Our pop-culture president recently went through the dog-and-pony show experience of Leno. We’re now beginning to see that given the opportunity (predicament) to improvise outside of a teleprompter’s demands, this man will reveal his true character.

It began with the president joking about how bad a bowler he is.

Toward the end of his approximately 40-minute taping on the “The Tonight Show With Jay Leno,” Obama talked about how he’d gotten better at bowling and had been practicing in the White House bowling alley.

“I bowled a 129,” he told Leno.

“That’s very good, Mr. President,” Leno said sarcastically.

But then came the foot-in-mouth moment: “It’s like the Special Olympics or something,” the president said. [emphasis mine]

< sacrastic-response >
Um, like… yea Barack… that shit’s funny yo.
< / sarcastic-response >

Are you kidding me?

Should we consider this notion as enlightened, compassionate or progressive? Does it represent his earnest respect for hope or change? What caliber of intellect carries around such a childish insensitive notion? This ignorant and tasteless blurt is just one candid snippet of the mind that will likely lead America to a much darker time.

Loosen your belt America, we’re just getting started.

I’m sure there are plenty on the other side that are just as impressive. These represent the culture that’s driving America down the shitter.

Despite all evidence to the contrary I cling to a sliver of hope that the clowns in Washington will come to their senses. With the US economy on the brink of collapse, how could they possibly not realize that more economically destructive regulations aren’t such a good idea? Unfortunately I think this will prove to be mild compared to what’s in store.

Environmentalism will likely be the death knell of America. Our Government, which has long since abandoned its proper scope, is a lethally convenient tool for earth worshipers to force their will, and the resulting economic turmoil on others. The near future should be a solid indicator of our priorities - recovery and survival, or further tampering and destruction. Life or death? Is America indifferent to the question? Are we so blinded with irrational lust for subjective fantasies that we’ve numbed our abilities to sense it coming? Wake up damnit!

We’re staring at a lighted fuse that will end this country as we know it, and does congress take a mandate break? Hell no! There are laws to be written, rights to be trampled, force to be yielded! Why would they take a break? There’s still just a glimmer of freedom left in our stagnant air and free people do things against the will of the collective. As long as there is dissension, there are laws to be written. Not until every individual is either cowering in submission or shackled by the state will they rest from meddling with the affairs of others.

Such is the nature of power lusting collectivists.

This recent Laura Ingraham interview with Nicholas Provenzo exemplifies the epitome of evasive and concrete-bound thought. The discussion revolves around Provenzo’s impressively controversial thoughts on abortion and Down Syndrome. Take a listen….

Notice how she staggers from one angle to another, never fully allowing any thread of the conversation to reach its logical conclusion.

Not surprising, Provenzo’s point has been taken completely out of context throughout both this particular discussion as well as the overall debate. His case contends there is a rationally moral case for choosing to abort a mentally or physically handicapped fetus - that there are instances where such action is morally viable. He absolutely does not prescribe or even suggest abortion as a blanket prescription for any child with disabilities. Ingraham knows he’s not the monster she depicts him as, but as one who fails to properly regard reason, her thoughts are susceptible to being, and apparently are, emotion-driven. She knows if she follows Nick’s logic attentively she’ll very quickly have no tangible premise to hide under. She’s leveraging the very tactics of those she despises on the left. In terms of objective principles they’re cut from the same evasive mold.

It seems uncomfortable for her to discuss the value of human life in objective terms.

This manner of discourse is typical of Conservatives, namely because their principles are vague and not fully supported by reason. Commanding the tempo of the discussion is essential to her survival. When her points seemed to fizzle as Provenzo calmly and articulately wades through the emotional muck underlying each, she’d diffuse the engagement by rudely interrupting, insulting or moving on to her next flimsy argument.

As someone with a somewhat conservative-minded background (read: vague, implicit tendencies for freedom and rights) I can typically find at least a small area of common ground with those on the right. Being only slightly familiar with Ingraham, I never formed strong opinions of her either way, but this interview reveals her essence and proves she’s not worthy of any further consideration.

