Gerard Alexander, writing in the Washington Post:

There is power in the accusation of racism against conservatives, one that liberals understand well. In an April 2008 post on Journolist, a private online community for liberal journalists, academics and activists, one writer proposed a way to distract conservatives from the campaign controversy surrounding the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama’s pastor. “If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us,” Spencer Ackerman wrote. “Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”

No doubt, such accusations stick to conservatives more than to liberals. It was then-Sen. Joe Biden, a Delaware Democrat, after all, who described presidential candidate Obama as “the first mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.” If a conservative politician had offered such an opinion, his or her career might have ended; Biden was rewarded with a spot on Obama’s ticket. Liberal missteps on race and ethnicity are explained away, forgiven and often forgotten; conservative ones are cast as part of a sinister, decades-long story of intolerance and political calculation, in which conservative ideology and strategy are conflated with bigotry.

The article then goes on to provide a decent chronology. It doesn’t quite get down to the “why” of it though.

I think you’d have to break up the conglomeration of “liberals” to answer that. Most liberals, I think, are decent people who want to do good things but are easily bamboozled because they don’t pay attention.

There are other liberals who, deep down inside, don’t believe the leadership of the government or the policies codified change a damn thing — but they’ve spent all their living days imbibing deeply from the cup of community fellowship. They see every challenging decision as a two-side melee between sports teams and they want to pick the right team.

And then you have the sociopaths like Rahm Emnanuel, living out the goals and dreams that the “sports team” liberals only think about in their fantasies. Win. Beat. Trounce. Decimate. Flatten. Prevail. Rout. Kick ’em when they’re down and don’t forget to wear your cleats.

The accusations of racism, are the great emulsifier. This creates a conduit through which these three disparate communities can finally communicate with each other.

…is a bunch of lying liars.

People like this, are the reason the national discussion of politics has degraded in civil tone so badly over the last fifteen years or so. This does as much damage to our spirit of fellowship as burning a pile of Korans, and is every bit as offensive.

From RightNetwork: All That’s Right With the World. Check it out, all the time. Miss what’s going on there, you miss a lot.

“Would you quit calling it that? It’s not a Ground Zero Mosque. It’s not there.”

“It’s being built at Ground Zero.”

“It’s two blocks away, dimwit! Putz! Imbecile!”

“That’s at Ground Zero.”

“No it isn’t! You right-wing hillbillies, always putting the hate on science.”

“It’s as close to the crater as you can possibly build anything.”

“But it’s not there. It’s not at the bulls-eye. It’s just kinda close. Don’t you know anything?”

“It’s close enough.”

“No, it isn’t! And you’re stupid for saying so.”

“Yes it is.”

“Is not, not, not. Is not to infinity, squared, plus one.”

“It is…”

“ZOMG! That is disgusting! Reprehensible! Awful! Horrible! Disrespectful! A new low, even for you!”

“…aw, gee, here I thought we were having a lovely talk about facts, fiction, right, wrong, you smart, me stupid, all that good stuff.”

Yeah, and then there was a switcheroo. Now you’re having a debate about human decency and fact has nothing to do with it.

I guess the maxim that guides in this situation is: When the facts are on your side, pound the facts, if they aren’t then pound the table.

Pretty much the way liberals argue everything.

Update: Remember the Clinton blow-job thing? It went pretty much the same way. Linda Tripp produced some tapes, and after that it was all about OH MY GAWD what an evil troll she is and what deranged awful people these Republicans are…

But up until then what it was about, was “Linda Tripp is not to be believed,” in the words of Clinton’s lawyer Bob Bennett. Is this a much-loved and popular and effective two-times-elected President being smeared by unscrupulous lying opportunists who are responsible for creating the situation…or is the President responsible for creating the situation, do we have a sexual predator installed in the White House?

The facts emerge, and they say it’s the latter of those two that is the truth. And before you can say “wham bam thank you ma’am,” we’re having a debate about human decency instead of about facts. Switcheroo. The “is not, is too” is out the window.

Hat tip to blogger friend Rick.

China’s U.N. diplomat had a few too many and then grabbed the microphone:

“I know you never liked me Mr. Secretary-General – well, I never liked you, either,” said Mr Sha as Mr Ban looked on, smiling and nodding awkwardly during the 15-minute toast attended by the UN’s top brass.

Mr Sha, who was appointed the UN undersecretary general for Economic and Social Affairs in 2007, also made no secret of his fractious relationship with Mr Ban, although did say he’d grown to respect the South Korean.

“You’ve been trying to get rid of me,” said 62-year-old Mr Sha according to the senior UN official present, “You can fire me anytime, you can fire me today.”

Later in his impromptu speech Mr Sha turned to an American colleague, singling out Bob Orr, from the executive office of the secretary-general.

“I really don’t like him: he’s an American and I really don’t like Americans,” he said.

