Archive for May, 2009

Do a Second Draft, Sarah

Tuesday, May 5th, 2009

There’s something in the language of the thank-you notes you get back when you donate to Sarah Palin’s legal defense fund, that has just kind of rubbed me the wrong way. I finally figured out what it is.

Did you happen to see it, when you donated? Know what I might be thinking about?

I’ll give you a hint. It has nothing to do with reasons not to donate. Quite the opposite. Think about the three words: “Agree Or Not.” So why don’t you chip in a few bucks, get that boilerplate back, come back here and let’s compare notes.

Liberal Arrogance

Tuesday, May 5th, 2009

This one’s getting a little bit of dust, so I wanted to be sure and snag it. Goldberg:

The most remarkable, or certainly the least remarked on, aspect of Barack Obama’s first 100 days has been the infectious arrogance of his presidency.

There’s no denying that this is liberalism’s greatest opportunity for wish fulfillment since at least 1964. But to listen to Democrats, the only check on their ambition is the limits of their imaginations.

“The world has changed,” Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York proclaimed on MSNBC. “The old Reagan philosophy that served them well politically from 1980 to about 2004 and 2006 is over. But the hard right, which still believes … [in] traditional values kind of arguments and strong foreign policy, all that is over.”

Right. “Family values” and a “strong foreign policy” belong next to the “free silver” movement in the lexicon of dead political causes.

No doubt Schumer was employing the kind of simplified shorthand one uses when everyone in the room already agrees with you. He can be forgiven for mistaking an MSNBC studio for such a milieu, but it seemed not to dawn on him that anybody watching might see it differently.

It would be evidence of a tragic psychological malady if it were running rampant throughout the ranks of the people who are not running things.

As things are…it’s just damn frightening.

Big-Nosed Butterface White Chicks

Monday, May 4th, 2009

We have the five short-list successors for Justice Souter profiled on Huffington Post…sixty percent of which are big-nosed butterface white chicks.

Then we have another butterface white chick that’s got the homosexual community all excited, or at least those who purport to be an advocate for said community. Her nose, for the record, is rather svelte.

And then there’s this year’s favorite big-nosed butterface white chick, the one who says the 9/11 hijackers came into our country through Canada, and returning veterans are a security threat.

There is something about decent-looking pretty women that liberals find extremely threatening. And I think the time may have come for the rest of us to comment on it.

Ugly Liberal WomenWhat is it with liberals and ugly women? Who is it within their perceived constituency that finds old-fashioned feminine beauty so threatening? Isn’t it possible to find some hardcore lefty chick, one that has a law degree, who gets all excited whenever babies are aborted, wants to make up the law as she goes along, who thinks global warming is a threat but Islamic terrorism is not…but one that looks kind of like Elisabeth Hasselbeck? One that I want to see in Hooters’ uniform, or at least a short skirt? Aren’t they out there? They’re all over the place on Boston Legal reruns.

Seriously: What is this apparent correlation between premature aging and modern liberalism? Obviously, there is a relationship; obviously, it is a persistent, enduring one. And it’s not exclusive to the female variety either. You’ll notice there’s a couple of dudes in that line-up and they have faces-made-fer-radio too. Is it kind of like that thing the Dark Side was doing to the Emperor’s face? Pardon me, I realize this is all less than delicate…but you have to admit, if I didn’t at least get curious about it, let alone ask the questions — there’s have to be something terribly wrong with me. It’s the track record, going all the way back to Geraldine Ferraro. It’s just too consistent and too striking.

They Wonder Why They’ve Fallen on Hard Times

Monday, May 4th, 2009

Andrew W. Smith, writing in ChronicleHerald.ca:

The people need a Fourth Estate, not yet another adulator of Barack Obama, yet another smearer of Sarah Palin, yet another patrician editor to keep out anything disagreeable to progressive sensibilities, yet another laptop-and-latte journalism-schooler to spit on everything pre-dating 1968. And they wonder why the news business has come on hard times.

What’s he talkin’ about?

He’s got a dozen factual bullet points about the most politically powerful man alive today, the most politically powerful man the world has ever known.

Twelve things, each of which, smart-money says you’re learning for the very first time. It’s likely each of the twelve is news to you — that six or more come as a surprise, is a virtual certainty.

Unless, that is, you’ve been hanging out in those crazy wild-eyed right wing blogs you’re not supposed to be reading. That really is the main issue. Because there are quite a few walking around among us who, being told about those twelve things, to protect their fragile egos will insist these have little or no bearing upon the decision they made about who should run our government half a year ago. And that pronouncement may very well be correct — it may very well be justifiable.

But these twelve things would be far better known, in a culture that prides itself so much on being independent and well-informed…as ours does.

D’JEver Notice? XXVIII

Monday, May 4th, 2009

Some folks don’t appear to have learned to write. At all. They put commas and apostrophes in the wrong places, they confuse basic homonyms like “your” and “you’re,” or “there” “they’re” and “their.” Some of them skip over vital components of their sentences entirely, like verbs, and expect the reader to just stick the stuff back in and make sense of what they’ve written.

But I’m a live and let live kinda guy, and life would be boring if we all had the same opinions. And it’s kind of hard to insist everyone has to write everything perfectly before we can figure out what they’re trying to say.

Some folks seem to have a high expectation of the educational profile of others, in order for people to be worth anything. It’s not that they can point to any one thing they learned in their higher education and say, “I am so much more functional and worthwhile because I learned that.” The vibe they give off, gives greater representation to the idea that college somehow came easy for them, both for acquiring the service and for fulfilling the expectations of their professors, and they live in a tiny world in which everyone’s completed a four-year. They seem to think, you can clean school bathrooms, you can cook the fries at a fast food joint, you can dig some postholes or ditches…anything above those should require a “real” diploma and a degree.

But I’m a live and let live kinda guy, and life would be boring if we all had the same opinions. And it’s kind of hard to insist that high school diplomas really mean much of anything anymore, or that we all ought to think they do.

However — these are not two end-points of a common spectrum…they have overlap. Some folks are in both of these camps.

What do I have to say about that? Words fail me. I just don’t understand it.

Update 5/4/09: Maybe this is what they’ve got in mind (hat tip: Hewitt), when they insist that everyone who walks restaurant customers over to their waiting table, everyone who brews a fancy coffee drink behind a counter, everyone who paints the white line by the side of a road, has to have that “real” college diploma, with a declared major and everything:

You just have to go through that trial-by-fire first, people!

It Got Complicated

Sunday, May 3rd, 2009

Daily Star:

WHEN I caught my partner having lesbian sex with her best mate in our bed I went straight round to my ex-wife’s flat for a weekend of passion.

My partner retaliated by having a threesome with her lesbian pal and my best mate. Not to be outdone, I then had a fling with her stepmum.

But the pain didn’t stop there…oh no. Two weeks later my partner flew to Spain and texted me every day with lurid tales of sex on the beach with waiters, toy boys and holiday reps.

Finally, last November, we called a truce. She apologised for cheating on me in the first place and promised not to stray again.

I said I’d be prepared to behave if I thought I could trust her. We kissed and made up.

And everything worked out, they lived happily ever after.

Just kiddin’.

Our Modern Soma

Sunday, May 3rd, 2009

Theodore Dalrymple (tweeted by Gerard):

It is curious how, when it comes to rape, the liberal press, and presumably liberals themselves, suddenly appreciate the value of punishment. They do not say of rape that we must understand the causes of rape before we punish it; that we must understand how men develop into rapists before we lock them away, preferably for a long time; that prison does not work. It is as if, when speaking of rape, it suddenly becomes time to put away childish things, and to talk the only kind of language that rapists understand.

They quiver with outrage when they learn that the clear-up rate for rape cases is only 6.5 per cent, though this in fact is very similar to the clear-up rate of all crimes. They are appalled at cases where rapists are left free to commit more of their crimes because of police and Crown Prosecution Service incompetence, which is itself the natural result of the policy of successive governments. But it is important for their self-respect as liberals that their outrage should not be
generalised, that they should not let it spill over into consideration of other categories of crime, where the same bureaucratic levity and frivolity is likewise demonstrated. For, as every decent person knows, there are far too many prisoners in this country already, and prison does not work. [emphasis mine]

JohnJ:

It’s a shame that so many Americans reject the idea that knowledge is necessary for making decisions.

The Wikipedia article on False Consensus Effect:

The false consensus effect is the tendency for people to project their way of thinking onto other people. In other words, they assume that everyone else thinks the same way they do. This supposed correlation is unsubstantiated by statistical data, leading to the perception of a consensus that does not exist. This logical fallacy involves a group or individual assuming that their own opinions, beliefs and predilections are more prevalent amongst the general public than they really are.

This bias is commonly present in a group setting where one thinks the collective opinion of their own group matches that of the larger population. Since the members of a group reach a consensus and rarely encounter those who dispute it, they tend to believe that everybody thinks the same way. [emphasis mine]

Me:

Thing I Know #129. Leaders; votes; clergy; academics; pundits; prevailing sentiment; political expediency. Wherever these decide what is & isn’t true, an empire will surely fall.
Thing I Know #230. We’d call them “rationalists” if they thought things through rationally; that’s why they’re called “socialists.”
Thing I Know #300. People talk a lot about “coming together” to do vague, undefined things, when they want to present those things to outsiders as creative efforts, but what they’re really trying to do, is destroy something, or destroy the people who would be building something.

What is & isn’t true.

What is & isn’t right.

JohnJ’s nailed it here, folks. People are in solitude, flying blind. Then they get together, dish out some bromides to impress each other and all of a sudden they “know” things. Without having gathered any concrete information about anything, other than what other folks in earshot & line-of-sight happen to think.

Almost as if someone yelled “Abracadabra!” — a convicted murderer who butchered a fifteen-year-old girl in a field somewhere, has a “right” to his life, and an unborn baby who has never had a chance to breathe air, and therefore to do anything of the sort, doesn’t have the same right.

A terrorist helps to plan a devastating strike with some other terrorists, and before the plan can be put into effect, we catch just that one but not the others. Waiting around passively for him to spill the details of the plan, and then allowing hundreds of innocent people to die in a horrible death when that doesn’t happen…that’s a morally superior decision. Doing whatever it takes to make him talk, so that those people can end up alive, and the terrorist can also end up alive and in custody where he belongs — that is supposed to be an ethical stain.

We’re long past the point where we should be asking:

What have groups of people, sacrificing their individual sensibilities for the more refined wisdom prevailing over that group setting — ever done to advance civilization? What decisions have groups of people ever made to preserve those who would create and preserve, or to destroy those who would destroy?

Seriously.

I see the military get together to do things. That doesn’t count; that involves a rigid command hierarchy. That kind of thinking is vertical, nothing horizontal about it.

I see the United Nations issue their strongly worded letters.

I see Congress get together and vote away trillions of dollars on what, here, I shall politely term “nonsense,” although I clearly have a different noun in mind.

These are all the fulfillment of the prophecy of Thing I Know #300. They are presented as creative efforts, and they look like creative efforts. But what they’re really trying to do, is destroy something, or destroy the people who would be building something. Every little thing we’re using here — just me, let’s say — the text editor into which I type these words, the protocol by which my laptop communicates with the wireless router, the beer I’m sipping from the bottle, and the bottle that envelopes it. They were all given to us by individuals. If they were made available to us by groups, then all the group ever did was vote the money in to produce what an individual somewhere figured out could be produced. Individuals create, groups destroy. Life teaches us this over and over and over again. It wears away on us with this lesson, like water upon the rock.

And yet the rock that is our ignorance, endures. We do not listen. We think groups create things…realize things…show moral consciousness that each individual in the group somehow cannot show. Where do we get this? Is it just a bad habit we carry forward from kindergarten?

We get together with others of like mind, repeat a few platitudes that mean nothing, and suddenly we think we “know” things. We don’t know anything in that setting, except how to deflect blame. The group settles on a plan doomed to fail, and when it fails, nobody is at fault because nobody’s name was attached to it. It was simply “decided” that this was the best plan. The inevitable consequence is that another bad plan will rise, Phoenix-like, from the ashes of the previous bad plan, and then the group will get behind that just like they got behind the previous plan.

But the group also thinks convicted killers are innocent and deserving of life, and babies are guilty and deserving of death. So what individual man of sane mind, would expect any results but the most dismal, from such an environment?

And yet, in 2009, that is how we decide everything that really matters. Nothing is fit to be translated into action, unless & until a committee has blessed it. The committee that takes responsibility for none of its mistakes, and is oh-so-certain we should keep our fuel in the “pristine” ground and burn food instead.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

Do Your Homework!

Sunday, May 3rd, 2009

If you aren’t hitting Rick’s blog, Brutally Honest, on a regular basis — you are doing yourself a disservice. Today’s gem points to another article where you can observe former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, uploaded to YouTube sometime last week, probably offering more genuine knowledge in the space of a few minutes than most of these overly-educated under-informed cherubs can typically grasp in the space of an entire year.

Time index 5:20: Ouch! And Yay! And…yeah, how much longer do we have to let the kiddies from the kiddie table pretend to be running things?

The torture debate is tortured. First of all, if you’re going to go by a strict reading of our treaties, then yes waterboarding probably is torture. But then again — a strict reading would say our obligations absolutely, positively, do not apply to the detainees. And furthermore, if the word “torture” is expanded to include waterboarding, then as a functional legal term it becomes useless because it’s been stretched out of shape to encompass anything that isn’t comfortable. A mandate not to torture becomes a mandate to run nothing less than a country club. You would have to prohibit shouting; accusations; then any other kind of verbal unpleasantness; then you’d have to work your way onward to any interrogation session that the subject finds boring; mattresses that aren’t comfortable; potty breaks not frequent enough; television shows that fail to be funny.

And, as Mike McConnell pointed out — these notions of “decency” have been flipped around a hundred and eighty degrees. Innocent people die horrible, preventable deaths, so guilty people can be kept comfy? Who, exactly, likes us because we allow that, by our inaction, to happen? What hearts-and-minds have been won because of this negligence?

Please point them out, young skullful-o-mush. After you’ve completed your assigned homework.

Palin Still Under Attack

Sunday, May 3rd, 2009

Politico

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s life has changed in a myriad of ways since she became the Republican vice presidential nominee last August, but one aspect of her newfound fame has been more bracing than the others: Since entering the national spotlight, Palin has been inundated by ethics complaints, most of them filed against her after she agreed to become Sen. John McCain’s running mate.

The complaints run the gamut, ranging from the governor’s use of state funds and staff to the workings of her political action committee and even to a jacket she wore to a snow machine race involving her husband.

It’s difficult to pinpoint exactly how many complaints have been filed because the state doesn’t keep count and the complaints are kept confidential by the attorney general’s office unless the state moves forward with a public accusation of wrongdoing. But in total there have been more than a dozen, and most of those have surfaced in the last seven months.

That much is clear because the complainants have a habit of notifying the media and bloggers each time they lodge a grievance. It’s evidence, say Palin’s defenders, that there is a clear political component to them.

“As we’ve been saying, the number of ethics complaints filed against the governor and her staff — as well as the tortured logic they contain — continue to constitute the most disturbing trend in Alaska politics,” said Palin spokeswoman Sharon Leighow in a recent statement after one ostensibly confidential complaint was sent to the Anchorage Daily News and other news outlets.

“In the past several months, we have seen an orchestrated effort by the governor’s opponents to make differences of opinion and ideology almost criminal,” said Mike Nizich, the governor’s chief of staff, in a statement. “Governor Palin has spent a considerable amount of time and money fighting ethics complaints – and no charge has been substantiated. I hope that the publicity-seekers will face a backlash from Alaskans who have a sense of fair play and proportion. I served six previous governors, and I’ve never seen anything like the attacks against Governor Palin.”

You can contribute to Sarah Palin’s defense fund here — for now, so far as I know.

That may change soon, as the fund has now been challenged as a…wait for it…yup, you guessed it. An ethics violation.

The complainant, Kim Chatman of Eagle River, claims Palin is misusing the governor’s office for personal gain by securing unwarranted benefits and receiving improper gifts.
:
Chatman’s complaint cites as potential donors the 500,000 supporters signed up for Palin’s Facebook account and various political organizations.

“Gov. Palin is perched to improperly receive an enormous amount of money for herself and her family and position a pool of pre-paid defense lawyers organized to deflect consequences of wrongdoings,” the complaint says.

Chatman told The Associated Press in a phone interview that she voted for Palin as governor in 2006, but now sees her as unethical. Palin “is not holding up her end of the bargain,” she said.

Elsewhere in the news, Wikipedia’s Astroturfing page is still filled to the brim under the “Examples, Political” section with anecdotes about right-wing organizations pushing right-wing agendas through phony or motivated right-wing individuals. It has absolutely no examples whatsoever of any astroturfing going the other direction. This has led to a vigorous debate under the talk page about why this might be.

I’m thinking if the truth of the Palin complaints ever gets out, Wikipedia just might be able to remedy that, and therefore enhance/preserve/salvage its reputation as a centrist, complete and unfiltered information resource. But that’s a pretty big “if.”

Uncomfortable Revelations About Cap and Trade

Sunday, May 3rd, 2009

Woe be unto us, when we call skepticism gullibility, and gullibility skepticism

Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, told CNSNews.com that to attain that reduction, it is “likely true” that energy costs for Americans will go up.

“I think the system is designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and I think that it is likely true that, in order to put in place an effective reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, you’re going to see higher costs for energy going forward,” Bingaman told CNSNews.com.

“That’s not because of the design of the system, that’s just the reality that utilities [utility companies] will be making decisions which will require additional investment – and we’re trying to encourage them to make those decisions,” he said.

:
Bingaman, however, said it is not yet “clear” what the government is going to do with the revenue made from auctioning carbon permits.

“Well, I don’t think it’s clear what – I think that’s one of the parts of the debate that we need to have – is what happens to any revenue that is generated from the auctioning off of allowances – and I think there are various proposals that call for different ways to distribute that wealth,” he said.

When asked if he had an idea about how the revenue should be distributed, Bingaman said, “Well, I think there’s a general consensus we ought to return as much of it as possible to rate payers, but beyond that I don’t think there’s any specifics agreed upon.”

We pay an artificially high price for something that doesn’t really need to cost that much.

The surplus money we pay disappears into the rat-hole we call the federal government.

The feds then “give it back” by plying it upon whoever they please, a fortunate constituency group some shyster has decided to caption with the wonderful euphemism of “the poor.”

When there aren’t “any specifics agreed upon,” one would hope the few details thus far agreed-upon would be the core functions, those which would yield the most obvious benefit. But those functions are limited to: Energy costs more just because someone wants it to cost more, more money goes to the feds to distribute as they see fit, and…that’s it.

Hmmm.

Update: If I was a real mover-and-shaker in the Republican party, my “alternative plan” would be a donation barrel. I’d be out there sayin’ “The proceeds from my fund go to exactly the same place as Chairman Bingaman’s cap-and-trade fund…just as soon as he figures out where that is, anyway. The difference is, my fund is strictly opt-in. You send a check to the Treasury, if you think you can afford to, and designate that it’s going to go into my fund because you think climate change is an important issue. My fund operates on your good judgment. His operates on coercion and force.”

Just take every single issue that comes up, that way. Define the split that way, all the way down the line. Make the democrat-party come out and say: Our defining premise is that we have to force people to do things, and they can’t decide them for themselves.

