Archive for the ‘VPILF’ Category

Tapper

Monday, October 13th, 2008

I was looking up Jake Tapper’s column and in that very instant, Mr. Tapper pops up on channel 10 as a “political correspondent” or some such.

Maybe he’s balanced and centrist the rest of the time. He isn’t here.

I can’t do a better job of fisking his list of complaints than this fellow did.

Hey Jake, it’s not that simple of a matter. It started out pretty simple…but then Stephen Branchflower put out a report in which his factual conclusions went in one direction, and his opinionated conclusions went in the other direction. For whatever reason. And now we have a mess.

Great report, Mr. Branchflower. You started out with one question, now you’ve generated a whole fistful of ’em.

Tapper did do something fair, though: He included Taylor Griffin’s comments at the end of his own column in an “update” (albeit, while misspelling Griffin’s last name). These comments of Griffin’s do a serviceable job of addressing both sides of the issue fairly, I find:

The investigation set out to determine whether Gov. Palin had acted properly in reassigning Walt Monegan, it concluded that she absolutely did. The Legislative Council’s investigation offers an opinion based on a very tortured reading of the Ethics Act, but, as Legislative Council Chairman Kim Elton pointed out yesterday, it has no force in law.

Unable to find wrongdoing under the original investigation, Mr. Branchflower tried to stretch the Ethics Act to fit facts that are well beyond the scope of the law. To say she is in violation because she did not stop Todd Palin from raising concerns with appropriate authorities about a rogue State Trooper who had threatened their family and abused the public trust really defies commonsense and has no basis in the law. Besides, as Todd pointed out in his interrogatory responses, she did ask him to “drop it.”

Also, the Council made clear that the vote to make the report public was not an endorsement of its findings. In fact, five members of the council spoke up to say they do not agree with the report’s findings. The lengths that were taken to stretch the scope of the investigation to find something damaging to say, when the facts bore out that the Governor acted appropriately, show that our concerns about the politicization of this investigation were entirely justified.

Trooper Wooten has a history of violent and intimidating behavior and threatened the life of Sarah Palin’s father. As anyone would, the Palins raised these serious concerns to the proper authorities. As Todd Palin said in his interrogatory responses, “I make no apologies for wanting to protect my family and wanting to publicize the injustice of a violent trooper keeping his badge and abusing the workers’ compensation system.”

Go on, moonbats. Tell me Taylor Griffin is owned by the Rothschilds and is spreading his lies in Karl Rove fashion…and how…and where he lied. Can’t wait to see it.

Not In It For The Attention, Mind You… XXII

Monday, October 13th, 2008

Our challenge to come up with an exhaustive list of reasons not to support Sarah Palin, seems to have drawn the notice of a mixed-ideology crowd over here. A couple of the most vociferous among the angry-left over there would appear to think they’ve met and surpassed the challenge…something to do with Palin being a bumpkin.

And I got chided a few times for not backing up my assertions with facts. And, by the way, I’m stoooooopid…and Palin’s a bumpkin (and the Rothschilds own her).

Just thought I’d help ’em get the word out. This kind of clear-headed thinking needs all the publicity it can get, in these unenlightened times, ya know.

“Conservatives consider liberals well-intentioned, but misguided. Liberals consider conservatives not only wrong, but really, really bad people.” — Larry Elder

Smart democrats

Sunday, October 12th, 2008

Ever notice that whirlpool of weirdness that envelopes you whenever you hear everyday left-wing people describing the smartness of left-wing politicians? You’re not imagining it.

Picking up where she stopped last time we noticed her, Dr. Melissa Clouthier continues her thoughts about common sense, and what she calls “intellectualism,” which I delight in calling other things. Usually “arrogance,” but more like “foppishness,” “pretentious snobbery,” “boobishness,” “sparkle & glitter,” “all package no contents,” “showmanship,” “gift-o-gab,” and “prissiness.”

When I was in Chiropractic College, I stumbled across a wide spectrum of individuals:

There were the knobby heads who could memorize facts cold, did well on tests and had an amazing ability to integrate the knowledge into clinical experience.

Then there were the knobby heads who could memorize facts, did well on tests, had trouble with integrating the knowledge and were good intellectually but had a terrible time relating the knowledge to an actual hurting person.

Most people were above average intelligence, did pretty good on tests, could integrate their knowledge and were terrific clinicians.

Some people in this above average range could not relate to patients, either, but didn’t have the intellectual fortitude to do pure research. These people can make up for it with excellent business experience or they tend to suffer in practice.
:
The same goes for politics. There are people, Chief Justice Roberts comes to mind, who has a monster intellect and the incredible ability to translate the complex into language the common person can understand and grasp. That does not necessarily mean I will always agree with his opinions, by the way, just that I respect the mind and thought process that got him there.

Sarah Palin strikes me as bright, but not genius smart. What she also has is an ability to put the knowledge in context and grasp the effects of the policy. She has a gift for practical reasoning.

Some on the left seem to think we need an intellectual giant as president and that will guarantee smart policy. That is a non-sequit[u]r of dismaying proportions–as anyone who spent time around the smarty-pants set knows.

Within these paragraphs, Clouthier speaks for me, including the description of Gov. Palin. Palin’s not a genius and doesn’t need to be. She’s mastered, or at least progressed very highly within, the art & science of figuring out effects from causes — just like any experienced outdoorsman. If I do this, then that will happen…if I do not do this other thing, then that will happen. She is not a savant and doesn’t even rate highly among “smart” elites. I do think she’s smarter than most ordinary people, way smarter than average. Bill Clinton is probably smarter than she is…in his own way. He’s got talents for which you could search and search and search, and never find a specimen more remarkable in that regard than Bill; whereas Palin is merely above-average. They’re both to be respected — neither one’s a dummy — but Sarah is closer to the center of the bell curve.

In a responsible position, it’s no contest. You want Sarah Palin there. Most folks have met a Bill Clinton type, who can talk your ear off about how good things are goin’ while the real job goes undone. You want that guy putting out the fire consuming your home? Seriously? I don’t think so.

Leftists, lately, don’t distinguish among these different types and magnitudes of smarts. Quoting myself, in response to Melissa’s latest thoughts:

I see a lot of things happening when democrats tell us one among their own is “smart”:

First of all, the process by which they decree Bill Clinton or John Kerry or Al Gore or Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton to be “smart,” is a depressing exercise in anti-intellectualism itself. All the sins you can make against brain-smarts, are in that process. They think something because someone else told ‘em to think that; they’re bullying YOU around, trying to make you think this third-party (neither one of you have met) is smart, just because they’re bullying you; they’re confusing gift-o-gab with across-the-board smarts; the list goes on and on. These are all anti-intellectual things to do, and they’re doing them, toward the goal of defining who’s smart and who isn’t.

Second, of course, is that it’s confirmation bias writ large. The message unspoken is that democrats are just plain smart. Find a guy who thinks John Kerry is smart…wh[at] democrat does that guy think is average intellect or below? The answer, invariably, is nobody. It’s not about smarts. It’s about democrats. It’s just propaganda, a lot of folks know it, but nobody ever says it.

Third: The definition is sloppy. You quickly gather the impression, and you’re right, that the conversation/bullying-session isn’t really about *smarts*. These famous democrats aren’t presented as people functionally smart, above-average, IQ somewhere in the 125-135 range…if you’re working late and the deadline is tomorrow, would you want them working on it with you, or some big dummy. It’s not that kind of smarts. These are luminous beings. Barack Obama has wrinkles on his brain you don’t have. You should be squealing in delight to be breathing [the] same oxygen as them.

If you pay attention to politics for any length of time, you understand this to be a political gimmick, nothing more — that’s even if you agree with what’s being attempted here, even if you’re a leftist. It only works because most people don’t pay that much attention. Most people hear this discourse about smartness, they think the ideas are all about smartness and nothing else. They couldn’t be more wrong.

Crosss-posted at Right Wing News.

The Palin Game!

Friday, October 10th, 2008

Here’s an interesting little mental exercise to try. First, come up with a list of reasons to oppose Sarah Palin. Not her running mate; just her. Think back on everything you’ve heard. Every rationalization. Every supposed scandal. Every little blessed thing. You’re making an exhaustive list, here.

From that, eliminate two things that are only fair.

Palin! Palin! Palin!One: Anything that falls under the umbrella category of “She’s a dimwit.” Because let’s face it: Over the last twenty years, that’s been exposed as a liberal democrat fail-safe to be used against frighteningly influential Republicans, when they can’t find a scandal. It’s what seven-year-olds say when they can’t think of a response but want to continue the argument: “Yoooooou’re stoooopid!” It’s the democrat party check-engine light. Just canx it. She’s a dimwit, she’s an airhead, she doesn’t know foreign policy, blah blah blah. It’s just empty space. Ballast. Throw it overboard.

Two: Anything that falls under the umbrella category of “She doesn’t have the values of a hardcore left-wing democrat.” Because, last I checked, a democrat isn’t what she is.

Now take everything left over, and try to make it sound convincing.

Um…there was a story going around about “I can see Russia from my house!”, which she never said…and there was another story going around that her daughter’s kid is really hers, or her kid is really her daughter’s, or something…that was proven false. She has a tanning bed. Oh here’s something — her daughter is pregnant but not married. But will be. To the father. So her kid did things a little bit out-of-sequence. Um…uh…her husband was arrested for drunk driving, or convicted of a DUI, or something, twenty-two years ago. When she fires someone, she wants them to be really truly fired, and if you get in the way she’ll fire your ass. In other words, she’s a capable, effective administrator…

…dang, this is shaping up to be a real loser’s game, huh?