A second senior UN official who was at the dinner said: “It went on for about ten or fifteen minutes but it felt like an hour.”

Officials present at the dinner suggested that Mr Sha might have been the victim of a misguided attempt at humour.

The next morning Mr Sha requested a meeting with Mr Ban during which he was “deeply apologetic” according to Farhan Haq, the acting deputy UN spokesman.

Mr Farhan said: “Mr Sha told the Secretary General that he realised that the way that he spoke, coming as it did after he had had a few drinks, was inappropriate, as it went too far. He was also aware that his statements had embarrassed and irritated other senior advisers.”

That’s diplomacy.

Hat tip to Mark.

An already-much-talked-about article in Nature. It is unfortunate for Nature that it is much-talked-about; once again, I see the word “science” being tossed around to describe something that isn’t science. In this context, it would be more accurate to think of it as a synonym for “guilt.”

There is a growing anti-science streak on the American right that could have tangible societal and political impacts on many fronts — including regulation of environmental and other issues and stem-cell research. Take the surprise ousting last week of Lisa Murkowski, the incumbent Republican senator for Alaska, by political unknown Joe Miller in the Republican primary for the 2 November midterm congressional elections. Miller, who is backed by the conservative ‘Tea Party movement’, called his opponent’s acknowledgement of the reality of global warming “exhibit ‘A’ for why she needs to go”.

It goes on like this, with the word “denier” being used here & there.

The comments are priceless. Number 13538 speaks for me:

Sadly this editorial is receiving wide and somewhat negative coverage across the internet. This would appear to be due in part due the use of the phrase “Denialism over global warming”. I would like to point out to the editors of Nature that “Denier” is seen as a term of vilification amongst those skeptical of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. “Anti Science” is also a term viewed as offensive by those CAGW skeptics worried about the supplanting of the traditional scientific method with what is referred to In the popular vernacular as “Post normal science”

As the editors of Nature and it’s readers would no doubt be aware, the unproven hypothesis of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hinges on water vapour feedback from minor CO2 radiative forcing. Research that has been based on empirical evidence rather than computer modeling has indicated that any such feedback may be neutral to negative. It is looking increasingly likely that the catastrophic CO2 warming hypothesis is incorrect.

I would like to advise the editors of Nature to distance themselves from the use of offensive terms with regard to the CAGW debate. Due to the significant expenditure on what is increasingly looking like a non problem, it is likely that a major blame game is about to begin. We do not live in the age of Big Brother. Rather, due to the internet we live in the age of Little brother, and Little Brother is watching and recording. When looking for those to punish for what may be the world’s largest hoax, the vengeful will only have to search the internet for terms such as “denier”, “denialisim”, “contrarian” and “big oil shill” to identify the guilty. As I indicated before – Little Brother is watching and recording. Be a little more careful 🙂

I ran into a debate a little while back about the morality issues involved in seeing a good side to the Obama presidency, what with all the pain it is inflicting on perfectly decent people. I chose not to partake because the person who took the “holier than thou” route, and therefore disagreed with me, was one I knew to be wise since he agreed with me about many other things. And the conversation looked rather non-educational.

But there’s definitely a silver lining to it. People can always learn things. People like Ronald Reagan’s daughter, Patti Davis:

“Maybe we fell in love too fast,” my friend said. “You know, we might have zipped right past the road signs.”

Several of us were sitting around over the holiday weekend, enjoying a lovely bottle of wine at sunset … and discussing the condition of our country. Which led us to the president. Which led us to our mutually shared disappointment in him.

We are all liberals, we all supported Obama, and we all remember how emotionally uplifted and hopeful we felt when he was elected.

“But he was a brilliant orator,” another friend offered. “He went right for the heart, and he did it so well.”

Yes, but now …
:
I started thinking about the art of communication, and how dependent it is on a certain level of theatrics. If you want your audience to feel specific emotions, you have to understand how to stir up those feelings in them. It’s both dance and dialogue, taking place deep beneath the surface.

My father was once quoted as saying that having been an actor was good training for politics. It was an unfortunate comment to make publicly, and he was widely lambasted for it. But while he should have kept that observation to himself, there is actually a lot of truth in it. A good actor knows where emotions lie in the human psyche, and can carve out a path to them. It’s a skill that begins with the actor’s willingness to open up first and let us in. We relate and respond to people on the basis of emotion, not in the milieu of professorial lecturing, which might educate, but it doesn’t inspire.

Actors know that perception is everything, along with timing. When disaster strikes, we want to hear from our president immediately, not weeks later. We want to know he’s hurting along with us, not heading out to the golf course, which is sort of the modern-day version of the Roman emperor Nero fiddling while fires raged through the city. As history tells it, the Romans did not appreciate that.

Mastery over mob emotions is not a sign of an effective leader. Lots of people understand that now, and didn’t two years ago. That’s an improvement.