Update: Forgive my current state of scatterbrainedness, but the risibility of Bingaman’s comments has left me shell-shocked. It’s as if a hand reached out of the laptop screen and smacked me straight across the face.

Two further thoughts…

…first, this is where a true moderate would cry foul. He’d say “Well, being a moderate, naturally I’m very concerned about the environment & globular-wormening & all that stuff…but…by your own admission, Chairman Bingaman, you don’t really have any ideas about this yet, you just want to take our money away through our power bills and other everyday energy-related expenses. So — why don’t you come back when you’ve decided on some useful things, other than how to relieve us of our money. I’ll be here, ready to hear out your ideas. When you have them.”

Secondly: In the last four or five years, I’ve seen two movie characters Bingaman and his cronies have managed to replicate in reality, perfectly. Frito is a rather ordinary fellow who lives in the futureworld in Idiocracy — which means Frito is abysmally stupid. Idiocracy, which should be required viewing for high school graduation and voting, postulates that now that all of man’s natural predators have been eliminated, the human genome is in an evolutionary condition that makes it stupider as time goes on. The protagonist is then placed in suspended animation for five centuries and wakes up surrounded by people like Frito. It is amazing, all the things they can’t do.

Frito’s favorite line, which he delivers as if he’s trying to start a dialogue about really deep philosophical concepts, is “I like money.” But he isn’t being deep, of course. He just likes money.

The other character was Mr. Krabs from The Spongebob Squarepants Movie. Slightly different story…same tagline. He’s Spongebob’s boss, and, you know, he likes money. Says so a lot. Cluelessly, as if people are supposed to point at him and say “Oh my goodness, how unique! That sea creature over there likes money!”

I don’t understand how people put up with this but I do know what it reveals: Bingaman’s party is the Frito-Krabs party. It wants all this back-patting and congratulations for saving the planet…when all it’s really figured out about anything, is that it just plain likes money.

Meanwhile, the rest of us are “greedy” simply because we want to hang on to ours.

Republicans are facing a stiff challenge in the years ahead? Really? Competing with these guys?

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

Good Friends

Sunday, May 3rd, 2009



Good Friends Are Hard To Find – video powered by Metacafe

Strong Poles

Sunday, May 3rd, 2009

Senator Jim DeMint, summing up the Republicans’ woes and what they can do about them:

To win back the trust of the American people, we must be a “big tent” party. But big tents need strong poles, and the strongest pole of our party — the organizing principle and the crucial alternative to the Democrats — must be freedom. The federal government is too big, takes too much of our money, and makes too many of our decisions. If Republicans can’t agree on that, elections are the least of our problems.

Hat tip: NeoCon Blonde.

Irony, Over the Head, Under the Radar

Sunday, May 3rd, 2009

I continue to be impressed by how many conservatives have rejected all thinking and live only to offend liberals.

Tweet from noted potty-mouth hardcore lefty blogger Amanda Marcotte, about 1300PDT today.

http://twurl.nl/ucial1 If abortion is worse than torture or war, then is jerking off worse than negligent homocide?

Tweet from exactly the same twit, four hours later.

Also lost on Clueless Mandy: That babies come to be by means of sperm meeting egg, that some people are innocent and others are guilty, that unborn babies are obviously absolutely innocent by definition, that there just might be two viewpoints of “moral compasses” on the torture debate, that…aw hell, what’s the use.

Also on the torture debate: Mike McConnell was replaying a call he took from one of those “Losing Our Moral Compass” types, and it was great the way he backed the guy into this corner. Suppose a guy kidnapped your entire family and put them somewhere. Can’t remember how he phrased it…I remember comparing it to an old CSI episode where the bad guy abducted an innocent-guy and buried him underground with a limited supply of air and it was up to the good guys to find the innocent-guy before he ran out of air.

Anyway, McConnell pointed out the obvious. My way, the bad guy experiences some discomfort for awhile, your family is found, the bad guy is put under arrest, everyone else lives, all’s happy. Your way, your entire family is dead so the bad guy can enjoy complete comfort. What kind of moral compass is that, exactly?

You’ll never swing that horse’s head so far over the water that he’s forced to gulp it down, ya know. But that was pretty good. That one came pretty close. Close enough to reduce the pansy to a hyperactive spewing-out of meaningless thoughtless bromides.

And She’s a Financial Animalist Too

Saturday, May 2nd, 2009

Groan. The future is in good hands, I see.

Hat tip to Sports By Brooks, via FARK.

Top Ten Things From Your 20s You’ll Regret When You’re 40

Saturday, May 2nd, 2009

All very true.

Hat tip goes to John Hawkins.

Palin Got in Trouble for Wearing Nice-Looking Clothes

Saturday, May 2nd, 2009

Clothes that cost a lot of money, sure. (The quantity of clothing was never something that was spelled out for me; so like many, I was always at a loss for the information needed to make judgment calls as far as bang-for-the-buck.) But her clothes looked nice.

