Thursday night round-up — and Open Thread *UPDATED*

Oh, my gosh!  Have I got good stuff here for all of you.

Rush.  Need I say more?  Actually, just so you know what you’re linking too, Rush manages to combine into one lucid post American exceptionalism and Clintonian hypocrisy.  Whew!  [UPDATE:  Soccer Dad, every bit as wise as Rush, but lacking the scope, made much the same point here.]

I think we have a moral obligation to support conservative Bay Area bloggers, since we are a very fragile species in a hostile ecosystem.  (Did I get that environmentalist language right?)  Of course, it’s always easier to provide this support when the blog is good, and Fund47 is good.  You’ll find here a slide show of the San Francisco Tea Party as well as audio tape of the superb speech my friend Sally Zelikovsky made.  The one thing I can tell you with absolute certainty is that this is no astroturf movement.  Every last one of the people you see and hear is the real deal, fed up with vast government overreach.

Obama is working hard to make sure we can’t rely on traditional energy sources, but the fact remains that “renewable” energy is too expensive and risky for sensible people to take on.  This explains why a Marin town has opted out of a clean energy program (in which several counties refused to join).  It also answers the New York Times‘ perplexed wonderment about the absence of solar power in California.  As to that, I can tell you that, yes, solar power does reduce PG&E bills.  Sounds good, but it’s not really.  If you’re lucky, in 15-20 years, you might break even on your solar system.  As for the taxpayers who subsidized your purchase . . . well, they’ll never see that money again.  Oh, by the way, unless you want your bill to go through the roof, try not to use any but the most necessary energy during peak hours.  During the summer, peak hours are all day, which pretty much puts the kybosh on basic functionality.

There was one person who understand what was really going on with environmentalism, and that was the late George Carlin.  If you don’t mind blue language, you want to listen to this.

Muslims, 1; Military/American Christianity, 0:  Franklin Graham was disinvited, after he dared to speak slightingly of Islam.  Oh, while I’m on the topic of Islam (and why Graham might have spoken slightingly of the religion that can no longer be named), Reason magazine has not one, but three, posts about the disgraceful, quisling censorship of South Park (again, blue language warning).  [UPDATE:  Red State makes sure to point the finger of blame in the proper direction.]

Of course, all that scary stuff may explain why, in addition to its fear of the long arm of Obama, the L.A. Times is assiduously refusing to release the tape it received showing an evening at which, existent stories hint, Obama cheerfully participated in Israel bashing with leading Palestinian activist Rashid Khalidi.  I don’t think the Times is showing journalistic backbone, because it’s never indicated that it has any; I think it’s showing outright fear.

A point about which I frequently blog here is the fact that I find many liberals inarticulate, verging on incoherent, when it comes to explaining their viewpoint.  Fortunately, American Digest is here to help.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • JKB

    I find the post about the lacking solar adoption in California disheartening.  Could it be those Hollywood naggers aren’t willing to put their money where their pompous mouth is?  It’s almost like they don’t buy their own act.

  • Ymarsakar

    I would like to make the note for those that don’t know; George Carlin believed humanity should be wiped out. He is no different from radical environmentalists in this respect, since Carlin himself made big money and had a pretty good standard of living from…. humans.
    Carlin isn’t a humanist. He has no love of humanity. He has no love of individual humans either. He thinks we are the source of evil and the planet the source of good. Well, how is that different from environmentalists, except in degree? These radicals always talk about fascists being on the right and communists being on the left, each being the alternative to the other.
    Yea, sure. They’re so far apart on the spectrum that they’re making deals left and right. Carlin is dead, so everything should be in the past tense.

  • Jose

    From one of the comments on the Red State article linked above:

    “It can’t happen without you, without a new spirit of service, a new spirit of sacrifice.” — President-Elect Barack Obama, November 4, 2008

    “It stands to reason that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there’s someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master.” Ayn Rand, The Soul of a Collectivist, For the New Intellectual, 73

  • JKB

    Jon Stewart had a good opening last night covering the South Park censorship (not online yet).  He points out the muslim terrorist group reside in NYC, in the shadow of the WTC remains, enjoying the fine Jewish delis and theater district.  This wasn’t some foreign cleric speaking but a domestic terrorist group that made the threats.
    So where is the DHS?  Shouldn’t they be looking into threats that seem credible enough that a television network feels compelled to accede to protect their employees?  What does it say about the effectiveness of the Department of Homeland Security that a major corporation doesn’t feel safe supporting free speech inside the homeland?

