I apologize for my absence. I have recently started a new course at work, and last week I was working from 5 AM to 9PM, leaving me with little or no energy to devote to political commentary. That, and I was a bit out of the loop. Feel free to give me specific political issues of concern from the last week if you think they deserve my attention.
My focus this week is the President's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the SCOTUS. This, as I warned all of my left-leaning friends during the election, is the inevitable result of playing identity politics. As has been stated in pretty much every newspaper of note (with varying degrees of admiration by the usual rags), Sotomayor makes her decisions through the lens of her own personal experiences as an immigrant. To this, I can only respond that I am thankful that she is only on the 2nd Circuit. She has actually explicitly stated that she thinks a Hispanic woman is better suited to being a judge than a white man, simply by virtue of her perspective. As RS McCain says, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?! The last time I checked, there was the delightful little concept of "impartiality" to protect. Are we to be held hostage now by sympathies to identity groups?
Ironically, no. If you pay close attention, you'll notice that Democrats play a particularly vile brand of identity politics. They will absorb a group into their "big tent", though I'd use the term collective, and then should this group not adhere exactly to the greater plan they will be ignored. Take for instance the black community in California; they voted overwhelmingly in favour of President Obama. However, the vast majority of the President's economic policies will have no demonstrable impact on black poverty. In fact, one could argue that his economic policies will hurt black families because the areas he is targeting with "stimulus" are predominantly the reserve of bleeding heart upper middle class white people. I fail to see how protecting the snail darter is rewarding the black community. Furthermore, gays voted overwhelmingly Democrat as well, and yet they are getting no help on the marriage issue. As HillBuzz has pointed out, it's an issue of language rather than rights. However, a continued battle on gay marriage is of interest to the Democratic party, and so gays will continue to vote for them and get nothing in exchange.
President Obama is the apotheosis of this ruthless and unethical way. He used a groundswell of feeling by identity groups like blacks and disenfranchised youth to gain power, but he's not accepting any kind of reciprocal responsibility. He promised them Hope and Change. He'll bring them death, and they will love him for it.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Rule 5 Sunday! Part 2, The Democratic Process
Hungover today. Busy all week. Not much energy for this kind of thing. I'm hoping to do some catching up next week, what with the Democratic Party in Congress trying to pass communism through environmentalism. Keep on track with Monique Stuart and RS McCain on the unusual happenings.
This week, I thought I'd open Rule 5 to the floor. Post links in the comments section, and throughout the rest of the day I'll update the main body with the images. Have fun!
UPDATE
What the hell. I love Alizée.It isn't every day you see a Corsican hottie.
This week, I thought I'd open Rule 5 to the floor. Post links in the comments section, and throughout the rest of the day I'll update the main body with the images. Have fun!
UPDATE
What the hell. I love Alizée.It isn't every day you see a Corsican hottie.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Rule 5 Sunday!
The title has nothing to do with the content of the post. Go to The Other McCain to get the meaning. Also, just to keep my brother happy, this post is totally free of Ann Coulter references.
Today I'm going to muse on the political culture of my current city, and why it is moronic. Here in Fredericton, a riding that historically has gone blue (that means the same thing as going red for my American readers), I am surrounded by people who have no idea how politics actually works. It's amazing what 8 years of voting liberal can do to the cultural psyche.
First of all, people seem to assume that President GW Bush was the worst president in history. They can cite no evidence, they can offer no sane argumentation. When questioned, they look at you as if you claimed the sky is neon yellow. Forget the fact that previous Presidents have committed perjury and probably felonies (President Clinton), completely fumbled Mideast policy and allowed Americans to be held hostage for over a year (President Carter), bungled the PR campaign on what was militarily the cleanest jungle war ever (President Johnson). I could go on, but I think you get my point. Make no mistake, I do not credit President Bush with being in the top 5, but you have to give the man a reasonable analysis. He dealt admirably with the greatest attack on US soil since Pearl Harbour. He concluded a successful ground campaign in a country that had repelled all previous attempts at doing so (seriously, even the Brits never had garrisons in every Afghan province). He removed on of the most intractable and wily dictators around from power, and he managed to hold his ground against two innovative insurgent campaigns at the same time, while simultaneously preventing a follow-up attack on the US. Allow me to be completely clear: Al Qaeda had plans and attempted to execute several attacks on the US post 9/11. That's how terrorist campaigns work. You open with a bang to get people's attention, and then you bleed their will to fight by demonstrating that you can hit them anywhere you want. That hasn't happened, so if you want to blame President Bush for Iraq, you had best be willing to give him credit for the lack of further attacks on US soil. Or you are a hypocrite.
Which brings me to my next point. Hypocrisy is rampant in this part of the country. It really irritates me, especially as a libertarian. People in this city just love to tell me how the Canadian military should be deployed to Darfur, but that the current Afghan mission is a war for oil. They love to tell me that the government should intervene and force Evangelicals to be nicer to gays, but that their "right" to smoke weed shouldn't be infringed. Well? Which is it? Do you want an interventionist nanny-state that regulates everything right down to how you feel about the asshole next door who plays country music at 4 AM? Or do you want the government to treat you like an individual citizen and stakeholder, with the rights and responsibilities that entails?
Nevermind, you're probably too baked to understand half of those words. Go back to parroting Jon Stewart and thinking you're brilliant.
And now for something completely different! Rule 5 WOOO! (Click for full size, I'm still learning how this stuff works)
Today I'm going to muse on the political culture of my current city, and why it is moronic. Here in Fredericton, a riding that historically has gone blue (that means the same thing as going red for my American readers), I am surrounded by people who have no idea how politics actually works. It's amazing what 8 years of voting liberal can do to the cultural psyche.
First of all, people seem to assume that President GW Bush was the worst president in history. They can cite no evidence, they can offer no sane argumentation. When questioned, they look at you as if you claimed the sky is neon yellow. Forget the fact that previous Presidents have committed perjury and probably felonies (President Clinton), completely fumbled Mideast policy and allowed Americans to be held hostage for over a year (President Carter), bungled the PR campaign on what was militarily the cleanest jungle war ever (President Johnson). I could go on, but I think you get my point. Make no mistake, I do not credit President Bush with being in the top 5, but you have to give the man a reasonable analysis. He dealt admirably with the greatest attack on US soil since Pearl Harbour. He concluded a successful ground campaign in a country that had repelled all previous attempts at doing so (seriously, even the Brits never had garrisons in every Afghan province). He removed on of the most intractable and wily dictators around from power, and he managed to hold his ground against two innovative insurgent campaigns at the same time, while simultaneously preventing a follow-up attack on the US. Allow me to be completely clear: Al Qaeda had plans and attempted to execute several attacks on the US post 9/11. That's how terrorist campaigns work. You open with a bang to get people's attention, and then you bleed their will to fight by demonstrating that you can hit them anywhere you want. That hasn't happened, so if you want to blame President Bush for Iraq, you had best be willing to give him credit for the lack of further attacks on US soil. Or you are a hypocrite.
Which brings me to my next point. Hypocrisy is rampant in this part of the country. It really irritates me, especially as a libertarian. People in this city just love to tell me how the Canadian military should be deployed to Darfur, but that the current Afghan mission is a war for oil. They love to tell me that the government should intervene and force Evangelicals to be nicer to gays, but that their "right" to smoke weed shouldn't be infringed. Well? Which is it? Do you want an interventionist nanny-state that regulates everything right down to how you feel about the asshole next door who plays country music at 4 AM? Or do you want the government to treat you like an individual citizen and stakeholder, with the rights and responsibilities that entails?
Nevermind, you're probably too baked to understand half of those words. Go back to parroting Jon Stewart and thinking you're brilliant.
