The "Young Turks" is an Internet TV show that is apparently is rather popular on You Tube.  I must confess to not having spent more than 15 minutes watching it with my primary thought being "These guys don't look that young".  The host of the show Cenk Uygur is also a contributor to Huffington Post who specializes in attacking Fox News and apologizing for the Obama administration. 

But deciding to branch out and show his versatility, Uygur has tackled the "lets hate on Sarah Palin" theme that is so popular on Huffington Post.  I'm not exaggerating even slightly.  Tonight the website carried a one paragraph article about some nut job throwing tomatoes at Palin that got over 6,000 replies - and you can probably imagine that those replies where not bemoaning the mental state of anyone who would do such a thing.  But I digress, let's talk about Uygur's article entitled in all his leftist chivalry "The Irrefutable Stupidity of Sarah Palin" how nice. 

Now let me be very forthcoming, I am a fan of Sarah Palin and pretty much have been since her exploding onto the public stage last year.  I probably would not have been such a big fan was it not for the absolute pack dog mentality that the left attacked her with almost immediately upon her nomination and ever since.  Never has a failed Vice Presidential candidate received such attention from either side.  I often cite the example of the last losing Democratic VP candidate, Johnathan Edwards.  Now if somebody deserved to be vilified, Edwards would seem to be deserving.  But rather than villify Edwards for any number of indiscretions, lying, cheating, treating his dying wife like crap and stuff like that instead Palin is ridiculed by those like Uygur for the crime of being rather un-intelligent? 

There was a time when Palin was again a rather new entity that I would upon finding a negative post about her post two positive ones.  This quickly became impossible as websites like Huffington Post had people like Geoffrey Dunn hating on Palin full time and I did not have the time nor resources  of the Huffington Post.  So now I pick and choose my targets.  Why did this article by Uygur make the cut?  Three reasons 1) He just comes off so liberal like and cocky and I'm so smart, you know typical Elite progressive stuff 2) His hateful title of his article 3) The fact that he is easily debunked as he clearly demonstrates his lack of research and substance in the 2nd paragraph of his article and therefore unlike the 11 AP debunkers sent after Palin's book, I don't have to work that hard.

So what does he say?  Well for starters he declares that the left is constantly accused of being biased against Palin saying that "The theory is that we have all collectively decided that she is the best Republican candidate in some secret liberal meeting and are conspiring against her because we are afraid of how brilliant and electable she really is."  Reasonable and I have seen that belief kicked about on many right wing blogs.

But Uygur says "There are a couple of problems with this theory. There are no opinion leaders on the left with Rush Limbaugh-like authority who can command all other progressives to think the same thing and use the same arguments against one person. In other words, we all think she is stupid because she is in fact stupid, not because some liberal cabal told us to think that"

This of course is where Uygur blows it.  First of all Rush Limbaugh-like authority?  I consider myself pretty darn conservative there Cenk and I have not read or listened to anything Rush Limbaugh has said in the last 10 months or so.  But, I did read this neat little article about Organizing for America (which I think qualifys as a "liberal cabal" telling the left what to think.

"Organizing for America (OFA), the activist arm of the Democratic National Committee, is openly campaigning against Palin, who isn’t running for anything. OFA is the outgrowth of Obama for America, the president’s campaign to win the White House. OFA exists to unceasingly agitate for radical change.

It’s really shouldn’t be that surprising given that America’s first Marxist president is always in campaign mode.

OFA is trying to raise money to fight Palin, calling her “dangerous” because she opposes the efforts of Democrats to ram socialist medicine down the throats of unwilling Americans

Here’s the email OFA sent out a few days ago to its members:

Right now, Sarah Palin is on a highly publicized, nationwide book tour, attacking President Obama and his plan for health reform at every turn.

It’s dangerous. Remember, this is the person who coined the term “Death Panels” — and opened the flood gates for months of false attacks by special interests and partisan extremists.

Whatever lie comes next will be widely covered by the media, then constantly echoed by right-wing attack groups and others who are trying to defeat reform.

As we approach the final sprint on health reform, we can’t afford more deception and delay. We need to be ready for anything — and have the resources to respond with ads, events, and calls to Congress when the attacks come.

So we’re setting a big goal: $500,000 in the next week to help push back against Sarah Palin and her allies. Please chip in $5 or more to help reach our goal.

Earlier this month, Palin publicly said that she hopes health reform will be “dead on arrival.” And since then, she’s been working fiercely toward that goal.

On Tuesday, Palin went on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show where she outrageously — and falsely — suggested that Americans could “face jail time as punishment” if they don’t buy insurance.