And she wore them while campaigning. It seems like something so non-controversial, or at least something that should be, to say that people ought to look nice when they’re campaigning for something.

Michelle Obama: Volunteers at a food bank, and for said occasion wears one pair of butt-ugly shoes retailing at $540 (hat tip: Rick).

Yeah, but she’s the President’s wife. First Ladies should radiate, I guess, a sense of fashion hip-and-with-it-ness that borders on the surreal…like they don’t know what a dollar is worth, and something is terribly wrong with the universe if they ever have to. Even when rubbing shoulders with the riff-raff at a food bank. Vice Presidents, on the other hand, should be wearing flour sacks, all the time, even when campaigning for the office. That’s a time-honored American tradition. Didn’t you know?

Mission Accomplished

Saturday, May 2nd, 2009

Greg Mitchell is a very silly man. Over the course of six years, he’s seen with his own two eyes how incredibly wrong the prevailing sentiment of “everyone” can be, and he’s decided to write about it.

The lesson he takes from it?

“Everyone” was wrong back then…but they’re absolutely correct now.

I think that’s a fair summary of his article. So tell me — how do people like this get dressed in the morning and start walking around?

On May 1, 2003, Richard Perle advised, in a USA Today Op-Ed, “Relax, Celebrate Victory.” The same day, exactly six years ago, President Bush, dressed in a flight suit, landed on the deck of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln and declared an end to major military operations in Iraq — with the now-infamous “Mission Accomplished” banner arrayed behind him in the war’s greatest photo op.

Chris Matthews on MSNBC called Bush a “hero” and boomed, “He won the war. He was an effective commander. Everybody recognizes that, I believe, except a few critics.” He added: “Women like a guy who’s president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president. It’s simple.”

PBS’ Gwen Ifill said Bush was “part Tom Cruise, part Ronald Reagan.” On NBC, Brian Williams gushed, “The pictures were beautiful. It was quite something to see the first-ever American president on a — on a carrier landing.”

Bob Schieffer on CBS said: “As far as I’m concerned, that was one of the great pictures of all time.” His guest, Joe Klein, responded: “Well, that was probably the coolest presidential image since Bill Pullman played the jet fighter pilot in the movie Independence Day. That was the first thing that came to mind for me.”

Everyone agreed the Democrats and antiwar critics were now on the run.

He then lunges in for the kill: The death toll on that date was such-and-such, and in the years since then it went up to so-and-so. Ergo, mission-not-accomplished.

Idiot.

What he has seen — what we all have seen — is a story as old as mankind itself. Tough, resourceful and strong warriors work in concert with each other, sacrificing their very lives to destroy something so that something else can be built on top of the ashes, that otherwise could not have been.

If the world spun sanely upon its axis, every May 1 would be a “Mission Accomplished” day and the banner would be hung in miniature form from every storefront, every lamppost, every house, with not a tincture of sarcasm or pejorative shadowing behind it. The troops were given a mission, they achieved it, and their commander thought it would be a good idea to hang up a banner and make them feel good.

The Hardcore MoveOn Left thinks they’ve metastasized this into a symbol of incompetence, by beating us over the head for six years with their absurd doctrine: Whatever isn’t free isn’t worth having. Nothing is “accomplished” anywhere if it involves sacrifice. Sacrifice is for suckers and losers. Nothing, anywhere, is available to sacrifice for anything else…except maybe the life of an unborn baby, America’s military readiness, and perhaps the careers of a few straight white guys. All other things are so sacred that they cannot be placed into marginal jeopardy — let alone sacrificed for any prize, no matter how precious that prize may be, or the other things that would depend on it.

That’s the message, apparently. Because that is the only mindset by which it makes any sense whatsoever to declare the mission something-besides-accomplished, on Mission Accomplished day. If you acknowledge even for a moment that there might be something heroic or noble about a soldier laying down his or her life for the success of a mission, whatever that mission might be, then the “Mission Accomplished” banner made perfect sense back then, does so now, and anyone heckling it in any way is a traitor.

So The Hard Left doesn’t believe in any of that.

They think missions are for suckers. People, inside the military or outside of it, aren’t really supposed to accomplish anything. (Except, perhaps, win elections, if they’re democrats.) Sacrificing your own life to make a mission accomplished, is unworthy of a banner, and in fact might very well make you a something of a schmuck, or a loser.

And they’re desperate to get the word out, and make sure everyone knows they feel that way.

Well, mission accomplished.

Depth

Saturday, May 2nd, 2009

Letting Phil speak for himself…

A Revelation

I was over reading in “The House” and I ran across the line “Republicans don’t need to broaden their base…”

and I thought to myself….

No…. they need to deepen it.