And now for something completely different! Rule 5 WOOO! (Click for full size, I'm still learning how this stuff works)
Thursday, May 14, 2009
War is Peace, and we Have Always been at War With Eastasia
A quick aside for those of you who think I actually MEAN "East Asia". It's a truncated quotation from 1984. "Eastasia" is one of the 3 megalithic political blocs.
Go read Five Feet of Fury. Right now. I mean it, do not come back until you have checked that link. Scroll down until you can read "Today's Hate Crime".
I cannot even begin to describe the degree to which I am incensed. According to Canada's draconian counter-protest legislation, if you wish to stage a demonstration against another demonstration, you must allow yourself to be segregated into a tiny box and surrounded by police. This is not to protect you, it is to protect the larger protest from you. I have seen this lunacy before. During the latest round of Pro-Gaza, Pro-HAMAS protests, pro-Israel protesters were often dispersed by police for "disturbing the peace". Apparently, waving HAMAS flags and chanting "death to [insert group here, including Jewish children]" is just fine though. Now we see it again.
Only this time, it could be much worse. Canadian hate-crime legislation under the Criminal Code is already pretty damn sweeping. Luckily for these protesters, it really only kicks in once it has been proven that you committed a crime. It's a way of ratcheting up your sentence because you were thinking naughty thoughts. Some Mens are more Rea than others. However, if the Toronto Police have launched a hate crimes investigation, regardless of outcome, we can be sure of two things. 1: Canadian politicians, local and federal, are afraid of losing Tamil votes and so are already in appeasement mode. 2: Barbara Hall, of the Dreaded Ontario Human Rights Commission, is going to start talking again. I think we can all agree that a woman so pretentious that she believes she is better qualified than a judge to determine whether or not a woman wearing a veil while testifying violates a defendent's rights to face his accuser shouldn't really be given a microphone. I can tell you right now, she will recommend that the Tamil protesters lodge a complaint to the HRC, at which point these poor counter-protesters will be persecuted at her whim.
And for what? Stating something that was confirmed in an Act of Freakin' Parliament! "Protect Canada, Fight the Tamil Tigers". The Canadian Government has a stated position of forceful opposition to and non-negotiation with terrorist groups. The Tamil Tigers are a terrorist group. Therefore the Canadian Government will forcefully oppose and refuse to negotiate with the Tamil Tigers. Simple syllogism, right? I guess not.
Go read Five Feet of Fury. Right now. I mean it, do not come back until you have checked that link. Scroll down until you can read "Today's Hate Crime".
I cannot even begin to describe the degree to which I am incensed. According to Canada's draconian counter-protest legislation, if you wish to stage a demonstration against another demonstration, you must allow yourself to be segregated into a tiny box and surrounded by police. This is not to protect you, it is to protect the larger protest from you. I have seen this lunacy before. During the latest round of Pro-Gaza, Pro-HAMAS protests, pro-Israel protesters were often dispersed by police for "disturbing the peace". Apparently, waving HAMAS flags and chanting "death to [insert group here, including Jewish children]" is just fine though. Now we see it again.
Only this time, it could be much worse. Canadian hate-crime legislation under the Criminal Code is already pretty damn sweeping. Luckily for these protesters, it really only kicks in once it has been proven that you committed a crime. It's a way of ratcheting up your sentence because you were thinking naughty thoughts. Some Mens are more Rea than others. However, if the Toronto Police have launched a hate crimes investigation, regardless of outcome, we can be sure of two things. 1: Canadian politicians, local and federal, are afraid of losing Tamil votes and so are already in appeasement mode. 2: Barbara Hall, of the Dreaded Ontario Human Rights Commission, is going to start talking again. I think we can all agree that a woman so pretentious that she believes she is better qualified than a judge to determine whether or not a woman wearing a veil while testifying violates a defendent's rights to face his accuser shouldn't really be given a microphone. I can tell you right now, she will recommend that the Tamil protesters lodge a complaint to the HRC, at which point these poor counter-protesters will be persecuted at her whim.
And for what? Stating something that was confirmed in an Act of Freakin' Parliament! "Protect Canada, Fight the Tamil Tigers". The Canadian Government has a stated position of forceful opposition to and non-negotiation with terrorist groups. The Tamil Tigers are a terrorist group. Therefore the Canadian Government will forcefully oppose and refuse to negotiate with the Tamil Tigers. Simple syllogism, right? I guess not.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Sometimes I just Can't Help Myself. I have to Smack Morons
Alright, alright, I know I'm risking the wrath of my brother here, but I must comment once again, in a roundabout way, on Ann Coulter. I promise not to gush. Well, not excessively anyway.
The latest "it-girl" on the blogosphere (and now I go to wash with fire after using that phrase) is Meghan McCain, the daughter John wishes he never had. Seriously, this girl is frighteningly stupid. Now, I know that a lot of American conservatives are pointing out that John McCain finished badly at the Academy. Frankly, that doesn't have much to do with anything. John McCain was too busy dating strippers and Jumping the Wall to care about his ranking. Having experienced a US service academy, I can't say I blame him. Still, there is no excuse for the idiocy that is his daughter.
Take a gander at her blog. It is beyond comical that she gets tagged as having expertese in anything, let alone politics. Media? Well, maybe. Being addicted to publicity might qualify. I mean, like, really? She's upset that Arlen Specter left the party? All snarkiness aside, she really is a travesty being forced into the public sphere. You would think the daughter of two prominent public figures would be able to speak without sounding like a socialite from southern California.
Don't even get me started on her desire to morph the Republican Party into the Other Democratic Party. Oops, too late. Every one of her "arguments", assuming she bothers to make a point, is substantiated only by personal conjecture. Her assertions don't meet any aspect of the standard Parliamentary Debating test for veracity. None of her assertions are "commonly recognized fact". None of them are "easily demonstrable by basic research". They certainly aren't "conclusions based on rational premise". You can tell she hasn't a leg to stand on because she hasn't, that I am aware of, ever used the phrase "I think". It's always "I feel". Congratulations, you would be executed in the world of Equilibrium.
Apparently, this little tart had two tickets to the White House Correspondents' Dinner, and tried to get an extra guest in Paris Hilton Style. Also, for greater amusement value, she apparently thinks that she can oust Ann Coulter as the resident Republican Hottie.
That paragraph break was to give me time to recover from a near-terminal fit of laughter. Ann Coulter's physical appearance is convenient, but not necessary to her popularity. People don't flock to Rush Limbaugh for his looks; they do it because he is provocative and entertaining. Ann Coulter is popular because people agree with her. She's popular because she knows how to start a fight, and how to end it. She's popular because she writes with wit, humour, and a shocking degree of substantive evidence.
Humourously enough, Ann Coulter describes in excruciating detail how people like Meghan McCain become popular. The MSM just loves someone who claims to be Republican but has no idea what it actually means. Christopher Buckley's political views were of no interest until he endorsed President Obama. Now that he regrets his decision, he has receded into political obscurity. One can only hope the same will happen to Ms. McCain.
The latest "it-girl" on the blogosphere (and now I go to wash with fire after using that phrase) is Meghan McCain, the daughter John wishes he never had. Seriously, this girl is frighteningly stupid. Now, I know that a lot of American conservatives are pointing out that John McCain finished badly at the Academy. Frankly, that doesn't have much to do with anything. John McCain was too busy dating strippers and Jumping the Wall to care about his ranking. Having experienced a US service academy, I can't say I blame him. Still, there is no excuse for the idiocy that is his daughter.
