Somebody lied.

Either it was my 7th grade Texas history teacher 20 years ago, or Jose Antonio Lopez when he wrote this column:

In 1835, a group of armed Anglo illegal immigrants from the U.S. were upset. The Mexican government told them they were welcome to settle in Texas on the condition that they had to free their black slaves, since Mexico freed all slaves in 1829

Illegal immigrants? That isn't the way I remember it being taught. And I do remember the slavery aspect of it, but the Texians had quite a few more grievances than just the slavery issue:

Under President Antonio López de Santa Anna, the Mexican government began to shift away from a federalist model. The increasingly dictatorial policies, including the revocation of the Constitution of 1824 in early 1835, incited many federalists to revolt. The Mexican border region of Texas was largely populated by immigrants from the United States. These were accustomed to a federalist government and to extensive individual rights, and they were quite vocal in their displeasure at Mexico's shift towards centralism. Already leery of previous American attempts to purchase Texas, Mexican authorities blamed much of the Texian unrest on American immigrants, most of whom had made little effort to adapt to the Mexican culture.

But I guess it's more convenient to your argument if you boil it down to just slavery, especially if your argument is based on race, and Lopez makes it quite clear that it is, in the last sentence of his fact-free screed. I am almost surprised that he did not call Juan seguin, Jose Antonio Navarro, et al. race traitors. No doubt he thinks just that, though.

Was he trying to make a statement or something?

Leonard Pitts, that is.

24-hour news cycle conveys power to unworthy
By LEONARD PITTS
Miami Herald
Sept. 11, 2010, 3:28PM

By the time you read this, Terry Jones will have burned the Quran.
Or not.

One wonders if Pitts knows that by the mere mention of the crazy Florida preacher's name, he gave said preacher the very power he goes on to decry. I would surely hope he does, but then one never really knows, does one?

Who's politicizing this, again?

...or, Has Kathy Miller ever heard of the "argument from authority" logical fallacy?

“What used to be a sleepy little board operating under the radar has attracted national and international attention solely because some members of the state board have willfully ignored the advice of teachers and scholars and, instead, politicized the content decisions they are making,” said Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network, which monitors the State Board of Education and usually ends up on the opposite side from the Liberty Institute.

Advice of teachers and scholars. Do these advisers really have that much credibility when they've been shown to be politicizing and modifying the curriculum to reflect their own politically correct ideology? Kevin Baker at The Smallest Minority recently pointed to a five-part essay in which said modification and its flaws vis-a-vis teaching American history was pointed out in stark detail. Here's just one example:

Editors [at Houghton Mifflin] were put in the hands of revisionist historians, Islamist activists, and diversity counters. … Its eighth-grade history, Creating America, produced by Houghton Mifflin’s McDougal Littell imprint, … identifies ten representative American heroes:

Abigail Adams
Crispus Attucks
Andrew Jackson
Queen Liluokalanai
Abraham Lincoln
Juan Seguin
Elizabeth Cady Stanton
George Washington
Ida B. Wells
Zitkala-Sa

In this popular textbook, to counteract the unfortunately necessary inclusion of the three Dead White Male presidents on the list (Washington, Lincoln and Jackson), the publishers selected an array of second-tier historical figures whose ethnic diversity is beyond reproach — and also ensured that the genders were represented equally as well. And while I have no problem with students learning about Queen Liluokalanai and the rest of the crew, in context, I fear that America’s children are coming away with the impression that these really are the most important people in our nation’s history, and not just a list assembled at random to satisfy multicultural pressure groups.

