Thursday, April 19, 2007
Blacksburg II
Michael - just for your information, the original draft of my post below had several...."begs the question..." references. And though I relish in pushing certain buttons, I felt in this case it would be a distraction.
Blacksburg
To date I haven’t commented on the events in Blacksburg. I can say in all honesty that I haven’t seen 1 minute of news coverage on this. I have heard snippets here and there on the radio, mostly discussions on 1) what the school administration and police officials did or did not do and 2) whether or not the video/ writings/pictures that this guy sent to NBC should or should not be broadcast. What I would like to hear a discussion about is the how (not in how it was done, but in how have we, as a society, gotten to the point of anger = mass killing).
How have we gone from middle or high school “angst” issues (bullies, depression, break-ups with girlfriends, etc.) that used to be settled with, at worst, fist-fights across the street from the school that lasted maybe 10-15 minutes to taking multiple weapons to school and killing not just the bully or the ex-girlfriend, but seemingly random others, then killing yourself?
How have we gone from “road rage” issues (slow drivers, getting cut-off, not turning right on red) that used to be settled with shaking a fist or finger gestures to ramming the other vehicle/running them off the road and/or pulling out a gun and shooting them?
How have we gone from getting fired/let go/downsized from your job that used to be settled by yelling at your boss or going to the local bar and getting drunk to first killing your spouse and/or children, then going to your ex-employers office, killing the boss and any other random employees that you run into, then killing yourself?
I truly can’t comprehend the leap that Americans, for the most part, have made in this regard. Is part of the problem about our understanding of the “why” or “how” the fact that professionals don’t have the opportunity, after the event, to talk to these individuals because for the most part, the event ends in their death, usually by their own hand? Is part of the problem the American, as compared to the rest of the world, “gun culture”? Is part of the problem the individual freedoms that we enjoy which make it more difficult for authorities to more closely monitor (observation, arrest, confinement, etc.) those in our midst that have been identified by others as potential “problems” or “risks”?
I’m not very interested in discussions about “triggers” or what may or may not have happened in these people’s past. I would hazard to guess that break-ups and parental abuse and depression and stress and mental illness have been with us for eons. The causes have always been there – it’s the effect that has changed and escalated.
How have we gone from middle or high school “angst” issues (bullies, depression, break-ups with girlfriends, etc.) that used to be settled with, at worst, fist-fights across the street from the school that lasted maybe 10-15 minutes to taking multiple weapons to school and killing not just the bully or the ex-girlfriend, but seemingly random others, then killing yourself?
How have we gone from “road rage” issues (slow drivers, getting cut-off, not turning right on red) that used to be settled with shaking a fist or finger gestures to ramming the other vehicle/running them off the road and/or pulling out a gun and shooting them?
How have we gone from getting fired/let go/downsized from your job that used to be settled by yelling at your boss or going to the local bar and getting drunk to first killing your spouse and/or children, then going to your ex-employers office, killing the boss and any other random employees that you run into, then killing yourself?
I truly can’t comprehend the leap that Americans, for the most part, have made in this regard. Is part of the problem about our understanding of the “why” or “how” the fact that professionals don’t have the opportunity, after the event, to talk to these individuals because for the most part, the event ends in their death, usually by their own hand? Is part of the problem the American, as compared to the rest of the world, “gun culture”? Is part of the problem the individual freedoms that we enjoy which make it more difficult for authorities to more closely monitor (observation, arrest, confinement, etc.) those in our midst that have been identified by others as potential “problems” or “risks”?
I’m not very interested in discussions about “triggers” or what may or may not have happened in these people’s past. I would hazard to guess that break-ups and parental abuse and depression and stress and mental illness have been with us for eons. The causes have always been there – it’s the effect that has changed and escalated.
More "redd"
From the Journal of the Simplified Spelling Society:
"When we did this we found that we could make these words regular in most cases by changing only one letter. These you can see in our book called Bridges to Old Spelling. Here is a sample line from that book:
good new spelling: hedd bredd redd (p.t.) dredd reddy.
bad old spelling: head bread read dread ready.
But why, you may ask, use double-d? Why not bred, red, led? For two reasons:
1. If you read red, led, bred, in a sentence they suggest a quite different meaning. In new spelling we save every semantic difference just as we do in old spelling.
2. Our experiments prove that the eye stumbles when it runs across a word with one letter missing. But good reading forbids stumbling, it demands instantaneous comprehension."
TR was an advocate of phonetic spelling:
"During his presidency, Roosevelt tried but did not succeed to advance the cause of simplified spelling. He tried to force government to adopt the system, sending an order to the Public Printer to use the system in all public documents. The order was obeyed, and among the documents thus printed was the President's special message regarding the Panama Canal. The New York World translated the Thanksgiving Day proclamation:
When nearly three centuries ago, the first settlers came to the country which has become this great republic, that confronted not only hardship and privashun, but terrible risk of their lives. . . . The custom has now become national and hallowed by immemorial usage.
The reform annoyed the public, forcing him to rescind the order. Roosevelt's friend, literary critic Brander Matthews, one of the chief advocates of the reform, remonstrated with him for abandoning the effort. Roosevelt replied on December 16: 'I could not by fighting have kept the new spelling in, and it was evidently worse than useless to go into an undignified contest when I was beaten. Do you know that the one word as to which I thought the new spelling was wrong — thru — was more responsible than anything else for our discomfiture?' Next summer Roosevelt was watching a naval review when a launch marked 'Pres Bot' chugged ostentatiously by. The President waved and laughed with delight."
"When we did this we found that we could make these words regular in most cases by changing only one letter. These you can see in our book called Bridges to Old Spelling. Here is a sample line from that book:
good new spelling: hedd bredd redd (p.t.) dredd reddy.
bad old spelling: head bread read dread ready.
But why, you may ask, use double-d? Why not bred, red, led? For two reasons:
1. If you read red, led, bred, in a sentence they suggest a quite different meaning. In new spelling we save every semantic difference just as we do in old spelling.
2. Our experiments prove that the eye stumbles when it runs across a word with one letter missing. But good reading forbids stumbling, it demands instantaneous comprehension."
TR was an advocate of phonetic spelling:
"During his presidency, Roosevelt tried but did not succeed to advance the cause of simplified spelling. He tried to force government to adopt the system, sending an order to the Public Printer to use the system in all public documents. The order was obeyed, and among the documents thus printed was the President's special message regarding the Panama Canal. The New York World translated the Thanksgiving Day proclamation:
When nearly three centuries ago, the first settlers came to the country which has become this great republic, that confronted not only hardship and privashun, but terrible risk of their lives. . . . The custom has now become national and hallowed by immemorial usage.
The reform annoyed the public, forcing him to rescind the order. Roosevelt's friend, literary critic Brander Matthews, one of the chief advocates of the reform, remonstrated with him for abandoning the effort. Roosevelt replied on December 16: 'I could not by fighting have kept the new spelling in, and it was evidently worse than useless to go into an undignified contest when I was beaten. Do you know that the one word as to which I thought the new spelling was wrong — thru — was more responsible than anything else for our discomfiture?' Next summer Roosevelt was watching a naval review when a launch marked 'Pres Bot' chugged ostentatiously by. The President waved and laughed with delight."
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
The Watchman
Joe Pike. He's a mono-syllabic Jack Reacher without a sense of humor. Which is funny if you know Reacher.
The Watchman
The Watchman
Redd
I deleted the earlier reference so I'll duplicate it here: I've always had a hiccup reading "read" if it's in the past tense and there isn't a contextual clue that it is the past tense.
It seems to me that "redd" would eliminate my problem. Let's try it; maybe we'll start a movement.
It seems to me that "redd" would eliminate my problem. Let's try it; maybe we'll start a movement.
Re: King Hack
Although I've only read, er, redd, two of his novels, I've always thought him an artist, at least linguistically. Pure beauty with the language.
Danse Macabre
Bagged it halfway through. For serious students of the genre only I think. I have not read/redd most of the books or seen most of the movies referenced, so was at a distinct disadvantage. Two more points: 1. King's a good writer, and this book shows he's a scholar by any measure of the word. I hate it when he is dismissed as a hack. 2. It's fairly clear to any persistent reader of King's fiction that he's an Unreconstructed Lefty. This non-fiction makes it crystal.
Danse Macabre
Danse Macabre
Scooter a Racist
I love History of the English-speaking Peoples Since 1900 so far, so I am a white supremacist.
From Jonah Goldberg at The Corner, Johann Hari has written, “Pigmentation—the old basis for dominance—is now discredited, so he [Andrew Roberts] has politely switched to linguistics.”
Or so Hari contends Roberts has advised George W. Bush. I know nothing of the Springbokers so I hope I don't eventually find out I have been duped, but I'll be shocked, shocked I say, if that turns out to be so.
It just couldn't be because we (the pigmentally-challenged) have gotten some things right. I personally prefer the term "The West" but that might take in too many of the EU. Probably too much Tolkien influence.
From Jonah Goldberg at The Corner, Johann Hari has written, “Pigmentation—the old basis for dominance—is now discredited, so he [Andrew Roberts] has politely switched to linguistics.”
Or so Hari contends Roberts has advised George W. Bush. I know nothing of the Springbokers so I hope I don't eventually find out I have been duped, but I'll be shocked, shocked I say, if that turns out to be so.
It just couldn't be because we (the pigmentally-challenged) have gotten some things right. I personally prefer the term "The West" but that might take in too many of the EU. Probably too much Tolkien influence.
Mona Charen channels Scooter
"Yesterday, literally before the blood was cold at Virginia Tech, I heard some university official telling the press that they planned to import a phalanx of psychologists and counselors so that the 'healing' could begin. Sorry, but this is unnatural. When something so monstrous happens, you need time for shock, rage, even for numbness. A decent interval is required before you can or frankly should think about 'healing.' The therapeutic instinct, so ingrained in our culture, feels almost indecent."
