Infinite Monkeys
"...a sparkly blog..." - James Lileks"Read them only with extreme caution."- Hugh Hewitt
Infinite MonkeysNot the old pastor's fault this time. Instead we've got the new pastor charging that Hillary Clinton's New Hampshire tears were sparked by her defeat by -- and I'm paraphrasing the pastor here -- an uppity black man.
I've said before that Obama will probably lose to John McCain in November, and this just confirms it for me. You can't spend your entire adult lifetime associating with a group of people, then ditching them when the spotlight gets uncomfortable. It just looks craven -- particularly when it is craven. If the Scott McClellan brouhaha this week has taught us anything it's that Americans don't like you when you're wrong, but they really hate you when you're disloyal.
One of the more striking lessons from the Democratic primary this year is the revelation of just how shockingly "racist" and "sexist" Democratic voters turned out to be. Who let so many slack-jawed troglodytes into the Party of Progress?
But apart from the obvious conclusion that Americans are simply too hidebound and reactionary to elect a woman or a black man, what does the 2008 election tell us about the state of the world? Mark Steyn mediates on Hillary Clinton's spectacular rise and splendorous fall and explains what it all means:
Enlightened progressives take it for granted that social progress is like technological progress -- that women's rights are like the internal combustion engine or the jet airplane: once invented they can't be uninvented.But that's a careless assumption. There was a small, nothing story out of Toronto this week -- the York University Federation of Students wants a campuswide ban on any pro-life student clubs. Henceforth, students would be permitted to debate abortion only "within a pro-choice realm," as the vice-president Gilary Massa put it.
Nothing unusual there. A distressing number of student groups are inimical to free speech these days. But then I saw a picture of the gung-ho abortion absolutist: Gilary Massa is a young Muslim woman covered in a hijab.
On such internal contradictions is the future being built.
Slate on Friday published a fairly scathing report on the Alex Barton story. I detest stupid, mulish, cruel people. Especially "educators" who should know better. Read the document. Realize that some of what Alex describes is likely untrue. I don't believe that Wendy Portillo was physically abusive. I just think that she was badly informed, and taught ignorantly. She then let her ignorance -- so confusing, so comforting -- be subsumed by malice.
And for that, I'm sorry to say, she must be destroyed.
I spent Thursday night and well into Friday morning in a hospital labor-'n'-delivery room, vainly trying to help my wife breathe heroically through some brutal contractions (Lamaze is bullcrap, brothers and sisters). So I had some time to do something I never do: Watch network news. I watched CBS News live at 4:00 Friday morning. It's as shallow and stupid as I remembered. But I did learn that Harvey Korman died, which was a singular bummer. Actually, it was a triple bummer, since I saw basically the same story package three times. (Here's a package of photos of Korman's career at the CBS News website.)
Korman is being remembered as a second fiddle of the first order. But as anyone who watched the old Carol Burnett Show knows, Korman was great because he made the difficult look easy, often absurdly so. The partnership of Harvey Korman and Tim Conway was arguably as great as Abbott and Costello, Martin and Lewis or Lemmon and Matthau. No joke.
Joel posted a video of one of Korman's iconic scenes from Blazing Saddles. Mel Brooks offered an entirely fitting remembrance: "A world without Harvey Korman -- it's a more serious world... It was very dangerous for me to work with him because if our eyes met we'd crash to the floor in comic ecstasy. It was comedy heaven to make Harvey Korman laugh."
Isabella Celeste arrived at 6:42 a.m., as healthy and a lovely as can be. I haven't slept more than three hours in the past 36, so I'm running on little more than sheer joy and willpower. (I might also take this opportunity to note that Isabella's dad is still looking for work...) Mother and child, however, are doing very, very well.
Photo after the jump...
Colorado's ACLU on Wednesday sued Denver in an attempt to force the city to disclose what equipment the police force is buying for the Democratic National Convention in August, the Rocky Mountain News reports. (The PDF of the complaint is here.)
Specifically, the ACLU wants to know how much Denver cops are spending on "less than lethal" weapons -- stun guns, pepper gas, sonic disruptors, and the like. City officials have been reluctant to say much about how they're spending between $18 and $25 million on equipment. Such disclosure, the city flacks say, "could potentially disclose tactical security information of the Denver Police Department which would be contrary to the public interest."
Oh, baloney.
First, the public has a right to know how their tax dollars are being spent. And the Democratic National Convention is a big deal for Denver. Even under the most peaceful circumstances, the convention is going to be a huge disruption for a lot of people, even as the throngs of delegates, political operatives and press pump tens of millions of dollars into the city's coffers.
Second, how better to discourage the hordes of anarchists, freaks, jokesters, pranksters, vandals, thugs and screwheads than to make clear what will happen when they step out of line in the Mile High City? Talk about deterrence! And the message to city residents and visiting delegates alike would be that no sideshow will distract the nation's eyes from the central business of the convention (which should prove entertaining enough without street fighting).
I've written elsewhere why I think riots at the Denver Convention are unlikely. A preview of what riot control means in the early 21st century could stop trouble before it even hits town. Denver officials should do the right thing and disclose already.
I covered the White House in 2004 and half of 2005 for The Washington Times. So I know Scott McClellan, or at least knew him, on a professional level. He called me by name at many a briefing in the West Wing, a "gaggle" in the press room or on Air Force One, and we've chatted on the sidelines watching Bush at his campaign events in 2004.
I liked him. He was a pretty regular guy. I was happy to hear that his wife was pregnant, that they were buying a house in Arlington (where I lived). It was, frankly, a reminder that these people who are on call -- literally -- 24/7 try mightily to fit a regular life into their very demanding jobs. I still don't know how they do it.
That all said, it was as obvious to me -- working for a "friendly" newspaper in Washington -- as it was to everyone in the White House Press Corps, that Scott was in way over his head as press secretary to the president of the United States. You could never get a straight answer out of the guy on the most basic stuff. Even non-threatening questions, not intended to "trap" him or the White House in an inconsistency, but to simply give the American people some clear talk on the issues, was a fool's errand. Many were the days where I'd leave the press room frustrated that Scott wouldn't directly address the gist of my questions, but would just slip into the company line -- no matter how non-responsive it was.
In short, he was the most incompetent McClellan to hit Washington, D.C., since the Civil War. And at a time of war, Scott's deer-in-the-headlights routine on national television every day did much to harm the war effort. But by his telling in his zooming-up-Amazon memoir, he was simply mouthing war "propaganda." Not doing the important work of explaining to the country the need to fight terrorists overseas. No. Mouthing propaganda.
That McClellan doesn't know the difference only proves his incompetence. Was Washington mouthing "war propaganda" when he was trying to convince his harried troops, a skeptical public and a wavering Continental Congress that a war that looked lost and foolish for almost the entire duration could be won?
Was Lincoln mouthing "war propaganda" when he was trying to continue a war that was mismanaged on the ground worse than the Iraq War by, I dunno, a factor of 1,000? No. They were explaining the need to do a hard, bloody, imperfect, tragic but necessary thing. Scott, obviously, was not up to the job. Or, as it now seems, felt it beneath him.
And that is contemptible. Worse, it is a betrayal -- and not just to his boss, but to his country's war effort, where morale and public perception is vital. It is no secret that the Bush administration's most glaring weakness has been its inability to communicate why we're fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. And Scott McClellan, by far, was the most incompetent. And now he has the gall to pass the blame to others. It's like the guy who went 0-12 at bat in the World Series blaming the loss on a guy who drove in 12 runs, but struck out once with a couple of guys on base. Pathetic.
It's especially pathetic and disgraceful when you consider that McClellan has been a Bush insider since 1990 -- which encompasses most of his adult life. He owes his whole career -- the perks, the nice salaries, the public spotlight -- to George W. Bush. As you see from the photo above, Bush went to the trouble to arrange a Rose Garden send off in April 2006 -- the kind of event that becomes a source of family pride that spans generations. Bush must be thinking: Thanks for nothing, jerk. And maybe the president would like to take back these words from that send-off:
One of these days he and I are going to be rocking on chairs in Texas, talking about the good old days and his time as the Press Secretary. And I can assure you I will feel the same way then that I feel now, that I can say to Scott, job well done.
But Bush, really, has only himself to blame. He has long valued loyalty over competence. If you're on the team, and you earn his trust, you can do no wrong. That myopic mindset of Bush's was behind his infamous "Heck of a job, Brownie" line after Katrina. And that mindset kept a mediocrity in place as press secretary longer than just about any other in modern history.
As a coda to this opera, I heard on the radio today a quote from a McClellan confidant -- though I haven't bothered to scan the net for corroboration -- that Scott is blaming the rough, accusatory language on his book editors. He apparently claims that the editor, looking for more juice, inserted the kind of language that has Washington in such a twitter.
Typical. To the end, McClellan is passing the buck. I used to be a lonely defender of Scott. No more. What a weasel.
For a humorous take on McClellan's give-away of the White House secret handshakes, check out Jon's Top 10 list of "Surprising Revelations in Scott McClellan's 'Tell-All' Book."
CBS This Morning interviewed Melissa Barton, mom of Alex, yesterday. The video is here. The Treasure Coast Palm has a follow up story on the international attention the kindergartner's case has received.
Clearly, young Alex Barton has problems. It isn't difficult to imagine that his problems very quickly became a problem for his teacher and his classmates. But however Alex might have disrupted his Port St. Lucie, Fla., kindergarten class, his behavior cannot possibly justify the stupid, cruel and vile behavior of his teacher, Wendy Portillo. Kindergarten shouldn't be an episode of "Survivor."
The comments on the CBS story -- running in excess of 750 as I post this -- are illuminating. Perhaps it's not surprising that there is a small but vocal cadre of support for the teacher and against the Bartons. The argument is straightforward, and not without merit: Special needs kids and especially children with learning disabilities should be in separate classrooms, where they can get the attention they need and not be a distraction to other students. It's tough to disagree. But, often, it's a question of limited resources.
The other day, I mentioned the child in my son's kindergarten class with Asperger's. That boy's parents spend thousands of dollars a month on one-on-one aid. Obviously, not everyone can afford that kind of help. What's more, public schools are bound by state and federal law to do everything they can for learning disabled children, including "mainstreaming" those kids in regular classrooms.
But I think a pretty good case can be made that mainstreaming, however well-intended, may not always be the best choice for special-ed kids, especially in public school settings. Alex Barton is undoubtedly a fine young man to whom a terrible injustice has been done. I hope Wendy Portillo is exiled from the classroom forever. Alex deserves better. So do his classmates. They have a right to learn (relatively) free from disruption and he needs special care -- care, clearly, the public schools cannot and may never be able to provide.
Our friends over at Exurban League remind us that today is the 10th anniversary of the tragic death of the comic genius, Phil Hartman. (My wife says that her birthdays have been a little sadder these 10 years thanks to sharing the date.)
Anyway, some classic Phil Hartman clips, starting with the great one Jon at ExUrb selected.
We begin with Rocket Fuel Malt Liquor
Here's Phil on NewsRadio on quitting smoking.
Phil, as NewsRadio's Bill McNeil, conducts "hypothetical interviews."
Phil, as Bill McNeil, proves he can get a radio job anywhere.
And, Chris Farley -- as Matt the Motivational Speaker -- sings goodbye to Phil over video from NewsRadio (apparently, NBC and Fox has removed ALL videos of Hartman doing his bits for SNL and The Simpsons. So no "Troy McLure," no "Sinatra Group," and no "Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer.")
Rest in Peace, Mr. Funny Man.
This is the way the world ends. No, not with a bang or a whimper, but with the rise of bionic monkeys.
According to Reuters, "Using only its brainpower, a monkey can direct a robotic arm to pluck a marshmallow from a skewer and stuff it into its mouth, researchers said on Wednesday."
Scientists claim their research could reap tremendous medical benefits for humans. "The technology behind this feat may lead to brain-powered prosthetic limbs for people with spinal cord injuries or disabling diseases that make such simple tasks impossible."
Do those eggheads at the University of Pittsburgh really think the monkeys will allow that to happen?
"The monkeys appear to enjoy the task. 'They sure like eating their marshmallows.' Sometimes the team will use pieces of apple, orange or zucchini. 'Just about anything we can that doesn't make too big of a mess,'" a hopelessly naive scientist told the gullible Reuters reporter.
Oh, there will be a mess, alright. A big, bloody mess.
"The researchers must overcome several engineering challenges, including developing more durable electrodes that do not lose their signal over time."
That, and figuring out how to quell a robot-monkey insurrection.
(Hat tip: Banjo man. Pirate-cyborg monkey image lifted from Urkobold.)
No matter who is president come 2009, the terrorist prison at Guantanamo Bay are numbered. McCain wants to close it. (You can see a video where he says he'll do it on his "first day" as president here.) Hillary wants to close it. So does Obama. Even President Bush has given up on defending what has become the most distorted (lied-about, really) war-time prison in history.
Of course, none of our future presidents talk much about the peril of putting those terrorists in a holding pen on American soil. But opening up ordinary American courts to terrorists -- and giving them all the rights that thieves and tax cheat enjoy -- comes with many terrible complications that will surely hamper this country's ability to defend itself.
But perhaps its time to hear from the terrorists themselves. Because judging from this article in the esteemed magazine Foreign Policy, the terrorists never had it so good at Club Gitmo. At the hotel proper, the terrorists get halal meals, in keeping with their religion. In Hotel Gitmo, U.S. Troops handle the Holy Koran with gloves, lest they soil it with their infidel skin. And they are allowed to pray five times a day, and are aimed toward Mecca so they can stay right with Allah.
