Thursday, November 27, 2003
Rarely does Allah spoil my mood. But his link to LGF's informative record keeping of our friends, the Palestinians, has pretty much done the trick. I'm in a mind to use this link whenever I refer to those people henceforth.
Here, let's try it out: The Palestinian Liberation Organization's leader, Yasser Asshat, was found dead today. According to initial reports hotly denied by other Palestinians, he was discovered with a half-empty bottle of Jack Daniel's and a stack of donkey porn.
Yep. Thatllwork.
(0) comments
Here, let's try it out: The Palestinian Liberation Organization's leader, Yasser Asshat, was found dead today. According to initial reports hotly denied by other Palestinians, he was discovered with a half-empty bottle of Jack Daniel's and a stack of donkey porn.
Yep. Thatllwork.
(0) comments
You Da Man!
This president, this man, is one seriously courageous dude. In light of the recent SAM attack on the DHL cargo plane, to fly into Baghdad today is an outrageously daring action. I can only measure this by how I'd react, and, personally, I'd be scared shitless.
Take that, Dean, you silly, slaloming wanker.
Happy Thanksgiving!
(0) comments
This president, this man, is one seriously courageous dude. In light of the recent SAM attack on the DHL cargo plane, to fly into Baghdad today is an outrageously daring action. I can only measure this by how I'd react, and, personally, I'd be scared shitless.
Take that, Dean, you silly, slaloming wanker.
Happy Thanksgiving!
(0) comments
Tuesday, November 25, 2003
Jonah has an interesting piece (from yesterday) on NRO. Havta take issue with it, though. To wit:
Jonah,
Enjoyed your column (re Culture War), as always. But I have to take issue with its general theme. I understand your cautionary point that we shouldn't get all giddy about our progress in the "war," and thereby risk losing the focus that's got us so far in the first place.
However, the title of Brian's piece was, after all, "We're Not Losing the Culture Wars Anymore." And I've read commentary on Brian's piece that reflects that less-than-triumphant understanding of what he wrote. And I agree with that rather tepid assessment.
I am also, however, heartened by it all the same. It's a point I've made to friends and commented on via my own little corner of the blogosphere.
The crucial thing here, and I think Brian's point, is that we needed a status check of our progress, and should take some well-deserved inspiration from the recently revealed fact that conservative progress is being made, and that more is possible through these new organs available to us. That is something to note, and to celebrate: Big Mo has moved to our side, and knowing that it's possible for us to provide an effective challenge to the left will continue to build confidence and an enthusiasm not available to those who think there's no chance of success.
To stalwarts like William F. Buckley, et al, this was never a problem. But malaise (regarding political progress) has been a dominant theme in the hearts of the everyday conservatives for a long time. Morale was low because the Conservative Street found itself fighting a sometimes-less-than-organized retreat.
And it is that, the hopelessness arising from, among other things, never seeing a conservative point of view fairly portrayed in the mainstream media, which has now changed. That change has now been presented, as it should be, as a rallying cry of hope. It's not starry-eyed optimism; it's hard-nosed refocusing. We've been demonstrably shown that, as we'd always kind of known, when our ideas are placed on an even (i.e. fair) battlefield with those of the left, our ideas prevail.
That's all we needed: a reasonable chance at a fair fight. The merit of our ideas will do the rest. We're experiencing the exhilaration that is the natural consequence of our recently having had the chance to take a swipe at the bloated underbelly of the liberal behemoth. And that belly is soft.
The fact that we've been able to make so much progress, while at the same time so massively outgunned, is a vastly hopeful sign. That's what's being celebrated now, not phantasms of false victory.
And who knows? Maybe someday we'll actually get good reports of progress by the Horowitz Division against the Ivy League?
As to the South Park Republicans: you're right that this is not the best that conservatism has to offer. Nor is it the final form we'd want it to take. But I'm thrilled at the popularity of the show (and the attitude) because it's an excellent barometer indicating that, at last, the ideological taboos against ridiculing the left's icons has been thrown off. It's an in-your-face rejection of the glass ceiling we'd allowed low morale to impose on our thinking and what we say in polite (or not so polite) company. It's a bare-knuckle reflection that conservative (or anti-Left, at least) minds have been liberated.
