulge in a hobby, are so bothered by what their government is doing that it keeps coming up, something is wrong.
Very, very wrong.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Sunday, November 03, 2013
Monday, April 05, 2010
Again, evil and dangerous words
I posted last year about how dangerous and damaging I believed the propensity of the Obama administration and the press to cry "racism" is. I still believe that. And I am not alone. I still believe that they are giving cover to real racists, but I also believe that their latest trick may have been an overplaying of their hand.
We've heard, ad nauseum, from the echo-chamber media about those horrible, nasty racists shouting epithets at the congressmen passing through the crowd on Obamacare Sunday. And yet, two weeks later, still no proof that this happened, in spite of a multitude of recording devices. So were they faking?
They are not likely to give up. Marginalizing conservatives, and especially the Tea Party movement is too important to their plans, and this has long been their go-to accustion. But at the same time, there seems to be a bit of attention being given--finally--to who Tea Partiers really are. No surprise to those of us who've attended a Tea party or two, they look a lot like America.
Racism is evil. There is no other word for it. And using race--or the threat of being called racist--as a club to beat your opponent into submission, is a dangerous game. I believe that those on the left who continue in this path are not only giving cover to real racists but are also, in a very real and sick way, feeding their hate and encouraging them.
We've heard, ad nauseum, from the echo-chamber media about those horrible, nasty racists shouting epithets at the congressmen passing through the crowd on Obamacare Sunday. And yet, two weeks later, still no proof that this happened, in spite of a multitude of recording devices. So were they faking?
They are not likely to give up. Marginalizing conservatives, and especially the Tea Party movement is too important to their plans, and this has long been their go-to accustion. But at the same time, there seems to be a bit of attention being given--finally--to who Tea Partiers really are. No surprise to those of us who've attended a Tea party or two, they look a lot like America.
Racism is evil. There is no other word for it. And using race--or the threat of being called racist--as a club to beat your opponent into submission, is a dangerous game. I believe that those on the left who continue in this path are not only giving cover to real racists but are also, in a very real and sick way, feeding their hate and encouraging them.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Things I've noticed, too...
"Nobody wants to discuss the merits of the health care bill on the Democrat side. They just want to demonize you as racist, homophobe, and misogynist, because that's easier than having a debate." -- Mark Steyn
Thursday, March 11, 2010
What, indeed?
Patrick has a great post on the trade-offs we make when we take the government's money, or ask them to cushion life's blows.
Jumping off from his post, I must ask: Why would homeschoolers wish to push for government money?
I understand that we pay school taxes, but so do the elderly, the childless, the parents of private school children. Whether we think it is a good thing or not, schools are something that our fellow citizens consider worthy of supporting with tax dollars, so we pay the taxes and choose not to use the schools. That is a choice we make freely.
I also understand that we often spend money that other parents don't need to spend, and that most of us could use a little more money, but again, this spending is a result of our choice.
What many people tend to forget in their hopes for a tax credit, or rebate, or stipend is that government money always comes with strings. And yes, you could argue that you've paid taxes so you're just keeping your money. I agree. But the government doesn't look at it that way. Once it's been moved into their column on the balance sheet, they consider it theirs. There will be strings, rules, and requirements, which are some of the things that many of us hoped to avoid by homeschooling.
Jumping off from his post, I must ask: Why would homeschoolers wish to push for government money?
I understand that we pay school taxes, but so do the elderly, the childless, the parents of private school children. Whether we think it is a good thing or not, schools are something that our fellow citizens consider worthy of supporting with tax dollars, so we pay the taxes and choose not to use the schools. That is a choice we make freely.
I also understand that we often spend money that other parents don't need to spend, and that most of us could use a little more money, but again, this spending is a result of our choice.
What many people tend to forget in their hopes for a tax credit, or rebate, or stipend is that government money always comes with strings. And yes, you could argue that you've paid taxes so you're just keeping your money. I agree. But the government doesn't look at it that way. Once it's been moved into their column on the balance sheet, they consider it theirs. There will be strings, rules, and requirements, which are some of the things that many of us hoped to avoid by homeschooling.
