Settings
About Us
Categories
Search
Archives
Links
Miscellany
Miss Doxie has some good random comments. If you need a break from work—and can laugh out loud without getting in trouble—take a look. Otherwise, you might want to wait till you get home for this one. I tossed in one of my favorites in her comments section.
Hubbard posted this at 4:20 PM CDT on Wednesday, May 31st, 2006 as Humor
Liberals established the MacArthur genius grants to give a half million dollars, no strings attached, to budding geniuses so that they can bloom. I’ve thought that this was sort of like dumping a half ton of manure on a single rose bush. A little money is necessary, but too much removes the need to work. Even a genius would slack off if given the opportunity to do so.
Naturally, conservatives countered with the Bradley prizes, which give a quarter of a million dollars to conservatives. Andrew Ferguson last year complained about the awards—
Unlike MacArthur’s grantees, the Bradley recipients are political or cultural conservatives, each an estimable personage of genuine accomplishment. They are well-established in their fields, admired by their colleagues, and secure in their professional positions. Genius grants more often than not go to people in obscure or humble circumstances. The Bradley prize, in a unique twist, is awarded to people who don’t need it. [emphasis in original]
For that matter, the prize amounts to a parody of what liberals say conservatives always want to do anyway—in tax cuts, for example: boost the circumstances of people whose circumstances don’t need boosting, pass lots of money to people who already have lots of money. Among this year’s winners was George Will, who is not only the most talented, tireless, and famous columnist of his generation but also the highest paid. (Accepting his award, Will told the Kennedy Center audience that winning the Bradley was “even better” than winning the Pulitzer. Well, duh. The Pulitzer comes with a check for $10,000. The Bradley is $240,000 better than the Pulitzer.)
Another of this year’s winners, Ward Connerly, became well known for his public opposition to racial quotas. He is also a wealthy businessman who receives generous compensation in salary and benefits from his own tax-exempt political organization. Robert P. George, a greatly gifted political philosopher, holds a tenured position at Princeton and serves as director of the university’s James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Last year’s winners, too, were dominated by tenure-holders: Mary Ann Glendon of Harvard, Leon Kass of the University of Chicago, and Thomas Sowell of the Hoover Institution. Also included last year was another Pulitzer prize-winning columnist, Charles Krauthammer.
Of all the Bradley winners, in fact, only one fits the profile of a person who might greatly benefit from a sudden gusher of munificence: Heather Mac Donald, a writer, thinker, and reporter of imperturbable courage and intelligence whose professional affiliation—she is listed as “a contributing editor to City Journal“—doesn’t exactly scream “lifetime job security.”
With Ferguson’s key criteria—that a winner should be relatively obscure and should need money—let’s take a look at this years winners, shall we?
So, who are some people who do deserve Bradley foundation awards? Here are some of my nominees.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Chased out of the Netherlands for standing up to Islamofascism, she’s now at AEI.
Irshad Manji. A lesbian muslim feminist, Manji is trying to reform Islam. She’s got guts and nerve and a half dozen fatwas on her life.
Byron York, reporter for National Review, is a one-man truth squad.
Any other nominees? Just drop ‘em in the comments section.
Hubbard posted this at 2:13 PM CDT on Wednesday, May 31st, 2006 as Amer-I-Can!, Conservatism, Nerdom
I’m wondering what’s going on in our prisons:
A man serving a life sentence for the murder of his wife is asking a federal judge to order the state to pay for a sex-change operation for him, saying that denying him the surgery amounts to cruel and unusual punishment.
A psychiatrist testified Tuesday that he believes Robert Kosilek will kill himself if state correction officials refuse to allow the surgery and Kosilek is unable to complete his transformation into a woman.
Kosilek, 57, was convicted of strangling his wife, Cheryl, in 1990.
In 2002, U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf ruled that Kosilek — who now goes by the name of Michelle — was entitled to treatment for gender identity disorder, but stopped short of ordering the state to pay for the sex-change operation.
