Author Archives: DFV the Scribe
The Leaders of Our Nation
A Democratic Congressman fears that 8,000 US Marines might cause the island of Guam to “capsize and tip over.” The Navy Admiral he’s questioning tries not to laugh. Sadly, this is not an April Fool’s Day joke.
Meet Congressman Hank Johnson (D-GA):
Is the United States a well-functioning democracy?
That’s the question that PG and I have been debating. Now, Anne Applebaum offers her own views, and specifically how it relates to Greece.
She points out that Greece’s fiscal woes have existed for a long time, but there wasn’t much politicians could do about it.
More to the point, Greece has borne all these burdens for a long, long time. Yet nothing has been done, because the country’s deeply partisan political system is totally paralyzed. Try to carry out any social security reform in Greece—raise the pension age, stop early retirements—and watch what happens: Mass rioting followed the passage of a pension reform bill in 2008, and the government became so unpopular it lost the next election. The land registry cannot be modernized, because those who possess land illegally will fight back. The barriers to investment cannot be lowered, because business lobbies are more powerful than politicians.
The more ominous news according to Applebaum is that the United States is more like Greece than you think.
But in a different sense, Greece’s weaknesses are also shared by the United States. Though we do not have precisely the same problems, we do have a similar level of political paralysis and a similar level of partisanship. It is not possible to reform U.S. Social Security: President Bush tried halfheartedly and gave up before he started. It may not be possible to reform health care, either: Hillary Clinton failed, and President Obama, despite throwing in expensive sweeteners, may well fail. The influence of lobbyists cannot be reduced. The power of interest groups to influence legislation cannot be tamed. We might not have farmers squatting on state land, but we do have farmers dependent on huge, distorting agricultural subsidies that apparently cannot be reduced.
Kevin Smith Booted From Southwest Flight
The director of “Clerks,” “Mallrats,” and “Chasing Amy” was removed from a Southwest flight from Oakland to Burbank today. No, he’s not the latest drunk, belligerent celebrity to harass a stewardess. Seems he’s just too damn fat!
Now, Silent Bob isn’t taking this so quietly. He’s all aTwitter at Southwest, and is podcasting at them besides. I’ve always thought that Kevin Smith was one of the coolest celebs, and behind his understandable fury, the humorous way he’s responding to this only makes me like him even more. And he even gave Southwest fair warning what was coming. “You (screwed) with the wrong sedentary, processed food eater!”
AUTHOR’S NOTE: Yes, I know that he has more famous movies than “Chasing Amy,” but that is his best film and so I always include it. Also, I’d like credit for coining the term aTwitter as an adjective describing someone who uses Twitter to go ape about something.
Inside the Texas State Board of Education
In 2007, the Texas Board of Education had a major controversy over the teaching of evolution in schools. The result was a mish mash policy that caused scientific groups from across the country to condemn the Board. Last month, the Board took on Language Arts. They decided to ban Bill Martin, Jr., author of the popular children’s book Brown Bear, Brown Bear, What Do You See because, as one of the board members revealed, Bill Martin had written a different book entitled Ethical Marxism. The Board member who made the motion, and those who voted it in, all admitted that they had never the read Ethical Marxism. If they had, they might have known that the author of that tract was a different Bill Martin, a professor at Depaul University, still alive and writing today. The Board members might also have done some research by just making a quick phone call or two, since Bill Martin, Jr. of Brown Bear authorship actually lived and died in Commerce, Texas, and Texas A&M is home to the Bill Martin, Jr. Memorial Library, which hosts the annual Bill Martin, Jr. Symposium, and distributes the Bill Martin, Jr. Scholarship. But no matter. Even after being informed that they had the wrong guy in mind, the Board stuck by its decision. No Brown Bear for Texas children.
Now, the Board is preparing to tackle the state social studies curriculum, and you can just imagine what’s coming down the pike. This week, the New York Times Magazine published an excellent in-depth look at the Board and the controversies surrounding it. The main battle may well come down to whether the United States is or is not “a Christian nation.”
Richard Shelby Demands $40 Billion in Unmarked Bills
Republican US Senator Richard Shelby has put a blanket hold on all 70 of Obama’s pending political appointees to government positions, unless the administration releases $40 billion in earmarks for his state, Alabama. Among the most relevant issues of the last few months or so are 1) the crushing national debt and the need for congressmen to be able to trim it; 2) the political efficacy of Republicans simply blocking as much of Obama’s agenda as possible; and 3) Which party is really serious about addressing American problems, irrespective of politics.
On all three counts, Shelby’s actions are destructive. He makes any conservative profession of fiscal restraint a joke. He makes the party look stupid. And he undermines any claim the GOP has to be the grown-up party.
The tea party activists were moved to conduct protests, ostensibly because they just couldn’t abide the growth of government that we are seeing since Obama and the Democratic Congress consolidated their power. If they are even serious about just looking serious, they must roundly condemn Shelby. I tried to contact FreedomWorks, one of the organizations behind the tea partiers, but haven’t heard back. I went to the site of their Alabama affiliate, and sure enough, there was an article on Shelby right at the top of the feeds. It was from five years ago praising him for his supposed committment to a flat tax.
The liberals claim that all of the apparent rage among the right is based not on principle, but on animus. Those Republicans don’t really believe in fiscal restraint, they just hate Obama. The tea partiers, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, ConClub, etc. are offended, and insist that this is nothing less than the issue that will determine the existence of our Republic. So… if that be the case, then all of these organizations should bash Shelby. I’m not holding my breath waiting for Hannity, O’Reilly, or Rush to say anything, but the tea partiers are supposed to be more “organic” and thus more authentic. We’ll see. ConClub has it’s own tea party representatives. I wonder if Dave and Mo are planning to tote their cardboard signs to Birmingham.
Facebook Fail 2
Brother gets back at his sister by posting her hookup list on Facebook… and tagging all of the guys
But you gotta jump first 
(And don’t miss the comments!)
Martha Coakley as Cotton Mather
I tend to be reluctant to condemn political candidates as morally wrong because of their professional work. For the most part, we just have different values. Theirs aren’t necessarily worse than mine, just different. But occasionally, there are candidates who are so personally revolting that merely their election itself would be a grievous injury to our populace.
Read the rest of this entry
I Will Definitely Call It A Religion
Previous posts have highlighted the similarities between the adherents of AGW and religion. Indeed, it should be unsurprising that the two have so much in common. All of the utopian movements and catastrophic chicken-little crusades use religious language and typologies. This is because these movements stem from the same human desire and satisfy the same human needs, as religion does.
Two months ago in the United Kingdom, a court ruled that the belief in man-caused global warming is equivalent to a religious belief, and as such is protected by law. The ruling had few defenders, as neither the Christians nor the global warming crowd wished to be associated with the other. The Christians objected to having AGW believers raised to their level, while the latter group protested being lowered to it.
But it was the plaintiff himself who saw the danger in all this. Tim Nicholson, who had brought suit after losing his job as the Head of Sustainability for a UK residential firm, won when the judge rejected claims by the defense that AGW couldn’t be a religion because it could be proven by scientific data. Nonsense, said the judge. AGW was clearly a “philosophical,” rather than scientific, belief. But “This isn’t some new religion,” protested Mr. Nicholson, unwittingly undermining his winning legal strategy. “This isn’t a faith-based belief, but a belief based on overwhelming scientific evidence.”
I have no doubt that Mr. Nicholson sincerely believes that the science has “proven” his beliefs to be true. I also have no doubt that Christians are absolutely positive that their view is correct, just as are Muslims. All of these beliefs Read the rest of this entry
Is it Over Already? I was Just Getting Warmed Up
The first question is what to call it. Circa Jan. 1, 2005, halfway through the first decade of the 21st century, Slate’s Timothy Noah implored us to decide what to call the decade we were living in. Neither “aughts,” “naughts,” “ohs,” nor “double ohs” seemed to be catching. Either Mr. Noah lacks influence or the decade is simply unnamable, because as we stand on the precipice of 2010, we are no closer to an agreed upon moniker.
A proper name may be important because of our recent tendency to segment history by its third digit. In the past, I have acknowledged the usefulness of this shorthand, while adjusting the dates for the start and end times of each “decade.” For example, through my prism, the Roaring Twenties went from the end of WWI in 1918 to the crash of the stock market in 1929. The Forties (in America) went from 1941 to 1945 (1945-49 was its own era: “during the war”). The Fifties stretched from 1949 to 1963; the Sixties from 1964-1974; the Seventies mercifully short from 1975-1980; the Eighties thankfully a bit longer, ending in 1992; and the Nineties, the “end of history,” and the overness of the era of big government, all fell to earth with the Twin Towers in 2001.
Read the rest of this entry
The Unraveling Right Must Regroup
At a time when such enormous shifts in American public policy stand precariously on the threshold of enactment, this is no time for the American Right to go batty. When Barack Obama raised scorn and overplayed his hubris by seeking to address all US schoolchildren via live video feed, the Right managed to fumble the opportunity by throwing a well-publicized and indecent temper tantrum.
After a week of this unfortunate blunder, Rep. Joe Wilson poured gasoline on the fire that was consuming the Republicans’ opportunity to advance against Obama, by shrieking wildly, like an hysterical damsel of a 1950′s drive-in. Wilson immediately apologized for his outburst, but the rank and file were not so circumspect. Cheering Wilson’s childishness, right-wing bloggers announced that there were now no rules limiting the propriety of an attack on the President. This is, of course, a political faux pas, though admittedly, the right-wing true believers openly disdain any consideration of political practicality.
For his part, Wilson appeared indifferent to his own alleged penitence, instead relishing the infamy the congressman who was a relative unknown just a week ago had attained. Speaking on Sunday, he attacked Obama for appearing on multiple Sunday news shows, but passing on Fox News: Read the rest of this entry
The Meaning of ACORN
Almost no one seems to be surprised by the recent revelations regarding ACORN, yet nobody wants to openly address its ramifications, either.
1. The videos may be the most damning direct evidence ever shown concerning the federal government’s ability to administer a massive and dispersed federal program. The dominant Democratic dogma of the day is a blind belief that if the same government that was charged with rebuilding Iraq, overseeing the financial system, and just keeping the occassional eye on ACORN should completely take over all medicinal ministrations in our country, milk and honey will surely flow.
2. I have heard recently some writers on this blog suggest that there is one party for corruption (R.–”boo, hiss”), and another for justice (D.–many huzzahs!). That one group of ideologues is possessed with a selfish desire to enrich their friends, while the opposite group wants “transparency” and “fairness.” The videos of ACORN show nothing less than this: Crooked, ghetto welfare artists, gulping copiously at the government trough, administering a nation-wide, government-run conspiracy of corruption and graft. The program has been enacted, defended, and administered by Democrats who most certainly have known that this was the normal course of ACORN’s “buisiness,” but ignored this criminality because it helped their side politically. And all this activity is perfectly in line with the activities of Democratic federal, state, and local governments going back almost a century.
3. Ten months after Barack Obama was elected President, there is still a racial double standard in polite American society, but not the one most written about. Since the days of the ’08 election, every educated American has known or suspected that ACORN, Jeremiah Wright, and other hyper-political, inner-city, overwhelmingly black outfits calling themselves some form of “community organizers” was likely a colossal urban slush fund, greased by federal tax dollars. Jon Stewart can wax indignant all he wants (I thought it was a nice touch that he even claimed to be angry with his own show for ”missing” the story), but in truth, any number of journalists–both real and pseudo–knew just enought to pretend to look away. This is of the same family with other obvious liberal corruption. Next time one of the ConClub lefties answers with snorts of righteousness an attack on one of the wretchedly, nefarious unions like SEIU or the Teamsters, understand that the unions, the inner-city conveyor belt of federal funds, the trial lawyers, and the educational bureaucracy have stolen their minds and are fast absconding with their credibility.
How Unconservative Obama’s Right-Wing Critics Are
The problem with the arguments of Dave, Sting the Away, and the Mo K’s, is that they are so glaringly unconservative. Years ago, I got into a spat with well known conservative Denver talk-show host Mike Rosen over a similar issue. Rosen had insisted on his show and in a column that the problem with the criminal justice system (this was around the time of O.J.) was that there was all this focus on the fairness of the process instead of getting the outcome right. He railed against judicial protections for criminal defendants that zealously protected the process against them, when the rules should really just focus on convicting bad guys and letting good guys go free.
I wrote a letter to the Denver Post in which I attacked his argument as undermining the very conservative principles he insisted he was defending. He was so angry, he read my letter on air and attacked me by name. I immediately called in and joined the battle. Read the rest of this entry
The Lion Passes
Our heroes are people and people are flawed. — Randy K. Milholland, author
As Steve reported, the great Democratic senator Edward M. Kennedy has died. He leaves behind a legacy of historical dimensions.
Obama’s Fourth Lawless Corruption
Obama’s Democratic-run Washington has perfected many political tactics, but none so much as the big government shakedown. Politico reports that:
House Democrats are probing the nation’s largest insurance companies for lavish spending, demanding reams of compensation data and schedules of retreats and conferences.
Letters sent to 52 insurance companies by Democratic leaders demand extensive documents for an examination of “extensive compensation and other business practices in the health insurance industry.” The letters set a deadline of Sept. 14 for the documents.
The Washington Times points out the problem with this.
The pharmaceutical industry — which is putting up between $150 million and $200 million to promote government health care — isn’t being forced to provide this information. Neither is anyone else. The only firms being targeted for investigation are those in a sector openly fighting reform.
The thuggishness continues.
“If it comes, it comes….”
I think baseball broadcaster Gary Matthews is trying to explain something about how a hitter should stay on the ball instead of getting out in front of it, but it doesn’t really come across that way.
The Legend of Tim Tebow
If Barack Obama balled himself up into a mass traveling forward, and he were to be met by Tim Tebow, stretched out forming a barrier, who would win the confrontation? Such are the the metaphysical conundrums that try men’s brains.
University of Florida quarteback Tim Tebow has, well, got his share of good press lately. He is a Heisman Trophy 
winner, a national champion, and, as I think I might have heard once or twice, a devout Christian.
