I have never in my life seen a finer example of Newspeak or Doublethink from a politician in my entire life. George W. Bush was on This Week with George Stephanopoulos when he imparted this new meme:

STEPHANOPOULOS: James Baker says that he’s looking for something between “cut and run” and “stay the course.”

BUSH: Well, hey, listen, we’ve never been “stay the course,” George. We have been — we will complete the mission, we will do our job, and help achieve the goal, but we’re constantly adjusting to tactics. Constantly.

I sat there for 5 minutes wondering if I had accidentally turned on the Colbert Report or hoping it would morph into South Park and be all one giant joke. Then I realized that this is one huge joke. This President is making a mockery of the American people with every word that slips from his lips. The most amazing thing is that I honestly think he believes everything he says. How can anyone with a modicum of intelligence believe the filth this guy is selling? I can no longer console myself with the concept that “the democrats would be worse” because honestly, would they? Well I guess “conservatives” will just file this one away with the fact that “we don’t torture”, or that WMD’s weren’t the primary reason we went to Iraq in the first place and that we are preserving freedom by giving the government the right to snatch us off the street for any reason they see fit.

Remember to practice your Doublethink and Newspeak. We have always been at war with Mid-Asia, East Asia are our eternal allies. War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength. Long live Big Brother George, down with Osama Bin Goldstein.

Jamie posted this at 1:00 AM HKT on Monday, October 23rd, 2006 as Conservatism, Politics and the English Language

15 Comments »

Though lesser minds have mocked and misunderstood them, the Puritans had a point when they banned theater. They understood that it was a form of voyeurism, that it could bring out the worst in people. The prurient shocks of theater can be addicting and corrupting. The Puritans would have understood a Victorian critic’s opposition to a scene in George Bernard Shaw’s Pymaglion: specifically, when Eliza shouts at the horse race, “Move yer bloomin’ arse!” It’s funny because it shocks, but the critic (whose name escapes me) understood that eventually it will take greater shocks to bring out laughter. Voyeurism depends on a degree of shock.

Great art can, of course, rely on shock—but it takes a great artist to it right. Hamlet is replete with voyeurism of varying subtlety, Polonius hiding behind curtains to spy on Hamlet and Gertrude, or Hamlet spying on Claudius in church is only one level. At its most subtle, Hamlet himself uses the play within a play: he watches Cladius and Gertrude’s reactions as they watch the play to pluck out the heart of their mystery.

The Queen and Shortbus are both movies about voyeurism; more beneath the cut.

Read the rest of this entry »

Hubbard posted this at 2:31 PM HKT on Sunday, October 22nd, 2006 as Belles Lettres, Excruciatingly Correct Behavior, Pop Culture Is Filth

No Comments »

I’ve yet to post about the much ballyhooed stingray attack in Florida on Wednesday because I expected its meaning to be obvious. However, since the media has decided to bury its head in the sand, the Churchillian obligation of alerting my countrymen to this danger falls on me.

First the stingrays, in an unprovoked act of aggression, took out a beloved icon in an allied nation. The Aussies are a proud people who did not take this lying down; they were too proud, though, to call upon their allies, in the naive belief that this was their fight. The barbarous stingrays, though, do not respect the laws of war. They knew that if the Aussies found themselves in trouble we Americans would rush to their side. So the stingrays decided to bring the fight to America in an attack that will no doubt live in infamy. Yet three days have passed, and we have launched no counterstrike.

The left, true to its nature, even in what should be a moment of national unity, is already floating the idea that the attacks are President Bush’s fault. These are the same people who would have had us cower in our boots at the “brutal Afghan winter.” Our soldiers struggled and survived the Afghan cold, and I’m sure their ardor will allow them to survive the tropical breezes and mild temperatures they will undoubtedly face as they gear up to take this war to the stingrays.

Fellow citizens, this is no longer Australia’s war; this is our war as well. We must hit back before these evil doers strike again.

Apollo posted this at 9:24 AM HKT on Saturday, October 21st, 2006 as Global War on Terror, Science!

No Comments »

Two nearly identical pictures will appear on the screen.  Almost 8,000 people were tested to see if they could find the 3 differences in the two pictures and only 19 found all 3. See how observant you are. If you find all 3, you’re one of very few people who are able to do this. Take the test.