Take a gander at her blog. It is beyond comical that she gets tagged as having expertese in anything, let alone politics. Media? Well, maybe. Being addicted to publicity might qualify. I mean, like, really? She's upset that Arlen Specter left the party? All snarkiness aside, she really is a travesty being forced into the public sphere. You would think the daughter of two prominent public figures would be able to speak without sounding like a socialite from southern California.
Don't even get me started on her desire to morph the Republican Party into the Other Democratic Party. Oops, too late. Every one of her "arguments", assuming she bothers to make a point, is substantiated only by personal conjecture. Her assertions don't meet any aspect of the standard Parliamentary Debating test for veracity. None of her assertions are "commonly recognized fact". None of them are "easily demonstrable by basic research". They certainly aren't "conclusions based on rational premise". You can tell she hasn't a leg to stand on because she hasn't, that I am aware of, ever used the phrase "I think". It's always "I feel". Congratulations, you would be executed in the world of Equilibrium.
Apparently, this little tart had two tickets to the White House Correspondents' Dinner, and tried to get an extra guest in Paris Hilton Style. Also, for greater amusement value, she apparently thinks that she can oust Ann Coulter as the resident Republican Hottie.
That paragraph break was to give me time to recover from a near-terminal fit of laughter. Ann Coulter's physical appearance is convenient, but not necessary to her popularity. People don't flock to Rush Limbaugh for his looks; they do it because he is provocative and entertaining. Ann Coulter is popular because people agree with her. She's popular because she knows how to start a fight, and how to end it. She's popular because she writes with wit, humour, and a shocking degree of substantive evidence.
Humourously enough, Ann Coulter describes in excruciating detail how people like Meghan McCain become popular. The MSM just loves someone who claims to be Republican but has no idea what it actually means. Christopher Buckley's political views were of no interest until he endorsed President Obama. Now that he regrets his decision, he has receded into political obscurity. One can only hope the same will happen to Ms. McCain.
The Coming Disaster
This week in both the National Post and the Globe and Mail, allusions were made to the possibility that economic recovery has already begun, or will begin shortly. Naturally, the current batch of politicians are already burnishing their economic credentials, preparing to take credit for the "miraculous recovery".
Frankly, this is horseshit.
First of all, there is no possible way that the "stimulus" packages could be credited with a potential recovery. Why? Because the vast majority of that money hasn't been spent yet. Essentially, the governments of the West are expecting us to believe that merely the ephemeral promise of governmental largesse has produced a counter-cyclical effect! Consumer confidence restored, the great toxic assets purified by the Name of Mighty Keynes. Right, and if that's true then swine flu is really avian flu because the pigs are darkening the skies over a newly risen Atlantis.
Part of a particular process taught to all military officers involves asking yourself, repeatedly, "Has the situation changed? If so, how does this affect me?" Well, the situation hasn't changed. Americans and Canadians, and probably everyone else, are losing their jobs at a steady rate. Toxic assets are still toxic, and people are still defaulting on mortgages. Banks are still skittish about lending to each other, as no one's asset sheets are believable. Worst of all, the government is refusing to allow banks to pay back the TARP funds so as to be free of congressional interference. Oh, and GM and Chrysler still have moronic business practices.
Economists are predicting minor growth, and soon. Bully for them. I consider this to be the eye of the storm, because as RS McCain states "The Fundamentals Still Suck". Not to mention the government is aggravating the situation with needless interference and an increase in taxes for, well, just about all Americans. Mark Steyn is looking more and more prescient in his warnings that the dreaded Rich in America might soon include more people than expected.
So what do we have now? Perhaps, and I consider this very likely, we will have a happily ignorant plebeian class more than ready to return to somnambulism, encouraged by a class of elites with no understanding of economics but a burning desire to rearrange the world into some Utopian order. My brother, a legal alien in Oklahoma City, commented that the latest rash of get rich quick ads go something like "Big Business is getting bailout money! Now it's your turn!"
The American Dream is slowly being eroded by an addiction to government largesse. The only Justice that comes from Socialism is that people dumb enough to buy into it will get exactly what they deserve. Unfortunately, the rest of us will be collateral damage.
Frankly, this is horseshit.
First of all, there is no possible way that the "stimulus" packages could be credited with a potential recovery. Why? Because the vast majority of that money hasn't been spent yet. Essentially, the governments of the West are expecting us to believe that merely the ephemeral promise of governmental largesse has produced a counter-cyclical effect! Consumer confidence restored, the great toxic assets purified by the Name of Mighty Keynes. Right, and if that's true then swine flu is really avian flu because the pigs are darkening the skies over a newly risen Atlantis.
Part of a particular process taught to all military officers involves asking yourself, repeatedly, "Has the situation changed? If so, how does this affect me?" Well, the situation hasn't changed. Americans and Canadians, and probably everyone else, are losing their jobs at a steady rate. Toxic assets are still toxic, and people are still defaulting on mortgages. Banks are still skittish about lending to each other, as no one's asset sheets are believable. Worst of all, the government is refusing to allow banks to pay back the TARP funds so as to be free of congressional interference. Oh, and GM and Chrysler still have moronic business practices.
Economists are predicting minor growth, and soon. Bully for them. I consider this to be the eye of the storm, because as RS McCain states "The Fundamentals Still Suck". Not to mention the government is aggravating the situation with needless interference and an increase in taxes for, well, just about all Americans. Mark Steyn is looking more and more prescient in his warnings that the dreaded Rich in America might soon include more people than expected.
So what do we have now? Perhaps, and I consider this very likely, we will have a happily ignorant plebeian class more than ready to return to somnambulism, encouraged by a class of elites with no understanding of economics but a burning desire to rearrange the world into some Utopian order. My brother, a legal alien in Oklahoma City, commented that the latest rash of get rich quick ads go something like "Big Business is getting bailout money! Now it's your turn!"
The American Dream is slowly being eroded by an addiction to government largesse. The only Justice that comes from Socialism is that people dumb enough to buy into it will get exactly what they deserve. Unfortunately, the rest of us will be collateral damage.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Why "Diversity" is simply another name for Appeasement
Hat tip to Kathy Shaidle over at Five Feet of Fury on reminding me of my favourite ex-Muslim.
(Some related reading, not directly about today's post)
If you were not aware, on Mother's Day, the Tamil minority in Toronto demanded attention by blockading the Gardiner's Expressway (a major artery) en masse. To visibly demonstrate the justice of their cause, they used women and children as blockades to prevent the police from forcibly removing them. Well, at least they didn't use the standard Tiger tactic and strap bombs to them.
That's right. I am making an unequivocal statement on the nature of the protest. Every person in that crowd should have been forcibly dispersed for openly agitating on behalf of a known terrorist group. It's in the Globe and Mail. It's in the National Post. It's on every blog that concerns itself with Canadian affairs. These "peaceful protesters" wave Tiger flags and literally chant "Tamil Tigers! Freedom Fighters!"
Funny how HRCs will persecute an Alberta pastor for vehemently preaching one of the tenets of his faith, and yet don't do a damn thing when an entire mob is shouting its support for an organization that Parliament has labelled terrorist. Let's be clear on this. I don't care about Sri Lanka. I don't care that Tamils are being oppressed, I don't care that Tamils are doing atrocious things to Sinhalese Sri Lankans. It isn't my country, and I have no stake in this. I do care if our democratically elected government has declared it illegal to materially support a specific group with international ties, and a select group of citizens deliberately and noisily chooses to ignore that.
I will give Tamil-Canadians two pieces of advice. Firstly, choose a nationality. For the sake of political behaviour, you are either Tamil or you are Canadian. I have family in Italy, but I have no intention of harassing the Canadian government regarding Berlusconi's policy. Secondly, I will give you the same advice I give to girls lamenting that life is unfair:
You are not a beautiful snowflake, unique in all the world.
