People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Sunday, September 13, 2009

Let's Not Get Carried Away

Farmers markets are growing in Virginia. More than likely because more and more people want fresh fruits and vegetables in the summer time. Although that's not an expert opinion.

For an expert opinion we have to turn to newspaper reporters:
Local food movement still gaining momentum
By Lindsey Nair, Roanoke Times

Many Southwest Virginia markets are bustling, and the number of markets statewide has almost doubled within the past five years, from 88 to 174, according to the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Forty new markets sprang up between last summer and this summer alone.

Farmers, market managers and agriculture officials attribute the boom to a growing public concern over the safety and reliability of the American food system. They say consumers are clamoring for fresh produce, dairy, meats and other goods produced locally with environmental safety and human health in mind. The recently released documentary "Food, Inc." -- about the ills of America's corporate-controlled food industry -- has only fueled the momentum. [link]
We go to the local farmers market because we are concerned about the American food system's reliability?

Hmm. And here I thought Paula and I go to the Bland County Farmers Market to get our fresh corn, tomatoes, and green peppers because we want fresh corn, tomatoes, and green peppers.

Guess that's why we have experts.

How Simply Awful

The Sierra Club would like for you to vote for environmentalists come election day each year. But it's not allowed to tell you that or to ask for your vote in the run-up to the first Tuesday in November. That thingie relating to "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech"? You see, it really reads:

"Congress shall abridge like crazy the freedom of speech if that speech is coming from entities we don't like."

The Roanoke Times editorial team supports the latter definition (naturally):
Opening the floodgate for corporate cash

Since 1907, corporate money has been regulated to some extent in federal campaigns. The Supreme Court never found such regulation constitutionally impermissible before.

The case currently before the court raises some interesting, if narrow, issues. For instance, when does promotion of a movie become an "electioneering communication"?

The McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that promotion of "Hillary: The Movie" is said to have violated exempts media corporations. When does a corporation become a "media corporation"?

Should nonprofit corporations such as Citizens United, which produced the film, be subject to the law's restrictions?

But the court's conservative justices appear poised to use this case to achieve a far broader result and overturn past decisions upholding the right to regulate the role of corporate cash in federal elections.

If they do so, they will be guilty of the type of judicial activism conservatives generally decry.

They will also subject America's democracy to a flood of corporate cash and all the influence it is capable of wielding. [link]
I have a question: Isn't the Roanoke Times part of a corporation? Might these guys really try to argue that there are corporations and then there are corporations? Is Landmark Communications, Inc. cash the exception?

Oh, yeah. Watch how quickly these guys run to that 1st Amendment they just raped:

"But the 1st Amendment guarantees us a free and unfettered press!"

Call it the classic liberal pick-and-choose approach to the Bill of Rights.

You'd think the boys on the editorial staff wouldn't want to pursue this line of argument too vehemently. But then they never were too expansive in their thought processes.

"There's a 1st amendment for us, and then there's a 1st amendment for the rest of you. Peasants."

For the love of God.

- - -

* The editorial board editor of the Times will probably tell you that he decided a few years ago to no longer offer endorsements on his page. But will he argue that the New York Times and Washington Post - both corporations - should be prevented by federal law from making political endorsements?

Read and Learn

George Will on the Constitutional protection of free speech:
Hans A. von Spakovsky, a former FEC commissioner, says there are 568 pages of FEC regulations, and 1,278 pages of the Federal Register have been filled with explanations and justifications of [McCain-Feingold] regulations. For James Madison, 10 words sufficed: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech."

Defenders of McCain-Feingold say that allowing political spending by corporations will unleash too much speech. Steve Simpson of the Institute for Justice replies:

"Freeing corporate speech will lead to what more speech always leads to -- a debate. Wal-Mart will support President Obama's health-care reform, as it has done, but the National Retail Federation will oppose it, as it has done. . . . Corporations do not speak with one voice any more than individuals do."

Regulations controlling political speech inevitably multiply and become increasingly indecipherable and unpredictable. The court should take the country up from McCain-Feingold, to Madison.


I Get So Tired Of This

We're being called racists again. For the quadrillionth time:
Maureen Dowd: Joe Wilson's 'You Lie' Outburst All About Racism
By Noel Sheppard, Newsbusters

One of the biggest concerns most conservatives had about a Barack Obama presidency was that any criticism of him or his policies would be reported by liberal media members as an act of racism.

Sadly, such fears ended up actually being understated, for since Inauguration Day, the left-wing punditry have routinely depicted anyone with the guts to question the new President -- from Tea Party goers to town hall meeting protesters -- as wearing white robes and burning crosses on folks' lawns.

