A Discussion about Context

New York Congressman Charles Rangel is in a bit of hot water with the House Ethics Committee over a string of minor infractions, like tax evasion and misuse of rent control property. You know, stuff that only bothers those nitpickers at the IRS? Well, Rangel's supporters/defenders are saying that we should give Rangel a chance to explain himself in context.

This got me to thinking what the Left means when they talk about context. Usually, they refer to it when they say something stupid and gets caught. They claim "They took that statement out of context" (without ever proving it was taken out of context). Take, for example, their argument in defense of Shirley Sherrod's speech where she admits to being racist initially to a white farmer. They claim Andrew Breitbart and Fox News took the speech out of context to discredit her.

Of course, these same Leftists say nothing about Media Matters, a Leftist website that frequently takes conservatives out of context. And, I'm still waiting for these Leftists to praise Glenn Beck for showing restraint and calling for the speech to be viewed in its full context.

Frankly, Beck is right, but he gets it wrong by assuming the Left has the same commitment to an accurate context as the Right does. The Left believes that reality is subject to their whims, which is why they can disregard the actions of the New Black Panther Party as insignificant while repeating a discredited lie about John Lewis getting spat upon and being called the n-word by TEA Party members. To them, the reality doesn't fit their narrative, so they ignore it. Granted, there are people on the Right who do the same thing (Lindsey Graham comes to mind), but the Left takes self-delusion to an art form. Why?

To protect their fragile egos.

The Left cannot stand being proven wrong about anything, yet they're constantly wrong about just about everything. When they run across someone with even a little knowledge of a subject, they get testy. I ran into this recently with a Leftist who asked me to use the scientific method to show how evolution was not settled science. After I did, he swore at me, insulted me, and generally ignored the fact that I did what he asked and proved him wrong with the very standard he insisted I use.

So, how does that play into the concept of context? When someone can lie about reality, he or she creates a context by which no one but that person can define and apply. In other words, he or she creates a reality that no one else can breach. When that happens, only certain facts are allowed in to be processed while others are disregarded. That's how the Left can blame Fox News for getting Sherrod fired when a) she resigned, and b) Fox News didn't start covering the story until after she resigned.

Now, let's apply this concept to the Rangel situation. When Leftists say they want Rangel to be able to put his actions into the proper context, they mean they want to give him time to come up with a version of reality that diminishes if not excuses what he did and gives his defenders a narrative they can follow to defend him.

And you can bet that Rangel's version of what happened will bear very little resemblance to what actually happened.

Snookered? Not So Much

When looking at the Shirley Sherrod situation a couple of days removed from it, I've notice there's a lot of smearing going on, primarily from the Left. First, they started by smearing mud on Sherrod herself, with the Obama Administration asking that she resign and giving the lame excuse that her now-infamous speech was going to become a focal point of conservative media. The NAACP and the Department of Agriculture both jumped on the bandwagon, apparently without looking at the entirety of the video of the speech. (Odd, considering the NAACP had the entire speech all along...)

Once Sherrod was pushed out, the Left then tried to smear Fox News and Andrew Breitbart, saying they were responsible for having Sherrod fired. Um, not really. Fox News and Breitbart only made the video public knowledge instead of having it tucked away in the archives like the NAACP. Once the "it's Fox News's fault" narrative was invented, the Left jumped on it. The NAACP said they were "snookered" by Fox News, and CNN's Campbell Brown went so far as to criticize the NAACP for letting themselves be snookered.

One tiny problem with the narrative: it doesn't fit the timeline. Sherrod was already on the way out by the time Fox News was running the story, and the NAACP had already criticized Sherrod for her comments. So, how could Fox News "snooker" the NAACP when they weren't even covering the story yet before the NAACP made its statement?

The answer: they can't, legitimately. Instead, what they're doing is trying to make themselves out to be the victims instead of the willing perpetrators in a much larger scheme designed to deflect attention away from the fact that Sherrod's comments were made at an NAACP meeting...and the membership at that meeting acted in a way that could be considered racist in that you could hear laughter and other comments during the part where Sherrod said that she didn't help a white farmer as much as she could have initially.

After the media attention the NAACP garnered for their criticism of the alleged racist elements of the TEA Parties, they couldn't afford to be seen as racists. What better way to lose what credibility they gained by attacking the TEA Parties than to be exposed as racist themselves.

Beyond that, the Obama Administration bears a lot of responsibility for their actions against Sherrod. They jumped the gun without knowing the facts (gee, that's almost a pattern for this Administration), and when the real story came out, they were left having to apologize. Wait, didn't the Left get their collective panties in a wad over George W. Bush's alleged "shoot first, ask questions later" approach to issues?