You are a cog in a great and wondrous machine.
Cogs that begin to grind, or slip, or otherwise fail get replaced.
The world keeps turning.
(Some related reading, not directly about today's post)
If you were not aware, on Mother's Day, the Tamil minority in Toronto demanded attention by blockading the Gardiner's Expressway (a major artery) en masse. To visibly demonstrate the justice of their cause, they used women and children as blockades to prevent the police from forcibly removing them. Well, at least they didn't use the standard Tiger tactic and strap bombs to them.
That's right. I am making an unequivocal statement on the nature of the protest. Every person in that crowd should have been forcibly dispersed for openly agitating on behalf of a known terrorist group. It's in the Globe and Mail. It's in the National Post. It's on every blog that concerns itself with Canadian affairs. These "peaceful protesters" wave Tiger flags and literally chant "Tamil Tigers! Freedom Fighters!"
Funny how HRCs will persecute an Alberta pastor for vehemently preaching one of the tenets of his faith, and yet don't do a damn thing when an entire mob is shouting its support for an organization that Parliament has labelled terrorist. Let's be clear on this. I don't care about Sri Lanka. I don't care that Tamils are being oppressed, I don't care that Tamils are doing atrocious things to Sinhalese Sri Lankans. It isn't my country, and I have no stake in this. I do care if our democratically elected government has declared it illegal to materially support a specific group with international ties, and a select group of citizens deliberately and noisily chooses to ignore that.
I will give Tamil-Canadians two pieces of advice. Firstly, choose a nationality. For the sake of political behaviour, you are either Tamil or you are Canadian. I have family in Italy, but I have no intention of harassing the Canadian government regarding Berlusconi's policy. Secondly, I will give you the same advice I give to girls lamenting that life is unfair:
You are not a beautiful snowflake, unique in all the world.
You are a cog in a great and wondrous machine.
Cogs that begin to grind, or slip, or otherwise fail get replaced.
The world keeps turning.
Monday, May 11, 2009
The Depths to Which We Have Sunk
And Lo, President Obama was elected, expiating American original sin and heralding a dawn of Hope and Change.
Well, we got change alright. Hat tip to RS McCain (the other McCain to whom I link) for pointing out that since his election, the media has tied absolutely everything to President Obama. People losing jobs? Oh No! How will this affect the President's polling data? New Star Trek movie! Great, Sci-Fi voters will compare Obama to Spock (patently ludicrous). The President chose Dijon mustard for his photo-op burger? DEAR GOD! EDIT IT OUT! FASTER, BEFORE THEY CALL HIM FRENCH! Meanwhile, in Texas, millions of Americans who voted against Obama enjoy mustard on a burger and the world continues to turn.
Seriously folks, the love affair the US media has with Obama is starting to actually nauseate me. He is not the first charismatic president. Reagan's speeches still resonate, and I haven't seen any footage of TV interviewers (even amateurs like Chris Matthews) gushing like schoolgirls. He speaks reasonably well (and I'm being generous, see previous posts). Get over it.
Secondly, if Democrats are so terrified that their urbane and cultured president could alienate voters based on which condiment he uses on a freakin' burger then perhaps it is time that they concede he is in fact a stuffed shirt, and since mustard is so devilishly hard to get out of cotton they just can't have it anywhere near him. At some point, Democrats are going to have to wake up and realize that in the next election, they are going to have to campaign on what the President actually accomplished, rather than the sparkle and dazzle campaign to which we were subjected last time. Unfortunately for them, President Obama has already demonstrated that he is to the left of the vast majority of American voters, and he is haemorraging independents faster than Christopher Buckley can remove "Obamacon" from his Facebook profile.
Quick, someone edit out a live report of the President saying he doesn't like Mexican food! That ought to save us from genuine scrutiny for at least 3 news cycles!
Well, we got change alright. Hat tip to RS McCain (the other McCain to whom I link) for pointing out that since his election, the media has tied absolutely everything to President Obama. People losing jobs? Oh No! How will this affect the President's polling data? New Star Trek movie! Great, Sci-Fi voters will compare Obama to Spock (patently ludicrous). The President chose Dijon mustard for his photo-op burger? DEAR GOD! EDIT IT OUT! FASTER, BEFORE THEY CALL HIM FRENCH! Meanwhile, in Texas, millions of Americans who voted against Obama enjoy mustard on a burger and the world continues to turn.
Seriously folks, the love affair the US media has with Obama is starting to actually nauseate me. He is not the first charismatic president. Reagan's speeches still resonate, and I haven't seen any footage of TV interviewers (even amateurs like Chris Matthews) gushing like schoolgirls. He speaks reasonably well (and I'm being generous, see previous posts). Get over it.
Secondly, if Democrats are so terrified that their urbane and cultured president could alienate voters based on which condiment he uses on a freakin' burger then perhaps it is time that they concede he is in fact a stuffed shirt, and since mustard is so devilishly hard to get out of cotton they just can't have it anywhere near him. At some point, Democrats are going to have to wake up and realize that in the next election, they are going to have to campaign on what the President actually accomplished, rather than the sparkle and dazzle campaign to which we were subjected last time. Unfortunately for them, President Obama has already demonstrated that he is to the left of the vast majority of American voters, and he is haemorraging independents faster than Christopher Buckley can remove "Obamacon" from his Facebook profile.
Quick, someone edit out a live report of the President saying he doesn't like Mexican food! That ought to save us from genuine scrutiny for at least 3 news cycles!
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Because not Everything Can Be About Politics
So, I must give in to my nerditude, although it is tangentially related to my hatred of our current generation.
I went and saw the new Star Trek today, and it was brilliant. As was my wont, I watched a few reviews to make sure I wouldn't be caught with my pants down regarding idiotic plot twists. Instead, I was caught with my pants down regarding idiot reviewers. There are no major spoilers here, so feel free to read on.
In the opening sequence, time traveling baddies are revealed. This of course presents the old logical conundrum that altering the past of a necessity alters the future. This is where the movie gets brilliant. Read this next line carefully.
No effort is made to refute the fact that interference from the future dramatically alters the course of history.
That's right folks. This movie, rather ambitiously, has thrown out the canon. Everything that happened in Star Trek TV shows and movies (other than Enterprise, though accept it as canon at your own risk) has not happened and most likely will not happen. The entire Star Trek universe is being reinvented, just as James Bond was reinvented in Casino Royale. Characters have the same names, the theme is the same, but the setting has been fundamentally altered (I won't spoil the movie as to how, but it's pretty freaking cataclysmic).
The movie was witty and very well executed, with clever nods at each iteration of Star Trek. I particularly enjoyed Kirk's womanizing (Yes there is in fact a Green Alien Woman, he does make out with her, and she is Gloriously Hot) and the fact that the infamous Cheating on the Final Test incident gets dramatized. Bones is suitably cranky, Scotty is very scottish and hilarious in his own right, and Uhura remains the token hot chick on the bridge. Life is good. Spock is a much more central character than you'd expect, and frequently steals the scene.
So why do I hate the whining nerds? Because they are symptomatic of a society totally bent on instant gratification. Those who bitch and moan that it "doesn't feel like Star Trek" are missing the point. You don't bitch about Shakespeare because it doesn't feel like Virgil. The intent of this movie was to take a successful setting, the future, and reinvigorate it for the new generation. I'm sure people bitched that Patrick Stewart was no Shatner, and that simply proves the cyclic nature of idiocy. The directors of this film have taken the franchise in a new direction. Pull yourself out of the primordial goo that is obsessive fandom and actually analyse the movie. Coherent plot? Check (baddie out for revenge). Sympathetic and interesting characters? Check. Gunplay, fast cars/ships, and attractive women/men? Check, Check, and oh dear god more of the Green Hottie next time Check.