Am I missing something? Because it’s been, like, a month and a half already. Now, just for kicks, repeat the exercise with Joe Biden. And then with Barack Obama.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

“Doesn’t Anybody Have a Conscience Anymore?”

Friday, October 10th, 2008

Newsbusters again

Gov. Sarah Palin parachuted into a phone interview on the Laura Ingraham show in the last minutes of the program today at about ten minutes to Noon eastern. She urged citizens (and by extension, the media) to demand answers from Barack Obama and Joe Biden about Bill Ayers, ACORN, and Obama’s record of voting against protections for infants born alive after an unsuccessful abortion.

“I don’t see the other ticket being asked to be truthful and give details,” she said. She added that Obama’s positions are “so far left,” but they’re being “packaged up to look pretty and mainstream, and they are not.”
:
On Ayers, Palin said Obama hasn’t told the “total truth” about his long-time association with an “unrepentant domestic terrorist.” On ACORN, she said they are pushing voter fraud. “Doesn’t anybody have a conscience any more?” She urged, America to “wake up and ask thse questions.”

Based on some experience watching some talking points blossom and others die on the vine, it seems to me our problem is with these “soft referendums” that pass unanimously without being put to a vote. Like for example: What’s mean? We’ve somehow decided what’s mean and what isn’t, to the complete advantage of liberal democrats, without any meaningful dissents, and without actually casting ballots.

Sen. McCain points at Sen. Obama during a townhall debate and uses the words “that one.” That’s mean. Obama’s official campaign makes fun of Sen. McCain because his wartime injuries leave him unable to use a computer keyboard…that isn’t mean.

What’s bipartisanship? That’s another one. John McCain has made a big show out of being able to work with Barack Obama and other liberal democrats. I haven’t heard of Sen. Obama making any similar and opposite declarations about his readiness, willingness, or ability to work with Republicans. All I’ve seen him do is blame Bush for any little fly in the ointment…often changing the subject, to the point of offense, to do so.

And yet among those who think the answer to our problems is to “rise above partisanship and do what’s best for the country” — the overwhelming consensus is to flock to The Chosen One, whom any honest analysis would declare has very, very little to do with rising above partisanship. How does this dovetail with their decree that partisanship caused our problems and bipartisanship will end them? What’s that got to do with an Obama administration? Again: It’s a soft referendum. It was put to “The People,” supposedly, but decided, unanimously, without voting.

People like to run around babbling a bunch of stuff and nonsense about what independent thinkers they are. It just ain’t so.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

Former Head of Alaska National Guard Weighs In

Wednesday, October 8th, 2008

Getting a little bit old, but it’s a must-view and a lot of folks haven’t seen it just yet:

Luckily, You’re an Objective Journalist

Tuesday, October 7th, 2008

What if I had to choose between K. Couric and S. Palin babysittting my kids overnight? Hmmmm…..

Palin’s Composure

Tuesday, October 7th, 2008

Here’s the real Sarah Palin (H/T: Gateway Pundit):

And here is a FARK match-up contest involving Obama, Biden, McCain and Palin. It won’t take you long at all to figure out what the rules are. Nor will it take you long to figure out what the pattern is, involving the Governor of Alaska.

Now watch the last ten seconds of that clip up above one more time. This is supposedly the “Reality Based Community.” Well, do you think they nailed down the real Gov. Palin? Because what I’m seeing is an awesome comeback, no matter how you slice it.

Look at it this way. The brain-dead grown-up hippie anti-war heckler, put her under exactly the same kind of pressure she brought to bear on Joe Biden. And time after time, Biden’s “comeback,” if you want to call it that, was a big ol’ crocodile grin with sparkling lifetime-beltway-boy capped teeth. WELL now. Which candidate for the Vice Presidency operates with more cool under fire? Which one came back with the better retort?

You call me biased if you want. But I’m gonna go with the “Bless Your Heart Sir” thing. Sarahcuda’s got it goin’ on.

NOW Chair Endorses Palin

Monday, October 6th, 2008

Wizbang, via Rick:

Rick goes on to link to a piece by Ms. Grabar in Pajamas Media about the real reasons why so-called “feminists” can’t stand Palin. If her point stands — and I think it does — it is quite an eye-opener. It’s an eye-opener because it indicates a) “tak[ing] care of her family, with a shotgun if necessary” has become a male-female-split issue; and b) the female viewpoint on this issue has somehow become that you’re not supposed to be doin’ that.

That Palin thinks like a man, or logically, is what has made the left livid. As appropriate to their modes, they respond emotionally. The men in their movement, who have become one of the girls in terms of thinking, respond with personal insults, even going so far as to mock the looks of her baby, as Bill Maher recently did.

But if one looks to other arenas, like the humanities departments in universities that have been transformed by feminism, one can see that such personal attacks are entirely consistent with the left’s version of intellectualism. When I entered graduate school in the 1990s I quickly found out that character assassinations had become the staple of literary scholarship.

That’s entirely consistent with why I support Palin. I belong to this strange little world…I call it “Earth”…in which it makes little sense to seriously mock people, because pretty people are wrong fairly often and ugly people are right fairly often. Essentials of the point…characteristics of the guy or gal who made the point. It’s called a non-correlative relationship.

It’s pretty late in the election season. And honestly, I can’t recall, from all-year-long, the last time a left-winger made an intellectually valid point that came to my attention, without simultaneously attacking some desired target over matters unrelated. McCain can’t use e-mail. Palin’s got “porn star glasses.” George Bush is an idiot and Dick Cheney is evil. Ann Coulter’s a skinny bitch, Rush Limbaugh is fat and is hooked on painkillers, the list goes on and on and on. And feminism has been marching at the forefront of this weird, bizarre, “it matters not what they say, it matters what they are” mindset.

Also, Palin is a belated challenge to group-based consensus thinking:

While John T. Molloy may have in 1978 urged women to dress and act for success by imitating their male business colleagues, psychologist Carol Gilligan, in her 1982 bestseller In a Different Voice, promoted women’s ways of thinking, based on emotion and consensus, as superior to the old patriarchal mode of logic and independence.

The result of such modes of thought, in my field of English, has been the attrition of majors, as students flock to more masculine fields, like business administration. Among the humanities, it is English departments that suffer the worst reputations as inconsequential and useless places.

A whole procession of attempts to make Palin look like an intellectual lightweight, someone who figures out what to say only through talking points written by others, has failed much like a long freight train tumbling off the ruins of a defunct bridge one boxcar at a time. On Thursday night, Palin slapped a coffin lid on that whole thing and pounded several nails into it.

Wonder Palin!She thinks for herself; her words are her own. And those who have been most bumptious in asserting the opposite, are the ones who’ve secretly known all about this from Day One. And those are the ones who’ve hated her the most.

And so to me, based on what I’ve seen, Ms. Grabar’s words make perfect sense.

Update: I’m reminded again how much control people lose when they identify someone who thinks logically and independently this way, after they themselves have not, and make a target out of ’em. Karol points to a Dr. Helen column on Pajamas Media, which in turn links to a Slate advice column. Good…Lord…

My reaction to [Gov. Palin], and the way the Republican Party threw her in our faces, and the pandering and hypocrisy that was behind their decision to do so, was immediate, visceral, and indeed, vicious. I have crossed every line I believed should never be crossed in public discourse — I have criticized not only her policies and her record, but her hair, her personal style, her accent, her abilities as a mother, etc. I’ve also begun to suffer personally and professionally. I bore my friends with my constant tirades against her, and am constantly distracted from my work by my need to continually update myself on the latest criticism, and indeed, ridicule, of her. In my hatred for her, I have begun to hate myself.

I don’t want this woman ruining my life before she even gets a chance to ruin our country. How do I stop? Is there a self-help group for this?

A “Hater”*

*As Sarah Palin calls all those who disagree with her (New York Times, Sunday, Sept. 14, 2008)

Dear “Hater,”

I think what disturbs us about Sarah Palin is that she reminds us of the authoritarian personality. My guess is that she is also an ESFJ, or Extroverted Sensing Feeling Judging type, with a strong preference for sensing. Such a person prefers to acquire her knowledge from concrete objects and places instead of from abstract ideas. This would explain why she thinks being geographically close to Russia is a form of foreign policy expertise.

As an authoritarian type, she strikes us as a person who prefers power to reason. The people running John McCain’s campaign seem to instinctively understand the uses to which such an impression can be put. Perhaps they know better than we do how deeply the American people long to be done with the problem of democracy, to yield to a powerful father-mother pair of authoritarians.

The very thing that appalls us about Sarah Palin — her discomfort in the realm of reason — is her main selling point. This is so mind-boggling that you have to take a minute to let it in. Take a deep breath. Read that sentence again. Face it: Sarah Palin represents what many people want: a retreat from reason; a regression to childhood.

So thinking for yourself means a “regression to childhood.”

That means, to these people, subverting your individual cognitions to the cognitions of a group, is what adulthood is all about.

Why on earth shouldn’t adulthood be all about that? These are people who have everything done for them by other people. Getting food is — walking through a store with a basket, filling it up, presenting a debit card to the cashier, and boom you’re done. Water is delivered. Oil is changed. Coffee is brewed by a barrista in a green apron. Their SUV changes gears for ’em, the cruise control works the throttle.

Quite amazing. Truly, a nation of veal calves. How in the world did we get here?