Tebow was born to missionary parents in the Philippines, grew up home-schooled, devotes his summers to helping kids and preaching to prisoners, and is being lauded as the greatest college football player of all time. When he was in high school, ESPN did a special on him entitled Tim Tebow: The Chosen One. But now, on the precipice of his senior season at Florida, he has publicly admitted – in answer to a question put to him – that he is “saving himself for marriage.” Superman on the field/Jesus everywhere else.
Now at first I called bullshit. Wasn’t Tebow counting the time in January when FOX announcers Thom Brennaman and Charles Davis could be heard through their microphones gagging on Tebow’s cock? But then I figured that this kind of action must not count. Brennaman said that “if you’re fortunate enough to spend five minutes or 20 minutes around Tim Tebow, your life is better for it.” The broadcast also brought up the pre-game quote from Oklahoma cornerback Dominique Franks, who said Tebow would be no better than the fourth-best QB in the Big 12. Said Brennaman: “[It is] probably the most ridiculous statement ever said.” Late in the game, after Florida’s victory was secured, Tebow was flagged for taunting Oklahoma’s players, a horrible and bush-league move. Even after Tebow earned a 15-yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty for his juvenile actions, Brennaman responded: “That might be the first thing he’s ever done wrong.”
Almost all of the sports media is predictably expressing fake outrage that the question regarding Tebow’s sexuality was even asked (while profiting from the hits their web rants are generating). But Tebow himself has never been shy about proclaiming his Christian faith. In fact, he is probably the most ostentatious, celebrity Christian in America today. So the question is surely relevant.
The narrative on Tebow is that he is perfect, the gridiron equivalent of Barack Obama. He is the greatest on the field, and God’s untarnished vessel everywhere else. This is a man, after all, who spends his summers chopping away at the penises of poor, young Filipino boys.
On the Friday of a weeklong trip to the orphanage his father’s ministry runs in Southeast Asia, Tebow assisted with the care of locals who had walked miles to the temporary clinic that the ministry helped organize. More than 250 people underwent medical and dental procedures, some of them from “Dr. Tebow,” who has no formal surgical training.
“The first time, it was nerve-racking,” he said. “Hands were shaking a little bit. I mean, I’m cutting somebody. You can’t do those kinds of things in the United States. But those people really needed the surgeries. We needed to help them.”
Ok, so the Chosen One sometimes has to taunt the enemy, just like Jesus casting out the money-changers, and occasionally he is called upon to slice and dice the members of poor, young boys who know no better, but apparently “really needed the surgeries.” Fair enough… I guess.
But please, oh please, spare me the notion that Tim Tebow’s fundamentalist, extreme fanatacism is more contributary to the world than I, or you, or the OU football players are. Please.
Why is Mark Sanford Now Begging for a Bailout?
SC governor Mark Sanford has been well-known as what is called a “bootstraps guy.” As in, people don’t need government help, they need to pick themselves up by their own bootstraps. Sanford had emerged, in fact, as one of the premier advocates of smaller, less active government. He of course infamously tried to refuse federal bailout money, and made enemies throughout the South Carolina Republican Party by ridiculous stunts and asinine negotioting ploys, all revolving around his belief that the smaller the government is, the better.
So why is Mark Sanford now pleading for some higher official to come and save him from himself? Sanford asserts that he is wretched and feeble, and that unless he receives this help, he has no hope. Sanford has implied that he was too weak to have remained faithful to his wife, was too clueless and deluded to understand his actions, and is still way too helpless to possibly right the ship without a bailout from the higher-ups that would give him an injection of much needed capability to control his own actions.
Sanford is publicly grovelling “with a humble heart” and “a contrite spirit.” He has announced that God is now working to change him from the weird, filandering, nut job that he was, to … something better than that I guess. What Sanford has so far become in this process is a pathetic, blubbering, infantile embarrassment.
Sanford is firmly in the camp of contemporary evangelicalism, with their histrionic and bathos-soaked redemption rituals. Thus, this 47-yr. old, uber-successful, highly powerful, multi-millionaire father of four thinks nothing of weeping and pleading in public, provided he peppers his teary expressions with all the vocabulary of melodramatic 
Christian self-healing. In fact, his appearances and correspondence are demeaning to his status as a husband, father, and man. He summons his religious mentors and emerges from the resulting assembly spouting Scripture. He issues stream-of-consciousness public updates on the state of his heart, his marriage, his heart, his job as governor, his heart, his thought process, and his heart. Always, and unabashadly, his heart.
If Mark Sanford is so flaccid and pitiful that he must prostrate himself before God and the television cameras, all the while begging for someone — or rather, Someone — to cleanse him and heal him and improve him and please make it so that he won’t have sex with strange women and lie about it to his wife, then surely, at the very least, he is not worthy to lead a state of four and a half million people.
Can Watson Do It?
59-year old Tom Watson, who last won a major golf championship twenty six years ago, is the outright leader at The Open Championship heading into tomorrow’s round. If he can hang on, he would become the oldest major champion by more than a decade.
I distinctly remember a day many years ago when my family went to Sunday evening church service (Baptists are big on going to church twice on Sundays) and I ran in to see my friends, shouting “Did you see that chip shot by Watson?!?”
The day was June 20, 1983, and I had just watched Watson hole a difficult chip shot on the 17th hole that enabled him to win the US Open over Jack Nicklaus at Pebble Beach. I was 10 years old. Tomorrow morning I will seat my 37-year old self in front of the television and see if I can witness that same golfer accomplish a similar feat, but one made many magnitudes harder by the passage of time. Watson tees off at 9:20 EDT.
Military Considering a Ban on All Smoking
Smoke ‘em if you got ‘em.
This was the phrase that dates from WWII, when American GI’s were told to take a break when a wait was unavoidable. Now, a Pentagon recommendation seeks to snuff out all GI smoking, including by those involved in an active combat zone. The recommendation suggests that smoking first be banned at all service academies, that sales of tobacco products be banned at military installations, and that a Pentagon “tobacco czar” be created to begin the process of purification.
Several things spring to mind. First, to read the report itself is to realize what a silly, liberal, do-gooder group formulated the document, and to then ask: “How on Earth have these people been given such a prominent role in defense policy?” Second, it shows just how deluded and detatched modern Western society has become that they see a soldier in a combat zone and immediately worry whether he’s hiding a pack of Marlboro’s under his body armor.
But the loudest siren to scream from this report is the danger posed by government control and financing of health care. Whenever the feds pay, they then assert the prerogative to control. Whether it is AIG, General Motors, congressional mandates, or health care, to fund is to dominate. Obviously the federal government is not going to cease funding military health care, nor am I calling for that. And it is quite plain that eventually, the federal government will control all health care for each and every one of us. But this situation highlights the dangers to be fought.
If government is going to insist on controlling the auto industry and the banking industry, they have a duty to try to minimize the political pressure they will bear on these now quasi-private entities. Yeah, I know, the notion is laughable. But when government controls all health spending, why can’t they ban smoking? Why shouldn’t they? In fact, why shouldn’t they ban all unhealthy behavior? Eating fast food, riding motorcycles, sunbathing, drinking alcohol, grabbing a hot dog and a beer at a baseball game. After all, for each example (and thousands of others), an economic case could be made that those who engage in such behavior are costing us money!
The answer to this problem could be that government needs to have less power over private actions; but in this, the Age of Government Control, such a notion seems quaint. So the remaining viable option is for governments to practice self-restraint (again, I know the very idea is laughable). There must be a lobby, or at least a voice, for the idea that government should allow certain unhealthy behaviors, knowing full well that it will cost society money, in the name of maintaining a free society.
In the meantime, woe to the political bureaucrat who tries to force a military officer to confiscate smokes from his bloody and battered soldiers. If there be any warrior spirit left to us, let us dismiss this bout of mindless frivolity.
The Era of Transparency
Immediate caterwauls will include, but not be limited to:
“Obama Derangement Syndrome!”
“You’re projecting!”
“How dare you!!”
But the truth is what it is.
Yet another missed story for the mainstream press, and even the conservative blogosphere, has been the crafty strategy by which the Obama White House pushed the most radical economic bill in 75 years in the very same week that they were advancing the most radical health care restructuring in a century. A layman might have advised that the administration tackle these issues separately — each of them is larger than any domestic issue the previous seven administrations (at least) even tried to tackle –to allow sufficient time to debate each initiative. But then the layman would be assuming that President Obama and the monolithic Democratic control of Congress would desire such debate. It couldn’t be more obvious that their goal is precisely the opposite.
Without exaggeration, the Cap-and-Trade bill and the health care reform are two of the ten or so most significant bills of the last half century. And they are coming to a head at the same time? Choose your historical analogy– Divide and Conquer, a two-front war, Shock-and-Awe.
This would all be lauded as great strategy (if anyone were noticing) but for one messy detail. To pass each bill, the President has employed an egregious lie, and one that cuts at the heart of democratic deliberation.
On Cap-and-Trade, the tradeoff is fairly straightforward.
Should we limit economic growth by X percent in order to attempt a reduction in carbon emmissions by Y percent?
But now the Obama administration, with a healthy assist from Nancy Pelosi, is asserting that passage of a massive energy tax-hike will amazingly create millions of jobs. This is outlandish.
Likewise on health care, the basic choices aren’t that complex. Do we want to limit the choice of insurance provider and individual preference, ration and restrict procedures and medications, as well as increase taxes, (at least on the wealthy) to ensure universal coverage? Now there are many other issues (like the effect that socialized medicine will have on research and development, the need for rationing, the projected costs 40 years hence, and others), but this is the basic immediate question.
And on this question, as with Cap-and-Trade, the President has crafted a major, but politically astute, lie.
Instead of choosing between freedom of choice and low taxes for the insured vs. all-out coverage for the uninsured, he has pitched the idea that his government health plan will somehow increase care and even more astonishingly will decrease federal spending. So instead of an honest economic question: “Do you want to spend $1.6 trillion to create this new plan?” President Obama has concocted a decidedly less honest question: “How would you like to create a huge new program… and get paid for it, besides?!”
In both the Cap-and-Trade bill and the health care plan, Obama isn’t just fudging on costs or overpromising the benefits or sowing fear with alarmist rhetoric, though he is surely doing all of those. No, on these two massive issues he is fundamentally misstating — lying about — the core economic tradeoffs involved in the decision. He is, in short, trying to fool the public into creating pivotal, sweeping, and largely irreversible change based on false precepts.
Funny, the “New Foundation” of hope, change, a different kind of politics, and transparency smells as rotten as ever.
The Extortion Economy
Troy Senik, formerly of the Center for Individual Freedom has written a terrific column detailing the true extent of the government takeover of the economy and of private businesses, and how they are extorting those they can’t seize.
Last fall, as the U.S. economy seemed to be issuing its death rattle, a representative from Credit Suisse received a call from the Federal Reserve. The Fed, the voice on the other end chirped, was calling to congratulate the international financial giant on its prudence, Credit Suisse having admirably avoided becoming enmeshed in the subprime mortgage debacle. Bureaucracies not typically being in the business of issuing gold stars, the call was out of character.
The Fed’s representative continued, “Now we’ll need you to buy up some of the toxic assets”. But why would Credit Suisse do that, their employee asked, when they were one of the few major financial firms wise enough to avoid the investments in the first place? The Fed’s response was chilling: “Because someday you’ll need us”.
Welcome to the extortion economy.
A Nation of Children
I respectfully disagree with my colleagues Dave and Dana regarding the proper response to Obama’s election. It is understandable from a political perspective, but reckless from a policy position, to declare the day after Obama’s election that we will fight him at every turn. His speech last night was a masterpiece and gives hope that he will lead this country in the right direction, instead of implementing his ill-thought campaign promises.
Today, I spent the better part of the school day engaging my students on the election results. The overwhelming majority of them come from very conservative Republican households, and I knew that they would be in a fit. I implored them not to turn their disappointment into anger, and systematically went through some of the ridiculous rumors they have been told about Obama, flatly declaring each of them to be falsehoods. I also tried to convey the profound historical event that Obama’s election represented, and what this says about our country.
I had added credibility on this issue, since I told them (for the first time, despite their months-long badgering) that I am a Republican who voted for McCain. In the afternoon, I made my class watch both John McCain’s concession speech and Barack Obama’s victory speech and we discussed it.
But I also told them about friends and acquaintances of mine, both Republican and Democrat, who frankly embarrassed themselves over the last sixteen years by slandering the President, simply because he was from a different political party than they.
Earlier today, Andre classlessly implored conservatives to “get over” Obama’s election, even though there was nothing to warrant such a snort. It should be noted that Andre was one of the foremost savage slanderers of George Bush. He used to despicably triumph bad news about Iraq – which is to say, bad news for America – and recently took to calling the President “Dear Leader,” comparing him to a murderous dictator. When the President implemented serious, necessary law enforcement reforms, whose sole goal was to protect American citizens from violence, Andre declared that these were really stealth moves designed to enslave political opponents and were the positions of a monarch. Andre then began alternating “Great Leader” with “King George.”
Bush’s law enforcement moves were correct, constitutional, and done for the best of motives. They have garnered enormous praise from the national security community and, oh yeah, have kept America safe. Andre’s shrill and dishonest attacks on Republicans over these policies remains a disgusting, gutter-dwelling moment, and despicably, one that has brought embarrassment upon Andre for years!
I am determined not to be the pathetic smear artist that some of my Republican friends were during the Clinton administration. I am also determined never to stoop to the sick, risible depths some of my Democratic friends have achieved the last eight years. And today, I sought to guide my students away from such a fate of their own.
If President Obama veers left (which he can do simply by pushing his campaign promises), then he should be fought. But if he truly tries to govern from the center, then that is a different story. Patriotism demands that he be given the chance.
McCain vs. Obama, Part I
As a political observor and writer, I considered the election in 2000 — the disputed, razor-thin, bizzare, surreal, “Florida” election to be the ultimate in modern political drama, and a jolly good ride, as well.
I also thought that the 2004 election was captivating in that it was fought over the largest issue of the day (Iraq), and yet came down to a tiny number of votes. I recall that on the first half of election day, the numbers coming in looked great for Kerry. I had already announced the night before that I thought Kerry would pull it out, and apparently the Kerry HQ were giddily divying up jobs, while at the White House, the President was prepared to concede graciously, if that’s what the outcome required.
