empire of dirt

2009-08-18T21:00:00.003-04:00

Criminals Are So Downtrodden (sniff)

This from "Your Tax Dollars at Waste" (editorial) in today's New York Post:

"The [New York] state Senate has earmarked $10,000 to finance a study by ex-cons to determine whether state laws are racist.

[....]

"The funding, sponsored by Brooklyn Democrat Eric Adams, will go to the Center for NuLeadership on Urban Solutions at CUNY's Medgar Evers College -- a program 'designed and developed by formerly incarcerated professionals.'

"The sheep-skinned ex-cons are interested in whether laws, including -- no surprise -- those dealing with criminal justice, 'have [a] negative impact on racial minorities,' a director at the center told The Post's Carl Campanile."

The Post's editorial response?

"We'd have thought their experience would be better put to use studying the 'negative impact' on minority communities brought about by, say, crime."

Classic.

2009-08-18T20:51:00.002-04:00

Imperial Quote Collection: Richard Nixon on Healthcare Town Halls (from the grave)

From Nixon's first inaugural address (1969):

"We cannot learn from one another until we stop shouting at one another--until we speak quietly enough so that our words can be heard as well as our voices."

hat tip: Weekly Standard

Imperial Quote Collection: Oddities

2009-07-15T10:59:00.001-04:00

“Even a teasing mention of Diet Pepsi can set off a rant that will momentarily eclipse talk of the bomb.”

----from “Atomic John,” The New Yorker, by David Samuels (December 15, 2008)

Imperial Quote Collection: Joseph Epstein on Prize-Winning

2009-07-08T20:16:00.000-04:00

"If anyone ever tells you that you are the best at what you do, all you need to do to prevent an exaggerated sense of yourself is ask that person who he thinks is second best."

from "Prizeless," Weekly Standard, November 24, 2008

Imperial Quote Collection: Francis Bacon (the painter) on Friends & Enemies

2009-05-23T09:41:00.002-04:00

I couldn't have said it better myself...

The quote:

"Champagne for my real friends, real pain for my sham friends."

It All Looks So Different Once They Give You That First Briefing, Doesn't It?

2009-05-18T14:26:00.003-04:00

source: "Obama After Bush, Leading by Second Thought," New York Times, 5/18/2009

quote:

President Obama’s decisions this week to retain important elements of the Bush-era system for trying terrorism suspects and to block the release of pictures showing abuse of American-held prisoners abroad are the most graphic examples yet of how he has backtracked, in substantial if often nuanced ways, from the approach to national security that he preached as a candidate, and even from his first days in the Oval Office.

Mr. Obama’s opening gambits as president were bold declarations of new directions, from announcing the closing of the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to sweeping restrictions on interrogation techniques. He advertised both as a return to traditional American values, after the diversions taken by George W. Bush to the detriment of America’s image abroad and of itself.

But as he showed this week in the way he dealt with those two hard cases, Mr. Obama has begun to scale back. Faced with the choice of signaling an unambiguous break with the policies of the Bush era, or maintaining some continuity with its practices, the president has begun to come down on the side of taking fewer risks with security, even though he is clearly angering the liberal elements of his political base.

Imperial Quote Collection: James Bowman on Theodore Dalrymple on Crime

2009-05-14T10:01:00.001-04:00

source: "Harm's Way," Weekly Standard, 4/27/09

quote:

"The media consensus [in Britain]--and to a large extent [in America]--includes certain core principles, such as that crime is caused by something other than criminals and that imprisonment is society's shame, rather than that of the incarcerated, which can only be protected by maintaining these hypocrisies and deceptions, and with them, the illusion that nothing can be done about most crime."

Imperial Quote Collection: Gershom Gorenberg on the Great-Man Theory of History

2009-04-08T11:06:00.002-04:00

quote:

"The brilliance of the individual cannot be explained by the blind processes of history. Rather, it shapes them."

source: "The Missing Mahatma," Weekly Standard, 6 April 2009

Re Great Man Theory of history

Imperial Quote Collection: Michael Imperioli on "Life on Mars"

2009-04-02T10:05:00.003-04:00

Great monologue for Imperioli on series finale last night:

"We live on a rock. There ain't no rhyme. There ain't no reason. We live on a rock, just one of many, hurtling around in some big cosmic jambalaya. Now you wanna get questiony, that's your prerogative. My ma too me to a big loud church every Sunday. She squeezed her eyes shut, she pressed her rosary beads to her lips, and she prayed for good things for those she loved. But cancer took two of her sisters. Her husband couldn't make a move without a belly full of gin. Her youngest son turned to a life of crime. And her oldest--me--is a nasty sonofabitch who can’t get out of third gear without a snarl. So who was she talking to every Sunday? And why wasn’t he answering? I will tell you why. Because we live on a rock, just one of many. There ain't no answers. There's just this. And all you can really hope to do is find a couple of people who will make the seventy or eighty odd years we get to live on this sweet swinging sphere remotely tolerable."

What a great show this was. Hope they put it out on DVD.

Not Invading Your Country Wasn't Enough?

2009-03-11T10:01:00.002-04:00

source: 3/11/2009, New York Times, "5 Years After It Halted Weapons Programs, Libya Sees the U.S. as Ungrateful" by MICHAEL SLACKMAN

quote:

When Libya gave up its nuclear and chemical weapons programs in late 2003, President George W. Bush pointed to the decision as a victory in Washington’s so-called war on terror and as a potential model for pressing Iran and North Korea to give up their weapons programs, too. A barbershop in Tripoli, Libya, beneath the visage of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. One analyst said, “Dealing with Qaddafi is not easy because he is unpredictable.” But now Libyan officials say they are dissatisfied with the way the deal worked out, insisting that the United States has done too little to reward Libya’s concessions.

Did anybody EVER believe that Libya did what they did for any other reason than they were afraid of us?

You Have GOT to Be Kidding Me...

2009-03-11T09:49:00.002-04:00

So this morning we are fed the following drivel...

Source: 3/11/2009, New York Times, "Try a Little Tenderness" by STEVEN KLEINMAN and MATTHEW ALEXANDER

Quote:

ON Jan. 22, President Obama signed an executive order banning torture and establishing a panel to examine America’s interrogation methods. The ban on torture is a major step toward reclaiming our heritage as a nation of laws and a people of character. And it will enhance the country’s security by undermining Al Qaeda’s most effective recruiting theme — its portrayal of the United States as a dishonorable superpower that sanctions the type of abuses so graphically captured in the images from Abu Ghraib.

Doesn't that sound just rainbowy?

Until you remember that Al Qaeda hated us and had no trouble recruiting BEFORE Abu Ghraib?

From later in the article:

One might think that any interrogation method considered legal must also be effective. But many techniques that have been deemed lawful by lawyers at the Justice Department, the Defense Department and even the White House have never been tested for how well they elicit information from people who resist providing it. In fact, none of the methods contained in the current Army manual on interrogation have ever been scientifically tested for effectiveness.

I have heard that they waterboarded Sheikh Khalid Mohammed, and that then he talked. How more scientific do you want?

Obligatory Gay Marriage Post, Redux

2009-02-26T11:42:00.003-05:00

Very good article about gay marriage in today's New York Times.

David Blankenhorn and Jonathan Rauch do a great job outlining one possible compromise on this issue, but what's more important, from my perspective, is the lengths they go to, in order to argue that both sides on this issue need to respect the right of the other side to have their viewpoint--no matter what you think of said viewpoint. That is key, it seems to me, and something that we never do.

For the record, this is very nearly what I was saying back in November of 2003!

When will you people learn to listen to me?

2009-02-25T08:12:00.001-05:00

Imperial Quote Collection: Stephen L. Carter on political dialogue

"There are few issues of any importance that are not reduced, in public dialogue, to sloganeering and applause lines. Whether we argue over war or the economy, marriage or religion, abortion or guns, we reduce our ideas to just the right size for the adolescent tantrum of the bumper sticker."

source

2009-02-12T06:36:00.001-05:00

When Two Hundred Years Old You Reach, Look As Good You Will Not

Happy Birthday #200, Mr. President. Sir.

2009-01-22T08:46:00.003-05:00

Good Lines from the Inaugural Address

For the Muslim dictators: “We will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”

They aren't, but at least they can't say he didn't say it.

It's just a well-written line. I wonder how many people have remarked that this is what Bush has been saying, albeit not as well. I daresay that the Iraq War wouldn't have needed to be waged had Saddam Hussein unclenched his fist. We could have--WOULD have--helped that nation enter the 21st Century, if only Hussein had wanted to allow them to do so.

Oh, well.

Obama is right to say, Hey, we want to be your friends, but if you don't want that, fine, we won't. We can clench our fists, too.

At least I hope that's what he meant.

2009-01-22T08:36:00.003-05:00

The Imperial Word on Yesterday's Re-Administration of the Inaugural Oath

Everybody calm the fuck down.

The Constitution DOES dictate the wording of the Oath. Fair enough. They re-did it just to make sure the (right-wing) blogosphere doesn't spend the next four (or eight) years fulminating about a "false" presidency (the way the [left-wing] blogosphere did about the Bush presidency for the last eight years--and forever from now on, probably).

The Constitution also says: "Before he [sic] enter on the Execution of his Office, he [sic] shall take the following Oath or Affirmation [yadda yadda yadda]."

So at the very least, Obama WAS President as of noon on 1/20 but couldn't execute the powers of the Office until they re-did the Oath.

Maybe he has to re-sign all the crap he signed before the re-Oath?

And the Bible thing? The Constitution doesn't say anything about swearing on a Bible.

Calm down, folks.

The Oath took.

"Move On," indeed. Sheesh.

2009-01-20T16:45:00.003-05:00

I Swear to God Somebody Just Said This on TV

In a discussion of whether the new President is expected to appear at every single one of the inaugural balls being thrown tonight in his honor, or if he could skip one or more of them, one of the commentators on Fox News just asked...and I know he didn't mean it the way it sounds...but it's SOOOOO funny....

(drum roll)

"Has the President ever blown off a couple of balls?"

LOL

2009-01-20T09:58:00.004-05:00

Don't Get Me Wrong...

I'm very proud to be watching this inauguration with my little boy, and someday I'll tell him, "You were too young to remember it, but you watched it on TV."

Politics aside, this is history in the making.

Am I going vehemently to criticize President Obama when I disagree with him? You bet.

But that can wait until tomorrow.

Today's peaceful transfer of power is the greatest possible advertisement for American democracy, and it should be celebratory. That we elected a black dude is icing on the cake, but that's really beside the point, as it should be. The really good thing is that he seems to have a top-notch brain. I can't wait to see what he does with it.

2009-01-20T08:48:00.002-05:00

Imperial Quote Collection: Tlahtoani Anubis on Hero Worship

"Every time Barak Obama farts flowers bloom and hundred dollar bills tumble from the sky."

Source: personal correspondence

2009-01-20T07:49:00.002-05:00

The Double Standard is Dead! Long Live the Double Standard!

Everytime I turn on the TV, I see Pat Buchanan, or Peggy Noonan, or Joe Scarborough going on and on about how no matter your party, the Obama inauguration is a wonderful sight in terms of our racial history. And it is. But if Condi Rice or Michael Steele were being sworn in today, would we be witness to a similar parade of liberal TV commentators saying the same thing? Hmmm?

2009-01-20T07:46:00.001-05:00

"We Like American People Now"?

Watch this.

The French like us...now. Well, now I can sleep at night. Sheesh.

2009-01-14T09:51:00.003-05:00

This is Why Radical Islam Must Be DESTROYED...

"Afghan Schoolgirls Undeterred by Attack", New York Times, 1/14/2009

(report about girls going to school every morning despite having been attacked with face-burning acid by Taliban)

...Rather Than "Respected"...

"Worldwide Hate Speech Laws?", Weekly Standard, 11/24/2008

(story about Saudi king's [and others'] attempt to impose BANS in the West on criticism of Islam)

You have GOT to be kidding me...

2008-11-13T08:36:00.003-05:00

Hilarious, Just the Right Touch of Irony: Barack Obama "Hope Toast" on eBay!

As of this posting, there had been 19 bids, and the price was up to $207.50.

See the original auction listing here (while it lasts):

Hope Toast-Obama image on toast akin to Fairey posters!

Text from auction listing (since it won't be there forever):

Keep it real with Obama Hope toast!

Barack Obama has miraculously appeared on a piece of toast I was preparing for breakfast. This is a one-of-a-kind item to celebrate his win as US President. The item is one piece of Wonder Bread that has been toasted. Nothing has been added to the bread - no butter or oils. The buyer will receieve this item as shown. Shipping charges will depend on the distance from New Jersey. Paypal, personal check, or money orders are accepted. Enjoy!

AS SEEN ON MSNBC'S COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN ON 11/11/08 !!!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/vp/27669595#27669595

Recording History at the Lincoln Memorial

2008-11-06T08:14:00.003-05:00

Memorial Day, New York Times, 11/5/08

On Election Night, almost 148 years to the day since Lincoln was first elected, a small group of people gathered at the Lincoln Memorial, the site where Martin Luther King had delivered his famous "I Have a Dream" speech, to listen to President-elect Barack Obama's victory speech on a transistor radio. A poignant scene, no doubt about it. One wonders why more people didn't think to do this. Regardless of ones politics or party affiliation, there is no denying that Obama's election was very moving in light of this country's racial history.

Now, I did not vote for Obama, for a lot of reasons. But I assure you it wasn't because he's black. I sincerely hope that he can make good on his promise to bring a new spirit to Washington, and I sincerely hope that he can continue to inspire young people to get involved in the political life of their nation--even when he lets them down. Because he will; they all do. But maybe, just maybe, he can communicate something to us about our responsibility to be civil with each other, to listen to each other, to compromise with each other, to work together in search of the elusive compromises that best allow for all our views to be expressed in public life and in policy. I hope he can make good on that promise. We'll see. I hope he can resist the temptation to tack to the far-left. I hope he realizes that he has to go centrist on healthcare and on taxes. I hope he sees Iraq through to the end. I hope he surges in Afghanistan. We'll see. All that aside, the majority has spoken, and I have too much respect for the uniqueness of the American political process, and for the Office of the Presidency, not to give the guy his due. I'm actually looking forward to my son's growing up without ever being haunted by the nagging suspicion that one has to be white to be president. But I also have a real fear of Obama's radical left leanings, and I hope he means it when he says that he is my president, too. I hope he realizes, once he's in office, that he can't force one group's ideas down another group's collective throat without there being consequences come re-election time. And I hope he believes, as I do, that his own electoral fate is insignificant compared to the fate of the entire nation should he sell it out to the far left. It would be a damn shame to see Martin Luther King's dream come to such happy fruition, only to see it go down in history as a terrible mistake. I hope that doesn't happen. I didn't vote for the guy--because he had no record to examine. But I concede that he inspires people like nobody has for a long time, and that should be part of the job. I just hope that over the next four years he can build a real record that will justify his having been elected. I hope so. We'll see.

