The Sword and the Olive Branch

“Regardless of its unconscious foundation, the stage is set for political radicalism, perhaps more fervent and intractable than the radicalism of the 1960’s, and potentially as destructive as the radicalism that fueled the civil war, to rise again in America.  The entire nation is being politicized, and it’s making our quality of life more than a little miserable.  Without empowering a police state, conservatives should ponder how to stop the institutionalization of resentment, along with the unhinged animosity that follows it, before it spreads like a wildfire, too large and fierce to douse before it destroys whole chunks of America.”

I wrote that in 2006.  My thesis was that the aftermath of 9/11, coupled with America’s generational cycles (as laid out by William Strauss and Neil Howe) could lead America down a darker path than the country has ever tread.  Someday I’ll share it with you, but right now, there’s a much, much bigger trout to fry.    

As you’ve heard by now, Dr. George Tiller, a 67- year old abortionist, was murdered in his church last Sunday during service.  He worked at one of only three clinics in the United States that performs late-term abortions, terminations which occur after the 21^st week of pregnancy.    

Now that I’ve had a few days to calm down and put this in perspective, let me say in no unspoken terms that the worst part about this (by far) is that a free man was murdered.  He was snuffed out in front of his wife in a house of God as many gathered to worship Him.  To further dwell on just how inhumane this assassination is would be morbid, but please take a moment to appreciate its gravity. 

Now that that’s been settled, let’s look at the broad implications of Tiller’s murder.  It risks delegitimizing the entire pro-life movement, and by extension, American conservatism.  This tragedy will not be presented as an anomaly on the right, but an indictment of all things conservative.  This thing which should never have occurred will be cynically portrayed as the direct product of right-wing argumentation.  In fact, that has already begun.   Keith Olbermann, on his prime time cable news show, claimed that Fox News facilitated domestic terrorism in Tiller’s murder.  His evidence:  On the reliably left-wing Huffington Post, a pro-life writer blamed himself for helping create an atmosphere where this crime could occur.  Oh, and Bill O’Reilly characterized abortion as “execution” (a matter of opinion) and Fox News commentators took a similarly strong stand against late-term abortion, as well as Dr. Tiller, on numerous occasions.  Olbermann called Dr. Tiller’s murder “the inevitable result of this instigation,” which would be akin to calling the assassination of George W. Bush, if it had occurred, the inevitable result of Olbermann’s unyielding anti-Bush provocation.  This is hateful, opportunistic partisanship at its worst, and I will not give it any more thought, lest some vulnerable reader confuse the MSNBC personality’s words with a responsible argument. 

This episode of misguided political activism was staggeringly stupid on several levels.  Even if you buy the amoral conviction that killing Dr. Tiller saved the lives of unborn children, two more doctors, inspired by Tiller’s martyrdom, will spring up in his place.  One man was killed, but NO ONE WAS SAVED.   I doubt any fewer abortions will occur because of this injustice.  Also, if the public is gullible enough to believe that Dr. Tiller’s murder is the product of anti-abortion rhetoric, it could very well be the spark that lights the fire under anti-conservative censorship, such as the fairness doctrine or its modern equivalent.  The bullet which took one man’s life may also threaten free political speech.  Even the most callous anti-abortionist couldn’t find something to feel proud of here. 

Operation Rescue denounced Tillers’ assassination as “vigilantism.”  While the pro-life group is right to speak out against this cruel act, they chose some words poorly as they did so.  Vigilantism happens when a citizen takes up arms against a criminal.  Dr. Tiller had broken no laws, so the man who murdered him was not acting out a scene from Death Wish.  From all angles, Dr. Tiller’s murder appears to be an act of political radicalism, any doctrine where political activism is considered more important than basic human rights.  It’s also unnecessary, as the argument over abortion is far from settled.  The doctor’s murder is a crime against humanity as well as America.  Our Constitution demands tempered, thoughtful activism, not the violent urges of an impassioned Jacobin.  I hope the murderer is caught, and I hope he is served the death penalty. 

But I don’t want to end this in malice.  Like Glenn Beck in December, I want to err on the side of sentimentality and reach for a few heartfelt platitudes, hoping they’ll make a positive impression.  If you haven’t done so already, please say a prayer for Dr. Tiller’s family, as well as his soul.  Please say a prayer for the shooter as well.  Law, order, and (paradoxically) forgiveness are humanity’s responsibility.  Judgment is God’s.  So please pray for the murderer to recognize where he’s gone wrong before he’s justly put to sleep.  Finally, pray for the future; pray that this kind of political activism, a violent radicalism which does not need speech to justify itself, ends here. 

On my own part I will reinforce the fact that I, as well as the vast majority of the conservatives, do not condone violence as a political tool.  There’s nothing wrong with pointing out anti-conservative bias, such as in the media and the classroom, but we should not develop a victim mentality.  I promise you, the desperation that comes with internalizing victimhood will lead to more bloody Sundays.   As conservatives, nay, as Americans, it is our responsibility to hold our heads high in the face of adversity, lest we equalize downward and adopt the desperate extremist mindset of Dr Tiller’s murderer.  A man who does not have peace in his heart cannot afford to give peace to others. 

Cross-posted on: 

Tags: abortion, George Tiller, radicalism
Posted in Current Events | No Comments »

The most important question isn’t whether or not homosexuals should marry, but what truly motivates gay marriage advocates. 

