The Glory of the Present

Also2

2009-07-24T01:35:00.001+04:30

Iran is still blazing, not that you'd know it from the MSM.

Also

2009-07-24T01:34:00.000+04:30

The President has injected himself into individual policing decisions (for an exceedingly fair look at this, see Bill Cosby).

Ugh

2009-07-24T01:05:00.002+04:30

Obama has officially shoved himself in where nobody wanted him: individual medical decisions.
At one meeting, he told a woman that her mother (who had received a pacemaker at 99 years old), would perhaps be told that she was better off taking a painkiller than having a pacemaker under his health care plan. The American Academy of Otolaryntology has objected to Obama 's characterization of its doctors:

President Obama said, “Part of what we want to do is to make sure that those decisions are being made by doctors and medical experts based on evidence, based on what works…. Right now, doctors a lot of times are forced to make decisions based on the fee payment schedule that's out there. … the doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, 'You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid's tonsils out … I'd rather have that doctor making those decisions based on whether you really need your kid's tonsils out, or whether … something else would make a difference…."

Please. No doctor is "forced" to make a decision like that. Any doctor that makes a decision based on the process you just described should be sued for malpractice. Obama thinks his legislation will change good doctors into "hope and change!" doctors. And that's what they will be-- doctors who offer the hope that their patients' conditions will change, because the care that they'll be able to give will be rationed. By government bureaucrats. Who know nothing about medicine, as the President exemplifies. Lovely.

Also notice the continuation of the "greedy evil" meme. Doctors? Greedy evil people who perform unnecessary procedures to make an extra buck off their patients' suffering. Private sector employees? Evil greedy people who could be "making a difference" if they were doing community organizing or some such thing, but chose instead to go for the money (side note: have you noticed that the democrats' student loan forgiveness program will forgive your student loans after 10 years, but ONLY if you become a public employee?). Investors and their lawyers who put money into American companies and then insisted that their contracts and the law be honored? Greedy evil (although the unions who insisted on contract abrogation to give themselves a larger slice of the pie than the law gave them are honored, noble folk). Tax-evading cabinet members? Gre... oh, wait!

It must needs be

2009-07-15T00:54:00.003+04:30

that you watch this:

and read this and this.

In other news...

2009-07-03T00:28:00.001+04:30

Mark Sanford is the scum of the earth. "Yes, I'm going to try to save my marriage. Yes, I made a mistake. With a few women. Did I mention that the Argentine woman is my soul mate?"

Jerk. His poor wife, heaven bless her for standing up to him. He needs to hie him hence. Perhaps to Argentina (on his own dime this time). He can spend the rest of political oblivion there, and stop disgusting the rest of us.

Narratives

2009-07-03T00:10:00.003+04:30

Sane people hate to sound like conspiracy theorists.

Really, we do.

Nevertheless... Check out CNN's homepage. Heck, see if you can find screen shots for the past couple days. Iran, front and center? Honduras, maybe? Uh, no. Michael Jackson (not one, nor twice, but thrice above the fold today). Also, "Disco tune saves man's life", "Biden visits Iraq for Fourth of July weekend", "Kids with autism graduate, achieve dreams"... oh wait. There is one on Iran, buried in the 21 articles under "Latest News". "Latest News", by the way, includes all the articles listed above (except the MJ ones. One of those is "Latest", one is "Breaking", and one is "Most Popular". Sounds kinda like your high school yearbook, doesn't it). In fact, the autism article is apparently not only breaking, but more important than the Iran article-- it's the first listed. The Iranian headline reads "Attacks, arrests slowing online news from Iran". It could just as easily read, "Utter lack of attention from American media dampens revolutionaries".

And as far as Honduras goes, not a single article above the fold on my 24-inch monitor. Meanwhile, Obama throws his support behind the leftist power-grabbing law-breaking thug that was the president of Honduras, while a gazillion people protest in favor of the new president. Apparently it's okay to meddle in this one. And to throw our support behind Hugo Chavez, the Castro brothers, and Daniel Ortega. Lovely. Doesn't that look like the lefty hall of fame? Obama, Chavez, Castro, and Ortega. Maybe we could call them COCO for short? OCCO? Such nice abbreviatory possibilities.

The U.S. foreign policy is an abomination. And the media is growing more complicit every day (that's the conspiracy theory part). Every White House tries to control the narrative, but they've never had a press corp so bent on helping them (maybe their tingly legs have something to do with it). Even Helen Thomas called the administration/media collusion out. I'm not a fan of Thomas', but dang, this is impressive (h/t Instapundit):

Gibbs: “Which question did you object to at the town hall meeting, Helen?”

Thomas: “It's a pattern. It isn't the question—”

Gibbs: “What's a pattern?”

Thomas: “It's a pattern of controlling the press.”

Gibbs: “How so? Is there any evidence currently going on that I'm controlling the press--poorly, I might add.”

Thomas: “Your formal engagements are pre-packaged.”

Gibbs: “How so?”

Reid: “Well, and controlling the public—”

Thomas: “How so? By calling reporters the night before to tell them they're going to be called on. That is shocking.”

Gibbs: “We had this discussion ad nauseam and—”

Thomas: “Of course you would, because you don't have any answers.”

Go read the whole transcript. It's fatalistic schadenfreude-- schadenfreude because FINALLY someone is "speaking truth to power". Fatalistic because you know it will make no difference at all.

No!

2009-06-25T05:19:00.001+04:30

Iran massacred the protesters today.

http://threatswatch.org/rapidrecon/2009/06/unimaginable-horror-in-tehran/

Don't scroll all the way down without knowing that the last picture is horrific.

?!?!

2009-06-23T20:11:00.004+04:30

Who on earth (except the mullahs) thinks that THIS is still a good idea?? Or that it ever was?!

From a State Department briefing yesterday:

QUESTION: This isn’t a frivolous question, really. Do you think it’s still appropriate to have Iranians come to these July 4th parties under the circumstances? I mean, is there any thought being given to like, rescinding invitations?

MR. KELLY: No, there’s no thought to rescinding the invitations to Iranian diplomats.

QUESTION: It’s appropriate to have a social dialogue with them if they come?

MR. KELLY: Well, we have made a strategic decision to engage on a number of fronts with Iran, and we tried many years of isolation and we’re pursuing a different path now.

QUESTION: Have they said yes?

QUESTION: The President keeps saying that —

MR. KELLY: I don’t know, Arshad.

Absolutely disgusting. We're having Iranian officials for a barbecue on INDEPENDENCE DAY, while they're murdering their own people who are asking for... independence. This administration is pathetic. Let's list, shall we?

This is the State Department that:
Told China that its brutality towards its own people was of less concern that global warming.

Gave Russia a "reset" button (mistranslated, by the way) for relations-- as at least three administration-critical journalists' murders were being investigated.

Pledged millions of dollars in aid to Palestinians (and indirectly to Hamas) and regularly shafts Israel.

Turned their backs on Eastern Europe, leaving them at the mercy of a newly-imperial Russia/USSR.

There are other things. I just don't feel like throwing up this early in the morning.

2009-06-23T00:21:00.003+04:30

Try JibJab Sendables® eCards today!

What do you think?

2009-06-23T00:18:00.003+04:30

This is another video from JibJab-- their political videos are fantastic, but I can't quite decide if I like this one or not-- although the part with the rainbows and bunnies in Iraq is pretty darn good. What do you guys think?

UPDATE: I couldn't get the video to embed in this post, so it's in the next one up

And by the way

2009-06-21T05:01:00.001+04:30

If you're wondering about the time stamps on recent posts, they're set to Tehran time (GMT +3:30). Make a million extra virtual Iranians and you make it that much harder for the regime to find the ones who really matter.

Oh no

2009-06-21T04:42:00.002+04:30

"Official" reports are saying 19 are dead in Tehran after today's protests. The protesters are saying that it's more like 150. You'd have to be crazy or grossly uninformed to believe anything with the word "official" on it coming out of Iran.

Ahmadinejad, Khameini, and the whole crew: COWARDS. Despicable cowards.

God bless the men and women who stood against them. God bless the families of the dead.

***

People are now saying that this "discredits" the Iranian government. Yet according to CNN, Iranian officials are still invited to the G8 meeting. All Obama has brought himself to say is a brief statement that includes the sentence, "Iran must understand that the world is watching."

As we used to say in elementary school, "No duh". Obama must understand that while he cares that the whole world is watching, Ahmadinejad and Khameini don't, nor have they for years. Come to think of it, China didn't seem to care that the world was watching when they sent tanks against unarmed students. I wonder if anyone said that Chinese communism was "discredited". If they did, it didn't seem to take.

