More on Wright's latest speech, in which he basically says the same hateful things he's said before, just with more bad political analysis thrown in, is forthcoming, but I just wanted to offer up this, via Dana Milbank in the WaPo:
His views on Farrakhan and Israel? "Louis said 20 years ago that Zionism, not Judaism, was a gutter religion. He was talking about the same thing United Nations resolutions say, the same thing now that President Carter's being vilified for and Bishop Tutu's being vilified for. And everybody wants to paint me as if I'm anti-Semitic because of what Louis Farrakhan said 20 years ago. He is one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st century; that's what I think about him. . . . Louis Farrakhan is not my enemy. He did not put me in chains, he did not put me in slavery, and he didn't make me this color."
First off, Farrakhan did in fact call Judaism a gutter religion, and even if he was talking about Zionism, and I know I should know better considering who we're talking about, but are we supposed to treat that statement as if calling Zionism a "gutter religion" is somehow a good thing? Are we supposed to agree with you, and Jimny "Douchebag Diplomat" Carter, that standing up for Israel is somehow a bad thing? I think not. Farrakhan was wrong then, and he's wrong now, and so are you.
Also, there's this:
Wright also argued, at least four times over the course of the hour, that he was speaking not for himself but for the black church.
"This is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright," the minister said. "It is an attack on the black church." He positioned himself as a mainstream voice of African American religious traditions. "Why am I speaking out now?" he asked. "If you think I'm going to let you talk about my mama and her religious tradition, and my daddy and his religious tradition and my grandma, you got another thing coming."
One of the big problems I have with Wright, is his assertion that his brand of preaching and theology represents the mainstream of the black church. I find that assertion ridiculous. The prophetic tradition of black preaching is one thing. Wright's sermons are something else. Don't get me wrong, it's not as if Wright's the only one who preaches this way, but the idea that this is how the black chuch, or the church in general is to function is revolting.
And lastly, there's this, in which he totally throws Obama under the bus, and may cost him the Presidency:
Wright suggested that Obama was insincere in distancing himself from his pastor. "He didn't distance himself," Wright announced. "He had to distance himself, because he's a politician, from what the media was saying I had said, which was anti-American."
Explaining further, Wright said friends had written to him and said, "We both know that if Senator Obama did not say what he said, he would never get elected." The minister continued: "Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls."
Ouch. To paraphrase the proverb, "My enemies I can handle, God save me from my friends."
Obama needs to cut this guy loose. I mean, he can't totally disown him, but he needs to publicly denounce Wright's views some more, and with more force than before.
HT: Instapundit, Patterico, and Sully
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Well, Somebody Had To Try...
Apparently a bunch of anti-military douchebags decided to lay a bunch of American flags on the ground and walk all over them. In their warped minds, they call it art. Thankfully, one brave Vietnam vet stood up to them, and tried to pick up the flags. He wasn't the only one in the room with sense, as many took the time to walk around the flags.
You know what, they have the First Amendment right to be douchebags by disrespecting the flag, and the veterans who fought under it, and for their right, but they're still douchebags, and SPC Bennett had the right to call them on it. Bravo, sir, and thank you.
HT: Tully
You know what, they have the First Amendment right to be douchebags by disrespecting the flag, and the veterans who fought under it, and for their right, but they're still douchebags, and SPC Bennett had the right to call them on it. Bravo, sir, and thank you.
HT: Tully
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
John Dickerson Tries To Do The Heavy Lifting
He does a pretty good job, considering the task at hand, which is trying to justify, or explain away Obama's fracked-up cultural criticisms. He closes out with this spot-on point:
Obama supporters should know just how offensive it is to hear this line of argument. They've been on the receiving end of it for months, as Hillary Clinton and her allies have described them as deluded cult members who are marching behind the inexperienced senator because he gives a pretty speech. Obama supporters don't like it when their well-thought-out reasons for following Obama are dismissed as emotional, irrational, and thoughtless. They should understand, then, why people who don't support Obama—or in the past haven't voted for Democrats—don't like being told that they've drunk some kind of crazy Kool-Aid.
Indeed.
Obama supporters should know just how offensive it is to hear this line of argument. They've been on the receiving end of it for months, as Hillary Clinton and her allies have described them as deluded cult members who are marching behind the inexperienced senator because he gives a pretty speech. Obama supporters don't like it when their well-thought-out reasons for following Obama are dismissed as emotional, irrational, and thoughtless. They should understand, then, why people who don't support Obama—or in the past haven't voted for Democrats—don't like being told that they've drunk some kind of crazy Kool-Aid.
Indeed.
More on "Snobgate"
Well, over at Taylor Marsh's blog, that's what they're calling it in the comments. (HT: Instapundit).
You know, I try to maintain a consistent policy against hysteria, and to use Obama's own words, "fake controversies," on my blog, and in my political discussions. The thing is, the more I think about Obama's latest verbal infraction, I'm increasingly convinced that this really isn't a "fake controversy," or an example of phony outrage. This new firestorm and Obama's response to it, along with what seems to be, to paraphrase the Declaration of Independence, a long train of political abuses, self-inflicted, leaves me with persistent questions about Obama's judgment, character, and his political sense. I may be overreacting, or in a pessimistic political mood, but, to be blunt, I'm wondering if he even makes it to the nomination, let alone the Presidency.
I mean, how many times can he keep fracking up like this, and people not start asking questions? I'm going to share my personal thoughts why this in fact a big deal later on, but consider this from Mickey Kaus, on why the "bitter" remark is the least of Obama's worries:
1) It lumps together things Obama wants us to think he thinks are good (religion) with things he undoubtedly thinks are bad (racism, anti-immigrant sentiment). I suppose it's logically possible to say 'these Pennsylvania voters are so bitter and frustrated that they cling to both good things and bad things," but the implication is that these are all things he thinks are unfortunate and need explaining (because, his context suggests, they prevent voters from doing the right thing and voting for ... him). Yesterday at the CNN "Compassion Forum" Obama said he wasn't disparaging religion because he meant people "cling" to it in a good way! Would that be the same way they "cling" to "antipathy to people who aren't like them"--the very next phrase Obama uttered? Is racism one of those "traditions that are passed on from generation to generation" that "sustains us"? Obama's unfortunate parallelism makes it hard for him to extricate him from the charge that he was dissing rural Pennsylvanians' excess religiosity.
2) Even if Obama wasn't equating anything on his list with anything else, he did openly accuse Pennsylvanians of being racists ("antipathy to people who aren't like them").
3) He's contradicted his own positions--at least on trade and (says Instapundit) guns.. Isn't Obama the one trying to tar Hillary as a supporter of NAFTA? Is that just 'boob bait'?
4) Yes, he's condescending. It's not just that in explaining everyone to everyone Obama winds up patronizing everyone. He doesn't patronize everyone equally. Specifically, he regards the views of these Pennsylvanians as epiphenomena--byproducts of economic stagnation--in a way he doesn't regard, say, his own views as epiphenomena.** Once the Pennsylvanians get some jobs back, they'll change and become as enlightened as Obama or the San Franciscans to whom he was talking. That's the clear logic of his argument. Superiority of this sort--not crediting the authenticity and standing of your subject's views--is a violation of social equality, which is a more important value for Americans than money equality. Liiberals tend to lose elections when they forget that.
Yes, they do. I don't care how much stuff you promise them. Voters will not support you if they perceive that you don't respect their values, even if you in fact do. The culture matters.
UPDATE: John Judis over at TNR, all but sounds the death-knell. Let me say that I count myself as something of an Obama fan, but I've always been a swing voter in this election. I've leaned toward Obama in the past (I voted for him in the primary), and part of me still wants to, but as I've said before, I could vote for either of the three. This might be all moot by November, if things proceed as they are.
HT: Simon
You know, I try to maintain a consistent policy against hysteria, and to use Obama's own words, "fake controversies," on my blog, and in my political discussions. The thing is, the more I think about Obama's latest verbal infraction, I'm increasingly convinced that this really isn't a "fake controversy," or an example of phony outrage. This new firestorm and Obama's response to it, along with what seems to be, to paraphrase the Declaration of Independence, a long train of political abuses, self-inflicted, leaves me with persistent questions about Obama's judgment, character, and his political sense. I may be overreacting, or in a pessimistic political mood, but, to be blunt, I'm wondering if he even makes it to the nomination, let alone the Presidency.
I mean, how many times can he keep fracking up like this, and people not start asking questions? I'm going to share my personal thoughts why this in fact a big deal later on, but consider this from Mickey Kaus, on why the "bitter" remark is the least of Obama's worries:
1) It lumps together things Obama wants us to think he thinks are good (religion) with things he undoubtedly thinks are bad (racism, anti-immigrant sentiment). I suppose it's logically possible to say 'these Pennsylvania voters are so bitter and frustrated that they cling to both good things and bad things," but the implication is that these are all things he thinks are unfortunate and need explaining (because, his context suggests, they prevent voters from doing the right thing and voting for ... him). Yesterday at the CNN "Compassion Forum" Obama said he wasn't disparaging religion because he meant people "cling" to it in a good way! Would that be the same way they "cling" to "antipathy to people who aren't like them"--the very next phrase Obama uttered? Is racism one of those "traditions that are passed on from generation to generation" that "sustains us"? Obama's unfortunate parallelism makes it hard for him to extricate him from the charge that he was dissing rural Pennsylvanians' excess religiosity.
2) Even if Obama wasn't equating anything on his list with anything else, he did openly accuse Pennsylvanians of being racists ("antipathy to people who aren't like them").
3) He's contradicted his own positions--at least on trade and (says Instapundit) guns.. Isn't Obama the one trying to tar Hillary as a supporter of NAFTA? Is that just 'boob bait'?
4) Yes, he's condescending. It's not just that in explaining everyone to everyone Obama winds up patronizing everyone. He doesn't patronize everyone equally. Specifically, he regards the views of these Pennsylvanians as epiphenomena--byproducts of economic stagnation--in a way he doesn't regard, say, his own views as epiphenomena.** Once the Pennsylvanians get some jobs back, they'll change and become as enlightened as Obama or the San Franciscans to whom he was talking. That's the clear logic of his argument. Superiority of this sort--not crediting the authenticity and standing of your subject's views--is a violation of social equality, which is a more important value for Americans than money equality. Liiberals tend to lose elections when they forget that.
Yes, they do. I don't care how much stuff you promise them. Voters will not support you if they perceive that you don't respect their values, even if you in fact do. The culture matters.
UPDATE: John Judis over at TNR, all but sounds the death-knell. Let me say that I count myself as something of an Obama fan, but I've always been a swing voter in this election. I've leaned toward Obama in the past (I voted for him in the primary), and part of me still wants to, but as I've said before, I could vote for either of the three. This might be all moot by November, if things proceed as they are.
HT: Simon
Obama, Marx, Lieberman, and His "Bitter" Pill
You all must know by now about the kerfuffle over ill-executed and disquieting comments Obama made about small town voters being bitter, and "clinging to their religion and their guns." I'm going to elaborate on this later, but I'm feeling a bit lazy right now, so I'll link to my comment from this post by Tully over at SF, about one possible explanation for Obama's comments.
As I said in my comment ( do read the post, BTW), I don't think Juliette's argument is plausible. Others, namely one Bill Kristol, have a different view, that Obama is in fact, a Marxist, who uses his religious faith as a cover. I think that charge is clearly over the top, and I'll elaborate more later on, as to why.
The thing is though, there is a bit of a controversy brewing over comments Sen. Joe Lieberman made with regards to this. (HT: Sully and ThinkProgress):
NAPOLITANO: Hey Sen. Lieberman, you know Barack Obama, is he a Marxist as Bill Kristol says might be the case in today’s New York Times? Is he an elitist like your colleague Hillary Clinton says he is?
LIEBERMAN: Well, you know, I must say that’s a good question. I know him now for a little more than three years since he came into the Senate and he’s obviously very smart and he’s a good guy. I will tell ya that during this campaign, I’ve learned some things about him, about the kind of environment from which he came ideologically. And I wouldn’t…I’d hesitate to say he’s a Marxist, but he’s got some positions that are far to the left of me and I think mainstream America.