2008-10-21T07:14:00.004-04:00

Imperial Hagiography: Johnny Cash in the News

Apparently, there's an annual festival in Starkville, Mississippi, to commemorate the night Cash spent in the town's jail, an event that the Man in Black immortalized in the song "Starkville City Jail."

Go here to read the New York Times article (and don't miss the slideshow) about this event.

Quote:

"Since that night in 1965, and especially since his death in 2003, Johnny Cash has become for some the craggy patron saint of redemption, his rumbling voice imparting freight-train blessings for all of America."

There it is.

2008-10-19T13:08:00.002-04:00

Imperial Quote Collection: Jean-Luc Godard on Creativity

It’s not where you take things from--it’s where you take them to.

2008-09-07T20:35:00.001-04:00

Imperial Quote Collection: Vernon Sanders Law on Experience

"Experience is a hard teacher because she gives the test first, the lesson afterwards."

2008-09-07T09:37:00.002-04:00

Imperial Quote Collection: Norman & Velma Hill on Work

source: "What Would Randolph Do?" (New York Sun, 8/28/08)

quote:

"Work enables us to support ourselves and our families, provides us with a sense of dignity, and enables a society to grow. It is also linked to freedom, since the absence of work creates dependency."

Mr. Hill was staff coordinator at the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom in 1963 and is president emeritus of the A. Philip Randolph Institute. Mrs. Hill is a longtime civil rights and trade union activist and member of the A. Philip Randolph Institute advisory board.

2008-08-30T16:39:00.002-04:00

Bob Hope on Democrats

I wonder what ol' Bob would have thought of Obama's Greek coronation temple...?

2008-07-20T11:36:00.002-04:00

Imperial Quote Collection:
Roger Kimball on Good Versus Bad Ideas

Source:

"Ideas in Battle," Weekly Standard, 21 July 2008

Quote:

"It is part of the responsible exercise of intelligence to recognize the difference between ideas that work and produce desirable outcomes, and those which merely produce a species of moral intoxication.

[....]

"[W]hen we speak of publishing and the power of ideas, we need to give at least as much attention to criticizing seductive bad ideas as we do to promulgating the good ones. Indeed, because vital good ideas that impinge upon politics and social life tend to be elaborations of relatively simple home truths, the critical project of exposing bad ideas is often tantamount to revealing the good ideas that the bad ideas had obscured or perverted."

2008-07-05T18:13:00.001-04:00

Gee, I'm Just Torn Up Inside About Them Desperate Al-Qaeda Gals

Despair Drives Suicide Attacks by Iraqi Women

And here all this time I thought it was hatred.

Ain't it funny how the New York Times sees fit to publish a story about the "despair" of Al-Qaeda, rather than one about the despair of their victims?

2008-06-26T10:38:00.002-04:00

And Here's Why We NEED Guns (See Previous Post...)

You win some, you lose some.

The Supremes ALSO ruled yesterday that you can't get the death penalty for RAPING A CHILD. Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority that the Eighth Amendment (the one about cruel and unusual punishment) precludes handing down the death penalty for child rape. Kennedy: There is “a distinction between intentional first-degree murder on the one hand and nonhomicide crimes against individual persons," even the rape of a child.

LINK

So if you want to dole out "cruel and unusual punishment," you won't get in trouble as long as you do it by raping a child.

THIS is why we need guns, folks. Because if the state won't execute child rapists, then we're just going to have to do it ourselves.

A separate issue was perceived as follows: "Justice Kennedy suggested that the flow of death penalty cases for child rape could overwhelm the country’s criminal justice system. He noted that in 2005, there were 5,702 reported rapes of children under the age of 12."

Well, just so long as we keep our priorities straight, eh?

2008-06-26T10:33:00.003-04:00

Holy Shit: Supreme Court Supports INDIVIDUAL's Right To Bear Arms!!!

This is HUGE folks, especially for those of us living in the People's Republic of New York City!

Oh, boy, oh boy, oh boy!

LINK (not sure why the New York Times put this story in the Business section...should be on the front page, no? hmmmm.... fuckers.

2008-06-23T10:46:00.004-04:00

Imperial Saints: George Carlin, 1937-2008

“Scratch any cynic,” he said, “and you’ll find a disappointed idealist.”

You will be missed, Sir. Thank you for teaching us to pay close attention to words, for reminding us how important it is to laugh at oneself, and for making it OK to admit that one hates the stupid shit other people do.

“I don’t have pet peeves. I have major, psychotic hatreds.”

A true American cultural treasure.

R.I.P.

2008-06-13T17:03:00.003-04:00

Imperial Saints: Tim Russert, R.I.P.

I just can't BELIEVE that Russert is gone. An institution. A talking head I felt like I could trust. An object lesson in how to try for balance. What I like to think I do here on EOD. Tall order.

My Sunday mornings will never be the same.

If it's Sunday, I'll think of you, Sir.

2008-05-27T08:24:00.002-04:00

Headline of the Day

from the New York Sun today:

Teachers Union Charges Misuse of Rubber Room

2008-05-27T08:16:00.003-04:00

Imperial Staircase Wit: Mark Steyn

source: Mark Steyn, "The NOPEC 'Fix'," New York Sun, 27 May 2008

Oil execs testify before Congress, and Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz goes,

"I can't say that there is evidence that you are manipulating the price, but I believe that you probably are. So prove to me that you are not."

Steyn imagines the appropriate response:

Had I been in the hapless oil man's expensive shoes, I'd have answered, "Hey, you first. I can't say that there is evidence that you're sleeping with barnyard animals, but I believe that you probably are. So prove to me that you are not. Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence and prima facie evidence, lady? Do I have to file a U.N. complaint in Geneva that the House of Representatives is in breach of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?" But that's why I don't get asked to testify before Congress.

This reminds me of my reply to Cynthia McKinney's saying that she didn't have any evidence that President Bush was behind 9/11 but that an investigation might reveal it to be the case. See my post here, in which I point out that we have no evidence that McKinney drinks the blood of babies. But an investigation might reveal it to be the case. Kudos, Mr. Steyn.

2008-05-17T21:49:00.002-04:00

Scenes From My Misspent Youth

I just happened to stumble across this on YouTube.

Weird.

2008-05-13T11:04:00.004-04:00

EOD Saints: Robert Rauschenberg, R.I.P.

The Emperor's favorite artist has departed the stage...

Link to New York Times obituary.

2008-05-10T17:35:00.004-04:00

Imperial Quote Collection: More Wes Davis on Adam Kirsch on Modernism

I quoted earlier today from "Poetry and Our Age," a review by Wes Davis of Adam Kirsch's Invasions: New Poems (in the New York Sun, May 9-11, 2008)

Here's more....

quote:

"Mr. Kirsch insists on seeing the vices of modernism--'an obsession with staying up to date, and a belief that distortion of language is interesting and praiseworthy in its own right'--as the flip side of the virtues of boldness and innovation that brought poets such as Ezra Pound and T.S. Eliot to prominence [....] At the same time, he refuses to accept the modernists' assumption that the poetic styles and modes of earlier eras were somehow superseded by own formal experiments [...] He writes in regular metrical forms, embracing the iambic rhythm Pound condemned as tyrannous, and his poetic language values clarity over gratuitous effects. Perhaps most striking is the way even his subject matter implies a continuity between past and present that seems to reject the modernist idea that human character changed at the start of the 20th century."

2008-05-10T14:06:00.003-04:00

Imperial Quote Competition: Wes Davis and David Orr on Poetry Criticism

Would you agree that being a poetry critic is like being a gardener...?

source: "Poetry and Our Age," a review by Wes Davis of Adam Kirsch's Invasions: New Poems (in the New York Sun, May 9-11, 2008)

quote:

"Art and criticism make rather strange bedfellows. A book critic friend of mine recently noticed that he and his artist wife, both enthusiastic gardeners, played entirely different roles in the vegetable garden behind their house: Her job was to nurture the plants, his to whack anything that ventured a tendril outside its appointed row [....] (Picture the poet coaxing shoots of verse to life as the critic swings his brush ax.)"

Or would another metaphor perhaps be more apt...?

source: "On Poetry," a review by David Orr of Helen Vendler's Our Secret Discipline: Yeats and Lyric Form (in the New York Times, May 11, 2008)

quote:

"Helen Vendler is one of the most powerful poetry critics of our time, and her relationship with her art is as simple as it is peculiar: she’s a steward. If contemporary poetry were a great manor house, Vendler would be its long-serving and unshakable manager, monitoring the stable hands, restocking the wine cellar, preventing the chambermaids from swiping the jewelry and, above all, keeping immaculate the high chambers to which the lords and ladies retire at nightfall. It’s an unusual position — unlike Vendler, most poetry critics are poets themselves — and it comes with its own curious set of virtues and vices. On one hand, Vendler is an astonishingly thorough and patient reader whose devotion has influenced the way we read Herbert, Shakespeare, Stevens and many others. On the other hand, her work occasionally demonstrates the flaws that come from feeling that one is obligated to ensure the Right Poets are read the Right Way."

2008-05-09T13:51:00.003-04:00

Free Dinosaur Coloring Book Pages

source

2008-05-07T22:49:00.003-04:00

Imperial Quote Collection: Liam Julian on Higher Education

source:

"College Daze," Julian's Weekly Standard review of Education's End, by Anthony T. Kronman

quote:

"After the Civil War [...] curricular rigidity began to soften, largely in response to two new questions confronting American colleges. The first, which arrived with increased immigration and intermingling of cultures, asked what to do when teaching a single worldview about what constituted the 'good life' became untenable. The second was how to address the rise of secularism and religious variety within student bodies. The answer--albeit one that came in many different flavors from college to college--was what Kronman calls 'secular humanism.'

"Secular humanism provided a way to embrace pluralism while still affirming the shared aspects of the human condition. It held that a range of personal experience exists but that the underlying structure that connected undergraduates with their peers (and with Aristotle, for that matter) was solid and unifying. It allowed students to engage in what Michael Oakeshott called a 'great conversation' with thinkers present, past, and future.

"But modern universities are no longer places where secular humanism rules. Today, higher education, including the humanities, responds to the research ideal, which prizes originality of scholarship and specialization above all else.

[....]

"The purpose of reading great books is not to derive minutiae about their authors but to explore the facets of the human experience--to make oneself wiser and better able to answer the meaning-of-life questions that are so basic and important.

[....]

"For American higher education, it's no longer worthwhile to investigate the essential questions that have puzzled humans for thousands of years, most basic among them: What is living for? Curious 20-year-olds will have to look outside their college classrooms for answers."

2008-05-05T08:36:00.005-04:00

Long Live Emily, Imperial Kitten Extraordinaire!

(1993-2008)

2008-05-04T10:27:00.001-04:00

Man, That Kool-Aid Tastes Bad!

READ THIS: "What Recession?" (New York Sun, 5/1/08)

Don't believe the hype.

2008-05-02T08:38:00.004-04:00

Imperial Quote Collection: John Wray on Austrian Endungeonment

Sometimes you come across a sentence so well-wrought that you just HAVE to share it with someone. I know not whether my readers have any interest in the recent rash of crimes in Austria that involve locking someone up for years in an underground dungeon; nevertheless, Mr. Wray's article contains this gem, which one might borrow and employ in any number of other situations (e.g., staff meetings, highway traffic, the checkout line at the grocery store, countries ruled by Islamic fascists, etc.):

"The general sense was that this heinous crime could have happened anywhere, not least because it was difficult to think of a situation so grotesque and extreme as being representative of anything whatsoever."

Incidentally, Mr. Wray (perhaps inadvertently) makes the very point I would like to suggest. He writes:

"Whenever something that ought not to happen in a civilized country does in fact happen, the need arises, quite naturally, to isolate its causes and explain them."

Indeed.

But there are certain places in the world where, were something like this to happen, we Westerners would simply assume that it were standard operating procedure; the reason the case in Austria is news is precisely because it happened in Austria. Similarly, whenever the rights of a Westerner are trampled, everyone gets all bent out of shape and tries to make the case that the West is evil; on the contrary, the reason why such happenings are remarkable is precisely because they are not what one expects of the civilized places in the world. One still expects to hear that people in certain other places rape and torture their countrymen; one does not still expect to hear of a local dungeonmaster in a Western country. One might also point out that only in the West would the dungeonmaster ever be brought to justice. But perhaps it is more acceptable simply to report on Austria's alleged penchant for evil. To do so makes it so much easier to continue turning a gouged-out eye to the much more quotidian horrors being visited upon the unlucky residents of the dark places of the world.

2008-04-10T19:39:00.003-04:00

One-Hundred-Forty-Three Years Ago This Week: Our Long National Nightmare Was Over

Lee surrenders to Grant at Appomattox

Click pic to enlarge. See left hand column.

2008-04-07T11:10:00.005-04:00

Imperial Hagiography: Charlton Heston, R.I.P.

Get your stinking paws off my gun, you damn dirty apes!

Moses is dead! Long live Moses!

(I can't decide which headline to use, so I'm throwing in everything I thought of...)

In answer to the inevitable commentary that Mr. Heston was some kind of far-right nutjob, you are hereby instructed to reference the fact that he participated in marches for civil rights, as can be seen in the following photo of Heston in Oklahoma City.

See the New York Times obituary

2008-04-06T16:53:00.003-04:00

Imperial Quote Collection: Hua Hsu on Postmodern Youth

From a "All My Friends Are Going To Be Strangers," a review of the novel All the Sad Young Literary Men, by Keith Gessen:

"Being young in the 21st century may not be harder than in earlier times, but it certainly gives us more opportunities to make our lives harder than they need to be."

