Using good money to go after bad ideas

Here’s a really bad idea:  name a United States Navy after Representative John Murtha (deceased), the man who cheerfully, and without any credible evidence, castigated American Marines as cold-blooded killers in the wake of the Haditha massacre.  The Marines, of course, were all exonerated but for Frank Wuterich, who accepted a slap on the wrist plea bargain, something he no doubt did because he has three small children at home and could not risk the vagaries of a full trial.  Add to that Murtha’s history of political corruption, and it sounds to me as if any ship that bears his name is going to be an unlucky ship indeed — not to mention a ship that is an insult to both our military and our taxpayers. *

My feeling is that, if you have a bad idea, and it’s been brought to your attention that it really is a bad — indeed, indefensible — idea, you should retreat as quickly and as gracefully as possible.  Of course, that’s not how political bureaucracies work, so Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus is standing strong behind his bad — indeed, highly offensive — idea.

Some Navy vets, accustomed to battle, are not walking away from this specific engagement.  They’ve started a website called “No Murtha Ship.”  If you go there, you can get the story about Murtha, obtain contact information for the Office of the Secretary of the Navy (please, be polite), sign a petition, and make a donation.

I made a donation, and that’s thanks to you guys.  As I’ve mentioned before, because my husband is the major breadwinner in the family, and because he’s hostile to my political views, I’ve always thought it tacky to take his salary and donate it to the political causes I support.  I know it’s community property and I know that I contribute to the community by doing everything but make lots of money, but he’s a bit territorial, so I don’t do it.  When I want to donate to causes, I go to my little PayPal account, which you guys fund when you make a donation to this blog.  Yes, I know that is also community property, but I’m territorial too, and the money in there feels like mine, mine, mine.  I consider it good money, and I use it to go after bad ideas or, even better, t0 support good causes.

____________________________

*And yes, I know that Murtha served bravely in Vietnam, but the steel backbone he developed there seems to have rusted away in the swampy air of Washington’s Foggy Bottom.

No, you weren’t imagining the strident class warfare in Obama’s SOTU speech.

We tend to find what we’re looking for.  Since conservatives know that Obama comes from a socialist background, has advanced policies that are antithetical to capitalism, and has defeated opportunities and initiatives that are supportive of capitalism, we’re going to assume that, in any speech he gives, ordinary statements are actually code for a socialist agenda.  Having this predisposition (“to a hammer, everything is a nail”) can damage ones credibility.  Monomania is not normally associated with reliable analysis.

Except that, with regard to Obama’s recent State of the Union speech, I can tell you with a certain amount of assurance that all those conservatives who saw in it a strident call to class warfare, the end of an American system based upon equality of opportunity, and the destruction of the free market were probably right.  Or, if they weren’t right, they’ve met an equal, although completely opposite, monomania that manages to read the same message into Obama’s speech.

(Come on, Bookworm, spit it out!  What are you saying?)

What I’m saying is that the Occupy crowd is thrilled with Obama’s speech, which they see as a high level articulation of their beliefs and agenda:

Linking the dominant themes in Obama’s nationally televised address Tuesday to the mantras of the Occupy Wall Street movement would have been unthinkable five months ago. But in having its message echoed in the State of the Union address, the Occupy movement reached a milestone in changing the national conversation.

“Once you say the definition of my campaign is fairness, you don’t have to say anything else,” said Lawrence Rosenthal, an expert on social movements who directs UC Berkeley’s Center for the Comparative Study of Right-Wing Movements. “It is the central tenet” of the Occupy movement, he added.

[snip]

Obama never specifically mentioned Occupy – and probably won’t, analysts said, because the term remains politically divisive. For some, the dominant images of Occupy are of street activists confronting police and committing vandalism, as has occurred several times after Occupy demonstrations in Oakland.

“He won’t, because given half a chance, the Republicans would try to link him to everything that’s gone on with the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations,” said James Miller, a professor of politics at the New School for Social Research in New York.

Still, analysts found Obama’s speech full of several Occupy-related themes: The president said he would not reward multinational corporations who “remove jobs from this country” and demanded “no bailouts, no handouts, no copouts.” Obama even outed himself as a member of the monied class when he said that “we need to change our tax code so that people like me, and an awful lot of members of Congress, pay our fair share of taxes.”

“Tax reform should follow the ‘Buffett rule,’ ” Obama said, referring to billionaire Warren Buffett, who has volunteered to pay more taxes. “If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes.”

When Obama said Tuesday that “if you make under $250,000 a year, like 98 percent of American families, your taxes shouldn’t go up,” Rosenthal said, “it’d be hard not to say that he was alluding to the Occupy movement.”

(Read the rest here.)

Apparently while Occupy the White House was a bust from the sidewalk point of view, it worked perfectly when it came to occupying the Oval Office.

 

The usual great stuff from the Watcher’s Council

I have family business to take care of this morning, so I won’t be blogging until this afternoon.  Fear not, though, as I still have very interesting stuff to recommend to you, personally selected by the crew at the Watcher’s Council:

Council Submissions

Honorable Mentions

Non-Council Submissions

Figuring out the subtext in Obama’s SOTU

Clark S. Judge sent to Hugh Hewitt a great note analyzing what Obama really said during the SOTU.  I’m going to do something here that I almost never do, which is to reprint the note in its entirety at my own blog, albeit reformatted from the original.  Why?  Because the paragraph breaks vanished at Hugh Hewitt’s site, making it very difficult for those of us who are struggling with glasses versus computer glasses versus bifocals to read the darn thing:

SOTU: Did I hear that right?

By Clark S. Judge: managing director, White House Writers Group, Inc.; chairman, Pacific Research Institute.

It sounded like such a soft, even conservative speech.

But let me get this straight:

1) banks will be punished (do I understand this right, by a committee headed by Eric Holder?) if their lending is too risky,

2) and they will be required (by the same committee) to give more home loans (meaning, it must be, to people who would otherwise not qualify for the loans, or else the government would not have to be involved) at lower rates (which means rates that do not compensate them as much as the market says they need to be compensated for the risks they are taking, all of which sounds like a new edition of the policies that brought on the financial collapse),

3) which must mean that they will have to pull back on risky lending someplace other than homes,

4) the only place that most banks would be able to pull back on riskier customers would be loans to small and new businesses,

5) but these are the businesses that have created just about all the jobs over the last 20 years and he said early in the speech he wants to encourage them,

6) so maybe their growth capital will come from selling stock to the kinds of people who invest in new and small businesses,

7) but through the Buffet Rule he’s going to double the tax rate on investment income for those people, meaning that, like the banks, they can’t be fully compensated for the risk of backing small and new businesses,

8) so they will not invest more in small and new companies but in big established firms,

9) so more of those small and new firms will have to turn to the government for capital,

10) which luckily he said would up its investing in early stage businesses with “the best” ideas,

11) “the best” ideas meaning, I guess, as with Solyndra, ideas that advance his agenda through companies whose owners support his candidacy),

11.2) or maybe it would be companies that agree to invite unionization (since the unions have failed to organize the new and dynamic sectors of the economy, which is why they have been shrinking),

12) but then with the big businesses, he wants to punish American companies if they invest overseas,

13) and he wants to increase exports,

14) but being competitive in the global markets often means having part of your production near your markets, which is why many companies have opened production facilities abroad and many foreign companies (BMW and Honda, for example) have opened their facilities here,

15) so he’ll make these companies less competitive, meaning less able to export anything that might be paired with some other product the company makes abroad in order to attract buyers,

16) and it also means he’ll have the U.S. ignoring many of the international trading rules of which we have been the principal sponsor since the end of WWII, rules that have led to an incredible growth in widely shared wealth all over the planet,

17) which means that, if he follows through, he’ll blow up the post-WWII global economic system,

18) which in the very short run may help the uncompetitive American labor unions but in the not-so-long run would devastate every economy on earth,

19) but it would also mean he would be in a position to decide where big companies could invest, and when, just as he’ll be in control of all new and small businesses, too,

20) meanwhile he is going to tell states and localities what their budget priorities should be,

21) and make them adopt his policies for running their schools, leaving me to wonder, when he’s through, what won’t he control?

I believe that’s what I heard the president advocate last night. But one term I didn’t hear, maybe I missed it: “The Constitution.” Then again, wasn’t he suggesting that, in brave times like these, we need to put aside those old rules. Do I have this straight?

The list of political luminaries at the screening of an anti-military film is telling

I’m not surprised that there is a fair amount of rape in today’s military.  The facts on the ground readily explain, although they never excuse, it.

To begin within, our troops have grown up and lived in a hypersexualized culture.  Up until a few decades ago, in movies and on TV screens, even married couples didn’t sleep together and they never shared more than a chaste kiss.  Now, every aspect of culture is saturated with rampant, no strings, no respect, no relationship sex.  By the time our kids are teens, they’ve listened to songs, seen shows, and been exposed to news stories that contain more graphic sex (think of blue dresses and cigars) than previous generations saw (or heard) in their entire lifetimes.

If you take these kids — or, more accurately, these young men — and, during their peak testosterone years, place them in a hermetically sealed environment, where the straight guys are living cheek by jowl with women, and the gay guys are living cheek by jowl with men, there’s going to be sex.  Some of it will be consensual; some of it will be maybe consensual as long as one party doesn’t subsequently change his or her mind; and some of it will be out-and-out rape.  My statements are not meant to excuse rape, but to note its inevitably in the current military world.

It’s also inevitable that liberal film makers,* charged with the self-imposed responsibility of clipping the military’s wings, will make a film about it, and that the film, The Invisible War, will appear at the Sundance Film Festival. Less inevitable, although perhaps more disturbing, is that American Democrat politicians will attend the screening in significant numbers:

Politicians such as Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, U.S. Rep. Jackie Speier, Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom and U.S. Rep. Mike Turner of Ohio attended the film’s premiere in Park City, Utah.

One gets the feeling that these same politicians are readying themselves for something and, as far as the military goes, I’m sure it’s not good.  The military must act aggressively to prevent and punish rapes, but I’m always suspicious when the Democrats suddenly find a new area for military reform.

________________________

*The film makers are Kirby Dick, who directed, and Amy Ziering, who produced.  Dick’s roster of films includes Sick: The Life & Death of Bob Flanagan, Supermasochist, a film with a title that says it all; Outrage, a movie attacking closeted gay politicians who lobby for anti-gay legislation, which means Dick believes it’s immoral for individual gays to put their beliefs about society ahead of their personal desires; and Twist of Faith, about a man dealing with having been sexually abused by a priest; Derrida, an homage to the French philosopher and deconstructionist whose ideas probably did more than just about anyone else’s to help the Marxists take over academia; and Private Practices : The Story of a Sex Surrogate; .  One does not come away with the feeling that Dick would be the type of person who is kindly disposed to the military.

Ziering’s resume is substantially shorter, but one gets the same whiff of Leftist agitator/community organizer from her work.  The only two films for which I could find any information were Taylor’s Campaign, which was was about the homeless and had, as narrator, that Leftist stalwart, Martin Sheen, and Derrida, which she co-directed with Kirby Dick.

Breaking the Obama party hold on America’s political system

I’ve been corresponding with a group of conservatives who are very strongly divided between Romney and Gingrich.  I’m pleased to say that, while the debate is substantively heated, it also never veers away from common decency and civility.  My latest contribution to the email string, right after mention of a brokered convention, was as follows:

“Allen West!  Allen West!  Allen West!  A proven leader.”

(I can dream, can’t I?)

For all the doom and gloom predictions right now, with various factions in the conservative movement unable to envision themselves voting for the other guy come next November, I continue to believe that, as is usually the case once the fecal matter stops spraying off the fan, that conservatives will coalesce around the Republican candidate.  I’ve said from the beginning, sitting here in California where primaries are really over by the time they get to my state, that my candidate is the guy named ABO (Anybody But Obama).  It’ll be a tough call if the ABO candidate is Ron Paul, who is as awful in foreign policy as Obama, but I still think it’s important to break the Obama political infrastructure before it becomes an inextricable part of the American body politic.

Yes, I have gotten more commercial lately

One of my new year’s resolutions was to try to make more money from my writing.  If I don’t start seeing some money coming in soon, there’s really no way I can justify pouring so much time and energy into my writing.  Instead, I’ll have to start trying to build up my legal work again, work that’s been pretty much dormant since the recession hit.  The problem is that I love writing and that, when it comes to legal work, if I never do it again it’ll be too soon.

With that resolution in mind, I’m starting the process of making money be commercializing my blog more than I ever have or wanted to.  In addition to the usual plea for direct donations through PayPal that’s been living in the sidebar for years, I’ve also added several advertisements to the side bar and, as you all know, some wacky highlighted terms to the text.  I hope that they’re not too irritating, but they’re definitely an experiment that I want and need to make now.

Just a few more words on the subject, and then I’m done:

1.  If an ad intrigues you, please click on it. Otherwise, ignore the ads.  If they’re not intriguing you, they’re either not good ads or not good (or interesting) products.

2.  The Amazon widget is not random the way the Google and highlighted term ads are.  As to the latter, I have no control over the products advertised.  In the Amazon widget, however, you’ll see actual products I’ve used, like, and feel I can recommend.  As to each product, I’ve added a few words explaining why I like it.

3.  If you’re planning on making an Amazon purchase anyway, not of something I’ve recommended, but just of anything, consider getting to Amazon by linking through my widget.  I’m not certain, but I understand that, if you enter the Amazon portal through my widget, I get a very small percentage on anything you buy.  Incidentally, that doesn’t mean I see what you buy or know who you are.  All I know is that a few pennies come my way.

Obama’s great “love” for the military

One of my father’s favorite stories concerned his niece, who lived on a farm in Israel.  Daddy was visiting there one day when he saw his niece, who was then about 5, playing with a wee little baby goat.   At this point in his narrative, Daddy would always stop and explain to the city-bred people around him that there are few things cuter than a frolicking kid.  Here, see for yourself:

YouTube Preview Image

What Daddy found so amusing was what his niece was saying to the cute as they played:  “Oh, little goat, little goat!  I love you so much.  [Pause for kissing the goat.]  We’re going to have you for dinner tonight!”

Our president might have been listening in on that story.

In his State of the Union address, Obama began and ended by billing and cooing about the wonders of a military that perfectly carried out his order to kill Osama bin Laden. His very first words were an encomium to the troops:

Last month, I went to Andrews Air Force Base and welcomed home some of our last troops to serve in Iraq.  Together, we offered a final, proud salute to the colors under which more than a million of our fellow citizens fought — and several thousand gave their lives.

We gather tonight knowing that this generation of heroes has made the United States safer and more respected around the world.  (Applause.)  For the first time in nine years, there are no Americans fighting in Iraq.  (Applause.)  For the first time in two decades, Osama bin Laden is not a threat to this country.  (Applause.)  Most of al Qaeda’s top lieutenants have been defeated.  The Taliban’s momentum has been broken, and some troops in Afghanistan have begun to come home.

These achievements are a testament to the courage, selflessness and teamwork of America’s Armed Forces.  At a time when too many of our institutions have let us down, they exceed all expectations.  They’re not consumed with personal ambition.  They don’t obsess over their differences.  They focus on the mission at hand.  They work together.

Imagine what we could accomplish if we followed their example.  (Applause.)  Think about the America within our reach:  A country that leads the world in educating its people.  An America that attracts a new generation of high-tech manufacturing and high-paying jobs.  A future where we’re in control of our own energy, and our security and prosperity aren’t so tied to unstable parts of the world.  An economy built to last, where hard work pays off, and responsibility is rewarded.

By the way, am I the only one who finds that last paragraph a bizarre non-sequitur?  How does praise for the troops carrying out their mission transform into our following their example by having lots of (government-funded) education, (presumably green) energy independence, and a big high-tech sector?  Mr. President, need I remind you that Rule Number One of timeless oratory is that it should make sense.

Eventually, after almost an hour of standard campaign bloviation, all of which involved the government spending more and more and more taxpayer money on green energy, on Leftist education, on tried-and-failed social welfare initiatives, and on other Big Government boondoggles, Obama got himself back to his beloved troops (emphasis mine):

Anyone who tells you otherwise, anyone who tells you that America is in decline or that our influence has waned, doesn’t know what they’re talking about.  (Applause.)

That’s not the message we get from leaders around the world who are eager to work with us.  That’s not how people feel from Tokyo to Berlin, from Cape Town to Rio, where opinions of America are higher than they’ve been in years.  Yes, the world is changing.  No, we can’t control every event.  But America remains the one indispensable nation in world affairs –- and as long as I’m President, I intend to keep it that way.  (Applause.)

That’s why, working with our military leaders, I’ve proposed a new defense strategy that ensures we maintain the finest military in the world, while saving nearly half a trillion dollars in our budget.  To stay one step ahead of our adversaries, I’ve already sent this Congress legislation that will secure our country from the growing dangers of cyber-threats.  (Applause.)

Above all, our freedom endures because of the men and women in uniform who defend it.  (Applause.)  As they come home, we must serve them as well as they’ve served us.  That includes giving them the care and the benefits they have earned –- which is why we’ve increased annual VA spending every year I’ve been President.  (Applause.)  And it means enlisting our veterans in the work of rebuilding our nation.

[snip]

Which brings me back to where I began.  Those of us who’ve been sent here to serve can learn a thing or two from the service of our troops.  When you put on that uniform, it doesn’t matter if you’re black or white; Asian, Latino, Native American; conservative, liberal; rich, poor; gay, straight.  When you’re marching into battle, you look out for the person next to you, or the mission fails.  When you’re in the thick of the fight, you rise or fall as one unit, serving one nation, leaving no one behind.

One of my proudest possessions is the flag that the SEAL Team took with them on the mission to get bin Laden.  On it are each of their names.  Some may be Democrats.  Some may be Republicans.  But that doesn’t matter.  Just like it didn’t matter that day in the Situation Room, when I sat next to Bob Gates — a man who was George Bush’s defense secretary — and Hillary Clinton — a woman who ran against me for president.

All that mattered that day was the mission.  No one thought about politics.  No one thought about themselves.  One of the young men involved in the raid later told me that he didn’t deserve credit for the mission.  It only succeeded, he said, because every single member of that unit did their job — the pilot who landed the helicopter that spun out of control; the translator who kept others from entering the compound; the troops who separated the women and children from the fight; the SEALs who charged up the stairs.  More than that, the mission only succeeded because every member of that unit trusted each other — because you can’t charge up those stairs, into darkness and danger, unless you know that there’s somebody behind you, watching your back.

