"I took the liberal view for many decades, but I believe I have changed my mind."

David Mamet, on his break with liberalism:

And, I wondered, how could I have spent decades thinking that I thought everything was always wrong at the same time that I thought I thought that people were basically good at heart? Which was it? I began to question what I actually thought and found that I do not think that people are basically good at heart; indeed, that view of human nature has both prompted and informed my writing for the last 40 years. I think that people, in circumstances of stress, can behave like swine, and that this, indeed, is not only a fit subject, but the only subject, of drama.

I'd observed that lust, greed, envy, sloth, and their pals are giving the world a good run for its money, but that nonetheless, people in general seem to get from day to day; and that we in the United States get from day to day under rather wonderful and privileged circumstances—that we are not and never have been the villains that some of the world and some of our citizens make us out to be, but that we are a confection of normal (greedy, lustful, duplicitous, corrupt, inspired—in short, human) individuals living under a spectacularly effective compact called the Constitution, and lucky to get it.

He continues:

The Constitution, written by men with some experience of actual government, assumes that the chief executive will work to be king, the Parliament will scheme to sell off the silverware, and the judiciary will consider itself Olympian and do everything it can to much improve (destroy) the work of the other two branches. So the Constitution pits them against each other, in the attempt not to achieve stasis, but rather to allow for the constant corrections necessary to prevent one branch from getting too much power for too long.

Rather brilliant. For, in the abstract, we may envision an Olympian perfection of perfect beings in Washington doing the business of their employers, the people, but any of us who has ever been at a zoning meeting with our property at stake is aware of the urge to cut through all the pernicious bullshit and go straight to firearms.

And this:

And I began to question my distrust of the "Bad, Bad Military" of my youth, which, I saw, was then and is now made up of those men and women who actually risk their lives to protect the rest of us from a very hostile world. Is the military always right? No. Neither is government, nor are the corporations—they are just different signposts for the particular amalgamation of our country into separate working groups, if you will.

Quite naturally, as one who still calls himself a liberal, albeit a moderate one, I disagree with a number of his overall conclusions. Let me agree with Althouse and say this is a cool essay. I love my country, in spite of her imperfections. I certainly agree that putting too much trust and power in the hands of government is bad, and that utopian socialism is bad. I also agree that the military and corporations are not malum in se, and while our military is not perfect, they defend our freedoms and our lives every day, and do so with honor and respect, and have brought more freedom to the world than the rest of the world gives them credit for. Also, I don't hate corporations.

I do feel his view of liberals as utopian, quasi-socialists who hate the military and love the government is a silly caricature however. Perhaps this is how Mamet used to feel, and certainly certain people in his traveling circle probably still feel that way, but I feel the need to reiterate the distinction between liberals and the leftists he describes.

Nevertheless, a thoughtful essay, one that will undoubtedly get him kicked out of certain circles, if he hasn't been already.

HT: Althouse

Yeah, This Sounds About Right:

Shay from Booker Rising, on Geraldine Ferraro:

Damn, I check out for one day to attend to family business and another crusty, white feminist Democrat becomes unhinged at the thought that a black person isn't (1) being subservient to white interests and (2) has the audacity to not only not shuffle and move out of their way, but is outdoing them. As a black moderate-conservative feminist, I gotta do a mini-rant. On Monday, it was Sen. Hillary Clinton's condescending, white arrogant appeal for Sen. Barack Obama - who is the Democratic frontrunner - to be her number 2. Now a blast from the past back when I was a kid, Geraldine Ferraro, is cutting up. Ms. Ferraro - who is backing Sen. Clinton for president - yesterday claimed that Sen. Barack Obama wouldn't be where he is in the presidential race if he weren't black.

And this, which hardly anyone else has brought up:

Sen. Obama put Ms. Ferraro in check though, and also said that if someone in his campaign had suggested that Sen. Hillary Clinton "is where she is only because she is a woman" then she and Ms. Ferraro would be offended. Never mind that Sen. Obama has more experience as a legislator than Sen. Clinton has - I don't count sleeping with President Bill Clinton to be significant experience, since Sen. Clinton won't release her First Lady papers - but Ms. Ferraro wants to diss Barack. Oh wait, Sen. Obama has more experience as a legislator than Ms. Ferraro too. Talk about someone who got a vice presidential nod due to race and gender. - that would be Geraldine Ferraro. White girl needs to sit down somewhere and check herself.

Indeed. I'm going to expand on this tomorrow, but let me say that Ferraro's argument is risible and ridiculous. I'm not saying she's a racist, but the idea that Obama is only here because he's black, or because the country wants to elect a black man is insulting to Obama and those who voted for him.

The sexism charge is pretty silly as well. Let me say that if Hillary loses (or wins), it won't have that much to do with her gender, and if Obama loses (or wins) it won't br because he's black, not that being the first black or female President isn't a boost, and momumentally great for the country.

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that Obama's race isn't a factor. There is a strong desire to see a black or female President, but with Obama, the fact that he's black isn't the only thing keeping him at the top. I know Earl Ofari Hutchinson disagrees, but if Obama was white, and still brought the same qualities he has to the race, he'd still be on top.

Now, this is somewhat moot now that Ferraro has stepped down from the campaign, but I don't think she should've been sacked. I'm inclined to agree with the view that this rush to fire people who say things that are offensive is a disquieting impulse. I think we need to be really careful with this. Besides, her argument deserves to be scrutinized and exposed as faulty, not silenced. I also don't expect her to apologize for something she apparently believes in her heart.

A final point on the media coverage. Some of the media coverage of Clinton by certain outlets has been unfair, and Obama probably hasn't been hit has hard in certain respects as he probably should've been. That being said, there has been a lot of dirt, unfair charges, and hype on both sides, and the fact is that a lot of the wounds Clinton has received were self-inflicted.

I mean honestly, who knows, the media is a fickle beast. As to the sexism charge, I'm inclined to agree with this from Camille Paglia, via Althouse:

The cloud of feminist cant about Hillary's struggling candidacy has been noxious.

Uh huh.

Once More to the Dictionary...

Consider these:


hu·bris /ˈhyubrɪs, ˈhu-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
Pronunciation[hyoo-bris, hoo-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA
Pronunciation
–noun
excessive pride or self-confidence; arrogance.

stu·pid·i·ty /stuˈpɪdɪti, styu-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
Pronunciation[stoo-pid-i-tee, styoo-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA
Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ties for 2.
1.
the state, quality,
or fact of being stupid.
2.
a stupid act, notion, speech, etc.

self-de·struc·tive /ˈsɛlfdɪˈstrʌktɪv, ˌsɛlf-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
Pronunciation[self-di-struhk-tiv, self-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA
Pronunciation
–adjective
1.
harmful, injurious, or destructive to
oneself: His constant arguing with the boss shows he's a self-destructive
person.
2.
reflecting or exhibiting suicidal desires or drives: Careless
driving may be a self-destructive tendency.

fi·as·co /fiˈæskoʊ or, esp. for 2, -ˈɑskoʊ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
Pronunciation[fee-as-koh or, esp. for 2, -ah-skoh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA
Pronunciation
–noun, plural -cos, -coes.
1.
a complete and
ignominious failure.
2.
a round-bottomed glass flask for wine, esp.
Chianti, fitted with a woven, protective raffia basket that also enables the
bottle to stand upright.


Where am I going with this? Ask this guy. What a tragic mess this is.

When You Slander The Military...

people take offense, and fight back. Over at Winds of Change, Marc "Armed Liberal" Danziger calls out idiot James Gibney at the Atlantic Monthly:

Please cancel my subscription.

My son - serving in the US Army - is not a part of a group that needs to justify that "most of them are not sociopaths".

Indeed. Our military is the bravest and noblest fighting force in the world, and that doesn't change because of a handful of mistakes by a few. The military shouldn't have to explain why they're not sociopaths--they ought to be given the benefit of the doubt by those who benefit from their scarifice, at home and abroad. Gibney, and the Atlantic should be embarassed, and can only except more blowback if this continues.

To be fair to the magazine as a whole, I emphasize the word 'if." There are some first-rate writers over there, and one writer shouldn't affect the reputation of the whole magazine, but if this attitude is in fact the prevailing attitude at the Atlantic, then I won't be reading the magazine anymore either.