It makes you wonder if we're cowards too. Sure, a different, much more benign variety. But still-- cowards. We deal with governments like China for money. We give reset buttons to Russia. Our president still hasn't amended his "no preconditions" statement on Iran. Two American journalists have been sentenced to a decade of hard labor in North Korea, which, by the way, has tested two nuclear bombs and has a missile aimed at Hawaii set to launch on Independence Day. And all we can do is wag our collective finger.

May it be that the "election" in Iran was as the falling of small stones on a mountainside that start an avalanche. May the Iranians wake up and realize that they are strong.* As are the Chinese, and the North Koreans, and the Burmese, and the Cubans, and the Venzuelans, and the Belarusians, and the Vietnamese... may all those who live without freedom in this world.

*With all due respect to Tolkien

Wow

2009-06-20T09:49:00.002+04:30

Read this article from the London Times. Fantastic. For years we've been hearing how we can't "impose" democracy on people.

Turns out it wouldn't be an imposition.

Look at the hundreds of thousands of people pouring into the streets in Iran. It's one of the most beautiful and heartbreaking things I've seen since I started following politics. All these people want is the freedom to choose their own leaders. Keeping that from them is an "imposition". If, by imposition, you mean an abominable atrocity.

H/T Gay Patriot

Go green!

2009-06-19T19:19:00.003+04:30

Not Greenpeace green.

This Green:
This photo seems to me to be a perfect summing up of what I hope turns out to be a revolution: a woman in black and green-- armed with a cell phone.

Michael Totten over at Contentions has been consta-blogging the Iranian protests. Head on over for the news.

Eowyn is back!

2009-06-07T21:05:00.004+04:30

Well then. My son has arrived, and I'm getting significantly less sleep, but I no longer feel like a demotivated beached whale, and regular blogging will re-(re-re-re-)commence.

First up today: This, from Instapundit. Apparently Ed Whelan over at The Corner took it upon himself to "out" an anonymous liberal blogger who had been annoying him. And, as much as I've enjoyed Whelan's posts and respected his opinion, I've gotta say that that's pretty low. Yes, lots of trolls are anonymous. Anonymity is one of the great banes of the internet. Whelan should try being a woman who plays Team Fortress 2-- idiots who use their anonymity to ask for nudes, descriptions of my anatomy, etc. are far more annoying than a snarky liberal.

But anonymity is also one of the great gifts of the internet. There's a reason I don't use my name-- namely that I have a family. Should a miracle occur and I write something that gains attention, I don't want my kids brought into it in any way, be it miniature trolls in school or fatwas from some offended jihadi. Anyway, the point is that people often have a good reason for their anonymity, and one had better have a darn good reason for blowing someone else's cover. Whelan didn't have a good reason.

Moving on: Presumably everyone has seen this graph by now (via Gateway Pundit):

Is anybody taking bets on someone in the MSM taking one for the team and admitting that the stimulus bill has failed?

Yeah, me neither. We've exceeded the administration's unemployment numbers they were projecting without the stimulus. In fact, according to Obama's projections, unemployment wasn't supposed to peak (at levels below today's) until 2010. We've shot past his predictions-- a year early.

Fun.

More Tea Party pics are coming soon...

2009-04-16T20:51:00.003+04:30

but I had to put this up first:

This is the entire lead page off CNN this morning at 9:20. You have to scroll clear down to their "iReport" section (which is one page down from the top, even on my gigantic monitor) to find something involving the Tea Party protests yesterday, and when you finally get something, what is it? A video of an average-looking man saying that he and his wife just want to pay their taxes to "fund the military and build bridges", that he doesn't "know what they're upset about" and that the Tea Parties are "frightening".

Absolutely unbelievable. The media as we knew it no longer exists.

Seattle Tea Party Protest, Part I

2009-04-16T09:29:00.005+04:30

The Tea Party protests started in Seattle, with a protest set up by a blogger named Liberty Belle in February. A month and a half later, this happened (sorry about the image size, click on it for full):

I'd guess there were 300-400 people there, and I left less than half-way through (late-term pregnancy and protesting are not the best match known to man).

Best signs (part I):

(Liberty and Tyranny is a new book out by Mark Levin. It's a conservative manifesto of sorts-- and has been number 1 on Amazon and the New York Times since its release.)

Eowyn is attending a Tax Day Protest

2009-04-16T00:02:00.003+04:30

Tea Party
Seattle
5:45- 7:45

I'll be the massively pregnant one with a sign and a rockin' awesome camera. I'll update this post with pics as the day goes.

I'm a little nervous-- I've never been to anything like this. I promise not to riot (not that I think there's going to be one, but I keep remembering the Seattle WTO riot in the 90's... maybe all that caffeine goes to people's heads?). Pajamas Media and Instapundit have Tea Party links, and are well worth looking at.

UPDATE: Way too many good pics to add to this post. They're in later posts, so scroll up.

Cri de Coeur

2009-03-18T22:43:00.005+03:30

I imagine you're probably wondering why I haven't posted in so long (it's not the migraines-- see earlier post).

The answer: too depressing.

Democrats have been in total (legislative and executive) power for two and a half months. And I figured it would be bad, I did. Truly, I wasn't one of those conservatives or moderates who thought that Obama was lying during his campaign, when he wanted to "spread the wealth", or when he took slam after slam at the rich (of which he is one), or when he ran from "victim" to "victim", reassuring them all that he was going to save their homes/paycheck/entitlements/self-respect. Oh, no. I believed him. I did. Which is why I voted for McCain, in spite of my misgivings (which I had. Palin reinvigorated me for a time, as she did many conservatives, but the effect turned out to be only palliative, not curative). Even John Derbyshire, in spite of vowing not to, voted for McCain, knowing how bad the alternative could be. Conservatives knew that an Obama administration could be damaging to the country.

But I don't think any of us knew how across-the-board horrifying it would be. Certainly I didn't. I'll take it in sections.

FOREIGN POLICY:
Obama promised "smart diplomacy". He promised to "rebuild our relationships" with other countries. He promised engagement and strength at the same time.

Instead, we have kissed Iran's butt, and then had it handed back to us on a platter for a second round, and a third with the March Video to the Mullahs. Meanwhile, while all this engaging was happening, an Iranian blogger died in prison. He was 29. His crimes were insulting religious leaders and producing anti-Iranian propaganda.

We've also been sucking up to China. Our vaunted SecState, Hillary Clinton recently told the Chinese that not only was the economy (and, by extension, all of our debt that the Chinese hold) more important than Chinese human rights, but that the "environment crisis" was too. "Sorry Tibet! Your yaks produce methane, you know. Sorry, members of Falun Gong whose organs are harvested before you're dead! Your philosophy doesn't produce anything "sustainable" or "green", so no support for you. Sorry, Taiwan! You're a stable democracy staring into the maw of hell (and producing goods that Americans routinely buy), but the Chinese premier holds some of our IOU's, you know. So sorry, all! I've got to board my helicopter now. Pilot, shake off those people clinging to the runners." Oh, and as a bonus rubbing in of salt, she said it from the comfort of Seoul, South Korea.

In between these disasters, we have also managed to screw over the most loyal supporters we had in Europe (the Czechs, Poles, Romanians, Ukrainians, Georgians... you know, all those people who have only just escaped the Iron Curtain) by blithely abandoning promises we made in exchange for Russia's support in our Iranian policy. The Russians said thanks, but no thanks, but guess what? We haven't apologized to our friends, we haven't redressed the damage we did, and we're still not putting missiles there for defense. We're just rolling over, playing poodle to Russia's wolf.

We have insulted Britain three times at last count: we sent Winston Churchill away without even a passing glance, we failed to treat Gordon Brown and his family with any measure of respect, let alone pomp and circumstance, and the treasury department can't even return its calls from a fellow member of the G7.

Oh, and we're sending 900 million American taxpayer dollars to Gaza. At the same time that we agreed to attend preparations for Durban II, the UN anti-Israel hate fest (which we later backed out of, but only after rejecting Israeli and Canadian requests to not attend). The American taxpayer is now not only funding AIG, GM, and trillions of dollars worth of other companies, but now we're funding Palestinians, who voted in a terrorist organization which is sure to get its hands on any money we send.

DOMESTIC POLICY:

Where do I even start? With the "stimulus"? TARP II? The omnibus? Obama's mortgage plan, enacted almost entirely by executive order with no legislative vote or debate whatsoever? GM? The fact that I am now on the hook for GM buyers' warranties? Or that Obama fired GM's CEO? Perhaps I should start with the cabinet full of tax cheats? Or the fact that the administration names critics (private citizens) and singles them out for attack? Or the rumors that the administration is considering wage controls for ALL banks, ALL insurance companies, and perhaps all PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANIES?