“Little troops, Little troops, I love you so much.  [Pause for kissing up to the troops.]“  “I’ve proposed a new defense strategy that ensures we maintain the finest military in the world, while saving nearly half a trillion dollars in our budget.”  “I’m going to have you for dinner tonight.”

Making our troops pay for the Democrats’ frenzied spending binge is a disaster in the making, for them and for us.  The troops are the canary in the coal mine.  If Obama uses his budgetary powers to eat them all up, they are sitting ducks on the battle field and we, suddenly, are sitting ducks at home.  Obama’s great love for his troops is meaningless if he fails to provide them with the financial support they need to have the best weapons and the best training in the world.  I’m all for trimming fat, reducing redundancies, killing bureaucracy, and generally increasing efficiency.  Bankrupting the military, however, will not achieve those goals.

I started this post with a true story, and I’ll end it with an old, rather bad joke:

A famously miserly farmer informed his neighbors that his donkey was costing him too much, and that he was going to train the animal to do without food.  His neighbors were skeptical.  When they next saw him, they asked how the experiment went.

“It went very well,” he said.  “The first week, I cut the oats out of his diet.  That donkey kept going just fine and I saved me a bunch of money.  The second week, I cut the grain out of his diet, and he was still doing his job, and I was saving even more money.  It was only in the third week that I had some problems, but I think I can fix them.  I cut the last thing — the straw — out of his diet, and the damn thing up and died.”

Obama’s SOTU speech is déjà vu all over again

If you can’t run on your current record, just rinse, repeat, reuse:

YouTube Preview Image

Leno sued for libeling the Sikhs

Golden Temple of Amritsar

The other day, I blogged about the fact that innocuous, bland, silly Jay Leno had come under fire in India for making a joke that saw Romney vacationing in a golden palace — with the palace his staff selected just happening to be a famous Sikh temple in India.  The fact that the joke had nothing to do with Sikhs and everything to do with Romney was irrelevant.  The Sikhs suddenly added themselves to the roster of “Religions of Perpetual Outrage.”

To date, this newest entrant to the Religion of Perpetual Outrage roster hasn’t resulted in actual bloodshed, but it has triggered a lawsuit:

Dr. Randeep Dhillon of Bakersfield filed the suit today in Los Angeles Superior Court. On behalf of himself and what Dhillon called Bol Punjabi All Regions Community Organization, the suit charges that the broadcast was libelous on its face and exposed Sikhs and their religion to hatred, contempt and ridicule because it portrayed the holiest place in the Sikh religion as a vacation resort owned by a non-Sikh. The suit charges that Leno’s use of the photo of the temple was intentional, deliberately false and “hurt the sentiments of all Sikh people in addition to those of the plaintiff.” The suit seeks general, special and punitive damages as well as court costs.

Jay Leno (Image by Michael Albov)

They say that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality.  Perhaps being thrown into the deep end of the political correctness swamp will force Jay Leno to revisit some of the liberal perceptions that color his life and humor.

(Hat tip:  A friend.)

How not to train the next generation of warriors in Obama’s stripped down military

Obama has consistently handed out cash to the unions and his cronies, but he’s planning on stripping the military to its bare bones.  This is not the same as trimming the fat and increasing efficiency.  Instead, he envisions the American military in say, circa 1917 or 1941.  Yes, we won both those wars, but at a terrible cost.  Had we been stronger and more pro-active, each might have ended more quickly and with less bloodshed.

Because my brain works in mysterious ways, I have visions of Obama saying that all the kids playing Call of Duty are pretty much pre-trained, making much of boot camp unnecessary.  That’s so not true.

Doesn’t Obama’s oration remind you of that old commercial “I’m not a doctor, but I play one on TV.”  This SOTU has a soundtrack:  “I’m not an executive, but I play one on TV.  I’m not a statesman, but I play one on TV.  I’m not a Commander in Chief, but I play one on TV.”

Two videos to remind you that 1,000 days is a disgracefully long time for a nation to go without a budget

YouTube Preview Image YouTube Preview Image

Watcher’s Council results for January 20, 2012

This was the week that was and, as is always true at the Watcher’s Council, it was a good week:

Council Winners

Non-Council Winners

One thing on which we both can agree: sugar is bad and high fructose corn syrup is worse

Alec Baldwin has undergone an amazing transformation in the last few months.  This is Baldwin at peak pudgy:

And this is Alec Baldwin today:

What’s even more impressive than this transformation is Baldwin’s claim that he dropped all the weight in four months, primarily by leaving sugar out of his diet:

Baldwin, who’s dating yoga instructor Hilaria Thomas, tells “Access Hollywood,” “I gave up sugar. I lost 30 pounds in four months. It’s amazing.

