Showing posts with label NRO. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NRO. Show all posts

Thursday, July 17, 2008

Enough Phony Outrage For One Day

When you read things like this, you wonder if Hanson isn't about to burst into tears after he writes something as overwrought as this:

(Barack Obama said this to Glamour magazine)
"It's infuriating, but it's not surprising, because let's face it: What happened was that the conservative press—Fox News and the National Review and columnists of every ilk—went fairly deliberately at her in a pretty systematic way...and treated her as the candidate in a way that you just rarely see the Democrats try to do against Republicans."

And that's where Hanson cuts Obama off. Fair enough. Here's the rest of Obama's thought:
And I've said this before: I would never have my campaign engage in a concerted effort to make Cindy McCain an issue, and I would not expect the Democratic National Committee or people who were allied with me to do it. Because essentially, spouses are civilians. They didn't sign up for this. They're supporting their spouse. So it took a toll. If you start being subjected to rants by Sean Hannity and the like, day in day out, that'll drive up your negatives.

Everybody who knows Michelle knows how extraordinary she is. She's ironically the most quintessentially American woman I know. She grew up in a "Leave it to Beaver" family. She is the best mother I know. And our kids are a testimony to that, because she's really had to raise them, oftentimes without me being there. She's the most honest person I know, she's smart, she's funny, so yeah, it infuriates me. And I think that it is an example of the erosion of civility in our political culture that she's been subjected to these attacks, and my attitude is that the people who have attacked her in the ways that they have...if they've got a difference with me on policy, they should debate me. Not her.

Now that you know the context of the answer--whereby, Obama all but demands that the attacks on Cindy McCain either stop or not be undertaken by anyone affiliated with his campaign--you can see why Hanson dishonestly cut off Obama's answer. So now we get the phony outrage of a man so desperate to find something to hold on to, you'd think he was coming unglued:
But this is disingenuous. First, Ms. Obama is the recipient of almost continuously positive attention and press coverage in the network news. In CNN's comparative profiles of the candidates, it dwelt on her accomplishments, while focusing on Ms. McCain's problems with prescription drugs, her privileged status, the circumstances of her meeting John McCain, etc.

Second, Ms. Obama, not on the prompt of the National Review, chose to play a highly partisan role, and, furthermore, publicly to indict American culture and life on the basis of her newfound prominence and exposure as a wife of a candidate, all in a way none of the other spouses of candidates in either party did with the exception of Bill Clinton — who not surprisingly was equally cross-examined.

These are things that I have simply never heard nor have I ever seen--have you? I mean, she went on The View and people loved her. She meets with people, and she talks about family issues--she leaves the AK-47 at home, obviously.

We're to expect the wife of a Presidential candidate to say nothing and hide in the background? I don't think Michelle Obama has said or done anything differently from that of Cindy McCain--and NEITHER of them approach the levels of partisanship we saw from Bill Clinton in the primary process. Not that that's bad--but Bill was far more political, for obvious reasons--he was the President of the United States, for God's sake.

Most observers, after all, will take offense when told by a potential First Lady that their country heretofore is not the sort of place to inspire pride, or is downright mean, or its people usually "uninvolved and uninformed". Most of us either did not know of Michelle Obama, or, to the extent we did, had a favorable opinion of her as a successful wife, mother, and highly educated and experienced career professional—until in a series of "raise the bar" sermons, she let loose a barrage of indictments against American culture.

Really, Mr. Hanson? Then why did the father of President Bush stand before the American people with the intention of distancing himself from Ronald Reagan and ask for a "kindler, gentler nation?" Amnesia sets in when we start trying to gin up phony outrage.
Once again the pattern proves the same: the Obamas spontaneously offer biting fundamental critiques on the unsoundness of American life and culture, from the important to the silly—whether our national temperament, or our supposed inability to speak a foreign language, or our diet, etc—and then the Senator recoils in anguish and hurt when any of the targets suggests that they are both wrong in their indictments and not especially the sort who can make the case America has been mean or unfair to its citizens.