It certainly doesn’t correlate to an honest one. President Reagan, at least, had a reason to become experienced in this craft without out-and-out lying to people.

President Obama, on the other hand, refined this skill being a community organizer.

Hat tip to Linkiest.

Dick Morris:

In state after state, the races that were once marginal are now solidly Republican, those that were possible takeaways are now likely GOP wins and the impossible seats are now fully in play.

Colorado offers a good example. Betsey Markey was supposed to be a marginal new Democratic member. But Cory Gardner, her Republican opponent, is now more than 20 points ahead. John Salazar, the brother of the Interior Secretary and a well-established Democratic incumbent in a largely Republican district, is now almost 10 points behind his GOP challenger Scott Tipton. And Ed Perlmutter, a solidly entrenched Democrat in a supposedly nearly-safe district, is running one point behind his GOP opponent, the unusually articulate Ryan Frazier (a black Republican with Obama-esque charisma). The Republicans will probably win all three seats.

Or take Arkansas. Blanche Lincoln is clinically dead, trailing John Boozman 65-27 in the latest Rasmussen poll. In the race that was supposed to be close for the open seat in AR-2, Republican Tim Griffin is massacring Democrat Joyce Elliott by 52-35. In the race that was thought to be a likely Democratic win – AR-1, the East Arkansas district – Republican Rick Crawford is running seven points ahead of Democrat Chad Causey. And, in the district that was considered a safe Democratic seat, the home of Blue Dog leader Mike Ross, Republican Beth Anne Rankin is showing surprising strength and may topple her opponent.

In the Senate, Republicans are solidly ahead in Delaware, North Dakota, Indiana and Arkansas. They have good leads in Colorado, Pennsylvania and Washington. The Democratic incumbents are perpetually below fifty and basically tied with their Republican challengers in Nevada, California and Wisconsin. Illinois is tied. Connecticut and New York (after the primary) are in play. That’s a gain of up to 13 seats!

The difference between this and 1994 is the difference between 2008 and 1992. Back when Clinton was elected, there was a sharp uptick in interest in politics whereas before, people looked at elections as just another activity, like serving on a jury or maybe doing a crossword puzzle. Prior to 2008, of course, things were not that way. And so the 2008 elections had this undertone that the 1992 elections did not have: TAKE THAT, you special interests! Take that, Rupert Murdoch, Dick Cheney, Diebold! The people are taking their government back!

So Bill Clinton shot himself in the foot with a healthcare plan; Barack Obama did the same thing. They both earned the same first-term mid-term smack-down. Difference is, though, 1994 was more of a lesson to be learned about a new energy source. Whoah! Gotta keep an eye on these people! Like a new student driver finding out gasoline is flammable. The People had to become educated, after they became interested.

Obama is more about one class of people, who had already been interested in the process for awhile, beating another class of people. Trouncing them. Winning. Obama said it Himself: “I won.” Just got an e-mail from Tim Kaine, DNC Chairman, yesterday. Subject line? “We can beat them‏“.

So in the months and years after Clinton won, the average Clinton supporter figured Clinton was a symbol of The People taking an interest in their government, which in turn would start caring about people. Obama fans, on the other hand, acknowledge the presence and influence of “other” people who disagree. They see the struggle in much more militant terms.

Not that there wasn’t nasty stuff being said against the Revolution of 1994. There was. But it was still understood to be a correction against an unchecked extremist liberal White House gone wild. The spirit of “us versus them” was just getting started. Even after that, it wasn’t anything like what we saw in the Florida debacle.

Now, there’s this notion that “real” people should be supporting Barack Obama, whose policies are exactly what we need, they just have to be given a little bit more time because hey, He inherited such a “mess” it will take Him awhile to clean it up. In other words, because of the militant attitude, support for Obama is felt by the Obama-faithful to be a staple quality of a properly enlightened populace.

Conclusion: It’s going to be particularly jarring to them when this support doesn’t materialize. They’ll be confronted by that age-old question, in much more stark terms than it was presented to the Clinton fans in 1994: If left-wing polices are so plainly and evidently the proper course for a government that cares about the people, and so helpful, and so wise, and so beneficial, and a properly enlightened electorate will insist upon them…then how come we don’t just put them in place and stick with them? How come we keep shelving them after a brief learning period?

It’s still one-man-one-vote — can’t blame it all on “special interests.”

It looks like learning. Smells that way too…walks like learning, quacks like learning…

I think what’s being learned is, in an economy in which it doesn’t make any economic sense to risk capital and hire people into jobs, nobody is going to bother. People are looking for work, watching politicians in snappy suits give fancy speeches, and they’re getting restless.