Says all that needs to be said, right there. “Broaden” the base is just plain silly. Broaden the base with what policies, exactly? With the sub-skeletal level of discussion about policies in last year’s election, it has become a practically refuted point that there is any consensus-value of any policies whatsoever. The electorate still seems reasonably sure about the Holy Man they elected President. He spoke very little about policies — less than any candidate in my lifetime, and before that. His message was, rather, what some nameless faceless anonymous busybodies would think about His policies. Republicans should make inroads into the dimwits who so passionately elected Him? How? By learning some dance moves? Our nation longs to see a bunch of sixty-year-old white guys doing the moonwalk? Make that happen and people will vote Republican in droves?

Silly.

Phil’s right. The problem is depth. Republicans were fired because they didn’t do what they were supposed to do. People think, if they’re all crooks anyway, and they’re all going to spend money and bankrupt our kids anyway, might as well get someone fun to watch. Then the time comes to do post-mortem, and nobody thinks about character. The voters voted for what’s-cool, they’re going to be doing that forever now, and so the problem is now to make these old-white-guys with hair growing out of their ears more “cool” than Barack Obama by 2012. Let’s come up with some ideas!

Count me outta that one.

On the other side of the fence

White House Twitter Account Comes To Life
By Doug Caverly – Fri, 05/01/2009 – 15:59

Following the presidential election, Barack Obama’s Twitter account fell silent for more than two months, and some people suspected that he’d abandoned the service after achieving his goal. But the old account still sends out an occasional message, and today, an official Twitter page for the White House was also introduced.

Mind you, our nation’s leader doesn’t seem to be typing out text message abbreviations while counting to 140 himself; one tweet identifies Obama in the third person instead of the first, so don’t count on hearing his thoughts directly (or watching him waste his time).

Social NetworkingTwitter. The President’s on Twitter. He was on the Tonight Show a couple months ago, and now He’s tweeting.

Well, we have a Twitter account too. No MySpace and no Facebook…the latter of which is coming into widespread use among our acquaintances. Facebook operates by networking, so the question comes flying in fairly frequently about whether our Facebook page is up & ready for a link. The answer is that Twitter is about as far as we’re willing to go into this kiddie-territory. Very little of what we have to say about things fits into a “tweet,” and even with just this service, we’ve managed to make medium-to-very-poor use.

We just don’t make very good “twits.”

More than one (ostensibly) well-intentioned commenter has made the point that perhaps a blog is taking things too far all by itself. We do not blog under a nom de plume, and since we are a professional dude, perhaps we should. The principle is the same as the one by which you park your car in a garage, or out in the open, above-ground rather than in an underground bunker: If someone wants to do their damage badly enough, they’ll get it done. So we blog. And blogging is pretty much all we do out in cyberspace.

We’re live-and-let-live about it — but at the same time, it does cause some concern to us, and it should give pause to others as well, that the nation’s leading executive chooses to tweet. Why would this be a great fit? He takes the helm of a mighty nation during a devastating crisis, He has all kinds of balls to juggle, He’s supposed to be the most intelligent and curious President since perhaps Washington…exceptionally well-read…the “rep” is that everything in His noggin is so constantly up for appeal, that the die is seemingly never cast on these ideas. Not that He’s indecisive, oh no, don’t you dare ever insinuate such a thing. It’s just that where the rest of us have brain-farts, He’s just gelling His ideas into works of fine art. Laboring six days and resting on the seventh, & all that.

So if His ideas are so complex and so multi-layered — what’s up with the kiddie-stuff?

Got into a scrape with the FARK kids last night…somewhere…I dunno where. The Iraq death count is up for the month of April, and I dared to criticize Dear Leader over it. I was immediately challenged to prove my assertions by calling out an Obama change in policy. I replied that I was merely holding Obama to the same standard as His predecessor…as all of us, really. Tell the boss you’ll have something done by such-and-such a date, and, while you’re in charge, everything goes to hell and he tells you so — you don’t get to reply “Oh yeah? Prove your assertions. Point out exactly what I did to screw up.” Nope. Best case scenario, you’re given x much time to straighten things out. So I suggested they should just admit — their guy is just supposed to look cool, not foment any kind of positive “change,” they made a mistake in supporting Him and they should just admit it. Then I went to eat my dinner.

They have become parodies of themselves. Everyone else can be criticized, but say a word against anything Obama-related and they’re like Rottweilers on a ham steak. It’s impossible to exaggerate how bad this situation has become. So they’ve devolved into something two-dimensional and paper-like…rather like a stock character on Saturday Night Live. The skit practically writes itself. “That dress Michelle wore last night, made her look frumpy.” “Grrr!!!!! Oh yeah??? Prove it!!! Grrr!!! (slobber)”

All this stuff speaks to one thing: A crisis of depth. People want to be shallow right now. It’s just where they’re at. Things are not supposed to happen by such-and-such a date…anywhere. Instead, everything’s just supposed to be likable. Republicans need to really turn their whole act around, in order to be liked. Obama’s supposed to be fun to watch, not to get anything done or improve anything. Our country isn’t supposed to be secure, or prosperous, or mighty, or even think too highly of itself. It is, instead, supposed to talk to our enemies and stop alienating our allies.