But later in the evening, ConClub contributors began to analyse numbers first in Florida, whereupon it was announced that although Kerry was leading in the Sunshine State, based on the remaining counties, Bush should win. This seemed outlandish at the time, until a few minutes passed and Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman issued a statement from the White House agreeing with the ConClub analysis in principle.
Inspired by this, our intrepid analysts shortly thereafter set their sights on Ohio, and a detailed analysis of Cuyahoga County followed. Ohio was where Kerry sought to hang his hat that night, and a big return in Cleveland was required. While the returns came into the Ohio Secretary of State office, Bush led, but Cuyahoga County remained uncounted, leading many Democrats and pundits to conclude that Kerry would win the state and the presidency. However, a meticulous ConClub, real-time, number-crunching session indicated that the votes necessary to carry Ohio for Kerry weren’t there in Cayahoga County. It was announced on our blog that, based on our analysis, Bush would win reelection. Other than the petulent, post-election whining about Ohio voting and the Diebold machine, this analysis proved to be effectively the last word in the election of 2004.
So now, here we are in 2008, and another pivotol election looms. Over the next five months, ConClub will provide a serious in-depth analysis of the campaign, written from the perspective of writers representing both candidates. We welcome the comments of both McCain supporters and Obama supporters, right through the election night in November. And whichever side should win the election, this site is sure to produce preeminent election coverage and commentary.
Denver Classroom Teachers Are Bad for Kids
In response to Denver Public Schools’ offer of one of the largest pay increases in state history, the teacher’s union has told members to prepare for a strike. Today, demonstrating that any raises given to them would be money wasted, the teachers called in “sick” en masse. At one school, Academia Ana Marie Sandoval, a dual-language school, all 16 classroom teachers stayed home — just two days before the end of the school year.
There is no way that teachers who care about their students would have pulled such a bush league stunt. And there is no way that teachers who don’t care about students can ever be part of the solution for rescuing failing schools.
Today in America, the teachers’ union is one of the most nefarious organizations afflicting our children’s education. True educational reform won’t happen until the union is eliminated.
Incidentally, E and I, as charter school teachers, are not part of the union, and have no employment protection, such as tenure. All of which is fine with me. That just means that we are like almost all other American workers. If we perform a good service for our employer, we will keep getting paid. If we don’t, we’ll get fired.
UPDATE: The liberal Denver Post editorial page ripped the teachers’ stunt in an editorial today.
Texas Polygamy Case Appears to be Unraveling
The case that was begun with a bogus phone call, now appears to be getting crushed under the weight of overzealousness. In a sharp rebuke, a Texas court has ruled that the state’s outrageous assertion that 434 compound children were part of a single family cannot stand.
This case has proceeded like so many similar ones:
1) The government raids an unpopular group
2) The government releases lurid and inflamatory “facts” through a professional PR organization
3) The media and the public compete to see who can offer the most severe condemnation of the unpopular group
4) Slowly, it emerges that many of the government’s claims turn out to be outright lies
5) Courts and/or the media shake off the initial story and begin to reveal the truth
6) Immediately, everyone loses interest, the government loses (or presses on) and the shattered unpopular group is left to pick up the pieces
FN — [Definitely Not!] — P
Earlier today, I heard a song on the radio that I had never heard before, and immediately loved it. So much so that when I got home, I just had to Google it. How embarrassed I felt to learn that it was in fact a Hannah Montana bubble-gum pop hit.
Oh well, I still love it.
La Vie Boheme!
Last night, I and another teacher took a couple of our students to Colorado Springs to see Rent. It had been years since I’d seen it, and I had forgotten how special it is. During the opening number, there was a palpable electricity in the hall, and by the end the girls were in tears and on their feet cheering at the same time. One of them described the evening as a magical experience.
It’s difficult to explain the power of Rent to someone who’s never seen it – harder, still, to those who have seen it and feel nothing. But it’s not an exaggeration to say that for me, Rent stands as the single most powerful and beautiful artistic affirmation of the innate humanity in every human being.
Sometimes derided as merely the pop production of a degraded 90′s culture, Rent will instead become established as a classic American musical, and will surely be touching audiences a generation from now.
The Rain in Spain
Regarding my scarcity: As E pointed out, the spring is often hectic for teachers. And as he implied, I have been increasingly spending what disposable time and money I have at the theater. Denver has, by many accounts, one of the top five theater scenes in the country. In the last two months, I’ve seen 16 different plays, three of them twice. I’ve got 12 more scheduled for the next five weeks. I frequently take students with me, most of whom had never previously been exposed to theater on this scale. Next month, I am taking two students to Colorado Springs to see the touring production of RENT.
As good as the local productions are, the real magic was found in the smash British revival of My Fair Lady. uber-producer Cameron Mackintosh (Phantom of the Opera, Cats, Les Miserables, Miss Saigon) personally produced the revival, and the West End cast is fantastic. The tour has moved to the West Coast, and I heartily recommend that Andre see it in LA (it’s there through April 27) or in Orange County in June.
Tenth Circuit: Nacchio Gets New Trial
As E the Wise and I had previously revealed here on Conclub, Joe Nacchio’s trial was another example of a politicized prosecution and the bigotry of the masses. Now, the Court of Appeals has thrown out the conviction and ordered a new trial. If Nacchio is as stupid as he was at his last trial, he will again hire Herb Stern to defend him. Stern will again do a piss poor job, and Nacchio will again be convicted. If he’s smart, he’ll hire an expert criminal defense lawyer (rather than a corporate specialist like Stern).
Supreme Court Appears Ready to Affirm Second Amendment
The US Supreme Court seemed sympathetic today to arguments that the 2nd Amendment protects a personal right to firearms.
I’ve always believed that this is clearly the correct judgement, but also that the whole controversy could have been avoided had the Founders correctly punctuated the Amendment.
It reads: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
The first and last commas are superfluous. A comma would be necessary in these spots only if it were seperating two independent clauses, which it is not. In the first instance, it is seperating two dependent clauses. In the latter, it is seperating an independent from a dependent clause.
Correctly punctuated, the sentence becomes clearer. The first clause (“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, …”) is merely explanatory, and thus the weight of the law is entirely on the second clause (“… the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Re: When the inmates are running the asylum
The point on Skittles is legitimate.
The point on the “gay porn” is asinine.
Matt Barber Warner Todd Huston is the columnist whom Dave links, and he is an obvious moron.
… Barber, director of cultural issues with Concerned Women for America, was amazed by the explicit nature of the book. ["Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes"]
Matt Barber, director of cultural issues with Concerned Women for America, said, “This isn’t a First Amendment issue. This is about school officials betraying the community trust. Heads need to roll here. Assigning this racist, pornographic smut to high school kids is nothing short of child abuse.”
That’s an actual quote. Says Huston:
This same school district has been in hot water before for trying to slip in under the radar homosexual advocacy into the curriculum.
The school district and NSSA clashed last year over a freshman orientation session where students talked about bullying and other issues and included gay students relating their experience in high school.
So allowing gay students to relate their experiences amounts to slipping homosexual advocacy into the classroom? It’s hard to determine if these guys are really that ignorant, or if they are among the many fanatical, right-wing Christians who simply pretend to be low morons to mask their boiling hatred. In either case, they’re an embarrassment.
Why The Surge Worked: The Inside Story
Great commanders often come in pairs: Eisenhower and Patton, Grant and Sherman, Napoleon and Davout, Marlborough and Eugene, Caesar and Labienus. Generals David Petraeus and Raymond Odierno can now be added to the list.
Improbable Democratic Race Continues to Intrigue
(To see an enlarged map, click here) 
The Sunday front pages were splashed with speculation about the lingering — if not festering — Democratic presidential primary. The Denver Post reports that key Democrats are fearing a brokered convention. The last such one occured in 1952, and it has long been thought to be a virtual impossibility in modern times. And the Times of London reveals that Clinton has a three-pronged plan for victory.
Meanwhile, the disastrous Michigan and Florida potential revotes are edging toward a conclusion that could — quite improbably – simultaneously cause harm to Clinton, Obama, Michigan Democrats, Florida Democrats, the odds for a Democratic candidate in the fall, and the Democratic National Committee.
Glenn Greenwald Proven to be Wrong
Truth be told, not only Greenwald but almost all liberal bloggers, including Conclub’s own Andre the Defiant, have now been slapped down by American courts.
[NOTE: I apologize for the absence of links; the communications I reference here pre-dated ConClub's transition to WordPress and its search capabilities.]
When it was revealed that the Bush administration was trying to eavesdrop on terrorists, many commentators offered their analysis of the legalities involved. At the time, Glenn Greenwald insisted that the program was clearly illegal, and that anyone who argued otherwise was lying.
Andre bought this line of reasoning, prompting me to do two things: 1) I utterly refuted Glenn Greenwald’s embarrassingly ignorant legal arguments, and 2) I stated that I welcomed a Supreme Court analysis because I promised that the Court would uphold the program.
After a radical Detroit judge initially ruled against the plan in an opinion that was almost universally recognized as ignorant, Greenwald and others bragged, but I all-but-guaranteed that the Supreme Court would jettison the comical Detroit opinion and ultimately uphold the intelligence program.
Now, in a slightly-reported decision, everything I said would happen, did. The program is legal, and the Greenwald assertion that suggested that anyone who thought otherwise was a rogue conspirator, has been proven (as I said at the time) to be the ravings of a lunatic.
President Obama
For about four years, I have consistently predicted that Hillary Clinton would be the next President. But my prognostications could not have known the supercriticality that was to be the Barack Obama campaign. It is not yet my place to argue against the elevation of a man who was — just two years ago — a part-time IL legislator . But it has become clear that the McCain campaign will face a Barack Obama who is dynamic, characteristic of progress and energy, and forward-thinking.
And for bettor or worse, Obama’s campaign is a heavy load, headed downhill.
Bob Knight Resigns
I’ll admit to being an unabashed fan of basketball coach Bobby Knight. I know that people either love him or hate him, and I’m firmly in the first camp. When I was in high school, I read Season on the Brink. As soon as I finished the book, I paused, turned to the first page, and promptly re-read it cover to cover. I was hooked.
Since he left Indiana, I have always hoped that he could get back to the Final Four one last time, but it became apparent pretty quickly after he arrived in Lubbock that his glory days as a coach were behind him. Today, he announced his resignation from Texas Tech, and this appears to be it for the General. He leaves the sport having won 3 national championships, a gold medal, and as the all-time winningest coach in college basketball history.
Nicolas Sarkozy: Badass
In response to Dave’s post below, I post seperately so I can use these pictures.
Doesn’t this picture to the left just scream badass? No, wait, it yells — no icily stares. Yes, that’s it, it icily stares badass.
At any moment, I expect Sarkozy to hear a gunshot, shove his wife and child into a speeding car, and whip out a 9mm from his belt, which he will use to pick off the several would-be assassins one by one.
The New Morality: Is Defaulting on a Mortgage Now Ok?
I am a veritable anti-populist. I suppose the term for that would usually be an elitist, but that’s a moniker most often associated with those who own businesses or portfolios or stocks. Or at least those who own a mortgage. Nope, I’m so poor I would do a grave disservice to the term “elitist” and I suspect that the grandiloquent array of legitimate elitists would just as soon I avoid their club altogether. A cease and desist letter from a Yale-educated lawyer can’t be far off.
So when I assert my right-wing economic bona fides, I trust you’ll believe me. I have always maintained that companies exist solely for profit, and that if it is in their business interest to lay off workers or close plants or slash labor costs through outsourcing, not only should they be forgiven for their decisions, we should demand that they do so, as indeed their stockholders do. In fact, any corporate director who forgoes profits for some ethereal reason should be condemned and replaced. Even if I don’t own his company’s stock, someone does, dammit!
So how come I find the logic of those homeowners who intentionally screw the banks and walk right away from their commitments impossible to argue with?
Michael Vick’s pit bulls are becoming pets
Here’s a heartwarming story about how the pit bulls rescued from Vick’s estate are being turned into pets in loving homes.
(AP) — His back resting comfortably against her chest, Hector nestles his massive canine head into Leslie Nuccio’s shoulder, high-fiving pit bull paws against human hands. The big dog — 52 pounds — is social, people-focused, happy now, it seems, wearing a rhinestone collar in his new home in sunny California.
“Tear down this wall!”
In his post on Reagan, PG Warner aims to educate the masses about the true Ronald Reagan. In so doing, he makes a few outlandish claims that require a response. PGW uses one fact to simultaneously dismiss the idea that Reagan won the Cold War and to trash his economic legacy: The Saudi decision to drop the price of oil.
He’s right, that decision did greatly help our economy and severely weaken the Soviets — which is why Reagan and his lieutenants conceived the idea.
The Reagan administration began courting the Saudis immediately upon taking office. They also hampered the construction of the Soviet pipeline from Siberia. After the USSR spent tens of billions building the thing, Washington and Riydh implemented the plan to drop the price of oil from $30 per barrel to $12. Not coincidentally, $12 is what it cost the Soviets to produce and ship the oil, and so the pipeline sat empty.
This was just one of numerous covert operations the Reagan administration undertook in their plan to defeat the Soviet Union. It’s all laid out by Peter Schweizer in his book Victory: The Reagan administration’s secret strategy that hastened the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Warner also makes this claim: “Reagan talked tuff, Pope John Paul II and George W. Bush have lived tuff.” The suggestion that Reagan’s toughness paled beside Little Bush is absurd.
The argument gets stranger still:
A Polish Priest and a Polish Labor leader had something to do with it in the end. They worked at great risk to their very lives, throughout their lives, to bring an end to communism. President Reagan made a good speech in front of a wall in an allied country. He did it under the protection the Secret Service and the United States Army. He increased spending in the area of defence to such a level that it hastened the economic downfall of the Soviet Union. He did that from the comfort of the oval office.
This is just silly. What was Reagan supposed to do, belly crawl into Eastern Europe with a knife in his teeth?
Ronald Reagan was as instrumental in defeating communism as any individual in world history.
PGW concludes thusly: “People actually stood up to the Evil Empire, just regular people, and were martyred upon the alter of freedom; and you actually said Reagan ‘won’ the cold war? Go tell that to the Hungarians my friend.”
I don’t have to. They seem to already know it, which is why they built a statue of Reagan in Budapest.