I mean, the military is being attacked on all fronts, it seems.

HT: Instapundit

Warning: Reality TV Can Ruin Your Marriage

Now to be fair, it was ultimately the utterly foolish choices Mrs. Cleary made that destroyed her marriage, but one has to wonder what posesses a person to subject themselves to this. I'm almost hesitant in posting this, because it's so awful to watch, but here goes:



Part of me wonders if she wanted to get caught. To risk all that for $200,000, and blow it? I don't think she could hide her guilty conscience. OK, I'm feeling leery even talking about this any further.

In Other News...

Ralph Nader has picked his running mate for his Presidential run.



No, I don't really care either.



Also, Mike Bloomberg has announced he's not running for President (thanks for the update, Mike!!), and has mentioned talking with Obama. Vice Presidential pick, perhaps?

Really?

I'm planning on posting on the Obama-Farrakhan controversy, but I just wanted to say that this pro-Israel Democrat finds fears like this unfounded. Obama says he is pro-Israel, and at the end of the day, I believe him.

UPDATE: This from the Republican Jewish Coalition:

"People should be very skeptical of Barack Obama's shaky Middle East policies. When a long-time political activist like Ralph Nader, with a well-documented, anti-Israel bias, claims that Senator Obama shares this anti-Israel bias, that is alarming," said RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks. "If Senator Obama supports Ralph Nader's policies, which consistently condemn Israel's right to defend itself against terrorism, and if Sen. Obama has only reversed his positions to run for president, it once again raises serious questions about his grasp of the geo-political realities of the Middle East and puts into doubt his commitment to the safety and security of Israel. These are important questions we in the Jewish community will be asking."

So we're supposed to believe Obama is anti-Israel because Ralph Nader says so? Huh? The concerns about his choice of advisors is much more valid (particularly with regards to ZBig), but I still fail to see this as alarming as others. The questions will need to be asked, but let's look a little deeper than the ego-driven rantings of Ralph Nader, shall we?

William F. Buckley, 1925-2008

Author and conservative icon William F. Buckley has died at the age of 82. Needless to say, I didn't end up on the same page politically as William F. Buckley, but he was a great mind from what I've read of his work and heard, and always seemed an honorable man. God rest his soul.

Sammenhold

First off, allow to clarify. I have no desire to offend Muslims. I mean that. The thing is, there is a persisent and pernicious effort afoot to stifle free speech, in the name of not offending Muslims, particularly in the case of five jihadists arrested for plotting to kill one of the Danish cartoonists. This is an outrage. The answer to offensive speech is more speech, not violence, and not moral cowardice that refuses to condemn such violence. The blog campaign is once again well underway, and I proudly hitch my wagon to the train.

Thanks to Pat for the holy hat tip.

Oops!!

The blog remains one-hundred percent opposed to hysteria, and I myself resist the tendency towards it as well, but this cannot be good.

HT: Tully at SF

Rep. Tom Lantos, 1928-2008

Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA) has died, losing his battle to cancer. Lantos was a staunch defender of human rights, and by all accounts a decent man, so I'm sure, and it's amazing this even has to be said, that regardless of one's politics, all will respect his service, and send condolences to his family. RIP.

The Archbishop of Canterbury Says Sharia Law Not So Bad

Yeah, it seems he's gone insane. Read on:

The Archbishop of Canterbury has today said that the adoption of Islamic Sharia law in the UK is "unavoidable" and that it would help maintain social cohesion.

Rowan Williams told BBC Radio 4's World At One that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.

He says that Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court. He added Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty"
.
Dr Williams said there was a place for finding a "constructive accommodation" in areas such as marriage - allowing Muslim women to avoid Western divorce proceedings.

Other religions enjoyed such tolerance of their own laws, he pointed out, but stressed that it could never be allowed to take precedence over an individual's rights as a citizen.

This is pure insanity. Sharia law is openly hostile to democratic society, so I fail to see how sharia can be made to fit in, and maintain social cohesion. This is a move that leads straightway to madness, and the legitimization of extremism. This is an outrage.

Fortunately, there are others who agree that this is bad:

But his views were condemned today by senior Tory MP Peter Luff, who said: "This is a very dangerous route which we should not go down. You can't be a little bit pregnant. You can't have a little bit of sharia law.

"We should not start introducing new different legal systems alongside ours."

True dat.

Read the rest.

HT: Simon

UPDATE: Christopher Hitchens goes even deeper in explaining why this is bad:

Picture the life of a young Urdu-speaking woman brought to Yorkshire from Pakistan to marry a man—quite possibly a close cousin—whom she has never met. He takes her dowry, beats her, and abuses the children he forces her to bear. She is not allowed to leave the house unless in the company of a male relative and unless she is submissively covered from head to toe. Suppose that she is able to contact one of the few support groups that now exist for the many women in Britain who share her plight. What she ought to be able to say is, "I need the police, and I need the law to be enforced." But what she will often be told is, "Your problem is better handled within the community." And those words, almost a death sentence, have now been endorsed and underwritten—and even advocated—by the country's official spiritual authority.

It's real bad, folks.

Romney is Out, and McCain is the Man for the GOP

Mitt Romney has officially quit the race, and basically conceded the GOP nomination to McCain. He announced it during a red-meat speech at CPAC. Laura Ingraham introduces him, but not before she basically rips into McCain. Romney basically said that he would've pressed on to the convention (a la Reagan in 1976), but he wants the GOP united against the Democrats. (He actually said it a bit differently than that, but you get the idea).

The word on the street is that he's going to pull a Reagan circa 1976, and try and set himself up for 2012, as the "true conservative." Maybe this is why he has said he's "suspending" his campaign, as opposed to ending it outright. Who knows.

Nope, She's Not Joking

The heated battle between McCain and Romney over the support of the right-wing base of the GOP is well-known. Many hardcore conservatives do not like McCain, and some really loathe him. I'm talking loathing here. One of those who hate McCain with a passion is acid-tongued righty firebrand Ann Coulter, who has said she'd back Hillary Clinton if McCain wins.

Apparently, she's not joking:



I didn't think it was possible to hate somebody that much. I'm not stumping for McCain, but for Heaven's sake, the charges she lays on him are ridiculous. McCain called for the surge two years before anybody, and has supported it unwaveringly since its implementation. He was right to oppose the failed Rumsfeld strategy, and right to stand against torture. I just felt the need to clear that up.

I'm a moderate liberal Democrat, so my perspective is obviously different, but Hillary more conservative than McCain? Really!? I wonder what Hillary thinks of that statement.

And Pat Buchanan's in on it as well...

HT: Classical Values


UPDATE: Via Glenn Reynolds, a somewhat different take here. Problematic for many obvious reasons, but interesting.

"Am I the only one who can realistically picture myself voting for Clinton, Obama, Romney, or McCain?"

Well, if you take Romney out of that question, then the answer is no, you're not the only one.

Tag, I'm It!

In accepting Simon's tag, I'll give it a go. I'm in my computer room, so I'll pick the closest book I see on that bookshelf, which is Faulkner's Light in August:

He said, "Have you told her?"

The woman sat on the bed. She seemed to sink slowly back upon it, clutching the garment, watching him, her face blanched.

Faulkner is one of my favorites.

Now, the tagging of five others could be a problem, seeing as I'm not sure they'd even notice, let alone respond (I don't have that many blogger connections). I could of course double-tag my fellow co-bloggers, but I can try and tag the crew at Centerfield (you post over there now, don't you, Max?, Shay over at Booker Rising, Jon Swift, the Walrus, and in the small chance she reads this, Althouse.

OK, then.

