If it wasn't for the double standards, liberals would have no standards.

It's been like this for decades.

//A few hours before delivering that State of the Union, President Obama met with rapper Kendrick Lamar. Obama announced that Lamar’s hit “How Much a Dollar Cost” was his favorite song of 2015. The song comes from the album To Pimp a Butterfly; the album cover shows a crowd of young African-American men massed in front of the White House. In celebratory fashion, all are gripping champagne bottles and hundred-dollar bills; in front of them lies the corpse of a white judge, with two Xs drawn over his closed eyes. So why wouldn't the president’s advisors at least have advised him that such a gratuitous White House sanction might be incongruous with a visual message of racial hatred? Was Obama seeking cultural authenticity, of the sort he seeks by wearing a T-shirt, with his baseball cap on backwards and thumb up?

To play the old "what if" game that is necessary in the bewildering age of Obama: what if President George W. Bush had invited to the White House a controversial country Western singer, known for using the f- and n- words liberally in his music and celebrating attacks on Bureau of Land Management officers? What if Bush had also declared that the singer’s hit song—perhaps a celebration of the Cliven Bundy protest—was the president’s favorite in 2008, from an album whose grotesque cover had a crowd of NASCAR-looking, white redneck youth bunched up with an African-American official dead at their feet? And what if the next day, Bush told the nation that he regretted not being able to bring the country together? Would there have been media calls for Bush’s impeachment?//

The sad thing is that liberals can't see the double-standard when it is put this way.

Leftist protesters call for dead policemen...

...and policemen are killed, but it's a breach of etiquette to point out that the rhetoric matches the deed.

But when it is a conservative protest....

JONAH GOLDBERG: “You know, we talk about the disconnectioning coverage or the biases between left and the right in the coverage. You know, I remember quite vividly the Tucson shooter being blamed entirely on Michele Bachmann and on Sarah Palin and on the right wingers.
Host HOWARD KURTZ: Yes, and that was wrong. And I said so at the time.
GOLDBERG: “I agree it was wrong and we shouldn’t be doing the same thing in this circumstance. At the same time, when you have Al Sharpton’s little rent-a-mobs going out there saying, ‘What do we want? Dead cops. When do we want them? Now.’ That is a substantively different thing than anything you can ascribe to Sarah Palin’s Facebook map, and the way that stuff was covered was much, much different, and much less hostile, than the stuff we’ve seen on the right.” - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2014/12/22/protecting-protesters-vs-trashing-tea-party#sthash.rB8YwO3Z.dpuf

Of course, if Michelle had been Republican, this would have led to a round of concerned discussion about how "out of touch" Republicans are to the concerns of the average American and how after 5 years unemployment was to high.

10 year old hands Michelle Obama her unemployed father's resume.

Welcome to the Wacky World of George Orwell...

...where "banning" happens when people choose not to change the law of marriage or not pay for someone else's birth control but doesn't happen when the government makes the sale of lightbulbs illegal.

According to the Washington Post:

No, Barack Obama did not write or sign the light-bulb law, and so Mitt Romney was wrong to say "Obama's regulators" had "banned Thomas Edison’s light bulb," Washington Post factchecker Glenn Kessler points out rightly today.

But Kessler then makes the odd claim that nobody has banned Edison's lightbulb -- they just made it illegal to manufacture or import. Here's Kessler's claim:

we don’t see how higher efficiency standards translates into a "ban," especially when light manufacturers have embraced the new standards.

I'll leave that "even industry likes it" line aside for today, and focus on his claim that efficiency standards cannot translate into a ban. I think this is important, because much of the media and the Left have been on a crusade to claim that the light-bulb law didn't ban anything.

The "standards" are not just "standards" that set guidelines. They are "standards" that a manufacturer must meet, or be prohibited from selling his lightbulb. If I set up a factory that turned out the traditional incandescent -- "Edison's light bulb" -- and tried to sell it, the federal government would shut me down because my bulb was illegally inefficient.

How is that not a ban?

Here's an analogy I think works:

What if Congress passed "calorie standards" declaring it illegal to sell sweeteners that have more than 2 calories per gram? Sugar as you know it now has 4 calories per gram. Would Congress not have "banned standard sugar"?

It seems to me that by any normal understanding of the word, Congress -- and, of course, President Bush -- banned the traditional light bulb that Thomas Edison commercialized.

p.s. Recently, when Chuck Schumer made the insane claim that the Blunt Amendment would "would ban contraception coverage for any woman in America whose boss has a personal objection to it" Kessler's objection was a lot gentler: "'Ban' is a strong word in this regard.

"Ban" is a powerful word.

The Never-ending Double Standard

On September 11, 2001, James Carville said he wanted the President to fail.