Hubbard posted this at 8:13 AM HKT on Saturday, October 21st, 2006 as Humor, Random Bloggish Things

6 Comments »

I’d once thought that Ken Blackwell was essentially a decent guy running in a bad year. Now (H/T) I’m rooting for him to lose:

Ken Blackwell’s gubernatorial campaign today distributed harsh comments by radio talk show host Bill Cunningham related to Ted Strickland’s sexuality and about a former campaign aide arrested in 1994 for public indecency.

In a news statement emailed to Statehouse reporters, the campaign reprinted a transcript from Wednesday night’s Fox News’ Hannity and Colmes television show. The show’s co-host, Sean Hannity, is a Blackwell supporter, who will be in Blue Ash for a Blackwell rally today. They also sent out a digital video version.

Cunningham, who hosts a talk radio show on WLW radio, was a guest on the program. During the TV broadcast, Cunningham questioned the Democratic congressman’s sexuality — even after Strickland declared Wednesday: “No, I am not gay, although it is none of their business in the first place.”

At one point in the Fox News interview, Cunningham said: “After the (1998) election Ted Strickland flies off to the shores of Naples, Italy in order to enjoy a little fun with this 26-year-old boy toy.”

Carlo LoParo, Blackwell’s campaign spokesman, said the campaign has no qualms about alerting the media to the Fox program.

“The fact that this issue is being covered in the national media is of importance. . .It’s an issue that is gaining national interest in light of the current scandals in the Capitol regarding Congressman Mark Foley and what the leadership knew about those activities,” he said.

“This particular scandal regarding Congressman Ted Strickland is of the same vein which will naturally gain interest in the national media. Now what people say, that’s their opinion, they base their comments on what they know,” he said.

“There’s nothing new, ever,’’ reacted Keith Dailey, a Strickland campaign spokesman. “It’s lies. It’s the veil of innuendo. It’s outrageous allegations and it’s just disgusting stuff.”

With any luck, we won’t hear from Blackwell again.

Hubbard posted this at 7:43 PM HKT on Friday, October 20th, 2006 as Excruciatingly Correct Behavior, Kulturkampf, Politics

1 Comment »

Julia Vitullo-Martin takes on city cultures in today’s WSJ:

Why isn’t Philadelphia Boston? Why does Boston prosper, people and businesses outbidding one another to get in, while Philadelphia languishes, with acres of vacant and underused property announcing the lack of local demand? Why does much of Boston look like Hollywood’s idea of a hip, fabulous place to live, while downtown Philadelphia seems to be a bleak postindustrial landscape–the few good buildings that are still standing routinely visited by street people begging at their entrances?

. . .

At least part of the answer stems from their underlying cultures. In his “Puritan Boston and Quaker Philadelphia” (1979), E. Digby Baltzell argued that Boston Brahmins, with their belief in authority and leadership, embraced a sense of responsibility for civic life, while Philadelphia Gentlemen, with their inward but judgmental Quaker ways were deeply unconcerned about their city’s welfare. Over the course of the 19th century and well into the 20th, they abdicated their role in government and watched indifferently as Philadelphia became, by the 1960s, the worst run city in the nation. The Brahmins might have been intolerant and unpleasant while the Philadelphians were open and charming, but the Brahmins cared about their city–and so, subsequently, did the Irish politicians with whom they warred and the Italians who replaced the Irish.

Such cultural analysis–long out of fashion as too soft (as as opposed to econometrics) or too racist (who is to say that one culture is better than another?)–is due for a comeback. It starts to explain, in a way that mere fiscal analysis does not, why Miami has become the gateway to Latin America, why Los Angeles rules the Pacific Rim and why Chicago controls the Midwest. And it helps us to understand how New York City moved in 30 years from the humiliation of near bankruptcy to being the dominant city on earth.

Possibly someone will note that a key problem of the DC metro area is that we’ve got, thanks to the federal work force, huge numbers of people who think that government can solve any problem.