The Real Reason Not to Vote For Mike Huckabee

As we all know, Mike Huckabee's campaign has managed to reach a point that none of us thought was possible. He was considered a hopeless candidate months ago, and yet has managed to still remain a serious contender for the GOP nomination. I've followed with morbid fascination the media hype factory that has been generated around the former Governor of Arkansas. It seems that the many in the media establishment have warmed up this guy, totally ignoring his wholly problematic policy positions, because he's likeable, and a somewhat laid back guy. I've even caught myself almost falling for it in my weaker moments. I no longer have that problem, for reasons I'll discuss in a second. Many on the Right want the Huckabus stopped, because they feel he's not sufficiently conservative. To the right-wing GOP base, and because of his quasi-populist appeals, Huckabee my appear to be somewhat liberal, but to most of the country he is pretty darn conservative. He is a solid socon, which explains his support among many evangelicals, but many Republicans feel he's soft on immigration, taxes, and foreign policy. Many moderates are turned off my his social conservatism.

One can oppose Huckabee because he's too far to the right. Righties will oppose him because of his slam against Bush, or his raising taxes. One can oppose him for his idiotic FairTax proposal, or his flip-flops on immigration, or his appeals to quasi-theocracy. For my money, his hard-right social policies, and his pretty right policies elsewhere make it impossible for me to vote for him (even if I wasn't a Democrat), even if he is likeable.

If those aren't enough for you, Christopher Hitchens gives us the real reason not to even consider voting for Huckabee, and laments the media's refusal to highlight it.

Read the whole thing.

Heath Ledger Dead At 28

In case you haven't heard, tragic news as actor Heath Ledger has died, at the young age of 28, apparently from a drug overdose. He was one of my favorite actors, and I was looking forward to seeing him in The Dark Knight. More importantly, a young life has been tragically snuffed out all too soon. God rest his soul.

thanks to SF for the link

And Then There's This...

Longtime Clinton foe Christopher Hitchens presents his case against continuing the Clinton dynasty. There's a lot of predictable anti-Clinton hysteria in here, but he's not entirely off base:

During the Senate debate on the intervention in Iraq, Sen. Clinton made considerable use of her background and "experience" to argue that, yes, Saddam Hussein was indeed a threat. She did not argue so much from the position adopted by the Bush administration as she emphasized the stand taken, by both her husband and Al Gore, when they were in office, to the effect that another and final confrontation with the Baathist regime was more or less inevitable. Now, it does not especially matter whether you agree or agreed with her about this (as I, for once, do and did). What does matter is that she has since altered her position and attempted, with her husband's help, to make people forget that she ever held it. And this, on a grave matter of national honor and security, merely to influence her short-term standing in the Iowa caucuses.

Good point. What gives, Mrs. Clinton?

UPDATE: Timothy Noah explains why her claim as the experience candidate is kinda bogus.

Obama and...Ronald Reagan!?

Check this out:



HT: SF


UPDATE: Kranky Kritter over at Centerfield provides some much needed context. At the end of the day, Obama name-dropping Reagan isn't a bad thing per se. Reagan did make fundamental changes (many positive, some not so much), and even the most hardened lefties have to recognize that the Reagan era wasn't that bad, and that Reagan did many good things.

I must say though, that I think he's being somewhat unfair to Clinton.

"We have a heritage of free speech that we inherited from Great Britain that goes back to the year 1215 and the Magna Carta."

Ezra Levant, on his interrogation before the Canadian government, about his role in publishing those Danish cartoons. You have to read this.

HT: Althouse

The Writer's Strike and Iraq

On Bill Maher's show Friday night (his first show back sans writers), he offered up an interesting thought at the end of the show. He made a brief comment about the strike, talking about how important his writers were, and the importance of unions, but questioning certain aspects of the strike (timing, necessity, etc). He then compared what he saw as the prevailing attitude among many in Hollywood about the strike, and comapred it to the debate over Iraq, in that many had their patriotism questioned for opposing the war, and he saw a witch-hunt atmosphere brewing around the strike.

An interesting discussion to have, regardless of one's view of the war or the writer's strike, and I'm interested in hearing thoughts (particularly yours, Max) on this. I feel the need to point out though, that if any real discussion like this is to happen, particularly among liberals, then I think an issue that needs to be addressed is the way liberals who support the war are treated, by those that don't.

cross-posted from Stubborn Facts.

Happy Birthday, Professor Althouse!

It was Ann Althouse's birthday yesterday, and as she is one of my favorite bloggers, I'm more than happy to keep this linking ball rolling. So, keeping with tradition, (and you too, Simon), I'll add three of my favorite links here, here, and here. Admittedly, the third one I chose more for the passionate discussion in the comments that it generated.

Keep up the good work, Professor.

UPDATE: And as to the second choice, it seems I'm not the only one.

From the Sanity File...

Juliette Ochieng, AKA Baldilocks, is no fan of Obama, but she nonetheless feels the need to rebuke her fellow conservatives, regarding their use of the Kenya crisis, to attack Obama:

Had any of you even heard of the Luo before Obama stepped into the picture? Had you heard of the Gikuyu/Kikuyu, the Luhya, the Kalenjin before a few weeks ago? What does GEMA stand for? When did Kenya get its independence? Who were its colonial masters? How many presidents has Kenya had? What are their names? Who were the Mau-Mau? What are the Mungiki? Don't look at Wikipedia. Do you know and of this information and if so, do you know how to interpret it? Do you know how all it fits into the conflict at hand in Kenya? Or have you discarded/disregarded it because it doesn't fit into the Narrative? Would you even give a f**k about hundreds of dead Kenyans if you couldn't find a way to spin it into a war between Islam and Christianity? If not, stop making yourselves and the Right look like ghouls / fools."

Indeed.

HT: Booker Rising

300 Posts!!

It took me a while, but I've finally hit 300 posts, and this post is number 301. I'm trying to maintain consistent blogging, but things come up, you understand.

In the next few days I've finally going to stop being lazy and get a site counter. I've always self-deprecatingly asserted that I wasn't one of those blogs with millions of visitors, but for all I know, I could be getting a million hits a day (although wouldn't Google and Technorati reflect that?). Perhaps millions would come, but they think to themselves, "this guy doesn't even have a site counter!? Three years and no site counter!? Who does he think he is? Does he not care? Is he so humble, that he doesn't care how many people show up, or is he so full of himself, that he assumes that millions must come, drawn by his implicit greatness? Screw that! When he gets a site counter, then I'll stick around."

Or not. Anyway, in the next few days. To the loyal readers who do stick around, thanks again, and have a great year.

The Not-so-Long Story of My Experience with Democratic Underground

Per Pat's suggestion, and recent events, I've finally decided to expound on something I've been thinking about posting on for a while. With the far-left nutroots in a lunatic fever, there have been moments when I've reflected on my time with Democratic Underground. In case you haven't gathered the point yet, let me spell it out: I used to be a member of Democratic Underground.

Now, many will read this and be shocked. Hold on a second. Put down your keyboards, and don't change your blogrolls yet. I can explain:

Actually, the story really isn't that long. The fact is, in 2001, I was looking through liberal websites, and I came across DU. I knew even then that I was more moderate than most members (after all, the board was created out of the fury of Bush v. Gore), but I found that at least in the beginning, that wasn't a big deal. I could have thoughtful discussions with most people, and as long as I stayed away from certain topics, I'd be fine, and for the most part, I was. I comforted myself with the fact that comparable message boards on the right, like Free Republic, for instance, were worse. After all, they didn't even allow liberals into their site.

As I said, all was basically well on the site. I didn't post as frequently as others, but I had a pretty good relationship. Even after 9/11, things were pretty sane. Don't get me wrong, the antiwar and anti-Bush elements were out in force, but it wasn't as if intelligent conversations weren't possible.

Then came the war in Iraq, and everything changed. Now perhaps, I was just naive, and just didn't realize how extreme the site had already been. As I see it, as the war marched on, the anti-war Left began taking control of the whole place. A pro-war liberal like myself was pretty lonely. I even changed my username to reflect my lone wolf status. I must tell you, trying to argue war policy with the Reflexively Anti-War Left is like arguing with a brick wall. Sure the righties were just as bad, but that wasn't the point. It had gotten to the point where even non-foreign policy discussions were turning into discussions about Iraq. Towards the end of my tenure, I totally avoided most poilitical discussions, and stuck to the Lounge (the non-political board), and doing polls.

By late 2004, I had discovered the blogosphere, so I started broadening my options. I was looking for a spot on the web that didn't see American foreign policy as evil and imperialistic, but not done as if produced out of the Bush White House. I created my own blog in Feb. of 2005, and later, I discovered great blogs, center, left, and even right.

