Settings
About Us
Categories
Search
Archives
Links
Miscellany
I’m not one to credit the media, or liberals in general, with an over abundance of intelligence, but this is just the hight or moronic writing.
Do liberals really hate Bush so much that they must forget 4th grade English in order to malign him? Its called a metaphor you idiots. Look it up.
Jamie posted this at 6:31 PM HKT on Friday, September 21st, 2007 as Journalism
Perhaps Jonah Goldberg’s best (or at least most fun) cover story in National Review was his evisceration of Dan Rather. Now that Rather is suing CBS, Jonah gets to recycle some of his material:
In 2004, at the height of the Dan Rather Memogate story, I wrote in National Review: “Across the media universe the questions pour out: Why is Dan Rather doing this to himself? Why does he drag this out? Why won’t he just come clean? Why would he let this happen in the first place? Why is CBS standing by him? Why … why … why?
“There is only one plausible answer: Ours is a just and decent G-d.”
Jonah works in a metaphor I think he’s been dying to use:
Frankly, we need this. And by “we,” I mean a grand coalition of people who delight in watching one of the 20th century’s most pompous gasbags fall from the top of the laughingstock tree and hit every branch on the way down.
What will Rather’s lawsuit entail? Goldberg explains:
The beauty of this lawsuit, which has most legal observers laughing so hard that their neck veins look like one-pound sausage casings with five pounds of ground chuck in them, is that if it goes to trial (shortly after unicorns file my taxes), CBS will be put in the position of having to prove that the story was bogus, while Rather will be forced to look even more like a grassy-knoll theorist, climbing back to the top of the laughingstock tree. So I say again: You go, Dan! I’ll bring the popcorn.
This lawsuit actually could go somewhere. It depends on which judge hears it. Some federal judges (we’re looking at you, Stephen Reinhardt) are loopy enough to drink the CBS Kool-aid. In which case, there’ll be an appeal. Oh, if only the Supreme Court could hear Rather v. CBS! I think Scalia would have a field day.
Still, I’m guessing that CBS will settle for an undisclosed sum, and that everyone will sign nondisclosure agreements.
Hubbard posted this at 9:42 AM HKT on Friday, September 21st, 2007 as The Past Is Never Dead--It Isn't Even Past, There Is Only One God And Jonah Goldberg Is His Prophet
I went a couple of months without reading anything from Andrew Sullivan. So it’s curious that when I started browsing through his site again a few days ago, either I am hugely misinterpreting what he’s saying, or he has descended into complete, insane moonbattery.
Take this post, for instance, going after Thomas Sowell:
Second, why exactly is this “the terrorists’ war”? Why is our strategy necessarily determined by battlegrounds and terrain of their choosing and not ours? Has Sowell ever pondered the idea that some terrorists might actually be smart enough to choose terrain where they are strongest and we are weakest? Has it occurred to him that fighting these people among civilian populations whose languages we do not speak, whose cultures we do not understand, and whose countries we have invaded and destroyed may not be the ideal theater to fight in?
Is Andrew Sullivan advocating that we fight terrorists here in America? Where else we do speak the same language, understand the culture, and we haven’t invaded and destroyed the country? I thought the lesson of 9/11 was that we should fight terrorists in foreign countries to prevent them from building up a sophisticated enough operation to plan mass attacks or acquire biological or nuclear weapons. For Sullivan, the lesson of Iraq is that we should wait for the terrorists to attack us. Who’s choosing what? The more I think about it, the bit from Sullivan just doesn’t make any sense at all.
For an intratextual reference that he’s not making sense, note that elsewhere in the post he refers to “the Bush-Cheney cabal.” Peruse these definitions of cabal and see if you see any that describe an elected president and vice president. I’m guessing the thought went, “I dislike the president and vice president. Cabal sounds like a group of people I wouldn’t like. Ipso facto, they’re a cabal.”
And then there’s this: “[George] Will is living proof that not all conservatives worship at the altar of unchecked executive power.” I think that’s a fair portrayal of conservatives: a lot of us think the Constitution grants the president a lot of power when it comes to warmaking, therefore we “worship at the alter of unchecked executive power.” Because we think someone should have whatever power the Constitution says he has, we think he should have unlimited power.
