I have made the point before that when sports commentators try to venture into politics, they invariably come across as shrill, inane and incompetent. Typically they try to be edgy, and race almost always plays a part in their sermons. Every once in a while, a really offensive article comes out. Then there is the article by Jason Whitlock...

This goes beyond the pale.

According to Jason Whitlock, on ESPN.com's Page Two, many American's hate the US men's basketball team because they are black and we are closet racists. That is not overstating the point in the least. This is his version of a fictitious memo sent out to redneck Americans instructing us to hate them colored athletes:

Americans do not have to support a group of black American millionaires in any endeavor. Despite the hypocritical, rabid patriotism displayed immediately after 9/11, it's perfectly suitable for Americans to despise Team USA Basketball, Allen Iverson and all the other tattooed NBA players representing our country. Yes, these athletes are no more spoiled, whiny and rich than the golfers who fearlessly represent us in the Ryder Cup, but at least Tiger Woods has the good sense not to wear cornrows.

He goes on further to say....

The criticism of USA Basketball is borderline racist, is definitely unsophisticated and exposes a lot of super patriots as hypocrites.

Note the frequent reference to hypocritical patriotism. Whitlock subscribes to the school of thought that anyone who dares harbor a notion that America has something special, something other nations lack, immediately becomes a jingoistic redneck, only slightly removed from a jack-booted fascist. News flash, being patriotic has little to do with the Olympic games and virtually nothing to do with whether or not we criticsize Team USA.

Americans are critical of and disappointed in Team USA because we have set such highstandards. We weren't racists when the previous predominately black Team USA's were thumping the world but now we are? The fact is that we EXPECT to win by a ton when our Olympic men's basketball hits the court. We have the most talented players in the world. While some international teams sport two, three or four NBA players, our team is made up entirely of NBAers. What we are bemoaning is the lack of effort and lack of pride this team is showing, and the general poor state of basketball in America in general. According to Mr. Whitlock, we dare not critique the basketball team representing America. To do so is racist. Mr. Whitlock states:

If this team doesn't win the gold medal...I half expect Americans to spit on Iverson, Duncan, LeBron James and Carmelo Anthony at the airport.

If this is his view of America, he needs to spend less time amongst his peers and more among regular Americans.

Jason, stick to sports. Your political views are ludicrous.

USA! USA! USA!

By the latest count on CBS Sportsline, the US now has 77 total medals, 21 more than second place Russia's 56. Of those medals, 25 are gold giving us more gold medals than anyone else (China is right behind us with 24 golds, but they only have 52 total medals.)

There is even some good news on the men's basketball front as the US team kicked around previously unbeaten Spain 102-94 behind 31 points from Stephon Marbury. It is amazing the difference it makes to hit the occasional jump shot! I imagine they will still find a way to blow it, but it is nice to see them show up for one game. A guy on sports talk radio today suggested that when the US team shows up in 2008, they will have something to prove and mop up the floor with the world. I wonder if that is true, given that we hardly emphasize the important aspects of the game (shooting, dribbling, passing, team defense, rebounding), focusing instead on isolation moves and flashy dunks. The Olympics are not played by NBA rules and it shows.

Good stuff!

More on the outrageously staged dog-and-pony show from Crawford, Texas. Turns out that noble Max Cleland is a BUSH APPOINTEE on the board of the Export-Import Bank making a cool $136,000 a year to participate in a once a week meeting (probably by phone). As Rich Lowry of National Review points out, if Bush is such a dastardly dude why wouldn't Cleland resign from a political appointment he received FROM Bush? Or do his principles stop where the dollar signs begin?

I think we all know the answer to that question.

WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?!

I am sure the Kerry campaign will dispatch Max Cleland immediately to demand that MoveOn.org stop it's unfounded and viciously personal attacks against President Bush. A slew of B- and C- list celebs took turns bashing the President last night, using clever rhetoric like calling Karl Rove a "feminine hygiene product". These people are like middle school kids who have learned a new word and revel in being baaaaddd by using it.

The GOP rightly responded, although I doubt you will see any calls of hypocrisy from the "mainstream" press...

A spokesperson for the Republican National Committee said he had not seen the ads, but criticized Kerry for indirectly endorsing them.

"The president has already asked John Kerry to denounce all of the commercials being produced by 527 groups," said Scott Hogenson. "If John Kerry is against some 527 ads, he should be against all 527 ads the way the president is."

I especially liked this comment from has-been Phil Donahue regarding Kerry:
"I believe Kerry the man is not going to strut and allow hubris to move him and allow him to engage in a unilateral military action in a war that is underfunded, underequipped, undermanned, unconstitutional, unaffordable and unwinnable."

Kerry the man? As opposed to Kerry the porpoise? Kerry the birch tree?

