Archive for October, 2008

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.

That’s His Throwaway Line

Saturday, October 11th, 2008

My thoughts, exactly, the first time I heard it…and I’ve heard it many times since then. Oh, and look, there’s something special about the guy who agrees with me about it.

A Yonkers, N.Y., councilman whose home was bombed nearly four decades ago by the Weather Underground says Barack Obama should know better than to associate with the domestic terror group’s co-founder, Bill Ayers.

“Barack Obama constantly says, ‘I was only 8 years old when this happened.’ That’s kind of his throwaway line,” John Murtagh told FOX News Thursday morning.

“I’m not questioning what Barack Obama was doing when he was 8 years old. I’m questioning his behavior as an adult to choose his friends, mentor and longtime personal and professional colleague.”

I believe I’ve asked this question before:

If a United States President possesses deplorable judgment about people, does it even matter whether or not he possesses decent judgment about things?

A Vote For Obama Is a Vote For American Royalty?

Saturday, October 11th, 2008

You kinda have to wonder when you see postings like this. You have to wonder if, a year or two down the road, the Obama supporter look back at such items and say to himself, in the privacy of his own cranium, “that, right there, was my warning.”

The McCain folks are more helpful and generally friendly. The schedules are printed on actual books you can hold in your hand, read, and then plan accordingly. The press aides are more knowledgeable and useful to us in the news media. The events are designed with a better eye, and for the simple needs of the press corps. When he is available, John McCain is friendly and loquacious. Obama holds news conferences, but seldom banters with the reporters who’ve been following him for thousands of miles around the country. Go figure.

The McCain campaign plane is better than Obama’s, which is cramped, uncomfortable and smells terrible most of the time. Somehow the McCain folks manage to keep their charter clean, even where the press is seated.

The other day in Albuquerque, N.M., the reporters were given almost no time to file their reports after McCain spoke. It was an important, aggressive speech, lambasting Obama’s past associations. When we asked for more time to write up his remarks and prepare our reports, the campaign readily agreed to it. They understood.

Similar requests are often denied or ignored by the Obama campaign aides, apparently terrified that the candidate may have to wait 20 minutes to allow reporters to chronicle what he’s just said. It’s made all the more maddening when we are rushed to our buses only to sit and wait for 30 minutes or more because nobody seems to know when Obama is actually on the move.

Had I been aware of my surroundings continuously all the way back to 1776, I suspect — strongly — that I’d have the knowledge base necessary to substantiate the following: Our hunger for American royalty, thoroughly inexplicable in every way, is sustained moment by moment since the day we broke off from, and fought to be rid of, a British one. We seem to have an instinctive yearning to live our lives beholden to, and with a declared allegiance to, some spoiled brat.

Gerard has a different take on the situation, and sums it up in five words. Don’t miss.

Like a Bad Spouse With a Silver Tongue

Saturday, October 11th, 2008

Next time we’re tempted into our latest fling with quasi-socialism, maybe we should consider the Ann Landers approach: “Are you better off with him or without him?”

We were married on March 4, 1932. Since then, we’ve had trial separation after trial separation after trial separation…whenever we’re at our most depressed, he calls us in the middle of the night from a pay phone by the bus depot. And we get suckered back into it one more time. After all, nobody’s saying we should be neck-deep in old-fashioned socialism…a little bit ought to be okay, right?

Well, this latest reconciliation didn’t take long at all to go sour:

In the end, Congress approved the package—seeing as how the alternative was rising unemployment, a plunging stock market, and corporations unable to borrow to cover their short-term obligations. Now, with the bailout proceeding according to plan, Americans are confronted with…rising unemployment, a plunging stock market, and corporations unable to borrow to cover their short-term obligations.

That is not how things were supposed to go. On Sept. 25, The Washington Post endorsed the administration’s effort, warning that the nation faced a replay of 1929.

“This catastrophe can be avoided,” said the editorial, “and it will be if government promptly and effectively addresses the immediate cause of financial distress—the toxic build-up in unmarketable mortgage-backed securities on bank balance sheets.” (My emphasis.) The Treasury plan, it said, fit the bill.

But the effort to restore confidence and stabilize markets turned out to be, pardon the expression, a bust. After the bailout was signed into law on Friday, Oct. 3, investors had all weekend to contemplate its tonic properties but found none.

On Monday, the stock market looked like it had been pushed out of an airplane. The Federal Reserve was so alarmed by the credit situation that it decided to take the radical step of lending directly to businesses.

By then the rescue package was a fading memory. Instead of being safely contained, the turmoil intensified and spread far beyond Wall Street—to financial markets in Europe, Asia, and South America. Said a Tuesday news story in The New York Times, “Three days after the plan was approved, it looks like a pebble tossed into a churning sea.”

“Mistake” seems to be perhaps too charitable of a word. After all, we already had a teetering, towering stack of experiences that should’ve enabled us to know better.

This is more like an addiction.

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.

Our Acorn President

Friday, October 10th, 2008

H/T: Rottweiler.

Image credit: IMAO.

It’s Official…He’s a “Messiah”

Friday, October 10th, 2008

“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.

Illegal Aliens with Illegal Mortgages

Friday, October 10th, 2008

Newsbusters

A single report by KFYI radio of Phoenix, Arizona highlights a shocking claim made by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). HUD says that five million illegal aliens hold illegal mortgages. This is just one more example of the lax lending laws put into place by Democrats like Barney Frank that have contributed to this economic crisis. One would think this would be big news. But, so far we have only this one report to cover it.

There have been earlier stories of home flipping schemes that made liberal use of illegal aliens as straw buyers and the FBI has followed numerous cases to prosecution and conviction. But the Old Media have not done much with this story.

KFYI reports that these fraudulent straw purchases of mortgages by illegal aliens has affected every state in the union.

One illegal alien was arrested this year in Tucson after allegedly using a stolen social security number to buy two homes and rack up over $780,000 in bad debt.

Some five million fraudulent home mortgages are in the hands of illegal aliens, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

It’s not known how many of those have contributed to the subprime housing mortgage meltdown, but it has affected every state, including Arizona.

The problem began years ago when banks were forced to give mortgages without confirming social security numbers or borrower identification. As a result, illegal immigrants were able to obtain home mortgages which they could not afford.

Lax immigration laws have also helped make this crime easy to perpetrate.