Another confession: I donated to DU twice. Keep in mind that for a long time, I felt that DU was one of the few places left-of-center online that I could have discussions. This was before the blogosphere. Heck, I even got an article published. Not my best work, by any stretch, but I'm not ashamed of it.

To make a long story short, it had gotten to the point where I couldn't hang there any longer, and I left. No scathing farewell posts. No hate mail. I just left, and never looked back. As it stands now, DU is leading the moonbat charge.

If I went back, chances are I could have an intelligent discussion, assuming it had nothing to do with Iraq, Bush, Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman, the DLC, or General Petraeus, et al. I'd rather not. Like I said, I've moved up, and moved on.

OK, I'm done. Like I said, not that long.

P.S. In the nigh-impposible chance that DU'ers might read this, know this: I don't hate you, but you guys decided a long time ago to turn that message board into a hotbed of moonbat hysteria, and I'm just not into that.

cross posted from Stubborn Facts

Happy New Year!!

Well, what's left of it. I hope everyone had a great day, and didn't get too drunk.

I'm Inclined To Agree With This...

Via Althouse:

Well, of course, it was bad of the little girl to lie, but little kids lie. Making a spectacle out of disgracing a 6-year-old is disgraceful. After failing to check the very checkable fact that made the company think of her essay as the best, it should have quietly resolved the matter with the girl's family — probably by sending her on the trip anyway — and given the prize — the honor of winning plus the trip — to someone else.

I'm not sure about letting her go on the trip anyway, but I do agree that it's a bit out of bounds to pile on this girl. She's six. Not sixteen, not twenty-six, but six. As suggested in the comments, I think her mom had a hand in this, and at the very least should take the blame for not vetting her daughter's work (Don't you need parent's permission for these things, anyway?), not to mention the judges, for not vetting properly.

This ought to have been discreetly, and this girl shouldn't be subjected to this, as this goes well beyond the realm of a moral lesson.

I have to wonder though, are young girls that hung up on Hannah Montana, as to even allow such a situation like this to arise?

Benazir Bhutto Assassinated

This story has been developing all day, but it's clear that Bhutto was attacked during a speech. She was shot in the neck and the chest, and the assassin apparently blew himself up. She survived the bombing, but died of the gunshot wounds. Tragic all around. A sad day for Pakistan, and a sad day for us all.

HT: SF for the link

But This One Here Was Actually Good

This isn't really an ad per se, rather, it's a message to the troops. I thought this was good. HT and thanks to the WWE.

Speaking of Christmas Ads,

This one from Hillary probably wasn't the best choice:




HT: Althouse

I mean, whatever your opinions on those issues, the ad was just awful. I'm with Ann, in that it's almost a self-parody.

Yeah, That's A Good Point!

In response to this news of the couldn't-have-happened-sooner-enough departure from the 2008 Presidential race of Tom "Let's Wall Up The Whole Frickin' Country" Tancredo (HT: Fern over at Stubborn Facts), I admittedly used some harsh words. Let it be said, that cavemen deserve better:

Hitchens and Huckabee

Although it is triple-marinated in insufferable anti-religious contempt, Christopher Hitchens' Slate piece on the right of people to consider religious views when judging candidates is nonetheless correct on the constitutional question:

As so often, the framers and founding fathers meant what they said, said what they meant, and risked no waste of words. A candidate for election, or an applicant for a post in the bureaucracy, could not be disqualified on the grounds of his personal faith in any god (or his disbelief in any god, for that matter).

He reminds us, though, that:

However, what Article VI does not do, and was never intended to do, is deny me the right to say, as loudly as I may choose, that I will on no account vote for a smirking hick like Mike Huckabee, who is an unusually stupid primate but who does not have the elementary intelligence to recognize the fact that this is what he is. My right to say and believe that is already guaranteed to me by the First Amendment. And the right of Huckabee to win the election and fill the White House with morons like himself is unaffected by my expression of an opinion.

Like I said, chock-full of anti-religious poison, but on the facts of Article VI, he's right. I have the right to consider someone's faith (Or lack of faith) when judging a candidate, and be quite vocal about doing so. Just because the government cannot impose a religious test, that doesn't mean the people can't. Contra Dennis Prager, Keith Ellison had every right to swear on the Koran, but voters do have the right to consider his adherence to that book when voting for him. Many will consider Romney's Mormonism, or Rudy's Catholicism. Hitchens will doubtless ask himself "does this candidate hate God as much as I do, and is he as self-absorbed and arrogant about it as I am?"

The wisdom of such considerations depends on your perspective, but let me add my view: I'm a Christian. Huckabee's faith isn't a problem for me (although he is a socon Republican, so I have issues with many of his policies). My problems with Romney have nothing to do with his Mormon faith, although there are questions he will have to face.

Back to Huckabee for a moment, while I totally understand the concern of improperly mixing religious and politics, I don't see what the big fuss is about on Huckabee's new Christmas ad, with the "floating bookshelf cross" in the background. It's a Christmas ad, and Huckabee has never hid his Christian faith. I'm not naive enough to think that he didn't know it was there, or at the very least the camera guy didn't know or plan it), I just don't see the big deal.

Before anyone asks, I'm not stumping for Huckabee. Being that he's a pretty conservative guy, chances are I'm not going to vote for him, but he seems like a decent man, and the pile on is getting silly.

There is a thought that I'm planning to expand on, about a possible anti-Huckabee conspiracy coming from the right, masking as a critique of hypersecularism, but that comes later.

HT: Althouse and Stubborn Facts

Congress vs. The First Amendment (And The Plain Meaning of Words)

Over at Stubborn Facts, Tully has been providing extensive coverage of the continuing progress of an utterly-wrongheaded bill that will essentially limit press freedom to the established and well-paid journalistic elite, and strip away those freedoms from the average citizen.

This bill started off innocently enough, but in the legislative factory, a nefarious change was made. Here's how the bill started out:


(2) COVERED PERSON- The term `covered person' means a person engaged in journalism and includes a supervisor, employer, parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of such covered person.

...(5) JOURNALISM- The term `journalism' means the gathering, preparing, collecting, photographing, recording, writing, editing, reporting, or publishing of news or information that concerns local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public.

All good in the hood so far, right? Even righty Mike Pence supported this bill at first. But here's the problem. Look at what happened:

(2) COVERED PERSON- The term `covered person' means a person who regularly gathers, prepares, collects, photographs, records, writes, edits, reports, or publishes news or information that concerns local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public for a substantial portion of the person's livelihood or for substantial financial gain and includes a supervisor, employer, parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of such covered person.

See what happened? Now the bill only protects you if you're a paid journalist, and journalism is a substantial part of your livelihood. In other words, the average blogger is left out.

This bill, HR 2102, passed the House in October. Tully brought it to the forefront again, after coming across this, which uses some of the most absurd reasoning I've seen in a while, and tries to make the case that citizen journalism is dangerous:

Supporters of "citizen journalism" argue it provides independent, accurate, reliable information that the traditional media don't provide. While it has its place, the reality is it really isn't journalism at all, and it opens up information flow to the strong probability of fraud and abuse. The news industry should find some way to monitor and regulate this new trend.

It seems that Congress has already started on that.

Hazinski continues, with this nugget:

This is like saying someone who carries a scalpel is a "citizen surgeon" or someone who can read a law book is a "citizen lawyer."

Umm, no, it's not, you idiot. First off, there is no constitiutional right to be a lawyer or a surgeon, and the field of journalism is so different from law and medicine, that your analogy is rendered beyond ridiculous.

The underlying argument here, and the underlying argument in the change in the bill, is a belief that the press has special freedoms granted them by the Constitution. The Founders didn't give freedom to the press, they gave the freedom of the press, to the people.

I wrote on this awhile back, when the NYT tried to justify their leak of the SWIFT terrorist banking story.

This bill needs to die in the Senate, and quickly.

HT again to Tully over at SF.

Hugo Chavez vs. Time

Hugo has apparently decided that time itself is thwarting his plans, so he's decided to create a whole new time zone.

