This weekend I’ll be asking the administrators to kill my account here on Redstate, because I don’t enjoy the tone here any longer.  It’s simply no longer possible to express one’s opinion without getting flamed and watching the comment tree grow with uncalled-for caustic comments.

It’s ironic that Redstate has gone this way, when its original motives can be seen in the phraseposted under each “Add Comment” window: “Be respectful, or be banned.”

This admonition to be “respectful” on Redstate doesn’t seem to carry any weight with the snarky “righters” anymore.   Case in point: my own most recent diary, in which I merely posited a few earnest questions about Rick Perry and would have welcomed discussion that might have changed my mind.  Instead of discussion, I got dissed right away from three Redstaters (in all fairness, I lowered myself to their level and threw some verbal punches as well – I just couldn’t take it any longer.)

The Top Snark awards go to:

mbecker908: for “[if what you've said was right] you’d have a point to go with the one under your hair” and “your conclusions are a combination of wrong and stupid.”

andy_in_texas: for “[your posting is] slapdash drivel=nobody takes you seriously,” and “[what you've said is] abject bull spatter;” “… your village is waiting for you.”

a_cat: for “[you're very late to the party] and worse, you’re not original” and “if you’d just bothered to read Red State regularly, then you would have noticed that all of the crap you just threw has been sliding off the walls around here for months.”

And maybe even Bill_S (one of the administrators?) who finally flexed his control muscle — not at the snarkers, but at me — by offering to boot me off the site with this: “Well, I could show you the door if you’re not happy here.”

—-

When I discovered Redstate, it was exciting because I thought this was going to be a forum where conservatives could have honest, respectful discussions.   Lately – except for Erik and a few moderators – I find that some people have made it more like a Daily Kos of the right.

Too bad.  ”Be respectful, or be banned” was a nice goal, Erik… I hope someday you can get control back over what goes on here, and prove that conservatives are not self-immolating.

Sayonara.  Redstate’s out of my bookmarks bar.

Oh, I admire the straight-talk of the guy, and I like his general pro-States-rights attitude. But his record, and his debate answers, are making me think he’s not the real conservative many of us are wishing him to be.

The Gardisil Fiasco

This vies for the #1 position in my “Huh?” list.  Imagine Obama writing an executive order saying that all young girls had to be vaccinated against – well, against ANY illness – prior to entering the sixth grade.  Even if the order included a parental opt-out option, we (conservatives) would be going wild.  Perry did it, and on top of the basic governmental heavy-handedness of the thing, there are those who are also screaming “crony capitalism” over the resulting profits for drug manufacturer Merck, the exclusive maker of the vaccine.

In last night’s debate, Perry responded to Bachmann’s assertion that Merck bought him off by noting that Merck contributed only $5000 to his campaign, and that “he was insulted” if Bachmann thought he could be bought so cheaply.  (I couldn’t figure out if he was saying that he was insulted at the insinuation he could be bought at all, or that he always charges much more for his influence! )  We all know that only dumb politicians sell themselves for immediate cash (e.g., Blogovich).  The smart ones sell themselves for future favors, and Perry is smart… so his $5000 “comeback” really doesn’t fly.

He Still Supports Texas In-State Tuition for Children of Illegals

Frankly, I never got a good explanation last night exactly why Perry thinks it’s a good idea to subsidize higher education for children of illegal immigrants.

All he offered up to explain his position was the same old “Bushy-Liberal Republican lines” like “better to have them be productive members of our society,” and an almost race-baiting soundbite about children not being denied opportunity because “their last name sounds different.”  (I believe Obama used a line something like that while conjecturing why some people might not like him.)

