Krauthammer:

…Khalid Sheik Mohammed, has been given by the Obama administration a civilian trial in New York. Just as the memory fades, 9/11 has been granted a second life — and KSM, a second act: “9/11, The Director’s Cut,” narration by KSM.
:
So why is Attorney General Eric Holder doing this? Ostensibly, to demonstrate to the world the superiority of our system where the rule of law and the fair trial reign.

Really? What happens if KSM (and his co-defendants) “do not get convicted,” asked Senate Judiciary Committee member Herb Kohl. “Failure is not an option,” replied Holder. Not an option? Doesn’t the presumption of innocence, er, presume that prosecutorial failure — acquittal, hung jury — is an option? By undermining that presumption, Holder is undermining the fairness of the trial, the demonstration of which is the alleged rationale for putting on this show in the first place.
:
It’s not as if Holder opposes military commissions on principle. On the same day he sent KSM to a civilian trial in New York, Holder announced he was sending Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, mastermind of the attack on the USS Cole, to a military tribunal.

By what logic? In his congressional testimony Wednesday, Holder was utterly incoherent in trying to explain. In his Nov. 13 news conference, he seemed to be saying that if you attack a civilian target, as in 9/11, you get a civilian trial; a military target like the Cole, and you get a military tribunal.

What a perverse moral calculus. Which is the war crime — an attack on defenseless civilians or an attack on a military target such as a warship, an accepted act of war which the U.S. itself has engaged in countless times?

By what possible moral reasoning, then, does KSM, who perpetrates the obvious and egregious war crime, receive the special protections and constitutional niceties of a civilian courtroom, while he who attacked a warship is relegated to a military tribunal?

A grateful hat tip to Neo-Neocon, who had already made my “short stack” with a wonderful post she had up yesterday…which could be even more devastating…

Ask the 1993 WTC prosecutor what he thinks

So, if the Left’s best argument for trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in the civilian justice system is that we’ve done so well getting terrorists convicted there before, why is Andy McCarthy, the prosecutor of the case they cite the most—the 1993 WTC bombing—so dead set against it?

He’ll tell you himself:

For what it’s worth, I think the team I led in the Blind Sheikh case did an excellent job, and we also convicted everybody. But that is not the measure of success. It’s not whether the government wins the litigation; it’s whether the national security of the United States has been harmed more by having the trial than it would have been harmed by handling the detainees in a different manner.

Further, if we are going to have military commissions at all (and Holder says we will continue to have them), it makes no sense to transfer the worst war criminals to the civilian system. Doing so tells the enemy that they will get more rights if they mass-murder civilians.

The question is not whether the prosecutors are able, whether they’ll do a spectacular job, and whether they’ll get these guys…The issue is: What damage will we sustain by doing things this way, and is there a way we could do them without sustaining that much damage.

*sigh*.

If you needed this annual reminder…you’re welcome.

Are you flying to grandma’s for Thanksgiving? Think twice before trying to take leftovers home with you on the plane.

Mashed potatoes are usually thick and gooey, and cranberry sauce wiggles and jiggles. The Transportation Security Administration considers both to be liquids.

It may sound strange, but you can’t pack those in your carry-on bag. More obvious no-nos include gravy, salad dressing and soup.

British court lunacy. Perhaps coming here soon.

A former soldier in England has been arrested and convicted (and may even go to jail for five years) because he found a gun in his yard and he turned it over to the police. I presume this is in part a reflection of the anti-gun ideology embedded in UK law, but don’t prosecutors and judges have even a shred of discretion to avoid foolish prosecutions and/or protect innocent people from absurd charges? Here is the news report:

A former soldier who handed a discarded shotgun in to police faces at least five years imprisonment for “doing his duty”. Paul Clarke, 27, was found guilty of possessing a firearm at Guildford Crown Court on Tuesday – after finding the gun and handing it personally to police officers on March 20 this year. The jury took 20 minutes to make its conviction, and Mr Clarke now faces a minimum of five year’s imprisonment for handing in the weapon. In a statement read out in court, Mr Clarke said: “I didn’t think for one moment I would be arrested.”

… The court heard how Mr Clarke was on the balcony of his home in Nailsworth Crescent, Merstham, when he spotted a black bin liner at the bottom of his garden. In his statement, he said: “I took it indoors and inside found a shorn-off shotgun and two cartridges. “I didn’t know what to do, so the next morning I rang the Chief Superintendent, Adrian Harper, and asked if I could pop in and see him. “At the police station, I took the gun out of the bag and placed it on the table so it was pointing towards the wall.” Mr Clarke was then arrested immediately for possession of a firearm at Reigate police station, and taken to the cells.

… Prosecuting, Brian Stalk, explained to the jury that possession of a firearm was a “strict liability” charge – therefore Mr Clarke’s allegedly honest intent was irrelevant. Just by having the gun in his possession he was guilty of the charge, and has no defence in law against it, he added.

… Judge Christopher Critchlow said: “This is an unusual case, but in law there is no dispute that Mr Clarke has no defence to this charge. “The intention of anybody possessing a firearm is irrelevant.”

It’s what naturally happens when the people governed by a government cease to be citizens, and become subjects instead. Look what he has in his hands. Off to jail with him.

Tea. Crates. Boston Harbor. Ker-sploosh.

A legislative branch absolutely, positively out of control:

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D.-Ore.) says that Congress derived the constitutional authority to make Americans purchase health insurance as part of its “very first enumerated power.” He was referring to the language at the beginning of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which says: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.”

CNSNews.com asked Merkley: “Specifically where in the Constitution does Congress get its authority to mandate that individuals purchase health care?”

Merkley said: “The very first enumerated power gives the power to provide for the common defense and the general welfare. So it’s right on, right on the front end.”

Before CNSNews.com could ask a follow-up question, Merkley’s press secretary pulled him away, apparently to attend an event.

Related: If Obama is So Bright, Why Does He Keep Drawing on the Auto Insurance Analogy?

Since Barack Obama charged into the spotlight with his 2004 keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention, we have received constant instruction from our high cultural arbiters about Obama’s supposed intellectual prowess.

Never mind that when speaking without his teleprompter, Obama typically appears ineloquent and befuddled when forced to think on his feet. Or that despite having taught Constitutional Law, he has confused rudimentary provisions of the Constitution itself.

To his apologists, Obama’s elevated chin and inspirational cadence from behind his teleprompter are conclusive evidence of his brilliance. National Endowment for the Arts Chairman Rocco Landesman even lionized Obama as “the most powerful writer since Julius Caesar.”

But if those sycophants are correct, why does Obama constantly say things that are so facially absurd? Examples are legion, from his misstatement that the world stood “unified” during the Cold War to his suggestion that our economic difficulties somehow derive from structural flaws within the healthcare, education and energy sectors that overactive government must now “fix.”

But his recent habit of analogizing automobile insurance with health insurance may set a new low for someone so supposedly brilliant.

In an interview this week with ABC News’s Jake Tapper, Obama declared that Americans should be forced under penalty of law to purchase health insurance under the House legislation, just as we’re allegedly required to purchase auto insurance already:

“What I think is appropriate is that in the same way that everybody has to get auto insurance, and if you don’t, you’re subject to some penalty, that in this situation, if you have the ability to buy insurance, it’s affordable and you choose not to, forcing you and me and everybody else to subsidize you, you know, there’s a thousand-dollar hidden tax that families all across America are burdened by, because of the fact that people don’t have health insurance, you know, there’s nothing wrong with a penalty… Penalties are appropriate for people who try to free ride the system and force others to pay for their health insurance.”

There are just a few problems with this theory, which should be obvious to anyone who has devoted serious thought to the matter…

RTWT.

Morning Call:

In pursuit of an Eagle Scout badge, Kevin Anderson, 17, has toiled for more than 200 hours hours over several weeks to clear a walking path in an east Allentown park.

Little did the do-gooder know that his altruistic act would put him in the cross hairs of the city’s largest municipal union.

Nick Balzano, president of the local Service Employees International Union, told Allentown City Council Tuesday that the union is considering filing a grievance against the city for allowing Anderson to clear a 1,000-foot walking and biking path at Kimmets Lock Park.

“We’ll be looking into the Cub Scout or Boy Scout who did the trails,” Balzano told the council.

Balzano said Saturday he isn’t targeting Boy Scouts. But given the city’s decision in July to lay off 39 SEIU members, Balzano said “there’s to be no volunteers.” No one except union members may pick up a hoe or shovel, plant a flower or clear a walking path.

Don’t go fucking around with the union, or they’ll start “looking into” you.

Let’s Think About That:

One day, the father of a very wealthy family took his son on a trip to the country with the express purpose of showing him how poor people live.

They spent a couple of days and nights on the farm of what would be considered a very poor family.

On their return from their trip, the father asked his son, “How was the trip?”

“It was great, Dad.”

“Did you see how poor people live?” the father asked.

“Oh yeah,” said the son.

“So, tell me, what did you learn from the trip?” asked the father.

The son answered: “I saw that we have one dog and they had four. We have a pool that reaches to the middle of our garden and they have a creek that has no end. We have imported lanterns in our garden and they have the stars at night. Our patio reaches to the front yard and they have the whole horizon.

“We have a small piece of land to live on and they have fields that go beyond our sight.

“We have servants who serve us, but they serve others. We buy our food, but they grow theirs.

“We have walls around our property to protect us, they have friends to protect them.”

Then his son added, “Thanks Dad for showing me how poor we are.”

Just saw it on O’Reilly Factor, and New York Daily News says it’s true…

Go get ’em, Dirty Harry.

“[E]verybody’s so screwed up. It seems like our country’s in kind of a morbid mood, because of the recession or whatever.”

We’re “becoming more juvenile as a nation,” he said. “The guys who won World War II and that whole generation have disappeared, and now we have a bunch of teenage twits.”

We have been on an ascent. Now, maybe we no longer are.

When you’re on an ascent, there is responsibility involved. There is also a certain deprivation, which calls for a certain resourcefulness; you’re laboring from a lower point, on up to a higher one.