Hubbard posted this at 9:45 AM HKT on Friday, October 20th, 2006 as Amer-I-Can!, Politics

No Comments »

I just watched my Cardinals, against all odds and predictions, beat the Mets in the seventh game to advance to the World Series.  It was an awesome game, a fitting end to an absolutely fantastic playoff series.  Then I fired up a celebratory stogie and went outside to pace away some of my nervous energy.  Found a neighbor sitting on the porch and talked with him about what a great game it was.  And then another neighbor came past, the one who hosts meetings for the Young Democrats in our yard and has his car plastered with bumperstickers for every Democrat candidate around…

…and he was wearing a Mets jersey! 

Apollo posted this at 1:07 AM HKT on Friday, October 20th, 2006 as Vignettes

No Comments »

I often read that Republicans disproportionately benefit from the way Senators are apportioned by dominating the “small states.” Most recently I saw it on Eric Alterman’s blog (a vast wasteland, devoid of permalinks–what is this, 1998?), where he quotes some book called Off Center:

The mismatch between popular votes and electoral outcomes is even more striking in the Senate. Combining the last three Senate elections, Democrats have actually won two-and-a-half million more votes than Republicans. Yet they now hold only 44 seats in that 100-person chamber because Republicans dominate the less populous states that are so heavily over-represented in the Senate. As the journalist Hendrik Hertzberg notes, if one treats each senator as representing half that state’s population, than the Senate’s 55 Republicans currently represent 131 million people, while the 44 Democrats represent 161 million.”

I’m always bemused by claims showing the various ways in which the Republican majority isn’t really a majority. I did a little looking into this, and below is a list of states ranking 41st-50th in population, and the affiliation of their senators:

• 41. New Hampshire (2R)
• 42. Hawaii (2D)
• 43. Rhode Island (1D 1R)
• 44. Montana (1D 1R)
• 45. Delaware (2D)
• 46. South Dakota (1D 1R)–2Ds until the last election
• 47. Alaska (2R)
• 48. North Dakota (2D)
• 49. Vermont (2D–you get a Dem committee seat, you’re a Dem, Jim Jeffords)
• 50. Wyoming (2R)

So of the 10 least populous states, 11Ds and 9Rs. In all probability, Conrad Burns is out, and Chaffee probably as well, so next year at this time Democrats will control 12 or 13 of the Senate seats from the ten least populous states. Hardly Republican domination. What about 10 most populous states?

• 1. California (2D)
• 2. Texas (2R)
• 3. New York (2D)
• 4. Florida (1D 1R)
• 5. Illinois (2D)
• 6. Pennsylvania (2R)
• 7. Ohio (2R)
• 8. Michigan (2D)
• 9. Georgia (2R)
• 10. New Jersey (2D)

That’s 11Ds and 9Rs, the exact same split. With Ohio and Pennsylvania up this cycle, it will probably be the case that it’s 12 or 13Ds (though New Jersey may also flip a seat to the Rs). That’s a majority, but it’s hardly like the Dems have a stranglehold on the most populous states.

I’ll break down the states into groups of ten and give the partisan affiliation of each group’s senators.

• 1-10: 11Ds, 9Rs
• 11-20: 9Ds, 11Rs
• 21-30: 7Ds, 13Rs
• 31-40: 7Ds, 13Rs
• 41-50: 11Ds, 9Rs

You can’t really say that either party “dominates” a particular groups of states, though the Republican majority plainly comes from mid-sized states. And, interestingly, those middle numbers probably won’t change much with this election cycle. The places where the Dems stand to gain is in the bottom 10 and top 10; Tennessee (16) and Missouri (18) are the only states in the middle 30 that stand a chance of flipping. Republicans benefit some from Senate apportionment, but not as much as some whiners on the Left would like to believe. Indeed, with hopes for a Dem majority pinned on controlling 13 senate seats from the 10 least populous states, I think it will soon be debateable whether it benefits Republicans at all. Remarkably enough, senate apportionment seems to most benefit the party that wins elections.

What about presidential politics? Here’s the states, broken down by tens, and how many of them went for each party’s candidate:

• 1-10: 6Ds 4Rs
• 11-20: 4Ds 6Rs
• 21-30: 3Ds 7Rs
• 31-40: 1D 9Rs
• 41-50: 5Ds 5Rs

Kerry and Bush evenly split the small states. Bush’s overwhelming victory in the 31-40 category (including #30 Iowa, Bush won states 30-39) is notable, but in a country with 50 states can we really label 40% of them “small?” If #34 (Utah) or #36 (New Mexico) is “small,” wouldn’t #16 (Tennessee) or #14 (Washington) be “big”? I’ve never heard anyone call those “big” states.

