I happened to be driving home tonight during the President's scheduled address on Libya, so I tuned in courtesy satellite radio. The speech was--of course--our President's way of informing us why he's decided to get the country involved in ISLAMOWAR III, except he took his sweet time getting around to telling us about it.
I heard nothing unexpected in the speech and I remain unconvinced we have any business being involved in the Libyan situation. He tried hard to convince us all of the compelling national interests at stake in Libya, but he was not persuasive.
The one thing that made me wrinkle my nose a bit--and which I'll spend more time thinking about when I have the time--was the President's twice repeated statement of our willingness to fight for our interests "....and values". Wow. Kinda slipped that one by us, big guy. We're gonna fight for our values now too? Not just our interests? I'm ok with the concept of the President using his CINC power to pursue our interests--largely because I don't think we have a better option. But letting the President go to war to pursue and protect our "values"? Which values? All of them, or just a few of the biggies?
Seems to me that this little humdinger carries with it the opportunity for more mischief than any of us care to think about.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Sunday, March 27, 2011
This Week
Gonna be brutal on the work front, folks. Very busy. Hopefully some of the gang can continue to step up and provide content.
Even a Blind Squirrel....Marueen Dowd and (lack of) Mormon Rage
Frequent visitors to the blog know my dripping disdain for Ms. Doud and her gum-snapping chick analysis of adult subjects. Reading her columns are for me, exercises in self-control and mastery of the gag reflex.
But today I found something in her column worth pulling out into a larger discussion. In this piece (entitled "Coffee Cups in Hell"), Dowd gives us a light-hearted treatment of the light-hearted romp on broadway these days produced by South Park creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker. Their "Book of Mormon" just opened on Broadway, and the "scatological scamps" have put forward a production that sounds like a pretty darn funny send-up of Mormonism. It's something I would like to see. So far, so good.
But Dowd herself lets the camel's nose into the tent--without then contemplating the camel.
She writes: "But as Terry Teachout wrote in The Wall Street Journal: “Making fun of Mormons in front of a Broadway crowd is like shooting trout in a demitasse cup. ... If the title of this show were ‘The Quran,’ it wouldn’t have opened.”" And then walks away from the implications of what she had written. So what are those implications?
First, Teachout (and Dowd) imply that if a play of this nature were to skewer Islam as deeply as this does Mormonism--it would never see the light of day. No theater producer, no group of investors, no actors or statehands union--would expose their people to the almost CERTAIN violent and potentially terrorist inflamed reaction that would ensue. But the Mormons? Fair game! First, religion in America has always provided grist for parody--but Mormonism? Why, even the looney toon fundmentalist Baptists think it is looney toon. Jesus was in the US? Maroni? Hah, hah, hah--how silly it all is. At least that would be the view of the effete salon gassers who pass themselves off as arbiters of what is acceptable in the US. Apparently nothing in the canon of Islam is as worthy of parody as that of the Mormons.
Second, where are the mass protests in Salt Lake City? Where are the fist waving, chanting, sign carrying "death to Broadway, death to Parker and Stone, bomb South Park" folks? What you say? That's silly? Mormon's simply wouldn't over-react like that? Exactly. While there may in fact wind up to be some level of push back from the Mormon community over this play--it is inconceivable that violent demonstrations or terrorist actions would ensue. Not so with our friends in the Islamic community. No group on earth is so primed to take offense, and no group on earth takes offense in such a violent manner.
Now Parker and Stone? I love these guys. To their credit, they HAVE done some pretty fair parody work with Islam at its center (the Muhammed in a bear suit stuff). It's not Parker and Stone with whom I have a beef, it is with those in the government and media who continue to act as if all religion world-wide is fair game for parody and criticism--save one. It is with those who do not consistently and relentlessly criticize the immaturity and shallowness of the marchers in the Islamic world who take to the barricades aided and abetted by their Friday afternoon sermonizing mullahs. Such reactions are ridiculous, and do not constitute the reactions of societies ready for integration into a modern, interconnected world.
But today I found something in her column worth pulling out into a larger discussion. In this piece (entitled "Coffee Cups in Hell"), Dowd gives us a light-hearted treatment of the light-hearted romp on broadway these days produced by South Park creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker. Their "Book of Mormon" just opened on Broadway, and the "scatological scamps" have put forward a production that sounds like a pretty darn funny send-up of Mormonism. It's something I would like to see. So far, so good.
But Dowd herself lets the camel's nose into the tent--without then contemplating the camel.
She writes: "But as Terry Teachout wrote in The Wall Street Journal: “Making fun of Mormons in front of a Broadway crowd is like shooting trout in a demitasse cup. ... If the title of this show were ‘The Quran,’ it wouldn’t have opened.”" And then walks away from the implications of what she had written. So what are those implications?
First, Teachout (and Dowd) imply that if a play of this nature were to skewer Islam as deeply as this does Mormonism--it would never see the light of day. No theater producer, no group of investors, no actors or statehands union--would expose their people to the almost CERTAIN violent and potentially terrorist inflamed reaction that would ensue. But the Mormons? Fair game! First, religion in America has always provided grist for parody--but Mormonism? Why, even the looney toon fundmentalist Baptists think it is looney toon. Jesus was in the US? Maroni? Hah, hah, hah--how silly it all is. At least that would be the view of the effete salon gassers who pass themselves off as arbiters of what is acceptable in the US. Apparently nothing in the canon of Islam is as worthy of parody as that of the Mormons.
Second, where are the mass protests in Salt Lake City? Where are the fist waving, chanting, sign carrying "death to Broadway, death to Parker and Stone, bomb South Park" folks? What you say? That's silly? Mormon's simply wouldn't over-react like that? Exactly. While there may in fact wind up to be some level of push back from the Mormon community over this play--it is inconceivable that violent demonstrations or terrorist actions would ensue. Not so with our friends in the Islamic community. No group on earth is so primed to take offense, and no group on earth takes offense in such a violent manner.
Now Parker and Stone? I love these guys. To their credit, they HAVE done some pretty fair parody work with Islam at its center (the Muhammed in a bear suit stuff). It's not Parker and Stone with whom I have a beef, it is with those in the government and media who continue to act as if all religion world-wide is fair game for parody and criticism--save one. It is with those who do not consistently and relentlessly criticize the immaturity and shallowness of the marchers in the Islamic world who take to the barricades aided and abetted by their Friday afternoon sermonizing mullahs. Such reactions are ridiculous, and do not constitute the reactions of societies ready for integration into a modern, interconnected world.
NO RADIO SHOW MONDAY NIGHT
Sorry folks, I have a long, long workday Monday and won't get home in time to do the show.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Al-Qaeda in Libya
I'm shocked, SHOCKED to learn that there are hardened AQ fighters at work overthrowing Colonel Qaddafi with our help. I realize that time and evidence will show that their numbers are probably relatively small--but it is a sign of the utter lack of any knowledge on our part of the makeup, aspirations and character of the insurgency we've chosen to support. You want it bad, you get it bad.
Maddow Waxes Nostalgic About The New Deal
Appearing on "Late Night with Jimmy Fallon" last Thursday evening, MSNBC talking head Rachael Maddow gushed about her new commercial filmed amid the backdrop of the Hoover Dam and shot by director Spike Lee. "Since I was on the West Coast, it's time to shoot new MSNBC commercials, and since I'm going to be on the West Coast how about we meet at the Hoover Dam," Maddow said. "And I completely conned them into letting me do my commercial at the Hoover Dam."
The significance of the dam, Maddow explained, is that the structure embodies the notion that government spending on public works projects can whisk this country out of its fiscal doldrums. "The Hoover Dam opened in 1935 in the middle of the Great Depression and it opened 18 months early, and during the Great Depression - we built our way out of it. We made all of this cool stuff. And now we're like 'Oh, we're broke, we can't do anything, let China build it', and that's just stupid."
Economic arguments on the merits of New Deal-type government spending programs aside, as well calling the Hoover Dam a New Deal construction project at all (the funds were authorized by Congress and signed by President Hoover in 1928), it would be hard to imagine a similar project getting off the ground today, what with:
- mandated environmental impact reports;
- years of suits and countersuits based on the results of said reports;
- the anticipated circus of the vendor selection process, as unions and special interest groups will seek to ensure they 'get paid'
- the inevitable project cost overruns, as the winning vendor will more than likely need to adjust its costs based on the previous three points.
It's not much better in the private sector either. I mean after all, look at CW's home renovation project.
The significance of the dam, Maddow explained, is that the structure embodies the notion that government spending on public works projects can whisk this country out of its fiscal doldrums. "The Hoover Dam opened in 1935 in the middle of the Great Depression and it opened 18 months early, and during the Great Depression - we built our way out of it. We made all of this cool stuff. And now we're like 'Oh, we're broke, we can't do anything, let China build it', and that's just stupid."
Economic arguments on the merits of New Deal-type government spending programs aside, as well calling the Hoover Dam a New Deal construction project at all (the funds were authorized by Congress and signed by President Hoover in 1928), it would be hard to imagine a similar project getting off the ground today, what with:
- mandated environmental impact reports;
- years of suits and countersuits based on the results of said reports;
- the anticipated circus of the vendor selection process, as unions and special interest groups will seek to ensure they 'get paid'
- the inevitable project cost overruns, as the winning vendor will more than likely need to adjust its costs based on the previous three points.
It's not much better in the private sector either. I mean after all, look at CW's home renovation project.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Renovation Progress
Check out how things are going here.
Builder says five weeks more....I say eight....but very, very pleased with how it is shaping up.
Just so there's no mistaking it--all of the thought and energy that went into making this renovation happen were Catherine's. She's dreamed of this for years, and I admire how it is all coming together.
Just so there's no mistaking it--all of the thought and energy that went into making this renovation happen were Catherine's. She's dreamed of this for years, and I admire how it is all coming together.
Big Fat Friday Free For All
Ok folks, what's on your mind? Can't keep track of your wars without a scorecard? Just back from a dash to Rio with your kids for Spring Break? Emote people, emote!
UPDATE: A speedy recovery to our pal The Hammer who has been feeling poorly lately. Get well soon, Old Boy.
UPDATE: A speedy recovery to our pal The Hammer who has been feeling poorly lately. Get well soon, Old Boy.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Another Bad Decision on Islam
How about this little ditty, friends? Safoorah Kahn had a grand total of nine months tenure teaching middle school math in Illinois when she made a request for three weeks off to make a pilgrimage to Mecca (hajj being one of the five pillars of Islam). As her absence would leave the school without its only "math lab instructor" (whatever that is), her request was denied. She quit and went anyway.
To her rescue now rides Attorney General Holder leading the Obama Army of the Faithful. The Justice Department has filed suit, stating that the actions of the school district forced Ms. Kahn to choose between her job and her faith.
Rubbish. Utter rubbish. I have no problem with Ms. Kahn's desire to make the hajj in fulfillment of religious duty. The plain truth of the matter is that one only has to do so ONCE IN A LIFETIME. That Ms. Kahn decided to do so in her first year of employment in a new job--while school was in session--demonstrates that the choice was not between her job and her religion--but one of scheduling convenience and preference. This is not the school district's problem--it is Ms. Kahn's--and that the Obama Justice Department feels the need to curry favor with the Islamic community by taking up this suit is an insult to anyone who manages life's commitments without federal intervention. I would JUST ONCE like to see some plumed knight of American Islamic victimology stand up and say, "hey, this is just dumb. She can make hajj another time."
Rubbish. Utter rubbish. I have no problem with Ms. Kahn's desire to make the hajj in fulfillment of religious duty. The plain truth of the matter is that one only has to do so ONCE IN A LIFETIME. That Ms. Kahn decided to do so in her first year of employment in a new job--while school was in session--demonstrates that the choice was not between her job and her religion--but one of scheduling convenience and preference. This is not the school district's problem--it is Ms. Kahn's--and that the Obama Justice Department feels the need to curry favor with the Islamic community by taking up this suit is an insult to anyone who manages life's commitments without federal intervention. I would JUST ONCE like to see some plumed knight of American Islamic victimology stand up and say, "hey, this is just dumb. She can make hajj another time."
A Lie Perpetrated Upon The Weak
Ralph Macchio is 49? How can this be? Why, only yesterday, he was the Karate Kid. Wax on....wax off....I'm no fan of Dancing With The (once were) Stars.....but I shall pull for Mr. Macchio with vigor.
Richard Cohen on Obama Foreign Policy
WaPost columnist Richard Cohen--a reliable lefty--unloads on The One with this piece today. Actually, Cohen's been able to dredge up a remarkable amount of bile for Mr. Obama in the past two years, and has come to be for me a sort of bellwether for principled opposition on the left.