Here's President Bush calling for more physical fitness and a healthier lifestyle--it's what Presidents do. And here he makes a fool of himself addressing the Italian prime minister in Spanish--now, do you think it would be wise to emphasize a little learning and accomplishment in this regard?
It is the duty of all journalists to call Obama on his double-standard on every occasion he draws upon it, since we are seeing a dangerous messianic quality in which anything short of the accustomed adoration becomes "infuriating" and a sort of exemption from cross-examination on an always expanding array of topics is demanded.

I don't see adoration--I see smears and lies, mostly. The only "adoration" one sees comes when the press attends a barbecue at one of John McCain's seven homes.

Wednesday, July 9, 2008

America's Idiot Speaks

UPDATE below the fold...
Jonah Goldberg, self-fellating himself in public:
My LA Times Readership [Jonah Goldberg]

If you want a sense of how popular I am with the LA Times community, check out the (354 and counting) comments to my Obama national service column.

One small point in response (I know, I know: Why bother?). The 13th amendment lists involuntary servitude and slavery as different things. If they were the same, the founders wouldn't have wasted the ink repeating themselves.

That's a darned good question, except for the glaringly obvious fact that, by the time the 13th Amendment was ratified, every single, solitary "founding father" was dead and buried.

Oh, and food for thought:
Neither Slavery Nor Involuntary Servitude
By Aeon J.Skoble
The title of this essay refers to two things that are prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The first is no longer even controversial, yet the second is being suggested right now by several prominent academics and, more frighteningly, members of Congress. Despite the successes of the all-volunteer military currently employed by the United States, we are hearing calls for a return to mandatory military service, also known as conscription or the draft. This is a bad idea whose time has not come.

Seriously--does Goldberg have an editor? A friend to help him from the stage? Someone who can assist him with his bodily functions? A person to drive the addled bastard home?
h/t to Atrios!


UPDATE: 0903AM

Goldberg added this little nugget to "The Corner" to try and explain his confusion:
Correction [Jonah Goldberg]

Just to stop the flow of e-mail, let me say it up here as well. Last night, writing in haste I referred to the authors of the 13th amendment as the "founders." Obviously, this was an error — the founders had moved on to better things by then. Not that the angry e-mailers will believe me, but it was merely a typing error. I did actually know that the amendment that ended slavery was written around the time, you know, slavery ended.


I'm sorry, but I don't buy it. Given that everything already said about slavery and involuntary servitude in Goldberg's column was based on ignorance, the desire to attack Barack Obama with a ridiculous premise, and a lack of understanding as to the difference between slavery and involuntary servitude, I don't buy it.

This is a typing error:

qwerqwe##$ $% //. ...rnjafguju849082h

Not realizing that the 13th Amendment wasn't ratified until 1865 is a display of ignorance.

For example, did Goldberg know that the 13th Amendment wasn't ratified in Kentucky until 1976 and in Mississippi until 1995?

He could look it up--or bleg someone to do the work for him.

Uh, Not Exactly, Monsieur

Victor Davis Hanson is allowed to post his random musings on "The Corner" now? Sign me up for more of that insanity!
I was watching Obama complain that we don't speak European languages while Europeans speak English fluently. Fair enough—though the vast size of the US, the presence of two oceans on our borders, the ubiquity of Spanish here, the knowledge of other languages by millions of Americans, both explain a lot, and belie the notion that we are all English-only speakers, while the multitude of nations in close proximity has historically made Europeans by necessity multi-lingual.

How very "old Europe" of you, VDH! How's that working out for you? Getting paid by NRO in Euros, yet?