“(I do) Pilates, spin, not as much yoga as I’d like. When we’re shooting (‘30 Rock’) it’s tough… When we’re shooting and I can’t work out, I just have to eat less. So, I’m very conscious of that. But sugar was the real killer for me – that was the problem.”

In one of those frequent coincidences I so often see in the internet world, within minutes after reading about Baldwin’s weight loss, I returned to an email thread in a conservative group to which I belong.  The thread had made a fascinating journey, traveling from poor grammar (specifically, the loss of the declaratory in favor of the interrogative), to the feminization of speech, and then to chemicals in food that may affect boys’ hormonal development.  The last email in the thread, the one that arrived immediately after I read about Alec’s “I gave up sugar” statement, was about the dangers of sugar generally and, more specifically, high fructose corn syrup.  The author of the email made his argument against sugar compelling by including pictures that precisely echo Baldwin’s photos:  he went from middle-aged plump to trim and muscular, not through surgery and time travel, but through sugar control and exercise.

My friend linked to Peter Attia’s War on Insulin site, and said that it changed his world.  I have to admit to being intrigued.  Last year, I gave up flour (which transforms into sugar in the body) and felt better, although I lost at most three pounds.  By the end of the year, though, I’d slipped back into my old ways.  The War on Insulin approach, however, is better rounded than just giving up foods, and that may be what I need.  It’s not even so much about the weight gain, although I’d be happy to drop the last baby fat (13 years after the baby was born).  It’s also about feeling better.  I feel draggy, and draggy people don’t get black belts.

Aside from finding the whole thing very intriguing, I thought it was incredibly funny that, in a country that is currently experiencing a very deep, rancorous political divide, one that splits it pretty much straight down the middle numerically, two people from opposite ends of the spectrum (my conservative friend and the liberal Alec Baldwin) can find common ground in the world of low-glycemic diets.

 

The death of oratory

Oratory died with Leftism, which hides, rather than reveals, truth; and with MTV, which brought America’s attention span down to 15 seconds.  This is the sad result.  No wonder Newt is popular right now.  Whether he’s a snake oil salesman or the real deal, and regardless of staggering baggage, he might just go down as the last real public speaker, someone who can hit core truths and do so extemporaneously.

Media commits fraud by continuing to ignore the conservative movement in America

A few days ago, writing with regard to the media’s decision to ignore the standing ovations Newt received during the last South Carolina debate, I asked “If the Press Ignores an Event, Does It Exist?“  The press, it turns out, wants to take that experiment in ignoring facts as far as it can go.

Today, I present you with an even more egregious example, one that sees that media ignore several hundred thousand people walking down the streets of Washington, D.C.  The event, of course, was the March For Life, something the media would prefer not to acknowledge.  As the Anchoress says:

You want the truth? You think you deserve it? The press can’t handle the truth; they can’t bring it to you.

That’s why 250 people camping out in a park gets thousands of stories, while half-a-million marching on Washington does not get reported at all, or if it does, the pictures are cropped; the attendees are caricatured, mis-named and under-represented while their opponents are over-represented.

You should, of course, read her entire post.

As I often say, I’m not yet fully recovered from my years in the Pro-Choice camp, so I won’t be marching any time soon with the Pro-Life people, even though I admire them more than my former fellow travelers.  I am, though, very much pro-truth.  And as I lawyer, I can tell you that, as a matter of law, selective omission is just as much a fraud is deliberately deceptive affirmative statements.

Fuzzy brain

Twenty or more years ago, pulling an all-nighter was fun and/or profitable, since I was either out dancing or in earning money meeting some sort of legal deadline.  The whole all-nighter thing loses its luster when you’re caring for a sick child (migraine, for those interested).  Little Bookworm 1 is better sleeping so, as soon as I get Little Bookworm 2 off to school, I’m heading back to bed myself to see if I can remove some of the sandpaper from my eyeballs.  Blogging will be light this morning.

Newt: There’s no zealot like a convert

One of the things my parents always told me was that there is no one more fired with zealotry than a convert.  Paul of Tarsus is, of course, the perfect example of the truth behind that statement.

One doesn’t have to look so far field, though, in time at space.  Just consider the fact that so many of the most prominent conservative bloggers today are former liberals.  Thomas Lifson, of American Thinker; the whole Power Line crew; David Horowitz; Roger L. Simon; Andrew Breitbart; and so many more, once having seen the light, fell compelled to share it with others.  To them, conservativism isn’t a background noise, it’s an epiphany.  In addition to their zealotry, these neocons have another significant advantage:  having once been liberals themselves, they understand the liberal mindset and they can challenge it more effectively than someone who has never seen Leftism from the inside.

Newt Gingrich is currently under attack for being the ultimate government insider.  He was an elected representative and then, no matter how he dances around it, he was a lobbyist.  Talk about being in the belly of the beast.