She’s another fine example of the mystical pragmatism that occupies the Conservative mindset. Even despite her technical advantage in this engagement, Provenzo still clowned her. In a neutral forum without the luxuries of raising her voice and controlling the call button, her hollow rhetoric wouldn’t stand a chance.

And another thing… who is Ann Rined?

With the exception of very few talk radio hosts and a sparse littering of tolerable music - radio is dead.

I usually enjoy an audio book on the few days of the months that I commute, but occasionally I’m between books and have yet to burn a new one to disc - so I’ll delude myself into thinking I might stumble on radio content that’s digestible. This is always a mistake. I’m not really into “Fake Country,” Hip-Hop mumbling nor any of the other obtuse ramblings set to mundane chord progressions, thus it’s inevitable that I end up idling on an NPR affiliate. At least the folly of their ineptitude gets my blood flowing, which is more that I can say for music on the radio. I’m certainly “engaged” in their dialogue with the sobering realization that these dumbasses exist in very large quantities and, courtesy of a rogue government, have the collective power to rule me.

I’m not sure what’s worse, crappy music or crappy discourse.

In addition to their jolly chatter of industry nationalization (destruction of wealth) and earth worship (destruction of life), the Leftosphere is rabidly flinging as much crap on Sarah Palin as they can muster. What malicious cretins. I disagree with Palin on most things, but I do enjoy the fact that she aggravates the left so well.

This segment was understandably about her religiosity in particular, and the threat of Theocratic progression in general. The host of this segment, a collectivist drone who probably looks like Marcie, patronizingly mentions the “separation of church and state that grants us not only freedom of religion, but also freedom from religion.”

What the hell? Since when does the Constitution count for anything to the left?

Their penchant for defending the constitution when the discussion is about religious freedom is evasively absent when any other tenet of our founders, any regarding individual rights, is referenced. Just like cherry-picking bible verses that conveniently comply with one’s notions, this is pragmatic intellectual dishonesty - Marcie knows it too.

Courtesy of Titanic Deck Chairs:

Via Boortz, I came across one gem in response to another.

Oh boy, where to start.

The first (bad cop) is a fine tribute to how small a grasp most voters have on what really matters about an individual, especially one who’s seeking to rule you. A few citations:

“He’s too new … and he needs to put some meat on his bones,” says Diana Koenig, 42, a housewife in Corpus Christi, Texas, who says she voted for Sen. Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary.

“I won’t vote for any beanpole guy,” another Clinton supporter wrote last week on a Yahoo politics message board.

Instead of judging based the candidate’s stance on freedom, sovereignty or justice, these people are more concerned with petty physical details, which are more easily integrated attributes that require much less thought. They feel an unnamed urgency to be involved with the election, but don’t have the slightest clue where to begin. So, they resort to the most basic means of judgment - evaluation of physical features - as a way to “get involved”. Man’s mind, his intellect, his philosophy -the only import aspects of a candidate- aren’t even a blips on their radar.

The article then tries to speak out to the more scientific minded drones with an appeal to authority, and departs with a hint of suspicion.

Dr. Scheiner didn’t disclose his patient’s exact weight, but medical observers estimate that the 6-foot-1.5-inch-tall senator appears to weigh at least 10 pounds less than the roughly 190 pounds that the average American man of his height weighs. The Obama campaign declined to comment for this article.

We then get to a curious proof of Obama’s ‘keepin’ it real’ side immediately followed by the transformation of such (supposed) vice into a tribute to his near deitous status.

Sen. Obama is not without vices. According to Dr. Scheiner’s medical report, he has quit smoking “on several occasions and is currently using Nicorette gum with success.” People close to the senator say he began smoking nearly three decades ago and smoked about five cigarettes a day.

Some voters say that even this adds to Sen. Obama’s somewhat superhuman persona. “I mean, really, who quits smoking and doesn’t gain any weight?” says 30-year-old Stella Metsovas, an Obama supporter in Laguna Beach, Calif.

[emphasis mine]

This article strives (in appearance) to be a candid insight into the diet, physique and eating habits of politicians in general and Obama in particular. There’s no mention as to why this topic is relevant or should be interesting. It’s written by, directed to and about those who seek the fast-food drive through election - where a brightly colored, yet simple icon will suffice as qualification for their support.