That's quite a bit better treatment than Islamists get from other governments -- including those who have made a sport of attacking America's alleged "gulag" in Cuba. Foreign Policy made a list of "the worst places to be a terrorist." Among them:
France: The French actually have some of the world’s toughest and arguably most effective antiterrorism laws. In France, terrorist investigations are overseen by a special unit of magistrates with unprecedented powers to monitor suspects, enlist the help of other branches of law enforcement, and detain suspects for days without charges. Additionally, prosecutors have a mandate to pursue terrorists abroad if the suspect or victim is French. France is also not shy about deporting Muslim clerics it views as threatening.
Hmmm. The connection between "tough" anti-terror laws and their effectiveness seems clear. Good on the frogs! We continue ...
Jordan: Jordan’s intelligence service, the General Intelligence Department, has exploited close ties with Sunni tribes in Iraq’s Anbar province to provide its U.S. and Israeli counterparts with valuable intelligence about the structure and financing on terrorist organizations.
Gee. I hope the Jordanians get warrants for that surveillance. Time for the United Nations to look into that, I guess ...
Egypt: After a wave of terrorist attacks and political victories for the Muslim Brotherhood in the early 1990s, Hosni Mubarak’s government opted for a strategy of ruthless repression in combating the threat from terrorism and political Islam.
"Ruthless repression" of terrorists. Nice work, Egypt. Keep it up.
Singapore: After 9/11, the island country strengthened its crackdown on terrorist funding, and it recently passed legislation giving the Army wide-ranging powers to pursue terrorists domestically.
Nice work, that keeps the world safer, from the land of lashes for petty theft.
Russia: Russia has carried out a ruthless campaign of military suppression in Chechnya, and when it hasn’t been attacking militants, it has joined with them by elevating former rebel Ramzan Kadyrov to the presidency of the now largely peaceful region.
From a "ruthless campaign" to a "largely peaceful region." Sounds like extreme measures that make life hard for those who slaughter children in a school house in Beslan, but effective in protecting innocents.
You might notice a nation conspicuously absent from Foreign Policy's list -- the kind of list that the "international community" would condemn.
That nation would be the United States.
Gitmo is a "gulag"? Hardly. More like this:
(HT: Cliff May at The Corner)
The dream is over.
Well, we'll always have Helter Skelter...
Update: The teacher, Wendy Portillo, is on desk duty. You know why? She has a great union. Where's the student union?
I know a kid in my son's kindergarten class with Asperger's. He is, like most people afflicted with the high-functioning form of autism, troubled but brilliant. Even more brilliant than my bright boy. This kid challenges the teacher on a daily basis and even has his own full-time aide. Last week, he tried to punch my very pregnant wife, who runs the school, in the stomach. As I say, troubled. But I cannot imagine for an instant his teacher or my wife even contemplating a stunt like this:
Melissa Barton said she is considering legal action after her son's kindergarten teacher led his classmates to vote him out of class.After each classmate was allowed to say what they didn't like about Barton's 5-year-old son, Alex, his Morningside Elementary teacher Wendy Portillo said they were going to take a vote, Barton said.
By a 14 to 2 margin, the students voted Alex — who is in the process of being diagnosed with autism — out of the class.
...(An official) said the boy had been sent to the principal's office because of disciplinary issues. When he returned, Portillo made him go to the front of the room as a form of punishment, she said.
Barton said her son is in the process of being diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome... Alex began the testing process in February at the suggestion of Morningside Principal Marcia Cully.
Children diagnosed with Asperger's often exhibit social isolation and eccentric behavior.
Click through to the story, by all means. That Alex Barton is a handsome lad. Alex's mom pulled her son out of school, which was the least she could do. She also got the cops involved, which was probably an overreaction. The D.A., rightly, declined to press charges as there were no charges to press.
But that is not to say there shouldn't be some accountability here. "Barton said after the vote, Portillo asked Alex how he felt. 'He said, "I feel sad,"' Barton said." I hope she sues, and sues good and hard. If it were my son, I would want nothing less than to see that teacher dragged through a field of broken glass. Twice.
Bob Barr is the Libertarian Party's nominee for president. Read hundreds -- nay thousands! -- of words on the candidate and the Byzantine politics of certain (principled) defeat here, here and here. Enjoy.
Update: And the Republicans think they have problems? David Weigel reports on the way out of Denver:
Defeated candidate and Massachusetts party chair George Phillies pulled me aside to express how worried he was about the Barr/Root ticket. "This is a train wreck," he said. "My delegation is majority pagan. Nominating this man is the equivalent of nominating an Imperial Wizard of the KKK to lead a party of African Americans." Phillies raised the possibility of a Massachusetts LP convention that would nominate a new candidate at the top of the ticket, like author L. Neil Smith. And as I left, I heard a rumor that Arizona might do the same thing.
A schism within the Libertarian Party ranks could be the difference between .4 and .5 percent of the popular vote. Golly, I hope Barr and his running mate -- some guy named Root -- can work it out.
Some Memorial Day reading:
Honor them.
Caution: Spoiler alerts ahead!
Good lord, the new Indiana Jones movie is boring.
There's lot of individual elements to like in the new movie. Cate Blanchette is hawt in the Boris-and-Natasha getup. Some of the set pieces -- chase scenes, the nuclear bomb -- are quite well done. But the movie mostly creaks along like a 65-year-old man who is willing to go through the motions but secretly desires a nap.
No offense intended.
I sat back last night, trying to figure out where Stephen Spielberg and George Lucas lost their touch.
With Lucas it's easy: First he started thinking about characters as potential sales on the toy shelves of America's stores. (Ewoks.) And then the rise of CGI allowed him to focus his creative energies on making cool-looking things instead of telling great stories using reasonably talented actors. But he has kept making hundreds of millions of dollars in the meantime -- based mostly of fond memories of his output from 1977 to 1980 -- so there's no real reason for him to correct course.
Spielberg is more complicated, because he's been successful along a broader array of genres. But I'd argue that he lost his storytelling instinct about the same time he stopped trusting his audience to fill in the blanks.
Think about Spielberg's earliest successes. In "Duel," Dennis Weaver is haunted by an unseen truck driver. In "Jaws," the shark is more hinted at than seen throughout the movie. In "Close Encounters of the Third Kind," we don't see aliens until the very end -- and then only from afar, really. Even "E.T." left us wanting a little more -- what was E.T.'s culture like? His world? His technology? If you were a movie-watching adolescent in the early 1980s, these were burning questions -- never to be answered. And in two of the first three "Indy" movies, the most important character -- the one without whom there is no action -- is never seen: God.
Spielberg used to be pretty good at letting moviegoers use their imaginations in conjunction with his. And then it all went wrong.
Me: I blame "Schindler's List."
This, of course, was the movie where Spielberg crossed over from being very-talented-and-less-evil Jerry Bruckheimer -- that is, a great entertainer -- into being something more: An Artist With Something To Say. And once Spielberg had something to say, he couldn't leave it to his audience to fill in the blanks anymore: He had to tell them exactly what to think about what they were watching. He had to answer the unanswered questions.
The most false note of "Schindler's List" near the end. The war is over, the Jews under Oskar Schindler's care have been saved. But Schindler -- formerly a womanizing raconteur -- must be bundled off to safety. As he takes his leave, Schindler breaks down: "I could've got more out ... I didn't do enough." Whereupon a number of the surviving Jews rush to comfort him.
Barf. Maybe something like this happened to the real Oskar Schindler. In the context of the movie, though, it feels like Spielberg is hitting us over the head: "See? He's really a good guy now! He didn't just do good things! His soul's been transformed! Be touched, dammit!" And that's before we get to the modern-day epilogue showing Schindler being honored by real survivors and their descendants. You know: Just in case you didn't get it.
Of course it was Spielberg's most-praised movie. And the game was up after that.
"Saving Private Ryan" was a good war movie that became -- for me -- unbearable to watch by virtue of its modern-day epilogue. The aging Ryan pleads with his wife: "Tell me I'm a good man." And they do. Any ambiguity about the nobility of Tom Hanks' death in World War II is thus erased. "See? He really was a good guy! His soul was transformed! Be touched, dammit!"
Again: Barf.
"Artificial Intelligence" is potentially a good and poignant movie if it ends with Haley Joel Osment on the bottom of ocean, staring up at the amusement-park statue for all eternity. Instead, we get a million-year flash-forward in which aliens arrive on earth and grant Osment his fondest wish. "See? He didn't strive for nothing? There was kind of a happy ending after all!"
And so on and so forth until this week, when we get "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull." There are problems with the pacing, and also with the special effects: The early "Indy" movies were created to celebrate the Saturday serials of the 1930s, and if the effects of the 1980s were more advanced than the 1930s, they were still related -- models and matte paintings used to create entire worlds.
Now everything is created inside a computer. And there's nothing wrong with that, exactly, except that one gets the sense that Spielberg -- like Lucas -- has stopped applying his storytelling creativity to technical challenges because there are no technical challenges anymore. And perhaps because that muscle now goes unused, so do others in the storytelling arsenal.
Final spoiler alert. Go no further if you don't want to know what happens at the end.
The climax of the newest movie comes with a closeup of an alien -- a cartoonish little CGI device that, with a scowl on its cartoon face, wreaks a very personal vengeance on Blanchette's character. It's expected. It's like something out of a "Men in Black" movie. And it spells out everything, exactly. There are no blanks left to be filled in, no remaining mystery, no unseen hands. Perhaps this wouldn't matter as much if the scene came at the end of an entertaining movie, but I was -- by this time -- bored.
And trust me: That CGI sequence is just going to look silly in 20 years.
A couple of years ago, I wrote the following:
We’ve reached the end of popular culture.Now, I don’t mean that we’re not going to have a popular culture anymore. It just means that, right now, there’s nothing new that pop culture can do — because it’s all been done.
The advent of realistic computer special effects means there’s no scenario that can’t be convincingly depicted on screen: monsters fighting each other, spaceships careening through the void. In pop music, most of the variations on rock and hip-hop seem to have been explored decades ago. Not coincidentally, that’s about the time the term “old school” became words of praise.
And let’s face it, the subject matters of all that pop culture — love and adventure, usually — are pretty much what they were when the Greeks started writing their plays a few thousand years ago.
So, like Michael Jordan in his prime, our producers of culture have to find tricks to keep things fresh, make them interesting. Steven Soderbergh makes a movie using 1940s techniques. The White Stripes let themselves have two instruments only, guitar and drums, and see what they can make of it. Justin Timberlake tries to make a Prince album.
Along the way, the audience is asked to appreciate not just the product that was put in front of it — but also how it was made.
You remember those old Ray Harryhausen movies, like “Clash of the Titans” and “Jason and the Argonauts,” where unrealistic stop-motion creatures battled each other and humans? My prediction: Sometime in the next five years, somebody will make a blockbuster-style movie using those long-dead techniques — and be hailed as a genius for doing so.
Everybody knows that Stonehenge is where a man is a man and the children dance to the pipes of Pan. But who built the damn thing? Nigel Tufnel has a theory...
(Hat tip: Film Drunk.)
Yes, this list from Blender is old -- from 2003 to be exact. So there are probably some adjustments to be made to it. After all, American Idol was barely two years old back then, so Clay Aiken's sure-fire qualification for the list was still in question.
Yet I am not ashamed to say that many bands I like made the list. I know I can't be alone. Here's an often funny rundown of some of the bands Blender thinks are among the worst OF ALL TIME!!! And my humble defenses.
49 TOAD THE WET SPROCKETVery poor name. Even poorer band
“We were together longer than we ever thought we’d be,” said Toad the Wet Sprocket singer Glenn Phillips when the band gave up in 1998. Longer than the rest of us had hoped, too. But the California four-piece defied the odds for 12 years, even piercing the Top 40 with their R.E.M. readymades.
My defense: So it' pop. So its derivative. So what. That's what pop is.
46 THE SPIN DOCTORSBeards. Extended “jams.” Oh dear, oh dear
For a brief time (between 1992 and 1996), it seemed that any workaday bar band, if it was willing to gamely trek around the country for at least three years, had a chance at superstardom (cf. Hootie and the Blowfish, Blues Traveler). Blame the Spin Doctors, hairy New Yorkers who — thanks to the supremely annoying “Little Miss Can’t Be Wrong” and “Two Princes” — momentarily opened a route between dive bars and the Billboard charts.
My defense: This is a band that I was really into before the ubiquitous "Two Princes" violated every sense of public decency (not because it's a terrible song, but because it was played to the point of torture). I still think they're good, and hearing them takes me back to my college days. Screw Blender.
40 BLIND MELONA video made them; heroin undid them
Led by Axl Rose’s mewling, drug-plagued pal Shannon Hoon, Blind Melon’s lightweight rock would have been forgotten completely were it not for the boundless charm of “Bee Girl” Heather DeLoach, whose hoofing in the video for “No Rain” made the tune the band’s lone hit.
My defense: Hard to argue that Blind Melon would have probably been nobodies -- and Hoon still living -- if not for the "Bee Girl." Yet the song was cool. So was the only other decent cut on the record, "Stones of Home." Among the worst bands ever? Hardly.
