Thursday mixed bag

I’ve been busy today hunting down paying work, which accounts for my low blog production today.  Here are a few things for you, though.

On the subject of the oxymoronic “liberal tolerance,” I’ve got a three-fer for you:

  1. The Anchoress talks about Democrats’ fear that innocuous gifts might contaminate them.
  2. Hot Air sends us to a video about liberal intolerance so extreme that even The Daily Show figured it out.
  3. And Ace of Spades talks about the Progressive inability to see that “choice” shouldn’t be limited to abortions.

And apropos Bill Clinton’s speech:

  1. The Watcher’s Council’s own JoshuaPundit has a wonderful post up at American Thinker about Bill Clinton’s . . . um . . . imaginative speech, one that fired the base, but should cause other Americans to shake their heads in despair.
  2. And last, if you hear someone lauding that same speech, here are a few comebacks you can use.  (H/t:  Lulu)

If you’ve got anything else to add, go for it!

Be Sociable, Share!
  • JKB

    I just posted the comment below at PJMedia on a post about the new Clint Eastwood interview.  My conclusions, still a bit muddled, surprised me.  I thought I would see what people here thought.  It seems to me this is what the election is coming down to.

    Eastwood is the man of the moment. He felt it, he took it on with improv and he was on point.
    “We own this country. … Politicians are employees of ours.”
    How he was on point with the opening theme of the DNC “We All Belong to the Government’
    For some reason, the Dems kept this theme alive. Going back over and over, with some tempering, to the government being god.
    So Eastwood hit it out of the park. The choice is between politicians as employees and politicians as high priests for the god, government.

    You don’t question god, you make excuses, you wait. The high priests reset the date for the rapture.

    On the other hand, if an employee can’t do the job, you let them go. 


    JKB – I’ll piggyback on your thoughts about employees with the linked article. The article goes on to explain that Mike Rowe (B) bi-partisan offered his concept to Obama in 2008 and Romney recently. Rowe has testified before Congress of the need to have a national dialogue about work and the value of same.       From the article: “I always thought there something ill-fated about the promise of three million ‘shovel ready jobs’ made to a society that no longer encourages people to pick up a shovel. Actually, I’m not sure we even encourage kids to make shovels any more. We tell them to design websites where shovels can be sold.”
    Dirty jobs need doing
    Mike Rowe, best known as the host of the very entertaining Dirty Jobs on the Discovery Channel, recently wrote an open letter to Mitt Romney, in which he expressed his unified field theory of economic malaise: “our country has become emotionally disconnected from an essential part of our workforce.” “We are no longer impressed with cheap electricity, paved roads, and indoor plumbing,” Rowe continued. “We take our infrastructure for granted, and the people who build it.” He personally takes none of these things for granted, because he does them on his show, taking on a couple of different “dirty jobs” every episode. Some of them involve geysers of manure, piles of animal intestines, or tidal waves of raw sewage. The can-do acceptance of these hazards by the hard-working folks who handle those jobs every day is a big attraction of the show.    

  • JKB


    I was happy to see that, unlike Obama, Romney had responded to Rowe.  There are a couple of initiatives out there for promoting skilled work education.  Can’t say manual arts education or everyone runs away screaming.  John Ratzenberger (Cliff from Cheers) is another trying to promote awareness.  To many Bachelor of Arts and not enough Manual Arts.

    I found ‘Mind and Hand: the Chief Factor in Education’ by Charles Ham several years ago.  It is a book published in 1886 promoting the inclusion of the manual arts in eduation, MIT came from this late 19th century effort.  In it I found my favorite quote:

     In the light of this analysis Carlyle’s rhapsody on tools becomes a prosaic fact, and his conclusion—that man without tools is nothing, with tools all—points the way to the discovery of the philosopher’s stone in education. For if man without tools is nothing, to be unable to use tools is to be destitute of power; and if with tools he is all, to be able to use tools is to be all-powerful. And this power in the concrete, the power to do some useful thing for man—this is the last analysis of educational truth.  

  • jj

    So as this is a sort of species of open thread, while we’ve all been concentrated on the shenanigans in Charlotte, good old Illinois/Chicago has been making jurisprudential history again, in the Drew Peterson trial, where he was found guilty of knocking off his third wife.

    As you are doubtless aware, Drew Peterson is not a good guy, and has (probably) developed this habit of knocking off wives.  A genuine war on women, you might say, or at least on those women who annoy him.  So to be clear, I do not defend any part of Drew Peterson or his act, I’m quite sure as a personal (as opposed to legal) opinion that he did it, and I’m just tired of looking at his smarmy face.  No difficulty at all believing he was a Chicago cop, often enough one of earth’s smarmier creatures.  (I know, I know: there are plenty of Chicago cops who are okay.  Plenty ain’t, too.)

    So I carry no water for Drew Peterson.  But – I genuinely do not like the way Illinois went about this.  There’s a long history in this country of how trials are supposed to work – a process for which I often have about 90% contempt, but it does try, sort of, to insure an opportunity to get a chance of maybe having a shot at something resembling a just outcome.  There are, in other words, rules.  Rules of evidence, and rules of procedure; rules for what’s admissable and what isn’t.  I really don’t like Drew Peterson; but I really, really don’t like that the state legislature of Illinois changed several hundred years of rules about trials in order to be able to nail him.

    And they did nail him, but they had to throw most of the theory of running a trial out the window to do it.  “Remember what we told you in law school, all this stuff about hearsay not being evidence?  Well – yuk, yuk – forget it!  Hearsay’s fine, a perfectly sound basis for conviction!  No more of that ‘objection – hearsay!’ stuff!  Now the judge just says ‘yep, it is.  So?  You’re a little behind the times counsellor, hearsay’s fine, these days.”  One of the major bits of testimony that nailed Peterson was a neighbor, who testified to the effect that Peterson wife #4 had told him – at some time in the past before she disappeared – that Peterson had told her (wife #4) that he’d knocked off wife #3, and she (wife #4) should lie about it if it ever came up.  And this nonsense, which has no better than a 50-50 chance of not being a hallucination, has no way on earth of being corroborated, no part of which can be established (as we used to jocularly say “in law”), and, equally, no part of which can be denied either – because it’s nothing more than hearsay, can’t make any better a case against it than for it – is now admissable testimony.

    So kids mad at Mom, call the Chicago-GB and denounce the bitch!  No evidence necessary – just tell a friend she beat you and away she goes to Joliet.  Proof, corroboration, substantiation – outmoded concepts!  No longer necessary in Illinois, all you need’s hearsay and maybe a little innuendo to keep it sweet.

    Does society need to get this guy so badly we’re willing to put the whole system in the septic tank?  Think of that, just for a moment:  hearsay’s now fine, perfectly acceptable as evidence of evidence in Illinois courts, and you know: soon to come to a jurisdiction near you!  “Well, she told me that he told her that she heard from this other guy’s second cousin that” whatever – is now fine!  Acceptable in court!  Anybody can say anything about anything; nothing beyond that conversation necessary, according to the Illinois legislature’s new (passed in 2008) “F*** Drew Peterson” rule.  And so we all slide a little closer to yet another edge we barely knew was there.