The author of the piece goes on to discuss his learning of "history viewed through the lens of race," and an example of it, the elevation of Crispus Attucks -- one of the colonists killed in the Boston Massacre -- to some sort of mythical figure seemingly because of his race (Attucks was, as you probably learned yourself, partly black), and how the American Revolution section of his history class revolved around Attucks. I'll honestly say I don't remember being taught that Crispus Attucks was "the original American patriot, a noble-minded martyr who almost singlehandedly brought America to independence" -- but I also do not remember being taught the names of the four other individuals who died in the Boston Massacre, either. Attucks' name was the only one I remember being taught. As the author of the piece also says:

"Multiply this scenario a million-fold and you can begin to see the problem with the kind of ethnocentric historical re-prioritization that has become commonplace in American education. It’s not that Crispus Attucks and Vernon J. Baker and Roy Benavidez (read Part III of the piece for the context -- ed.) were bad people, or are unworthy of praise, but rather that they are figures of at best secondary importance being given leading roles in history."

And why are they given leading roles? Because Kathy Miller's "teachers and scholars" advise that they be given leading roles. Viewed in that light, the Texas State Board of Education telling them to go pound sand doesn't sound quite as bad, does it?

Oh, I'd say the message is loud and clear.

The Washington Post's Michael Gerson, in today's San Antonio Express-News:

Even Democrats who agree with President Obama's ideology, respect his tenacity and admire his deliberative manner have begun to whisper: Maybe he isn't a very good politician. Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, who is genetically incapable of whispering, puts it bluntly: “Ironically, the best communicator I ever saw in a campaign has turned out to be not so good at getting out the message as president.”

Not so good? On the contrary, the message seems to be loud and clear: "Government knows best, you ignorant rubes, specifically Big Government! Run by Democrats with nothing more than a token minority who's supposed to go along to get along!" What Michael Gerson is describing is Barack Obama's petty narcissist coming out because the message isn't being received as well as he'd like it to be. And surely that was not a surprise to Gerson. Surely he's been paying more attention than that. (Surely, for example, he remembers this.) If he hasn't...well, I guess I shouldn't expect better from the Washington Post, especially considering some of the other columnists that rag has in its editorial stable.

Hit-n-run: Been done before, but better...

And yeah, I'm sure you know where I'm going with this.

I'm sure the writers of Jason Aldean's "Crazy Town" probably thought they were bringing a fresh new song idea to the table...but how many of you remember this song?

Ignorance the best policy?

Just a question, about the folks burning the Koran on Saturday: If the pundits would stop talking about it so much, wouldn't that be the best thing that could happen? Everybody talks about it being a nice little recruitment tool for al-Qaeda -- but if fewer people were talking about it, wouldn't that be a good way to marginalize them? I don't get it...

He should have been led out in handcuffs long ago...

...Mayor Richard Daley, that is, on innumerable counts of violating 18 USC 241 and 18 USC 242 (the civil rights statutes), as Joe Huffman suggested a few years ago. But I suppose his stepping down is progress. Not much, though.

Everyone knows...

...what would have prevented this, right? Car registration and licensing...

"You stole my country, you made me curse..."

...or, More not-so-random musical observations prompted by hearing a certain song by a certain artist yesterday afternoon at HEB...

Would you like to know just why I turned into a metalhead? Because in the span of just over four decades, mainstream country has gone from "Sing Me Back Home" to Carrie Underwood singing about some dude stealing her happy. I do love me some sugary pop music when it's done right -- witness my fondness for Kelly Clarkson -- but not when it's marketed as "country." And I realize that country music has had its bad songs and good with every time period, but I just can't help but think it's gotten stagnant, if not progressively worse, over the last decade or so. I know that for every George Strait there's been a Lee Greenwood, and that for every Merle Haggard there's been a Barbara Mandrell. And I will admit there are some bright spots in modern country, with traditional-leaning singers like Easton Corbin, Jamey Johnson, Chris Young and Miranda Lambert. But Haggard and Strait got to be superstars of the genre, and I'm not so sure the same is going to be said of the newer traditional singers. I've said before that I don't really need my music tastes validated by everyone else buying the same music I do, but just the same it really bothers me that most of the traditionalists seem to have been relegated to B-list or lower A-list status these days...

Some more thoughts on disarmament.