What does this mean? Hell if I know, but it’s at least interesting.

Apollo posted this at 4:18 PM HKT on Wednesday, October 18th, 2006 as Amer-I-Can!, Journalism

1 Comment »

Mike Rogers has just outed Senator Larry Craig (R-ID):

I have called on Senator Larry Craig to end his years of hypocrisy by leveling with Idahoans about who he really is. I am also calling upon several prominent Idaho social conservative leaders to ask them how they square their anti-gay positions with their support for this leader.

I have done extensive research into this case, including trips to the Pacific Northwest to meet with men who have say they have physical relations with the Senator. I have also met with a man here in Washington, D.C., who says the same — and that these incidents occurred in the bathrooms of Union Station. None of these men know each other, or knew that I was talking to others. They all reported similar personal characteristics about the Senator, which lead me to believe, beyond any doubt, that their stories are valid.

In the same post, Rogers gives this justification of his actions:

As readers know, my work is bipartisan. The recent use of gays by the Republican Party during this election makes it necessary to focus on the Party and how it facilitates keeping gay men closeted.

My tactics at blogACTIVE have taken a new path from those of the past. Reporting on hypocrisy within the gay community has been going on for years.

Clearly, Rogers doesn’t have a high opinion of the privacy of Republicans who may not be gay. He also sees fit to attack staffers like Dave Camp’s chief of staff, Jim Brandell. [On the main site, he keeps a running list of outed people; the bipartisan nods I see are former NYC Mayor Ed Koch and Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD).]

Rogers seems to be counting on the homophobia of conservatives depressing vote turnout, thereby helping the cause of gay rights. Outing people like this shows no consideration to them or their families, and I suspect that these tactics will backfire on Democrats and liberals. Jonah Goldberg, ever prescient, predicted something along these lines not long ago when discussing the Foley page scandal:

Meanwhile, the only moral lapse that consistently offends all liberals is hypocrisy. As Howard Dean declared on “Meet the Press” last year: “Everybody has ethical shortcomings. We ought not to lecture each other about our ethical shortcomings.” But he continued: “I will use whatever position I have in order to root out hypocrisy.” This is a convenient principle insofar as it can indict only people with actual principles. [emphasis added]

Fanning the flames of righteous fervor over Foley will probably reap electoral benefits for Democrats. But the time will come when something like the “Foley standard” will be inconvenient to Democrats. In response, liberals will hold another fire sale. And yet, they will be stunned again when people claim the Democrats don’t stand for anything.

For sake of argument, let’s assume that Republicans and conservatives are as bad as he thinks (elsewhere, I’ve explained why I disagree.) So after the Republicans purge their gay staffers and politicians, we’re left with a major political party that’s more anti-gay.

Rogers seems to have forgotten that one of the most powerful and deadly anti-gay arguments is that gay people are thoughtless, malicious jerks who think nothing of hurting people’s families. Call it the Brokeback Mountain stereotype: Jack and Ennis care little for their families and thus abandon their wives and children for sex. This oversimplifies the problems Jack and Ennis faced, but it neatly sums up one of the larger obstacles of gay rights.  The gay rights struggle is a human rights struggle; we’re trying to make straight people see that we’re as fully human as they are. The terrible Brokeback stereotype makes gays seem anti-family, and reduces gay people to animals in heat.

In the first place, Mike Rogers’s outings of staffers and politicians is trying to exploit the Brokeback stereotype. Rogers is trying to dehumanize Republican gay people for the sake of his political agenda.  In the second place, Rogers is showing how little he cares for the families of the politicians and staffers involved—in his own way, Rogers cares as little for other people’s families as the Brokeback stereotype gays do for their families.    Larry Craig and Jim Brandell and every other man and woman on “The List” are people with families, people who have no desire to become toys in Rogers’s political antics. To hell with these people’s lives and families; Mike Rogers doesn’t seem to care if he hurts them. Rogers reduces these politicians to their sexuality: if they’re gay, then they must support his politics.