On a descent, there is no sense of individual obligation because it’s widely understood we’re descending. Nobody feels a responsibility to get out of the way, or get in the way.

And there’s no demand for resourcefulness because you’re sinking from a higher point down to a lower one. To whatever extent good old-fashioned creativity may be in supply…the demand for it is less than that.

Phil’s been playing around with graphics.

It’s not all his fault. As you’ll see at his place, we have been a corrupting influence on him.

Ah well. We’d apologize, but our Commander-in-Chief seems to be much more skilled at that kind of thing.

Update: Now that we’ve delved into our daily stack…we find this piece overlaps so well with Phil’s funny graphic, that neither one of the two justifies a post of its own. They fit in very nicely together, though.

Why Does Obama Keep Bowing?
President Obama’s silent bow is yet another way of apologizing for America’s misperceived arrogance and superiority. He has found yet another way to pander and apologize without ever uttering a single word.

There he goes again. The president, when he met the emperor and empress of Japan in Tokyo on Saturday gave the typical deep bow expected from subjects not peers.

You would think the president would have learned his lesson when he caught such wrath for “bowing” to the King of Saudi Arabia earlier this year. American presidents do not bow to anyone. They do not bow to heads of state, monarchs, potentates, popes or any other mere mortal.

When President Obama bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia earlier this year the White House rushed to spin it away. They claimed that it was not a “bow” at all. The White House stated that the president was “stooping” to look the feeble king in the eye while shaking hands. Well, you can fool some of the people some of the time. The pictures and the video said it all. — Obama bowed to the Saudi king.

The White House’s take on the president’s latest “bow-movement” is that, while it was a bow, it was done pursuant to protocol. That is an outright lie. There is no such “protocol” for a president of the United States to bow to anyone for any reason.

Graphic shamelessly swiped from blogger friend Rick (click for larger).

Every time I see Obama bowing…or apologizing…the following dialogue keeps running through my mind.

Oh honey!!!!

What?

You only brought home two cans of bread crumbs!

So?

I wrote down four!!

Really? It looked like two.

No! We need four!!

Hi folks! Can I just say something? This is all the fault of America. America messed up your shopping list. Yup. And we’re very sorry about it.

(Husband and wife, exasperated, in unison) Please get out of our kitchen, Barack Obama.

Right…by the way, you’re not making those mashed potatoes right. You need to mix the milk and butter in like this…

OUT! Now, Barack!

Right. I’m gone. Go back to your guns and your Bibles…

Robin of Berkeley writes in The American Thinker. Get ready for something dark, dark, dark. You can only agree with this if you’ve seen something in human nature, something that will rob you of your faith in it, however incrementally, forever.

And I do agree with it. Every last word.

It’s a chilling moment when the light goes out in someone’s eyes. A once-radiant child hardens from abuse. A woman’s heart shrinks after her husband’s abandonment.

The person looks the same, maybe acts the same. But something is gone, and what’s lost is irretrievable. It’s like when a person dies: in a heartbeat, the soul vanishes.

I witnessed this alteration recently when I visited my goddaughter, a radiant girl. Her mom, a hardcore progressive, has started exposing her to the darkest elements of the left. And the last time I looked in the girl’s eyes, the light had gone out. Disappeared. Just like that.

I see this phenomenon every day: a light dimming. The friendly shopkeeper snaps at me. My cheerful neighbor seems flattened.

And you hear it in the news: people acting strangely, going off the deep end. The most bizarre behavior becoming the new normal.
:
Why now? This may be the most important question of our time. Why are some people reaching the boiling point? Why do many others look vacant, like an Invasion of the Body Snatchers? The shootings at military bases, from Little Rock to Fort Hood — why now?

It’s Obama, of course.

Liberals will excoriate me for writing this. They’ll insist that bad behavior is not Obama’s fault. He’s a man of peace.

But study the phenomenon of cults, and the dynamics are always the same. The leader can incite violence without ever getting his hands dirty. Obama is controlling the marionette of the masses.

If Obamamania is a cult, then Obama is the cult leader. Cult leaders routinely pull the strings of their followers. The most extreme example is Charles Manson. He rots in prison for murders he never committed. He didn’t have to do the dirty work. His brainwashed charges did his bidding.

I’m not saying Obama is a Charles Manson. There are varying degrees of manipulation, from using sexy blondes to entice men to buy cars all the way to hypnotizing them to drink poisoned Kool Aid. But there’s a common denominator in all mind control: manipulating people through mind games.

As soon as Obama came on the scene, the programming began…
:
First, the vultures starting swooping down on Hillary. Obama chose not to call off the dogs.

Then thugs invaded caucuses. Again, silence.

Which led to vicious misogyny against Sarah Palin and threats on her life. From Obama: not a peep.
:
Obama’s greatest magic trick? Brainwashing the masses to believe that racism is a greater danger than radical Islam, and that Obama himself is in constant peril.

Opposing health care means you oppose Obama. Oppose Obama and you’re part of a vast right-wing racist conspiracy.
:
Mother Teresa was once asked how she coped with serving the poorest of the poor in Calcutta. She responded that what she saw in the cities of the United States was much more disturbing, because it was a “poverty of the spirit.”

Poverty of the spirit. No truer words can be spoken of the progressive Left.

I engaged the Frum crowd. The Brooks-babies. The Moranistas.

The folks who would perform home-self-surgery with rusty spoons to make sure someone with the letter “R” behind his name wins the next election…and toward that goal, desperately want the party to move to the “center.” And for that reason, Sarah Palin absolutely cannot win the nomination. Which means she cannot be considered. She’s dim, she’s dopey, she’s “unqualified,” she’s bad at Trivial Pursuit, she’s too good-looking, she’s a dumb ol’ girl. What we need to do is repeat 2008 all over again and nominate some “maverick” who votes with democrats a whole lot of the time. Because, y’know, that worked out so well.

The party means everything. The party must win. And so we have to get the party to stop acting like the party it’s supposed to be. Otherwise, who knows, maybe “we” will win, but the guy representing us might…reverse the growth of our bloated government, let people keep their guns, start treating illegal aliens like they really are illegal aliens, put our poor people on the path to financial health rather than giving them more social programs, and just generally, y’know, act like people are worth a damn and are supposed to be here doing something worthy.

I don’t typically address these people because I don’t know if they’re friends or foes. It seems the only way they agree with me is in this perception that we share a common enemy. They want to see more people elected with that label. The letter R. I’m not even on board with that. After the shenanigans pulled in New York, the party apparatus ranks high on the list of people & groups I don’t trust. So the Frumistas are supposed to be kindred spirits with me, disagreeing with me on this fundamental principle, and that one and that one, but laboring shoulder-to-shoulder with me to elect people I don’t trust anymore.

And with all the hubbub about Sarah Palin’s book, Rick Moran saw another opportunity to light into her one more time but this time put out some effort to show some calmness and cool-headed-ness about it. Very light treatment to her density and stupidity and vapidity. In fact, where he did give that treatment, he qualified it thoroughly…

[T]here is an undercurrent of anti-intellectualism that undergirds her anti-establishmentarian shtick. She has made her shallow, depthless understanding of the world into a badge of honor, and indeed, her supporters push the idea that this is a positive good, that having a president as unversed in nuance as they are of policy and programs would be kind of neat. Sure would be a switch from all those brainy establishment elitists who don’t want to roll back the New Deal and Great Society, making this country into a true conservative paradise.

This is not to say that Palin is stupid. She’s intellectually lazy. I wouldn’t necessarily call her incurious in a George Bush sort of way but neither would I refer to her as possessing the innate intelligence of a Ronald Reagan who actually did change the narrative about himself. Reagan had an active, curious mind and the good sense to reach out to experts who educated him, as well as filling in knowledge gaps by reading voraciously. Palin does not seem to have that spark, that drive, that hunger for knowledge that anyone as ill informed as she admits herself to be should possess. Therefore, I hold no hope that she can transform herself into a reasonably well informed politician.

This, too, ranks high on the list of people-and-groups-I-don’t-trust. Know why? Because horror of horrors, Rick Moran said something bad about Tundra Princess?

No, because it’s a phony argument.

If the argument to be made is “Stop it with the Palin nonsense…she’s not reasonably well-informed, and she can’t win” then the solution to the concern would be to go ahead and enter her name as a serious candidate, and at the 2012 GOP convention she’ll receive the vicious clobbering she so richly deserves. And then a nominee will emerge who has a much better chance of taking on Obama.

That isn’t good enough for the Frum/Moran crowd. That isn’t even close to good enough for them.

They do not want Sarah Palin to not be nominated. They do not want her to make room for someone who has a better chance. What they want, is for her to not be considered. Any further. As of right now.

Phony, phony, phony, phony, phony.

Commenter buquet (#45) gave more credit to this concern about intellectual capacity, and addressed it very well…

I think some of the “anti-intellectual” comments about Sarah Palin and the Tea Party crowd miss the point. Most people I know just want to see some common sense in Washington. We have an “intellectual” as President who surrounds himself with “intellectual” advisors (about half of whom seem to be Marxists or former Marxists). They are rapidly moving to gain more and more government control over our lives and freedoms.They are also spending money in absurd quantities that will ultimately diminish the standard of living for most middle-class Americans. I am convinced that it doesn’t take a great mind to be a great President (although I wouldn’t object). Common sense conservatism and practical decision-making abilities are much, much more important as our current President is making so painfully clear.

On the decision to “drill baby drill,” we have a simple situation. A superpower nation is sinking rapidly toward third-class status because its own environmental rules forbid it to make use of its own resources, and those rules should be repealed.

On the decision to invade Iraq, we confront someone dangerous, who’s been in command of dangerous weapons on-and-off for a quarter of a century, who thinks he’s too good to honor the treaties that were supposed to make him safe.

On the decision to limit emissions of carbon dioxide, on the other hand, we confront a chemical. A chemical we make when we breathe. The idea that it is somehow dangerous is more a religion than science — it is a religion that says humans, by their very nature, are a toxin upon the planet.

On the War on Terror, we are forced to fundamentally re-define, perhaps for the first time since the Civil War, what it means to fight. How wars are engaged. How armies should be tooled up. How enemies are defined.

