Our artists today have run out of themes to liberate us from, having beat the drum of what a pile of patriarchal bigoted womanizers we all are for at least all the years of my life, and I'm 58. We know we hate minorities because our artists and PBS tells us so.

Cartoons tell us this, Public Television and radio and the National Geographic channel tells us this. Our President tells us and the rest of the world what morons we are. And people swoon and say how smart our new president is.

Today Jeanine Garofalo said that the only reason anybody had for turning out for a tea Party on tax day is - you guessed it - racism. As she explained, we hate blacks and can't stand that a black man is in the "White" House. You can't make this stuff up. Asking the questions, and assenting (by grunts and nods) with her poisonous comments, was none other than Keith Olberman!

She had more to say. She first said that no blacks were at any tea parties, then admitted that there were, but they all had Stockholm Syndrome. She went on about how the race of this president was the "real reason" for the protests, ignoring the fact that there were no placards mentioning any racial subject matter, or the fact that if the republicans had run a black candidate, the vote would have been either the same, or better for the republicans. Like the "threat" assessment recently surfacing from Homeland Security, she made all these assertions with absolutely zero evidence.

“Let’s be very honest about what this is about,” she said. “It’s not about bashing Democrats, it’s not about taxes, they have no idea what the Boston tea party was about, they don’t know their history at all. This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks.”

I used to give the left a pass, ascribing their ravings to "Bush Derangement Syndrome." But now they don't have George to kick around anymore, so there has to be another explanation. I figure that they are bitter and childish people, and when The Won achieved his goal they thought that all their political wet dreams would now come true. Socialist health care, caps on income and energy use, withdrawal from the world stage, assuming an inferior position among the nations of the world, sending Bush Cheney and Rumsfeld to prison. Now they see that it is not gonna happen, and they are throwing a tantrum. This behavior will only get worse.

Anybody have a better explanation?

The Politics of Gesture

The Politics of Gesture

Hillary Clinton's new proposal to create a "Cabinet level Department of Poverty" with the mission to end poverty, once and for all, would be funny if it were not so dangerous. Before anyone tries to deny that this is her intent you need to read her own words:

“I believe we should appoint a cabinet level position that will be solely and fully devoted to ending poverty as we know it in America,” she solemnly intoned. “A position that will focus the attention of our nation on the issue and never let it go. A person who I could see being asked by the president every single day what have you done to end poverty in America? No more excuses. No more whining, but instead a concerted effort.”

No room for ambiguity there. After almost fifty years of Lyndon Johnson's "War on Poverty" we have just as many Americans who are counted in the ranks of those who live their lives in poverty as we had when we started, in 1964. Granted that our poor often have their own homes and cars, and even cell phones and designer jeans, they are still listed as being under "the poverty line."

Politicians always want to be seen as the source of the cure to all our ills, or as Michael Medved puts it:

The entire proposal highlights the Democratic Party’s current addiction to the politics of gesture dictated by the “Do Something Disease.” Under the grip of that dread malady, public figures feel the compulsion to stage a response to any perceived problem – even if that reaction accomplishes nothing in terms of meaningful solutions.

The Do Something Disease compels posturing that shows off the compassion of politicos, rather than policies that actually improve the lives of afflicted citizens. Results don’t matter, as long as the leader manages to demonstrate concern. Good intentions—feelings-- count for everything, with no consideration of real world consequences.

This proposal of Hillary's is another example of the intellectual bankruptcy of the liberal left in this country. Do something, and we can feel good about it. Results may be unattainable, but we can congratulate ourselves for the effort. Oh, and give Hillary the credit. In fact give her credit for intending to put forth the effort by voting for her today.

That is the dirty game electoral politics has become - promise anything, with little or no regard for results. Give her an "A" for effort, and elect her to the most powerful electoral position available. After all, no pols are ever held to making their promises come true, are they? Is Obama being held to his promise to utilize public campaign financing? No, of course not, since he now sees an advantage in changing his mind. He made a pledge, which, for a politician, is no more than a feeling. After all, don't they all do it?