The problem is, any time you actually do any thinking or analysis on an issue, you run into, well, facts and figures that tell a different story--one that pretty much escapes the likes of VDH, who just wants to post on the Corner and look smarter than K-Lo.
OSU's [Oregon State University] Italian department joins a string of struggling European-language programs. The German departments at the University of Southern California and Humboldt State University are being shut down, and the College Board's Advanced Placement tests in Italian, French literature, and Latin literature are all being eliminated because of low interest, possibly as students are attracted to Arabic and Chinese programs.

But demand for Italian has always been high at OSU, says Guy Wood, interim chairman of the foreign languages and literatures department. "Our enrollments in those classes are as good as any," he says. The courses were dropped because of budget problems. OSU's foreign languages department faces a projected $250,000 deficit for the 2009 fiscal year, prompting cuts for some introductory Spanish and literature sections, as well. Wood says something had to go. Italian was the easiest language to eliminate because it was the youngest program, and its only professor was not tenured.
This seems to be a trend--language programs are being cut because of budget concerns, not a lack of interest. But why let the facts get in the way when you can take a cheap shot at Obama on the issue of multiculturalism, right?

--WS

Thursday, April 17, 2008

Kathryn Jean Lopez Hates Like No Other

One of the things I need to stop doing is wandering into that horrific freak show of self-deluding wankery called The Corner...

Speaker Pelosi, Step Aside [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

As a sister Catholic, I have a plea to Nancy Pelosi this morning: Don't do it. Don't make the papal Mass about you or a political statement. The Vatican wants bishops to shepherd pro-choice Catholic pols — you can't be a pro-choice Catholic pol — and Pelosi (who was at dinner last night) insists on receiving Communion. If the pope, unknowingly perhaps, gives her Communion, the image will be a damaging one — in one picture, undoing what he's trying to ingrain in Church leaders. She knows this is a big deal. I know it means something to her — but she should have this fight another day.

It's a tough thing. No one wants to judge. No one can know another's soul. But we know voting records and rhetoric and we know what it taught. And I just don't want to see a beautiful Mass become a political statement. We'll see. God bless all who will be at Nationals stadium today, Democrat, Republican, everyone.


This is a beautiful bit of wingnut wankery. On the one hand, a woman who wants communion from her church is vilified and pilloried simply because of a public policy position that is contradictory to that of her faith--separation of church and state much? On the other hand, God Bless all who will be there, even you filthy, disgusting, horrible, no-good Democrats.

The American Wingnut, circa April 2008: I can't get the hate out of my fat fucking mouth fast enough...

Tuesday, April 1, 2008

K-Lo Gets It Backwards

If I'm reading this right--and I know I am, but I have to say things like that from time to time--then McCain is a leader because he has exactly the wrong strategy for fighting the war in Iraq:

What the “100 years” talk refers to is something McCain rightly said in response to a question during a New Hampshire townhall meeting in January. The question regarded Bush’s statement that we could be in Iraq for 50 more years. McCain sensibly responded: “Make it 100. We’ve . . . been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, that’s fine with me. I hope that would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting and equipping and motivating people every single day.”

When asked to clarify, he would go on to say that it could be 1,000 years, or even a million years. These are the lines that try Democrats’ souls. But McCain was right about the long war. It was a sensible answer. And though it doesn’t sound like the most attractive answer -- who wants 100 years in Iraq? -- it was straight talk from a senator who has a better track record on Iraq than most. And it may not hurt his campaign, either.


Now, that's a bit of a stretch. The only reason we stayed in those places was because of a symbiotic relationship between us and the host country which was based on protecting them while they rebuilt their society, infusing money into their economy, and because there was no popular groundswell of the will of the people in those host countries to throw us out either by violence or by protest. We had a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) that was based on law, not something concocted on the way to secretly meet with the prime minister.

Pew reports that Americans are split about whether the war is going well or not. They’re split over bringing the troops home or keeping them there. But they know that 4,000 American lives have been lost valiantly, and Americans don’t like losing something they’ve gone into with their blood.

