McCAIN TO RUN LIFELESS CAMPAIGN
Video clip from yesterday shows McCain telling an audience that he is a proud "conservative liberal Republican" -- um, I mean, conservative Republican. The more interesting Freudian slip in the same short clip is his promise to run a "dispirited campaign" -- one that is devoid of enthusiasm. That is his bigger shortcoming in my opinion.
A Blog of Current Events and Ancient Issues.
Friday, February 29, 2008
OBAMA RISKS GETTING STUCK IN LEFT LANE
Count on the foreign press to accurately summarize US politics.
The longer the Democratic race grinds on, the more entrenched the candidates may become in their populism. As America moves into the election proper, there is every likelihood that it will do so against a backdrop of worsening macroeconomic figures and rising numbers of house repossessions. Both John McCain and the Democratic nominee will then be chasing swing voters who are, typically, white working men—the type already prone to pessimism about their prospects. This group is not a natural part of Mr Obama's constituency and, if he were the nominee, he might well be tempted to keep the populism turned up high. If he were elected president, backed by a Democratic Congress with enhanced majorities, Mr Obama might well feel obliged to deliver on some of his promises. At the very least, the prospects for freer trade would then be dim.
The sad thing is that one might reasonably have expected better from Mr Obama. He wants to improve America's international reputation yet campaigns against NAFTA. He trumpets “the audacity of hope” yet proposes more government intervention. He might have chosen to use his silver tongue to address America's problems in imaginative ways—for example, by making the case for reforming the distorting tax code. Instead, he wants to throw money at social problems and slap more taxes on the rich, and he is using his oratorical powers to prey on people's fears.
Mr Obama advertises himself as something fresh, hopeful and new. But on economic matters at least he, like Mrs Clinton, has begun to look a rather ordinary old-style Democrat.
Still the best test of your appeal is whether you resonate with the average white guy. For all the talk of who is getting the women vote, the senior vote, the youth vote, the black vote, the Latino vote, the union vote, the Hollywood vote, still the most important voting bloc is the white guy vote, and although Obama delivers the standard populist message with more aplomb than most, white guys haven't respond very well to that message in our general elections.
Count on the foreign press to accurately summarize US politics.
The longer the Democratic race grinds on, the more entrenched the candidates may become in their populism. As America moves into the election proper, there is every likelihood that it will do so against a backdrop of worsening macroeconomic figures and rising numbers of house repossessions. Both John McCain and the Democratic nominee will then be chasing swing voters who are, typically, white working men—the type already prone to pessimism about their prospects. This group is not a natural part of Mr Obama's constituency and, if he were the nominee, he might well be tempted to keep the populism turned up high. If he were elected president, backed by a Democratic Congress with enhanced majorities, Mr Obama might well feel obliged to deliver on some of his promises. At the very least, the prospects for freer trade would then be dim.
The sad thing is that one might reasonably have expected better from Mr Obama. He wants to improve America's international reputation yet campaigns against NAFTA. He trumpets “the audacity of hope” yet proposes more government intervention. He might have chosen to use his silver tongue to address America's problems in imaginative ways—for example, by making the case for reforming the distorting tax code. Instead, he wants to throw money at social problems and slap more taxes on the rich, and he is using his oratorical powers to prey on people's fears.
Mr Obama advertises himself as something fresh, hopeful and new. But on economic matters at least he, like Mrs Clinton, has begun to look a rather ordinary old-style Democrat.
Still the best test of your appeal is whether you resonate with the average white guy. For all the talk of who is getting the women vote, the senior vote, the youth vote, the black vote, the Latino vote, the union vote, the Hollywood vote, still the most important voting bloc is the white guy vote, and although Obama delivers the standard populist message with more aplomb than most, white guys haven't respond very well to that message in our general elections.
EATING THEIR OWN
For conservatives, the result in November will be scary at worst and bittersweet at best, but at least we can look back at how America turned its back on the Clintons. Like many losers before them they are convinced that their defeat was a result of strategy. The message was wrong or they didn't get it out.
Mark Penn is a pollster and the Clintons have always been driven by polls. But Hillary wass incapable of changing voters perception of her by following the polls. Voters have been down the road with her too often to let her re-invent herself.
Rank and file Democrats went with the blank slate instead, fostered by the feel-good racial cleansing that the Clinton taught them. The idea that some strategist could pin a specific message on her and people would vote based on that message is hubris. A fresh message doesn't work with a stale candidate.
The article doesn't mention the $100,000 the campaign spent at the Bellagio living it up. But even still, hers wasn't a problem of money either. McCain's campaign has been broke several times. Huckabee didn't have much scratch. Romney had a big coffer. Ron Paul raised more funds than any of them.
The Republicans learned that money wasn't going to buy familiarity and Democrats learned that money couldn't change familiarity.
The toughest thing for candidates is being honest with themselves about who they are. The ones with the best sense of self seem to overcome the ones trying to get their message out.
Harold Ickes definitely doesn’t buy the argument that Mark Penn isn’t responsible for everything that has happened to the Hillary Clinton campaign.
“Mark Penn has run this campaign,” said Ickes in a brief phone interview this morning. “Besides Hillary Clinton, he is the single most responsible person for this campaign.
“Now, he has been circumscribed to some extent by Maggie Williams,” said Ickes, who then pointed out that that was only a recent development.
When asked about the assertion by one senior Clinton official the campaign was effectively run by committee, diluting Penn’s authority, Ickes was incredulous.
“I don’t know what campaign you’re talking about,” said Ickes. “I have been at meetings where he introduces himself as the campaign’s chief strategist. I’ve heard him call himself that many times, say, ‘I am the chief strategist.’”
Asked if Penn preferred the title of chief strategist to pollster, Ickes said, “Prefer it? He insists on it!”
When asked if Penn was therefore responsible for the campaign’s strategy, Ickes said, “It’s pretty plain for anyone to see that he has shaped the strategy of the campaign. He has called the shots.”
“Mark Penn,” he said, “has dominated the message in this campaign. Dominated it.”
For conservatives, the result in November will be scary at worst and bittersweet at best, but at least we can look back at how America turned its back on the Clintons. Like many losers before them they are convinced that their defeat was a result of strategy. The message was wrong or they didn't get it out.
Mark Penn is a pollster and the Clintons have always been driven by polls. But Hillary wass incapable of changing voters perception of her by following the polls. Voters have been down the road with her too often to let her re-invent herself.
Rank and file Democrats went with the blank slate instead, fostered by the feel-good racial cleansing that the Clinton taught them. The idea that some strategist could pin a specific message on her and people would vote based on that message is hubris. A fresh message doesn't work with a stale candidate.