If this was the first of the ten plagues, the Pharoah would’ve let ’em go right off the bat.

What I Know About People That I Wasn’t Told When I Was A Child, Item #24. People who imagine themselves as part of a group, with no individual identity, don’t want anyone else to have an individual identity either.

I Can Has Ballz?

Monday, October 6th, 2008

Well, well, well. Would you look at what’s fast-becoming an “Everybody Else Is Blogging It, I Might As Well Do It Too” thing. McCain is following the example set by his lipstick/pitbull running mate.

Cheers consuming the right side of the blogosphere and rightly so. Rick. Cassy. Red State. Rachel. Hot Air. Toldjah. Others.

Good on ya, John McCain. Let’s see some more of this.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: If hold-outs like me had jumped onto this guy’s bandwagon the minute it was possible to do so, you’d be looking at a running-mate Lieberman right now.

And if you’d been looking at a running-mate Lieberman right now, the balls would still be stashed away in a dusty old lockbox somewhere.

So you’re welcome.

The One That Yelps Loudest

Sunday, October 5th, 2008

Throw a rock into a pack of dogs, and the one that yelps the loudest is the one that got hit. And God bless Sarah Palin, that girl knows how to throw a rock. Misquoting Albright: Yelp! Fact Check: Yelp! Analysis: Yelp! Yelp! Yelp! With some “racism” sprinkled on top.

And class, you do remember what the House of Eratosthenes Glossary told you an analysis is, right? That’s right…

An Editorial, with a different name so that editors can justify placing it where the news belongs.

Michelle Malkin sums up everything worth saying right here:

Wonder Palin!Putting the “Ass” in “Associated Press,” one of the wire service’s Obama water-carriers attempts to smear Sarah Palin as a racist for spotlighting Barack Obama’s longtime relationships with Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers:

Analysis: Palin’s words carry racial tinge

Palin’s words avoid repulsing voters with overt racism. But is there another subtext for creating the false image of a black presidential nominee “palling around” with terrorists while assuring a predominantly white audience that he doesn’t see their America?

In a post-Sept. 11 America, terrorists are envisioned as dark-skinned radical Muslims, not the homegrown anarchists of Ayers’ day 40 years ago. With Obama a relative unknown when he began his campaign, the Internet hummed with false e-mails about ties to radical Islam of a foreign-born candidate.

Whether intended or not by the McCain campaign, portraying Obama as “not like us” is another potential appeal to racism…
:
[Associated Press continues with more of its unadulterated nonsense]
:

Meanwhile, back in the real world, McCain continues to forbid his campaign from going after Obama for his longtime friendship and ideological partnership with Rev. Jeremiah Wright — and refuses to attack Obama on the Fannie/Freddie/CRA debacles because he fears being perceived as a racist.

Earth to McCain: They will see RAAAACISM in whatever you and Palin will say and do from now until Election Day.

Fight or get rolled.

Wake. Up.

These hairs they’re splitting — the splitting is self-parody. Good heavens. Making an issue out of “help women” versus “support women” and then go running off to Madeleine Albright to find out what she meant to say. Seeing racism where there is no cause to — where Gov. Palin has reminded the voters of the terrorist activities of a white guy. S-t-r-e-t-c-h-i-n-g to make the desired point. And I suppose they call this journalism. We all know the former Secretary of State is going to be perfectly neutral and objective in announcing what she wants people to believe she meant to say, yeah. Uh huh. Tell me another.

The fact is, the democrats have been staying in office when they haven’t deserved to, for generations, by pretending they have some kind of monopoly on championing issues that have special meaning to women. By driving a big fat wedge between men and women — pretending that what hurts women helps men, and vice-versa. Palin used their own words against them, and beat them at their own game. There was no meaningful misquoting, in letter or in spirit. Albright spoke recklessly, back when it seemed safe, and her words were put on a Starbuck’s coffee cup, where they came back to haunt her. Point Palin.

And Bill Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist. He feels he didn’t do enough when he set those bombs. A qualified presidential candidate wouldn’t have any connection to him whatsoever. Barack Obama would, in all likelihood, be barred from seeking any position with the CIA, the FBI, or obtaining any sort of secret clearance. And rightfully so. It’s called an unfavorable adjudication, and he’s got it written all over ‘im, through the Ayers matter alone.

Truth hurts. The dogs are yelping. Can someone please hand the Governor a big ol’ sackful of rocks — big un’s.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

Bookworm on Deregulation

Sunday, October 5th, 2008

Fellow Webloggin contributor Bookworm reiterates a point she made previously.

If nobody, from sea to shining sea and all across the fruited plane, learns one single other damn thing over the next month — let this be the one thing they do learn.

As you may recall from Thursday’s debate, Biden kept saying that our current financial woes arose because of deregulation and that even John McCain now wants more regulation. In other words, bad Republicans let Wall Street go wild, and now they’re cowed and are following the Democratic line.

Palin, who generally did fantastically well, failed a bit when dealing with Biden’s direct and indirect accusations, because [she] didn’t correct the terminology. Let me state, therefore, what should be obvious, and what should be an embarrassment for the Democrats and a source of pride for the Republicans. That the opposite is true is only because the Democrats are controlling the message and the Republicans are hiding:

The problem did not start because of deregulation. It started because of hyper-regulation: Because Democrats did not think it was “fair” that only people who have saved a lot of money and have reliable income sources should get loans, the Democrats forced through policies mandating that banks must give loans to those who normally would be poor risks (those famous subprime loans). What kept banks from squawking about being forced by the government to engage in practices that no sound business would ever engage in was the fact that Fannie and Freddie (staffed at the upper level by Democrats) promised to buy those loans, insure them, and sell them. Well, with an offer like that, the Banks couldn’t refuse, and they went hog wild. It was a no loss for them, and a huge incentive (because of these government regulations, not deregulations) to give out as many bad loans as possible.

Over at the American Thinker Blog, she continues this line of thought and makes another point that perhaps she thinks is expendable, whereas I think it’s vital, in this day and age in which we huff and puff so much talking about the character and integrity of our presidential candidates:

I know that Biden and Obama understand what’s going on, but are hiding the distinction, and I know that McCain and Palin…well, I assume that McCain and Palin see the distinction so clearly that they don’t recognize that the public is confused.

Whatever. I don’t think I give ’em that much credit. My intuition tells me that politicians, especially senators, weigh everything in terms of cost-benefit more than truth-versus-untruth. This is a McCain decision; this is why so many of us have blog banners and bumper stickers and tee shirts that say McCain/PALIN!, or Palin/McCain, and hope-against-hope that the ticket wins and then McCain resigns before Groundhog Day.

This “Maverick” stuff. You don’t often hear the point from people like me, who lack the skill and talent necessary to “go with the flow” during those times when it might be well-advised. But what goes so often unmentioned is — being a maverick is only beneficial if the group happens to be, or will later on turn out to be, wrong. Or at least inferior.

We’re looking at exactly where McCain’s political methodology is a consistent disappointment. When the time comes to challenge the liberal orthodoxy…McCain bowls somewhere around a 37. Too much of the time, he makes the decision that the facts may very well be on his side, but it just isn’t worth the hassle. And so he pops up with that “Maverick” stuff and speaks Truth To Power against those punch-drunk Republicans…in situations in which they’re the real mavericks. Maverick McCain, then, goes and stands with the real corrupt entrenched power-base. Again and again.

This is the kind of “maverick” Judas Iscariot would’ve been. If, that is, he started following Caiaphus around hoping for an invitation to the next party — and calling himself a maverick. And riding around in a bus called the “Straight Talk Express.” It’s sickening.

A Palin/McCain ticket, I think, would not be making this error. Maybe they’d persuade few, but they’d at least get the point out there, to their credit. And I’d put money on that.

I hope they pull their heads outta their butts on this one. Soon.

Update: The NRCC is onboard — they have their heads outta their butts. Halfway, anyhow…the ad discusses the problems, how the Republicans were sounding the alarm, and the democrats were demanding everybody lie low and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. It’d be nice to see the point made that regulators didn’t neglect the problem, they made the problem.

But it’s a very nice start. Pretty late in the game, as The Anchoress points out. Hope it works.

It’s About Time a Republican Said It

Saturday, October 4th, 2008

Rick links to something that reminds me, once again, that there are opinions that are wrong according to subjective notions of logic and decency…and then…there are other opinions that are simply not legitimate opinions to have. It therefore necessarily follows that there are debates that are reasonable and there are other debates that are silly. The debate about whether or not to elect Obama as our next Commander in Chief — nobody ever said that was a reasonable debate to have, and you shouldn’t wait around for anyone to say so either.

It’s about time a Republican said it

And why not Sarah the Barracuda?

Palin told Carl that she was “annoyed” at some of the interviews she has done, “Ok I’ll tell you honestly the Sarah Palin in those interviews is a little bit annoyed because it’s man no matter what you say you are going to get clobbered. If you choose to answer a question you are going to get clobbered on the answer,” Palin said. “If you choose to try and pivot and go on to another subject that you believe that Americans want to hear about you get clobbered for that too.”

She then aimed to defend herself for some of the criticism she got for the Couric interview. She was blasted for not answering Couric’s question on any of the periodicals she reads or even a Supreme Court decision that she disagreed with. She defended some of the circular answers she gave the CBS anchor saying that she did not get to cover some of the topics she saw as important, “But in those Katie Couric interviews I did feel that there were a lot of things that she was missing in terms of an opportunity to ask what a V.P. candidate stands for. What the values are represented in our ticket. I wanted to talk about Barack Obama increasing taxes, which would lead to killing jobs. I wanted to talk about his proposal to increase government spending by another trillion dollars.”

