Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Saturday Night Card Game (A single, cohesive theory)

Saturday Night Card Game (A single, cohesive theory)

This is the latest in a series on the use of the race card for political gain:

Seemingly disconnected events have come together this week to form a single, cohesive theory which explains the behavior which is the subject of the Saturday Night Card Game.

First, the evidence:

Exhibit A:

Rates of mental illnesses including depression and post-traumatic stress will  increase as a result of climate change, a report to be released today says.

The paper, prepared for the Climate Institute, says loss of social cohesion  in the wake of severe weather events related to climate change could be linked  to increased rates of anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress and substance  abuse.

Exhibit B:

A leading voice in the Congressional Black Caucus told supporters last week that Tea Party-affiliated lawmakers are devastating the black community economically and would be happy to see black people “hanging on a tree.”

Rep. Andre Carson (D-Ind.), the CBC whip, told attendees at the CBC’s Job Tour visit to Miami that the Tea Party is actively taking steps to keep down the black community and other vulnerable populations.

“This is the effort that we’re seeing of Jim Crow,” Carson said. “Some of these folks in Congress right now would love to see us as second-class citizens.”

He went on, “Some of them in Congress right now of this Tea Party movement would love to see you and me … hanging on a tree.”

Exhibit C:

“The interesting question is: What is it about this president that has stripped away the veneer of respect that normally accompanies the Office of the President? Why do Republicans think this president is unpresidential and should dare to request this kind of thing? It strikes me that it could be the economic times, it could be that he won so big in 2008 or it could be, let’s face it, the color of his skin. This is an extraordinary reaction to a normal sequence of events,” MSNBC contributor Richard Wolffe said on “The Last Word.”

Exhibit D:

Exhibit E:

 Single, Cohesive Theory:

They have gone mad.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

I did notice that the temperature rose this summer in the south and fell this past winter in the north. Is climate change being racist? It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World.

Professor,

I have independently verified the “Gorean effect” upon which your unified theory hinges. My methodology and results will soon be submitted for peer review and publishing in the “Legal Insurrection Journal of Race Card Thermodynamics,” and here is a tentative abstract:

Add ad hominem to ad lapidem to the point of ad nauseam … and, … spontaneous generation … you have Al Gore’s logic. It’s said in delicious ridicule that, “everything changes, except the avant-garde.” The avant-garde should be relieved at its second-place finish to the Second Coming of Al Gore.

In bumper-stickerese that any lefty can understand: “Gore is not the answer.”

Al Gore has turned the scientific method into the scientific incantation. There is a method to his madness, but it isn’t scientific. More shyster than scientist, his bastardized version of the scientific method has substituted repeatability with repetition of the big lie. Now he’s thrown in the ugly taint of racism for good measure. He’ll throw everything but the kitchen sink at skeptics … actually, make that everything under the (completely blameless) sun.

Busy making millions off this scam, and even busier jetting around to buy mansions with Sasquatch-sized carbon footprints, he can feverishly say “the debate is over,” but refuses to debate publicly even a single time. He wouldn’t debate the late novelist Michael Crichton, let alone someone of physicist Hal Lewis’s stature.

“The planet has a fever,” he exclaims. But, when the predicted heat doesn’t materialize, the hedging does, and “global warming” suddenly becomes “global climate change,” as if climate were a heretofore static phenomenon … and, just as debate is magically deemed unnecessary, so is the thermometer.

The sky is falling, the seas are rising, his ship has sailed and run aground … and Al is slathered in baby oil, holding open a reflective-tin foil covered double album of his greatest hits inches from his burning face … castaway on his little fantasy island.

The truth? Al took care of that with bikini wax.

LukeHandCool (who doubts there is a dangerous threat from anthropogenic global warming … but who is open to being convinced by sober believers … and who doesn’t need baby oil or tin foil … as his swarthy Slavic skin tone … with help from Jewish and French ancestors … tans easily … as his natural Teutonic highlights simultaneously bleach out).

    Nah, the unified theory was developed back in the early 70’s by a college friend of mine, Solomon Cohesive, after we drank large quantities of Gallo Hearty Burgundy and set out to disprove Newtons proof of the irrationality of the square root of 2 and try to get into Debbie Schwartz’s pants.