Or I could start with the administration floating the idea of making Iraq and Afghanistan veterans pay for treatment of wounds they received in the course of duty. Or that Obama seems unable to bring himself to cut spending in any major area (except defense, of course). Or that he routinely apologizes for the U.S. in every statement he makes to foreigners.

Business

2009-03-18T22:41:00.001+03:30

Regular blogging will now recommence.

No, I haven't had my second son yet. I've discovered that a can of Mountain Dew (or the generic equivalent) in the morning usually keeps the migraines at bay, so I should be able to post most of the time. There are still a couple nasty days every few weeks, but I can deal with that.

On with the show!

Fear Her*

2009-01-31T07:48:00.004+03:30

M. Sara Rosenthal is a "bioethicist" at the University of Kentucky's College of Medicine. She spoke to CNN concerning the woman in California who just gave birth to octuplets. Behold:

Rosenthal, on the other hand, questions the woman's capacity to make a good decision under the circumstances. Some neonatologists believe that when pregnant women are told about dangers of prematurity or have great expectations about giving birth, their judgment can be impaired, she said.

The situation raises the issue of whether a doctor ought to override a patient's wishes for the sake of saving lives, she said. Although the health care system in America gives patients autonomy in making decisions about their own bodies, when emotionally distraught, some people decide poorly, she said.

A mother deciding not to kill any of her children is "decid[ing] poorly"? A bioethicist is even considering whether a doctor should override the wishes of the patient if they think that their patient is making the wrong decision? What would she do, arrest people and perform forced abortions a la China?

This is disgusting. It should terrify any woman looking to get pregnant, or indeed, who is pregnant and believes that motherhood doesn't start in the delivery room. As alarmist and crazy as it sounds, there are bioethicists who question your right to not have an abortion.

It's only more frightening when you realize that this woman is a teacher.

*Bonus points to any sci-fi fan (or Briton, for that matter) who gets the post title reference.

Doomed, doomed

2009-01-30T23:20:00.002+03:30

to quote John Derbyshire. I saw this article, by Amir Taheri, yesterday while catching up on the news. Opener:

In his "first message to the Muslim world" Tuesday, President Obama on Al-Arabiya TV invited the Is lamic Republic in Iran to "unclench its fist" and accept his offer of "unconditional talks." A few hours later, after Obama had appeared on the Saudi-owned satellite-TV channel, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told a crowd of militants that no talks are possible unless the United States met a set of conditions.

Ahmadinejad: You aren't going to set conditions?
Pres. Obama: That's right.
Ahmadinejad: Oh, that's great. We will.

Ahmadinejad's requests are only modest, of course. They include an apology for U.S. "crimes", and not only those against Iran, but the entire Muslim world-- apparently the whole religion elected Mahmoud, not just Iran. He also demands that U.S. troops leave not just Iraq, not just Afghanistan, but every foreign base.

Give a donkey a carrot and he'll take the entire farm.

American Invertebrates

2009-01-30T22:56:00.004+03:30

First off, where on earth have I been? I have been fighting the Black Breath-- in this case, pregnancy-induced migraines. Sorry for the lack of posting recently. I get visual migraines, which leave me functionally blind for a while. Which makes blogging hard.

Anyway, I finally got enough vision back to start reading the news yesterday. I have never seen Instapundit so torqued as he seems to be over the "stimulus" bill-- he's calling it the looting bill. Click through the links you'll find over there, and (as I did), you'll find out why. Will someone (other than Nancy Pelosi, please) explain how $335 MILLION in teenager STD prevention will create jobs, or stimulate the economy? Or any of the other liberal monstrosities that are tucked away in there? See Ron Brownstein:

"[T]he bill also emphatically expands programs targeted more at the far term than the near term — from aid to schools in low-income areas ($13 billion) to expanded college loans ($16 billion) and scientific research ($10 billion). In normal times, Congress might never enlarge so many programs at once. But, as with Reagan's tax cut, the crisis-induced demand for action may suspend the normal laws of political gravity — and allow Democrats to redirect federal priorities as boldly as Reagan did. "This is a once-in-a-25-year opportunity to [implement] a lot of our agenda," a top House Democratic aide says."

This is no stimulus bill. This is a liberal reworking of society. There's even wording in there with the capability to undo the welfare reform of the 90's, according to Charles Hurt. Support for the bill is falling rapidly, but (surprise!) the Democrats that we elected simply do not care.

As they are fond of saying over at National Review's Corner, elections have consequences. As a people, we elected Barack Obama. We put in a nearly filibuster-proof Dem majority with only a few conservatives and weak-kneed "compassionate conservatives" to oppose them. We did this. I remember the incredulous tone over at The Corner a couple of days before the election-- "Are we really going to do this? Elect the most liberal, inexperienced member of the Senate to the office of the President?" Well, yeah. We did. Or rather, as a people, we became so complacently ignorant that we let Hollywood and the main-stream media do it for us. We let ourselves be railroaded. This is what happens when America loses its collective spine. This is what happens when we lose any sense of self-reliance, let alone fair play.

This is what happens when we decide to let the liberal, nobody-should-have-to-lose playground mentality of the left take over.

This is what happens when we decide to let the government take care of us.

Unalienable rights

2009-01-04T01:42:00.007+03:30

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

I've seen two or three posts on the Corner over the past couple days, regarding the question, "When should Israel stop?" When should Israel stop its bombarding of Gaza, the ground troop incursion it recently began, etc.? And there were a few answers: Victor Davis Hanson, who originally posed the question, said, "When they think there is a good chance the rockets will stop — and not until then." Responding to Hanson, Andrew Stuttaford said that there were no easy answers, but that, from the U.S. point of view, it would be a mistake to ignore the propaganda Israel is giving terrorist recruiters in the form of dead Gaza civilians.

Here is a good place to point out of that I have great respect for both Hanson and Stuttaford, and that I agree with them on most things. But here, they are wrong. Very wrong.

When should Israel stop? She should stop when her children are safe. She should stop, not when there's a good chance of the rockets stopping, but when they have stopped, and Hamas offers complete and unconditional surrender. She should stop when she has secured the rights of her citizens. Americans hold that ALL people are given the right to life-- but how secure is that right when you're a civilian and cowards are dropping bombs in your (civilian) city? How secure is your right to liberty when you're terrified to leave your bomb shelter? And how happy can you be when your children are under constant, deadly threat?

The people of this world who think they are enlightened like to portray the Palestinians as victims. And maybe, in the beginning, they were. I don't know, and can't speak to that. But Israel and Israelis have been in existence as long as three of your average suicide bombers. If every country in the world dealt with every historical grievance as they seem to condone Palestinians doing, the world would be in constant, never-ending war. If any other country tried it, the "elites" would be quick to point out the idiocy. But Israel, according to the "elites", may not defend herself. She may not defend her children. She may only accede to the demands and whims of the barbarians across the way.

Palestinians as a whole are not victims. They have the right to life-- and they blow it away in order to strip that right from others. They have the right to liberty-- and they exercised it by electing terrorists and launching rockets. They have the right to happiness-- and every time they failed to condemn a suicide bombing, a rocket launch, or incitement to another Holocaust, they forfeited that right by terrorizing others, including the innocent of their own people, whom they use as living shields with one hand and dead propaganda with the other.

Propaganda value is not more important than doing what is right. International opinion is not as important as drawing a line in Israeli sand and saying that barbarism has come thus far, but no farther. If Israel can stand up for herself, she has a golden opportunity to show terrorists that civilized people are not something to be trampled over on the way to the caliphate. If Israel can win first and then show mercy, she can show the Muslim world another light-- not one that requires murder, mayhem, and conversion or death, but one that allows all peaceful people to live. Without barbarians like Hamas.

There is an easy answer-- just not one that most people like to hear. It is to do what our grandfathers would have done, and did do: defeat evil, and defend their children.

TARP, President Bush, and the Constitution

2008-12-23T00:26:00.011+03:30

Can I just stop calling it TARP? The Troubled Assets Relief Program, as it was originally called, shall henceforth be known as PERP, the Presidential End-Run Program. As in, President Bush didn't like Congress' decision on the auto-bailout, so he did an end-run around the entire legislative branch and did what he darn well pleased. After all, he's the executive.

Well, Mr. President, let me tell you about the Executive Office, and the powers it holds.

The President of The United States of America is bound by the Constitution to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". The Presidential Oath requires the would-be president to swear to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.''

Nowhere does the Constitution enable the President to circumvent the will of Congress, save by veto. As Congress never passed an auto bailout bill, there was nothing for President Bush to veto, or to send back to Congress. He simply saw something that he did not like, and dismissed the objections of the elected representatives of the citizens of this country. He took a law marginally related to what he wanted to do (TARP/PERP), and made it do what he wanted, contrary to the expressed will of Congress, American citizens, and the wording of the bill itself. No fanfare, no rationalizations of the illegality/unconstitutionality of what he was doing. No justifications of how this was "faithfully upholding the law". Just a few penstrokes, and a quick press conference.