Tim Masters: Free at Last
Today, Tim Masters was released from prison in a suit bought for him by his tireless attorneys, David Wymore and Maria Liu. Meanwhile, comeuppance may be on the way.
Mere hours after the release of Tim Masters, the Weld County District Attorney held a press conference signifying a new chapter in the case….
Now, Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck has been appointed as a special prosecutor to look into alleged misconduct with the Fort Collins police department.
“I won’t name anybody particularly, but (we’re investigating) individuals within the Fort Collins police department, and the scope involved possible perjury and illegal wiretapping,” Buck said.
Update: Be sure to also read the story of Tim Masters as Conclub covered it here, here and here. It’s a compelling story that all who are concerned about justice should read.
Re: A travesty of justice is about to be corrected
A 15-year old boy.
That’s all Tim Masters was when he was first accused of murdering someone he never even knew. At that young age, his life was taken from him. Dave reported earlier that justice has finally emerged, and Masters will be freed from prison, where he was serving a life sentence for the crime that everyone now acknowledges he had nothing to do with.
Here’s Masters today:
It should be noted that Masters was convicted in large part because Detective Jim Broderick of the Ft. Collins police department forced the investigation in that direction because he alone was convinced he had his man. He came to this conclusion after browbeating, screaming at, and lying to a teenage boy in an interrogation room for four hours straight.
DET. JIM BRODERICK
But he was also convicted because prosecutors Terry Gilmore and Jolene Blair violated the rules of ethics to gin up a conviction on an innocent boy. Where are Gilmore and Blair today? They are both judges in Ft. Collins.
Gillmore Blair
Now, Gilmore is being investigated for misconduct in the case, and Broderick for perjury.
And Timothy Masters will be left to try to put back together the pieces of his life.
The Folly of Stanley Fish
On Monday, Hairy Beast lined up behind the recent opinions of think-tanker George Leef and Florida International’s Stanley Fish, regarding the supposed uselessness of the study of humanities. While I have great respect for these guys’ intellect, the arguments proffered are so poorly reasoned and full of holes, that I suspect they were put forth more for their provocative nature than as a serious endeavor. Having said that, I’ll fall for the trap and engage.
First, it’s important to note that this triad doesn’t really offer a uniform argument as much as it relies on shifting positions and a moving target. Prof. Fish has had to offer a lengthy update to his original post, because so many people made the mistake of believing what it said, rather than what Fish apparently intended to say. This is convenient, and necessary, for his original argument held no water whatsoever.
”You can’t argue that a state’s economy will benefit by a new reading of Hamlet,” Fish wrote in his first posting. Nobody was arguing the alternative, but if that be the test of the usefulness of a subject, then by Fish’s logic, no state university should ever offer any courses in anything that won’t produce quantifiable, material payback. This sounds like pining for the glory days of communist Eastern Europe, which turned out not be very glorious.
But Fish clarifies: Read the rest of this entry
Ron Paul Denies Racist Mailing
From The Hotline
CNN is reporting about various newsletters that were sent out shortly after the 1992 L.A. riots:
“Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks,” one excerpt reads.
Another passage: “The criminals who terrorism [sic] our cities in riots and on every non-riot day are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children they are trained to hate whites and believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills. To steal as much money from the white enemy as possible.”
Ron Paul denied that he personally authored the pieces in question, and claimed to find them “abhorrent.”
However, in the October 1992 edition, the writer describes car-jacking as “the hip-hop thing to do on the urban youth who play unsuspecting whites like pianos…. I frankly don’t know what to make of such advice, but even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self-defense. For the animals are coming.” I probably don’t need to tell you where Ron Paul’s longtime residence is.
I can’t imagine why people would jump to the conclusion that Ron Paul himself wrote—or at least approved of—these sentiments.
Although, now that I think about it, it might have something to do with the fact that the newsletters are called: “The Ron Paul Political Report.”
This is Why George Will is George Will
How about this line, regarding the Clinton campaign in New Hampshire?
Mountaineering on molehills, she said Obama has changed some positions. But people inebriated by “hope” for “change” are not smitten about issues, concerning which the differences between him and her must be measured by ideological micrometers. Voters are attracted to him as iron filings are to a magnet. Mind hardly enters into this response to his nimbus of novelty, and it is impossible to reason people out of affiliations they have not been reasoned into.
DFV’s 2008 Predictions
“PREDICTIONS …. DFV!”
Following Huckabee’s win in Iowa and McCain’s triumph in New Hampshire, Romney will win Michigan, setting up a battle royale in South Carolina. After a weakened Huckabee edges out the others in what is a virtual three-way tie in the Palmetto State, the battle moves to Florida where a waiting, rested, and severely sunburned Rudy Giuliani snares a razor-thin win. For the first time in history, four different men garner victories in the first five primaries, causing electoral chaos to erupt. After a series of backroom meetings with party leaders and major fundraisers, Romney agrees to drop out and endorse John McCain in exchange for the #2 spot on the ticket. It breaks the logjam and gives McCain the Republican nomination.
Iraq will emerge as a more contentious issue than it has ever been as both parties furiously insist that events have proven them correct. The fight during the fall campaign will equal Vietnam-era clashes.
Stem-cell research will fade as an issue because continued technological breakthroughs in cord blood and other kinds of cutting edge research will render it an increasingly moot point.
In July, Illinois Senator Barack Obama will give the most stirring speech at a Democratic convention since Jesse Jackson’s 1984 address in San Francisco. Following his speech, Obama will have left the convention crowd roaring and the pundits gasping their accolades.
The new European Union constitution will become a reality, with almost all major dissent occurring beneath the rug. Almost all. French President Nicolas Sarkozy will assail the content and process leading to the constitution and will emerge as the bad-ass of Europe. The American Left will immediately decide they hate him.
At the end of his speech, and to continuous and deafening applause, Obama will enthusiastically laud “the next president of the United States, Hillary Clinton!”
As Bush prepares to leave office, a crescendo of criticism of him will emerge (first leaked, then open) from the CIA and the State Department. The furor will damage the McCain campaign, but will utterly pulverize the remaining integrity of Langley and Foggy Bottom as trustworthy government institutions.
The incidents of reported teacher-student sexual liaisons will continue to skyrocket, with at least one recognizable national television personality dedicating himself to full-time coverage of these incidents.
Having roared back from the electoral grave in New Hampshire in January, Hillary Clinton will win a close but decisive presidential victory over John McCain. Almost immediately after securing the White House, President-elect Clinton will put out the word that the US will be in Iraq for the foreseeable future, “because of the outgoing administration’s failures.” Her supporters won’t buy it, and will assail her for selling out.
In December, at a Washington hotel late one night, Mrs. Clinton will say to the nation’s soon-to-be First Gentleman, “These leftists are fucking clueless.” Bill will smile his agreement. They will both be right.
New Hampshire Looms
New Hampshire is shaping up to be a tremendously pivitol primary for both parties. Right now Obama has overtaken Clinton, and McCain is holding his lead against Romney. One could plausibly make the case that whichever two of those four lose, are toast.
BTW, how come ConClub’s own Hairy Beast isn’t live blogging this momentous affair? I sort of expected him to have secured an exclusive on-line interview with a candidate by now.
McCain has snared a major Michigan endorsement, and rumors are that Thompson will drop out after NH and throw his support behind the senator from Arizona. Thompson has strong support in S. Carolina, as does McCain. Should John McCain win New Hampshire, and follow that with victories in SC and then MI, the nomination could be his.
But not so fast, says Dana Pico in a powerful endorsement of Mitt Romney at Common Sense. I have to say that Romney was very impressive in the debate tonight, and I would enthusiastically support McCain, Romney, or Giuliani in the fall. And, yes, I’d support Huckabee, too, although I’m sure his time is about up.
One thing I have to disagree with Dana on, though, is this absurd sentence:
John McCain tells us that he’s for tax cuts, but, going into the 2000 campaign, when we actually had a budget surplus, he was very much opposed to George Bush’s proposed tax cuts, wanting something much smaller; why should I think that he’d support reducing taxes (especially when, as a senator, he took no serious actions to cut government spending) when we have a deficit?
The bold is my own, but I include the whole quote to be fair to Dana, because his overall point is valid. However, the fact is that with the possible exception of Tom Coburn, there is not a single senator in all of Washington who has done more recently to cut government spending than John McCain. Surely our friend from Philly would admit as much.
Re: Hilarious Sensitivity Training Video
Another funny video, also from That Single Guy, a site I highly recommend. This one’s good!
Visual Proof! Romney Unfit to Be Commander-in-Chief
Doing my part to help the McCain surge in New Hampshire, I feel the need to point out what my be the crippling blow in the faltering campaign of Mitt Romney. Although we only have a still frame, it’s clear to me at least that the man who used to govern the Red Sox state (not to be confused with Red Sox Nation, a noxious, borderless amalgamation of johnny-come-lately’s) does in fact THROW LIKE A GIRL! I’m not sure his campaign can recover.
I wonder if the editors of National Review were aware of this?
Re: The Case for Rudy Giuliani
In his endorsement of Rudy Giuliani, Eric makes several misguided claims or characterizations about John McCain and the endorsements he received from me and PG Warner. In commenting on our endorsements, E writes that “unlike the Scribe, PG does a good job of acknowledging McCain’s troubled path on the domestic front.” But in a comment to Paul’s post I wrote that
PGW’s post says it all perfectly. If anything, he understates the problems with McCain-Feingold, which I said at the time was the most plainly unconstitutional restriction on free speech since the Alien and Sedition Acts. Over time, the courts will whittle away at McCain-Feingold, if only because the actual enforcement of its nefarious provisions will be so grotesque an affront to the First Amendment that those currently asleep to the issue or deluded about its consequences will finally see the reality.
It’s just that I think other issues are paramount right now, like foreign policy and electability, to name but two.
Eric then foolishly tries to confront McCain’s national security bona fides head on:
The sole argument that both DFV and PGW had for going with McCain is that he stuck by his guns on the Iraq War. Far from coming up with an exhaustive list of foreign policy achievements, their sole argument is that he advocated more troops. What they fail to acknowledge is that on other security issues, McCain’s positions are murky. Read the rest of this entry
Paul and Lincoln, Buchanan and Hitler
Let me clarify my views on the revisionist opinions of WWII and the Civil War. I think PGW’s analysis of WWII is perfect. It would have been pure folly for us to have left the final outcome to Europe, both at the time and in retrospect. I rate FDR as the 2nd greatest President in large part because he wisely insisted on absolute surrender from the Germans and insisted that the US should have control over much of Europe and Germany via sheer conquest. No Western leader would have the guts to assert such “imperial conquest” today.
I rank FDR 2nd, because I rank Lincoln 1st.
His foresight and guts made the issue of the Union absolutely non-negotiable. Lincoln knew that the emerging nation depended on this position, and that great positions are worth fighting for. But I have to disagree with PG Warner in asserting that the contrapositive to these positions is irrational, or regarding the Civil War position, insane.
In order to assert US sovereignty over swaths of Europe, FDR had to first coldly decide to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of US boys for the cause. I happen to think that ability to make such decisions is what makes him a great leader, but I don’t think it wholly impossible to sincerely and rationally have said at the time that the cost was too high. I have no doubt that there were thousands of US mothers who felt that way.
Similarly, I think that it is far from insane to suggest that had Lincoln known that over one million American citizens would perish from the war, he might have offered one of the many compromise proposals that were in the works in early 1861. There were men on both sides who urged these compromises on Lincoln, just as there were many men who opposed the compromises, as well.
It is obvious that many who wish the US hadn’t marched to Berlin, are also soft on Nazism, and that a great majority of those who call Lincoln a warmonger today pine for the Old South. I won’t dispute PGW’s placing Buchanan and Paul in these categories. I merely point out that there are some bright minds who hold some of the same views that these men hold, on a variety of topics, including their off-beat historical analysis.
Frenzied Leftist Site of the Day
Does This Boy Need U.S. Military Oversight ?
No, Michael Blaine, but these folks might
Below, a man named Michael Blaine commented on one of the posts. Blaine has a blog that he linked to, so I thought I’d check it out. In a truly egregious post, he posts this picture of a smiling African boy and then laments the American efforts to have a forward military base in Africa. The picture, by the way, is of a South African boy, as westernized an African country as there is, and one helped immensely by the US military. Or see here, for example, as S. Africa’s defense minister raves about the US/S. African military partnership. So it’s not surprising that S. Africa is also the most prosperous African nation, and also the freest. After all, that’s what tends to follow US military involvement. It also tends to produce smiling African children like those above, instead of the stacked corpses in areas of Africa left untouched by American intervention.
Just don’t tell that to Michael Blaine.
UPDATE on the Canadian Gestapo
In my earlier post regarding Canada’s legal structure to silence political views unapproved by The State, Andre reassured us that it would all go away: “And my guess is that this will turn out the same way the “Gays suck” preacher thing did… laughed out of the Canadian Supreme Court.” I’m not sure if Andre has a different case in mind, but the case of Stephen Boissoin hasn’t caused quite the mirth among judges that Andre had thought.
In a ruling released just last week, Alberta’s Human Rights Panel has ruled that this “Gays suck” preacher has criminally spoken aloud, and must be punished.
His sentence will be announced soon, most probably by the Queen of Hearts, I fear.
Fred Barnes Must Read ConClub
Me, Dec. 17: “The Astonishing Triumph in Iraq“
Freddie the Beetle, Dec. 19: “An Astonishing Turnaround on Iraq“
Me the Writer: “Can we sue Barnes for plagiarism?”
Me the Lawyer: “No, stupid, and stop bothering me.”
Tony Parker: “I Never Cheated On Eva”
As Conclub readers know, we’ve been on the story. Now, Parker claims it was all a misunderstanding.
A Nagging Question About the Democrats
Good find, Peej, on the Iraq violence graph. If you look closely at the graph, you can see that the decline begins almost precisely when the surge fully kicked in. Recall that in the surge’s early days, Democrats were gloating expressing sorrow that the surge didn’t seem to be working, and the Pentagon said, “wait until all the troops are there.”
If Andre and Wes are right, and Democrats truly want to win in Iraq, then shouldn’t some of them, any of them, one of them, mention the fact that their original analysis was so spectacularly flawed??