I’m ambivalent about gay marriage.  I strongly prefer civil unions, because properly applied, they grant equal rights to gay couples (visitation, etc.) without infringing on anyone’s freedom of conscience.  That being said, I’m o.k. with the prospect of legalizing homosexual marriage, just as long as it isn’t used as a bludgeon to assault the nuclear family (or religion—no reverend should be forced to marry any couple in violation of his faith).  This isn’t some self-hating conservative defense mechanism.  I don’t have anything against social conservatives; in more ways than not, I am one.  I merely think that as long as gay marriage is actually about equal rights, and not a proxy for the ongoing culture war between conservatives and progressives, I could live with it.  Admittedly, I’m taking huge leap of faith on this one. 

You see, the left has a long history of undermining the traditional family, particularly the institution of marriage.  From a Machiavellian perspective, this makes sense.  For most people, familial obligations are more important that ideological ones.  A man committed to his family has less free time, energy, and motive to overthrow the very society that sustains his family.  Also, the private love expressed through traditions such as marriage is a threat to revolution, because it isn’t directed to the community, but those who are special to us—our friends and family.  Marriage’s private obligations undermine commitment to utopian schemes, which is intolerable to anyone who seriously wishes to remake society.  Even al-Qaeda has complained about potential recruits being more committed to their villages than to radical Islam. 

Sometimes the left assails marriage though the idealization of promiscuity, as seen in the deceptively antagonistic practice of “free love.”  Pre-Nazi German socialists, such as the League of Progressive Women’s Associations, promoted free love under the guise of feminism.  This necessarily entailed the abolition of legal marriage, which enforces monogamy through law.  During the height of second-wave feminism, feminists regularly penned editorials about how marriage isn’t about love, but possession, making it a discriminatory institution.  The Weather Underground called monogamy, and essential part of modern marriage, a “political error.”  Long before Oneida, New York, became a quaint tourist community, Father John Humphrey Noyes led a cult of bible communists there.  Coupling or reproducing without his permission was grounds for expulsion.  Instead, under the concept of “complex marriage,” everyone was married to everyone else.  It takes a village to share an STD. 

Paradoxically, traditional marriage, often derided as overly controlling, has also been attacked from a puritanical standpoint.  In an essay titled, “Women and Marriage,” Hitler wrote that marriage, as it was practiced in the bourgeois society he hated, is “generally a thing against nature” (to whom it may concern: conservatives don’t generally rail against the bourgeois).  Ann Lee, a leader of the Shakers (think of a self-indulgently demonstrative version of the Quakers) broke up husbands and wives upon conversion to her bizarre sect (the Shakers also prohibited procreation).  The solemn Harmonists, another failed outgrowth of the evangelical left, forbade their followers form engaging in sex, much less marriage.  While few things are more different in method than free love and the tyrannical regulation of love, they share the same extremely communitarian impulse: no bond between individuals shall be stronger than their devotion to the collective.  The only difference is that free love cheapens and dispels affection, while puritanism suffocates it. 

Often the left assaults marriage (and the nuclear family) through children.  Leftist education theory, which is openly hostile to homeschooling, is one example of this.  The ballyhooed philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, whose emphasis on creativity at the expense of guided instruction still has a profound influence on educators, wanted children to be taken from their parents and raised in state-run boarding schools.  In George Orwell’s 1984, children are turned against their parents as they’re bred by the state to become “junior spies,” monitoring their caretakers for any subversive behavior.  This only foreshadows the real life attempts by UK educators to “mobilize” students in order to “turn their parents green,” directly encouraging children to make Mum and Dad’s lives a “misery” if they don’t separate the cardboard from the plastic upon recycling.  This thematic disregard of parental authority is what conservatives are moping about when we occasionally complain that Hollywood pretends that children are wiser than adults. 

I’m far from the first person to tie together the totalitarian impulse and hostility to traditional family.  As touched on in Jamie Glazov’s United In Hate, history’s greatest dystopian novels recognize the threat the nuclear family poses to control freaks.  Much like the puritanical opponents of marriage, the Oceanic government in 1984 only tolerates love directed towards the state.  In contrast, Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World depicts a society where recreational sex is encouraged by the government, but familial features such as childbearing and coupling are strictly controlled.  In Huxley’s colorless nanny state, two-thirds of women are sterilized, while the rest are forced to use contraceptives.  Through technology, procreation is achieved outside of sex, eliminating the need for families.  The much lesser-known We, by Yevgeny Zamyatin, similarly portrays a communal denial of love and marriage, as “everyone belongs to everyone else.”

Considering all of this, as well as the left’s general hostility to American tradition, can anyone really blame conservatives for not trusting supporters of homosexual marriage when they claim that their cause is just about civil rights?  In the 1990’s, queer theorists declared that marriage was an oppressive force.  Now the same collage of activists is sadistically lashing out at a beauty pageant contestant for mildly stating she doesn’t support gay marriage.  What are we supposed to make of that?  Is the concentrated push for gay marriage, something few people cared about fifteen years ago, a mature shift from moving against American institutions to moving towards them, or is it just a tactical adaptation?  Is the left collectively thinking, “Denouncing marriage didn’t work, so why not render it meaningless through cultural relativism?”  I’d like to believe that gay marriage advocates are well-meaning; liberals generally don’t know much about their own philosophical antecedents, and anyone who actually believes that opposition to gay marriage is an example of homophobia likely isn’t sophisticated enough to engage in stealth advocacy.  Yet history, and the childish tone of today’s gay marriage advocates, suggests that they’re driven by something more than an innocent regard for civil rights. 

