Fine thoughts from other people

I had a lovely time last night at a reception on the Bonhomme Richard, and plan on writing about it later today.  However, other work calls, so I thought I’d fill this space with recommendations for interesting stuff you may want to read.  In no particular order:

William Katz, a witty, erudite man who has absorbed much from traveling through the past few decades, deconstructs the way the Left is using the concept of “guilt by association” to insulate Obama from much-deserved criticism.

On the opposite end of the spectrum from Mr. Katz, spend some time with Jesse Jackson.  We’ve always known he’s an antisemite, but with the prospect of a similar thinking White House administration, he’s oozing out of the closet. As you read the article, keep in mind that Jackson is promising that an Obama administration will turn its back on the only liberal democracy in the Middle East, and will ally itself with some of the worst theocratic totalitarian dictatorships, not just in the region, not just in the world, but in the history of the world.

Jonah Goldberg points out the obvious (but does it does charmingly):  Republicans are so frightened by Obama’s skin-color, and the risk of appearing non-PC, that they are allowing him to get away with political murder.  We all know that, when it comes to Obama, there’s only one color that matters, and that is Red.

Thomas Sowell nails the liberal horror of the long-standing American tradition of “going negative” in political elections: “Why then is ‘negative advertising’ such a big deal these days? The dirty little secret is this: Liberal candidates have needed to escape their past and pretend that they are not liberals, because so many voters have had it with liberals.”

Michael Reagan provides a good run-down of Ayers’ relevance to this election, and it has nothing to do with his having bombed buildings when Barack was 8.

IBD neatly summarizes why ACORN matters so much.  And if that analysis doesn’t sway you, check out the Wall Street Journal on precisely the same point.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. suek says

    Thank you for the links. Like I need to be reading more blogs!!!

    Is anyone in contact with Wolfhowling?? he hasn’t posted anything for a week, and he never seems to miss announcing the Council winners…

  2. says

    We Council members are also looking for the Wolf. My current theory is that he’s having a wonderful vacation somewhere and just forgot to tell us. I’ll keep you posted if I hear differently.

  3. Ymarsakar says

    and will ally itself with some of the worst theocratic totalitarian dictatorships, not just in the region, not just in the world, but in the history of the world.

    Dictatorship is a great way to get money, Book, since you get to own everything. Jesse Jackson understands this very well, I assure you.

  4. Mike Devx says

    It was heartwarming to see an American Thinker writer agreeing with the idea that our Northeast Republican Elites are deliberately attacking Sarah Palin and harming true conservatism. Seen through Christopher Buckley’s repudiation of his recently deceased father (William F Buckley, the conservative icon and hero), the analysis is, I think, quite good. Perhaps not on par with Book’s links, but these excerpts are worth reading:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/the_buckley_apostacy.html

    On Friday October 10, Christopher Buckley posted a piece titled “Sorry Dad — I’m Voting for Obama” on Ariana Huffington’s “The Daily Beast” [...]

    Because there’s one theme snaking through the entire exercise [Buckley's article], a theme we’ve grown used to from points northeastern over the past few weeks.

    It begins, as we’ve come to expect, with that awful Palin woman, the one with the high heels and all the kids. Buckley has swallowed whole the libel that Palin is “unqualified” and believes it completely — or says he does. His argument differs not an iota from that of Parker, Krauthammer, Brooks, Frum, Brookhiser, Noonan, and not to forget Rod Dreher, the world’s weirdest social conservative. That is to say, there is no argument. Merely the bald, unsupported assertion and nothing else. None of these writers has put any sincere effort into making their case, and that being true of Buckley as well, we can dismiss it.

    The picture grows clearer as we move on to the reason why Buckley supports Obama. It’s because — nod nod, wink wink — he’s a Harvard man. This, Buckley assures us, guarantees a first-class temperament, a first-class intelligence, and a fine taste in tailors. After that, who wouldn’t switch his vote?

    Once more, we’re confronted with the fact that Palin, the McCain campaign, and every other given reason for the great conservative bugout of this season is a facade. This is not about ability, or competence, or anything else. It’s about the elite circling their wagons to oppose an eruption from the lower depths. An eruption that may be represented by Sarah Palin but which includes you, me, and every other reader of this site. [...]

    Conservatism was always a phenomenon of the common people in this country, people who took tradition seriously. It would never have become of interest to the elite but for one figure — William F. Buckley, Jr. Now that he’s gone, the situation is returning to the historical norm. [...]