      LukeHandCool in reply to Anchovy. | September 3, 2011 at 8:27 pm

      Oh yes, … Debbie Schwartz’s pants …

      In those heady days, I had a hand in Zipper Theory and its evolution into String Theory.

      LukeHandCool (who, in his early twenties, dated an unbelievably cute Jewish girl who looked exactly like MTV’s original video jockey, Martha Quinn. But, the main thing on her mind, marriage, was the furthest thing from Luke’s. God, she was cute and sweet … but Luke was waaaaay to young to think about marriage.)

Lunacy is the only possible answer.

I am glad Al Gore framed this debate from a moral perspective. I was at the grocery store the other day, for years I have felt plagued by ecoguilt when I choose plastic. This time I felt like I was finally liberated from this pseudo religion brainwash as I declared plastic to the cashier. It is easier for me to carry plastic bags into my house being pregnant, and no Al Gore I did not have an abortion to save the earth and yes I drove my SUV to the store so I can feed my family. I am done feeling guilty because I am taking care of my family. I support the coal and nuclear industry because they provide affordable energy to my family. I support the oil industry because they provide something I need to take care of my family. I support agribusiness because they provide food to keep my family alive. The people who oppose these industries want to make the lives of average families much harder. That is probably why most of the greenwashed individuals come from trust fund back grounds with a silver spoon and priveledged guilt in their mouths. I grew up relatively poor. I am not saying I am unthankful, we had enough but life at times has been a struggle. I was not aware of this until recently, but it really ticks me off to know that 26% of the fuel tax that is supposed to fund roads and bridges, goes to fund public transportation. This is defended by those on the left as encouraging people to drive fuel efficient cars and use green transportation. Well those of us that live in the country don’t have that option and we need to drive cars to take care of our families. It ticks me off especially to know that when I was struggling to put myself through college, and commuting to school, that I was subsidizing a subway ride for some Wallstreeter. Most of the “rich” kids from my small town got an eady ride to college, while the poor kids struggled. Some managed to get through in time commuting to the nearest community college, some never made it at all. Now it is the poor kids that stayed behind in the rural community subsidizing the subway rides for their rich ex classmates. My new philosophy is that I am working on increasing my carbon footprint as I increase my standard of living. If some rich trust fund kid wants to work towards poverty have at it, but get the hell off of my back. I am declaring a new form of atheism, I don’t believe in the green religion of guilt for being human and taking care of my family. I will gladly use Al Gore’s name in vein, eff you Al Gore.

    tomg in reply to ella8. | September 3, 2011 at 8:29 pm

    Well said!

    What are we made of ? Our fathers came across the prairies, fought Indians, fought drought, fought locusts, fought Gore… remember when Al Gore came in here and tried to take over this town? Well, we didn’t give up then… and by gum, we’re not going to give up now!

I’d replace my furnace with Al Gore, but I think that the natural gas that I burn is cheaper than Al’s food bill.

Professor,

The “Exhibit E” video will not run when clicked.

Your theory must therefore be considered bunk.

    DINORightMarie in reply to LukeHandCool. | September 3, 2011 at 7:45 pm

    I believe that is a screen-cap. Linking to that video would only boost the view counts of that piece of cr*p pirated hack job smear.

    If you go to the “Exhibit E” link, you can read Stacy McCain’s comments about the pirating of his video and his plans to sue Perez Hilton, etc.

    That is all you really need. Michele Bachmann said to an audience that had been rained on ALL DAY, “Who likes WET people?!” and Perez the loser downloaded the original, then uploaded his pirated POS.

    I can’t agree more with the conclusion. The unfortunate reality is that we have 14 more months of this to suffer through. It WILL get worse. Because they ARE mad! Conclusion is logical and correct, IMHO. 😀

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | September 3, 2011 at 8:11 pm

algore is a watermelon. Green on the outside, Marxist red on the inside. The climate agenda is all about control. They want to reduce, if not eliminate, what little remains of individual liberty.

Calling algore and those like him eco-fascists isn’t hyperbolic name calling. It is truth.