Ickes also took umbrage at the suggestion of one Clinton campaign official that he had mismanaged the campaign’s money and deprived Clinton the resources to compete in states after February 5.
“We invested a huge amount of money in February 5 states,” said Ickes, arguing that anyone who suggested he had wasted the campaign’s money was “talking with no knowledge.”
“I don’t know what they’re basing this statement on but they have not one fact to stand on,” he said.
The article doesn't mention the $100,000 the campaign spent at the Bellagio living it up. But even still, hers wasn't a problem of money either. McCain's campaign has been broke several times. Huckabee didn't have much scratch. Romney had a big coffer. Ron Paul raised more funds than any of them.
The Republicans learned that money wasn't going to buy familiarity and Democrats learned that money couldn't change familiarity.
The toughest thing for candidates is being honest with themselves about who they are. The ones with the best sense of self seem to overcome the ones trying to get their message out.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
William F. Buckley 1925-2008
I was first saw Buckley in a TV ad plugging National Review magazine. Rather than use the word “conservative” he said the magazine approached the news from a decidedly different perspective, one that might be like my own. What struck me most was how intelligent he seemed. I was in my last year of college and felt that I didn’t really get much of an education. My time inthe library was spent reading about the Marx Brothers and Alfred Hitchcock.
I went to this newsstand on Palafox Street a few doors down from the PLT and they had the magazine. Buckley had stepped down as editor the year before but still owned and wrote for the magazine. The new editor, John O’Sullivan, dedicated the totality of this particular issue to an essay (later a book) by Buckley about anti-Semitism and whether certain public figures or organizations were anti-Semitic. The essay made me think harder and consider ideas at a time when I was really in need of it. It wasn’t a few months before I was subscribing.
Before National Review my conservatism was based on lessons from my father running his business and the problems he ran into placating the government. National Review explained how the Federal Government was still at it and worse than ever. It also taught me language. I had to read it with a dictionary to understand it back then.
Soon I began watching Firing Line. I still have a few episodes on tape. He would interview thoughtful people and talk about ideas. Like the magazine he was frequently funny. I remember he hosted a lady who wrote a book about what women should know about their husband’s money. He ended the show by saying the title “What every woman should know about their husband’s money” and then threw in, “except my wife.”
The first time I saw Peggy Noon was on Firing Line. I had an immediate crush on her. They talked about her book “What I Saw at the Revolution” and Bill asked her to contrast the Reagan and Bush White Houses. I went out and picked up the book that week and I’ve read it several times since. Peggy wrote in the book about how her friend’s mother subscribed to National Review. Her reaction to it mirrored my own.
Another guest was Mortimer Adler, the editor of the Great Books of the Western World. I read a few of his books and bought a set of the Great Books a few years later.
I also started buying and reading Bill’s books. I counted this evening and I have 29 books by Bill Buckley, the most of any author on my shelf. Some are on politics, some are autobiographical and others are novels. My favorites are his books from the 1960s. I particularly like his memoir “The Unmaking of a Mayor.” Another book, “Cruising Speed” documented a single week in his busy life. Rush recommended a Buckley book this afternoon and Amazon is now sold out coincidently. You'll find my review from 2000 if you scroll down that page.
This past weekend I remembered a column collected in REFLECTION FROM A LIBERTARIAN JOURNLIST called "What if they were Nazis?" It was a cold war column about how the liberal media forgives every Marxist dictator now matter how brutal while patting itself on the back for opposing Hitler. I took the book up to the night shelf on Sunday meaning to re-read it, but got caught up in something else.
One of Buckley’s first accomplishments was being named editor of the Yale Daily News, a position that his younger brother Reid held a few years later. Reid now runs a school in South Carolina that teaches public speaking. He offered a bi-yearly course a few years ago meant to teach media professionals to be better communicators. I wrote the school to get the materials and tried to get my company to pay for me to attend. It was just too soon. The show was too new and I didn’t have enough support back then to pull it off.
Surprisingly one day I got a call from Reid personally asking me to attend. He sounded just like Bill without the stutter. He was warm and funny and I couldn’t believe that I was speaking to an actual Buckley. I told him that I was working on the powers that be to send me. He said that they should take into account that he had just recently been to Disney with all of his grandchildren and spent a great deal of money and that should count for something. We laughed together and I told him that I was working on it. He called a month or so later and left me a message. I had to call him back and say that I didn’t have any luck. I should have just paid for it myself, but I thought I could talk them into it in two years once our show was more established. The class was never presented again.
I would often get National Review offers to attend seminars where Bill was speaking, but I could never justify the travel and seminar cost and I now regret being so cheap. I did write Bill a few times though and he did once send me an autographed photo.
I remember reading last year that Buckley had said that he had done everything he could in this life and he was ready to die. I don't think I heard anyone ever say such a thing publicly. He was unique in many ways.
Despite all the moves in my life I have kept my old National Review magazines. They’re everywhere in the house now and too precious to ever let go of. I can thank Bill for teaching me to love learning and showing me the political light. I didn’t know him and yet he meant so much to me. God Bless you, Bill Buckley.
I was first saw Buckley in a TV ad plugging National Review magazine. Rather than use the word “conservative” he said the magazine approached the news from a decidedly different perspective, one that might be like my own. What struck me most was how intelligent he seemed. I was in my last year of college and felt that I didn’t really get much of an education. My time inthe library was spent reading about the Marx Brothers and Alfred Hitchcock.
I went to this newsstand on Palafox Street a few doors down from the PLT and they had the magazine. Buckley had stepped down as editor the year before but still owned and wrote for the magazine. The new editor, John O’Sullivan, dedicated the totality of this particular issue to an essay (later a book) by Buckley about anti-Semitism and whether certain public figures or organizations were anti-Semitic. The essay made me think harder and consider ideas at a time when I was really in need of it. It wasn’t a few months before I was subscribing.
Before National Review my conservatism was based on lessons from my father running his business and the problems he ran into placating the government. National Review explained how the Federal Government was still at it and worse than ever. It also taught me language. I had to read it with a dictionary to understand it back then.
Soon I began watching Firing Line. I still have a few episodes on tape. He would interview thoughtful people and talk about ideas. Like the magazine he was frequently funny. I remember he hosted a lady who wrote a book about what women should know about their husband’s money. He ended the show by saying the title “What every woman should know about their husband’s money” and then threw in, “except my wife.”
The first time I saw Peggy Noon was on Firing Line. I had an immediate crush on her. They talked about her book “What I Saw at the Revolution” and Bill asked her to contrast the Reagan and Bush White Houses. I went out and picked up the book that week and I’ve read it several times since. Peggy wrote in the book about how her friend’s mother subscribed to National Review. Her reaction to it mirrored my own.