Super Palin!She then slammed Barack Obama calling him disqualified to be President of the United States, “Some of his comments that he has made about the war that I think may — in my world — disqualifies someone from consideration as the next commander in chief.” Palin said, “Some of his comments about Afghanistan and what we are doing there supposedly — just air raiding villages and killing civilians. That’s reckless.

I hope like hell the McCain campaign is setting her free and that they won’t attempt to muzzle comments like this.

She is woman, hear her roar.

The bold is my (mkf) emphasis.

I’ve been seeing this go on for a very long time now. The liberal-democrat-moonbat wing, it seems, enjoys a complete monopoly in declaring what opinions are legitimate ones to have. Conservatives and Republicans end up busying themselves with disagreements over what is right. It’s a huge mistake to make.

Look what’s happening in the theater of what’s legitimate and what’s not. George Bush has done some good things; that’s not a legitimate opinion to have anymore. Forget about debating whether it is correct. Global warming is man made, or we are certain it is man made, or the “science is settled” that it’s man made — ditto. There’s only one legitimate opinion you can have about that now, and it’s the one the eco-terrorists want you to have. If you’ve got a different one, and you run for a high public office, it’ll be a pretty short run.

Barack Obama would make a better President than John McCain…we’re debating whether that’s correct. The election in November will be all about whether that’s correct. It’s the wrong debate to have. We should be debating whether it’s even legitimate, because it isn’t. Palin nailed it. Obama’s positions, some of ’em are quite plain and simply reckless. It’s dangerous to even think about putting someone in the White House who has those views. Such ideas deserve to be marginalized. Gutterballed. Just like the view that “climate change” is a natural phenomenon, whch actually enjoys a better than adequate foundation of supporting scientific evidence, has been marginalized. Exactly like that.

We Watch the Same Thing, We See Different Things

Saturday, October 4th, 2008

Here’s something interesting about human behavior. The following clip was added by 1stAmendmentVoter who is apparently an Obama supporter. This person seems pretty sure that when Palin and Biden went head-to-head, the Senator from Delaware was a clear victor. It’s only two minutes long. Why don’t you scan it for some actual reasons that a neutral observer should think Sarah Palin lost the debate.

Did you see what I saw? A poll. A poll of strangers decided, 51-36, that Biden did a better job. If you go to the page for this clip you see a bunch of quotes from luminaries. Also strangers. But what neutral, objective, balanced and dispassionate strangers they are, huh.

Bob Shrum: “She Barely Kept Up”… “McCain Lost the VP Debate Too”… Madeleine Albright: “Biden’s Night… We Need A VP Who Can Be Persuasive With Foreign Leaders”…Leah McElrath Renna: “Biden’s Tears Did More For The Equality Of The Sexes Than Palin’s Presence”… Newsweek’s Fineman: Palin Like “A Wolverine Attacking The Pant Leg Of A Passerby”

Now, back in ’95 we saw our country’s racial divide open up just a bit, as O.J. Simpson’s trial entered the home stretch and then finally reached a verdict. What arose to confront us was the Rashomon syndrome; two people with different interests, especially different interests seldom discussed in polite company, see something. It’s a singular thing. They disagree about what it is they saw. They shouldn’t, but they do.

That’s what’s happening right now with this Palin/Biden debate. What interest me here, however, is what is presented by the two different sides as they each make the case why they saw things the way they think they saw them. In 2008, this is what makes the sides truly different; these different perspectives, speak to their character. Go back and watch that clip again. Study it, one more time, for reasons you should think Biden won the debate. What do you find? You should think Biden won the debate…because…this other person, over here, thinks Biden won the debate.

Compare and contrast. John Hawkins has a YouTube clip too. His clip gives reasons to think Palin won the debate. Except Hawkins does something pretty strange here: He allows viewers to listen to the debate themselves! Wow, you’re putting a lot of faith in the hoi polloi, aren’t you John?

For me, this defines a crucial difference between the way liberals and conservatives think. How they see things. What goes on in their heads when they see things. Liberalism is the last gasp of a dying age — the twentieth century, in which it was a novelty that one man could speak, and in that very moment be heard by thousands or millions. By the nature of that kind of technology it is impossible to unworkable for those masses to have any efficient way of letting the speaker know what they thought of him. Mass communication is not necessarily bidirectional communication. And so, having reached maturity on this imbalanced diet, liberalism has nurtured down to the marrow of its bones a reflexive proclivity to tell people what to think.

A liberal is not necessarily inclined to make the clip John Hawkins made. Some liberals do, of course. If you show a great level of competence and creativity in selecting the clips to include, and sequence them just so, so that your compilation eventually compels an uninformed viewer to reach conclusions directly opposed from what reality would suggest — what you have there, then, is a Michael Moore product. And isn’t Mr. Moore’s career just a damning indictment of liberalism itself. He became famous because he discovered ways to c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y show some footage in such a way that liberalism looked good. Question: If that’s Moore’s contribution, but liberalism is already supposed to be a good idea, then why was his chosen craft such an incredible novelty? Answer: Because there is some difficulty involved in getting that done.

Now, look at Hawkins’ clip one more time. There is no Michael-Moore trickery involved here; this is exactly the way the debate went down, just with a little bit less waiting. What he’s showing are, for all intents and purposes, random samples. Liberals must tell people what to think, conservatives allow people to make up their own minds about things. And this is the way things went. Palin would highlight in some subtle way the difference between the way people decide things inside the beltway, and the way people decide things in the rest of the country. Biden, if he is truly a master of expressing the best part of an argument through his words and his tone and his facial expressions, must have been making a counter-argument of “look how white my teeth are” because that’s all he had to say about it. Just a big ol’ crocodile smile. Nothing else.

That would be an effective and fair summary of most of what took place.

Palin: Something is wrong in Washington. Those people do not think about important problems the way people with real responsibilities think about important problems.
Biden: Yeah, but look what a great smile I have!

Well, you know what my conclusion is about it? Biden and Palin both represented the grievances and passions of millions of their virtual constituents in this match-up. And that’s how debates are truly won. But Biden’s constituents are a bunch of peaceniks. Their battle cry, of an “illegal and unjust war,” is old and tired by now. We invaded Iraq; get over it. We can debate what to do going forward, but as far as going in in the first place, it’s a piece of history. Furthermore, Biden’s tent is way too big. Some of his constituents genuinely do hate the country. They do, they do, they do — some of ’em. Others have a more sincere desire to see peace. Some are pie-eyed absolutists living in utopian bubbles, and insist war should become a thing of the past. Others are more realistic and say war is sometimes unavoidable, but it should only be engaged when it is inevitable, and that was not the case here. Some are anarchists. Some are totalitarians. Some are isolationists. Others desire a one-world government with more authority invested in the United Nations.

Obama and Biden face an impossible task of uniting them…should they win this election. I don’t think it’s really do-able. These people have nothing in common with each other. Their egos are wrapped up in the Obama/Biden ticket because of Barack Obama’s personal charisma, and Obama’s charisma holds such an appeal for them because they’re uninformed on the issues. That’s their commonality. The only one.

Wonder Palin!Palin emerges as the true heroine here, fighting the good fight. She’s representing the rest of us. We’re out here in “flyover country,” living our lives…our normal lives…and Washington, DC is getting further and further away from us. Quite frankly, we don’t know what to make of it. We’re working and paying bills, and nobody’s bailing us out of things. This “Dick Cheney” guy Biden kept bashing all night long, calling him the most dangerous Vice President ever — what is the Cheney doctrine, anyway? It’s also called the One Percent Doctrine and it says if there’s a 1% chance that shenanigans are going on, sometimes you have to treat it as a certainty if you regard the potential shenanigans to be a sufficient cause for concern. This just goes to show how far apart the beltway is from the rest of the world, because out here, that makes perfect sense. It may very well be the most unpopular doctrine to ever have been voiced around the Patomac, since the day our nation’s capitol was located there. Out here, meanwhile, everyone who manages their own life’s business, believes in the One Percent Doctrine. It is how we do things. Everyone believes in it…except for those who are somehow sheltered from making decisions that matter.

One percent chance there are black widows under your kids’ play equipment, you treat it as a certainty.

One percent chance your wife’s car has a leak in the brake lines, you treat it as a certainty.

One percent chance you left the stove on when you left the house, you act as if you most certainly did.

It really all comes down to management styles. Palin won the debate, because the way she makes decisions about things that come under her executive management jurisdiction, flows seamlessly into the way she managed this debate; and that, in turn, flows seamlessly into her personality. She’s the mother bear protecting her cubs — but she doesn’t treat the rest of us as cubs to be protected. She treats us as other mother bears, who are also protecting our cubs. Because that is precisely what we are.

And we don’t understand voting for something before voting against it — as she pointed out (right before another impressive display of Biden crocodile teeth). We don’t see how it’s okay to lie about something under oath just because the question was “personal”; we don’t understand comments about “letting Wall Street run wild” when we know the regulators had much more of a hand making the problem in the first place. We don’t understand bailouts. We don’t understand saying all these nice things about John McCain, and then once you’re Barack Obama’s running mate, trying to get people to pretend you never said them. We don’t understand radical left-wing democrats when they protest a war, make up lies about the soldiers killing and raping civilians — and then claim to support the troops. We don’t understand all this brow-beating that global warming is a big concern, but the damage to our infrastructure from these carbon cap-and-trade initiatives are not…and these creeps all over the world putting fatwas on the United States and trying to develop nuclear weapons…are also not a concern. We don’t see how it’s any of Germany’s or France’s or Canada’s damn business who we’re going to elect as our next leader. We don’t understand that. We just don’t get that stuff, and we don’t want to get it. You have a job to do, you do it. If something comes along that might mess up that job, you treat it as a certainty that it will.