In this election cycle, though, Newt speaks with the zealotry of the convert.  Unlike Romney, who has the rich, earthy charm of a poorly designed android, and Santorum, who is the really nice guy no one notices, Gingrich is the one on the street corner hollering to the crowds about being saved.  Either it’s a fantastic performance, or he has genuinely bought into core conservative notions about the economy, about race in America, about welfare dependency, etc.  He is articulating core conservative principles with verve and wit. The added fillip, of course, is that, although Newt has arguably turned his back on the political establishment, he knows better than anyone how it operates and, therefore, is better situated than anyone to bring it under control.

Newt’s joie de vivre makes his presentation so natural that I am currently inclined to see him as a newly converted true believer, rather than a snake oil salesman.  Of course, the problem with converts is that, sometimes, they backslide.  If Newt has indeed seen the light, it remains to be seen whether this is a permanent change to his core principles or a merely superficial fad.

Apropos Newt’s wit, stick with this short speech excerpt to the end:

YouTube Preview Image

 

Pardon me while I think

I am working on another ebook.  Yes, despite the fact that my last effort earned me about $0.05 per hour, I haven’t lost the yen to publish.  This time around, I think I’ve got a better idea for a book that will actually see me making a more reasonable return on effort.  The book is more focused, has a broader potential market, and is shorter.  I’m not going to ill-wish myself by telling you about the book yet (I’m still blocking it out and am riding a lovely wave of ideas), but I’d like your input about one thing: When you’re buying a self-published ebook, what’s your preferred purchase price?

My sense is that, if I price too low, I make it look as if my book is valueless.  However, I learned the hard way with the last effort that, if I price it to high, too few people are going to buy a book from a self-published author.  I would very much appreciate your opinions on this.

Even the affable, slightly generic, left-of-center Jay Leno cannot escape the hurt feelings of the political correctness crowd

Back in the late 1980s, early 1990s, when political correctness first floated into the realm of mainstream culture, everyone thought it was the same as being nice or having good manners.  It’s not.  Good manners, to my mind, means assuring that the people around you feel comfortable.  Political correctness means controlling people’s thoughts and actions.  It’s a very iron hand draped in a warm and cuddly velvet glove.

Jay Leno, bland, slighty-left-of-the-middle-of-the-road Jay Leno, made a rather pathetic little joke about Romney’s wealth, which consisted of claiming that a beautiful Golden Temple is his home.  The Golden Temple happens to be a Sikh religious site, but you can see how Leno’s writers were attracted by its gold-ness.  In other words, the joke wasn’t about (or, more importantly, directed against) Sikh’s.  Instead, it was about Romney and riches.  Indian Sikhs, however, are up in arms:

A Leno skit showed the temple as the summer home of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

Mr Romney has faced taxation questions over his huge wealth and many Sikhs are angry the temple has been depicted as a place for the rich.

The Sikh community has launched an online petition and an Indian minister called the comments “objectionable”.

Overseas Indian Affairs Minister Vayalar Ravi told reporters: “It is quite unfortunate and quite objectionable that such a comment has been made after showing the Golden Temple.”

The friend who sent me this story zeroed in on a specific quotation:

“Freedom does not mean hurting the sentiments of others… This is not acceptable to us and we take a very strong objection for such a display.”

As my friend said, “Uh, yeah it does, unfortunately,” along with a more pungent (but entirely apropos) comment about the fact that India too has figured out that the only religions in the world that can be the subject of jokes or insults are Christianity and Judaism.

On the subject of free speech, much as I venerate the Constitution, I think the most pithy statement is one that is attributed (incorrectly) to Voltaire:

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Frankly, the contrast between that statement and the political correctness doctrine — “only the arbiters of political correctness, all of whom are Leftist, can determine what speech is acceptable” — pretty much says it all when it comes to the Statists and the Individualists.

Obama is such an easy target that it’s a shame the Republicans are determined to kill only each other

We can expect tomorrow night’s State of the Union address to be an action-packed hour (or so) of vitriol and self-pity.  Obama will cherry-pick a few numbers about the 1% and then whine about how he’s been trying really hard to destroy that same 1%, but that a vast array of insurmountable obstacles — Congress, Republicans, the media, the American people, the Jews — have prevented him from doing so.  In a most-read piece, Joseph Curl explains what Obama will be hiding:

The unemployment rate when Mr. Obama was elected was 6.8 percent; today it is 8.5 percent — at least that’s the official number. In reality, the Financial Times writes, “if the same number of people were seeking work today as in 2007, the jobless rate would be 11 percent.”

In addition, there are now fewer payroll jobs in America than there were in 2000 — 12 years ago — and now, 40 percent of those jobs are considered “low paying,” up 10 percent from when President Reagan took office. The number of self-employed has dropped 2 million to 14.5 million in just six years.