I'm not quite sure what he means, of course, he said, as he listened to a newly downloaded mashup of the White Stripes and the Eurythmics, while blogging about a book review of a book he has no intention of reading, much more interested in pointing out that the title of the review comes from a Merle Haggard lyric, probably by way of the Larry McMurtry novel, and nitpicking over whether the comma goes inside or outside the quotation marks, not to mention agonizing over where to put the open tag for the hyperlink, oh, this Nirvana/Michael Jackson mashup is fun!

2008-04-06T16:47:00.003-04:00

Imperial Quote Collection: John Stossel on Education Establishment's Socialism

From an article about a California appellate court's ruling that parents have no right to home-school:

The cat is finally out of the bag. A California appellate court, ruling that parents have no constitutional right to homeschool their children, pinned its decision on this ominous quotation from a 47-year-old case, "A primary purpose of the educational system is to train schoolchildren in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare." There you have it; a primary purpose of government schools is to train schoolchildren "in loyalty to the state."

And you thought it was conservatives who want to run your life...

This is precisely what the conservative bugaboo-of-choice, "big government," refers to. Do we give over control of our lives to the state, or do we not?

Exactly who are the state-worshiping fascists now?

2008-04-06T16:44:00.002-04:00

Imperial Quote Collection: Mark Steyn on Hillary's Pathological Mendacity

Steyn imagines the New York Times headline:

"New Zealander For Whom Senator Clinton Named Dies; Also First Man To Climb Everest. Senator Clinton Was At The Summit To Greet Him, After Landing Under Heavy Sniper Fire From The Abominable Snowman."

Snort.

2008-03-29T09:24:00.002-04:00

Disingenuous Anti-Wal-Martism

source: "A Wal-Mart 'Expedition'," editorial, New York Sun, 3/24/2008

This lead editorial exposes the hypocrisy of the New York City Council's opposing allowing Wal-Mart to open in New York City yet helping to fund a local non-profit group that organizes day trips to Wal-Mart for poor senior citizens!

It's worth quoting in its entirety:

A brief item inside the City section of yesterday's New York Times reports on a non-profit group in the Bronx, Highbridge Community Life Center, that, among other services to senior citizens, offers round-trip van rides from the Bronx to a Wal-Mart in Monroe, an hour north of New York City. "The expeditions," the Times reports, "are intended to help older residents cope with the ever-rising prices of groceries and household items." Many of the individuals, the Times reports, "live alone on a fixed income in what is one of the city's poorest neighborhoods." The report details one 76-year-old woman, a "retired home health aide," buying cockroach poison at Wal-Mart for use in her apartment in a public housing project.

What the Times article omits is the reason these elderly individuals have to travel for an hour in a van in one direction and an hour back in the other direction to shop at Wal-Mart. That reason is the New York City Council. In thrall to labor unions and other forces that are lobbying against Wal-Mart, the Democrat-dominated City Council has all but banned the nation's largest retailer from New York City. What the report also omits is that Highbridge Community Life Center gets about $2.4 million a year — about 60% of its annual budget — from the New York City and State governments.

In other words, the same City Council that is preventing Wal-Mart from opening a store in New York City is using taxpayer money to pay a non-profit group in the Bronx to drive senior citizens an hour outside New York to shop at Wal-Mart. The city isn't saying that's what it is paying for, but money is fungible, and the group is 60% government funded. So the politicians get to claim credit with the unions for keeping Wal-Mart out of the city while also claiming credit with the seniors for providing them access to every day low prices. Ordinary New Yorkers, who work and pay taxes, are the ones who pay the price. Their city is deprived of the sales tax revenue that Wal-Mart would bring. If they don't have two hours to spend traveling or a non-profit to subsidize their shopping trips, they can't shop at Wal-Mart. Why not just let Wal-Mart open in New York City and eliminate the need for the van rides?

Ouch.

2008-03-29T09:15:00.003-04:00

Imperial Ammunition: Bertrand Russell on the Insufficiency of Pacifism to Answer the Threat of Global Tyranny

source: "What Would Russell Do?", by Adam Rowe, New York Sun, 3/28-30/2008

This article is about the furor over Nicholson Baker's new book, Human Smoke, the theme of which is "the heroism of the pacifists who held out against entry into World War II" (Rowe).

Rowe points out that Baker doesn't mention Bertrand Russell, who, Rowe writes, "had been jailed in Britain for his outspoken criticism of Allied efforts during World War I." Nevertheless, Russell supported the war effort against the Nazis, writing in the New York Times the following eminently quotable lines:

“I scarcely dare to hope that the world after the war will be a good world, if we win, but if we lose, it will be hell, probably for a long time to come.”

Indeed.

The same could be said today, could it not?

2008-03-23T20:43:00.002-04:00

Imperial Quote Collection: Paul Berman on Radical Islam

source: "Why Radical Islam Just Won't Die," New York Times, 3/23/2008

On the response of the Middle East to American entanglements:

Extremist movements have been growing bigger and wilder for more than three decades now, during that period, America has tried pretty much everything from a policy point of view. Our presidents have been satanic (Richard Nixon), angelic (Jimmy Carter), a sleepy idiot savant (Ronald Reagan), a cagey realist (George H. W. Bush), wonderfully charming (Bill Clinton) and famously otherwise (George W. Bush). And each president’s Middle Eastern policy has conformed to his character.

In regard to Saddam Hussein alone, our government has lent him support (Mr. Reagan), conducted a limited war against him (the first President Bush), inflicted sanctions and bombings (Mr. Clinton, in other than his charming mode), and crudely overthrown him. Every one of those policies has left the Iraqi people worse off than before, even if nowadays, from beneath the rubble, the devastated survivors can at least ruminate about a better future — though I doubt that many of them are in any mood to do so.

And each new calamity for Iraq has, like manure, lent new fertility to the various extremist organizations. The entire sequence of events may suggest that America is uniquely destined to do the wrong thing. All too likely! But it may also suggest that America is not the fulcrum of the universe, and extremist ideologies have prospered because of their own ability to adapt and survive — their strength, in a word.

And with regard to the traditional role of liberal intellectuals in the coming of change to troubled parts of the world:

[O]ver the course of a century, the intellectuals of the region have gone through any number of phases — liberal, Marxist, secularist, pious, traditionalist, nationalist, anti-imperialist and so forth, just like intellectuals everywhere else in the world.

Western intellectuals without any sort of Middle Eastern background would naturally have manifested an ardent solidarity with their Middle Eastern and Muslim counterparts who stand in the liberal vein — the Muslim free spirits of our own time, who argue in favor of human rights, rational thought (as opposed to dogma), tolerance and an open society.

But that was then. In today’s Middle East, the various radical Islamists, basking in their success, paint their liberal rivals and opponents as traitors to Muslim civilization, stooges of crusader or Zionist aggression. And, weirdly enough, all too many intellectuals in the Western countries have lately assented to those preposterous accusations.

2008-03-23T20:35:00.002-04:00

Democrats Torn Between Two Messiahs

Turns out Barack Obama isn't the only Democratic candidate who can walk on water...

After Bill Richardson threw his support to Obama, longtime Clintonista James Carville said:

“Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic."

The only thing ironic is Mr. Carville's implication that Hillary Clinton is comparable to Jesus.

Does he really have that much faith in her?

2008-03-23T17:52:00.002-04:00

Imperial Quote Collection: Andrew Ferguson on William F. Buckley, Jr.

source: "On the 'Firing Line'," Weekly Standard, 3/10/2008

On Buckley's skill at being a television star:

The old etiquette says we are not to speak ill of the dead. But pondering the dead sometimes invites us to speak ill of the living, or at least compare the living unfavorably to their predecessors, and this is irresistible when it comes to Buckley.

And on Buckley's skill as a conversationalist:

For the talk to be good, you have to know when to stop talking--to know when some things aren't worth saying, and that if something can't be said well it may be best left unsaid.

Words to live by.

2008-03-23T17:32:00.003-04:00

Imperial Quote Collection: William F. Buckley, Jr. on Blackford Oakes

source: "We Are All in His Debt," Weekly Standard, 3/10/2008

quote:

Buckley's explanation of the "basic assumption" behind his bestselling Blackford Oakes spy novels:
[T]hat the survival of everything we cherish depends on the survival of the culture of liberty; and that this hangs on our willingness to defend this extraordinary country of ours, so awfully mixed up, so much of the time; so schizophrenic in its understanding of itself and its purposes; so crazily indulgent of its legion of wildly ungovernable miscreants--to defend it at all costs. With it all, this idealistic republic is the finest bloom of nationhood in all recorded time, and save only that God may decide that the land of the free and the home of the brave has outrun its license on history, we Americans must contend, struggle, and if necessary fight for America's survival.

That about sums it up.

2008-03-23T17:23:00.003-04:00

Imperial Quote Collection: William Kristol on William F. Buckley, Jr.

source: "We Are All in His Debt," Weekly Standard, 3/10/2008

quote:

Buckley was notable for a generosity of spirit and an intellectual ecumenism. He welcomed many kinds of conservatives, old and new, into the fold at National Review, and he welcomed the emergence of other conservative organs and institutions (including this magazine). He knew that different kinds of conservatism could possess different elements of truth--and he would even acknowledge that liberalism might occasionally glimpse certain aspects of the just or the good. He didn't ever relax his standards of critical judgment, but he recognized the limits of any one person's or group's judgment. This combination of principle and ecumenism was key to his own intellectual vitality, and to the health of the conservatism he fathered.

That's it for me, and for this blog: a combination of principle and ecumenism. All things in moderation. It's so hard.

2008-03-23T16:31:00.003-04:00

"It's Not Exactly Walt Whitman": Andrew Ferguson on Barack Obama and the Politics of Victimhood

source:

"The Wit & Wisdom of Barack Obama," Weekly Standard, 3/24/2008

This is a fascinating article.

It makes fun of the extent to which politicians (specifically Obama) "quote" politicians and other people without crediting them.

For example, Obama apparently got the line "We are the ones we have been waiting for" from Alice Walker, who got it from June Jordan. (Blech. If you're going to plagiarize, at least..., oh, never mind...)

Anyway, Ferguson has a bit of fun pointing out that the line doesn't really mean anything. More evidence of the Chinese-food quality of Obama's rhetoric (see my earlier post on this notion.)

Ferguson quotes Walker as follows:

"We are the ones we've been waiting for because we are able to see what is happening with a much greater awareness than our parents or grandparents, our ancestors, could see."

Ferguson comments:

The sentence may not have any positive content, Walker seems to be saying, but it does have an indirect meaning, an implication, as a kind of self-referential gesture for the people who claim it. When Obama's supporters say "We are the ones we've been waiting for," what they mean is that in the long roll call of history, from Aristotle and Heraclitus down through Augustine and Maimonides and Immanuel Kant and the fellows who wrote the Federalist Papers, we're number one! We're the smartest yet! Everybody--Mom, Dad, Gramps and Grandma, Great Grandpa and Great Grandma, maybe even the Tribal Elders--they've all been waiting for people as clued-in as us!

Is this what Obama means too? No one who's wandered through an Obama rally and heard the war whoops and seen the cheerful, vacant gazes would come away thinking, "These are the smartest people ever." I'm sorry, they just aren't. What is unmistakable is the creepy kind of solipsism and the air of self-congratulation that clings to his campaign. "There is something happening," he says in stump speeches. And what's happening? "Change is happening." How so? "The reason our campaign has been different is about what you, the people who love this country, can do to change it." And the way to change it is to join the campaign, which, once you join it, will change America. Because this is our moment. The time is now. Now is the time. Yes, we can. We bring change to the campaign because
the campaign is about change. We are the ones we've been waiting for. Obama and his followers are perfecting postmodern reflexivity. It's a campaign that's about itself. The point of the campaign is the campaign.

The mind reels.

Ferguson also discusses the kerfuffle over Obama's use of the "just words" bit, which he got from David Axelrod.

After conceding that such "borrowing" is something that everybody does in politics (Lincoln reworking a phrase from Daniel Webster?), Ferguson rolls through a litany of examples from Obama's speeches.

Politics is broken...Tell you what you need to know, not what you want to hear...A defining moment in our history...People come to Washington not to solve problems but to score political points...Lift the country up instead of dragging it down...Take the country back...Disagree without being disagreeable...Unity over division...Hope over fear...The future over the past...Moral deficit...Ordinary people doing extraordinary things...

Ferguson concludes that section:

Talk like this is the elevator music of politics, soothing and inoffensive and unavoidable. Obama has had the unbelievable luck to attract listeners who seem to think he's minted it fresh. Indeed, among his opponents, the most common criticism of Obama's speeches is not that they are hackneyed but that they are short on detail--details of policy in particular. This isn't completely true; a few proposals can always be picked out from the texts, like seeds from a clump of cotton.

OK, that last image is perhaps an unfortunate choice of words, but I'll leave it aside for the moment.

What I want to draw your attention to is the point Ferguson makes about the way Obama includes in his speeches

"quick, arresting portraits of individual Americans he has met in his travels."

Now, this is nothing new. Every politican does it. At least since Bill Clinton, who was always telling us about some hardworking American or another he'd met who was having trouble affording this or that. This was Bill's way of showing how much he felt our pain.

But Obama has raised this speech element to an art form.

As Ferguson says:

You could call it optimistic despair. The overarching theme of Obama's speeches, and of his campaign, is that America is a fetid sewer whose most glorious days lie just ahead, thanks to the endless ranks of pathetic losers who make it a beacon of hope to all mankind.

Stop and relish that sentence, which is just awesome. Read it again. I'll wait...

One wonders whether this is a presidential campaign, or a Beckett play.

Ferguson goes on as follows:

Here's a partial list of the people that Obama has met lately. All of them are unhappy, and no wonder: Ashley, who grew up eating mustard sandwiches because her mother contracted cancer, lost her job, went bankrupt, and lost her health insurance; the "girl who goes to the crumbling school in Dillon"; "the mother who can't get Medicaid to cover all the needs of her sick child"; a New Hampshire woman who "hasn't been able to breathe since her nephew left for Iraq"; "the teacher who works another shift at Dunkin Donuts after school just to make ends meet"; a young woman in Cedar Rapids "who works the night shift after a full day of college and still can't afford health care for a sister who's ill"; "the Maytag worker who is now competing with his own teenager for a $7 an hour job at Wal-Mart." And beyond these dim, huddled figures lies the American landscape, unbearably bleak: "shuttered factories," "crumbling schools," "a planet in peril."

