Guess who said it:

The hallmark of collectivists is their deep-rooted distrust of freedom and of the free-market process; but it is their advocacy of so-called ‘consumer protection’ that exposes the nature of their basic premises with particular clarity. By preferring force and fear to incentive and reward as a means of human motivation, they confess their view of man as a mindless brute functioning on the range of the moment, whose actual self-interest lies in ‘flying-by-night’ and making ‘quick kills’. They confess their ignorance in the production process, of the wide intellectual context and long-range vision required to maintain a modern industry. They confess their inability to grasp the crucial importance of the moral values which are the motive power of capitalism. Capitalism is based on self-interest and self-esteem; it holds integrity and trustworthiness as cardinal virtues and makes them pay off in the marketplace, thus demanding that men survive by means of virtues, not of vices. It is this superlatively moral system that the welfare statists propose to improve upon by means of preventive law, snooping bureaucrats and the chronic goad of fear.

Just read that one sentance a few times over. It is quite possibly one of the best rebuttles against liberal thinking that I have ever seen. Do you know who said it?

Well, if you read Random Nuclear Strikes every day, you would know.

RE: Plame @ Right Thinking

Don't read the whole thing, just read the first sentence, which sums it up quite nicely, though somewhat indelicately.

PLAME MEME BUSTIN'

FIRST - POOR POOR POOR POOR POOOOOOOR Li'l Plame just wants her privacy:

WRONG!

Here we see a picture of the very very very shy valerie in the July Issue of Vanity Fair!



The photo was taken at the magazine's annual dinner for the Tribeca Film Festival, and Plame's and Wilson's fellow guests included Robert deNiro, Nicole Kidman, Barry Diller, Willem Dafoe, John McEnroe, and many others. A "low key social life" indeed! Poor poor poor pooor poooooooooor li'l Plame!

SECOND - Pooor Poooooooor Poooooor li'l Plame was not "Outed"

Since "Straight Shootin'" Fitzgerald won't touch the issue, let's ask our friends in the Main Stream Media whether Plame was a secret agent at the time Robert Novak "outed" her:

"The nation's largest news organizations and journalism groups" filed a brief in federal court Wednesday arguing that "a federal court should first determine whether a crime has been committed in the disclosure of an undercover CIA operative's name before prosecutors are allowed to continue seeking testimony from journalists about their confidential sources," the Washington Post reports:

The 40-page brief, filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, argues that there is "ample evidence . . . to doubt that a crime has been committed" in the case, which centers on the question of whether Bush administration officials knowingly revealed the identity of undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame in the summer of 2003.

But don't take their word alone. Authors of the Law Say No Law Broken – Plame Doesn’t qualify



THIRD - Bush's 16 words were WELL FOUNDED:

The British government yesterday bolstered President Bush's assertion that Iraq sought uranium from Niger, casting further doubt on former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV's claims to the contrary.
The conclusion was reached by Robin Butler, who once was Britain's top civil servant, in a major report on prewar intelligence that came five days after the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reached a similar conclusion in its report.
Taken together, the British and U.S. reports appear to undermine Mr. Wilson's criticism of Mr. Bush, which led to a criminal investigation of the White House and made the retired diplomat a media darling.
"It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999," the British report said. "The British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium.
"Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger's exports, the intelligence was credible," the report added.
That buttressed an assertion by Mr. Bush in his 2003 State of the Union speech: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Yesterday, the British report called that assertion "well founded." The report was cited by British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who told Parliament: "It expressly supports the intelligence on Iraq's attempts to procure uranium from Niger in respect of Iraq's nuclear ambitions."
The State of the Union assertion rankled Mr. Wilson, who said he found no evidence of such an attempted purchase during a CIA-sponsored trip to Niger. Mr. Wilson arrived in the African nation in late February 2002.
"I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people," he wrote in the New York Times 18 months later. "Niger formally denied the charges."

