Three strikes and you’re a racist?

I don’t think Joe Biden is a bigot. That said, he’s receiving a whopping benefit of the doubt after yet another “slip of the tongue”:

Biden attempted to explain why some schools perform better than others — in Iowa, for instance, compared with the District. “There’s less than 1 percent of the population of Iowa that is African American. There is probably less than 4 or 5 percent that are minorities. What is in Washington? So look, it goes back to what you start off with, what you’re dealing with,” Biden said.

The Biden campaign clarified the senator’s remarks, saying he was referring to socio-economic disadvantages. I buy that. But some of his previous gaffes defy clarification.

Regarding Barack Obama, Biden said, “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”

Here’s Biden on Indian-Americans: “You cannot go to a 7/11 or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking.”

Republicans claim they’re held to a different standard on race, and they have a point. My standard is apolitical: Would I get in trouble for saying the same thing? Where I work, the punishment would be nothing less than a month in sensitivity training.

I’m not advocating the same for Biden — one of the few seasoned candidates running for president — but we could use some consistency here.

Lectures from the allegedly informed

If you’re a partisan Republican, odds are you mock the very idea of global warming. If you’re on the other side, chances are you’ve built a shrine to Al Gore, made out of compost, natch.

I’m not a scientist. I have no real interest in science. I’m aware of the issue, and I read a few articles here and there, but frankly I don’t know whether man is destroying the planet. I tend to side with the majority of experts who say we are, but it appears there hasn’t been enough serious debate to consider the matter closed.

Still, like most people, I’m inclined to do my share for the environment. Then I read about No Impact Man and I want to spend the rest of the day throwing shredded Styrofoam cups out my 8th floor window.

Isn’t that strange? You click off family’s electricity and make them go to bed at nine every night because it’s too dark to do anything else. You ban them from the elevator so they have to walk up and down nine flights of stairs. You take away their fridge so they can’t keep more than a day or two of food around the house.

Even more obnoxious are afffluent Hollywood liberals turned eco-lobbyists. I can see why they’re attracted to the cause; unlike, say, working with the poor, environmental activism requires no personal contact with the grubby masses. Instead, you get to hang out with Leo DiCaprio and talk about how satisfying it is to be fully evolved. Oh yeah, and there’s lecturing. Lots and lots of lecturing.

“We represent the entertainment community,” said Kelly Chapman Meyer, whose husband, Ron, is the president of Universal Studios Group. “We use our resources and our connections to push for environmental issues.”

“We want a climate bill that’s not going to die,” said Colleen Bell, a philanthropist and writer whose husband, Bradley, is the executive producer and head writer of the soap opera “The Bold and the Beautiful.”

Because they have rich, connected husbands, Meyer and Bell got a face-to-face with Barbara Boxer, who shares their concern.

“We can see it happening, we can feel it happening,” she said. “The fashion industry is so upset because they can’t sell their cashmere sweaters.”

Well now I’m really worried.

Yet another snapshot of the decline of Western civilization

Guess what’s the most viewed story on the L.A. Times website, as of 11:30 a.m. EST?

- Seven clues that ‘Potter’s’ Dumbledore was gay

Understandable, I guess — it’s not like there’s anything major happening in Southern California right now.

Granted, his experience in disaster movies might’ve helped

We come now to praise Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Everyone’s doing it, even shrill partisans like Barbara Boxer, who lauded the governor’s swift action in dealing with the California wildfires.

The contrast with Katrina is apt, although the disasters are different. When leadership was required in Louisiana, none was provided — not from Ray Nagin, Kathleen Blanco or W. Bush’s apologists say he doesn’t like to “get in the way” of rescue workers, but Schwarzenegger has stayed on the ground throughout the disaster, reassuring citiizens that someone was in charge. That is an executive’s job, after all.

An early critic of the state’s fire response, Orange County fire chief Chip Prather, had nothing but accolades for Schwarzenegger on Wednesday.

His “personal attention” to firefighters battling the blazes “is inspiring — knowing the guy at the top is there with them,” Prather said at a news conference near Los Angeles.

California’s National Guard Commander Maj. Gen. William Wade extolled the “coordination and cooperation” in the Schwarzenegger-led effort. L.A. County Sheriff Lee Baca said the fires were a reminder that “this state requires the gubernatorial leadership that you provide.”

Accuse him of grandstanding if you want — and as someone who despises catchphrases, I’d like to be critical — but politicians are judged by results, and so far Schwarzenegger gets an “A” for the way he’s handled this crisis. And if he continues to resist references to “The Terminator,” I might up that grade to an A-plus.

*Poll of the day: In a three-person race for president, who would you vote for? Arnold, Hillbot or The Anchorman (Romney)? I assume you can guess who I’d select.

The case for liberal totalitarianism

A British philosophy professor makes it in a chilling forecast of a world run by the professionally aggrieved:

What Kamm really has in his sights are restrictions on speech that are alleged to flow from the idea that we own one another respect, have duties of civility to our fellow citizens, and so forth. He’s surely wrong on this point, and for two reasons: first, in a democracy of equal citizens it is important to see to it that the conditions are in place for people to participate as equals; second, no-one has any legitimate interest in the protection of hate speech, as such.