Monday, February 08, 2010
The one good bit
So, I'm reading my second disappointing book in a row. My biggest problem with this one is that although it's good enough, it isn't telling me much I don't already know. When I read history I want to gain some new insight or learn something new. And it seems a bit repetitive. But there is one gem that I've discovered in the book:
"They lived a cloistered, segregated, and selfish life, much like Ivy League professors today."
(And, I dare say, other liberal elites.)
Book: The Last Knight: The Twilight of the Middle Ages and the Birth of the Modern Era by Norman Cantor
"They lived a cloistered, segregated, and selfish life, much like Ivy League professors today."
(And, I dare say, other liberal elites.)
Book: The Last Knight: The Twilight of the Middle Ages and the Birth of the Modern Era by Norman Cantor
Thursday, January 28, 2010
State of the Union?
I found myself wondering many things last night as I listened to the State of the Union address.
I wondered if this is what our founders had in mind. An hour or more of partisan rhetoric and a laundry list of ways to spend our money, along with an attack on the Supreme Court, and well over 100 references to self instead of country doesn't seem like what they had in mind with, "He [the President] shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." Of course, the Congress--supposedly the recipient of the report--is now just a prop as the president plays to the camera and talks to the American people.
I found myself wondering what it would feel like to be able--inwardly--to stand up and lie in front of millions of people. Multiple times. And to obfuscate, blur, overstate, understate, and--did I mention--lie? To parse a phrase so that it might be technically, possibly, not absolutely false, but also certainly not true? The AP covers the most obvious today, but in many ways the tone and message of the speech was one sustained lie.
I wondered how much of what he was saying he believed. And then I saw when the passion kicked in. He found his passion when he was blaming, talking down to, or excoriating others.
I found myself wondering whether the president, with his vaunted Ivy League education, has read any economics or history.
I found myself wondering whether he is really as out of touch with average Americans as he appears, or if he is too stubborn, or as some have posited, narcissistic, to believe that anyone--let alone tens of millions--can disagree with him.
And I wondered once again, how on earth we got to this point, and if we will come out of it with our country intact.
I wondered if this is what our founders had in mind. An hour or more of partisan rhetoric and a laundry list of ways to spend our money, along with an attack on the Supreme Court, and well over 100 references to self instead of country doesn't seem like what they had in mind with, "He [the President] shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." Of course, the Congress--supposedly the recipient of the report--is now just a prop as the president plays to the camera and talks to the American people.
I found myself wondering what it would feel like to be able--inwardly--to stand up and lie in front of millions of people. Multiple times. And to obfuscate, blur, overstate, understate, and--did I mention--lie? To parse a phrase so that it might be technically, possibly, not absolutely false, but also certainly not true? The AP covers the most obvious today, but in many ways the tone and message of the speech was one sustained lie.
I wondered how much of what he was saying he believed. And then I saw when the passion kicked in. He found his passion when he was blaming, talking down to, or excoriating others.
I found myself wondering whether the president, with his vaunted Ivy League education, has read any economics or history.
I found myself wondering whether he is really as out of touch with average Americans as he appears, or if he is too stubborn, or as some have posited, narcissistic, to believe that anyone--let alone tens of millions--can disagree with him.
And I wondered once again, how on earth we got to this point, and if we will come out of it with our country intact.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
The language of the backs of cars
I'm a reader. Even when I'm driving, I'm a reader. So I notice bumper stickers and license plates to what I am told is an unusual degree. So, I can say with a great deal of confidence that there were a far greater than average number of "arts" and "environmental" license plates in the lot when I dropped Jonathan off for rehearsal last night. My van was the right choice for the evening, since it sports the environmental license plate, supporting the Indiana Department of Natural Resources.
Specialty license plates in Indiana went through a boom a few years back when the regular plate was ugly. Now, with a more attractive regular plate, and the "In God We Trust" option, you don't see as many specialty plates around, so the concentration of them in that parking lot showed me that these were people who would put their money where their mouths were.
Of course, bumper stickers are the most obvious car speech. I'm noticing a trend.
The Obama/Biden hopeychangey bumper stickers are disappearing. Quickly. There are cars that I recognize because I see them often that have recently dropped them. I've noticed that the saturation in the campus parking lot is way down. What does this mean? Buyer's remorse, maybe? I'll continue watching this trend.