FOURTH- Why are we even having this debate? Because Joe Wilson, attempting to bolster his credibility, claimed that Cheney was responsible for sending him to Niger. That's a lie. It was his wife:

Wilson was on CNN's "American Morning" the day after his column ran, spinning his straw into golden fabrications:

HEMMER: It's a wonderful day for us here at American Morning! You went to Niger several years ago. You concluded essentially that Iraq could not buy this uranium from that country. Why not?

WILSON: Well, I went in, actually in February of 2002 was my most recent trip there — at the request, I was told, of the office of the vice president, which had seen a report in intelligence channels about this purported memorandum of agreement on uranium sales from Niger to Iraq.

The Senate Intelligence Committee also found that Wilson lied about the role played by his wife, Valerie Plame, in his trip to Niger. Wilson wrote in his book, ironically titled The Politics of Truth, "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter. She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip." In fact, however, the Committee reported at p. 4:
[D]ocuments provided to the committee indicate that [Wilson's] wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador's wife "offered up his name" and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002 from the former ambassador's wife says, "my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity."
The former ambassador was selected for the 1999 trip after his wife mentioned to her supervisors that her husband was planning a business trip to Niger in the near future and might be willing to use his contacts in the region.

FIFTH - More Lies from Joe Liar Wilson (note: there are more than this even):

The Senate Intelligence Committee's report says about Wilson's trip to Niger - The following, at p. 8 of the report's "Niger" section:
The intelligence report based on the former ambassador's [Wilson's] trip was disseminated on March 8, 2002 ... The intelligence report indicated that former Nigerian Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki...said that in June 1999, [redacted] businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted "expanding commercial relations" to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales.
When Wilson talked to the Committee's staff, he related a version of events that was different from the official CIA report that summarized his oral debriefing, and it also contradicted the recollections of the relevant CIA employees. The committee wrote, at p. 9 of its report:
When the former ambassador spoke to Committee staff, his description of his findings differed from the DO intelligence report and his account of information provided to him by the CIA differed from the CIA officials' accounts in some respects. First, the former ambassador described his findings to Committee staff as more directly related to Iraq and specifically, as refuting the possibility that Niger could have sold uranium to Iraq and that Iraq approached Niger to purchase uranium. The intelligence report...did not refute the possibility that Iraq had approached Niger to purchase uranium.
See also p. 38 of the report, where the Committee notes that most analysts understood Wilson's report from Niger as supporting the original CIA concerns about a possible uranium deal between Niger and Iraq.

And that's not all. The Senate committee also found that Wilson falsely leaked to the Washington Post the claim that certain documents purporting to show uranium sales between Niger and Iraq were forgeries because "the names were wrong and the dates were wrong," when in fact, he had never seen the documents and was not familiar with their contents. See p. 10 of the Committee's report:
Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong" when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports. The former ambassador said that he may have "misspoken" to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were "forged." He said he may have become confused about his own recollection....

To Sum up:

The Senate Intelligence Committee's report shows that:
1) Wilson lied in the New York Times about what he told the CIA after he returned from Niger. In fact, far from debunking the concern that Iraq may have tried to buy uranium from Niger, Wilson reported that Niger's former Prime Minister told him that Iraq had made just such an overture in 1999.
2) Wilson lied when he leaked a report to the Washington Post about documents he had not even seen.
3) Wilson lied when he said that his wife Valerie "had nothing to do with" his being chosen to go to Niger.

More to come....

Ouch!

That sound you hear is a few Liberals being hoisted upon their own petard...

4. This prominent liberal says that conservatives are nasty, hateful people but once told a newspaper, “I dislike homosexuals. … I was glad when that [Harvard] homosexual got killed.”

a. Sean Penn
b. Ted Danson
c. Al Franken

Answer: C. Al Franken, Mr. Sensitivity, told the Harvard Crimson that very thing.

5. Who proclaims themself an environmentalist but is part-owner of a golf course that failed to comply with state environmental regulations to protect the California Tiger Salamander and the Western Pond Turtle?

a. Leonardo DiCaprio
b. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
c. Nancy Pelosi

Answer: C. Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi and her husband are part owners of the CordeValle Golf Club in California. In 996 they were granted a permit to build the course if they created natural habitats for these endangered species. To date, these habitats still have not been built. The golf course has also been cited for polluting groundwater. They have hired lobbyists to fight the regulations.