And you do not, do not, do not, ever lead people by giving them sanctimonious and poorly-informed instructions that they shouldn’t be worried about something, that in reality, should worry the dickens out of ’em. It’s a contrast between weak management and strong management. That’s what this election is really all about. So if someone is out there thinking Biden won the debate, and they’re voting, that’s just the latest piece of evidence that we have way too many people in this country voting.

Our candidates for high office shouldn’t be selling us weak management with slick sales pitches, emotional connections, mosh pits and crocodile teeth. They shouldn’t even be tempted to mobilize a campaign like that. Yet they are not only tempted, but acting on it.

Don’t blame the candidates, blame the people. But Palin won. Among thinking men and women who have real responsibilities, there can be no question.

Thing I Know #112. Strong leadership is a dialog: That which is led, states the problem, the leader provides the solution. It’s a weak brand of leadership that addresses a problem by directing people to ignore the problem.

Kos’ Take on the Veep Debate

Friday, October 3rd, 2008

He says she won, believe it or not (H/T: Flopping Aces). And then works — like your rottweiler on a beef bone — at convincing himself otherwise.

Sarah Palin won! Actually, she survived, since she had no “deer in headlight” moments. Of course, it’s easy to do that when you say, straight up, that you won’t answer any questions you don’t like…
:
So who won? Who cares. Nothing happened to change the dynamics of this race. Palin proved that she’s still unable to answer the questions posed to her, but she also didn’t fall flat on her face. And in the ridiculously depressed expectations for the governor of Alaska, she didn’t crash and burn. But she didn’t need to maintain the status quo. That’s toxic territory for her. She needed to prove that she could get beyond pre-packaged talking points to demonstrating some capacity for analytical thought. In that regard, she failed.

I’d just like to know one thing from the KOSsack kommunity: If every Republican that comes along and shows some potential for doing damage to the left-wing moonbat machine is just a big ol’ empty-headed dolt, how come they’re the only ones laboring under this expectation that they should “demonstrat[e] some capacity for analytical thought”?

Did Sen. Biden demonstrate some capacity for analytical thought last night? As opposed to engaging in “pre-packaged talking points”? Where? When?

In fact, outside of coming up with creative and new ways to slander conservatives, when’s the last time a Kos commenter demonstrated such a thing?

Say it ain’t so, Markos.

How the Veep Debate Went Down

Thursday, October 2nd, 2008

1. I’m glad she brought up the nasty things Biden said about Obama before he was considered as part of the ticket. I wonder why she just whacked that nail once and then left it alone. Doesn’t seem to me Sen. Biden holds any cards there. He looks, on this topic, like exactly what he is: A lifetime beltway fixture who befriends whoever and whatever is good for him at any given moment.

2. The McCain campaign has been listening to us, I think. Gov. Palin was liberated from her talking points. She wasn’t excellent, but she was much better than people thought she would have been.

3. I was right when I said this was a rehash of the Galloway/Hitchens debate. Biden possesses a lot of momentum Palin doesn’t have. She stutters, she stammers, she barely manages to eek a few syllables out, without ever quite hitting her stride. But — what she says, makes a lot more sense. Yin and Yang. People who looked for a reason to support Obama/Biden, found it, and people who looked for a reason to support Palin/McCain, found that. I mean…wait…which one comes first, again?

4. She should’ve used the word “populist.” This is the true weakness of Obama/Biden. The ticket seems to be bound by a consistent philosophical underpinning that if something has a certain effect on nine out of ten of us, then it might as well have that same effect on us all. This talking point about the tax cut for 95% of us, for example. It’s a dinosaur. It’s lumbered on long past the asteroid already. It isn’t even true.

5. Assuming science is all about voting — which it isn’t — when did we lose this vote on cutting carbon emissions? Obama/Biden is for it, McCain/Palin is for it. Doesn’t Sarah Palin understand how this undercuts all her other pro-capitalism positions?

Palin Underworld6. I loved it when she made that comment about being for things before you’re against ’em, and how hard it is for her to understand how things work in the beltway. That’s a true Mister Smith Goes To Washington moment right there. If it was some big ol’ Paul Bunyan lookin’ guy in a plaid shirt with a big blue ox and a giant axe in his hand saying that, he’d get voted in in a landslide. Well, that’s exactly what Sarah Palin is. In a skirt.

7. I have to criticize Gov. Palin here. I don’t think she understands how it sounds when she mispronounces “nuclear.” She’d fix that, toot-sweet, if she did.

8. I don’t think Sen. Biden understands how it sounds when he repeatedly uses the name “Bush.” He’d stop.

9. Four years ago John Kerry lost the election by asking us to believe in a dichotomy. He said, I’m brilliant so I can think in nuanced terms, unlike that dolt George Bush who sees the whole world in black-and-white. But I have a serious case of confirmation-bias because George Bush is my perfect reverse-barometer about what to do. If he did something — it must be wrong. Biden left himself wide open by subscribing to this same confirmation-bias: If George Bush did something, it must have been the wrong thing to do. Palin should have struck right there. Stick a javelin right where the armor leaves that gaping hole, and shove it in to the hilt. It would have been a fatal blow to the Obama/Biden campaign, I think. Most Americans understand: If you strive to oppose something at every turn, on some level, you are trying to emulate it. Obama/Biden is failing to deliver something, here, in the very moment it is promising it.

10. Palin was at her best when she quoted Reagan. Americans are glorious and wonderful and deserve everything good that any other country deserves. Credit for being decent, when we are — and we are, quite often — the right and privilege to defend ourselves, to conduct ourselves as a civilized nation as we see fit, and to emit the hell out of everything with our pollution. Okay, that last one I’m just kind of pulling out of my butt. But the point is…fer God’s sake quit apologizing for existing! If you sympathize with that, your choice on Nov. 4 is quite clear, and the An Idea Bomb guys don’t have a lot to do with it.

Update: Ah, I had this one rattling around in my cranium and it leaked out my ears before I hit the “Publish” button. Dang it. It’s probably the most important one out of everything.

11. Comes under the heading of “potentially fatal blows to the Obama/Biden campaign” — another opportunity not taken. It happened when Biden was yelling over and over again, emphatically, and I think (?) pounding his hand on the podium “Obama and I will end this war, we will end it, we will end it.”

His jugular was exposed in that moment. Gov. Palin could have drawn a razor-sharp blade right across it, simply by taking advantage of a dramatic pause and then saying, “You and Barack Obama wouldn’t be able to decide that, Senator. Not unilaterally.”

It’s a critical point to make. That’s really what the election, insofar as foreign affairs go, is all about. When two forces are at war, does one side get to decide unilaterally that the fighting is going to end even though the other side doesn’t have its mind made up to behave-n-play-nice? This year, our liberal democrats insist that the answer is yes. One side can say “Okeedoke! It’s time for some peace!” and all the fighting will come to a stop.

Palin seems insistent on repeating talking points over and over again that help substantiate John McCain is the only decent choice for our nation’s President next year. In this respect, it’s really true. Our democrats think you can end a war just by wishing for it to end. We can’t afford for them to run anything. Not a flower cart, not a veterinary hospital, not a football team, and most certainly, not the country.

Update: Michelle Malkin liveblogged. Enjoy.

Update: Cassy too. And Melissa. And Sister Toldjah. Andrew Sullivan has his contribution, here. Wonkette. Althouse. Stop The ACLU.

Yes, I’m mixing you all up, in no particular order. No offense intended.

Living Happily Ever After

Thursday, October 2nd, 2008

Blogger friend Cassy dug up an old prayer from a couple weeks ago, to be delivered on bended knee before the nearest shrine to The Lightworker.

I’ve officially been saved, and soon, whether they like it or not, the rest of the country will be too. I will follow him, all the way to the White House, and I’ll be standing there in our nation’s capital in January 2009, when Barack Obama is inaugurated as the 44th president of the United States of America. In the name of Obama, Amen.

Yeah, I think it’s serious. I’d like to think it’s satire, but I have no reason to.

Good heavens. What’s going on here?

Well — the answer lies in the lack of commitment by the Obama/Biden ticket to actually fix anything. We aren’t going to end racial tension once and for all by swearing in Obama. Everybody understands this is true. Talking points are already being rehearsed, right now, that the racists will have won if we fail to re-elect President Obama in 2012.

If the democrat party runs everything, it will deal with “global warming” very much like the dog who caught the car. There is no goal there. None at all. Ditto for the economy. They might shoot for making it not suck…but if they fail even there, they’ll just say they “inherited” a bunch of problems from you-know-who.

Alison CarrollMore than one “princess” has been raised to womanhood on Brothers Grimm fairy tales, convinced that once she cuts the cake and zips off to the honeymoon, life will be wonderful and perfect. And then been subsequently disappointed to learn all about the responsibilities of adulthood, from diapers that need changing to husbands living life for the moment, waxy yellow buildup, divorce lawyers, etc. Said princesses were brought up to deal with life by not believing in it — by looking forward to a complete eradication of all the exigencies and uncertainties that go with the living of life. That’s where the slobbering Obama fan is. That is precisely where the Obama fanbase is. They think the Chosen One will place his hand on the Bible, take the oath, and everything will smell like unicorn farts.