Dodging the Illegal Immigration Question

Though he comes off like a “tough Texan” on the topic, like Bush, Perry’s doesn’t seem all motivated about it (or perhaps. like Bush, his heart’s just not in it.) Byron York reports that in New Hampshire, Perry said recently that “Building a wall on the entire border is a preposterous idea,” and “the only thing a wall would possibly accomplish is to help the ladder business.”  He’s for “strategic fencing” in some urban areas, whatever that means.         Neither does he want to go after the source of the problem, which is American employers who hire the illegal workers.  On this, York reports that “Perry opposes E-Verify, which is a program requiring employers to check the legal status of new hires. It has been very effective in stopping the hiring of illegals, but Perry does not support requiring private businesses to use it, and he doesn’t want state agencies in Texas to use it, either.”  York reports that Perry stated in a 2010 debate, “E-Verify would not make a hill of beans’ difference in what’s happening today.”  

OK, Mr. Perry, so what would?  Here’s all your official website says about it (under the heading of National Security):  “As Governor, Perry has directed hundreds of millions of dollars, manpower and resources to drastically reduce criminal activity along the border because Washington has refused to act. As President, Perry will take decisive action to defend our sovereign border because there can be no homeland security without border security.”  And the “News” part of your site doesn’t even contain the word “immigration.”

Perry’s Ominous Texas Tax Record

In the debate last night, Ron Paul – a resident of Texas – somewhat shouted “au contraire” to the general belief that Mr. Perry is anti-tax, and there is evidence Mr. Paul is right.

In a recent white-paper about Perry’s record in Texas, the national pro-business group “Club for Growth” says, that “A 30,000 foot level examination of Governor Perry’s record on tax policy reveals several pro-growth elements.”  The CFG White Paper notes a 2006 tax cut he signed into law, and his support of an amendment to the Texas Constitution that would limit growth of taxes.

The group goes on to say that “Governor Perry does have some rather large blemishes in his record,”  calling at least three strikes for him on this issue.

       Strike One:  In 1987, as a Democrat state representative, he voted for a $5.7 billion tax hike - the largest state tax increase in American history.

       Strike Two: His first budget as governor, in 2003, faced a $10 billion shortfall and Perry sought to – and got – at least $2.68 billion in “revenue adjustments, surcharges, and fees” to help plug the hole.  These included new fees on nurses, crematoriums, home builders, and alcohol licenses.  (Not really new taxes, you say?  They smell like new taxes to me, and certainly to anyone who had to pay them!)

 Strike Three:  To get property tax reform through the Texas legislature, Perry agreed to swap the elimination of the Texas corporate income tax for the creation of a Texas “Gross Receipts Tax” (a tax on gross revenues of Texas corporations.)   The net effect, according to the CFG white paper, was to “nearly triple the amount that Texas collected from businesses.”   If that’s true, Perry’s version of tax reduction seems a bit expensive.

Most Troubling Of All:  Perry Was A Democrat , He Supported Al Gore, AND He Is A “Karl Rove Republican.”

“Uff-da!” as we say in Minnesota, when something knocks the wind out of us or we just generally want to exclaim.  This is a trifecta of terrible stuff!

OK, Reagan was a Democrat a long time prior to becoming a political force.  But Perry was a Democrat.  In fact he was one of several Texas lawmakers to actively support Al Gore (though NOT as his campaign manager as is often reported).  Still… he supported Al Gore?  Well, Perry WAS a Democrat, wasn’t he?  (Still… he supported Al Gore?)

In 1989 Perry switched parties, changing from conservative Democrat to moderate Republican.  Though at least one Texas political observer tagged him as the “12th most conservative Democrat” in a Democrat-controlled Texas legislature, many in Texas say he made the party switch mostly for political expediency.  They say he was unhappy with his progression through leadership roles in the Texas House, and with the tide-changing election of George W. Bush as governor he saw an opportunity and took it.  You can read the story about how Karl Rove claims he and others convinced Perry not to retire, but become a Republican and run for Texas Ag Commissioner instead – his first step on the road to the governor’s office.