I cannot speak for the politics of the outed staffers, but I can speak for my own views. Mike Rogers considers it hypocritical for a pro-gay marriage person to work for an anti-gay marriage politician or party. Wouldn’t it be rather more hypocritical of someone with my views—pro-life, pro-military spending, in favor of the Iraq war, in favor of Bush’s tax cuts, in favor of abolishing the Department of Education—to work for Democrats? Yet like the homophobic politicians he abhors, Mike Rogers reduces people like me to a gay stereotype.

I do not think there’s a word strong enough for my contempt for the politics of outing. For terrible enemies of the Jewish people, Hebrew has the phrase yemach shemo, may his name be erased. I do not wish it on Mike Rogers: but as for the outing politics, yemach shemo.

Hubbard posted this at 9:46 AM HKT on Wednesday, October 18th, 2006 as Kulturkampf, Lord, What Fools These Mortals Be!, Politics

3 Comments »

Today the Washington Post reveals that they’ve been borderline push-polling on the issue of Virginia’s proposed constitutional amendment to bar recognition of same-sex marriages.

Fifty-three percent of likely voters said they would vote for the amendment, and 43 percent would oppose it, the poll found, indicating that three weeks before Election Day opponents still have a long way to go to make Virginia the first state in the country to defeat a same-sex marriage amendment.

Despite the overall results, the poll provided some hope for opponents of the measure. Their chief argument is that the language of the amendment is too broad and would endanger contracts between unwed heterosexual couples. Supporters contend that the measure is limited to declaring that same-sex marriages would never be approved or recognized in Virginia.

When respondents were read the arguments on both sides of the question, enough voters showed a willingness to reconsider that the gap narrowed to a virtual tie — 48 percent said they supported the measure and 47 percent opposed it, within the poll’s margin of error of three percentage points.

The wording here makes me think that maybe, just maybe, the people at the Post oppose the measure. But let’s look at the “arguments” they presented to poll respondents.

13. (Supporters say the measure would mean that same-sex marriages would never be approved or recognized in the Commonwealth of Virginia.) (Opponents say the proposed language is too broad, and would endanger contracts made between unmarried heterosexual couples.)

With these arguments in mind, if the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on Amendment One?

In the story, the Post sums up an argument by opponents and presents the counter argument. It then says that “respondents were read the arguments on both sides of the question,” giving the plain impression that they read respondents the arguments they just summed up. But they didn’t. Where it counted, in the poll, they presented the opponents’ argument, and, for supporters, basically reread a line from the amendment.

I don’t think that the Post knows what an “argument” is. The measure would ban recognition of same-sex marriages (though “forever” is a very big and strange word to use here–does anyone really expect Virginia’s constitution to be in effect “forever“?). That’s in the plain language, and opponents don’t disagree about it. “Would you vote to reelect George Bush? Supporters say this would retain George Bush as President of the United States, while opponents say it would be an unmitigated disaster.”

Yet the Post, in their efforts to “provided some hope for opponents of the measure,” only produces a tie with this question. Perhaps they should push harder?

Apollo posted this at 10:28 AM HKT on Tuesday, October 17th, 2006 as Journalism, Politics and the English Language

2 Comments »

I’m not a violent person. Sometimes I see injustice and clench my fist or bite my lip, but physical violence is usually inappropriate, at best.

Yet I read about Madonna’s galling adoption of a Malawian boy, and I want to punch her in the face.

From the child’s father:

“They told me a (white foreigner) had seen a picture of David and liked him very much. They said she wanted to adopt and take him to America. They said that she would give him a better life. At first I wasn’t very sure. I asked if it meant I would never see him again.

“They said I would be sent pictures and when David was older he would be able to visit the village.

“My family and I agreed that this was a very good opportunity for David to get an education and grow up healthy.”

Wow, if you think that taking another country’s oil is an imperialist activity, what is it to go to another country and take a child? The weirdest part comes from this story:

Madonna spent most of her time in Malawi visiting orphanages and meeting charity workers as part of a campaign to publicize the plight of some 900,000 orphans in this nation of 13 million people, where AIDS has destroyed many families.

One out of 15 people in this country is an orphan, and she adopts one of the few kids who has a father because she liked how his picture looked? Excuse me? Virginia is not exactly the paragon of racial equality, but we stopped selling black people years ago.