It was fantastic. Stop whining, and enjoy the latest iteration of the series. After all, as the movie itself states, it's an alternate Star Trek timeline. If you really miss Shatner's Kirk so badly, buy the damn DVDs.
I went and saw the new Star Trek today, and it was brilliant. As was my wont, I watched a few reviews to make sure I wouldn't be caught with my pants down regarding idiotic plot twists. Instead, I was caught with my pants down regarding idiot reviewers. There are no major spoilers here, so feel free to read on.
In the opening sequence, time traveling baddies are revealed. This of course presents the old logical conundrum that altering the past of a necessity alters the future. This is where the movie gets brilliant. Read this next line carefully.
No effort is made to refute the fact that interference from the future dramatically alters the course of history.
That's right folks. This movie, rather ambitiously, has thrown out the canon. Everything that happened in Star Trek TV shows and movies (other than Enterprise, though accept it as canon at your own risk) has not happened and most likely will not happen. The entire Star Trek universe is being reinvented, just as James Bond was reinvented in Casino Royale. Characters have the same names, the theme is the same, but the setting has been fundamentally altered (I won't spoil the movie as to how, but it's pretty freaking cataclysmic).
The movie was witty and very well executed, with clever nods at each iteration of Star Trek. I particularly enjoyed Kirk's womanizing (Yes there is in fact a Green Alien Woman, he does make out with her, and she is Gloriously Hot) and the fact that the infamous Cheating on the Final Test incident gets dramatized. Bones is suitably cranky, Scotty is very scottish and hilarious in his own right, and Uhura remains the token hot chick on the bridge. Life is good. Spock is a much more central character than you'd expect, and frequently steals the scene.
So why do I hate the whining nerds? Because they are symptomatic of a society totally bent on instant gratification. Those who bitch and moan that it "doesn't feel like Star Trek" are missing the point. You don't bitch about Shakespeare because it doesn't feel like Virgil. The intent of this movie was to take a successful setting, the future, and reinvigorate it for the new generation. I'm sure people bitched that Patrick Stewart was no Shatner, and that simply proves the cyclic nature of idiocy. The directors of this film have taken the franchise in a new direction. Pull yourself out of the primordial goo that is obsessive fandom and actually analyse the movie. Coherent plot? Check (baddie out for revenge). Sympathetic and interesting characters? Check. Gunplay, fast cars/ships, and attractive women/men? Check, Check, and oh dear god more of the Green Hottie next time Check.
It was fantastic. Stop whining, and enjoy the latest iteration of the series. After all, as the movie itself states, it's an alternate Star Trek timeline. If you really miss Shatner's Kirk so badly, buy the damn DVDs.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
The Virtue of Pursuing National Self Interest
I am constantly frustrated by bleeding hearts who insist that this or that cause must be pursued, as it is just and good. These folk often complain bitterly when the military is engaged in a cause that doesn't exactly mesh with the current cause célebre. The most recent example is obvious; twenty years ago the plight of women in Afghanistan was constantly decried. Now? Well, unfortunately for the women of Afghanistan, their interests happen to align with those of the US Government. Oops. Bad call on your part, Afghan women. Now those same hippies who were screaming Something Must Be Done are wailing about yet another War For Oil.
It's as if there is some unwritten rule that reads That which is good for the goose and also good for the US Government causes hysteria and incoherence in the gander.
How many years did we listen to people wail about starving Iraqi children under the failed Oil for Food program? Removing the primary cause of this travesty, namely the dictator who refused to abide by the simplest regulation, is now casually referred to as the greatest war crime of the decade. After all, Bush Lied, right? Well, sort of. You see, precursor chemicals for WMDs don't come in barrels labeled "Precursor Chemical!" Furthermore, Iraq has a lot of open desert where such barrels could be dumped. But again we are spiralling into irrelevance. Is it not enough that we got rid of a very bad man who was starving children? Apparently not. Under our current system, Revolutionary Americans would have had to suffer 20 years of newspaper headlines something like "Washington Violates Internation Law by Crossing Delaware" or "Yorktown Tragedy leaves 3 civilians Murdered".
No one cares about Darfur. Why? Because there is no imminent threat from Darfur. Even the jihadis are too busy killing "inferior" races to bother with the Great Satan. Limited resources imply some kind of rationality in how they are employed, and the only fair way to judge who gets rescued and who doesn't is by asking "What do I get?"
It's as if there is some unwritten rule that reads That which is good for the goose and also good for the US Government causes hysteria and incoherence in the gander.
How many years did we listen to people wail about starving Iraqi children under the failed Oil for Food program? Removing the primary cause of this travesty, namely the dictator who refused to abide by the simplest regulation, is now casually referred to as the greatest war crime of the decade. After all, Bush Lied, right? Well, sort of. You see, precursor chemicals for WMDs don't come in barrels labeled "Precursor Chemical!" Furthermore, Iraq has a lot of open desert where such barrels could be dumped. But again we are spiralling into irrelevance. Is it not enough that we got rid of a very bad man who was starving children? Apparently not. Under our current system, Revolutionary Americans would have had to suffer 20 years of newspaper headlines something like "Washington Violates Internation Law by Crossing Delaware" or "Yorktown Tragedy leaves 3 civilians Murdered".
No one cares about Darfur. Why? Because there is no imminent threat from Darfur. Even the jihadis are too busy killing "inferior" races to bother with the Great Satan. Limited resources imply some kind of rationality in how they are employed, and the only fair way to judge who gets rescued and who doesn't is by asking "What do I get?"
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Sure, Being Frighteningly Narcissistic is Change...
I've had enough of the revoltingly torrid love affair the Mainstream Media (MSM) has with the current US President. Seriously, from the infamous Chris Matthews Tingle to the Colbert Speech Comparison Computer, this President is being celebrated for being inept, rude, and just plain embarrassing.
Before I get to the most offensive episode of his Hundred Days, I will give a brief and unattributed overview of the things that irritate me about the ceaseless gushing over President Obama. Firstly: he is not a magnificent orator. He has presentational skill, of a sort, but regardless of what material he is addressing it is the same solemn and yet energetic tone. Every statement he makes is declamatory, as if his mode of speech was permanently locked on "Gravitas". This is not the mark of a great orator. This is the mark of a great presenter, and this leads me to my second proof of his oratorical inadequacy: the teleprompter. Has anyone else noticed that in the absence of a teleprompter to read, or an opportunity to plagiarize great lines (yeah, Audacity of Hope isn't original...at least he left out the God Damn America part) The Great Orator tends to floss with his shoelaces. Bitterly clinging to God and guns? Bowling like the Special Olympics? Quick, stop the presses! Cicero is reborn! I'm sure I'm not the first commenter (See Steyn, Coulter, et al) to have noticed that the current President sounds more than a little like the Hallmark Special Memories line of greeting cards. Real orators are ALWAYS on. A real orator can walk into a room with a cue card bearing only a single word, and speak for an hour. A real orator can scribble his thoughts on a page while traveling to the site of a speech, and leave us in awe for decades. This President's inaugural was a historic moment, and the address didn't even come close to meeting the occasion.
Secondly, his inexperience and frankly boorish behaviour is not excusable as "a new way of doing things". Prime Minister Brown gave President Obama a penholder carved from wood taken from the sister ship to the Resolute (of Presidential Desk fame). Two anti-slaving ships, reunited as necessary implements of policy-making for America's first Black President. Brilliant, touching, totally appropriate. A 25 DVD set, given to a man blind in one eye, in the wrong format for UK DVD players? Well played. Don't forget the official White House plastic pen. Giving the Queen of England an iPod full of hip hop and your own speeches is not a cool new way of doing politics, it's a new kid trying to show off. Also? YOU DO NOT TOUCH THE QUEEN WITHOUT PERMISSION! This isn't some quaint custom, it is law! The Queen is the head of state for more than one country, and is also the Head of a major Christian Sect. Your wife, similar to Jackie O as the press might label her, is not permitted to casually wrap her arm around the Queen.