And who knows what kind of dynamism that will release?
Regards,
...
(0) comments
Jonah,
Enjoyed your column (re Culture War), as always. But I have to take issue with its general theme. I understand your cautionary point that we shouldn't get all giddy about our progress in the "war," and thereby risk losing the focus that's got us so far in the first place.
However, the title of Brian's piece was, after all, "We're Not Losing the Culture Wars Anymore." And I've read commentary on Brian's piece that reflects that less-than-triumphant understanding of what he wrote. And I agree with that rather tepid assessment.
I am also, however, heartened by it all the same. It's a point I've made to friends and commented on via my own little corner of the blogosphere.
The crucial thing here, and I think Brian's point, is that we needed a status check of our progress, and should take some well-deserved inspiration from the recently revealed fact that conservative progress is being made, and that more is possible through these new organs available to us. That is something to note, and to celebrate: Big Mo has moved to our side, and knowing that it's possible for us to provide an effective challenge to the left will continue to build confidence and an enthusiasm not available to those who think there's no chance of success.
To stalwarts like William F. Buckley, et al, this was never a problem. But malaise (regarding political progress) has been a dominant theme in the hearts of the everyday conservatives for a long time. Morale was low because the Conservative Street found itself fighting a sometimes-less-than-organized retreat.
And it is that, the hopelessness arising from, among other things, never seeing a conservative point of view fairly portrayed in the mainstream media, which has now changed. That change has now been presented, as it should be, as a rallying cry of hope. It's not starry-eyed optimism; it's hard-nosed refocusing. We've been demonstrably shown that, as we'd always kind of known, when our ideas are placed on an even (i.e. fair) battlefield with those of the left, our ideas prevail.
That's all we needed: a reasonable chance at a fair fight. The merit of our ideas will do the rest. We're experiencing the exhilaration that is the natural consequence of our recently having had the chance to take a swipe at the bloated underbelly of the liberal behemoth. And that belly is soft.
The fact that we've been able to make so much progress, while at the same time so massively outgunned, is a vastly hopeful sign. That's what's being celebrated now, not phantasms of false victory.
And who knows? Maybe someday we'll actually get good reports of progress by the Horowitz Division against the Ivy League?
As to the South Park Republicans: you're right that this is not the best that conservatism has to offer. Nor is it the final form we'd want it to take. But I'm thrilled at the popularity of the show (and the attitude) because it's an excellent barometer indicating that, at last, the ideological taboos against ridiculing the left's icons has been thrown off. It's an in-your-face rejection of the glass ceiling we'd allowed low morale to impose on our thinking and what we say in polite (or not so polite) company. It's a bare-knuckle reflection that conservative (or anti-Left, at least) minds have been liberated.
And who knows what kind of dynamism that will release?
Regards,
...
(0) comments
Monday, November 24, 2003
Template Update
(0) comments
(0) comments
It’s time for another episode of Let’s Talk About How Smart I Am.
I was discussing, with a coworker, the way that the changes in information availability over the last decade or so (see article linked to in the "I told you so" comment below) have changed the landscape of politics, and that those changes are only now starting to manifest in concrete examples.
One proof I had offered was the way that information sources on the small scale, like me and other individual consumers of news reporting, could actually initiate a sequence of events that quickly rises to the attention of the mainstream media. By way of example I cited that lowly I had observed network coverage of The Chappaquiddick Kid raging on the Senate floor, saying that he wasn't quite willing to write president Bush "an $87 billion blank check." I sent a quick e-mail to Jay Nordlinger (National Review Online) commenting that, well, if the check's written for $87 billion, it's not a blank check, now is it? (Yes, yes. I know: picky. But hey, they do that smack to us, so I thought a little return fire was in order)
Anyhow, so I found out about a day later that I was quoted (as an anonymous writer) by Nordlinger in his next Impromptus column. Hey, hey, hey! Lookie me! And the thought came to me that, wow, if it had been something of importance then this same route of information interchange could have skyrocketed the information right to the surface of the Internet Ocean.