Palin has many more interviews scheduled on Hannity and other conservative shows in the next few weeks, with more platforms to go after the President. As soon as she does, the rest of our opponents will likely parrot those attacks.

We need to be prepared. And we’re counting on you help. Can you chip in $5 or more?

[link omitted]

Thanks,

Mitch

Mitch Stewart
Director
Organizing for America

President Obama used OFA resources to blast out a mass fundraising email about an hour after his socialist medicine legislation was approved by the U.S. House of Representatives two weeks ago.

So either Organizing for America does not count or Uygur is just totally out of touch with the liberal agenda - not that there isn't one Mr. Uygur, you are just apparently out of the loop.

In so far as the rest of your article complete with video examples goes, once President Obama can be shown to know how many states make up the union.and manage to keep a promise for more than three days I'll be interested in the rest of your criticism of everyone else

So this is what they mean by Blind leading the Blind
or:  Dumb & Dumber


On the latest Hardball, Chris Matthews educates Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm on how to be even more leftist as if such a thing was possible.  Sounding like a wannabee Mussolini, Matthews bemoans the fact that the trains don't run on time and that we spend all our money on defense, rather than upgrading our rail system "You know I don't understand why this country is so far behind other countries" Matthews complained "If you go, if you're lucky enough to get to Europe, you know my kids talk about getting through the Chunnel, under the English Channel, in a couple of minutes. These kids studying overseas in their third year. The Europeans seem to have fast trains that go 300 miles and hour and we're chugging along with Amtrak and Acela and we're still flying around short distances.



First you, Mr. Mayor. You're on the Amtrak route. Why can't this federal government use the power of the, the workforce we have out there, put ‘em all to work and build a train system in this country of fast rail so we can – and this sounds so pathetic – catch up to Europe and Japan! Why don't we do that?! Catch up to the other major countries!  "At this point Granholm apparently mesmerized by the brilliance of Matthews discourse and perhaps experiencing her own leg tingle exclaimed to Matthews "You should run for office!"


"I hate to sound like a lefty" Matthews said "But the fact is we're spending all this money on our defense programs - McDonnell-Douglas, Boeing...Why can't we do what other major powers do? Build a modern society! Instead of fighting all the wars supposedly for everybody else,"   This remark also drew oohs and ahhs and repeated appeals for Matthews to throw his hat into the ring from Grahholm and Matthews other Democratic guest Mayor Micheal Nutter.



Boy Chris, for someone who "hates to sound like a lefty" you sure do it a lot.

Years and Years and Years ago which is admittedly a lot of years, I was working on a degree in Psychology. One of my more 'modern' textbooks at the time was a very unique perspective of mental illness called "The Big Umbrella" by Dr. Jay Adams. Maybe 'textbook' is a bit too expansive a title for what was actually little more than a long essay. What has stuck with me all these years (since the early 70's) was the premise of the book. The following brief except provides a good overview of the subject material:

"During the last generation a big umbrella was opened. Beneath its huge, over-arching expanse you now find people with the most diverse problems and difficulties. Under its shadow they have been gathered together according to the novel idea that nearly everybody who is having problems, regardless of what his difficulties may be, is sick. The name of this umbrella is Mental Illness. This umbrella was designed and opened by Charcot and Freud and others who worked with them. Until their time, "illness" meant physical illness. But they stretched the concept of illness until it pertained to nearly any and every sort of difficulty in life."

One of the examples that Adams utilizes to demonstrate this is the Kennedy assassination, which many individuals at the time blamed on the city of Dallas rather than Lee Harvey Oswald. This expression "The Big Umbrella" was used in the 70's to describe the expansion of the topic of mental illness to include all manner of problematic behavior. Today we don't call people mentally ill (which by itself would be politically incorrect) we call them 'victims'.

This line of thinking has again reared it's head in today's politically correct world, who is the victim of Fort Hood? Common sense would tell you the friends and family of the 13 individuals brutally gunned down by a madman, however some would have you believe that the victim is the madman himself Major Hasan. As absolutely ridiculous as this theory is, it has been utilized more and more today by the media in this mixed up message world in which we live.

Ann Coulter examines this overwhelming need to find a victim, and the many benefits of being a victim in her best selling book "Guilty" Liberal "Victims" and Their Assault on America". A further example that proves Ann's point is what is being referred to as "Climategate".

On the MSNBC talk show Morning Joe, Jeffrey Sachs the author of "Common Wealth" offered his belief that the real victims in the Climategate scandal were the scientists. He actually dragged forth the term "Swiftboat" and explained to us lesser minds that the whole ClimateGate issue was "not a very big deal".