In 1965 a Democrat Controlled Congress under President Lyndon Johnson passed the concept of “chain” immigration into law. A later commission named the Hesburgh Commission convened during Ronald Reagan’s first term, found that this concept statistically allowed each single immigrant to bring into this country 84 of his family members. Of course, all these people have to live somewhere making such fraudulent mortgages quite attractive.

But go on. Vote for the fellow with the most charismatic personality for your hopey changey goodness, and blame any hitches in the giddy-up on “eight years of Bush Cheney.”

Real life just isn’t that simple, m’friends.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

Best Sentence XLIII

Friday, October 10th, 2008

John Stossel snags the forty-third award for the Best Sentence I’ve Heard Or Read Lately (BSIHORL):

Everybody talked about the “freeze” in the credit markets, but why, I wonder, were the cable news programs that repeated the credit-freeze mantra pausing for commercials from companies trying to lend me money?

He goes on…

Ditech and LendingTree still hawk mortgages at under 6 percent. Some credit freeze.

Economist Robert Higgs of the Independent Institute looked at the credit numbers kept by the Federal Reserve. He writes: “Although certain financial institutions are undeniably in deep trouble — difficulties of their own making … — credit markets in general have not ceased to operate. Moreover, lenders are extending credit in historically great amounts“.

Maybe this is why CNN business reporter Ali Velshi broke ranks when reporting on “dried up” credit and said, “When I say ‘dried up,’ I don’t mean there’s no money. But you’d better have good collateral and good credit.”

What’s wrong with that?

You really should go read the whole thing. It’ll change your perspective…especially if you think the 1929 crash was some harbinger of doom regarding what’s about to happen to us next.

It’s the technology. Not what it used to be. Seventy-nine years is a long, long time.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

“With a Little Luck, They May Soon Be Orthodoxies”

Friday, October 10th, 2008

So writes Chatterbox, whom you may know as Timothy Noah, of Slate Magazine (H/T: Boortz). He’s referring to a little list he cooked up of things you can say, now, if you are a left-wing kook. His point is that with McCain’s defeat now an inevitability, these items might soon be embraced by the mainstream; you won’t have to be safely insulated from major political campaigns to say them out loud.

It still isn’t wise for Obama to say them, but maybe the New Complacency will loosen other tongues within the political mainstream. Even if it doesn’t, it’s fun to think about what those utterances might be. What follows is a list, compiled with help from my fellow Slate staffers. The views expressed don’t necessarily reflect those of the contributors—one of whom is a conservative Republican—or even me. But they sure are a refreshing change from what we’ve been hearing since 1981. With a little luck, they may soon be orthodoxies.

I think Karl Marx had some valuable insights into capitalist economies!

I think abortion should be safe and legal. Rare is fine, too, but the way to achieve that is contraception, baby!

I think Mormons are kooks!

The Second Amendment does too allow government to ban handguns!

Let’s standardize the federal age of consent at 16!

Promiscuity between consenting adults is good exercise!

Wheeeee! Isn’t this fun?

Health care is a service, not a business!

Pot is no more dangerous than vodka. Legalize it!

I don’t support the troops. I support some troops, depending on whether or not they’ve committed war crimes!

No more wars without United Nations or at least NATO support!

Saving the boulder darter was worth a few thousand jobs!

If Eastern Europeans think NATO will go to war to defend them against Russia, they’re out of their minds!

Ditto if Taiwan thinks the United States will go to war to defend it against China!

Let’s teach evolution in Sunday school!

The military-industrial complex is a greater menace than most foreign nations!

If Israel isn’t out of the occupied territories in six months, we’ll cut off all aid.

I think Chatterbox deserves a profound thank you from the electorate for revealing what we are really debating here with this election. Karl Marx had valuable insight into capitalist economies, huh? Government should dictate that evolution is taught in Sunday school? I thought the left-wingers were all about separation of church and state?

Now this all sounds quite out-there and absurd…but you know, he’s right. Among Obama supporters, none of these ideas are out of their localized “mainstream,” so can it really be said such tidbits won’t find greater acceptance in the new Age of Obama, or perhaps codified into public policy.

Some, among his supporters, think they’re good ideas. If I understand his context right, it looks like I have written proof.

Can we please re-schedule and re-do that ridiculous “townhall” debate? Call me nuts if you want, but I think the public has a right to know what exactly we’ve been arguing about.

Why Do I Have the Feeling…

Thursday, October 9th, 2008

…that Republicans won’t ever be innocent of these charges of “mudslinging,” until they actively campaign for democrats?

It’s disheartening to see the 2008 presidential campaign sink into smear tactics. This raises ugly echoes of the false Swift Boat accusations of 2004 and the racist Willie Horton ads of 1988.

Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin stooped to mud-slinging by saying Democrat Barack Obama “pals around with terrorists” because he served on boards with Dr. William Ayers, a 60-year-old University of Illinois distinguished professor who was a youthful leader of the radical Weather Underground one-third of a century ago, opposing the Vietnam War in the 1970s when Obama was a tot.

The McCain-Palin ticket should beware of such hatchet jobs, because both GOP nominees are vulnerable to counterattacks.

McCain betrayed his crippled first wife and lived with beer heiress Cindy Hensley, whose father had been convicted of mob bootlegging charges. McCain used Hensley money and connections to succeed in Arizona politics. He nearly sank politically because he pulled Washington strings to help crooked financier Charles Keating, who went to prison after his savings-and-loan chain cost U.S. taxpayers billions.

Palin is vulnerable because she has spent her life in Pentecostal churches where members speak in tongues, cast out demons, await the Rapture, practice faith healing and try to ward off witches. So far, the Obama-Biden campaign has declined to question her fitness in this regard.

Really, they have? They have so declined? The “in this regard” must be the magic loophole here. “Ah yes, we’ve questioned Sarah Palin’s fitness in the regard of being pro-life, of having five kids, of having not gone to Wellesly or Yale, of wearing porn-star hooker glasses, of buying a tanning bed, of being Governor only as long as our Messiah has been a Senator, of leaving herself vulnerable to her personal e-mail being illegally hacked, of her husband getting a DUI twenty-two years ago…but not specifically in the regard of speaking in tongues and handling snakes!”

Millions upon millions of voters this year are voting not quite so much for McCain, but against Barack Obama. Depending on your personal issue priorities, that’s quite a legitimate position to take — just as it’s quite a legitimate position to vote for Obama because you want the war to end (just, in my humble opinion, misguided…nevertheless, legitimate). If it’s legitimate for people to vote for McCain for this reason, that his opponent is unacceptable, it is quite legitimate for McCain to remind them of this, and to go after converts under the same rationale.