Since I don't have anything else for today, and I am trying to be a good blogger and post at least once a day...

Recently one of the topics in the gun blogosphere was another of Bradyite Dennis Henigan's rants in the Huffington Post. In said rant he cited Molly Ivins' famous column (discussed previously here and here) in which she observed (in her own half-witted attempt at snarky humor) that people were seldom killed by cleaning their knives:

Let me start this discussion by pointing out that I am not antigun. I'm proknife. Consider the merits of the knife.
In the first place, you have to catch up with someone in order to stab him. A general substitution of knives for guns would promote physical fitness. We'd turn into a whole nation of great runners. Plus, knives don't ricochet. And people are seldom killed while cleaning their knives.

I suppose that might be funny...for about the blink of an eye or however long it takes one to consider the real-life ramifications of a "general substitution of knives for guns." There are going to be those of us that, for whatever reason, are never going to get to the level of physical fitness at which your typical 20-year-old college football running back resides. I'm one of them, with my mild case of cerebral palsy that left me walking with a limp in my right leg. I'd really rather not have to take my chances on my gimpy leg being able to carry me faster than said 20-year-old with a knife. And then there are certain other classes of people who are going to be left shit out of luck, too. I am reminded of a song from Gary Allan's 1998 cd It Would Be You, titled "No Judgment Day":

Willie Johnson was locking up his store Monday night
And someone snuck in and they commenced a fight
His wife Amelia found him lying on the freezer floor
Now this sleepy little town, it ain't sleepy no more
Sheriff Walker holds three local boys in jail
They confessed right down to the last detail
They beat Willie with a bat, he was 70 years old
Then they bought some beer with the six dollars they stole

That song was based on a true story; the shopkeeper in the song was a friend of writer Allen Shamblin's father.



 So...yeah. Certain people, among them the Willie Johnsons of the world would be be left at the mercy of bigger and stronger thugs, unable to adequately defend themselves. And Molly Ivins and her ilk effectively say, "Too bad for y'all. Bye now!" Is it so wrong of me to think that makes them callous at best, and downright evil at worst?

I certainly hope not.

A letter to the editor in yesterday's San Antonio Express-News:

The Express-News is a reflection of tea party philosophy, and will never be in the same league as the New York Times.

Well. I sure as hell hope it's never in the same league as Pravda-on-Hudson, especially considering the sub-mousegun caliber of some of the scribes who have worked there over the years. It would seem that in a way the Express-News at least once upon a time was even better than the NYT, considering the fact that Jayson Blair cribbed from one of its stories.

How does the old saying go?

...the best thing to stop an armed bad guy is an armed good guy?

A pawn shop worker fatally shot a 50-year-old customer after the man loaded a handgun from the case with his own ammo, left the store and fired a round at the employee.
The Houston Chronicle reported Sunday that Melvin Clark, a regular customer entered Northwest Pawn Shop on Saturday afternoon and asked to see a pistol. Clark loaded his own ammo into the weapon with the store employee's approval.
Clark left the store, turned and fired at the employee. Officials say the employee returned fire, killing Clark.

So much for the anti-gunners' contention that if the bad guy pulls his gun first the good guys might as well not even be armed. And how about that headline? 'Pawn shop worker kills customer'? No bias there, no sir.

Huh, now that I think about it...

...the song mentioned here was not the first George Strait song that the station mentioned in that post did not play. They also blacklisted "Murder On Music Row" from what I remember, due (I think) to their fear that it would alienate the younger audience. Strangely enough, though, KPLX also went after that younger demographic with Willie and Waylon as well as **gritting teeth** Tim and Kenny. One can only guess the reasoning behind that.

What is it modern liberals say again?

Something to the effect that all cultural norms and standards are equally valid and that no culture's norms and standards should be judged by another culture's norms and standards?

The Vatican on Sunday raised the possibility of using behind-the-scenes diplomacy to try to spare the life of an Iranian widow sentenced to be stoned for adultery.