Moe Lane, RightNetwork:

[T]he antiwar movement is faltering because it was never an antiwar movement to begin with. It was an anti-Bush, anti-Republican movement, and now that neither of those entities is running things right now it is no longer necessary to keep it going. It won’t be eliminated, of course: after all, the way things are going the Republicans are primed to take power again within in the next two or three election cycles. Once that happens, the Democrats will then revitalize whatever withered cores still remain in the antiwar groups, and then use them to attack Republicans—until the Republicans are out of power once more. Lather, rinse, repeat.

It’s hard to tell who to be more contemptuous of in that uneasy liberal-left alliance: establishment Democrats, for being such cynical opportunists, or the antiwar activists, for being such pitiful lackeys. On the whole, I would probably go with establishment Democrats. After all, it’s already known that your average Code Pinker or World-Can’t-Wait…person…is a seditious, America-hating, military-despising, anti-Semitic hypocritical nutjob. And, clearly, we’re letting them get away with that, mostly because we’re the good guys and they’re not. But the Democrats that use these…people…are the ones who are really playing political games with our soldiers’ lives and their well-being — because they are the ones who enabled the antiwar movement’s behavior, for eight long years.

Why can’t you find one single Democrat member of congress who is running for reelection by bragging on his vote for ObamaCare?

My answer:

Because being a democrat has nothing to do with finding new, good ideas. It’s all about finding new, creative and innovative new ways to sell old, shitty ideas.

Peter Beinart, writing in The Daily Beast:

Just over three years ago, acclaimed author and campaign adviser Samantha Power published a memo outlining the foreign policy Barack Obama would pursue if elected president. It was called “Conventional Washington versus the Change We Need.” Power’s argument—aimed straight at then-candidate Hillary Clinton—was that merely replacing George W. Bush with a Democrat would not truly change American foreign policy. It would not truly change American foreign policy because many of Bush’s policies had been supported by “the foreign-policy establishment of both parties,” which remained enthralled to a “bankrupt conventional wisdom.” Obama, she suggested, offered something different. As with his opposition to the Iraq War, he would offer “fresh strategic thinking” undeterred by charges that he was “weak, inexperienced, and even naive.” He represented “a break from a broken way of doing things.”

Three years later, measured by the criteria Power laid out, Obama’s foreign policy has failed. The failure started soon after Obama’s election, when he assembled a foreign-policy team—led by Hillary Clinton herself—drawn from the very “foreign-policy establishment” that Power derided. The people Obama has installed in key positions are smart, earnest, and hard-working, but they lack exactly the quality that Power promised would define his foreign policy: a willingness to challenge conventional wisdom, even when it entails political risks. To the contrary, the foreign-policy wonks who did stake out provocative positions—Robert Malley, for instance, who incurred the wrath of the “pro-Israel” establishment for questioning U.S. policy toward Hamas, or Kenneth Pollack and Michael O’Hanlon, who incurred the wrath of the liberal blogosphere for supporting the Iraq surge—did not get jobs. The people who did are, for the most part, foreign-policy versions of Elena Kagan: ambitious, talented people who have never publicly espoused a truly controversial opinion about anything. The difference is that in foreign policy, unlike the Supreme Court, there is no lifetime tenure, so habits of conventionality and caution, once learned, rarely go away.

All this helps to explain the absence of memorable Obama speeches about America’s relationship to the world. From his 2002 speech at West Point junking containment and deterrence to his 2005 inaugural promising a campaign to end tyranny, George W. Bush laid out his foreign-policy views in sharp, bold strokes. Most of Obama’s speeches, by contrast, are so exquisitely nuanced that they stop just short of saying anything that anyone could really disagree with. The Bush administration was a festival of grand doctrines and controversial figures; the Obama administration, for all its brainpower, is intellectually bland.

It is important to highlight this particular failing because it, like many Obama failures, is much bigger than Obama. A candidate demonstrates his value to a constituency through his boldness, and his boldness is manifested through charisma — once installed in the position, he doesn’t do anything identifiable. How many disappointed ladies have gone out on dates with a beau like this? How many bosses have you had like this? Every little thing they say, every little thing they do, could’ve been done by anybody.

The distinction is the pep and the zeal and the persuasion with which they argue against doing something else.

It causes a fundamental disagreement with others — which, of course, is blamed on the others. People who do generic things aren’t terribly tolerant of others who do distinguishing things.

Speaking for myself, this is a patch of earth I’d like to see sown with salt after the Obama weed is yanked out of it. It is the turf of the Seagull Manager.

The more years I see rolling on by, the more convinced I become that these people are the reason we’re all doing more fighting and becoming more contentious. I’m also seeing them as liars, whether they realize they’re lying or not. Their message is one of “bold new leadership” — change. How many times did Barack Obama talk about that? How many times did He make the point that “those folks” or “them folks” were guilty of “causing the mess we’re in,” domestically as well as with foreign policy. And didn’t “have any new ideas,” and only wanted “to go back to the failed policies of the last eight years.”

And now we see He’s really not about liberal or conservative, He just takes the path of least resistance. He is, in other words, the polar opposite of what He promised to be. He is precisely what He called others. Far from being a new idea, He is revealed as a new tactic by which old ideas can be argued.