Since then, Kosilek has received psychotherapy, female hormone treatments and laser hair removal. Kosilek, who wears his hair long and tucked behind his ears, has developed larger breasts since beginning hormone treatments.
Under most circumstances, I have nothing but sympathy for the trangendered. Some people are seriously unhappy with the gender they’re born with, and are happier as the other. But why, why, WHY are tax-payer dollars funding a murderer’s laser hair removal treatments?
Hubbard posted this at 8:51 AM CDT on Wednesday, May 31st, 2006 as Amer-I-Can!, Brave New Worlds, Lord, What Fools These Mortals Be!
Perhaps it’s a sign.
Reuters – Sun May 28, 2:41 PM ET
A rainbow is seen in the sky as the Pope Benedict XVI pays his respect to the victims of the former Birkenau Nazi death camp in Oswiecim, southern Poland May 28, 2006. Calling himself ‘a son of Germany,’ Pope Benedict prayed at the former Nazi death camp of Auschwitz on Sunday and asked why God was silent when 1.5 million victims, mostly Jews, died in this ‘valley of darkness.’ REUTERS/Damir Sagolj
“I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.” God said, “this is the sign of the covenant that I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations: I have set my bow in the clouds, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth.”
For we must remember that the materialist philosophy (whether true or not) is certainly much more limiting than any religion. In one sense, of course, all intelligent ideas are narrow. They cannot be broader than themselves. A Christian is only restricted in the same sense that an atheist is restricted. He cannot think Christianity false and continue to be a Christian; and the atheist cannot think atheism false and continue to be an atheist. But as it happens, there is a very special sense in which materialism has more restrictions than spiritualism. Mr. McCabe thinks me a slave because I am not allowed to believe in determinism. I think Mr. McCabe a slave because he is not allowed to believe in fairies. But if we examine the two vetoes we shall see that his is really much more of a pure veto than mine. The Christian is quite free to believe that there is a considerable amount of settled order and inevitable development in the universe. But the materialist is not allowed to admit into his spotless machine the slightest speck of spiritualism or miracle. Poor Mr. McCabe is not allowed to retain even the tiniest imp, though it might be hiding in a pimpernel. The Christian admits that the universe is manifold and even miscellaneous, just as a sane man knows that he is complex. The sane man knows that he has a touch of the beast, a touch of the devil, a touch of the saint, a touch of the citizen. Nay, the really sane man knows that he has a touch of the madman. But the materialist’s world is quite simple and solid, just as the madman is quite sure he is sane. The materialist is sure that history has been simply and solely a chain of causation, just as the interesting person before mentioned is quite sure that he is simply and solely a chicken. Materialists and madmen never have doubts.
Perhaps God is trying to tell us something, if only we pay attention.
Hubbard posted this at 1:33 PM CDT on Monday, May 29th, 2006 as Faith, The Past Is Never Dead--It Isn't Even Past
Ever since Fight Club, I’ve thought of Brad Pitt as Tyler Durden. And Angelina Jolie is sexy in a way that is more menacing than erotic. Since they got together, I’ve thought they were great for each other, Hollywood’s most Nietzschan couple. Therefore I enjoyed the news that, through sheer force of celebrity (and what is celebrity if not a manifestation of the will to power?) they subjugated a small African nation:
The Republic of Namibia – the impoverished country of 1.8 million known for its wild remoteness – not only welcomed the movie stars, it handed over control of its international land borders and airspace to them.
As the world awaited the birth of the child at a luxury villa complex on the coast, Namibian authorities said they had bowed to pressure from Jolie and Pitt and granted them the right to ban foreign journalists from entering the country – a remarkable move for the Government of any sovereign state.
I normally find it distasteful when celebrities push others around. But not with these two.
