I’ve got an old joke for you, one that my Dad heard during WWII in North Africa:

Camel (image by Ltshears)

A soldier has been serving in the desert for a long time, and has become increasingly antsy as his body craves sexual release.  He notices that his fellow soldiers seem much more relaxed than he is.  Finally, he overcomes his shyness and approaches one of his mates to find out why the latter isn’t sexually frustrated.  “Ah,” says his mate.  “The secret out here is to find yourself a nice camel.  You’d be amazed at how good that can feel.”

The soldier is horrified at the thought but, eventually, his urges overcome him.  He finds himself a nice camel, rather pretty and clean-looking for a camel.  He then heads out into the desert with her for some privacy.

Once in the middle of nowhere, he realizes he has a small problem:  he can’t reach the camel (think Chihuahua approaching a Great Dane).  Eventually, our young soldier gets a bright idea.  He’ll take the camel near a sand dune and then position himself on the sand dune.  In his mind, the problem is solved.  What he discovers, though, is that camels don’t stand still and he finds himself chasing his camel lady through the dunes.

Suddenly, he spies an exquisitely beautiful, half-clothed young woman staggering through the desert towards him.  “Help me!” she cries.  “If you can save me from this terrible desert, I’ll do anything for you.  Anything.”

The soldier looks the young woman over carefully, and then politely asks “Would you please hold my camel for me?”

Here’s another story for you, but it’s not a joke.  It’s a true story about the state of modern academia. Peter Singer holds an endowed chair at Princeton.  His books include Should the Baby Live?: The Problem of Handicapped Infants (Studies in Bioethics),Animal Liberation and In Defense of Animals: The Second Wave.  Should the Baby Live pretty much sums up the man’s philosophy:  he advocates euthanizing handicapped infants.  He is, of course, reviled by the handicapped community (and rightly so).

Peter Singer (image by Todd Huffman)

The moral abyss Singer creates with his euthanasia musings is highlighted by the fact that his animal liberation writings make him a founding father of the animal rights movement — a movement that’s come to full flower in PETA insanity (which analogizes the death of chickens to the death of Jews in Hitler’s gas chambers). Singer explicitly believes that a healthy animal has greater rights than a sick person.  Singer has also made clear that he has no moral problem with bestiality, provided that the animal consents. (I love the mental image I have here of a cow or sheep carefully perusing a written consent form, before marking an “X” on it with her hoof.)  This last “ethical theory” has put Singer at odds with the same animal rights movement he was so instrumental in creating.

If you’re wondering now why I’m waffling on about bestiality, which is not normally a subject that concerns this blog or its readers, it’s because the Senate has been busy.  A few days ago, in response to the end of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and the mandate that the military provide a welcoming environment to homosexuals, the Senate (with almost complete unanimity) passed a bill repealing the military law on sodomy.  Doing so is a logical step to take given prior changes in the military code of conduct.

But one really has to ask why the Senate also repealed the law against bestiality.  As far as I know, the Senate hasn’t provided any answers.  Although I don’t see our young men and women in arms suddenly rushing out to enjoy carnal relationships with camels, sheep or any other convenient (and possibly promiscuous) livestock, there is still something . . . umm, what’s the word?  Unseemly? Unsavory? Unnatural? Creepy?  Unwholesome?  Well, there’s something just wrong when one thinks about the United States Senate green-lighting behavior that is normally reserved for risqué jokes and bizarre ethical discussions held far, far out on the wacky spectrum of liberal philosophy.

Sheep (image by George Gastin)

As for me, while bestiality is nothing new, I’m hard put to think of any society, outside of Princeton University, that has ever put its imprimatur on bestiality — – except, if our Senate has its way, for the United States Military.  We’ll see now what the House does with this quirky little add-on to the realm of acceptable behaviors in the U.S. Military.

(Welcome, Best of the Web readers!  James Taranto is correct that nobody’s asking this question, and my readers are correct that Specter’s doing this “because he can,” but it still drives me nuts that, as a taxpayer, I’m funding this old duck’s last political hurrah.)