Specialty license plates in Indiana went through a boom a few years back when the regular plate was ugly. Now, with a more attractive regular plate, and the "In God We Trust" option, you don't see as many specialty plates around, so the concentration of them in that parking lot showed me that these were people who would put their money where their mouths were.
Of course, bumper stickers are the most obvious car speech. I'm noticing a trend.
The Obama/Biden hopeychangey bumper stickers are disappearing. Quickly. There are cars that I recognize because I see them often that have recently dropped them. I've noticed that the saturation in the campus parking lot is way down. What does this mean? Buyer's remorse, maybe? I'll continue watching this trend.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Government created angst
My friend Susan posted today about how uncertainty about what the government is doing and going to be doing makes making certain decisions difficult. This is so true, and one sure sign that our government is too big and too intrusive.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Sunday, November 08, 2009
Stupid? Selfish? Greedy?
These are some of the characterizations I have read of people opposed to the health care bill that the congress passed last night. We'll call it PelosiCare, or PC for short, to differentiate between it in specific and health care reform (HCR) in general.
I am sure that there are some people who are against PC who deserve these descriptors. I am also certain that there are some on the other side who do also. But, in spite of the mouth-foaming rhetoric coming from many on the left, being against PC does not equate to wanting people to "just die quickly."
Far from stupidity, what informs many opponents of PC are an understanding of economics and a fidelity to principles that is frequently written off as partisanship. But is it "partisan" to question the constitutionality of a requirement that people buy a product? Is it stupid to wonder how a government that always adds layers of cost, fraud, and bureaucracy to everything they do can claim they will save us money? When did health insurance become a right?
As to charges of selfishness and greed, I am sure that I am not alone in thinking there is something horrifyingly greedy in a mass of people who are continually demanding to be given more, more, MORE--money for their house, cash for their clunker, "free" health care--from the government, from Obama (yes, really!) I heard a caller to a local radio show last week say that he didn't like the PC bill because it was going to make him buy insurance. He wanted the FREE health care that he believed the Democrats had promised him. Who's the greedy one?
I am against PC. I am not against HCR. I think that the alternative plan presented by the house Republicans had many common sense provisions that would have helped to solve current problems, some of which have been caused by government intervention in the system. In spite of the rhetoric from the other side, we have the highest quality health care in the world. If I believed that the system set up under PC would make our system better I would not be so opposed to it, but I believe it will hurt millions more people than it helps and will very likely finish wrecking our economy. It will take away freedom to chose the kind of plan you want--all plans must conform to an as yet undecided government template, so people like us who choose a combination of a higher deductible, lower cost plan and a pre-tax health savings account will no longer have that option. It will force all Americans to buy insurance under threat of fine or imprisonment.
I could write pages on what is wrong with this plan philosophically, morally, economically, and practically. But others have written these pieces, and this isn't primarily about the bill. It is about the negative, nasty characterizations of those who oppose it by those who support it. I know many wonderful, generous people who think that PC is wrong. I would gladly compare our family's charitable giving head-to-head against any liberal I know. I would be willing to bet that we give a higher percentage of our income to charity than any of them. And we are not alone in that. Being willing to tax other people and give away their money isn't generosity; but I can think of a few other names for it.
I am sure that there are some people who are against PC who deserve these descriptors. I am also certain that there are some on the other side who do also. But, in spite of the mouth-foaming rhetoric coming from many on the left, being against PC does not equate to wanting people to "just die quickly."
Far from stupidity, what informs many opponents of PC are an understanding of economics and a fidelity to principles that is frequently written off as partisanship. But is it "partisan" to question the constitutionality of a requirement that people buy a product? Is it stupid to wonder how a government that always adds layers of cost, fraud, and bureaucracy to everything they do can claim they will save us money? When did health insurance become a right?
As to charges of selfishness and greed, I am sure that I am not alone in thinking there is something horrifyingly greedy in a mass of people who are continually demanding to be given more, more, MORE--money for their house, cash for their clunker, "free" health care--from the government, from Obama (yes, really!) I heard a caller to a local radio show last week say that he didn't like the PC bill because it was going to make him buy insurance. He wanted the FREE health care that he believed the Democrats had promised him. Who's the greedy one?