Apollo posted this at 11:34 PM CDT on Sunday, May 28th, 2006 as Uncategorized
Recent politics have me thinking back to Harriet Miers. If I remember correctly, the general conservative response to her nomination was, “?” There were so many questions that needed to be asked that they all sorta ran together to create a general feeling of slack-jawed bewilderment. The person who made the most sense at that time was Rush, who denied that there was a “conservative crackup”–a phrase then in heavy use–but said there was instead a conservative crack down. That is, the president did something unforgivably unconservative, and the conservative base stood up to him. Our few worthwhile senators–Kyl, particularly–talk radio, our print journalists, and the blogs all did yoemen’s work in making enough ruckus that the White House realized that was a mistake. Conservatives didn’t crack up, we cracked down on the president.
Today there are a couple of issues–Hastert going to the wall for a corrupt Democrat and a specious constitutional interpretation, and of course the mind-blowing immigration bill–that leave me with a feeling not dissimilar to the Miers nomination: “?”
Of course, the only suprise for me with the Senate bill is that I’m surprised. Most conservatives should have by now come to terms with the mind-blowing assininity of most things that come from the Senate, but this seems particularly awful. The only actual question I have for the Senate bill is, “How, exactly, could it have been worse if the Democrats were in control?” Would they have written it in Spanish and wore sombraroes to the vote?
And the president is worse than worthless on this matter, he is largely responsible for creating the present crisis and is using it to push through an agenda that he likes but that the American people would reject in a landslide. I have been a supporter of this president through thick and thin until now, but I can no longer say I approve of the job he’s doing in office. It is obvious that he does not consider an open southern border and massive undocument immigration to be a security risk during a war against terrorists, and that is irresponsible.
I’ve said before that I vote on two issues, judges and the war. Gauging from the fact that the two times when the president has lost the most conservative support (Miers and illegal immigration), I don’t think I’m alone. Spending, medicare, political speech restrictions–all of these things peeved conservatives, but we still stood behind him because he was right on judges and right on the war. Finally, though, there’s enough poltical momentum to address immigration, which is obviously our biggest security risk, considering how easy it would be for terrorists to saunter across the border and go unnoticed because, well, over a million people did it last year, so who’s going to pay attention to those five/fifty/five hundred guys? With so many undocument non-citizens wandering around, why should terrorists even bother trying to come into the country other means?
The only worthwhile question now is, do conservatives in the House have it in them to stand up to this? If not, if they allow a bill to pass that will make citizens out of millions of foreign lawbreakers (and reward them with tax breaks and Social Security!) and still leave our border unsecure (indeed, since it places so many union-type rules on guest workers, it will maintain the incentive for illegal immigration), well, then it will be a conservative crackup. If the more conservative party can control both houses of Congress and the White House, and we still get a law that is so unconcerned with security, then we’ve some existential questions to ask of the movement. Like: Who can we vote for?
But if conservatives in the House can crack down on this, by which I mean not giving in on amnesty and actually securing the border, we can count that as a significant victory. And if they could miraculously convince the executive branch to actually enforce immigration laws…well, I won’t get my hopes too high. Still, a few weeks ago I asked how bad a Democratic House could be, and I think this immigration bill is my answer. If the conservatives stand up, that’s cause enough to stand up for them in November.
Apollo posted this at 3:34 PM CDT on Sunday, May 28th, 2006 as Conservatism, Politics
What makes one an Alabamian? According to 10 Commandments fanatic Roy Moore:
I think what we stand for in this state is exactly what our motto is: ‘We dare defend our rights.’ And Alabamians have always dared defend our rights, whether it be Martin Luther King, or what I did, or the beginning of the Civil War. We dare defend our rights.
Comparing oneself to Martin Luther King Jr. takes chutzpah; comparing him to the Confederacy, which fought for the rights of slaveowners, is obscene.
I think Dr. King’s grave-spinning registered on the Richter Scale.
Hubbard posted this at 8:05 PM CDT on Saturday, May 27th, 2006 as Amer-I-Can!, Lord, What Fools These Mortals Be!
One thing that always astounds me about the far left is their willingness to excuse boorish, crass, dishonest and even illegal behavior as long as the “message” is correct. Whether its Michael Moore’s blatant lies or ELF activists blowing up SUVs – as long as you’re a liberal your actions are excused.