37 THE DOORSHe was the Lizard King. No, really…
While in college, many young men still choose to immerse themselves in such ill-advised subjects as Nietzsche, black magic and Native American folklore. Most get over it; Jim Morrison, unfortunately, inflicted his terminally adolescent views on the wider world. The consequences included overblown screeds of nonsense such as “The End” and “The Crystal Ship,” plus, effectively, the invention of goth. Then he got fat and died.
My defense: Won't offer one. Just love the last line in that review. Glad to see that someone doesn't buy into the Doors hype. Unless you were (or are) really into drugs, I don't see how you can dig 40-minute organ solos.
34 LIVEThese U2 sound-alikes never did find what they were looking for
Blessed with the same spiritual longing as U2 — but, sadly, none of the musical cunning — this Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, quartet made a brief but insignificant splash in the early ’90s as purveyors of grandiose, vaguely uplifting alt-rock. Although their hold on the mainstream had evaporated by the end of the decade, their blend of loud guitars and portentous lyrics helped pave the way for crypto-Christian rockers Creed. Nice one, Live.
My defense: I wouldn't have thought to have blamed Live for Creed, but that is a sin. I did, and still do, like their "Throwing Copper" album. "White Discussion" is a good jam. But I'm sensing a pattern here: If you made it big as a rock band and were not named Nirvana or Soundgarden ... you suck. Ok, then.
32 THE HOOTERSThe great folk-rock scare
Philadelphians Rob Hyman and Eric Bazilian assembled a quintet that specialized in a vile blend of folk-rock and New Wave, in the process proving that the mandolin is more irritating than the synthesizer.
My defense: I post this only so my went-to-high-school-in Philly wife will read it -- and get mad. C'mon, though. "And She Danced" is a goofy, 80s pleasure. Isn't it? Isn't music supposed to be fun? (Though the Hooters were a real buzz-kill with the morbid "All You Zombies."
28 CRASH TEST DUMMIESThey said Brad Roberts’s voice was so deep it could be heard only by whales. Not true, sadly
If you want to be recognized as serious recording artists with a whimsical, folksy bent, it’s probably best not to notch your only hit with a daft novelty song based around the world’s silliest lead vocal and title it “Mmm, Mmm, Mmm, Mmm.” The remainder of God Shuffled His Feet, this Canadian band’s second album, was much worse. They released I Don’t Care That You Don’t Mind in 2001. No one cared.
My defense: I still like that humming song. It's a novelty, yes. But why do all novelty songs have to be played by Weird Al on the accordion? And are Crash Test Dummies really worse than No. 36: 98 Degrees? God, no.
22 PRIMUS“Care for some prog-rock with cartoon-character vocals on the side?” “No, thanks!”
Perhaps the most tune-free act ever to chart an album in the Top 10 (Pork Soda hit number 7 in 1993), Oakland, California’s Primus were led by Les Claypool, a bass virtuoso and startlingly nasal vocalist. Musicians and the terminally nerdy gaped in wide wonder at the trio’s prodigious instrumental “chops”; everyone else was repulsed by the band’s combination of the worst aspects of Frank Zappa and Rush.
My defense: I guess Primus gets no points for trying to have fun. They get the last laugh, though, for doing the theme song for "South Park." And everyone knows that one. It's like the anti-theme song.
20 HOWARD JONESHe came from England. Thanks, England
In the mid-’80s, it was difficult to avoid synth-wielding Brits. The sprig-haired, perma-grinning Howard Jones was the most irritating, seemingly convinced that he had something very important to tell the world — his 1984 debut was grandly titled Human’s Lib — but unclear exactly what it was.
My defense: Another one to get Mrs. Zaius to throw poo at the computer. "Things Can Only Get Better" has a great horn riff that I'm shocked isn't sampled to death.
16 OINGO BOINGOArtless art-rock
Oingo Boingo singer Danny Elfman went on to become one of Hollywood’s most in-demand soundtrack composers. But during his first go-round, he and his movie-director brother led this ostentatiously orchestrated L.A. New Wave group that began its pretentious career, not surprisingly, as a performance-art troupe.
My defense: Wrong. Simply, wrong. Danny Elfman is a musical genius. Listen to the stuff he wrote 25 years ago for that band -- a New Wave pop band. The arrangements are simply stunning. And he also pulled off the tough trick of writing catchy melodies over the beautiful mess. Hell, he wrote "The Simpsons" theme song shortly after Oingo Boingo's hey-day. Listen hard to that one, and try to figure out how you'd play it. It's hard, and still brilliant after all these years. This listing is an abomination. Boooooooo!!!
And, really, I can't argue with much else. Have at it, team!
In the Brave New World when robots are our servants and super-smart monkeys pilot shuttles to colonies orbiting the Earth, a much less exciting and glamorous innovation awaits: Turning our urine into drinking water. I don't recall seeing such a device in 2001: A Space Odyssey. It seems even this innovation eluded Kubrick's creative mind.
Astronauts living on the International Space Station soon will take recycling to new extremes: They'll get some of their drinking water from the toilet.NASA has spent decades perfecting a system to transform urine into water that can be used in space for drinking, food preparation and washing. Agency officials say the water from the system will be cleaner than U.S. tap water.
Maybe cleaner than the tap water in Los Angeles or New Jersey. But I'll take a bet that drinking water in Lawrence, Kansas, is cleaner. Taxpayers will be happy to learn that NASA scientists have spent $250 million developing a system to turn pee into Evian. They might have saved a few bucks by hanging out at college bars to collect test samples. Oh, well.
But here is one of the least shocking elements to this story:
Russia developed a similar system in the 1980s but it never flew in space because of concerns over crew squeamishness, says former station astronaut Leroy Chiao, now a space consultant. He says station crews expect hardships and aren't likely to object.
Invent a machine to turn pee into vodka? The Russkies will be selling it by the case.
The BBC reports that the Web is transforming into a poor, nasty, brutish and short Hobbesian wasteland. Or something.
From the story:
The annual report into web habits by usability guru Jakob Nielsen shows people are becoming much less patient when they go online.Instead of dawdling on websites many users want simply to reach a site quickly, complete a task and leave.
Most ignore efforts to make them linger and are suspicious of promotions designed to hold their attention.
Instead, many are "hot potato" driven and just want to get a specific task completed.
Success rates measuring whether people achieve what they set out to do online are now about 75%, said Dr Nielsen. In 1999 this figure stood at 60%.
This isn't a surprise, really. When I'm working, I'm one of these users -- on task, for the most part, hunting down the documents I need. Now addicted to high-speed Internet, I get impatient with slow loads. But when I'm not working, I linger. StumbleUpon, the blogger's best friend, can be an enormous time-waster, for example -- in the best possible sense, I mean.
In the context of this story, what I really want to know is this: How did Infinite Monkeys manage to become the top Google stop for the term "old lady beatdown"? And why do we get three or four visits a day just from searches for that term? What are you people looking for? Really? Really?
If it were the Summer of Rum -- and it isn't -- then I would link without reservation to Eric Felten's article in the Wall Street Journal on Ernest Hemingway's love for rum drinks, especially the daiquiri. Whoops. Looks like I linked to it anyway. The daiquiri is one of those great drinks that's been ruined by time, cheap booze and what I would call the Slurpefication of cocktails.
Any other year, I would make a stronger case for the classic Hemingway daiquiri. I'll leave it instead to Felten, who always entertains and educates. We learn, for example, that "Hemingway allowed no sugar in his Daiquiris. His Doble-drinking hero in the posthumously published 'Islands in the Stream' declares that what makes him love to drink is 'drinking these double frozens without sugar.' Part of the reason Hemingway abjured sweet drinks was that it was harder to put them away in quantity: 'If you drank that many with sugar it would make you sick.'"
Did Papa know best? As it's the Summer of Gin, I really can't say. What gin drink beats a daiquiri? I would recommend an Aviation: 2 oz. gin, 1/2 oz. maraschino liqueur, 1/4 oz. lemon juice, cherry garnish. (Recipes can and do vary, however.) A great, refreshing (non-rum) cocktail for a hot afternoon.
Following is cross-posted from Cup O' Joel, where it already received my best geeky celebrity comment ev-ah.
I don't believe for a second that Hillary Clinton, by invoking RFK's assassination, was somehow offering public hopes that a similar fate would somehow befall Barack Obama. I trust she meant what she said: That RFK was merely a marker that presidential nominating contests have a history of going into June.
It's still not a great comparison to make. Presidential contests used to revolve around slavery too, but it would be silly to be running on an anti-slavery plank in 2008.
What do I mean? This: In 1968, there were primary elections -- but they weren't really meaningful, because everybody knew that all the real action would take place in the proverbial "smoke-filled back rooms." Hubert Humphrey won the Democratic nomination in 1968 without entering a single primary -- and that was his strategy.
So it was different historical moment -- today we expect caucuses and primaries to decide these things, which is why conventions aren't fun to watch anymore -- and thus silly for Clinton to dredge up.
For what it's worth, I'm about half-through with Rick Perlstein's "Nixonland," and though it does have its goofy moments, it's valuable as a corrective to all the RFK hagiography that's gone on since his death -- and which we'll certainly be treated to next month. Even in his final months, RFK was no saint -- he was as dithering and calculating a politician as you could hope to find. Better than what we got? Probably. But a saint? Hardly.
No surprise, really, that the Democrats weren't entirely serious in 2006 about abruptly ending the U.S. presence in Iraq. There are promises and then there are fantasies. Now the Hill alerts us to a video in which Rep. Paul Kanjorski, D-Pa., gives away the game:
In a video , posted to YouTube on Thursday, Kanjorski reflects on the Democrats’ approach to the war in 2006 and said they pushed the rhetoric “as far as we can to the end of the fleet — didn’t say it, but we implied it — that if we won the congressional elections, we could stop the war.“Now, anybody who’s a good student of government would know it wasn't true,” he said. “But you know, the temptation to want to win back the Congress — we sort of stretched the facts.”
Republicans, for some reason, want Kanjorski to apologize, but I can't quite understand why. Wouldn't the better response be along the lines of "We told you so?" Or would that be unseemly?
Predictably, Kanjorski is backpedaling. “In an August 2007 town meeting, I shared the frustration of my constituents that the war in Iraq continued," he said. "I expressed my belief that some Democrats in 2006 overestimated the ability of a single house of Congress to end the war, particularly in the face of an intransigent President and Senate Republicans who are committed to continuing the war."
Excuses, excuses.
The reviews of Hollywood's can't-MoveOn thriller "Recount" are trickling in. NRO's Byron York got a look at the movie, which I note in this updated post. York's take is funny, but he also spoke with Republican attorney Ben Ginsberg, who consulted the producers and is a key character in the film. They apparently didn't listen to much of what he told them.
"My take is that we won the recount, and they won the movie," Ginsberg told [York]. "I think they actually did a very good job of capturing the tension and the pace of what we were going through, but it's clearly from the Democrats' perspective. This is a fairy tale that didn't come true for them.""I think there were some key things that were left out," Ginsberg continued. "For example, there's no mention at all of the first U.S. Supreme Court case, which overturned the first Florida Supreme Court case, and then the Florida Supreme Court completely ignored the U.S. Supreme Court….They also made of big deal of 'We don't know who won,' but they didn't mention the media recount, which concluded that if you followed what the Gore camp wanted or what the Florida Supreme Court ordered, then Bush won….And the notion that they were a bunch of boy scouts and we were the cutthroats is just nonsense. They didn't want to count all the votes, they only wanted to count Gore votes."
Ho hum. Big surprise. I'm also tickled by Entertainment Weekly's review of the movie. They give it an A-minus. The director who brought you the Austin Powers trilogy has crafted a "cunning drama" with a "clever script" and "tenterhooked" score (whatever that means) that creates a "perfect mimicry of these public events."
Except when they are not so perfect.
Despite its ''equal time'' approach, Recount is an underdog story, and thus a Democrat story. While George W. Bush, like Gore, is only vaguely glimpsed, the remaining Republican players here are coolly calculating — Tom Wilkinson's James Baker III, the Bush team quarterback — or they teeter on the edge of madness, like Laura Dern's Katherine Harris. ... Fair? Debatable, but like Recount, it's a gorgeous bit of political theater.
And Hollywood can't make satisfying political theater unless they distort events to portray Republicans as power-mad mustache-twirling schemers and Democrats as haloed champions of truth and light. I'd guess a fair treatment would have only lowered the movie's letter-grade review.
The only thing left that I need to know about this movie is who played this unforgettable character?
The Texas polygamy case has always been, well, icky. I don't advocate that lifestyle, as I made clear in my defense of traditional marriage a while back. Perhaps I'd feel differently if any of the ladies above were as cute as Kelly McGillis in Witness ....
Where was I? Oh, yes. I was getting to how I was as disturbed with what be going on in that religious sect's compound as I was with the Texas government's reaction to it. Namely, the state's move to take 440-some kids into its possession on what seem to have been flimsy grounds. It struck me as extreme. Turns out, it struck a Texas appeals court as extreme, too.
SAN ANGELO, Texas - In a ruling that could torpedo the case against the West Texas polygamist sect, a state appeals court Thursday said authorities had no right to seize more than 440 children in a raid on the splinter group's compound last month.The Third Court of Appeals in Austin said the state failed to show the youngsters were in any immediate danger, the only grounds in Texas law for taking children from their parents without court action.
Now, maybe those children are being abused, as the state alleges. But the ability of the government to remove nearly 500 children from their parents -- who no doubt, love them -- in a single stroke via an anonymous tip without any apparent serious review of the case seems somehow wrong. And I'm glad the court said so, but not everyone agrees.