Many, including Sullivan and Think Progress took issue with this statement by Lieberman. IN fairness to Lieberman, who I've come to deeply respect more than ever these past couple of years, perhaps he felt the question of Obama being an elitist was the good question, as opposed to question of him being a Marxist. Lieberman clearly stopped short of calling Obama a Marxist, although some will argue that he was ambiguous in doing so.
The question of him having views to the left of Lieberman and mainstream America is an interesting question. Obama does in fact hold views to the left of Lieberman (and myself, for that matter), at least with regards to foreign policy. He wants to pull the troops out of Iraq a whole lot sooner than Lieberman does, and he's mentioned talks with Iran. As to other issues, Lieberman;s comments are a bit problematic, as I'm not really sure what Lieberman means here, as he and Obama are pretty much on the same page with regards to the other core Democratic issues. As far as mainstream America is concerned, many war critics rightly point out public dissatisfaction with the war, but keep in mind that a lot of those still oppose a premature withdrawal.
At the end of the day, though, I don't think this is that big of a deal, except in the minds of those on the Left who already have a beef with Sen. Lieberman.
Not that Obama being perceived as too far left of the mainstream doesn't help McCain, who Lieberman supports, a fact which really drives many on the Left crazy.
As I said in my comment ( do read the post, BTW), I don't think Juliette's argument is plausible. Others, namely one Bill Kristol, have a different view, that Obama is in fact, a Marxist, who uses his religious faith as a cover. I think that charge is clearly over the top, and I'll elaborate more later on, as to why.
The thing is though, there is a bit of a controversy brewing over comments Sen. Joe Lieberman made with regards to this. (HT: Sully and ThinkProgress):
NAPOLITANO: Hey Sen. Lieberman, you know Barack Obama, is he a Marxist as Bill Kristol says might be the case in today’s New York Times? Is he an elitist like your colleague Hillary Clinton says he is?
LIEBERMAN: Well, you know, I must say that’s a good question. I know him now for a little more than three years since he came into the Senate and he’s obviously very smart and he’s a good guy. I will tell ya that during this campaign, I’ve learned some things about him, about the kind of environment from which he came ideologically. And I wouldn’t…I’d hesitate to say he’s a Marxist, but he’s got some positions that are far to the left of me and I think mainstream America.
Many, including Sullivan and Think Progress took issue with this statement by Lieberman. IN fairness to Lieberman, who I've come to deeply respect more than ever these past couple of years, perhaps he felt the question of Obama being an elitist was the good question, as opposed to question of him being a Marxist. Lieberman clearly stopped short of calling Obama a Marxist, although some will argue that he was ambiguous in doing so.
The question of him having views to the left of Lieberman and mainstream America is an interesting question. Obama does in fact hold views to the left of Lieberman (and myself, for that matter), at least with regards to foreign policy. He wants to pull the troops out of Iraq a whole lot sooner than Lieberman does, and he's mentioned talks with Iran. As to other issues, Lieberman;s comments are a bit problematic, as I'm not really sure what Lieberman means here, as he and Obama are pretty much on the same page with regards to the other core Democratic issues. As far as mainstream America is concerned, many war critics rightly point out public dissatisfaction with the war, but keep in mind that a lot of those still oppose a premature withdrawal.
At the end of the day, though, I don't think this is that big of a deal, except in the minds of those on the Left who already have a beef with Sen. Lieberman.
Not that Obama being perceived as too far left of the mainstream doesn't help McCain, who Lieberman supports, a fact which really drives many on the Left crazy.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
The Tedious Task of Debating Glenn Greenwald
Via Kevin Sullivan of Independent Liberal, comes this post, on Dan Drezner's attempts to reason with the often insightful, but often- as-dogmatic-and-irrartional-as-his critcs Glenn Greenwald:
Greenwald’s rhetorical style in his column boils down to,”if you dispute anything I say, then you are objectively pro-torture.” This bears more than a passing resemblance to the position rabid pro-war advocates adopted in late 2002 — that opposition to war with Iraq rendered one objectively pro-Saddam. It was a disgusting tactic then, and it’s no less disgusting that Greenwald is using it now. It makes him no better than the ideological adversaries he so despises.
Read the whole thing.
Greenwald’s rhetorical style in his column boils down to,”if you dispute anything I say, then you are objectively pro-torture.” This bears more than a passing resemblance to the position rabid pro-war advocates adopted in late 2002 — that opposition to war with Iraq rendered one objectively pro-Saddam. It was a disgusting tactic then, and it’s no less disgusting that Greenwald is using it now. It makes him no better than the ideological adversaries he so despises.
Read the whole thing.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
"He knows how to bring trash and soul together in a way that doesn't make one get in the way of the other"
Via Booker Rising, is this by Stanley Crouch, on the genius of Tyler Perry:
What Perry has mastered is the perfect mix of buffoonery, anguish and spiritual redemption. He knows he can hold his audience with variations on slapstick, pies in the face and clown costumes as long as he does not avoid the sandpaper that has scraped the hearts of so many who are lost, living far above or all the way down at the bottom. Finally, Perry knows that he must take his characters and his audience back to the church, where the greatest use of the English language other than Shakespeare lives. It's right there in the King James Bible, where forgiveness and redemption are made more than real in the big feeling of those who truly believe and who live it by the day.
Indeed.
What Perry has mastered is the perfect mix of buffoonery, anguish and spiritual redemption. He knows he can hold his audience with variations on slapstick, pies in the face and clown costumes as long as he does not avoid the sandpaper that has scraped the hearts of so many who are lost, living far above or all the way down at the bottom. Finally, Perry knows that he must take his characters and his audience back to the church, where the greatest use of the English language other than Shakespeare lives. It's right there in the King James Bible, where forgiveness and redemption are made more than real in the big feeling of those who truly believe and who live it by the day.
Indeed.