It's not exactly Walt Whitman. But Obama wants us to know that the picture he paints with his pointillist precision is comprehensive: He's leaving nothing out. He drives the point home when he concludes his litanies of despair by saying: "I have seen what America is." In this sense Obama truly is the unity candidate. There is no white America or black America, as he says; no blue states or red states, in his famous formulation, but only the United States of America. And what unites all these people--what unites us--is our shared status as victims.

"It's not exactly Walt Whitman," indeed. And look at that consonance! "The picture he paints with his pointillist precision"? Mr. Ferguson, my hat is off to you, Sir! But I digress...

The irony at the heart of an Obama speech is precisely as Ferguson defines it. We Americans have fucked up, but we are the ones who can fix things. Makes perfect sense to me...

But wait, there's more...!

Unfortunately, this raises the question of who the victimizer is. It's an uncomfortable question for a candidate who, having drawn such a depressing picture, wants to pivot toward the positive and upbeat and hopeful. Suddenly Obama's gift for the identifying detail leaves him. With unaccustomed vagueness he refers to "lobbyists" and "overpaid CEOs" but never names them. It's a world without human villains, improbably enough. Who are the agents of this despair? By whose hand has the country been brought so low? Whoever they are, they vanish in the fog of sentences like this: "We are up against decades of bitter partisanship that cause politicians to demonize their opponents instead of coming together to make college affordable or energy cleaner." So not even politicians in power are responsible; it's decades of bitter partisanship that has forced them into demonization, and the demonization has in turn prevented them from getting things done.

This is a murky place. Cause and effect are blurred. Bad things happen though nobody does them. Instead we face disembodied entities, ghostly apparitions. "Make no mistake about what we're up against," he will announce, with what sounds, for a moment, like clarity; but then he goes on to say what we're up against: "the belief that it's okay for lobbyists to dominate our government"; "the conventional thinking that says your ability to lead as president comes from longevity in Washington"; "forces that feed the habits that prevent us from being who we are"; "the idea that it's acceptable to do anything to win an election."

Some agents of despair these turn out to be! A belief, a way of thinking, an idea, forces that feed habits, and decades of partisanship. He won't even bring himself to blame Republicans.

How do you get people to rally to your side? Tell them they've got it bad, but assure them that it's not their fault. Whose fault is it, you ask? Oh, well, the boogeyman, basically.

Ferguson's conclusion:

Why does Obama choose to conjure up these disembodied spirits as the obstacles to "change"? There are a couple of explanations. One possibility is that he won't credit actual, nameable persons with holding these beliefs because no actual person does hold these beliefs. Imagine a candidate whose platform said: Vote for me and I'll guarantee that "our government is dominated by lobbyists." Who's on record saying that it's okay to do anything to win an election? And it's hard to find anyone who subscribes to the "conventional thinking that says your ability to lead as president comes from longevity in Washington." Four of our last five presidents have been governors who never worked a day in Washington. And look where that got us.

But this is not the best explanation for why Obama won't specify his opponents. He is partisan enough to believe, and certainly many of his supporters believe, that some villainous figure--Karl Rove, I suppose--does believe these things. But if Obama named anybody, the cat would be out of the bag. It would at last be plain that his politics of unity, his politics of "addition not subtraction," is simply another way of recasting the old "politics of us versus them" that he says he disdains.

Leave aside the disembodied forces; forget the beliefs and ideas that no one really holds. Somebody somewhere has to be preventing Obama's kind of health care reform, and sending kids to underfunded schools, and shipping jobs overseas to increase profits, and standing in the way of medical research, and downplaying climate change out of skepticism or general orneriness. Put them all together and it's likely to come to a fairly high number of people: stockholders, employees, and managers of globalized companies; insurance claim adjusters, guys on oil rigs, hog farmers, pro-lifers, moms in SUVs, taxpayers who decline to float bonds for local schools, voters who pulled the lever for President Bush and are still kindly disposed toward him. People who make red states red and blue states purple. Lots and lots of people.

If Obama made this explicit, if in his speeches he dared to wrap bodies around those disembodied forces, if he began to trace effects back to the agents that cause them, then his campaign would suddenly appear to be what it is: a conventional alignment of political interests, trying to seize power from another conventional alignment of political interests--just one more version of a tussle that's gone on since the country's founding. His fans, it turns out, aren't the people they've been waiting for; they're just the same old people, like everybody else.

Of course, they're drawn to his campaign precisely because they refuse to believe that this is so.

This is one of the best pieces I've read yet about Obama's mysterious appeal.

Followed closely by a recent article in the Onion , which captures, better than any of the talking heads have done, exactly what Obama is up against running as a black man in America. I posted about this article before, but I offer more from it here.

source:

Black Guy Asks Nation For Change, Onion, 3/19/2008

quote:

Reports indicate that the black man has been riding from city to city across the country, asking for change wherever he goes. Citizens in Austin, TX said they spotted the same guy standing on the street Friday, shouting far-fetched ideas about global warming. Cleveland residents also reported seeing him in a local park, wildly gesticulating and quoting from the Bible. And last week, patrons at the Starlight Diner in Cheyenne, WY claimed that the black man accosted them while they were eating, repeatedly requesting change.

"I saw him walk in and I knew he was headed straight for our table," said mother of three Gladys Davies. "He just stood there smiling at us for a while, and asked how our food tasted. Then he went and did the same thing at the next table over. The nerve of some people."

Those who encountered the black man Tuesday said he engaged in erratic behavior, including pointing at random people in the crowd and desperately saying he needs their help, going up to complete strangers and hugging them, and angrily claiming that he is not looking for just a little bit of change, but rather a great deal of change, and that he wants it "right now."

"I'll be honest, when that black guy said he would 'stop at nothing' to get change, it kind of scared me," local mechanic Phil Nighbert said. "Just leave me alone."

Though many were taken aback by the black man's brazen demands, some, such as Jackson, MS's Holly Moser, sympathized with him. She gave the black man credit for boldly standing up and asking every last person around him for change.

"I told him I'd give him some if I saw him later, even though I probably won't," Moser said. "Very nice man, though."

Yeah, there are still a lot of white people who see a black guy and think, OMG, a black guy! Which is why I think the topic he raised in his speech last week is actually an important one. And I think I'd listen to the guy talk more about that topic. I think he could be good for America in that regard. I'd welcome that kind of change. But is that the job of the president? It's definitely something a president can push us on. But there's all that other presidential stuff, too, and that's what I worry about...

2008-03-23T13:50:00.003-04:00

Imperial Easter Post: Uh....

Headline in today's New York Times :

"On Day of Resurrection, a Church Unveils Its New Organ"

Yet another story about Jeremiah Wright?!

Sheesh.

Will this story ever die?

2008-03-22T11:23:00.002-04:00

As Usual, the Onion Cuts to the Chase

The article "Black Guy Asks Nation For Change" captures better than anything I've seen both the attitudes about race that do still plague us, and the annoyingly empty rhetoric of the campaign trail.

quote:

According to witnesses, a loud black man approached a crowd of some 4,000 strangers in downtown Chicago Tuesday and made repeated demands for change.

"The time for change is now," said the black guy, yelling at everyone within earshot for 20 straight minutes, practically begging America for change. "The need for change is stronger and more urgent than ever before. And only you—the people standing here today, and indeed all the people of this great nation—only you can deliver this change."

It is estimated that, to date, the black man has asked every single person in the United States for change.

"I've already seen this guy four times today," Chicago-area ad salesman Blake Gordon said. "Every time, it's the same exact spiel. 'I need change.' 'I want change.' Why's he so eager for all this change? What's he going to do with it, anyway?"

Read the whole thing here:

"Black Guy Asks Nation For Change," 3/19/2008

2008-03-22T09:58:00.002-04:00

Nice One: Timothy Egan

In its entirety...

"Donner Party Democrats,"' New York Times, 3/22/2008

When they set out, it all looked so bright — away to the West, to the Denver convention, nothing but blue skies ahead. They had a continent to cross, a nation to convince, and they vowed to do it in a way that had never been done before.

They moved briskly across the plains of the Bush presidency. There was the scarecrow president who didn’t know the price of fuel or the ways of war. Flapping in the wind, he pointed one way, while 70 percent of the country wanted to go the other.

On to the arid side of the prairie, they passed one sunbaked skeleton after another — Larry Craig and his wide stance, Scooter Libby and his breach of trust, and a man from the Arabian Horse Association, Brownie. Each had the stench of yesterday on them.

Along the way, they moved by Mitt the Muddler, who couldn’t decide which way to go, and Rudy the Robo, muttering, “9/11, 9/11, 9/11.” Dining on squirrel was a guitar-plucking Huckabee, who at least knew how to keep folks entertained around the campfire.

These refugees from the other party had their nutty preacher, Pat Robertson, who blamed fellow Americans for the big attack. It was their fault, he said: the civil libertarians, the gays, the feminists brought this mass murder upon themselves.

Uphill now, through the high plains, and still the Dems held together. They would not be like that tragic Donner Party of 1846, feuding and scrapping. It would all be over before the snows were gone.

They shared their rations and steeled their will, convinced that one way or the other they would make history: a black man or a woman would lead them. They were Democrats doing the impossible: moving in one line, together.

Deep in the treeless expanse of the West, they came upon one of the stragglers from the other party: John McCain. Once, he had been a maverick. Now he looked old and worn and lost. His own party had left him for dead, he explained. Called him amnesty man.

He seemed harmless enough, saying he knew nothing about the economy, confused about who was fighting whom in a distant part of the world. They didn’t give him a second thought.

And then, as the snow piled high deep into March, the Dems turned on each other. One of their leaders had been hanging around the camp of another preacher man, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. — a nutball like Robertson, blaming America for bringing on the horrid attack. What is it with these men of God? Should have left them home.

The Dems grew raggedy, worn, desperate. Whereas the first Donner Party was bogged down in the snow of the high Sierra, these Dems could not get out of the Rockies. One faction wanted to declare it over, based on greater popular support. The other one wanted simply to stick around long enough, waiting for the rival to self-destruct.

Their former leader, Clinton the Elder, was kept on a leash — nothing but cards at night. He said he’d seen far worse in his time. “Will there be more animosity as this thing goes on? Yes.” That didn’t help.

Looking for leadership, they turned to a quiet man in the rear, a doctor from Vermont: Howard Dean. Do something, Doc! Scream! But he cowered, mumbling about do-overs and going back to Michigan or Florida.

At their lowest ebb, they looked back and again saw the straggler, McCain. He was stronger, walking with renewed vigor despite his age.

He was joined by a grizzled old cuss named Cheney. One strange hombre, Cheney had shot a man in the face. He’d forgotten that his country was a democracy. When he was told that two-thirds of the nation wanted to heed the founders’ advice and avoid prolonged foreign conflicts, he spit on the ground, and said, “So?”

His party was united. What had been hatred for McCain was now hatred for the other party’s preacher. They could direct all their historic resentments, their bound-up frustrations, against this preacher, the Rev. Wright. So long as they hissed and booed at his picture every night, they stayed together, saying the nastiest of things.

The original Donner Party made history for one reason: by eating their dead. Cannibalism — it was all they could do to stay alive.

These modern Dems press on, tearing into each other, crawling to get to the summit, still five months away, in the mile-high city. They are now ravenous with hunger, and it is starting to show.

2008-03-21T12:14:00.005-04:00

Reaction to Obama's "Chinese Food Speech"

When I first saw a televised snippet from Obama's racism-in-America speech, I found it to be refreshingly blunt and surprisingly refreshing; finally, somebody telling both sides that they've been wrong and that we need to move beyond old ways of thinking about race.

But the more I look at the speech, the more I realize that, like a big plate of chow mein, it tasted good going down but left me feeling empty.

Here are a couple reactions I've run across that leave me with a much more satisfying feeling in the pit of my stomach--not because they offer easy solutions to the problems of race-relations but because they are more clear-eyed and honest about what the real issues are:

"The Obama Bargain," Shelby Steele, Wall Street Journal, 3/18/2008

Quote from Steele:

Bargaining is a mask that blacks can wear in the American mainstream, one that enables them to put whites at their ease. This mask diffuses the anxiety that goes along with being white in a multiracial society. Bargainers make the subliminal promise to whites not to shame them with America's history of racism, on the condition that they will not hold the bargainer's race against him. And whites love this bargain -- and feel affection for the bargainer -- because it gives them racial innocence in a society where whites live under constant threat of being stigmatized as racist. So the bargainer presents himself as an opportunity for whites to experience racial innocence [....] Barack Obama's candidacy is not qualitatively different from Al Sharpton's or Jesse Jackson's. Like these more irascible of his forbearers, Mr. Obama's run at the presidency is based more on the manipulation of white guilt than on substance. Messrs. Sharpton and Jackson were "challengers," not bargainers. They intimidated whites and demanded, in the name of historical justice, that they be brought forward. Mr. Obama flatters whites, grants them racial innocence, and hopes to ascend on the back of their gratitude. Two sides of the same coin.

"Black, White, Red, and Blue," Michael Meyers, New York Sun, 3/21/2008

Quote from Meyers:

Someday, sooner than ever before, we Americans will come to regard one another's skin color just like how we view each other's eye color. But we must be ably led to that place in history, to that destination in our immediate future. The man or woman who talks straight about our commonality as a race of human beings, about our nation as one and indivisible by skin color or ethnic loyalty, he or she will do us a great public service.

"Ready for Obama...," John McWhorter, New York Sun, 3/19/2008

Quote from McWhorter:

I have written that it is part of the essence of the modern black American identity to be a victor in private but a victim in public. There is a sense that while initiative is important, blacks still have to display more of it than whites, and that this isn't fair.

Someone who feels this way can have done well and even be comfortable around white people. However, that sense that black America still labors under a general injustice can express itself in taking a certain pleasure in listening to someone like Jeremiah Wright.