That’s the weakness of their campaign, right there. They have found a replacement deity, because they’ve needed one; and they’ve needed one, because they don’t understand the first thing about any of the issues, foreign or domestic.

Gov. Palin, if you’re reading this, that’s your advice for tonight. Every single issue has a goal, a vision, and a strategy for getting there. Take over Gwen Ifill’s job, and pepper Biden with questions about these. Because he’s guaranteed to be missing all of those; especially the strategies. He and the Lightworker can’t afford to have any.

How the Veep Debate Will Go Down

Thursday, October 2nd, 2008

It will be a repeat of the George Galloway and Christopher Hitchens debate, with Biden appealing to emotion and Palin appealing to reason. Palin’s supporters will give her credit for saying true things; Biden’s supporters will give him credit for his capable cheerleading. Both sides will be right. In other words, there will be no, or few, converts.

Biden will make an attempt to re-do Lloyd Bentsen’s You’re No Jack Kennedy comment, and fail. It’ll be one step forward and three steps back, leaving him with a massive flesh wound. But this will be played down.

Here is your drinking game: Take a sip if either one says “(John McCain/Barack Obama) and I will…” Just that. Make it two sips if “that is why” comes just ahead of this.

The real debate will be all about whose running mate is the new Messiah whose poop doesn’t stink — wonderful and perfect in every way. So if you do play my drinking game, you’ll have to stop it when the room starts spinning around you.

It’s hard to discuss the subprime bailout mess without making some mention of the role “regulation” had in causing it, and infuriatingly, everyone involved has shown a great determination to avoid any mention of this. Therefore, the time spent on the bailout issue will be brief. Most of the language used, on both sides, will have to do with “rising above partisanship” to “do what’s best for the country.”

Wonder Palin!Fact checkers will be working hard. Palin’s misstatements will be equivalent to that thing about the Bush Doctrine; she’ll be technically right but they’ll raise some quibble with it, ready to list right after the sign-off, that night. Biden’s problems will be big ol’ suckin’ whoppers, like the “FDR on teevee right after the stock market crashed” thing. Those will be inspected…oh…sometime late Friday afternoon when nobody’s paying attention.

Palin has a choice here. She can stick to talking points and make a fool out of herself. In which case, she’ll still win, as far as facts are concerned — because the facts are on her side. But she’ll tick off her base, while the blue-state crowd goes nuts over what a thorough thrashing she got from Biden the Shark. Or…she can talk about conservative policies versus liberal policies, exploring why liberal policies exchange too much freedom and seldom-to-never accomplish what they’re supposed to. If she takes that route, she could stick to examples that are fresh, that have not been discussed, and still be blessed with a target-rich environment. Again: No matter what, there will be few converts at the end of the debate. But this will have a significant effect on the poll results over the weekend, which is probably what matters most to both sides.

Oh, and the late night comedians will be unanimous in declaring Biden the winner.

Update: Gerard likes the picture (as do we). I clipped it a couple weeks ago and have been looking for an excuse to use it. It’s from 50 of the Hottest Chicks Dressed as Wonder Woman and the tip of the hat goess to Miss Cellania.

Cheeseburgers and Crap

Wednesday, October 1st, 2008

I love it when someone comes up with an analogy that works in so many different ways. FrankJ, capturing an accurate and concise picture of exactly what’s going on, as only he can.

It’s like you’re hungry, and the Democrats are like, “Here; eat some crap. Yummy crap. Mmm.” The Republicans, on the other hand, have cheeseburgers. Sometimes they’re really good cheeseburgers you get at a sit-down restaurant that is like a steak between two slices of bread, but more often than not it’s just McDonald’s cheeseburgers…here’s what you’re constantly told in the media:

“Yay! Crap tastes so great! Everyone loves eating crap!” “The new choice of smart people: Tasty tasty crap.” “All the trendy Hollywood types are eating crap and they’re loving it.” And if cheeseburgers gets a mention it’s like:

“News report: Cheeseburgers give you cancer. Scientist recommend eating crap instead.”

Lest anyone think FrankJ is inventing a strawman for his argument, let them inspect closely Rachel Lucas’ link to actor Stephen Weber’s latest…uh…whatever you call it about the upcoming veep-debate…

[Gov. Sarah Palin] has her fans, guys who respond to her pulchritude like drugged lab rats and dunderheaded women who can’t look past Palin’s gender to see her other disqualifying traits, like she’s a dolt. If being a woman was all it took to engender unflinching loyalty, why not have one with actual political experience, like Eva Braun or Madame Nhu? That they’ve been dead for some time should only be a speed bump on the way to shattering that glass ceiling, ladies!

Joe Biden may have his hands full with this Every Gal. He can’t use his superior intellect and experience against her lest he come across as a meany-bucket. He can’t patronize her or kill her with kindness because Todd might think the Senator’s flirting with her and beat the hair plugs off him. No, he’s got to play this just right. When the Repustules’ successful strategy has been to set the bar so low that even krill would be pissed off if they inferred that anyone thought them unqualified to be elected to high office (see George W. Bush, 2000), one must tread carefully.

If only those who think convicted murderers are more deserving of life than unborn babies, would have nominated someone better qualified to be our next President. Their skins wouldn’t be quite so thin.

Right Wing News Poll on the Bailout

Tuesday, September 30th, 2008

Nobody reads this blog — of course! — but we were nevertheless invited to participate in an informal poll of right-wing blogs by Right Wing News. As we responded, we were politely requested to keep a wrap on things until the deadline passed…with the results now posted, the coast is clear to unveil our responses, complete with notes, snarky remarks, etc., exactly as we shipped ’em off.

1) Is the PRIMARY cause of this crisis…
A) Deregulation, market forces, and Wall Street?
B) Government interference in the market?

B), and anyone who chooses A) is simply demonstrating they haven’t been paying attention. To this issue, or any other issue related.

93% of respondents agreed.

2) Do you support the bailout?
A) Yes
B) No

B). Although I understand the situation may very well be bad enough, that compromise will be necessary lest a calamity have a devastating effect on everyone. Government interference, after all, is all about lashing everyone together. That is the intent, and it is impossible for that not to be the ultimate effect; so I have to acknowledge we’re probably all in the same boat, by design. I believe the very least that’s going to have to happen is some kind of low-interest loan, hopefully one secured with collateral. Good collateral. Not the moose-feces mortgage-paper that started this sinkhole in the first place.

71% of respondents agreed.

3) Politically, is it smarter for Republicans in Congress to support or oppose the bailout?
A) Support
B) Oppose

I believe if my answer to 2) was codified as an official policy, the ultimate effect would be a complete or near-complete salvaging of this mess PLUS unprecedented popular support. Why nobody has thought of it, probably has to do with powerful interests who’d be hostile to it — plus — a beltway mentality that hinders even invigorated, educated minds from seeing the obvious.

In the interest of answering your question unambiguously so you can tabulate my responses easily, I choose B).

69% of respondents agreed.

4) If John McCain signs on to the bailout, does it help or hurt his chances of getting elected?
A) Help
B) Hurt

At this point McCain and Obama are in a fight over undecideds. I refused to support him until late August, because I know in politics the undecideds are the people who — ironically — decide things. (grin) Now that he’s picked Sarah Palin, and as a direct consequence I have declared my support for him, I’ve used up whatever trivial influence I have as a registered voter as well as as a blogger. (Yeah, tremble in fear before the righteous fury of The Blog That Nobody Reads.)

To put it more concisely, the folks like me who signed on because of Sarah Palin, are in. Or else, if we’re not, nobody cares. McCain continues to have problems with his “base,” but these problems pale in consideration to the more urgent business of winning converts from the middle, and from behind enemy lines. Anyone who’s undecided at this point — they are highly unlikely to be unimpressed with McCain’s opposition to the bailout. They’re more likely to be impressed with that “rising up above bipartisanship to move the country forward” snake oil. Therefore, I would have to choose A).

I hate like the dickens to admit it, but McCain would have to be a fool to try to win converts away from Bob Barr, at the expense of winning converts away from the guy who has a far better shot at walking away with this whole thing. It would be the right thing to do to oppose the bailout, but it would be stupid politics. I hope he just comes up with an unorthodox and ingenious answer of some kind, that’s good for the country, just like he did on August 29.

55% of respondents agreed with me in choosing A).

Palin Orders a Cheesesteak

Tuesday, September 30th, 2008

Thoughts:

1. See, this is why I can’t run for public office. Where the cheesesteak lady asks for a name and Gov. Palin proudly says, “Sarah.” I’d be sunk right there. I stopped using “Morgan” and switched to “Sam” several years ago, after I realized I was spending more time having idiotic conversations about “did you know that’s the name of a car (or horse)?” and “did you know that’s German for ‘morning’?” than eating my sandwich, dropping off my dry cleaning, or whatever else. So she’d ask me my name, I’d say “Sam,” we’d have a nationwide scandal, Barack Obama would ask how I can stare down Vladimir Putin if I can’t even tell anyone what my real name is, Saturday Night Live would do a skit…no, don’t draft me. Stick to Sarah and that old guy she’s running with.

2. Ah, one of my favorite things. She smiled into a camera with a cell phone held up to her ear. Well, that’ll cost her, but only just barely; she can afford to lose a point or two in my book.