Free Speech Still Under Assault
"The whole literature of the past will have been destroyed. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Byron -- they'll exist only in Newspeak versions, not merely changed into something different, but actually changed into something contradictory of what they used to be. Even the literature of the Party will change. Even the slogans will change. How could you have a slogan like "freedom is slavery" when the concept of freedom has been abolished? The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking -- not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.' "
--Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four
I may be one of the few left-leaning bloggers to take up this issue (I doubt it), but I'll be damned if I'm going to let this pass by. In Canada, a freedom-hating douchebag named Richard Warman has decided to sue bloggers with political views he does not like, namely one Kathy Shaidle, of the blog Five Feet of Fury. He's also gone after other conservative bloggers, like Ezra Levant, Kate McMillan, Jonathan Kay, and the conservative chat site Free Dominion. He uses the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which by all appearances is a misshapen beast right out of Stalinist Russia, along with some rather misconstrued laws, to go after his political opponents. He used to work for the HRC, and Levant has been battling this kangaroo court for a while now, namely over his role in publishing the Muhammad cartoons.
Levant himself has all the specifics of the lawsuit.
Michelle Malkin has more.
I was taken aback by this, on Shaidle's blog:
Richard Warman's friends at the Canadian Human Rights Commission say "freedom of speech is an American concept" they refuse to recognize.
Riiight. That's outrageous, and yet I fear that there are Americans who refuse to recognize the concept as well.
Let me say that I'm willing to do my part to fight this assault, and I'll donate straightaway, and those who can should do so as well. Some may no doubt wonder why a center-left liberal like myself would care about righty bloggers being silenced. As I see it, either we have free speech for everybody, or we don't have free speech. In other words, I wouldn't be much of a liberal if I didn't stand up for the rights of bloggers who are being being silenced, right, left, or whatever. If doing so puts me in common cause with those who may hate my political views, then so be it.
Just so you know, this isn't going to stop with Canada, and believe it or not, it's not going to stop with righty blogs.
UPDATE: It's already here, folks.
HT: Tully
--Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four
I may be one of the few left-leaning bloggers to take up this issue (I doubt it), but I'll be damned if I'm going to let this pass by. In Canada, a freedom-hating douchebag named Richard Warman has decided to sue bloggers with political views he does not like, namely one Kathy Shaidle, of the blog Five Feet of Fury. He's also gone after other conservative bloggers, like Ezra Levant, Kate McMillan, Jonathan Kay, and the conservative chat site Free Dominion. He uses the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which by all appearances is a misshapen beast right out of Stalinist Russia, along with some rather misconstrued laws, to go after his political opponents. He used to work for the HRC, and Levant has been battling this kangaroo court for a while now, namely over his role in publishing the Muhammad cartoons.
Levant himself has all the specifics of the lawsuit.
Michelle Malkin has more.
I was taken aback by this, on Shaidle's blog:
Richard Warman's friends at the Canadian Human Rights Commission say "freedom of speech is an American concept" they refuse to recognize.
Riiight. That's outrageous, and yet I fear that there are Americans who refuse to recognize the concept as well.
Let me say that I'm willing to do my part to fight this assault, and I'll donate straightaway, and those who can should do so as well. Some may no doubt wonder why a center-left liberal like myself would care about righty bloggers being silenced. As I see it, either we have free speech for everybody, or we don't have free speech. In other words, I wouldn't be much of a liberal if I didn't stand up for the rights of bloggers who are being being silenced, right, left, or whatever. If doing so puts me in common cause with those who may hate my political views, then so be it.
Just so you know, this isn't going to stop with Canada, and believe it or not, it's not going to stop with righty blogs.
UPDATE: It's already here, folks.
HT: Tully
McCain, "The 100 Years" Controversy, and Iraq
As I'm sure we've all heard by now, there has been much discussion (and distortion) over McCain's comments about who long American troops will remain in Iraq. The prevailing attitide that most war critics (and many sympathetic voices in the press) have towards McCain, is that he wants an unlimited commitment to Iraq, and is basically the same as George W. Bush. I am no Bush supporter, but I am for all intents and purposes a supporter of the Iraq war (come on, keep reading), and I respect McCain, not only because of his service, but for his history of standing up to Bush whwn it mattered. My point is, many have misinterpreted McCain's comments about staying in Iraq for a hundred years. Agree with him or not, it does no one any good to distort the record. McCain was essentially arguing that with regards to American public support for the war vis-a-vis progress in Iraq, most Americans aren't so much concerned with how long we're there, as much as they're concerned about our troops being killed or wounded. If things remain as they are now, fifty years from, heck even five years from now, naturally, that would affect public opinion.
The issue, McCain argues, is one of American casualties, nor American presence. We've had troops in Germany and Japan for over sixty years, in Korea for over fifty, and in Kuwait for over a decade. Most people aren't calling for us to pull troops out of Korea or Japan. Most people aren't calling for pullouts from Afghanistan, for that matter. Most people don't even think about our troop presence in Europe and Asia. I think that was McCain's point, agree or disagree.
The thing is though, there is an interesting discussion to be had, about the implications of a permanent U.S. presence in Iraq (assuming one believes that U.S. policy will ultimately settle on permanent bases), and how some argue that the issue is American presence. Andrew Sullivan offers this up:
My own view is that McCain's comment, in its most benign formulation, misses the key element here: Islam. One reader helpfully pointed out that occupied Japan also had a fiercely proud populace revolted by foreign troops. Sure: but it had been defeated as a unitary state and its Emperor (which we wisely retained) gave the occcupiers sanction. No such unitary state exists in Iraq; and Islam forbids the rule of infidels in its own heartlands - and Iraq has central religious importance for its various shrines and religious centers in the Muslim mind. Secularism has been in decline for a couple of decades. There is no way an Arab Muslim country will tolerate Western troops permanently based on their land - without constant war and threat of war. To believe otherwise is to engage in a "holiday from reality." We've done enough of that.
Sully's response has some problems. First off, while the Iraqi government is fragile and weak, it does in fact exist, and they have given us their consent, not to mention the U.N. mandate. The goal is ultimately to create a relatively stable society, and one key aspect of that is working out a formal framework regarding our troop presence. Secondly, we're not really running the country, as the Iraqi government (though fragile) is in place, and we are there as a support. Lastly, the question of Islam is important, but if the argument is going to be that an American presence in the Islamic world will ultimately lead to conflict, then the logical outgrowth of that argument is the view that we shouldn't confront terrorism at all, lest we run the risk of offending Muslims.