*   *   *

So if these things are true or even mostly true, here’s yet another ex-Texas Governor who  ”talks the talk” but, though he can swagger, doesn’t seem to have a record of “walking the walk.”   Here’s another “conservative” politician who has no problem raising taxes… or revenues, or fees, or whatever pseudonym he gives them.  Here’s another “believer in personal freedom” who – when he thinks it’s right – doesn’t mind using the crushing power of government to invade the body and business of citizens.  (His only answer to the Gardisil mess seems to be “I will always err on the side of life … and oh, yeah, and I would have do it differently today and not jammed it down everyone’s through like I did.”  Not very comforting to know his principles are swayed by the circumstance… kind of like George Bush telling us during the deployment of his stimulus package that he had to ignore capitalism in order to save it.)

And the irony is that, because of the “Texas tough conservative” demeanor Perry and has intentionally or unintentionally fabricated for himself, he might frighten enough voters – or at least remind enough of them of George W. – to get Barack Obama elected again.

Many of Perry’s supporters are falling all over themselves to point out that the “Perries don’t like the Bushies,” as those that makes them political opposites rather than just political foes.  Maybe they were foes because they believed in many of the same things and because “Texas just ain’t big enough for both of them.”

Before conservatives make a final decision on the party’s nominee, we might do well to remember that Texas is the state that nurtured and gave us Democrat arm-breakers Sam Rayburn and Lyndon Johnson, RINOs Bush I and Bush II, and current Republican/Libertarian kook-in-residence Ron Paul.

Texas politics is a big and strange game that has produced many big and strange politicians.  We need to remember that before we succumb to our fond myth of cowboys.

I wasn’t the first to question exactly how the USA would “default,” when it takes in tax receipts of $175 billion (the expected August number) and the interest payments due our “creditors” (those holding our debt) is only $29 billion.   Doesn’t “default” mean you don’t make a payment a lender by a certain date, as you promised you would?

Now I am a product of our public schools, but I’m pretty sure that $175 billion is more than $29 billion – I mean, it has three numbers instead of two.  So why would we default on our obligations, unless some crisis-monger directed the Treasury NOT to pay them?

Oh wait… are those who are crying possible “default” talking about the “$310 in total Federal obligations” that might not be met in August?  (Again, I *think* that number is larger than $175 billion… but check my math.)  Would those “total Federal obligations” be things like payments to the states for unwanted education programs, subsidies to union-controlled teachers, federal gifts with strings attached, fishing education programs for single mothers? (Yes, we actually had such a program in Minneapolis once.)

So those entitlements can’t be cut or even delayed? And if they are, that constitutes some kind of “default” to ourselves?  That isn’t a true default, like the rest of the financial world defines the word.

I’d even bet that there are actually some in the financial sectors who would react positively to a refusal by one of the two parties to increase the USA’s debt burden.  They might actually see that some piece of the US government is serious about straightening things out.

Look at the ratings services’ reactions to the news of “the deal.”  Reported in the Independent, “Standard & Poor’s had already put the US on notice that it is as likely as not to strip the US of its AAA credit rating in the weeks ahead; Moody’s said last month that while a default would definitely lead to a downgrade, it was also conducting a wider review of American sovereign debt and the safety of US Treasury bonds.”  The Dow was up and down today, finally evening out lower.

In other words – the financial world was not impressed.  And the trouble is not over.  Watch for even more breathless news coverage as the ratings services start looking more deeply into “the deal” and find that we just handed the most irresponsible president in history another blank check of ginormous proportions, with no real plan how to cover it.

The talking heads and talkarazzi will delight in covering the next crisis with their “everything’s-a-sports-game” approach to superficial coverage of the news.

It will be up to us – those whose eyes and ears and brains still function – to suss out the real story and spread the word.

Sighhhhhh….

No – because nobody is in default until somebody doesn’t get paid.  That’s just a plain fact… all the rest of the noise coming from Washington is just that… noise made by politicians who want to stampede the electorate in a certain direction for their party’s political gain.

According to an article in The Washington Post based on information from the White House OMB, the total yearly tax intake of the U.S. Government is $2.57 trillion.