After all, if their purpose in giddily reluctantly pointing out when the surge didn’t seem to be working was merely to advise on a productive course of action, then nobility requires them now to admit their error and urge a continued course of action, right?
Yes, yes, I know. I’m not naive. I fully understand that the whole “we really want to win” line is little more than boilerplate pap. And I’m well aware that the ginned-up outrage at “having their patriotism questioned” — especially since the charge was almost never in response to an actual attack on their patriotism — is mostly a manifestation of the dark insecurities their conscience harbors.
Again I ask: If all of the vitriol has been offered for the most patriotic of reasons, then shouldn’t there be some Democratic politicians, writers, bloggers, or ConClubbers who sometimes take to task their own party’s ideas? And let me clarify something. Last time I asked this, ConClub’s Dems responded by trying to prove their bona fides as Democratic Party critics… by asserting how angry they are with their party for not being more anti-Bush, more anti-surge, more radical, more leftist, more obstructionist, and more confrontational.
Well, don’t go too far out on a limb, boys, but what would really demonstrate a commitment to American success would be a willingness to assail your party for their own missteps on Iraq, as they occur. How come there’s not a single Democrat (either elected or in the punditocracy) who will acknowledge the disastrous notion of a US withdrawal? Why are there no Dems who are willing to give voice to the obvious conclusions that experience affords? Why isn’t there anyone on the Left who has a truly defensibly patriotic position??
Unsure how to proceed? Let me help you out. Here’s a template for a liberal, realistic, patriotic dove position –
My sole focus is on what’s best for America, the world, humanity, decency, and all that is good. That’s why I’m a liberal Democrat.
[*clearing of the throat* Work with me here]
In Iraq, I only advocate what I believe to be the most effective course for both America and the Iraqis, without regard to the political ramifications of my positions.
For this reason, I opposed the initial invasion.
I deplored the Bush Administration’s lies, the media’s acquiescence, the country’s jingoism, and my own party’s weakness. After eventually becoming resigned to the war itself, I then became outraged at the administration incompetence and corruption. I have weighed in on Abu Ghraib, waterboarding, Gitmo, nighttime raids in Iraq, Hamdi, and Padilla, but in each case, solely because of my love for this nation.
That’s why now, I sometimes recognize and proclaim, the sheer irresponsibility of some Democratic positions. Ideas like ‘complete withdrawal’ and ‘rapid redeployment’ strike me as absurd. Even the notion that we would now cede influence in the emerging Iraq to other nations by breaking camp and splitting, seems unwise to me.
But what’s more, because I’m not bound by any code of loyalty (except my professed love of country and humanity), I am willing to assail Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi for their failure to join me in some of these conclusions. And because I’m an honest broker, and not some whore for ‘my side,’ I’m even willing to declare that the Reid-Pelosi position is one borne solely out of political calculation, and it sickens me that my party’s leaders are advocating obviously foolish policy in a naked attempt to gain more political power. But because I owe my soul to no man, I’m not afraid to say this publicly.
Is there such a man among the Left? Anyone? Anywhere? I suppose the very public hit job on Joe Lieberman for his honesty has had the intended chilling effect.
[And not a soul can doubt that Lieberman is vastly more honest and true to himself in his sentiments than all of the plastic, "honest-we-really-want-to-win" gang.]
But if today’s American left-wing has even a shred of intellectual integrity, someone will emerge to face the slanderous arrows of their fellow leftists and the approbation of all of the lefty blogs.
But is there such a man?
The Astonishing Triumph in Iraq
Since the Democrats gleefully took power a year ago, the federal budget has continued to balloon unabated. The invidious earmarks stand untouched. The broken budget process hasn’t received so much as a strip of duct tape. And much to the chagrin of the left wing, the strategy and the funding in Iraq have remained solely under the domain of the White House.
And for that, all Americans, and all Iraqis, should be thankful.
In what is surely the unlikeliest and most significant story since the spectacular Republican fall of 2006, the situation formerly known as the debacle in Iraq has been transformed into an unmitigated, undeniable victory.
No less a committed liberal than Trudy Rubin says that the strategy of Gen. David Petraeus “…Turned Iraq Around.”
In the London Times, Tim Hames calls it the “story of the year.”
By any measure, the US-led surge has been little short of a triumph. The number of American military fatalities is reduced sharply, as is the carnage of Iraqi civilians, Baghdad as a city is functioning again, oil output is above where it stood in March 2003 but at a far stronger price per barrel and, the acid test, many of those who fled to Syria and Jordan are today returning home.
Mr. Hames does offer up some caveats, but they only confirm, rather than detract from, the Veatch/McCain Doctrine. [All right, the McCain/Veatch Doctrine]
Also, there is a telling contrast between what has been won by the American “surge” and lost through the British “slump”. We once boasted about the virtues of a “softly-softly” style, allegedly honed in Northern Ireland, but the truth is that the British Forces have been so softly-softly that the local militias long ago decided that we were not very serious about using our troops to exercise influence.
Having dished out his criticism, Hames concludes by offering his prize:
The tragedy is that the approach of General David Petraeus could and should have been adopted four years ago in the aftermath of Saddam Hussein’s enforced departure. One prominent American politician alone has spent that time publicly demanding the extra soldiers which, in 2007, have been Iraq’s salvation. That statesman is John McCain.
I point this out merely for informational purposes.
The Canadian Speech Gestapo
UPDATE: Ottawa’s David Warren is on the case. “Then They Came for Mark Steyn…”
One of Western Civilization’s greatest writers, Mark Steyn, now finds himself on trial before two Canandian courts who are asserting their legal authority to limit and punish speech which offends the sensibilites of the State. The fact that Canada’s teeming mass of leftists has enacted laws that are in fact at war with all of our Western liberal traditions, should dissapoint us, but not surprise us. After all, Canadian politics and higher ed are roughly equivalent to their American counterparts, in that they are defiantly anti-intellectual to the point of backwardness.
The difference is that in American media and acadamia, there are at least a few isolated outposts of conservatism. It is telling that leftists in America are trying to shut down and silence such voices of dissent. But it is also telling that all of the fanatical, whackjob, lefty websites in America (or, as Andre calls them, his entire source of information in the world today) are silent on the brown-shirted fascist movement just north of us. Indeed, those of us who have read their bilge know that Kos, My DD, ThinkProgress, FireDogLake, and countless others would in fact vigorously support the shackling of Mark Steyn. Nothing could make clearer the lunancy of today’s left-wing or the complete abscence of credibility of these clowns when they whine and shriek about the coming fascism of the Bush brigade.
If Andre has even a shred of integrity, or intellect, or committment to liberalism, or dignity as a person, he will assail both Canada’s Gestapo for the latest march in their Gleichschaltung, and the American left-wing blogosphere for their fellow-travelling.
Nevada lawyer Todd Phillips proves he’s every bit the moron Steve Horner is
It all occurred to Todd Phillips when his wife was offered a cheaper rate to join an athletic club than he was. Being the cad that he is, Philips, an attorney (obviously), demanded that his wife be bilked out of every cent they could get from her. In this manner, the simple-minded litigator seeks to strike a blow for freedom.
ConClub has in the past dealt with similarly deluded arguments from Steve Horner, the other lawyer with far too much time on his hands. To get a feel for just how ignorant Todd Phillips is, read the afrticle. There you will find that a quote from someone named Prof. John F. Banzhaf III, who is a professor of public interest law at George Washington University Law School in Washington. Prof Banzhaf foolishly thinks that cheaper rates for women are motivated by a desire to give the weaker sex a chivilrous boost, or that it is a sinister plot to get them all drunk.
How can you become a major Nevada attorney or a prominent East coast professor, and not know the slightest thing about basic economics or simple human behavior? And how can our society buckle to the dimmest bulbs among us?
The Republicans’ Folly
I’ve long since predicted that Hillary Clinton will be the next President, and there’s no doubt in my mind that she will do just that in 2008. The only man who could’ve defeated her was John McCain, but the GOP appears ready, in its idiocy, to reject him.
ConClub contributors and readers are predominantly Republican, yet almost every single one of them opposes McCain, often for the pettiest and most juvinile reasons.
McCain is so clearly superior to every other candidate on foreign policy, the War on Terror, governmental reform, and federal spending, that it is impossible for anyone to argue that they care much about those issues unless they support his candidacy. Only Huckabee has a stronger claim on social conservatism, and at this point in our history, to elect a governor from a small southern state whose candidacy has been almost excusively an appeal to religious narrowism would be irresponsible folly.
Regarding the issue of our day, Iraq in general and the surge in particular, the legend of McCain has actually been caught by his reality. Andre, whose patriotism level is such that he buckles over in laughter every time this national hero stumbles, used to scoff at any surge-proponents. Now, those who opposed the surge or were indifferent to it are obvious buffoons, and any failure on their part to immediately announce as much should be greeted as a tacit acceptence that they are struggling mightily to even pretend to root for America in this war.
The surge is, by the way, the strategy that John McCain (and I) have been urging for YEARS now, demonstrating that unlike the lightweights who fill out the Republican field, he has offered serious, specific plans for victory, and has often done so at great political cost to himself. But no matter. His past speeches have hurt some feelings and his immigration ideas have ruffled some feathers.
But as McCain adviser Phil Gramm has said (himself another great candidate the Republicans foolishly ditched for Bob Dole), “Deep in their hearts, Republican primary voters know John McCain is the only great man running for president.”
No doubt. But does that matter to any of them?
Baseball’s Disgrace
In 1998, Roger Clemens began the year 5-6. After that, he allegedly began shooting steroids, and then went 15-0 with a 2.29 ERA. Defenders of Barry Bonds have long since emphasized that “everybody was doing it,” and today they got some serious support for their argument. If only this made things seem better, instead of far, far worse.
The Mitchell Report fingered names like Clemens, Pettitte, and Tejada, but it might as well have added the names Selig and Fehr, because the report demonstrated a total and complete failure of the sport of baseball.
Those who have dismissed the rampant steroid abuse of Bonds, Mark McGuire, Sammy Sosa, and now Roger Clemens, miss the obvious imperative point that the records those men have broken would stand intact today, but for the massive amounts of illegal chemicals they injected into their bodies. It should also be noted that while the report named over 80 names, and alluded to dozens more, there were many such names that never came up, nor likely ever will. The absence of names like Biggio, Helton, Jeter, and Rodriguez are as damning as any names on the list. They give lie to the notion that “everyone did it,” that it was necessary to win, or that there is no moral component in the decision to go the ‘roid route.
This generation’s superstars have stained the sport and obliterated its records. The last ten years are now disgraced, but that decade has also soiled the entire history of the National Pastime. How this calamity can be breezily dismissed by the apologists for atrocity, boggles the mind.
Ladies, do you want guys to be honest or nice?
MSNBC’s website tries awfully hard to produce cutting-edge news/blog/commentary, sometimes too hard, but they get a hit with Paul Janka’s latest entry, “Inside the mind of a serial seducer.” Janka describes not only how he wantonly seeks out sex with all the women he dates, but brags about the fact that he’s open about it with them — and us. It’s a piece sure to infuriate many media critics (and not a few ConClub readers and writers), but I find it refreshing.
Janka’s two aims when going out with a woman are “to have fun and to maintain my integrity as a man. Maintaining my integrity means honoring what I want in the process and not being manipulated by a woman’s agenda.” A woman’s agenda, according to Janka, includes dinners, gifts, and nights at the opera, but not necessarily sex.
Not necessarily. And that’s where Janka’s theory kicks in. “I found that unless I force a decision upon the woman, I learn nothing about her,” he writes. ”Is she open-minded, a risk-taker, or closed and conservative? Can she adjust to new information, or does it confuse her? In my experience, the real interesting part of dating is the drama that unfolds when I’m unyielding about a position and I get to see how the woman reacts.”
Now I’ll catch flack for creating a false dichotomy between “nice guys” and “honest guys.” I’ll plead guilty to that, because I’d argue that the Janka position is nice by being honest. He saves both parties a lot of falseness and time, and offers women enough respect to level with them from the get-go.
And before you single guys are too quick to dismiss him, consider his stats. The 32-year old claims to have bedded over 100 women.
CO Governor Ritter, Common Cause, and League of Women Voters Caught in Conspiracy to Rig the Political System
When Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter recently opened up state government to Big Labor, he insisted that it was a minor, moderate move, and that the howls of protest from the GOP and the media were excessive. Now it emerges that the governor was in fact making payment on an IOU, using his public office to complete a scheme carefully cooked up by the ostensibly non-partisan outfits Common Cause and The League of Women Voters. Under the concoction, almost no person or entity is allowed to match contributions with unions, whose forced confiscations are afforded a unique, and unprecedented, special security under Colorado law.Common Cause and The League of Women Voters first lied about the fact that they were non-partisan (they are activist, left-wing, pro-Democrat front organizations), and then cashed a check for services rendered. I will admit that it is a bit awe-inspiring to witness a group whose stated raison d’état is to clean up moneyed influence in the legislature, buy a loaded, one-sided set-aside conceived to let one hugely rich entity funnel money to a single Party, while constraining the ability of groups or even individuals to compete with the coming influx.Of course, if the Bush White House engaged in anything like this, lefty blogs would hold polls asking whether he were the anti-Christ, Andre would insist that this alone makes him the Worst. President. Ever. and would express (seemingly sincere) astonishment that we didn’t immediately buy into the propaganda, and Keith Olbermann would announce, in a 23-minute Special Comment, that it saddens him to announce that the time has come for Americans to rush the White House and tear the limbs off of all living members of the President’s staff and family.
Me, I’m not really upset at all. This is what political parties do in the grown-up world. And when the voters (and business leaders) of Colorado decided to give the Democrats complete control of state government, they should have understood that the Democrats would respond by trying to pay off their political supporters and permanently freeze out the Republicans.
If only Andre and the other leftists understood this. Instead, they have embarrassed themselves for seven years with their hysterical rhetoric and their childish view of the world. It would at least be nice if they could see that Democratic politicians are not inherently any different from Republican politicians, since this is among the most child-like views they hold.
When Democrats took power, I detailed many things that the seemingly-angelic Democrats would soon embark upon, and asked whether Andre, Wes, and the others would notice. On every front, I have been proven correct, and in each case ConClub’s Democrats have proven themselves little more than Democratic Party cheerleaders.
But since they have already flipped on the issue of bloated government spending, I’m not hopeful that they can change.