Regular gasoline per gallon cost $1.68 in January 2009. Today, it’s $3.39 — that’s a 102 percent increase in just three years. (By the way, if you’re keeping score at home, gas was $1.40 a gallon when George W. Bush took office in 2001, $1.68 when he left office — a 20 percent increase.)

Electricity bills have also skyrocketed, with households now paying a record $1,420 annually on average, up some $300.

Some 48 percent of all Americans — 146.4 million — are considered by the Census Bureau either as “low-income” or living in poverty, up 4 million from when Mr. Obama took office; 57 percent of all children in America now live in such homes.

And that’s not even the half of it.  You can read the rest here.

In this target-rich environment, the tone-deaf Mitt Romney is attacking . . . Newt.  This is why Newt is surging.  While Mitt attacks him, Newt, although he too has taken too many time-outs for vicious internecine warfare, hasn’t forgotten that the American people care about the economy and national security.  Even Newt, though, could step up the attacks on Obama.  It’s like shooting fish in a barrel.

And here’s a judo-style suggestion for dealing with all of Obama’s victim talk:

President Obama claims that the media misrepresents him, Republicans are evil, Congress is obstructionist, and the American people are lazy.  These are the reasons, he says, that he has been unable to implement his agenda.  It’s not his fault; it’s everyone else’s fault. 

Well, let’s assume, solely for the sake of argument, that everything the President says about the obstacles facing him is true.  That assumed truth leads to one, and only one possible question:  What the heck type of a leader is President Obama?  By his own admission, he is unable to handle anyone or anything that stands in his way.  This isn’t just an inability to handle the 3 am phone call.  Instead, this is the inability even to pick up the phone. 

The man who occupies the highest leadership position in the land — indeed, in the world — has repeatedly conceded that he isn’t up to the job.  Since he’s not going to quit, it’s up to you, the American people, to fire him.  And when you replace him, I’m the man for the job because….

So, like, kids don’t speak real English anymore?

I’m surrounded by tweens and teens, so I can attest to this poem’s accuracy:

YouTube Preview Image

Hat tip:  The New Editor

Occupy’s cost

Not only is the Occupy movement ugly, divisive and violent, it’s also expensive:

The news spotlight has moved elsewhere, but Oakland continues to shell out hundreds of thousands of dollars a month for the Occupy protests.

Every week for the past month, more than 100 cops, or roughly one-fifth of the city’s patrol force, are called in to work the Saturday night Occupy demonstration held downtown.

Estimated cost: about $50,000 a week.

City officials now estimate their overall Occupy tab is up to $3 million and counting – this at a time when up to 400 city workers will likely be laid off Feb. 1 for lack of money.

Notes from here and there

I don’t have enough material to offer “notes from all over,” but I do have enough material for notes from here and there.

The re-hash of Newt’s marital woes got ABC to take a journey down memory lane to talk about famous philandering politicians.  Showing just how selective Pravda-esque memory can be, ABC got Thomas Jefferson, whose alleged philandering has always been dubious, and Grover Cleveland, who philandered more than a century ago, but managed to forget both JFK, perhaps because his extramarital activities were hidden from the press, and Bill Clinton, whose escapades meant that millions of American elementary school children were asking Mommy and Daddy pointed questions about oral sex.  (Hat tip:  Earl.)

Oh, England!  England!  She ain’t what she used to be.  I still find staggering the fact that Yorkshire which, when I lived in England was the most quintessentially English of shires, as opposed to the more cosmopolitan southern shires, is now becoming majority Muslim in many cities and towns.  Sigh.  (Hat tip:  Earl)

Yid With Lid is one of the best Jewish/Israel/General Politics bloggers out there.  Today is his anniversary.

Of this story, JKB says “It’s all good, no urination occurred.  Just kidnapping of soldiers and their summary execution.”  It’s good to know that the Western media and its fellow travelers have their priorities straight when it comes to outrage.

An NPR report about the beginning of the end of China’s core communist years goes right to the heart of everything that’s wrong with socialism.

And that’s all.  Between the fact that the Niners lost (I’m a fair weather fan, so I watched today’s game, which almost gave me a million heart attacks), the swarm of children in my house, and my mother’s issues (many, many issues), I’m depleted.  Tomorrow, I’ll have a good work-out in the early morning and, I hope, be mentally revitalized the rest of the day.

The only other thing I’ll add is that Speed, the 1994 movie that introduced me to the wonders of Keanu, is as good as I remembered.  And so was Keanu.  Indeed, it/he was so good that my daughter, who has long considered my appreciation for Keanu to be the deviant behavior of a middle-aged lady, was moved to say “Is that Keanu?  He’s so handsome!”  Hah!

A very witty musical joke

YouTube Preview Image