Call me naive, but I'd think we can confront terrorist threats in the Middle East, but allying ourselves with moderate forces who recognize terrorism as a common threat. It certainly doesn't always have to involve force, but sometimes force is neccessary. Just saying, is all.
The issue, McCain argues, is one of American casualties, nor American presence. We've had troops in Germany and Japan for over sixty years, in Korea for over fifty, and in Kuwait for over a decade. Most people aren't calling for us to pull troops out of Korea or Japan. Most people aren't calling for pullouts from Afghanistan, for that matter. Most people don't even think about our troop presence in Europe and Asia. I think that was McCain's point, agree or disagree.
The thing is though, there is an interesting discussion to be had, about the implications of a permanent U.S. presence in Iraq (assuming one believes that U.S. policy will ultimately settle on permanent bases), and how some argue that the issue is American presence. Andrew Sullivan offers this up:
My own view is that McCain's comment, in its most benign formulation, misses the key element here: Islam. One reader helpfully pointed out that occupied Japan also had a fiercely proud populace revolted by foreign troops. Sure: but it had been defeated as a unitary state and its Emperor (which we wisely retained) gave the occcupiers sanction. No such unitary state exists in Iraq; and Islam forbids the rule of infidels in its own heartlands - and Iraq has central religious importance for its various shrines and religious centers in the Muslim mind. Secularism has been in decline for a couple of decades. There is no way an Arab Muslim country will tolerate Western troops permanently based on their land - without constant war and threat of war. To believe otherwise is to engage in a "holiday from reality." We've done enough of that.
Sully's response has some problems. First off, while the Iraqi government is fragile and weak, it does in fact exist, and they have given us their consent, not to mention the U.N. mandate. The goal is ultimately to create a relatively stable society, and one key aspect of that is working out a formal framework regarding our troop presence. Secondly, we're not really running the country, as the Iraqi government (though fragile) is in place, and we are there as a support. Lastly, the question of Islam is important, but if the argument is going to be that an American presence in the Islamic world will ultimately lead to conflict, then the logical outgrowth of that argument is the view that we shouldn't confront terrorism at all, lest we run the risk of offending Muslims.
Call me naive, but I'd think we can confront terrorist threats in the Middle East, but allying ourselves with moderate forces who recognize terrorism as a common threat. It certainly doesn't always have to involve force, but sometimes force is neccessary. Just saying, is all.
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Charlton Heston, 1924-2008
Sad news as truly one the icons of film and American culture has died. Whatever your views on his politics, he was a legit icon. Heston's potrayal of Moses remains the persistent image of Moses in my head. He played many iconic roles, from Moses, to Ben-Hur, to Andrew Jackson, to Michelangelo, to Captain Taylor from Planet of the Apes. He had that stone-faced look, and that gravelly voice, that will forever be in our minds.
RIP, and my condolences to his family.
RIP, and my condolences to his family.
Saturday, April 05, 2008
Tell Me She Didn't Just Say That
Consider this, via Althouse, on Amanda Marcotte's extreme views on abortion:
The underpinnings of the moral angst about abortion — the idea that a woman has no right to pry loose a flag a man has planted in her (even if he agrees with her decision, as most men in this case do), or that she should be punished for having sex — offend me to the core, and that many women go through anguish over getting abortions depresses me.
Ok, I'm trying not to vomit as I write this, but let me deal with this piece by piece. First off, did she just compare a human fetus to a flag planted on a field? Has the debate sunk so far now, that the fetus is reduced even further than a lump of cells, to a flag? Secondly, did I miss something, because I thought it takes two to make a baby. Why is it only the man that "plants the flag?"
As for the third and fourth points, I like Ann's responses:
Well, it offends me to the core that you think material like this helps preserve abortion rights (which I support).
I'm pro-life, for all intents and purposes, but my third point was going to be that even most clear-headed pro-choicers would find Marcotte's argument revolting, and Ann's comment here shows that.
The "abortion" shirt[the focus of the underlying post], on the other hand, admits that you've done something for yourself that involved sacrificing what many people believe is another human being. Why do you want to say that by T-shirt? In Marcotte's view, it's to show that you're proud of "taking care" of yourself "despite all the misogynist messages out there." I thought it was more to normalize abortion — to make it seem ordinary, widespread, and something that would be done without shame by nice, upstanding women.
Exactly. In Marcotte's moral sideshow of a universe, abortion is some sort of a moral smackdown to the "entrenched misygonist patriarchy" that supposedly punishes women with babies (fetuses?) they supposedly don't want, and she laments that women have the audacity to find ending the lives in their womb problematic. How dare they act like mothers? Don't they know that sex...oh I'd better stop here, before I say something that gets me in trouble
The underpinnings of the moral angst about abortion — the idea that a woman has no right to pry loose a flag a man has planted in her (even if he agrees with her decision, as most men in this case do), or that she should be punished for having sex — offend me to the core, and that many women go through anguish over getting abortions depresses me.
Ok, I'm trying not to vomit as I write this, but let me deal with this piece by piece. First off, did she just compare a human fetus to a flag planted on a field? Has the debate sunk so far now, that the fetus is reduced even further than a lump of cells, to a flag? Secondly, did I miss something, because I thought it takes two to make a baby. Why is it only the man that "plants the flag?"
As for the third and fourth points, I like Ann's responses:
Well, it offends me to the core that you think material like this helps preserve abortion rights (which I support).
I'm pro-life, for all intents and purposes, but my third point was going to be that even most clear-headed pro-choicers would find Marcotte's argument revolting, and Ann's comment here shows that.
The "abortion" shirt[the focus of the underlying post], on the other hand, admits that you've done something for yourself that involved sacrificing what many people believe is another human being. Why do you want to say that by T-shirt? In Marcotte's view, it's to show that you're proud of "taking care" of yourself "despite all the misogynist messages out there." I thought it was more to normalize abortion — to make it seem ordinary, widespread, and something that would be done without shame by nice, upstanding women.