Of course, Cohen and I disagree completely on the policy aim here. It seems to me the Libya thing had at its outset a pretty classic "Punnett Square" of decision making, with a leadership approach on one axis and an intervention status on the other. Strong leadership in an intervention--this is the style of George Bush. The concept of not leading--and especially, ceding leadership to the French would of course, be anathema to Mr. Bush. In this case, my preference was for leading a non-intervention; that is, making a strong and direct case that while Libya's turmoil is regrettable, bad things happen everywhere and we have to pick and choose where we seek to be involved--with such involvement in all cases springing from a clear-eyed view of national interest. Mr. Obama however, has in all cases, chosen not to lead. First, in the weeks leading up to the war, by allowing his Secretary of Defense to make statements against intervention without any public support for or against them, he appeared to be allowing events to overtake him. In the process, he looked feckless and out of his league. Now that his foreign policy muses (Clinton, Rice, Powers) and the Euros have pushed him into war, he is content for America to appear as just another nation, a part of a coalition, a provider of service as it were--while weaker, pompous, de-fanged Euros strut about reclaiming Napoleonic glory.
The bottom line here is that whatever the policy--America MUST lead. While I am disappointed in Mr. Obama's decision to become embroiled in Libya, I am positively embarrassed by his decision to sing in the chorus. In both dithering and now acting, he continues to show us how out of his league he really is. Not that we weren't warned.
Of course, Cohen and I disagree completely on the policy aim here. It seems to me the Libya thing had at its outset a pretty classic "Punnett Square" of decision making, with a leadership approach on one axis and an intervention status on the other. Strong leadership in an intervention--this is the style of George Bush. The concept of not leading--and especially, ceding leadership to the French would of course, be anathema to Mr. Bush. In this case, my preference was for leading a non-intervention; that is, making a strong and direct case that while Libya's turmoil is regrettable, bad things happen everywhere and we have to pick and choose where we seek to be involved--with such involvement in all cases springing from a clear-eyed view of national interest. Mr. Obama however, has in all cases, chosen not to lead. First, in the weeks leading up to the war, by allowing his Secretary of Defense to make statements against intervention without any public support for or against them, he appeared to be allowing events to overtake him. In the process, he looked feckless and out of his league. Now that his foreign policy muses (Clinton, Rice, Powers) and the Euros have pushed him into war, he is content for America to appear as just another nation, a part of a coalition, a provider of service as it were--while weaker, pompous, de-fanged Euros strut about reclaiming Napoleonic glory.
The bottom line here is that whatever the policy--America MUST lead. While I am disappointed in Mr. Obama's decision to become embroiled in Libya, I am positively embarrassed by his decision to sing in the chorus. In both dithering and now acting, he continues to show us how out of his league he really is. Not that we weren't warned.
Monday, March 21, 2011
An Interesting View on Libya
Mr. Putin likens the UN Resolution to a medieval call for a crusade....not entirely inappropriate....
Agenda for Tonight's Radio Show
Tune in tonight at 8PM to The Conservative Wahoo Live! where our agenda will be:
--War in Libya
--Disaster in Japan
--Rising Gas Prices
--CBO Scores Obama Budget
--March Madness
Call in to join the fun at 347.637.2203 or just listen in at the link above.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Saturday, March 19, 2011
And So It Begins....
Well, it looks as if the United States is now involved in its third war at the same time. We should not be in this, there are no enduring American interests at stake, and we should be doing all we can these days to husband and sustain our power, not dissipate it. Anyone who did not support the war in Iraq against a much greater threat to our security, but who today supports this action, is a flat out hypocrite.
I believe the President is straddling a careful line, and my guess are that his instincts were to stay out altogether. But there has been a deafening din from the Euros and from some in his own administration, those for whom military adventurism only wins a seal of approval when there are no "selfish" motives (like oil, or power politics) at stake. Whatever his instincts were, he's in it now. He can't blame this one on anyone else.
We have the very best man in the US Navy--ADM Jim Stavridis--as our man at NATO--the Supreme Allied Commander. I can think of no one I would rather have leading an effort like this, an effort that screams for limited, achievable political objectives and a military commander with the guts to demand them.
I hope for the best.
We have the very best man in the US Navy--ADM Jim Stavridis--as our man at NATO--the Supreme Allied Commander. I can think of no one I would rather have leading an effort like this, an effort that screams for limited, achievable political objectives and a military commander with the guts to demand them.
I hope for the best.
The Fallacy of Peaceful Women
What a wonderful post we have here from Ann Althouse. How many times have we heard the feminist ranting about how peaceful the world would be "if only women were in charge"....so here we have a President, and a Secretary of Defense--both men--not wanting to get involved in Libya, pulled into it by what Althouse reckons as 3 women--Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, and Samantha Power.
I've always considered the notion that women would somehow be more peaceful in world leadership to be either ridiculous or scary. Ridiculous from the standpoint that it isn't true. Scary, if it were.
In this case, these three women are doing what many, many men have before them--made a bad call on what is in America's interest.
In this case, these three women are doing what many, many men have before them--made a bad call on what is in America's interest.
Friday, March 18, 2011
President Obama Undercounts Deficits by $2.3 Trillion
Making drunken Sailors everywhere proud of their self-control, the Congressional Budget Office scores the President's budget as contributing $2.3 trillion (yes, with a "t") more to the debt over the next 10 years. In a moment of breathtaking spin, the President's budget director Jack Lew blogged that "CBO confirms what we already know: current deficits are unacceptably high and if we stay on our current course and do nothing, the fiscal situation will hurt our recovery and hamstring future growth." Yes, and they just so happened to confirm that fact while undercutting the basic integrity of the administration's estimates.
Big Fat Friday Free For All
Oh my, what a slacker I am! It is after noon on Friday and I've yet to post the BFFFFA....
Well, here it is, people.
And for those keeping score, 187, down 9.5 since Jan 1.
Well, here it is, people.
And for those keeping score, 187, down 9.5 since Jan 1.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Nancy Pelosi Vexes Me
In this performance Madam (Former) Speaker lectures Republicans on fiscal responsibility. This, from the leader of a body that punted on passing a budget last year because it was politically inconvenient in light of the myriad political miscalculations she and her cohort made in their two years of conspiring with the White House to enshrine the federal government even deeper in everyday life.
This is a breathtaking performance, political cynicism of the highest order.
HT--Hot Air and Instapundit
This is a breathtaking performance, political cynicism of the highest order.
HT--Hot Air and Instapundit
A Moment for Art
H/T: The Browser
On Japan
We are seeing a great civilization in action in Japan, one in which its social mores, its respect for authority, its reverence for the whole, and its profound orientation to action are on full display. The scenes of what everyday life has become for many of its citizens are tough to watch; the poise with which this great people currently face their task is admirable.
I will leave it to others to delve into the comparative reactions of regional populations to natural disasters. And I am not ignorant to the great wrongs perpetrated by the Japanese on each other and on others across the centuries.
I will only sit back in this modern age and witness a strong, proud people soldiering on in the face of great adversity.
CORRECTION: On Monday night's radio show, I made reference to what I took to be China's inactivity in coming to Japan's aid. I have since corrected my under-informed condition and acknowledge that China has been quite active in coming to Japan's aid.
I will leave it to others to delve into the comparative reactions of regional populations to natural disasters. And I am not ignorant to the great wrongs perpetrated by the Japanese on each other and on others across the centuries.
I will only sit back in this modern age and witness a strong, proud people soldiering on in the face of great adversity.
CORRECTION: On Monday night's radio show, I made reference to what I took to be China's inactivity in coming to Japan's aid. I have since corrected my under-informed condition and acknowledge that China has been quite active in coming to Japan's aid.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Separated At Birth: Greenshoots Edition
Irrationally exuberant former Fed Chief Alan Greenspan, and....
Creepily exuberant Six Flags guy.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Just Say No To Libya
The scenes of rebels bravely taking on Colonel Qaddafi's Army in the struggle for who will rule Libya pull at ones's heart strings. How can it be so that we are not actively supporting people dedicated to overthrowing a man who murdered our sons and daughters in discos and on airliners? How can it be so that the world's largest military is not providing a "no fly zone" over Libyan skies and actively supplying the rebels with guns and butter? Have we walked away from our responsibility as the world's standard bearer for democracy?
These are hard questions, and they deserve serious consideration. That said, the United States should not become actively involved militarily in Libya for a very simple reason--there is no compelling national interest to do so.
Americans are stuck in a 20th Century mindset, when there were only two competing governance visions--communism and democracy (oh, and a handful of dictators beholden to the superpowers). When we look at independence movements around the world and see the bright faces of people streaming into public squares in protest of dictators with decades of tenure, we assume that they want what we want, that when they've unhorsed their dictator, they will ride into the loving arms of freedom loving capitalist world. This is simply not the case anymore in a wide swath of the Arab-Islamic world. There, unhorsing the dictator is just as likely to bring about theocratic fascism as it is anything resembling market oriented democracy.
We have no ties to Libya, save for ties of mistrust and vengeance. We have little in the way of economic exchange. American personal and corporate interests are few and far between there, though they have been on the increase since relations with Qaddafi warmed late in the Bush Administration. Those seeking Qaddafi's overthrow must remember that late last decade, things between our nations moved in a different direction when Qaddafi renounced his WMD program. Those who cite Qaddafi's past terrorist actions as rationale for intervention, they conveniently forget that as far as the US government is concerned, all is forgotten vis-a-vis Lockerbie, et al.
Those who would have us intervene in Libya by imposing a no-fly zone must answer to the question of escalation. What happens when they shoot back? Once we've bombed their surface to air missile sites and destroyed their air force, will we then destroy their mechanized units on the ground? How big a step is it to providing the rebels with air protection to then providing them with ground protection?
Those who would have us intervene (yet again) in the Islamic world must account for the return on investment we receive from our two ONGOING interventions there--Iraq and Afghanistan. We are a trillion dollars into those two wars and 4000 lives--and while I do believe we are marginally safer at home as a result, to say those margins could only have been gained in costly ground wars there strains credulity. All the while, our economy has tanked and China has ascended. We are intelligently backing our way out of these two costly land engagements as we try to mend our economy--taking on a third is simply reckless.
If one looks at Qaddafi's sins against us and the world, and then compares them to Saddam's sins, there is no comparison. Saddam was a world menace on a scale that Qaddafi can't even approach--yet many of the same people kvetching for intervention in Libya scorned such intervention in Iraq. Why? Because George Bush was at the helm, and because there is an insidious strain of thinking on the left (especially) that certifies the holiness of military interventions based on the LACK of national interest--that the only military interventions are ones we undertake in a spirit of selflessness and at the service of mankind. Bunk. We go to war (and make no mistake--a no fly zone over Libya is an act of war) in support of enduring national interests, or we sit on our hands and wish that there were more that we can do. We don't and shouldn't go to war because it makes us feel good about ourselves.
Are there things we can do in Libya IF we feel it is in our interest to do so that are short of war? Surely. We can funnel arms through intermediaries. We can train others to do our bidding. But first, we must figure out what our bidding is. In the old days, the overthrow of a dictator more often than not meant the rise of a government more in keeping with our interests and values. This is no longer the case. We must know more about the nature of the uprising; that it opposes the present government is insufficient. We should not act without insight into the direction it wishes to take the country. That's right--"freedom" is insufficient, if that freedom means only the freedom to overthrow a dictator in favor of an Islamic Theocracy. We are far too overstretched to assuage our national conscience in order to fertilize yet another Islamo-fascist field.
These are hard questions, and they deserve serious consideration. That said, the United States should not become actively involved militarily in Libya for a very simple reason--there is no compelling national interest to do so.
Americans are stuck in a 20th Century mindset, when there were only two competing governance visions--communism and democracy (oh, and a handful of dictators beholden to the superpowers). When we look at independence movements around the world and see the bright faces of people streaming into public squares in protest of dictators with decades of tenure, we assume that they want what we want, that when they've unhorsed their dictator, they will ride into the loving arms of freedom loving capitalist world. This is simply not the case anymore in a wide swath of the Arab-Islamic world. There, unhorsing the dictator is just as likely to bring about theocratic fascism as it is anything resembling market oriented democracy.
We have no ties to Libya, save for ties of mistrust and vengeance. We have little in the way of economic exchange. American personal and corporate interests are few and far between there, though they have been on the increase since relations with Qaddafi warmed late in the Bush Administration. Those seeking Qaddafi's overthrow must remember that late last decade, things between our nations moved in a different direction when Qaddafi renounced his WMD program. Those who cite Qaddafi's past terrorist actions as rationale for intervention, they conveniently forget that as far as the US government is concerned, all is forgotten vis-a-vis Lockerbie, et al.
Those who would have us intervene in Libya by imposing a no-fly zone must answer to the question of escalation. What happens when they shoot back? Once we've bombed their surface to air missile sites and destroyed their air force, will we then destroy their mechanized units on the ground? How big a step is it to providing the rebels with air protection to then providing them with ground protection?
Those who would have us intervene (yet again) in the Islamic world must account for the return on investment we receive from our two ONGOING interventions there--Iraq and Afghanistan. We are a trillion dollars into those two wars and 4000 lives--and while I do believe we are marginally safer at home as a result, to say those margins could only have been gained in costly ground wars there strains credulity. All the while, our economy has tanked and China has ascended. We are intelligently backing our way out of these two costly land engagements as we try to mend our economy--taking on a third is simply reckless.
If one looks at Qaddafi's sins against us and the world, and then compares them to Saddam's sins, there is no comparison. Saddam was a world menace on a scale that Qaddafi can't even approach--yet many of the same people kvetching for intervention in Libya scorned such intervention in Iraq. Why? Because George Bush was at the helm, and because there is an insidious strain of thinking on the left (especially) that certifies the holiness of military interventions based on the LACK of national interest--that the only military interventions are ones we undertake in a spirit of selflessness and at the service of mankind. Bunk. We go to war (and make no mistake--a no fly zone over Libya is an act of war) in support of enduring national interests, or we sit on our hands and wish that there were more that we can do. We don't and shouldn't go to war because it makes us feel good about ourselves.
Are there things we can do in Libya IF we feel it is in our interest to do so that are short of war? Surely. We can funnel arms through intermediaries. We can train others to do our bidding. But first, we must figure out what our bidding is. In the old days, the overthrow of a dictator more often than not meant the rise of a government more in keeping with our interests and values. This is no longer the case. We must know more about the nature of the uprising; that it opposes the present government is insufficient. We should not act without insight into the direction it wishes to take the country. That's right--"freedom" is insufficient, if that freedom means only the freedom to overthrow a dictator in favor of an Islamic Theocracy. We are far too overstretched to assuage our national conscience in order to fertilize yet another Islamo-fascist field.
Too Big To Fail: The Musical
No wonder arteests are always crying for more government patronage:
"Six out of every seven musicals fail to recoup their investment."
Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark may make that seven.
Agenda for Tonight's Conservative Wahoo Live! Internet Radio Program
Tune in tonight to The Conservative Wahoo Live! at 8PM Eastern, where our agenda will be:
• Disaster in Japan
• Future of US Nuclear Power industry
• Wisconsin update: Walker reigns, Fleeing Fourteen return
• NPR
• President Obama wishes he were Hu?
• March Madness
Call in at 347.637.2203 to participate or listen in at the link above.
• Disaster in Japan
• Future of US Nuclear Power industry
• Wisconsin update: Walker reigns, Fleeing Fourteen return
• NPR
• President Obama wishes he were Hu?
• March Madness
Call in at 347.637.2203 to participate or listen in at the link above.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Signs of the Apocalypse Department
Wisconsin legislators who skipped town rather than do their jobs, welcomed by thousands back to Madison, WI.
I remain transfixed by the moxie of those on the left who believe that Governor Walker's initiatives were anti-Democratic. He and a Republican majority were swept into office last fall to do EXACTLY what they've done. The cowardice of the "Fleeing Fourteen" was a naked attempt to derail the will of the people as expressed in THE ACCEPTED, LEGITIMATE manner--elections, not polls.
This statement--from one of the cowards--galled me: "So people think this is a picnic for us - they're wrong," he said. "We did it for the right reasons. We stood up for our working men and women in the state." Since when did "working men and women" come to be synonymous with union workers? Or blue collar workers. My weekly time sheet and the glares I get around the house lead me to believe I work PLENTY.
Also, I love the farmers joining in. Farm subsidies should be next....
I remain transfixed by the moxie of those on the left who believe that Governor Walker's initiatives were anti-Democratic. He and a Republican majority were swept into office last fall to do EXACTLY what they've done. The cowardice of the "Fleeing Fourteen" was a naked attempt to derail the will of the people as expressed in THE ACCEPTED, LEGITIMATE manner--elections, not polls.
This statement--from one of the cowards--galled me: "So people think this is a picnic for us - they're wrong," he said. "We did it for the right reasons. We stood up for our working men and women in the state." Since when did "working men and women" come to be synonymous with union workers? Or blue collar workers. My weekly time sheet and the glares I get around the house lead me to believe I work PLENTY. Also, I love the farmers joining in. Farm subsidies should be next....
Saturday, March 12, 2011
E.J. Filet
It's always nice to see other folks beat up on everyone's favorite paste-eating liberal columnist, E.J. Dionne.
The NFL Lockout--Who Cares?
So, the NFL players have been "locked out". Just a quick question for you rabid NFL fans.....who cares? Certainly not Tom "Carnival" Brady, who apparently was "locked out" so effectively that he ended up in Brazil. This "strike" (because that's the word we use to describe stuff like this) causes me angst only from the standpoint of not knowing which side is less right.
There are so many issues on the table here, dissecting any one of them leaves so much uncovered that it isn't worth going into. Do I feel really awful about players who wind up in long term medical care because of multiple brain injuries? You betchya. Do I think the owners are money-grubbing cartel-ists? Yep. Do I think the season is already too long? Yep. Do I think players make too much money---er, no, not as long as the market can stand it.
What IS silly though is this statement by the player's union (well, former player's union) rep: "I will tell you this: Any business where two partners don't trust each other, any business where one party says, 'You need to do X, Y and Z because I told you,' is a business that is not only not run well, it is a business that can never be as successful as it can be," Smith said. The NFL players and the owners are NOT partners. Owners are owners and players are labor. Pure and simple. Whether in the auto industry or the NFL, a business cannot long prosper which forgets that labor and capital are different and ultimately have different interests, some of which are antithetical.
I'm sure there are plenty of lost souls whose fall and winter will be made even more desolate without the chance to put on their Steeler jersey on a Sunday before they go to the Giant, or the inconsolable folks who thought to drown their loss of collective bargaining rights in beer, brats, and foam cheese headware, or those who will no longer be able to cheer on animal abusers. But I will be none the worse for a football season lost to history.
There are so many issues on the table here, dissecting any one of them leaves so much uncovered that it isn't worth going into. Do I feel really awful about players who wind up in long term medical care because of multiple brain injuries? You betchya. Do I think the owners are money-grubbing cartel-ists? Yep. Do I think the season is already too long? Yep. Do I think players make too much money---er, no, not as long as the market can stand it.
What IS silly though is this statement by the player's union (well, former player's union) rep: "I will tell you this: Any business where two partners don't trust each other, any business where one party says, 'You need to do X, Y and Z because I told you,' is a business that is not only not run well, it is a business that can never be as successful as it can be," Smith said. The NFL players and the owners are NOT partners. Owners are owners and players are labor. Pure and simple. Whether in the auto industry or the NFL, a business cannot long prosper which forgets that labor and capital are different and ultimately have different interests, some of which are antithetical.
I'm sure there are plenty of lost souls whose fall and winter will be made even more desolate without the chance to put on their Steeler jersey on a Sunday before they go to the Giant, or the inconsolable folks who thought to drown their loss of collective bargaining rights in beer, brats, and foam cheese headware, or those who will no longer be able to cheer on animal abusers. But I will be none the worse for a football season lost to history.
Friday, March 11, 2011
WHAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!
The pressures of the job are apparently taking their toll on The One:
"Mr Obama has told people it would be much easier to be the president of China. As one official put it, 'No one is scrutinizing Hu Jintao's words in Tahir Square.'"
-- The New York Times, March 11, 2011
No one drafted you for this job, Mr. President - remember, you sought it out. But look on the bright side, I'll bet you Hu Jintao never has time for golf.
Big Fat Friday Free For All
Here it is folks, that time of the week where you can bitch, bitch, bitch!
I'm going to bitch about MUD again. My God, when will it stop raining! Mud everywhere, made no better by the renovation traffic. Oh--the renovation you ask? Don't ask. Into month 8 of our 7 month renovation.....
I'm going to bitch about MUD again. My God, when will it stop raining! Mud everywhere, made no better by the renovation traffic. Oh--the renovation you ask? Don't ask. Into month 8 of our 7 month renovation.....
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
The Military: Too White, Too Male
..at least according to the study cited in this story.
I guess the question to be raised here--and I'm sorry to be Clintonian--is what the meaning of the word "too" is.
I guess by the meaning I discern--that because the proportion of women and minorities is less than what they represent in the general population, the following can be assumed:
1. Congress is too white
2. Congress is too male
3. The NBA is too black
4. The NFL is too black
5. MLB is too hispanic
6. Fortune 500 boardrooms are too white
7. NASCAR is too white
8. NASCAR is too male
9. The View is too female
The silliness continues....
I guess the question to be raised here--and I'm sorry to be Clintonian--is what the meaning of the word "too" is.
I guess by the meaning I discern--that because the proportion of women and minorities is less than what they represent in the general population, the following can be assumed:
1. Congress is too white
2. Congress is too male
3. The NBA is too black
4. The NFL is too black
5. MLB is too hispanic
6. Fortune 500 boardrooms are too white
7. NASCAR is too white
8. NASCAR is too male
9. The View is too female
The silliness continues....
Beating Obama
I've written here before--and we just talked extensively Monday night--about the difficulty of beating Barack Obama in 2012. Not impossible, just difficult.
Some interesting numbers here reinforce the notion that he can be beaten. Sixty four percent of the American public think we're on the wrong track--and the President's support among "independents" has slipped from 47% to 37%.
Some interesting numbers here reinforce the notion that he can be beaten. Sixty four percent of the American public think we're on the wrong track--and the President's support among "independents" has slipped from 47% to 37%.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
I'm Sure Hammer Has Some Suggestions
The DSCC is trying to come up with a new car magnet slogan for the 2012 election. Here are the lame options:
'We've got your back, Barack'
'Repeal Republicans in 2012'
'Had Enough Tea?'
'Brick by Brick, We're Building a Firewall'
'Hey GOP? You're Firewalled!' (Seriously)
NRO's Jim Geraghty suggests the following:
'My Other Car is a Volt, and You Paid For it'
'My child is an honor student, despite his unionized teacher leaving to protest all the time'
'United We Stand Against Those despicable Teabaggers'
They're welcoming suggestions. Let's help them - let's hear your ideas for a slogan!
Bush III (cont.)
President Obama--he of the "I will close Guantanamo in one year" promise (whoops), is now going to resume military tribunals there. It seems George Bush and his staff may not have been so dumb after all, huh Mr. President?
The arrogance of the Obama team and their apologists is startling. The new narrative on the Arab Spring--that it started with the President's speech in Cairo in 2009--is loony. Their sense that they would renew America's standing by walking away from GWB's policies in the war on terror has been replaced by sheepish retractions and continuations of virtually all important Bush policies.
This is amateur hour, ladies and gentlemen. We're watching them learn their jobs in front of our eyes. I would say that we deserve better, but that's not true. We got what we deserved.
This is amateur hour, ladies and gentlemen. We're watching them learn their jobs in front of our eyes. I would say that we deserve better, but that's not true. We got what we deserved.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Another Senator to Retire
Scandal-plagued John Ensign will not run for another term upon the completion of the present one. No need to revisit the scandal...he made the right decision. Let's all say a silent prayer that Sharron Angle does not attempt another run.
In announcing the news, he gave us a fabulously memorable line: there are consequences to sin.
In announcing the news, he gave us a fabulously memorable line: there are consequences to sin.
Agenda for Tonight's Conservative Wahoo Live! Internet Radio Program
Tune in tonight at 8PM for The Conservative Wahoo Live! where our agenda for discussion will be:
• The New Liberal Talking Point: Obama as Reagan: Speech Ended Arab Dictatorships
• What are US options in Libya?
• Muslim Radicalization Hearings: Is Rep. Peter King’s past IRA boosterism an issue?
• The GOP Field for 2012
• Rising Fuel Prices—Drill, Baby, Drill?
Call in and join the fun at 347.637.2203 or just listen on your computer through the link above.
• The New Liberal Talking Point: Obama as Reagan: Speech Ended Arab Dictatorships
• What are US options in Libya?
• Muslim Radicalization Hearings: Is Rep. Peter King’s past IRA boosterism an issue?
• The GOP Field for 2012
• Rising Fuel Prices—Drill, Baby, Drill?
Call in and join the fun at 347.637.2203 or just listen on your computer through the link above.
Shocking: Hip-Hop Awards Show Turns Into Violent Brawl
I love the tone of this article--the writer is trying SO HARD to treat "Hip-Hop" seriously, protect its reputation and at the same time, report a newsworthy event. It seems a DC area "Hip-Hop" awards show degenerated into a full scale brawl, which is of course shocking coming from a musical genre (can I even call it that?) that glorifies violence--against cops, women, the establishment, each other....etc.
Catch the video here, if you are so inclined.
Catch the video here, if you are so inclined.
Big News From A Great Ship
USS BULKELEY (DDG 84) had a good weekend, having broken up a pirate attack on a Japanese merchant vessel. Nice to hear that name in the news....here's a pic of me and big brother Tom on BULKELEY....
Sunday, March 6, 2011
David Ignatius Gives Barack Obama The Credit for The Freedom Agenda
In a breathtaking example of Greek chorus politics, David Ignatius--no friend of George W. Bush--writes the following of the policies of the Obama Administration in the restive Arab world:
"In supporting the wave of change sweeping the Arab world, despite the wariness of traditional allies such as Israel and Saudi Arabia, Obama is placing a big bet that democratic governments will be more stable and secure, and thereby enhance U.S. interests in the region"
Um--isn't this what used to called the "Freedom Agenda" under President Bush? Wasn't HE the one who suggested that there was a yearning for freedom in the heart of every human being, the political representation of which is more democracy rather than less--which ultimately brings human nature and human politics into closer alignment?
You can see the fingerprints of the Obama National Security Council staff all over this one. "Hey David, come on over to the White House Mess and have lunch. I can show you "Presidential Study Directive 11" which shows how prescient we were in seeing this unrest coming, and how successfully our "No Drama Obama" approach mirrors that which we were always planning to do when these events transpired, which we of course always predicted."
And Ignatius bought it--hook, line and sinker.
"In supporting the wave of change sweeping the Arab world, despite the wariness of traditional allies such as Israel and Saudi Arabia, Obama is placing a big bet that democratic governments will be more stable and secure, and thereby enhance U.S. interests in the region"
Um--isn't this what used to called the "Freedom Agenda" under President Bush? Wasn't HE the one who suggested that there was a yearning for freedom in the heart of every human being, the political representation of which is more democracy rather than less--which ultimately brings human nature and human politics into closer alignment?
You can see the fingerprints of the Obama National Security Council staff all over this one. "Hey David, come on over to the White House Mess and have lunch. I can show you "Presidential Study Directive 11" which shows how prescient we were in seeing this unrest coming, and how successfully our "No Drama Obama" approach mirrors that which we were always planning to do when these events transpired, which we of course always predicted."
And Ignatius bought it--hook, line and sinker.
The WaPost Ombudsman on the Courage of WaPost Employees
I've written many times here of the fascination of the modern press in covering...well...itself, and of the hagiographic coverage reporters get who find themselves on the wrong end of the violence they freely journeyed to cover. Here's another example of the "look how brave we are" genre, in which the WaPost OMBUDSMAN (new to the job) lauds the bravery and gumption of some Post journalists.
Journalists getting arrested or injured in political upheaval is not an interesting story to me, and I suspect many others. Were doctors and lawyers and postal workers and tradesmen not also injured and arrested in these upheavals? Were the voyeuristic activities of the journalists swept into the violence somehow more worthy than those actually involved in the protests? I think not, and I will continue to write about this ridiculosity.
Journalists getting arrested or injured in political upheaval is not an interesting story to me, and I suspect many others. Were doctors and lawyers and postal workers and tradesmen not also injured and arrested in these upheavals? Were the voyeuristic activities of the journalists swept into the violence somehow more worthy than those actually involved in the protests? I think not, and I will continue to write about this ridiculosity.
Radio Show Bleg
What do you folks want to talk about tomorrow (Monday) night on The Conservative Wahoo Live!?
George Will--One Shot, Two Kills
George Will delivers a stem-winder here, the kind that will not endear him to some folks on the right--but which of course endears him to me. Mike Huckabee and Newt Gingrich have both spent enough time on the ridiculous Obama history crazy train for thoughtful Republicans to realize that neither of them is Presidential. Will's gang of five--Barbour, Romney, Daniels, Huntsman and Pawlenty--is a solid group of GOP standard bearers, though Chris Christie would obviously liven things up.
Notably missing (but predictably missing) from Will's list is Sarah Palin. This will--of course--be the MSNBC take-away from Wills column.
Notably missing (but predictably missing) from Will's list is Sarah Palin. This will--of course--be the MSNBC take-away from Wills column.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Peter King, The IRA, and Islamic Terrorism
Talk about chickens coming home to roost! New York Republican Peter King is preparing to hold a series of hearings on the "radicalization of American Muslims" in the House of Representatives. It seems some folks who retain the ability to weigh inconvenient facts find this ironic, given his throaty, active support of the Irish Republican Army.
King explains away the difference with a precision one might classify as "Clinton-esque", if such a distinction meant anything anymore. Here is some of that explanation: "But King sees no parallel between the IRA and violent Islamist extremism, which he describes as a foreign enemy or a foreign-directed enemy. His preferred comparison for the IRA is with the African National Congress led by Nelson Mandela; the IRA, no less than the ANC's military wing, was fighting for community rights and freedom, he says. "I [wanted] a peace agreement, a working agreement, where the nationalist community would feel their rights would be respected," King said in an interview at his Capitol Hill office. "I felt that the IRA, in the context of Irish history, and Sinn Fein were a legitimate force that had to be recognized and you wouldn't have peace without them"
Whether or not Islamic extremism is a "foreign enemy" or a "foreign directed enemy" is interesting, but not relevant--especially if you were in the British Army in Ulster, or were part of the Protestant community there. What THEY saw was terrorism, flat out. I'm sure the British and the Ulster Irishmen saw PLENTY of foreign influence in the IRA (see connections to other worldwide terror organizations AND financing from the Irish-American community). As a matter of fact, I was present as a boy of six or seven in a Long Island basement where the hat was passed to SUPPORT the IRA.
Should the Congress look into the radicalization of American Muslims as a threat to national security? Yes. Should Peter King lead that inquiry? No. He was a vocal supporter of a bloody terror organization and he does not have the moral standing to preside.
King explains away the difference with a precision one might classify as "Clinton-esque", if such a distinction meant anything anymore. Here is some of that explanation: "But King sees no parallel between the IRA and violent Islamist extremism, which he describes as a foreign enemy or a foreign-directed enemy. His preferred comparison for the IRA is with the African National Congress led by Nelson Mandela; the IRA, no less than the ANC's military wing, was fighting for community rights and freedom, he says. "I [wanted] a peace agreement, a working agreement, where the nationalist community would feel their rights would be respected," King said in an interview at his Capitol Hill office. "I felt that the IRA, in the context of Irish history, and Sinn Fein were a legitimate force that had to be recognized and you wouldn't have peace without them"
Whether or not Islamic extremism is a "foreign enemy" or a "foreign directed enemy" is interesting, but not relevant--especially if you were in the British Army in Ulster, or were part of the Protestant community there. What THEY saw was terrorism, flat out. I'm sure the British and the Ulster Irishmen saw PLENTY of foreign influence in the IRA (see connections to other worldwide terror organizations AND financing from the Irish-American community). As a matter of fact, I was present as a boy of six or seven in a Long Island basement where the hat was passed to SUPPORT the IRA.
Should the Congress look into the radicalization of American Muslims as a threat to national security? Yes. Should Peter King lead that inquiry? No. He was a vocal supporter of a bloody terror organization and he does not have the moral standing to preside.
Mike Huckabee Demonstrates Why He Is Not Presidential
Natalie Portman seems like a fine young woman. She's well-educated (dropped out of sight to finish her degree), talented (recent Oscar) and seems to live a relatively sane life. She is also pregnant, carrying the baby of her fiance.
Mike Huckabee is a former minister, former Governor of Arkansas, former presidential candidate and possibly a future presidential candidate. Mr. Huckabee finds himself in a bit of a tempest for having criticized Ms. Portman's single pregnancy, claiming that she is glorifying and glamorizing single pregnancy.
Huckabee is a fool and a scold, and he will not be President. I wish to go on the record now and throughout the coming election that this is one Republican I simply cannot support. Putting aside for a moment the likelihood that kabillionaire Portman can probably swing the single mother thing without recourse to state aid, the fact that she is affianced should make SOME difference. But even more to the point, Huckabee earned his chops as a social conservative sort of Republican, you know, the kind who thinks abortion should be banned. So lets set up a little thought experiment. What would YOU HAVE Ms. Portman do with the news of her pregnancy, Mr. Huckabee? Would you have rather that she aborted it?
He can't have it both ways. He can't criticize her for glamorizing single motherhood at the same time he damns the act that would have removed that which he believes she glamorizes. While single-motherhood is associated with all sorts of societal ills, if you're gonna walk the pro-life walk, then you don't get to criticize those who choose exactly what you would have them choose. And if you REALLY want to protect the lives of unborn fetuses, then maybe prominent women carrying theirs to term isn't such a bad thing.
Mike Huckabee is a former minister, former Governor of Arkansas, former presidential candidate and possibly a future presidential candidate. Mr. Huckabee finds himself in a bit of a tempest for having criticized Ms. Portman's single pregnancy, claiming that she is glorifying and glamorizing single pregnancy.
Huckabee is a fool and a scold, and he will not be President. I wish to go on the record now and throughout the coming election that this is one Republican I simply cannot support. Putting aside for a moment the likelihood that kabillionaire Portman can probably swing the single mother thing without recourse to state aid, the fact that she is affianced should make SOME difference. But even more to the point, Huckabee earned his chops as a social conservative sort of Republican, you know, the kind who thinks abortion should be banned. So lets set up a little thought experiment. What would YOU HAVE Ms. Portman do with the news of her pregnancy, Mr. Huckabee? Would you have rather that she aborted it?
He can't have it both ways. He can't criticize her for glamorizing single motherhood at the same time he damns the act that would have removed that which he believes she glamorizes. While single-motherhood is associated with all sorts of societal ills, if you're gonna walk the pro-life walk, then you don't get to criticize those who choose exactly what you would have them choose. And if you REALLY want to protect the lives of unborn fetuses, then maybe prominent women carrying theirs to term isn't such a bad thing.
Healthy Living
Finally. We should put these scientists on the global warming beat. A noted cardiologist recommends male readers return to this post several times a day to promote healthy living. HT: Instapundit
Friday, March 4, 2011
BYU Does the Right Thing
This week the Cougars of BYU saw their NCAA hoop dreams slip away from them when one of their stalwart performers, forward Brandon Davies, was suspended for violating the school's honor code. His specific violation? Having sex with his girlfriend.
While perhaps this would not work on 99.9% of America's college campuses, BYU maintains the strict rule that its students remain chaste and virtuous.
I don't know how many of those students truly are chaste and virtuous. But kudos to the athletic program for standing by their honor code, despite the cost. I'd like to give the kid some props for honesty, but he makes it difficult since his actions will deny his teammates an opportunity to go deep in the tourney this year. Really, though, considering it's nearly tournament time, how many schools would just look the other way?
While perhaps this would not work on 99.9% of America's college campuses, BYU maintains the strict rule that its students remain chaste and virtuous.
I don't know how many of those students truly are chaste and virtuous. But kudos to the athletic program for standing by their honor code, despite the cost. I'd like to give the kid some props for honesty, but he makes it difficult since his actions will deny his teammates an opportunity to go deep in the tourney this year. Really, though, considering it's nearly tournament time, how many schools would just look the other way?
Big Fat Friday Free For All
Yes ladies and gents, it is time once again for your weekly opportunity to unburden yourselves! Put it out there for all to see, fly your flag, etc.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
The First Chink in Christie's Armor
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is quite a favorite here on the ole blog, and just about everywhere else in Republican-land. Talk of him as a 2012 Presidential Candidate is ubiquitous, talk that he he himself has assiduously asserted was folly and that he would not run. This is all well and good, even if he plans to run. Keep 'em guessing, let them build up their sense of anticipation.
But if you're going to say you're not running--you don't get to say "I already know I would win. That's not the issue." If you say you're not running, keep saying it. Say it as often as you can. But saying that you're not running--but that you'd win if you did--is the adult political version of a schoolyard taunt, the kind nobody believed in the schoolyard.
But if you're going to say you're not running--you don't get to say "I already know I would win. That's not the issue." If you say you're not running, keep saying it. Say it as often as you can. But saying that you're not running--but that you'd win if you did--is the adult political version of a schoolyard taunt, the kind nobody believed in the schoolyard.
The Westboro Decision
The miserable, execrable, demons of Westboro Baptist Church won a decision in the Supreme Court today that guarantees them the right to continue to mount their loathsome protests in the vicinity of funerals of fallen service members. The conduct of these hateful lumps of DNA is about as reprehensible as it gets, and there is no place in a civil society for this kind of demonstration.
But the Supreme Court was right to reach the decision it did.
By an 8-1 margin (Justice Alito in dissent), the Court (with the Chief writing the majority opinion) ruled that while there was no societal benefit to the speech Westboro practices, its elimination would be injurious to free-speech rights. It is regrettable that they reached this decision, though the only thing more regrettable would have been for them to rule the other way.
I am struck by Justice Alito's dissent. I agree with virtually everything he says on a human level--but when it comes right down to it, there just isn't a reason to prohibit their speech that passes Constitutional muster.
But the Supreme Court was right to reach the decision it did.
 |
| Loathsome, but Legal |
By an 8-1 margin (Justice Alito in dissent), the Court (with the Chief writing the majority opinion) ruled that while there was no societal benefit to the speech Westboro practices, its elimination would be injurious to free-speech rights. It is regrettable that they reached this decision, though the only thing more regrettable would have been for them to rule the other way.
I am struck by Justice Alito's dissent. I agree with virtually everything he says on a human level--but when it comes right down to it, there just isn't a reason to prohibit their speech that passes Constitutional muster.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
REMEMBER HIM? I TOLD YOU SO.
Where is the breathless media coverage now? (although I couldn't disagree more with the author's apparent notion that we somehow owe this guy more and more help and consideration, I do agree with slamming the media for their rush to turn this bum into an overnight sensation).