6. Who says that Americans need to consume less to stave off ecological disaster, but spends $22,000 a year towater their lawn?

a. Hillary Clinton
b. Barbra Streisand
c. Rob Reiner

Answer: B. Barbra Streisand. The singer, who says that cutting back is the only way to protect the environment, lives alone with her husband on a compound with five homes and a 12,000 square foot air conditioned barn.

As usual, the "Do as I say, not as I do" crowd doesn't dissapoint with their hypocrisy.

Found via Drumwaster's Rants.

NEWS FLASH: The Fall of This Administration Has Been Postponed

Solid work by Patrick J. Fitzgerald.

30 December 2003: Fitzgerald begins looking for evidence of treasonous acts such as revealing the identity of a covert CIA agent, thereby endangering her and everyone she knows.

28 October 2005: Fitzgerald announces an indictment charging I. Lewis Libby with five counts of

Failing to Recall an Email

Way to go, Pat.

Why I Didn't Read the Letter

I'm sorry, but I don't feel the Rove. It's strange, after years of pleasant mind control rays making life easy. Now all of a sudden, I have to think on my own and it's not working.

I don't understand the end of the Harriet Meirs' story. I didn't understand the begging and middle of this story either. It's been like a bad movie. I want to get out of the theater and into a cocktail. Or sort my socks. I'm willing to take on my kitchen sink trap, if it will get me out of reading read her letter of withdrawal.

I like Meirs. She has way more experience than Roberts, and nobody claimed he was any smarter. I especially like the nature of her experience. The ruling class elite are already fully represented on the SCOTUS. It would be very useful to have someone who has been on the business end of so many gonzo rulings in the past, to have a supreme voice. But nobody made those points for her, and now she has given up the chance to make them for herself.

Am I supposed to be happy? Early on, Frum called this an "unforced error." Now he suggests we keep "the powder dry," because writers know that sports metaphors make them look smarter. Coulter says "it's morning in American" and time to pleasure herself in ecstatic prose, because ... that's what she does so well. We hear that Liberals are sad all over. If this is a Conservative victory, why do I feel victimized?

At this point, an MIB flashy thingy would be perfect. All I need to remember is how the nomination process started with an articulate Constitutional scholar sporting stelar Conservative creds, and proceeded through the Senate like railroad tracks in the Wyoming desert. Just a few glimpses of Joe Biden's french cuffs and Pat Leahy wiping up drool will be fine, thank you.

Research Needed

Can anyone find me a picture of Steve Gilliard?

Must Read, I dare say

The New York Times, caught again. This is effing nauseating.

Last night, I received a letter from Corporal Starr's uncle, Timothy Lickness. He wanted you to know the rest of the story--and the parts of Corporal Starr's letter that the Times failed to include...

Michelle Malkin

Oy!

The Democrat candidate for Governor of Virginia has pulled a BlogAd from the blog that posted this depiction of Maryland Lieutenant Governor Mike Steele:



Result: Keeepy Kos Kidz goin' hog wild.

My favorite part is the comments, inlcuding these:

"That picture crossed the line - plain and simple."

"Oh Pleez. No it didn't."

"That's a matter of opinion..."

And of course Screw 'Em kicked it all off with this:

The last thing any of us need are bloggers afraid to be themselves lest they lose out on ad money. And that's what this sort of shit creates. It's a chilling effect.

Brrrrrr!

I don't know why...

...but this made me laugh my arz off:



Bob Durnan's AVIATION ART HANGAR

I hate to say "I told you so," but...

Today, President Bush said:

"It is clear that Senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during [Harriet Miers'] tenure at the White House - disclosures that would undermine a President's ability to receive candid counsel."

And it is equally clear, at least to me, that Bush thought long and hard about this very issue before the Miers nomination was made in the first place. Two words: Poker. Player.
If I had to pick a third word it would be either "genius" or "Rovian," or better yet ... MISUNDERESTIMATED.

The Pleasure of Your Acquaintance

Hello, this is Helen.