According to Pew, 53 percent of Americans think we can win this. A CBS poll indicates 42 percent acknowledging the surge has worked -- it’s meant progress. Contrary to the way the Dems talk, a Gallup poll had a minority (18 percent) favoring withdrawing the troops immediately.

Say what you want about McCain, but he’s been right about Iraq. He was right to say “no surrender.” He was right to support the surge. By contrast, Obama has been endorsed by MoveOn.org, which had the nerve to suggest Gen. David Petraeus was betraying us with false information. Clinton refused to condemn the ad, which was no surprise given the disrespect she showed the general in congressional questioning.


Wow--if that isn't cherry picking old polls and trying to shine a turd, I don't know what is. The war has been consistently unpopular. The people support the troops but not the Administration, which has had an approval rating so low for so long it shouldn't even be brought up in polite conversation. The Commander in Chief of this war has been so unpopular for so long, K-Lo has to gloss over it and cherry pick polls from one polling outfit just to try to skate past that whole thing about the war being about as popular as New Coke, pardoning Nixon and Yahoo Serious.

Here are some poll numbers to contemplate:

Nearly half of all Americans - 46 percent - want large numbers of U.S. troops to leave Iraq within the next year. Twenty-two percent are willing to have U.S. troops remain in the country for one to two years, and 28 percent are willing to have troops remain longer than that.

Fewer than one in three Americans approve of the way Mr. Bush is handling the war in Iraq. His 30 percent approval rating on the war is unchanged from last month and closely matches the president’s overall approval rating of 29 percent.

Thirty-six percent of Americans think the U.S. did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, while 59 percent believe the U.S. should have stayed out. In March 2003, nearly seven in 10 Americans said the U.S. did the right thing.

Just 31 percent of Americans think the U.S. should have stayed to rebuild Iraq after Saddam Hussein was removed from power. Twenty-seven percent say the U.S. should have pulled out of Iraq after removing Saddam, while 41 percent say the U.S. should have never gotten involved in the first place.

Twenty-eight percent of Americans believe Saddam was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. That figure is down significantly since the spring of 2003, when more than half of those surveyed said the former Iraqi leader was involved in the attacks.


That's gotta hurt--the only way McCain can take the wingnuttery all the way to the White House is for people to be confused about the reasons for the war. Once people finally wake up, they're going to be pissed.

And, no, he's been wrong about Iraq. He can't even get straight who makes up which side and who they're aligned with without being prompted by Joe Lieberman. He fails every basic test in a Commander in Chief--you know, the test that starts of with "we are fighting (blank) because (blank). When a candidate for President can't even get that much right, we're not talking statesman. We're talking confused and cranky.

He clearly doesn't have the temperment to be President. Just ask him if he sent his staff to talk to John Kerry about running on the Democratic ticket in 2004--you'll get an earful of his leadership, wisdom and judgement.

Monday, December 10, 2007

More Wingnuttery from W Thomas Smith

This is from way back in the middle of October, but it's a classic. A classic! And it's proof that insane wingnuts should be locked up.

Noted wingnut liar W Thomas Smith:


An Assassination Attempt [W. Thomas Smith Jr.]

AL BATROUN (San Stephano Resort) – Had a marvelous dinner last evening. Also enjoyed drinks, music, dancing, a Lebanese dance troupe, and some great company with my friend, Toni Nissi, his lovely wife, Hayat, and other members of the 1559 team. But as I arrived here at the San Stephano, I was informed that earlier in the day, assassins attempted to take the life of a man I've been working with closely here for the past couple of weeks.

Al Sayed Mohammad Ali El Hussien is a high-ranking Shiia cleric, who some here say was being groomed to take over the position of Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah. Al Sayed was Hezbollah to be sure: He and Nasrallah butted heads on one too many issues. The competition between the two men increased. Sayed, who actually outranks Nasrallah in the Islamic hierarchy, became disillusioned with Hezbollah – particularly because the terrorist organization was implementing an Iranian agenda and not a Lebanese one — and left HezB (if you can ever really leave).