This perpetual embrace of the facile somehow brands it as heresy to ask: What, exactly, do our enemies have to say to us, that a spider doesn’t have to say to a fly? And in what ways, exactly, do our allies “love” us, beyond the ways Rosie O’Donnell loves pastries?

As for the rest of us, screw up a deadline with the boss and you’ll be called in for an awkward meeting for thirty minutes or so…maybe passed over for a promotion that would’ve meant a bunch of pain-in-the-ass work anyway. But fail to be fun-to-watch, and that’s where the serious punishment begins. Your kids hate you, nobody wants to be seen with you, your wife’s getting boned by the mailman, et al. And so, in 2009, the pressure is on: Be hip and edgy, don’t worry about getting anything done.

Reminds me of some “advice” I once saw broadcast, generically, to all the guys who wanted to marry well, from a frustrated coquette who figured her own disappointments on the dating scene had more to do with deficiencies in the stock available to her, than in what she was offering to those who expressed initial interest. If I live to be a hundred and fifty, I’ll never forget this quote. She said, “everything that needs inventing has already been invented; drop out of the trade school, learn to rap and do your crunches.”

I thought at the time that this was a very sad thing, the idle ravings of someone young enough to know everything, doomed to single-motherhood at the very best. (Just imagine a marriage lasting a lifetime, with an attitude like that under the roof!) But now I think maybe she was on to something. She wanted next year’s model of “car” to be irreducible. Functionally monolithic. Pleasing to the eye, but offering nothing under the hood for inspection, maintenance or repair. You drive it around, other people look at it and admire how pretty it is, and when something needs fixing inside it you just junk the whole thing.

KardashianAll this is descriptive of every building block in our society right now. Our worthiness is in the aesthetic pleasure we bring to those who look at us. Even that has very little to do with anything deep…like manners, proper salutations, unexpected talents, knowledge of subjects, et cetera. Few among us are supposed to be doing anything. My complaint is not that our lifestyles are inflated or that some abundance of rights or opportunities has been denied us. It is, instead, that the level of comfort and security we enjoy is disconnected from the things we do…how well we do them…how long they stay done. Like we’re all Kardashians. So why would we value results? And if we don’t value results, why would we value methods? For lack of any reason to value methods, why value any deep thinking at all? Why value character? Why be deep?

In a twisted sense, our society’s extraordinary shallowness is a dementedly reassuring sign that people are paying attention. They’ve figured out they aren’t supposed to perform, and neither is anyone else. We’re all just supposed to be pleasing to the eye. Know some dance moves, “tweet” away, be witty, and that’s all that is expected of us.

Beneficial results aren’t valued, because they simply don’t matter. Everything we can acquire with ’em, we can grab just as easily without ’em. Be good looking — that is the measure of a socially functioning citizen right now…although I hesitate to call us citizens if that’s the definition. Know those dance moves. Bring visual and audible pleasure. Nothing else matters!

There is a great and tragic disappointment headed our way. Because if you want to see something that really doesn’t matter…just feast your eyes on the second-most-attractive person in a room. Sooner or later, the most radiant and ravishing among us, the hippest and edgiest, those who know the very best dance moves — will all taste of that bitter fruit of True Obsolescence. That is the gambit we’ve made.

Bar

Friday, May 1st, 2009

If visual pleasure is one of the muses, incarnated into flesh and blood and sent down from Mount Olympus to walk upon the earth…this young lady is undoubtedly her.

More here. No nippleage or other work-unsafe stuff so far as I can tell…but bear in mind I was mostly distracted from checking out the sidebars and adbars, where such filth is known to lurk.

Silly Sweepstakes

Friday, May 1st, 2009

As far as silly things taking place in the year 2009, the leading candidate can only be penciled in because the year is still so young and so full of hope and promise in the Silly Things Department (STD).

But thus far…this one easily takes the cake.

For last year? I’m ready to hand the trophy to this item, here. The subject matter is similar-to-same.

Seven Things Star Wars Teaches About Life and Politics

Friday, May 1st, 2009

Linked here…and I don’t have time at the moment, but I do think I can find an additional ten jewels in The Empire Strikes Back, alone. But it’s a good start.

George Lucas does have a hidden talent, here. The fact that he did a much better job of it back in the olden days when he was still struggling somewhat, suggests strongly that it isn’t all his. And as we all saw in The Phantom Menace, his presentation of these lessons can be stilted, awkward, cringe-inducing as he commits the cardinal sin of storytelling, which is to fail to connect with his audience.

But some of this, although it comes straight from cookie-cutter eastern-religious tenets, has been molded and decorated gracefully by someone who truly believes in it, which results in some truly deep stuff. Not complicated, just deep. The result is great artwork, on par with some of the most notable tragedies from Shakespeare and ancient Greek storytellers. The music and the lightsabers, just those two alone, would never have made Star Wars what it has, in fact, become.

As far as complexity goes, I think all we’re really dealing with is some thoughts about preparing for death, tossed in a stewpot with Things I Know #111, 115 and 228.