I am against PC. I am not against HCR. I think that the alternative plan presented by the house Republicans had many common sense provisions that would have helped to solve current problems, some of which have been caused by government intervention in the system. In spite of the rhetoric from the other side, we have the highest quality health care in the world. If I believed that the system set up under PC would make our system better I would not be so opposed to it, but I believe it will hurt millions more people than it helps and will very likely finish wrecking our economy. It will take away freedom to chose the kind of plan you want--all plans must conform to an as yet undecided government template, so people like us who choose a combination of a higher deductible, lower cost plan and a pre-tax health savings account will no longer have that option. It will force all Americans to buy insurance under threat of fine or imprisonment.
I could write pages on what is wrong with this plan philosophically, morally, economically, and practically. But others have written these pieces, and this isn't primarily about the bill. It is about the negative, nasty characterizations of those who oppose it by those who support it. I know many wonderful, generous people who think that PC is wrong. I would gladly compare our family's charitable giving head-to-head against any liberal I know. I would be willing to bet that we give a higher percentage of our income to charity than any of them. And we are not alone in that. Being willing to tax other people and give away their money isn't generosity; but I can think of a few other names for it.
Sunday, September 06, 2009
What would you do?
Last night we had some friends over and we were all sitting around the fire pit drinking beer and talking about politics, history, theology, economics, movies, food, and sometimes all of them at once. Our friend Paul brought up the fact that the government is suggesting that, because of H1N1, people have at least four weeks of food. Pastor Petersen questioned how many people actually have that much food, and, in case of some sort of shortages or breakdown in the supply chain, what we would do.
We have enough food to feed the six of us for about six weeks. Longer if we needed to stretch it. I'm working on building our somewhat depleted food stores back up. I like to have a bit more that that, and I like to have more meat in the freezer.
Pastor asked what I would do if our neighbors were hungry and came over to get food. We have guns and plenty of ammo. Would we fight to protect what we had stored up? What would we do?
I was thinking about that last night when I went to bed, and this morning while I got ready, and was pretty sure I knew my answer. By the time I got to church I knew for sure. If my neighbors were hungry I'd share my food. No question. And by my neighbors I don't just mean my "neighbors." I mean our friends, our church family, whoever. For me, part of the thought behind being prepared in an emergency is that not only could I then take care of myself and my family, I would also not be a drag on the community, and could be in a position to help others.
If someone wasn't happy with sharing and wanted all of my food for himself and tried to take it by force, then I'd probably try to protect it.
We have enough food to feed the six of us for about six weeks. Longer if we needed to stretch it. I'm working on building our somewhat depleted food stores back up. I like to have a bit more that that, and I like to have more meat in the freezer.
Pastor asked what I would do if our neighbors were hungry and came over to get food. We have guns and plenty of ammo. Would we fight to protect what we had stored up? What would we do?
I was thinking about that last night when I went to bed, and this morning while I got ready, and was pretty sure I knew my answer. By the time I got to church I knew for sure. If my neighbors were hungry I'd share my food. No question. And by my neighbors I don't just mean my "neighbors." I mean our friends, our church family, whoever. For me, part of the thought behind being prepared in an emergency is that not only could I then take care of myself and my family, I would also not be a drag on the community, and could be in a position to help others.
If someone wasn't happy with sharing and wanted all of my food for himself and tried to take it by force, then I'd probably try to protect it.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Guess the 'prompter can't do everything
The American Spectator has a piece today looking at the president's body language after the so-called beer summit. It is very telling. They also draw some interesting connections to the president's health care reform plans.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Thursday, June 04, 2009
Pointless post
I could post about the president's speech in Cairo, but plenty of other folks have done that today. And I have no desire right now to think deeply enough about anything going on in the political arena or on the world stage to write about it. It's just too depressing.
I could write about my day that just disappeared due to unexpected complications. Or maybe I could write about my leaking dishwasher, but I'll save the whining for Facebook.
If I had some pictures I could post about my garden. This is the first year that I haven't taken pictures before I started to harvest, but I planted some things much earlier this year, and we are enjoying the garden already.
Or maybe I'll just go to bed.
I could write about my day that just disappeared due to unexpected complications. Or maybe I could write about my leaking dishwasher, but I'll save the whining for Facebook.