Corss-posted at: 

Tags: gay marriage, tradition
Posted in Current Events | No Comments »

Why we care what John McCain’s daughter says.

Yep.  Out of all the news stories out there, the shallow one caught my interest.  But really, the economy is going down the tubes, the world is going socialist, and America may not survive long enough to vote Barry Carter out of office in 2012.  What else is there but to quibble over the details?  What really matters is that John McCain’s daughter thinks Republicans are too right-wing.  For those of you who haven’t been paying attention, Meghan McCain wrote a column a week and a half ago which implied that Ann Coulter uses hate, negativity, and scare tactics, and said that watching her is sometimes like watching a train wreck.  Even worse, Republicans like Coulter make it difficult for the Party to reach out to young Americans.  This made McCain an instant media darling.  Laura Ingraham picked up on this and made a snide remark about McCain’s weight.  Ms. McCain retorted by telling her to “kiss my fat a**,” on The View.  She’s still a media darling.  That’s the short story. 

Before I get on with it, conservatives should stop talking about Meghan’s looks.  I’ve seen this on message boards and it’s a stupid approach.  First of all, she’s not unattractive.  Line her up against eco-feminists or the women at Code Pink and see if making fun of her appearance makes sense.  Second of all, it’s irrelevant.  You think I read Robert Bork because he’s cute? 

On the surface, what Meghan McCain says shouldn’t matter to conservatives.  She’s really no different from any 24-year old upper-middle class kid—for all the different places she’s been, she’s not apparently worldly.  She blogs about what every privileged, college-age woman is likely to write about: dating, music, and her overseas trips to places like Vietnam.  She’s solicited opinions on what tattoo she should get to commemorate her time on her father’s campaign trail.  She wearily portrays herself as a victim of “socially accepted prejudice,” because Laura Ingraham called her “plus-sized.”  It’s a sign of immaturity that her instinct isn’t to deflect Ingraham’s intemperate jab by stating it doesn’t matter what some radio host thinks of her body type, but to instead take shelter in platitudes about prejudice and inner beauty.  In short, we’re not dealing with a seasoned veteran like William Kristol here, so why does Ms. McCain get under our skin?

The reason McCain’s ideological dilettantism is troubling is that it reflects the Republican break from conservative values.  Since the conservative movement became self-conscious somewhere around the mid-20^th century, the Republican Party has been the only major party conservatives can consider a safe haven.  Even that’s been tenuous, as a good number of Republicans have been willing to walk barefoot on lava to disassociate themselves from conservatism since the days of Barry Goldwater.  A pessimist could argue that the Republican Party has never really been conservative, with the exception of Ronald Reagan’s ascendency, which began in 1976 and ended as soon as he handed the reins to George H.W. Bush in 1988.  If both the Democrats and Republicans reject conservative values, America will risk becoming Europe, a self-hating western democracy without the courage or the cultural I.Q. to sustain itself (By cultural I.Q., I don’t mean the ability to impress socialites with Seinfeld trivia.  I mean a deep familiarity with one’s cultural heritage). 

I won’t say Ms. McCain isn’t serious, but it’s fair to presume her attachment to the Republican Party is more affective than intellectual.  On one hand, she describes herself as “Republican spawn,” against everything the liberals she knows on Facebook believe in.  On the other hand, she proclaims that she’s proud of not being “conservative enough,” according to the popular myth that being against things like gay marriage is “old-school.”  In this sense, Michelle Malkin is right.  Meghan McCain seems to have no ideological principles, just a working, incomprehensible version of moral relativism, which causes her to claim that Ann Coulter’s brashness makes her bad, but the equally abrasive Russell Brand is “freaking hilarious.”  Who’s Russell Brand?  He’s the British comedian whose Schick is to mock worldliness by making fun of American conservatives.  That doesn’t narrow it down?  Hmm…I thought you had to be original to be popular with young people.   Anyway, a Republican laughing at Russell Brand is like a feminist laughing at Andrew Dice Clay as he’s going on about “broads.”  It doesn’t make sense unless the audience doesn’t sympathize with whoever’s being made fun of.  For Meghan McCain, this is a problem, because if she doesn’t relate to conservatives, she’s going to have a lot of trouble understanding what it’ll take to get them to reach out to young people. 

McCain’s attack on Coulter is little more than self-assuredly clever, water-cooler conservatism.  McCain claims that Coulter perpetuates negative stereotypes about Republican women, and proceeds to take the same bait liberals take by misunderstanding Coulter’s comment about perfecting Jews as anti-Semitic sensationalism.  She berates Coulter for not having the GOP’s best interests at heart, when all conservatives are generally more loyal to principles than any power-hungry political party.  This is the girl who risked embarrassing Republicans this month when she said on Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC show that she doesn’t know enough about economics to have a strong opinion about them, then turned around and said on Fox & Friends, “This second stimulus package that Nancy Pelosi’s talking about I think doesn’t make sense.”  Her inexperience coupled with her high profile is a red meat generator for left-wing hecklers, who seem to enjoy Republican vulnerability more than sex.  If McCain had a better grasp of her ideals, she could have at least given thoughtful reasons for feeling wary about the rumored bill. 