"I don't care if they call me crazy, the new time will go ahead," he said.

OK, then. You're craaaazy.

HT: Althouse, who has a cool new profile pic.

Not To Overreact Here,

but I'm inclined to agree with Eric Scheie, and wonder if perhaps it really isn't the best way to show your commitment to working-class and poor people, by broadcasting a debate on a channel that only people with a lot of money can watch?

This is another one of those things that the GOP will seize on, and while ultimately irrelevant, doesn't reflect well. I mean, what is the thinking behind this anyway? Did HDNet pay the DNC big bucks for this or something?

It all seems silly. I just can't figure out what they were trying to accomplish.

HT: Althouse

The People Say No to Hugo

Hugo Chavez's plan to solididy himself as a dictator (even more than he already was) has failed, as the people of Venezuela rejected his referendum that would have made him President for life, carved up what was left of the Constitution, and seized even more executive power, and made him the next Fidel. The Chavistas will doubtless continue to misread this, and blame the U.S., but I think Marc Cooper nails it in one strike:

The real answer is that Hugo Chavez lost because a majority of Venezuelans decided he had taken them far enough off, thank you very much, and simply did not want to cross the threshold into an uncertain and prolonged chapter of personal dictatorship and political darkness. Good for them. Let's hope they can make it through the next six years of Chavez' current term.

Indeed. The people wanted democracy. Chavez, after grabbing more and more power, after shutting down the opposition press (with apparent approval from some over here), and his continued authoritarian expansion, couldn't force the people to choose dictatorship. He may call them traitors, but it won't work. Let's just hope and pray Venezuela survives the rest of his term.

BTW, Tully over at my second home Stubborn Facts has consistently provided extensive coverage of this issue, and Chavez's antics in general.

Cautious Optimism, Versus Cynical Opportunism

Christopher Hitchens, on the good news coming from Iraq. Good all the way through, and a somewhat hyperbolic, but nonetheless valid argument at the end:

As I began by saying, I am not at all certain that any of this apparently good news is really genuine or will be really lasting. However, I am quite sure both that it could be true and that it would be wonderful if it were to be true. What worries me about the reaction of liberals and Democrats is not the skepticism, which is pardonable, but the dank and sinister impression they give that the worse the tidings, the better they would be pleased. The latter mentality isn't pardonable and ought not to be pardoned, either.

True dat.

There's Bad Journalism, and Then There's Really Bad Journalism

You know what, I generally don't go out of my way to watch these debates, yet despite my belief that these debates end up becoming silly exercises in well, silliness, I find myself drawn to watching them. I missed Wednesday's GOP/YouTube debate on CNN when it was live, but I did catch the replay and a lot of the post-debate coverage. Most people should know about this by now, but there's been some question-planting going on again (HT: Pajamas Media), as the retired gay general asking the question about gays in the military was a Clinton staffer.

And, it doesn't stop there.

The thing is, this has to be a world-class embarassment for CNN. I don't really buy into the Vast Left-Wing Media Conspiracy meme, but this is one of those examples that righties will shove in the faces of liberals like me in order to make their case. I read this as systemic, world-class incompetence on the part of CNN. I don't think Anderson Cooper knew, but are you telling me, that after this same problem happened last time, on the same network, that no one in the mothership thought to do a little vetting of the questions, so they wouldn't be embarrased on the air by Bill Bennett, and a handful of righty bloggers? It makes you wonder how you can trust them as a journalistic outfit after this foolishness.

Joe Scarborough calls bullshit as far as CNN not knowing about this beforehand is concerned, but I have problems believing CNN even has the attention span, let alone the smarts to execute such a scheme. Who knows. A half-assed web search could've solved this straightaway. CNN, your internet kung-fu is weak.

This cannot be good for Hillary. One wonders if CNN really is smarter than we think, and they're simply in the tank for Obama?

Is This How the Pentagon Supports the Troops?

PFC Jordan Fox served his country proudly in Iraq. He joined the Army, served as a sniper, and survived heated machine gun battles and an IED. As is the nature of war, he was wounded. You'd think Fox would've gotten a medal, or a purple heart, but instead, the DoD sent him a bill, for the repayment of his signing bonus.

No, I'm not making this up:

The injury forced the military to send him home. A few weeks later, Fox received a bill from the Department of Defense, saying he owes the military nearly $3,000 from his original enlistment bonus because he couldn't fulfill three months of his commitment.

"I tried to do my best and serve my country and unfortunately I was hurt in the process and now they're telling me that they want their money back," Fox told CBS station KDKA-TV.

This is apparently not an isolated bureaucratic foul-up. The military is allegedly demanding that thousands of wounded service personnel give back signing bonuses because they are unable to serve out their commitments.

PFC Fox's case has been settled for the most part, but the fact that is still happening, or that it happened at all is an outrage. President Bush, and Secretary Gates need to kill this thing at the root, and see that those who guard us while we sleep are not screwed over when they're wounded on the battlefield, and return home.

Robots Are Horrible Racists!!!

Or at least, profoundly incompetent, according to Google. I missed this story, but apparently, there was a glitch in Google's image-based news search, that linked Time Warner CEO Richard Parsons, and Merrill-Lynch CEO Stanley O'Neal, to a photo of rhesus monkeys. Frankly, their explanation still smells like bullshit, and their almost dismissive indifference on the matter rubs me wrong.

I'm staying on this story.

“Why do you think you didn’t give a speech like this in, say, May or June of 2004?”

Asks E.J Dionne, in response to these recent comments by John Kerry on abortion, and the Democratic Party's position on life issues:


I think we have been guilty in the party and individually at times of being overly pro-choice and this is the way it is and we’re not going to do x, y or z, without honoring the deeply held beliefs that are legitimate that go to the question of the killing of a human being, depending on what you believe. And I understand it depends on what you believe. But if you believe it, I think you do have an obligation to say so in terms of wanting fewer abortions, of trying to say abortion is not good, it’s not a good alternative, and what we need to do is make sure people have other alternatives and other options. That’s where you can find a lot of common ground because there are 1.3 million abortions in this country, and I don’t think anybody would disagree that that is too many.

As Bill Clinton framed it, I thought so effectively, in 1992, it ought to be rare, legal and safe. Rare has been missing from the debate. I think we need to figure out how we’re going to do that, and do it in a more effective way.

I still remember vividly that third debate between Kerry and Bush, when he answered that question on abortion. It was like watching an animal being tortured. I felt literal pain watching that. This is still somewhat nuanced and clunky, but a quantum leap from the fall of 2004. It's much too late at this point (which was Dionne's point), but he does get a lot closer to full coherence this time.

UPDATE: I should mention that for all intents and purposes I am a pro-life Democrat, so I still have some issues with this position, but I still think it is a big step compared to his last statement on the issue.

No, It's Not LIke That At All

In an nonetheless interesting article, the oft-wrong-on-the-war-but-usually-thoughtful Glenn Greenwald gets it really wrong:

We took a country that was relatively stable and a sworn enemy of, and an important check on, Iran. We turned it into a cesspool of violence, instability, displacement, sectarian strife, Iranian influence, and rule by militia.

The best we can hope for is to reverse some of the damage that we did so that a Shiite regime far more loyal to Iran than to the U.S. can rule with some semblance of order. And to "achieve" that, we squandered hundreds of billions of dollars, thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians (at least), and almost every ounce of credibility and influence we built up over the last six decades. That's the best case scenario. But still -- we are hearing now -- the people responsible for that grotesque debacle and who cheered it on are going to be in a "powerful" position, and the people who thought doing that was all a bad idea will be in big, big trouble.

The problems with his analysis are highlighted.

First off, I respect honest disagreements on the war policy, but I feel the need to bust two myths wide open. First off, Iraq wasn't really that stable under Saddam. The state was bound for collapse, not to mention a state sponsor of terror, and a rogue-state human rights nightmare, to say the least. Saddam was a murderer and a butcher. His regime was collapsing around him, and bound to be replaced by a worse regime. The idea was to replace Saddam's regime with a democratic alternative. Things obviously didn't work out quite like we planned, but the real progress we've made isn't some fantasy. Secondly, it's hardly fair to lay the blame squarely on ourselves for the violence there, as if al-Qaeda, the militias, and death squads somehow don't exist. I'm just sayin.'