Buquet has it completely right. How do our “intellectuals” handle these issues? They hold hands and jump, together, into this “Bizarro” world in which everything is the opposite of what it really is — then they make decisions that will impact other people, by the hundreds of millions, but not them. The simple things are made complicated. The complicated things are made simple. The dangerous things are made safe. The safe things are made dangerous. Terrorism is a “nuisance,” all the respectable scientists agree we need to tax ourselves 1% of our GDP to save the planet, Afghanistan needs to be given more time so we do the right thing, Kalid Shiek Mohammed has to stand trial in Manhattan, we have to make it easier for illegal aliens to vote and get more benefits…the list goes on and on.

It is frequently said that Washington DC is a strange place. Persons all up & down the ideological spectrum murmur, in disapproving tones, about this otherworldly place that seems to sit in its own universe, from which these laws radiate outward to bind and ensnare the rest of us “real” people. Why is it like this? Because we vote that way. We keep electing these damned “intellectuals” who pretend safe things are dangerous, dangerous things are safe, complicated things are simple and simple things are complicated. And they listen to fat moviemakers who can’t even keep mustard off their shirts who go around saying asinine things like “there is no terrorist threat.”

This is a Pogo moment, folks: We have met the enemy and he is us.

We move through this in stages. First stage: There are no wrong answers. We stop believing two and two are four. If you say two and two are five, there must be some alternate perspective through which the problem can be viewed…perhaps some life configuration I’ll never understand, and when you view it through that lens maybe two and two are indeed five. By extension, if you say three, or thirty-three, there must be some other walk-of-life by which that makes sense as well. Ultimately, all answers are correct…

…the next stage of deterioration is the one in which “four” becomes the one answer that can be wrong. Look at all the rest of us working so hard to empathize with others, to try to explore all these corridors and back-alleys through which two and two might add up to five. And here you are, Mister Knuckle-dragger. Probably speak no other languages but English. Probably never been to a foreign country. You probably drink non-organic milk and eat non-organic vegetables. Four. Sheesh! What a rube. No nuance.

In two steps, we enter the Bizarro world. First there are no wrong answers, then the right answer is the one wrong answer possible. At that point, everything has to be upside down. It is the age of the “intellectual”: Safe things are dangerous, dangerous things are safe, complicated things are simple and simple things are complicated.

How do Presidents greet Emperors? They bow way down.

What’s the perfect gift for the Queen of England? An iPod.

What do you do when you’re all out of money? Spend it real fast.

How do we treat terrorism? As a nuisance.

How do we support the troops? By voting for the 87 billion before voting against it.

How do we commemmorate the fall of the Berlin wall? Send Hillary. The President’s a busy man.

What do we do about Afghanistan? I dunno…and don’t ask me again, you’re not involved in the process! Need more time.

Seriously, what can we do to jump-start this economy? Stimulus, and a decidedly un-American nanny-state health care plan. Right now.

What is our national heritage? We’re cowards about race.

Haven’t we done anything good, ever? Sure, we elected Obama. Now let the apologies begin. For us, not for Him.

Drill baby drill? Only in your wallet.

Isn’t that a tax? No.

But my dictinary says so. I don’t care, it’s not a tax.

This intellectualism stuff arrives at the cost of common sense. And it’s pretty easy to see why. In politics, all positive personal attributes must find a way to manifest themselves. You cannot have intellectualism without a manifestation of the intellectualism. And the manifestation of intellectualism is — two and two are five. Some answer has to be given, to each question that comes along, that deviates from what would be patently obvious. Two and two cannot ever be four.

This is why the Frumistas are outside of my circle of trust, and they’re going to be staying out there for a long time. They don’t ever address this. They just say “intellectual.” Republican party needs to be more intellectual. But meanwhile, the intellectuals make bad decisions because that is their job. They must oppose common sense. And the Frumistas, in turn, end up opposing common sense. They don’t have to prove anything to us about their ability to make correct decisions, not even once-in-awhile. We, on the other hand have to prove to them that we can oppose common sense. All the time. Don’t even consider Sarah Palin, not even for another minute, not for another second. The Frumistas are getting all agitated with us.

And they’re not pleasant people. Moran, at his own spot, you’ll notice began to be outnumbered. He remained civil. But he did predict in his own paragraphs that he’d be subjected to some kind of abuse by the Palinistas like me, and it didn’t happen. Once again, the Palin folk were expected to exclude others, to insult others, and it didn’t happen. But the poison did come back ’round the other way. Quickly. And reliably.

Our blogger friend down in New Mexico is the classiest of the bunch. He’s not dished out any poison like this, ever. The nastiest thing I think I’ve ever heard him say about Palin, was “what’s all the fuss about?” and he honestly wants to know. But that’s an exception and not a rule. He is not a fair representation of the rest of the Frumistas. A more typical representation would be this from michael reyolds (#33)…

Me? I’d send her money. I love the idea of her being the face of the GOP. You’re really not getting this: Democrats are laughing and doing their best to epoxy Palin onto the GOP. The more times we can say Palin’s an idiot and Palin is the GOP, the better.

The “Palin is an idiot and the democrats want the GOP to nominate her” thing deserves a special mention.

Moran says Palin is not like Reagan. He’s wrong. Somehow, he does not remember Ronald Reagan’s time in office the same way I do. The two figures, Reagan and Palin, are indistinguishable in the way they address a crowd, how they relate to that crowd, how polarizing they are, what they do intellectually with the readin’ and the writin’ in their off-time (to the best I can see). And in the insults hurled at them and what they do to bring ’em on, they are absolutely identical.

Palin is not being called a dimbulb because she’s a dimbulb. That’s quite easy to see. Even for an “intellectual.” I see perhaps scores, maybe hundreds, of dimbulbs every single day. I feel no urgency in pointing out each one that comes along. There is no importance attached to noticing each one…not the same importance attached to, say, swiveling my noggin around to catch a glimpse of every lovely female with a nicely-endowed chest. Truth is, I have no idea how many twits I see everyday and neither do you. Until they get in our way it isn’t an issue that is worth any energy.

Sareh Palin’s dumbass-ish-ness, somehow, is worthy of an expenditure of energy. Vast, vast amounts of energy.

That isn’t how you treat a dimbulb. That’s how you treat a threat.

The Frumistas, drawing on the words of people like “Michael Reynolds,” say the Palinistas are playing right into the enemy’s hands. It is they who are playing into the enemy’s hands with this “intellectual” nonsense. They are playing into a battle plan the democrat party has been deploying for forty-five years now. It has served the democrat party very well during that time. If the newest Republican is non-threatening, ignore him; if he’s a threat, but can be portrayed as a lightweight, portray him that way and call him an idiot; if neither of the above two apply, call him evil. An effective, simple plan…but too simple. Its time is coming to an end. The anxiety that “intellectualism” feels to demonstrate itself, by consistently selecting the wrong answer to every question that comes along, is bringing down acute pain upon people and with the debt our government is racking up, common sense says it’s bound to get a whole lot worse.

The plan will, out of necessity, be retired. It is unavoidable. And there will be some disaster that will happen to the democrats that will make this retirement absolutely imperative.

Hopefully, that will happen in 2012. This is not a certainty. But it’s a possibility; there can be no reasonable disagreement with that.

It is the Frumistas who need to join the rest of us…if, indeed, they are lusting after the prospect of the democrat party getting pummeled. Me, I don’t care about such things anymore. Like tens of millions of others, I’m just fatigued by all the nonsense. A return, please, to common sense. To recognition, where it counts, that dangerous things are dangerous and harmless things are harmless.

Right now, there’s only one person who’s showing any promise of delivering such a return. Out of all the generals who are fighting that enemy of common sense, there is only one Grant, only one Patton. Only one general renowned for stirring up real, old-fashioned fear, real trembling in the enemy’s breast.

That George Patton general happens to be a girl this time ’round — if she chooses to return to the battlefield. A church-going girly-girl. Deal with it. Deal with it, or get out of the game and go home.

Mike Allen, writing in Politico:

President Barack Obama made no effort to conceal his irritation when his press corps used the first question of his maiden Far East trip to ask what was taking him so long on Afghanistan.

Jennifer Loven of The Associated Press had asked: “Can you explain to people watching and criticizing your deliberations what piece of information you’re still lacking to make that call.”

“With respect to Afghanistan, Jennifer,” the president scolded, “I don’t think this is a matter of some datum of information that I’m waiting on. … Critics of the process … tend not to be folks who … are directly involved in what’s happening in Afghanistan. Those who are, recognize the gravity of the situation and recognize the importance of us getting this right.”

Accuse the accuser, criticize the critic.

But if the data are all there, taking additional time has very little to do with “the importance of getting it right.” Two and two are four; it doesn’t matter if you answer that within thirty seconds or three seconds, or if you take all week. The answer is the same.

Ian Swanson, writing in The Hill:

Last year’s deficit was a record $1.4 trillion, up more than $900 billion from the previous year. The budget was inflated because of much lower tax revenues, which were down because of the worst recession in generations, and government spending intended to stimulate the economy and rescue the financial industry.

That situation is not expected to improve soon given 10.2 percent unemployment that is expected to grow.
:
The Associated Press reported this week that the administration is telling agencies to brace for either a freeze in discretionary spending or 5 percent cuts.

[Sen. Judd] Gregg [R, NH] said he would support a move to freeze discretionary spending, but warned Democrats it would not be difficult for the GOP to use the deficit as an election-year issue.

“We almost don’t have to do anything to explain it,” said Gregg. “This is not difficult to understand. We don’t want to be a debtor nation. We don’t want to be a third-class nation.”

So Obama bowed.

And there is much buzz about it. WindsOfChange.net:

Count me among the exasperated at Obama’s willingness to bow before royalty – it’s funny actually, that such an avowed progressive (the group that believes in dissolving the connections of power) is so willing to reify power by being so deferential to hereditary royalty.

Stop The ACLU points to an impressive assortment of other reactions.