However, I think there is another motive that I’ll get to below.

So, we have irrelevant chatter.. and now an “insightful” response to it.

Timothy Noah (good cop) thinks all this skinny talk is nothing more than a facade for the real agenda - RACISM.

The promise of Obama’s presidency, in many people’s minds, is partly that America will move toward becoming a post-racial society. It’s pretty clear, though, that we aren’t there yet. When white people are invited to think about Obama’s physical appearance, the principal attribute they’re likely to dwell on is his dark skin. Consequently, any reference to Obama’s other physical attributes can’t help coming off as a coy walk around the barn.

It might be argued that body weight differs from certain other physical characteristics (apart from skin color) in that it has never been associated with racial caricature. Chozick wasn’t asking (and, I feel sure, would never ask) whether Americans might think Obama’s hair was too kinky or his nose too broad. But it doesn’t matter. The sad fact is that any discussion of Obama’s physical appearance is going to remind white people of the physical characteristic that’s most on their minds.

Race certainly seems to be on Timothy’s mind.

The problem is that ‘Race’ is an indicator or ethnicity. ‘Skinny’ is an adjective describing relative body mass. Yes, Obama has a particular race. Yes, he is skinny. For Timmy to grant correlation the upgrade to causation is a major stretch. By his standard, apparently picking any physical attribute of Obama could be cast as a racial metric.

These articles are perfect examples of the “titanic deck chairs” aura of our media. Two pundits chattering about misguided and totally irrelevant topics. The former a superficial ad hominem. The latter a smearing straw man. Both come across as underhanded variants of the vicious goal - to renounce an opposing stance not by reason and logic, but by evasion, diffusion and distraction.

I think they both are on the same team. Sure they’re both collectivist, but I mean on a more concrete level.

I think these stories are supposed to be legitimate and unrelated topics - however, I think the WSJ piece could very easily be an intentional lob designed to be knocked out of the park by an accomplicing lefty pundit.

What better way to kill two birds with one stone. They know that most of their audience think and operate on a superficial level. What better way to glorify Obama’s looks as virtues in once sense, and paint anyone as bigots who consider such as meaningful in another.

This is “Good Cop - Bad Cop” journalism.

I used to be a Del McCoury fan… I really did. His latest endeavor and the surrounding stench has changed that.

Modern day bluegrass patriarch Del McCoury adds a new dimension to his role as a musical leader on July 8, 2008 when his family owned McCoury Music label, distributed by powerhouse RED Distribution (a division of SonyBMG) releases Moneyland, a timely multi-artist collection that offers a hard-hitting look at today’s economic injustice through a thoughtful selection of six new (or newly recorded) songs, mixed with eight neglected gems and classic favorites. Framed by excerpts from two of Franklin Roosevelt’s Depression-era “fireside chats,” Moneyland revitalizes country and bluegrass music’s connections to the lives of hardworking people in ways that honor the past, look to the future and challenge listeners to act in the present.

…….

That is what the project is all about. Some have called it “a call to action for rural America.” Me, I’m just trying to follow the Golden Rule. Thank you for your support. I hope this music moves you to find a place where you can help–even if it’s just at the voting booth.

I find the premise of this album, website and competition offensively laughable. The fact that Mr. McCoury is capitalizing on the movement generated by his work reveals the flimsy nature of the very premises it’s coasting on. For him to denigrate our remnants of Capitalism, the only system that allows talented individuals like himself to objectively prosper, is a humorous spectacle. The only reasonable conclusion I can draw from Del’s many ‘calls to action’ is that he’s supporting the cause for more government meddling in the economy, more income redistribution and more sacrifice of individuals for the sake of the collective. Doesn’t the ‘Golden Rule’ lose some of its splendor when it becomes compulsory?

He thinks rural America has it bad now? Just wait until what’s left of our economy is suffocated by more regulation - when those corporate “non hard-working” types stop providing what jobs are left.

Thanks Del, that’s just what America needs… more patently un-american progress. Stick to music, when it comes to philosophy and economics, you’re in over your head.

“economic injustice…” - what a joke.

change: verb - to further pervert the nature and purpose of government by using such power to force a collectivist vision on its citizens.