The same information shows that the annual interest on the U.S. debt is $251 billion.

For those who are zero-impaired (like me), that means each year the government takes in TEN TIMES the amount of money it needs to pay the interest on its debt – in other words, to keep the big bad “Default Wolf” from the door.   As long as our creditors are getting the expected interest on their money, who’s in default of anything?

Sure, D.C.’s profligate spending and rudderless ways may affect our future credit rating and our ability to borrow money in the days and months ahead, but the operative word there is “FUTURE.”  And how concerned should we be at our ability to continue to borrow limitless sums of money that future generations are going to have to pay back on our behalf?  Is that really something we should be worrying about right now?

What’s going on in Washington right now is all such a lot of “horse-pucky.”  Obama simply doesn’t want his credit card taken away, because he won’t be able to finance the bribing of the Democratic constituency (since taking office, Obama has increased the Health & Human Services budget by roughly 29%, raising it to more than $850 billion per year!)   Oh, and his Department of Labor budgets have received nice gooses, too.  Defense was cut (no surprise.)

And though their proposals are the only ones on the table that *MAY* lead to fiscal sanity, the Republicans (many of whom are the same bunch who enjoyed the “Budget Kegger” that was the Bush presidency) are mainly in it to break Obama’s chances in 2012.  I have no doubt that, if they again had the upper hand, there’d be no talk about balancing the budget.

Without money to spend, politicians have no power.  And power is the only currency that matters in Washington.

The damage to the U.S.’s economic reputation was done months and years ago.  What creditors around the world have needed to know about our economy and leadership they have known for years; and they have been hedging their bets ever since they saw the insane scrawling on the wall.  That’s the bad news.  The good news is that as lousy as our reputation has become, it’s still one of the best bets in the world.

Really, where else do big-time, serious world investors go where they want a reasonable expectation of long-term stability and return? Russia?  Old Europe?  New Europe?  Africa? South America? China? Sure, China continues to grow… but have you ever done business there?  China likes playing the Western game… until it doesn’t.

Just ask Steve Jobs about the fake Apple Store that just opened up there, or any other global business whose copyrights and trademarks are trampled on in China without repercussion.  Doing business there  has always been a love/hate/love/hate proposition for western businesses.  Right now it’s in a “love” part of the cycle.  But that will someday change.  And when it does, investing in the U.S. economy will start looking good again.

Bottom line:  if your annual income was ONE MILLION TIMES the amount you needed to service your Visa and Mastercard bills, would you worry about “defaulting?”  Neither should we.

And that’s the point. EVERYBODY ALREADY KNOWS IT.

So before anyone joins the well-intentioned “health police” and agrees with the FDA’s requiring new, disgustingly graphic “warning messages” on cigarette packaging – think twice about the fact that EVERYBODY ALREADY KNOWS.

So what, then, is the purpose of the new mandated messages? It can’t be to educate. No education is needed – the smaller warning labels and societal pressure not to smoke have accomplished that.

No, the purpose now is different. This time it’s personal.

The FDA and gover-nannies have crossed the line and are now clearly and openly seeking to destroy an industry at the cash register. This will, of course, kill the livelihoods of tobacco farmers, and people throughout the U.S. involved in manufacturing, marketing, transport and sales. Who knows – the demise of this industry may have something to do with killing YOUR job, eventually.

But instead of having the gonads to have a straight up-or-down vote to ban what opponents of tobacco say is a dire public health hazard, they’re mounting the most intrusive “death campaign” against a legal product ever – and forcing the product’s producers to brandish the weapon.

I do not smoke, have never smoked, know the dangers of smoking and have more than one older family member paying the price for a lifetime of smoking. OK, the case could be made that their generation was deceived – they were actually told in advertising by “doctors” that smoking was GOOD for you.

But in this day, when the dangers of smoking are no secret, to be forced to deface your own marketing and packaging with a goal of making consumers stop using your product is just too much. Why not just force the companies to go bankrupt tomorrow? Seize their assets! Shut them down!