Swiftboat?? For those who have spent the last few years trying to forget John Kerry and who hasn't? Swiftboating is a term that became political jargon during the Kerry campaign. The gist of it is that John Kerry ran the campaign based upon his heroism in the Vietnam War, unfortunately his comrades in arms didn't find him all that heroic and questioned Kerry's recollection of events in Vietnam. As Kerry and his fellow veterans were deployed in Swift Boats during the war the term stuck.

Wikipedia the source for all knowledge contains a definition of the term "Swiftboating is American political jargon that is used as a strong pejorative description of some kind of attack that the speaker considers unfair or untrue—for example, an ad hominem attack or a smear campaign.

Although Wikipedia does not show it, you would do well to remember that the liberal dictionary defines 'smear campaign' as telling the ugly truth about someone, such as the fact that they have been falsifying global warming. Most people who are not heavily vested in the global warming political machine just call it "telling a lie".

For all the left's vaulted ability to wrap themselves in the cloak of 'victims' which they do truly excel at, it would appear that the real victims of ClimateGate would be the rest of us.

I think that if our  friends on the other side of the aisle were honest, they could easily understand what makes everyone on the right and middle so nervous about this health care bill.  To me a large part of it is the Voodoo Math.

As a young boy I struggled with math in school, and that was dealing with numbers that stayed relatively constant.  Even in algebra my teachers did not say "if x = y then, oh wait it's z, if z = y, no forget about y I never said y, if z=q"  Just thinking about that makes my head hurt.  But if you have been following this health care debate, scary voodoo math is everywhere!

It started with the number of people without insurance was it 40 Million, 20 Million, 25 Million, 45 Million, 50 Million, 30 Million or what!!  Apparently that depended on whether or not you counted illegal aliens, and if you got caught doing that the numbers changed but not in any proportion to how many illegal aliens that our government told us that there was supposed to be.

For example, some Left Wing Strategist would come on and say that there were 38 Million uninsured but if we took out illegal aliens then there was 20 Million uninsured which (where I went to school) would mean that there were 18 Million illegal aliens, right?  But that same strategist would talk about the 50 Million aliens, is that legal, illegal and space?   Again, the head is hurting and blood has started to come out of my ears and don't even get me started about the President's plan to legalize the 50 Million which would mean that 88 Million covered (I think).

It only gets worse.  Now we are told that despite this bill which is 2,086 pages (or something like that) 25 Million people who are not illegal aliens will remain uninsured.  What????  Does that mean that we are going through all this for less than 25 Million people and it costs 2.5 Trillion Dollars?   Wouldn't it be cheaper to provide these people with free health care for life with a bill of about 50 pages?  I don't know I am entirely confused by now.

So at this point I am thinking screw how many it covers, we will never know how many it covers and if we push the point the Administration will start saying things like "87 Million people were insured or saved by the health care bill" and my head really will explode.

If we give up (in the interest of preventing our heads for exploding) on arguing the actual number covered, the voodoo math does not go away.  Let's look at the number of people dying through lack of insurance.  Now I am not meaning to sound like a total jerk, but I have never driven by or gone to a hospital with a large group of dispirited individuals hanging around outside waiting to die because the hospital would not see them, but if we listen to the horror stories that have been told during this debate then we have to assume that it happens. The voodoo math part of it is that the number of those dying does not maintain any type of consistency.   I know that it started out this year (when the  health care debate began) at 18,000 per year but due to voodoo math the number has grown astronomically to 45,000 a year, at least that is the number that was thrown around in yesterday's Senate debate.

Well okay then, 45,000 is a lot of people.  That number might pale in comparison to the 1.3 Million Abortions that are performed in the US each year, but I digress.  Even a mean old conservative like me doesn't want to be responsible for the death of 45,000 uninsured people.   And as Debbie Stebenow and her pals kept reminding me yesterday that is THIS year.  Well, at least when this monster of a bill is past those 45,000 will be safe right?

Not so fast.  Even though the bill may pass this year, and we will start paying for it (and paying, and paying) this year, the actual benefit does not begin until four years from the date the bill is passed.  What?  Do you mean to tell me that 180,000 people are going to die before this bill takes effect?  That seems to be the case.  But surely there must be some good reason for that.    Not really.  The reason if you choose to believe it, and if you have believed everything up to now why stop?  Is that the Democrats want this bill to APPEAR budget neutral.  Really, that's it.  They are despite the tears (real or imagined) shed by such tough old "Progressives with guts" as Alan Grayson the Left is so concerned about the budget that they are willing to let a number that is VERY close to a 1/4 of a Million people die in order to preserve it's illusion of neutrality.

And WE are the mean, heartless and cruel party?  Something just doesn't add up.