In this bit of level-headedness, he calls the president, Kate O’Beirne, Kathryn Lopez, and, inter alia, Charles Krauthammer, “fucking disgraces.” Objectively speaking, it’s hard to determine what the offense was that prompted this outburst. I guess the president is only supposed to talk to people who dislike him? But what was O’Beirne’s, Lopez’s, and Krauthammer’s offense? Talking to the president?
Here he calls James Dobson “the GOP’s chief mullah.” The more you think about it, the less sense it makes. But I guess once you’re already using words that purposefully conflate your political opponents (Christianists) and international enemies (Islamists), you’ve got to have a notch to ratchet up to. Since the GOP is headed by a mullah, perhaps they’re now Islamists?
Those were the posts on the front page. It’s like a Greek tragedy over there.
Apollo posted this at 7:13 PM HKT on Thursday, September 20th, 2007 as What Ever Happened to Andrew Sullivan?
How should students (H/T) deal with Ahmadinejad’s proposed trip to Ground Zero?
Ordinary Americans will be shocked to discover there are officials in NYC who see nothing wrong with giving Ahmadinejad a key to the city. It’s up to those same ordinary Americans to let New York City know exactly how they feel.
In a world of perfect karma, Ahmadinejad would be captured by American “students” and held hostage for over a year, paraded before TV cameras and threatened almost daily with death.
It’s not the worst idea I’ve ever heard, but I don’t think that Columbia students will do it.
Hubbard posted this at 10:44 AM HKT on Thursday, September 20th, 2007 as Mullah Mullah--whoa baby let my people go
Newsweek has an interview with a woman ordained as a Roman Catholic priest:
Last week 25-year-old Jessica Rowley became one of about a dozen women nationwide to make a highly unusual career move: she was ordained a Catholic priest. Rowley’s ordination—which took place at Eden Theological Seminary, a progressive institution in Webster Groves, Mo.—is approved by the Ecumenical Catholic Communion, a group of churches that decline to recognize the authority of the pope but see themselves nevertheless as Catholic. This week Rowley—who is also married—begins working full-time as an associate pastor at Saints Clare & Francis, a breakaway parish in Webster Groves.
The Roman Catholic Church, not surprisingly, does not recognize Rowley as a priest. “The Church does not see itself able to ordain women, following the long and constant teaching of the church,” says Sister Mary Ann Walsh, a spokeswoman for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. (It does, however, recognize the more than 100 already married men who became priests after a conversion to Roman Catholicism.) NEWSWEEK’s Karen Springen talked with Rowley about how she views her role. Excerpts:
NEWSWEEK: What made you decide to become a Catholic priest?
Jessica Rowley: It was a long process that started at a very young age. I [grew up Roman Catholic and] was always attracted to the church and to things spiritual. I was always affirmed by my youth minister that I had gifts for ministry.
(H/T)
Mrs. Rowley, I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but you’re Protestant. Welcome to the club, and please don’t break the furniture.
Hubbard posted this at 4:54 PM HKT on Wednesday, September 19th, 2007 as Faith
So it looks like I’ve passed this Civic Literacy Test (H/T) that most Ivy League kids flunked. Go CMC!
Hubbard posted this at 11:27 AM HKT on Wednesday, September 19th, 2007 as Edjamacation
He spent years listening to people like Michael Gerson:
From the beginning of his political career, George W. Bush refused to support amnesty for illegal immigrants. He did, however, take a principled, middle-ground position that also appealed to Latinos — a proposal that would give legal status to those who want to work in America and return home, while also providing a realistic (but not easy) path to citizenship for those who want to stay.
In short, the president’s plan was perfect, and I’m a moron. An angry moron who hates people and wants to lose elections.
There’s simply no response to that level of misrepresentation. To have it come from someone you want to support is maddening.
Edit: There’s also this:
But the heroes of America are generally heroes of reconciliation, not division.
I think any general description of American heroes that excludes Lincoln and the Founders is, at least, a little ill thought-out. How does an American reconcile himself with those he sees as disregarding American laws, American culture, and the American people?