Exactly. In Marcotte's moral sideshow of a universe, abortion is some sort of a moral smackdown to the "entrenched misygonist patriarchy" that supposedly punishes women with babies (fetuses?) they supposedly don't want, and she laments that women have the audacity to find ending the lives in their womb problematic. How dare they act like mothers? Don't they know that sex...oh I'd better stop here, before I say something that gets me in trouble
Mugabe Crushes His Opposition
Disquieting and disturbing news from Zimbabwe, as it's been reported that Mugabe has had the offices of the opposition raided. HT: The Walrus.
She hits it home in the commentary:
It's rather uncomfortable for journalists to document that though. Mugabe was a former media darling. It is difficult to admit mistakes, especially ones that never should have been made. To this day journalists seem incapable of summoning the moral outrage they applied (rightly, in that case) to apartheid and turning it against Mugabe. This despite the fact that he has turned his formerly prosperous country into a hellhole that most of his people would cheerfully leave for South Africa - present or past - or for old-time Rhodesia.
It is the African tragedy writ large all over again: a "liberator" who is really only interested in his own power. And a politically correct world that should be howling in outrage but doesn't. And journalists who express polite amazement at the inevitable.
I think I shall go be ill.
You're not kidding.
She hits it home in the commentary:
It's rather uncomfortable for journalists to document that though. Mugabe was a former media darling. It is difficult to admit mistakes, especially ones that never should have been made. To this day journalists seem incapable of summoning the moral outrage they applied (rightly, in that case) to apartheid and turning it against Mugabe. This despite the fact that he has turned his formerly prosperous country into a hellhole that most of his people would cheerfully leave for South Africa - present or past - or for old-time Rhodesia.
It is the African tragedy writ large all over again: a "liberator" who is really only interested in his own power. And a politically correct world that should be howling in outrage but doesn't. And journalists who express polite amazement at the inevitable.
I think I shall go be ill.
You're not kidding.
Tag, I'm It
Randy, the Internet Ronin has tagged me with another meme. Who am I to say no?
The Rules:
I. Link to the person who tagged you. (See above)
II. Post the Rules Here.
III. Share Seven Random or Weird Facts About Yourself:
1. I went to Space Camp (Space Academy) in the ninth grade.
2. I have an uncle who is involved in local politics. (Guess who!)
3. I spent almost $200 on comic books once.
4. I've been to New York twice.
5. I have copies of Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments and The Federalist Papers on my bookshelf.
6. I started school at age 2.
7. I'm 79 inches in height (6'7'')
IV. Tag 7 random people, linking to them:
1. The Walrus
2. Sean of Rife's Torch
3. David Schraub of the The Debate Link
4. plez of plezWorld
5-7: Any three of my co-bloggers from Stubborn Facts.
V. Leave a comment letting them know you've tagged them.
OK, then.
This of course assumes that all those tagged are willing to accept, but I think they will.
The Rules:
I. Link to the person who tagged you. (See above)
II. Post the Rules Here.
III. Share Seven Random or Weird Facts About Yourself:
1. I went to Space Camp (Space Academy) in the ninth grade.
2. I have an uncle who is involved in local politics. (Guess who!)
3. I spent almost $200 on comic books once.
4. I've been to New York twice.
5. I have copies of Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments and The Federalist Papers on my bookshelf.
6. I started school at age 2.
7. I'm 79 inches in height (6'7'')
IV. Tag 7 random people, linking to them:
1. The Walrus
2. Sean of Rife's Torch
3. David Schraub of the The Debate Link
4. plez of plezWorld
5-7: Any three of my co-bloggers from Stubborn Facts.
V. Leave a comment letting them know you've tagged them.
OK, then.
This of course assumes that all those tagged are willing to accept, but I think they will.
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Thank You, Ric
The greatest of all time has bid his farewell, after a legendary thirty-six year career. Thank you, Ric, for all the memories.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Huckabee Sticks His Neck Out For Obama
This I found quite interesting, and dare I say, refereshing. Mike Huckabee comments on Rev. Wright's comments, and tries to understand:
And one other thing I think we've gotta remember. As easy as it is for those of us who are white, to look back and say "That's a terrible statement!"...I grew up in a very segregated south. And I think that you have to cut some slack -- and I'm gonna be probably the only Conservative in America who's gonna say something like this, but I'm just tellin' you -- we've gotta cut some slack to people who grew up being called names, being told "you have to sit in the balcony when you go to the movie.
You have to go to the back door to go into the restaurant. And you can't sit out there with everyone else. There's a separate waiting room in the doctor's office. Here's where you sit on the bus..."And you know what? Sometimes people do have a chip on their shoulder and resentment. And you have to just say, I probably would too. I probably would too. In fact, I may have had more of a chip on my shoulder had it been me.
First off, let me say that I like what Huckabee's saying. I know people will accuse him of excusing Wright's hatred, but he's not. I'm not, and Obama isn't either. Huckabee (and Obama) is simply trying to put things in context, to try and understand where it comes from. It's not right what Wright said, and Wright's comments cannot be justified. They must be rejected in full. We cannot allow ourselves to remain in bitterness and the past, but I think context helps to understand the complex relationship Obama has with his pastor.
Nice work by Huckabee, and a pleasant surprise, considering some of things he's said in the past.
HT: David Schraub, who I've officially added to the blogroll.
And one other thing I think we've gotta remember. As easy as it is for those of us who are white, to look back and say "That's a terrible statement!"...I grew up in a very segregated south. And I think that you have to cut some slack -- and I'm gonna be probably the only Conservative in America who's gonna say something like this, but I'm just tellin' you -- we've gotta cut some slack to people who grew up being called names, being told "you have to sit in the balcony when you go to the movie.
You have to go to the back door to go into the restaurant. And you can't sit out there with everyone else. There's a separate waiting room in the doctor's office. Here's where you sit on the bus..."And you know what? Sometimes people do have a chip on their shoulder and resentment. And you have to just say, I probably would too. I probably would too. In fact, I may have had more of a chip on my shoulder had it been me.