3. She talked about If That’s What We Have To Do To Defeat The Terrorists. The Manhattan crowd is making fun of her because she continues to lapse into this. It is lame when the question is about something else, and it’s obvious she’s been rehearsed on talking points and can’t provide an answer that gels with what she’s been given…but then again…she’s talking about the very most important issue in this election. That spells leadership. A hell of a lot better than babbling away about globular wormening.

4. Looks a lot like Geno’s.

5. Pennsylvania is one of three battleground states that are way too close to call; Pennsylvania is currently the “bluest” out of those three. I don’t know how Florida is going to do, but I’ll bet Pennsylvania and Ohio are both red this year.

6. Isn’t it interesting what polar opposites Sarah Palin and Barack Obama are? It’s gotten to the point where you can’t help but notice it. Palin is surrounded by ankle-biters trying to trip her up about the “Bush Doctrine,” et al, and she just keeps her sunny disposition. Obama is somber, morose, something of a nattering nabob of nastiness, even though he’s surrounded by fawning media darlings that lob softballs at him and kiss his ass all day. Interesting.

H/T: Hot Air.

Palin Lacks Cowardice

Monday, September 29th, 2008

I seriously tinkered around with the idea of simply including this as an update to the post previous. And maybe that would have been the better way to handle it since the subject here is nearly identical. But in the end I thought Prof. Adams’ comments were deserving of higher profile.

His argument: Palin does not inspire this seething hatred from the paleofeminist subfaction within our angry liberal syndicate because of her propensity to make herself awkward and foolish in interviews. Instead, she inspires said seething hatred because of her willingness to do so. It makes perfect sense to me. When someone behaves awkwardly in public and ends up the butt of a number of jokes, it is more than natural for observers to deride, to denigrate, to sneer, and most of all to poke fun. But…this, by itself, doesn’t inspire anger. Not even a tiny bit of it. Pity, maybe. But not anger. Palin did something to make people, especially paleofeminists, exceptionally angry.

I think [the anger]…has a lot to do with Palin’s personality – specifically with her personal courage and ability to think and act independently.

Those who don’t work around feminists fail to realize fully their incapacity for independent thought and action. The feminist response to a recent controversy in my department (Sociology and Criminology) provides a good example of what I’m talking about.
:
[There follows a somewhat involved and lengthy anecdote about a new, outspoken, male Provost]
:
Finally, at the end of the week, when faculty in my department began to criticize the Provost via emails sent on the department email list, an interesting pattern emerged. First, one male professor sent an email criticizing the Provost. Then a second male professor joined in followed by a third, fourth, and fifth male professor. At the end of the day, five male professors exercised their First Amendment right to free speech.

Of course, not a word was to be heard from a feminist…It reminded me of my first free speech controversy at UNCW some eleven years ago. In that controversy, numerous males expressed their opinions about a controversy surrounding “indecent” sexual speech in the student newspaper. Finally, two dozen feminists signed their “joint” opinion on the matter. The males acted as individuals, the feminists acted as a pack.
:
[Gov. Palin does not] behave the way my feminist colleagues behave in the workplace. She has a faith in God that inspires courage. She has courage that inspires individualism. And, clearly, she lacks the cowardice that is a pre-requisite for radical feminism.

There you have it. Feminists are angry at Palin for doing something they themselves have chosen not — and thus, over a lifetime, have chosen not to be able — to do. Makes perfect sense to me. Says it all.

What I Know About People Minus What I Was Told When I Was A Child, Item #24: People who imagine themselves as part of a group, with no individual identity, don’t want anyone else to have an individual identity either.

SNL Parody of Palin Couric Interview

Monday, September 29th, 2008

Conservative Republicans. They look so silly when you pretend they say things they never actually said. But that’s okay, because it’s parody…the parody capitalizes on the reputation they’ve built for themselves…and they have the reputation because of a mixture involving just a nugget of things they really did do or say, plus truckloads and truckloads of incidents of more pretending they said things they never actually said.

But that little smidgen of reality is always there, with decent parody. And there certainly is an ample morsel here.

What an incredible disaster Sarah Palin is — she grapples with a dearth of talent in the fine art of bullshitting people. Certainly not the kind of leader we want for our country, huh liberals? Yeah…that Manhattan meme never seems to evolve, even slightly. Women should be left-wing and fugly, and elected officials with the greatest responsibilities should lie convincingly. Once a liberal aways a liberal, or else you don’t deserve to live, and of course anyone with black skin should support affirmative action or else drop dead from a heart attack. Burn our food for fuel; keep the fuel in the ground.

That is all quite silly. But out of all of it, I think demanding a talent for lying out of our nation’s leaders, takes the cake. It’s definitely a contender.

Seriously. What an interesting world in which you people live.

Sarah’s Got Legs

Saturday, September 27th, 2008

It’s become an “everyone else is bloggin’ it, I might as well do it too” thing. But man, I do love a good-lookin’ pair of female legs. Especially if they’re attached to a lady with class, brains and a good sturdy value-system.

They’re trying to play it up into some kinda scandal, I’m told. Figgers. This is the slovenly strumpet who bought herself a TANNING BED!!!11!!1!ELEVENTY!!

Hat Tip: Oh jeezus, where to begin…Jawa, via The Other McCain, via Stop The ACLU, via Conservative Grapevine. Also blogging is a bunch of jealous ladies such as Cassy, Elizabeth Snead of the Los Angeles Times, Mahalo, Gawker, Explorations, Power Line…and a bunch of others. Funny. Left-wingers looking for a betrayal of FAMILEE VALYOOZ…about which said left-wingers couldn’t possibly care less…for four freakin’ weeks solid. They finally come across something they think will chip away at Palin’s base — they toss it at the right-wing bloggers like a lean top sirloin to a pack of starving dobermans. And everyone pretty much reacts the same way as me. “Dang! She’s nice-lookin’. If I was undecided about her before seeing this, I wouldn’t be now.”

The legs that launched a million search queries.

Seriously though, where’s the scandal? A Vice President with a fantastic pair o’ pins. This is like reason #358 for voting McCain/Palin.

Best Sentence XLI

Saturday, September 27th, 2008

The forty-first award for the Best Sentence I’ve Heard Or Read Lately (BSIHORL) goes to Victor Davis Hanson…via small-tee tim the godless heathen (who I named), posting at Rick’s blog Brutally Honest. Here it is.

I think it is much harder for a mother of three or four in an out-of-the-way Alaskan town to get elected to city council and the mayorship, then take on the entire Republican establishment and get elected governor than it is for a Barack Obama to emerge from Chicago politics into the Illinois state house and later Senate.

Of course, Barack Obama is not running against this mother from the Alaskan town. He’s running against that old guy who happens to be on her ticket. But, y’know…all things considered, I think people like me have a lot more to learn from people like her, than we do from people like Sen. Obama, for the reason spelled out above.

Now Sen. McCain (and handlers). Could you please un-hitch her from those “John McCain is a better Messiah than that other guy” and “bipartisanship” talking points, really cut ‘er loose, so we can see the kind of fire and passion that saved your ass from electoral oblivion in the first place? Pretty please?

This Is Why I’m a Palin Fan

Friday, September 26th, 2008

Yes, it’s probably one of the last clips you’d show someone to help bolster that, if you really wanted to be convincing. Especially around 0:50, where she is clearly over her head.

It’s abundantly obvious to me, and everyone else who watched this, that Sarah Palin lacks skill in the fine art of talking eloquently and compellingly when she doesn’t have, or doesn’t want to discuss, the most sincere answer to a question.

It comes right up to, and falls just barely short of, suggesting a lack of brainpower. It seems like such a devastating assault. Now then — complete the argument for me.

In the most powerful positions in our nation’s government, it is vitally important that we have people who possess bullshitting skills superior to Sarah Palin’s…because…?

This is exactly why I was ready to order champagne when I heard Palin got picked. “My understanding was…” may seem like a feeble thing to say, and it seems like that because that’s exactly what it is. Feeble. It demonstrates a lack of knowledge. You see, that’s what people who don’t know the answer off the top of their heads, do — if they’re honest. That’s how decent people conduct themselves. Decent people do not indulge in a bunch of spin and hyperbole and say “well the real question, Katie, is why did this administration…blah blah blah.”

Yeah, I know what that looks like. I know how good it looks. And I understand it takes some skill to deliver the act with some polish. But, like everyone else who’s been paying attention — I know what it gets us. And I’ve had quite enough of it, thank you. As Phil was pointing out a couple days ago: A good salesman is something you need if the thing you’re trying to sell is a piece of junk.

I’ll take Sarah. It’s called, sticking to what you know, and when backed into a corner about something else, just admit it instead of pulling something stupid and false out of your ass, and maybe screwing something up. Call it a moose-hunting software-designing network-administrator-engineering thing. You media types just wouldn’t understand.

Palin Scandals

Thursday, September 25th, 2008

NY Daily News has a portfolio of Sarah Palin scandals, what’s true and what’s not.

It’s really, really stupid. Be forewarned. Yeah, they’re putting some serious credibility on the tanning bed…they are.

The aptly named Common Mistakes put together the same list with a lefty-blogger’s gusto a few weeks before, and has been adding onto it since. So did Open Left, and quite a few other places.