  • BrianE

    RAMALLAH, West Bank – Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas urged President Barack Obama on Saturday to impose a Mideast peace deal, signaling the Palestinians’ growing frustration after nearly two decades of failed negotiations with Israel.
    Compare this to an interesting discussion in the comments section of this blog post at Volokh Conspiracy:

    More on “What if the Palestinians Don’t Want a State?”
    David Bernstein • April 16, 2010 12:23 am

    Yesterday, I wondered whether the Obama Administration has pondered whether the Palestinians are at this point willing to accept a state based on the formula that “everyone knows” is the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: A Palestinian state in all of Gaza, and 90%+ of the West Bank, plus land swaps to make up for West Bank land that would be incorporated into Israel, with the Palestinians giving up the right of return.
    I pointed out that surveys suggesting that Palestinians support establishing a state based on the ’67 boundaries does not answer the question, because such surveys don’t ask whether the Palestinians are willing to accept this as a final resolution of the conflict.
    So here are some interesting data from a recent poll conducted by a Palestinian polling outfit based at a university in Nablus. The (relatively) good news: Do you accept the creation of a Palestinian state on the total area of the 1967 borders as a final solution for the Palestinian problem? Yes 51.7 No 44.7
    The bad news: Do you accept the creation of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders with some land exchange as a final solution for the Palestinian problem [the far more plausible scenario]? Yes 28.3% No 66.7%
    The really bad news: Do you support or reject making Jerusalem a capital for two states: Palestine and Israel? Support 20.8% Reject 77.4%
    These data raise serious issues regarding whether an Israeli-Palestinian settlement can currently be reached. Israel is not under any conceivable scenario going to uproot the almost 200,000 Jewish residents of East Jerusalem, nor is it going to evacuate the major settlement blocs. Yet only 20% or so of Palestinians would support a peace agreement that did not include these concessions, which suggests that the Palestinians support only a hypothetical peace settlement which they are aware is not within reach. If these poll numbers are an accurate reflection of Palestinian public opinion, the Obama Administration should spend its political capital elsewhere; pressuring Israel is not going to lead to a permanent settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
    In the comments section:
    Ariel says:

    Who cares what the Palestinian people think? They’re not a democracy. We’re making a fundamental mistake by looking at what the people think — we’re thinking that they are like us, that their government is responsive to the public’s wants and needs. That’s just not the case. (If you think elections make a democracy, you may want to consider who was allowed to run for elections, and how certain officials, e.g., Arafat, stayed on well past their elected time frame.)
    When judging whether the Palestinians will accept a deal along the “everybody knows” framework, we are fortunate to have plenty of history on our side: 1967: Arabs reject a deal along “everybody knows” outline. Three No’s include no negotiation. Provide no counteroffer. 2000: Palestinians reject a deal along “everybody knows” outline. Provide no counteroffer. 2002: Saudis propose peace plan along “everybody knows” outline. Arabs refuse to meet with Israel to negotiate/discuss. Palestinians demonstrate their disagreement by continuing the intifada. 2003: Palestinians refuse to implement first step of Roadmap, to lead to deal along “everybody knows” outline. Provide no counteroffer, apart from more terrorism. 2007: Palestinians reject a deal along “everybody knows” outline, at the Annapolis conference. Provide no counteroffer.
    It’s not only that the Palestinians have rejected every deal put before them. It’s also that they have yet to propose a deal that would settle things from their perspective. From a negotiations strategy perspective, they’ve got a great strategy — never make a counteroffer and let the other side bid against itself. From a perspective that looks to solving the conflict, it will not come as long as they have no proposed solution on their side.

  • BrianE

    Friday, January 22, 2010

    Hamas accepts ‘Israels right to exist’
    Hamas has accepted Israel’s right to exist and would be prepared to nullify its charter, which calls for the destruction of Israel, Aziz Dwaik, Hamas’s most senior representative in the West Bank, said on Wednesday.
    Seems like progress:
    “The [Hamas] charter was drafted more than 20 years ago,” Dwaik noted, adding that his movement would even be prepared to “nullify” the document. “No one wants to throw anyone into the sea,” he said.
    So to test Hamas resolve, possibly Israel would agree to withdraw from Gaza provided Hamas actually nullifies their Charter calling for the destruction of Israel.
    Oh, I forgot. Israel has already withdrawn from Gaza. What’s the chance Hamas will actually nullify its charter, as opposed to stating that its prepared to nullify its charter? I’ll check back in, say, four or five years.