They hear a stirring articulation of rebellion, listenable according to a sense that fealty to one's race entails at least a gestural nod to sticking a finger in whitey's eye now and then. The tone, the music of the statements is more vivid than the content. Sermons like this are Sunday morning's version of gangsta rap.

This, then, is why, as Mr. Obama said in his speech yesterday, he could no more disown Reverend Wright than disown black people in general. So, why did the Obamas not find another church after finding out that Reverend Wright had some tart things to say about "the Man"? Because they weren't listening to them as logic, but as atmosphere.

Fair enough. I'm willing to admit that perhaps there are aspects of what Obama calls "the black experience" that I don't, can't, understand. But I do wonder whether the pastor says the same kinds of things as Wright at the church Colin Powell goes to. Is it not reductive, in precisely the kind of way we all say we want to avoid, to speak as if all blacks see things in precisely the same way?

McWhorter goes on to make one other good point, this time about the kerfuffle that erupted after Obama's wife said that she was proud of America for the first time in her life:

This confusion of gesture with conviction also has thrown people on Michelle Obama's comment about not having been proud of her country until her husband's embrace by the public. Not too long ago everybody went wild over David Brooks's "Bobos in Paradise," about affluent couples managing their mutual funds and fighting to get their kids into top schools while indulging in anti-Establishment statements in decor, dress style, and political opinions.

Spot-on anthropology, all agreed. Then why the sputtering over an affluent, educated woman indicting America as a land of injustice? She is wary of cheerleading for the U.S. of A. — but with no illusions that life in Yemen or even Denmark would be better than the one she has here. Her hesitant patriotism is a gesture, in this case of higher awareness about imperialism and racism. The commentariat appears thrown seeing a black person indulge in a gesture which would not even make news if offered by a Princeton graduate who was white.

Again, fair enough.

I hear the same kind of hateful sputum on a daily basis at my university job. Most academics I encounter are leftist in their political orientation, and most of them are not shy to express the kind of anti-American sentiments as Reverend Wright. McWhorter says that "in hearing Reverend Wright's agitprop as performance rather than hate speech, Barack Obama is black indeed--in a way other than the uninteresting one of melanin. Yet I see this as irrelevant to how he would run the country." Except for the fact that when my colleagues damn America, nobody really cares, because, to paraphrase Tlahtoani Anubis, of the Biomechanic Underground, they're not running for president. If Obama becomes president, he will be representing not only blacks who thought Wright was being funny, but blacks (and people of non-color) who did not think so.

2008-03-21T12:07:00.004-04:00

Imperial Ammunition: What to Say When They Tell You Bush is Like Hoover

Two great articles that provide ample ammunition in this situation...

"Ghosts of 1929," by Amity Shlaes, New York Sun, 3/21-23/2008

Quote:

Hoover knew free trade was beneficial. But his party, the Grand Old Party, was the tariff party. So in spite of himself, he signed a big new tariff, the Smoot-Hawley act, triggering retaliation from U.S. trading partners.

For many decades now, Democrats have contrasted Hoover's concession to protectionists unfavorably with free-trade legislation written by Roosevelt and his globalization guru, Secretary of State Cordell Hull.

Today it is the Democrats who are doing wrong, and they know better. Candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are both internationalists by temperament, yet they seem to be in a race to see who can repeal the North American Free Trade Agreement first.

Mr. Bush, by contrast, was channeling Hull when he called a plan to reject a new trade accord with Colombia "a terrible signal."

Finally, there was Hoover's tax policy. Today every fool, right or left, knows that imposing a tax increase in an economic downturn is like kicking a wounded man in the stomach.

Yet in the dark days of 1932, with unemployment at 20%, Hoover perversely signed an increase that reversed the multiple cuts by his predecessor, Calvin Coolidge.

Hoover more than doubled rates at the bottom of the tax schedule. He also increased the top marginal tax rate to 63% from 25%. The effect was predictable. That tax error has haunted economists ever since.

Yet today it is not Republicans but Democrats who are preparing to replicate it. Senator Obama has suggested a payroll tax increase and an income tax increase; together they would just about offset all the breaks created by President Bush. Senator Clinton is scarcely different. Who's Hoover now?

"...And Why Not Optimism?", Lawrence Kudlow, New York Sun, 3/20/2008

Quote:

It was Hoover who signed the Smoot-Hawley trade-protectionism act and overturned the Coolidge-Mellon tax cuts. These disastrous measures — along with monetary contraction from a fledgling Federal Reserve — turned a recession into a depression. FDR didn't help matters, either. His misbegotten tax hikes on successful earners and businesses, and his alphabet agencies to control the industrial and farming sectors, extended the depression and held unemployment near 20%.

Today, it's the Hill-Bama Democrats who want to raise taxes on successful producers. And they want to turn protectionist by reopening Nafta and stopping any new open-trade treaties. Mr. Schumer himself has spent years bashing China, threatening the nation with huge tariffs if its currency policies don't conform to demands.

If anyone has resurrected the party of Hoover, it's today's Democrats. They've adopted pessimism as their national pastime, and want us to believe we're already in a long and deep recession.

2008-03-21T11:26:00.004-04:00

It's the Human Rights Issues, Stupid!

A certain university here in New Amsterdam recently hosted a conference entitled "Environmental Issues and 2008 Beijing Olympics."

Sheesh.

I'm sure that China is guilty of doing all kinds of horrible things to the environment.

But somehow I can't get very upset about that.

Yet.

(What do a couple of sports scientists have to tell us about environment issues, anyway? Perhaps we may hope that the historian spoke up about the plight of the Chinese people?)

Best take on this issue:

"The Lhasa Massacre," New York Sun, 3/21-23/2008

2008-03-13T12:17:00.005-04:00

Imperial Quote Collection: Ann Coulter on Eliot Spitzer's Recent Unpleasantness

Source: "Whoreable Behavior"

Quote:

It's absurd to talk about Spitzer's problem being "hypocrisy" -- as if everything would be fine if only he had previously advocated legalized prostitution.

Exactly. As if nobody would have any problem with Spitzer's patronizing a prostitute if he had never made such a big deal about prosecuting criminals. As long as you don't come out and say you're against something, there's nothing wrong with your doing it.

Coulter hits the nail on the head in this piece:

Most people outside of New York can't grasp the enormity of Spitzer's political free fall.

Eliot Spitzer was the golden boy with an absolutely charmed life. His parents were the children of Jewish immigrants, who created a Ralph Lauren lifestyle for their children.

Spitzer's father made half a billion dollars in New York real estate and raised three high-achieving children -- two lawyers and a neurosurgeon. In a family like that, becoming governor of New York makes you the black sheep.

Spitzer went to the best schools -- Horace Mann, Princeton and Harvard Law School. He must have written some good papers.

He lives at the perfect address (Fifth Avenue and 79th St.) with his perfect Harvard Law School-educated Southern Baptist wife -- whose parents must be telling her they told her so right about now -- and their three perfect daughters. (Admittedly, the apartment is a gift from Dad: A mere top-flight education doesn't get you an apartment overlooking Central Park.)

And now Spitzer's entire anal-retentive, good paper-writing life has collapsed in the horrifying image of a frenzied masturbator. This is the most complete coup de grace imaginable, short of an assassin's bullet.

2008-03-12T19:09:00.004-04:00

News Flash: Prominent Obama Supporter Resigns From Campaign Position Amid Charges of Sexism

Geraldine Ferraro is in big trouble this week after saying the following about Senator Obama's primary opponent, Senator Hillary Clinton:

“If Hillary was a man, she would not be in this position. She happens to be very lucky to be who she is."

Americans of all political stripes are understandably outraged at Ferraro's bigoted comments. It is absolutely inconceivable that anyone supports Senator Clinton's candidacy merely because of her gender, just as it would be ridiculous to claim that anyone supports Obama just because he happens to be black.

Nothing could be more bone-headed than to level a charge at ones opponent that could just as easily be leveled at oneself.

Since Obama's and Hillary's policy positions are so painfully similar, it is simply stupid for Ferraro to suggest that Hillary wouldn't draw much attention were it not for the novelty of her gender. It is like saying, "she doesn't really make much of an impression as a politician--so don't vote for her."

But when your own candidate's positions are exactly like Hillary's, it means that his attractiveness as a candidate isn't due to policy, either. Which leads one to ask why you prefer him. Could it be the novelty of his being black?

No? So do you see how stupid it was to say what you did?

Ahem.

2008-03-09T22:35:00.003-04:00

Imperial Quote Collection: Adam Rogers Upon the Death of Gary Gygax, Co-Creator of Dungeons & Dragons

source: "Geek Love," New York Times, 3/9/2008

Mr. Rogers (heh) ends his article in this way:

We don’t have to say goodbye to Gary Gygax, the architect of the now. Every time I make a tactical move (like when I suggest to my wife this summer that we should see “Iron Man” instead of “The Dark Knight”), I’m counting my experience points, hoping I have enough dexterity and rolling the dice. And every time, Mr. Gygax is there — quasi-mystical, glowing in blue and bearing a simple game that was an elegant weapon from a more civilized age.

That was a reference to Star Wars. Cool, right?

Yes, very slick.

But earlier in the article, Rogers had this to say:

Even in the heyday of Dungeons & Dragons, when his company was selling millions of copies and parents feared that the game was somehow related to Satan worship, Mr. Gygax’s creation seemed like a niche product. Kids played it in basements instead of socializing. (To be fair, you needed at least three people to play — two adventurers and one Dungeon Master to guide the game — so Dungeons & Dragons was social. Demented and sad, but social.)

And that was a reference to The Breakfast Club. (Demented and sad, but social.)

Think you can slip one past me, eh?

Oh, God, I think I've just proven myself part of the intended audience for Rogers's article...

2008-03-08T20:26:00.003-05:00

Worth Quoting in Full: Bob Herbert on the Clinton-Obama Battle

Confronting the Kitchen Sink
By BOB HERBERT
New York Times

The high anxiety in the Obama circles has thrown the campaign off its game.

Samantha Power, one of Senator Barack Obama’s senior foreign policy advisers, had to quit Friday after she lost her cool in an interview with a Scottish newspaper and called Senator Hillary Clinton a “monster.”

The campaign apologized for the flap. But Mr. Obama himself seems unsure of how to respond to the trash-and-thrash tactics that helped Senator Clinton defeat him in Ohio and Texas this week.

The anger that caused Ms. Power to blurt out the monster comment is widespread inside the Obama camp. But Senator Obama, for a variety of reasons — some of them self-imposed — is sharply constrained in the way that he can respond to provocations.

And if there is one thing the Clinton crowd knows how to do, it’s provoke.

Which is, after all, why lots of people, not just Power, think Hillary is a monster...

On Thursday, Senator Clinton’s spokesman, Howard Wolfson, likened Senator Obama to Ken Starr, the independent prosecutor who hounded the Clintons in the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Why the Clinton forces would want to inject that poisonous bit of business into the campaign is a mystery.

But there was Mr. Wolfson on Thursday, in response to a call from the Obama campaign for Mrs. Clinton to release her tax returns, asserting: “I, for one, do not believe that imitating Ken Starr is the way to win a Democratic primary election for president.”

Indeed, you would think that they don't want to bring that mess up again...

More serious was Senator Clinton’s assertion that she was qualified to be commander in chief, and that John McCain had also “certainly” crossed that “threshold,” but that the jury was still out on Mr. Obama.

In other words, if a choice on national security had to be made today between Senators Obama and McCain, voters — according to Mrs. Clinton’s logic — should choose Senator McCain.

Seriously, her whole primary campaign is based on the amount of experience she has; exactly how is that going to play during the general, when her opponent is John McCain? But I guess her main objective right now is to destroy Obama...

That is a low thing for a Democratic presidential candidate to do to a rival in a party primary. Can you imagine John McCain saying that Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney or even the guitar-strumming Mike Huckabee might be less qualified than Hillary Clinton to be commander in chief? It couldn’t happen.

But Senator Clinton never gave a second thought to opening the trap door beneath her fellow Democrat.

And then there was Mrs. Clinton on “60 Minutes,” being interviewed by Steve Kroft. He had shown a clip on the program of a voter in Ohio who said that he’d heard that Senator Obama didn’t know the national anthem, “wouldn’t use the Holy Bible,” and was a Muslim.

Mr. Kroft asked Senator Clinton if she believed that Senator Obama is a Muslim. In one of the sleaziest moments of the campaign to date, Senator Clinton replied: “No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know.”

As far as I know.

If she had been asked if she thought President Bush was a Muslim, would her response have included the caveat “as far as I know”? What about Senator McCain? Why, then, with Senator Obama?

I caught that, too, when I was watching that interview. Reminded me of when Cynthia McKinney (Green Party candidate for president this year, if you can believe that) said that she didn't know that Bush was behind 9/11 but an investigation might show it to be the case. Sheesh. (See my post on that topic here.) So much for all the hard work Bill Clinton did to end the politics of personal destruction, huh?

In the run-up to the crucial Texas and Ohio primaries, the plan in the Clinton camp, as The Times reported, was to unleash as many lines of attack as possible — a “kitchen sink” fusillade — in the hope that something would work. Senator Obama is still trying to figure out how to respond.

Whatever anger and frustration he may be feeling, he should stick to the high road. He can’t win wrestling in the mud with Hillary Clinton. That will not put Barack Obama in the White House.

Mr. Obama’s strength was his message of hope and healing, the idea that he could bring disparate groups together to work on the nation’s toughest problems. That has gotten him this far, which is much further than almost anyone expected.

He now needs an added dimension. He needs to articulate a vision. He needs to spell out to voters where he wants to take this country over the next few years, how he will alleviate the suffering of millions trapped in vicious economic circumstances and what he will do to restore the honor and prestige of the U.S. around the world.

Political campaigns are not about fairness, but they can often be about vision. Voters want more from Senator Obama.

He may not be able to close the deal with, say, working-class whites, but he more than anyone else has the eloquence to try and make a compelling case. He should go for it.

We have seen election after election in which candidates have won by fanning the anxieties of voters. Elect me, or something terrible will happen to you!

That is now the Clinton mantra, which is a measure of how grim our politics have become.

Oh, come on. Like our politics have ever been about any other mantra. Go back and look at the Thomas Jefferson vs. John Adams contest, for crying out loud. This is nothing new. The only thing new is that one of the candidates has made it this far without slinging any mud back. We'll see how long that lasts.