Talking to Sabra the other day, I observed how ironic it was that the feminist movement is still so overwhelmingly liberal, considering modern liberals' attitudes towards phenomena such as multiculturalism and cultural relativism -- that is, that they would be aligned with such an ideology considering certain cultures' attitudes toward females. I did this on the heels of telling her about something I saw at work -- a little Mexican boy, couldn't have been any more than about six years old, telling his slightly older sister, "Fuck you!" and his mother not doing anything about it. Sabra had mentioned before to me that the Mexican culture values boys much more than girls, or something to that effect. Because of that, in the Mexican culture males can get away with all sorts of behavior toward females (such as what was mentioned above) at which American feminists would rightly be aghast. Yet said feminists align themselves with an ideology that will tolerate this just because it's another culture's standard. The first comment I saw this story was this:

NOW organization strangely quiet about treatment of women in the Muslim world. Why is that? Is it because they hope Muslims will vote for Democrats?
..
Anti-War Moms are strangely quiet about the escalation of the Afghan war. Why is that? Is it because a Democrat President did it?
..
Can we conclude that issues of life and death take second place to power and money with the Left?

It certainly seems that way, doesn't it?

Oh, this is gonna be good, too...

More live recordings from Queensryche...from back in the day:

QUEENSRŸCHE has partnered with Capitol/EMI for the September 28 release of an expanded 20th-anniversary edition of the band's triple platinum-certified breakout album "Empire". The new 2CD and digital packages both include the remastered album, featuring six hit singles, including the #1 smash "Silent Lucidity", as well as 13 bonus tracks, among them 10 previously unreleased live performances recorded in 1990 at London's Hammersmith Odeon.
...

01. Resistance
02. Walk In The Shadows
03. Best I Can
04. The Thin Line
05. Jet City Woman
06. Empire
07. Roads To Madness
08. Take Hold Of The Flame
09. Silent Lucidity
10. Hand On Heart

Yes indeed, I bet that live cd is going to kick all sorts of ass. From what I remember, most of the live cuts on the classic Queensryche remasters came from the Building Empires tour and they all sounded great. I was thinking just the other day how great it'd be to have a live cut of "Jet City Woman." Only thing that'd make it better is a live cut of "Anybody Listening" or "NM 156"...

Some questions do indeed need to be asked...

...just not this one:

Does anyone care that criminals, domestic abusers, terrorists and dangerously mentally ill people can get guns in the secondary markets without background checks? 

I'm guessing the above-quoted blogger doesn't give a shit about the fact that these allegedly dangerous people aren't locked up tighter than Dick's hatband in the first place. This seems to be a common thread among those clamoring for tighter gun laws -- they don't seem to care about the fact that these dangerous people are walking free in the first place. I understand that locking up every single mentally ill person might not be feasible. My wife pointed out as much one day as we were driving, and it is a good point. But as for the rest of them, I don't understand why they all can't be locked away for the good of society...for teh childrenses, even.

(h/t Weer'd)

Whose money is it, again?

From comments to this Paul Krugman column (emphasis mine -- ed.):

If the GOP takes the House and Senate, which will not happen, what will be the FIRST legislative act that they will pass which will immediately make every thing right? What is this secret? What will they do to get businesses to hire, other than cutting taxes, which is in reality just another government bailout?

Cutting taxes is a government bailout? Just whose money does this guy think it is? It would seem he thinks it's the government's money to begin with. This is how modern liberals think, folks. This is the extent to which the "progressives" have hijacked liberalism. Such a shame, too, because once upon a time they really did love free markets and everything else that made America great. Now they're just a bunch of borderline Communists.

Bill White is 'in it for Texas'?

Not so much, if this story is any indication:

Retama Park begins its 16th season of live racing this evening, but the thoroughbreds won't rescue the Selma racetrack from dire financial straits.
...
Texas track officials are turning to a well-worn idea in hopes of reversing their fortunes: A constitutional amendment to allow slot machines at racetracks.
...