My point is this: President GW Bush was given flak at every possible opportunity for the smallest nuance of his behaviour. Sometimes he even deserved it. Why isn't the same standard being held to this President? It's like we're reliving the Clinton days! Some things are just not okay regardless of how cool and popular the MSM tells us you are. Being stylish and relatively young and potentially handsome is all well and good, but these things do not a leader make. Get a grip, Mr. President. You aren't organizing a community anymore. In this game, unrepentant terrorists actually kill people, rather than just bore college students to death.
Before I get to the most offensive episode of his Hundred Days, I will give a brief and unattributed overview of the things that irritate me about the ceaseless gushing over President Obama. Firstly: he is not a magnificent orator. He has presentational skill, of a sort, but regardless of what material he is addressing it is the same solemn and yet energetic tone. Every statement he makes is declamatory, as if his mode of speech was permanently locked on "Gravitas". This is not the mark of a great orator. This is the mark of a great presenter, and this leads me to my second proof of his oratorical inadequacy: the teleprompter. Has anyone else noticed that in the absence of a teleprompter to read, or an opportunity to plagiarize great lines (yeah, Audacity of Hope isn't original...at least he left out the God Damn America part) The Great Orator tends to floss with his shoelaces. Bitterly clinging to God and guns? Bowling like the Special Olympics? Quick, stop the presses! Cicero is reborn! I'm sure I'm not the first commenter (See Steyn, Coulter, et al) to have noticed that the current President sounds more than a little like the Hallmark Special Memories line of greeting cards. Real orators are ALWAYS on. A real orator can walk into a room with a cue card bearing only a single word, and speak for an hour. A real orator can scribble his thoughts on a page while traveling to the site of a speech, and leave us in awe for decades. This President's inaugural was a historic moment, and the address didn't even come close to meeting the occasion.
Secondly, his inexperience and frankly boorish behaviour is not excusable as "a new way of doing things". Prime Minister Brown gave President Obama a penholder carved from wood taken from the sister ship to the Resolute (of Presidential Desk fame). Two anti-slaving ships, reunited as necessary implements of policy-making for America's first Black President. Brilliant, touching, totally appropriate. A 25 DVD set, given to a man blind in one eye, in the wrong format for UK DVD players? Well played. Don't forget the official White House plastic pen. Giving the Queen of England an iPod full of hip hop and your own speeches is not a cool new way of doing politics, it's a new kid trying to show off. Also? YOU DO NOT TOUCH THE QUEEN WITHOUT PERMISSION! This isn't some quaint custom, it is law! The Queen is the head of state for more than one country, and is also the Head of a major Christian Sect. Your wife, similar to Jackie O as the press might label her, is not permitted to casually wrap her arm around the Queen.
My point is this: President GW Bush was given flak at every possible opportunity for the smallest nuance of his behaviour. Sometimes he even deserved it. Why isn't the same standard being held to this President? It's like we're reliving the Clinton days! Some things are just not okay regardless of how cool and popular the MSM tells us you are. Being stylish and relatively young and potentially handsome is all well and good, but these things do not a leader make. Get a grip, Mr. President. You aren't organizing a community anymore. In this game, unrepentant terrorists actually kill people, rather than just bore college students to death.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Surrendering, and Calling it Victory
One of the most irritating habits of the Right Wing in politics is to abjectly surrender, and then call it victory. Ann Coulter (yes, she is probably my favourite) comments extensively on the habit of those who believe in God, guns, and a literal interpretation of the US Constitution to apologize shamefacedly as a preface to their arguments. Furthermore, Conservatives often call it a day and job well done when some commentator briefly accepts that both conservatives and liberals have committed some fault. Well! In that case, we had all just better pack it up in any conflict. After all, both sides have lost people. Mission accomplished!
A couple of issues have brought this irritating tendency of Western conservatives to mind. Firstly, Kathy Shaidle's latest article on the double standard enjoyed by Muslims has me in an atheist fury. My position is simple. If you choose to worship some sky-god, earth mother, or tree spirit, DO NOT EXPECT PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT OVER OTHER WORSHIPERS. I consider most organized religions amusingly ludicrous in their obsessive narcissism (why would the creator of the universe care if one human eats pork?). However, of late, Muslims seem to unabashedly demand preferential treatment. Worse still, they claim the status of victimhood if we hold them to the same status as say, Hindus. "But our god is the true god!" Not to me buddy. And frankly, if your proof that your religion is peaceful includes burning embassies over the publication of cartoons then my proof of tolerance includes a Marine Expeditionary Force all up in yo' grill.
The second issue that brought this to mind was a rather eloquent and long post by RS McCain on his blog. He was responding to allegations by fellow bloggers that his tone is inappropriate while dealing with the subject of feminine beauty (I agree with McCain; fake breasts lack a certain panache). During his posting, he pointed out that conservatives often accept as "Reaganesque" anything that simply appears Reaganesque. Put on a monochrome two-button, call yourself conservative, and the GOP will literally bury you in cash. This is of course patently ludicrous. You could cover yourself in tattoos and piercings, and as long as you maintained a dedication to the capitalist system, a total devotion to personal responsibility, and an agressive foreign policy viewpoint, you would be more Reaganesque than at least five Republican senators I can think of. Just because Ronald Reagan was a handsome Irishman in a suit does not mean that anyone attempting to be handsome in a suit is conservative.
Frankly, I'm quite tired of the abject terror struck into the hearts of public conservatives every time they get cornered by a reporter. It's complete garbage that a man is not allowed to have a position on abortion. The First Amendment is not the Anti-Criticism Amendment. Logical analysis of Presidential behaviour (more on this in a future post) should not be suspended because he is the first Black President.
Living in today's society is like playing a giant game of Calvinball. When your opponent is willing to say anything, and contradict himself on an almost daily basis so as to try to shut you up, your only defence is to firmly, and repetitively, reassert the facts.
I must not Fear - Criticizing President Obama is not racism
Fear is the Mind-Killer - All cultures are not of equal value
Fear is the Little Death that brings total obliteration - Religion is not a valid excuse for violence
I will face my Fear - Being conservative does not make you a bigot or a moron
I will permit it to pass over and through me - A loud liberal is still wrong
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path
A liberal's outrage is inversely proportional to the veracity of the evidence supporting him
When the Fear has gone there will be nothing - Being right is more important than courtesy
Only I will remain.
A couple of issues have brought this irritating tendency of Western conservatives to mind. Firstly, Kathy Shaidle's latest article on the double standard enjoyed by Muslims has me in an atheist fury. My position is simple. If you choose to worship some sky-god, earth mother, or tree spirit, DO NOT EXPECT PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT OVER OTHER WORSHIPERS. I consider most organized religions amusingly ludicrous in their obsessive narcissism (why would the creator of the universe care if one human eats pork?). However, of late, Muslims seem to unabashedly demand preferential treatment. Worse still, they claim the status of victimhood if we hold them to the same status as say, Hindus. "But our god is the true god!" Not to me buddy. And frankly, if your proof that your religion is peaceful includes burning embassies over the publication of cartoons then my proof of tolerance includes a Marine Expeditionary Force all up in yo' grill.