I have to say that I did find some of Sherrod's statements and admitted actions racist because they were not motivated by anything other than seeing one's skin color. Has she learned her lesson since then? According to her, she has. Until I see otherwise, I'll take her at her word. However, the NAACP and the Obama Administration have some more "teachable moments" to endure before they finally get it.

And let's hope they get it before they fire other Administration officials for no reason.

NAACP = National Association of Absolutely Clueless Progressives

The NAACP's annual convention starts this week. Normally, I wouldn't give one-tenth of one crap about them, but this year, they're really going out on a limb.

They're calling the TEA Parties racist.

Wow. With all the problems facing blacks today, the NAACP has really drilled down to the heart of the issue. (For those of you on the Left playing along at home, that was sarcasm.)

I find this a little convenient, given how blacks have had to deal with a member of the New Black Panther Party talking about wanting to kill "cracker babies." Not exactly the best way to showcase the many fine points of the African-American community, I grant you, but the NAACP has at least a bit more legitimacy with the white community than the New Black Panther Party.

That is until now.

The NAACP has a resolution that they will be voting on tomorrow to repudiate the "racist" elements of the TEA Party movement. In fact, NAACP spokesperson Leila McDowell suggested the following:

We are asking that the law-abiding members of the Tea Party repudiate those racist elements, that they recognize the historic and present racist elements that are within the Tea Party movement.

With all due respect, Ms. McDowell, I did a little research and couldn't find where you repudiated members of your own organization for racism, and I don't seem to see you recognizing the historic and present racist elements in your midst. And while we're here, could you provide examples of the racism you see in the TEA Parties, or are they like the alleged (and unproven) charges by blacks that protesters to the health care reform bill being voted on by the House hurled racist epithets at them and spat on them?

Something tells me the latter is more likely.

What the NAACP fails to realize is that the TEA Parties aren't about race, no matter what they do to try to make them about race. In fact, if they would attend a TEA Party rally, they might be surprised to see the number of non-white faces staring back at them. And it's due in no small part to the NAACP. For all of their self-professed desire to advance people of color, they've found themselves grafted at the hip to the very people who don't want colored people to advance. After decades of support for more big government programs with little to no improvement in the black community, blacks have started looking elsewhere for representation.

And the NAACP keeps sticking by the people who have screwed them for decades.

If you're a member of the NAACP reading this, ask yourself one question. What will calling the TEA Parties racist do to help a single black person? If you're honest, there is only one answer you can give.

Nothing.

A Random Conversation

I had to visit my apartment complex's office today to take care of some business when I had a chance to talk to one of the other residents about various subjects. Invariably, the war in Afghanistan came up.

"We need to get out of that war over there," the resident said. "We can't win over there. It's just like Vietnam. Look at what it did to the Russians."

On the surface, my fellow resident has a point. The war in Afghanistan has not been run as well as it could be, and the same can be said of the war in Iraq. However, a badly run war is not the same as an unjust war, and I still feel both wars are valid in the larger scheme of things. I won't back down from that position.

However, I did take gentle issue with the resident's notion that Afghanistan is just like Vietnam and that we would end up like the Russians did when they conducted a war there. I pointed out to the resident that we could still win the war in Afghanistan due to our socioeconomic foundations. When the Russians waged war in Afghanistan, they did it while Russia was still under the influences of communism, which was and is a very rigid form of government and society that doesn't value innovation. They had a stock approach to every situation and rarely deviated from it.

On the other hand, the United States has a more open form of government and champions those who innovate. Sure, it might mean more people have opinions on how to address an issue, but isn't that a good thing when dealing with war? War isn't something that can be mapped out from start to finish because of the human element, so we need people who aren't limited by inside-the-box thinking. It may lead to multiple trips to the drawing board, but it's a lot better than sticking to the same strategy and hoping it works this time.

Yes, we may not be waging war the way it needs to be waged, but if anyone can win in Afghanistan, it's us. And I'm not quite ready to give up on us winning yet.

Traitor

I've been called a lot of names over the years, but lately a new name has been used quite often to describe me.

Traitor.

To someone who loves his country, "traitor" is a name that elicits a strong emotional reaction, as it is meant to do when a Leftist calls someone one. It's gotten to be in vogue for the Left to do that lately because they've run into a problem as it pertains to President Obama. People simply aren't willing to listen to him much anymore because he hasn't shown the kind of leadership that he promised to deliver. So, the Left now equates disagreement with the President with treason.

Just like they did when people disagreed with Bill Clinton's decision to go into Kosovo. I had any number of Leftists call me a traitor for asking legitimate questions about why we were going into Kosovo in the first place. It didn't matter that the questions were legitimate. All that mattered to them at that time was that I was questioning the President's judgment during a time of war.