How are Obama’s defenders to spin it? Like this:

A senior administration official said President Barack Obama was simply observing protocol when he bowed to Japanese Emperor Akihito and Empress Michiko upon arriving at the Imperial Palace in Tokyo on Saturday.

“I think that those who try to politicize those things are just way, way, way off base,” the official said. “He observes protocol. But I don’t think anybody who was in Japan – who saw his speech and the reaction to it, certainly those who witnesses his bilateral meetings there – would say anything other than that he enhanced both the position and the status of the U.S., relative to Japan. It was a good, positive visit at an important time, because there’s a lot going on in Japan.”

But this explanation does not square up against the impressive portfolios of other heads-of-state greeting the same Emperor. Like for example at Hot Air Pundit. And Astute Bloggers. And Weasel Zippers. And Donklephant.

There is another way to backlash against the Obama critics, and this one is unsettling. Not for its substance which is straight out of the Alinsky playbook. But rather for its knee-jerk-ish-ness…its mindlessness…its auto-pilot-ness…

The Moderate Voice:

It never ceases to amaze me how much more importance contemporary conservatives place on the form of democracy rather than the substance. Bowing to the leader of a country in which bowing is a respectful greeting when meeting any new person is a betrayal of democracy. Show trials in which convictions are gained using torture, hearsay testimony, and suppression of evidence are defenses of democracy.

The pattern continues. Only a dolt would dare to question the perfection of Holy Man Obama.

CBS News.

The usual crowd of armchair patriots is having a collective fit over President Obama’s decision to greet Japan’s Emperor Akihito and Empress Michiko with a bow.

A bow? I kid thee not.

You can just hear the valley-girl speak. Omigaw!

Rockey the Liberal Rottweiler responds to Alan Colmes’ blog post about it:

The problem here is that President Obama understands something that the rightwing extremists just can’t comprehend: that people’s opinion of you begins with whether or not you are polite.

And, as we all are well-aware, the word “polite” is not in the radical rightwing republikkkan lexicon.

Yeah, nothing endears me to people quite so quickly as the oh-so-polite behavior of calling me a Klansman. Well done Rocky.

More Omigaw stuff at Washington Monthly:

As part of his Asian trip, President Obama met today with Japanese Emperor Akihito. In keeping with Japanese custom and diplomatic protocol, the president bowed.

If you’re thinking this was an inconsequential moment, especially as compared to the significance of the trip itself, you’re underestimating the right’s propensity to embrace nonsense.

As Sister Toldjah points out, though, this is far from nonsense.

It never fails that any criticism of President Obama from conservatives is met with the usual “they’re overblowing it/they’re being stupid” cry from some on the left, and this weekend is no different. In response to the legitimate outcry over the President bowing at a clear 90 degree angle to Japanese Emperor Akihito, liberals at blogs like “The Moderate Voice” (does that place even have any moderates posting there anymore?), Alan Colmes’ blog, and others are blasting conservatives for getting upset at our President allegedly “observing a cultural custom.”

Think again. Both Ed Morrissey and Allahpundit dug up a 1994 New York Times piece back when the first Obama bow controversy emerged, and Ed reposted the link to the article again today. In it, the liberal NYT talks about a tradition among American Presidents that does not involve bowing:

It wasn’t a bow, exactly. But Mr. Clinton came close. He inclined his head and shoulders forward, he pressed his hands together. It lasted no longer than a snapshot, but the image on the South Lawn was indelible: an obsequent President, and the Emperor of Japan.

Canadians still bow to England’s Queen; so do Australians. Americans shake hands. If not to stand eye-to-eye with royalty, what else were 1776 and all that about?

Gerard’s headline raises an entirely different train of thought in a single elegant statement: “If a US President Had Just Done This in January 1942 It Would Have Saved Everyone a Lot of Trouble.” The message won’t sink in where it’s needed. The idea that national pride is a bad thing — for certain countries — is a religion all by itself.

From reading both sides of things, one thing becomes abundantly clear: To whatever extent, and to whatever audience, the bow from President to Emperor is an appropriate show of respect — to be frowned-upon only by nonsensically puritanical chuckle-heads — it began to be so legitimate only in the instant President Obama did it.

And this is what is rather alarming about it. The protocol isn’t quite so much that such an expression is okay; it’s more that things begin to be okay when He Who Walks On Water does them.

What if our 44th President were to come down with a case of severe senile dementia? It seems we’re one brain-itch away from a truly earth-shattering “don’t know whether to laugh or cry” episode. If President Obama were to be afflicted with The Madness of King George, whatever remains of our code of social taboo would be warm putty in the hands of a lunatic. In the space of minutes it would become quite alright…as in, don’t you dare criticize or else you show your own neanderthal-ness…to eviscerate adorable puppies on the White House lawn in broad daylight…to strip down bare naked and rub peanut butter all over your nipples and buttocks…to diddle nine-year-old girl scouts…to defecate into the punch bowl…to…well, lengthening this list any further is not only vulgar, but pointless. The point to be made is: Where is the line drawn? President Sottero is Cool By Definition. Whatever He does, for whatever reason, must be not only allowable — but chic.

And on that train of thought I know exactly where I saw this form of psychosis before. Finally figured it out, I did. I saw it fourteen years ago give-or-take, in a zany little family comedy by Adam Sandler called Billy Madison. A young boy has an accident — “young” as in, young, but not so young that this is something that could be broadly accepted — and Adam Sandler drenches his own crotch with water to make it suddenly-cool to piss your pants.

This is what the hardcore left is doing with President Basically-God. This is precisely it. He Who Argues With Dictionaries pisses his pants at 12:15, and by 12:20 you’re a dumbass rube if your own crotch is still dry. “Everybody Pees Their Pants”. They’ll use their amazing superpower to re-write and re-wire our circuitry that declares right-and-wrong…to make it right. Barry did it, so it must be okay.

It seems pretty harmless when we’re talking about bowing. Especially in Japan. But this isn’t harmless, it’s dangerous. Like I said: It’s not the decision made, it’s how it’s made; the knee-jerk-ish-ness. That is the real story. That is what needs inspecting. The hardcore thirty-eight percent or whatever it is, who’d follow President Wonderful anywhere. They really, really would, and we’ve arrived at the point where the fanatical worship is no longer American, or even remotely compatible with American ideals.

President Obama did something wrong here. He’s capable of screwing up — the potential has always existed — and He did screw up. Just admit it. If you can’t admit it, you have a problem. Get help now.

Scratcher, at Makes My Brain Itch:

Andrew Sullivan Finally Has A President – Now What About The Rest Of Us?

I just read Andrew Sullivan‘s take how President Obama is handling his Afghanistan decision…

What we are seeing here, I suspect, is what we see everywhere with Obama: a relentless empiricism in pursuit of a particular objective and a willingness to let the process take its time. The very process itself can reveal – not just to Obama, but to everyone – what exactly the precise options are. Instead of engaging in adolescent tests of whether a president is “tough” or “weak”, we actually have an adult prepared to allow the various choices in front of us be fully explored. He is, moreover, not taking the decision process outside the public arena. He is allowing it to unfold within the public arena.

NOW he takes his time? We’re to view his deer-in-headlights vaporlock on Afghanistan as wisdom and engaging the public? Damn shame this wasn’t how he handled TARP… or the Stimuless… Or Healthcare Reform… With FOUR proposals available to him, he rejects each with no strategy of his own to put forth, and Sullivan seems to think he should be commended for his indecision?! Name ONE other time this President let any other “process take its time”.

Again — I see enormous harm being done to civilization, by a destructive force that is allowed to endure because it does not have a name.

Normally, when someone is diminished in some way, any way at all…a murderer is executed, a child is disciplined, a driver has to appear in court for failing to observe a u-turn sign, a military force is repelled, a military force is attacked, a horse head is left in a bed, the U.N. sends a strongly-worded letter…a message is sent. That is the real point to all of these things, and a civilized society depends on this.

Certain factors feed in to the effectiveness of the message. One factor is time. Obviously, “If you kill people we’re going to get you” is not as effectively communicated if it takes twenty years to execute the murderer, compared to if it takes twenty days.

Another factor is the potential for compromise. Think of the child being disciplined. Want to spoil a child rotten? Keep right on disciplining him — but make it a regular habit to consider everything. Consider that the child didn’t get a “fair warning,” that he didn’t really mean to do it, but yeah he screwed up but someone else did too…et cetera. Even if the child ends up getting whacked in the butt, or having his stuff taken away, the message is muted. If it’s a simple formula — you did it, there are consequences — the discipline is effective.

Yet another factor is opacity. That is, with regard to the decision to punish, or to allow the fire to rain on down. If the punishment might happen and it might not…but the connection between action & reaction is blurred, morphed, made ambiguous and hazy…it becomes just a random bad-thing-that-might-happen. Like a weather pattern. So part of the message needs to be “If you do this, that’ll happen, if you don’t do this, then that will not happen.” Consistency is key. The authority has to commit to things, like criteria, parameters, magnitudes. If the outcome depends on someone’s mood, then for anyone to modify their own behavior in consideration of such a thing, would be mostly pointless. They’ll be far less likely to do it.

The ultimate example of an effective message, is sticking metal tableware into an electrical outlet. The result is instant, jarring, and for all practical purposes, certain. Very, very few people do that twice.

For an example at the other end of the spectrum, I guess we have President Obama and Afghanistan. What’ll happen next? Nobody knows. President Sort-Of-God has to go off and think some more.

Over the past few days I’ve fantasized repeatedly about a world in which homicide is punished so rapidly, that the embalmer flies out to take care of the bodies of the victim and the murderer on the same trip. The point is — allowing that such a thing was possible, just imagine what would happen to the murder rate if we lived in such a world. By the same token, imagine how safe the country would be, if attacking us was an exercise similar to pissing on an electric fence.

This is what is under assault right now: The clarity of the messages. Justice delayed equals justice denied. There has to be more time, more thinking, more complexity, more obfuscation, more apologia, more…whatever. More ingredients in the stew. More of anything but action.

This is occasionally defended as something in service of respecting the Constitution. What part of it, I wonder?