Oh, yeah, and I'm with Althouse (thanks for the H/T, BTW). What is up with that metaphor?

The Art of Seeing Things As They Are

I put off blogging on this for a while, as other issues took precedence, but I was brought back to this after reading a two-week old Newsweek article on Hillary and Iran. I've noted elsewhere that there seems to be an almost obsessive fear with regards to Iran--not so much from the threat Iran poses, but from the possibility that we may have to engage that threat. The anti-war Left, a lot of the Democratic leadership, and many in the press seem to abide under a constant fear of a war with Iran. Let me say that I don't want to go to war with Iran if we don't have to, and I think that view is shared by all but the most hardened hawks on the right. The thing is, whether some of us refuse to admit or not, Iran is a real threat, and we may have to engage that threat down the line.

The anti-war Left has gone after Democrats whom they feel have not done enough to oppose what they feel is a march to war with Iran. They have piled on Lieberman for basically pointing out that we may have to engage Iran, and they have recently piled on Hillary (and other Dems) for backing the Kyl-Lieberman resolution. At the last debate, the other Democratic candidates hammered Hillary over this. Edwards said it "was written by the neocons." Obama, Biden, and others attacked her. Hillary defended herself by asserting her commitment to dealing with the threat of Iran honestly. Here's the thing, whatever one thinks of Hillary Clinton's political motivations for voting for the resolution that effectively declares the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, one thing ought to be clear: The Iranian Revolutionary Guard is a terrorist organization. If Hezbollah, Hamas, and al-Qaeda are terrorist organizations (no one is disputing that, are they?) then by what I've read, the Quds force is as well.

The problem many have with this resolution is that in their view, it gives Bush legal ammunition to further a casus belli for Iran. I am, for all intents and purposes, a supporter of the Iraq war, but I understand the concern of rushing too quickly into another war, without sufficient planning, or without sufficient public support. To call Iraq a controversial war is the acme of understatement. I reject the idea that this war was doomed from the start, and still cling to hope even now, but many assumptions were proven wrong about this war, and I understand the rational fear about these things.

I just don't see this resolution as necessarily leading to war. I'd been hearing a lot about this resolution, so I read it myself. The whole thing. Frankly, I see nothing to really be alarmed about, unless one totally rejects the idea of identifying threats. Consider this:

(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate--

(1) that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy;

(2) that it is a vital national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force that could serve its interests inside Iraq, including by overwhelming, subverting, or co-opting institutions of the legitimate Government of Iraq;

(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;

(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies;

(5) that the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224; and

(6) that the Department of the Treasury should act with all possible expediency to complete the listing of those entities targeted under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1737 and 1747 adopted unanimously on December 23, 2006 and March 24, 2007, respectively.

The way I see it, all this does is acknowledge the threat, and says that we should do all we can to stop it. Diplomacy, economic pressure, and IF NECESSARY, military force. The fact is, we know that Syria has terrorist ties. We've had several resolutions stating this fact. Have we moved any closer to war with Syria as a result? Of course not. I'll say again, that only the most hard-line hawks are calling for strikes against Iran right now, but only fools delude themselves into thinking that all of Ahmadinejad's talk is bluster, and that the threat of nuclear Iran is not real.

OK, whew. That was longer than I'd thought it would be.

Why Do So Many Hollywood Lefties Love Hugo So Much?

Anne Applebaum has a good theory:

"In fact, for the malcontents of Hollywood, academia, and the catwalks, Chávez is an ideal ally. Just as the sympathetic foreigners whom Lenin called "useful idiots" once supported Russia abroad, their modern equivalents provide the Venezuelan president with legitimacy, attention, and good photographs. He, in turn, helps them overcome the frustration John Reed once felt—the frustration of living in an annoyingly unrevolutionary country where people have to change things by law. For all his brilliance, Reed could not bring socialism to America. For all his wealth, fame, media access, and Hollywood power, Sean Penn cannot oust George W. Bush. But by showing up in the company of Chávez, he can at least get a lot more attention for his opinions."

For a regrettably large number of Hollywood big shots, the reality of life in a repressive dictatorship is lost on them. They are easily deceived. This is why a guy like Hugo Chavez can cast himself as a man of the people and a friend of democracy, (much like Che continues to cloak his true bloody legacy even long after his death), while Penn, Redford, Danny Glover and others manage to miss the persistent details of reality.

She continues on:

Most of all, Venezuela's leader not only dislikes the American president—so do most other heads of state—but refers to him as "the devil," a "dictator," a "madman," and a "killer." Who cares what Chávez actually does when Sean Penn isn't looking? Ninety years after the tragedy of the Russian revolution, Venezuela has become the "kingdom more bright than any heaven had to offer" for a whole new generation of fellow-travelers. As long as the oil lasts."

Certainly seems that way.

Anti-Gay, America-Hating Kooks Get Their Comeuppance

That's the only title I could come up with to describe this victory:

A federal jury in Baltimore awarded nearly $11 million in damages yesterday to the family of a Marine from Maryland whose funeral was disrupted by members of a Kansas-based fundamentalist church.

One of the defendants said the civil award was the first against the church, whose members have stirred anger across the nation by picketing at funerals for service members killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, often carrying placards bearing virulent anti-gay slogans. The church maintains that God is punishing the United States, killing and maiming troops, because the country tolerates homosexuality.

Unrepentant Fred Phelps is somehow undeterred, and continues to somehow see in the First Amendment the right to disturb private military funerals with hate speech:

"It was a bunch of silly heads passing judgment on God," he said. "I don't believe anyone in the courtroom knows what the First Amendment is. Religious views are expressly protected by the First Amendment. You can't prosecute a preacher in civil law or in criminal law for what he preaches."

Fred Phelps and his ungodly coterie miss the mark big time, but the family of Lance Cpl. Snyder sets them straight:

"The fact of the matter is, a funeral's private," said one of their attorneys, Sean Summers. "There was no public concern when [church members] showed up with a 'God Hates You' sign."

Exactly. This is open and shut for me. Not only are these rogues utterly hateful in their rhetoric, they do not have the right to invade private funerals with their rhetoric. For the life of me, I cannot fathom why the ACLU has taken sides with the Phelps, although if you ask some people, they'll tell you it makes perfect sense.

RedState to Ron Paul Supporters: You're Not Wanted Here

There's an interesting bit of blogosphere fuss about RedState's policy of preventing new commenters from voicing their support for Ron Paul. RedState says that they're basically crazy people, and that they add nothing to the debate. Let me say this: I am the farthest thing from a Ron Paul supporter than you can possibly be. As a pro-war, center-Left liberal Democrat, I'm as far from Paul's constituency as Tokyo is from Texarkana, but I reject the idea of excluding certain groups of commenters without sufficient cause. I'm feeling a bit lazy now, so I'll let my comment over at Michael van der Galien's place speak instead:

Well, I’m coming at this from the perspective of a pro-war liberal Democrat, but let me add a couple of things. In my view, Ron Paul is something of a crazy person, embodying the worst of 1930’s isolationism, and Lew Rockwell-style hardcore libertarianism. His supporters are almost cult-like in their zeal. The way I see it, no self-respecting liberal would support him.

That being said, Paul’s candidacy is a legit phenomenon, and ought not be ignored. It’s bad form to exclude certain groups from the discussion out of hand. RedState can do what they want, but it’s bad form if you ask me. Meaningless cheerleader posts should be met with equal mental energy, which is to say, not much. Thoughtful and substantive posts should be encouraged. As I’ve said, throwing the whole bunch out is bad form, and I’ll leave it at that.

I'm not sure how likely this is, but if Ron Paul supporters happen to show up here, the door is open. I welcome open and honest debate, even from those with whom I vehemently disagree. Including those who support a bats**t crazy person who wants to basically hollow out the government, and thinks the Civil War was an unnecessary war. If you do show up though, prepare to have your arguments challenged openly, and as I see it, torn to pieces.