Great. Peachy. One can only imagine what horrors this could be the precedent for.

There's a reason that the Constitution balances the executive and legislative branches. There's a reason that laws must be approved by both Congress and the President. But now, according to President Bush, the entire legislative branch and the Constitution can be bypassed at the will of the Executive.

Just great.

I am indebted to George Will's article on this subject in the Washington Post.

UPDATE: I just finished reading the Will article all the way through (I had only seen a couple paragraphs before), and I note that a lot of this post makes the same points as Will's article. I could say something to effect of "great minds think alike", but that would be somewhat egotistical, don't you think? So I'll simply say that Will's article is great, and deserves a thorough reading through, as I should have done before I wrote this. That said, this is my material, not copied or paraphrased from Will's. He did give me a great idea, however.

Hey!

2008-12-22T08:46:00.002+03:30

Tigerhawk linked to me-- Christmas has come early in Ithilien!

Moving on, you remember those end of the world posts? Well, it could be worse.

I could live in Britain, where enforcers from debt collection agencies have been given the go ahead to break into people's homes, pin the homeowners down, and ransack the home for belongings to appropriate to pay down the debt.

Don't worry though. They say they'll regulate it. Besides, these new powers "will not be used to search debtors’ pockets or to remove jewellery." So if you're into carrying everything of value on your person, you might be safe from these people, who, despite the word "bailiff", are not police.

Of course, Britons may wish to give their pockets snap and velcro closures, as things could fall out when the enforcers breaks into their home and tackles them. And they might want to ask national icon Doctor Who just who he gets his jackets from, as the pockets are bigger on the inside than they are on the outside.

Another link up

2008-12-18T01:57:00.002+03:30

This time it's On Tap, a nifty blog written by the guy who writes NRO's Campaign Spot and a few other guys whom I have never heard of, but I'm pretty sure I should have. Truly good stuff, funny, and a thoroughly interesting series going on right now called the On Tap Awards.

Housekeeping

2008-12-09T00:46:00.002+03:30

People who look at my link sidebar (all .75 of you) will notice that Jac has been removed. Is there still good stuff on Jac? Yes. Do I object to being called a prostitute by the author simply because I'm a stay-at-home mom? And do I object enough to avoid the blog?

Also yes.

Anyway, Jac has been replaced by Althouse (his mother, coincidentally). I've been planning to add Althouse to the list for quite a while. Occasional bizarre and Not Entirely Safe for Work posts, but usually good stuff from a center-left point of view. If you're concerned about NSFW-ness, avoid the comments in certain posts (her recent one on tattoos, for example. Yikes!).

It's the end of the world as we know it, Part Three

2008-12-09T00:35:00.004+03:30

A ten-year-old boy has been arrested, and charged with terrorism, for bringing a cap gun on a school bus, and later not having put his toy down before he answered the door. Actually, truly charged, and facing imprisonment if convicted.

The kid wants to be a police officer when he grows up.

This should make every single parent sick. And angry.

All links for "It's the end of the world as we know it" parts one through three were found on The Corner. You should go and read it.

It's the end of the world as we know it, Part Two

2008-12-09T00:30:00.002+03:30

God is being airbrushed from American history-- at the Capitol Visitor's Center. As in, the Capitol Building of the United States of America. Edited out of our national motto, the rostrum of the Speaker of the House, the Northwest Ordinance, and the Constitution.

There's nothing left for me to say about this... well, no, there's two things. The first one is that, while I'm rarely alarmist about the whole "war on Christianity" thing, I will say that this is despicable, and that you should read the article for full effect. The second thing is that nowhere in the Constitution are people granted a right against being offended.

Unless that's been "edited" too.

It's the end of the world as we know it, Part One

2008-12-08T23:57:00.004+03:30

Occasionally, any rational person will wonder, if only briefly, if civilization is dying.

Today is one of those days.

Every so often the Oxford University Press revises its children's dictionary and puts out a new version. All well and good. Until you look at what they've taken out, and what they've added:

Words taken out:

Carol, cracker, holly, ivy, mistletoe

Dwarf, elf, goblin

Abbey, aisle, altar, bishop, chapel, christen, disciple, minister, monastery, monk, nun, nunnery, parish, pew, psalm, pulpit, saint, sin, devil, vicar

Coronation, duchess, duke, emperor, empire, monarch, decade

adder, ass, beaver, boar, budgerigar, bullock, cheetah, colt, corgi, cygnet, doe, drake, ferret, gerbil, goldfish, guinea pig, hamster, heron, herring, kingfisher, lark, leopard, lobster, magpie, minnow, mussel, newt, otter, ox, oyster, panther, pelican, piglet, plaice, poodle, porcupine, porpoise, raven, spaniel, starling, stoat, stork, terrapin, thrush, weasel, wren.

Acorn, allotment, almond, apricot, ash, bacon, beech, beetroot, blackberry, blacksmith, bloom, bluebell, bramble, bran, bray, bridle, brook, buttercup, canary, canter, carnation, catkin, cauliflower, chestnut, clover, conker, county, cowslip, crocus, dandelion, diesel, fern, fungus, gooseberry, gorse, hazel, hazelnut, heather, holly, horse chestnut, ivy, lavender, leek, liquorice, manger, marzipan, melon, minnow, mint, nectar, nectarine, oats, pansy, parsnip, pasture, poppy, porridge, poultry, primrose, prune, radish, rhubarb, sheaf, spinach, sycamore, tulip, turnip, vine, violet, walnut, willow

Words put in:

Blog, broadband, MP3 player, voicemail, attachment, database, export, chatroom, bullet point, cut and paste, analogue

Celebrity, tolerant, vandalism, negotiate, interdependent, creep, citizenship, childhood, conflict, common sense, debate, EU, drought, brainy, boisterous, cautionary tale, bilingual, bungee jumping, committee, compulsory, cope, democratic, allergic, biodegradable, emotion, dyslexic, donate, endangered, Euro

Apparatus, food chain, incisor, square number, trapezium, alliteration, colloquial, idiom, curriculum, classify, chronological, block graph

Sorry for the huge block, but you need to see the full list. To get the full effect, however, you need this quote from the Telegraph article: "The publisher claims the changes have been made to reflect the fact that Britain is a modern, multicultural, multifaith society."

Ah. I see. In order to placate all those non-Christians, references to Christmas (including the innocuous "cracker" will be deleted. In order to placate all those non-Britishers, references to the monarchy, the titular head of the United Kingdom and Canada, will also be deleted. Also references to every-day Christianity-- which happens to be the state religion (Anglicanism). But wait, we've already deleted Her Majesty, who is one of the heads of the Church of England, so deleting the Church is twice as easy! And, in order to be modern, we'll take out... well, plants and animals aren't interesting to children, so let's replace them with things like "tolerate", "MP3 player" (seriously, who needed a dictionary entry for that? One would think that "player" and a knowledge of the alphabet and the numbers 1-3 would have sufficed), and "biodegradable".

There's also this gem of a quote: "We are limited by how big the dictionary can be – little hands must be able to handle it...". I can only roll my eyes. How much bigger would the dictionary have been if they hadn't deleted some of those words? A page? Two, maybe, three? You'd need fifty pages before it made a difference to "little hands"-- which would work out to about three entries a page (there are 152 deleted words listed). This excuse is simply that-- an excuse.

Oh, also from that article of Roger Kimball's: apparently some American Muslims informed the Department of Homeland Security that while the word "progress" is acceptable, "liberty" is to be avoided. Why? Because it is a "buzzword for American hegemony".

Personally, I'm alright with liberty being a synonym for America.

Rod Dreher

2008-12-04T00:32:00.003+03:30

Talented writer.
That said, he has officially flipped his lid. Dreher used to be a bona fide conservative-- ideas differ, of course, and I thought some of Dreher's were a little out there, but that was alright. I don't insist on ideological orthodoxy (can I say homodoxy?). He's drifted as the years have passed-- I first noticed the drift after the publication of his book Crunchy Cons, which I agreed with in some places and disagreed with in others.

This came out today-- hence my assertion that Dreher has lost it:

Today, the greatest threats to conservative interests come not from the Soviet Union or high taxes, but from too much individual freedom. Look around you: Americans have been poor stewards of our economic liberty, owing to cultural values that celebrate unfettered materialism. Our families and communities have fragmented, in part because we have embraced an ethic of extreme individualism. Climate change and a peak in oil production threaten our future because we have been irresponsible caretakers of the natural world and its resources. At best, the religious right stood ineffectively against these trends. At worst, we preached them, mistaking consumerism for conservatism.