So, now I'm writing this to give a real world example of the Little Fish Makes Big Waves scenario come to life. Donald Luskin's new National Review Online article reveals how Krugman's new book, The Great Unraveling, which had a rather innocuous (mundane, even) cover in its US incarnation had a far more interesting (and intellectually consistent) and distasteful cover for its UK and Australian printings.
The article is worth reading. But back to my point is the fact, as reported by Luskin, this situation was reveled via the Internet. Check this from Luskin (he's commenting on the statement by KKKrugman that he can't remember approving the UK/Australian cover):
How is it that Krugman's awareness of the cover has been restored just now? We have new Krugman Truth Squad member Steven Kirchner to thank for that (I'd say he's got KTS Rookie of the Year pretty much locked up). Kirchner is a young Australian economist. He saw the cover in a Sydney bookstore window, and talked about it on his blog, Institutional Economics, on November 18. Ex officio KTS member Stephen Prather alerted me to it by e-mail, and I immediately posted it on my blog, The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid.
From there it was only a short time until it was a scandale on the web - and it went beyond the usual Krugman Truth Squad suspects. Even the anonymous ultra-leftist known as "Atrios" commented on it critically on his Eschaton blog. What could even he say, other than "Now This is Shrill!" On Thursday it broke into print, with Josh Gersten's front-page story for the New York Sun. So what else could the Times do but put some distance between itself and Krugman?
And, as Luskin summarizes:
Just five days from the first Truth Squad sighting to a mea culpa in the Sunday New York Times. Not bad, huh? It says a lot about our media-saturated world that a mere picture would cause so much embarrassment, considering how many, and significantly, more substantive sins weigh on Krugman's conscience. But I'm not complaining. We've finally got 'em on the run. Makes me proud of the power of the web - and of the Truth Squad.
So, I think I've been proved pretty well right (again). The trouble's only beginning for our loopy friends on the Left. We're out there with one hand on the TV remote and the other hand on the keyboard. Not only can they no longer out-shout us, they can't even hide.
To quote Mr. Luskin, "Not bad, huh?"
Nope. Not bad at all. Me, that is.
(0) comments
I was discussing, with a coworker, the way that the changes in information availability over the last decade or so (see article linked to in the "I told you so" comment below) have changed the landscape of politics, and that those changes are only now starting to manifest in concrete examples.
One proof I had offered was the way that information sources on the small scale, like me and other individual consumers of news reporting, could actually initiate a sequence of events that quickly rises to the attention of the mainstream media. By way of example I cited that lowly I had observed network coverage of The Chappaquiddick Kid raging on the Senate floor, saying that he wasn't quite willing to write president Bush "an $87 billion blank check." I sent a quick e-mail to Jay Nordlinger (National Review Online) commenting that, well, if the check's written for $87 billion, it's not a blank check, now is it? (Yes, yes. I know: picky. But hey, they do that smack to us, so I thought a little return fire was in order)
Anyhow, so I found out about a day later that I was quoted (as an anonymous writer) by Nordlinger in his next Impromptus column. Hey, hey, hey! Lookie me! And the thought came to me that, wow, if it had been something of importance then this same route of information interchange could have skyrocketed the information right to the surface of the Internet Ocean.
So, now I'm writing this to give a real world example of the Little Fish Makes Big Waves scenario come to life. Donald Luskin's new National Review Online article reveals how Krugman's new book, The Great Unraveling, which had a rather innocuous (mundane, even) cover in its US incarnation had a far more interesting (and intellectually consistent) and distasteful cover for its UK and Australian printings.
The article is worth reading. But back to my point is the fact, as reported by Luskin, this situation was reveled via the Internet. Check this from Luskin (he's commenting on the statement by KKKrugman that he can't remember approving the UK/Australian cover):
How is it that Krugman's awareness of the cover has been restored just now? We have new Krugman Truth Squad member Steven Kirchner to thank for that (I'd say he's got KTS Rookie of the Year pretty much locked up). Kirchner is a young Australian economist. He saw the cover in a Sydney bookstore window, and talked about it on his blog, Institutional Economics, on November 18. Ex officio KTS member Stephen Prather alerted me to it by e-mail, and I immediately posted it on my blog, The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid.