    MaggotAtBroadAndWall in reply to MaggotAtBroadAndWall. | September 3, 2011 at 8:21 pm

    From Steve Hayward of Powerlineblog:

    “The German newspaper Neue Zurcher Zeitung observed shortly before the Cancun [climate] summit last year: “The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.” What prompted this conclusion was a candid admission from a UN official closely involved with the climate negotiations, German economist Ottmar Edenhoffer: “But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.””

    Watermelons.

    johnnycab23513 in reply to MaggotAtBroadAndWall. | September 3, 2011 at 10:25 pm

    The true marxist is willing to live in poverty to work for his goal. Al Gore is working for personal enrichment first, communism second.

    Gore is a turd; stinky through and through.

So you’ve independently corroborated the mad professor’s theory too, eh?

How much are the coal and oil companies paying you and your evil black-people-hating … wet-white-people-liking … tea-bagger friends?

Answer me that, DINORightMarie (aka Connie Ko Phillips)

LukeHandCool ( who has an AlGoreithm that proves global warming deniers are racists and bedwetters)

Semi theoretical situation: Your pet rabbits die, and to honor them and “recycle” them, you have the skins made into a jacket.

What does PETA do?

Does this constitute a moral dilemma for our progressive friends? Moral relativism?

You’re supposed to bury all animals in toto when they die. Do not use them for food. Do not use them for fur. Do not send them to a taxidermist, ugh. You must show respect for our furry friends at all times except, of course, when PETA takes dogs and cats from the pound and kills them. PETA, like the rest of the libs, are hypocrits. ALF and PETA and those extremist organizations like them have destroyed millions and probably billions of dollars in the name of whatever. What they are really doing is forcing their beliefs onto us whether we like it or not through violence. With organizations like these two plus the rest of the environalists the libs have a nerve calling any conservatie extremist.

    Anchovy in reply to BarbaraS. | September 4, 2011 at 1:31 pm

    Notice how these “animal rights” activists are speciesists (sp?). They only care about the furry and attractive species. They don’t have any problem using penicillin, sulfa drugs, Desenex or arm pit soap to kill/maime/disable those precious life froms that are less attractive and cuddly.

Exhibit A is just another ploy by the UN comparable with alien invasion. They are constantly thinking up dumb theroies they hope the sheep, uh, people will buy.

Exhibit B is he case of a black congressman whipping up bad feelings against whites because that is what keeps getting him elected. I realized long ago that this is a racket. Blacks don’t care abut the slavery question. They only care about using it to get more free stuff. Whites who have guilt feelings need to get a clue because blacks have been racking up the moola for decades and have been paid twice over in reparations in the form of food stamps, affirmative action, subsidized housing and CRA loans.

Exhibit C” I despised Bill Clinton but not with the virulent hatred I feel toward the present occupant. And I hate him because he is trying to turn the US into Zimbawee with himself as Mugabee. Every day we hear about a new lawlessness this guy commits and no one seems to be able to stop him. He has taken a great rich nation and brought it to its knees. I used to think he was just incompetent but now I think it was all deliberate. He has some world theory that he is experimenting on us and he is destroying this country. How we will survive another year and a half of this POS is beyond me. I feel sure he will do his worse and if (hopefully, because if not, we are toast) he is not re-elected he will go full speed ahead with his EOs during the next three months. The next president will be kept usy just rescinding his EOS for the first year.

They haven’t gone mad. They have an agenda and are working like beavers to put it into place. Will us, nil us.

Exhibit E” Al Gore is in this for the money. It takes a lot to have your own cable channel and pay the losers you hire big bucks. He has never forgiven us for not electing him especially, when his father raised him to be president and he feels entitled but nasty Americans failed to anoint him. Then again, according to him and his supporters , he was cheated out of the presidency. When the rubber meets the road, Al Gor is just another blow-hard liberal who thinks he knows what is best for you and me.

American Liberal ideology has gradually and very sadly morphed into the modern “progressive” race-baiting dogma of today, several key examples of which you have cited in your post. It has taken us on a degenerative journey from the days of righteous confrontation with invidious individual and institutional discrimination by some in years gone by, to a state where we now are witnesses to the propagation and systemic exercise of ugly political polemics, ones in which good Americans, concerned for their country, are consistently and absurdity accused of racism, or even terrorism, for merely asking for some measure of fiscal responsibility on the part of their government!