The danger, of course, is that the world is not staying the same. A truly old idea, therefore, is all but guaranteed to fail disastrously. In fact, the old ideas of detente and treaty have been demonstrated to yield the inferior results. As black of an eye as confrontation has received in the media over the last several years, and in spite of the feelings it arouses to see body bags show up in cargo planes, we’ve seen it proven that confrontation at least some of the time is the right answer.

It is the doves who are arguing for a return to a failed ideology. If that were the right answer, it wouldn’t have to be propped up across the years with a money-saturated propaganda drive, and there wouldn’t have to be such a sustained and frenzied search for the best way to argue it.

George Will thinks so, Neal Boortz hopes so.

The collapsing crusade for legislation to combat climate change raises a question: Has ever a political movement made so little of so many advantages? Its implosion has continued since “the Cluster of Copenhagen, when world leaders assembled for the single most unproductive and chaotic global gathering ever held.” So says Walter Russell Mead, who has an explanation: Bambi became Godzilla.

That is, a small band of skeptics became the dogmatic establishment. In his Via Meadia blog, Mead, a professor of politics at Bard College and Yale, notes that “the greenest president in American history had the largest congressional majority of any president since Lyndon Johnson,” but the environmentalists’ legislation foundered because they got “on the wrong side of doubt.”

Will proceeds to quote and paraphrase Mead further, exploring the origins of the modern environmental movement. It is fascinating and you really should go RTWT. Me, I just see it as an unhealthy philosophy. It endeavors to engage in a balanced perception of the universe, and then fails at this because right out of the gate it starts assigning positives & negatives to things. Humans bad, all other living creatures good.

Fish gobbles up another fish, that’s good; that fish is gobbled by an even bigger fish, that’s good; a fisherman catches the fish to prepare for his supper, and he ought to be thoroughly ashamed of himself.

I’ve come to see it as anti-human. I agree with Boortz — and Jack Nicholson’s Joker, “You’re a vicious bastard, Rotelli, and I’m glad yer dead!”

It is inherently anti-human. The emotion that keeps it going is guilt. What’s the last decision you made out of guilt, that you recall without regret?

Also, picking up your marbles and heading home at the first sign the enemy has some strength, is the behavior of unprincipled bullies. That’s a good definition of “bully” — full of bluster only so long as the opposition appears weak, can’t pick on someone your own size.

Thing I Know #354. If it chafes, if it’s loud, if it interrupts you, if it gets in your way, if it keeps you from doing things, if it’s annoying — it will never, ever, ever be found to be harmful to the environment. Ever. Only fun, soothing, pleasantly exciting, and tasty things are found to hurt the environment.

The President is complaining “they [My critics, special interests, the enemy] talk about me like a dog. That’s not in my prepared remarks, but it’s true.”

I have a lot of thoughts about this. Besides the obvious one: What a whiny-butt. How unpresidential can you get.

He comes from Chicago. Are they accustomed to something tamer back there?

When you run around complaining about “fat cats that caused the mess we’re in, in the first place,” that invokes imagery of an overfed feline crapping on the carpet. If they’re calling you a dog, Mr. President, isn’t that just a classic sauce/goose/gander situation?

A dog starts wagging his tail when he hears your car from half a mile away. When you walk in the house he acts like his world just got started. This isn’t anything even close to putting your healthcare under the control of a faceless bureaucrat three thousand miles away, taxing all your money away and telling you “You should be thanking me.”

If a dog makes an accident on the rug, he doesn’t blame it on the previous dog.

Did President Obama just publicly confess to treating Bo The White House Dog the same way Republicans treat Him? Or worse than He expects the Republicans to treat Him?

If I went to a park with President Obama, and threw a frisbee to Him, would He be able to catch it in His mouth?

Some dogs are trained not to consume anything, like a piece of delicious sirloin steak balanced on their nose, until they’re given the go-ahead. Oh my, yes, I do wish President Obama was more like a dog.

Did the President just make a racist crack about Himself?

The only time I’ve heard dogs whine is when they can hear noises that annoy them. Maybe our favorite Presidential Puppy is hearing November.

Kitty • Bitch (n.)

We call Facebook the “Hello Kitty of Blogging” for a whole bunch of different reasons. Some of you folks have Facebook accounts and post regular updates there, and that is quite alright. Nobody is perfect.

We’re winding up a holiday weekend now, and maybe you have come to be aware of a social phenomenon which has also made itself known to myself and my lady. Here, I’ll describe it step by step. See if this resonates with you.

• You take off somewhere fun.
• You put up an update on the Hello-Kitty-of-Blogging announcing what you’re doing.
• Maybe you embellish your post with a photograph or two.
• Maybe you give a shout-out to some of the transportation services, lodging services, or food services you have found to be enjoyable.
• One of your “friends” logs on and appends a “comment” to the effect of this: “WAAAAAAHHHH!!!!! You’re doing something fun and you’re not taking me with you!!! WAAAAAHHHH!!! WAAAAAAHHH!!!.