First off, let me say that I like what Huckabee's saying. I know people will accuse him of excusing Wright's hatred, but he's not. I'm not, and Obama isn't either. Huckabee (and Obama) is simply trying to put things in context, to try and understand where it comes from. It's not right what Wright said, and Wright's comments cannot be justified. They must be rejected in full. We cannot allow ourselves to remain in bitterness and the past, but I think context helps to understand the complex relationship Obama has with his pastor.
Nice work by Huckabee, and a pleasant surprise, considering some of things he's said in the past.
HT: David Schraub, who I've officially added to the blogroll.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Arthur C. Clarke, 1917-2008
In all the mess over the Obama-Wright controversy, I forgot to post about Arthur C. Clarke's passing away. A true genius, and a giant of storytelling. God rest his soul.
Thanks to Stubborn Facts for the tip.
Thanks to Stubborn Facts for the tip.
Further Thoughts on Obama/Wright and Iraq
It's been a day since the speech, and after further reflection I still hold to my view that it was a good speech, and Obama did most of what he needed to do. One big thing that still nags me though, is the problem I'm having reconciling Wright's supposed good qualities that Obama asserts we haven't seen, and his anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, and his anti-white bigotry. In other words, I'm wondering what Barack Obama sees in this man. I've said before that I do not believe for a second that Obama shares his views. The question is of judgment, and integrity. He still has to go further in explaining this.
In other news, today is the fifth anniversary of the Iraq War. President Bush gave a speech acknowledging it today. Call me crazy, but at the end of the day, setbacks, blunders, missteps, foul-ups, and tragedies included, the Iraqi people, America's long-term security, and the free world is better off. Yes, there's still a lt of messes to clean up, and a lot of those are messes that should not have been made, but the idea that Iraq circa 2008 is not an improvement over Iraq circa 2003, is just not cricket.
Just for reference, let's remind ourselves why we went in again.
UPDATE: No, Tom, not quite. (HT: Instapundit)
UPDATE#2: The Obama-Wright discussion continues over at my second home, Stubborn Facts. Thoughtful and heated at the same time.
In other news, today is the fifth anniversary of the Iraq War. President Bush gave a speech acknowledging it today. Call me crazy, but at the end of the day, setbacks, blunders, missteps, foul-ups, and tragedies included, the Iraqi people, America's long-term security, and the free world is better off. Yes, there's still a lt of messes to clean up, and a lot of those are messes that should not have been made, but the idea that Iraq circa 2008 is not an improvement over Iraq circa 2003, is just not cricket.
Just for reference, let's remind ourselves why we went in again.
UPDATE: No, Tom, not quite. (HT: Instapundit)
UPDATE#2: The Obama-Wright discussion continues over at my second home, Stubborn Facts. Thoughtful and heated at the same time.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Jeremiah Wright is a Conservative
That is, a Black Conservative. David Schraub explains the difference in a must-read essay:
Black Conservatism essentially operates off the premise that racism is an ingrained and potentially permanent part of White-dominated institutions. As a result, Black Conservatives essentially tell Blacks they can only rely on themselves to get ahead in America -- counting on White people to be moral or "do the right thing" is a waste of time. Politically, this means building tight-knit communities that emphasize the patronizing of identifiably Black institutions, with the end result being social independence from White America. In this, it mixes at least partial voluntary self-segregation with a significant aversion to external dependency, with Whites and White institutions being defined as outsiders who can't be trusted.
He goes further, and explains how this applies to Obama:
I'm not saying I agree with all of his points -- I'm not a Black Conservative, and as I outlined in the Thomas post, I'm not sure that a White person can morally adopt the premises of Black Conservatism. But we can't understand what we're yelling about until we properly position it within its philosophical school. This is why I feel confident in asserting that Obama and Wright are not of a political kind -- they operate from totally different ends of the Black Conservative spectrum. Obama is an integrationist, the very act of running for President means that he believes that there is a space for Blacks in our hitherto White-dominated government, and all of his speeches, policies, and writings have indicated he believes that there is hope for an America that is not separated and divided on racial lines. All of these positions would be derided as doe-eyed idealism by a true Black Conservatism. And if there is one thing Obama can't be accused of, it's of being too much of a pessimist.
Damn good stuff. Read it all.
HT, from Andrew Sullivan
Black Conservatism essentially operates off the premise that racism is an ingrained and potentially permanent part of White-dominated institutions. As a result, Black Conservatives essentially tell Blacks they can only rely on themselves to get ahead in America -- counting on White people to be moral or "do the right thing" is a waste of time. Politically, this means building tight-knit communities that emphasize the patronizing of identifiably Black institutions, with the end result being social independence from White America. In this, it mixes at least partial voluntary self-segregation with a significant aversion to external dependency, with Whites and White institutions being defined as outsiders who can't be trusted.
He goes further, and explains how this applies to Obama:
I'm not saying I agree with all of his points -- I'm not a Black Conservative, and as I outlined in the Thomas post, I'm not sure that a White person can morally adopt the premises of Black Conservatism. But we can't understand what we're yelling about until we properly position it within its philosophical school. This is why I feel confident in asserting that Obama and Wright are not of a political kind -- they operate from totally different ends of the Black Conservative spectrum. Obama is an integrationist, the very act of running for President means that he believes that there is a space for Blacks in our hitherto White-dominated government, and all of his speeches, policies, and writings have indicated he believes that there is hope for an America that is not separated and divided on racial lines. All of these positions would be derided as doe-eyed idealism by a true Black Conservatism. And if there is one thing Obama can't be accused of, it's of being too much of a pessimist.
Damn good stuff. Read it all.
HT, from Andrew Sullivan
Obama's Speech
I watched the speech, and I thought it was really good, and did most of what it supposed to do, at least in terms of the Rev. Wright controversy. I believe Obama effectively repudiated the hateful and divisive rhetoric of his former pastor, while doing his best to explain the complex relationship he has with him:
I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.
But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.
As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all. Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way.
But the truth is, that isn’t all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God’s work here on Earth – by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.
And this:
I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.
And this part here:
This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What’s remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.
I think Obama is saying that Wright's views reflected in this sermons are wrong and hateful, but one must understand the background they issue from--and this is important, they do not reflect the totality of the man. Wright is family, and he cannot totally walk away from his family.
You should read the whole thing here. (HT: Tom Maguire and Drudge.)