When will the Enviro-Police put a recorded anti-carbon-fuel message in our cars that plays each time we start the engine? Or, a photo of unsanitary feedlot conditions on each T-bone we buy? Or…. (INSERT YOUR OWN “WARNING” SCENARIO HERE.)

This latest government example of “doing wrong for the public good” is too much, too far – but the faceless facilitators of federal feudalism know they’ll get away with it because, after all, who isn’t against smoking and FOR the health of the children.

We’d better be careful, or we’ll soon find ourselves at a point when government is trying to dictate to us all what type of health care is best for us, and that we MUST buy it in order to live in America as “free people.” (Oh, wait…)

If only the tobacco companies would hitch up their pants, stand their ground in a court of law, and say
“This is too much… this line you will not cross!”

Hello? From my perch as a conservative Minnesotan, Pawlenty was the same Pawlenty I’ve always seen. A lawyer, not a politician, modeling the stoic character of the people of his region. Careful in language, not predisposed towards confrontation. Passionless.

Why do you think the jokes about him all have something to do with making voters fall asleep? It’s a caricature, of course, but caricatures usually take hold because they’re rooted in fact.

Tim Pawlenty has never been a conservative firebrand. The Mediaocracy was simply working overtime in the run-up to the debate to cast him as a real possibility because he is “John McCain Lite” – a Republican who might be acceptable to THEM, and therefore someone who should be the Republican candidate.

That, and he’s a “fresh face” upon whom the Talkarzzi can project their non-confrontational sensibilities.

He’s also someone who would likely lose to Obama. It may seem unbelievable that Pawlenty could be vanquished by a man with ice water in his veins, but it’s true. Tim is an example of the “pale pastels” side of the party that Ronald Reagan exhorted us to eschew in favor of a “banner of bold colors.”

No, Tim was Tim… it’s just that he stood toe-to-toe with some pros for the first time, and to some eyes came up wanting. But the problem was with the observers’ eyesight… not with the man.

P.S. It seems the same phenomenon is now working in reverse for Michele Bachmann. She hasn’t changed, only the accuracy and understanding of the people really “seeing her” for the first time.

Rep. Anthony Weiner “came clean” today in a press conference hastily organized because his conscience was hurting… that and six other “Weinergals” were about to come out of the woodwork with other photos the Congressman had sent. Here’s one of them:

Suddenly Weiner got religion. But not quite…

If you listen to his “apology” and explanation, you’ll note he said that he sent the photo to the young woman in Seattle “as part of a joke”… and then went on to say “she had no part in the whole thing.”

So, Congress Weiner, you’re saying your “joke” was spamming an innocent young woman with a unsolicited photo of your member of Congress? Wow – that’s WORSE! But the saddest part is that you’re still lying, even as you apologize and “takes full responsibility” (what does that mean to you, anyway?)

It was not a part of any “joke.” Stop trying to lighten the offense – it’s just wrong. You sent a picture of your privates to a young woman to excite yourself (and, you hoped, HER.) And you’ve obviously done it to other women, because they’re now ready to speak out.

So here was a leading Congressman engaging in compulsive, self-destructive sexually related behavior, and he couldn’t stop himself. Not only that, he lied about it and continued to lies – even to himself – about the true nature of what he’s done, without so much as a hesitation.

If you watch the ABC-TV interview from last week, linked to on HotAir.com, it is truly alarming to watch this man not only LIE to the reporter without blinking, but actually LECTURE the reporter about engaging in “bad journalism.” Unbelievable – the man truly is a pathological liar, meaning he can convince himself that he’s not done anything wrong. He has the ability to completely disconnect from truthfulness and reality. For that reason, his “apology” is as worthless as his previously denial of wrong-doing. Neither comes from an honest place in the man. They’re expedient – that’s all.