Uh-huh . Because some people made poor use of their freedom, I have to much of it. Because some churches confused and conflated policy and doctrine, I, your standard American citizen, have too much liberty. Some people made choices that Mr. Dreher considers wrong-- strip individual freedom from all!

Unless Dreher is willing to punish this "excessive freedom" with jail (that is what is generally done to take away freedom in this country), he needs to rethink this idea. And if he is willing to take away people's freedom...

There has been a lot of discussion around the conservative blogosphere lately about booting various people out of the conservative tent-- Kathleen Parker, Christopher Buckley, etc. But there are some people, perhaps including Dreher, who are far more deserving of it.

Well then

2008-11-08T00:47:00.002+03:30

That's that. Done. Hail to the Chief and all that.

Seriously, though, Hail to the Chief. This is not the resolution I'd hoped for-- but that's okay. Congratulations, President-Elect Obama.

Meet your loyal opposition.

Arg

2008-11-04T23:35:00.001+03:30

How on earth am I supposed to concentrate on anything today? I keep hitting refresh on the politics pages...

Compulsive

2008-11-04T00:28:00.002+03:30

4 hours after swearing that I couldn't handle reading more politics today... I've been reading politics for an hour and a half.

It's gonna be a LOOOOOOOONG day and a half. Heaven grant that it be ONLY a day and a half-- I cannot fathom the thought of another 2000-style hanging/pregnant/dimpled chad fiasco.

So. Closing arguments are done, the people who are gonna decide before they're in the booth have mostly already decided... all there is to be done is to wait.

Quiet desperation

2008-10-29T22:34:00.003+03:30

1. Barack Obama deliberately took who knows how much in illegal donations. Seriously. This is every bit as illegal as Watergate.

2. The LA Times has a video of Obama at an event where Rashid Khalidi, noted PLO-supporting scum-bag, is speaking, most likely spewing his typical vitriol. Are they going to do anything with it? No, or at least not until after the election.

3. The media is so far in the tank that even some of them are starting to get embarrassed. Conveniently, their embarrassment is coming so late as to be ineffective.

Quite simply put, this just isn't fair. Or right.

Assuming Obama wins, I'm not going to be one of those whack-jobs who says, "Well, he's not MY president". But will I be bitter?

Well, yeah.

Bad timing

2008-10-28T22:32:00.003+03:30

Right before an important election is a really bad time to get hit with the mother of all head colds, but this is nevertheless what I did. I'm recovering now, but I figured I owed you an explanation for the silence. Moving on:

1. Senator Ted Stevens has managed to do the impossible and offend the Alaskan people enough (by being found guilty of 7 federal counts of misconduct) that there's a chance of him losing his Senate seat. Hallelujah! Although I note on CNN that he's asking Alaskan voters to "stand with me".
Huh?? That is one narcissistic senator. Much like others I could mention.

UPDATE: Via Instapundit, at the Club for Growth:

"I think he can win. He's the best thing for that, for the Senate. Alaskans know this.

"[...]I think that's going to be, you know, a matter of opinion. I can remember Richard Nixon, you know, his years of service, what he's done, and everybody were ridiculing him and he ended up being the greatest president in the history of our century.
-- Don Young, Alaska's one and only House Representative.

Alaska's congressional delegation is an embarrassment.

2. The GOP spent $150,000 on making Sarah Palin national-campaign-presentable. There are three problems with this:
a. I REALLY enjoyed mocking John Edwards $400 haircuts.
b. That's a heck of a lot of money.
c. Why is it deemed impossible to look presentable in something that costs less than $150? If that's so, then the vast majority of American women have no business going anywhere other than Wal-Mart and McDonald's. A $20 shirt is not a crime against fashion if it fits you and you look nice in it. Heck, neither is a $5 shirt. Would it have killed the campaign/GOP/whomever to acknowledge that and save the money for, say, Michigan?
I'm not trying to say that Palin should be running around in $40 outfits, by the way. I doubt they would hold up against a campaign schedule, although they do just fine for most. I'm just saying that it doesn't need to be flown in from New York, either.

3. What is with the McCain adviser calling Palin a "diva" (also on CNN)? Way to kill your own ticket, guy. Also, way to chicken out and do it anonymously. Way to grant the interview in the first place and grant an already-biased media more ammo that they didn't need. Nicely done, that.

4. I am a Joe the Plumber fan.

5. The election is a week from today. The polls are erratic. It ain't over till it's over.

We shall see.

Palin

2008-10-11T05:11:00.001+03:30

found to have abused gubernatorial power.

Well this is just great. We are now not just screwed, but royally screwed.

Pardon the crudeness of the expression.

Can I vote "present" this year?

I just finished reading

2008-10-10T01:00:00.002+03:30

How Ronald Reagan Changed my Life, by Peter Robinson. Good stuff, and profoundly hopeful. I'll post more thoughts on the book later, but for now... I think I'm going to stop despairing over the election. Reagan wouldn't have.

How McCain lost me

2008-09-30T08:03:00.003+03:30

And found me, and lost me again. Let's take it in (more or less) chronological order (pre-primary, primary, generals)

1. Immigration. McCain's policy on immigration is irresponsible, in my view. I just moved from the southwest, where illegal immigration is rampant. The drain on local and regional resources is crazy. I can't imagine how much just having to print everything twice must cost, let alone all the other services that we provide. To criminals. That is my main beef, I suppose. There's a reason that "migrants" used to be called "illegal immigrants". They broke the law, and it seems like poor policy to reward people for breaking the law by giving the thing they broke the law for: "Hey shoplifter, would you like to keep that Wii? I suppose it would be inhumane to take it back, as they're so awesome and all." We put our own citizens in prison and sometimes strip away their right to vote for breaking the law. Seems like we should deport people who aren't ours. Why do we want to import thousands of people who, by fact of being here, are already criminals? (Hoo boy, I'm gonna get it for that one.)

2. "Honor Politics", as Ramesh Ponnuru(? I can't seem to find the link, but I'm pretty sure it was an article by Ponnuru in National Review during the primary season. If I can find the link, I'll post it, along with quotes) called it. McCain's career has been in large part defined by his explosive anger towards people whose views he didn't agree with. Ponnuru's thesis was that McCain views his positions as THE honorable position-- disagreement is by definition dishonorable. I agree with Ponnuru-- and McCain's behavior towards those he views as "dishonorable" is inexcusable. Calling a fellow senator a "chickensh*t" during a policy disagreement is not the mark of someone who should be anywhere near international negotiations. I don't care to think of the consequences if McCain were to call Ahmadinejad a pig turd-- even if he would be right to do so. However, McCain hasn't lost it (so far) during the campaign. Maybe he's mellowed. I surely hope so. A person who is not in control of their temper is a dangerous person in the Oval Office.
At the other end of honor politics is McCain's seeming belief that compromise is honorable, as is disagreeing with your supporters. It's as if McCain saw the benefit reaped by Bill Clinton after his Sister Souljah moment and decided that that was always the way to go. Compromise can be honorable, as disagreeing with your supporters can be. But they are not honorable in and of themselves, and sometimes McCain supports bad policy (immigration) and/or goes out of his way to poke conservatives in the eye (immigration. See also the primaries of 2000).

3. McCain's treatment of Mitt Romney during the primaries. When it became clear that Romney was going to be the last serious contender for the nomination (did anyone really think that Huckabee would win?), McCain began to lie concerning Romney's position on withdrawal from Iraq. It's this form of political victory at any cost that most Americans (including me) despise.

That about covers McCain losing me. How he found me:

1. The Surge. It takes plain nerve to a) be highly visible to the President, b) be a member of his party, and c) tell him he's wrong, consistently, for 3 years. The Dems in Congress are great at telling the President he's wrong, but awful at coming up with good solutions. McCain should be credited with saving Iraq, and as Iraq is the major foreign policy dilemma at the moment, that seems like a stellar commendation for McCain as Commander in Chief.

2. Sarah Palin. Actually, this could swing either way-- find or lose. I was over the moon about Palin after she was announced. She's an actual reformer, with massive approval ratings and solid conservative principles. You can relate to Palin in a way that I've never seen with another politician. She served as a reassurance that McCain was listening to conservatives, and if he still didn't agree with us on everything, at least he thought our ideas were valid and worthy of nominal support.
I'm still a Palin fan. But judging by her interviews, she MAY be out of her league. If she is, then McCain's choice was obviously a gimmick (and he blew her post-convention introduction to the country). I'm going to give Palin throught the debate and see how she does. If she does well, then I will stay solidly supportive of her and McCain. If she's not ready, then I will stay supportive of her-- in 2012. And I will go back to holding my nose when I pull the lever for McCain.