The editorial goes on to state…

After eight years of the Bush-Cheney administration, America faces a nightmare. The national debt has leaped past $10 trillion, with no stabilizing in sight. Three-quarters of a million U.S. jobs have been lost so far this year, including 159,000 last month. The stock market plunge has wiped out trillions in personal savings. The unnecessary Iraq war has killed more than 4,000 young Americans.

McCain is tied tightly to the Bush-Cheney agenda because he supported invading Iraq, supported deregulation that brought the Wall Street financial meltdown, and supported trillion-dollar tax giveaways to the wealthy that wrought monster deficits and the soaring national debt.

These are the overriding concerns of the 2008 presidential campaign. They mustn’t be camouflaged by petty mudslinging attacks.

Which raises my question — what is there for the McCain campaign to do, exactly? What if the McCain campaign woke up one morning and decided “Hey, let’s not do anything the esteemed editors of the Charleston Gazette don’t want us to do”? What then? Would the esteemed editors remain unsatisfied in their thirst for a civil tone, until the McCain headquarters started handing out Obama/Biden buttons?

From where I sit, that’s very likely to be the case. It’s like the joke of the corrupt defense attorney saying “I object, Your Honor, when the prosecution says he intends to prove my client’s guilt! It prejudices the jury for him to prove my client’s guilt!”

I jest, but only slightly. Insignificantly, in fact. We seem to have truly arrived at that moment in history at which Republicans are thought to engage in “smear tactics,” simply by pointing out the reasons why voters should choose them as opposed to the other guy.

Meanwhile, you ask Barack Obama what kind of syrup he wants to put on his waffles on any given morning, he can’t answer your question without going into some meaningless litany about how Bush has screwed something up. You know, in my world, if that’s not connected in some way to the question you were asking him…that adequately qualifies as “mud-slinging.” So from where I sit, he’s been doing that, and very little else, all year. Am I figuring that wrong? If so, where? And if not, when do we start going after the Obama/Biden ticket to start engaging a more civil tone and start answering our damn questions?

Around the World: A Private Jet Expedition

Thursday, October 9th, 2008

Via Steven Milloy’s Junk Science website, we learn of a very special WWF junket to go see lemurs. On other continents. On a private jet. Spewing tons and tons of carbon.

Meanwhile, you little people better switch to flourescent bulbs.

“Join us on a remarkable 25-day journey by luxury private jet,” invites the WWF in a brochure for its voyage to “some of the most astonishing places on the planet to see top wildlife, including gorillas, orangutans, rhinos, lemurs and toucans.”

For a price tag that starts at $64,950 per person, travelers will meet at the Ritz-Carlton in Orlando, Fla. on April 6, 2009 and then fly to “remote corners” of the world on a “specially outfitted jet that carries just 88 passengers in business-class comfort.” “World class experts — including WWF’s director of species conservation — will provide lectures en route, and a professional staff will be devoted to making your global adventure seamless and memorable.” Travelers will visit the Amazon Rain Forest in Brazil, Easter Island, Samoa, Borneo, Laos, Nepal, Madagascar, Namibia, Uganda or Rwanda, and finish up at the luxury Dorchester Hotel in London.

This is the very same WWF that says “the current growth in [carbon dioxide] emissions must be stopped as soon as possible” and that blames Americans for emitting 21 percent of global CO2 emissions even though the U.S. accounts for only 5 percent of the global population. In December 2007, the WWF launched its “Earth Hour” campaign, a global initiative in which cities and communities simultaneously turn out their lights for one hour “to symbolize their leadership and commitment to finding solutions for climate change.”

Oh, okay. So they’re not touting their luxurious private-jet world tour in the same breath as saying the CO2 emissions must be stopped as soon as possible.

For a second there, I was worried. Because that, of course, would be silly.

Men and Women – The Differences

Thursday, October 9th, 2008

Old. But a great find.

Call me a mushy sentimentalist, but I liked the ending the best.

Valenti Backpedals

Thursday, October 9th, 2008

Jessica Valenti says I can’t give her book a fair hearing unless I buy a copy of it and read it for myself. Sounds reasonable. It also sounds suspiciously convenient.

Anti-feminists tell me what my book is about: Turning teens into sluts!

I figured that my new book would get some negative attention from conservative blogs, but I kinda thought that would happen once the book was, you know…published.

But it seems that there’s no reason to wait for pesky things like the actual content of the book to start blogging about what The Purity Myth is all about. So apparently, the purpose of my book is to “turn America’s teenagers into raging whores.” Woo hoo!
:
House of Eratosthenes: “Feminism, somehow, has come to be about everyone who can be a slut, being one.”

But Cassy Fiano’s post was my fave, “Putting out is SO much better for girls than abstinence.” (And it’s not just because her blog design uses a rose/gun combo that speaks volumes.)

Fiano writes that I have an “obsession with sluttiness.”

Why is it so many feminists are so obsessed with turning teenage girls into raging whores? How is that something you tell girls they should aspire to?

…I honestly think that what most of this is about when it comes to feminists like Jessica is self-loathing… you know, misery loves company and all. I can’t help but see someone extremely misguided, bitter, and angry in Jessica and the feminists like her. What’s truly pathetic is that they aren’t content with screwing up their own lives. No… they’ve got to ruin the lives of American teenage girls as well.

What I find most interesting about Fiano and the other posts is that they’re the ones who are talking about ‘sluts’, ‘whores’ and women being promiscuous. (In fact, one of Fiano’s classy commenters suggests that I’m promiscuous and that’s why I wrote the book.) The book cover says nothing about sex, promiscuity or the like – they make that jump. Why? Because for conservatives and purity pushers, the only alternative to being a virgin is being [a] whore. There’s no in-between for them, there’s no complexity or nuance when it comes to sexuality. And that’s why I wanted to write this book. Seriously, these bloggers are making my point for me!

Another thing I found amusing about these responses was that almost all of them took the subtitle to mean that I think virginity is hurting young women, when what when I actually wrote is that “America’s obsession with virginity” is what’s damaging.