That is a Kitty-Bitch.

And the kitty-bitches have given me yet another reason to disrespect Facebook. Maybe this is a bit unfair; the system is machinery, and the machinery provides the users with new ways to do all sorts of things they could be doing. The operative word there is “could,” though. It could be used to renew old acquaintances, or to raise money to help sick people in need. It could be used to unite a skilled craftsman in search of a job, with an employer who has a real need for his talents. And now & then it is used for these purposes.

But the reality of the situation is the kitty-bitches are forming an important constituency. However the Hello-Kitty-of-Blogging could be used, the way it really is used is, predominantly, to whine about things. My girlfriend got two or three of these whimpering, simpering screeds from her so-called “friends.” Then I got one from a certain younger relative who shall remain unnamed.

Oh, it makes me so happy to know we’re expected to sit around at home not doing anything, like a stuffed animal in a toy chest that isn’t being played with.

I’m sure this looks reasonable as a solo performance, perhaps even charming. When it’s a vast chorus, it isn’t nearly so endearing.

Yes, kitty-bitches. We’re enjoying sand, surf, fresh air and sunshine. Deal with it.

I’m ashamed to admit it, but I would have something of a research project ahead of me if I wanted to properly write about this. Today, I can only hit the highlights. I’m reading these pious little bromides tossed down upon the altar of organized labor, like this one for example…

I am a member of a union, and I inherited my dedication to unions from my father-in-law, who, oddly, belonged to management at the General Motors plant for which he worked for 40 years.

Because his employer made sure that salaried workers were appeased with the same or better benefits as those negotiated by the United Auto Workers for the hourly employees (and, to be fair, because of his own frugalilty), he was able to pay off his house, put four boys through college without borrowing a dime and leave his wife in good stead after his death.

In other words, he, like the rest of the American workforce, benefited from the advances won by unions. Though he had no union membership card in his wallet, he recognized what unions had meant to his family.

If all unions had ever done for the American worker was create the oasis we now call the weekend — not to mention the eight-hour day, paid vacations, health insurance and pensions — it would be reason enough to keep Labor Day holy each year.

But I am afraid the next generation of workers will think of Labor Day only as the day the pool closes and the football season begins.

And it makes me think of my own family connections to labor unions. Mom was on the other side of it. She crossed a picket line during a teacher’s strike. That’s right, she was a “scab.”

I attended a public school and had been dutifully indoctrinated about how, at the beginning of the century, the working conditions were oh so reprehensible and the labor unions were needed to put things right.

How did they put things right? By the classic tactic of leftist political movements: “manufacturing” some brand new “basic human” rights.

What I couldn’t quite grasp at the time, was how “basic human” rights were dependent on your name appearing on some kind of list — in this case, the union membership rolls. If you’re on the list, you get to enjoy this “basic human” right. If you aren’t, you don’t.

Thirty years later, I still don’t understand this. Nobody’s provided a reasonable explanation. I’m not thinking on this with too much nuance, I admit. In my world, a “right” is universal, or else it isn’t. If you have to be on a list to enjoy it, then it doesn’t qualify. And Mom’s name was not on the list — oh, goodness gracious, the energy that went into reminding her, and us, and everybody else, of this.

Back then, three decades younger and dumber, I still got the essentials of this story: We were poor. We needed the money. Mom’s stories were genuinely scary. We tried to make jokes out of it around the dinner table, but we were all concerned. The extended-family was concerned. And although she tried to hide it, so was Mom. She didn’t know what to expect when she drove to “work” or when she drove home again. Not really.

I posted the following to left-wing talking-head Ed Darrell’s site in observance of Labor Day:

Organized labor is the snake that offered an apple to the labor movement. At first it seemed like a no-brainer: Use your numbers for “collective bargaining” and put an end to the “intolerable working conditions.”

Where the organized labor movement took on the trajectory of your average lawn dart, was with the organization — this unstated, but central, refrain of “You have an absolute right to work for your living if your name is on our membership rolls, and you don’t if it isn’t.”

Because of that, “union” has become something of a dirty word. And this is not entirely undeserved. The mob connections, the kneecap-busting of “scab” replacements…and worst of all, the dollars donated toward electing democrats.

And then of course there are the adventures of Grandpa Freeberg. He was the foreman of the local lumber mill, and was, therefore, management. So he crossed the same picket line Mom did, except that was in the thirties when things were getting really heated. He had a sawed-off shotgun in the passenger seat. Must’ve been fun.