If I had some pictures I could post about my garden. This is the first year that I haven't taken pictures before I started to harvest, but I planted some things much earlier this year, and we are enjoying the garden already.
Or maybe I'll just go to bed.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
A must read
This Imprimis piece by Mark Steyn is an excellent analysis of what happens as government is allowed to take over our responsibilities.
Then for a bit of enlightening entertainment watch this. (HT: Father Hollywood)
Then for a bit of enlightening entertainment watch this. (HT: Father Hollywood)
Monday, May 04, 2009
What I've been thinking
I haven't been posting much recently because I've had a lot on my mind and not much time. The topics I want to post about all need, and deserve, a thoughtful treatment. Unfortunately, right now all I can squeeze out is a quick post.
I just finished A Dream Deferred: The Second Betrayal of Black Freedom in America by Shelby Steele. It needs to be the subject of a really good thorough post. I marked enough spots in the book to go back over that I'll almost be rereading the whole thing. That is a post to come.
An Issues, Etc. episode on tolerance (broadcast Friday April 17) that I listened to on Friday pinpointed a lot of the frustrations I've been feeling about the whole concept, and the seeming ease with which the left is able to redefine words. That's another post. Probably tomorrow.
The media keeps pushing the idea that the reason the Republican party is in trouble is because of a "move to the right." Huh? Is this the same Republican party that had an aisle-crossing moderate for a presidential nominee? The Republican Party is in trouble because it is in large part the Democrat Party Lite. The Republican Party is in trouble because for eight years we had a President who seemed incapable of articulating or defending his actions and positions and who helped to grow government and spend money like a drunken Democrat senator.
And I can't even start on the misrepresentation and vitriol that has surrounded the coverage of the tea parties and the attitude of the Democrats about them.
All of these things tie together. They all involve agendas and the power of words and being the one who defines them. They all speak to the tremendous influence of the press. They involve assumptions and political myths. Maybe over the next couple of days I'll manage some coherent posts and tie it all together.
I just finished A Dream Deferred: The Second Betrayal of Black Freedom in America by Shelby Steele. It needs to be the subject of a really good thorough post. I marked enough spots in the book to go back over that I'll almost be rereading the whole thing. That is a post to come.
An Issues, Etc. episode on tolerance (broadcast Friday April 17) that I listened to on Friday pinpointed a lot of the frustrations I've been feeling about the whole concept, and the seeming ease with which the left is able to redefine words. That's another post. Probably tomorrow.
The media keeps pushing the idea that the reason the Republican party is in trouble is because of a "move to the right." Huh? Is this the same Republican party that had an aisle-crossing moderate for a presidential nominee? The Republican Party is in trouble because it is in large part the Democrat Party Lite. The Republican Party is in trouble because for eight years we had a President who seemed incapable of articulating or defending his actions and positions and who helped to grow government and spend money like a drunken Democrat senator.
And I can't even start on the misrepresentation and vitriol that has surrounded the coverage of the tea parties and the attitude of the Democrats about them.
All of these things tie together. They all involve agendas and the power of words and being the one who defines them. They all speak to the tremendous influence of the press. They involve assumptions and political myths. Maybe over the next couple of days I'll manage some coherent posts and tie it all together.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Another view on the Tea Parties
Fellow homeschooler Susan, has a post about her experience with an Illinois Tea Party.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Why tea party?
I hadn't been paying much attention to the left's characterization of the Tea Party movement until today. When I figured out that I wasn't going to be able to get to Indianapolis for today's event, I decided that I would follow the parties on the news and Twitter.
The left is in a tizzy. The malice and nastiness is amazing. They are either purposely misrepresenting the Tea Parties or have managed to maintain their ignorance about what they are about. They have made up conspiracy stories about the origin, even though many of us who are active online at TCOT and Smart Girl Politics and on Twitter watched the idea grow and spread organically.
They are not anti-Obama. There may be some people who are stridently anti-Obama in attendance, but that isn't the purpose. I would venture a guess that you would find as much disgust with Republican politicians and congressional Democrats among the protesters as with Obama. When I go to our local tea party on Saturday, one of our signs will be questioning our Republican congressman and his vote for the bailout.