So for the record: I think virginity is fine, just as I think having sex is fine. I don’t really care what women do sexually, and neither should you. In fact, that’s the point. I believe that a young woman’s sexual choices – no matter what they be – shouldn’t have a bearing on how they’re seen as moral actors. I also believe that slut-shaming and fetishizing virginity is not just about only valuing women for their sexuality (or lack thereof), but that it’s also part of a larger agenda that seeks to regress women’s rights and return to traditional gender roles. But if you want to know more about that, you’ll have to read the book.

Oh, I see, so it’s not virginity that is damaging, it is the obsession with virginity. Feminists aren’t about young girls having as much sex as possible, they’re about people minding their own business. It all seems so clear now!

Except…it doesn’t. As Yoda said, “This one, a long time have I watched.” We are frequent visitors to Feministing. It’s one of the most entertaining sites on the net. Back in July, the site chose to attack Brad Henning, who gives abstinence-only presentations at schools. Now, I don’t have much of an opinion about Mr. Henning one way or another, and I don’t know how you feel about abstinence-only presentations.

But I was fascinated at Feministing’s choice of spokesperson against Mr. Henning. It was a girl who used to sit through Henning’s lectures, grown up into an older girl who’d lost her virginity, grown up still further into a married lady living in an open marriage, screwing another eight guys since tying the knot. She didn’t make much of a point with her letter, other than that she didn’t believe in abstinance-only education…a point lots of others could make. But good heavens, all the pats on the back she got from screwing lots of other guys, with her hubby’s consent, and with that background daring to boldly confront that awful Brad Henning!

As a point of interest, our marriage is open. My husband was the seventh man I slept with, and now that number has almost doubled to 15. Our marriage is more happy and healthy since we’ve opened it than it was before. This is because it is not sex which binds us together, but our commitment to each other. We are not wearing sex blinders. The key to a good marriage is trust and communication, two things that HAD to grow exponentially when our marriage opened up. If you wish to prepare students for solid marriages, then exercises in building trust and communication skills will take you much farther than telling the kids to just wait to have sex until they’re married.

Huh. I know quite a few married couples. I haven’t made the acquaintance of any open-relationship folks, since my days in Seattle…some twenty years ago. Wouldn’t it have been easier to find someone in a normal, monogamous union to offer this kind of personal testimony? Wouldn’t that message then be much clearer? I’d say if Feministing is concerned about confusion between its attacks on virginity, and obsessions with virginity — it’s only concerned about this to a certain extent. Not exactly losing sleep over it.

I don’t think there’s been any such confusion at all. This is pure backpedaling.

It’s not really about minding your own business; it’s about anybody who can be a slut, being one. Feminists may want others to mind their own business with respect to whether a young lady is keeping herself intact or not. But that doesn’t mean they themselves intend to mind their beeswax with regard to same. And yes, we have more than adequate reason to believe third-wave feminists in general, and Ms. Valenti & fellow modmins in particular, are infatuated with the idea of nubile young ladies ridin’ the baloney pony. The more the better. Cassy’s words ring true, and I’ll stand behind my own as well.

They aren’t hostile to the idea of chastity? I’ll take on that debate. But only with people who are familiar with the Feministing website. In the world of Feministing, parents must take absolute zero interest in whether their children are coming to sexual maturity in a responsible way. If they pay any attention to this at all, it is called “fetishizing.”

I nearly lost my mind when I read this gushing piece from Time Magazine about purity balls.

What was amazing to me about the reporting of this article was despite hearing all of these creepy anecdotes – and admitting that girls as young as four are participating in a ceremony about their virginity – writer Nancy Gibbs still managed to be smitten over the whole shebang.

But first…a creepy anecdote.

Kylie Miraldi has come from California to celebrate her 18th birthday tonight. She’ll be going to San Jose State on a volleyball scholarship next year. Her father, who looks a little like Superman, is on the dance floor with one of her sisters; he turns out to be Dean Miraldi, a former offensive lineman with the Philadelphia Eagles. When Kylie was 13, her parents took her on a hike in Lake Tahoe, Calif. “We discussed what it means to be a teenager in today’s world,” she says. They gave her a charm for her bracelet–a lock in the shape of a heart. Her father has the key. “On my wedding day, he’ll give it to my husband,” she explains. “It’s a symbol of my father giving up the covering of my heart, protecting me, since it means my husband is now the protector. He becomes like the shield to my heart, to love me as I’m supposed to be loved.”

Paging Dr. Freud! But Gibbs is loving it.

Leave aside for a moment the critics who recoil at the symbols, the patriarchy, the very use of the term purity, with its shadow of stains and stigma. Whatever guests came looking for, they are likely to come away with something unexpected. The goal seems less about making judgments than about making memories.

And making sure young women think their worth is dependent on whether or not they’re sexual. So, no Ms. Gibbs, I think I won’t “leave aside” that very real and very dangerous message. Thanks anyway!

Gibbs continues to totally miss the point:

Purity is certainly a loaded word–but is there anyone who thinks it’s a good idea for 12-year-olds to have sex? Or a bad idea for fathers to be engaged in the lives of their daughters and promise to practice what they preach? Parents won’t necessarily say this out loud, but isn’t it better to set the bar high and miss than not even try?

Are families who don’t expect their daughters to promise their virginity to their dads promoting sex for 12 year-olds? Can’t dads be engaged in the lives of their daughters without worrying about the state of their hymen? And is telling women that their moral compass lays in between their legs really setting the bar high?

Flowery language and valorizing these days doesn’t change what purity balls are about: the ownership and fetishizing of young girls’ sexuality.

Funny. If you open up the Time Magazine article and read it for yourself, what you find doesn’t have an awful lot to do with four-year-old girls being told their “worth” is measured by whether they have sex or not. You don’t even read anything, contrary to what you might expect, about contingencies laid down upon a young lady’s worth as a person. Quite to the contrary, what you read about is such pre-conditions being removed…as in…the girls are made to understand they don’t have to hook up with a guy in order to be worth something. I guess Valenti didn’t want you to read that part for yourself.

Kylie talks with an unblinking confidence about a promise that she says is spiritual, mental and physical. “It’s something I’m very proud of. I plan to keep pure until marriage. It’s a promise I made to myself–not pressure from my parents,” she says. She speaks plainly about what she wants in her life, what she thinks she has the power to control and what she doesn’t. “I’m very much at peace about this,” she says, and looks out across the twirling room. “I don’t feel like I need to seek a man. I will be found.”

Irony. This used to be what feminism was all about. Jessica Valenti says it’s creepy. What she means by “fetishization,” I don’t know for sure, and I’m not sure shelling out a bunch of greenbacks for her latest book will clear it up for me.