Also, I think Simon over at SF has a point about Andrew Sullivan extending a welcome hand to Paul supporters. Sully really does have to open up his blog to comments, if he's going to make statements like that.

HT: Stubborn Facts

Sure, You've Heard of Chickenhawks,

but have you ever heard of chickendoves?

Double-reverse chickendoves, no less:

People who talk up war without going get slapped with chickenhawk slurs. Clearly Friedman’s no chickenhawk, at least not anymore. Chickenhawk slurs are slapped on people who support war and haven’t gone. ”Chickenhawk” gets tossed around by people who don’t feel the need to lift a finger in support of the peace they profess to love. Not a human shield among them.

Friedman presents us with something different. The double-reverse chickendove. War supporter turned surrender enthusiast makes ironic funny about how painful this war has been for him. The terrible barrage of headlines, slogging through all those long, bitter thumbsuckers. News is hell. But apparently, he hasn’t been reading it.

Hmmm..

HT: Instapundit

Say What You Want About Al Gore Winning The Nobel Prize,

but at least he's not this guy, who despite his assertions to the contrary, is a horrible racist.

BTW, as for Gore getting the Peace Prize, I think its a good thing. OK, then.

Of Heroism, Courage, Sorrow, and Pride

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

John 15:13

I dare say it is your duty to read in full this deeply moving piece by Christopher Hitchens, on the heroic life of Lt. Mark Daily, and the emotion Hitchens felt when he learned that his words inspired a young man to fight and sacrifice for his country. Quite possibly the best and most emotional piece he's ever wriiten, and maybe one of most moving pieces on this war you'll ever read.

HT: Centerfield

UPDATE: He's still utterly lost when it comes to religion, though:

He also told the crowd that heaven would be comparable to North Korea, as they both embody a totalitarianism of eternal gratitude.

Hitchens pointed to the “horrific pointlessness and misery” of having to thank a leader for everything when the leader was never asked for in the first place — which he said is intrinsic to both the concept of heaven and in North Korea.“At least you can fucking die and get out of North Korea,” Hitchens added.

Sigh. I'm praying for you, Christopher. I really am.

The Sport of Kings

It's kind of a slow news day, so I give you this, what has to be one of the coolest game show concepts ever:

A Matter of Principle

"Where there is no vision, the people perish."

Proverbs 29:18


"The result by the 1980s was a much weakened liberalism that was no match for a renewed conservative movement. Sapped of energy, liberalism had become, in Paul Starr's words, mostly "defensive" and "oppositional." Liberals tried to stick to the catechism of the older values, but were often pushed off course by the conflicting priorities championed by the cultural left. Liberals lacked any clear conception of first principles or anchoring ideas to guide them. Except for the fact that the Democratic party remained the home of almost all of the intelligentsia, it had now become the "stupid party" of American politics, an honor previously reserved for Republicans. Not even the two Clintons, with their high IQ's and a new generation of policy wonks to serve them, could change this. The "New Democrat" thrust was wholly strategic and practical: to move the Democratic party to the center and to "reinvent" government. Whatever other contributions may be ascribed to the Clinton Democrats, deep reflection about the party's theoretical foundations was not among them."


A must-read article, on the future of liberalism, the Democratic Party, and political discourse at large. Read the whole thing.

HT: Stubborn Facts

Congressional Foolishness, Ill-Advised and Dangerous

While we should recognize the tragic and bloody Turkish deportation of over a million Armenians during World War I as a horrible thing, I'm basically in agreement with Michael van der Galien (and the Bush Administration) that the nonbinding resolution that sprung forth out of Congress is a ill-advised and counterproductive measure:

Bush didn’t want the panel to send the resolution to the full House, because he feared (and fears) that it’ll do great damage to the relationship between Turkey and the US. The US is increasingly dependent on Turkey. Not only is Turkey a Nato ally closest to where the action takes place these days, it’s also one of the most important and powerful Muslim countries. Of all the Muslim countries in the world, the US can’t afford to insult this particular one.

If the House accepts the resolution - and I’m sure it will - the US has a major problem. Not only may trade problems occur, not only will anti-Americanism in Turkey increase, not only will Turks boycott American products and businesses, Turkey is also likely to move closer to the East and to distance itself a bit from the West. This at a time that the West needs Turkey in the war against radical Islam. More, it also makes it increasingly likely that Turkey will act against the PKK without asking the US for permission or even informing the US about the operation.

I've heard reports earlier today that the Congress (or at least Ike Skelton) has reversed course, and decided to kill this resolution. Let's hope so, and hope no permanent damage has been done. Let's settle this very real issue of the Armenian genocide(?) the right way, and not with nonbinding but dangerous resolutions.

"Look, I Just Want Some Pants. A Decent Pair of Pants!!"

Via Althouse, comes this hilarious and somewhat awkward clip of LBJ ordering some pants. Her analysis of the larger point is also interesting. I took note of this:

"LBJ: Now the pockets, when you sit down, everything falls out, your money, your knife, everything, so I need at least another inch in the pockets. And another thing - the crotch, down where your nuts hang - is always a little too tight, so when you make them up, give me an inch that I can let out there, uh because they cut me, it's just like riding a wire fence. These are almost, these are the best I've had anywhere in the United States"

Discuss.

BTW, in case you didn't get the reference alluded to in the title, watch this:

The Revolution May Not Be Televised

From Michael Totten, comes an initimate report on U.S. efforts to keep the peace in Ramadi and Anbar, that you probably won't see on the local news. Read the whole thing, but I thought this was good to excerpt:

I'm hardly the first. I know several journalists, political liberals as well as conservatives, who write it straight and don't wallow in soldier-bashing. But the soldier-bashing that's also out there sure does make an impression. Every journalist who embeds in Iraq must hear these complaints as often as I did, and I heard it daily.

Indeed. I also thought this was important:

This is what it’s like now in and just outside Ramadi. This mission is the kind of thing embedded journalists see, which is why most war correspondents embed somewhere else. Soldiers Hand Out Newspapers and Rice isn’t much of a headline, and it’s even less of a scoop. But this is the kind of work soldiers do now every day in what was recently the most violent place in Iraq.

That doesn’t mean reporters who go somewhere else aren’t doing their jobs, but it mostly explains why you rarely see coverage from Anbar.

As I said, read it all.

The First (and Last) Time I Address The Limbaugh Controversy

OK, I'm only blogging on this once, because I'm already worn out. It's clear that there has a been a susbstantial amount of heat about comments that Limbaugh made regarding soldiers in Iraq, and dissent, and "phony soldiers." The Left has piled on, and the right has piled on the pile on. Let me say this: I don't consider myself a Limbaugh fan by any means, but I think it's clear that his words were at least ambiguous, and most likely didn't mean to assert that troops who oppose the war are phony. That being said, whatever one thinks of his comments, the context of the comments, the justification of ignoring said context based on past statements Rush has made, or whatever, there was no reason whatsoever to bring this foolishness to the floor of Congress. What a spectacular waste of time that was.

Before anyone brings this up, let me say that as vicious and low-class as the MoveOn ad was, I still asserted that it was also something of a waste to bring a resolution condemning it to the Senate floor. Congress has more important things to deal with. It's clear why the Dems chose to do this, to distract from the MoveOn mess, and because Limbaugh is an easy target, being the combative partisan that he is. Keep in mind that there have been other worse instances of attacks on the troops, from the Left (William Arkin, anyone?), and the Right (Limbaugh and others have said worse things in the past), but nothing was done. When the Swiftboating of Kerry was on display, there were no resolutions on the Senate floor. This is going on right now because of politics, and the whole bit of business is silly.

And, I'm done with this.

They Wonder Why They Don't Get More of the Black Vote...

Perhaps this might have something to do with it?

Are you telling me that Tancredo had enough sense to show up, but none of the frontrunners did? Are you kidding me?

Michael Scheuer Is A Prick

These guys think so too, and I agree with them. You need to read the whole thing, and to my fellow liberals especially, ponder why it is that some of us are so quick to embrace such unreconstructed types. Interesting blog all around too.

UPDATE: Link fixed.

OK, Hold On A Sec...