Slot proponents won't get the backing of either candidate for governor. Both Gov. Rick Perry and Bill White oppose expanding gambling.

One wonders why Bill White would oppose such a thing, especially given his campaign ads in which he touts the jobs his policies helped create (and the taxes said policies helped keep a lid on) during his tenure as mayor of Houston. Is he really going to try that hard to go after the damn social conservative vote? Is said voting bloc really that strong? I find that difficult to believe. But maybe that's the optimist in me talking and hoping this state isn't in that much trouble. I really didn't think White could count on any of those people to vote for him anyway, but I suppose I could be wrong.

What is it with lefties and straw men?

I find myself asking that question once again this morning as I read Leonard Pitts (emphasis mine -- ed.):

(Glenn) Beck was promoting his “Restoring Honor” rally, which was held Saturday at the Lincoln Memorial, 47 years to the day after Martin Luther King famously spoke there. You'll notice he didn't define the “we” he had in mind, but it seems reasonable to suppose Beck was speaking of people like himself: affluent middle-age conservatives possessed of the ability to see socialism and communism in places where it somehow escapes the notice of others.
...
We” is celebrities like Harry Belafonte, Marlon Brando and Pernell Roberts of “Bonanza,” lending their names, their wealth and their labor to the cause of freedom.

Sure, it seems reasonable...if all you're looking to do is gin up another bitch-and-moan fest about those eeeeevil conservatives. But how about we take Pitts' reasoning here and turn it back at him?

We see he mentioned Harry Belafonte. I take it this is the same Harry Belafonte who compared Colin Powell to a house slave? So, using the logic and reasoning Leonard Pitts uses here, we can only reach the conclusion that Belafonte, Steve Gilliard, King Samir Shabazz, et al are the legitimate heirs to the leadership of the civil rights movement. Of course they're NOT, and I have little doubt that Leonard Pitts would call anyone crazy who suggested they were -- but if that line of reasoning is unfit to use one way, it's also unfit to use another. If Leonard Pitts had anything approaching intellectual honesty, he'd realize that.

UPDATE: For a much more lucid and insightful analysis of Beck's rally and motivations (that is, one NOT seen through Pitts and company's racial lenses), see here. The whole thing's definitely worth reading, but this is just one of the money grafs:

"Beck is attacking the enemy at the foundations of their power, their claim to race as a permanent trump card, their claim to the Civil Rights movement as a permanent model to constantly be transforming a perpetually unjust society.

He is nuking out the foundations of the opposition’s moral preeminence..."

Yes, indeed. Thanks to Borepatch for that link!

Like he wouldn't have been slinging his own mud...

...or, How could he say this with a straight face?

Backed by the Tea Party Express and Sarah Palin, a little-known conservative lawyer from Alaska became the latest newcomer to the national political stage to take down an incumbent in 2010.
In arguably the biggest political upset of the year, Joe Miller claimed the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate when incumbent GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski conceded Tuesday evening.
...
Miller will face Democrat Scott McAdams, a small town mayor, in the November general election. The former commercial fisherman was given little chance against Murkowski, and as of June 30 had raised less than $10,000.
But Democrats figure his chances are better against Miller, and they plan to present him as a moderate, rational alternative.
"Lisa Murkowski is a class act who always put Alaska first," McAdams said in a statement late Tuesday. "By contrast, lawyer Joe Miller ran an unfair, nasty campaign that didn't extend to Lisa Murkowski the respect she deserves."

What an outrageous insult to the voters of Alaska. Does anyone really think Scott McAdams would not have been slinging his own fair share of mud at Lisa Murkowski had she been his opponent in the general election?  We all know that Scott McAdams and his people would likely concede the damn race before they were so magnanimous in it at that point. At any rate I would love to see how they're going to counter Miller's message and whether the countering of that message is going to resonate, especially with the nation's finances in the shape they're in.