We all know who Arlen Specter is.  He’s a career Senator (30 years!), who started out as a Republican.  In 2009, however, because of overwhelming RINO tendencies, plus the imminent risk of losing his — and believe me, he thought of it as “his” — seat, Specter switched to the Democratic Party.

Specter’s gamble failed spectacularly.  Not only did he manage to end his career looking like a rank opportunist, he lost the Democratic primary too.  This year marks the end of Specter’s career.  He’s not a lame duck, he’s a dead duck, who isn’t even going to be on the ballot in November.

Apparently ducks, even dead ducks, can fly.  And fly.  And fly.  How else does one explain the fact that, in a week, Specter, using a combination of commercial and military aircraft, is jetting to a variety of colorful destinations.  Starting in Newark, he heads for London, Vienna, Tel Aviv, Damascus, Cairo, Paris and Philadelphia:

I confess that I am confused.  I’m simply unable to come up with a logical explanation for why a dead duck Senator would need to use “Milair” to travel to locations both scenic and, when it comes to the Middle East, politically sensitive.

If you understand Specter’s frenetic travel schedule, and if you know why American taxpayers are funding some part of it (no matter how small), please let me know.  I’ve searched Specter’s home page for information about the upcoming trip, but cannot find anything.

The one thing I know with certainty, however, is Specter’s new theme song:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Gentleman of the old school might confirm Kagan.  Americans who believe in the Constitution and its freedoms must not:

Those [traditional Senate] rules [for confirming Supreme Court Justices] might be summarized as follows: (1) The president is entitled to an appointee who generally shares his views (i.e., a liberal president is entitled to a liberal justice; a conservative president is entitled to a conservative justice). (2) A nominee should be confirmed if he or she is professionally qualified and of generally good character. (3) The only exception to Rule Two is if the nominee’s views are provably and dangerously outside the mainstream of respectable thought.

By those rules, most people would probably conclude that Ms. Kagan is entitled to confirmation — although I and others would argue that her restricted views on freedom of speech would disqualify her under Rule Three above.

But I want to make a different argument in this column: The current rules are obsolete, having come into being at a time when the federal courts had not yet been consciously politicized. Today, liberal presidents attempt to use their appointments with the intent to systematically undermine — not uphold — the Constitution. And they do so because their vision of an ever-more-statist America is inconsistent with the Constitution’s fundamental purpose: to limit the size and scope of government.

And note, this is not a case of “both sides do it,” although it is true that conservative presidents look for nominees who will support original intent, strict construction or other methods of trying to adhere to the Constitution.

But — and this is paramount — because liberal justices tend to seek to undermine the clear intent of the Constitution while conservative justices try to hold the line: The result is an inexorable march toward undermining the Constitution, with conservative appointments functioning as mere temporary holding actions.

As a conservative, I respect Republican senators who wish to venerate well-established traditions. But now, in the fateful spring of 2010, those senators need to consider which of conflicting traditions they intend to venerate. They can either venerate the traditional rules of confirmation or they can venerate the United States Constitution — but not both.

I introduce, as Exhibit A on behalf of this choice, the provision in Obamacare that requires every American citizen to buy a health insurance policy. When the case challenging the constitutionality of that provision reaches the Supreme Court (as about 20 state attorneys general are currently attempting to accomplish by litigation), the government will argue that it is permitted under the power of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce.

They will be forced to argue that the mere inaction of an individual American citizen is an act of interstate commerce worthy of regulation. If that proposition is upheld by the Supreme Court — then we no longer have a limited government. The government would then have the power to outlaw and punish (by fine or prison term) any American’s decision not to exercise, not to vote, not to eat four servings of vegetables a day — any human inaction would be sanctionable under the Interstate Commerce Clause — and then adios liberty.

