I'm filing this under humor. Sometimes the left is self-satirizing.

I just caught onto the Al Franken/David Horowitz fight. Seems Al called one too many conservatives "racist", as usual without any justification. Nice word to just drop -- who needs a shred of an argument? Though I wouldn't take the same tact, Horowitz is fighting back by posting Al's mug on the entry page to FrontPage Magazine with the word "RACIST" over his face, based on the same amount of evidence Al produced: None.

Though I officially disapprove, (I think), I must say it's great fun to watch.

Horowitz, like him, agree with him, or not, certainly has far better anti-racist credentials than Al. Or most the left (or right) for that matter. Calling Horowitz a racist is somewhat like calling Shaquille O'Neil "short". Or calling Tiger Woods a "duffer".

Proof that Al had, in fact, no basis whatsoever for his charge came in the form of a response from Soros-funded David Brock. Yes of course, Al's charges were so well-founded that it took someone else to figure out a response for him, much later.

Brilliant, Al.

And oh, so honest of you.

So they've got the goods on Horowitz, apparently. Horowitz really is a racist!

Ooops. Wait, nope. Just kidding!

Instead, Brock accuses Horowitz of "racial insensitivity". Which is the liberal way of admitting they've lost the battle: They can't accuse Horowitz of Franken's actual charge, "racism", so they'll have to change the topic. Try for something else instead: let's claim instead that Horowitz said something which offended someone.

When you're playing with liberals, that's stacking the deck. The only way to avoid that charge is submissively (and dishonestly) agree to the wisdom of every statement made.

So here's Brock's case, boiled down to the basics and minus the spin. My own responses, call 'em spin if you want, are added in following paragraphs.

1. In response to Horowitz's arguments against the wisdom of racial reparations, two liberal black professors called Horowitz a racist.

Oh, well that settles it. He was called a racist. Need we any more proof?

2. "The Californian's decision was met with harsh criticism and protest, and the paper published a public apology the following day."

A liberal campus newspaper, under fire from two black liberal professors, retracts an ad they themselves previously saw no problem with. But, uh, wouldn't this prove the liberal newpaper didn't see it as racist, either, and that Horowitz must then not be any more racist than the liberals running the newspaper -- not to mention all the other papers which also ran the ad?

Whoops! Wasn't supposed to notice that. Not allowed. Nice clothes, Emperor!

3. "TIME magazine national correspondent Jack E. White described Horowitz in an August 30, 1999, TIME article as a 'real, live bigot.'"

Oh, now liberal reporter calls Horowitz a racist. Wow, the evidence is piling up!

Now, if Franken would get on the air and call Horowitz "racist" four more times, we'd have TWICE the evidence against Horowitz that we have now!

And now, here comes the finale, the big, incriminating charge....

4. Horowitz argued black crime rates should be considered when arguing about black prison demographics.

Uh, that would seem obvious. For example: If community X has a gang problem, then you'd expect to see more members in jail for gang-related offenses. Duh!

But no, if you're a liberal, a higher crime rate in black communities -- whatever it's cause (I suspect broken homes) -- should not be a factor to consider when trying to see if there is systematic racism in the justice system.

Apparently, unless you omit this obvious factor from your analysis, you are a racist.

(And it is supposedly conservatives who are against good science and rational thinking? How are we supposed to solve problems if we're not even allowed to notice they exist?)

Well, that's it.

Horowitz is a racist because three people called him one (in addition to Franken), newspaper editors, facing criticism from their liberal peers, apologized for something they'd also personally seen no problems with, and Horowitz suggested comparing crime rates when studying race and the justice system.

This is David Brock's "proof" of Horowitz's "racism".

Hahahahahahahaha!

Oh please.

Horowitz seesm to have won this round.

And to Franken: Wouldn't an apology be much simpler an oh-so-much more civil?