I do know one thing for absolute sure.

The brand of feminism practiced at Feministing, has very little, or nothing, to do with minding your own business. Feminists there regularly get involved, get their cackles up, write their letters, when old magazines are dug out of dusty archives that they find displeasing; or when advertisements for household cleaning products are aimed at women; or when private citizens choose to form their own opinions about Sarah Palin being a liberated woman (since she is one); or when said private citizens form other disturbing opinions, such as marriage being between a man and a woman.

Nope. Feministing’s brand of feminism has nothing to do with minding your own business.

Not unless the Feministing-feminists can keep an exemption from such a rule, for themselves.

About everything.

Having said that — glad they think us worthy of mention over there. Now we know we’ve arrived. Maybe by the end of next week we’ll be Keith Olberman’s Worst Person in the World.

Pretentious Snobbery Versus Common Sense

Thursday, October 9th, 2008

Dr. Melissa Clouthier dares — dares! — to make a distinction between the two.

Sarah Palin inspires vitriol for many reasons among the smug knobby-headed class. The latest unguarded moment came courtesy David Brooks who called Sarah Palin a “cancer on the party” to a group of writers from The Atlantic. (As AllahPundit points out, this outburst is a lot like Peggy Noonan’s opinion, also caught in an unguarded moment. And, of course, it differs little from Barack Obama’s “gun clinging” comment.)

Why do they dislike her so?

1. Her state school education and path to power devalues the elite’s Harvard training.
2. She’s homespun. Intellectuals despise homespun. They prefer the calculated indifference they’ve worked so hard to master over the years.
Red Sonja Palin3. Sarah doesn’t seem to care what they think. Perhaps her most grievous error is that she just doesn’t give a moose turd what David Brooks thinks. Everyone should care what David Brooks thinks. And Peggy Noonan. And the rest of the obnoxious snobs.

Here’s the thing, for those in the elite class, who go to parties and hang in social circles, they spend their time telling themselves a story: the story is that middle America is consumed with the provincial and that the provincial is horrible. It doesn’t occur to them that middle Americans have the same concerns and often discuss some of the same things as the elites, but that middle Americans have what is called a life which gives them a context in which to put these fancy-pants ideals. Many theories sound good in theory, but the small business people, and white and blue collar blokes have to actually live with the consequences of these theories know how they affect life practically.

What she’s talking about is What Is A Liberal? Part One. It’s Yin and Yang stuff. Before I connect that all together, take a look at what Melissa has to say a bit further down…

When a person has spent his whole life living theoretically, a person who lives real makes him feel insecure. The DC elites are no different than the actors in Hollywood. No wonder they all pal around together. At a certain point, their lack of concrete contributions and endless pontifications sounds hollow and empty. They want their lives to have meaning so they inflate their contributions in their own minds. No one dissuades them of the notion because they hang around people just like them.

Here’s a great example.

The oil companies are gouging us. You can tell they’re gouging us because these two gas stations representing two completely different companies are across the street from each other; the same night one of them raises the price from 3.929 premium to 4.199 premium, the other one raises it from 3.939 to 4.189. The same amount, more-or-less, to the same new price, more-or-less, within the same hour, more-or-less. Obviously there’s a conspiracy at work.

So let’s raise their taxes through the freakin’ roof.

If you live in the real world, you live in a world of cause-and-effect. A world of “butterfly effects.” And so, as ticked off as you may be at the oil companies, and as much as you believe in that kind of conspiracy, you still can’t get behind this because it’s ridiculous to think we’ll make it artificially expensive to peddle some product, and as a result, the price of that product will come DOWN.

So if you’re Yin, you may feel anger like anybody else, but you get over it. You live in a world of IF…THEN. The Yang live in a world of protocol. “S’poseda.” You’re s’poseda cut your carbon emissions. You’re s’poseda behave humbly so the rest of the world likes us more.

The decision-making is always externalized to someone else. And that “someone else” is always some vague, non-corporeal, undefinable entity. “Them.” “The People.” “Everybody.” “Us.” “Out There.” You dare to make this distinction, after awhile you see this everywhere. I see it in this Charles Gibson interview with The Messiah — Gibson explicitly asks him “what will you do different from what the current administration is doing now” (or some such)…and here comes the reply. The People have lost confidence. It’s always someone else making the decision that matters.

People who populate this whole other world, have good reason to be jealous. Once they own a task, a task that depends on real decisions being made by an individual who’s directly responsible for how things turn out — they’re lost. And they know it. They’ve spent too much of their lives living theoretically…spooning out the right answers to please others. Ignoring cause and effect.

There are some social skills involved in this. It is a certain brand of “smarts.” In a way. But it’s not the right kind of smarts to build anything; at least, not anything new. It certainly isn’t the kind of smarts compatible with “Change We Can Believe In.”

I remember one of my less-inspiring old bosses who was opposed to my retaining the title of “Senior Network Systems Engineer.” His argument was that the title of “engineer” was something like the title of “doctor.” You should have a certificate from somewhere, with a serial number on it, and a licensing board ready to pull it if you screw something up.

I can certainly see the logic involved in that. But I see a problem with it as well, because this isn’t something that’s based on the IF…THEN that engineering is all about. Such a rule is based on convention and protocol. Technology, people forget often, is the direct opposite of protocol. It is directly antithetical to doing things the way you’re “s’poseda” do them. Because if you’re always doing something the way someone else has decided you’re supposed to do them, how are you ever going to build anything new?

And yeah, that’s why we have this rage at Sarah Palin. It isn’t the traipsing around out there hunting moose and field-dressing the carcass. It’s knowing how to do it — and to find your way back, using only a compass. Melissa hit the nail right on the head. These people have lived their entire lives “living theoretically.” S’poseda, s’poseda, s’poseda. Deep down, they know this is not how things are built. This isn’t how anything was invented or discovered or provided, that we have today, that we use. It’s how you go about copying something somebody else has said or done.

They understand this difference deep down, themselves, without anyone else pointing it out. And so they find Sarah Palin threatening. But Barack Obama doesn’t threaten them one little bit. He’s plugged into the same collective power-structure, so he’s guaranteed to never show that anything is flawed, wrong or weak about it.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

Obama: Bad Loans Are a Good Idea

Thursday, October 9th, 2008

H/T: IUSB Vision, via Rottweiler.