    [Christopher] Buckley in and of himself is not important. But the symbolism of his act is. Only a few months after WFB, Jr. dies, here’s his son pledging support to an individual at polar opposite to everything the old man stood for and leaving his magazine. It provides a suitable cap for the collapse of the northeastern conservative elite. These are William F. Buckley’s own people, his crowd, many of whom he knew, some of whom he trained. And yet, in the clearest contest between conservatism and leftism since the Reagan era, they are turning tail one after the other.

    Times change, and all things move toward their end. A certain style of conservatism is coming to its end amid this election season. Another style remains. Reform of American conservatism in our time has always come out of the West. It’s happening again today. In the past, urban conservatives served to analyze and interpret such events for the benefit of the rest of us. That no longer appears to be the case. But we’ll manage somehow.

  5. Ymarsakar says

    It was heartwarming to see an American Thinker writer agreeing with the idea that our Northeast Republican Elites are deliberately attacking Sarah Palin and harming true conservatism.

    Like the Nation of Islam, Islam, and Democrats, when somebody comes from the bottom and rises to top to unsettle the power dynamics of the oligarchs, then the oligarchs have a vested interest in exterminating people like Lieberman, Sarah, and others like them.

    And yet, in the clearest contest between conservatism and leftism since the Reagan era, they are turning tail one after the other.

    The good things about wars, official or unofficial, is that it tells you very clearly who your allies and friends are and who your implacable enemies are, Mike.

    9/11 and Iraq gave very Democrats a glimpse into the reality they had, by that time, managed to avoid seeing. The same will be true of the 2008 election.

    A certain style of conservatism is coming to its end amid this election season

    That style of paleo-conservative, isolationist, not giving a damn about the weak and the downtrodden, that started out from day one in Iraq, Mike. The more people started not giving a damn about the Iraqis and America’s efforts there, the more clear it was just exactly what kind of schism was developing inside the GOP between classical liberals, conservatives, and their allies and paleo-conservatives, people like David Duke, and their allies in the Democrat party. You even had Generals shilling for the Democrats when retired, and many of those Generals weren’t very socialist to begin with, but it didn’t matter for it aligned well with the schism.

  6. Mike Devx says

    Y said,
    >That style of paleo-conservative, isolationist, not giving a damn about the weak and the downtrodden, that started out from day one in Iraq, Mike.

    Y, isn’t that the liberal argument against conservatism? That conservatives don’t care about the poor and downtrodden? Indeed, the main goal for conservatives, when it comes to the poor, weak, and downtrodden, is to exploit them.

    Senator Government (brilliant “slip of the tongue”! brilliant!) and those like him would claim that all the poor and downtrodden can be lifted up by seizing the assets of wealth creators and redistributing it.

    Conservatives claim that government can at best – AT BEST – do no harm when it interferes massively in the lives of citizens, and usually makes situations worse. We could use a close analysis of every big government program whose intent has been to help the poor and downtrodden, and debate whether each has had any better effect than leaving it to charity. I didn’t know, for example, that Head Start children showed no demonstrable gains over any other children on the results of 3rd grade testing. Holy crap! The Great Society’s welfare state has directly caused the horrifying, devastating collapse of urban black families, their lives, their environment, their culture. And on and on.

    Conservatism advocates are going to have to, in time for 2012, form cohesive, compelling arguments about limiting the size, scope and role of government. An era of Republican big government is ending, and in its place we’ll need arguments about the proper roles between government and business. What is the proper size, scope and role for regulatory and oversight roles for government?

    The concepts of checks and balances has never been applied to regulatory and oversight functions in our federal government. Can we construct the proper checks and balances so that a Fannie Mae can NEVER happen again, corrupting its industry even if through the best of intentions? If government has any important role when it comes to business, surely oversight is in there, and yet oversight utterly failed in the last few years. Why? (I think “checks and balances” is a concept that has never been tried and I bet there are significant reforms in that area.)

    We’ve got to have the correct answers, and we’ve got to believe in them wholeheartedly to be convincing. There’s a lot of work to be done.

    Else, Senator Government and his Democrats will eat our lunch. Their job is absurdly simple: Take from those who have, give to those who haven’t, because we care. And because we care so deeply, results don’t matter.

  7. Mike Devx says

    To expand Y’s question a bit, let me quote some context:

    Y said: That style of paleo-conservative, isolationist, not giving a damn about the weak and the downtrodden, that started out from day one in Iraq, Mike.

    Mike said: Y, isn’t that the liberal argument against conservatism? That conservatives don’t care about the poor and downtrodden? Indeed, the main goal for conservatives, when it comes to the poor, weak, and downtrodden, is to exploit them.