How McCain lost me redux:

1. His reaction to the economic crisis. I (naively) thought he might have won the election when he suspended his campaign. Gimmick? Sure. Good idea anyway? I thought so. McCain has been warning about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for years-- the man is prescient, if nothing else. It was a pleasure to see a politican stop bloviating about his mighty self and go to work... or it would have been if McCain had accomplished anything. Instead, he introduced another element to tricky negotiations, contributed nothing to the discussions, and then let Obama pressure him into announcing that the bill was far enough along that he could participate in the debate after all. Well, Senator, it's Tuesday, nothing's going to be voted on until Thursday at the earliest, and whatever passes is likely to resemble a lefty Christmas tree (MAN that simile's getting old. How about a lefty Easter basket?). And the House Republicans have been disgraced (the whole House has been disgraced, but that's not how the spin will work out). That's far enough along? Great.

2. Debate. I only caught the economic section, but I was not impressed. Yes, people hate them. But Obama was right-- earmarks are only a fraction of this country's budgetary woes. For pity's sake, hit back! Mentioning that the spending Obama's already proposed is going to cost more than the bailout would have been a good place to start.

So yeah. I'm back to agnostic on McCain. I'll vote for what I perceive as the lesser of two evils, but I'll not do it gladly.

Note: I'll add links to the post shortly-- but my little guy is calling, and toddler wails reduce surfing skills by 10.

I am beyond words

2008-09-30T08:01:00.002+03:30

If this is true, I am speechless. Listen to the first two minutes. It's Karl Rove (yes, I know, I know) discussing the wind up to the House bailout vote today.

Bailout fails to pass House

2008-09-29T21:51:00.000+03:30

One wonders if this is what sliding over the brink looks like.

What kind of crap is this?!?

2008-09-26T22:48:00.002+03:30

The House Republicans have introduced an alternative to the Paulson Plan. All well and good. That is their prerogative.

It is NOT the prerogative of the House Democrats to say that the Republicans are holding up the Paulson Plan. There's a reason that Rep. Boehner is called the MINORITY leader-- the Republicans are a solid minority in the House. Pelosi is holding up the vote to provide political cover for House Dems.

I don't have the energy to deal with Dems turning the bailout into what people on The Corner are describing as a lefty Christmas tree with pork dripping off every branch.

Can we fire the entire political class from Congress on up and start over?

Sorry

2008-09-22T21:51:00.004+03:30

Lots of inactivity around here. Which does not mean that I haven't been keeping up-- I'm just flabbergasted. Economics are not my forte, and I've been scrambling trying to figure out what the heck is going on. I still haven't gotten it figured out, although I am a fan of leaving what McCain has been calling the "moral hazard" intact-- that if your company fails, you've, well, failed, and I should NOT have to bail you out. I understand that a couple of these companies were so big and enmeshed that not bailing them out could have been catastrophic-- but for pity's sake, we've just added, what, $700 BILLION to the national debt?!? C'mon, folks.

On top of that, I've seen several hard-core feminists telling me that I'm not a real woman. Or at least, Sarah Palin isn't because she thinks abortion is wrong-- ergo, I'm not a real woman either because I agree with her (I'm less extreme than Palin-- I think that abortion should be an option in cases of rape or incest, even if I would never do it). Apparently, the status of womanhood is not determined by chromosomes or even anatomy. It is determined by whether or not someone wishing to be designated "woman" agrees with the chianti-sipping, free-loving, abortion extremists in New York.

Peachy.

And, even better, the hard-core feminists will never get called on it in the MSM. Just in the pages of conservative blogs and mags, which are oh-so convenient to ignore. The HCFs (hard-core feminists takes too long to type) are supposed to be all about choice-- so how come I don't get to choose to think for myself? According to the, I'm only a "real" woman if I agree with them. They've thought this as long as I can remember, but this the first time I remember them actually saying it.

How repulsive can they get?

Good stuff

2008-09-09T22:58:00.002+04:30

This article in the Financial Times is good stuff. It makes an excellent point that the Dems had better get through their skulls if they want any sort of lasting success. Read, as they say, the whole thing. Registration is required, but it's fast and free.
Via Tigerhawk.

Palinpalooza

2008-09-08T01:05:00.002+04:30

It turns out that that bogus list of Palin-banned books was on Obama's official website. Now, I'm not one to hold campaigns accountable for everything their supporters say. But if it's on your official website, you'd better be DARN sure that it's correct-- you are responsible for that. And when it's not correct, just shooting it down the memory hole is not sufficient.

Anyway. I've had a few days to ruminate about the Palin pick. I don't know if anyone could have predicted what picking her for VP would do to the race. If McCain knew, then he is exactly what Limbaugh has been calling him: McBrilliant. In one simple, usually symbolic move, McCain changed the entire race and gave himself a decent chance at winning. I think the reason for that is simple: Palin is a real person.

She doesn't pontificate about her father having a blue collar job-- instead she talks about the jobs she and her husband have held. Americans are able to relate to Sarah Palin in a way that they haven't related to anyone in the White House in my memory. And in one swipe, McCain stripped away the glories of elitism. Sarah Palin is confident, capable, and winning. And she did all these things without a trust fund, an Ivy-league education, or a papered pedigree. To me, it feels like government has just been given back to me-- that government really can work for me after all. It's as if McCain has reaffirmed what most Americans have known all along-- that someone who graduated from an obscure university in Idaho is just as capable as someone from Harvard. That government isn't a Kennedy-esque birthright, it's an American birthright. That you don't have to be born to privilege or even rise to it to make a difference.

Like there really is a shot for putting average Americans back in control of their government.

There'll be more on the policy and politics of Palin coming up. But I wanted to capture the mood of one reinvigorated conservative.

Convention and Commentary

2008-09-05T23:24:00.002+04:30

I'll have (a lot) more thoughts up soon, but to all those commentating about Sarah Palin (*cough*MSNBC*cough*), listen to an Alaskan: Wasilla does NOT rhyme with Godzilla. Sibilant 's', folks, sibilant!

You've noticed the media

2008-09-03T23:16:00.002+04:30

Saying that Governor Palin is under investigation for alleged misconduct involving the firing of an Alaska State Trooper. What the media hasn't been telling you is that the trooper allegedly harassed the Palins, to say nothing of the death threats.

Would it really have hurt the media that much to, well, put the news in context?

Hat tip: The Wall Street Journal

I can't do any better

2008-08-29T23:38:00.003+04:30

Than to point you to Instapundit and Contentions for more reactions to Palin (the Corner is great, as always, but seems a little slow this morning). My favorite reaction is from Noah Pollak on Contentions: "Message to Obama: This is how you do a VP announcement, rookie."

Palin!

2008-08-29T23:01:00.004+04:30

This is... well, cool. Sarah Palin, McCain's newly minted running mate, has been one of my favorite conservatives for quite a while. There are a couple of downsides, inexperience being the major one. How can we nail Obama for that when Palin's been in office for about a year, and was the mayor of Wasilla before that? Although the governor of Alaska does have to worry about terrorism issues-- Alaskans take the security of the Pipeline very seriously, and it would be a significant target. But as far as foreign policy goes... well, she probably has about as much experience as Obama, minus his Rainbow Tour.

But the upsides of this choice are potentially enormous. Describing how relieved conservatives should be is a tall order. Not only did McCain not pick Lieberman, Hillary, or a pro-choicer Republican, he picked a solid conservative, one who has a track record of standing up to corruption (see Alaska's congressional delegation) and pork (she helped kill the Bridge to Nowhere). She supports drilling in ANWR. In choosing her, McCain has shown that even if he doesn't agree with conservatives on a lot of things, he has been listening, and is willing to work with us. Or at least I think so-- with McCain, one is never sure.

Not to mention she's just likeable, in a way McCain can never hope to be. I caught the last five minutes or so of her speech this morning-- she's genuine. She's a former professional fisherman, for heaven's sake. She is part of what America is supposed to look like-- not broken and impoverished and victimized, the way the DNC painted us this week, but independent, unafraid, and enterprising.

I've withheld full-throated support for McCain, waiting to see whom he would choose for veep. I still don't like him, but with this choice, I can willingly get behind him instead of dragging my feet. Now that the choice is made-- Go McCain-Palin '08!

McCain's VP

2008-08-28T23:19:00.003+04:30

is supposed to be announced tomorrow, but as the Secret Service will go to guard the prospective VP tonight, keep an eye out for breaking news tonight. Other than Obama-Zeus's speech (see below).

Chicago politics in action

2008-08-28T22:59:00.002+04:30

This has to be read to be believed. It concerns the appearance of a conservative pundit on a radio show discussing Obama's ties to William Ayers. This is not the "politics of personal destruction". This is the politics of mass hysteria.