That said, I hope the case doesn't die and that a real investigation into the welfare of the minors in that compound is conducted. And if abuse is exposed, remove the children and prosecute the adults. But its not a bad thing that a court declared that the power to break up families and spirit humans away should not be as strongly and swiftly imposed by any government.
Just so you know. It's on his Web site.
Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex MarriageObama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.
Even Hillary doesn't advocate repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, which her husband signed.
Note in that story how many Democrats run from Obama position on this issue. Interesting.
Dennis Prager's radio show is always worth listening to. It's especially good when he spends time debating a liberal. He spent a whole hour Thursday debating Arianna Huffington with the pretense letting her flack her latest book bashing everyone who disagrees with her in the most disingenuous ways possible.
It's worth listening to the whole podcast. Points for her venturing beyond Air America (if it's still on the air). But during the interview, Arianna claimed that she has a "zero tolerance" policy about comparing political opponents to Nazis. Well, either her blog servants are falling down on the job, or she's a liar. (Yeah. I know. It's hard to find good help these days.) It took me 15 seconds of searching the Huffington Post to find this headline on a post by someone called Larisa Alexandrova:
All the President's Nazis (Real and Imagined): An Open Letter to Bush
That blog post was put up on her site seven days before her Prager interview. If I felt like taking more than 15 seconds to prove this dishonest, pampered pseudo-intellectual wrong, I'm sure I'd find more examples. OK I'll do it.
Listen to the podcast. Dennis was waaaay to kind to the George Soros glamorous but still ugly step sister.
It's one thing to be generous and respectful to the ailing Teddy Kennedy, as this site has been. One should not be quick to speak ill of the dead, or even the dying. Yet it is time to draw the line and deny a man who has lived a richer life than most his dying wish: Keeping his U.S. Senate seat in the Kennedy family.
Ted Kennedy has made clear to confidants that when his time is up, he wants his Senate seat to stay in the family - with his wife, Vicki.Multiple sources in Massachusetts with close ties to the liberal lion say his wife of 16 years has long been his choice to continue carrying the family flame in the Senate. Kennedy won the seat in 1962; his brother John held it from 1953 to 1960.
"There's no question that he'd like Vicki to continue in his seat," said one Massachusetts Democrat with ties to the Camelot clan who spoke to Kennedy recently, before his health crisis.
"She's smart, and smart politically."
Maybe she is. But can't we finally end the dynastic Kennedy rule over most of New England and the nation? It's bad enough that the Kennedys seem to think it is their birthright to serve high elective office. Now we have our media-dubbed "political royalty" wanting to pass their offices down to married, rather than blood, kin. Are we to believe that the state of Massachusetts is lacking a single better-qualified Democratic candidate than Teddy's wife?
Enough. Kennedy's seat has been held by him and his brother for all but two of 55 years. That two-year interregnum was filled by a "place holder" who stepped down as soon as Teddy was old enough, legally, to serve in the Senate. That's right, Ted has been a U.S. Senator since nearly the very moment he was eligible.
The world's most successful democracy is not well-served by indulging the carrying of any "family flames" in our government. That is among the defining features of banana republics. Teddy would do a final service to his country by not publicly presuming that his U.S. Senate seat belongs to the Kennedy clan.
Oops. Turns out, President Bush vetoed a slightly different bill from the one Congress passed. But don't go pointing fingers at the president. Congress somehow forgot to send Bush about 34 pages of the bill.
According to the Associated Press:
In order to avoid those potential problems (i.e., constitutional questions over what the legislative branch passed vs. what the executive vetoed) House Democrats hoped to pass the entire bill, again, on Thursday under expedited rules usually reserved for unopposed legislation. The Senate was expected to follow suit. The correct version would then be sent to Bush under a new bill number for another expected veto... Lawmakers also will have to pass an extension of current farm law, which expires Friday.
Congress should see the blunder as a kind of gift. Second chances don't come around too often. Especially second chances for blinkered Congressional Republicans who now may have second thoughts about their votes from the first time around. Republicans could kill this beast after all.
If they had any nerve, or any sense, that is.
When Congress isn't giving away hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to agriculture interests, they're grilling oil executives about their salaries and quarterly earnings. It's strange. Powerline has a thorough run-down of today's farcical hearings on oil prices and oil company profits. Read the excerpts and despair. No, it's better to laugh to keep from crying.
There are a few salient issues here that go well beyond simplistic talk of high gas prices and "obscene" oil company profits. Understanding profit margins, for starters. Oh, and don't forget that pesky law of supply and demand. It's a concept that reporters and senators alike have trouble getting their minds around. According to USA Today's story, "Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., told the executives there's 'a disconnect' between normal supply and demand and the skyrocketing price of oil that the industry has yet to explain."
It isn't up to the oil industry to explain it. Leahy could have looked left and right for an explanation. Poor public policy, a weak dollar, and, yes, high demand around the globe is driving the price of oil skyward.
One solution, but not the only one, is entirely in the hands of guys like the gentleman from Vermont. We need to do more exploration in Alaska, off the coast of California, in the Gulf of Mexico. We need to be extracting from shale in the northern plains. We need to be pumping natural gas. Hell, we should be drilling through live caribou, if necessary.
Naturally, Investor's Business Daily has a perfectly sensible, spot-on take about Wednesday's laughable inquisition:
"Do market forces alone explain the skyrocketing price of oil and gas?" (Sen. Herb) Kohl wondered. We'll take that one: No, senator, market forces alone don't explain it; congressional incompetence does.Of the "solutions" Congress has pushed — including limits on CO2 output, windfall profit taxes, restrictions on drilling on public lands and, most recently and absurdly, suing OPEC — all lead to less oil and higher prices.
We agree our economy could do more to save energy. And with oil prices over $130 a barrel, it will. (Indeed, U.S. oil use this year is down 2.2% from 2006.) That said, the main solution should be to drill for more oil and gas on our own territory. Billions of barrels and trillions of cubic feet await.
Leahy and his Democratic colleagues wanted to make an example of greedy oilmen. Instead, they looked like idiots. They're part of the problem. And yet they're winning. And we're paying.
A new HBO movie, "Recount," premieres Sunday -- right in the heart of Memorial Day weekend. That's a fitting time to air the movie, since Democrats will apparently mourn the loss in the "stolen" election in Florida the way others mourn the loss of war dead.
Never forget! (sob, sniff, wimper) Always mark the day of Karl Rove's coup!
Boo hoo, losers.
Anyway, it's an all-star cast, with most of the actors made up to be spitting images of the people they portray. Laura Dern has enough eye makeup on to, well, look a lot like Katherine Harris. Ed Begley Jr. looks just like Democratic power lawyer David Boies. And the chamelon-like Tom Wilkinson even nails James Baker's oft-photographed stern facial expression.
Only Kevin Spacey and Denis Leary look like, well, themselves.
I'm not going to watch the movie. And wouldn't even if I had HBO. It's time, as some smarty pants liberals said back in the '90s, to move on.
Director Jay Roach promises to deliver an even-handed look at the Florida debacle. I don't believe him. The movie's web site lets you vote on the question: "Who really won the 2000 Presidential Election?" And it snidely asks you to "Cast Your Ballot. We promise to count it this time."
Ha ha. I'm guessing the producers of this movie aren't going to note that Gore didn't want to count every ballot, but only those in heavy Dem areas. And that the Gore team put out a memo on how to throw out mostly Republican military ballots arriving from overseas (The Dems backed down under intense public pressure).
Nah! The baddies, I'm guessing, will all be on the "red" side. Typical Hollywood.
But a fun activity is taking the challenge put forth by the Sun-Sentinel newspaper and trying to cast your vote with a replica of the 2000 butterfly ballot. You know, the "confusing" ballot that (ahem!) Democrats designed?
I tried it and was congratulated for voting for correctly. Thanks guys. I also managed to tie my own shoes this morning. Can I get an atta-boy for that, too?
UPDATE: Byron York got a look at an advance screening of Recount. And -- SURPRISE! -- my instincts were corrrect:
Once upon a time there was an election. A very good man won the election, but it was really, really close, and a very bad man claimed that he had won the election. And a group of brave, strong people tried to recount the votes to prove that the very good man had won the election, but they were so high-minded and good that they just wouldn't fight dirty, while a group of cruel, mean people would do anything to stop the counting so that the very bad man could win. When the counting got under way, the very bad man's lead got smaller and smaller, and the very good man was about to win until a group of very, very, very bad people in Washington DC stopped it all, and the very bad man won. The end.
Heh.
Update: Well that didn't take long. "The House has overridden President Bush's veto of a $290 billion farm bill and senators soon may follow suit. It was only hours before the House's 316-108 vote Wednesday that Bush had vetoed the five-year measure." Disgraceful.
...
President Bush did the right -- and really obvious -- thing today by vetoing the $307 billion monstrosity that is the "Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008." Alas, Congress appears set to override Bush's veto. "This is really a farm bill for everyone," said Sen. Tom Harken, D-Iowa. Yes. There is plenty of pork to go around.
Actually, the term "pork" doesn't do the legislation justice. The bill is a sickening giveaway to agri-business at the expense of middle-class taxpayers at a time when grocery bills are creeping ever higher. But is it really any wonder, coming from a Congress that has no grasp whatsoever of the law of supply and demand? As the Wall Street Journal's editors observed on May 14, just after the House overwhelmingly passed HR 2419 with a bipartisan vote of 318 to 106:
Nearly every crop -- corn, wheat, sugar -- has won increases in subsidy payments even as farm commodity prices explode... Of the 17 most subsidized commodities, only rice and cotton will get a slight reduction in payments, while the bill extends the farm welfare net to lentils, chick peas, fruits and vegetables, and even organic foods. There are new programs for Kentucky horse breeders and Pacific Coast salmon fishermen, and your tax dollars will help finance the dairy industry's "Got Milk?" campaign. Oh, and you still don't even have to farm to cash in. Hundreds of millions of dollars will go to landowners based on their "historical planting average" even if they haven't planted a seed in years.And once again the big sugar plantation owners in Florida walk away with the sweetest deal: Big Sugar bagged an increase in price supports and a guarantee of 85% of the domestic sugar market at these guaranteed prices. So taxpayers are on the hook for buying surplus domestically produced sugar at 23 cents a pound and selling it for ethanol for closer to three cents a pound.
Say what you want about John McCain, but he got this one right and for all the right reasons. Meanwhile, Republicans are struggling to understand why they're losing. Here's a $300 billion clue why McCain's GOP colleagues will continue to lose, and lose big: You can't blame the Democrats for out-of-control spending when you're joining them at the trough.
Yeah. Seriously.
Bangkok - The United Nations will send nearly a quarter of a million condoms into cyclone-hit Myanmar to help needy survivors with no access to contraceptives, a UN official says.So far, the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) said it had sent 72 800 condoms to survivors struggling to maintain their family planning after the storm hit in early May.
A total of 218 400 condoms would be delivered, UNFPA aid advisor Chaiyos Kunanusont said.
"We don't want regular use of contraception disrupted. An emergency usually damages the health system, so people don't have access to condoms and contraceptives," said Chaiyos.
The U.N. is so dysfunctional, they can't get food and doctors into Burma to help the tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of suffering people. But their priority in "medical care" is Operation Condom Drop. Wouldn't want the Burmese to produce more suffering children, now would we?
And Bush's FEMA is held up as the international poster child of screwed up disaster response. Sheesh.
(HT: K-Lo at The Corner)
No. That is not me going overboard in my description of the House of Representatives’ most radical, rude and liberal member. If you Google “Pete Stark” and “disgrace” you get nearly 10,000 hits. So I’m hardly alone in applying that label.
Indeed, Fortney “Pete” Stark’s record of being a contemptible ass in his official capacity as a member of Congress is long and distinguished.
And here is the latest classless stunt from the representative from a suburb of San Fran-Sicko.
WASHINGTON (AP) — An anti-war Democratic congressman is demanding to know why there were uniformed Defense Department personnel watching House proceedings from a public gallery Thursday, who they were and what they were doing."If they were here on official duty, this was an abhorrent misallocation of our military resources at a time of war," Northern California Rep. Pete Stark asserted Friday in a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
"At a time when our nation is at war, our troops are overextended, and the administration is literally asking for emergency military spending, what good to the 'war on terror' is having U.S. generals and other top-ranked officers — who were likely accompanied by staff and escorted by their chauffeurs — spending hours sitting in the gallery of the House of Representatives?" Stark asked.
Stark’s insulting letter is soaked in so much ignorance and sanctimony that it is, literally, breathtaking. Who is Stark, in the words of the AP headline, to “question” the “presence” of military officers in the public gallery of the House of Representatives? Who is Stark -- who has done nothing to protect America from the terrorist threat -- to say that these military men had better be observing on their "own time" the Congress they risk their lives to protect? How dare he all but spit “Get lost baby killers!” while demanding answers to his asinine, bad-faith questions:
Please provide for me the name, rank, branch, and duties of each of these officers, as well as the number of additional staff and drivers that were used to facilitate their attendance yesterday. I would like this information by Monday, May 19.
Stark, whom Barack Obama put in his endorsement quiver this month, didn’t have to wait until May 19. The Pentagon wrote and delivered their response to Stark within hours. As it turned out, the 20-some men in military uniforms that made Stark so angry, were students at the Army War College. And Stark’s response to the truth -- something he could have learned himself simply and honorably by sending a House page up to ask -- was in tune with his typical condescension.