Yes, we all *think* Congress is filled with people like this… but when it’s actually PROVEN, does the guilty party get a pass because “none of us should judge?” He should not get a break. He is one of 435 very special leaders who we elect to represent our country.

The very fact that Weiner refuses to resign proves that he really, really should. He’s unplugged himself from the norms of decent behavior, and doesn’t realize it.

That, by any definition, is an addict.

The lines in his (BIG AIR QUOTES HERE) “Deficit Reduction” speech (END BIG AIR QUOTES) where he refers to deductions and offsets in our tax code as “spending” made my head spin. It is just clearer confirmation that President Doh!bama and his crowd believe that 1) all money belongs to the government; 2) the economy exists only because of the government; and 3) only by its largesse does government allow its citizens to keep some of what they earn.

How else to describe the idea that NOT taxing citizens for certain purchases and activities equates with deficit “spending”? Spending implies that you had the money, and used it to purchase something (the Cash Method.) Deficit spending means the incurring of financial obligations that you intend to pay off with future income (the VISA Method.)

Saying there is “Deficit Spending” built into a tax code means that you consider the money to be yours, but that you are “spending” some of it by letting the people who earn it keep it.

Tax breaks, loopholes, deductions… call them what they are. But they are NOT “spending.”

Obama’s language has never provided a clearer and more instructive insight into his economic views. His words are a frightening brain scan of the true workings of the mind of a socialist – no, a communist – in which money belongs to the state and is to be doled out as the state sees fit.

While thoroughly enjoying the program, I thought “Why isn’t NOVA on some commercial channel like Discovery? Certainly there are commercial markets out there for a program like this…” This was coupled with the fact that I had just seen a promo on the network alerting its supporters to “proposed cuts to Federal underwriting of PBS,” and exhorting them to “contact their elected representatives immediately, and let them know how you feel.”

Those two things led me to an epiphany: PBS is the equivalent of a centrally planned economy, in which a small group of elite managers choose and “appoint” winners. When that happens, the laws of capitalism go out the window, and the subsidized settle in and get comfortable. NOVA is good example of this.

Public subsidies usually lead to bad or underperforming ideas like Amtrak, solar energy, windmills and other unsuccessful green energy initiatives… It is only because NOVA and other successful PBS programs are forced to operate with one foot in capitalism that they are fresh and relevant. Because they’re forced to go out and raise money to supplant what they receive from the public dole, they do have some sensitivity to market forces. If a program is crappy (sorry, in PBS-speak that would be “shoddy”) the producers and network can’t sell underwriting sponsorships for it. If a program’s point of view serves too small a segment of the population, it’s likely funding for it will dry up during pledge drives.

But the very fact that a government-subsidized broadcasting network still exists allows program producers who want to avoid getting their hands dirty in the marketplace to go directly to the public teat… which requires tax dollars to fund… which confiscates private capital through taxes… which makes less of it available – often at higher prices – to entrepreneurs who might actually do something innovative if only they had funding. Who knows, it government weren’t directing capital to PBS managers, someone might come along and do for science programming what Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch did for news: take it out of the hands of a controlling few, and turn it over to the free-market many.

Now, I am not a “pure capitalist” who believes the government has NO place in an economy. I believe that sometimes only a government is large enough to kick-start a response to a national emergency or need… (at least that USED to be the case, before GE stood for “Government Everywhere.”)

Who can argue that our country didn’t reap huge benefits from government-driven initiatives like the Manhattan Project… or the race to the Moon… or the constant military research and development that resulted in innovations like the Internet? Those things came along because of pure science research, which IS often the purview of a government (corporations are more interested in APPLIED science, which can turn a buck. Pure science is too slow and laborious for them.)