Laboratories

Thursday, October 9th, 2008

Supreme Court Associate Justice Louis Dembitz Brandeis, delivering the opinion New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, March 1932:

It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.

Twelve months after that, with the inaugration of FDR, that mindset would be delivered a devastating broadside and the United States would change forever.

The irony, in my mind, is that we still live in a nation that has these state laboratories. And they’re being used. One state may try things one way, another state may try things a different way. The Federal Government can still threaten to withhold highway funding, but this is put into practice far less often today than it was when I first started voting. The states remain properly independent.

The one thing that is not being done, is to gather the data about how these experiments turn out, and simply present it where people will read it. If someone were to do that, the information wouldn’t travel that quickly, even with blogs. The left-wingers still have a near-monopoly on our media of communication. And you know it wouldn’t make them look good. There are too many states and municipalities plowing all their energies into finding the most left-wing way possible to run…things that have absolutely nothing to do with left- or right-wing. What’s the most left-wing way to bury people who are dead. What’s the most left-wing way to collect garbage. What’s the most left-wing way to wire up traffic lights in an intersection. There’s no answer to those questions. But granola meccas like San Francisco and Sacramento are determined to find one.

Vicious CycleCalifornia is surely near the top of the list of mismanaged states in this union. The situation has become so preposterous and absurd, that even our state officials wouldn’t deny it (they’d argue about where the blame lies, endlessly). But the situation is going to get even worse. How do I know that? Because of the way our local media outlets word things. Look — I just saw another report come up on the idjit box a few minutes ago…the state is “being hit with another wave of economic woes.” Being hit. Passive voice. The state is just like that fat li’l brother momma is always protecting who eats pickled pigs’ feet out of the jar and watches wrestling all day. He doesn’t do stupid things; bad things just happen to him.

This state isn’t being hit with anything that isn’t of its own making. The fact of the matter is, no business is going to relocate or expand here. Not unless it’s backed into a corner, bribed with one hell of a tax relief deal, or run by crazy people.

The state’s finances start sucking, everyone talks about a tax increase. If your finances start sucking, where’s all this noise about a tax cut? Don’t hold your breath waiting for it.

I’ve lived most of my life on the Left Coast. Within my experience, the pattern is unmistakable. You put left-wingers in charge of things, and here comes the vicious cycle. I personally have experienced no exceptions to this, and personally know of none. When do we start taking Justice Brandeis’ advice, and using our states as laboratories? I mean, all the way…not just until left-wing policies start to look bad, and then stop our learning. Let’s keep an open mind. Isn’t that supposed to be what liberalism is all about, keeping an open mind?

Update: Blogger friend Virgil has some of the hard data…the bottom line data, not state-by-state. It’s got to do with what’s flowing out of the union as a whole, year by year. Not looking good. Not lookin’ good at all.

Boortz on Jobs

Wednesday, October 8th, 2008

Learn it, live it, love it. Context is unimportant…although not completely so, so here’s your link. But memorize the verbiage, for it is common-sense stuff, it is being missed and covered-up by many…and it is heart-attack serious this year:

Do you want a job? Are you looking for work? Tell me, are you going to go try to find a job from a member of the middle class? Probably not. Perhaps you think your chances of finding a job might be better if you go to a small business owners and large corporations. So .. while you’re out there looking for jobs from these people, do you want us to be back in Washington raising their taxes? Do you want us to be plotting ways to relive them of the very money they need to hire you?

That’s it. That’s all that needs to be said. Although I have to ‘fess up, the bold emphasis is mine.

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:

D’JEver Notice? X

Wednesday, October 8th, 2008

It’s not just this subprime mortgage mess, it’s every single economic issue, seemingly with no exception: Each issue has a left-side and a right-side. Universal healthcare. Minimum wage. Labor unions. Income taxes. Corporate taxes. Estate taxes. Offshore drilling.

Sometimes the right side of the issue is to “do something!” and the left side is “don’t do that!” Other times, the roles are reversed. With the drilling issue, for example, the left comes up with all kinds of excuses not to do anything. With raising the minimum wage, it’s the left that says we should do something and the right that says we should not. In both cases, the conclusion comes first, the justification comes afterward, as a rationalization.

But here’s something that remains consistent:

The “left” answer always has to do with making things more expensive. This is absolutely consistent. They can talk their way around it sometimes because their solution has to do with making a certain commodity “affordable for all”…which is quite a different thing from making something less expensive. In the case of the subprime mortgage mess, the left twisted arms, and installed layers of “regulation” and “oversight” — to make sure more people would qualify for loans. But it didn’t make anything any less expensive, and we’re about to learn that in spades right now.

The left side of any given issue, always has to do with diminishing the value of the dollar. Making the price tag of goods and services higher. Especially the labor commodity…especially that.

If I want to sabotage an engine, I don’t cut the fuel line and I don’t pull spark plugs. These can be replaced inexpensively. Instead, I’m gonna work on the cooling system and rev it way up high; make that sucker burn out.

Making Yourself Useful

Wednesday, October 8th, 2008

Awhile ago The Anchoress laid down a challenge that someone should define: What’s wrong with the world? She imposed a one-hundred-word ceiling on the resulting essay, which I first honored, and then flouted. In the more loquacious version of my essay I identified a whole bunch of problems and then tied them all into a singular “root” cause. The root cause was: Us. We change the way we think to get the next piece of comfort, and in so doing make ourselves useful. Once we have that next piece of comfort, we take it for granted. We dispose of all the things we acquired, and all the things to get it, in order to chase after whatever comes next.

This is helpful when that next piece of comfort demands an accumulation of skills.

Much more often, it demands an atrophy of skills. It demands we become weaker than what we were before. So when we fail to appreciate what we have, what we end up doing is evolution via atrophy.

This leads to being over doing. Placing a greater value on what we are, than on what we do. This means we forget that love — is an action. Evil — is an action. Wealth and poverty — are actions. We forget all these; we start to visualize each other according to our states. We group each other that way. We start fighting fights that aren’t worth fighting; even worse, we avoid other fights, that actually mean everything.

Andy at Dipso Chronicles noticed the same thing, through something Mike Rowe said. You know who Mike Rowe is: He’s the “dirty jobs” guy. He has a television show that’s all about doing stuff. It doesn’t talk too much about what people are, it talks about what people do. It’s one of my favorite shows.