After years of almost daily pestering, I was able to convince Tim that you deserve the right to experience my charm, wit, and extensive gardening experience. Finally, he relented. So here we go.

I am a Compassionate Conservationist, working to save the environment, and writing from the arctic rain forest of Northern Vermont. If you are curious, you can view a picturesque introduction that reveals far more than anyone could possibly want to know.

I mention gardening because it is the most interactive puzzle ever conceived. It occupies a lot of my little Summer and consumes huge quantities of my cash. It's my gymnasium, my pallet, and my classroom. Each plant variety comes with its own rules. Each micro-ecosystem is constantly changing and demanding attention.

Every pest imposes a unique threat. Some can be ignored for a while or thinned. Some need to be regularly weeded out. Others are best crushed on sight. Sorry for the abrupt change of topics--I'm talking about politics now.

For those of you who don't keep a garden, please consider it as great opportunity to better understand human society. Disinterest, wishful thinking, inaction lead directly to disaster. Each season produces new waves of weeds, and bugs, and Leftists. I know, it's not fair. However, the garden's truth is irrefutible. If we don't keep after them, there is no hope for growing the Cornucopia of America.

Thank you for your interest. I look forward to chatting with you on many issues. H

Dirty Filthy Chirac

"Read the whole thing, which is still more support, if any were needed, for the Den Beste Theory that France, et al., were opposed to invasion in part for fear that once Saddam was toppled we'd discover how much they'd been violating sanctions."

Live from Seattle

God, but you must miss the place, Dave. lgf: Seattle College Doctors Ward Churchill Photo

Celebrating the 2000th American Death in the Iraq War

Pictures from somber and respectful marches in California.

Kinda reminds me of the Wellstone Memorial.

Miers Has Withdrawn

BREITBART.COM

Time to move quickly now. Nominate someone dead-on-balls Conservative, and fight it out.

2000

I figure I'll add my two cents to whatever the rest of the world is saying about the 2000th death of a US servicemember in Iraq.

First of all, I think Drumwaster's Rants has a good lesson in perspective.

Now then, to get to the meat of the matter:

Those two-thousand people died fighting for a multitude of reasons, no matter what the mentally deranged Left wants to think. They died clearing out a nest of terrorists. Anyone who tries to say that Iraq didn't have ties with international terrorism is a fucking moron who needs to remove their head out from their ass. Google up Abu Nidal. For cripes sake, Iraq had the fuselage of a Boeing 747 set up in a training camp! Just what could they use that for, hmmmmmm?

They did removing a genocidal mass-murdering dictator who threatened world peace. Anyone who thinks Saddam wasn't a threat is also a fucking moron with their head up their ass. As we're finding out more every day, the UN "sanctions" didn't do a damn thing except provide a source of funds for corrupt UN beurocrats and world leaders who were in Saddam's hip pocket, as well as allowing Saddam to buy damn near anything he wanted. Isn't it funny how new palaces sprang up in Iraq every year? Do you want me to believe that he had billions of dollars to spend on new palaces but not one cent for weapons? If you do, then you're too fucking stupid to debate with. Go back to 3rd grade.

They died to protect America in the long term, not just the short term. Allowing that section of the world to continue to be nothing but dictator controlled shitholes looking to blame anyone and everyone for their problems would do nothing but hurt the world as a whole. Afghanistan and Iraq are now democratic countries, voting on their constitutions, electing officials to represent them, and despite what the media wants you to believe, growing more stable every day.

Of course, since the liberals swallow whatever the MSM put down before them unquestioningly, I don't expect anyone from the Left to understand that. The Left would never listen to the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who are IN those countries, making a difference. The Left would never listen to the boots on the ground who see the country day in and day out. The Left would never listen to the people who are actually THERE, because that would destroy their flimsy little make-believe world about how Iraq is actually a QUAGMIRE!!!!!! But that's why I call liberals the stupidest people on the face of the earth. Because their ignorance is forced upon them by themselves.

Those two thousand people died protecting a way of life that the Left only gives lip-service to. Those two thousand people died to make the world a better place. And those two thousand people died for ideals that have become sneer quote material for the Left. Freedom. Independence. Self-rule.