Cross-posted at Cassy Fiano.

Joe Herring writes in the American Thinker:

I recall a conversation I had with a young coworker in the latter weeks of Obama’s campaign for president. Joe the plumber had just exposed the redistributionist bent of the candidate, and I expressed my assessment of Mr. Obama as a not-so-closeted socialist. My coworker then quite earnestly asked, “What’s so wrong with socialism?”

I initially assumed he must be joking, although his face gave no indication. I stared at him dumbfounded, only later realizing I must have looked like a palsied old man — my mouth working wordlessly, the incomprehension as evident on my face as the sincerity on his. It eventually dawned on me that he really didn’t know what was wrong with socialism. I began reciting the litany of horrors: the crimes of the Holocaust, the purges of the Soviets, the thuggery and inhuman brutality of the statist regimes of the last century. The Nazis, for crissake! How could he not know about the evil of the Nazis? He listened to all of this, nodding his understanding as he recognized some of the events I described, but I could still see a question behind his eyes. While he had been taught of the existence of these atrocities, he had not been clued into the one commonality they shared. They were all perpetrated by the adherents of various forms of socialism. Indeed, such crimes were the only outcome possible.

At this point, some of us get distracted about how & whether it is possible to practice plumbing in certain counties in Ohio without a license. Among those of us who have and use the ability to remain tuned in to the central question. some of us are left asking “How are such crimes the only outcome possible?” And they would do well to become acquainted with F. A. Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom, which does a great job of describing the rise of Adolph Hitler without explicitly describing Adolph Hitler.

It’s human nature. Once the factions start gutter-sniping each other, “The People” lose their desire for a wise leader and begin to nurture an unhealthy lust for a strong one. An emulsifying agent. A greeeeaaaaaaatt speechifier. One who cannot be opposed, even as he moves to codify his stupidest and most counterproductive ideas into law, without his critics paying a heady price for so criticizing. Sound familiar?

And then, as Herring explains with a clear, concise and poignant summary of Von Hayek’s tome, it gets worse:

With an economy of words that showcased the significance of his conclusion, [Von Hayek] pointed out the Achilles heel of collectivist dogma: for a planned economy to succeed, there must be central planners, who by necessity will insist on universal commitment to their plan.

How do you attain total commitment to a goal from a free people? Well, you don’t. Some percentage will always disagree, even if only for the sake of being contrary or out of a desire to be left alone. When considering a program as comprehensive as a government-planned economy, there are undoubtedly countless points of contention, such as how we will choose the planners, how we will order our priorities when assigning them importance within the plan, how we will allocate resources when competing interests have legitimate claims, who will make these decisions, and perhaps more pertinent to our discussion, how those decisions will be enforced. A rift forming on even one of these issues is enough to bring the gears of this progressive endeavor grinding to a halt. This fatal flaw in the collectivist design cannot be reengineered. It is an error so critical that the entire ideology must be scrapped.

Von Hayek accurately foretold the fate that would befall dissenters from the plan. They simply could not be allowed to get in the way. Opposition would soon be treated as subversion, with debate shriveling to non-existence under the glare of the state. Those who refused compliance would first be marginalized, then dehumanized, and finally (failing re-education) eliminated. Collectivism and individualism cannot long share the same bed. They are political oil and water, and neither can compromise its position without eventually succumbing to the other.

Ah, but talking in wistful, admiring tones about the wonderfulness of He Who Argues With The Dictionaries makes you seem so hip!

Hat tip to Washington Rebel.

Hat tip to Primordial Slack.

Don’t look now, but there’s another scandal about the Caribou Barbie tundra dimbulb who can’t get anything right…

PowerLine has done the best job summarizing this one (hat tip to The Corner), I think.

The AP starts with this one:

PALIN: Says she made frugality a point when traveling on state business as Alaska governor, asking “only” for reasonably priced rooms and not “often” going for the “high-end, robe-and-slippers” hotels.

THE FACTS: Although she usually opted for less-pricey hotels while governor, Palin and daughter Bristol stayed five days and four nights at the $707.29-per-night Essex House luxury hotel (robes and slippers come standard) for a five-hour women’s leadership conference in New York in October 2007. With air fare, the cost to Alaska was well over $3,000.

This is frankly pathetic. Palin says she didn’t “often” stay at high-end hotels, and the AP counters by saying she did, once. Yes, that’s why she said “not often” rather than “never.” What is indisputable is that Palin sold the Governor’s private jet and flew commercial, thereby saving the taxpayers a large amount of money and qualifying her as a frugal traveler.

The rest are about as lame. Here is another…

PowerLine includes a rather gratifying zinger directed toward Sen. John Kerry, who could use some “fact checking” lately. I suppose they could have picked out any one of a number of Kerry’s colleagues as well. But they very solidly qualify the statement “funny how the press fact-checks some things but not others.”

Yeah…ya got that right. I think we’re living in the age of the decline of “fact checking” as an institution…or slogan. I see a future in which we’ll look back on it as something like pet rocks. History teachers will tell their tenth-grade students “So then CNN fact-checked it…” and the students will automatically think “Ah, so the liberals had to get in the last word.”

Wishful thinking on my part. It took me until my thirties to interpret the phrase that way. But I’m sticking by it, because lately that’s what it means.

It’s not good going through life supporting “truths” that only seem sensible if you vigilantly and militantly make sure those truths have the last word on things…ALL…THE…TIME. This is one of those things you don’t have to be too bright to figure out for yourself, and I honestly wonder about the people at AP and CNN who don’t quite seem to catch on. How’d they get where they are? Did they do something? Do someone? Or was it eenie, meanie, miney moe?

I decided this was the best one; if not, one of the best. Found it way back here.

I’m definitely going back here, again and again and again.

So Oprah wants to know if Sarah Palin would invite Levi Johnston for dinner.

This curiosity about conservatives forgiving people is fascinating to me because it is so insincere. It isn’t even curiosity. Palin’s answer was, after all, perfectly decent and should have put any true curiosity to rest. But this isn’t the end of it, of course. The question will be raised again and again and again…of the conservative capacity to forgive, not of the liberal capacity to forgive.

And when you think about it, there are other answers Palin could have given that would be just as decent. “He took advantage of my daughter and the only way we’d have him for dinner is as target practice” would have been just fine. Maybe not politically palatable, but after all Levi’s done you certainly can’t say that would eliminate the Palins from our mythical community-of-decentpeepul.

In this age of Chicago brass knuckle politics, I have a lot more curiosity — real curiosity — about the liberals and their capacity to forgive and invite people over for Thanksgiving dinner. If 2009 really is the Year of Healing, and Thanksgiving is the season we’re finally going to start feeling it, here’s a list of ten I’d like to see. And no, I won’t be holding my breath for Oprah to be asking about these.

Anyone see this happening?

1. Campbell Brown could invite Sarah Palin over for Thanksgiving dinner.
2. President Obama could invite Joe the Plumber over for Thanksgiving dinner.
3. David Axelrod could invite Fox News over for Thanksgiving dinner.
4. Bill Maher could invite Dick Cheney over for Thanksgiving dinner.
5. The DailyKOS folks could invite Karl Rove over for Thanksgiving dinner (brave, brave Karl).
6. Charles Johnson could invite Robert Stacy McCain over for Thanksgiving dinner.
7. The NAACP could invite Clarence Thomas over for Thanksgiving dinner.
8. Code Pink could invite over some of our soldiers who volunteered to go to Afghanistan — volunteered! — over for Thanksgiving dinner.
9. The National Organization of Women could invite Ken Starr over for Thanksgiving dinner.
10. Mike Todd could invite blogger friend Rick over for Thanksgiving dinner.

The last of those might require an explanation so I’ll give a one-liner and a link. As Rick explained, he is the only breathing soul on the face of the planet ever to be banned from Mike’s blog. It’s obvious Rick is, at last report, beyond forgiveness, which is interesting to keep in mind when one observes Mike extolling the virtues of forgiving everyone.

Liberalism is a cheap way to look like a decent, forgiving person. The hatred they have for conservatives, is the hatred reserved for people who have no need of such a mask, felt by people who do.

Cross-posted at Cassy‘s place.

Andy adroitly sums up what’s going on with Nidal Hasan. Not so much the man, not so much the crime, not so much the human tragedy that resulted, but the cognitive dissonance taking place within the skulls of the good folks who are supposed to be telling us what’s going on.

Faced with the obvious – that Hasan is a jihadist, an America-hating, Islamic murderer, the media still did their level best to paint him as the innocent victim. That wretched tactic having failed them, presumably because America is very quickly getting to the end of its patience with this shit, the media limbers up, pins its ankles behind its egos, and will be piling on so much evidence of Hasan’s guilt that the only natural reaction from apologists and pusillanimous hand jobbers the world over will be to blame, accuse, and denigrate the US Army for either being too stupid to detect it, or choosing not to stop it.

Another artful deflection of responsibility and reality by the sweatily throbbing, self-engorged media juggernaut.

All those seeking an example of what Andy is describing, need look no further than this exchange between Bill O’Reilly and Sally Quinn. It is quite unbelievable. But if you can somehow track down the audio, toss me a link wouldja? And give it a listen. Because man, that is even more unbelievable.

O’Reilly says she’s brilliant. Me, I’m wondering how in the world the woman gets out of bed and gets dressed in the morning. I don’t mean that to be insulting. I just find her method of thinking things out to be…well…how do you get anything done this way? Like strangling someone with a wet noodle.

O’REILLY: “Impact” segment tonight, the controversy over how to define Major Hasan continues. According to a new Rasmussen poll, 60 percent of Americans want the Fort Hood shooting investigated as a terrorist act. Just 27 percent think it was a criminal act to be dealt with in civilian court.

But in the media, it’s a different story.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

QUINN: There’s been so much focus on the fact that he’s a Muslim. When the focus should be on the fact that the military did not pick up on the fact that this guy was emotionally disturbed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O’REILLY: Joining us now from D.C. is Sally Quinn, founder of “The Washington Post” feature on faith. So why can’t we do both here, Ms. Quinn? I want to find out.