I’m no stranger of being critical of Ann Coulter, so I’m not angry at McCain for doing the same.  But my biggest beef with Ann is that she hit her literary peak with Treason, and hasn’t matched it since.  My critique of Coulter is substantive, but I’m also a huge fan of hers.  In many ways, I’m not much different from Metallica fans who feel disappointed that every new album James Hetfield and co. release doesn’t stand up to the classic “Master of Puppets.”   Meghan McCain’s critique of Coulter is similarly personal.  In the column that propelled her to fame, Meghan doesn’t cite anything about Coulter except her demeanor and a couple of her controversial statements.  Meghan’s post gives us no reason to believe she has read any one of Coulter’s books, or is familiar with what the polemical figurehead writes in her weekly column.  McCain only uses Coulter to illustrate what she doesn’t like about her brand new party (she registered as a Republican last father’s day).

This leads us to another problem.  Every young conservative wants to be the edgy, new-fashioned right-winger who finally gets young people to register as Republicans.  So they ignore decades of impressive conservative thought and instead attempt to redefine the entire movement along the lines of trendy, often liberal sensibilities.  Most of the time this manifests itself in libertarian types who don’t relate to the religious right.  Heck, I was guilty of the same thing once in my life.  But here’s what the neophyte crusaders for a new conservative movement always miss.  Firstly, there’s no such thing as a “progressive” conservative.  The two ideals are polar opposites; even liberalism is more compatible with conservatism than progressivism.  At best, progressives are ideologically agnostic (or nihilistic), which makes them susceptible to every bad left-wing idea they come in contact with (think FDR).  At worst, progressivism is an aggressive, statist enterprise which has little use for the United States Constitution as it limits their ability to remake America in their egalitarian image.  Woodrow Wilson is progressive, and he may have been the most anti-conservative president in American history.  The fact Meghan McCain doesn’t comprehend the incompatibility between small-government traditionalism and big-government social engineering is telling. 

Secondly, the majority of older gen-Xers, my generation, supported Ronald Reagan (60% of voters under 30 voted for Reagan in 1984).  This scared the hell out of the media, who didn’t know what to make of it.  Yet Ronald Reagan was a genial, white, old man; he was certainly not a conservative “punk,” “progressive,” “moderate,” or whatever other cloak insecure conservatives wrap themselves in order to appeal to shallow people.  That’s fine.  We don’t want the Daily Show brats on our side!  We don’t want young anti-hippies in knit caps vandalizing Priuses.  We don’t want the twenty-years old wearing Che Guevara t-shirts to start sporting Tim McVeigh’s visage.  Conservatism should rise and fall along with the character of the American people.   We don’t need to be “progressive,” we need to be smart, brave, and above all, able to defend and promote conservatism.  We need to spend more time reading Mises, and less time jeering Ann Coulter. 

Ronald Reagan took conservatism, something that’s always been unfairly derided as outdated and bigoted, and made it popular (if only for a short while) by articulately promoting it without apology.  He didn’t need to become more “moderate” in order to reach out to people.  He just needed to be himself, without rancor, and without anxious pleading.  Meghan McCain seems smart, but from what she’s written online, she’s also obviously inexperienced, and unmistakably unfamiliar with conservatism.  Meghan McCain can’t recite the underlying philosophy behind the American right any more than I can write an ad hoc historical essay about Yugoslavian chess champions.  Yet she’s been a Republican for less than a year, and she’s already convinced she knows which direction her party should go to win future elections.  She’s like a cocky rookie quarterback telling the coach, in front of his entire team, that his playbook sucks. 

In light of all this, Meghan, I have a respectful plea.  If you have the bravery to tell conservatives they’re too extreme, then please have the character to read a few books about the movement first.  If you can discern why conservatives oppose stem-cell research, if you can recall on what grounds conservatives disagree with gay marriage, if you can understand Ann Coulter’s appeal beyond her controversial sound bites, and then turn around and tell me why you think they’re wrong, then maybe you’ll have the authority to tell me and everyone like me we’re too extremist for our own good. 

Cross-posted at

Tags: ann coulter, Meghan McCain
Posted in Current Events | No Comments »

Stop the presses!  Conservatives like Rush Limbaugh!  

In an age where politics have become just another commodity, I attended CPAC wondering exactly what the left’s mass produced narrative would be following the event.  Since Ann Coulter didn’t say anything liberals haven’t already heard from her, my guess was they were going to obsess over Rush Limbaugh repeating that he would like Obama to fail, “If his mission is to restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation.”  (Full transcript of Rush’s speech here; Full video collection via Hot Air).  The Hyperventilating Post didn’t fail. They titled one of their responses to CPAC:  Rush Limbaugh at CPAC: Doubles Down On Wanting Obama To Fail.  But that isn’t the dominant theme in the left’s analysis of CPAC.

Instead, liberals are strangely jubilant over the old news that Rush Limbaugh is taken seriously by conservatives.  They’re excited by something that’s been going on for more than 20 years.  They think Limbaugh simply isn’t credible, so conservatives must be desperate.  They keep asking one of their trademark leading questions: “Is Rush Limbaugh the New Face of the G.O.P.?”  Note to liberals:  It’s the Conservative Political Action Conference, not a Republican fundraiser; that’s why it isn’t called “RPAC.”  Nevertheless, the left is excitedly proclaiming that the G.O.P. has died because the most successful talk radio host of all time gave the best speech at a political gathering. 