Seriously. Go read it.

Hat tip: Tigerhawk

Someone at the Obama campaign needs to grow up

2008-08-27T23:17:00.006+04:30

Presidential politics are not high school class president elections, folks. The Obama campaign had its fake presidential seal:

And now, Obama has evidently decided that giving his acceptance speech from a football stadium is not enough. He's giving his speech in the football stadium, but the stage is-- I am not joking-- designed to look suspiciously like an ancient Greek temple. It also includes a podium that rises up from beneath the platform. One wonders if it will rise so high that Obama will float in the air over his temple.

Pictures to come. And thanks to the Chicago Tribune for the pic of Obama's "seal".

Hat tip: LGF, where they're occasionally annoying, often prescient, and usually funny.

Senator Tubes to Nowhere survived

2008-08-27T22:51:00.002+04:30

the Alaskan primary. This guy, in addition to being under investigation (if memory serves he's been indicted) on corruption charges, pitches fits on the Senate floor, gets pork like nobody's business, and is convinced that the internet is a series of tubes. Come on Alaskans.

On the plus side, Don Young is neck and neck with his challenger, so the news from the Great White North is not unmitigated badness.

?!

2008-08-26T22:51:00.003+04:30

Elizabeth Edwards slammed for keeping husband's affair secret

If I hadn't seen it on CNN I'd think it was from The Onion.

It's an interesting window on the culture of liberal politics. Many people have been sympathetic, and then there are those who call her "complicit" and "self-serving", who say that she owes them an apology (Those comments are from a Democratic strategist and commenters at Daily Kos. If anyone can find the link to the diary and comments at DK, I'd be obliged). Because she chose to preserve any shred of privacy and dignity she could salvage? Please. The woman has kids, an incurable and spreading form of cancer, and a heel for a husband. Yet they're upset with her for, in their view, messing up what they wanted.

This is the party that's supposed to be so "empathetic".

Leave the lady alone.

Posted without comment

2008-08-22T23:53:00.006+04:30

At Basic Instructions, under today's date (they don't have an embedding link).

McCain and College Football

2008-08-22T23:39:00.002+04:30

I saw a McCain ad running here talking about McCain doing battle with the big three: Big Oil, Big Pharma, and Big Business. This is insane. Since when is it the American way to attack people for doing well in life? If they did it dishonestly, then they deserve the penalty, but if not, then they deserve congratulations. Companies are not people; they're, well, companies. Companies that employ thousands of people who make a good living off these entities that John McCain wants to fight. Come on, Senator, you're supposed to be different from Obama. Remember Michelle Obama saying:

"We left corporate America, which is a lot of what we’re asking young people to do. Don’t go into corporate America. You know, become teachers. Work for the community. Be social workers. Be a nurse. Those are the careers that we need, and we’re encouraging our young people to do that."

McCain's rhetoric in regards to "Big Business" is strikingly similar to that of the Obamas. Whose votes are you really trying to win, Senator?

Honestly, this reminds me of BYU's football team (I haven't followed college football in years, but I remember this story). BYU is a private school run by the Mormon Church, and the school has a strict, church teachings-based honor code that all students, including the football players, are expected to abide by. Several years ago, the then-head coach Gary Crowton decided to stop aggressively recruiting Mormons, figuring they'd come and play for him anyway. What happened next surprised no one except, perhaps, Crowton. The talented Mormon high schoolers went off to other schools, and Crowton lost players that he had recruited because of their unwillingness to abide the religion-based honor code.
There is a direct corollary to the McCain campaign here. McCain seems to think that he's got the Republican/conservative vote in the bag, as Crowton thought he had all the Mormons. So McCain is off courting all the independent/Democratic voters he thinks he may be able to sway. What he's accomplishing, however, is the alienation of what should be his voter base (see fighting private enterprise, being willing to put in a pro-choice veep, and countless other things) in the attempt to get people who probably won't stick with him anyway. In the end, he's likely to go down in flames, just as Crowton did.

Peachy.

I'm back!

2008-08-22T23:14:00.002+04:30

With an increasingly interesting race on, to boot.

Obama says, concerning veep selection, "I won't comment on anything else until I introduce our running mate to the world."

1. Our running mate? For a guy who's trying to ditch his elitist image, he sure uses the "royal plural" a lot.

2. Um, shouldn't he be more concerned about introducing his running mate to the American public before he introduces him/her to the world? Maybe the veep pick will visit Germany?

I know they're nit-picky little things... but seriously, even John Kerry didn't talk about introducing John Edwards to the world (to my knowledge). That sounds more like childbirth than politics.

Holes in the wall

2008-08-20T23:25:00.004+04:30

Sometimes it starts to feel as if-- in the words of Mark Steyn-- America truly is alone, and the rest of the world has built a wall to protect themselves (and their little opinions) from what are pleased to call American corruption and influence. And then some brave soul does something like this: a London-based group has started a website called America in the World. Their purpose is to combat anti-Americanism.

My introduction to the website was a video they've produced describing what the world would be like without the American soldier.

From an American military brat: Thanks, guys.

Internet: I has it

2008-08-16T21:56:00.002+04:30

But only after a fashion. Internet access will be spotty at best until the ISP gets its act together on Thursday.

But ye gods and little fishes! Be away from the internet for one week and what happens? John Edwards 'fesses up to the Rielle Hunter affair. Russia invades Georgia and forcibly redraws her borders. The ChiCom Olympics start (I love to watch the Olympics-- but I have to plug my nose while watching these), and China promptly cheats by playing little girls in the gymnastics competition.

Anyway, there'll be more (a lot more) commentary on all of this when I've had a chance to read up on everything, but in the meantime, here are two street signs from this neck of the woods:

Report [HOV lane] Violators: 111-111-HERO

Litter and it will hurt

Ah, the Pacific Northwest. Home of the threatening street sign.

Radio Silence

2008-08-07T20:55:00.001+04:30

My internet has issues at the moment-- as in, it's non-existent. Expect posting to resume next week, when I will have things to say about DHS, TSA, and editors of university newspapers.

Narcissism, a case study

2008-07-30T22:59:00.002+04:30

Obama announced today that he had "become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions." (Thanks, CNN)

Now, it's one thing when somebody else says that about him. (See Chris Matthews saying "he's a gift from the world to us in so many ways"; "the Biblical term... is 'deliverance'"; "shiver up my leg"... in fact, just see this video that McCain's campaign put out.) People say all kinds of things about presidential candidates, and just about anybody else, for that matter. But when you start saying those things about yourself, it's an entirely different matter.

Several people have drawn (unfavorable) comparisons between Obama's speech in Berlin last week and Lincoln's Gettysburg address.

Obama said: "Now the world will watch and remember what we do here."

Abraham Lincoln said: "The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here."

The difference between the two is a modesty that is essential to any human being. Or at least any human being who doesn't wish to be insufferable.

Obama's utterances about himself often tend towards the messianic. He and his loyal followers will make the oceans recede, heal the planet, restore America, &c., &c. Not to draw unsavory comparisons, but as unsavory comparisons are inevitable, here goes: the only people who say things about themselves like that are tyrants and fools (deity excepted). Obama's no tyrant. But he should be careful about the company he keeps, or he will look like a fool.

Oh, Senator? You're no Abraham Lincoln, either.

This

2008-07-27T23:31:00.002+04:30

is what I think every time I hear or read one of Obama's speeches.

JibJab

2008-07-25T22:22:00.002+04:30

Kudos to JibJab-- nothing political has made me laugh like this since the primaries started:

Make sure you notice the unicorn.

The Winner's Speech

2008-07-18T08:36:00.004+04:30

Senators McCain and Obama: Take some advice from an average American. Give this speech. Whichever one of you does, and does it well, will win this election. The Speech goes something like this:

My fellow Americans:
I have seen the prices climb steadily at gas stations. I know many of you are dreading heating your homes this winter. I also understand that most of you are frustrated with how the government has (or has not) handled this problem. Some have proposed a gas tax holiday. This is akin to the fire department seeing your house ablaze and, instead of putting out the fire, watering the roof of your storage shed. You don't lose the storage shed, but everything precious to you is in your home, not your shed. Right now, our lifestyles depend on vast amounts of oil, natural gas, and coal-- non-renewable resources. Sooner or later, we will run out, and while Washington dithers back and forth about "sustainability", etc. , the price of gas and food, the most critical purchases Americans make, have at least doubled in the past year. Ethanol clearly is not the solution-- not only are its effects miniscule, but the shortage of corn and the resulting increases in food prices have caused pain throughout the world. This is utterly unacceptable. And I have a plan to begin fixing it.