You know, I've been hearing a lot about how Gen. Petraeus has somehow made himself a political tool of Bush, or has been forced to become one by Bush. This whole idea reeks of absurdity. Keith Olbermann, on most occasions is level-headed and relatively cool. He's opposed to the war in Iraq sure enough, and he hasn't hidden that fact. His criticisms are often snarky and biting, but most times I say, no big deal. But the rant I heard tonight at the end of his show (I'll post the link as soon as it's available) was, for the lack of a better word, unhinged. For a guy who counts himself as a foe of Bill O'Reilly, he sure managed to channel his spirit of hysterical outrage.

His comments were in response to Bush's admittedly self-serving pile-on about the MoveOn ad( backed up by an equally self-serving stunt resolution in the Senate). He argued that Bush and the GOP are in no moral position to chastise MoveOn, when they were mute on the Swiftboating of Max Cleland, and John Kerry. First off, as a rule, one should never justify bad behavior by other bad behavior, and secondly, Bush and crew may not have any credibility here, but the rest of us do. I condemned the Swiftboat smears. I condemned the smears on Max Cleland, and John Murtha (when they called him a coward), and others. John Cornyn (a guy I have limited respect for) has no moral position, but I do, and the 22 Dems who voted for the resolution do.

The thing is though, Olbermann actually goes on to defend the ad, and asserts that Petraeus has somehow made himself a political operative of Bush, and Bush has hidden behind Petraeus. Olbermann and others forget that it was the Democratic controlled Congress that rightly passed the measure that required Petraeus to testify before Congress. Petraeus is the top commander in Iraq. Based on his views and analysis, he supports the surge, and testified as such in the hearings. I fail to see how he made himself a puppet or a front man for Bush. It seems that those who believe he is a puppet, believe so because they cannot possibly fathom that anyone could possibly support the surge. According to Kos, only "moron dead-enders" still support the war, so when Petraeus says the war is still winnable, and that the surge is working, he must be a liar, and even a traitor.

At least, that's how Olbermann and others see it.

Olbermann comes close to making a valid point when he talks about the military influencing civilian policy, but he totally misses it. Petraeus is not MacArthur, or McClellan setting policy. He's simply doing the job the Senate confirmed him to do. Criticizing Petraeus is fine. But, I think he deserves a whole lot better than to have his loyalty and integrity tarnished, because he believes in his job.

Oh, and Keith, I know it gets on your nerves when the GOP calls the Democratic Party the "Democrat" Party. It irks me too, but you do learn to get past it; to move on, if you will.

What Gives, Mrs. Clinton?

Senate votes to condemn the MoveOn "Betray-us" slander ad 72-25. Hillary votes no. Biden and Obama didn't vote (campaigning?). Hillary, as well as the other 24 Dems have some explaining to do.

To all the sensible Dems who voted to condemn the ad, I say thank you (I'm sure Gen. Petraeus does as well). I have a hard time believing Webb would've voted against condemnation anyway. Still not sure what Kerry was thinking.

A Brief Thought on The Jena Six

Just wanted to point out this from Glenn Reynolds, who wanted to get to the bottom of the controversy in Jena, and asked Radley Balko what he thought. Balko nails it, in my view:

The final fight took place in the school cafeteria. The victim was among some white kids who were taunting a group of black student-athletes, including one who had been beaten up several nights before. The black kids got angry, and jumped one of the white kids. Six black boys then beat the white boy. It was a fairly serious beating. The initial fall knocked him unconscious. But after treatment at a local hospital, he left on his own, and attended an event that night.

The prosecutor initially charged the six black kids with attempted murder. After some public backlash, he dropped them to felony assault with a deadly weapon (the weapons, as it turned out, were the students' shoes). As I understand it, none of the six had prior records. The first to be tried--Mychal Bell-- had his charges dropped to felony aggravated battery, but still received a 15-year sentence. An appellate judge just tossed that sentence out, ruling he shouldn't have been tried as an adult. The rest have yet to be tried.

Read the whole thing.

Happy Birthday, Constitution!

Our Constitution is 220 years old today, and despite the opinions of a few, is still as strong and functional as it ever was. To explain further, I'll leave you with this, from back in the day(HT: Stubborn Facts):

A Quick Question

Why are we expected to take hooligans like Code Pink seriously? Explain to me how this foolishness passes for worthwhile war criticism:



Outside of causing a ruckus, acting a fool, and trying to silence (and slander) Petraeus, as well as other voices that support the surge, I'm at a loss as to what these women hope to accomplish.

9/11, Six Years Later: Never Forget

This Made Me Laugh...

This from Austin Bay, via Glenn Reynolds, made me chuckle a bit:

"General Murphy is always at work. If it can go wrong it will. Murphy’s Law affects everything but it rules warfare. War is the effort where everything goes wrong — Clausewitz’ concept of friction recognizes this. It’s why perseverance and will are the traits of victors. I’ve dealt with Iraq’s creaky infrastructure –it’s frustrating. But from now on every mid-level Iraqi ministry is going to smile when a US diplomat or reporter asks him how his reconstruction and maintenance operations are going. The sharp tongued will say: 'Our parliament’s microphones work.' "

Ha! "Sure we've got problems, but damn it, when we do have meetings, our microphones work! What do you say to that?!"

Kos Drinks Too Much Anti-War Haterade

Althouse soundly schools the "rational" Kos, on his assertion that only "moron dead enders" still support the war:

Yes, you are the rational one, comforting yourself with made-up ideas that everyone who doesn't agree with you must be irrational. But I don't think Saddam was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks, and I support the war. I'm sure General Petraeus doesn't think Saddam was personally involved, and Pet[r]aeus -- who knows a bit more than you -- supports the war. I think there are many others.

First off, I never believed Saddam was behind 9/11, but I supported and still support the war. Why? Because Saddam was a state sponsor of terror, and a menace, and if Iraq becomes a terrorist stronghold for al-qaeda and others, then the result is, now pay attention here, another 9/11. See, the idea is to prevent future attacks. You'd get that, if you weren't a hopeless ideologue.

Rules to Consider When Buying New Gadgets...

The iPhone has dropped in price, and some aren't happy. Consider these rules:

1. The price will always drop eventually. This ought to be a reasonable expectation of anyone possessing a cursory knowledge of the prices of expensive electronics (iPhones, PS3s, XBox 360s, PCs, etc).



2. There is always risk in buying an item as soon as it comes out.


3. This is more of an observation than a rule, but it really is naive (and somewhat selfish), if one forgets the first two rules, to then lament if the price later drops, as if you somehow got screwed. Let's say you bought a PS3 for $500, and you're happy with it. Why be jealous of the fortunate consumer how bought it a bit later, for $400? If you have yours, you're happy with it, and it was worth the price, why complain? Now, there are situations in which one could understandably be upset, such as if you bought an iPhone for let's say, $300, and you found out only a day later that Best Buy was selling them for $150. This scenario isn't really likely in the case of the iPhone, but you get the idea. Also, if it's the same store, most times you can get the savings back if you keep your receipt, which serves as a good fourth rule.

Let Me Say This...

Ron Silver has endorsed Rudy for Prez. I like Ron Silver, and I'm certainly not bothered by him backing a Republican, as others might be, but I feel the need to point out something.

Considering this related quote:

[H]e is still a registered Democrat, and Mr. Silver told his convention audience that he has not disavowed the left's social agenda. But at the moment he represents a particular slice of the American political spectrum: voters who put national security before ideology and want to keep President Bush's hand on the nation's rudder.

I certainly believe that national security is basically the primary issue (I'd like to think I've established that rep on this blog), but I have problems with the idea that believing that requires one to want to keep President Bush's (or in the case of the current election, a Republican's hand on the nation's rudder.

This Is An Interesting Theory

Glenn Reynolds on the differences between lefty and righty blogs.

Now, I don't necessarily agree with this theory, but it is thought-provoking. The right has made media bias into a national religion, yet the activist Left often speaks about the "corporate media." Also, I see plenty of punditry on the left, as well. I'll have to ponder this some more.

HT: Booker Rising

An Interesting Parody of the 9/11 Conspiracy Types....

Oh, hold on a sec, it's real. Not a parody at all. Hunh. Ooookay, then.

HT: Stubborn Facts