2008-03-08T20:18:00.005-05:00

Imperial Quote Collection: Gail Collins Turns a Phrase

I wouldn't particularly call myself a Gail Collins fan, but she sure does get off a good line now and again. (And at least she's not Maureen Dowd.)

This is from Gail Collins's column in today's New York Times:

We live in a great country. Despite all our problems, this is still a nation where parents believe that if their child works hard and plays by the rules, some day he or she may grow up to be a superdelegate.

Nice one.

Later in the same column, in a section on the question of whether to seat delegates from Michigan and Florida, Collins writes:

Clinton says the party should just forgive and forget, and hand over her delegates. The good news is: While Barack may understand the audacity of hope, only Hillary really gets the audacity of audacity.

Ouch.

2008-03-03T19:15:00.002-05:00

I'll Let Mr. Buckley Have the Last Word

In response to my post "Two More Quotes that Should Sound a Warning to Democrats Trying to Pigeonhole Conservatives," a reader named DirtCrashr implied (at least this is what I think he meant) that my willingness to compromise on some ideological points may be likened to kissing the prison warden's ass.

DirtCrashr writes:

"Yes, sir." And "No, sir." "Yes, ma'am." "No, ma'am." Those are the words you use to address the judge, the cell block guards and the prison warden. Niceties spoken out of necessary accommodation.

In case you all aren't reading my insignificant little blog closely enough to catch the comments section (why would you be?), I'm pulling the exchange up here into a new post.

I don't follow how accommodation is necessarily a bad thing. When dealing with ones enemies--of course. But ones political opponents are not ones enemies; they are, after all, ones countrymen, no matter how vehement the policy disagreements, and for someone to suggest that he would be willing to compromise with someone on the other side of the aisle, in exchange for some reciprocal concessions in turn, in the interest of the overall public good, is not the same thing as fearful self-censorship.

My answer to DirtCrashr was as follows:

I reject outright the implication that compromise is analogous to imprisonment.

I am not embarrassed to say that I was trying (and failing) to sound like Buckley.

And then this evening I happened upon Christopher Hitchens's article about the late William F. Buckley, Jr. And I had one of those, "yeah-what-he-said" moments that one had so often reading Buckley. Hitchens writes of Buckley as follows:

[H]e also declared in 1952 that he was in favor of "Big Government for the duration" of the struggle against communism, and in favor of this, moreover, even if it meant Democratic party stewardship.

Given the context of my original post, I might paraphrase as follows:

I will accept some normally-unacceptable things in the struggle against Clintonism, and I am in favor of this, moreover, even if it a means a President Obama.

That's what I meant.

2008-03-03T07:43:00.002-05:00

Words about Buckley: David Frum

Quote:

If Buckley's charities were often unknown, his wit, his style and his unstinting support for younger people were all legendary. He won the love of his friends and the admiration of his enemies. The historian Rick Perlstein, a savage critic of American conservatism, paid this final tribute to Buckley: "He did the honour of respecting his ideological adversaries, without covering up the adversarial nature of the relationship in false bonhommie ? He was friends with those he fought. He fought with friends. These are the highest civic ideals to which an American patriot can aspire."

And then (back-handedly?):

The conservatism Buckley epitomized has now passed its zenith. The movement he created has become, in many ways, decadent, even obsolete. And we who follow in Buckley's footsteps are left with a question, without Buckley's wisdom to help us answer him: If we would be true to his magnanimous spirit, should we continue after his departure to say what he said? Or should we instead do what he did, and adapt enduring truths to new circumstances?

One of the writers Buckley most admired, G.K. Chesterton, warned a century ago against conservatives who "want to conserve everything -- except their reasons for conserving anything." It would be the most mocking of tributes to a great man and great political innovator if we tried to honor Buckley's memory by mummifying Buckley's movement against the need for change.

It isn't clear which principles Frum thinks need replacing, but I'm all for evolution.

2008-03-03T07:38:00.002-05:00

Why Aren't the Liberals Rushing to Obama?

An interesting notion: If Obama becomes president, then the Left will have to let go of its insistence that everything bad in America is because of racism.

See this interview with Thomas Sowell, in which he doesn't exactly say that, but it's what gave me the thought, so I'm sharing the chain of experience with you.

Facts & Fallacies with Thomas Sowell

2008-03-02T16:15:00.003-05:00

I Knew I Couldn't Be the Only One Who Thought So!!!

So I open up the 2/29/2008 Entertainment Weekly...

I'm flipping through the pages...

Oh, boy, new Lost spoilers!

...and there it was...on page 11...

An advertisement for Absolut Pears.

You know, they make the flavored vodkas? Citron, etc.?

My personal favorite is the vanilla...mix it with orange juice...tastes like a Creamsicle...

Anyway, my first thought, when I saw the ad for Absolut Pears?

Who wants a vodka that tastes like a vagina?

I guess if I'm honest, I have to say that my first reaction was actually, "What in the name of all that is holy?!

What? Is Georgia O'Keefe doing liquor ads nowadays? Besides, isn't she dead already? Maybe that's why it's green...?

Congratulations to Skirmisher on the scoop, and thanks for making my search for the jpeg so short!

2008-03-02T16:05:00.004-05:00

One Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words: Michael Ramirez (cartoonist) on Tax Cuts

That's supply-side economics in a pictorial nutshell: Tax cuts are the engine that drives the economy. And who is it that wants to do away with the tax cuts? The Democrats. And who is it that claims to be for the middle class? That's right: It's the Democrats who refuse to understand that high taxes are a disincentive to profit-seeking and the expenditures and investments that it requires. The simple truth of the matter is that rich people create jobs and spend money. They have plenty of money already (as we're constantly reminded), so they have no motivation to take further risks with their capital if you keep threatening to raise their taxes.

Tax everyone just enough to allow the government do what it is required to do by the Constitution. Other than that, get off people's backs and let the creative spirit work its magic.

2008-03-02T15:45:00.005-05:00

Two More Quotes that Should Sound a Warning to Democrats Trying to Pigeonhole Conservatives

source: What Obama Means by Unity: A Liberal Majority, Weekly Standard, 2/18/2008

quote:

There is a real divide between those who think that America is doing okay, and can do better, and those who think that America has been hijacked and must be taken back from some nebulous other. But Obama has no interest in bridging this chasm. When he talks about unity, Obama means uniting the people who agree with him. He wants to unite 51 percent of America. And if you follow him around enough, very occasionally he lets that notion slip.

One night in New Hampshire, Obama embarked on a long discourse that hinted at what his idea of unity entails:

[I]n my own life, I've discovered that if you really know what you stand for, if you know what you believe in, if you know who you are fighting for, if you know what you care about and cannot be compromised--then you can afford to reach out across the aisle. You can talk to people who don't agree with you. And you do so not just because you think that you're always going to persuade them, but because people out in America, outside of Washington, are listening.

And they want to see that we can--that we don't have to agree on everything to work on something. That we can disagree without being disagreeable. That's how we can attract independents [to the] change agenda. That's how we can attract some Republicans. That's how we build a working majority for change. . . . And you can afford to be courteous. And you can say, "Yes, sir." And "No, sir." "Yes, ma'am." "No, ma'am." But if you're going to be in the way of change, get out of the way--we're pushing you aside. Very politely of course. That's how we win elections.
Obama's definition of unity sounds a lot like power politics. But at least he wants to practice it politely. For a Democratic party that has been dominated lately by anger and rancor, that's a change worth hoping for.

Could it be that even Republicans yearn for a return to civility? Are those evil bastards capable of such a desire? Even if you don't think so, then at least you might concede that one reason so many moderates, independents, and Republicans respond so favorably to Obama, might just be that they want to see him kick Hillary out of the arena. I might be wrong that what they dislike about the Clintons is their character and not so much their arguments, but I don't think I'm wrong about what they'd be willing to do to get rid of them.

Think I'm wrong? Check this out...

source: "Republicans Root for Obama," Weekly Standard, 2/18/2008

quote:

Winning a primary isn't a reliable indicator of a candidate's strength in a general election. In many states, independents are barred from voting in primaries. And every poll I've seen this year shows that Obama would attract far more independents in the general election against a Republican than Clinton would.

Indeed, there's a growing consensus among both Republican and Democratic strategists that Obama would be the stronger general election candidate. He may be more liberal than Clinton, but by almost every other yardstick
he's a more appealing candidate.

Nevertheless, many Republicans are rooting for him to knock off Clinton. If that makes it more difficult to keep the White House, so be it. Being spared another President Clinton is reward enough. For now.

That "for now" is very important. Republicans might be willing to vote for Obama in the Democratic primary (where that's allowed) just so they can help stop Hillary. But that doesn't mean they'll vote for Obama in the general. And even if they can't beat him in the general, he's still preferable to Hillary, even though her positions on issues might be closer to the center than Obama's. Isn't that interesting? Republicans might just support the more liberal Democrat. Might turn out that personality and demeanor matter more than people thought...

Speaking for myself, if Barack Obama can get Americans interested in politics again, especially young people, if he can get Americans reading and talking about issues, if he can get them involved, if he can get them to crowd out the America-haters and revive the better aspects of the early '60s, then I think it might be worth some ideological sacrifice.

2008-03-02T15:36:00.003-05:00

John Kerry Likens Obama to Nixon & Reagan?!

This morning, on CNN's Late Edition, Wolf Blitzer interviewed John Kerry, Democratic superdelegate & Obama supporter.

At one point he derides Hillary for voting to authorize the war in Iraq, whereas Obama was against it. Don't you think Kerry would want to avoid bringing up that subject again ("I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it," and all that), especially since his record on Iraq didn't keep him from getting the nomination? Why should it stop Hillary? Unless he realizes now that that's how he lost his credibility, in which case one has to ask whether he truly believes in Obama or just thinks he has fewer weak spots than Hillary...

But here's the best part of the transcript (thanks to The Swamp):

BLITZER: Obama has said he'd be willing to meet with Raul Castro, with Ahmadinejad of Iran, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Are you comfortable with that, Senator Kerry, as someone who's been involved in foreign policy issues for many, many years?

KERRY: Let me tell you precisely what he means by that, as I understand it, and also why I think America should be comfortable with a president who's willing to engage with other countries. If you follow what George Bush just said, you get the result that we still have, Fidel Castro voluntary turning over power, in Cuba, to his brother, who is following the same hard-line policies. This policy has been a failure for 47 years. You want to follow failure? You follow the Bush policy.

What Barack Obama is talking about doing is exactly what Richard Nixon did when he sent Henry Kissinger to China to talk to Mao Tse- tung. Many conservatives, at that time, thought that was absolutely heretical -- how could you do that? But it wound up breaking down barriers and engaging us with China. The same thing with Russia. Ronald Reagan sat down with Gorbachev, the leader of the "evil empire," as Reagan called it, and he came out of Reykjavik with the agreement that they were going to reduce nuclear weapons.

The fact is that diplomacy and security interests are always advanced when you're willing to engage. And I think what Barack Obama means is that he's going to use the powers and tools of the presidency and of executive leadership and of diplomacy that are in the best traditions of our country, in order to strengthen America.

Leave aside for the moment Kerry's qualifier--"as Reagan called it." We all know that Kerry didn't mean that he doesn't agree that the Soviet Union was an evil empire. Or do we?

Anyway, all I can think of is what Hillary's speechwriters are going to make out of these comments...

John Kerry says Obama is "exactly" like Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan!

For that matter, what will the McCain campaign do with Kerry's statements?!

One of the top leaders in your party, Senator Obama, said that you are exactly like a Republican. If the American people want a Republican as President, shouldn't they pick the candidate who is actually registered as one?

To be fair, I should say that I thought Obama's best moment yet in this campaign was his answer about the prospect of meeting with the leaders of nations hostile to America. Regardless of what you think about Bush's approach, the simple truth is that people's opinion of us has slipped, rightly or wrongly, and we need to fix that. I thought Obama sounded like he truly cared about repairing our image in the world:

"The next president has a job to do to repair our image and to send a signal ... that a new era is being ushered in and that we are not afraid to talk to anybody, including those who we have grave problems with."

I like how Obama always tries to sound conciliatory and humble. I think that could go a long way.

2008-03-02T15:29:00.002-05:00

Imperial Quote Collection: James Seaton on Life-as-Text & Reading-the-World

source: "The Word is Out," Weekly Standard, 2/25/2008

quote:

Textualism seems to promise that literary critics can extend their expertise far beyond poems, plays, and novels, and even beyond films and television programs, to anything at all. Since everything is a text, and critics are the best readers of texts, it is literary critics who are best equipped to understand any phenomena whatsoever. Textualism provides a rationale that allows critics to comment on scientific theories without going to the trouble of boning up on physics or chemistry, just as it seems to license them to comment authoritatively on politics without making any particular study of history or economics.

This sort of appeal is very hard to resist. The attraction of an all-encompassing theory that allows one not only to make sense of what is otherwise a complex world but also to feel intellectually superior to bourgeois believers in common sense, is very strong--perhaps, especially, for would-be revolutionaries who end up in English departments.

As we used to say in the '70s, "Burn!"

2008-03-01T18:51:00.003-05:00

Imperial Quote Collection: Mark Steyn on the Downfall of the Clintons

source: Clinton's Melancholy, New York Sun, 2/25/2008

quote:

Hillary is what the Clintons look like with their pants up. Their much-vaunted political savvy turns out to be a big nothing: The supposed masters of "the politics of personal destruction" can't turn up anything better on Obama than some ancient essay from his Jakarta grade school, plus a few limp charges of plagiarism. And instead of getting the surrogates to crowbar the enemy every time Hillary opens up on him she looks mean and petty and he gets to do his high-minded Obamessiah routine. Their star quality was also, as noted above, mostly a giant bluff. In his heyday, Bill could channel his narcissism into a famously sure "common touch" — he liked to bask in proof of his awesome empathetic powers. But, in the years since he left the Oval Office, he's played too many gazillion-dollar-a-plate jetset dinners in France and Switzerland, and the "common touch" has curdled. That was plain even by the 2002 midterms, when you could more or less correlate Democratic losses by his travel schedule. He's a bust on the stump.