I met Mickey Kaus a few years ago at a blogger’s gathering.  He is precisely as Jonah Goldberg describes him:  middle aged, a little disheveled (albeit quite attractive), and hostile to BS.  I don’t agree with his political views, but he is smart, honest with himself and others, and he’s not an axe-grinder.  Democrats, Californians and Americans could do a whole lot worse than Mickey Kaus — and, with Barbara Boxer, they are.

First, here is Scott Brown’s latest ad:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Second, not only should conservatives and independents in Massachusetts vote for him, but so should progressives.  After all, the latter hate the proposed health care bill as much as the former do.  Conservatives and independents hate the bill because it vests power in the government; progressives hate it because it channels money to insurance companies and pharmacies.  It’s a bad bill no matter your political viewpoint, but the Senate Democrats are bound and determined to pass it.  At this point, a Scott Brown victory might be the only thing that stops a universally despised piece of legislation from going forward.

If you would like to donate to Scott Brown’s campaign, you can do so here.

I’ve got a matched set of posts for you today.  The first is an American Thinker article by John Gaski, in which he advances the argument that the Democrats are tuning out the American voters, not because they are blinded by ideology, but because they have a well-advanced system in place for permanent one party rule:

Apart from the troubling question of intent, or whether Obama-Pelosi-Reid just have a novel view of the public interest, the national Democrats are unnaturally and mysteriously sanguine despite growing backlash by the American people. Why? One reason:  The Dems don’t believe they will ever have to face a real election again.

[snip]

Dictatorship in a one-party state indeed seems to loom for us. As one prominent commentator has pointed out, the normal order of the human condition is tyranny, subjugation, and dictatorship, with only a couple of respite periods throughout history, including our time in the West over the past two centuries or so. It just took that long for the totalitarian types to gain near-total power in our country, which they are now consolidating over the coming year. What are the betting odds that they will ever let it go voluntarily?

I was inclined to give Gaski’s article a pass on the ground that it was just a bit too paranoid to be true.  I mean, it’s well written, and he advances a lot of facts (ACORN, SEIU, registering illegal aliens to vote, universal registration, corrupt Democratic Secretary’s of State, etc.), but I still didn’t seem them coming together in one coherent conspiracy whole.  My skepticism, however, took a big hit when I read that, even if Scott Brown somehow manages to pull a victory out of the special Senate vote in Massachusetts (which is unlikely given ACORN’s and SEIU’s contributions to the process before and during the vote), the Democrats will still act to block the will of the people:

It looks like the fix is in on national health-care reform – and it all may unfold on Beacon Hill.

At a business forum in Boston Friday, interim Sen. Paul Kirk predicted that Congress would pass a health-care reform bill this month.

“We want to get this resolved before President Obama’s State of the Union address in early to mid-February,” Kirk told reporters at a Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce breakfast.

The longtime aide and confidant of the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, who was handpicked by Gov. Deval Patrick after a controversial legal change to hold Kennedy’s seat, vowed to vote for the bill even if Republican state Sen. Scott Brown, who opposes the health-care reform legislation, prevails in a Jan. 19 special election.

“Absolutely,” Kirk said, when asked if he’d vote for the bill, even if Brown captures the seat. “It would be my responsibility as United States senator, representing the people and understanding Senator Kennedy’s agenda. . . . I think you’re asking me a hypothetical question but I’d be pleased to vote for the bill.”

[snip]

Friday, a spokesman for Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin, who is overseeing the election but did not respond to a call seeking comment, said certification of the Jan. 19 election by the Governor’s Council would take a while.

“Because it’s a federal election,” spokesman Brian McNiff said. “We’d have to wait 10 days for absentee and military ballots to come in.”

Another source told the Herald that Galvin’s office has said the election won’t be certified until Feb. 20 – well after the president’s address.

Since the U.S. Senate doesn’t meet again in formal session until Jan. 20, Bay State voters will have made their decision before a vote on health-care reform could be held. But Kirk and Galvin’s office said Friday a victorious Brown would be left in limbo.