"I appreciate the swift response," Stark said in his follow-up statement, without retracting or apologizing for his earlier complaints. "However, if these officers were hoping for a lesson in how Congress ought to work, then perhaps the Iraq supplemental wasn't the best debate for them to witness."
No, that’s the exact debate for them to witness. Because undermining the military, its mission and our national security are the hallmarks of this Democratic Congress. They continually play games with bills to support the troops on the front lines. They refuse to give the federal government the tools to prevent another 9/11. They can’t even be bothered to demand that Stark raise his maturity level above that of a 3rd grader -- let alone issue a resolution of censure against him or merely ask him to apologize. But we’re supposed to believe that anti-war clowns like Stark and his enablers in the Democratic Congress “support the troops.”
I’m amazed that military exceeds its retention goals when our troops know they are risking their lives to protect the hides and freedom of scumbags like Stark.
Go to Hell, you jerk.
(HT: McQ at Q&O and Brian Faughnan at The Weekly Standard)
Doctors announced today that Sen. Ted Kennedy's seizure on Saturday was caused by a malignant tumor on his brain. The prognosis is typically for a patient to survive such a condition for between one and five years.
I interviewed Ted Kennedy on several occasions outside the Senate chamber when I covered Congress for The Washington Times. I was always struck by how much shorter he was than I imagined. And he walked as briskly as he could with a noticible stoop -- half hunched over. That couldn't have been comfortable.
Kennedy wasn't the rudest senator I ever stopped to ask questions of (that's Ted Stevens, R-AK, hands down). Nor was he the most kind (it's a tie between Sam Brownback, R-KS, and Mark Pryor, D-Ark.). But he was congenial enough and gave you quotes you could use. And there was also a sense that you were speaking to a living political legend -- which is undeniable, no matter how much I disagreed with his views and political tactics.
My prayers go out to him and his family today. It is a terrible thing to watch your body break down.
...and John McCain ain't him.
Georgia Republican Party chairwoman Sue Everhart said Saturday that the Arizona senator and the GOP's presumptive nominee "has a lot in common with Jesus Christ."
"John McCain is kind of like Jesus Christ on the cross," Everhart said as she began the second day of the state GOP convention. "He never denounced God, either."
Perhaps taking a lead from their presumptive bossy nominee, the Democratic National Committee has decreed that attendees at the convention are not to consume fried foods. Nor are they to drink bottled water.
That's not all. Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi descended from Mount Freakshow with more commandments:
Plates must be reusable, like china, recyclable or compostable. The food should be local, organic or both.
Mmmmm. Can't you just taste the boiled free-range chicken with a side of organic okra and arugula served conveniently on your outstretched hand?
But wait, there's more. Democrats, in a bow to diversity, have mandated what colors the food must be at 22 sanctioned party events.
And caterers must provide foods in "at least three of the following five colors: red, green, yellow, blue/purple, and white," garnishes not included, according to a Request for Proposals, or RFP, distributed last week.The shrimp-and-mango ensemble? All it's got is white, brown and orange, so it may not have the nutritional balance that generally comes from a multihued menu.
"Blue could be a challenge," joked Ed Janos, owner of Cook's Fresh Market in Denver. "All I can think of are blueberries."
Well think harder, fella. Or hope that food coloring isn't also outlawed so you can add it to that boiled chicken. I'm no professional caterer, but my list of blue foods runs from those blue tortilla chips, Bleu Cheese and, um, that's about it. Purple potatoes might cut it, unless they've been genetically modified. Sooooo, probably not.
And about that "locally grown" mandate. It's also problematic.
"I think it's a great idea for our community and our environment. The question is, how practical is it?" asks Nick Agro, the owner of Whirled Peas Catering in Commerce City. "We all want to source locally, but we're in Colorado. The growing season is short. It's dry here. And I question the feasibility of that."
Boiled free-range chicken it is, then. Democrats sure know how to party!
Kevin at Exurban League has lots of fun with this subject, too:
There goes the Latino Vote (no chimichangas, flautas or churros), and the Black Vote and Asian Vote as well.
Heh.
(HT: Mark Hemmingway at The Corner.)
We’re slowly learning what Obama means by getting the “world community” to like us. And Michelle Obama’s bizarre statement from February that “Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual” is also coming into clearer focus.
Our lives as usual — if they include driving the vehicle of our choice and setting the thermostat to our desired comfort level — will have to change in the America our new Great Leader.
“We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK,” Obama said. “That's not leadership. That's not going to happen.”
So, leadership, to Obama, is bossing Americans around to satisfy European bureaucrats. Leadership, to Obama, is ignoring the fact that the SUV-driving, AC-cranking United States has a better record on reducing carbon emissions than the Kyoto fetishists of Europe.
This would be a great issue for John McCain to exploit in the campaign. Pity that he, too, has drunk the Green Kool-Aid and can’t call out Obama on this nonsense.
An eminent climate scholar, who is in his spare time serves as the useless Prince of Wales, warned the world today that it has 18 months to stop climate change disaster. And by save the world, Charles means tax us all to oblivion and spend it on government programs.
In one of his most out-spoken interventions in the climate change debate, he said a £15 billion annual programme was required to halt deforestation or the world would have to live with the dire consequences."We will end up seeing more drought and starvation on a grand scale. Weather patterns will become even more terrifying and there will be less and less rainfall," he said.
"We are asking for something pretty dreadful unless we really understand the issues now and [the] urgency of them." The Prince said the rainforests, which provide the "air conditioning system for the entire planet", releasing water vapour and absorbing carbon, were being lost to poor farmers desperate to make a living.
Fifteen billion pounds a year might not seem like a lot to you, prince. But it's more than a few quid pocket change to the rest of us.
Oh, and poor farmers are clearing the rainforest like never before to make crops for ethanol -- the real environmental disaster the green weenies have, so far, managed to bring about through their mindless activism.
Mark it down. The end of the world arrives on Nov. 18, 2009 — just in time to give thanks over a turkey and kiss our planet goodbye. Or not.
If you're an NBA fan, and have followed the Tim Donaghy gambling referee scandal, you'll get a chuckle out of Exurban League's quick take (with funny art) on the latest developments.
It's bad enough that the U.S. — and, of course, Israel — come in for obsessive attention at the United Nations' Durban conferences on racism and human rights while the real offenders are ignored. Now comes word that a "special U.N. human rights investigator will visit the United States this month to probe racism" in the most tolerant country in the history of man.
GENEVA (Reuters) - A special U.N. human rights investigator will visit the United States this month to probe racism, an issue that has forced its way into the race to secure the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.The United Nations said Doudou Diene would meet federal and local officials, as well as lawmakers and judicial authorities during the May 19-June 6 visit.
"The special rapporteur will...gather first-hand information on issues related to racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance," a U.N. statement said on Friday.
His three-week visit, at U.S. government invitation, will cover eight cities -- Washington D.C., New York, Chicago, Omaha, Los Angeles, New Orleans, Miami and San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Race has become a central issue in the U.S. election cycle because Sen. Barack Obama, the frontrunner in the battle for the Democratic nomination battle, stands to become the country's first African American president.
Someone should alert the Sengalese attorney that racists who don't want to vote for Obama are clinging to God and guns in the hills and hinterlands of rural America. So if he wants to do a thorough job, he's gonna have to sacrifice padding his expense account in fancy hotels and restaurants and venture out of the big cities. Unless, of course, he's already got his mind made up.
And if he's typical of the Durban dopes, he has. America is guilty — even before we get a chance to vote (or not vote) for Obama. Why? Because "Islamaphobia" has grown worldwide — and in America — since the 9/11 attacks.
In a report last year he said Islamophobia had grown worldwide since the September 11 2001 attacks on the United States, carried out by al-Qaeda militants.A U.N. panel which examined the U.S. record on racial discrimination last March urged the United States to halt racial profiling of Americans of Arab, Muslim and South Asian descent and to ensure immigrants and non-nationals are not mistreated.
Ummm, has the U.N. never heard of Norm Mineta and his "frisk granny" airport policies? The fact that we don't racially profile in our domestic security process is the defining feature of it.
This is silly and tragic at the same time. The U.N. turns a blind eye to Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe — who ran white farmers off their land and turned "Africa's breadbasket" into a famine-stricken country. The U.N. bureaucrats have little to say (let alone do) about the oppression of Christian blacks in the Sudan, where Muslims take them as slaves. Not to mention the basket-case junta in Burma that is letting its people die instead of accepting humanitarian aid.
What's is troubling is that the U.N. will waste two weeks in America looking for racism under every stone at the invitation of the U.S. government.
SayAnything blog notes:
And I wonder just who he will be “gathering information” from? The left and their politically correct sock puppets in the media, as well as their pet politicians will no doubt be standing in line for this one.
Condi Rice, call your office. Then explain why the U.S. State Department is not criticizing the U.N. for this farce, but apparently participating in it.
(HT: K-Lo at The Corner).
This California blogger has heard Obama's "doth might protest too much" reaction to Bush's excellent speech in Israel today. And there's more to be said about it later.
But it's hard not to note, and enjoy, Exurban League's take on this story. Especially Jon's skill with PhotoShop, illustrating the issue.
But to get the full funny, you have to click the link.
Premptive UPDATE: Before I could even finish this post, The Corner was hip to it. Way to go, ExUrbs!
The last thing the Democrats wanted in this campaign was a social issue that will activate the conservative base that is lukewarm, at best, to McCain's campaign. So in that sense, four judges in California have done a service to the Republican ticket.
In California, at least, Republican and conservative turnout should be high to ensconce the definition of traditional marriage into the state constitution. McCain should already appeal to moderates and independents in California — a state in which Obama was soundly defeated by Hillary. And now he'll have lots of conservatives coming the the polls. If he keeps harping the issue of wanting Supreme Court Justices like Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas, it will be easy for those energized conservatives to pull the lever for McCain to reinforce why they voted in the first place.
Oh, sure. Obama will call this important social issue a "distraction," and a "wedge" that is dividing the country. The media will chime in with the chorus. But, this ruling may force Obama to come out and defend what should be the easy win of California. And when your political opponent is fighting on his turf, and not yours, you have a great advantage.
No, that's not an especially shocking headline considering the Left Coast's political history. And if you think "tyranny" too strong a word -- yes, that's Joel bait -- how else to define rule by judicial fiat rather than rule by the consent of the governed?
The California Supreme Court today declared that it is not enough that the Golden State gives full legal rights to gays who enter into domestic partnership. A one-judge majority ruled, like the Massachusetts Supreme Court a couple of years back, that if the word "marriage" is not used by the statute to describe the partnership, it is unconstitutional.
Why the court felt the need to even wade into this mess -- and make it worse -- is beyond me. If the legal protections are the same, where is the legal discrimination?
Perhaps there is a "social" distinction between the two terms -- with some people considering "domestic partnership" to not be the moral equal of society's millennia-long definition of "marriage" between a man and a woman. But it is not within a court's legitimate exercise of power to declare that the law must equate perceptions -- an impossible task, at any rate.
And if, as the court seems to be saying, the legislature and the people do not have the right to define marriage as it sees fit, what happens to laws banning polygamy? Or laws forbidding the marriage of brothers and sisters, mothers and sons, or fathers and daughters? On what basis could those laws -- judged by the people to be necessary for a healthy society -- be upheld?
Hugh Hewitt, a good lawyer, weighs in:
The central question was whether the representative nature of the California state government, including its initiative provisions, would be upheld. They were not. The California Supreme Court asserted its ultimate power today in a way that is shameful and deeply destructive of the ability of a free people to govern themselves.
And about that initiative ... Come November, there will likely be a proposition on the ballot to insert into the California Constitution the legal definition of "marriage" as between only a man and a woman. So maybe all this will be moot by 2009 -- unless, of course, the court doubles down by later declaring even amendments to the state constitution unconstitutional. From this absurd court? I expect it.
Free people govern themselves through the legislative process. A judge in a free society is charged with putting his personal feelings about such laws aside and -- with rare exceptions -- acceding to the consent of the governed. Unfortunately, only the minority opinion in this case by Justice Marvin R. Baxter cared about such principles:
Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels the majority’s startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marriage — an understanding recently confirmed by an initiative law — is no longer valid. California statutes already recognize same-sex unions and grant them all the substantive legal rights this state can bestow. If there is to be a further sea change in the social and legal understanding of marriage itself, that evolution should occur by similar democratic means. The majority forecloses this ordinary democratic process, and, in doing so, oversteps its authority.
And when a court so oversteps its authority, it is engaging in judicial tyranny.
TEN years ago, Michael Roach and Christie McNally, Buddhist teachers with a growing following in the United States and abroad, took vows never to separate, night or day.By “never part,” they did not mean only their hearts or spirits. They meant their bodies as well. And they gave themselves a range of about 15 feet.
If they cannot be seated near each other on a plane, they do not get on. When she uses an airport restroom, he stands outside the door. And when they are here at home in their yurt in the Arizona desert, which has neither running water nor electricity, and he is inspired by an idea in the middle of the night, she rises from their bed and follows him to their office 100 yards down the road, so he can work.
Their partnership, they say, is celibate.
And to elaborate further: There are lots of times I admire the discipline and contemplation of serious Buddhists. This is not one of those times.
Yup. This cartoon by Pulitzer winner Michael Ramirez about sums it up for me when I hear John McCain advocate some of his liberal-lite positions — such as the pointless, economy-killing global warming nonsense.
Not that I won't climb back on the boat by November with an paddle in one hand and a bailing bucket in the other. But still ...