In recent months, Sayed has been on a tireless campaign, lobbying Shiia groups in Europe and the Middle East to reject the violence and distorted teachings of Nasrallah and his crowd. And his success thus far has been viewed by Hezbollah as a serious threat.

I interviewed Sayed once. Had coffee and sweets with him in his office. Conducted a reconnaissance mission with one of his armed men and two of mine in one of Sayed's cars. I rode with him during a second recon in another of his cars. And yesterday, members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (here in Lebanon) attempted to kill Sayed and his family by sabotaging his vehicle (the first one I rode in). They planted a delayed acid-weapon on his car's undercarriage, which ate through the chassis and caused the vehicle to basically break in half while he was driving.

Sayed and his family survived the attempt, barely. But the terrorists have killed others like this before.


You know, I like to think that I'm a pretty good researcher. But I can't find evidence that they have done this. I can't find anything that indicates that using a delayed action acid bomb to cause the frame of a vehicle to break in half would do anything other than produce a slapstick moment of two pieces of a car going in different directions without causing anything more than a polite giggle.

I mean, really. It took THAT long to figure out this guy is a ridiculous piece of shit?

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Stanley Kurtz, Film Critic

This is what I get for even glancing at the insane parade of jaw-droppingly stupid observations that is The Corner.

Kurtz reaches out with all of the genius he can muster to explain to us that Happy Feet, an animated film produced in 2006, is only part of the problem, with the MAIN problem being the 1990 film Dances With Wolves, which won the Academy Award. Somehow--somehow--these things are related to the war in Iraq:


Dances With Wolves... [Stanley Kurtz]
is the real reason the Dems can’t talk about, much less show their support for, the turnaround in Iraq. Happy Feet is how they’re working on their kids. Rich [Lowry?] points out that the press doesn’t want to report improvement in Iraq. Ralph Peters makes the same point, and goes on to highlight all those failed anti-Iraq films. But the real issue here is Dances with Wolves.

Now I think Dances With Wolves is a fantastic film. That’s the point. Dances With Wolves spins out an incredibly powerful and appealing narrative in which the American army features as the villain. That’s the narrative Hollywood has craved since long before 9/11. As for Happy Feet, those cute animal films (not to mention An Inconvenient Truth) are excellent opportunities for Hollywood to argue that "the enemy is us."

What Hollywood can’t abide is any John Wayne-style theme in which Americans are good guys, fighting a tough battle and prevailing over enemy bad guys. In the current cultural environment, that sort of war is equated by Hollywood with "genocidalimperialismracism." So the Iraq war is unquestionably part of the culture war, and the weapons of the left go far beyond all those anti-Iraq Hollywood flops. Films like Dances With Wolves and Happy Feet do much better. And that’s why Hollywood is still very much in the game.

Of course, Saving Private Ryan and We Were Soldiers are just two films that I will cite as being more than stellar examples refuting everything Kurtz is saying. Americans are not necessarily going to reject positive images of themselves--they crave something that hits at the truth of our existence. There are innumerable films that deal with people, not necessarily Americans, but people who are shown to be struggling, persevering, doing the right thing and winning it all--uplifting films that do major box office.

Here are the top 20 grossing pictures, of all time:

1 Titanic
2 The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
3 Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
4 Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone
5 Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End
6 Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
7 The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
8 Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace
9 Shrek 2
10 Jurassic Park
11 Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
12 Spider-Man 3
13 Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
14 The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
15 Finding Nemo
16 Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
17 Spider-Man
18 Independence Day
19 Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
20 Shrek the Third

For Kurtz to say that Americans don't want to see a John Wayne-style hero--hello? Did you see Independence Day? It's about an American President who wears a codpiece and actually fulfills his commitment to the reserves by volunteering to fight the enemy. No wonder you didn't mention it. If you go through that list of films, I dare you to make the case that any of them are anti-American or controversial or insidious in any way.