As I said, the speech was pretty good, and dealt with this issue the best way he could have. As a black man, I have experience dealing with the wide range of views Obama talks about. It's important for us to continue to move forward, face the challenges, and heal the wounds that still remain, even after all the progress that has been made.
Politically, I still feel he may face questions about his judgment, (namely why he let his children attend, and the fact that many of Wright's statements weren't so much but race, but vicious attacks on American foreign policy) but at the end of the day I think he did a pretty good job. I'm in agreement with the view that those who choose not to vote for Obama over this probably weren't going to anyway, and those who have a preconceived negative view of Obama aren't going to be swayed by this speech.
Ross Douthat has a really insightful piece on this:
Barack Obama’s long association with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright isn’t significant because it suggests that Obama shares Wright’s more controversial views; I have no doubt that he does not. It’s significant because it undercuts an important aspect of Obama’s promise as a politician: Namely, his potential to break the mold of American politics, by transcending both the recent templates for African-American political activity (grievance-based shakedown politics on the one hand, Afrocentric separatism on the other) and the larger red-blue polarization in the country as a whole.
He needs to reject his minister's politics, in other words, in the name of a new generation of African-Americans, while simultaneously suggesting that the bigotries are not necessarily the only measure of the man, and that the appropriate response to Wright's noxious words isn't outrage but rather the mix of pity and tolerance that a white American might feel toward a racist parent or grandparent, who deserves to be loved and accepted in spite of their retrograde opinions.
Could he actually say all this? Can a half-white, half-Kenyan politician presume to speak for the experience of black America? Can a man who clearly loves his pastor go so far down the road toward attacking him outright? Can a black man persuade white Americans that they should feel toward a ranting black preacher the way they might feel toward their own grandparents? I doubt it. But I'd love to see him try.
Shelby Steele goes a somewhat different route, and deals with Obama's whole candidacy. As to "the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it’s based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap," Steele in effect says that it is. He's totally wrong, much like Geraldine Ferraro was wrong, but his piece deserves a read. (HT again to Tom Maguire)
UPDATE: The always-on-point John McWhorter gets it right. (HT: Sully, who gets it right as well.)
I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.
But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.
As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all. Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way.
But the truth is, that isn’t all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God’s work here on Earth – by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.
And this:
I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.
And this part here:
This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What’s remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.
I think Obama is saying that Wright's views reflected in this sermons are wrong and hateful, but one must understand the background they issue from--and this is important, they do not reflect the totality of the man. Wright is family, and he cannot totally walk away from his family.
You should read the whole thing here. (HT: Tom Maguire and Drudge.)
As I said, the speech was pretty good, and dealt with this issue the best way he could have. As a black man, I have experience dealing with the wide range of views Obama talks about. It's important for us to continue to move forward, face the challenges, and heal the wounds that still remain, even after all the progress that has been made.
Politically, I still feel he may face questions about his judgment, (namely why he let his children attend, and the fact that many of Wright's statements weren't so much but race, but vicious attacks on American foreign policy) but at the end of the day I think he did a pretty good job. I'm in agreement with the view that those who choose not to vote for Obama over this probably weren't going to anyway, and those who have a preconceived negative view of Obama aren't going to be swayed by this speech.
Ross Douthat has a really insightful piece on this:
Barack Obama’s long association with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright isn’t significant because it suggests that Obama shares Wright’s more controversial views; I have no doubt that he does not. It’s significant because it undercuts an important aspect of Obama’s promise as a politician: Namely, his potential to break the mold of American politics, by transcending both the recent templates for African-American political activity (grievance-based shakedown politics on the one hand, Afrocentric separatism on the other) and the larger red-blue polarization in the country as a whole.
He needs to reject his minister's politics, in other words, in the name of a new generation of African-Americans, while simultaneously suggesting that the bigotries are not necessarily the only measure of the man, and that the appropriate response to Wright's noxious words isn't outrage but rather the mix of pity and tolerance that a white American might feel toward a racist parent or grandparent, who deserves to be loved and accepted in spite of their retrograde opinions.
Could he actually say all this? Can a half-white, half-Kenyan politician presume to speak for the experience of black America? Can a man who clearly loves his pastor go so far down the road toward attacking him outright? Can a black man persuade white Americans that they should feel toward a ranting black preacher the way they might feel toward their own grandparents? I doubt it. But I'd love to see him try.
Shelby Steele goes a somewhat different route, and deals with Obama's whole candidacy. As to "the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it’s based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap," Steele in effect says that it is. He's totally wrong, much like Geraldine Ferraro was wrong, but his piece deserves a read. (HT again to Tom Maguire)
UPDATE: The always-on-point John McWhorter gets it right. (HT: Sully, who gets it right as well.)
Thursday, March 13, 2008
"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
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
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, March 10, 2008
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 /ˈsÉ›lfdɪˈstrÊŒktɪv, ËŒsÉ›lf-/ 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 /fiˈæskoÊŠ or, esp. for 2, -ˈɑskoÊŠ/ 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.
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 /ˈsÉ›lfdɪˈstrÊŒktɪv, ËŒsÉ›lf-/ 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 /fiˈæskoÊŠ or, esp. for 2, -ˈɑskoÊŠ/ 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.
Thursday, March 06, 2008
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
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
Thursday, February 28, 2008
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.
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?
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?
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
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?
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.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
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.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
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
HT: Tully at SF
Monday, February 11, 2008
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.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
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.
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.
Friday, February 01, 2008
"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.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
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:
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.
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.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
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
thanks to SF for the link
Friday, January 18, 2008
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.
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.
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.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
"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
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.
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.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
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.
Keep up the good work, Professor.
UPDATE: And as to the second choice, it seems I'm not the only one.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
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
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.
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
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
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
Happy New Year!!
Well, what's left of it. I hope everyone had a great day, and didn't get too drunk.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
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?
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?
Thursday, December 27, 2007
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
HT: SF for the link
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
But This One Here Was Actually Good
Friday, December 21, 2007
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.
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.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
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
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
Saturday, December 15, 2007
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.
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.
Sunday, December 09, 2007
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.
"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.
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
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
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
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)