And, worst of all for Bill and Hill, the Dems found a new star — their first in 16 years. Look at it from Hillary's point of view: She'd expected to run against the likes of Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd — the usual mediocrities and misfits. Then Barack Obama came along, and did what the Clintons did in 1992 — saw his opportunity and seized it. All of a sudden, she's the Bill Richardson — worthy but dull, earthbound and joyless, lead weights round her ankles.

She has a melancholy dignity in decline. She knows she would make the better president, but every time she tries to explain why it sounds prosaic and unromantic. Bill gave the party an appetite for slick lounge acts, and this time round Barack's the guy delivering it in buckets of gaseous uplift. Can Barbra Streisand and the Supergays get Hillary airborne again? I doubt it.

But the best part of this article is Steyn's description of Bill's endless entrance to the stage at the 2000 Democratic Convention:

Bill Clinton understood a crude rule of show business — that, if you behave like a star, there are plenty of people who'll treat you like one. The apotheosis of this theory was his interminable ambulatory entrance down mile after mile of corridor at the 2000 Democratic convention in Los Angeles, when Slick Willie finally out-Elvised Elvis — or, more accurately, out-Smarted the opening sequence of "Get Smart." Apparently, no-one had thought to tell him to try to get within four miles of the stage before the introductory video ended. He was, by my calculations, outside the men's room on Corridor G27, Sub-Basement Level 6 of the Staples Center. As he began the long, long, lo-oo-oo-oong televised walk to the podium the crowd watching the monitors cheered — and, 20 minutes later, after he'd strolled down the first three or four windowless tunnels of attractive luminous drywall, hung a left by the water cooler, taken the emergency stairs, cut across the stationery closet, moved smoothly through the boiler room and had still only reached the Coke machine on Sous-Mezzanine Level 4 and there was at least a mile and a half between him and the stage, and the Democratic activists out in the hall were beginning to figure they could get dinner and a movie and still be back in time for the last third of his walk-on, they were nevertheless still cheering. In effect, President Clinton dared them not to cheer. Tom Jones wouldn't have risked it. Engelbert Humperdinck would have balked. But, after eight years of talking the talk, Bill walked the walk. In the hall, the delegates' hands were raw, bleeding stumps, but the Slicker knew that if he started his entrance in Idaho those Dems would cheer him every step of the way.

God, I love Mark Steyn!

At the end of the article (after the first bit quoted above), Steyn returns to the endless-walk theme:

Go back to that Staples Center entrance in 2000, and try to imagine Hill walking that walk. How far would she get before the applause died away and she'd be padding that endless corridor to no audible accompaniment but the clack of her heels?

Ouch.

It's the end of an era, folks. Finally.

2008-03-01T16:18:00.004-05:00

Imperial Quote Collection: Michael Gerson on Post-Religious-Right Evangelicals

source: "Homeless Evangelicals," New York Sun, 2/26/2008

quote:

Many evangelicals are center-right voters who respond to a message of social justice and community values, not only to a message of rugged individualism and unrestricted markets. Over the years, religious conservatives have made common cause with movement conservatives within the Republican Party — but they are not identical to movement conservatives.

Sometimes religious conservatives are understandably more sympathetic to one party than another. For Northern, abolitionist evangelicals in the 1850s, the Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln was a more natural home. For my Nazarene preacher grandfather in Kentucky, the Democratic Party of Franklin Roosevelt stood for God and the common man. Since the 1980s, evangelicals have returned to the Republican fold, largely because Democrats embraced abortion on demand, moral relativism, and intrusive, bureaucratic government.

But there is something essentially countercultural about Christianity that should make evangelicals restless in any political coalition. Christianity indicts oppressive government — but also the soul-destroying excesses that sometimes come in free markets and consumerism. It teaches enduring moral rules — and an emphasis on justice for the least and the lost. It is often hard where liberalism is soft, and soft where conservatism is hard.

If evangelical Christianity were identical to any political movement, something would be badly wrong. It is supposed to look toward a kingdom not of this world, one without borders, flags, or end. And by this standard, homelessness is a natural state.

Don't take these voters for granted, guys. Neither of you.

This article, together with the one by Cal Thomas (see the post below this one), show that conservatives are not the stereotype that the lefties would have you believe in: rich, worker-hating capitalists who can focus their myopically pro-life eyes only on one narrow issue at a time.

2008-03-01T16:11:00.005-05:00

Imperial Quote Collection: Cal Thomas on the Economy

source: "Un-Super Size Me," New York Sun, 2/26, 2008

quote:

We can't say we haven't been warned about this endless pursuit of stuff. The writer of Ecclesiastes wrote, "Whoever loves money never has money enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with his income. … As goods increase, so do those who consume them. And what benefit are they to the owner except to feast his eyes on them?" (Ecclesiastes 5:10-11)

When wants and needs are confused, desires become entitlements and politicians are afraid to tell people what they need to hear. Instead they tell them what they want to hear. Anger and envy result, as well as frustration with a political system that was not designed to indulge its citizens in their lusts or subsidize their greed.

Who will tell us that unending and expanding prosperity with home values constantly rising and a citizenry always able to afford them is a fantasy that is bound to end in heartache for those who buy into it?
The economy isn't bad. We are bad for believing that more is better and the most is best. We have an abundance of things, but a deficit of character. The economy is a false god, a golden calf. When this false god doesn't deliver, we complain to politicians who are happy to accept our faith in them to give us what we want — if we will only pledge to them our allegiance at election time.

In case anybody is having trouble remembering what fiscal conservatism sounds like...

2008-03-01T16:00:00.003-05:00

Imperial Quote Collection: John Stossel on Gun "Control"

source: "Gun Control Isn't Crime Control," New York Sun, 2/27/2008

quote:

[H]ow many shootings at schools or malls will it take before we understand that people who intend to kill are not deterred by gun laws? Last I checked, murder is against the law everywhere. No one intent on murder will be stopped by the prospect of committing a lesser crime like illegal possession of a firearm. The intellectuals and politicians who make pious declarations about controlling guns should explain how their gunless utopia is to be realized. While they search for — excuse me — their magic bullet, innocent people are dying defenseless. That's because laws that make it difficult or impossible to carry a concealed handgun do deter one group of people: law-abiding citizens who might have used a gun to stop crime. Gun laws are laws against self-defense. Criminals have the initiative. They choose the time, place and manner of their crimes, and they tend to make choices that maximize their own, not their victims', success. So criminals don't attack people they know are armed, and anyone thinking of committing mass murder is likely to be attracted to a gun-free zone, such as schools and malls.

Duh.

Where can I go to kill people and KNOW that they won't--can't--shoot back? Oh, that's right, the government has set up and even conveniently labeled just such a place: the "gun-free" zone! Here I come!

If you want to see the truth about how guns actually prevent crime, bookmark and often revisit this site: Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog.

2008-03-01T11:51:00.002-05:00

Imperial Quote Collection: John Stossel on Economics & the Presidency

source: "...And Econ Isn't for Presidents," New York Sun, 2/21/2008

quote:

Politicians who talk about managing the economy ignore the fact that, strictly speaking, there is no economy. There are only people producing, buying, and selling goods and services. Keep that in mind, and one realizes that government action more often than not interferes with the productive activities that benefit everyone. When politicians propose regulations to fix some problem, they should ask if some earlier intervention created the problem and if the new regulations will make things worse. The answer to both questions is usually yes.

The economy is far too complex for any president--no matter how smart--to manage. How can politicians and bureaucrats possibly know what hundreds of millions of individuals know, want, and aspire to? How can government employees fathom what trade-offs to make in a world of scarce resources?

They can't. That's why free people are more prosperous than those who are not. Presidential candidates should promise to keep their hands off the economy.

Italics mine.

2008-03-01T10:42:00.004-05:00

European Civilization: It Was Nice While It Lasted

I was stunned yesterday to find all of the following articles in one issue of the New York Sun, my newspaper of choice here in the People's Republic of New York City:

"Italian Court Ruling Hits Men Below Belt"

"The Italian Supreme Court has outlawed men from touching their genitals in public."

"Say 'Cheese,' But Take Care With 'Parmesan'"

"Only Italians can market cheese under the name Parmesan, Europe’s highest court ruled, rejecting a bid by Germans to use the name for their own versions of the crumbly cheese often used as a pasta topping."

It's a good thing the Europeans don't have any important issues to deal with, eh?

Of course, the Brits and, increasingly, the Danes still seem to have their heads screwed on straight. At least of some of them...

"Britain's Harry Fights the Taliban in Afghanistan"

"Prince Harry has become the first member of the royal family in 25 years to serve on the front line after it was disclosed yesterday that he has been fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan. The 23-year-old prince, who is third in line to the throne, has spent the past 10 weeks with the lives of British troops in his hands in his key role as a battlefield air controller. He has been operating only 500 yards from enemy positions, calling in airstrikes and carrying out surveillance of Taliban fighters in Helmand province. His military base has come under mortar and machine gun attack five times every day. In the heat of battle, it has been Harry, an officer in the Household Cavalry, who would give final clearance for airstrikes on Taliban targets. Three British troops have been killed since he arrived in the war zone. Prime Minister Brown and General Richard Dannatt, the chief of the General Staff, led the tributes to the prince, whom they described as an 'exemplary' soldier."

Bomb our tube stations will you? "Once more unto the breach, dear friends!" What is it about that little island that makes it (and its daughter, America) turn out such steadfast hearts?

"Denmark to Oppose Debt Relief for Sudan over Cartoon Dispute"

"Denmark said yesterday it will oppose any debt relief deal for Sudan in response to the Sudanese president's comments urging the Muslim world to boycott Danish goods over the publication of a Prophet Muhammad cartoon."

You don't like our freedom of speech? Let's see how you like our freedom not to donate tons of money to your backward country!

"Sudan is one of the largest recipients of Danish aid, receiving $26 million in aid in 2006. A $100 million humanitarian and reconstruction packages is planned through 2009."

Like I say, the Danes seem to be starting to realize that their own culture is worth defending, that it isn't just one equal choice among many at the multicultural cafeteria. Nice to see.

Gee, you think that European Union thing is starting to look like a bad idea?

2008-03-01T10:19:00.004-05:00

Hillary Throws (Yet) Another Spadeful of Dirt on Her Campaign's Grave

As might any American citizen, Barack Obama goes to Kenya, the homeland of his father, and there partakes of the local culture, albeit in a superficial way (food, dance, song, dress, etc.) And because he is a FAMOUS American, the people there are justifiably proud, and they honor him by dressing him in the traditional robe and turban of a tribal leader. Someone takes a picture.

Matt Drudge publishes the picture on his highly influential website. He claims that he received the picture via email from someone in the Clinton campaign.

If true, one can only conclude that the sender intended to fan rumors that Obama is a closet Muslim. The sender no doubt assumes that such fanning would occur because too many people are too stupid to know that not all turban-wearers are terrorists.

Now, as I say, any American citizen might go on such a trip to get in touch with his/her heritage, and politics would have nothing to do with it. If a German-American citizen (Democrat or Republican) went to Germany for Oktoberfest and put on lederhosen and quaffed beer with the locals, would we say that he/she were a closet Nazi? One could think of other examples. Russia (or Cuba or China) = communist? Norway = pagan? South Pacific Islands = cannibal?

The funny thing is: It's the Hillary campaign (not to say HRC herself) that seems bigoted here, for immediately jumping in their imaginations to the certainty that Americans would reject Obama because they see him in a turban. That this would be their first thought says way more than they realize or intend about their own frame of mind.

The best part of this story (so far) is that Kenyan tribal elders are planning to fine Hillary for her insult and that the fine must be paid in cows! This, coupled with Hillary's constant repetition of the "all-hat-no-cattle" line, is doing wonders at keeping the words "Hillary" and "cow" in close proximity in everyone's mind.

Barack is all hat and no cattle, whereas I am...wait...

LOL

The smartest politician(s) in the history of the world are turning out to be pretty damn dumb. And it's beautiful to watch...

In similar news: Hillary's comparison of Obama to McGovern, an attempt to scare voters into thinking that Obama is too liberal (which I think he is) is ironic in the extreme, given that Hillary campaigned for McGovern way back when.

Likewise her bad-mouthing of NAFTA, which she has on numerous occasions (rightly) praised.

This thing is starting to look like a high-school student-government campaign, with the screeching and the bad logic and the flailing.

2008-02-28T14:52:00.004-05:00

Why Does This Election Feel So Different?

One has to go back 56 years, to 1952, to find a presidential race in which neither party was running either a former president or former vice-president.

That was the year Dwight Eisenhower (R) ran against Adlai Stevenson (D), neither of whom had served in the White House before.

A case might be made that this was also true when Gerald Ford (R) ran against Jimmy Carter (D) in 1976, since Ford was never actually ELECTED to either the vice-presidency or to the presidency, but just sort of lucked out. Or bad-lucked out, depending on your perspective. But he WAS president.

So this is the first time in 56 damn years that both candidates have never been in the Oval Office, neither as top dog or second banana.

Although I suppose one could make the case that Hillary was co-president from 1992-2000.

So maybe Ike is still the most recent non-president or non-VP to become president.

McCain vs. Obama!

2008-02-27T13:00:00.003-05:00

EOD Saints: William F. Buckley, Jr. (R.I.P.)

William F. Buckley Jr., who marshaled polysyllabic exuberance, famously arched eyebrows and a refined, perspicacious mind to elevate conservatism to the center of American political discourse, died Wednesday at his home in Stamford, Conn.

Buckley has been an inspiration. You might not always have agreed with what he said, but you ALWAYS had to give him credit for saying it well. And he also deserves credit for driving his would-be critics toward better and better articulations of their own ideas.

What stands out for me in this regard is his relatively recent argument in favor of the legalisation of marijuana. Who would have expected that from him? Yet his argument made sense, and one got the sense that he felt honor bound to arrive at the conclusion he did, because it meshed with his overall philosophy and values.

This is what I have always tried to do with this blog: Use it as a place to think things through and figure out where I stand on an issue--in light of my own stated core beliefs. Integrity is the goal that I fear I have failed to meet. But it seems to me that Bill Buckley had integrity to spare.

R.I.P., Mr. Buckley. You've earned it.

2008-02-27T07:37:00.002-05:00

Imperial Quote Collection: Maureen Dowd on Hillary Versus Obama

Normally, I can't stand Dowd, but today's column about last night's debate is pretty funny:

Quote:

By threatening to throw the kitchen sink at Obama, the Clinton campaign simply confirmed the fact that they might be going down the drain.