    ——–

    I must admit I wildly diverted from Y’s point, and I am definitely guilty. But the “weak and downtrodden” must have triggered something in me. My goal is, and was, to defend the very idea that we do CARE for the weak and downtrodden. Conservatives just don’t believe that massive government intervention is a good solution. Indeed, history has shown that it fails, often catastrophically.

    “The best of intentions” is hardly an acceptable excuse when misery is the result.

  8. suek says

    >>My goal is, and was, to defend the very idea that we do CARE for the weak and downtrodden.>>

    The problem I see is that the weak and downtrodden are _always_ going to be the weak and downtrodden. Think about it. In the earlier years of this country, there were W andD people in Europe who decided to do something about it. They picked up all their belongings – such as they had – and left their families behind. In that day, they could expect to never see those families again. They came to America and either succeeded or failed. Look at the much vaunted blacks…yes there was legal discrimination, but when that ended, many have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and made it to the middle class. There are many left behind. There are many whites left behind. _Why_ are they left behind? Because they themselves won’t do anything about it. There may be physical or mental or emotional handicaps, but they won’t do anything about it. If they _choose_ to do something about it, there is help available, but if they see it as too hard, as getting a handout being preferable….guess what…nothing is going to change. They themselves have made a choice. If they want something better for their children, they will have to focus on driving or inspiring their children to accomplish something. If they don’t, then they will be among the weak and downtrodden until _they_ themselves decide to change things. And it really doesn’t matter whether they are in a capitalist or a communist society. They will remain at the bottom.

    It really is their choice. Tell them what they have to do to get out of that situation…what do they say? Is it “how do I start”? or is it “that isn’t fair”, ” that’s too hard”? Guess what…if they don’t have an attitude of “how do I begin”, they’re not going anywhere.

  9. suek says

    I didn’t complete the thought…

    If you care about the W and D, that’s a good thing. But you can’t change them – they have to change them. If you want to give them charity, have at it. What should government’s function be? IMO, government should prevent any law that permits a legal discrimination against any class of people, it should have the flexibility to assist rather than prevent efforts to improve someone’s situation (education, job training opportunties), it might need to provide care for those who have physical or mental disabilities, and then it should get out of the way. If it provides more than that, then that society has decided that those who produce will support those who do not produce.

    In the end, in the society we have chosen, it’s the job of charity, not government to aide and succor the W and D. When you make it the job of government, you have chosen a different kind of society – either socialism or communism.

  10. Ymarsakar says

    But you can’t change them – they have to change them.

    What I’ve learned from studying propaganda, war, politics, and current events demonstrates to me that you can create a permanent underclass of serfs, slaves, ideological robots, and weaklings.

    While individual characteristics between the strong and the weak do remain the same regardless of whether we speak of Genghis Khan as he was hunted by traitors in his tribe before he ascended to the title of ‘Khan’ or people in a representative democracy. However, that being said, the methods of control exercised by the few over the many is demonstrable and historical.

    What that also means then is that the methods of uplifting people are also demonstrable, though not necessarily historical. Since it is easier to destroy than create, you simply have far fewer cases of people being able to uplift while you many cases of people being successful at creating a permanent group of weaklings.

    Conservatives just don’t believe that massive government intervention is a good solution. Indeed, history has shown that it fails, often catastrophically.

    Conservatives believe in free will. It is foundational and solid to what Oz calls the Religious Right. Given the history of the Catholic CHurch and the Reformation, the issue of free will in how it relates to temporal power, politics, and military power has been hashed over for a long length of time. THat does not necessarily produce a solution but it does provide the background for those that wish to search for one.

    In contrast, Democrats don’t often believe in free will. They believe in fate, destiny, and omoikiru (Japanese for to resign to fate). The Democrats believe in karma rather than free will: except their karma isn’t about individual actions putting you farther away or closer to perfection but karma as a way to measure how people should be punished in today’s world.

    THe Arabs have their inshallah, Christians their God Willing, and Democrats their slogans about trickle down bribes to the poor and stealing from the rich.

    This means that when people talk about massive government intervention, the Democrats have problems with it. However, since they know Republicans have a principle about less government, the Democrats will happily attempt to hold the Republicans to that standard by talking about the deficit. This convinces people that Democrats care because the Democrats are talking about the problems and emotions other people have.

    Massive government intervention by the will of the Democrat elite priests is the fate of America to the party faithful. Free will is mutually exclusive with such a goal, however.

Leave a Reply