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
"Healing" in Blacksburg
After 9/11 when the late Peter Jennings was hosting a bunch of kids on the following Saturday on an ABC Saturday Morning Special, I made an unfortunate comment to my hostess essentially saying, "What what the heck do we care about what these kids have to say?"
She, rightfully so, shot me lasers. After a bit, I apologized.
The idea that we should already be calling for healing without a period for rage and then mourning strikes me as premature.
She, rightfully so, shot me lasers. After a bit, I apologized.
The idea that we should already be calling for healing without a period for rage and then mourning strikes me as premature.
Don't know if I can do this without audio...
but for the last several years I've noticed something aurally annoying to yours truly.
The sound made by the letters "tt" in the English language as spoken by Americans, particularly Californians.
There is an ad (for Efax I think) running on the Hewitt show lately that has pushed me over the edge. Generalissimo Duane says, "...and click on the radio 'button' and enter Hugh Hewitt...."
The way he says "button" sounds to me like he is pronouncing, very quickly, both Ts. It sounds like, "but-tin." Again, the two "t" sounds are said very quickly, but it just drives me nuts. Isn't it pronounced "bŭt´n?"
OK, thanks to bartleby.com maybe I can do this audibly.
This is really embarrassing but the first time I noticed it was in the movie Clueless about 10-12 years ago.
What a misanthropic curmudgeon am I.
The sound made by the letters "tt" in the English language as spoken by Americans, particularly Californians.
There is an ad (for Efax I think) running on the Hewitt show lately that has pushed me over the edge. Generalissimo Duane says, "...and click on the radio 'button' and enter Hugh Hewitt...."
The way he says "button" sounds to me like he is pronouncing, very quickly, both Ts. It sounds like, "but-tin." Again, the two "t" sounds are said very quickly, but it just drives me nuts. Isn't it pronounced "bŭt´n?"
OK, thanks to bartleby.com maybe I can do this audibly.
This is really embarrassing but the first time I noticed it was in the movie Clueless about 10-12 years ago.
What a misanthropic curmudgeon am I.
Re: Babe
Didn't hear the show so I can't comment on the substance but the "Babe" use is almost as annoying as Laura Ingraham's use of the "royal we."
And yes, I've adored Michelle Malkin since about 1998. Her sites are here and here and in the links section to the right of this post--Hot Air. (Warning, she periodically blasts Olbermann.)
Not sure I get the "taken out of context" issue, to me, context is essential. If not in context, how many of my comments could nail me to the tree? Certainly he might have been using the context argument as crutch, but I didn't hear the comments so I don't know.
Tonight he's blasting the Second Amendment.
And yes, I've adored Michelle Malkin since about 1998. Her sites are here and here and in the links section to the right of this post--Hot Air. (Warning, she periodically blasts Olbermann.)
Not sure I get the "taken out of context" issue, to me, context is essential. If not in context, how many of my comments could nail me to the tree? Certainly he might have been using the context argument as crutch, but I didn't hear the comments so I don't know.
Tonight he's blasting the Second Amendment.
Another Dennis Miller Update
Found out yesterday that he is on a local station here in Dallas at 8pm. So I thought I would give him a listen. I tuned in around 9:30pm and I lasted all of about 3 minutes, maybe. I don't know who he was talking to, but I could couldn't get past all the "babe" references. I don't have a transcript, so I'm having to do this from memory:
"So, babe, I mean I saw you on Hannity & Colmes the other night and what got you all amped up? I mean, babe, we're just sitting here, taking normally and while I disagree with you in some areas, I feel like we have a connection and I can at least hear what you are trying to get across. The other night, what got you so worked up man, talk to me babe."
But as amazing as that was, the response from his quest was even better. I assume the guest was on H&C along with Michelle Malkin (I have no idea who she is - I'm sure Mike and Scooter do). So as the guest is trying to explain what got him so amped up, Dennis breaks in and this exchange takes place - again, from memory):
Dennis: "I mean, babe, you called her a prostitute - where did that come from? I mean, man, a prostitute?"
Guest: "Yea, I called her that, but you have to understand, I meant it in a political sense. I said it in a political context - I didn't call her a 'real' prostitute, I was calling her a 'political' prostitute."
What??
What I gathered was that the guest didn't explain his context on H&C, nor did he throw in the "real" vs "political" part. He just used the term "prostitute" and everyone just missed his "context".
I just love the whole "taken out of context" arguement that most pundits take when they are called on their comments. I don't even think that Dennis was calling this guy out for what he said, he was just wondering what got him so worked up. But the guest went immediately to the "taken out of context" defense.
By 9:35 I had tuned out. I doubt I'll be tuning back in any time soon, babe.
"So, babe, I mean I saw you on Hannity & Colmes the other night and what got you all amped up? I mean, babe, we're just sitting here, taking normally and while I disagree with you in some areas, I feel like we have a connection and I can at least hear what you are trying to get across. The other night, what got you so worked up man, talk to me babe."
But as amazing as that was, the response from his quest was even better. I assume the guest was on H&C along with Michelle Malkin (I have no idea who she is - I'm sure Mike and Scooter do). So as the guest is trying to explain what got him so amped up, Dennis breaks in and this exchange takes place - again, from memory):
Dennis: "I mean, babe, you called her a prostitute - where did that come from? I mean, man, a prostitute?"
Guest: "Yea, I called her that, but you have to understand, I meant it in a political sense. I said it in a political context - I didn't call her a 'real' prostitute, I was calling her a 'political' prostitute."
What??
What I gathered was that the guest didn't explain his context on H&C, nor did he throw in the "real" vs "political" part. He just used the term "prostitute" and everyone just missed his "context".
I just love the whole "taken out of context" arguement that most pundits take when they are called on their comments. I don't even think that Dennis was calling this guy out for what he said, he was just wondering what got him so worked up. But the guest went immediately to the "taken out of context" defense.
By 9:35 I had tuned out. I doubt I'll be tuning back in any time soon, babe.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Beyond the Beltway
I know I'm the only SSJ, er, not "alum," uh, proprietor who lives alone but does anybody besides me listen occasionally to Beyond the Beltway on Sunday evenings? Although some of the guests are beyond the pale, I generally find them to be genuinely "fair and balanced."
I know, I need a life. At least I don't stay up late on Sundays to listen to the godfather of the Political Internet.
I know, I need a life. At least I don't stay up late on Sundays to listen to the godfather of the Political Internet.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Victor Davis Hanson's Dream
He dreamt that the British Marines fought back, but:
And then I woke up, remembering that the West of old lives only in dreams. Yes, the new religion of the post-Westerner is neither the Enlightenment nor Christianity, but the gospel of the Path of Least Resistance — one that must lead inevitably to gratification rather than sacrifice.
Would that his dream would come true.
And then I woke up, remembering that the West of old lives only in dreams. Yes, the new religion of the post-Westerner is neither the Enlightenment nor Christianity, but the gospel of the Path of Least Resistance — one that must lead inevitably to gratification rather than sacrifice.
Would that his dream would come true.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Re: The dirty 30
I read it and I'll report that I read 160 pages of Moby Dick. Literally nothing else. OK, a little Bible, very little Shakespeare, maybe parts of the US documents. Nothing else. There. Now you know the vastness of my ignorance.
Or do I?
*Scooter: "alum": "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Or do I?
*Scooter: "alum": "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Dennis Miller Update
He does seem to be getting guests including Rudy, Barone, Thomas Friedman, VDH and today Jeb Bush. List of audio files available here.
Hewitt's 30 Must Reads
Hugh Hewitt in his Wednesday third hour had a discussion on the 30 books everyone should read:
And so I conspired with David Allen White, professor extraordinaire at the United States Naval Academy, where he’s been teaching Shakespeare and other matters to the mid-shipmen for more than a quarter century, and John Mark Reynolds, professor of philosophy at Biola University, and the head of the Torrey Honors program there, to put together a reading list, and it’s the top 30 books that every one of you ought to have read, and certainly freshmen and sophomores ought to have read.
The full transcript is here and the audio here. It's embarrassing how few I've read but I bet confidently that I'm the only SSJ alum who's read Boethius (just a treatise on the Trinity, not the work discussed on HH, The Consolation of Philosophy).
And so I conspired with David Allen White, professor extraordinaire at the United States Naval Academy, where he’s been teaching Shakespeare and other matters to the mid-shipmen for more than a quarter century, and John Mark Reynolds, professor of philosophy at Biola University, and the head of the Torrey Honors program there, to put together a reading list, and it’s the top 30 books that every one of you ought to have read, and certainly freshmen and sophomores ought to have read.
The full transcript is here and the audio here. It's embarrassing how few I've read but I bet confidently that I'm the only SSJ alum who's read Boethius (just a treatise on the Trinity, not the work discussed on HH, The Consolation of Philosophy).
Re: Mobil Pegasus
Sorry, LJ, but I just love that old building. I could see the Proud Winged Horse from my boyhood home (if I stood on the fence).
Re: Mobil Pegasus
I am respectfully requesting a moratorium on anything related to 1) Mobil 2) Pegasus 3) Exxon 4) ExxonMobil for reasons that I don't think need to be rehashed.
I'm still rather bitter.
I'm still rather bitter.
Mobil Pegasus
A Dallas icon if there was one, the Mobil Horse sits atop the Magnolia Hotel, site of the old Magnolia Oil Company, which became Mobil. The horse was erected in 1934, on the 29 story building, which when it was built in 1922, was the tallest building west of the Mississippi.
RE: Jenny Agutter
Ok, now that I am able to post, I’ll try these again:
The "Zales" Building.
And don't forget the Fort Worth Watergardens.
I'm trying to figure out how to post some pics of the REAL Mobil Building with my beloved Red Pegasus. Great building.
The "Zales" Building.
And don't forget the Fort Worth Watergardens.