Maybe it's the way Hillary dresses. Maybe it's because there's no Starbucks in Bluefield, and only 19 Starbuckses in the whole West "By God" Virginia. (There's 23 in my city of Pasadena). Hard to say, for sure. But Obama got smoked in the two-smokin' barrels Mountain State Tuesday.
Hillary won 67 percent to 28 percent — even better than even some of the most optimistic projections had it. I'm pretty bad at math, but 39 percentage points is pretty large.
What a strange Democratic Primary. Hillary wins huge states like Pennsylvania, Texas, Florida, New York, New Jersey, Michigan and California — yet Obama is declared the man. And after the press makes a big deal out of crowning him the nominee following a split of North Carolina and Indiana, Hillary crushes Obama in West Virginia and is poised to take Kentucky. Yet the calls for her to leave grow. Even Clinton King Maker James Carville says he's got his check made out to Obama, and pours lemon juice on the unkind cut by declaring that the rest of the Clinton Cling-ons will be following suit.
Ouch.
The question remains, though, whether Hillary has a point when she says that Obama can't win the general election when so many Democrats — a demographic she called working-class whites and got ripped for — don't take a shine to the latte-sippin' newbie.
Dale Franks, at Q&O, posted a map of Hillary Country. It's "country" in the traditional sense.
The blue you see are counties that Clinton got. The green is Obama. And the white is West Virginia and Kentucky, which Hillary should just about sweep.
These are the are the kinds of voters Democrats have slowly been making in-roads with, turning Reagan Democrats back to their side. And as Al Gore would attest, West Virginia is not an insignificant state. If he'd won it in 2000, out-going President Gore would have considered Florida's close election to have been an only slightly more interesting electoral footnote as the close contests in New Mexico and Wisconsin.
As Dale says:
The real question as we move towards the preidential election, is whether those blue counties will stay with Obama in November, should he become the nominee, or whether they will go for McCain, instead.
I'm with Dale in thinking that these areas go for McCain, at least enough to push a few key states into his basket. But Dale has done us the favor of putting up his projected electoral map — and he sees a Red State landslide.
That map is undoubtedly in the back of the minds of the shrewder Democratic SuperDelegates. Hillary knows that, so why wouldn't she stick it out until the August convention? Regardless, Obama has a lot of work to do between now and the general election. This pose is not encouraging.
The media's adulatory coronation routine — which will only get more intense as the months wear on — won't help make him the candidate he needs to be to capture the Hillary Country he must have to win at the ballot box, where it actually counts.
And as a Republican, that makes me happy.
Hi, there Paul. Nice to see ya. Especially nice to see ya tooling around in your fancy motor car. It's so fancy, it's a limo you paid Lexus $164,000 for it. Actually, you didn't pay for it. Lexus gave it to you as an expression of their thanks for your promotion of the green lifestyle. That's sooooo cute!
Alas, Paul was especially troubled to learn that the special eco-sin-canceling vehicle was transported from Japan to Great Britain on a cargo jet rather than a more green-friendly cargo ship.
"He was horrified after learning it was delivered by plane. Paul has always campaigned for green issues and he can't understand why anyone would send an enormous car from Japan to Britain on a plane. " ..."Everyone was shocked. The carbon footprint must be enormous. "
How enormous? Well, 100 times bigger than if they made Sir Paul wait an extra 10 days or so and have it shipped the old fashioned way — over the sea. As my friend Van Helsing says at Moonbattery:
If he wants to make it up to Gaia, all he has to do is stop living like a Czar for a few days.
No. We can't have that. He's a star! Not living like a czar for a few days? C'mon. That's for the little people — who don't know how hard it is to live like a czar while lecturing others about their lifestyles and trying to cover their carbon footprints. Tough work, that.
(HT: Moonbattery, via HoosierArmyMom)
What is it with Minnesota and dhimmitude? First, the airport in Minnesota moves forward with plans to accomodate Muslim cabbies who refuse to drive people carrying alcohol in their luggage. They did, eventually come to their senses, but now there's this:
A St. Cloud State University student in a teacher-training program at Technical High School left the school in late April because he says he feared for the safety of his service dog.
Who would threaten to kill that dog? Muslim students who consider dogs "unclean."
Tyler Hurd, a 23-year-old aspiring special education student, suffers from a condition that induces dangerous seizures which can occur weekly. His service dog, a black lab named Emmitt, is trained to protect Hurd when he's having a seizure. The dog also carries a pouch with items that can help passersby help Hurd when he's in trouble. Clearly, Hurd cannot live safely without his canine companion.
But Hurd learned that he and his dog were not welcome at Technical High School, which has a significant population of Somali Muslim immigrants.
Students there taunted his dog, and he finally felt he had to leave after he was told a student made a threat. Hurd ... did not feel comfortable continuing.
So St. Cloud State said that Hurd could get the final 10 hours he needs of student teaching experience outside a high-school setting in the Twin Cities area. Apparently, it's impossible to teach in an area high school without running into Muslim students who consider the presence of a dog a capital offense (for at least the canine).
Consider, for a moment, how a public school district and public university would handle the following scenario: Radical Christian students taunt a gay student-teacher. And word leaks out that a Christian student has threatened that gay teacher. Does anyone think it would be handled similarly?
Would officials throw up their hands and say: "I think it was a misunderstanding where we really didn't prepare either side for possible implications"? Would officials have come up with a "solution" that involved apologetically retreating from the religious zealots and wondering "where the breakdown [in communication] comes into play here"?
If you believe that, I've got a mosque in Medina I'd like to sell you.
Where are the legions of liberals who man the ramparts when there is even a hint of the Christian religion imposing on the "public square," let alone a public school? Where are the champions of "tolerance" to send these Muslim students into a re-education seminar?
They are cowering. And their silence equals submission.
(Hat tip: Andy McCarthy at The Corner)
And it's at OneWord.
The idea is simple. You click a button. A word appears at the top of your screen. You have 60 seconds to write about it. It's a fun, possibly useful little exercise.
I wrote about lemons and money. What did you write about?
(Evidently, the words change daily.)
How can we revive America's economy? Breathe new life into the manufacturing sector? Quit outsourcing? Pay down our debts?
Well, those things might work. Or we can play more video games:
New Yorkers who are worried that it might be “game over” for Wall Street profits should look to the video game industry, a new report says.Mayor Bloomberg should take a greater role in growing the gaming business by assigning a city staffer to act as a liaison to the industry and by promoting trade shows and gaming conferences that could showcase New York’s potential as a home for companies, the report says.
The Los Angeles Times today takes on the presidential candidates with a hard-hitting piece about ... their handwriting:
"Obama is very much his writing -- fluid, graceful. McCain's is angular and intense; he's a pit bull. And look at the perfectionism in Hillary's -- straight up, precise. She is persistent and is not going to give up until she absolutely has to," said (Arlyn J.) Imberman, a court-certified graphologist based in New York.
Have you seen the video of Inside Edition-era Bill O'Reilly melting down at the end of a broadcast? Oh, it's precious.
Tough racket, TV. Whew.
As long as we're talking libertarians and the presidential election, be sure to read Gene Healy's essay on the "cult of the presidency" at Reason's website. Here's the crux:
The chief executive of the United States is no longer a mere constitutional officer charged with faithful execution of the laws. He is a soul nourisher, a hope giver, a living American talisman against hurricanes, terrorism, economic downturns, and spiritual malaise. He — or she — is the one who answers the phone at 3 a.m. to keep our children safe from harm. The modern president is America’s shrink, a social worker, our very own national talk show host. He’s also the Supreme Warlord of the Earth.This messianic campaign rhetoric merely reflects what the office has evolved into after decades of public clamoring. The vision of the president as national guardian and spiritual redeemer is so ubiquitous it goes virtually unnoticed. Americans, left, right, and other, think of the "commander in chief" as a superhero, responsible for swooping to the rescue when danger strikes. And with great responsibility comes great power.
The piece is actually an excerpt from Healy's new book of the same title. John Derbyshire reviewed it favorably, along with Ron Paul's new manifesto. Follow all of the links, read everything, then buy one or both of the books.
Former Rep. Bob Barr announced Monday he would seek the Libertarian Party's nomination for president of these United States. Here's Barr's campaign website. Check it out. He needs money.
RealClearPolitics asks "How big a threat is Barr?" Answer: Not so big. I mean, come on. Yet some Republican bigs apparently tried to dissuade Barr from running. Good heavens, why? Some disaffected conservatives might vote for Barr, sure. The rest will either swallow hard and pull the lever for McCain or simply forget to vote that day.
The question clearly is not whether Bob Barr can win. It's not even whether Barr can be a spoiler, much less attract more than one-tenth of one percent of the popular vote. Rather, the question is whether he can win the nomination at the Libertarian Party's convention in Denver this month. Mike Gravel of Beatles fame is in the hunt. And some true believers are giving the ex-congressman from Georgia the old skunk-eye. Seems Barr may be "too Republican" and too "interventionist" for the Libertarian Party. Uh huh. Whatever happens, Barr can be reasonably certain of the stripper vote.
Meantime, Ron Paul's supporters are reportedly plotting to embarrass John McCain at the St. Paul convention. "They hope to demonstrate their disagreements with McCain vocally at the convention through platform fights and an attempt to get Paul a prominent speaking slot," according to the L.A. Times. "Paul, who's running unopposed in his home Texas district for an 11th House term, still has some $5 million in war funds and has instructed his followers that their struggle is not about a single election, but a long-term revolution for control of the Republican Party."
I wish them luck. The GOP convention promised to be a fairly staid affair. Maybe the Paulists can liven things up a little, and remind the Republican rank-and-file of just what the hell freedom is for.
Edward Luttwak in Monday's New York Times argues that Barack Obama has an Islam problem, but not the problem some silly, conspiracy-obsessed people believe. Obama is not a "secret" Muslim. No, it's actually more complicated -- and potentially worse -- than that.
Luttwak writes:
As the son of the Muslim father, Senator Obama was born a Muslim under Muslim law as it is universally understood. It makes no difference that, as Senator Obama has written, his father said he renounced his religion. Likewise, under Muslim law based on the Koran his mother’s Christian background is irrelevant.Of course, as most Americans understand it, Senator Obama is not a Muslim. He chose to become a Christian, and indeed has written convincingly to explain how he arrived at his choice and how important his Christian faith is to him.
His conversion, however, was a crime in Muslim eyes; it is “irtidad” or “ridda,” usually translated from the Arabic as “apostasy,” but with connotations of rebellion and treason. Indeed, it is the worst of all crimes that a Muslim can commit, worse than murder (which the victim’s family may choose to forgive).
Under Islamic law, the punishment for apostasy is death.
When I wrote about whether Obama is a "secret" Muslim at RedBlueAmerica, we generated enormous feedback from people who clearly didn't read beyond the question in the headline. A disturbing number of the responses -- almost all of which are too stupid to quote here -- took the view that Of course Obama's a Muslim! Once a Muslim, always a Muslim! The only ex-Muslims are dead Muslims! He was born a Muslim, he has a Muslim name (sigh), he must be a Muslim! (Extra exclamation points and gratuitous capitalization omitted.)
To which I would generally reply, "And, so... what exactly?" Evidently, some people really think that Obama's first act in the Oval Office will be to sign an executive order putting America under Sharia law or something equally insidious.
I would also note that there are plenty of ex-Muslims walking around with their heads still attached. One of them is Ibn Warraq, the brilliant (pseudonymous) writer who has made a career of arguing for the absolute right not to be a Muslim. Warraq edited an excellent volume about Muslim apostates called, fittingly, Leaving Islam.
But I also pointed out that Obama could potentially have an apostasy problem. And I'm hardly the first. Daniel Pipes of Middle East Forum has taken on the question here and here and concludes: "(i)f Obama once was a Muslim, he is now what Islamic law calls a murtadd (apostate), an ex-Muslim converted to another religion who must be executed. Were he elected president of the United States, this status, clearly, would have large potential implications for his relationship with the Muslim world."
Robert Spencer of the indispensable JihadWatch also dismisses the idea that Obama is a "secret" Muslim, but he equivocates slightly on the apostasy question. "Is Obama under a death sentence? Probably not. As far as I know Obama has never explained when he left Islam and became a Christian," Spencer wrote last year. "This is a crucial point, for according to Islamic law an apostate male is not to be put to death if he has not reached puberty (cf. 'Umdat al-Salik o8.2; Hidayah vol. II p. 246). Some, however, hold that he should be imprisoned until he is of age and then 'invited' to accept Islam, but officially the death penalty for youthful apostates is ruled out." (Spencer elaborates on the Luttwak op-ed here.)
So, what should American voters make of all this? Obama is almost certainly the Democratic Party nominee for president. He has a chance of beating John McCain in November. Luttwak modestly suggests, "That an Obama presidency would cause... complications in our dealings with the Islamic world is not likely to be a major factor with American voters, and the implication is not that it should be. But of all the well-meaning desires projected on Senator Obama, the hope that he would decisively improve relations with the world’s Muslims is the least realistic."
I would go a bit further and suggest that Obama's unique -- indeed, history-making -- circumstances could put pressure on clerics within Muslim world to moderate their position or be (further) marginalized. In any event, it's no longer enough for Muslim apologists to dismiss criticism or demands for reform as "Islamophobic." Would the governments of Islamic countries -- Saudi Arabia, say -- allow their imams to publicly call for the execution of an American president on the basis of Islamic law? Talk about international incidents! Certainly a renewed scrutiny of Islamic teachings about conversion and apostasy would be a welcome development.