QUINN: Actually.

O’REILLY: .about the Army and what they knew and why they didn’t take action. But why can’t we call the guy a Muslim terrorist because he is one, and investigate as well? I mean, you seem to have a problem with the Muslim terrorist designation.

QUINN: No, actually, I don’t. I — what I think is that right now, everybody is trying to simplify the situation. And it is extremely complicated. There are so many different factors involved. And we don’t know a lot.

O’REILLY: Okay, but.

QUINN: I mean the guy may well be a terrorist.

O’REILLY: I’m one of the guys.

QUINN: The way Timothy – yeah.

O’REILLY: I’m one of the guys trying to simplify.

QUINN: Right, okay.

O’REILLY: So I’m going to say how I see it and you say — you tell me where I’m wrong.

QUINN: Okay.

O’REILLY: Okay.

QUINN: Okay.

O’REILLY: Here you got a guy who is a troubled man. You agree?

QUINN: Right.

O’REILLY: Okay, troubled man . We start there. He gets a poor evaluation at Walter Reed, where he works prior to Fort Hood. Not doing his job very well. Transferred out to Texas.

Then they find out, the FBI does, that he’s emailing a big shot in al Qaeda in Yemen. Okay. So now we have a troubled man who’s interested in jihad. He’s interested in al Qaeda for some reason. All right? So far you with me?

QUINN: I’m there.

O’REILLY: Okay, I’m simple, I’m keeping it real simple.

QUINN: Yeah.

O’REILLY: Okay, so then for some reason, he blends the jihad with the troubledness, picks up a couple of guns, and murders 13 people and wounds 30 others. Okay. I am ascribing that to his jihad philosophy combined with whatever neurosis was eating him was eating him. Simple, right? Am I wrong?

QUINN: Well, actually, that’s very complicated.

O’REILLY: Why? What’s complicated about that?

QUINN: What you just said. No, well, because I mean, Timothy McVeigh was called a terrorist.

O’REILLY: And he is.

QUINN: And I don’t know whether that’s the right.

O’REILLY: Was.

QUINN: .yes, probably he was.

O’REILLY: He was. Terrorist act, you blow up an office building.

QUINN: Yeah.

O’REILLY: .and you kill people. It’s a terrorist act.

QUINN: This guy was clearly disturbed. He was clearly – I mean, jihad means many different things. You know, he was Muslim. Most Muslims believe that violence — they’re against violence. But there are a large number of Muslims who.

O’REILLY: But he was a Muslim interested in jihad.

QUINN: Yeah.

O’REILLY: He was a Muslim emailing al Qaeda. He was a Muslim screaming “allah akbar” when he was gunning people down. Come on. I don’t get why you guys, and I’m generalizing with a minute.

QUINN: Wait a minute. I’m not…

O’REILLY: I don’t get it. I don’t get why you don’t call it what it is. He’s a jihadist.

QUINN: Well, that may well be. And I do think that there should be a lot of investigation about this. Not some, but a lot. Starting with how did he get into medical school? How did he get through.

O’REILLY: The Army put him through school. He enlisted in the Army and they did everything for him.

QUINN: Why was he treating patients? Why were they not picking up on the fact that he was making speeches and saying that this was a war — that Iraq and Afghanistan were wars against Islam.

O’REILLY: All of that is valid.

QUINN: I mean, all of these. The guy had red flags coming out of his ears.

O’REILLY: Fine.

QUINN: So yeah.

O’REILLY: And we need to know that.

QUINN: Right.

O’REILLY: But you — you have a hard time saying the words “Muslim terrorist.” and so does Obama. He has a hard time saying it. I don’t know why you guys aren’t saying it. Why? Why?

QUINN: Well, I think, you know, first of all, there are different kinds of terrorists as I said…

O’REILLY: He’s a Muslim terrorist. What do you mean different kinds of terrorists? He kills people under the banner of jihad. That’s who he is.

QUINN: Right.

O’REILLY: What — look, what do you want him to come to your house with a strap-on bomb? The guy did it for jihadist reasons. Allah akbar. That’s the slogan. Emails al Qaeda. Ms. Quinn, you’re a brilliant woman. And I’m not saying that facetiously. You are. This is – – a third grader gets this. And you’re resisting it. I want to know why.

QUINN: No, Bill, you’re making a very good case. I mean, he’s a Muslim. And he may well end up being a terrorist. We don’t know for sure.

O’REILLY: I know for sure.

QUINN: Okay.

O’REILLY: 90 percent of the people watching me know for sure.

QUINN: Right.

O’REILLY: I don’t know why you don’t know for sure. What else do you need?

QUINN: Well, I mean, you know, you can call the guy who blew up – you know, who shot up the Holocaust museum a terrorist.

O’REILLY: Did he yell “allah akbar?” If he yelled “allah akbar” and he emailed an al Qaeda in Yemen, I’d call him that, Ms. Quinn.

QUINN: Okay, he’s a Muslim terrorist.

(LAUGHTER)

O’REILLY: Thank you. Sally Quinn, everybody . We appreciate it. A long road but we got there.

Yay, he got her to say it.

Yay.

This is shocking and unreal. If you wrote it up as fiction, no publisher would touch it. But here we are.

Update: Thanks to Louz, here is the embedded video.

Reader cylarz wants our reaction to this guy‘s analysis of the upcoming elections in ’10 and ’12. And it would appear the interest is focused on this particular passage:

Given that two of my three predictions were wrong, it’s safe to say I suck at analysis. Which is actually good news because I don’t see the Republicans taking the House next year, and I can see Chairman Zero handily winning re-election. I’d only say all three races – NJ, VA, and NY-23 – have lessons in them for Republicans. 1. Connect conservative positions to practical policies that solve problems. 2. Choose candidates that appeal to the base.

My reaction? Good blog. I like it. It’s heading straight to the sidebar.

Regarding “Basically God” and His ability to win re-election in ’12, with a healthy reinforcing of His mandate in ’10, I would have to say…agree, with the “I can see” part of it. In fact, my opinion is going to be that if Republicans just dedicated themselves to running exactly the ticket they ran last year, from now until the end of time, then Holy Man will spend that eternity just beating ’em like a drum over and over again.

Why? Because the contender that was run a year ago was democrat-lite. The message was “We’re like those other guys in some ways, but not in other ways…but trust us, we’ve borrowed from all the parts of them you happen to like, and we’re different from them in all the ways you don’t like, or at least if you knew what you were doing you wouldn’t like it.”

It turned — it will turn into — a “Better the Devil You Know” thing. Yeah that’s right. Enjoying a greater opportunity to run for President and remain secretive about His policies at the same time, than anyone else since perhaps the founding of the nation…Barack Obama emerged as “The Devil You Know.” It’s not Him, it’s us. The way we’re put together. When we’re confused about our options and feel we don’t have the time or the inclination to learn about them, we look around and look at what everyone else is doing, then do that.

Most folks who’ve been to school practiced this pretty consistently from first grade through twelfth.

The advice that comes from “Teh Resitance” makes good sense. Appeal to the base first.

I can already hear the moans and groans. There’s Rick Moran and David Frum, both pretending to represent lots of people they really don’t represent…”but that’s not incluuuuuuusive!” And there’s this other long-time reader we have who has expressed a similar concern on more than one occasion. Newt Gingrich has joined them lately. They say if people are driven out of the party, the party’s numbers will dwindle and it will remain a loser party forever. If it at least makes the effort to reach across, then maybe the magic of the Reagan Democrats can be allowed to work once again.

Yeah, I remember Reagan. You know what stood out about Reagan? He was a real leader and it showed. If the bureaucracy said one thing and Reagan said something else, Reagan would decide things Reagan’s way. And no, it wasn’t Nancy’s astrologist deciding things, it was Ronald, and the result wasn’t unpredictable. It was the opposite. Ronald Reagan was going to do what Ronald Reagan said Ronald Reagan was going to do.

Folks, those days are gone. The bureaucracy has gotten much tougher; the American bureaucracy, as well as the party bureaucracy within the Republican and democrat parties. This machinery is m-u-c-h tougher than any of the individuals we have seen.

And the individuals aren’t even promising anything like this. Those who claim to be “moderate,” on both sides, are the very worst at this. John McCain, I think, is perhaps one of the best illustrations of the problem. Yes, he’d be a “maverick” and he’d decide things in a way that would tick off conservatives as well as liberals…he’d decide in whatever way made sense. Whatever made sense to John McCain. Predictable? Nah, not hardly. On abortion, maybe. Principled? Sad to say, no. “Why would you raise taxes on anyone in this economy?” was one of his golden moments. But he didn’t take it into The Smoke-Filled Cloakroom Where Things Are Decided…when it came time to have those meetings about bailouts & such. Nope, for just a few minutes Keynesian economics made perfect sense. They made sense to John. That was all maverick-y and so forth, but it wasn’t principled.

And so it goes with the whole stinkin’ lot of ’em. John Kerry would be the next-best example. His speeches were nothing more than rationales. Sen. Kerry already figured out what he wanted to do about this, that or the other…God only knows how. And then he showed off his remarkable talent at giving a speech to make whatever it was sound somewhat appealing. To morons, anyway. Different John, same story. Good ol’ John, he figured out this dry, boring subject matter that I can’t watch or read for too long, and now he knows what to do so I don’t need to worry about the details. Trust John. There must be something about that name.

John Kerry lost the election to the incumbent President…who, although his popularity was already in a decline, was for the most part predictable in how he would decide this matter or that one. You might not agree with what he was going to do, but you pretty much knew what it was. So 2004 was another “Devil You Know” election.

If Republicans buy into the nonsense about “you guys are just so un-hip right now” and go all centrist-y, they will do so to the detriment of their identity and become “The Devil You Don’t Know.” They’ll start to look like Charles Durning doing his dance in The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas. That’s a great way to hang on to a seat once you’ve got it, but it’s a lousy way to try & get in.

When you’re trying to get in, people want to know what you’re going to do. When you’re a “moderate,” it means you use your own “common sense for each decision that comes down the line”…which sounds good, but it also means people don’t know what you’re going to do. Plus, the other guy, being the incumbent, enjoys an attribute of familiarity.