I'm trying to figure out how to post some pics of the REAL Mobil Building with my beloved Red Pegasus. Great building.
RE: Jenny Agutter
When the Mobil/Zales Complex was built in the 70s, it was considered "cutting edge."
Re: Jenny Agutter
I read Scooters comment about the movie being filmed at the Zale's Building in Dallas. That building (a complex actually) was sold to Mobil and was in fact where I worked when I transferred up here after the merger. The Mobil folks liked to talk about that movie being filmed there. EM still owns the property and has been trying to sell it for many years - so far no takers. I've never seen "Logan's Run" - I guess need to just to see if I can recognize anything. The whole place just looked like buildings to me - nothing "futuristic".
Vonnegut
If I could draw a picture that might remind you of a spider or might remind you of something else I might do it right here. And so it goes.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Update on Tito's Update
From an April 9, 2007, press release: "Expansion is in the plans, and despite rumors, Beveridge says he has no plans to cash in on his growing success."
Monday, April 09, 2007
Re: Damascus Nancy
Andrew C. McCarthy at NRO chimes in on Scooter's thoughts about Damascus Nancy, and goes a great deal beyond my analysis of the violation of the Logan Act:
It is settled beyond peradventure that the authority of the United States over the conduct of foreign relations rests exclusively with the executive branch. As John Marshall, later to become the nation’s most important Chief Justice, famously observed, “The President is the sole organ of the nation in its external affairs, and its sole representative with foreign nations.… The [executive] department is entrusted with the whole foreign intercourse of the nation.” In 1936, the Supreme Court explicitly acknowledged in its Curtiss-Wright Export decision, the “delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations[.]”
I agree with McCarthy that this is about teaching and not prosecuting; why prosecute politics? This is a very "teachable" moment but moments are fleeting.
It is settled beyond peradventure that the authority of the United States over the conduct of foreign relations rests exclusively with the executive branch. As John Marshall, later to become the nation’s most important Chief Justice, famously observed, “The President is the sole organ of the nation in its external affairs, and its sole representative with foreign nations.… The [executive] department is entrusted with the whole foreign intercourse of the nation.” In 1936, the Supreme Court explicitly acknowledged in its Curtiss-Wright Export decision, the “delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations[.]”
I agree with McCarthy that this is about teaching and not prosecuting; why prosecute politics? This is a very "teachable" moment but moments are fleeting.
Sunday, April 08, 2007
Another English Speaking Peoples' Nugget
"'While this ugly and irritating business of the [First World] War Debt remains in suspense it is a real barrier to Anglo-American friendship,' wrote Churchill in May 1938 [emph. added], yet the debt and its interest was not finally paid off until the end of the year 2005 [emph. added]. The United States is rarely commended for her patience over this; but deserves to be."
Quite the understatement by Master Roberts.
Quite the understatement by Master Roberts.
Friday, April 06, 2007
Syria, Pelosi and the Logan Act
A caller to Newt on the Limbaugh show reminded me of something I hadn't thought of since an old law school buddy of Michael's and mine had a "US out of El Salvador" bumper sticker on his car.
The Logan Act was enacted 200 years ago to criminalize dealings with foreign governments by unauthorized U.S. persons. It reads:
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
I suppose we could argue that the Speaker of the House might have some implicit authority, but it would be the first time used since about ever. I suppose, too, we might argue that delivering an errant message from our strongest ally in the region was “in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States” or to defeat its “measures,” but just sitting down with the Iranian lapdog certainly lends a sheen to the Thugocracy behind the Lebanese assassination and the attacks on Israel last summer. It also sends a divided message from this nation at a time of war. Neither the White House nor the State Department granted her any authority and it is my understanding she met with Assad in spite of White House discouragement. Newt pointed out that this has never been used in Modern Times and I don't really encourage it here but Politics, Water's Edge, etc.... That used to be a tradition that both parties honored. Now, only one does.
I recall many Dems having to endure having their patriotism challenged during the 80s for getting cozy with the Sandinistas. As a matter of fact, I recall it was John Kerry and, I think, Tom Harkin who were at the forefront. All just as Ollie North was getting around the Boland Amendment and Reagan, Thatcher and John Paul were poking sticks into the Soviet carcass.
And wasn’t there mention during the last presidential campaign of Kerry meeting with some of the bad guys in Paris shortly after his discharge from his service in Viet Nam? I am too young to remember that but I think I recall some discussion in 2004.
Where are the Jacksonian (Scoop, that is) Dems when you need them? There is only one and he is now a Democratic Independent from Connecticut.
The Logan Act was enacted 200 years ago to criminalize dealings with foreign governments by unauthorized U.S. persons. It reads:
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
I suppose we could argue that the Speaker of the House might have some implicit authority, but it would be the first time used since about ever. I suppose, too, we might argue that delivering an errant message from our strongest ally in the region was “in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States” or to defeat its “measures,” but just sitting down with the Iranian lapdog certainly lends a sheen to the Thugocracy behind the Lebanese assassination and the attacks on Israel last summer. It also sends a divided message from this nation at a time of war. Neither the White House nor the State Department granted her any authority and it is my understanding she met with Assad in spite of White House discouragement. Newt pointed out that this has never been used in Modern Times and I don't really encourage it here but Politics, Water's Edge, etc.... That used to be a tradition that both parties honored. Now, only one does.
I recall many Dems having to endure having their patriotism challenged during the 80s for getting cozy with the Sandinistas. As a matter of fact, I recall it was John Kerry and, I think, Tom Harkin who were at the forefront. All just as Ollie North was getting around the Boland Amendment and Reagan, Thatcher and John Paul were poking sticks into the Soviet carcass.
And wasn’t there mention during the last presidential campaign of Kerry meeting with some of the bad guys in Paris shortly after his discharge from his service in Viet Nam? I am too young to remember that but I think I recall some discussion in 2004.
Where are the Jacksonian (Scoop, that is) Dems when you need them? There is only one and he is now a Democratic Independent from Connecticut.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Re: Syria
It's all over the right, but in case LJ missed it, even the WAPO [registration required] decried Pelosi's trip:
Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered an excellent demonstration yesterday of why members of Congress should not attempt to supplant the secretary of state when traveling abroad. After a meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that "Israel was ready to engage in peace talks" with Syria. What's more, she added, Mr. Assad was ready to "resume the peace process" as well. Having announced this seeming diplomatic breakthrough, Ms. Pelosi suggested that her Kissingerian shuttle diplomacy was just getting started. "We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria," she said.
Only one problem: The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message.
Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered an excellent demonstration yesterday of why members of Congress should not attempt to supplant the secretary of state when traveling abroad. After a meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that "Israel was ready to engage in peace talks" with Syria. What's more, she added, Mr. Assad was ready to "resume the peace process" as well. Having announced this seeming diplomatic breakthrough, Ms. Pelosi suggested that her Kissingerian shuttle diplomacy was just getting started. "We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria," she said.
Only one problem: The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message.
Cactus Records is gone.
Went to Bookstop today and noticed that Cactus was gone. Couldn't find a news story but a couple of blogs indicate it closed March 31, 2006.
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Hanson and the English Speaking Peoples
As I mentioned yesterday, I have concerns about the future of the UK/US alliance, the most critical team among those in the English Speaking Peoples. Victor Davis Hanson reinforces today at the Corner:
Blair's stalwart role in Iraq has disguised that fact; but any who read the U.K papers, both right and left, look at the opinion polls, or consider the Islamic problems in London, can easily conclude that Anglo-American exceptionalism is coming to an end for existential reasons that transcend this administration.
Blair's stalwart role in Iraq has disguised that fact; but any who read the U.K papers, both right and left, look at the opinion polls, or consider the Islamic problems in London, can easily conclude that Anglo-American exceptionalism is coming to an end for existential reasons that transcend this administration.
Syria
This article was in the Sunday DMN. Not a large article. Buried in the middle of the front section. And honestly, I can’t say why I even read it. But, as usual when dealing with D.C. and politics, one side has to criticize the other, the other responds and it is all ado about nothing.
The Speaker of the House, while on a trip to the Middle East, is going to stop in Syria. According to the Speaker’s office:
“As recommended by the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan delegation led by Speaker Pelosi intends to discuss a wide range of security issues affecting the United States and the Middle East with representatives of governments in the region, including Syria”
The White House doesn’t like this idea. Per WH spokeswoman Dana Perino, speaking about the Speaker’s visit, called it “a really bad idea". She added:
“Someone should take a step back and think about the message that it sends and the message that it sends to our allies."
All fine and good, except (per the DMN article):
“Democrats were quick to point out that Ms. Perino did not speak out about a Syrian trip planned for next week by a Republican-led delegation.”
So…is the problem the trip itself, or that is being led, while bipartisan, by a Democrat? A Democrat that happens to be the Speaker of the House.
The Speaker of the House, while on a trip to the Middle East, is going to stop in Syria. According to the Speaker’s office:
“As recommended by the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan delegation led by Speaker Pelosi intends to discuss a wide range of security issues affecting the United States and the Middle East with representatives of governments in the region, including Syria”
The White House doesn’t like this idea. Per WH spokeswoman Dana Perino, speaking about the Speaker’s visit, called it “a really bad idea". She added:
“Someone should take a step back and think about the message that it sends and the message that it sends to our allies."
All fine and good, except (per the DMN article):
“Democrats were quick to point out that Ms. Perino did not speak out about a Syrian trip planned for next week by a Republican-led delegation.”
So…is the problem the trip itself, or that is being led, while bipartisan, by a Democrat? A Democrat that happens to be the Speaker of the House.
Let's go shopping - Iraq style
I had a serious debate with myself about whether or not to post on this subject. But what convinced me was my disdain with all things regarding politics. I understand "photo ops" (well, in the sense that I understand why politicans have them) and I understand "spin", but how stupid do politicians think we are. I think the answer is, and we prove it every election day, pretty dumb.
So McCain leads a delegation to Iraq and they decide to take a stroll around a market to "prove" how progress is being made. How much "safer" things are now.
Right.
Now, perhaps the definition of "safer" is this...before, you had to leave the green zone in a helicopter. Now, you can drive out in a humvee, walk around wearing a bullet-prove vest, have a company of soldiers sealing off the area, have snipers on roof-tops and have attack helicopters circling overhead.
And if that isn't enough to "prove" how much "safer" things have become, Rep. Mike Pence (Rep-Ind) comes up with this gem regarding his trip to the Shorja market:
"...like a normal outdoor market in Indiana in the summertime.."
I've been to Indiana, but admittedly not in the summertime, nor to an outdoor market. Guess I couldn't find because I couldn't see any circling helicopters.
Here is a NY Times article about the stroll around the market and comments by Iraqis.
So McCain leads a delegation to Iraq and they decide to take a stroll around a market to "prove" how progress is being made. How much "safer" things are now.
Right.
Now, perhaps the definition of "safer" is this...before, you had to leave the green zone in a helicopter. Now, you can drive out in a humvee, walk around wearing a bullet-prove vest, have a company of soldiers sealing off the area, have snipers on roof-tops and have attack helicopters circling overhead.
And if that isn't enough to "prove" how much "safer" things have become, Rep. Mike Pence (Rep-Ind) comes up with this gem regarding his trip to the Shorja market:
"...like a normal outdoor market in Indiana in the summertime.."
I've been to Indiana, but admittedly not in the summertime, nor to an outdoor market. Guess I couldn't find because I couldn't see any circling helicopters.
Here is a NY Times article about the stroll around the market and comments by Iraqis.
Monday, April 02, 2007
Happy Passover!
To all my Jewish friends (from first grade, my first encounter--Stephen, to college--Sam, from college, --Daniel and Fran, today) and to those Christians who celebrate the Exodus as part of our mutual heritage. I hope we will continue to enjoy, and learn from, your Seder.
Shooter
While the movie was not as bad as I feared, it was not Stephen Hunter's Point of Impact. Other than the initial plot points, a rigged (for want of a better term) assassination and a heroic (critics might rightly say superhuman) vet duped by the evil other, I found almost no similarities between the the movie and the novel.
Beyond the necessary contemporization (if that's a word) of the story and some of the action scenes, I never felt the disappointments or guilt of Bob Lee which made the novel so compelling. I hate to sound so touchy-feely, but it didn't resonate with me, unlike the way such a fan as this one found resonance in the movie series of Tolkien's Lord of the Rings .
Beyond the necessary contemporization (if that's a word) of the story and some of the action scenes, I never felt the disappointments or guilt of Bob Lee which made the novel so compelling. I hate to sound so touchy-feely, but it didn't resonate with me, unlike the way such a fan as this one found resonance in the movie series of Tolkien's Lord of the Rings .
English Speaking Peoples
Appalling stats from the Great War (WWI) per Andrew Roberts in his book:
62M soldiers mobilized (42.2M Allied; 22.8M Central)
8M soldiers killed (4.88M Allied; 3.13M Central)
6.6M civilians killed (3.15M Allied; 3.45M Central)
21.2M total wounded
The US, due primarily due to its late entry into the war, suffered 50K soldiers killed and 206K wounded.
When one considers the populations (relative to today) of these countries and alliances in the teens of the 20th Century, these numbers are astounding. Particularly amazing are the numbers (relative to their respective populations at the time) were the numbers contributed by Australia, Canada, New Zealand and even the British West Indies. (Interestingly, though one of the prime reasons for going to war was to protect France from the hegemony of the Central powers in Continental Europe, the Quebecois participated in substantially lower numbers, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of population, than the balance of Canada.)
The obvious comparison to the Middle East today makes me blush.
In the author's narrative leading up to the Great War, he really lionizes Teddy Roosevelt which I found a bit surprising even though I've been giving the ol' boy a bit more credit lately. He is credited with the foresight of the US needing a world-class navy to really put itself at its deserved place as the new world power.
Wilson is suffering from good intentions with bad unexpected consequences but apparently FDR will really shine when I get that far.
So far The History of the English Speaking Peoples Since 1900 is much less a slog than I thought it would be. It is crisply written in spite of the abundance of numbers like those cited above. I'm obviously through the first 18 years or so. If I haven't mentioned it before, the central thought is one with which I'm not really sure I agree, namely, that 1000 years from now historians and history students will look back on the Brits, Aussies, Yanks, Canucks, Kiwis et al as one people, hence the name of the book. Much like we don't really distinguish between Republican and Imperial Rome, he contends we will be viewed as one entity. I might agree with the premise through 2006 or 7, but things may be changing especially if one agrees with the premise of Mark Steyn's America Alone. I hope not, but maybe.
Interesting discussion of the Boer War and lots of background from the British Empire of the 19th Century.
He's not afraid to address the warts but neither is he ashamed to draw the comparisons that need to be drawn about the virtues of the "empires" of the English speaking peoples. Washington's Farewell Address admonishing against foreign entanglements takes several beatings.
So far, so good. If this continues, I'll have to put this next to Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics as a must read in Scooter's Library.
62M soldiers mobilized (42.2M Allied; 22.8M Central)
8M soldiers killed (4.88M Allied; 3.13M Central)
6.6M civilians killed (3.15M Allied; 3.45M Central)
21.2M total wounded
The US, due primarily due to its late entry into the war, suffered 50K soldiers killed and 206K wounded.
When one considers the populations (relative to today) of these countries and alliances in the teens of the 20th Century, these numbers are astounding. Particularly amazing are the numbers (relative to their respective populations at the time) were the numbers contributed by Australia, Canada, New Zealand and even the British West Indies. (Interestingly, though one of the prime reasons for going to war was to protect France from the hegemony of the Central powers in Continental Europe, the Quebecois participated in substantially lower numbers, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of population, than the balance of Canada.)
The obvious comparison to the Middle East today makes me blush.
In the author's narrative leading up to the Great War, he really lionizes Teddy Roosevelt which I found a bit surprising even though I've been giving the ol' boy a bit more credit lately. He is credited with the foresight of the US needing a world-class navy to really put itself at its deserved place as the new world power.
Wilson is suffering from good intentions with bad unexpected consequences but apparently FDR will really shine when I get that far.
So far The History of the English Speaking Peoples Since 1900 is much less a slog than I thought it would be. It is crisply written in spite of the abundance of numbers like those cited above. I'm obviously through the first 18 years or so. If I haven't mentioned it before, the central thought is one with which I'm not really sure I agree, namely, that 1000 years from now historians and history students will look back on the Brits, Aussies, Yanks, Canucks, Kiwis et al as one people, hence the name of the book. Much like we don't really distinguish between Republican and Imperial Rome, he contends we will be viewed as one entity. I might agree with the premise through 2006 or 7, but things may be changing especially if one agrees with the premise of Mark Steyn's America Alone. I hope not, but maybe.
Interesting discussion of the Boer War and lots of background from the British Empire of the 19th Century.
He's not afraid to address the warts but neither is he ashamed to draw the comparisons that need to be drawn about the virtues of the "empires" of the English speaking peoples. Washington's Farewell Address admonishing against foreign entanglements takes several beatings.
So far, so good. If this continues, I'll have to put this next to Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics as a must read in Scooter's Library.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Friday, March 30, 2007
Speaking of old 'hoods, today's (3-30-07) Vent
I don't know how to post the video, but Hot Air today reveals that Michelle Malkin has Scooter's old (Nina Lee) kitchen cabinets.
Not like the old days in the 'hood
"A gunman opened fire on a group of teens in southwest Houston, killing one of them.
Police say three teens were walking down Beechnut and Jorine last night when the gunman approached them and started shooting. All three were shot. One of them died at the hospital. The other two suffered minor gunshot wounds.
One of the victims' distraught mothers showed up at the scene wielding a gun herself. Police detained her. The gunman got away."
Police say three teens were walking down Beechnut and Jorine last night when the gunman approached them and started shooting. All three were shot. One of them died at the hospital. The other two suffered minor gunshot wounds.
One of the victims' distraught mothers showed up at the scene wielding a gun herself. Police detained her. The gunman got away."
Tito's Update
I haven't been able to confirm the rumor that Tito has sold his company, but I'm on it.
'Shooter' Hits Its Mark With an Old-Fashioned Hero
or so reads the Washington Post headline (registration required). This is the only positive review I've seen for the movie version of one of my favorite pieces of Airport Fiction. Point of Impact is the first in a series of action novels by Stephen Hunter (Pulitzer winner for movie critics at WaPo) set around Bob Lee Swagger in the present and his father Earl Swagger in the past.
I know, I know, "Swagger? You've got to be kidding." I can't help it. I love these books. Can't put them down and have read most of them twice. I've heard Hunter described as the Tom Clancy of the rifle and I think it a fair moniker, though I generally find Clancy a little ponderous.
At least Hunter didn't review himself. I'll see for myself this weekend.
I know, I know, "Swagger? You've got to be kidding." I can't help it. I love these books. Can't put them down and have read most of them twice. I've heard Hunter described as the Tom Clancy of the rifle and I think it a fair moniker, though I generally find Clancy a little ponderous.
At least Hunter didn't review himself. I'll see for myself this weekend.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Distressing News about Tito's Vodka
Heard today that Tito sold out. I'm dumbstruck. If true, I'd never begrudge him capitalizing on his success and making what I am sure is a gazillion dollars.
Having said that, it rivals the sale of Shiner to Miller (I think) as a Texas tragedy.
And having said that, always use your leverage when you have it.
Having said that, it rivals the sale of Shiner to Miller (I think) as a Texas tragedy.
And having said that, always use your leverage when you have it.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Mark Cuban: Wacko or Visionary?
Like I could pass THIS up! I heard Mike Gallagher talking about it during my drive to work this a.m.