As for Obama, I don't think the question of whether he's a Muslim apostate will sway voters much at all. All that that matters is Obama's politics and policy prescriptions, which are leftist and would ultimately undermine American resolve and strength around the globe, not just in the Muslim world.
Update: Ali Eteraz at Huffington Post thinks Luttwak is full of beans. "First of all, under orthodox Islamic law, the punishment for apostasy can only be carried out by the state." The state, or the Caliphate? And what happens when there isn't a Caliphate? Jihadists the world over want to know. Also, Eteraz is pretty persuasive -- and decisive -- on the Obama-as-Muslim question: "No call to prayer in the ear, not raised as a Muslim, born to an atheist father, and then abandoned to a Christian mother both by father and his family, equals not Muslim. Obama is right to say he had no religion until he became a Christian."
Last week I mentioned that Barack Obama's purchase of a Pabst Blue Ribbon beer was evidence of his secret elitism. Today we have proof: PBR vegan soap.
I promise you this: Natty Light would never be caught in such a compromising position.
Beyonce, as my friends at Exurban League noticed, has a clothing line. As to be expected, it leans on the hip-hop tip. Which is fine. Unless you start a clothing line for children and keep that theme.
Ugh. I'm almost speechless. So take it away, ExUrb Jon:
I thought Jon Benet's parents were creepy. And that Bratz dolls were a sign of the Apocalypse. Now Ms. Bootylicious is dressing up six-year-olds in red pumps?Repent! The end is near!
The pornification of our youth continues apace.
(HT: Exurban League, via Pop Gumbo)
Holy Hillbillies! Ok. So maybe Hillary forgot her rain gear while campaigning in West Virginia. But who's idea was it to give her Ned Beatty's raincoat? Perhaps she's going for the Big Bird vote, but she looks like a Moo-Moo in the rain.
And as Hillary shows below, there is no pose or action that makes the Oversized Yellow Tarp Coat look good.
Yikes!
Nonsensical hero? Check. Cheesy special effects? Check. Ridiculous heavy metal soundtrack? Check. Behold... Beastmaster Jr.!
In the latest issue of The Atlantic -- not yet online, I'm sorry to say -- Ross Douthat makes the case that George W. Bush might be seen by history as a better president than his current twentysomething-percent poll position would indicate.
Why? Well, not because George W. Bush is actually a good president. History is forgiving, it seems, of all but the most villanous figures. Harry Truman and Woodrow Wilson left office with low popularity and/or diminished reputations, but found esteem over time. Even LBJ gets sympathetic treatment these days.
And that got me thinking: Who is right? The future historians who can see the big picture? Or us, the people who actually have to live with the consequences of a president's bad decisions?
I don't have a clear answer to that. I do think history tends to overlook the lives of regular folks when making its assessments. But it could be that we're all paying the price for George W. Bush's uncanny vision for the Middle East -- something that might look good in, say, 50 years but feels damn painful now. And I'm not sure who would be on the right side of that argument.
Cross posted at Cup O' Joel
Leave it to the LA Times to think a great feature story about a married couple's political conflict is not between, say, a McCain-supporting husband and an Obama-loving wife.
No. To the lefty editors at that dying newspaper, the only political conflict worth 2,000-word treatment happens between those who support the liberal Hillary or the more liberal Obama.
For more than a year, the political version of "The War of the Roses" has been raging in Democratic homes across the country. Friendly wagers have been made, evenings have been ravaged and all manner of persuasion has been tried -- and often has failed.
Sounds like a bunch of bitter people to me. Political discussion is supposed to be fun.
But, I guess when money gets involved, things get a little sticky on the homestead.
"I was a little shocked when I opened up the credit card bill," said attorney Mark Samuels of La Cañada Flintridge. He had given $2,300 to Clinton through a contact at work and had no idea that his wife, Nancy, also a lawyer, was contributing to Obama.
Ooooh. Hate when that happens. Discovering that the wife blew $2,300 on a pair of shoes? Irritating, but forgivable. Dumping that kind of coin on my political enemy on the sly? Better get some counseling.
A few months ago I found myself in Seattle, and in the spirit of the Summer of Gin, I made my way to the greatest bar I've ever been to (yes, even better than Absinthe)
It's a booze paradise: the Zig Zag Cafe. I'd heard about it from various sources, and I was not disappointed. It's tucked away below Pike Place Market, near two of my other favorite Seattle destinations, the Spanish Table, and World Spice.
My plan was to settle in for some serious drinking, and luckily one of the bartenders (named Eric) came to our table, and helped direct my exploration (once I mentioned a couple of cocktails I'd made at home but never had at a bar).
So here's a report on the drinks, with links to the recipes from Drink Boy's excellent site (one of the sources that sent me to Zig Zag in the first place).
Aviation
An excellent drink, and my starting place into the world of classic forgotten cocktails.
Last Word
This is an amazing cocktail that deserves a comeback. The herbal notes that might scare you off are in fact perfectly balanced. This is the only mixed cocktail that I would use Old Raj gin in--counter-intuitive since Old Raj is so subtle, but the saffron and other herbs marry well with the Chartreuse and maraschino (not to be confused with the day-glo cocktail cherries, maraschino is a wonderful dry liqueur).
AuntEmily
The link goes to Bols, but if I remember correctly, Zig Zag was using this drink to show off some great apricot brandy and calvados (apple brandy).
Corpse Reviver #2
A pity this one has such a weird name, because it's just wonderful. I'm not sure what recipe Zig Zag uses, but I think it's closer to Dr. Cocktail's than the one I link to here (the book I just linked to is a must-have if you want to explore forgotten cocktails).
Fin de Sicle He uses equal parts gin, Cointreau, Lillet Blanc, and lemon juice (and just one drop of pastis).
Blue Moon
Follow that link--this is really a wonderful cocktail that has returned to the world now that violet liqueur is available again in the United States. Of course, Zig Zag used a different one that they had someone get for them in Japan.
And, yes, I shared the cocktails with a coworker, so I was able to stumble back to the hotel without too much difficulty. The food at Zig Zag was excellent too, but this is a serious booze destination and I highly recommend it.
In Politico today, we have Rush Limbaugh:
For his part, Limbaugh scoffed at a question about whether his influence would wane should one of his least favorite Republicans win the White House and returned to his other most favored punching bag.“If anything, my impact will increase with a McCain presidency,” Limbaugh said. “The question is whether the MSM's impact will be lessened, which is slowly happening all around us. I will thrive as always.”
Well of course he'll thrive. Yes, Limbaugh is a conservative, but there are times when that seems incidental. His real shtick is grievance, and in that sense he's now set up perfectly for the 2008 election. If a Democrat wins, he'll be able to rail about how the Democrats are ruining the country. And if John McCain wins -- well, Rush will be able to complain about how a not-conservative-enough Republican is ruining the country. Lose-lose for conservatives is actually win-win for Rush.
Cross-posted at Cup O' Joel.
Hitting my "Stumble!" button last night sent me and Mrs. Zaius to a wonderful random site: Mr. Picassohead. Warning: The create-your-own Picasso-like knock-off is loads of fun, but like the original Mr. Potatohead can be very addictive.
The political season has inspired me to compose a portrait of Barack Obama. I think I got his ears juuuuust right.
Enjoy.
Easy! Let some academics get their hands on it. According to the Guardian:
Many viewers felt bereft when the last of the six series finished last year, but academics at Brunel University in west London and Fordham University in New York have found a way to commiserate. They will jointly host The Sopranos: A Wake in Manhattan from 22-25 May. Titles of the sessions include: 'Carmela Soprano as Emma Bovary' and 'Body of Evidence: Tony Soprano's Corporeal Struggle'.
Paulie Walnuts would weep... if he knew what any of it meant.
Here's an Italian variation on the gin and tonic -- gin and chinotto. OK, it's actually pronounced key-NAWT-toe, not chin-auto, but I couldn't resist the pun. And, in case you're wondering, it's a type of bitter citrus fruit, an Italian kissing cousin of the orange. Chinotto also makes for a tasty mixer, especially with gin on a warm weekend afternoon...
Chinotto just happens to be a primary ingredient in Campari, a splash or two of which goes great with a gin and tonic. Campari is also a vital component of the Negroni, one of the classic gin cocktails of the 20th century.
But let's keep it simple, shall we?
The San Pellegrino people make the one and only Chinotto soft drink worth drinking. It comes in a little bottle, looks like Coke and tastes a bit like it, too, except with a strong bitter orange flavor amid that sweet cola goodness. You can get it at Beverages and More and other fine soda pop stores. (Amazon sells it, too.)
Anyway, Chinotto and gin makes for a nice cooler -- a little bit bitter, a little bit sweet, and plenty refreshing.
The recipe so easy, even a boozehound like Atomizer could make it:
Pour into a tall glass with ice and stir lightly; garnish with a lemon.
* You can substitute rum or vodka for the gin, naturally. I recommend a light rum. Matter of fact, there is a rum drink called the Dissidente that requires rum, Chinotto and bitters. But since it's the Summer of Gin, stick with the program. You will be ruined, of course, but it will be worth it.
Other posts in the Summer of Gin series so far:
It's not easy for some people to let go of power, which Bill Clinton proved with his tacky, attention-grabbing long goodbye on George W. Bush's inauguration day in 2001. And the former president reminds us again this week that letting go is harder for the Clintons than it is for most.
Despite the fact that Hillary is going to win West Virginia by at least 20 points — Rasmussen has Hillary dominating the votes of those God-and-guns clingers by a staggering 2 to 1 margin — the Big He is out there on the stump. And he doesn't take kindly to anyone expressing even a little criticism of his presidency.
An old woman — she looked to be in her 70s — had the temerity to suggest that for all the bragging about the "work" Hillary did on health care, she failed to get anything done. In other words, the value of one's work is measured in results, not intentions or rhetoric.
Well, Bill couldn't let that stand. So the bully let the poor woman have it.
All class, that guy. You're a former president of the United States, and you think it's good form to berate an old lady in front of a crowd — try to humiliate her in public just to make yourself look (and feel) better. Of course, Bill doesn't have a great record in the treatment of women he doesn't fear, which means every woman except his wife. That poor lady better put some ice on that.
Good riddance, you jerk. But be sure to stay out there on the campaign trail long enough to ensure your wife's defeat. Can't take any chances.
As part of an ongoing series from me debunking the Global Warming myth, let's just let my friend at Moonbattery take care of this one. Via the respected and non-ideological National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration:
The average temperature in April 2008 was 51.0 F. This was -1.0 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 29th coolest April in 114 years.
Brrrrr. I, for one, have noticed a chill in Southern California. Maybe I should let my car run for an hour or so. Just to do my part.
Bill Clinton was dubbed in 1998 by Nobel Laureate Toni Morrison as America's honorary First Black President. Back then, you might remember, Clinton was suffering from his impeachment shame. And Democrats everywhere were rushing to his defense. Some defenders were especially effusive, including Morrison, who wrote for The New Yorker that Bill Clinton was:
Blacker than any actual black person who could ever be elected in our children's lifetime. After all, Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald's-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas.
All true. But, in Morrison's view, a little less true today. Since then — not only in our children's lifetimes, but in the 77-year-old Morrison's lifetime — an "actual black person" will be the Democratic presidential nominee. So the celebrated author has offered a revision to her 10-year-old effusive prose. Toni Morrison told Time Magazine in a public Q&A this week:
Do you regret referring to Bill Clinton as the first black President?—Justin Dews, Cambridge, Mass.MORRISON: People misunderstood that phrase. I was deploring the way in which President Clinton was being treated, vis-à-vis the sex scandal that was surrounding him. I said he was being treated like a black on the street, already guilty, already a perp. I have no idea what his real instincts are, in terms of race.
Fine time to clarify that statement, a decade after she said it. Convenient, too, since she came out for Obama in January. How the difficult 1998 experience of Clinton — who is actually guilty of the crime of lying under oath in a deposition while being held to account for a sexual harassment law he signed, not to mention lying to his cabinet and the American people — equals the plight of "a black on the street" ... well ... I have to leave that to Morrison to elaborate on someday. Maybe, at her pace, we'll get an explanation in 2018.
Meantime, we are witnessing the continual crumbling of Clinton's legacy. He harmed his reputation with black Americans with his dismissal of Obama's victory in the South Carolina primary. And now Toni Morrison has turned her back. For a man who cares about his public perception more than anything, that's gotta hurt.
I sometimes think that lefty fringe groups such as Code Pink exist mainly for conservative propaganda purposes:
Somebody sent me this in an email and I didn't think it could be true. Then I followed the link to the Code Pink website and I was still dubious because the page looks like a mock-up, and it's so nutty...I still didn't think it could be true. But now Fox confirms, Code Pink is engaging in witchcraft at the Marine Corps recruiting station in Berkeley in another attempt to...drive the Marines into an ocean of peace?
Yes, Code Pink is silly. So is giving them lots of attention in order to pretend the group somehow represents mainstream liberalism. I mean, granted, I also practice antiwar witchcraft. But that's just a coincidence.
And yes, this is bait for Dr. Zaius.
Cross posted at Cup O' Joel.
I have some time on my hands, so I'm headed off to the multiplex this afternoon. Although I've seen Iron Man twice already, I agree with Dirty Harry at Libertas that it's worth seeing again, for all the right reasons. And I will. Just not today.