From there it was only a short time until it was a scandale on the web - and it went beyond the usual Krugman Truth Squad suspects. Even the anonymous ultra-leftist known as "Atrios" commented on it critically on his Eschaton blog. What could even he say, other than "Now This is Shrill!" On Thursday it broke into print, with Josh Gersten's front-page story for the New York Sun. So what else could the Times do but put some distance between itself and Krugman?
And, as Luskin summarizes:
Just five days from the first Truth Squad sighting to a mea culpa in the Sunday New York Times. Not bad, huh? It says a lot about our media-saturated world that a mere picture would cause so much embarrassment, considering how many, and significantly, more substantive sins weigh on Krugman's conscience. But I'm not complaining. We've finally got 'em on the run. Makes me proud of the power of the web - and of the Truth Squad.
So, I think I've been proved pretty well right (again). The trouble's only beginning for our loopy friends on the Left. We're out there with one hand on the TV remote and the other hand on the keyboard. Not only can they no longer out-shout us, they can't even hide.
To quote Mr. Luskin, "Not bad, huh?"
Nope. Not bad at all. Me, that is.
(0) comments
Tuesday, November 11, 2003
Note to all readers: If the page looks truncated when you first arrive here, hit the "Refresh" button at the top of your browser. You may need to hit it more than once.
(0) comments
(0) comments
The Party of The Rich
George Soros, that wealthy benefactor of openness and freedom around the world has now turned his sights on the People's Republic of America. Coming off his high of distributing freedom (and not a little cash) the globe round, he's now intent on ridding America of its freedom-devouring Fuhrer, and thereby ensuring the safety of the world from GW's madcap imperialist adventures.
At least that's how he sees it: George Soros, our own personal Jesus Christ of Soft Money.
"It is the central focus of my life," he tells us. And apparently he's not alone amongst the rich, we-know-what's-best-for-you set. Rob Glaser, founder and CEO of RealNetworks, has also kicked a couple million over to the cause (think about that the next time you play a .rm file). Soros is also reaching out to other kindly, good-natured philanthropists to assemble a group of well-funded activists whose single goal is ridding the world of Demon George.
So, why is Soros so motivated? Well, remembering his youth in Nazi-occupied Hungary, he tells us, "When I hear Bush say, 'You're either with us or against us,' it reminds me of the Germans." Remember, he means the Nazi Germans. He's reminded of Nazi slogans written on walls, and other Nazi propaganda.
So he's taking action to save The World from GW. How's he doing this in modern, McCain-Feingold America? He's doing exactly what I and other opponents of McCain-Feingold said people would do: he's stepping around the law by distributing vast sums of cash to "non-political" fellow-traveler organizations. In his case he's pledged $10 million to America Coming Together (ACT), a leftist activist group. And what will they do with the money? Well, advertise and "get out the vote," of course. And whose vote will they "get out"? And in support of whom (and in opposition to whom) will they advertise? And how, exactly, is this any different than giving money directly to the DNC? And, finally, what good has McCain-Feingold done us?
The single, relevant effect of McCain-Feingold has been to drive such money underground. Now the DNC doesn't have to report that income. But it's still there, just the same.
When asked about the reaction from ACT when he hold them of his gift, Soros said, "They were ready to kiss me." What part of Soros would have been the target of ACT's affection was not noted in the report.
And thus we observe the temptation and purchase of an entire political movement. How sweet.
(0) comments
George Soros, that wealthy benefactor of openness and freedom around the world has now turned his sights on the People's Republic of America. Coming off his high of distributing freedom (and not a little cash) the globe round, he's now intent on ridding America of its freedom-devouring Fuhrer, and thereby ensuring the safety of the world from GW's madcap imperialist adventures.