Apollo posted this at 8:53 AM HKT on Wednesday, September 19th, 2007 as The Melting Pot Boils Over
Sometimes our inability to dominate the war in Iraq gets me down. It raises unsettling, existential questions on the nature of foreign policy, the ability of the West to overcome this threat, and the ability of American to remain the dominant force in the world.
And then, from time to time, I see a story that reinvigorates my belief that right makes might:
Obviously, the Israeli strategy worked; the operation caught Damascus by surprise (there was apparently little reaction from Syria’s air defense system); the Israelis inflicted serious damage on the target, and both the F-15I crews and the commandos escaped unscathed. Syria has threatened retaliation, but its options are limited. The odds of Syrian aircraft penetrating Israeli airspace are slim, and a missile strike would invite a devastating response, as would an attack across the Golan Heights.
You oppress your people, you socialize your economy, you spend twenty-five years controlling puppet governments in a neighboring state, and after all that effort, your sworn enemy of 60 years, a nation of raucous democrats with a third your population and a ninth your land, can bomb your territory with complete impunity. Sometimes it must really suck to be a bad guy.
Apollo posted this at 6:58 PM HKT on Monday, September 17th, 2007 as Global War on Terror
Alan Keyes is back. It appears that getting spanked 70% to 27% in the 2004 Senate race against Obama wasn’t enough for Keyes. Geraghty writes:
I’m sure I’ll alienate a lot of Alan Keyes fans by saying this, and Keyes may still be the best orator in the GOP but the upcoming Republican debates need fewer three percent or less candidates, not more of them.
If social conservatives really want to have an impact on the GOP nomination, then they need to line up behind one candidate. Every vanity candidacy—Hunter, Brownback, now Keyes—makes it that much harder for a serious social conservative like Huckabee or Thompson to knock off the Giuliani juggernaut. So Alan Keyes is making a Giuliani nomination that much more likely. Fine by me. As long as the vanity candidates aren’t detracting from my guy, I’m all for them.
Tangential quote for the day, from The Devil’s Advocate:
Vanity, definitely my favorite sin.
Hubbard posted this at 6:13 PM HKT on Monday, September 17th, 2007 as Audacity of Hype
The One True Conservative is enjoying a piece that describes Iraq in terms of a dollar auction (it’s so nice, he links it twice). If you’re not familiar with the dollar auction, read the first link for a good summary.
The use of the dollar auction analogy is spot on, and its use would be a powerful argument for leaving Iraq now. Except that it completely misses the point. At this point in time, our object in Iraq is (in the terms of the auction) not to make money, or even to lose the least money; it is to make our enemy go broke. We are in a dollar auction with a sworn enemy who we know will use his money to hurt us. By taking all of his money, even at a high cost, it may save us money in the long run by preventing him from using it in more efficient ways later.
We can tell that (*ahem*) Prof. Goodenough isn’t focused on the long run from this sentence: “America is long past the possibility of some kind of profitable outcome in Iraq.” Really? If we were there for another decade, lost 50,000 lives and $1 trillion, but firmly established a democratic government in Iraq that ignited a democratic revolution in the Islamic world, would that qualify as profitable? Was our involvement in World War II “profitable”? Four and a half years into Iraq, our deaths now stand at .9% of American deaths in World War II. It would, obviously, be preferable if it were lower (even nonexistent), but to go off about how everything is lost and we are hopelessly beyond the point of potential worth-itness is either inexcusably uninformed, wishing for defeat, or a combination thereof.
And in Iraq, the losses are already desperately high, on both sides, in blood, in money, and in the erosion of institutions like law and national cohesion.
For America, the losses are unfortunately high, not “desperately” so. We have put so little of our national strength into this fight that later generations will be embarrassed if we lose. We are a growing nation with 300,000,000 souls and 1/5 of the world’s economic output. Outside of families with members in the armed services, and the occasional protest, how has your life been effected by the war in Iraq? Not so much, eh? Anything seem “desperate” about life in America, a land so ridiculously prosperous that there’s an “obesity epidemic” among our poor?
(As an aside, why the hell is a dissenter kvetching about the loss of “national cohesion”? If “national cohesion” is such an awesome goal, shut up. If, on the other hand, you value your own freedom and views more than “national cohesion” (as most of us do), then don’t fault others for standing by their views. Such as a majority of us did in 2004 when we reelected a president who would not, under any circumstances, tuck tail and run from Iraq. Or are we supposed to allow protesters a veto over American policy?)