But, who can argue that once an industry is up and running and in the hands of private entities, government funding is still needed? PBS (and “NOVA,” by extension) came to be because the three purely-commercial networks that existed up until 20 or so years ago had very little interest in “brainy” or upscale programming. To beam educational material into homes required that the UHF spectrum be opened up and hundreds of state-run educational stations and networks be created – by both public and private university systems. It would be an extremely hard sell to convince me that David Sarnoff or even William S. Paley would have eschewed “Mannix” or “The Jetsons” for a program that looked at the adhesive qualities that allow gekkos to climb walls (which is what I’m watching now.)

But while the viewing spectrum has undergone a revolution, our thinking towards it has not. Some of it is because we’re sentimental creatures. After all, who wants to destroy the nest of “Big Bird,” or bring down the curtain on the group that gave us “Masterpiece Theatre?” (Although… coming up with the names of a few big PBS programs made me think – how many other PBS hits can you name? And what would happen to a private entity who had only come up with three or four, or even TEN successful products in its 50-year lifespan? Hmmm….)

But, like a government-managed economy which operates according to the power and influence of legislators and lobbyists, PBS keeps chugging along, shoveling public funds into Thomas the Tank Engine’s firebox. (Ooops… bad choice, there: “Thomas and Friends” originally aired in the U.K. on the ITV network – a commercial TV network set up to provide competition to the government-run BBC. PBS bought the rights for U.S. airings from the non-government network.)

Because these organizations are insulated from the interests of a center-right country, we get programs with liberal learnings like Frontline, or even entire ORGANIZATIONS with a leftist tilt, like NPR. You don’t see a lot of programming like Milton Friedman’s classic Free to Choose series on PBS anymore… not doctrinaire enough for the ruling managers there, I guess.

I propose that – on the 100th anniversary of The Gipper’s birth – the “Reagan Revolution” finally beats down the door of one of the last holdouts – PBS – and tells it that “You’re no longer a special child… go play in the playground like everyone else.”

You can bet I’m going to listen to the PBS promo that urged me to make my feelings known to my elected representatives. Thanks, PBS!

But I hope no one will misunderstand my motives when I say the only racists involved in the hubbub over a Pepsi Super Bowl Ad are those crying “racist!”

In the commercial, a black woman disapproves of husband’s actions throughout the commercial, culminating in her throwing a can of Pepsi at the man when she catches him ogling an attractive white female jogger.

Tonight my jaw dropped as I watch Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee feign outrage over the “stereotyping of the aggressive black female beating up her husband…” Then other black social observers spoke up and the more liberal (LIBERAL???) of the two made the point that it reinforces racial stereotypes to show a black man ogling a white woman with a black woman getting very angry over it.

So, in our society where many liberals and conservatives alike are trying to ignore old color lines; and Hollywood is increasingly featuring interracial relationships in its TV shows and movies, showcasing them as “normal,”… when a commercial-maker does the same thing – they are pilloried for being “racist?”

Hey black “haters” and race-mongers … you can’t have it both ways. Either the color lines are going away, or we’re all going to keep them clear and defined. Either blacks and whites can interact without regard to race, or we need to make sure whites always stay with whites, and blacks always stay with blacks. Black-white relationships will be verboten, as they have been up until now.

One has to wonder: why is it that Americans have become far more comfortable with relationships between whites and all other races? (White-Hispanic, Asian-White, Indian-White… you name it.) Why has the relationship between those races moved so much further, faster?

I submit it is because other races do not have a permanent industry of “haters” and “baiters” set up to howl at every perceived slight, and even manufacturer them when needed. Al “Tawana Brawley” Sharpton is black America’s great racial leader? Sheila Jackson Lee is a spokesperson for equality, when she is the worst kind of black leader – a black carpetbagger?

Those of us who have come of age post-1964 don’t immediately think of people in terms of “black” and “white.” The 50 years since have given us court-ordered integration, affirmative action programs, and so many other ways in which blacks and whites have come to interact and know one another better.

Most other races in America have come to terms with white America and vice-versa. We have intermarried, loved and laughed about our foibles. We don’t get in a snit when it’s convenient to play the race card.

Either we’re people or we’re not… we’re not colors. Build a bridge and get over it already.