Another guest was Mortimer Adler, the editor of the Great Books of the Western World. I read a few of his books and bought a set of the Great Books a few years later.
I also started buying and reading Bill’s books. I counted this evening and I have 29 books by Bill Buckley, the most of any author on my shelf. Some are on politics, some are autobiographical and others are novels. My favorites are his books from the 1960s. I particularly like his memoir “The Unmaking of a Mayor.” Another book, “Cruising Speed” documented a single week in his busy life. Rush recommended a Buckley book this afternoon and Amazon is now sold out coincidently. You'll find my review from 2000 if you scroll down that page.
This past weekend I remembered a column collected in REFLECTION FROM A LIBERTARIAN JOURNLIST called "What if they were Nazis?" It was a cold war column about how the liberal media forgives every Marxist dictator now matter how brutal while patting itself on the back for opposing Hitler. I took the book up to the night shelf on Sunday meaning to re-read it, but got caught up in something else.
One of Buckley’s first accomplishments was being named editor of the Yale Daily News, a position that his younger brother Reid held a few years later. Reid now runs a school in South Carolina that teaches public speaking. He offered a bi-yearly course a few years ago meant to teach media professionals to be better communicators. I wrote the school to get the materials and tried to get my company to pay for me to attend. It was just too soon. The show was too new and I didn’t have enough support back then to pull it off.
Surprisingly one day I got a call from Reid personally asking me to attend. He sounded just like Bill without the stutter. He was warm and funny and I couldn’t believe that I was speaking to an actual Buckley. I told him that I was working on the powers that be to send me. He said that they should take into account that he had just recently been to Disney with all of his grandchildren and spent a great deal of money and that should count for something. We laughed together and I told him that I was working on it. He called a month or so later and left me a message. I had to call him back and say that I didn’t have any luck. I should have just paid for it myself, but I thought I could talk them into it in two years once our show was more established. The class was never presented again.
I would often get National Review offers to attend seminars where Bill was speaking, but I could never justify the travel and seminar cost and I now regret being so cheap. I did write Bill a few times though and he did once send me an autographed photo.
I remember reading last year that Buckley had said that he had done everything he could in this life and he was ready to die. I don't think I heard anyone ever say such a thing publicly. He was unique in many ways.
Despite all the moves in my life I have kept my old National Review magazines. They’re everywhere in the house now and too precious to ever let go of. I can thank Bill for teaching me to love learning and showing me the political light. I didn’t know him and yet he meant so much to me. God Bless you, Bill Buckley.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
NBC Dismisses Fall Debuts
The industry changed a few years ago when cable TV adopted this technique which is a copy of the British style of programming. NBC is pretending to have invented it.
One problem the networks continue to have is their strategy of copycat programming instead of innovation. Too many doctor shows, too many law shows. Medium begets the Ghost Whisperer.
Another problem is their insistence of stretching the material into 22 episodes a year versus 13 on cable. I think this alone results in better considered plots and resolutions on cable. The Sopranos stretched their last season into 2 parts and 21 episodes and the first half of that season was entirely throw away, much like certain story lines in other shows.
The third problem for networks is people can watch shows in so many ways now. I never see an advertiser. I'll watch TV mostly on DVD or time shift to Tivo out the commercials. Reality shows and sports are the last vestige of water cooler talk. Everything else is at the consumer's convenience.
People want what they want, when they want it, and at a price they are willing to pay. The old Network TV model forced consumers to chase them. Technology has evened the playing field. Network TV must serve the viewer in order to survive.
It soon may be time to retire the phrase “fall television season.”
NBC Universal took a big step toward undoing one of the television industry’s oldest traditions by announcing Tuesday that it would move to a year-round schedule of staggered program introductions. The move is intended to appeal to advertisers, who crave fresh content to keep viewers tuned in.
And if it succeeds — and leads other broadcast networks to shift from their focus on a mass introduction of new shows — it could alter an American cultural cycle that extends all the way back to the days of radio, when families gathered around the Philco every September, as the school year began, to sample the new entertainment choices.
“We absolutely think this is going to change the industry,” said Michael Pilot, the head of sales for NBC.
The industry changed a few years ago when cable TV adopted this technique which is a copy of the British style of programming. NBC is pretending to have invented it.
One problem the networks continue to have is their strategy of copycat programming instead of innovation. Too many doctor shows, too many law shows. Medium begets the Ghost Whisperer.
Another problem is their insistence of stretching the material into 22 episodes a year versus 13 on cable. I think this alone results in better considered plots and resolutions on cable. The Sopranos stretched their last season into 2 parts and 21 episodes and the first half of that season was entirely throw away, much like certain story lines in other shows.
The third problem for networks is people can watch shows in so many ways now. I never see an advertiser. I'll watch TV mostly on DVD or time shift to Tivo out the commercials. Reality shows and sports are the last vestige of water cooler talk. Everything else is at the consumer's convenience.
People want what they want, when they want it, and at a price they are willing to pay. The old Network TV model forced consumers to chase them. Technology has evened the playing field. Network TV must serve the viewer in order to survive.
Friday, February 22, 2008
THE POLITICS & HUMOR OF ONLINE ANONYMOUS POSTINGS
I've gotten hooked lately on, online Anonymous postings. You know, the sort of posts that are sometimes part of a discussion on most any You Tube Type video or perhaps news post. I've noticed that most posts (especially You Tube) tends to be of the lower common denominator type. Certainly not part of the lofty intellectual discourse that has become a standard on Junto Boys. However, on occasion I'll have a discussion that turns out to be of some note. One such post was on YouTube responding to a Zucker Brothers ultra right wing video that went as follows (I'm posting as William by the way).
I've gotten hooked lately on, online Anonymous postings. You know, the sort of posts that are sometimes part of a discussion on most any You Tube Type video or perhaps news post. I've noticed that most posts (especially You Tube) tends to be of the lower common denominator type. Certainly not part of the lofty intellectual discourse that has become a standard on Junto Boys. However, on occasion I'll have a discussion that turns out to be of some note. One such post was on YouTube responding to a Zucker Brothers ultra right wing video that went as follows (I'm posting as William by the way).
slippywhistle (1 week ago) Show Hide
This video sucks. Ass. If this drivel is an example the kind of political
discussion Americans can handle, then the experiment is over. This is the type
of crap that can suck your brain out, take a dump on it, then smear the rest
onto a piece of moldy bread.
williamspear2
(1 week ago) Show Hide
Reply Spam
It's called humor, my friend. It's also parody protected by the first
amendment of the US Constitution, perhaps you should read the "Bill of Rights."
slippywhistle
(1 week ago) Show Hide
Reply Spam
Hey moron, I never said it should be outlawed, only that its unfunnyness is only
rivaled by cholera in children. And if you actually laugh at this poorly made
drivel, then you are as stupid as your comment would suggest.
williamspear2 (1 week ago) Show Hide
Reply Spam
This is not how Jesus wants us to act. Let's all take a breath and love one
another, otherwise the terrorists really win.
slippywhistle
Reply Spam
Now THAT was funny!