This morning, I introduced legislation in the Senate to nullify all bans on nuclear power plants [EOWYN: I don't know if this is strictly possible, as all the bans a quick Google search came up with are state bans, but something like this needs to happen]. By the time the presidential election happens in November, clean, renewable energy plants will already be in construction in the following states: [EOWYN: Senator's pick, but I would start with New York, California, Florida, Michigan, and Ohio]..., provided passage of my bill.

I am aware of the problems involved with nuclear waste, as I am also aware that no one wants a nuclear waste site in their backyard. These are problems with no easy solution, but building these power plants will buy us some time and relief from ridiculous prices for electricity, not to mention lessening air pollution.

I am also aware that nuclear power plants are expensive. That is why, beginning on my first day in office, I will veto any bill that includes earmarks, so-called pork, coming from Congress. Far too much money, given by taxpayers, is wasted on these pork projects, which include improvements to bike paths and building multi-million dollar bridges that would service fewer than 60 people. This is an outrageous use of American citizens' money-- indeed, in some cases, it is little better than highway robbery. Last year alone, Americans forked over $13.2 billion to greed. That is down considerably from the $29 billion in 2006, but it is still insane. There are far better uses for that money. One of the optimal uses for it would be tax-cuts. However, I am going to ask for the faith of the American people. If you approve (government does, after all, work for you), the same amount of money that was used for pork last year, $13.2 billion, will be appropriated and used to fund the following plan:

Our nation's top scientists and engineers, including auto designers, manufacturers, propulsion experts from NASA, and others, will be given jobs (at competitive pay) and space in Washington D.C. for one purpose-- to design cars that don't need oil, natural gas, or ethanol. I know that electric cars already exist. I also know that they are expensive, and frankly, often unexciting to drive. The cars coming out of this lab in D.C. will run on the IKEA principle: give quality, and give it cheaply. I only want viable, sellable cars coming out of this lab, cars that are ready to go into production immediately. The most expensive design should cost no more than $30,000 out the door, with the least expensive being in the $10,000- $15,000 range, or even less if they get really ambitious. The first of these cars will be on the market within 4 years, as the design specs coming out of this government-funded lab will be provided to every American auto-maker free of charge, provided they can mass-produce it within 2 years.

While this lab in D.C. is working on cars, they will also be collaborating with oil companies. No one wants to dis-employ all those who work for oil companies, nor is it reasonable to ask the companies to research themselves out of business. I propose, instead, to give a tax-break or other financial incentive to each company that can present a model for a viable alternative energy source capable of serving a major city and that will pledge to have it up and running with in five to ten years of their presentation. Private enterprise is one of America's greatest strengths-- I won't ask any company to commit suicide. I simply ask them to evolve, and to embrace the challenge as Americans have always done.

I know this is an ambitious project. I know that almost everything in it has never been done before-- people have come up with prototypes, and PhD papers, and models, but there has never been anything more concrete than that to show the American consumer. Politicians typically talk big and have very little to show for it at the end.

Not this time. This is the United States of America. We fought a war to free ourselves, first from foreign tyranny and then from the tyranny of slavery. We have saved the world-- twice! We built a railroad to span a continent, airplanes to fly over it, roads to drive across it, bridges to cross its lakes and rivers. We put men on the moon not once, but six times. We are responsible for some of the greatest technological advances the world has ever seen-- do not tell me that we can't find a way to get off oil. This country has never failed to accomplish something we have united behind. Everyone agrees on the need to find other ways to drive our society.

Let's get to it.
**

The key to this speech is sincerity. We have had enough of typical politicians right now. Both McCain and Obama are running as the anti-politician, the guy who is really there to make the country better instead of for his own aggrandizement. Now is the time to prove it. C'mon, guys, you're running for Leader of the Free World. Boldly go where few politicians have gone before-- lead. Accomplish something that really could change the world. Give America another reason to be proud.

Absentee

2008-07-18T08:34:00.001+04:30

Sorry for the silence around here-- the whole clan got sick. We're on the mend though, and regular blogging will resume tomorrow.

Your Daily Dose of Insanity

2008-07-08T07:23:00.007+04:30

'Toddlers who dislike spicy food "racist" says [sic] report'

Don't miss that line at the bottom where the preschool and day care teachers are encouraged to inform on their charges. They also said "some people think that if a large number of racist incidents are reported, this will reflect badly on the institution. In fact, the opposite is the case." The more kids we report for racism, the better!

To quote Dave Barry, "No, I am not making this up."

...

In what alternate universe does any sane parent want to send their offspring to a preschool where their 3-year-old will be reported to the local government? It's like kids in the Soviet Union being encouraged to report on their parents, only now the adults are reporting on the kids.

Incidentally, I wonder how long it will be before the parents of a kid who doesn't like curry will be indicted for a hate crime.

Freedom Fail.

CWCID: Jonah Goldberg

The State of the Race

2008-07-07T23:46:00.001+04:30

The Democratic Party has put forth its most unelectable candidate in who knows how long.

The Republicans are still likely to lose.

Sad, isn't it? Here, briefly (I'll have an in-depth profile on each of them later), we have the candidates:
Barack Obama is young, charismatic, and eloquent. He is vastly inexperienced (he just finished his first term as a Senator; before that, his only experience consisted of being a legislator in Illinois). He is relatively unaccomplished (yes, being a Senator is an accomplishment, but he's done very little as a Senator other than to run for president). He is the most liberal Senator in the Capitol Building. And he lies.

John McCain is a hero, very experienced in military matters, and loyal to a fault. He is old. He has a vile temper. He can't give a good prepared speech to save his life. And when he's nervous, it shows-- a friend of mine says that he looks like a dog about to throw up. She's right. McCain is neither conservative nor liberal, which might play well except for his habit of kidney-punching conservatives just for the fun of it. And he lies.

I'd pick McCain. But unless something changes-- either a catastrophic mistake on Obama's part or America snaps out of its usual election-year amnesia-- Obama is going to win for one good and simple reason: he makes you believe that he should. The man is a speaker like none I've seen before.

This is not a reason to elect a person to the presidency. I can't force any campaign errors on Obama's part (let's hear it for unforced errors!). This blog exists, in part, to fight against the collective amnesia that seems to grip people when it comes to politics. Because this is important stuff, people. You can only ignore politics if you're sure that politics will ignore you, as the saying goes (anyone have a citation?)-- and politics is not leaving us alone right now. Talk to people. A person's political opinions are not sacrosanct-- this country was founded partly on the belief that you need to talk about politics. The Founders trusted us with this country, not an aristocracy, political parties, or anything else. Just us. Vote your conscience, but make sure you do it because you're informed, and have thought long and hard about who the Leader of the Free World should be. That's what George Washington and the rest trusted us to do.

Make 'em proud.

Rules

2008-07-07T23:34:00.001+04:30

Just so they're there, here are the rules:

1. Comments are very welcome, but profanity and personal insults* are not. If there's anything too egregious in the comments, I will delete them.

2. There's a good reason that I don't use my real name (did you think it was really Eowyn? Not that that wouldn't be awesome...). If you are one of the few people who know who I really am, please respect my anonymity. Frankly, I don't want to get death threats from the same type of people who threaten Danish cartoonists.

*unless they're really good ones. "Ill-favored five-legged child of a camel and a roach" would be a good example of this.

Inaugural

2008-07-04T23:21:00.000+04:30

The Fourth of July seemed as good a time as any to start this blog. I've been kicking the idea around in my head for quite a while. As today is a holiday and this blogger has family, I'll begin with posting the poem from which the title of this blog is taken:

America for Me

'Tis fine to see the Old World, and travel up and down
Among the famous palaces and cities of renown,
To admire the crumbly castles and the statues of the kings,--
But now I think I've had enough of antiquated things.

So it's home again, and home again, America for me!
My heart is turning home again, and there I long to be
In the land of youth and freedom beyond the ocean bars,
Where the air is full of sunlight and the flag is full of stars.

Oh, London is a man's town, there's power in the air;
And Paris is a woman's town, with flowers in her hair;
And it's sweet to dream in Venice, and it's great to study Rome,
But when it comes to living, there is no place like home.

I like the German fir-woods, in green battalions drilled;
I like the gardens of Versailles with flashing fountains filled;
But, oh, to take your hand, my dear, and ramble for a day
In the friendly western woodland where Nature has her way!

I know that Europe's wonderful, yet something seems to lack!
The Past is too much with her, and the people looking back,
But the glory of the Present is to make the Future free,--
We love our land for what she is and what she is to be.

Oh, it's home again, and home again, America for me!
I want a ship that's westward bound to plough the rolling sea,
To the blessed Land of Room Enough beyond the ocean bars,
Where the air is full of sunlight and the flag is full of stars.

By: Henry Van Dyke

I am grateful for the freedom I have here. May the future be ever more free.