"The New York Post broke a story that Mark Cuban was planning to distribute the controversial film "Loose Change Final Cut" which will be narrated by Charlie Sheen. Mark defended his decision to Bill O'Reilly on the "The Radio Factor" saying its better to have the film out in the open than lurk in the shadows. The film has become one of the most popular 9/11 conspiracy films with tens of millions of views on Google Video."
Audio here
"The New York Post broke a story that Mark Cuban was planning to distribute the controversial film "Loose Change Final Cut" which will be narrated by Charlie Sheen. Mark defended his decision to Bill O'Reilly on the "The Radio Factor" saying its better to have the film out in the open than lurk in the shadows. The film has become one of the most popular 9/11 conspiracy films with tens of millions of views on Google Video."
Audio here
Re: Hoops Confession
I thought the mark of a "good" attorney is the ability to bluff? Certainly is a trait of a "good" poker player. Since I've never seen you in action in attorney mode, I guess this little story answers that question. As for poker, I've seen that first hand.
p.s. - georgetown
p.s. - georgetown
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Mark Steyn on Dennis Miller tonight
This Hour (8:00 PM CT) on KRLA.
Update: His phone no. is 866-509-rant.
Update: Sheesh, he's already got the gold, insurance and mortgage ads down.
Update: Steyn late in calling in...a no show?
Update: This is a little Franken like, but anyone who swipes at Byrd is ok, but, yes, I know he's easy.
Update: Still sucking up to Steyn, maybe he'll show.
Update: Nice tie in between America Alone and Londonistan.
Update: Decent bumper music, U2 at the break...but I'm prejudiced, he used Tears for Fears on the HBO show.
Update: Bottom of the hour and no Steyn...could be a big diss.
Update: Miller ratifies my earlier comment saying his turn occurred on 9/11 and then says he’s ok with 50% taxes between state and fed, after that, “it’s creeping socialism.” Sheesh.
Update: Endorsing Sleep Number Beds. How do I get that gig?
Update: Steyn shows, lamely blaming the Central Time Zone for his tardiness.
Update: Glad Steyn made it...instant cred.
Update: I can hear him smirk through the radio.
Update: Apologies to Dave Barry and James Lileks.
Update: "Listen to the [Pink] Floyd [bumper music at end of first hour], were they 30 years ahead of their time, or what?"
Update: Falling back on SNL allies, Martin Short leads off second hour.
Update: Short was in Godspell???
Update: If he has to rely on SNL alums in California, I don't know how many can get up at 4:00 AM or that we'd want to hear.
Update: Bottom line: work to do but I wish him success. Miller can make inroads where others cannot.
Update: His phone no. is 866-509-rant.
Update: Sheesh, he's already got the gold, insurance and mortgage ads down.
Update: Steyn late in calling in...a no show?
Update: This is a little Franken like, but anyone who swipes at Byrd is ok, but, yes, I know he's easy.
Update: Still sucking up to Steyn, maybe he'll show.
Update: Nice tie in between America Alone and Londonistan.
Update: Decent bumper music, U2 at the break...but I'm prejudiced, he used Tears for Fears on the HBO show.
Update: Bottom of the hour and no Steyn...could be a big diss.
Update: Miller ratifies my earlier comment saying his turn occurred on 9/11 and then says he’s ok with 50% taxes between state and fed, after that, “it’s creeping socialism.” Sheesh.
Update: Endorsing Sleep Number Beds. How do I get that gig?
Update: Steyn shows, lamely blaming the Central Time Zone for his tardiness.
Update: Glad Steyn made it...instant cred.
Update: I can hear him smirk through the radio.
Update: Apologies to Dave Barry and James Lileks.
Update: "Listen to the [Pink] Floyd [bumper music at end of first hour], were they 30 years ahead of their time, or what?"
Update: Falling back on SNL allies, Martin Short leads off second hour.
Update: Short was in Godspell???
Update: If he has to rely on SNL alums in California, I don't know how many can get up at 4:00 AM or that we'd want to hear.
Update: Bottom line: work to do but I wish him success. Miller can make inroads where others cannot.
Chris Wallace lays into Olbermann
I never listen to Mike Gallagher so hat tip to Hot Air. Audio of Chris Wallace ripping Keith Olbermann.
“He couldn’t cover a two alarm fire.”
IMHO, rip O'Reilly, Hannity and the others in Central Time prime time all you want, but Hume and Wallace are pros.
“He couldn’t cover a two alarm fire.”
IMHO, rip O'Reilly, Hannity and the others in Central Time prime time all you want, but Hume and Wallace are pros.
Hoops confession -- LJ is The Man
I didn't make bracket picks and pass them on the LJ as earlier described. Love "Nostradamus" Johnson made the picks and graciously provided them to me. Guys in my office thought I was a hoops genius. They got suspicious though when, during the inevitable coffee break post-mortem, I was reluctant to share my analysis of the Final Four. My fate as a fraud was sealed when my secretary (enjoying the reflected moment in the sun as much as I was and thinking she was doing me a favor) asked whom I had picked to win.
I couldn't remember whom Love Johnson had picked.
I might have bluffed, but was feeling so awful and guilty at this point that I was ready to give up the game. I pulled back the curtain and revealed LJ as THE MAN.
I couldn't remember whom Love Johnson had picked.
I might have bluffed, but was feeling so awful and guilty at this point that I was ready to give up the game. I pulled back the curtain and revealed LJ as THE MAN.
History International Channel
Was watching History International’s (link might work) The Conquerors last night and the subject was Napoleon’s Greatest Victory at Austerlitz in 1805 (or thereabouts) with roughly 150,000 total combatants. While Messr. Napoleon certainly kicked some Russo-Austrian butt, that is not the point of this post.
Periodically with some of the programming on Discovery or History or History International or …, I occasionally find myself sitting with mouth agape at some of the things an expert might say, wondering from where in h--l this PC c--p comes. Last night, however, just as I was about to click to another channel, Victor Davis Hanson gave some commentary. Some confidence restored.
Periodically with some of the programming on Discovery or History or History International or …, I occasionally find myself sitting with mouth agape at some of the things an expert might say, wondering from where in h--l this PC c--p comes. Last night, however, just as I was about to click to another channel, Victor Davis Hanson gave some commentary. Some confidence restored.
Boomsday
Tom Wolfe calls Christopher Buckley one of the funniest writers in the English language. At least that's what the back cover of Boomsday says. I'm a big fan and have read most of Buckley's novels. This one is among the best -- wild plot turns, diabolically cynical characters, dazzling dialogue. Boomsday is even more cinematic than Thank You For Smoking and I'm sure will be filmed soon. (If you didn't like TYFS on the screen, don't let that dissuade you from reading the book.) In addition to TYFS, I can also heartily recommend Little Green Men and God Is My Broker.
The Last Mimzy
Ugh. Odd and disagreeable mishmash of sci-fi, New Age, and eco-nonsense, with a helping of Incompetent Homeland Security thrown in for no apparent reason/good measure. Mom and Dad are painful to watch; this guy is brutally miscast. There is a lot of choppiness -- jumping from unconnected episode to unconnected episode -- indicating I'm guessing a longer movie that was edited pretty severely.
Son thought it was OK. And he doesn't like everything he sees. He really disliked Flushed Away.
Mixed reviews here.
Son thought it was OK. And he doesn't like everything he sees. He really disliked Flushed Away.
Mixed reviews here.
Final Four
Had all of the Elite 8, have the Final 4, and lead in my pool. Shared my picks with LJ so I assume he's doing well also.
UPDATE: Confession here.
UPDATE: Confession here.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Good heavens…
My copy of the History of the English Speaking Peoples Since 1900 (buy there, sales help JWR) was next on my list, however, at 752 pages, I might have to rest a while before tackling.
If Bushitler was really able to tackle it, my hat’s off to him. Since he read the English publication, maybe it came with lots of pictures.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Re: Savage
Can't listen for even a minute. There are many who allege that he's really a lib and that his is all shtick.
Re: Dennis Miller
In my mind he was at his best on SNL. On HBO he had his moments but he got lazy, relying far too heavily on f-bombs and the like for laughs rather than working hard for the really good joke, but one did get to see a few of his conservative leanings.
At one point, I think it was on his HBO show (didn't he have a network talk show for a while, a la Aresenio Hall?) he said, "The difference between an environmentalist and a developer is that a developer wants to build a house in the woods and an environmentalist already has one."
He is still anti-gun, pro-choice and thinks very little of the religious right.
Then, after 9/11, he really seemed to make the hard turn sincerely.
Having said that, like her whose name we dare not speak, much of what he does now is pure marketing. Still, I appreciate him when he's on and will take a 9/11 ally wherever I can find him.
At one point, I think it was on his HBO show (didn't he have a network talk show for a while, a la Aresenio Hall?) he said, "The difference between an environmentalist and a developer is that a developer wants to build a house in the woods and an environmentalist already has one."
He is still anti-gun, pro-choice and thinks very little of the religious right.
Then, after 9/11, he really seemed to make the hard turn sincerely.
Having said that, like her whose name we dare not speak, much of what he does now is pure marketing. Still, I appreciate him when he's on and will take a 9/11 ally wherever I can find him.
1776
Of course one doesn't get it in Elementary or Jr. High history classes, but I would have expected better from my high school AP history teacher... 1776 was a very dire year for the young nation. His Excellency got very lucky on a number of occasions that year both in victory and defeat. Providence, perseverance and character seemingly seems to have prevailed over experience, cowardice and resources, but only by a thread.
The war would continue for another six years and take a toll of a full one percent of the male population, second only to the Late Unpleasantness in the latter regard.
What an amazing time. Thanks to David McCullough.
Friday, March 23, 2007
Argentina - el regreso
Las noticias emocionantes como C y yo vuelven a visitar Argentina en Mayo. Seremos idos 9 días y a menos que un viaje del fin de semana a Rosario sea planeado para nosotros por nuestros amigos Argentinos, nosotros estaremos en Buenos Aires el tiempo entero.