AMERICAN IDOL
It is season seven and I've never watched the show before but thanks to the combined influences of the writers' strike and my daughter's fascination with pop music, I am hooked. We love to watch game shows in general and the kids really enjoy Don't Forget the Lyrics, so we extended our reach to include the soap opera that is Idol Season 7. The kids are learning classic tunes while I get to play critic and comment on the performances before the judges have their say.
The judges winnowed the field to the top 12 males and top 12 females before handing off judging duties to the public at large. I just went searching the net to see if there was a Vegas line on the remaining contestants. Vegas doesn't publish a line until the field is down to 12 but here is a line that comes out of Ireland:
David Archuleta 6-1
Alaina Whitaker 8-1
Michael Johns 8-1
Chikezie Eze 10-1
Brooke White 10-1
David Hernandez 10-1
Kristy Lee Cook 10-1
Kady Mallow 10-1
Carly Smithson 12-1
Asai'h Epperson 12-1
Danny Noriega 12-1
Luke Menard 14-1
Ramiele Malubay 14-1
Syesha Mercado 14-1
Amanda Overmyer 14-1
David Cook 14-1
Joanne Borgella 14-1
Jason Castro 16-1
Robbie Carrico 16-1
Amy Davis 18-1
Garrett Haley 18-1
Alexandrea Lushington 20-1
Jason Yeager 20-1
Colton Berry 25-1
The names in red are the contestants that were eliminated this week. If you don't follow the show, as I expect you don't, then this post has no relevance, except for I want to get on the record early as to who my favorites are so I can go back and review my opinions upon the coronation of the next American Idol.
My favorite player at this point is Michael Johns. He's handsome, he's laid back, he's got a great quality to his voice, and he's very comfortable on stage. Here's a guy who's going to have a recording career whether he wins this competition or not. Same for Alaina Whitaker. She seemed a ditz in the interview but then took the stage and sounded like she's been singing for 30 years, yet she is only a junior in high school.
David Archuletta is a sweet kid who will be in the top four, barring collapse - he's a natural. I think Chikezie is ranked way too high. He may not even make the top twelve. Same for David Hernandez, who is kind of a plain vanilla tenor. I really liked this week's performances from David Cook and Jason Castro. They both sounded fresh with their versions of tired sixties songs. The rest of the male field is uninspiring. Danny Noriega has a good voice, but his rendition of Jailhouse Rock was abysmal and he's such a sassy flamer that his personality will likely be his downfall.
There are a lot of girls to like but none of them really stands out above the others. Whitaker was far and away the best of the bunch this week, so we'll see if she can carry that forward. Brooke White has a wholesome Carly Simon vibe to her that works fine but might not allow her to stand out in a crowded field. Amanda Overmyer is the most unique, with her crunchy Janis Joplin style, but unless she proves herself on a power ballad eventually, she will not rise to the top.
Ramiele Malubay has the powerful voice in a petite package, a winning combo for Clay Aikens a few years back. She sounds consistently great and should make the final six at least. Kristy Lee Cook was unimpressive this week and she may fall by the wayside with another uninspiring outing next week. I liked Alexandrea Lushington's schtick even though Simon didn't. She had the voice, the outfit and the attitude all working. The girls are harder to handicap because there are no easy eliminations, so it will all depend on consistency, which should make Joe Morgan happy. So now you are up to date.
It is season seven and I've never watched the show before but thanks to the combined influences of the writers' strike and my daughter's fascination with pop music, I am hooked. We love to watch game shows in general and the kids really enjoy Don't Forget the Lyrics, so we extended our reach to include the soap opera that is Idol Season 7. The kids are learning classic tunes while I get to play critic and comment on the performances before the judges have their say.
The judges winnowed the field to the top 12 males and top 12 females before handing off judging duties to the public at large. I just went searching the net to see if there was a Vegas line on the remaining contestants. Vegas doesn't publish a line until the field is down to 12 but here is a line that comes out of Ireland:
David Archuleta 6-1
Alaina Whitaker 8-1
Michael Johns 8-1
Chikezie Eze 10-1
Brooke White 10-1
David Hernandez 10-1
Kristy Lee Cook 10-1
Kady Mallow 10-1
Carly Smithson 12-1
Asai'h Epperson 12-1
Danny Noriega 12-1
Luke Menard 14-1
Ramiele Malubay 14-1
Syesha Mercado 14-1
Amanda Overmyer 14-1
David Cook 14-1
Joanne Borgella 14-1
Jason Castro 16-1
Robbie Carrico 16-1
Amy Davis 18-1
Garrett Haley 18-1
Alexandrea Lushington 20-1
Jason Yeager 20-1
Colton Berry 25-1
The names in red are the contestants that were eliminated this week. If you don't follow the show, as I expect you don't, then this post has no relevance, except for I want to get on the record early as to who my favorites are so I can go back and review my opinions upon the coronation of the next American Idol.
My favorite player at this point is Michael Johns. He's handsome, he's laid back, he's got a great quality to his voice, and he's very comfortable on stage. Here's a guy who's going to have a recording career whether he wins this competition or not. Same for Alaina Whitaker. She seemed a ditz in the interview but then took the stage and sounded like she's been singing for 30 years, yet she is only a junior in high school.
David Archuletta is a sweet kid who will be in the top four, barring collapse - he's a natural. I think Chikezie is ranked way too high. He may not even make the top twelve. Same for David Hernandez, who is kind of a plain vanilla tenor. I really liked this week's performances from David Cook and Jason Castro. They both sounded fresh with their versions of tired sixties songs. The rest of the male field is uninspiring. Danny Noriega has a good voice, but his rendition of Jailhouse Rock was abysmal and he's such a sassy flamer that his personality will likely be his downfall.
There are a lot of girls to like but none of them really stands out above the others. Whitaker was far and away the best of the bunch this week, so we'll see if she can carry that forward. Brooke White has a wholesome Carly Simon vibe to her that works fine but might not allow her to stand out in a crowded field. Amanda Overmyer is the most unique, with her crunchy Janis Joplin style, but unless she proves herself on a power ballad eventually, she will not rise to the top.