As usual, liberals don’t get CPAC because nothing in their education has given them the tools to understand conservative discourse.  Thus, they’re calling Rush’s speech angry.  While it was resolute and characteristically bombastic, it was also an upbeat message directed straight to the conservative base.  To be honest, I wasn’t entirely glad I attended CPAC until I felt the energy of Rush’s speech live; I wanted mroe seminars where I would learn ideas, not just hear them.  Yet I walked out of the conference on Saturday feeling uplifted.  Rush gave conservatives hope, which is tough to do when our frightened nation is setting itself up for a Soviet-style economic implosion. 

Liberals are right in that the conservative movement does need a leader, just as the left needed one for decades until Barack Obama’s logo feces started appearing all over the place.  But that doesn’t mean the American right is dead.  Conservatism will be fine as long as we’re resolute.  After all, today’s trendy liberal ideas are essentially no different from the ones conservatives routed in the Reagan era.  No matter how many times liberals wrap their ideology in hokey buzzwords, their message is one based on group resentment, fear of the unknown (such as market forces), and dependence on the state.   The conservative message is one based on faith, individual responsibility, and the dignity of liberty.  Which sounds better to you?  Which sounds more robust and capable of taking on America’s present challenges?

Make no mistake; America will become a worse place to live the next four years.  But because conservative ideas are rooted in timeless principles, not pandering to coalitions of self-proclaimed victims, the right will rise again.  Sooner rather than later, there will be another morning in America. 

Tags: CPAC, Rush Limbaugh
Posted in Current Events | No Comments »

Tags: millennials, New York University
Posted in Current Events, Fun stuff | No Comments »

Iran now has enough enriched uranium to make a nuclear bomb.  Let’s hope President Obama’s fellow Democrats are correct when they claim that he’s as opposed to a nuclear Tehran as George W. Bush is. 

…the more things stay the same.  Activists are protesting the New York Post over this Sean Delonas cartoon:

I’m not a big fan of the cartoon’s woefully tone-deaf attempt to equate the current government (which is being lead by an African-American) with an out-of-control celebrity chimpanzee.  But the more I read the consciously offended protestors’ sermonizing statements (“How dare you violate the President of the United States?”) the easier it is to look past the drawing’s dull humor. 

Other than that, I think I speak for most Americans when I say, “yawn.”  

Continuing the theme of President Obama’s post-racial America, Attorney General Eric Holder somberly lectured Justice Department employees yesterday about how the United States is “essentially a nation a nation of cowards” when it comes to race.  Apparently concerned that Americans don’t mingle more outside their ethnic enclaves, he told the employees that they have a special responsibility to advance racial understanding.

Holder’s remarks have been compared to one of Obama’s speeches about race, which is accurate in that some of Holder’s soft-spoken oration is appealing.  He emphasized that Americans must be more frank about racial matters, which at least implies that he’s not afraid of strong, vocal opposition to left-wing notions of racial justice.  His talk about honest dialogue and accepting criticism where it is “justified” are likely mere platitudes, but they at least make me feel hopeful about the relationship between African-Americans and the rest of the country.  He even acknowledged that Black History month is an “artificial device” used to promote discussion about racial matters. 

Yet Holder erred when he claimed that Americans “simply do not talk enough” about race.  Really?  Rare are the neophytes who won’t bloviate about race until they pass out from a lack of oxygen.  If there exists one political discussion every American has participated in, it’s the one about slavery, affirmative action, and reparations.  Perhaps Holder is worried that Americans are sick of racial conflict, especially when both sides are segregated by large, semantic spaces (see above). 

Besides, why is the Attorney General concerned with turning law enforcement’s attention to the common sociology professor’s pet peeves, especially when property crime is almost certain to rise as the economy falls, giving certain people an excuse to steal?  It’s not the Justice Department’s job to advance a specific brand of racial harmony; it’s their responsibility to maintain peace, so Americans of all races can prosper under rule of law.  More Americans arguing about proportional representation from a standpoint they haven’t budged from since high school won’t achieve that. 

As always seems to be the case in Obama’s young government, there’s a left-wing subtext underlying Holder’s words about the importance of racial dialogue.  About three-quarters of the way through his sermon, Holder states that if the social problems affecting the poorest parts of the country aren’t addressed, they’ll affect the entire nation.  This is simply a version of the left-wing argument that crime is perpetuated by socioeconomic means, as opposed to moral deficiency.  So how come Mr. Holder can’t just spit that out?  Why does he need to smuggle it into a ceremonial speech like pork in the controversial stimulus law?  It appears as if the Attorney General needs to think more deeply about his own invertebrate insincerity. 

Cross-posted at Modern Conservative

Tags: AG Holder, Iran, Obama, race, Sean Delonas, Stimulus cartoon
Posted in Current Events | No Comments »

Few things have shaken my admittedly weak faith in my countrymen more than this advertisement (see below). 

Commemorative political memorabilia is nothing new.  I wouldn’t be surprised to see a set of James Buchanan plates in a flea market some day.  But this was just one more piece of evidence that President Barack Obama is the most crassly commercialized political celebrity since the mediocre diarist Che Guevara.  The last time I was at Wal-mart, two men were standing outside selling coat racks full of nothing but Obama clothing.  They even had Obama-themed women’s leggings. 