Desde que nosotros acerca de 90% de las cosas "de tipo" turista en nuestro primer viaje, nuestros planes son de ir a los barrios, o a los vecindarios, que nosotros no llegamos a. Quisimos agarrar un desempeño en el Teatro Colon, pero es cerrado para renovaciones.
Por supuesto, tendré los retratos que anunciaré sobre nuestro regreso, así como lo que estoy seguro será muchas historias humorísticas e interesantes
Desde que nosotros acerca de 90% de las cosas "de tipo" turista en nuestro primer viaje, nuestros planes son de ir a los barrios, o a los vecindarios, que nosotros no llegamos a. Quisimos agarrar un desempeño en el Teatro Colon, pero es cerrado para renovaciones.
Por supuesto, tendré los retratos que anunciaré sobre nuestro regreso, así como lo que estoy seguro será muchas historias humorísticas e interesantes
Re: Dennis Miller
Like Mike, or you Scooter, will set your alarm for 3am to catch Dennis' show. Nice time-slot, very Art Bell-ish.
It's interesting that you brought up the subject of Dennis Miller. I of course know him from SNL and from his "Rant" series, but since I'm probably the only person who doesn't have (nor ever has had) HBO, I lost touch with him. If you would have asked me where he leaned politically, I would have said somewhere more towards the left. But just a couple of days ago, Mike Gallagher was talking about comments Dennis made on "The View" or some other morning show and was agreeing with him, talking about how much he admired him, etc. That planted the seed in my mind that perhaps Dennis was more conservative than I thought. So when I clicked on the link you had to KRLA and saw the head-shots of the other talk show hosts on the station, I was a bit surprised. Dennis..on the same station as Michael Savage? Laura Ingram?
So I went to wikipedia (probably my favorite of all internet sites) and here is a snippet of what it says about Mr. Miller:
"...He has more recently become known for his conservative opinions, from an
aggressive stance on U.S. military action to a disdain for the Democratic
Party. He now appears regularly on Fox News Channel's The O'Reilly Factor and Hannity and Colmes."
Once I read that he is a regular on H&C, then I knew he was lost to the dark side.
It's interesting that you brought up the subject of Dennis Miller. I of course know him from SNL and from his "Rant" series, but since I'm probably the only person who doesn't have (nor ever has had) HBO, I lost touch with him. If you would have asked me where he leaned politically, I would have said somewhere more towards the left. But just a couple of days ago, Mike Gallagher was talking about comments Dennis made on "The View" or some other morning show and was agreeing with him, talking about how much he admired him, etc. That planted the seed in my mind that perhaps Dennis was more conservative than I thought. So when I clicked on the link you had to KRLA and saw the head-shots of the other talk show hosts on the station, I was a bit surprised. Dennis..on the same station as Michael Savage? Laura Ingram?
So I went to wikipedia (probably my favorite of all internet sites) and here is a snippet of what it says about Mr. Miller:
"...He has more recently become known for his conservative opinions, from an
aggressive stance on U.S. military action to a disdain for the Democratic
Party. He now appears regularly on Fox News Channel's The O'Reilly Factor and Hannity and Colmes."
Once I read that he is a regular on H&C, then I knew he was lost to the dark side.
Dennis Miller's New Radio Show
I've loved him ever since he projected Nancy Reagan as the Riddler on SNL. He starts a new radio show on Monday. He starts at 6:00 PM Pacific Time or 8:00 Central.
If you don't get him in your local area he can be accessed at the KRLA website.
Michael: 3 am on KPRC, 950 on your AM dial, in Houston.
CORRECTION: 8pm on KTRH, AM790.
If you don't get him in your local area he can be accessed at the KRLA website.
Michael: 3 am on KPRC, 950 on your AM dial, in Houston.
CORRECTION: 8pm on KTRH, AM790.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Monday, March 19, 2007
My niece...
I was carrying my four year old niece to my parents' house from a nearby park this weekend when she started playing with my beard and said, "You know what, Uncle Scott, you look just like Moses."
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Texas Developing Nukes—Alert the UN!
From Dallas Business Journal yesterday:
"TXU Corp. has chosen Mitsubishi Heavy Industries to design up to three nuclear reactors in Texas, the companies said Wednesday.
…
Dallas-based TXU (NYSE: TXU) also is looking into installing two to three additional nuclear reactors at a separate site in Texas, TXU said in a March 9 letter to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
TXU still must submit applications for construction and operating licenses to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which are expected to be submitted in 2008, according to an announcement the company made in August."
Leave it to the private sector to finally get us moving.
"TXU Corp. has chosen Mitsubishi Heavy Industries to design up to three nuclear reactors in Texas, the companies said Wednesday.
…
Dallas-based TXU (NYSE: TXU) also is looking into installing two to three additional nuclear reactors at a separate site in Texas, TXU said in a March 9 letter to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
TXU still must submit applications for construction and operating licenses to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which are expected to be submitted in 2008, according to an announcement the company made in August."
Leave it to the private sector to finally get us moving.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
We dare not speak her name...
but Ann Coulter has some great thoughts on Walter Reed:
"Noticeably, the problems at Walter Reed are not with the doctors or medical care. The problems are with basic maintenance at the facility.
Unless U.S. Army generals are supposed to be spraying fungicide on the walls and crawling under beds to set rattraps, the slovenly conditions at Walter Reed are not their fault. The military is nominally in charge of Walter Reed, but -- because of civil service rules put into place by Democrats -- the maintenance crew can't be fired."
...
"You will find the exact same problems anyplace market forces have been artificially removed by the government and there is a total absence of incentives, competition, effective oversight, cost controls and so on. It's almost like a cause-and-effect thing."
"Noticeably, the problems at Walter Reed are not with the doctors or medical care. The problems are with basic maintenance at the facility.
Unless U.S. Army generals are supposed to be spraying fungicide on the walls and crawling under beds to set rattraps, the slovenly conditions at Walter Reed are not their fault. The military is nominally in charge of Walter Reed, but -- because of civil service rules put into place by Democrats -- the maintenance crew can't be fired."
...
"You will find the exact same problems anyplace market forces have been artificially removed by the government and there is a total absence of incentives, competition, effective oversight, cost controls and so on. It's almost like a cause-and-effect thing."
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Global Warming...
Though I think I'm somewhat of a reluctant believer, the New York Times publishes an article that, at a minimum, raises some doubts even if only as to degree:
While reviewers tended to praise the book and movie [Inconvenient Truth], vocal skeptics of global warming protested almost immediately. Richard S. Lindzen, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, who has long expressed skepticism about dire climate predictions, accused Mr. Gore in The Wall Street Journal of “shrill alarmism.”
While reviewers tended to praise the book and movie [Inconvenient Truth], vocal skeptics of global warming protested almost immediately. Richard S. Lindzen, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, who has long expressed skepticism about dire climate predictions, accused Mr. Gore in The Wall Street Journal of “shrill alarmism.”
Monday, March 12, 2007
Carol Platt Liebau
She's hosting Hugh Hewitt tonight. When I was outside watering the plants, I first thought she was Michelle Malkin of Hot Air.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
300: the video game
Just a fun flick for what it was...a glorified video game. It was, though, the first movie I've watched in digital. Not sure my 47 year old eyes could really tell a difference.
Sin City is the only other movie I've seen using these techniques and 300 is certainly better than that. These techniques are very interesting but they have not yet been mastered.
If one is looking for Herodotus or Gates of Fire, he will be disappointed. Still, I did have tears in my eyes at the end.
Sin City is the only other movie I've seen using these techniques and 300 is certainly better than that. These techniques are very interesting but they have not yet been mastered.
If one is looking for Herodotus or Gates of Fire, he will be disappointed. Still, I did have tears in my eyes at the end.
Friday, March 09, 2007
Re: Walter Reed
Michael Arnold Glueck, M.D on the scandal and its bigger meaning in today's JWR:
"In this sense, the Walter Reed situation is symbolic of a much deeper dilemma. Governance no longer even tries to solve problems. It has become, instead, a self-referent, self-sustaining monster that consumes more and more of the nation's wealth and future while giving back less and less. And the American people put up with it and refuse to consider alternatives. "
"In this sense, the Walter Reed situation is symbolic of a much deeper dilemma. Governance no longer even tries to solve problems. It has become, instead, a self-referent, self-sustaining monster that consumes more and more of the nation's wealth and future while giving back less and less. And the American people put up with it and refuse to consider alternatives. "
Pleading guilty when guilty
Fox asked Garrison whether he wanted to plead not guilty.
"No, your honor," said Garrison, 26, who appeared in court dressed in a brown pinstriped suit, dark purple tie and lavender shirt.
Defense attorney Harland Braun broke in: "Mr. Garrison feels a deep sense of responsibility. ... The real issue is the level of culpability."
Braun said Garrison "doesn't feel comfortable" with a not guilty plea.
"He is going to be accepting responsibility for his conduct; the only question is the level of responsibility," the lawyer repeated.
"No, your honor," said Garrison, 26, who appeared in court dressed in a brown pinstriped suit, dark purple tie and lavender shirt.
Defense attorney Harland Braun broke in: "Mr. Garrison feels a deep sense of responsibility. ... The real issue is the level of culpability."
Braun said Garrison "doesn't feel comfortable" with a not guilty plea.
"He is going to be accepting responsibility for his conduct; the only question is the level of responsibility," the lawyer repeated.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Coulter 3
Ok, she can be a little funny:
The Republican former House Whip Tom DeLay is currently under indictment for a minor campaign finance violation. Democratic prosecutor Ronnie Earle had to empanel six grand juries before he could find one to indict DeLay on these pathetic charges -- and this is in Austin, Texas (the Upper West Side with better-looking people).