Obviously the professor has no “legitimate interest” in liberty. As Andrew Sullivan points out, “bigotry is a right, a basic freedom, as intrinsic to freedom as freedom of religion and speech. Once you start deciding what speech is or is not acceptable, we no longer live in a free society. We live in a tyranny …”

Why protect bigots? Simple — I don’t trust anyone to decde what constitues hate speech. Particularly people like the professor quoted above.

Three strikes and you’re a racist?

I don’t think Joe Biden is a bigot. That said, he’s receiving a whopping benefit of the doubt after yet another “slip of the tongue”:

Biden attempted to explain why some schools perform better than others — in Iowa, for instance, compared with the District. “There’s less than 1 percent of the population of Iowa that is African American. There is probably less than 4 or 5 percent that are minorities. What is in Washington? So look, it goes back to what you start off with, what you’re dealing with,” Biden said.

The Biden campaign clarified the senator’s remarks, saying he was referring to socio-economic disadvantages. I buy that. But some of his previous gaffes defy clarification.

Regarding Barack Obama, Biden said, “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”

Here’s Biden on Indian-Americans: “You cannot go to a 7/11 or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking.”

Republicans claim they’re held to a different standard on race, and they have a point. My standard is apolitical: Would I get in trouble for saying the same thing? Where I work, the punishment would be nothing less than a month in sensitivity training.

I’m not advocating the same for Biden — one of the few seasoned candidates running for president — but we could use some consistency here.

Lectures from the allegedly informed

If you’re a partisan Republican, odds are you mock the very idea of global warming. If you’re on the other side, chances are you’ve built a shrine to Al Gore, made out of compost, natch.

I’m not a scientist. I have no real interest in science. I’m aware of the issue, and I read a few articles here and there, but frankly I don’t know whether man is destroying the planet. I tend to side with the majority of experts who say we are, but it appears there hasn’t been enough serious debate to consider the matter closed.

Still, like most people, I’m inclined to do my share for the environment. Then I read about No Impact Man and I want to spend the rest of the day throwing shredded Styrofoam cups out my 8th floor window.

Isn’t that strange? You click off family’s electricity and make them go to bed at nine every night because it’s too dark to do anything else. You ban them from the elevator so they have to walk up and down nine flights of stairs. You take away their fridge so they can’t keep more than a day or two of food around the house.

Even more obnoxious are afffluent Hollywood liberals turned eco-lobbyists. I can see why they’re attracted to the cause; unlike, say, working with the poor, environmental activism requires no personal contact with the grubby masses. Instead, you get to hang out with Leo DiCaprio and talk about how satisfying it is to be fully evolved. Oh yeah, and there’s lecturing. Lots and lots of lecturing.

“We represent the entertainment community,” said Kelly Chapman Meyer, whose husband, Ron, is the president of Universal Studios Group. “We use our resources and our connections to push for environmental issues.”

“We want a climate bill that’s not going to die,” said Colleen Bell, a philanthropist and writer whose husband, Bradley, is the executive producer and head writer of the soap opera “The Bold and the Beautiful.”

Because they have rich, connected husbands, Meyer and Bell got a face-to-face with Barbara Boxer, who shares their concern.

“We can see it happening, we can feel it happening,” she said. “The fashion industry is so upset because they can’t sell their cashmere sweaters.”

Well now I’m really worried.

Yet another snapshot of the decline of Western civilization

Guess what’s the most viewed story on the L.A. Times website, as of 11:30 a.m. EST?

- Seven clues that ‘Potter’s’ Dumbledore was gay

Understandable, I guess — it’s not like there’s anything major happening in Southern California right now.

Granted, his experience in disaster movies might’ve helped

We come now to praise Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Everyone’s doing it, even shrill partisans like Barbara Boxer, who lauded the governor’s swift action in dealing with the California wildfires.

The contrast with Katrina is apt, although the disasters are different. When leadership was required in Louisiana, none was provided — not from Ray Nagin, Kathleen Blanco or W. Bush’s apologists say he doesn’t like to “get in the way” of rescue workers, but Schwarzenegger has stayed on the ground throughout the disaster, reassuring citiizens that someone was in charge. That is an executive’s job, after all.

An early critic of the state’s fire response, Orange County fire chief Chip Prather, had nothing but accolades for Schwarzenegger on Wednesday.

His “personal attention” to firefighters battling the blazes “is inspiring — knowing the guy at the top is there with them,” Prather said at a news conference near Los Angeles.

California’s National Guard Commander Maj. Gen. William Wade extolled the “coordination and cooperation” in the Schwarzenegger-led effort. L.A. County Sheriff Lee Baca said the fires were a reminder that “this state requires the gubernatorial leadership that you provide.”

Accuse him of grandstanding if you want — and as someone who despises catchphrases, I’d like to be critical — but politicians are judged by results, and so far Schwarzenegger gets an “A” for the way he’s handled this crisis. And if he continues to resist references to “The Terminator,” I might up that grade to an A-plus.

*Poll of the day: In a three-person race for president, who would you vote for? Arnold, Hillbot or The Anchorman (Romney)? I assume you can guess who I’d select.