Along those lines here is a recent post by Bob Kerrey, President of the New School and former United States Senator. Recently Mr. Kerrey invited his good friend Senator John McCain to speak at the 2006 New School Commencement Ceremonies. During said ceremonies a portion of the graduates and faculty heckled Senator McCain interupting his speech. Here is Mr. Kerrey’s thoughts on the matter:
That said, I now speak in defense of the behavior of my students – the minority who protested and the majority who did not. On the surface, some of the tactics of the protest were rude, noisy, and disrespectful. Less obvious, however, was the self-restraint that prevented the protestors from behaving in a fashion that would have shut down the commencement or made it impossible for Senator McCain or me to continue. Though many in the audience – including Senator McCain and I – were offended by the heckling, at no time were we in danger of not being able to proceed. By the end of the program, we had awarded five honorary degrees and graduated 2,630 students in The New School’s 70th Commencement ceremony.
More importantly — and also lost in the charges and counter-charges — is this fact: student protests are a necessary and essential part of democratic free expression. Did we not love the brave and disrespectful students at Tiananmen? Did we not applaud the determination of the student led movements that helped bring down the dictators that ruled Eastern Europe in 1991? Have we forgotten the critical difference students made in reversing an unlawful election in Ukraine or in driving the Syrians from Lebanon or who still seethe in discontent under the religious law of Iran’s mullahs.
Now let me get this straight – the students should be commended because they DIDN’T get violent? Should we also applaud Osama bin Laden for every day that passes without a bombing that kills Americans? If you set such low expectations for your students Mr. Kerrey it is a wonder that graduates from the new school go on to become anything other than thugs and criminals.
The second paragraph I’ve posted is perhaps one of the most offensive things I’ve ever seen. To compare pampered NY Liberal college students with the brave dissedents of Tianamen Square would be hilarious if it were not so shockingly sad and ignorant. This is not the kind of simplistic exagerated thinking I’ve come to expect from Bob Kerrey – unfortunately its exactly what I’ve come to expect from the socialists simpletons over at HuffPost.
Jamie posted this at 3:22 PM CDT on Saturday, May 27th, 2006 as Dirty Hippies, Edjamacation
Well, that’s about where I’d place myself. . . Where does everybody else fit?
| You are a Social Moderate (43% permissive) and an… Economic Conservative (76% permissive) You are best described as a: Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test |
Hubbard posted this at 4:36 PM CDT on Friday, May 26th, 2006 as Politics, Random Bloggish Things
LINCOLN, Nebraska (AP) — A judge’s decision to sentence a 5-foot-1 man to probation instead of prison for sexually assaulting a child has angered crime victim advocates who say the punishment sends the wrong message…
But Joe Mangano, secretary of the National Organization of Short Statured Adults [emphasis added], agreed with the judge’s assessment that Thompson would face dangers while in prison because of his height.
They’ve got a crappy blog and have posted some articles on wiki (which are rather amusing). This merits CNN citation? What about us? We even registered our own domain!
Tom posted this at 2:43 PM CDT on Friday, May 26th, 2006 as Random Bloggish Things
Two minute hate: The Library of Congress’s Copyright Office. For the story, go below the cut. Read the rest of this entry »
Hubbard posted this at 7:00 AM CDT on Friday, May 26th, 2006 as An Insult to Drunken Sailors, Lord, What Fools These Mortals Be!
Jamie made a point in passing in his lengthy post the other day that I’d like to expand on. He wrote:
The other authors, and whatever readers we may have, of this blog know that I come from the “libertarian” wing of the Republican Party (or as Laura Ingraham would phrase it, the RINO wing.)
This, I think is really the heart of the matter. In today’s parlance, one’s conservatism is defined by one’s stance on social issues; fiscal policy, the size and scope of government, even one’s support for the War isn’t really important. As I once wrote on The Tom Monster (indeed, in the post that sorta-inspired this blog) the fact that George Bush is considered a “staunch” conservative while John McCain and Arnold Schwarzenegger–for all their faults–are considered squishy RINOs sounds like a rather unfunny joke, except that it doesn’t really have a punchline.