The second issue that brought this to mind was a rather eloquent and long post by RS McCain on his blog. He was responding to allegations by fellow bloggers that his tone is inappropriate while dealing with the subject of feminine beauty (I agree with McCain; fake breasts lack a certain panache). During his posting, he pointed out that conservatives often accept as "Reaganesque" anything that simply appears Reaganesque. Put on a monochrome two-button, call yourself conservative, and the GOP will literally bury you in cash. This is of course patently ludicrous. You could cover yourself in tattoos and piercings, and as long as you maintained a dedication to the capitalist system, a total devotion to personal responsibility, and an agressive foreign policy viewpoint, you would be more Reaganesque than at least five Republican senators I can think of. Just because Ronald Reagan was a handsome Irishman in a suit does not mean that anyone attempting to be handsome in a suit is conservative.
Frankly, I'm quite tired of the abject terror struck into the hearts of public conservatives every time they get cornered by a reporter. It's complete garbage that a man is not allowed to have a position on abortion. The First Amendment is not the Anti-Criticism Amendment. Logical analysis of Presidential behaviour (more on this in a future post) should not be suspended because he is the first Black President.
Living in today's society is like playing a giant game of Calvinball. When your opponent is willing to say anything, and contradict himself on an almost daily basis so as to try to shut you up, your only defence is to firmly, and repetitively, reassert the facts.
I must not Fear - Criticizing President Obama is not racism
Fear is the Mind-Killer - All cultures are not of equal value
Fear is the Little Death that brings total obliteration - Religion is not a valid excuse for violence
I will face my Fear - Being conservative does not make you a bigot or a moron
I will permit it to pass over and through me - A loud liberal is still wrong
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path
A liberal's outrage is inversely proportional to the veracity of the evidence supporting him
When the Fear has gone there will be nothing - Being right is more important than courtesy
Only I will remain.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Thoughts on Ann Coulter's "Guilty"
I consider Ann Coulter to be a guilty pleasure. Like admitting that you listen to Rush Limbaugh, reading Ms. Coulter is viewed as a potentially communicable disease in certain circles. After all, she's a Right-Wing-Jesus-Freak-Lunatic, right? Well, sort of. As a libertarian and an atheist, I find her constant references to God (yes, she differentiates between God and god) occasionally and by turns amusing and grating. Her obvious disdain for her own gender is an issue of much confusion for me (she has on occassion been quoted as wishing women couldn't vote), and her attribution of feminine traits to male politicians is humourous only in a throwaway line kind of way. She isn't shy about accusing people of Godlessness, and considers (with a surprising amount of statistical support) single motherhood the greatest societal scourge since Communism. Her fixation on President Obama's middle name (she refers to him as B. Hussein Obama) wears somewhat thin after a while.
All that being said, I can unabashedly call myself a Coulter fan. She is a polemicist; a term modern society doesn't seem to understand. She is deliberately mean, as that is what polemicists do. She is a Republican who refuses to follow the standard procedure of apologizing for her views in advance. She is undeniably witty, and I find myself frequently laughing out loud at some turn of phrase.
"Guilty" is truly a pleasure to read. With just enough humour to prevent the righteous indignation from becoming crushing, she points out in great detail the hypocrisy of the American left. She makes no effort to be balanced; like Thatcher, she is convinced that the facts of life are conservative. As a thought exercise, I deliberately fact-checked every assertion she made that I instinctively agreed to, beginning with her own endnotes. I stopped trying to find inconsistencies after the first forty minutes. I suspect that her iron-clad arguments are a result of her past as a lawyer. Her ruthless exploitation of LexisNexis can be compared to the Canadian Army's ruthless exploitation of artillery in World War I: it is an awesome thing to behold. I'm glad she doesn't know me personally, as my atheism would probably earn me at least five minutes of "fire for effect".
As for her content, Ms. Coulter aims for the controversial. She deliberately chooses issues that cause Canadians to squirm uncomfortably. Abortion, single motherhood, homosexuality, affirmative action, adultery and premarital sex all feature prominently in "Guilty". It's salacious enough, in an Old Testament kind of way. Ms. Coulter goes for the jugular and the junk simultaneously, and she claims the moral high ground through gutter-fighting. It's wildly entertaining. One of her key assertions is that when a Republican quotes or cites the facts in a political dispute, the Democrats claim it is typical Karl Rove style Attack Machine behaviour. In a stunningly logical move, Coulter decides that if she is going to be convicted of being part of an attack machine, she might as well act like it. On almost every page is a reference to Senatory Ted Kennedy and his love for liquor, and driving women off of bridges (her style is contagious).
Read it. It's good stuff. It's brazen, unapologetically partisan, and surprisingly academically rigourous. I suppose it only makes sense; she'd get her leather dress sued off if she didn't get it exactly right.
All that being said, I can unabashedly call myself a Coulter fan. She is a polemicist; a term modern society doesn't seem to understand. She is deliberately mean, as that is what polemicists do. She is a Republican who refuses to follow the standard procedure of apologizing for her views in advance. She is undeniably witty, and I find myself frequently laughing out loud at some turn of phrase.
"Guilty" is truly a pleasure to read. With just enough humour to prevent the righteous indignation from becoming crushing, she points out in great detail the hypocrisy of the American left. She makes no effort to be balanced; like Thatcher, she is convinced that the facts of life are conservative. As a thought exercise, I deliberately fact-checked every assertion she made that I instinctively agreed to, beginning with her own endnotes. I stopped trying to find inconsistencies after the first forty minutes. I suspect that her iron-clad arguments are a result of her past as a lawyer. Her ruthless exploitation of LexisNexis can be compared to the Canadian Army's ruthless exploitation of artillery in World War I: it is an awesome thing to behold. I'm glad she doesn't know me personally, as my atheism would probably earn me at least five minutes of "fire for effect".
As for her content, Ms. Coulter aims for the controversial. She deliberately chooses issues that cause Canadians to squirm uncomfortably. Abortion, single motherhood, homosexuality, affirmative action, adultery and premarital sex all feature prominently in "Guilty". It's salacious enough, in an Old Testament kind of way. Ms. Coulter goes for the jugular and the junk simultaneously, and she claims the moral high ground through gutter-fighting. It's wildly entertaining. One of her key assertions is that when a Republican quotes or cites the facts in a political dispute, the Democrats claim it is typical Karl Rove style Attack Machine behaviour. In a stunningly logical move, Coulter decides that if she is going to be convicted of being part of an attack machine, she might as well act like it. On almost every page is a reference to Senatory Ted Kennedy and his love for liquor, and driving women off of bridges (her style is contagious).
Read it. It's good stuff. It's brazen, unapologetically partisan, and surprisingly academically rigourous. I suppose it only makes sense; she'd get her leather dress sued off if she didn't get it exactly right.
Living in the Shadow of Government Interventionism
We are living in curious times. Headlines across the globe are assuming the end of capitalism is come, and we are on the verge of some glorious revolution in human affairs. I am deeply sceptical, as anytime someone predicts a "glorious revolution", we get "the Great Leap Forward". I will be the first to admit that my economic credentials are far from impeccable, but what I do lay claim to is a deep understanding of logical causality and a love for truth. Let us examine our current financial crisis.
The Prime Mover in this case appears to be the collapse of the housing market, brought on by toxic mortgages. Without getting too mired in detail, it is an incontrovertible fact that mortgage corporations were lending money to people who couldn't possibly pay their debts, or at least debts of that magnitude. How is this capitalism? Capitalism is many things, which socialists frequently decry, but it isn't illogical. Money is lent with the expectation that profit will be made. You don't "lend" five dollars to a panhandler; you "give" it to him. Mortgage corporations are not registered charities, so how did these people get loans? President Jimmy Carter's Community Reinvestment Act, that's how. Before anyone accuses me of oversimplifying, I am in fact aware that the crisis is more complex than that. Follow my logical train all the way to the station if you can before judging.