What stands out about the ad is that it’s clearly not offering the coin enthusiast’s equivalent of Honus Wagner tobacco cards.  Firstly, the commercial plainly states that they’re selling ”four official U.S minted coins” layered in 24-carat Gold, and then colorized (which makes them numismatically worthless).  Secondly, I’m no coin collector, but the part where the narrator says, “the Obama-John F. Kennedy half dollar coin,” sets off all kinds of red flags.  Thirdly, 20 seconds in, the commercial shows four coins being superimposed with full color images of the new President!   

The Home Shopping Network is hawking the glorified change as well.  Here they plainly state that they’re selling “colorized” half-dollars, quarters, and golden dollars. 

 Why is this relevant? 

Hat tip: Hot Air

I almost feel bad that shady vendors are taking advantage of Barack Obama’s overly excited fans by selling them cheap merchandise that isn’t nearly as nice as it looked on the commercial.

Almost.  The buyers (one of whom saw this commercial with Montel Williams, which also communicates in no uncertain terms that these are George Washington dollars and JFK half-dollars with Obama added on) bear most of the responsibility here.  Apart from not having the common sense to refrain from purchasing several copies of a unique collector’s item until seeing at least one, the United States Mint issued an  advisory about Obama coins last December, which the owner would have come across in a simple Google search.  Also, the joyless souls at NPR were on this story as early as January.   Don’t these people have internet?   They scammed themselves.

There are no innocents in this conflict.  The vendors are taking advantage of the weak-minded, the buyers are allowing their emotions to get the best of them, and even Montel Williams betrayed his fan’s trust by proclaiming how proud he is of such shoddy merchandise.  This is Obama’s America, and it’s ending one minute at a time.

Cross-posted at Modern Conservative

Tags: Obama coins, obama supporters
Posted in Current Events | No Comments »

Like a gallstone, Hugo Chavez’s referendum to eliminate term limits in Venezuela passed over the weekend.  This isn’t a testament to Chavez’s charisma.  Nor is it a telling anecdote about Venezuelans.  The willingness of a population to give up Presidential term limits actually highlights the power of dependent thinking.  Like the comically hapless future Americans in Idiocracy, it’s human nature to fear taking responsibility for our well being.  When we’re not brave enough to accept freedom’s assumption of risk, this results in stronger government.   

This is how socialists, nay, dictators of all stripes maintain their power in the modern era.  First the modern dictator takes an already vulnerable population (ex: the poor) and makes them dependent on his benevolence by offering them goodies:  affirmative action, price controls, whatever it takes.  Then the modern dictator convinces the masses that he (or at the very least, his party) is the only one who can give the people what they need.  The people, who are actively discouraged from comprehending a life without the crutches of welfare and other government programs, are compelled to vote for the kind-hearted master who makes their well-being possible.   

This starts an ugly cycle of co-dependence where the government, rewarded for pandering to the lowest common denominator, endeavors to encompass even more citizens under its web with bigger programs and more subsidies.  This creates a larger pool of citizens who don’t mind the expanded welfare state that benefits them at the expense of the successful, which in turn increases the democratic dictator’s chances of being elected to another term.  The modern fascist’s path to power involves convincing as many of his countrymen as he can that they’re invalids, incapable of finding happiness without the state’s intervention.

The longer this goes on, the less likely a peaceful change will occur.  Just as children will defend their parents to the very end because their livelihood depends on them, supporters of the benevolent dictator will slander the government’s opponents, cheat them out of elections, and even resort to the radical tactics of violence and intimidation to protect their Mommy state.  I’m not calling Barack Obama a dictator, but the biggest story of the 2008 Presidential election by far was ACORN’s alleged voter fraud, but the fickle people were more interested in Saturday Night Live skits and Sarah Palin’s inconsequential contradictions.  This demonstrates the masse’s willingness to overlook authoritarian indiscretions as long as those authorities are acting in the “people’s” interest. 

Education cannot break this cycle: even learned citizens are apt to vote according to their own short-term perspective (immediate job security, increases in minimum wage, feeling good about themselves) rather than their nation’s long-term prosperity.  Revolution cannot break the cycle.  Outside of a well-regulated militia (those words sure sound familiar) no one can match their own government in terms of men and firepower.  Outside of a Soviet-style collapse, the only thing that can break the cycle of dependence is moral renewal.  A citizenry which would purposefully place power in the hands of a Mussolini, a Castro, or a Chavez is suffering from moral deficiency.  Sadly, this appears to be the natural state of things. 

No one walks into a voting booth intending to vote for a monster; every vote in a democracy is a self-serving one.  Some of the reasons Venezuelans voted to eliminate term limits are that Hugo Chavez provides them with education and health care, and he “empowered them with the discourse of class struggle.”  “Empowering” someone with “the discourse of class struggle” is only the legitimization of blaming your relative poverty on someone else.  Chavez gives a powerful voice to Venezuelans who don’t want to believe they’re largely responsible for their own well-being.  But the rhetoric of class warfare only rationalizes inequality; it does nothing to truly explain it, and thus fails to alleviate it.  The only remedy for this is to train people to be truly selfless; to encourage them to look outside narrow class and group interests when they approach the political realm. 

The co-dependent Venezuelan masses just voted to concentrate more power in one man’s hands in a time of worldwide uncertainty.  If the economy continues to sputter over the long term, don’t be surprised if emotionally valetudinarian Americans are tempted to do the same by 2016. 

Cross-posted at Modern Conservative

Tags: dependence, Hugo Chavez, Venezulea
Posted in Current Events | No Comments »

It turns out that I’m not the first one to think of putting this on a t-shirt.  Oh well; I wasn’t going to capitalize on it anyway. 