At least that's how he sees it: George Soros, our own personal Jesus Christ of Soft Money.
"It is the central focus of my life," he tells us. And apparently he's not alone amongst the rich, we-know-what's-best-for-you set. Rob Glaser, founder and CEO of RealNetworks, has also kicked a couple million over to the cause (think about that the next time you play a .rm file). Soros is also reaching out to other kindly, good-natured philanthropists to assemble a group of well-funded activists whose single goal is ridding the world of Demon George.
So, why is Soros so motivated? Well, remembering his youth in Nazi-occupied Hungary, he tells us, "When I hear Bush say, 'You're either with us or against us,' it reminds me of the Germans." Remember, he means the Nazi Germans. He's reminded of Nazi slogans written on walls, and other Nazi propaganda.
So he's taking action to save The World from GW. How's he doing this in modern, McCain-Feingold America? He's doing exactly what I and other opponents of McCain-Feingold said people would do: he's stepping around the law by distributing vast sums of cash to "non-political" fellow-traveler organizations. In his case he's pledged $10 million to America Coming Together (ACT), a leftist activist group. And what will they do with the money? Well, advertise and "get out the vote," of course. And whose vote will they "get out"? And in support of whom (and in opposition to whom) will they advertise? And how, exactly, is this any different than giving money directly to the DNC? And, finally, what good has McCain-Feingold done us?
The single, relevant effect of McCain-Feingold has been to drive such money underground. Now the DNC doesn't have to report that income. But it's still there, just the same.
When asked about the reaction from ACT when he hold them of his gift, Soros said, "They were ready to kiss me." What part of Soros would have been the target of ACT's affection was not noted in the report.
And thus we observe the temptation and purchase of an entire political movement. How sweet.
(0) comments
Monday, November 10, 2003
Note to all readers: If the page looks truncated when you first arrive here, hit the "Refresh" button at the top of your browser. You may need to hit it more than once.
(0) comments
(0) comments
This is pathetic even by Dim standards. Offering a false door of "salvation" to GW (to give him an "out" by blaming "it all" on Rumsfeld) in a vain attempt to divide and conquer.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A group of more than two dozen House of Representatives Democrats on Monday said they had introduced a resolution urging President Bush to fire Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Is this desperation, or merely pathetic folly?
"This resolution would make official what so many members of Congress already believe -- that the soldiers in Iraq and America's foreign policy would be helped greatly if Donald Rumsfeld would leave," Rep. Charles Rangel of New York said in a statement.
Ahh yes, that distinguished stentorian stalwart of the House, Chuckey R.
The resolution said Rumsfeld misled the American public on assessments of progress in the war and occupation, sent U.S. forces to Iraq "without adequate planning and sufficient equipment," and "demonstrated a lack of sensitivity" in statements on the war and U.S. casualties.
Gee, if the Prez falls for this then we can get an implicit admission that it's all hacked up and screwy over there in Iraq! Yeah... he'll fall for this!
I would have expected better shenanigans from this bunch. Geesh!
This stunt is so limp they all apparently need political Viagra.
Simply pathetic.
(0) comments
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A group of more than two dozen House of Representatives Democrats on Monday said they had introduced a resolution urging President Bush to fire Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Is this desperation, or merely pathetic folly?
"This resolution would make official what so many members of Congress already believe -- that the soldiers in Iraq and America's foreign policy would be helped greatly if Donald Rumsfeld would leave," Rep. Charles Rangel of New York said in a statement.
Ahh yes, that distinguished stentorian stalwart of the House, Chuckey R.
The resolution said Rumsfeld misled the American public on assessments of progress in the war and occupation, sent U.S. forces to Iraq "without adequate planning and sufficient equipment," and "demonstrated a lack of sensitivity" in statements on the war and U.S. casualties.
Gee, if the Prez falls for this then we can get an implicit admission that it's all hacked up and screwy over there in Iraq! Yeah... he'll fall for this!
I would have expected better shenanigans from this bunch. Geesh!
This stunt is so limp they all apparently need political Viagra.
Simply pathetic.
(0) comments