Wait--my bad. There's that scene in Shrek 2 where he makes a point about how America is failing to rally behind the President and fight Islamofascism. He does this through that most treacherous of plot devices. He farts a lot.

The real reason that films that deal with the current war in Iraq aren't doing well at the box office is very simple--the war isn't over yet. The war is too immediate and too close to the surface of American cultural life. If you had released Platoon, The Deerhunter, Full Metal Jacket and We Were Soldiers during 1971 or 1972, what would the impact of those films have been?

Successful films that dealt with Vietnam didn't appear until the war had been over for at least five years, starting with the Deerhunter. The definitive films, Full Metal Jacket and Platoon, didn't appear until 1986 and 1987.

And, please. Dances With Wolves is not about "The American Army" in relation to the US Army in Iraq. It's a specific period piece about the US cavalry and the Indians, and it tells the story with a viewpoint sympathetic to the Native Americans. Hollywood has depicted the US cavalry in We Were Soldiers by virtue of telling the story as the redemption of a unit that was surrounded and destroyed. It makes that point without condemning the actual act, but rather by blaming the person most responsible for The Little Big Horn, General Custer. In fact, you can hear LTC Moore lamenting the fact that his unit has been constituted as the Seventh Cavalry. He and his men go on to fight bravely and redeem the heritage of the unit, after a stern pep talk about how Custer was a "pussy." If you point out that Custer was a pussy, does that mean you hate America? Of course not.

There are so many variations on the depiction of the US cavalry. [Don't forget the TV show F Troop.] So what you have is really a history of films that depict both sides of the coin, the good and the bad, and in the case of Dances With Wolves, it cuts closer to balancing the story of what happened BEFORE the battle of The Little Big Horn. It depicts the US cavalry as being guardians of forgotten outposts during the Civil War.

Is Kurtz going to try to deny there was a genocidal policy against Native Americans in this country? Good luck selling that crackpot theory to pay for more blogging. For every Western that is sympathetic to Native Americans, there are at least a handful if not more that depict them as savages. Using a sympathetic view of Native Americans does not mean there is a hatred for the US Army of that era. Does that mean Letters From Iwo Jima proves that Clint Eastwood hates the US Marine Corps?

As for Happy Feet, it's an animated film. I, personally think that it's awful. [See my comments below on Robin Williams, who just riffs on and on and on throughout Happy Feet without anyone stepping in to turn off his microphone.] The thing I want to know is, how did they make a film called Happy Feet without getting Steve Martin to do one of the voices? Is this another example of Robin Williams stealing material?

Here's how simple it is to understand modern American cinema--the audience just wants to be entertained with a good story.

After I hand everything back to The Blue Girl, I've got a meeting with Pixar set up for next week, to do the story of a plucky band of conservatives who can't come up with a single sane idea or opinion between them and their struggle to fight their way out of a vast, incomprehensible wet paper bag.

Tuesday, May 1, 2007

I wonder what Buckley thinks of this?

I met Bill Buckley once. He was the guest of honor at the Mortar Board breakfast at Wichita State University in January of 1986. I had made the high Deans list the semester before so I had an automatic invite.

Buckley might be a Conservative but he isn’t insane and he has a penchant for protecting Civil Liberties. I wasn’t about to pass up the opportunity to talk to him and we had a nice discussion about the absurdity of America’s War on Drugs. I’m sure I walked away thinking I had been brilliant and he would never forget me. Such is the arrogance of youth…

Still…The man I had breakfast with 21 years ago must be deeply disturbed by this comment by Thomas Sowell in the pages of the magazine that he founded on bedrock conservative principles.

When I see the worsening degeneracy in our politicians, our media, our educators, and our intelligentsia, I can't help wondering if the day may yet come when the only thing that can save this country is a military coup.

Seriously – are the Conservatives so afraid of facing their demons and fixing what went wrong with their revolution, that they would sign on to a coup if it meant clinging to an illusion of power??? Seriously?!?!?

I so hope Buckley comments on this…