Oh by the way…
American forces have routed Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the Iraqi militant network, from every neighborhood of Baghdad, a top American general said today, allowing American troops involved in the “surge” to depart as planned.
I thought you might have missed this. It’s from a couple days ago in the New York Times — on page 19.
Everyone now knows that the surge has been and continues to be a tremendous success, and when Andre, Wes, and others said it would fail (or had failed) they were recklessly wrong.
Welcome to the Era of Fiscal Responsibility
The Congress has overridden the President’s veto of the $23 billion water bill, and the the New York Times analyzed it thusly:
The vote of 79 to 14 sent a clear signal that the Democrats in control of Congress plan to test the power of the White House on other fronts, and it gave Republicans a chance to show distance from an unpopular president heading into a tough election year.
Nonsense. It showed that the Democrats were lying when they promised they’d govern with austerity, which everyone but lefty bloggers already knew, and that in Washington, pork will always triumph over both principle and politics.
But the Democrats aren’t content with the media spin that massive spending=standing up to Bush; they want to take it even farther. How else can you explain Nancy Pelosi’s deliciously illogical insistence that it actually IS fiscally responsible to blow money!
“Our commitment to real fiscal responsibility — no new deficit spending — contrasts sharply with the trillions of dollars in record deficits accumulated by the Bush administration. We are hopeful that the president will reconsider his chronic use of the veto to block the priorities of the American people, from water resources to ending the war in Iraq to providing health care for 10 million children.”
So Pelosi’s answer to trillions of dollars in deficits is to fund water projects and health care for 10 million children. If the Democrats can pull off this spin, they can do anything.
The Daddy Card
I have to address Dave’s recent decent into the utter depths of his weakest arguments. He predictably and pathetically reverts to the lowest, weakest, and basest of all of his arguments; but I shouldn’t blame him, because the sheer irresistibility of this low-level rhetoric seems to be more tempting to the writers who gather on ConClub than even the forbidden fruit itself must be for the felonious youngsters who indulge her nectar.
His point that only those with children “get it” is profound in its ignorance, and though it has been echoed by PGW and alluded to by Hairy Beast, it remains an utterly illegitimate argument from the start. And his opening gambit that I don’t “actually care what children and teenagers do to themselves and others,” is embarrassing slander, nothing more. It renders his later laments about “wayward and inaccurate rhetorical mortars” absurd.
In logic terms, Dave’s argument is called an “appeal to authority,” but it might more aptly be labeled a cop-out. That neither Dana, nor the Guru, nor E the Wise (fathers, all) feels the need to stoop to this says much about the limitations of the argument. Dana, who frequently and strenuously disagrees with me on these types of issues, could easily have scooped from this gutter, but he has refrained, choosing instead to argue the actual merits of the case.
And Eric’s position has been somewhat couched, due in part — I’m sure — to his team’s upcoming playoff game tomorrow. But his opinion appears more closely aligned with my own, which must make Dave wonder whether E is aware of the fact that he actually has children of his own — from which, we have been led to believe, all knowledge flows.
The simple fact is, Dave, that I work with adolescents and teenagers every day, all day. I know vastly more about many of these kids than their parents do. In many cases I am much more adept at reasoning with them and encouraging them and rearing them than their ignorant elders; and on the whole, I observe surpassingly more actual hands-on data regarding teen development and behavior than any father of toddlers and tykes does. So because I work with one hundred and twenty 11-13-year-olds every day, and compare those interactions with the hundreds of previous sessions I had with 14-17-year-olds, I guess I don’t feel that I need to bow to the wisdom of those who have a few kids running around their kitchen.
Genarlow Wilson Freed, But Will Others Follow?
Genarlow Wilson, the Georgia man who was sentenced to ten years in prison for consensual teenage sex, has been freed at last. But some are questioning whether states’ various teen-sex laws are in need of a complete overhaul. Many states still allow prosecutors to go after two teenagers engaged in consensual sex, and at least one Georgia prosecutor believes that we should just educate teens more — so they’ll understand better when we slap the cuffs on them.
In Kansas last year, the AG tried to make it a law that any adult care provider who had any knowledge of teen sex would be required to report it. Federal courts have blocked the move.
Proponents of these laws like to imgine that they are preserving something that is almost lost; that they are protecting the past from the onrushing future. They are deluded, however, because teen-age sex has always been prevalent. It used to be afforded more legal protection than it is in some states today. Far from preserving and protecting, the proponents of anti-teen-sex laws are in fact seekng to usher in a very new world — and one that has never existed before. We can label this many ways, but to call it “conservative” is not one of them.
Discoverer of DNA in Racial Imbroglio
LONDON-James D. Watson, 79, co-discoverer of the DNA helix and winner of the 1962 Nobel Prize in medicine, told the Sunday Times of London that he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really.”
Orwell Speaks
At Vail Christian High School, in Colorado, a teacher has been arrested for “sexual assault on a child.” The alleged perp is a 27-year old guy; the supposed victim, a 17-year old young woman. We used to call a consensual relationship between a 27-year old and a 17-year old “marriage” or “normal.” I guess I’m okay if we now want to start calling it “off-limits.”
But to call it “sexual assault on a child” is to pervert both the language and the law, to say nothing of the attack the label poses on the not abnormal exposition of biological realities.
The National League Playoff Scenarios
If the Mets, Philadelphia and either Colorado or San Diego finish with the same record, New York and Philadelphia would play a tiebreaker Monday at Philadelphia for the division title. The loser of that game would then play a wild-card tiebreaker Tuesday against Colorado or San Diego, which would be in Colorado if it’s the Rockies, but Philly would play at San Diego if it’s the Padres, but if it’s NY instead of Philly then San Diego has to go to New York.
If Colorado, New York and Philadelphia win Sunday and San Diego loses, all would finish 89-73. New York and Philadelphia would play the NL East tiebreaker Monday; the loser would play a three-team, two-day, wild-card tiebreaker with Colorado and San Diego on Tuesday and Wednesday. In that scenario, Colorado (the team with the best head-to-head record among the three teams in the wild-card tiebreaker) would get the choice of having a bye on Tuesday or playing both games at home.
Got that?
Report: Washington Drawing Up Iran Air Strikes
I’m always very skeptical about reports like this, especially one as detailed as this one. It has the feel of something leaked directly from the Vice President’s office, for the purpose of either affecting the domestic political debate or intimidating the Iranians.
But this part has the sound of truth.
WASHINGTON — A recent decision by German officials to withhold support for any new sanctions against Iran has pushed a broad spectrum of officials in Washington to develop potential scenarios for a military attack on the Islamic regime, FOX News confirmed Tuesday.
The [German] announcement was made at a meeting in Berlin that brought German officials together with Iran desk officers from the five member states of the Security Council. It stunned the room, according to one of several Bush administration and foreign government sources who spoke to FOX News, and left most Bush administration principals concluding that sanctions are dead.
The Germans voiced concern about the damaging effects any further sanctions on Iran would have on the German economy — and also, according to diplomats from other countries, gave the distinct impression that they would privately welcome, while publicly protesting, an American bombing campaign against Iran’s nuclear facilities.
This shows a few things to those who are willing to learn.
1. The liberals’ insistence on sanctions as the only solution to vexing problems never gets around to answering what to do if sanctions absolutely can’t go any further. The assumption is that there is always more that can be done diplomatically, which is obviously absurd.
2. The Left’s bizarre idealism of European positions vis a vis US foreign policy is denuded by the body of available facts. The argument is that compared to European capitals, Washington is selfish, greedy, and focused on the short-term. Plainly, the opposite is true.
Considering the four main powerful US rivals, France was exposed in the UN Oil-for-Food scandal, Germany has now reverted to self-interested form, and Russia and China don’t even make pretenses about acting for the common good. It is not unreasonable that the smaller, less-prosperous, junior partners in the Euro-American alliance would be more protective of their own national interest than would the Americans of their own, but this seems not to have occurred to the liberals for the last 6 years.
3. And the gullible acceptance that “the rest of the world hates us” demonstrates a shallow understanding of who the rest of the world is, how they are represented, and the role they play in relations with the US and in management of world affairs. The reality is that among the most knowledgeable and experienced people in the West (esp., those managing the capitals and their relationship with the US), the US is seen as an unqualified good and an indispensable partner.
So when Germany says, in effect: “We are too greedy to support sanctions, too gutless to support airstrikes, but too smart not to pray that America solves our Iranian problem once and for all,” none of this is new or surprising. Except, apparently, to the Left.
It’s Hochuli Time!
It’s fall again, and that means that our long off-season wait to once again witness the exploits of pro football’s greatest living professional is mercifully over. I’m speaking of course of Referee Ed Hochuli. The players and the game are mere side entertainment, for the league knows that it’s Ed we’ve come to see.
Hochuli draws references from 98,000 pages on Google, he has a Wikipidia page, he is the official Madden video referee, and Jess McCartney wisely asks What Would Ed Hochuli Do? She also hawks t-shirts and mugs with her motto emblazened on it.
Hochuli defines the role of sports official. Nobody disputes that he’s the best White Hat in the game, and his penalty explanations are clearer and more effective than any league official could do. Maybe that’s because he’s also a full time trial lawyer in Arizona. Here’s a video of Ed explaining the rule changes for the 2007 season.
During the NFL season, he keeps his practice running full steam while working an estimated 40 hours a week on reffing games. Oh, and he somehow manages to find time to be a fitness madman.
This may explain his famous pipes, frequently shown off with his short sleeves, even when the rest of his crew is shivering under stripped sweat shirts. Sports Illustrated detailed his workout regimen. Read it here, and realize what a feeble weakling you are by comparison.
And don’t miss the 50 True Facts About Ed Hochuli, including:
8. Ed Hochuli can resist all viruses with the power of his mind
10. In 2012 Ed Hochuli will be carved into Mount Rushmore, just over to the left.
13. In May of 1962, Ed Hochuli predicted the advent of satellite radio
37. In Greece, Ed Hochuli is a unit of measurement
38. Ed Hochuli loves the tuck rule
39. Ed Hochuli serves as Secretary of The Crackback on George W. Bush’s cabinet
“I’ve Seen Horror…” Giant Spider Web Engulfs Texas Park
Eeek!
…. the discovery of a vast web crawling with millions of spiders that is spreading across several acres of a north Texas park is causing a stir…
Ya think?
Sheets of web have encased several oak trees and are thick enough in places to block out the sun….
Taking Pleasure at the Weakness of Larry Craig Its Own Kind of Fanaticism
ConClub readers are as adroit and nuanced as any, and importantly, their heart always seems to be in the right place. The latest example is Mo K’s recent excellent comment regarding the leftist response to Larry Craig. She quotes James Taranto at Opinion Journal:
According to the Statesman, the blogger who “outed” Craig did so in order to “nail a hypocritical Republican foe of gay rights.” But there is nothing hypocritical about someone who is homosexual, believes homosexuality is wrong, and keeps his homosexuality under wraps. To the contrary, he is acting consistent with his beliefs. If he has furtive encounters in men’s rooms, that is an act of weakness, not hypocrisy.
Anyway, most lawmakers who oppose gay-rights measures are not homosexual. To single out those who are for special vituperation is itself a form of antigay prejudice.
In the Denver Post, Bob Ewegen pens a terrific column entitled “Shame on Outers, Not the Outed.“
Like the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., I yearn for the day when people will be judged by their character and their kindness to one another, not the color of their skin or whether they sometimes yield to private urges they may themselves abhor. On that fine day, maybe we can stop paying cops to lurk in public toilets in search of men tapping their toes.
Andre admits to unconcealed joy when people with sex drives considered deviant by society suffer from their urges. It’s a strange position for him to take, but it tells us that he feels more kinship with Democrats than with gays. He also admits to uncontrollable giddiness at the idea that we are in fact ”paying cops to lurk in bathrooms in search of men tapping their toes,” an opinion that further highlights his raging hypocrisy that he so frequently displays.
Dave and Eric, conversely, are usually contemptuous of men such as Craig.
They have consistently preached that we don’t really have sex drives at all, just carefully considered behaviors. It is a position that must be patronizingly called amusing, since there’s no support for it in science or sociology oir history. It is reassuring for them to conclude that humans have no serious desires or urges or instincts. They apparently don’t even desire to have sex with their wives — they merely choose to, after carefully weighing all of the alternatives and the morality associated with each.
Andre’s extreme partisanship has caused him to unknowingly join their camp.
We Really Need to Get These Guys Together
Glen Greenwald: “A virtually unanimous chorus on the Right furiously insisted that nothing could be more irrelevant than whether the married family values Senator had sex with men in bathrooms….”
Andre Downer: “… the GOP base/wingnutosphere/Congressional leadership [went] nuts over Craig….”
This is Why We Can’t Win Wars Anymore
A Colorado school has banned tagged. Cindy Fesgen, the principal, is an idiot to be sure, but it is the parents themselves who are the real disgrace.
Melody Hatten, who has two children at the school, supports the measure. “I think it’s a fine decision,” Hatten said. “I think there are a lot of other things they can do on recess that is more constructive.”
Parent Barbara Ball, who also has two children at the school, agreed with Hatten. “It was a surprise, but I think it’s a good thing,” Ball said.
Ball said she recalled past situations in which her children told her about playmates going overboard and tagging too hard.
There’s no sense putting too fine a point on it — Melody Hatten and Barbara Ball are bad mothers. In their fanatical mania to shelter their children from reality, they do them a severe disservice. They are transfering their ignorance of human behavior to their children.
The most sensible mind in the entire, dispicable affair is that of Jacob Hein. “It’s really unacceptable,” Hein said of the ban, while pointing out that tag was done all the time at the school without problems.
Jacob is in the 5th grade.
Re: Bill Kristol is One of the Great Intellects of the Right
I believe that Andre only read the paragraph he pasted, and just copied the link to the article from whatever lefty site he found this on. Because I’ve known Andre for about 15 years. He’s actually very bright. There’s no way he read the whole article.
The article isn’t really about Bush, but about Vietnam and specifically the consequences of US retreat. Kristol tells a moving story of a freedom-loving hero who died because he trusted the word of the United States. For the last 30 years, the Left has said that they simply don’t care. They have forgiven or dismissed or excused or denied the millions and millions of murders that followed a US retreat. They couldn’t care less about those dead Asians, and they certainly don’t care a bit about the potential of that happening again with some Arabs.