So in that scenario, President Obama enjoys the incumbency and the familiarity that goes with it. Plus He’ll still have oodles and oodles of that charisma-or-whatever. So the blogger would be right then.

But here’s a question for the moderates and reach-across guys: Can you name one single issue which is a better example than all the others of how this reaching-across will work? Don’t tell me…let me guess…same-sex marriage, right? If Republicans will just roll over and get behind marriage-definition-creep, why, the homosexuals and activists and sympathizers will just desert the democrat party in droves! Right? You’ll win them over with the “We vote that way too” move.

Wake up, fellas. Seriously. Attempts have now been made to legalize same-sex marriage in…I dunno how many states by now. More than twenty I think. The score is oh-for-whatever. The states that allow it, have been strong-armed into allowing it by their court systems. Thus ends that argument. This is not a political loser for Republicans, and it damn sure isn’t a way for Republicans to pick up “Reagan Democrats” by pretending to be something they aren’t. That wouldn’t work any better in ’10 and ’12 than it did in ’08.

Such a strategy would necessarily argue the following: “We think we look more appealing than that other guy, when we pick out the elements to our party you’ll find abhorrent, and take steps to hide them from you.” That simply isn’t persuasive.

I’ll tell you what will be persuasive, though: Principled policies. Don’t just appeal to the base; put the base in charge, and start with an honest and decent respect to the individual. Tell people how you’ll let them keep more of their — not just money, but — autonomy. To make their decisions and live their lives.

Talk some more about cause-and-effect: When you let people negotiate their own transactions, the economy takes off. When you handcuff them with a lot of nonsensical rules, when you take their money away and channel it into hairbrained Keynesian scemes, the economy sputters and dies.

People lose interest in cause-and-effect when they can afford to. In 2008, things had just turned sour,but people could still afford to do this. In 2010 and 2012, we’ll all be much more interested in cause-and-effect.

Take advantage of that, and the blogger will be wrong. The campaign slogan should be something to the effect of “When you sacrifice all else to be popular, you fail at everything including that.” Is that too long? Probably…because I came up with it myself. So let’s steal one: Elections Have Consequences — there, that’s perfect.

Don’t show Barack Obama as stupid, or weak…since He isn’t. The criticism toward Obama should be that He is an extraordinarily competent and polished packaging of all the ideas we don’t need right now. Talk about Swindle-Us packages; talk about the Fort Hood massacre, show some video clips of Holy Man’s reaction to it, and discuss how political correctness hurts real people. Talk about Afghanistan. Explore the difference between thinking like a toddler, and thinking like a grown-up. Underscore the point with footage of indoctrinated youths singing songs of worship to He Who Argues With The Dictionaries. Talk about things leading to other things, and you have to think with some maturity in order to see it. This is the problem with Obama. He represents a departure from adult thinking, and this country needs now like never before to engage in adult thinking.

In my mind’s eye, I see video of small businesses putting “NO HELP WANTED” signs in their windows, with “The Candyman Can” playing as background music. But the final note should always be optimistic. Optimistic and sincere. Thinking like a baby got us into this fix, thinking like a grown-up will get us out.

The whole argument has a way of relegating the marriage issue to back-seat status, doesn’t it?

Cross-posted at Cassy.

Stossel – I like it all, but especially the title.

The U.S. House of Presumptuous Meddlers

As an American, I am embarrassed that the U.S. House of Representatives has 220 members who actually believe the government can successfully centrally plan the medical and insurance industries.

I’m embarrassed that my representatives think that government can subsidize the consumption of medical care without increasing the budget deficit or interfering with free choice.

It’s a triumph of mindless wishful thinking over logic and experience.

RTWT.

Rick Moran links to Kristinn Taylor and Andrea Shea King of Big Government, who bring a shocking tale:

Dressed as ‘zombie soldiers’ killed in combat, ‘ghosts of war victims,’ witches and healthcare fairies, members of Code Pink menacingly paraded in front of a captive audience of children one block from the White House, who waited along the sidewalk in front of Decatur House just off Lafayette Park for a Halloween party hosted by President Obama.

Last Saturday, the President hosted several hundred military families for trick or treating. Also invited were children of White House staff and about 2000 children from eleven D.C. area elementary schools.

In a press release published at their website, key Obama ally Code Pink – a group co-founded by one of Obama’s top funders Jodie Evans, announced they were targeting military families for what can only be called psychological abuse by conducting a macabre protest of the war in Afghanistan as the families waited in line to enter the White House grounds.

It gets much better. Who is Jodie Evans? Her Code Pink biography introduces her thusly:

Jodie has been a community, social and political organizer for the last 30 years. She has used her skills,for the protection of the earth, to give voice to communities and people who go unheard and unseen, in the area of human and civil rights, to protect the rights of women, to raise the minimum wage for farm workers, to protect dolphins, in El Salvador in the early 80’s and with Zapitistas since ’94.

From 1973 to 1982, she served in administrative capacities in all of Jerry Brown’s campaigns and in his staff and cabinet as Director of Administration. Breakthroughs in wind and solar energy happened while she was overseeing the office of Appropriate Technology.

During the years between 1985 and 1990, she took time off to be a mother while running the Hereditary Disease Foundation and founding the Grief Recovery Center after the death of her daughter. During this period, she was very active as the west coast board member of the Women’s Campaign Fund, chair of the federal candidates committee of the Women’s Political Committee, member of the Hollywood Women’s Political Committee. She also raised money for out of state women candidates for federal offices and pro choice groups CARAL and Voters for Choice. With a group of women friends concerned about bringing children in to this world founded Environmental Media Association.

And on and on. Minimum wage for farm workers, and saving the dolphins.

A couple of years ago Sweetness & Light had another perspective to present:

If you only read our mainstream media you would certainly think that Code Pink’s Jodie Evans is just another soccer mom caught up in the heady world of grassroots politics.

For whenever Ms. Evans is mentioned by our watchdog media we are never told a word about her background.

Like Alzheimer sufferers, our truth-seeking journalists treat Ms. Evans like a brand new person with a blank slate each time she appears in the news.
:
[T]o describe Ms. Evans merely as a co-founder of Code Pink hardly does her justice. For she is a longtime professional America-hater, who has used her ex-husband’s billions to promote her radical causes.

From Discover The Networks:

Jodie Evans is a radical activist and Democratic fundraiser best known as the co-founder (along with Diane Wilson, a Wiccan calling herself Starhawk, and Global Exchange’s Medea Benjamin) of Code Pink for Peace. Evans also works closely with Leslie Cagan, the pro-Castro leader of United For Peace and Justice.

From 1973 to 1982, Evans worked in administrative capacities in the political campaigns of Jerry Brown, who during those years served as California’s Secretary of State and then Governor. She also held a cabinet post as Governor Brown’s Director of Administration.

Evans…founded the Grief Recovery Center after the death of her daughter. During this period, she held various positions with the Women’s Campaign Fund, the Women’s Political Committee, and the Hollywood Women’s Political Committee. She also worked as a fundraiser for out-of-state female candidates for federal offices, and for the pro-abortion organizations CARAL (the California subsidiary of NARAL Pro-Choice America) and Voters for Choice…

In 1990 Evans partnered with Tom Hayden and Cathryn Tiddens to open an environmental department store, Terra Verde, in Santa Monica, California.

In 1991 Evans ran Jerry Brown’s presidential campaign. She also produced the radio program We the People with Jerry Brown, a daily leftwing talk show. From 1994 to 1998, she produced the documentary film Stripped and Teased: Tales of Las Vegas Women…

Over the years, Evans has supported such activist groups as Citizen Action, Neighbor to Neighbor, the Earth Island Institute, the Interfaith Task Force on Central America, the International Overseas Education Fund, and the Los Angeles Women’s Foundation.

And from the original FrontPage Magazine article from which much of the above material was derived:

Jodie Evans… sits on the board of directors of the Rain Forest Action Network (RAN), a coalition of anti-capitalist, anti-corporate environmentalist groups. RAN’s co-founder Michael Roselle also founded the Earth Liberation Front, which the FBI ranks alongside the Animal Liberation Front as the foremost domestic terrorism threats in the United States. According to the FBI, during the past seven years those two groups have been responsible for more than 600 criminal acts and $43 million in damages…

In addition to her Code Pink duties, Jodie Evans also sits on the advisory board of the International Occupation Watch (IOW) center in Iraq, which Code Pink helped establish. The organizers of Occupation Watch — Medea Benjamin and Leslie Cagan — explicitly declared their purpose in setting up headquarters in Baghdad was [to] thin U.S. forces by getting soldiers to declare themselves conscientious objectors.

:
Ms. Evans is a very rich and powerful woman, thanks largely to her divorce settlement from the billionaire capitalist Max Palevsky in “common property” California.

From Wikipedia:

Max Palevsky (born 1924 in Illinois) is an American art collector, venture capitalist, philanthropist, and computer technology pioneer. He served in the US Army as a meteorological officer during World War II. Palevsky first worked on a computer project at Bendix, and went on to work at Packard Bell. He convinced the company that they should enter the computer business and helped develop the PB-250 at Packard Bell, which was modestly successful. After raising around $1 million in venture capital, he left Packard Bell to found Scientific Data Systems of California in 1961. Within a year they introduced the model 910 computer, which made them profitable. Initially, they targeted scientific and medical computing markets. Palevsky sold SDS to Xerox in 1969 for $920 million…

Medea Benjamin has her own story. I’ll not go into it because this is running on pretty long, Google’s out there, and the point’s been made.

These are not everyday women concerned about world peace, America’s reputation before the world community, or the welfare of our “troops.”

These are die-hard anti-semitist communist pukes. They are part of a movement that stretches back not seven years, but more like seventy. A movement that has used the legal profession in America to bring down the country. To use the threat of litigation and criminal prosecution to make it unappealing and unpalatable to stand up for the country in the arena of public debate. Their motivation is supposed to have something to do with human decency. They’re using what is supposed to be an occasion of fun, to get in the face of a captive audience of little kids who haven’t done anything to anybody. That settles the human decency angle, I think.

