Liberal Bigotry
I usually don't find myself agreeing with the fiercely republican pundit Michelle Malkin, but something she wrote yesterday I did find myself in tune with
Michelle Malkin: THE BUCK-NAKED BIGOTRY OF TED RALL Mind now her web log post title is her choice of words not mine. I had seen the Ted Rall cartoon she questions only a half hour before on the way home from work (Washington CityPaper - what one reads on the bus on Thursdays) and had been very disturbed by it. Normally I like Ted Ralls stuff, even his depictions of George W. as a beady-eyed, wombat-faced tinpot timocrat. Mostly because this is but the other side of the coin of the persona that George Bush has chosen willingly for himself. People who make their livings stewing in pots of their own bile, walk a fine line and occasionally cross it. With the panel on Condelezza Rice, Rall not only crosses that line, he runs over it on one of them little low-riding mini-stylin' motorbikes and rubs it to pieces. I don't understand the point of identifying Rice's one overwhelming crime as "acting white", in Rall's, view for which he must portray an ironic judgment of immanent justice for his peeps. In light of the other panels in this same strip this is odd, ugly, and rather telling. I know other people have approached this theme, even other cartoonists, Aaron MacGruder's Boondocks. MacGruder (a U. Md grad) I remember picked up on Rice's odd reference to Bush As 'her Hus..." at a dinner party, but my memory tells me other he's been more circumspect than to label her an un-repentant race traitor.
There's plenty of room to question her choice to view the job of National Security Advisor as being one of absolute and unquestioned allegiance to the President and official line, which it isn't and ought not be. There are several other staff jobs in a White House where that sort of behavior is more appropriate. In the wake of the Senate Subcommittee on Intelligence releasing its report today, several people have commented on the fact that she never questioned or even it appears to even noticed the weakness of the national security information being collected by the Administration. She seems not to have read further that the executive summery of the last NIE. The President, maybe be the vice president, should be the only ones allowed that luxury. The National Security Advisor should have read the full report - and its footnotes. One commentator noted even in the wake of the President's brief moment of doubt, when George Tenant had to reassure him that it was a slam dunk , she seems to have taken no subsequent action to test the rigor of simple-minded cliche. Here, with this no-bad-news-for-my President attitude, she seems to have failed the one task she set for herself, loyalty.
A final word on this. Michelle Malkin goes on for many paragraphs on this, and the comments that follow are a near infinite chorus. Mostly a diatribe exercise on what liberals think, yet not one of them seems to know any or ever spoken - in their lives - to any. How would they know? They label out of notions derived from within their own psyche. If they were to set pen to paper what would they draw? Do they ever ask themselves that question, ever examine what their hand has written? Michelle has a Blog roll on her site, yet there is no one on it that could or would give her any sort of appreciation of the views and concerns of average democrats (or even average moderate republicans) we who are just not part of her American Opinion. Nothing that allows her to view multiculturalism or diversity as anything but synonyms for liberal racism, Nothing that could allow her to back her assertion that mainstream news editors love this sort of thing. Nothing that would allow the quotation marks she allows herself to place around "mainstream media". Nothing to let her say she really knows who, all, and what are hiding under the hoods of Klan robes. I wouldn't say I knew.
Disagreeing with your friends occasionally is a good way to find out who your friends really are.
10:07:06 PM  ;;
|
|