They died so that Iraqis wouldn't fear being dropped into industrial grade plastic shredders whenever they voiced their opinion.

So yes, I expect to see an orgy of self-congratulation from the Left. I expect to see the Left celebrate those two thousand deaths like it's New Year's Eve. Because when it all comes down to it, the Left isn't anti-war, it's on the other side. But I hope that we on the Right haven't allowed the screaming children of the Left to cloud the meaning of those two thousand deaths.

They died so that others would live.

Why we vote (R)

I interrupt the GOP bashing for something you may have missed (lifted directly from Curiouser and Curiouser, with permission):

On October 20, 2005, the US House of Representatives voted on HR 493.
The resolution passed by a vote of 283 yeas to 144 nays.

Here is the text of the resolution:

H. Res. 493

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

October 18, 2005.

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the bill (S. 397) to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others. The bill shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit.

This resolution, if you can read through the legal phraseology, removes liability from manufacturers, and others who deal in firearms and ammunition based on someone who purchases their firearms or ammunition using them incorrectly or improperly.

Proponents of the Second Amendment are in support of this measure, as am I, for it will eliminate the frivolous law suits associated with this industry by victims of criminals and others who improperly use firearms. These lawsuits have always been both a "get rich" scheme for those who could not get compensation from the actual criminal because they are usually too poor to pay it and a mechanism for the anti-gun types such as most liberals and the ACLU to impose severe, unfair, and unnecessary costs on the industry as a means to harm or destroy it.

The bill will now go to the President who will eagerly sign it and it will become the law of the land. I applaud the congress and the President for removing this ridiculous liability from people who never deserved to have it hanging over their heads. It has put several companies out of business and has added huge costs to the price of owning a firearm - a right guaranteed by the US Constitution.

But there is another lesson here especially for conservatives. Take a look at the voting breakdown in the House:

Republicans voting for: 223
Republicans voting against: 4
Percentage for: 98.2
Percentage against: 1.8

Democrats voting for: 59
Democrats voting against: 140
Percentage for: 29.6
Percentage against: 70.4

We are able to right these wrongs and strengthen our Constitutional rights because, as you can see from the numbers above, Republicans support them by an overwhelming margin while Democrats oppose them most vigorously.

Those of you out there that are attacking the President, the Republican party, and conservatives in general had better pay heed to things like this. These attacks, whether over the Miers nomination or complaints about spending do nothing but weaken the Republican party and its ability to make sure that it retains the numbers in both houses of congress and the White House to protect our rights.

This bill passed the Senate on July 29, 2005 with a vote of 65 yeas and 31 nays. In the senate, the breakdown was:

Republicans voting for: 50
Republicans voting against: 2
Percentage for: 96.2
Percentage against: 3.8

Democrats voting for: 14
Democrats voting against: 29
Percentage for: 32.6
Percentage against: 67.4

The percentages in the US Senate approximate those in the US House. The bottom line is that the Democrats, who stand to benefit by gaining seats in both houses based on silly partisan bickering going on in Republican ranks, will trample on our rights with great glee. If you think this bill would ever have passed with a Democrat majority in either house, you are sadly mistaken. And if you think for one second that a Democrat president would sign it if it did, here's a little reality smack. Here are some who voted against the bill in the senate:

Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Clinton (D-NY)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Obama (D-IL)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)

Many of those above have had or still have designs on the White House. All voted to trample on our Second amendment rights. None of them would have signed this law as president.


I will only add the following to Scaramonga's very pertinent point:

This legislation wouldn't have seen the light of day with the donkeys in charge. Be assured that legislation which would have the exact opposite affect would have. Change doesn't happen overnight. And when it comes to who we elect to set the legislative agenda and sign it into law, the stakes absolutely can not be higher. Keep things in perspective and stay on target.

Shake 'em up and kick 'em out.

Folks, as much as it pains me, I think we finally have to come to grips with the truth.

The Republicans are finished as a conservative political party. End of story.

I've been reading stories and news articles all evening, and the best that I can figure is that the Republicans are running on their reputation and hoping that we don't notice how many of them have turned into Democrats in the past few years.