Madonna is a vile human being; sometimes I don’t believe that she’s real. When I see her, I’m reminded of an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, where the immortal and omnipotent Q is stripped of his powers and exiled to the Enterprise. The Enterprise crew naturally believes that Q is toying with them, so in exasperation he asks, “What can I do to prove to you that I’m mortal?” To which Worf responds, “Die.”

Apollo posted this at 12:07 AM HKT on Tuesday, October 17th, 2006 as Pop Culture Is Filth

No Comments »

Iraq is not Vietnam, but it can become Vietnam if America abandons it.  When Congress cut off aid to South Vietnam and Cambodia, it spelled doom for all the Anti-Communists.  U.S. Ambassador John Guenther Dean offered amnesty to members of the Cambodian Government; Sirik Matak replied thus:

Dear Excellency and Friend,

I thank you very sincerely for your letter and for your offer to transport me towards freedom.  I cannot, alas, leave in such a cowardly fashion.  As for you, and in particular for your great country, I never believed for a moment that you would have this sentiment of abandoning a people which has chosen liberty.  You have refused us your protection, and we can do nothing about it.  You leave, and my wish is that you and your country will find happiness under this sky.  But, mark it well, that if I shall die here on this spot and in my country that I love, it is no matter, because we all are born and must die.  I have only committed the mistake of believing you.

Michael Rubin notes:

The Khmer Rouge shot Matak in the stomach.  He took three days to die.

Have Iraqis committed the mistake of believing us?

Hubbard posted this at 3:19 PM HKT on Monday, October 16th, 2006 as The Past Is Never Dead--It Isn't Even Past

2 Comments »

Here’s a pretty definitive summary of the ongoing (if forgotten) debacle in the Duke non-rape case. This whole case should be completely unbelievable, but, sadly, isn’t. I’d pick out some quotes, but it really should be taken as a whole.

The story refers to the accused students as being “privileged,” because that’s the popular post-modern jargon for wealthy. I’ve always rejected this terminology because there are so many different ways one can be “privileged.” Certainly it’s a privilege to have wealthy parents willing to pay your way through an elite school. It’s also privilege, though, to level extraordinary allegagations against people and have the district attorney, the local and national media, and the Duke faculty, administration, and student body instinctively believe you, regardless of the evidence. It’s a privilege to have your unsupported word cancel the season for a sports team (which, while just a game, is the culmination of years of hard work and practice by nearly 50 players and several coaches). The lacrosse team certainly had privilege, but Precious the stripper was privileged as well.

The students’ privilege was the result of the hard work of their families to build up the financial capital necessary to buy an elite education. Precious’s privilege came from centuries of oppression and the resulting build up of moral capital. It is always a shame to see someone piddle away their financial inheritence; it is much, much sadder to see Precious waste so much of her (and others’) moral capital. Perhaps the destruction of years of these three young men’s lives will be the last payout from that vast stockpile.

There was a time when this sort of privilege was good, when an overblown and credulous media reaction was necessary in the fight for justice for blacks. I think that time has passed.

Apollo posted this at 1:26 PM HKT on Monday, October 16th, 2006 as Amer-I-Can!

2 Comments »

Watching my redbirds trying to get to the World Series, Fox is showing factoids about the players when they come to bat. As an example, when the Cardinals’ Jim Edmonds came up to bat, it said that he used to ice skate in the offseason for training.

When the Mets’ shortshop Jose Reyes came up, it said “Used a milk carton as a glove as a kid in the Dominican Republic.”

Yeesh.

Apollo posted this at 9:31 PM HKT on Saturday, October 14th, 2006 as Those Wacky Foreigners

No Comments »

From Radio Derb 10/13/06:

Here’s my candidate for the biggest outrage of all: that the United Nations—and the corrupt, verminous parasites who staff it—are allowed to carry out their filthy work on U.S. territory.  They should be expelled, and the UN headquarters site should be burned to the ground, and the ground should then be sown with salt.  The UN is an atrocity, an insult to all human decency and human values, and it should not occupy one square inch of U.S. soil. Am I making my feelings plain here?  I hope so.

If John Bolton cannot be confirmed as UN Ambassador, perhaps John Derbyshire could be sent in his stead.

Hubbard posted this at 12:32 PM HKT on Saturday, October 14th, 2006 as Dis-United Nations

No Comments »