Uh Phil, we already won the war. The government we helped put in place runs Iraq, our soldiers patrol the streets. The Iraqi "army" is gone. Saddam is in prison. We ar efighting now against thugs and terrorists, who we would have to fight anyway so it might as well be in Fallujah instead of Indianapolis. As far as "underfunded", your boy Kerry voted against funding the war effort, so whose fault is it that the troops allegedly don't have the supplies they need? Go back to interviewing gay nuns on motorcycles and leave serious discussions to those who are capable of having them.

By the way, the Dems have hideous Janeane Garofalo, the GOP has Jessica Simpson. Maybe it is just me but I take Jessica any day of the week!

Unlike the monlithic "hate Bush, blame America first" crowd on the Left, when we are disappointed with a conservative leader we let people know about it. This story came out today, where Vice-President Dick Cheney expressed his personal preference that homosexual couples : "ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to." This on the surface sounds OK, but as we are already seeing homosexuals will never be satisfied with anything less than full marital rights in every state. If Massachusetts allows gay marriage, homosexuals will flock to Mass and then go home and sue for recognition.

The other problem is that this runs contrary to administration policy and sends a confusing message. It is hard enough to get the Federal Marriage Amendment passed in a postmodern world without Cheney muddying the waters. Be sure homosexual activist will jump on this, no matter how much they hate Cheney.

Albert Mohler had a great point. This is another example of a person setting morality based on their own family's experience rather than the Word of God. This is a common phenomena, and a troubling one. We should always love our family, but when one of them strays into sin we shouldn't redfine sin to accomodate them and make sure they don't feel badly about themselves. Christ warned us that this would be the cost of following him:

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. 35 "For I have come to 'set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law'; 36 "and 'a man's enemies will be those of his own household.' 37 "He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 "And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39 "He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it. (Matthew 10: 34-39)

When we put earthly family above our Savior we choose poorly.

On the same subject, Jay Nordlinger comments on National Review that a Democratic consultant, Mary Anne Marsh , commented twice on Hannity & Colmes that Bush "betrayed" his country by not going to Vietnam. To which Nordlinger replies...

No, she was not kidding — she repeated her charge, that Bush had "betrayed his country." Okay — so must have every eligible man who did not serve in Vietnam. All traitors. Including Bill Clinton, of course, and many others Mary Anne Marsh must admire. That is the criterion: If you were eligible and did not serve in Vietnam, you "betrayed your country."

Wow, the double standard is alive and well!

Outstanding!

Democratic poster boy Max Cleland, a "war hero" whose claim to fame is multiple amputations caused by a grenade blast friendly fire incident involving some drunk buddies is calling on Bush to specifically denounce Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Of course, no mention is made of other 527s like MoveOn.org except this: "Rassmann said the ads by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth should not be lumped together with other 527 groups running political ads because it is simply untruthful." Wow, and the ads from MoveOn.org that call Bush a Nazi are completely truthful. Please!

Cleland rolled up to Bush's ranch and allegedly tried to deliver a letter calling for unilateral disarmament but was met by Republican veterans. I love this line from Jerry Patterson, "the Texas state land commissioner and a U.S. Marine who served in 1972-73":

"You can't have it both ways. You can't build your convention and much of your campaign around your service in Vietnam, and then try to say that only those veterans who agree with you have a right to speak up. There is no double standard for our right to free speech. We all earned it."

The only good veteran is one that agrees with Kerry! Ah, the liberal Democrats, party of open-mindedness and freedom of speech! Hey Max, John, et al: How about skipping the political theater and try addressing the questions!

While responding to some typically ignorant leftist lout on the Evangelial outpost, I came across another article on FrontPage from someone who actually knows something about the Patriot Act, what it does and doesn't do. The Patriot Act is the great bogeyman of the left, supposedly giving sweeping powers to the dark lord John Ashcroft to look into their most private dealings. Of course no one really knows anything about the Patriot Act, merely that they are against it. The liberal elite don't like it so it must be bad. How typical of liberal pseudo-intellectuals that they don't know the first thing about the Patriot Act, have never read it and yet feel qualified to pass judgement on it.

The authors, Henry Mark Holzer and Erika Holzer (one a lawyer and one a law professor) write:

This difficulty creates a knowledge vacuum, allowing Leftists to spew inflammatory and highly misleading anti-Act rhetoric in an effort to galvanize opposition to the Act.

Bingo!

I doubt this will get much play in the "mainstream" press...

The Washington Times (reported by FrontPage) printed a piece by Col. William Campenni, a man who served with President Bush in the Air National Guard. It is a stirring piece, one that will no doubt get glossed over because of the refusal of the Left to admit that a) Bush served his full term in the ANG, b) Flying jet planes is no cakewalk and c) The hundreds of thousands who have served in the ANG served honorably and fulfilled their duty to the country.

