In case you’ve never heard of it, ACORN is a teaching organization: it teaches pimps and prostitutes how to avoid paying taxes, how to keep their illegal activities under the radar of law enforcement, and how to teach their underage sex slaves to “keep their mouth shut.”

ACORN has taught a great many people, a great many things, but two lessons stand out:

Lesson 1: The legacy media is NOT main stream

The videos of ACORN breaking the law are explosive:  An organization closely connected to the President, an organization that is already under investigation in at least a dozen states, is shown (in multiple instances in multiple cities) helping what they believe to be a prostitute and her pi mp break the law.   The President is now closely connected with what, in the minds of many, is a criminal organization.  And yet, the only network willing to get the automatic ratings bump of such an explosive piece of video is Fox News.  ABC, CBS, NBC, and MSNBC continue to be AWOL, and CNN has barely touched it.   Those businesses that hold something else – ideology, enjoyment, fame – as a higher priority than the quality of their product will, be definition, turn out an inferior product (Remember Battlefield Earth?  Air America?)  And the legacy media continue to prove this on a daily basis.  Each time they get scooped, each time they refuse to cover a huge story because it goes against their ideology, they sacrifice more and more of their only product:  their credibility.

Lesson 2: Bigots aren’t always where you think they are

If you believe that some group or other should only be held to a lower standard than yourself, then you are looking down your nose at that group.  If you think that poor people are prone to criminal activity, then you're an elitist; if you believe it about black people, you are a racist (Frank James of NPR, apparently, is both).  It’s what President Bush called “the soft bigotry of low expectations.” If you suspend your own moral judgment because the person you are judging happens to be black, you are a racist. 

Most conservatives believe that black people should be held to the same standard as everyone else; that they deserve the fundamental respect of being treated as adults, and therefore should be held accountable for their actions.  In the area of criminality, conservatives are the ones who are not making excuses for black criminals; their willingness to prosecute criminals is not dependent on skin color, but on the severity of the crime and the strength of the case.   In the area of Academia, conservatives are the ones trying to ensure that there is no consideration of race in college admissions.   In politics, conservatives are the ones holding our first black President’s feet to the fire.  Isn’t that what the opposition is supposed to do?

Liberals – at least those who reflexively come to the defense of ACORN – must tend to think of black Americans as children; who don’t know any better.   Liberal columnists like Mr. James are a fountain of excuses for black criminals.  Liberals are the ones who apparently think black students are too dumb to get into college without lowering standards. 

When I started reading articles by apologists for ACORN, and thought about them in the context of charges of racism against anyone who disagrees with President Obama, it suddenly hit me: Do Liberals think the first black President is above criticism, or below it?   Do they have respect enough for the President to let others disagree with him, or are they protecting him from criticism by making the racism charge, effectively lowering the standard of political opposition in an effort to shield him because they don’t think he’s capable of handling it on his own?

These are all lessons that conservatives and moderates learned a long time ago.  Even a species so endangered that it makes the California Condor look like the domestic house cat, the intellectually honest liberal, got it after a bit of remedial reading and after school tutoring.    But sadly, most liberals will just never get it.

I just watched a great debate between Michael Medved and Thom Hartmann on YouTube.  Great debate, but one of the things that I would have explored a little more was the nature of “rights,” in the context of Health Care.   

A “right” is an absolute – something that must be protected at ANY cost.  

The government can’t simply say, “Sir, protecting your right to live will cost too much money, so we decided we have to kill you.”   On many occasions, we’ve spent exorbitant amounts of money to protect the right of citizens to peaceably assemble. When, for instance, conservatives have any sort of public meeting, police manpower is expended to keep liberal thugs practicing their form of “speech,” (which generally includes beating and shouting down conservatives with one-line chants).

But the framers of the constitution were very careful in their definition of a “right.”  If you read carefully, you’ll see that all of the rights in the Constitution are prohibitions on government behavior.  They only set up protections for “rights” that require inaction, not action.   This important, here’s why:

A right that would require others to act would cause the actors to become slaves.

Let’s imagine that, for whatever reason, practicing doctors decided to get out of the business, and there weren’t enough graduates to fill their shoes.   As a result, there is a shortage of doctors.  Let’s imagine that a right to Health Care were in the Constitution.  

The first response of the government would be the same response as that of the free market: raise salaries of healthcare workers; “Sweetening the deal”, as it were.  But what if that didn’t work?  What then?   There are only two ways to get people to do anything: persuasion, and compulsion, so what if persuasion fails?   Rights are absolutes.   Therefore if a “right” that requires action on the part of another person is in the Constitution, and persuasion fails, compulsion must be used.  When the right has to do with health care, it is doctors; when the right is food, it is farmers.