There are other objections to labor unions as well. When they negotiate their way out of a livelihood, they do so on behalf of a workforce. A unified workforce; they’re a “union,” remember? That means, quite a few among the membership might have voted not to strike, and if they were in the minority, well, tough. The strike is on. And maybe the union will win a concession that happens to be deleterious to the continuing survival of the company. Who is responsible for this? The management, which took a gamble that didn’t pay off; and, certainly, the workers who now have to flail around for a new livelihood, perhaps moving out of the shriveling ghost town, perhaps the entire state. But not the union officials.

Once a plan has achieved the exact opposite of what it was supposed to do, is there any reasonable way to defend it?

One of my former co-workers is laying a big ol’ heavy thought on the Hello-Kitty of Blogging.

The article linked consists of a single sentence: “Selfish” is to “Self-Interested” as “Cheap” is to “Thrifty.” Agree or disagree, and please explain your answer. As you might expect, the comments are more worthy of your time than the actual adage. Perhaps you’d like to come up with one of your own.

After I replied, I had a vestigial thought about this: To act in an unselfish way, and then take active steps to make this act public knowledge, is inherently selfish. I’m trying to think of some possible exceptions to this, and thus far the only one I can produce is to set an example for others to follow that could not be set if the unselfish act were to remain secret. Other than that, altruism is utterly defeated, even set on a course to contradict itself, if it is exercised and then announced.

Update: I recall some anecdotes, of sufficient number to become generic and therefore unworthy of chronicling as individual items, in which altruism fermented into stupidity. Today’s “unselfishness” became tomorrow’s regretted mistake. It is disturbing and unsettling to recall those who had nothing to say against the unselfishness on the more ancient day, in fact were quite enthused about it, and were likewise enthused about calling out the stupidity in the more recent one.

My tentative conclusion is that there is not too much disagreement here, or not nearly as much as there would appear, in the land-of-thought. This is a disagreement of feeling. Anyone who’s been around the block a few times can see in an instant that co-signing for an auto loan has the capacity to be looked back on as a stupid idea; once it turns out to be one, the don’t-be-selfish types would, I predict based on past experience, insist that what made it stupid was not the act itself but the lack of agreement that took place before the papers were signed. Such a hypothetical defines the point of disagreement well, I think — with the one side saying, the arrangement is inherently dumb, and the other side saying bad experience should only exclude it in incremental baby steps. If only the “buyer’s” career prospects were sound at the time, if only it was a cheaper car, if only the co-signer made it more clear that the payments should be made.

If only.

It also occurs to me that the question is hard to answer because of our economic model: Your personal, financial health is inextricably bound to your power, your spectrum of options. It becomes an unworkable contradiction to say “there is something noble about sacrificing for others or for the greater good,” since in so sacrificing, you have to paint yourself into a corner, close off options, reduce your influence and therefore make your own soundness and techniques of judgment pointless.

In other words, if you think your way of doing things is so right, it is logical you will work to increase the effect that it has on you and the things around you — not reduce it.

And if you’re surrounded by people who think it is good for you to risk or sacrifice for others pointlessly, what is their opinion worth if tomorrow they’ll be joining the ranks of those calling you stupid for having done so?

That line on your map that starts from Wyoming and stretches westward, between Idaho and Nevada, Oregon and California. Where it crashes into the surf, that’s where we is.

We’re renting a whole cabin and it’s an outstanding deal. Very happy with the whole arrangement, already planning our return trip. It was the usual three or four hours to get to our customary spot on Saturday, then yesterday was dedicated to swallowing up the balance of the distance, 9-something in the morning to six at night. Google Maps says if we really pushed it in one leg from our front doorstep, we could conquer the entire thing in seven and a half hours.

Hmm…a Friday rush job. Interesting prospect.

We’re staying throughout the holiday and leaving Tuesday morning.

Gary Andres, writing in The Weekly Standard, raises some doubts about our current President; specifically, His correct understanding of His own job:

Last week House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio delivered a stinging critique of the Obama administration’s economic policies. But the White House’s swift and tart reaction to Boehner was both illuminating and sadly predictable.

On the day of the speech, White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer offered a “pre-buttal,” ripped from the playbook of a presidential campaign. Vice President Biden joined the fray, donning his full-electoral jacket, reminding us once again that it was another president that got us into this mess.

Blame is like classic rock for this administration – they like it so much they never stop playing it.

Aiming a political fusillade at a specific congressional critique may seem normal in today’s rough-and-tumble 24-hour news cycle, but it’s a fundamentally flawed method of steering the ship of state.

Yet this tactical retort to a congressional appraisal was dismally emblematic of a broader governing style, demonstrating that the Obama White House fundamentally misunderstands the role of the presidency.
:
These spontaneous outbursts of opinion are unnecessary, revealing, and destructive. They are unnecessary because as president, he doesn’t need to engage in every local controversy. That he does paints him as man with more hubris than judgment, who doesn’t understand the nuanced differences between campaigning and governing.

