Will liberals have to speak French, since they’re not really Americans?

Hey, look who’s back in the friendly orange-and-maroon glow of RollingDoughnut.com, it’s Michelle Malkin. But this time, I’m not so much disagreeing with her as I am pointing out a subtle intellectual sleight of hand that she shares with many conservatives. It’s even something I’ve written about in the past. So, journey with me to Ms. Malkin’s latest Townhall.com column. Consider:

Where are they? Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are the supermen of the civil rights establishment — able to leap tall buildings in a single bound to get in front of a picket line. When victim politics calls, the demagogic duo leap into patented action: March. Boycott. Shakedown. Repeat.

But the raging reverends are nowhere to be found as a scandal involving the liberal radio network Air America and a Bronx, N.Y.-based inner city charity for poor children brews. Why the silence?

It’s all about the Benjamins, as they say.

Right, okay, fine. I’m intrigued and so far, not disagreeing. Can you believe that? I might be intellectually open enough to not spew one party’s lines on every issue. Hmph. And shocker, Michelle Malkin isn’t always wrong. Wow, it just shakes my political brain into little more than the aftermath of ice in a whirring blender. No intellectual sleight of hand so far. Let’s continue.

First, a summary of the financial fiasco that the liberal media won’t touch: The New York City Department of Investigation has been probing allegations that officials of the nonprofit Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club and one of its affiliates, Pathways for Youth, approved “significant inappropriate transactions and falsified documents that were submitted to various city agencies.” The charities receive large portions of their budgets from local, state and federal government grants. At the center of the controversy is Evan Montvel Cohen, the disgraced former chairman of Air America, who was in charge of the liberal radio network at the same time he was serving as Gloria Wise’s director of development.

Where to begin? Right, so Air America allegedly stole money from charity. Worse, they allegedly stole money from kids. Worst, they allegedly stole money from black kids. Ack. Can’t trust those liberals, can we? They’re nothing more than bastard people. Let’s all say it together. You bastards!

And yet, I missed the memo that said if one liberal allegedly steals money, all liberals are guilty of said (alleged) crime. And it’s especially heinous because no conservatives ever stole money. Of course, it still must come back to one point, which is in the column, as well as virtually every post Ms. Malkin has written in the last few months. I don’t even think it’s hidden well, but I’ve gotten used to spotting it in almost every rant from Ms. Malkin. It’s that phrase, the “liberal media”.

I admit, though, I’d expected to see MSM written in the article. Every argument seems to focus on the dangers of the liberal mainstream media and its unhealthy, unpatriotic bias against America. Blah, blah, blah. There’s a truth that conservatives such as Ms. Malkin, the ones who gleefully toss out “MSM” at every opportunity, want everyone else to ignore. Their perfect world would include only a media with a conservative bias. None is suggesting an unbiased media, just one that doesn’t skew left. I fail to see how that is better than their current complaint.

In the past I’ve written that there is no inherent liberal bias in the mainstream media. I’m afraid I haven’t been as micro-focused as I should have. There is most certainly a bias at specific mainstream media outlets. Organizations such as the New York Times, CNN, and The Washington Post all possess some degree of it. And I’m sure there are countless others that individuals on any location of the right will name. Go for it, but what does it achieve?

In an earlier post, Ms. Malkin writes this about the Air America scandal:

Despite the near-total MSM blackout, this story just keeps getting more and more interesting.

Yet, she can legitimately write this in her Townhall.com column:

The New York Sun’s David Lombino reported this week…

Wait, there’s a media outlet that isn’t liberal, or at least is willing to report this story? Holy crap, Batman! I wonder how Fox News and The Washington Times have treated this story? And maybe Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, and Sean Hannity? I bet they’re doing nothing more than presenting the facts.

Every time someone complains about the MSM, it knocks the credibility of all news/media outlets. What happens when we need them to serve the most important purposes of journalists? (Yes, I may be assuming a lot in imagining that journalists can focus on real issues rather than the latest missing woman.) There is a difference in attempting to reform bias, liberal or conservative, and throwing verbal Molotov cocktails of derision at anyone with a microphone or printing press who dares to share a liberal opinion. The former is a necessary safeguard in the advancement of freedom and truth. The latter is little more than planting a partisan wedge of mistrust in society for the extension of a rigid ideology.

I wonder which choice the newly idealized version of our founding fathers that Rick Santorum so cheerfully invokes would choose, if offered the decision?

I’m going to miss Queer As Folk

President Bush made some interesting remarks to a group of Texas reporters that’s achieved some mileage in the blogosphere this week. Consider:

Q I wanted to ask you about the — what seems to be a growing debate over evolution versus intelligent design. What are your personal views on that, and do you think both should be taught in public schools?