What’s next. I peer into my crystal ball, and see:

1. Positiongate. Sarah Palin, a Republican governor, actually makes decisions that way. She won’t confiscate guns or support baby-killing like a good liberal democrat. Scandal! (Actually, they’re already trying to play up exactly that, with the mother-in-law thing.)
Desperate Search!2. Papergate. Applying the Sheryl Crowe toilet paper standard to the Palin houshold, our investigative reporters found the family to be consuming about five or six times as much teepee as would be necessary under the one-sheet-per-visit rule.
3. Dolphingate. The little thingy that holds six-packs of soda together. The Palin household doesn’t properly slit them up before throwing them in the trash; at least, at press time, we couldn’t prove that they do. Who knows how many dolphins have expired due to this family’s cruelty and neglect.
4. Dinnerforkgate. Gov. Palin was caught eating a salad with one. Or so I hear. Let her prove me wrong.
5. KKK-gate. Sarah Palin is 44. Divide that by 4, you get eleven. The eleventh letter of the alphabet is the letter K. The name “Alaska” has the letter K. Let’s see her defend against or explain-away this one. Burn any crosses on anyone’s lawn lately, Sarah?
6. Sexygate. Sarah Palin looks good. So, some female bloggers have noticed, does her husband Todd. Doesn’t she realize how bad this makes un-cute people feel? Has she no compassion?
7. Successgate. Sarah has been winning elections. Her husband Todd has been winning dog sled races. Whenever you win, someone else has to lose. And the people who never win or lose, it makes ’em feel just plain bad. Again, doesn’t she care about anybody else’s feelings?
8. Joe Biden Mind Control gate. Ever since she’s joined the ticket, Joe Biden has been engaging in one serious gaffe after another. Coincidence? I think not. Obviously, Sarah Palin has Joe Biden under some kind of mind control. Whatever it takes to win, huh Sarah?
9. Midnight-Sun gate. Experts note that ever since Sarah Palin has become Governor of Alaska, parts of the state have been gripped by summers in which the sun never sets, and winters in which there is never any daylight. More information is needed to ascertain whether this is due to global warming or some kind of witchcraft. Let the investigations begin!
10. Purity gate. For nearly a month now left-wing bloggers have been hard at work trying to find a topless photo of Sarah Palin, or for that matter even a genuine bikini photo. To date, their efforts have been frustrated. What the hell is up with that? It’s high time Palin supplied an explanation!

I don’t know about you, but I’m just amazed one public servant can have that much baggage. Republicans. Sheesh. Where in the world do they find these people?

Lightworker Guy: Some Women Are Really That Dumb

Saturday, September 20th, 2008

How dumb?

Women Heart PalinMaybe this is our simple summary, the blaring headline we should be reading in the wake of recent events. “Easily duped Palin supporters prove: Some white women are just as dumb as men.”

So they’re like assorted chocolate-covered candies, huh? Everyone shares their little secrets for avoiding the dumb ol’ orange and strawberry sherbet ones…stay away from the round ones. You have to look out for the white women? Some of them are not only dumb, but man-dumb? Dark ones are alright?

How embarrassing. How toxic. Archie Bunker, at his lowest ebb, had nothing separating him from Mark Morford other than the political-incorrectness of his reckless smearing and stereotyping. You remember Morford, don’t you…the lightworker guy.

The biggest disgrace of all — no, it isn’t that the guy just starts out with the presumption that men are stupid, and the worst thing a woman can do is to show herself to be man-dumb…when he’s a man. No, it isn’t that. It’s that you can scan, skim and scrutinize his piece from top to bottom, and back again, looking for logical, reasoned arguments about why you need to vote for The Enlightened One over McCain/Palin. Policy differences. You’re just looking in the wrong place. Nothing but a bunch of bludgeoning, cudgeling and bullying here: Vote for our guy, or you’re just a big dummy. Now for some more prose and poetry about what big dummies certain white women are.

Good job, left-wing. Trading one brand of bigotry for another. And in only 45 years or so.

Hat Tip: Jawa.

Prayer, God and War

Saturday, September 20th, 2008

Via Gerard.

Yin and Yang XII

Saturday, September 20th, 2008

Fey and PoehlerLost amidst all the hubbub about what a perfect-ten skit opened last weekend’s Saturday Night Live — by the way, I’d characterize it as a “well above par nine,” but who’s counting — was a far more poignant commentary about forty-five minutes in (counting commercial breaks). It was during the Weekend Update segment, when Amy Poehler was interviewing “Alaska Pete,” a clumsy caricature of the slobbering Palin fan…like me.

Not to worry, I took it in good humor. I just thought this exchange was interesting. The Manhattan crowd, you’ll be pleased to know, has finally come up with a sound bite to answer this Fred Thompson thing about field-dressing a moose. It’s a rhetorical question.

Alaska Pete: Yeah, she’s gonna be the best Vice President in history. She’s a flip! That woman can field dress a moose!

Amy Poehler: What does that have to do with being Vice President?

Awesome! That’s what the election is all about. It cuts to the very heart of Sarah Palin’s weakness as a candidate. It highlights her irrelevancy. And best of all, it can’t be answered!

Actually, it can. Ms. Poehler, I’d like to field this one if you don’t mind. Nobody ever reads my blog, of course, but over here we’ve discussed this many-a-time — here, here, here, here, here, here and here. And before that we picked it to death here, here, here and here.

It is Yin and Yang. Which could be thought of as a derivative offshoot of Carl Jung’s introverts and extraverts. Except it’s not the same thing.

Recall that an introvert is someone who is quiet, reserved, thoughtful, and self-reliant whereas the term “extravert” is used to refer to people who are are often leaders, work well in groups, and prefer being with others to being alone.

Yin and Yang is slightly different from that. The best way to describe it is in term of effort; lifetime effort. Introversion and extraversion are states — Yin and Yang are activities. They refer to the wrinkles we carve in our brains, womb-to-tomb, as we take on life’s little challenges in the manner we have conditioned ourselves to think.

You can certainly be a Yin and at the same time be an extravert. Sarah Palin herself may very well be an excellent example of this. I can’t state that for certain without getting to know the lady and spending a great deal of time around her, something that isn’t likely to happen. One of the things I’ve noticed about these people is that the more intelligent they are, the harder it is to figure out whether they’re Yin or Yang, even if their inclinations are running very strong under the surface. But from what little I’ve seen, Palin seems to be strongly extraverted.

Extravert or not, however, Sarah Palin is definitely a Yin. And the nation is hungry for Yin in their leadership positions. Field dressing a moose, to answer Poehler’s question, exemplifies the very definition of Yin because you can’t do any field dressing until you have a body to dress.

This also explains why there is so much anger at Gov. Palin for coming as far as she has as quickly as she has. What she’s done is beat super-Yang Barack Obama at his very own game. This term “natural born leader” that is so often affixed to the Yang, is actually a myth. It’s really there only to make them feel good. Leaders decide things. They do not depend on others to decide things.

And here’s the definition of the Yin. It is an individual to whom it comes as second-nature to conduct this intellectual task of translating facts into opinions about what’s goin’ on, and opinions about what’s goin’ on into other opinions about what to do. The Yang, on the other hand, possess superior aptitudes that have to do with figuring out what a roomful of people are (is) thinking…and then articulating that consensus, eloquently and with confident command, before anybody else does.

They often end up in charge of things. That’s why groups of people don’t excel at making good decisions. Too often, they are commanded by someone whose lifelong pursuits involve running to the front of this or that parade…after they figure out where it’s going. It’s a rather glittery, gaudy and empty form of leadership.

The big elephant in the room is that the Yang don’t really want to run anything. They aren’t self-sufficient. The personality of a Yang is the culmination of a lifetime spent eluding Rumspringen — this is what leads to the extraverted behavior. It isn’t so much that in solitude they are lonely, although there may be some of that; instead, it’s that in solitude they lose their cognitive ability. Their methods of deciding what to do have to do with resonating emotionally with those around them. And that includes Barack Obama. They want the identity that comes from having one’s name in a box at the head of an org chart, but getting stuck with a decision that might turn out to be rotten later on, really puts ’em off. A new “Dilbert” cartoon is born every time they figure out how to grab the credit for making one of these decisions, without being bogged down by the associated blame should it turn out to be wrong.

That, Ms. Poehler, is what field dressing a moose has to do with executive authority at the top of this nation’s government. I’m unacquainted with moose hunting myself, but it isn’t too hard to guess: Perceiving, molding, shaping and commanding a group consensus doesn’t do you an awful lot of good out there.

Palin!This is powerful, because it transcends liberal-versus-conservative. It’s even more powerful than that other issue of which party is going to elect the first woman President in our nation’s history. We need some real leadership; people who know right from wrong, not just talk a good game about it. We don’t need more “articulate” people, regardless of their skin color. We have a rich history, as it is, of confusing real leadership with gift-of-gab. Maybe, just maybe, we’re growing out of it now. Maybe we’re starting to realize that we don’t need better salesmen.

After all, a good salesman is something you need if the thing you’re trying to sell is a piece of junk.

A good thinker, on the other hand, is something you need when there are decisions to be made, and they’re important. Our ivory-tower blue-staters will go to quite a few lengths to avoid admitting this…but fishing and hunting takes real brains. Not just talk-a-good-game brains, laughey-talkey-jokey brains, but figger-out-what-to-do brains.

So with that in mind, the nation turns it’s lonely eyes to someone who’s clearly better practiced in making good decisions, than in ducking the blame after making poor ones.

Thing I Know #110. Everyone’s willing to bet an unlimited measure of resources from a company, corporation, committee, council, organization or club, that the “smartest guy in the room” really is the smartest guy in the room. Because of that, the smartest guy’s ideas usually go unopposed. I have noticed it’s extremely rare that anyone, anywhere, would bet one dime of their personal fortune that he’s really that smart. This may explain why some of the best decisions I’ve seen, were made outside of conference rooms.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.