Did they take my idea, or did I take theirs?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Feministing has posted some of the dumbest comments they’ve received about contributor Courtney E Martin’s recent appearance on the O’Reilly Factor (complete with melodramatic feedback such as, “an attack on one feminist is an attack on all of us”).  A sampling of their sampling (original typos included):

“I love your juttting lower jaw and crooked face. You have a face for a writer.”

“…I would toss you to the predators. I would trade you to the predators. I would betray you to the predators. I would NOT want you to pass on your weak genetics.”

“Hey Thin Lips -
You are a typical feminist, very possibly a dyke, and (predictably) you totally lack a sense of humor. But don’t worry, sweetie, you’ll find a husband/wife eventually. There’s gotta someone out there who will find you attractive.”

Assuming they’re legitimate (one can never tell in today’s age of victim ideology) these statements are disturbing because they’re clearly coming from the right—no one outflanks feminists on the left.  I’m not bothered by the prospect of these words being used to make conservatives look bad.  We’ll all be portrayed as knuckle-dragging misogynists no matter how we confront left-wing women.  The problem with comments like these is that they reflect an inability to keep one’s emotions in check.  Wrath is an indulgence.  Lashing out at someone by calling them a dyke (or worse) isn’t empowering, but a sign of desperation.  Grow up. 

I don’t mean to sound uptight.  I don’t subscribe to the “blunt object” versus “scalpel” school of thought.  The abolition of blunt weaponry leaves few tools for satire and sarcasm.  But rhetorical broadswords need to be used in an appropriate context to even have a chance of landing any blows.   Besides, any self-proclaimed progressive with enough self-awareness to title a column, “Obama is not a God,” deserves at least one sincere argument. 

 

NPR’s hyper-conventional audience is up in arms over Fox News/NPR contributor Juan Williams again (Last August, he opined that Michelle Obama sometimes utilizes a “kind of militant anger”).  This time it’s for calling the First Lady a potential liability because she instinctively plays the victim card and blames America.  Particularly spicy was his comparison of her to the late Stokely Carmichael, a Marxist black separatist who coined the term “black power.”  Obviously this is much too colorful for NPR, but anyone who cares to follow Mr. Williams should know he appears in forums which allow for this type of frank conversation.

Even if the radical activist comparison was over the top, Williams has a strong case.  Mrs. Obama’s idiosyncrasies don’t just bedevil her husband through her occasional sharing of bulletin board material, such as when she called America “downright mean,” or ill-advisedly commented about being proud of her country for the first time as an adult; she has a marked defensive streak, as evidenced in this NewsBusters video.  Defensiveness is harmful because it’s a universally off-putting trait.  It gives the impression that one is liable to take offense to anything; hence the First Lady risks stigmatizing the White House with a prickly manner that undermines her grace.  In an era where every personality flaw can be magnified and distributed in seconds, Mrs. Obama’s attitude is a legitimate concern that’s being overlooked amidst the outrage directed at Williams. 

NPR listeners have sent 56 “angry” e-mails and counting about the incident, but even Alicia C. Shepard, NPR’s ombudsman, recognizes the possibility that the outcry may have nothing to do with what Juan Williams actually says, only that he’s on Fox News.  Perhaps in light of this, NPR decided to preserve their relationship with Juan Williams, only requesting that Fox quit identifying Williams as part of NPR.  Fox News effortlessly obliged.

 

As I am typing this, Continental Airlines flight 3047 has crashed into a house in Clarence, New York, which is northeast of Buffalo.  49 people died from the crash, including everyone onboard the plane.  Please say a prayer for all who have been affected by this tragedy. 

Cross-posted at Modern Conservative

Tags: Continental flight 3047, Feministing, Fox News, Juan Williams, NPR, Sarah Palin t-shirt
Posted in Current Events | No Comments »

The Profit motive works!

Via Yahoo:  Study: Paying smokers to quit boosts success rate

According the story, 15 percent of people who were paid $750.00 to quit smoking for good were able to fend off their nicotine addiction for “about a year” and running.   That’s three times more than the control group, which must have been commanded to stop smoking for the glory of the upcoming socialist nation.

Tags: greed!, profit motive, smoking
Posted in Current Events | No Comments »

Via Hot Air: Academics fishing for prejudice planted 22-year old Hailey Woldt, decked out in traditional Muslim clothing, in the middle of Alabama, and came up short.  If hatred if what they’re looking for, perhaps they should don the young woman in a NOBAMA t-shirt and follow her around New York City. 

Sarah Palin has pulled out of the 2009 Conservative Political Action Conference, which can’t help but to diminish the event.  Despite the vapid comments from her immature hecklers, Palin demonstrated a quick mind and a sharp wit when she accepted the vice presidential nomination last year (highlights here).  People forget that soon after that speech, liberals were quivering in their boots over Palin (and McCain was handed his only solid lead over Obama) until her underachieving performance in post-nomination interviews. 

As for her “gaffes,” such as the one about seeing Alaska from her house (why is Seventeen magazine the first apolitical source I could find on this?), anyone can look like a fool if they’re defined by their worst moments.  Imagine if Palin had hit her head on a helicopter doorway, or had almost walked into a window, like Barack Obama has his first month in office.  