Ramiele Malubay has the powerful voice in a petite package, a winning combo for Clay Aikens a few years back. She sounds consistently great and should make the final six at least. Kristy Lee Cook was unimpressive this week and she may fall by the wayside with another uninspiring outing next week. I liked Alexandrea Lushington's schtick even though Simon didn't. She had the voice, the outfit and the attitude all working. The girls are harder to handicap because there are no easy eliminations, so it will all depend on consistency, which should make Joe Morgan happy. So now you are up to date.
;
If you appreciate the semicolon -- and who doesn't? -- then this article's for you, about the impeccable use of one on a New York subway placard.
This was a witty line:
One of the school system’s most notorious graduates, David Berkowitz, the Son of Sam serial killer who taunted police and the press with rambling handwritten notes, was, as the columnist Jimmy Breslin wrote, the only murderer he ever encountered who could wield a semicolon just as well as a revolver. (Mr. Berkowitz, by the way, is now serving an even longer sentence.)
How to properly use a semicolon is a rule of English that I felt I never mastered. I have a very short list of memories from my senior year of high school, and one of them is pondering the markup of my English test on semicolons, which the record says I botched but I never quite agreed. In any event, the use of the semicolon is no longer taught as important, so that particular bit of ignorance has apparently become less limiting. What a relief; I can relax.
If you appreciate the semicolon -- and who doesn't? -- then this article's for you, about the impeccable use of one on a New York subway placard.
This was a witty line:
One of the school system’s most notorious graduates, David Berkowitz, the Son of Sam serial killer who taunted police and the press with rambling handwritten notes, was, as the columnist Jimmy Breslin wrote, the only murderer he ever encountered who could wield a semicolon just as well as a revolver. (Mr. Berkowitz, by the way, is now serving an even longer sentence.)
How to properly use a semicolon is a rule of English that I felt I never mastered. I have a very short list of memories from my senior year of high school, and one of them is pondering the markup of my English test on semicolons, which the record says I botched but I never quite agreed. In any event, the use of the semicolon is no longer taught as important, so that particular bit of ignorance has apparently become less limiting. What a relief; I can relax.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
AMERICA HATERS, UNITE
Michelle Malkin on Michelle Obama's comment.
I believe it was Michael Kinsley who quipped that a gaffe is when a politician tells the truth. In this case, it's what happens when an elite Democratic politician's wife says what a significant portion of the party's base really believes to be the truth: America is more a source of shame than pride.
For years, we've heard liberals get offended at any challenge to their patriotism. And so they are again aggrieved and rising to explain away Mrs. Obama's remarks.
Like Lady Macbeth, Lady Michelle and her defenders protest too much.
Mr. Obama has been getting a lot of credit for "staying on message." Staying on message means you keep saying what it's been agreed you will say. In this case a little truth slipped out and you can see how dangerous such a thing can be.
Michelle Malkin on Michelle Obama's comment.
I believe it was Michael Kinsley who quipped that a gaffe is when a politician tells the truth. In this case, it's what happens when an elite Democratic politician's wife says what a significant portion of the party's base really believes to be the truth: America is more a source of shame than pride.
For years, we've heard liberals get offended at any challenge to their patriotism. And so they are again aggrieved and rising to explain away Mrs. Obama's remarks.
Like Lady Macbeth, Lady Michelle and her defenders protest too much.
Mr. Obama has been getting a lot of credit for "staying on message." Staying on message means you keep saying what it's been agreed you will say. In this case a little truth slipped out and you can see how dangerous such a thing can be.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
CASTRO IS OUT
Media Research Center has a great collection of video clips with U.S. reporters fawning over the dictator through the years. Here's their synopsis of a 2002 Report:
What good is literacy if the Cuban people are banned from ideas?
The last part about Cuba's fair medical system is unintentionally honest. Having nice facilities and equipment is the point of health care. Trading that for access is exactly what the Democrats want to do in America.
What a disgrace. Bush wants to listen to terrorists making phone calls and it's an end of liberty as we know it. Castro intimidates and jails journalists to the delight of CNN.
If we ever see a free Cuba CNN will disclose how they hid the real Cuba from the world in order to have access. I stopped watching CNN after they admitted doing that in Iraq during Saddam.
Media Research Center has a great collection of video clips with U.S. reporters fawning over the dictator through the years. Here's their synopsis of a 2002 Report:
In May 2002, CNN sent correspondent Kate Snow to anchor an hour-long prime time Live From Havana, timed to the visit of ex-President Jimmy Carter. Snow fretted about the "hard line" policies and views of President Bush and exiled Cubans in Miami while hoping Carter’s visit might "moderate" the Cuban-Americans. She also touted the "successes" of life under Fidel Castro, admiring how, "according to a United Nations study, Cuba’s regular schools rank at the top in Latin America" and how "every Cuban has a primary care physician" who gets "to know their patients and even make house calls." She conceded that "Cuba may not have the nicest facilities or equipment," but she noted in praising the socialist ideals, "everyone has access and the concept of paying is completely foreign."
What good is literacy if the Cuban people are banned from ideas?
The last part about Cuba's fair medical system is unintentionally honest. Having nice facilities and equipment is the point of health care. Trading that for access is exactly what the Democrats want to do in America.
For a May 2002 Special Report, MRC analysts examined five years of CNN’s Cuban coverage. They found CNN aired six times more soundbites from communist leaders than from non-communist groups such as the Catholic Church and peaceful dissidents. Only about three percent of CNN’s Cuba coverage focused on Cuban dissidents, and less than one percent dealt with the harassment and intimidation of independent journalists in Cuba. Fidel Castro himself was treated more as a celebrity than a tyrant, with stories about his 73rd birthday party and an in-depth look at his office furnishings in a segment called "Cool Digs."
What a disgrace. Bush wants to listen to terrorists making phone calls and it's an end of liberty as we know it. Castro intimidates and jails journalists to the delight of CNN.
If we ever see a free Cuba CNN will disclose how they hid the real Cuba from the world in order to have access. I stopped watching CNN after they admitted doing that in Iraq during Saddam.
THE WORLD ACCORDING TO OBAMA
The only good the Obamas ever saw in this country was themselves. Well, congratulations.
Michelle Obama today said that “for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction.”
Really proud of her country for the first time? Michelle Obama is 44 years old. She has been an adult since 1982. Can it really be there has not been a moment during that time when she felt proud of her country? Forget matters like the victory in the Cold War; how about only things that have made liberals proud — all the accomplishments of inclusion? How about the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1991? Or Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s elevation to the Supreme Court? Or Carol Moseley Braun’s election to the Senate in 1998? How about the merely humanitarian, like this country’s startling generosity to the victims of the tsunami? I’m sure commenters can think of hundreds more landmarks of this sort. Didn’t she even get a twinge from, say, the Olympics?