Kristol says that US retreat had severe global consequences. Does Andre dispute this? [Wes apparently does]. Kristol supported Reagan’s words that our cause in Vietnam was a noble one. Does Andre dispute this? Kristol layed out the carnage that followed US surrender. Does Andre dispute this? Who knows. All we got in response was a strange, non sequitor Simpson’s link.
Hairy Beast is right: Kristol nailed it.
Saturday Night Souse
Back to School Edition
“Now son, you don’t want to drink beer. That’s for daddies, and kids with fake IDs.”
Homer Simpson
Ave Maria! I once taught at a Catholic high school that had a liquor license. It was great. The Christmas party put other schools to shame, and the collegiality among the faculty was impressive. Not only that, it wasn’t at all uncommon to receive a bottle of wine from a parent as a gift, or to have a dad go out with you some weekend and buy you a shot. The experience has always made me think more highly of both the school and Catholicism.
Let schoolmasters puzzle their brains
With grammar, and nonsense, and learning,
Good liquor, I stoutly maintain,
Gives genius a better discerning
— Oliver Goldsmith (1728 – 1774), Irish poet
Hurry, Bartender, I’m late for class! I also went to a college that had a bar in the basement of the student center. As with the booze-friendly high school, I found this to be something approaching genius. It was often the case that we would gather for a pitcher or so before class, and even more frequently we would meet there before evening functions like student senate.
A professor of chemistry wanted to teach his 5th grade class a lesson about the evils of liquor, so he produced an experiment that involved a glass of water, a glass of whiskey, and two worms. “
Now, class. Observe closely the worms,” said the professor first putting a worm into the water. The worm in the water writhed about, happy as a worm in water could be. The second worm, he put into the whiskey. It writhed painfully, and it quickly sank to the bottom, dead as a doornail.
“Now, what lesson can we derive from this experiment?” the professor asked.
Little Johnny raised his hand and wisely responded, “Drink whiskey and you won’t get worms!”
Obligatory Disclaimer Okay, okay, for real this time. ConClub sometimes writes satire. Nothing herein should be construed to advocate illegal activity. I don’t want my students to drink alcohol. I don’t want Eric’s students to drink alcohol.
The picture of “Paul” above would seem to depict a boy of less than the legal age, and for that I apologize.
The picture that shows some high school girls sneaking in alcohol is not meant to represent all high school girls, just the vast majority.
The pictures from Animal House suggesting that college life is synonymous with wanton drunkenness, probably understate the problem.
When teenagers steal cheap booze, they almost always get sick, so they should start with the good stuff.
Oh, and no other members of ConClub preview, approve, or agree with Saturday Night Souse. And none of them ever got drunk when they were in high school or college.
Honest.
Good Times Are Comin’
Conclub has a couple of good science posts about the possibilities awaiting us in the near future. Dave writes about the revolution in genetics, and Wes takes a look at the awesome potential of computers to make life-like predictions.
Many fear the advances on both fronts, but I’m unqualified in my excitement. On the page Dave linked, there are some articles about the coming wave of “personalized medicine.” Consider just three impressive factors.
One, the explosion of effective drugs into the medical tool box. Concerning almost any ailment, we are inventing new drugs that not only render unnecessary the more difficult treatments like surgery, but that in many cases work more effectively anyway. Specifically, psychotropic drugs (anti-depresants, ADD drugs, etc.) are a very new phenomenon, whose improvement continues to be stunningly rapid.
Almost all of us knows someone whose life has been transformed by one of these drugs. It is humbling to consider that none of this would have happened just a decade or two ago, and it is enticing to dream of the effectiveness that is possible a decade or two hence.
Two, the new knowledge of the brain. New techniques allow doctors to pinpoint depression, anxiety, ADD, addiction, OCD, and many other neurological maladies with infrared accuracy. No longer does a psychiatrist have to merely question a patient to diagnose the problem, and then begin a marathon of trial-and-error medicinal administrations whose medical conclusion is determined by asking the patient, “So, how do you feel now?” The combination of the rapid advance in drugs for the brain and our quantifiable data about brain functioning presents the clear conclusion that very soon, people will obtain a personalized prescription drug especially designed for their own brain.
And three, the silver bullet of genetics. Since we have mapped the human genome and perfected the cell manipulation necessary to change gentic structure, the possibilities appear to be limitless.
In terms of non-organic advancement, Wes is unimpressed by the latest example, which he himself provides. But I take from his post a different view. This particular advancement may or may not be useful in the future, but it exposes the possibilities of computers to make sophisticated predictions. Contemplate the past 10-15 years of computer advancement, then ask yourself how much more effective still will the next 10-15 years be?
Some are frightened by these developments. Others are skeptical. Put me down as an unabashed, exited fan. I truly believe that amazing developments in how humans live and enjoy life are soon to come. In fact, I think future generations will lable this era in which we live. Beginning with the comunication revolution of the past 10-15 years, and now with the medical revolution that will follow in the next couple of decades, this half-century may well go down as one of fundamental shift in the human experience.
Whither Afghanistan?
The typically idiotic Balloon Juice has a headline entitled “We could lose Afghanistan because the administration unwisely diverted resources to Iraq.” The link references today’s NY Times story about Afghanistan. In examining this issue, I feel as if I’m trying to teach third grade. I admit I don’t have any idea how to teach third grade, but as a blogger who engages the Left, I’m learning.
I love the casual use of the word BECAUSE by Balloon Juice. It means so much.
For one, it means that more troops will definitely defeat insurgencies. Not in Iraq, mind you, where the surge is “stupid,” but everywhere else, I guess.
For another, it is an acknowledgement that the liberals who have opposed increasing the size of the military are wrong. This of course includes Andre and every other leftist who is arguing for more troops in Afghanistan. They say more troops would defeat Bin Laden, and then adamantly oppose more troops in the US Army and Marines.
It also shows the brazen willingness of the Left to lie about situations around the world.
Says Balloon Juice, while cheering our failures in Afghanistan: “I don’t particularly want to see America lose a war, but….” His qualification is laughable!
Yesterday, we discussed the ranting/Fisking by one David Rees. He claimed that to believe that desperate Iraq tribes could come together was “retarded.” Now, Balloon Juice says, Sure we could do it, we just needed a better President. So is Balloon Juice retarded? Is David Rees? Is Andre?
Anyway, this all reminds me of a very old joke. When conservatives like me and Bill Kristol said that we should dramatically expand the size of the Army and Marine Corps back in 2003, liberals had a ready reply: “Well, hell, those forces wouldn’t even be on-line for another two years, so they wouldn’t help us now.” Then — after two years — in 2005, they said, “Shoot, are you stupid? Troops enlisted today won’t even be available until about 2007. Might as well not bother.” Now that it’s 2007, and even the Left has begun to lie about their desire for more troops. I ask again: Can we increase the size of the Army and Marines? Answer: Of course not! We don’t actually want to win, we just want to bitch.
Here’s the old joke: An Army Ranger has a radio connection to an imbecile who wants to realize his life’s dream and jump out of an airplane. After the imbecile jumps, at about 5,000 feet, the Ranger says to the him, “Okay, you better pull your chute.”
“Naw,” says the imbecile, “I’ve got plenty of time.”
At 1,000 feet, the Ranger again says, “Seriously, you need to pull your chute.”
“I still have 1,000 feet,” says the imbecile.
At 500 feet, the Ranger implores, “If you don’t pull your chute, you’ll die!”
But the imbecile continues to count down.
“300 feet, 100 feet, 50 feet….”
At 20 feet, the Ranger says goodbye over the radio, but the imbecile says, “20 feet? Hell, I can jump from here!”
So what will 2009 hold? Or 2011 or 2020? The prudent course for a superpower who has been undermanned in recent battles would be to increase the force size in anticipation of those unknowable years, but just try getting that past the imbeciles on the Left.
UPDATE: Link for Balloon Juice fixed
Colorado School District Bans Rated-R Movies
For those who don’t know, Falcon School District is near Colorado Springs, where Christian fundamentalists concerned parents rule the day. The area is home to both Focus on the Family and New Life Church, formerly Ted Haggard’s employer. Not there is any connection between Evangelical Christianity and political overzealousness, mind you.
“Board member Anna Bartha said at least one parent complained that children who were excused from such films [under the old policy] were harassed by classmates.”
The new policy also requires that all students provide signed permission slips before viewing a PG-13 film. Unless, presumably, the student just walks down to the local theater where he will be allowed to stroll right into any PG-13 film he wants.
There are several problems here. I won’t even harp on the stupidity of the policy itself. But look at the quote I pasted from the article. One parent has complained that those who opted out were harrassed. This really is a larger problem with our culture today, and one that Christian conservatives could agree with me on.
In a large, complex, and diverse society such as ours, there will always be at least one and usually several people, families, workers, companies, etc. who suffer under a particular policy. It is a terrible ill of our culture that those unfortunates feel the right to demand that the entire system change to suit their pleasure. Worse still, today’s America almost instinctively feels that we should indeed change everything for those few. How often has Andre defended the ridiculousness of a policy banning any references to Christmas because a random Hindu or Pagan could possibly be offended?
Among the thousands of examples, I’m reminded of the Casey Martin, the golfer who won the right to ride in a golf cart on the PGA Tour because the Supreme Court decided that not only did they know more about professional golf than the Professional Golfers Association, but that a policy that harmed even one single golfer, even if it was sound for everybody else, had to be replaced.
Here’s my take in a nutshell: If you wish to isolate your kids from reality but still want to send them to a public school, then you had better equip your precious to be able to stand agaisnt the grain instead of insisting that every social influence bend to your highly unrepresentative opinions.
The Latest on Democratic Efforts to Clean Up Politics
From Bob Novak:
WASHINGTON – Republicans returning to the House floor on Friday morning Aug. 3 after their walkout the night before were surprised to find as presiding officer the Democrat they call “King Corruption”: Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, master of earmarks and backroom deals.
Rep. Ed Pastor, a 64-year-old eight-term Democrat from Phoenix, Ariz., who is affable and well-liked by Republicans, had been scheduled to preside. But Speaker Nancy Pelosi, fearing parliamentary tricks by Republicans, put her muscleman Murtha in the chair.
Murtha’s performance as non-partisan presiding officer ran true to form. On a voice vote, Murtha ruled for Democrats when obviously more Republicans were on the House floor. He subsequently ordered a roll call vote, though members rising in support clearly fell short of the 44 required. After that ruling was challenged, Murtha declared: “The chair’s decision is not subject to question.”
Saturday Night Souse
Dedicated to the Demon Rum and all her acquaintances
I drink, therefore I am
THE FIVE STAGES OF DRUNKENNESS
Stage 1 – CLEVER
This is when you suddenly become an expert on every subject in the known universe. You know you know everything and you want to pass on your knowledge to anyone who will listen. At this stage you are always right. And, of course, the person you are talking to is very wrong. This makes for an interesting argument when both parties are CLEVER.
Stage 2 – ATTRACTIVE
This is when you realize that you are the most ATTRACTIVE person in the entire bar and that everyone fancies you. You can go up to a perfect stranger knowing that they fancy you and really want to talk to you. Bear in mind that you are still CLEVER, so you can talk to this person about any subject under the sun.
Stage 3 – RICH
This is when you suddenly become the RICHEST person in the room. You can buy drinks for the entire bar because you have a bottomless wallet. You can also make bets at this stage because of course you are still CLEVER so, naturally, you will always win. Anyway, it doesn’t matter how much you bet because you are RICH. You will also buy drinks for everyone that you fancy, in the knowledge that you are clearly the most ATTRACTIVE person present.
Stage 4 – INVINCIBLE
You are now ready to pick fights with anyone and everyone, especially those with whom you have been betting or arguing. This is because you are now INVINCIBLE. At this point you can also go up to the partners of the people who you fancy and challenge them to a battle of wits or strength. You have no fear of losing this battle, because as well as being INVINCIBLE you are CLEVER, you’re RICH and you’re more ATTRACTIVE than them anyway.
Stage 5 – INVISIBLE
This is the final stage of drunkenness. At this point you can do anything, because you are now INVISIBLE. You can dance on a table to impress the people who you fancy because the rest of the people in the room cannot see you. You can also snob the face off them for the same reason. You are also INVISIBLE to the people who want to fight you. You can walk through the street singing at the top of your lungs because no one can see or hear you and because you’re still CLEVER you know all the words.
Obligatory Disclaimer: Constitution Club readers are strongly cautioned to behave appropriately while drinking. If you are a ConClub reader, chances are that you are clever already, so Stage 1 of drunkeness for you may be Too Damn Brilliant For Your Own Good. If our readers are anything like ConClub contributors, you are not at all attractive, so don’t worry about that part. Dancing on the table is to be avoided unless you are female and attractive. If you are out with Andre and his friends, attractive males may also dance on the table. But note, if you are a gay male and you are out with straight friends at, say, a biker bar, a tailgating party, or a fratenity house, dancing on any structure is strictly prohibited. [Private parties with Republican Congressmen excepted].
Also, any wagers placed while intoxicated are voidable only by the intoxicated party, so if you are sober, you are a fool to wager with drunks: the ones you lose are enforceable, but the ones you win are not! On the other hand, if you are drunk you should bet anyone, on anything, for any amount. You can’t lose.
Finally, loudly singing songs on the walk home is only allowed if a) there are multiple people in your group singing the same song, and b) the song in question is either a drinking song, a bawdy Irish ballad with profanity, or the school fight song. If you are leaving a game your team has just won and the opposing fans are nearby, the fight song must be sung as loudly as possible while looking directly at the fans. But keep in mind that you are neither invincible nor invisible.
Re: The “Fisk” of Michael Ignatieff
A good Fisking dissects the arguments of a piece with counterarguments or adds inconvenient facts that the author of the piece has ignored. This wasn’t a Fisking, it was a lengthy, tedious, boring whine about a fairly bland essay.First off, in the few times where David Rees even tries to address the more substantive points, we only find out that his reading comprehension and his intellectual honesty both suck He has sacrificed both in an attempt at humor, but the quality of the jokes aren’t any good either.
