That’s a picture of Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett next to a headline that says “Enabling prostitution”.  The editorial is about prostitution on Craigslist and a variety of efforts to stop it.  Corbett is, in fact, barely in the editorial at all.  Yet there’s his mug next to the headline.

I’ll bet you’d never guess he’s a Republican running for governor.  I’m sure you’re surprised to hear that.

I’m glad to have such a respectable publication in this town.  They have the highest standards at the Inquirer.  They are above dirty tricks and hit jobs.  That’s why I’m sure the editors don’t beat their wives or kick their dogs.

The rough edges of our society are still in need of a good deal of filing down, and in the meantime plaintiffs must necessarily be expected and required to be hardened to a certain amount of rough language, and to occasional acts that are definitely inconsiderate and unkind.

And why, exactly, do lawyers feel entitled to file down the rough edges of society?  Freedom requires rough edges.  Anything less is a managed society not a free society.

Would it be okay for the Sons of Confederate America to build a facility next to where Martin Luther King was assassinated?

Would it be okay for the Mormons to build a church near where Matthew Shepherd was murdered?

Would it be okay for the Klan to sponsor the upkeep of the road where James Byrd was murdered?

Would it be okay for Operation Rescue to build a information center near where Barnett Slepian was murdered?

On Monday I begin law school.  I suspect my posting will be sporadic as a result however I will certainly try to do so whenever I can.

A letter in today’s paper derided Sen. Sessions’ description of Elena Kagan as a “dangerous progressive”, saying progressivism is by definition forward-moving.  I disagree.  There is little forward-thinking about the poorly named progressive movement.

Our ancestors took centuries to reestablish the primary position of the individual in society.  Those efforts reached a high point in the writing of our constitution with its underlying philosophy of limited, defined government powers that are carved out of the rights of the people.

From the beginning progressives have been trying to reverse this.  They seemingly seek to turn us into wards of the state where we’re free only to choose from a list of options selected for us by the state.  Their philosophy is that government power is the presumed default out of which a few individual rights are carved.

It is a gigantic step backwards in time to pre-enlightenment philosophy.  One might even say the progressive movement would be better named the regressive movement.

Well, you were right.  The Daily Caller has a piece with more information on the Journolist scandal.  You could be forgiven for not knowing what that is since it has been largely ignored.  Anyway, the piece details secret coordination of stories, including targeting conservatives for media attacks.

One reporter secretly wrote:

What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically.

And I think this threads the needle. If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.

This ought to be a huge scandal.  It confirms much of what conservatives have complained about with the media for years.  Cue the chirping crickets.

Just like with the NAACP’s the “Tea Parties are racist” nonsense, there’s no evidence required.  The progressives know what’s in your heart.  ”Evidence?  We don’t need no stinkin’ evidence, ” seems to be their attitude.

Anyway, the neo-nazi group wasn’t named in the article but is apparently somehow associated with the National Socialist Movement.  I was a bit curious about it so I looked them up.  Conveniently their website has something called the “25 Points of American National Socialism” that details their core platform.

Now, let me make a simple point that the left doesn’t want to admit: hate is not a unique phenomenon of the right.  Animosity towards “the other” is as far as I can tell a universal human trait.  We are, after all, a tribal species.  It’s my nation versus your nation, your religion versus my religion, your politics versus my politics, my city versus your suburbs, my neighborhood versus your neighborhood, my gang versus your gang.

Why do I mention this?  Because being a hate group (which they certainly are) is not sufficient to make them right wing.  Animosity towards others exists just as much on the left as the right.

So, take a closer look at the NSM’s 25 Points and scratch off the “hate” items since they are not indicative of a right or left leaning group.  What are you left with?  Things like these:

• Opposition to free trade, the WTO and the IMF
• Opposition to NATO
• A demand that “that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens”
• A demand to ban the charging of interest
• A demand to nationalize all corporations
• A demand for profit sharing by corporations
• A demand for a living wage
• A demand that the “treasonable system of health care be completely revolutionized.”  [Dod says: that's not Obamacare they're referring to]
• A demand to communalize big department stores [Dod says: I wonder how many NSM members shop at WalMart]

The list goes on.

How, exactly, are these guys right wing?  If you follow the evidence and not the rote responses, they aren’t, of course.  It’s totally dishonest to pretend otherwise.  The neo-nazis, just like the original nazis, are in fact, left-wingers and socialists.  They belong in the Democratic Party more than the Tea Parties.

What’s the likelihood of that story accidentally leaking out?

• Soccer without the diving prima donnas or
• The Tour de France without the drug addicts or
• The NBA without the thugs or
• The NFL without a Brett Favre soap opera or
• The Olympics without a judging scandal

It’s just not the same.

So, I’m just going to make a simple observation.  Isn’t it amazing how you can say some remarkably offensive things and if you have a D after your name, it’s treated as an aberration?

For example, if you’re a former Klansman, you can drop the N-word.  Or, you could brag about your state being a slave state, make a crack about Indian accents at 7-11s or talk about your future boss as being clean and articulate, and still end up as Vice President.  You could also refer to a certain future President as being “light skinned” and lacking “a negro dialect” and still be the Senate Majority Leader.  You could even end up on the Supreme Court after saying that hispanic woman would read better judicial decisions because she’s a hispanic woman.

On the other hand if you are wearing with the scarlet letter, R, and you said anything similar you’d be toast.  And then we’d be reading about how all Republicans are knuckle-dragging racists.

But the legacy media’s honest, on the case and trustworthy, of course.  Riiiiight.