Mrs. Obama was speaking at a campaign rally, so it is easy to assume she was merely indulging in hyperbole. Even so, it is very revealing.
It suggests, first, that the pseudo-messianic nature of the Obama candidacy is very much a part of the way the Obamas themselves are feeling about it these days. If they don’t get a hold of themselves, the family vanity is going to swell up to the size of Phileas Fogg’s hot-air balloon and send the two of them soaring to heights of self-congratulatory solipsism that we’ve never seen before.
Second, it suggests the Obama campaign really does have its roots in New Class leftism, according to which patriotism is not only the last refuge of a scoundrel, but the first refuge as well — that America is not fundamentally good but flawed, but rather fundamentally flawed and only occasionally good. There’s something for John McCain to work with here.
And third, that Michelle Obama — from the middle-class South Shore neighborhood of Chicago, Princeton 85, Harvard Law 88, associate at Sidley and Austin, and eventually a high-ranking official at the University of Chicago — may not be proud of her country, but her life, like her husband’s, gives me every reason to be even prouder of the United States.
Obama's hate-America disclosure is classic leftthink, rarely spoken aloud. I know you have to have massive ego drive to seek the White House, but you're supposed to appear at least a little self-effacing, aren't you? It's Plato's Republic: because I've given it so much thought, and because I'm clearly so very competent, the best person to rule over you is me, so hand over the keys, you ignorant rubes.
The only good the Obamas ever saw in this country was themselves. Well, congratulations.
Michelle Obama today said that “for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction.”
Really proud of her country for the first time? Michelle Obama is 44 years old. She has been an adult since 1982. Can it really be there has not been a moment during that time when she felt proud of her country? Forget matters like the victory in the Cold War; how about only things that have made liberals proud — all the accomplishments of inclusion? How about the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1991? Or Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s elevation to the Supreme Court? Or Carol Moseley Braun’s election to the Senate in 1998? How about the merely humanitarian, like this country’s startling generosity to the victims of the tsunami? I’m sure commenters can think of hundreds more landmarks of this sort. Didn’t she even get a twinge from, say, the Olympics?
Mrs. Obama was speaking at a campaign rally, so it is easy to assume she was merely indulging in hyperbole. Even so, it is very revealing.
It suggests, first, that the pseudo-messianic nature of the Obama candidacy is very much a part of the way the Obamas themselves are feeling about it these days. If they don’t get a hold of themselves, the family vanity is going to swell up to the size of Phileas Fogg’s hot-air balloon and send the two of them soaring to heights of self-congratulatory solipsism that we’ve never seen before.
Second, it suggests the Obama campaign really does have its roots in New Class leftism, according to which patriotism is not only the last refuge of a scoundrel, but the first refuge as well — that America is not fundamentally good but flawed, but rather fundamentally flawed and only occasionally good. There’s something for John McCain to work with here.
And third, that Michelle Obama — from the middle-class South Shore neighborhood of Chicago, Princeton 85, Harvard Law 88, associate at Sidley and Austin, and eventually a high-ranking official at the University of Chicago — may not be proud of her country, but her life, like her husband’s, gives me every reason to be even prouder of the United States.
Obama's hate-America disclosure is classic leftthink, rarely spoken aloud. I know you have to have massive ego drive to seek the White House, but you're supposed to appear at least a little self-effacing, aren't you? It's Plato's Republic: because I've given it so much thought, and because I'm clearly so very competent, the best person to rule over you is me, so hand over the keys, you ignorant rubes.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
RANDOM THOUGHTS
1. Thanks to the "Juntoboys" for inspiring me to continue my research on Prisoner Re-Entry. I am now writing a proposal with a collaborator I found at the University. We are putting together a research project to study some of the ideas I developed and test them for effectiveness. This is very exciting as this will likely turn into funded and publishable research.
2. I've been reading a lot lately about Neuropsychology (a new and growing field). Particularly I am currently reading research on The Neuropsychology behind Paranormal Experiences. This field was evidently pioneered by Michael A. Persinger, Ph.D. who also invented a crazy contraption called the "God Helmet." The God-Helmet introduces ultra low frequency pulses of Electro-Magnetic energy into the temporal lobes of the brain. This device is devised so that it will induce religious/paranormal experiences in those who wear it. Among reported experiences are the feeling that someone is watching you, feelings of oneness, feelings of being pulled from the inside, fear, anger, joy, and a variety of other emotions. Persinger believes that stimulation of the temporal lobes is what causes mystical experiences as well as Alien abduction reports. I've got the plans for this helmet and am currently building one for my own experiments.
3. I've been tasked with teaching more diversity courses now. Apparently my students love my "refreshing right wing approach" (as one student evaluation put it) to diversity areas such as Cross cultural psychology, Psych of Women, and Psych of Racism.
4. What if McCain asks Barak Obama to be his Vice-President, which was earlier suggested in this blog by "E" I believe. Would that collapse the ends of the Bell Curve (ultra right conservatives and ultra liberals) creating a new coalition of moderates, independents, and the like? Are we in for a major political transformation of the cultural landscape? All pundits seem aghast.
5. If social intelligence or emotional intelligence is a valid construct, then evidently there must be Emotional Genius'. If so, what would they look like? What would an Emotional Einstein be like? Would they be master manipulators able to inspire or corrupt or whisper and control at will? Sounds like a cool power. Perhaps that is what the great leaders and politicians were.
6. The recent book "Love and Sex with Robots" is quite fascinating. I've been waiting for the Robot Women and Flying cars all my life. This books central thesis is that as robots become more and more human like, we will eventually begin using them for intimate practices as well. It makes sense since the average Joe/Jane uses a computer and a variety of mechanical aids currently to enhance carnal pleasure. It would be nice in some ways because the Robot Woman would not nag, nor divorce, nor spend you into bankruptcy. It's all very interesting. I suppose the sophisticated enough Robot woman could be intellectually stimulating (since she would have a internet enabled brain and therefore access to the sum total of human knowledge) plus physically arousing since presumably some basic psychology tests could discern the exact physical type you would be interested in. Human women may be jealous at first or not allow this at all (just as many now rally against Porn and such) while others would view the Robot Woman as simply an appliance and would likely welcome this addition which could help "fill the void" between love making sessions and thus help curb her Human Husbands desire to cheat. Since the Robot Woman would be learning enabled and adaptive, she would continue to get better with each session and could create both variety as well as become a teacher to the human couple or even live-aid for the ultimate "threesomes."