Then, George W. Bush became President, and questioning the President during a time of war was acceptable to the Left. After all, they were speaking truth to power! (Check local listings for the level of truth and power the Leftists were speaking.) And when the Right called the Left traitors (basically using the Left's own logic against itself), the Left whined and yelled about dissent being patriotic.

To have those same Leftists call me a traitor today for criticizing President Obama is the height of hypocrisy, especially when you consider that I didn't believe Leftist dissent was traitorous, merely misguided. However, I refuse to let them get me angry or upset when they call me a traitor. Instead, I've decided to do something else that immediately puts them on the defensive.

Call their bluff.

After all, treason is a federal crime, and that means citizens can arrest me if I'm guilty of treason. To date, not one of them has acted upon their rhetoric and had me arrested, and I doubt any will. Then, they would have to prove their allegations in front of a judge, and that would be much harder to prove than they think.

So, to all you Leftists out there, call me a traitor if you want. I can't stop you, and I won't even try. I much prefer the amusement of watching you guys backtrack when you get called out.

A Bad Sign for Democrats

The Washington Post has reported that Democrats are digging deep for any dirt they can find on Republicans in close races. Although opposition research isn't unusual in today's political environment, there is an element of this year's opposition research that doesn't bode well for the Left.

Keep in mind that traditionally the party in the White House loses seats in Congress in midterm elections. It doesn't always happen (see 2002), but the trend is well-known. If this trend continues, the Democrats are looking at losing power in Congress; the question is how much. That puts the Left behind the eight ball from the outset.

Add to this the growing discontent with all politicians, not just the ones in power. Some have argued that the TEA Party movement wouldn't have emerged had it not been for President Obama's election, but I would argue that it would have emerged anyway because our elected officials have become embarrassingly out-of-touch and increasingly arrogant. The same TEA Party folks that have criticized Obama have criticized John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and other more moderate Republicans for the same reasons oftentimes.

But instead of trying to tap into the more independent voting bloc, the Democrats have gone back to the tried and true scandal well.

Democrat leaders just don't get it. We aren't going to fall for that sort of gamesmanship this time around. Just because a Republican got a special tax break doesn't negate the special breaks Christopher Dodd got thanks to Countrywide. A Republican who has unpaid state taxes doesn't make Charlie Rangel's federal tax evasion go away. All it does is show how Democrats are trying to change the subject in an attempt to avoid an electoral drubbing in November.

And that signals a very weak party.

Happy Independence Day!

If you listen to some conservative talking airheads (like Sean Hannity), you get the impression that America is doomed if things don't turn around. His solution? We need to elect Republicans!

Republicans like, say, Lindsey Graham, who say the TEA Party movement is unsustainable? Graham, who has been an inconsistent Republican at best, as well as a frequent guest on Hannity's program?

Or would he prefer Republicans like John McCain, a man Hannity has praised as being a good man, but misguided?

Folks, Hannity misses the point on two fronts. First, voting in Republicans in and of itself won't fix the problems because many of the Republicans currently in office and in positions of power within the GOP are the ones who caused the problems in the first place. It would be like replacing a burnt out light bulb with another burnt out light bulb, thinking that the second one was bound to work.

Second, I don't believe for a second that this country is as bad off as we're being lead to believe it is. Don't get me wrong, things could certainly be better. But are we truly teetering on the brink of ruin unless we vote in Republicans in November? Heck no. This country has never been made great by the politicians running it at any given time. It has been made great by the people.

People like the Founding Fathers, who risked far more than we realize today to get this grand experiment in governance started.

People like the soldiers at Valley Forge, who survived brutal weather and low supply levels to stand tall against the most powerful military in the world at that time.

I could go on and on, but the point is that our history is rife with people who strove to make this country better. And that's the heart of patriotism in my book. It takes no courage to take a "my country, right or wrong" attitude. It takes a true love of this country to acknowledge we've made mistakes and to champion the fight to fix those mistakes.

This is where Leftists get it wrong. They criticize America not to try to make it better, but to tear it down to justify their contempt for the country. On the other hand, people like me criticize America to bring about the change necessary to make it a far better country. Put another way, Leftists are motivated by hatred for America, while people like me are motivated by love for America.

To hear Hannity talk about the possible end of America if Republicans aren't elected in 2010 makes me wonder about his love of country. No one man, not even someone as inept as Barack Obama, can take down America. We're far too strong, and he's far too incompetent. Instead of trumpeting the horns of doom, I prefer to trumpet America's success for well over 200 years as being a beacon of freedom for the world.

Happy Independence Day, folks!