The obvious reason for this is that Obama is precisely what ideologically rigid right-wingers back in 2008 said He was: An all-package-no-substance seagull-manager, skilled at nothing save for sucking up credit and avoiding blame. As a duly elected President, He is stuck in campaign mode and always will be stuck there because that is what He does. The job is being re-defined to comport with His pre-fabricated profile of skill.

But there is another thing going on here: Obama, by answering every single criticism with an elegant bromide about how it’s-the-other-guy’s fault, is simply showing us a cross-section of His base by acting as a champion of it. Anybody who’s argued with liberals at cocktail parties, office water-cooler chit-chats, on the blogs or in the comment threads, already knows all about this: All roads lead back to “me, the liberal, good; you, the conservative, bad.”

How do we get more people hired? Leads to: Anyone who disagrees with me is bad.

Is global warming really a problem? Leads to: The same thing. How do we heal racial division. How do we get more women into our Congress and into our technical professions. Do we need another stimulus plan. Is this the right time for getting out of Iraq. What should we do about North Korea. Has Roe v. Wade outlived its usefulness. On and on and on…discuss any of these issues, and it all leads back to the same place: My guys are swell, yours stink on ice.

Obama is simply showing us what a modern liberal looks like.

It’s really sad when we start discussing issues that have to do with real people being hurt by things. The strident liberal lays down his “everyone in my community is so much better than you are,” and all the adults in the room are left sputtering, looking bewildered, and wondering quietly to themselves — “Yeah, but what about the matter we were supposed to be discussing? Which plans work and which ones don’t?”

It’s just a price we need to pay for having kids run things. Problems don’t get solved, all we can talk about is who’s better than who else.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News and Washington Rebel.

Is cuter than Jon Stewart.

Funnier too.

Victor Davis Hanson identifies ten reasons why we miss him:

Various polls report that George W. Bush in some states is now better liked than President Obama. Even some liberal pundits call for Bush, the now long-missed moderate, to draw on his recognized tolerance and weigh in on the Ground Zero mosque or the Arizona anti-immigration legislation. Apparently the erstwhile divider is now the healer that the healer Obama is not.

I’m identifying particularly strongly with Item #3:

It is a uniquely American trait to shun whining and petulance. Rugged individualism and can-do optimism used to be ingrained in our national character, and even in our 11th hour have not wholly disappeared. So the public is tiring of Obama’s Pavlovian blaming of Bush. After 20 months, it is time for the president to get a life and quit the “heads you lose/tails I win” attitude about presidential responsibility. If he now takes credit for calm in Iraq without crediting the surge, then Obama can surely take blame for the anemic recovery — brought on by his own bullying of business that has frightened free enterprise into stasis. Note that Bush, unlike Clinton, has not engaged in emeritus tit-for-tat recrimination, and has kept largely quiet in dignified repose. Obama serially goes after Hannity, Limbaugh, and Beck by name; Bush let the slander of a Michael Moore or Keith Olbermann go unanswered.

Thing I Know #375. In any position of executive responsibility, if you make the mistake of mentioning your predecessor too often, people will start to wish he was still there.

Due to technicalities:

“We are definitely pleased that the scam that was being perpetrated has been stopped,” said John Pirich, an attorney for tea party groups around the state. “We also hope that the investigation into this activity proceeds as expeditiously as possible.”

Although the court in its 5-2 decision found the Board of State Canvassers “failed to carry out its duty” to The Tea Party by giving a deadlocked ruling last month, the majority opinion stated the justices were “not persuaded” the group should appear on the ballot.

Michael Hodge, an attorney for The Tea Party who had argued before the Board of Canvassers that the group had enough signatures to appear on the ballot, could not be reached for comment. The Court of Appeals had ruled Monday the Tea Party group could not appear on the ballot because of problems with its petitions including that the word “The” was not in 24-point boldface type as dictated by law.

The Tea Party nominated 23 candidates for offices ranging from secretary of state and attorney general to state House and Senate seats, Congressional seats, Oakland County commissioner, state Board of Education and the University of Michigan Board of Regents.

The ruling comes a day after The Detroit News reported links between Democrats and The Tea Party group with 23 candidates that included the former stepmother of the former leader of the Oakland County Democratic Party being recruited to run as well as another candidate who had placed last in a 2008 Democratic primary.

The scandal over The Tea Party group forced the resignation of Mike McGuinness, the former Oakland County Democratic chairman, and the firing of Jason Bauer, an organizer for the county Democrats who has been accused of notarizing many of the nominations.

My goodness, such creativity being deployed to…uh…to………

My goodness, such a widespread enthusiasm for keeping taxes high, and making it as expensive as possible to run that government, and to earn a living and pay for things.

What drives such people? They want to win — we all like to win at things. But when winning can only happen through deceit, trickery and subterfuge, it seems no alarm bells go off in their addled little brains.

They must be getting a cut, or under the impression they’re getting a cut.