1. Thanks to the "Juntoboys" for inspiring me to continue my research on Prisoner Re-Entry. I am now writing a proposal with a collaborator I found at the University. We are putting together a research project to study some of the ideas I developed and test them for effectiveness. This is very exciting as this will likely turn into funded and publishable research.
2. I've been reading a lot lately about Neuropsychology (a new and growing field). Particularly I am currently reading research on The Neuropsychology behind Paranormal Experiences. This field was evidently pioneered by Michael A. Persinger, Ph.D. who also invented a crazy contraption called the "God Helmet." The God-Helmet introduces ultra low frequency pulses of Electro-Magnetic energy into the temporal lobes of the brain. This device is devised so that it will induce religious/paranormal experiences in those who wear it. Among reported experiences are the feeling that someone is watching you, feelings of oneness, feelings of being pulled from the inside, fear, anger, joy, and a variety of other emotions. Persinger believes that stimulation of the temporal lobes is what causes mystical experiences as well as Alien abduction reports. I've got the plans for this helmet and am currently building one for my own experiments.
3. I've been tasked with teaching more diversity courses now. Apparently my students love my "refreshing right wing approach" (as one student evaluation put it) to diversity areas such as Cross cultural psychology, Psych of Women, and Psych of Racism.
4. What if McCain asks Barak Obama to be his Vice-President, which was earlier suggested in this blog by "E" I believe. Would that collapse the ends of the Bell Curve (ultra right conservatives and ultra liberals) creating a new coalition of moderates, independents, and the like? Are we in for a major political transformation of the cultural landscape? All pundits seem aghast.
5. If social intelligence or emotional intelligence is a valid construct, then evidently there must be Emotional Genius'. If so, what would they look like? What would an Emotional Einstein be like? Would they be master manipulators able to inspire or corrupt or whisper and control at will? Sounds like a cool power. Perhaps that is what the great leaders and politicians were.
6. The recent book "Love and Sex with Robots" is quite fascinating. I've been waiting for the Robot Women and Flying cars all my life. This books central thesis is that as robots become more and more human like, we will eventually begin using them for intimate practices as well. It makes sense since the average Joe/Jane uses a computer and a variety of mechanical aids currently to enhance carnal pleasure. It would be nice in some ways because the Robot Woman would not nag, nor divorce, nor spend you into bankruptcy. It's all very interesting. I suppose the sophisticated enough Robot woman could be intellectually stimulating (since she would have a internet enabled brain and therefore access to the sum total of human knowledge) plus physically arousing since presumably some basic psychology tests could discern the exact physical type you would be interested in. Human women may be jealous at first or not allow this at all (just as many now rally against Porn and such) while others would view the Robot Woman as simply an appliance and would likely welcome this addition which could help "fill the void" between love making sessions and thus help curb her Human Husbands desire to cheat. Since the Robot Woman would be learning enabled and adaptive, she would continue to get better with each session and could create both variety as well as become a teacher to the human couple or even live-aid for the ultimate "threesomes."
THE NEW YORK TIMES NEEDS MONEY
One director worked for Wal-Mart, the other Chevron. What they have in common is making money, something the Times hates, except in their own case.
Beleaguered by hedge fund shareholders angry at the dismal performance of the New York Times Company, Pinch Sulzberger has opted to nominate two new directors for the company's board. Unfortunately for him, the paper is already on the record savaging companies on whose boards these two directors have already served. The New York Sun has a brilliant editorial this morning pointing out Pinch's proclivity for hypocrisy:
One director worked for Wal-Mart, the other Chevron. What they have in common is making money, something the Times hates, except in their own case.
Friday, February 15, 2008
ANOTHER ERROR CARD
Upper Deck decided to have some fun with the upcoming election by printing cards with the major candidates inserted into great moments from baseball history. Since Hillary Clinton is the only woman to grace either the presidential field or the playing field, they were unsure how to incorporate her into a baseball scene. While Chicagoan Barrack Obama became Jermaine Dye and John McCain became Ted Williams, Clinton became Morganna the Kissing Bandit, wearing tight green 1971-style shorts and planting a kiss on an unexpecting Pete Rose. Oops, the card didn't go over well with the focus group and was subsequently pulled from production, but not before an indeterminate number was shipped to become the hottest card since 1906 Honus Wagner.
Upper Deck decided to have some fun with the upcoming election by printing cards with the major candidates inserted into great moments from baseball history. Since Hillary Clinton is the only woman to grace either the presidential field or the playing field, they were unsure how to incorporate her into a baseball scene. While Chicagoan Barrack Obama became Jermaine Dye and John McCain became Ted Williams, Clinton became Morganna the Kissing Bandit, wearing tight green 1971-style shorts and planting a kiss on an unexpecting Pete Rose. Oops, the card didn't go over well with the focus group and was subsequently pulled from production, but not before an indeterminate number was shipped to become the hottest card since 1906 Honus Wagner.
"Hillary Rodham Clinton and Morganna Roberts, baseball's infamous 'Kissing Bandit,' share a similar life strategy: go after what you want and get it!" the card reads. But unlike Roberts, who would dash onto ballfields and kiss players during games, it credits Clinton for generating headlines with "her reforms, initiatives and current bid for the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination."
SCRUBS
The Bucs invite me today to "cheer on Adam LaRoche and [my] Pirates in 2008." LaRoche hit .272 last year with 21 HRs and 88 RBIs.* He has 830 career ABs. He is signed to a one-year contract. Another tough year for their marketing department.
*I still say RBIs with an s. An RBI is a unit, two of them are units.
The Bucs invite me today to "cheer on Adam LaRoche and [my] Pirates in 2008." LaRoche hit .272 last year with 21 HRs and 88 RBIs.* He has 830 career ABs. He is signed to a one-year contract. Another tough year for their marketing department.
*I still say RBIs with an s. An RBI is a unit, two of them are units.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
ROCKET DOTH PROTEST TOO MUCH
I watched most of the Clemens/McNamee hearing yesterday. There were some classic moments and it was interesting viewing. I have linked to a great article in which an expert on body language takes Roger to task for exhibiting all the signs of deception while the shady McNamee remained calm and composed. I won't bother summarizing it as you should read it in its entirety.
I watched most of the Clemens/McNamee hearing yesterday. There were some classic moments and it was interesting viewing. I have linked to a great article in which an expert on body language takes Roger to task for exhibiting all the signs of deception while the shady McNamee remained calm and composed. I won't bother summarizing it as you should read it in its entirety.
Following up on Tom's observation about liberals' proclivity to talk up causes but not personally help actual humans who need help, I saw this prominent billboard on the New Jersey Turnpike near Newark.