[Ignatieff]: “An intellectual’s responsibility for his ideas is to follow their consequences wherever they may lead. A politician’s responsibility is to master those consequences and prevent them from doing harm. . . .”
[Rees]: Right off the bat, he’s saying: “It was right for me to support the Iraq war when I was an academic, because academics live in outer space on Planet Zinfandel, and play with ideas all day. But now, as a politician in a country that opposed the war, I’ll admit I screwed up, because politicians must deign to harness the wild mares of whimsy to the ox-cart of cold, calculated reality.” So, although his judgments were objectively wrong, they were contextually appropriate. Sweet! You’ve been totally 0wn3d by Michael Ignatieff! And so have all those dead Iraqis.
To begin with, no, that was not what Ignatieff was saying. Ignatieff was making a point that the academy isn’t always a very good format to craft large ideas. You have to be an idiot to think he was actually saying that he was right to support the war as an academic, even though he believes the war was a mistake.
And as for style, if you don’t find what you just read hysterical, then you should skip the Rees piece. That’s about how the whole thing goes. The pattern of the rest of the “fisking” is like this. Take a statement, misinterpret it, then rephrase it in a corny, bizarre way, and then go on to attack that rather than the actual statement of the author.
[Ignatieff]: “As a former denizen of Harvard, I’ve had to learn that a sense of reality doesn’t always flourish in elite institutions. It is the street virtue par excellence. Bus drivers can display a shrewder grasp of what’s what than Nobel Prize winners. . . .”
[Rees] Don’t bus drivers ever get tired of the “Regular schmoes are smarter than us academics/politicians/journalists” gag? Raise your hand if you think Ignatieff appointed any bus drivers to the Kennedy School faculty. I mean, if Ignatieff really thinks bus drivers are shrewder than academics, why didn’t he quit Harvard and go drive a bus?
Again, adults really should be able to follow along with a standard newspaper essay more clearly than this. Ignatieff doesn’t believe that bus drivers are smarter than professors, nor does he say this.
“Bus drivers can display a shrewder grasp….” The statement that Ignatieff writes is unassailable. But after Rees either intentionally or ignorantly changes the meaning, now it becomes ripe for fisking.
[Ignatieff]” Good judgment means understanding how to be responsible to those who pay the price of your decisions. . . . Sometimes sacrificing my judgment to (my consituents’) is the essence of my job. Provided, of course, that I don’t sacrifice my principles. . . .”
[Rees] Attention, Michael Ignatieff’s constituents: HE THINKS YOU’RE DUMB.
By now it’s a bit pathetic. I really don’t know if David Rees is stupid or just an habitual liar. Doesn’t he think anyone reading his piece took the time to read the original Ignatieff point, too, and that we’ll therefore see through these glaring errors from Rees? Ignatieff makes the simple statement that occasionally, when a representative’s principles conflict with his constituents’ wishes, the political leader will vote his principles. This is pretty basic stuff, and I’m sure that every member of Congress and the Canadian Parliament agrees with it. But Rees thinks it means Ignatieff thinks voters are stupid. I couldn’t make this stuff up.
[Ignatieff]: (those who said Iraq would go badly) avoided all these mistakes.
[Rees]: “Yeah, you’re right, they did. Do you know why? Because they’re not retarded.
Powerful stuff, that.
The rest of it is a repetitive list of jokes Rees makes about Ignatieff’s examples or metaphors or writing style.
Seriously, Mr. Rees, this is really middle school stuff. Your reading comprehension and writing level are at about an eighth grade level, though your humor sounds more like my sixth graders.
My Summer’s Over, And All is Well
The best thing about being a teacher isn’t the time off, but the time on. Today I reported back to school for seven days of meetings before students arrive. I wish all had jobs as invigorating as mine.
At a morning meeting, we were greeted with this bit of wisdom from high school teacher Taylor Mali:
ConClub Presents
Like an amoeba, ConClub shifts form to suit the circumstances. Less like an amoeba, we’re always on the lookout for interesting discussion and debate. At times the site has simultaneously had a handful of liberal voices of various stripe, but lately the task of providing some the left-of-center viewpoints has fallen solely to Andre.
Politically, we’re confident that Wes offers a reasonable and sincere liberal point of view. Tempermentally, we think he has a good sense of humor, a reluctance to be easily offended, and a willinglness to occasionally concede the hole to his opponent.
We already know that he has good taste in HBO shows and brilliant baseball analysis.
Plus, THB and PGW seem to get along with him, which is fast becoming a requirement for acceptance.
Bonds Hits Another Home Run, Who Cares?
There are those who think it’s a scandal that Bonds broke Aaron’s record last night, and those who think Bonds the greatest of all time. My reaction is a dissapointment mixed with apathy. I just don’t care anymore.
What Barry Bonds has done with his steroid-fueled smashing of two of the most storied home-run records in baseball history, is to simply close the book on baseball’s statistical era. In the future, baseball’s numbers will matter far less than they have in the past. Even if Bonds’ records are never broken, their importance is already being dismissed.
Bonds had plenty of help from Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa. Between the three of them, they managed to destroy in a matter of four years what baseball legend had cherished for decades. As they leave the public scene, they will do so having made enormous sums of money, but each being a part of a more dubious legacy. They have ushered in baseball’s post-statistics era.
It is questionable whether today’s kids will recall much about following Bonds’ chase for 756 in the summer of ’07. I doubt they will. But one thing is even more certain: In the future, young baseball fans won’t have to worry about whether their favorite players can catch any of Bonds’ records, because they just won’t care.
FISA and Civil Liberties
The debate about the Bush administration’s surveillance, and the Democrats’ response to it, is weighed down by a lack of understanding of the actual nature of the debate. For Republicans, the more intelligence collected, the better — though as January 20, 2009 draws nearer, reservations emerge. For Democrats, any power afforded the Bush “regime” is power misplaced.The law as it existed a week ago held that if a foreign terrorist communicated with another foreign terrorist in a communication that was routed through the US, the call was off-limits without a warrant. The Democrats, in passing the latest bill, rectified this. I believe they did the right thing, Andre and Wes dissent.
The characterization of the powers that have been legalized is riddled with errors. Wes worries that the problem is that he doesn’t trust that Bush will “respect the privacy of his political enemies.”
Likewise, Russ Feingold (D., WI) argues that the new law “provides no protection for Americans who may be calling or e-mailing friends, family or business partners overseas and who have done absolutely nothing wrong.”
In fact, the bill requires that the Attorney General agree to the specifics of the searches, that a FISA judge approves the search at least retroactively, and that the Congress reauthorizes the search mechanism after six months.
Now, I understand why many Democrats are wary of the AG oversight. Bobby Kennedy, Janet Reno, and, yes, Alberto Gonzales are examples of AG’s whose independence seems nonexistent. But just as having bad Presidents doesn’t justify removing executive Read the rest of this entry
Can We Blame Andre When The Next Attack Comes?
First, let’s be clear about what Andre and the Kos fanatics are arguing. They demand that the intelligence community be required to first get a court order before intercepting foreign intelligence produced by foreign nationals on foreign soil. This has never been required in American history, nor by any nation in world history. In defense of this outrageous, dispicable, and dangerous position, they declare that to support the alternative is to support tyranny. And they wonder why we openly question their sanity.
Second, the radicals can bitch all they want, but I stated before the Dems even took power, and again in April, that this is what would happen. Kos may want to hamstring our intelligence gathering, but Pat Leahy really doesn’t. Andre may want to respond to the current threat by creating the most cumbersome and backwards intelligence-gathering structure in the history of the free world, but Harry Reid apparently does not.
And third, here’s the rub: When Muslim terrorists embedded within Britain tried to board planes headed to America with the intent to blow them up in the air, Keith Olbermann, Andrew Sullivan, Buzzflash, and our own Andre the Defiant openly discussed whether the arrests — of these presumably innocent, or even framed men — was a set-up. Why? Because the day before, Ned Lamont had beaten Joe Lieberman in a primary! And they wonder why we openly question their sanity.
Then, when Muslim terrorists embedded within Britain tried to conduct a large conspiracy to murder masses of British civilians, Olbermann and our own Andre the Defiant laughed at not only these “alleged” terrorists, but at all of us for even bothering with them.
“Oooooh, I’m scared,” taunted Andre.
Now, these same chaps want to put handcuffs on law enforcement [remember their lie that they favored robust law enforcement?] the likes of which has never been done, and they are furious, livid, apoplectic, that those who are responsible for the safety of Americans are against this. And they wonder why we openly question their sanity.
I’m reminded of 1993, when a group of strange Muslim radicals tried to topple the Twin Towers with a car bomb.
“Ha!” we said, “topple the Towers?! Boy are those Arab Muslims stupid!” And when one of the wanted fugitives turned up at the car rental joint afterward to collect his deposit, only to be arrested instead, we laughed all the more.
It turns out that they were doing what al Qaeda and other Muslim terrorist groups have always done. They were trying something that hadn’t been done before. When it failed, they learned from the mistakes, took notes, made adjustments. They decided on a different tactic to take down the Twin Towers and seven years later, on September 11, 2001, they tried once more.
None of were laughing after that.
But for now, Andre and his guys are yukking it up about foreign threats. “Ooooh, I’m scared.” The only thing that they are genuinely concerned about is the Bushitler Nazis and their Democratic collaborators in Congress who actually want the NSC and the CIA to be able to effectively listen to our enemies, who all accounts say are plotting as vigorously as ever.
So – since it would be unseemly to bring it up after the attack, I thought I’d ask the question now: Since Andre and Kos and Olbermann and all of the other radical, fanatical, fringe leftists have sought to consistently diminish the threats, attack those who protect us against the threats, guffaw at those who warn us of the threats, snicker at those who are plotting, developing, and adjusting the threats, vigorously trying to completely destroy the ability of law enforcement to investigate the threats, and slandering all those who take seriously the threat, can’t we — shouldn’t we — mustn’t we — blame Andre the Defiant and his small but sickening brigade of fat and happy complacent knaves when the al Qaeda gang actually gets it right again and successfully murders a large mass of Americans?
More Latest News in the War on Terror
At this date, it appears convincing that the surge has had astonishing results against the Sunni insurgency and al Qaeda. It is also clear that the Shia militias and Iran are worse than ever.
Lessons to be learned at this point:
1) More troops is obviously helpful. Commanders are using different tactics (many of which have been advocated on ConClub since shortly after the invasion) because they now have the manpower to do it and they have learned from their mistakes. This would seem to indicate that still more troops would be even better. (This has been the McCain-Lieberman-Scribe view for several years running.)
2) Allowing an adjacent nation to train and arm US enemies in Iraq was always a bad idea. This would seem a no-brainer, but then again, the war frequently seems to be run by those with no brains.
Saturday Night Souse
Dedicated to the Demon Rum and all her acquaintances
You had to know I would post a Saturday Night Souse after this week’s posts!
Be joyful and celebrate, Conclub land! Today is Champagne Day in America!
“I drink champagne when I’m happy and when I’m sad. Sometimes I drink it when I’m alone. When I have company I consider it obligatory. I trifle with it if I’m not hungry and drink it when I am. Otherwise, I never touch it – unless I’m thirsty.”
Champagne Baroness Lilly Bollinger
—–
What better day to celebrate booze, than the day that celebrates the celebratory booze itself?
In the mid 16th century, some French priests accidentally discovered the bubbly virtue of champagne when they were unable to get some of their fermented wine to stop fizzing. One particular monk immediately recognized the value of this, and began to formulate the production of Champagne. The monk’s name is known to all, though not perhaps for the specifics of his contribution. Dom Perignon was a Benedictine monk who essentially created the modern-day champagne. He was the abbey’s cellarmaster, a common position for Catholic ascetics to hold. (Shhh! Don’t tell the Southern Baptists!)
Obscure Champagne Factoid: If champagne were left in a smooth glass, its bubbles would quickly disappear. It is the imperfections in a champagne glass that cause the bubbles to continuously foam. Thus, good champagne glasses have manufacturer-produced imperfections, made by lasers or microscopic indentations, which cause the bubbles to continue.
Appeal to Authority I: Winston Churchill was a huge fan of champagne. He drank it with lunch and dinner every day. When facing a battle in WW I, Churchill said to his men, “Remember gentlemen, it’s not just France we are fighting for, it’s Champagne!”
The August Cocktail:
The Lady Macbeth
1 orange peel
4 ounces chilled champagne
1 ounce Port
Pour the champagne into a champagne flute. Slowly pour in the port, but do not stir. Twist an orange peel over the top.
Appeal to Authority II: Many modern sports teams use the bubbly to create splashy celebrations. The champagne celebration is an awesome American tradition.
Best Part About Champagne Day? Definitely its good fortune on the calendar. You can do whatever you want, because tomorrow is Forgiveness Day! So drink up!
Obligatory Disclaimer: Okay, so where we before? Even if Jesus did drink wine, being a “drunkard” seems to violate the New Testament. But what is a drunkard? It probably means an alcoholic, not one who occasionally gets drunk. As for someone who gets hammered now and then? BFD!
“Drunkenness” certainly doesn’t mean getting “drunk,” because any alcoholic drink causes some impairment, and there are no magic lines between intoxicated, inebriated, buzzed, drunk, sloshed, or hammered. So Jesus drank intoxicating wine, apparently in normal quantities for the time. We’ll pick up here later.
Anyway, don’t drink irresponsibly, get a designated driver, and all that other bullshit.
A Public Execution, With a Twist
In southern Afghanistan, several high-ranking Taliban officials were gathering to enjoy one of their favorite pastimes, watching public executions. Those sentenced to die were alleged collaborators with the government in Kabul.
Little did they know, as they jostled with one another to get a good view of the killing, that the execution they were about to witness was their own.
The Sage
Steve
E the Wise
DFV the Scribe
hairybeast
Mo K.
Sting the Away
Rudy
Voice of Reason
Anthony Rogers
Vérité
Isaiah's Cry
danagall
Hal Jordan
The Rat
Aquinas Shrugged
jackcurtis
a west texas view
pino
Cultural Limits
Regalo Di Spine
Tokyo Tengu
Short Little Rebel
AWOL Civilization
SeePamBlog
rogueoperator
provider4many
jimmullen1
thomaspaine2nd
badoracle
ljponders
weeicemon
Daniella Nicole
plainansimple