(I know what you’re saying: “what about protection from other citizens?  The police have to act to prevent crimes, no?”  Well, no.  While the government does its best to prevent crime, and punishes those that break the law, that does NOT mean you have a “right” to have a life free of crime.)

For much of America’s history, it has had a press corps of rabble-rousers, asking the tough questions; putting a constant pressure on the nation’s leaders; shining as much light on the activities of those in the seat of power as possible.  There is, of course, a good reason for this – the 1st amendment to the Constitution: a special protection for the press was built into the fabric of the country by the framers themselves. 

Even in periods when the press was not exactly what you’d call “un-biased,” there were enough partisan members of the press on each side, so that there was always someone watching the watchers.  But now, America finds itself in a unique position: all of the major press outlets are on the side of the party in power.  What little opposition press exists is never allowed to “speak truth to power,” in fact they are rarely allowed in the same room with the powerful.

While the Obama Administration pulls out all the stops to ram its Healthcare Reform bill through congress – without reading it – it’s clear that the American people are not quite so keen on nationalizing a significant part of our economy.  According to Frank Newport, Editor-in-chief of the Gallup Poll:

“Americans are not convinced that healthcare reform will benefit them personally. This is, in part, because most Americans are satisfied with their current medical care and access to healthcare. Seniors in particular are not convinced that healthcare reform will benefit them.”

Given that the administration is now so locked in opposition to its own people, one would think that representative of every major press outlet in the country would be cornering representatives of the government at every public appearance, asking the questions that are on the minds of the people, exercising the vaunted “people’s right to know.”   But that isn’t happening.  

Town Hall meetings are, essentially, thinly veiled occasions for congress members to give speeches, while trying to convince their constituents that they are being heard by their leaders.   But now, a curious thing is happening: individual citizens are showing up at Town Hall meetings, to do the job that the press won’t.   They are showing up by the dozen, by the hundred, and sometimes by the thousand, and confronting their leaders without the protection of the Constitution, and risking life and limb in the face of Kool-Aid drinking union thugs.

Weeks ago, the president referred to the race-related Gates/Crowley brouhaha as a “teachable moment”.   Of course, he was referring to white America.  But I tend to think of this willingness of the citizenry to bypass the press as a teachable moment – for the press.   It should teach them that, if they aren’t doing their job, they are replaceable.

Michael Savage leaves me profoundly conflicted.   On the one hand, he's supposedly a conservative, so my natural inclination is to think of him as part of "my side", and support him.   On the other hand, I really can't stand the guy.

If you've never heard Savage, consider yourself lucky - his show is a stream-of-consciousness mish-mash of yelling, name calling, dumping callers when they get close to a point (instead of proving them wrong), and self-worship.   I, on the other hand, am not so lucky.   Unfortunately, in the little one-horse town in which I'm currently working, he's the ONLY talk radio on during evening drive time.  Seriously - we actually only have one AM station in town.   Usually when Savage is on, I find a good book to read - but there's still drive-time to deal with - and the police have politely requested that I refrain from reading while driving.

He's apparently the #3 conservative talk show host in the nation.  Who knew?  But I suspect that's because he's intentionally pricing his show extremely cheap, to get on as many radio stations as possible.  I'm fairly certain that's the only reason my little town can afford both him and Rush Limbaugh.

I just heard Jeff Kuhner guest-hosting for Savage, and heard him doing his best to mimick the normal (read: deranged) ranting and raving that Savage engages in on a daily basis.    His subject was (paraphrase) "Why is Michael Savage blacklisted by the conservative establishment?"   He was taking callers, but unfortunately none of them could hit the nail on the head, because none of them were quite in my situation: not a fan, but forced by circumstances to listen to Savage, or nothing.

So here, Mr. Kuhner, is the real answer:

1. Savage has been attacking conservatives for years. He refers to Limbaugh as "The Golfer", some other host (that I have not yet identified) as "The Hemmoroid with Ears", among others.   Don't get me wrong, there's never any actual substance behind any of these attacks, it's just name calling.  (In fact I really haven't figured out exactly what his beef is with these other hosts - he never does anything but call them names)
2. Savage is not a teacher. He's not interested in actually proving anything he says - he just assumes that if he says it loud enough and drenches his microphone in enough spittle in the process, his audience will simply believe it.   Sadly, most of the time, he seems to be right - at least with most of the people who bother to call in.
3. Savage doesn't abide dissagreement. Other hosts, such as Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt, and (My personal favorite) Michael Medved, research every story they do - they make it a point to prove their point.   Medved, for example, goes out of his way to attract disaggreeing callers, setting asside an entire day where he takes only callers that disagree with him.  He proceeds to shred their arguments, with facts, and as much grace and politeness he can muster (which is not to say that Medved is always calm cool and collected - seriously I have no idea how he puts up with some of the liberal ideologues who call his show - some of them are completely separated from reality).    Savage simply yells louder, and hangs up on the callers.
4. Savage gives liberals ammunition. He's a caricature of the archictypal "Angry Conservative" that hippie parents use to scare their kids into not thinking rationally, and towing the liberal line:  he yells constantly;  I've never heard him let a caller finish a sentence (even those who are kissing his butt!); he's constantly congdulating himself, even for mediocre work.
5. Savage isn't interested in activism. Several times over the years, I've heard him approached by fired-up callers, to mobilize his audience for this cause or that cause.  Not only does Savage avoid such activism himself, which is understandable, he discourages others from doing it.   True, he has the ability to get's his audience riled up and energetic about a subject, even if they are getting their facts from elsewhere, but then he does absolutely nothing with that energy.

So there you go Mr. Kuhner.  Everything you always wanted to know about the big bad conspiracy to keep Michael Savage down.

Currently, Savage is whining about how he was banned from English soil a few months ago, and conservative talk show hosts were reluctant to come to his aid.   I'm shocked.  Shocked I Say!  It's funny: you bash people for a few years straight, call them names on a daily basis, and strangely, they're not ready to lay down their lives for you.   Hmmm.    Don't get me wrong - I agree with Savage on the issue.  But to expect all of these other big-name conservatives to throw themselves in front of the train for him, after dumping on them for all these years, is really beyond the pail.

Maybe Savage will learn from this ordeal, but I doubt it.   I suspect that this lesson, which is known by every four-legged animal, may be beyond Savage: Do not crap where you eat.

Some time ago, I woke to something horrible on the radio, that darkened my entire day.   It was a leftist economist being interviewed by a leftist commentator, on NPR*.  Just as the clock radio flipped on to wake me, the guest was saying:

"...we're stuck using old, outdated ideas: that high taxes are bad, that free markets work, and that the financial industry can self regulate..."

(At first, I thought I had awoken in the middle of Atlas Shrugged.  But then I realized, with a shudder, that this was REAL)

Of course, the whole point of NPR is to influence people, with absolutely no opposing viewpoint - it is the modern equivalent of the loudspeakers on every street corner in 1936 Germany.  So, unlike conservative talk radio, there is no way I could respond to the guest.  But if I were to be able to speak to him, I would point out a few things:

1. As of the 2002, between federal, state, and local governments, about 60% of my income went to paying taxes.   Do not delude yourself into accepting the idea that America is some "low tax" country.   When a people are compelled to work 60% of their lives away for someone else, they are 60% slaves.
2. How long has it been since America has had a free market, 50 years?  60?  Where is this free market he speaks of?   Every company in America is under a constant barrage of controls, taxes, "fees", "incentives", etc.   Each one of these incurs cost on businesses that cost people their jobs.

* I don't normally listen to the nutbags on NPR, but I was living 15 miles outside a very small town at the time, and the only radio station I could actually receive was, sadly, NPR.

Liberal talk show host Mike Malloy illustrates beautifully what the left is all about.   Today he wished that a fellow human being would kill himself, live on the air:

"I have a good news to report; Glen Beck appears closer to suicide - I'm hoping that he does it on camera; suicide is rampant in his family, and given his alcoholism and his tendencies towards self-destruction, I am only hoping that when Glen Beck does put a gun to his head and pulls the trigger, that it will be on television, because somebody will capture it on YouTube and it will be the most popular video for months."

You may think that Glenn Beck has reached the pinnacle of his career now.   I mean, if he's hated this much by this left wing slimeball, then he's really achieved something.

But, the hate of the left knows no bounds. Look through some of the Protest Warrior videos, and see how the left does more than wishing - actually physically attacking people.  Also, Al Franken was in the news recently, so it reminded me of this

Anyway, keep it up Glenn!   You're getting somewhere!

Trina Thompson, a 27 year old slacker from New York, is suing her college because her lackluster performance is failing to blast open doors in a down economy.  Go figure.

Miss Thompson apparently thinks a 2.7 GPA is something of which one should be proud.

My favorite quote:

"They favor more toward students that got a 4.0. They help them more out with the job placement."

Yes, Miss Thomson, because those are the students that actually tried.

Another quote:

"They have not tried hard enough to help me."

Maybe, Miss Thompson, that's because they all got C-Average grades in job-placement class.