The Republican former House Whip Tom DeLay is currently under indictment for a minor campaign finance violation. Democratic prosecutor Ronnie Earle had to empanel six grand juries before he could find one to indict DeLay on these pathetic charges -- and this is in Austin, Texas (the Upper West Side with better-looking people).
The New F-word and Old N-word
Bruce Thornton on the word police and hyper-sensitivity:
The other glaring problem with this obsession with hurt feelings is that it is politically selected, just like those phony claims of “diversity,” which usually means creating a multicolored herd of the politically like-minded. Just about every university in this country insults the beliefs of Christians, Republicans, athletes, white males, and conservatives on a daily basis. Anti-Semitism, thinly camouflaged as “anti-Zionism,” is indulged constantly. The culture of white Southerners is mocked and demonized with glee. No one pays attention to complaints about this insensitivity. Nor should he (apologies to any women offended by my sexist use of the masculine pronoun). Part of being an adult is learning to deal with a world in which you, your beliefs, and your feelings are no more important than anybody else’s. What’s objectionable is the double standard and the censorship, particularly glaring in a university, supposedly the bastion of free speech and free thought, no matter whose ideological or political ox is gored (apologies to any oxen who are offended by this metaphor).
Most importantly, however, this obsession with individual feelings is incompatible with democratic freedom. A political system that allows large numbers of citizens to participate in public debate is necessarily raucous, insulting, and often vulgar. Just look at ancient Athens, where the level of political invective and insult makes our political campaigns sound like a Jane Austen novel. That’s why elitist snobs like Plato disliked democracy. When you give average people free speech, the debate is going to be rough and tough. If you want to participate, you have to be able to take it. The only alternative is some sort of control by an elite that always ends up stifling the expression of ideas and serving a narrow political interest — exactly what we see today in our universities and media. I learned this lesson the few years I was condemned to my university’s Academic Senate. As soon as the debate on an issue started getting close to the truth, someone would jump up and start squealing about “civility,” and nothing useful happened.
The other glaring problem with this obsession with hurt feelings is that it is politically selected, just like those phony claims of “diversity,” which usually means creating a multicolored herd of the politically like-minded. Just about every university in this country insults the beliefs of Christians, Republicans, athletes, white males, and conservatives on a daily basis. Anti-Semitism, thinly camouflaged as “anti-Zionism,” is indulged constantly. The culture of white Southerners is mocked and demonized with glee. No one pays attention to complaints about this insensitivity. Nor should he (apologies to any women offended by my sexist use of the masculine pronoun). Part of being an adult is learning to deal with a world in which you, your beliefs, and your feelings are no more important than anybody else’s. What’s objectionable is the double standard and the censorship, particularly glaring in a university, supposedly the bastion of free speech and free thought, no matter whose ideological or political ox is gored (apologies to any oxen who are offended by this metaphor).
Most importantly, however, this obsession with individual feelings is incompatible with democratic freedom. A political system that allows large numbers of citizens to participate in public debate is necessarily raucous, insulting, and often vulgar. Just look at ancient Athens, where the level of political invective and insult makes our political campaigns sound like a Jane Austen novel. That’s why elitist snobs like Plato disliked democracy. When you give average people free speech, the debate is going to be rough and tough. If you want to participate, you have to be able to take it. The only alternative is some sort of control by an elite that always ends up stifling the expression of ideas and serving a narrow political interest — exactly what we see today in our universities and media. I learned this lesson the few years I was condemned to my university’s Academic Senate. As soon as the debate on an issue started getting close to the truth, someone would jump up and start squealing about “civility,” and nothing useful happened.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Paul Johnson today at JWR
I just love the perspective of historians. One should really read the whole thing but here are the first three paragraphs:
America is the reluctant sheriff of a wild world that sometimes seems mired in wrongdoing. The UN has nothing to offer in the way of enforcing laws and dispensing justice, other than spouting pious oratory and initiating feeble missions that usually do more harm than good. NATO plays a limited role, as in Afghanistan, but tends to reflect the timidity (and cowardice) of Continental Europe. Britain and a few other nations such as Australia are willing to follow America's lead but are too weak to act on their own.
That leaves the U.S. to shoulder the responsibility. Otherwise — what? Is brute force to replace the rule of law in the world because there's no one to enforce it? I wish some of those who constantly criticize America's efforts and the judgment of President Bush would ask themselves this simple question: Would you really like to live in a world where the U.S. sits idly by and lets things happen?
Life in such a world would be like the bestial existence described in Thomas Hobbes' great work, Leviathan. If people "live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war, and such a war as is of every man against every man." In that lawless state there will be "continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."
America is the reluctant sheriff of a wild world that sometimes seems mired in wrongdoing. The UN has nothing to offer in the way of enforcing laws and dispensing justice, other than spouting pious oratory and initiating feeble missions that usually do more harm than good. NATO plays a limited role, as in Afghanistan, but tends to reflect the timidity (and cowardice) of Continental Europe. Britain and a few other nations such as Australia are willing to follow America's lead but are too weak to act on their own.
That leaves the U.S. to shoulder the responsibility. Otherwise — what? Is brute force to replace the rule of law in the world because there's no one to enforce it? I wish some of those who constantly criticize America's efforts and the judgment of President Bush would ask themselves this simple question: Would you really like to live in a world where the U.S. sits idly by and lets things happen?
Life in such a world would be like the bestial existence described in Thomas Hobbes' great work, Leviathan. If people "live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war, and such a war as is of every man against every man." In that lawless state there will be "continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."
Re: Coulter Part Deux
LJ wrote, "It doesn’t matter whether he or Ms. Coulter don’t think it is – if someone is offended, its offensive."
Not sure you really mean that. If someone is offended, it's offensive to that person. But that person may be unreasonable.
Not sure you really mean that. If someone is offended, it's offensive to that person. But that person may be unreasonable.
Re: Coulter
In my schoolyard we used to plead, "Why are you upset about being called a 'bundle of sticks?'"
Ann Coulter - Part II
So I was driving to work Monday morning and instead of listening to a sports talk station as I normally do, I’m listening to Mike Gallagher. He is doing a 15-20 minute diatribe about not only Ms. Coulters’ statement, but the reaction and response by “fellow conservatives”. First, he is blasting away at Laura Ingram, Hugh Hewitt, Bill Bennett and some other woman whose name I don’t know. Saying that they “have turned on her” and “unlike Ann Coulter, who isn’t afraid to attack liberals, they seem to wagging their fingers at her and telling her bad girl, bad girl.” He applauds Ms. Coulter for her statements and in fact, doesn’t seem to think there was anything wrong about what she said. Again, echoing the sentiment that the term used wasn’t meant as an anti-gay slander, but as a “schoolyard” insult. That it was a joke – a joke that everyone in the room understood because they laughed. He went on and on about how it wasn’t offensive, that it wasn’t derogatory anyway since Edwards isn’t gay.
What I found amusing during this rant was that he kept saying that “the word”, “the term”, the “slang word” she used wasn’t offensive. Yet…he would never say it. Why not, if it isn’t offensive? If he agreed that it was meant in a “schoolyard taunt” manner, why didn’t he say the word? If the word isn’t offensive, if it was “a joke” or “part of a joke”, why not repeat the joke? Probably because he knows she crossed the line and the term IS offensive. It doesn’t matter whether he or Ms. Coulter don’t think it is – if someone is offended, its offensive.
Of course, he concludes by saying that even if it WERE offensive, “liberals” having been calling “conservatives” and “republicans” worse. Why is OK for them to say offensive things, but not “conservatives”? Great argument. Instead of trying to get both sides to get out of the gutter, to stop the hate-speak and attack-dog journalism, so we can get some intelligent debate and discussion on issues and policy, he takes the position of a child caught in the act of doing something wrong who says…”well, THEY did it first”.
Just another reminder why I gave up on talk radio. Why I thought anything had changed is beyond me. I’m going to stick to sports scores and sports talk…until I get sick of hearing about how the Cowboys are going to win the Super Bowl.
What I found amusing during this rant was that he kept saying that “the word”, “the term”, the “slang word” she used wasn’t offensive. Yet…he would never say it. Why not, if it isn’t offensive? If he agreed that it was meant in a “schoolyard taunt” manner, why didn’t he say the word? If the word isn’t offensive, if it was “a joke” or “part of a joke”, why not repeat the joke? Probably because he knows she crossed the line and the term IS offensive. It doesn’t matter whether he or Ms. Coulter don’t think it is – if someone is offended, its offensive.
Of course, he concludes by saying that even if it WERE offensive, “liberals” having been calling “conservatives” and “republicans” worse. Why is OK for them to say offensive things, but not “conservatives”? Great argument. Instead of trying to get both sides to get out of the gutter, to stop the hate-speak and attack-dog journalism, so we can get some intelligent debate and discussion on issues and policy, he takes the position of a child caught in the act of doing something wrong who says…”well, THEY did it first”.
Just another reminder why I gave up on talk radio. Why I thought anything had changed is beyond me. I’m going to stick to sports scores and sports talk…until I get sick of hearing about how the Cowboys are going to win the Super Bowl.
Re: pleading ''not guilty" when guilty
The Jewish Ethicist on "Can I plead innocent if I did it?" Conclusion: Yes, unless it's big:
"If there is a high-profile case where a "not guilty" plea would create an impression of contempt for the law, then there would be special value in coming clean in court and accepting the prescribed punishment. Not long ago a prominent member of one North American Jewish community pleaded guilty to wrongdoing partly for this reason. And psychologically, the acknowledgment implicit in a guilty plea can sometimes be a helpful step in repentance and reconciliation with the community. But these considerations are hardly relevant for a relatively anonymous individual who has been charged with a minor crime."
ht: SJJ
"If there is a high-profile case where a "not guilty" plea would create an impression of contempt for the law, then there would be special value in coming clean in court and accepting the prescribed punishment. Not long ago a prominent member of one North American Jewish community pleaded guilty to wrongdoing partly for this reason. And psychologically, the acknowledgment implicit in a guilty plea can sometimes be a helpful step in repentance and reconciliation with the community. But these considerations are hardly relevant for a relatively anonymous individual who has been charged with a minor crime."
ht: SJJ
Re: Bart Whitaker took the stand
I distinguish between making one's plea and testifying. The former being the system and the latter being the very definition of bearing false witness.