They aren't simplistically anti-tax. The vast majority of the people attending the Tea Parties have been paying taxes for years and expect to need to pay taxes to fund the government. There is probably a wide variation among those in attendance over what they believe is legitimate government spending. They aren't about, as one pundit said, the taxes on the wealthy going up 3%.
What they are about is spending. They are about bailouts, whether for Wall Street, GM, or the neighbor down the street who refinanced, bought that big screen, and now can't afford his mortgage and owes more than his house is worth. They are about unbridled spending under the guise of rescuing the economy, and passing an ever-growing debt on to our children. They are about politicians passing spending bills when they don't know what's in them.
They are about concerns that our constitution is being shunted aside by a federal government that insists that states and companies take funds they don't want and that seems almost daily to stretch the limits of its power. They are about the printing of more money, more foreign ownership of our debt, and the devaluation of our currency and inflation that many economists believe is coming.
The left is in a tizzy. The malice and nastiness is amazing. They are either purposely misrepresenting the Tea Parties or have managed to maintain their ignorance about what they are about. They have made up conspiracy stories about the origin, even though many of us who are active online at TCOT and Smart Girl Politics and on Twitter watched the idea grow and spread organically.
They are not anti-Obama. There may be some people who are stridently anti-Obama in attendance, but that isn't the purpose. I would venture a guess that you would find as much disgust with Republican politicians and congressional Democrats among the protesters as with Obama. When I go to our local tea party on Saturday, one of our signs will be questioning our Republican congressman and his vote for the bailout.
They aren't simplistically anti-tax. The vast majority of the people attending the Tea Parties have been paying taxes for years and expect to need to pay taxes to fund the government. There is probably a wide variation among those in attendance over what they believe is legitimate government spending. They aren't about, as one pundit said, the taxes on the wealthy going up 3%.
What they are about is spending. They are about bailouts, whether for Wall Street, GM, or the neighbor down the street who refinanced, bought that big screen, and now can't afford his mortgage and owes more than his house is worth. They are about unbridled spending under the guise of rescuing the economy, and passing an ever-growing debt on to our children. They are about politicians passing spending bills when they don't know what's in them.
They are about concerns that our constitution is being shunted aside by a federal government that insists that states and companies take funds they don't want and that seems almost daily to stretch the limits of its power. They are about the printing of more money, more foreign ownership of our debt, and the devaluation of our currency and inflation that many economists believe is coming.
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Uncle Sam, you owe me
As of this morning Uncle Sam owes me 27 hours of my life that I will never get to use for something worthwhile. And my taxes still aren't finished.
That's just this year. These hours don't even count the time I spent last month going through old paperwork determining what could go and what had to stay.
This doesn't count the time I have to spend every day documenting my mileage. Or moving around mounds of paper that might possibly have some tax significance next year.
Our tax system stinks. (If you know me well, you know the word that I wanted to use there.) We need the Fair Tax, a flat tax, or some other simple tax plan. I also wish that we had a system that made people pay their taxes instead of having them withheld. That might wake some people up to how much the government is really taking out of our pockets.
That's just this year. These hours don't even count the time I spent last month going through old paperwork determining what could go and what had to stay.
This doesn't count the time I have to spend every day documenting my mileage. Or moving around mounds of paper that might possibly have some tax significance next year.
Our tax system stinks. (If you know me well, you know the word that I wanted to use there.) We need the Fair Tax, a flat tax, or some other simple tax plan. I also wish that we had a system that made people pay their taxes instead of having them withheld. That might wake some people up to how much the government is really taking out of our pockets.
Monday, March 30, 2009
It shouldn't have to be stated
But unfortunately, in this climate, it seems sadly necessary.
Angie Harmon says, "I'm not a racist because I disagree with Obama."
The Racist Card is becoming the new tool for attempting to stifle dissent. Racism is evil, and so is accusing people of it because they don't agree with you. Being called a racist is difficult to defend against--because you're stuck trying to prove a negative-- but it can't be accepted in silence.
Angie Harmon says, "I'm not a racist because I disagree with Obama."
The Racist Card is becoming the new tool for attempting to stifle dissent. Racism is evil, and so is accusing people of it because they don't agree with you. Being called a racist is difficult to defend against--because you're stuck trying to prove a negative-- but it can't be accepted in silence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)