Best I can tell, the American Humanist Society is looking to collect dues, sell books and T-shirts, and buy more billboards to collect more dues and sell more T-shirts. They can say whatever they like and they're free to make a buck, but who is helped by this? What is the cause that is being advanced?
CHINA, OLYMPICS, IRAQ and RESULTS
Steven Spielberg has left the Olympic Committee to protest China’s actions in Darfur.
Do you think he will literally spend the same time helping Darfur or is it a rhetorical device to say so? Could Spielberg make a movie powerful enough to changes hearts and minds in China?
The episode brings up the larger question of how many human rights do people deserve. China has been violating the rights of their own people for much longer. Why wasn’t that too much for Spielberg?
Those on the Left have for a long time championed underdogs real and imagined. They have marched and spoke and raised money to help oppressed people the world over. And yet when George Bush invades Iraq and brings about real freedom, he is treated like megalomaniac emperor. It’s baffled me since the beginning of this war.
When I heard the first protests against going into Iraq they were usually from the kind of people who want to go into other places. Maybe the Left isn’t interested in liberating the oppressed if it serves another American interest. That’s why Haiti and Bosnia are fine, but Iraq is not. Their thinking seems to be: Since Bush is not a member of the Left, he cannot possibly care about the oppressed, so therefore his actions can only be seen as self-interest and thus ignoble.
I think Bush is sincerely happy that oppressed people lose their shackles, but if we take Bush from their perspective, there should at least be an acknowledgment that his self-interest has led to more not less human freedom. What does it matter his reasoning if the end result is a positive. Isn’t Bush’s actual freedom of more value than Carter’s pining away for it while the Iranians took our hostages and the Russians invaded Afghanistan?
An honest conclusion one could draw from liberal opinion is that it’s better to offer empty support for human freedom in the world unselfishly than provide human freedom selfishly.
Conservatism is often derided as self-interest for the wealthy while liberalism is self-sacrifice and altruistic. But isn’t liberalism really self-interest based not on money, but on self-satisfaction? Have you ever really known a vocal liberal who wasn’t in love with his/her altruism and open-mindedness? And those liberals who have money are the absolute worst. They love you to see how they’re sacrificing higher taxes for the common good, although behind your back they are looking for every deduction.
More and more we hear this real loud criticism from Democrats of how much this war has cost. They say we aren’t getting our money’s worth and that we should withdraw and let the Iraqis handle it themselves. I would ask Obama this in the next debate:
You have said that the Iraq war is a failure and we cannot hope to win by throwing more money and people at it and we should therefore withdraw. Our education system has been a mess for much longer. Shouldn’t the Federal government save tax payers money by withdrawing and letting localities handle it?
Really the same argument could be made for any liberal sacred cow program. If instant success isn’t forthcoming then why not just leave it to the locals?
Maybe the real deep seeded problem they have with George W. Bush is that he accomplished what they have no stomach for. He liberated a country and offered actual human beings a chance at a real life. If you don’t criticize it and belittle it and make the guy out to be a crook then what might slip into the public consciousness is that Bush succeeded at their game.
Whatever the real opposition, liberals have to ask themselves a number of questions that they don’t seem capable of asking. Spielberg should ask himself why Darfur is intolerable but China is peachy. Anti-war Democrats should ask the same fiscal questions about government in general that they only ask about Iraq. And human rights activist should ask if an effective self-serving Bush isn’t more helpful than an ineffective idealist.
What good are intentions when real people are only helped by results?
Steven Spielberg has left the Olympic Committee to protest China’s actions in Darfur.
"At this point, my time and energy must be spent not on Olympic ceremonies, but on doing all I can to help bring an end to the unspeakable crimes against humanity that continue to be committed in Darfur,"
Do you think he will literally spend the same time helping Darfur or is it a rhetorical device to say so? Could Spielberg make a movie powerful enough to changes hearts and minds in China?
The episode brings up the larger question of how many human rights do people deserve. China has been violating the rights of their own people for much longer. Why wasn’t that too much for Spielberg?
Those on the Left have for a long time championed underdogs real and imagined. They have marched and spoke and raised money to help oppressed people the world over. And yet when George Bush invades Iraq and brings about real freedom, he is treated like megalomaniac emperor. It’s baffled me since the beginning of this war.
When I heard the first protests against going into Iraq they were usually from the kind of people who want to go into other places. Maybe the Left isn’t interested in liberating the oppressed if it serves another American interest. That’s why Haiti and Bosnia are fine, but Iraq is not. Their thinking seems to be: Since Bush is not a member of the Left, he cannot possibly care about the oppressed, so therefore his actions can only be seen as self-interest and thus ignoble.
I think Bush is sincerely happy that oppressed people lose their shackles, but if we take Bush from their perspective, there should at least be an acknowledgment that his self-interest has led to more not less human freedom. What does it matter his reasoning if the end result is a positive. Isn’t Bush’s actual freedom of more value than Carter’s pining away for it while the Iranians took our hostages and the Russians invaded Afghanistan?
An honest conclusion one could draw from liberal opinion is that it’s better to offer empty support for human freedom in the world unselfishly than provide human freedom selfishly.
Conservatism is often derided as self-interest for the wealthy while liberalism is self-sacrifice and altruistic. But isn’t liberalism really self-interest based not on money, but on self-satisfaction? Have you ever really known a vocal liberal who wasn’t in love with his/her altruism and open-mindedness? And those liberals who have money are the absolute worst. They love you to see how they’re sacrificing higher taxes for the common good, although behind your back they are looking for every deduction.
More and more we hear this real loud criticism from Democrats of how much this war has cost. They say we aren’t getting our money’s worth and that we should withdraw and let the Iraqis handle it themselves. I would ask Obama this in the next debate:
You have said that the Iraq war is a failure and we cannot hope to win by throwing more money and people at it and we should therefore withdraw. Our education system has been a mess for much longer. Shouldn’t the Federal government save tax payers money by withdrawing and letting localities handle it?
Really the same argument could be made for any liberal sacred cow program. If instant success isn’t forthcoming then why not just leave it to the locals?
Maybe the real deep seeded problem they have with George W. Bush is that he accomplished what they have no stomach for. He liberated a country and offered actual human beings a chance at a real life. If you don’t criticize it and belittle it and make the guy out to be a crook then what might slip into the public consciousness is that Bush succeeded at their game.
Whatever the real opposition, liberals have to ask themselves a number of questions that they don’t seem capable of asking. Spielberg should ask himself why Darfur is intolerable but China is peachy. Anti-war Democrats should ask the same fiscal questions about government in general that they only ask about Iraq. And human rights activist should ask if an effective self-serving Bush isn’t more helpful than an ineffective idealist.
What good are intentions when real people are only helped by results?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)