Capitalism is frequently accused of being too hard on "the poor". Poor people cannot afford mortgages on homes, and the middle class can only afford modest domiciles. Capitalism is often seen as discriminatory in the USA, because large numbers of visible minorities are poor. This is false causality. Minority groups are not poor in the USA because capitalism breeds discrimination. Discrimination is anti-capitalist: the skin colour of a job applicant is irrelevant when considering his capacity to generate wealth or perform labour. Discrimination is a social issue. If ethnicity is the sole greatest cause of poverty in the developed world, how do you explain the grinding poverty of Northern New York?
The CRA was President Carter's effort to "level the playing field" and "make up for past injustice". Here's the problem: correcting past injustices by punishing those who were not alive to commit an offence, or rewarding those who were not alive to be offended, only creates more injustice. So the CRA forces banks to make favourable lending practices to minorities who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford mortgages. While it is a lovely gesture, this does not alter the reality that these people couldn't afford mortgages! And when one group gets special consideration, everyone wants in. Low income groups get mortgages they can't afford, so middle income groups start getting mortgages that are more expensive than they can afford. Suddenly, you see corner-store clerks in 150 thousand dollar homes, and mill-workers in 750 thousand dollar homes. What do the banks do? They invent complex financial vehicles to try to make profit off of fundamentally unprofitable ventures. The chickens come home to roost in 2008.
Capitalism is a fundamentally fair system: work is performed, and wealth is created. Capitalism, like true Justice is blind. I am proof of this. My grandfather was a low income Italian immigrant. My father joined the military, got his degree and served honourably for 26 years. He's in the top tax bracket. Canada, and the USA, is filled with people with stories like mine. It boggles the mind that people can still doubt the capacity for human flourishing created under capitalism.
Things go off the rails when government intervenes too heavily. From President Carter to President G.W. Bush, and from Prime Minister Pearson to Prime Minister Harper, people have assumed that the government is the solution to all of life's problems. Strange how Great Britain didn't experience a revival until Thatcher mercilessly reduced government.
You can't say capitalism has failed when you live in a society that can't resist the urge to try to force Smith's invisible hand.
Capitalism is frequently accused of being too hard on "the poor". Poor people cannot afford mortgages on homes, and the middle class can only afford modest domiciles. Capitalism is often seen as discriminatory in the USA, because large numbers of visible minorities are poor. This is false causality. Minority groups are not poor in the USA because capitalism breeds discrimination. Discrimination is anti-capitalist: the skin colour of a job applicant is irrelevant when considering his capacity to generate wealth or perform labour. Discrimination is a social issue. If ethnicity is the sole greatest cause of poverty in the developed world, how do you explain the grinding poverty of Northern New York?
The CRA was President Carter's effort to "level the playing field" and "make up for past injustice". Here's the problem: correcting past injustices by punishing those who were not alive to commit an offence, or rewarding those who were not alive to be offended, only creates more injustice. So the CRA forces banks to make favourable lending practices to minorities who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford mortgages. While it is a lovely gesture, this does not alter the reality that these people couldn't afford mortgages! And when one group gets special consideration, everyone wants in. Low income groups get mortgages they can't afford, so middle income groups start getting mortgages that are more expensive than they can afford. Suddenly, you see corner-store clerks in 150 thousand dollar homes, and mill-workers in 750 thousand dollar homes. What do the banks do? They invent complex financial vehicles to try to make profit off of fundamentally unprofitable ventures. The chickens come home to roost in 2008.
Capitalism is a fundamentally fair system: work is performed, and wealth is created. Capitalism, like true Justice is blind. I am proof of this. My grandfather was a low income Italian immigrant. My father joined the military, got his degree and served honourably for 26 years. He's in the top tax bracket. Canada, and the USA, is filled with people with stories like mine. It boggles the mind that people can still doubt the capacity for human flourishing created under capitalism.
Things go off the rails when government intervenes too heavily. From President Carter to President G.W. Bush, and from Prime Minister Pearson to Prime Minister Harper, people have assumed that the government is the solution to all of life's problems. Strange how Great Britain didn't experience a revival until Thatcher mercilessly reduced government.
You can't say capitalism has failed when you live in a society that can't resist the urge to try to force Smith's invisible hand.
Reintroduction
Alas, the vagaries of the internet have caused the death of Secular Ijtihad. Somehow, Google didn't want to recognize the password I used. Oh well. I was contemplating a different style anyway. Secular Ijtihad was intended to include chronicles of my silliness, but I found that in the end, people actually enjoyed reading my more serious work. "Morgan in the Wilderness" is the handle I use while commenting on the Globe and Mail, and I've decided to carry on in that tone here. Naturally, due to my profession (for those who don't know, I'll keep it that way), I have to be very careful about how I comment on current events. When commenting as "Morgan in the Wilderness", I developed a sort of persona that was based on firmness of conviction and elegance of prose. Sure, it can be less entertaining than some of my more creative riffs, but eventually a man's style must mature. With "Morgan in the Wilderness", I will strive to pursue a Roman tradition of oratory. This said, one must keep in mind that though I will strive for accuracy, I am in effect more a polemicist than an impartial reporter. My political nature is Libertarian, my philosophical view utilitarian.
Secondly, there are rules to this blog. This is not my facebook account, where I will be too lazy to arbitrate over discussions (those of you who experienced the travesty that was commentary on my dislike of the supposed 4/20 holiday know what I mean). Comments that are libellous will be removed. Comments that do not directly pertain to the issue being discussed will be removed. Comments that fail to meet basic standards for logical consistency will be removed. I will hold you to a Parliamentary standard. Argumentae ad Hitlerum will result in you being mocked, then blocked. I am a supporter of Free Speech, a lover of the US First Amendment. Unfortunately for most trolls, I actually read and understood the Amendment. I am not required to tolerate your views, I am merely forbidden from preventing you from expressing them. For those of you who don't get the difference, it means I'm not allowed to hack your blog to shut it down. I can silence you here whenever I want. See the vast evidence leading to the exoneration of MacLean's Magazine for exerpting Mark Steyn if you need further elucidation.
Finally, some pseudo-legal points. Don't ask me to advertise for you if there is money involved. If you would like me to link your blog, feel free to ask. The views posted in this blog are purely my own as a private citizen, and in no way reflect the views of any group to which I may belong (Italo-Canadians, devilishly handsome young men, etc).
Secondly, there are rules to this blog. This is not my facebook account, where I will be too lazy to arbitrate over discussions (those of you who experienced the travesty that was commentary on my dislike of the supposed 4/20 holiday know what I mean). Comments that are libellous will be removed. Comments that do not directly pertain to the issue being discussed will be removed. Comments that fail to meet basic standards for logical consistency will be removed. I will hold you to a Parliamentary standard. Argumentae ad Hitlerum will result in you being mocked, then blocked. I am a supporter of Free Speech, a lover of the US First Amendment. Unfortunately for most trolls, I actually read and understood the Amendment. I am not required to tolerate your views, I am merely forbidden from preventing you from expressing them. For those of you who don't get the difference, it means I'm not allowed to hack your blog to shut it down. I can silence you here whenever I want. See the vast evidence leading to the exoneration of MacLean's Magazine for exerpting Mark Steyn if you need further elucidation.
Finally, some pseudo-legal points. Don't ask me to advertise for you if there is money involved. If you would like me to link your blog, feel free to ask. The views posted in this blog are purely my own as a private citizen, and in no way reflect the views of any group to which I may belong (Italo-Canadians, devilishly handsome young men, etc).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