THE PRESIDENT: I think — as I said, harking back to my days as my governor — both you and Herman are doing a fine job of dragging me back to the past. (Laughter.) Then, I said that, first of all, that decision should be made to local school districts, but I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught.

That’s the extent of the issue I’ve seen in many places. It’s important, but it cuts out some of the context. The back-and-forth continued with this:

Q Both sides should be properly taught?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, people — so people can understand what the debate is about.

That’s getting closer, I think, but it’s still not complete. The bloggers doing their best to defend President Bush push all the way to this:

Q So the answer accepts the validity of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution?

THE PRESIDENT: I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought, and I’m not suggesting — you’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes.

As is obvious, the question and answer was about intelligent design. The topic has many facets and can be argued for or against with various tactics. His response was fundamentalist, bold, out of touch with reality, nuanced, whatever, all depending on who offered the commentary. All of which I find to be tedious and pointless, if only because I’m not motivated presently to debate the religious aspects. Yet, President Bush’s remarks are useful, so allow me to repeat his last sentiment.

THE PRESIDENT: I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought, and I’m not suggesting — you’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes.

Hmmm, interesting. Really? No kidding? He could’ve fooled me. But perhaps we can hold him to his valid theory of education, at least when read exactly as the words were spoken. Ignore the subtle back-pedaling focus on one issue that I assume he meant to engender and he offered something useful. Could what he said, just perhaps, be applied to homosexuality, as well?

He wants schools to teach intelligent design, a theory that is scientifically unverifiable, yet he has no problem directing our government to pretend that homosexuals don’t exist? Forget even proving whether or not homosexuality is biological. The topic of homosexuality must not find its way into education in any way, lest children have an agenda pushed upon them. Shame on society should a defenseless child see something as perverse as a homosexual couple with kids in a textbook or an instructional video. It could lead them to acknowledge the existence of those we’d rather not acknowledge.

But I forget, it’s all about the children.

Home ownership is the sucks

A month after I turned 18, I ventured off to college. That time was my first experience living somewhere in which I paid the rent. Yes, it was a college dorm, but I still had to pay for it. I didn’t love the combination of a concrete overhang, a wooden loft, and midnight fire alarms. The freedom, though was outstanding. For fourteen years I never moved beyond paying rent to a landlord. I rationalized having a landlord as a fact of stress-free life. Sure, the landlord could raise the rent at the end of every lease, but I never experienced any huge increases. And when something went wrong? One phone call usually kicked the machine into action and the problem went away. And it never cost anything. Ahhh, utopia.

Twelve days ago Danielle and I moved into our new house. And when I say new, I mean new, not just “new to us”. The builder finished in February, and until we moved in, no one had lived in that house. We didn’t pick the specific options because we bought it from an investor/seller (which, aside from the obvious aspect that I’m involved, is another sign that the market must be a bubble), so the house is basic in most ways. The seller puts some effort into the kitchen, which is nice, but most other features are four walls and a ceiling. I’m happy with that because I don’t want any sort of molding. It’s simple, with plenty of room for personalization. Which leads me to Sunday and yesterday and today.

Aside from a necessary custom installation of two new cable outlets, because the investor/seller didn’t deem an outlet in the living room a necessary investment expense, the house is as structurally intact as it was twelve days ago. And then I washed paint from my feet after Danielle and I completed work on our office. (More on the office later…) I joined Danielle, my brother, and my sister-in-law in the dining room before we heading out on trip 4,203 to Home Depot since we bought the house. The moment is blurry in my mind now, but my brother said something to the effect of “That’s probably not a good thing.” He spoke of this:

What the hell? Fourteen years of renting and the worst that ever happened was a clogged sink. Barely into Day 11 of home ownership and there is water coming through the ceiling? The pall of Bitter Time&#153 descended. This. Was. Not. Happening. I imagined flailing from invested to destitute within mere hours thanks to re-plumbing the house and fixing drywall. And I imagined sleeping in the dining room when the bed inevitably fell from the third floor. I immediately began referring to Danielle as Shelley and myself as Tom.

Yesterday, the builder sent someone to investigate. He wasn’t a plumber, but he worked to determine the problem. This is how he had to investigate:

I really had wanted a skylight in the house, but twenty feet higher, in the ceiling of the master bedroom. The skylight in the dining room? Not really a good feature for resale, I suspect. Fortunately, our roof didn’t cave in and all of this is still covered under the one year warranty, but still. Eleven days? Remind me again why owning is better than the renting? I guess the best investment portfolio, given today’s real estate market, should include Home Depot and Lowe’s.

And maybe Benjamin Moore, who seems to be getting richer one quart (and two gallons) at a time, but that’s a whole other entry.