Renaissance man. And no, ladies, that doesn’t mean he knows how to make a butternut squash risotto while you are at the Jiffy Lube with his dirty Subaru, it means he knows how to do a lot a of shit that you women really want your men to be able to do, and then walk into a room full of REI-clad Berkely intellectuals and tear them a new one, to boot. That’s why I listen to him when he says things like “where we once encouraged each other to ‘make yourself useful,’ we now say ‘make yourself happy.'”

No kidding. How many things do you suppose that little ideological shift has screwed up? I came up with 5, but that’s because I am at work and only had about 18 seconds to think about this. Marriage, family, education, employment, and professional sports.

I think that’s what Andy is exploring here — doing, versus being. Hell, you saw it in that stupid debate a few minutes ago. Brokaw kept asking Obama and McCain what they would do. The candidates then spun the question around, and went into these litanies about what decent people they are.

This is a dead-end road. If you have what you have because of what a wonderful fellow you are, instead of the things you have done, this is something that is constantly up for review. You do not want to have a bunch of cars and a nice house jammed full of pretty things because you are a nice guy. Someone, somewhere, in a position of authority can get up one morning and decide — hey, that guy isn’t a nice guy anymore. He’s something of a jerk. Bam, you lose all your stuff.

McCain and Obama already live in that world. That’s why they underwhelmed so many tonight.

No, you want to be defined by what you do. It seems to suck green nickels some days when you can’t get everything done you want to get done — but that way, once you get things done, it’s locked in.

You know, now that I give this another think-or-three, that’s another one for Andy’s list. The subprime thing. That’s exactly how we got there. All these nice, wonderful, poor people who’ve been treated so bad, they deserve houses. How unfair it is to judge ’em by what they’ve done! Fast forward a few years, and we’ve got this massive financial crisis. It is a sinkhole crammed full of worthless paper. The paper is worthless because of a handful of years wasted evaluating people according to what they were, rather than what they did.

Or, to use Andy’s terminology, we demanded that people become happy instead of becoming useful. I’m pretty sure he’s exploring the same thing we explored a few months back. We haven’t changed our position in the last few months that this is what’s screwing up the world. So, by implication, we agree with him and Mike Rowe.

Update: We have attracted the attention of The Anchoress, probably through a trackback. She says our post is interesting. That’s what all the good-lookin’ girls said about us back in high school, they wrote in our annual “you made the year so…interesting.” Anyway, welcome, Anchoress readers. An additional reason why this might be worthy of mention, is Anchoress has seen fit to re-issue her question. She’s ready, willing and able to set the “blogosphere” on fire with this stuff, she’s done it before.

Anchoress, in turn, has attracted the attention of the other blogger super-diva Cassy Fiano. We know we’re of like mind with blogger friend Cas, because once she free-lanced on what’s wrong with the world, her thoughts were nearly identical to ours:

Once, it was understood that you could do anything… if you were willing to work for it. Americans now expect everything handed to them on a silver platter. Not eating out and buying used cars was called “sacrifice” last night. Americans have no concept of hardship, of sacrifice, of responsibility. And when we abandon the will to work, we lose the American spirit. Its in the eagerness to cut-and-run in Iraq, the panic over times being economically a little harder… sucking it up and working for the long run is unheard of. And that attitude is hurting us.

Anyway, this is a happy accident, in our mind. Can you think of a better time to ponder, seriously, what exactly is wrong with the world? Obama and McCain hit the campaign trail and rip into each other; the speech of each, is that the other (and others like him) is/are running around like a loose cannon and that is what is wrong with the world. You’d think the first time they were stuck in a room together, it would end with bloody entrails dangling from the light fixtures. Bloody entrails of one, or the other, perhaps both.

And instead you get the ultimate snooze-fest. In fact, they spent so much time agreeing with each other, the diligent observer is hard-pressed to name too many points of what’s-wrong and how-to-fix-it upon which they truly disagree. These are the guys who, together, are supposed to be representing the rest of us. If that be the case, and I think it is, then we have the ultimate dichotomy: We’ve got lots and lots of passion that something is terribly wrong with the world, and we haven’t got the slightest clue what exactly it is…nor can we claim to have spent too much of our energies earnestly trying to figure it out.

Ms. Fiano then goes on to list some of the things that are right with the world, pointing to an older post of Dr. Helen’s for her inspiration.

Equivocating

Tuesday, October 7th, 2008

equivocate
equiv·o·cate
1 : to use equivocal language especially with intent to deceive
2 : to avoid committing oneself in what one says

Cassy’s pretty disgusted. I started listing reasons why I disagreed with her, and by the time I was done I realized I didn’t.

Hawkins declares Obama a huge winner. I’d like to disagree with that one. I’ll have to go over everything later. Hope he’s wrong.

Melissa says it’s an Obama win, but notes that Mr. Socialist was forced to admit he’s a socialist. I hope that’s more significant than she gave it credit for.

Althouse is neutral for now. She’s disgusted by many of the same things that disgust me, so I hope she’s in the majority on this.

Stephen Green says McCain won, but not by enough to matter.

Anchoress agrees with Cassy, saying: Worst. Townhall. Ever.

There is something about our nation’s upper legislative chamber. Everyone ensconced therein seems to be afflicted with “moderate” disease. The story’s always the same: “All this partisan bickering’s goin’ on, and I’m going to dive into the mosh pit as Mister Moderate and forge compromises!” Hey look. Republican senators are opposed to partisan bickering; democrat senators are opposed to partisan bickering. They’re all on record. If they meant what they said, we’d see an end to partisan bickering overnight. And yet, since Jefferson vs. Adams…we’ve had red-hot partisan bickering every goddamned day.

In fact, what does the White House have to do with gray areas and neutrality? Seems to me, the U.S. Constitution is making a practice of yanking every important decision that truly matters, out of the legislature and jamming it into the White House where someone with balls will deal with it. That means no, or very little, equivocating. That means when Brokaw asks if the Soviet Union is an “evil empire,” Barack Obama’s answer is “well, they’ve certainly done evil things”…that’s what we don’t want at 1600 Pennsylvania. But that’s not Barack Obama equivocating. That’s a typical senator spewing his bullshit.

My idea of a constitutional amendment: Senators cannot run for President. They have to resign, and then wait a long time to rinse that beltway neutral-gray crud out of their systems. Seven years, at least. Then they can run.

Because the President is an executive. And you can’t be an executive without calling things what they are. A legislator, sure. But not an executive.