As Col. Campenni points out, the jet fighter duty was pretty hazardous stuff and Bush was trained on the F-102 and his unit used them exclusively. The F-102 (remember this was the Cold War and guarding our airspace was a real and constant priority) is an air defense fighter, incapable of bombing missions and thus virtually worthless in Vietnam. Lots of regular service folks in the Air Force don't serve in combat areas, but try telling the Pentagon that the airmen at NORAD and in the tiny radar stations worldwide are not serving their country. Missle crews silently standing post in Nebraksa, the Dakotas, Montana and Wyoming will likely never be shot at but still are serving their country to the fullest. As Col. Campenni states:

In the Cold War, the air defense of the United States was borne primarily by the Air National Guard, by such people as Lt. Bush and me and a lot of others. Six of those with whom I served in those years never made their 30th birthdays because they died in crashes flying air-defense missions.

Hardly the safe and easy way out....

The double standard here is infuriating. During the 1992 and 1996 elections, the Left cried and rent their garments whenever anyone questioned Bill Clinton, a man who was a well-known and admitted draft dodger. Anyone who would equate serving in the Air National Guard and flying jets with shirking your draft responsibilities and fleeing the country should be slapped. Certainly serving in the guard was less dangerous than serving in 'Nam. It is also legal, as is getting a college deferment. What is NOT legal is to ignore the draft entirely, refusing to serve in any capacity without even the most basic legal excuse. Bill Clinton is a coward. George Bush and John Kerry, to both of their credits, did serve in the Armed Forces albeit in different capacities. To suggets otherwise is to denigrate the service of the thousands of loyal Americans who have served in the National Guard.

Shannen W. Coffin, writing for National review online, makes some interesting points in his discussion of the increasing phenomena of rock stars and actors jumping into the political discourse. Coffin suggests that this is really irrelevant because Americans don't care what these people say. If only that were true....

I work with a woman, a devout Democrat, that has more than once started one of our political conversations with "Howard Stern said..." Huh? Why in the world would one use Howard Stern's opinion to validate their own opinion? I would think that having Howard Stern agreeing with me would be cause to reexamine my beliefs on that subject! But unfortunately, because these people are famous and entertaining, American pop culture has elevated them to the level of experts on public policy. Never mind that most of them likely couldn't find Iraq on a world map with both hands, or tell you what the basis of supply side economics is or describe Manifest Destiny. They are famous and we recognize their faces so they must know what they are talking about.

Don't get me wrong, stars and celebrities are welcome to have whatever political beliefs they want to and are free to express them publicly. What irks me is that so many otherwise intelligent people take a fact value whatever they say as Gospel truth. Justin Timberlake is not somebody I look to when I am in need of information of environmental policy. It is bad enough these people make enormous sums of money and embrace every crackpot religion that comes down the pike (khaballah, Scientology, etc.). Let's not compound it by equating a talent for acting or a skill in playing guitar with political savvy...

Yikes...

TV Guide.com reports that there is a remake of the movie Oh, God! in the works. Who better to replace venerable George Burns than...Ellen DeGeneres? Here are her qualifications...

"Ellen is a strong comedienne and she has always done material about God and questions about God," says producer Jerry Weintraub. "She will help us with the writing, and using her will allow us to do a proper 2005 view of Oh, God! that is hip and modern."

If by "hip and modern" you mean horrible, then you are right on.

Oh wait, I get it, they are portraying God as a woman. Ha ha ha!

Even better, as a woman who is best known as a mediocre comic who is a lesbian! Double har de har har!

I love the line, "a proper 2005 veiw of Oh, God! " In other words, a proper postmodern view of who God is. As if God must adapt to modern man's mores instead of the other way around. Good thing churches don't hold to that view. Oh wait...

I am not the Biblical expert I would like to be, but I am guessing there is something in the Word about it being a bad idea to mock God. The original movie was probably fairly inoffensive, but I can't see the remake as anything but a mockery of Him.

Another good article on National Review, this one on a victory for eminent domain opponents, a tactic used by governments to seize private property often to give to a private entity. The case he cites is a neighborhood in Michigan that was seized to make way for a new GM plant. I have no problem with tax incentives to lure business, but when people's homes are seized that is a different story. If GM wants a piece of land they should have to negotiate a buyout with every landowner, and pay fair market price.

Eminent domain abuse is rampant and we are starting to see more and more of it applied for "environmental" purposes. Government entities sieze or render useless property to preserve it and make it worthless to the land owner. Private ownership of property has long been one of th ehallmarks of American success, and the government has no business seizing private property.