Many would argue that the ideological Rubicon was crossed when American “propagators” of law and social policy took to a series of broad and thoroughly illegitimate steps, each one attempting to remediate past discrimination against individuals from earlier generations, by instituting current discriminatory plans that intentionally imposed the granting of benefits on behalf of individuals who were plainly never invidiously discriminated against, and that at the same time were also imposed to the detriment of those who had absolutely nothing to do at all with that past invidious discrimination.

Liberalism literally became its other.

The practitioners of the new discrimination, however, never wanted to address the other side of the coin. And now some of them have taken to screaming “racist” at anyone who dares to challenge the basis of that, or any of what have become invasive policies and programs, but which they see as their fundamental institutional entitlements.

Barack Obama once wrote a public defense of affirmative action, touting it as what he believed was one legitimate element in the process of selecting editors for the Harvard Law Review from amongst the highly competitive class of first year law students (1L) seeking one of those highly coveted positions. And in his published letter, he candidly cited the fact that he had undoubtedly been an academic beneficiary of academic affirmative action.

At the time (his letter was published in the November 16, 1990 edition of the Harvard Law Record) Obama was the President of the Harvard Law Review. As he pointed out, his letter was partially in response to an earlier missive, written by a Mr. James Chen who was addressing what, according to the summary characterization of Mr. Chen’s viewpoint by Mr. Obama, were the “possible stigmatizing effects of affirmative action” for its beneficiaries.

In his written response, Mr. Obama outlined specific details of the policy of the Harvard Law Review — i.e., citing how it worked — and he concluded his letter with a few personal observations that were obviously intended undermine Chen’s claim by pointing out his own (Obama’s) subsequent selection as the President of the Harvard Law Review, as at least some measure of proof to the contrary, i.e., that he had obviously not been stigmatized.

His letter illustrates, I think, quite clearly the basis for an ongoing social conundrum in the United States, one that has been perpetuated over more recent decades by national legal and institutional policies that have attempted, in a variety of ways, to give an imprimatur of approval to corrective measures, ones that are intended to somehow “make up” for an undeniable legacy of past invidious discrimination against others, by now giving a discriminatory “leg up” to an identifiable class, or progeny of those who were, in general, the victims of that past discrimination.

Here is how Mr. Obama put it back in 1990:

. . . I must say, however, that as someone who has undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action programs during my academic career, and as someone who may have benefited from the Law Review’s affirmative action policy when I was selected to join the Review last year, I have not personally felt stigmatized either within the broader law school community or as a staff member of the Review. Indeed, my election last year as President of the Review would seem to indicate that at least among Review staff, and hopefully for the majority of professors at Harvard, affirmative action in no way tarnishes the accomplishments of those who are members of historically underrepresented groups.
. . . .”

The detail of the Law Review’s policy as outlined by Mr. Obama is very instructive in illustrating the undeniable fact that their affirmative action policy, provided a “leg up” for some who were not discriminated against, including Mr. Obama, and which resulted in discrimination against others to their detriment who had never been invidiously discriminatory toward others, an issue which Mr. Obama blithely ignored for obvious reasons.

And, in what was a real eye-opener, he also revealed how the Harvard Law Review dealt with the information that might have become the basis for, say, some future academic study to examine the validity or effectiveness of that policy.

Therein lies the rub. They destroyed all the records once the “final” selections were made!

As was summarized by Mr. Obama in a revealing, and yet highly confusing summary statement at the time:

“Once final selections are made, all writing competition material is destroyed. No editors on the Review will ever know whether any given editor was selected on the basis of grades, writing competition, or affirmative action, and no editors who were selected with affirmative action in mind.”

In other words, if anyone was invidiously discriminated against during the final selection process for Harvard Law Review on the basis of, say, inappropriate consideration of, or non-consideration of some weighted factor, such as the inclusion or non-inclusion of the individual in some “suspect classification” group, they would simply never be able to prove it using the written records, because those records were destroyed.

Neat, huh?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend