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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