As far as President Obama’s involvement? I think it’s pretty damn incriminating…but it’s just my opinion. You could quite legitimately argue this is pure “guilt by association.” Ms. Evans is just a friend-of-Obama. Just like Rev. Jeremiah Wright. We don’t know to what extent, if at all, Mister Wonderful authorized this.

In my world, it just goes into that ever-thickening “What If George W. Bush Did That?” file. And it’s become a very thick file indeed…in fact, come to think of it, what if George W. Bush did do that? Invite kids, the sons and daughters of our fighting forces, to the White House for a fun and scary Halloween. And then Karl Rove jumps out in costume to accost the kids, bully and intimidate the kids, in order to get some kind of message across?

Can you imagine?

Cross-posted at Cassy Fiano‘s place.

This year’s shamelessly swiped image is shamelessly swiped from over here. I thought it was the best-looking of the bunch. Even though it’s from last year…

[Update: I decided I just can’t stand having the wrong year in there like that, so I copped a modified version from over here.]

It bears repeating. On the list of things to be done When I Start Running This Place and become Dictator of the World Forever…Item #3 on the list says that within any given municipality, every single damn veteran therein gets Veteran’s Day off or else nobody does.

This is one of those things that, if Mork From Ork was living in your laundry room and he came asking you about it one day, you’d never be able to explain it. People who are not vets — get Veteran’s Day off. This guy I met down at the post office who is a vet — he has to work. How come that is?

There are no good answers. That’s because it’s one of those things we do that don’t make any sense.

Anyway. The day ahead beckons. Rant done.

Happy Veteran’s Day, veterans. We are the folks living in the fortress, you are the wall. You can exist without us, but we cannot exist without you. Thank you.

David Boaz writes in the Philadelphia Inquirer:

Let the government run the schools, and it may end up teaching your children values that offend you. Let the government have new powers to fight terrorism, and it may use those extraordinary powers in the pursuit of ordinary crimes. Let the federal government give the states money for highways, and it may eventually use its money to impose its own rules on the states.

In the Obama era, the slippery slope has gone vertical. Instead of “eventually,” the feared extensions of government power come immediately.

An indigent has made an unexpected and startling claim that his deplored economic status is the natural consequence of his own poor decision-making:

The incident occurred near the dumpster behind the Shop Rite store in Brooklyn, when Willard Kookish, formerly of 435 Subprime Lane in Nutly, NJ, casually told a reporter that “my problems are my own fault.” The veteran New York Times reporter Ken McLiar, who has been searching area dumpsters for a 3,785-part series on people who are homeless due to the evils of American capitalism, admits he was astonished by Mr. Kookish’s bizarre confession. When asked to elaborate, Mr. Kookish went on to say, “I went through college drinking and smoking dope and never learned anything. I’ve had many job opportunities but didn’t bother to show up. My family left me a nice house to live in but I took out home equity loans on it and spent the money on hookers and gambling. When the housing boom collapsed I lost everything. I made bad decisions and here I am bearing the consequences.”

Nobody really quite knows what to make of this. Taking responsibility for your mistakes? Your life sucks because of your own errors of judgment and you don’t want to blame someone else? What the hell is this? What planet are we on?

Experts, on whom the incompetent depend to explain the complicated world they fail to understand, are unanimous. “It’s Reagan’s fault,” says Professor Wilton Chumpley, a consulting sociologist from the University of Twerp in Belgium. “Remember how in the 1980s that actor-president mislead people into thinking they could spend their own money and run their own lives without expert help? And then you had that crackpot economist Milton Friedman falsely claiming that the government shouldn’t be responsible for directing people’s existence. It made less sense than the UFO stories, at least for smart people like myself. But, tragically, some fools took it seriously; it ruined their lives.”

President Obama has not commented publicly on the controversy but has privately told aides that “former President Bush is not getting off the hook for the economy, the War in Iraq, Hurricane Katrina or Willard Kookish’s failures on my watch.” Sources speculate that Kookish’s mortgage default will be added to the list of indictable offenses against former Bush Administration officials.

Good. Very good.

John Allen Muhammad, the mastermind behind the sniper attacks that left 10 dead, was executed Tuesday night as relatives of the victims watched, reliving the killing spree that terrorized the Washington metro area for three weeks in October 2002.

He looked calm and stoic, but was twitching and blinking as the injections began, defiant to the end, refusing to utter any final words. Victims’ families sat behind glass while watching the execution, separated from the rest of the 27 witnesses.

That’s so much more civilized, and so much more respectful to human life, than to hunt around for excuses for the next twenty years to keep this guy breathing and eating and writing books and granting teevee interviews. No contest.

For a second there I got my one-man-jihad guys mixed up. Thought it was the Fort Hood murderer they just put down. Got all excited there; thought the world had suddenly come to its senses.

Well, seven years is alright — an improvement, anyway. Someday, perhaps, justice will be swift enough that murderer and victim will be embalmed on the same day. Yeah, we’ll never quite get there, but it’s a nice thought. Murder as nothing more than a form of suicide. It would still happen now & then…but imagine the lives that would be saved. That’s change I can believe in.

The other one-man jihad is another story. More on that later. For now, it’s one down. Yay.

John Cole lets the Republicans have it.

The funny thing about all of this is that no matter how bad all their ideas are, no matter how disastrous their governance has been, no matter how many horrible things they have done to the economy and this country, what really is killing the Republican party is that deep down, they are just complete assholes. You see it in the way they treat women, you see it in the way they treat minorities, you see it in the way they treat homosexuals, you see it in the way they treat anyone who is not a white Christian, and you see it in the way they treat anyone who disagrees with them slightly about anything. They just have no respect for anyone, and it shows. People don’t like to be treated like crap, and grown-ups don’t want to be associated with people who yell “You lie” or scream “socialism” or “Hitler” or accuse you of being a terrorist whenever they don’t get their way.

If you read the Corner or the Weekly Standard, or listen to any talk radio or any of the mouth breathers on Fox, or read any right-wing blogs, you will instantly know what I am talking about. You can’t help but notice that they are just loudmouthed jerks, stubborn bully boys, and insensitive and insecure cads. James Wolcott once wrote that Eric Cantor looked like the “pricky proprietor of the Jerk Store,” and that could be applied to the majority of the prominent Republicans out there. I guess that should be suspected from a movement in which the only thoughts are “Fuck you, I got mine.”

I was not aware there was such a simple and clear correlation between one’s position on the ideological spectrum and one’s asshole-ness. Wow, I must be a real moderate. If you were to task me to find a right-wing asshole, I’m pretty sure I can find one without too much trouble…if you asked me to bring you a left-wing asshole I could bring you a few of those too. Anywhere in between. Assholes, assholes, assholes.

Cole has a much simpler and prettier view of the world — all the assholes are clustered down by one end.

Hey, does that mean if I really am an asshole, I can stop being one just by agreeing with John Cole about everything? Or at least fool people into thinking I’m not one?

Update: You know what this…along with my observation this morning…harkens back to. The plaque. That plaque I made.

The liberals look at the rest of us and say — I think you’re stupid, now prove you aren’t by backing my shitty program. I think you’re an asshole, now prove you aren’t by backing my shitty program. Always, always, always, the character of the person being recruited figures into it…and always, there’s something for the recruited to prove…because the shitty program cannot be sold on its own merits. It always boils down to “You have to support it, because otherwise I’ll think the worst about you.”

And the program seems to have consistent characteristics as well. It makes the living of life easier, but less worthwhile. Takes the resistance out…at taxpayer expense…but once you’ve overcome that declining resistance, you’ve accomplished less and less because you’ve enjoyed the opportunity to accomplish less and less.

It is simpler to survive, but tougher to prosper.

Simpler to survive, but tougher to prosper…simpler to survive, but tougher to prosper…simpler to survive but tougher to prosper. Kind of like those witches in that movie — “light as a feather but stiff as a board.”

Anyway. You better help them or you’re an asshole. Got that message? Good. Now help them spread it.

So last year I read all about this and got excited, but my better half put a veto on it.

This year I’m going to try the overtures a little bit earlier, and see if I can’t get her to see things my way.

Five pounds of lovely bacon going with that bad boy. They say it keeps the turkey all moistened-up, with pig fat yet, and as an added bonus it is seasoned to perfection.

Maybe this is year we get to find out for sure.

Taranto:

“We don’t know all the answers yet,” the Associated Press quotes President Obama as saying Friday about the Fort Hood massacre. “And I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts.”

Not only is the president right, his advice is tautological. Premature judgment is ill-advised by definition. But one senses in much of the commentary about suspect Nidal Malik Hasan a desire to avoid considered judgment as well — not just a reluctance to jump to conclusions, but a drive to go far out of one’s way to avoid ever reaching one particular conclusion.

There follows an impressive procession of quotes of people tryin’ like the dickens to avoid the one particular conclusion. It’s invaluable to have this entered into the record, but it seems to us James Taranto might have saved himself the trouble and just jumped ahead to this one:

[C]onsider the following insight from Susan Campbell of the Hartford Courant:

Much has and will be made of [Hasan’s] religion from people too ignorant to read a Qur’an, or too isolated to talk to a Muslim, or too stubborn to educate themselves. Even the Washington Post calls him a “devout Muslim.” But can a “devout Muslim” commit such acts? No more than a “devout Christian” can, no.

In fairness to Campbell, she posted this on Friday, before much of the above information had been published. Still, it seems fair to ask: Just who is jumping to conclusions?

I think we’ve reached a turning point, and the turning point is this:

Intellectualism has become the readiness, willingness and ability to call dangerous things safe, and safe things dangerous.

If you’re ready, willing and able to call dangerous things dangerous and safe things safe, you are a moron. None of this stuff needs to be debated. We only need to indulge in the name-calling, then relapse back into what we were doing just before disaster struck. When we change things, the more we change them, the less we need to discuss what we’re doing.

If you see nothing wrong with that, then you’re just a real smarty-pants. If you do see something wrong with it then it goes to show how stupid you are.