Lileks on Walter Reed
"As many have pointed out, there's a shining example of a government-run hospital already: Walter Reed. Imagine that example replicated across the land. Then again, imagine if the government was the defendant in every single medical malpractice case in the land.
If nothing else, we'd get tort reform."
If nothing else, we'd get tort reform."
Bart Whitaker took the stand
yesterday in the punishment phase of his trial, having been found guilty of capital murder. He admitted he was the mastermind of the plot to kill his family. I'm not a criminal lawyer, but it seems to be an odd strategy. On the other hand, if the options are life in prison or the death penalty, what does he have to lose by testifying?
But had he pled guilty, wouldn't that have precluded the prosecutor from putting on a parade of witnesses to testify about this plot and other plots in the past? Maybe not. Did Whitaker think he might be found not guilty? "Felcman asked Whitaker why he did not plead guilty to begin with and what would have happened if the jury found him not guilty. 'I didn't think that was possible,' Whitaker said."
Whitaker claims "he is a different person now and has found God."
Does a Christian who knows he is guilty as charged have an obligation to so plead? Is a "not guilty" plea a lie, or just invoking one's rights in a system that requires the prosecution to put on and prove its case?
And what about that last speeding ticket I got where I pled not guilty, hoping the cop wouldn't show at trial (he didn't), and forcing the judge to dismiss the case?
But had he pled guilty, wouldn't that have precluded the prosecutor from putting on a parade of witnesses to testify about this plot and other plots in the past? Maybe not. Did Whitaker think he might be found not guilty? "Felcman asked Whitaker why he did not plead guilty to begin with and what would have happened if the jury found him not guilty. 'I didn't think that was possible,' Whitaker said."
Whitaker claims "he is a different person now and has found God."
Does a Christian who knows he is guilty as charged have an obligation to so plead? Is a "not guilty" plea a lie, or just invoking one's rights in a system that requires the prosecution to put on and prove its case?
And what about that last speeding ticket I got where I pled not guilty, hoping the cop wouldn't show at trial (he didn't), and forcing the judge to dismiss the case?
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Ann Coulter - Part I
As I was doing research for a much longer post I'm planning to make about Ms. Coulter, I ran across this quote from her appearance Monday night on "Hannity and Colmes":
"Faggot isn't offensive to gays; it has nothing to do with gays," Coulter said on 'Hannity and Colmes' Monday night. "It's a schoolyard taunt meaning 'wuss,' and unless you're telling me that John Edwards is gay, it was not applied to a gay person."
Perhaps I'm not as intelligent as Ms. Coulter, so I might not understand what she is saying. What it looks like she is saying (to me) is that the term isn't offensive nor does it even apply to the group most of us think it applies to. But, since Edwards isn't gay, it wasn't applied to a gay person.
But, Ms. Coulter, you just said that the term has nothing to do with gays, nor is it offensive to gays, so why add the qualifier..."and unless you're telling me John Edwards is gay, it was not applied to a gay person." So....if John Edwards were gay, it would have been applied to a gay person. But, that wouldn't be a big deal, because (1) the term has nothing to do with gays and (2) even if it did, it isn't offensive to gays. The qualifier makes it appear (again to me) that she really doesn't believe the first part of her quote and is defending her use of the term by saying, since he isn't gay, it can't be offensive. So does that mean that if he were gay, it would be offensive? That is the impression I'm getting, even though she contradicts that by the first part of the quote.
I'm so confused. And, how can a non-gay person say what is or isn't offensive to a gay person? Can I say what is or isn't offensive to women? To minorities?
"Faggot isn't offensive to gays; it has nothing to do with gays," Coulter said on 'Hannity and Colmes' Monday night. "It's a schoolyard taunt meaning 'wuss,' and unless you're telling me that John Edwards is gay, it was not applied to a gay person."
Perhaps I'm not as intelligent as Ms. Coulter, so I might not understand what she is saying. What it looks like she is saying (to me) is that the term isn't offensive nor does it even apply to the group most of us think it applies to. But, since Edwards isn't gay, it wasn't applied to a gay person.
But, Ms. Coulter, you just said that the term has nothing to do with gays, nor is it offensive to gays, so why add the qualifier..."and unless you're telling me John Edwards is gay, it was not applied to a gay person." So....if John Edwards were gay, it would have been applied to a gay person. But, that wouldn't be a big deal, because (1) the term has nothing to do with gays and (2) even if it did, it isn't offensive to gays. The qualifier makes it appear (again to me) that she really doesn't believe the first part of her quote and is defending her use of the term by saying, since he isn't gay, it can't be offensive. So does that mean that if he were gay, it would be offensive? That is the impression I'm getting, even though she contradicts that by the first part of the quote.
I'm so confused. And, how can a non-gay person say what is or isn't offensive to a gay person? Can I say what is or isn't offensive to women? To minorities?
Re: Walter Reed
Boortz had the same thought here:
While they're cleaning up this mess at Walter Reed ... here's what you need to know. This treatment that was being delivered to our injured soldiers is the future of your health care. This is what you, if you're somewhat young, and most certainly your children have to deal with as the United States moves inexorably toward socialized medicine. Government health care.
...
It's coming ... and it's going to be ugly as hell. The long waits for simple diagnostic tests that have become commonplace in Canada will become the norm here. It may come to the point ... most likely it will come to the point that you will be assigned to a doctor just as your child is assigned to a school. Remember Hillarycare? Under that system if you decided to take your own money and go hire your own doctor outside of the Hillarycare scheme (somewhat like taking your child out of a government school and putting him in a private school) you could be charged with a crime. It may be necessary to adopt that policy again after people discover what a disaster their precious "universal health care" is going to be.
While they're cleaning up this mess at Walter Reed ... here's what you need to know. This treatment that was being delivered to our injured soldiers is the future of your health care. This is what you, if you're somewhat young, and most certainly your children have to deal with as the United States moves inexorably toward socialized medicine. Government health care.
...
It's coming ... and it's going to be ugly as hell. The long waits for simple diagnostic tests that have become commonplace in Canada will become the norm here. It may come to the point ... most likely it will come to the point that you will be assigned to a doctor just as your child is assigned to a school. Remember Hillarycare? Under that system if you decided to take your own money and go hire your own doctor outside of the Hillarycare scheme (somewhat like taking your child out of a government school and putting him in a private school) you could be charged with a crime. It may be necessary to adopt that policy again after people discover what a disaster their precious "universal health care" is going to be.
Walter Reed
Hasn't the Veterans' Administration been a mess for a long time? I've deposed lots of veterans about their medical conditions over the last twenty years and it seems that the nearly universal sentiment is that one avoids the VA if at all possible. Isn't this a prime example of the federal government getting involved with and screwing up medical care, and if so, isn't it an argument against any sort of government-sponsored or administrated health care plan?
Monday, March 05, 2007
RE: Thune neck deep in pork
A reader writes:
Don't always believe what you're reading. Thune didn't sneak anything by anybody behind any closed doors. There were all kinds of hearings. Here's a link. Sure its to a railroad site supporting DM&E, but from there you can link to any number of congressionals or other info that will FACTUALLY set the record straight as to when and where the hearings took place. If you made a campaign contribution to John Thune it was money well spent.
Me: I'm less concerned about the behind closed doors aspect of this than Thune's connection to DM&E. I probably would have served my reader better by being more diligent with my quotes. I don't regret my contribution to Thune, yet...but the pork has got to stop as do the connections.
Don't always believe what you're reading. Thune didn't sneak anything by anybody behind any closed doors. There were all kinds of hearings. Here's a link. Sure its to a railroad site supporting DM&E, but from there you can link to any number of congressionals or other info that will FACTUALLY set the record straight as to when and where the hearings took place. If you made a campaign contribution to John Thune it was money well spent.
Me: I'm less concerned about the behind closed doors aspect of this than Thune's connection to DM&E. I probably would have served my reader better by being more diligent with my quotes. I don't regret my contribution to Thune, yet...but the pork has got to stop as do the connections.
Thune neck deep in pork...
Novak on Thune:
The Federal Railroad Administration handed a rare victory to the American taxpayer last week by denying a questionable $2.33 billion loan application by the Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern (DM&E) Railroad. What makes this news of special interest is the paramount role Republican Sen. John Thune of South Dakota played in boosting the loan. Here is a cautionary tale of political life in Washington and how it corrupts.
Legislative changes that made the loan possible were guided through Congress behind closed doors by Thune. But the assessment that DM&E is a poor credit risk was shared by Thune's fellow conservative senators -- Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Jim DeMint of South Carolina -- who took the extraordinary step of advocating rejection of a colleague's pet project. Making matters worse, Thune is a former paid lobbyist for the South Dakota-based railroad and has received political contributions from the company's executives.
And I sent money to this guy?
The Federal Railroad Administration handed a rare victory to the American taxpayer last week by denying a questionable $2.33 billion loan application by the Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern (DM&E) Railroad. What makes this news of special interest is the paramount role Republican Sen. John Thune of South Dakota played in boosting the loan. Here is a cautionary tale of political life in Washington and how it corrupts.
Legislative changes that made the loan possible were guided through Congress behind closed doors by Thune. But the assessment that DM&E is a poor credit risk was shared by Thune's fellow conservative senators -- Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Jim DeMint of South Carolina -- who took the extraordinary step of advocating rejection of a colleague's pet project. Making matters worse, Thune is a former paid lobbyist for the South Dakota-based railroad and has received political contributions from the company's executives.
And I sent money to this guy?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