Instead, I'll see The Forbidden Kingdom, the Jackie Chan/Jet Li kung-fu epic. Nothing like a few spinning roundhouse kicks and magical bo-staff hijinks to cure the post-employment blues.
Alas, I'll probably get roped into seeing Speed Racer tomorrow. I share Joel's indifference to the flick. I wasn't into the cartoon, either. But Joel should consider himself lucky that he doesn't have a 5-year-old boy who can't get enough of those seizure-inducing trailers.
Light a candle for me, won't you?
Forgive me, but I'm still hung up on this "Hannah Montana topless" business. (RedBlueAmerica.com covered the topic here.) We've had a chance to survey some of the fallout. Most immediately: The Disney Channel show's ratings are dropping. Oh, and Hugh Hefner is looking to book a photo shoot for sometime in 2012. Lovely.
At National Review Online today, Jennifer Graham muses on the Miley Cyrus/Hannah Montana/Vanity Fair row. She focuses the same thing that bothered me -- no, not the "topless" picture, but the picture of Miley and her dad, Billy Ray. "Isn’t anyone else on the planet a little uncomfortable with Billy Ray and Miley Ray (yes, she’s legally changed her name, effective May 1) draped all over each other, in skimpy black tank-tops and tight blue jeans?"
As a matter of fact, yes.
Just about every story about the controversy reported some variation of how Billy Ray Cyrus was "outraged" at the shots, which he said were taken without his knowledge after he left the set of the photo shoot. But I wonder if he's given a thought to that other picture, in which Miley looks less like his child than his lover -- her midriff provocatively exposed and her expression smoky as he gazes off in the distance. But, of course, to point this out is to invite the criticism of having a "dirty mind."
Might that be precisely what Annie Liebowitz and Vanity Fair editor Graydon Carter intended? Or could that even be what Miley and her parents had in mind?
Graham actually watched the behind-the-scenes video of the shoot, "where normal people and pedophiles alike can watch father and daughter snuggle and caress each other in profoundly disturbing ways. We see lots of skin and curves and muscle, and close-ups of dad’s tattoo and daughter’s black toenail polish. It’s all very touching, but not in the Hallmark way." Graham also read the Vanity Fair profile a little more closely than I did initially. Turns out, Hannah Montana has a Jeremiah Wright problem: The more she talks to the press, the worse she sounds. Read what Miley Cyrus says about Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan, and weep. Human sacrifice, anyone?
I've informally polled a dozen or so friends and family about the pics. Most people weren't as put off as I was. They were more bothered by the bra shot that started circulating the Web about a week before the Vanity Fair pictures made news. But the people I polled hadn't seen the video, or read some of Miley's on-the-record remarks.
There's a pattern here, one we've seen before.
My friend Julie Ponzi offered the most trenchant analysis at No Left Turns: "It all stems from an inability to recognize what is truly beautiful or truly erotic in this life. We hold up the example of a young girl who--clearly, no matter what her 'experience'--knows nothing of the erotic. But in that, she is just like us. She is the embodiment of our cultural naiveté. Like her, we are all promise and potential and, very likely, no delivery."
Truth is, I enjoy the "Hannah Montana" show. I watch it with my son, who's a fan. It's like a 21st century version of "I Love Lucy." But I don't like what's happening with Miley Cyrus. Lucille Ball was a Ziegfeld Follies girl, but Miss Cyrus is clearly on a far more destructive path, no thanks to her parents and grown-ups who should know better.
For what it's worth, MadTV predicted all of this (more or less) months ago:
I was going to post this elsewhere, but it seems more appropriate here. Suck it, will.i.am!
OK, in the interest of offering a non-scotch olive branch around here, I'll bring up a topic we can all agree on, left and right: Our mutual distrust -- that's the strongest word I'll use -- of Hillary Clinton.
From Politico, Hillary Clinton is asking superdelegates to commit to her in private -- that way they can avoid the fuss n' muss of a public endorsement.
“We do have some private supporters,” the staffer said. “[But] for their own political purposes, they can’t be on record.”
Call me crazy, but isn't Clinton's case to the superdelegates basically that she can win the presidency and Barack Obama can't? Doesn't it undermine that argument to sneak around because members of your own party can't take the political risk of being associated with you?
Cross-posted at my new home base. And then I'll shut up for the rest of the evening so that the monkey vets can have their say.
Hi there. New guy here. I guess it's up to me to break the ice.
So...
The most-cherished bottle in my liquor cabinet -- and by "liquor cabinet," I mean "the top of my microwave" -- is a 15-year-old Laphroig.
Am I worthy of your envy? Or your contempt? And does it change anything if I say that I fervently hope Barack Obama wins the presidency?
Will Hugh Hewitt revoke his blurb because I said that?
OK, I'm at the dance. Will anybody make eye contact with me? I'm so nervous.
Well, the Great American Experiment at RedBlueAmerica.com is coming to an end, at least in its present form. (The site isn't going dark, it's just not going to have moderators or topics or my bloggy wisdom.) We made a great go of it, but our backers at Scripps wanted to see a much higher return on their investment than anyone could have possibly delivered in less than five months. That's OK. I'm disappointed, but I have nothing but praise for the endeavor and for the great people I had the honor of working with. And it truly was an honor.
John Temple, the editor and publisher of the Rocky Mountain News, had a great idea with RedBlueAmerica.com: Best thinking. Both sides. He believed -- correctly, I remain convinced -- that there is an audience for a political and cultural forum where readers can get news and opinion and discuss issues with gusto but without rancor. I'm eternally grateful to John, to Linda Sease at Scripps who helped found the site, to Vince Carroll at the Rocky for his advice early on, to my teammates Allen Klosowski and John Stancliffe, and to my intern and assistant Chuck Johnson, who has a great future ahead of him. It was a good run. Too short, but damn good.
My co-moderator at RedBlueAmerica, Joel Mathis, has become a close friend over the past few months and I expect he'll be joining the Monkeys soon. (He also plans to blog here. Bookmark it.) Joel is a little worried that he would be a token liberal, but I keep telling him that his excellent taste in single-malt scotch makes him a perfect fit here. Besides, with Monkey Robb missing in action, we'll need a whisky drinker who can take a principled anti-war line. Zaius needs a good sparring partner, too.
As I am an incurable optimist, it isn't too tough to see the silver lining in all this. The good news is I'll be able to devote greater time, attention and effort to The Summer of Rum Gin. And under the circumstances, I expect to be drinking quite a bit.
As the Democratic race winds down, I have a message for my Democratic friends. I know that for about half of you, you're about to see your candidate lose, in what seems to be a very unfair way (that's true no matter which one wins, due to the messy primary process). All I can say is that it is possible to rechannel that anger.
You want to, don't you? The hate is swelling in you now. Give in to your anger.
It is unavoidable. It is your destiny. Use your aggressive feelings, boy. Let the hate flow through you. It will make you stronger. With each passing moment, you think more about voting for McCain. Come to the dark side, my son...
Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Party's psycho-ex girlfriend. It's funny because it's true.
(Hat tip: Mercyphotography at RedBlueAmerica.com.)
Somewhere, in my vast library of Menckeniana, there is a piece by H.L. Mencken about what happens when Democrats meet. I think. It was one of his dispatches from one of the national conventions, during the 1920s. Maybe. The gist of it was that when rival Republicans meet in a hotel lobby, they tend to greet each other like Shriners. When rival Democrats meet, Mencken may or may not have written, get ready for a knife fight.
I promise to track down the reference and even correct the account just as soon as I take care of some other... er, more pressing business. But the image -- which admittedly may be wholly formed in my addled brain out of nothing more than misconception and partisan dementia -- lately came to the fore during discussions of the current presidential election.
The Republicans, though in dire straits, might just pull it out in the fall. And no, it isn't enough to step back and hope the Democrats immolate themselves. An editorial in Thursday's Investor's Business Daily argues
Some Republicans fret that special-election losses portend disaster for their party this fall. But the most radical Democratic presidential nominee ever is actually a golden opportunity for the GOP to win big.Ronald Reagan used to say the key to GOP victory was presenting voters with "a banner of bold, unmistakable colors, with no pastel shades." Now, with Barack Obama as the Republicans' likely opponent this November, there's no excuse for pastel.
John McCain has a well-deserved reputation as a maverick, as a politician who puts personal honor over partisanship. That's well and good. Honor counts for something. But after eight years of an administration that has sucked the oxygen out of the old Reaganite coalition, McCain has an opportunity to make a case for a principled conservatism. A conservatism of restrained and sensible spending. A conservatism that does not sacrifice national interest to international interests. McCain may or may not be that conservative. Probably not. But in contrast with left-liberal Barack Obama, he could position himself as such.
What's great about the way the November election is shaping up is that very contrast. Sure, McCain is hardly the ideal conservative. And I happen to know that the left has doubts about Obama, too. But absent a Paul vs. Kucinich donnybrook, this is about as decent a presidential slugfest as anyone could hope for. Let's make the best of it, shall we?
Cindy Crawford, considered one of the smarter supermodels in the stable, told ABC News this week that her experience as a mother has led to an "eco-awakening."
“I mean, we’ve all have seen the Al Gore movie and green is on ... it’s on top of the mind for everybody,” Crawford said. “But, it is overwhelming. I have a very full life as well, so it’s like ‘Oh, I can’t compost my own stuff.’”
No, she can't possibly compost her own stuff. It's messy and smelly -- the kind of stuff, like, ugly people do. But she'll try to do what she can.
“My kids go to a school in Malibu and it’s super-environmentally conscious,” Crawford said. “We do beach clean-ups, try to use less plastic as a school. And so, that kind of made me think, 'what can I do?' "
I presume Cindy didn't just yesterday start instructing her nanny to drop the kids off at school for Malibu-style "super-environmentally conscious" indoctrination. So maybe this awakening has something to do with a new endorsement deal ...
"I teamed up with PUR, which is a water filtration company. They do the things you can attach to your faucets, as well as those pitchers ..."
Um, yeah. We've heard of them. You know, with all the PUR TV commercials, the displays in the Piggly Wiggly and Wal-Mart and stuff. Those are called "stores" owned by what's called "retail companies." They do the things, like, where you pick something off the shelf, take it to the counter, pay for it, and take it home. Anyway, now for Cindy's big idea!
"... we came up with a reusable water bottle.”
Wow! Really?! You mean you can take those bottles of Fiji or Adirondack or Dasani, and when you drink it all down, you can put them back under the faucet and refill them? Never thought of that. Of course, I never thought of charging $19.99 for special "reusable" water bottles on a website, either. So maybe I'm the dummy.
Cindy laments that Americans use 50 billion bottles of water every year, "and only 50 percent are recycled. So that's like 38 billion that aren't recycled." Umm .... math is hard. So let's have my hilarious friend Jon at Exurban League do the figuring for us.
Let's see... 50 Billion x 50% = 25 Billion, subtract the loss factor, add in the safety margin, carry the missing supermodel brain cells... yep, 38 billion!
It's bad enough that environmental scolds like Ed Begley Jr. wag their fingers at ordinary Americans for not caring enough about the Earth to ditch the internal combustion engine and hitch a donkey to the SUV for the morning commute. But it is exponentially more annoying for Cindy Crawford to encourage us to be green -- at $19.99 a pop -- when she lives in the house below:
That's right. Four (count 'em) structures on her beachfront Malibu estate -- each larger than the one I live in. Tell you what, Cin. I'll keep recycling and reusing water bottles my way, and I'm sure I'll make up for your carbon footprint -- as long as I live until 2751. Good to know you're doing your part!
By the way, don't go over to RedBlueAmerica anymore. They suck.
I remember being a fat little kid riding my bike all over Los Angeles. So that makes me wonder, what's the deal with cycling?
Honestly, everyone does it. Fat kids, skinny kids, kids who climb on rocks.
What's the big deal? Seriously?
I am assuming that McCain wins the election. Hillary can't tell the truth to save her life and Barry O'Bama is a left-wing hack who probably wins the Black vote and the of Daily Kos-ites. Problem is, I feel like a genuinely dislike John McCain. Oh, I'll vote for him, no doubt. But money? No. Enthusiasm? eh. The problem is that his first [political] instinct seems to be to poke the GOP in the eye. (His second being to kick the GOP in the ass.)
So how to get enthused about McCain? Being anit-Hillary or anti-Barry ain't gonna do it. (I give you 8 years of Billary on that score.)
No, St. John needs to rally the base in a positive campaign. he needs them (us?) to be "for McCain" not anti-Hillary/Barry. The question is, can he do it?
No, he cannot. He cannot because he is John McCain.
John McCain has spent the last 8 years building a consituency that expressly excludes Republicans. Yes, he's been solid on the war. But after that he is, well, Joe Lieberman.
Enthusiasm matters. Tell me, John, where are you going to find the enthusiasm?
Seeing as I probably have already pissed off Chad the Elder, let me add this:
Go Red Wings!!!
Malkin notes the best protest sign of the new millenioum.
"My Immigrant Vagina is Angry!"
Yep, nothing like an angry immigrant vagina.
Did you see Chad's basement bar. Pretty damn cool. All the time I've been to Minnesota spending my hard-earned California taxpayer dollars, how many times have I seen the Saloon at Chez Elder?
Zero. None. Nada.
And now he moves away and leaves it behind?
I dold ya he hates me.
bastard.
Wanted to do some drunk blogging tonight.
Got the first part. I ain't got noting on the second part.
Not cross-posted anywhere.