We should be glad that we have our enemy in a dollar auction because, to use the terms of the model, we have more money. The only question is do we have the willpower to keep raising the stakes until we make him spend his last cent? He has to win in Iraq; if we win there, that will be proof that we can win anywhere. If we lose there, he can spend his resources challenging us elsewhere.
Apollo posted this at 12:19 AM HKT on Monday, September 17th, 2007 as Iraq
I followed this link from Drudge for a story about a guy in Texas killed by bees. Note the end, where there’s a section called “Bee Careful”. Nothing says “classy” quite like using a handicapped man’s horrifying death as a prompt for puns that would make 4th graders groan.
Apollo posted this at 9:52 PM HKT on Sunday, September 16th, 2007 as Journalism
…as though any more were needed, that everyone who likes Ayn Rand is, ultimately, crazy as a loon.
Apollo posted this at 12:39 AM HKT on Sunday, September 16th, 2007 as Conservatism
So a new baby panda was born at the San Diego Zoo six weeks ago. My hatred of panda’s is well know still I was suprised that an animal whose sole evolutionary adaptation is “cuteness” makes such an ugly cub.
I much prefer our fellow co-blogger (Legal Notice: He’s not really our co-blogger), Knut Pandabane.
Screw the panda, polar bears are the bear for me.
Jamie posted this at 11:24 PM HKT on Saturday, September 15th, 2007 as Animal Kingdom Strikes Back
I just received a bill for internet service through October 13. Which confused me, because it’s for an address I left on July 15. And with a company I called on August 18 about a bill for the period after I had disconnected service .
If this were a one-time thing, I’d chalk it up to bad luck. But this is the second time I’ve moved and received multiple bills for periods after I had canceled my internet service. When we left California a couple of years ago, I continued receiving bills from Verizon for four months. In a masterpiece of customer service that made Verizon the sole entry on the “List of companies that I would gnaw off my own testicles to avoid dealing with,” the ordeal culminated with me receiving, on the same day, a statement that I owed them nothing, a statement that they owed me $112, and a call from a debt collector saying that I owed them $80.
Now Comcast is on its third month of billing me after I canceled my service. When I talked with them a month ago, they assured me that everything would be fine and that they would cancel my service. When I talked to them again today, about the bill I received today, they said the same thing. Indeed, the gentleman said that I could disregard the bill, and that they owed me $50, and that I should receive a check in 6-8 weeks. If I were a gambling man, I’d wager that by the end of the year I will have received at least one call from a debt collector, and zero checks.
Apollo posted this at 8:10 PM HKT on Saturday, September 15th, 2007 as Grumblin Mumblins, Ourselves
I shouldn’t really be surprised that the retarded cousin of the 5-Cs has started offering YouTube classes, still I always thought they were a bit better than this:
SoCal college offers YouTube class
CLAREMONT, Calif. –Here’s a dream-come-true for Web addicts: college credit for watching YouTube.
Pitzer College this fall began offering what may be the first course about the video-sharing site. About 35 students meet in a classroom but work mostly online, where they view YouTube content and post their comments.
Class lessons also are posted and students are encouraged to post videos. One class member, for instance, posted a 1:36-minute video of himself juggling.
Alexandra Juhasz, a media studies professor at the liberal arts college, said she was “underwhelmed” by the content on YouTube but set up the course, “Learning from YouTube,” to explore the role of the popular site.
Class members control most of the class content and YouTube watchers from around the world are encouraged to comment, Juhasz said.
She hopes the course will raise serious issues about YouTube, such as the role of “corporate-sponsored democratic media expression.”
YouTube is “a phenomenon that should be studied,” student Darren Grose said. “You can learn a lot about American culture and just Internet culture in general.”
Juggling? I swear to god Pitzer is just a few steps above DeVry.
By far the best part is their attempted analysis of “corporate-sponsored democratic media expression” – god dammed hippies.
Jamie posted this at 4:28 PM HKT on Friday, September 14th, 2007 as Edjamacation