Take spending, for example.

Once Republicans were in power, they started spending money even faster than the Democrats did.

Big spender Ted Stevens responded to Coburn's good suggestion to kill a "Bridge to Nowhere" with a tantrum on the Senate floor: He threatened to resign and "be taken out of here on a stretcher."

The only thing saving our economy is the fact that we've taken the Democrats fingers off of the tax button. When the only difference between your two parties is who does the taxing, you're shit out of luck. The next thing you know, you're going to have Republicans talking about how everybody deserves "free" healthcare.

Immigration? Both parties seem to be in favor of opening up our borders and allowing god knows who to walk into our country hassle-free. There may be exceptions to the rule, but the exception PROVES the rule as well.

The only noticable difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans still have some testicular fortitude when it comes to dealing with people who want to kill us, while Democrats either piss themselves and run away hiding, or openly collaborate with the enemy.

But c'mon, let's not kid ourselves here. Other than foriegn policy, there's not much difference between the two. In fact, I could say that foriegn policy is the ONLY noticable difference between the two right now.

Why the fuck do conservatives still vote Republican again?

Oh, that's right, because Democrats are a bunch of unhinged loons who are incapable of having any kind of coherant thought without going into spittle-flinging spasms while shrieking "BUSHITLER LIED" at ear-splitting volume. While poking at BDS monkeys might be fun in the short run, it's no way to protect this country from the liberals who want to turn us into emasculated EUnich clones. Right now, the only real argument I hear for Republicans is "Yeah, but the Democrats are worse...."

You're right, the Democrats ARE worse. The Democrats should be kept away from power for the rest of this country's existance, but just because they act like three year old brats who found their daddy's meth stash doesn't mean that the Republicans are anything to sing about! That's like saying "Yeah, I got leprosy, but ebola is worse!" So what, YOU'RE STILL GOING TO DIE!

I don't have any quick answers to give you, but recognising the problem is the first step to fixing it. So say it with me: Republicans are no longer conservative. Quite possibly, they haven't been truly conservative for years. And it's time they were kicked out of office.

The Democrats we can tar and feather as the back-stabbing, yellow bellied traitors they are.

Noticed anything odd about the Astros?

Astros roster has no black players

Joe Morgan worries about the face of baseball. Watching the World Series, the Hall of Famer is troubled by what he sees.

His old team, the Houston Astros, is down 3-0 to the Chicago White Sox, but it's not their lineup that concerns Morgan. It's their makeup.

The Astros are the first World Series team in more than a half-century with a roster that doesn't include a single black player.

"Of course I noticed it. How could you not?" Morgan said while the Astros took batting practice before the opener in Chicago.
.
.
.
Morgan said it's a predicament and a challenge for Major League Baseball. While more players from around the world are making it to the majors - Japan, Korea, for example - the number of blacks is declining.

"It's a daunting task to get African-American kids into baseball, and I don't see the trend changing," he said.
.
.
.
Black players accounted for just about 9 percent of big league rosters this season.

"We know that we have to work to do," Commissioner Bud Selig said Tuesday. "We'll continue to intensify our efforts. I'm very aware, I'm extremely sensitive about it, and I feel badly about it. But we need to get to work to change things."

Major League Baseball has work to do, eh?

What about the NBA?

Two years ago we blogged here about the diversity among opinions regarding diversity of skin color in sports. That post is here.

I recall posting that because i saw a feature on ESPN about the scarcity of white high school boys in basketball. The conclusion was clear -- that white kids were choosing to opt out of basketball because they felt they couldn't compete. They choose baseball and football instead. There was a complete absence in that ESPN piece about institutional racism in basketball at ALL levels - whereby a coach, faced choose between a white player or black player of equivalent skills, will keep the black player, because blacks become better basketball players.

It's all very strange how it works. "Underrepresentation" of blacks, in any arena of life, is bad, something to be sensitive to, something to work on, something to feel badly about.

Underrepresentation of whites? Well, who gives a shit?

Fifty bucks says we'll see no articles about the lack of whites on this year's NBA champion.