In contrast, Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-Lowell) was sworn in at the U.S. House of Representatives on Oct. 18, 2007, just two days after winning a special election to replace Martin Meehan. In that case, Tsongas made it to Capitol Hill in time to override a presidential veto of the expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

Gaski may well be right — the fix is in, and we’re all well on our way to being broken.

Good ad:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Massachusetts has drowned itself in the Kool-Aid since 1972, but maybe a strong Republican candidate, a strong message, and an insane Democratic party can make the difference.

UPDATE:  If you’d like to contribute to Brown’s campaign, here’s his website.  As Kate said in the comments when she provided the link, the Dems are pouring money into his opponent, while the GOP has abandoned Brown.  Once again, it’s up to “we, the people” to rescue the government.

Now that Nelson has made the 60th Democratic vote, having sold out his principles on abortion for a probably unconstitutional permanent medicare benefit for Nebraska, Olympia Snowe has suddenly developed scruples and announced that she won’t vote on the bill — and why not?  Now that the Dems don’t need her vote, there’s nothing in it for her to vote for it, and everything in pretending to her constituents that she’s a “conservative.”  I hope that her constituents are smarter than that, and that they destroy her when she next runs for office.

How immoral are these people and how stupid do they think we are?  I’d say the answer to both questions is “very.”  Of course, judging by the 2008 election results, Americans, collectively, are just as dumb as the D.C. prostitutes think we are.

A message from William Kristol, one that I’ve already put into effect as to my own Senators (much good it will do, of course, as they’re Feinstein and Boxer):

I gather Rasmussen will report today that its latest survey shows support for the Congressional health reform legislation falling to a new low — 38 percent favor, 56 percent oppose. The lowest support level prior to now has been 41 percent.

The polling data will have an effect. But it needs to be supplemented by citizen activism. Senators are especially responsive to their constituents in their home states. Senators are home this week for Thanksgiving break. If you live in Nebraska, Louisiana, Arkansas, or Connecticut — but also Florida, Maine, Colorado, and elsewhere (quiet nervousness by Senators can have an effect along with public opposition) — or if you have friends, relatives, and colleagues in those states, you and they might want to weigh in on this tax-and-spend-and-Medicare-cutting monstrosity.

In my letter to my Senators, I focused on the fiscal issues, which I think are a more useful sales pitch for ultra liberal Senators than anything else. (And I’m not the only one thinking that; h/t Sweetness & Light.)  They don’t care about quality medical care, they don’t care about socialized medicine, they desperately want abortion to be fully paid for — but they do know that their party can be destroyed quickly if they destroy the American economy. And while they may not care about the American economy either, they care about the Democratic party’s long-term prospects.

Bryon York puts it in perspective:

The extraordinary thing about the dramatic events surrounding the health care bill in the Senate is that there is any drama in it at all. Lawmakers are simply voting to begin debate on their version of health care reform. Just begin debate — not end it, and not move on to a final vote.

If Democrats, with a 60-vote majority in the Senate, were not able to begin debate on the top Democratic policy priority in a generation — well, that would be a devastating turn of events, both for the party and for President Obama. And yet just starting debate has proved difficult, and only today did the 60th Democratic vote fall in place in favor of beginning the process.

I asked a high-ranking Republican Senate source whether it was really that hard to get the Democratic votes together. Could it have been a media-fed story, with reporters looking to inject some unwarranted drama into the proceedings? No, I was told. “It really was that hard for them to get to 60 just to proceed,” the source said. “Very telling.”

And judging by the statements of four moderate Democrats — Lieberman, Lincoln, Landrieu, and Nelson — it will be far, far harder when the process comes to the really important vote, the one that would bring debate to a close debate and move on to an up-or-down vote on the Democrats’ health care plan. Today all four of those Democrats publicly threatened to side with Republicans and kill the bill before it can move to a final vote, unless their concerns are met.

Read the rest here.