Update: Screw this. It’s degenerated into nothing more than another demonstration of how & why people come to hate politics. I’m ready for a serious case of Attention Deficit Disorder.

Let’s browse some bikini ice fishing pictures (click the pic).

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…..

The “Fact Checking” Fad

Tuesday, October 7th, 2008

James Taranto savages the “fact-checking” fad. It’s your must-read column of the day. Maybe even for the week.

The “fact check” is opinion journalism or criticism, masquerading as straight news. The object is not merely to report facts but to pass a judgment. The Washington Post’s Fact Checker blog ends each assessment with between one and four “Pinocchios,” just like movie reviewers giving out stars.

Like movie reviewing, the “fact check” is a highly subjective process. If a politician makes a statement that is flatly false, it does not need to be “fact checked.” The facts themselves are sufficient. “Fact checks” end up dealing in murkier areas of context and emphasis, making it very easy for the journalist to make up standards as he goes along, applying them more rigorously to the candidate he disfavors (which usually means the Republican).

Example: USA Today has a “reality check” of a McCain ad whose script runs as follows:

Narrator: “Who is Barack Obama? He says our troops in Afghanistan are . . .
Obama: “. . . just air-raiding villages and killing civilians.”
Narrator: “How dishonorable. Congressional liberals voted repeatedly to cut off funding to our active troops, increasing the risk on their lives. How dangerous. Obama and congressional liberals: too risky for America.”

The USA Today headline reads “Quote From Obama Taken Out of Context.” In a way this is a tautology, since a quotation by definition is taken out of its original context (and placed in a new one). But of course the phrase out of context usually connotes “used in a misleading way.” Is that the case here? Here is a longer version of the Obama quote, per USA Today:

“We’ve got to get the job done there, and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there.”

One the one hand, Obama was making a broader argument, which the McCain ad ignores: that America should send more troops to Afghanistan. On the other hand, Obama clearly did assert that America is “air-raiding villages and killing civilians” (the subsequent clause makes that undeniable), though one could argue about whether he was asserting or merely worrying that we are “just” doing so.

We’re slowly going insane, you know; confusing the subjective with the objective is the first milestone to complete insanity.

They Cut the Bull Elk in Half

Tuesday, October 7th, 2008

Okay this is pretty weird

A Sams Valley man was killed and his mother critically injured after their vehicle struck a bull elk on a state highway near Union Creek late Saturday night.

Rodney Wonacott, 51, was killed instantly when the westbound Buick he was driving, and an eastbound Ford pickup truck, simultaneously slammed into the elk which was standing in the middle of Oregon State Highway 230.

The driver of the Ford truck, 28-year-old Aaron Platt of Redmond, and his passengers were not injured in the crash, police reports said.

Rita Dyer said her brother and mother were returning from a funeral in Bend when the fatal crash occurred on the dark and rain-slicked highway near Union Creek.

“The two cars cut the elk in half.” Dyer said.
:
Both vehicles were traveling in opposite directions towards each other when they crashed into the elk. The truck and car did not come into contact with one another. But her brother’s car veered off the highway upon impact with the elk, careening off the wesbound shoulder and slamming into a tree, Dyer said. [emphasis mine]

Poor elky-welky.

What’re the odds of that happenin’?

Dad Was Asleep During Sex

Tuesday, October 7th, 2008

So he shouldn’t pay child support. No…it’s not what you’re thinking…he’s not saying it wasn’t him, couldn’t a-been him, musta-been some other dude, he was asleep. That is not the argument.

He’s saying it’s his but he slept through the conception. And agreeing it’s his.

A Manitoba man is suing the mother of his child, claiming he shouldn’t have to pay child support because he was asleep when she had sex with him.

In a statement of claim filed in Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench last week, the man from Tyndall, Man., claims he was visiting the woman from Selkirk in late 2006 when he fell asleep.

The man alleges he woke up and found the woman was having sexual intercourse with him.

The man says when he “demanded that she cease and desist” she complied. But about nine months later the woman gave birth to a child that he agrees is his.

Succubus.

One More Thing On That Veep Debate

Tuesday, October 7th, 2008

You know how the CNN news-babe had her teleprompter programmed to reminder her that Whoah, we have an overwhelming consensus that Biden won the debate!

Well, that was fishy from the get-go because anyone watching for themselves could see the special CNN panel was more-or-less deadlocked.

For those who care about consensus-politics…which is most people…Blogger Friend Phil has gone through and tallied up the votes. Hit the freeze-frame button just as many times as he needed to. And yes, indeed, it would appear that whether fourteen is a bigass overwhelming number or a teeny-weeny throwaway number depends…entirely, not just a little bit…on fourteen of what, exactly?

You are traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land of imagination. Next stop, the CNN Zone!

This is why we have blogs, folks. You really have to wonder what kind of crap we were being sold by Jennings, Rather, Brokaw, Cronkite, et al. You really do have to stop and seriously wonder. This bullshit has a long history of working; if it didn’t, they wouldn’t be trying it.

What John McCain Should Say Tonight

Tuesday, October 7th, 2008

Boortz has a list of things McCain should say but he says McCain probably won’t say ’em.

Let me come to the Maverick’s defense here — credit where due, Neal. McCain’s done pretty well in the testicular fortitude department of late. Hope springs eternal.

Anyway, I’d just like to append one question.

Sen. Obama: As you know, Americans are very concerned about the economy right now. Gas prices, food prices, the credit crunch, jobs. Can you demonstrate for me how products and services become less expensive after your administration, with a compliant and willing Congress, raises taxes and other expenses on the businesses that provide those products and services?

Call It Early

Tuesday, October 7th, 2008

Because Obama’s ability to judge people, to look into their histories before making that decision to become their friend, is so incredibly inferior, so incredibly dismal. And that is if you give him the benefit of the doubt, and believe he honestly didn’t know about William Ayers, et al.

So you might as well put some X’s on the grid. Print it out, put in some X’s, and seal it in an envlope with wax.

It’s all open to question, but the one thing you know is not open to question is that President Obama will defend himself by saying…gosh darn it…he didn’t know. Poor me, poor me, these things just keep coming out of the woodwork and I’m taken by surprise even though I’m so much smarter than everybody else.

Oh and by the way you’re a racist if you talk about this stuff.

Question for the day: Does it even matter if a President makes good decisions about things, if said President consistently fails to make good decisions about people?