The latest example is New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd who in her most recent screed attributed Rep. Joe Wilson's (R-S.C.) "You lie" outburst during Wednesday's healthcare speech to the ignorant notion that "Some people just can’t believe a black man is president and will never accept it." [link]
Yeah, racism explains why I'm opposed to most everything Obama is trying to force down America's throat. It's also why I was even more opposed to Hillary's quest to be Queen. And opposed to John Kerry's buffoonery. And Al Gore's idiocy. Barney Frank. John Murtha. NBC/CBS/ABC/CNN. Sotomayor. George Soros. Pelosi & Reid.

Yeah, it's racism.

Why think it's anything else?

NY Post Is Full of Racists Too

To keep with the theme of the day, any criticism of Obama and his minions is motivated by racism. As evidenced by this New York Post column on disgraced (black) government "czar" Van Jones. Who happens to also be a Marxist who believes that white people polluted black communities with poisons, America is the scourge of the planet, Bush had something to do with the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, and all Republicans are assholes.

The Post:
Jones puts final lie to Times' 'objectivity'
By Kyle Smith

"This is not an excuse," the managing editor of The New York Times said after offering the following excuse for completely missing the Van Jones story, except in a blog post: "Our Washington bureau was somewhat short-staffed during the height of the pre-Labor Day vacation period."

Here's how long-staffed The New York Times actually is. Long after Glenn Beck reported -- back in July -- that Jones was history's first communist czar, and even after Gateway Pundit reported, on Sept. 3, that Jones had signed a wackadoodle 9/11 "truther" petition, The Times sent two reporters to Boston (in a story published Friday, Sept. 4) to pre-report the non-story of Joseph P. Kennedy II's run for Ted Kennedy's seat. On Sept. 5 (still no word about Van Jones being a Red Green), the Times' crack political team informed us that the Naked Cowboy was dropping out of the mayoral race.

On Sept. 6, The Times broke the story that "Diane Sawyer, coolly regal, is a born anchor, albeit in an ever-evaporating sea" and, under a piece headlined "Reading Underground," gave us all food for thought with the subhed, "Even while pressed against strangers, even while stumbling home from a party, New Yorkers read on the subway."

Jill Abramson, the managing editor, admitted only to being "a beat behind" the story but added that the paper had caught up -- after the saga was over. The EMS equivalent of this statement would be, "Sorry I didn’t take your 911 call for four days. At least I was in time for the funeral."

Although Abramson's excuse was not an excuse, she proceeded to offer another one: "Mr. Jones was not a high-ranking official." Oh. And here I was, thinking that he was "one of Mr. Obama's top advisers," as I was told by, well, The Times, on its Caucus blog on Sept. 5. Confusing, confusing.

Only in Timesland can you be in charge of doling out $80 billion in contracts ("A Small White House Program" -- The Times' John M. Broder, on Sept. 6) and be less important than the Naked Cowboy.

The Times was aware of the story, knew it was bigger than most of the stuff it puts in the paper every day, and had plenty of resources to cover it. [link]
Expect the definition of the word "racist" to soon include anyone who criticizes the New York Times. It seems to fit right in with current trends. This columnist might want to watch his back.

Racism. The refuge of small minds.

It's Racism

A trivia question: Did the "bad boy of tennis" Jimmy Connors (a white boy) ever have a match handed to an opponent by a judge?

Not one.

How about "Bad Boy II" John McEnroe (who's just as white)?


So how do we explain this?

Penalty to Williams, Match to Clijsters

There can be only one explanation. Serena Williams was denied entry into the finals at the U.S. Open because she threatened a line judge with bodily harm is black.

That's how we view things in this country of ours where everyone is judged by the color of their skin rather than the content of their character.

Don't Look Behind You, But ...

While the Democrats in Congress are concentrating their efforts these days on punishing one of their fellow representatives - Joe Wilson - for his having committed the unpardonable transgression of shouting at the president while the president was beating up on Republicans at that joint session of Congress, beating up on them for not shutting up and doing his bidding, those same Democrats seem to be oblivious to the millions of Joe Wilsons out here who want Democrat asses on a platter.

Including this crowd of Joe Wilsons that marched on Washington yesterday:
The Tea Party March on Washington Draws Hundreds of Thousands

Saturday, September 12th, a crowd estimated from 450,000 people to 1.2 million people marched on Washington to protest government tax and spending policies. The Tax Payers' March on Washington was the culmination of the tea party movement.

The 450,000 person figure was an estimate from Freedom Works, one of the sponsors of the protest march. The 1.2 million person figure is reportedly an estimate from the Capitol Police. [link]
It would seem to a sane person that Joe Wilson is the least of the Democrats' worries. But Congress marches on, blissfully oblivious.