Which brings me to another subject. As frustrated Conservatives who are mad as Hell, should we take it any more?
While Jim Geraghty’s arguement was far more persuasive than I expected, it still didn’t quite cut it for me. As upset as I am about the crap that comes out of Congress and the President’s refusal to veto any of it, the real GOP deal-breaker for me is the way they act like I work for them. I understand your upset with us, but you can’t let the Democrats come to power now. Ok, when would be a convenient time for you?
As far as I’m concerned, the only thing that is going to get the Republican party back on its feet is a good, old-fashioned defeat. If a handful of good Congressmen lose their jobs in the process, I’m really not upset. For the first time since 2002, there will be some actual friction between Congress and the President and–who knows?–maybe Bush will be willing to use his magic veto pen if against crappy legislation, so long as it comes from the left side of the aisle.
Tom posted this at 12:32 AM CDT on Friday, May 26th, 2006 as Amer-I-Can!, An Insult to Drunken Sailors, Conservatism
We may not always agree with his politics or character interpretations, but Sir Ian McKellen remains one of the finest actors working today, seemingly incapable of turning in a subpar performance. He’s also one of the few actors in Hollywood with the guts to come out. So, happy birthday and thank you, Sir McKellen Sir Ian. May you continue to dazzle. (H/T)
Hubbard posted this at 9:59 AM CDT on Thursday, May 25th, 2006 as Nerdom, Random Bloggish Things
…has produced an immigration bill with these 10 flaws, courtesy of Senator Grassley, one of the vaguely decent senators. Grassley doesn’t even get around to the various labor laws, which now seem not just to apply Bacon-Davis wage rules to guest workers, but also gives them more job security than I have.
This bill seems to be an absolute abomination, but I’m unsure what else I should have expected from the Senate. If conservatives in the House can actually stop this bill, that strikes me as a good enough argument to keep a Republican House. If they can’t, what’s the point of even voting?
Senatui delenda est. Damn you to hell, Latin!
Apollo posted this at 6:19 AM CDT on Thursday, May 25th, 2006 as Politics
The Post today ran a nasty little piece today about race. You can tell a lot about the story by its lead:
She was black, they were white, and race and sex were in the air.
Well, I mean, she was a stripper. Would sex not have been in the air if she were white? The whole story seems to be based on the premise that white men are uniquely predatory toward black women.
It was the kind of predatory behavior that found its way into modern culture in the old Rolling Stones song, “Brown Sugar.” And the stereotype of black women as highly sexed, like the lascivious Jezebel from slavery days, is a recurring image in music videos today, sparking complaints from many women.
Because the Rolling Stones never sang predatory songs about non-black women. And the music videos featuring scantily-clad black women are by white artists, generally southern country singers.
This is inane. Although the almost best bit comes during an attack on conservative talk radio:
Even Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was pounded by this wave of abuse when another radio host, David Lenihan, called her a “coon.” (He later reportedly explained he was discussing her prospects at the NFL and ran the words together when he tried to say “coup” and “NFL.” It came out as “coon.” Twice. The fallout cost him his job.)
Now I’ve heard that clip, and if you come away from it saying he called her a “coon,” you are a malicious liar. But more to the point, there have been racist cartoons about Condoleeza Rice for years, going back to before when Bush was elected, and not one of them gets mentioned in this story. Of course, that’s because all of those racist cartoons came from left-wing sorts.
Finally, though, the absolutely best bit comes later:
It is the classic “nuts and sluts” defense, says Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women and a former prosecutor.
Kim, couple of calls for you. We’ve got Paula Jones on line one and Juanita Broderick on line two. You remember them, don’t you? Oh, you don’t.
Apollo posted this at 3:57 PM CDT on Wednesday, May 24th, 2006 as Journalism