Hillary and her aides urged reporters to learn from the “Saturday Night Live” skit about journalists having crushes on Obama.

“Maybe we should ask Barack if he’s comfortable and needs another pillow,” she said tartly in the debate here Tuesday night. She peevishly and pointlessly complained about getting the first question too often, implying that the moderators of MSNBC — a channel her campaign has complained has been sexist — are giving Obama an easy ride.

Beating on the press is the lamest thing you can do. It is only because of the utter open-mindedness of the press that Hillary can lose 11 contests in a row and still be treated as a contender.

I thought Hillary was pitiful last night. I could almost feel sorry for her, if it wasn't so much fun to watch her squirm.

2008-02-26T14:08:00.004-05:00

Imperial Quote Collection: David Brooks on John McCain

Source: "The Real McCain," New York Times, 2/26/2008

Quote:

"Over the course of his career, McCain has tried to do the impossible. He has challenged the winds of the money gale. He has sometimes failed and fallen short. And there have always been critics who cherry-pick his compromises, ignore his larger efforts and accuse him of being a hypocrite. This is, of course, the gospel of the mediocre man: to ridicule somebody who tries something difficult on the grounds that the effort was not a total success."

The gospel of the mediocre man.

Nice one.

2008-02-18T08:44:00.002-05:00

Imperial Quote Collection: John McWhorter on Racial Equality

In an article about recent complaints that the Clinton machine has been slinging attacks at Senator Obama, and that the reason must be racism, McWhorter writes:

Welcome to reality: being judged by the content of our character means that we black people will not be exempt from hardball. We should not be seduced by the fantasy that we must pretend to be fragile.

Nice one.

To insinuate that because Senator Obama is black, he can't take his hits in the sandbox just like the big boys, is an insult.

As McWhorter puts it:

[A]ren't we supposing that this grown man in his fifth decade of life is curiously delicate?

Indeed.

source: "Welcoming Obama to Reality," New York Sun, January 31, 2008

2008-02-16T07:02:00.002-05:00

Imperial Quote Collection: Gail Collins

source: "The Mittification of McCain," New York Times, February 16, 2007

Quote:

[Huckabee's] consultants are said to be working on a new and promising strategy that involves triggering an earthquake along the San Andreas fault, causing the West Coast to sink into the sea, dramatically reducing McCain’s current delegate count.

In the midst of all the super-serious fulminations being belched into the atmosphere lately, that is funny.

2008-02-15T17:19:00.002-05:00

Imperial Quote Collection: Lawrence Kudlow on Bill Gates & Capitalism

source: "Capitalism Doesn't Work?", New York Sun, January 25-27, 2007

Quote:

Mr. Gates says he has witnessed steep income and cultural inequities in his travels around the world, in particular to Africa. But for this he should blame the absence of capitalist principles, not capitalism itself. [Kudlow's emphasis]

Such a nicely structured sentence. Such simple little insights are so pleasant to stumble upon.

2008-02-15T17:00:00.003-05:00

Imperial Quote Collection: Mark Steyn on American Exceptionalism

source: "For What the Thanks," New York Sun, November 19, 2007

Quote:

Who would have foreseen that the nation that inflicted fast food and drive-thru restaurants on the planet would then take the fastest menu item of all [coffee] and turn it into a kabuki-paced performance art? What mad genius!

Ha!

Later:

Aside from the Anglophone democracies, most of "the west"'s nation states have been conspicuous failures at sustaining peaceful political evolution from one generation to the next, which is why they're so susceptible to the siren song of Big Ideas--Communism, Fascism, European Union [ha!]. If you're going to be novelty-crazed, better the zebra-mussel cappuccino than the Third Reich.

Ouch.

2008-02-15T16:45:00.003-05:00

Imperial Quote Collection: R. Emmett Tyrrel, Jr. on "Progressivism"

source: "Time to Stop Disturbing the Peace," New York Sun, December 28-30, 2007

Quote:

The liberal activist aspires to be an agent of "Progress." In fact, the liberal activist, whether male or female, often calls himself a Progressive. Yet through the years you will spot no coherent system of political values motivating liberal reforms. Sometimes the liberals might be motivated by liberty or equality or fraternity, but sometimes they are not. They may be against censorship, but sometimes dirty words offend the feminists among them and ethnic slurs arouse other of their co-conspirators.

There is, however, one political value that can be discerned motivating every one of their legendary reforms, from the ambitious (world peace) to the trivial (the criminalization of trans fats). That value is to disturb one's [sic] neighbor, to disturb the peace. In all civilized criminal codes such behavior constitutes a misdemeanor. Yet it is at the heart of the liberal project.

2008-02-12T08:23:00.000-05:00

Imperial Quote Collection: Dr. Carla Pugh, surgeon, Northwestern University Medical School

OK, I know it's still only February, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the following is the quote of the year:

“It’s not like med school students are gifted to the degree that they can touch a stranger’s genitals and look them in the eye and have a calm conversation without feeling weird about it.”

source

Dan Savage is quoted in the article, too, and you gotta love it:

“Doctors graduate with the same squeamishness over naughty bits as the rest of us,” said Dan Savage, the syndicated sex-advice columnist, whose readers fretfully send him pictures of their genital ailments even though he lacks the medical education to offer diagnoses. “The difference is that normal people can be squeamish about touching strangers’ scrotums without it being a life-changing situation [my emphasis].

Mr. Savage concludes by saying:

“That’s America,” he continued. “Canada got the French. Australia got the convicts. We got the Puritans and we never got over it.”

2008-02-04T07:05:00.000-05:00

Paul Krugman on Barack Obama: He's Just Not Socialist Enough!

If it comes down to it, this article is as good as any evidence you might need to make it easier to accept the idea of an Obama presidency.

He's not as "progressive" (i.e., fascist) as Hillary.

He's not as willing to impose "higher costs" (i.e., taxes) as Hillary in return for "universal healthcare" (i.e., "a key progressive goal," AKA socialized medicine).

He's not as "explicit" about "affordability" as is Hillary, who promises "to limit insurance costs as a percentage of family income" (i.e., "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need").

He doesn’t require that all comrades, er, citizens be insured (i.e., he isn't as convinced as is Hillary that the Left knows better than you do what you need and that you should just obey them.)

Krugman writes:

"Mr. Obama claims that people will buy insurance if it becomes affordable. Unfortunately, the evidence says otherwise.

After all, we already have programs that make health insurance free or very cheap to many low-income Americans, without requiring that they sign up. And many of those eligible fail, for whatever reason, to enroll."

Nice, right? They "fail" to enroll, rather than "choose" not to enroll? That right there shows you the unexamined assumptions of people on the Left. Not only is it "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." It's "I'm here to help, and it isn't even conceivable that you could disagree with me, because I'm from the Left."

To people like Krugman, it isn't about which candidate is best for the country; indeed, there's no discussion of what's in the Constitution, of what the President is supposed to do versus what he or she isn't supposed to do. No, for people like Krugman, the decision about which candidate to back is all about which candidate will be able to secure the success of Leftist policies in the world. Screw America, what about socialism?

If we end up with a Republican nominee whom you consider not far enough to the Right, then at least you have the consolation that people like Krugman consider Obama not far enough to the Left.

2008-02-04T06:53:00.001-05:00

Imperial Quote Collection: William Kristol on Conservatism

From a nice bit in today's New York Times about Republican grousing on the current primary race:

The American conservative movement has been remarkably successful. We shouldn’t take that success for granted. It’s not easy being a conservative movement in a modern liberal democracy. It’s not easy to rally a comfortable and commercial people to assume the responsibilities of a great power. It’s not easy to defend excellence in an egalitarian age. It’s not easy to encourage self-reliance in the era of the welfare state. It’s not easy to make the case for the traditional virtues in the face of the seductions of liberation, or to speak of duties in a world of rights and of honor in a nation pursuing pleasure.

I agree.

But I would add...

It's not easy to balance practical concerns with ideological ones. It's not easy to compromise. It's not easy to remember that the other guy, the one you disagree with, is nonetheless your countryman and entitled to his opinion and to a seat at the table. It's not easy to remember that the point of politics is to argue about how best to enact Constitutional principles, including how to secure representation of minority opinion without instituting tyranny by the minority.

It's not about finding a candidate who's in lockstep with every idea you hold dear. There probably isn't such a person. It's about finding a candidate who you have the most in common with and who you think will be the best at the job. It's about who you think will be best for the country, not who most reminds you of yourself.

2008-02-03T18:00:00.000-05:00

Imperial Paraphrase Collection: John Updike on Edward Hopper

"Hopper's people appear to be listening, but not to each other."

--from "Hopper's World," by Martha Bayles, in the October 15, 2007, issue of The Weekly Standard

Bayles also writes (memorably):

"Hopper's last major work, completed in 1963, four years before his death, is Sun in an Empty Room. I write this on a New England fall day, when the sunshine is clear and beautiful but no longer warm. Hopper once explained to a friend that he preferred Cape Cod to Maine because the winter came too quickly in Maine. I know just what he means. To New Englanders (and to everyone who lives in a similar climate), there is no more poignant harbinger of death than the autumn sun, which does its best to reach us with its old force but cannot, because of inexorably increasing distance."

Perfect.

That is exactly the feeling that comes across in Hopper's work.

Like the sun, we ache to reach each other, but we can't. Not even, or perhaps especially, when we do.

2008-02-02T09:02:00.000-05:00

The Choice is Crystal Clear (Or Is It?)

In her column today, Gail Collins answers hypothetical voter questions.

One example:

I am an independent and looking for a president with integrity. Should I vote for John McCain or Barack Obama?

Her answer:

You’re torn between the guy who’s been against the war from the beginning and the guy who’s willing to stay in Iraq for 100 years? Between the guy who wants to pay for a $50 billion-a-year health care program by eliminating tax cuts for the wealthy, and the guy who wants to keep the tax cuts and pay for them by cutting the budget?

Yes, folks, we may have something to argue about between now and Tuesday, with regard to who should get the nomination, but when it comes to choosing between him and the Democrat, it's a no-brainer.

I don't think being "against the war" is, necessarily, a mark in anyones favor. I can respect someones being against the war, but I certainly don't agree, and I certainly don't think it qualifies that person to be president. It doesn't necessarily mean the person wouldn't be a good president, but it wouldn't make him or her my first choice by any stretch. I've been for the war from the beginning (see archive), so Collins's suggestion that one ought obviously, duh, to choose one of the anti-war candidates, is insulting, not only to me and people like me, but also to herself, because it shows that despite her pretensions to the contrary, she isn't smart enough to imagine that her ideas are just that, ideas, and not the be-all, end-all truth.

And as far as staying for 100 years, well, if that's what it takes to finally come through on a promise made by this country, so be it. Besides, when was the last time a Democrat got applause by condemning th U.S. presence in, say, Korea, or Bosnia?

I think we do need to do something about health care, but it can NOT be controlled by the government. I can NOT. It can NOT. And you can't FORCE people to participate. And I do NOT believe that just because someone is wealthy, they somehow deserve to pay someone else's way. I believe in charity, but not in coercion. If someone wants to pay more taxes, let him. But don't tell me and the Empress of Dirt that just because we make over a certain amount, we are "rich" and have to pay higher taxes to support other people. Who do you think you are?

And please note how Ms. Collins assumes that "cutting the budget" is a bad thing.

John McCain wants to cut the budget! Oh, dear, we can't have that! How are we supposed to win votes unless we give away tons and tons of free shit to people?! Doesn't John McCain understand that what we need are MORE government programs, not fewer? How could he, or anyone, think that cutting the budget will be a good thing? We need money to do all these things [that the Founders were too blind to include in the Constitution as obligations of the federal government]. Therefore, we need to tax someone in order to be able to pay for it. And who has lots of money laying around that they don't need (thus say we)? The rich, that's who! So let's tax them and use the money to pay for all our nifty programs.

Bottom line: Don't tell me how to think, don't tell me what I deserve, and don't tell me what I ought to want.

The real choice is as follows: You're torn between the guy who wants to defend the basic freedoms promised by the Constitution, and the guy (or gal) who wants to use the office of the presidency to do stuff that the Constitution doesn't require?

Get a grip, indeed.

2008-02-01T07:47:00.000-05:00

A Clarification: I Have No Favorite At This Time

The Smallest Minority recently quoted me and called me a "McCain supporter" (settle down, I'm not mad, I'm just glad to have readers!).

I commented as follows:

Am I a McCain supporter? I'm not so sure. He sucked in the debate the other night. And sure he appears to have contradicted himself from time to time, but which of them hasn't done that? And McCain/Feingold? I don't know; I think reasonable people still have some arguing to do about the excessive influence of big money on our system: Only the rich can run for office, for example..

Yes, I wrote at the end of the post: "McCain/Giuliani 2008!" But was I serious? I don't know. I'm trying to figure out who can win. What do I know. It's just a blog, dude.

I watched the Obama/Clinton debate, too, and much to my glee, I thought he mopped the floor with her. No, there isn't much daylight between them, but he sounds smarter and more dignified at least. Worse things could happen. I'm looking forward to the Romney/Obama debates...

Allow me to share with you something I wrote in an e-mail to the Reverend Anubis recently:

This is shaping up to be a very interesting year...

The Democrats might end up going into their convention with no clear front runner and have to squabble and horse trade. On TV. In front of the whole nation.

And the Republicans might end up nominating McCain, a guy who somehow appeals to both libs and cons!

I've been collecting interesting "pro"-McCain articles:

Roger Cohen, 1/17

Wooldridge, 1/17

Brooks, 1/22

Rich, 1/27

Very interesting...

Rudy has to announce by tomorrow that he's dropping out. Otherwise he risks alienating people by taking up time in this week's debate when everybody knows he's done. Plus he'll hurt the brand name recognition of his company.

As Aragorn said to Frodo: "I would have gone with you [Rudy] to the end, into the very fires of Mordor..." Alas...

Indeed.

My Giuliani hat is STILL on the dashboard of the Imperial family car, but he's out. We have to vote for SOMEbody. Mitt seems too slick to me. I worry.

Maybe we SHOULD write in Cthulhu!