This gives me a t-shirt idea: “Sarah Palin is smarter than you.”  Even if it’s not necessarily true, it’s perfect because it attacks liberals where they’re most vulnerable: their sense of superiority. 

A double shot of modern-day mass mania:  A woman appears to have mouthed “I love you Barack” during a Florida town hall meeting today.  At the same Ft. Myers meeting, Julio Osegueda, a 19-year old college student, sycophantically praised Obama, preceding his question with, “It’s such a blessing to see you Mr. President, thank you for taking time out of your day!  Oh, gracious God, thank you so much!”  The Huffington Post’s title for this news item is: “Julio Osegueda, Florida College Student, Rules Obama Town Hall.” (my emphasis)

To a point, I understand where they’re coming from.  I once had a chance encounter with Dinesh D’Souza, one of my favorite conservative authors.  In our short, polite conversation, I flubbed the title to one of his books and barely spit out the thesis of another.  I don’t imagine that left a good impression.  Yet even in my dopey awe, I was able to keep from offering him my girlfriend’s womb.  While a measured amount of heartfelt admiration is appropriate towards whoever inspires you, it’s just part of the human condition, and shouldn’t be praised.  I didn’t “rule” anything when I met D’Souza, and I was far more dignified than the 19-year old pining for the Big Blue O’s attention. 

Shame on The Huffington Post for applauding this blatant subservience.  It’s insulting to the majority of citizens (including Democrats) who have enough self-respect to compose themselves in the presence of authority figures.  And the fact that Julio’s generation is ascending in these troubled times while their weakest moments are encouraged is just creepy.

Cross-posted at Modern Conservative

Tags: Huffington Post, I love you Barack, Julio Osegueda, obama supporters, Sarah Palin
Posted in Current Events | No Comments »

 
Some people are famous for being associated with (or related to) already renowned individuals. Kevin Federline comes to mind; so do the modern Kennedys. Others are famous because they’ve worked much, much harder than everyone else. Oprah Winfrey is a great example of this. Then there are those who seem to approach fame like pro wrestlers, launching themselves out of anonymity by starting a feud with an established superstar. What aspiring jobber didn’t want to instantly become the greatest villain of all time by breaking Hulk Hogan in his heyday? On that note, meet Daniel Borchers.

Who the hell is Daniel Borchers? Well, he’s the editor in Chief of Brother Watch, a conservative publication which made its entire November 1997 issue a tribute to Ronald Reagan. He popped up in the left-wing blogs this weekend because Connecticut’s Elections Enforcement Commission is responding to his formal complain that Coulter committed voter fraud. Coulter has been cleared of similar charges in the past.

The story would give me pause if Mr. Borchers hadn’t done something like this before. At the 2002 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), he passed around copies of Brother Watch which bashed Coulter. He may have gotten away with it if it hadn’t read like a left-wing throwaway from a college bookstore. In it, he called the prolific author an “acid-tongued-blonde,” and accused her of being animated by an “emotional cauldron of hatred.” He printed that conservatives cannot “tolerate” her hate-mongering, abuse of power, mendacity, etc. In addition to that, he’s called Coulter’s fans “sycophants,” and accused the controversial writer of “dividing families,” as if her bombast was a threat to anyone’s household. I hear he’s currently selling paintings of Coulter with red eyes and a moustache scribbled on her visage.

Like a gambler who recklessly invests tens of thousands of dollars just trying to break even, Borchers has been pursuing a way to bring Coulter down since at least 2002. On CoulterWatch, another one of his websites, Daniel assails Ann about things she wrote in her first book, and even undermines his own overarching case that conservatives should be more civil by calling her “bin Coulter.” Take away his obsessive, extended relationship to Ms. Coulter, and Daniel Borchers is just another aspiring political commentator.

Mr. Borchers calls himself an “old-school conservative,” and much of the archives in BrotherWatch.com attest to this. But I’m an old-school conservative, and nothing in my education tells me that latching on to flimsy charges of plagiarism and defamation has anything to do with the six canons of conservative thought. Conservatives would be wrong to turn a blind eye to unethical behavior in their own ranks, such as former Republican Senator Ted Stevens’ seven felonious violations of federal ethics laws. But there’s a difference between righteous condemnation and Borcher’s self-serving persecution.

Even if he somehow gets his fifteen minutes of hate (or is it two minutes of fame? I always get those mixed up) Borchers might be disappointed to learn that critiquing Coulter from the right doesn’t make him special. If any of his overblown accusations actually stick to Coulter, it likely won’t make Mr. Borchers more important to the general public than he already isn’t. Here’s a list of right-wingers who have criticized Ann Coulter with more substance and class than the left’s favorite traditionalist of the week:

Jonah Goldberg states that Ann Coulter was disloyal and unprofessional after the National Review decided not to run her second column after 9-11.

David Horowitz criticizes Treason, my favorite Coulter book, for being over the top.

Michelle Malkin has never liked Coulter’s occasional “witless” taunts.

Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and John McCain all condemned her in one way or another for implying John Edwards was the new f-word at CPAC 2007.

Hugh Hewitt compared Coulter’s 2007 comment with Michael Richard’s intemperate bellowing of the “n-word.”

I think much of Coulter’s last effort, Guilty, is a rehash of Slander.

I’ve never met Daniel Borchers, but I get the impression he’s well-intentioned, but sheltered, and just doesn’t “get” Ann Coulter. She’s a fiery polemicist, so taking her at face value, which Borchers seems to have done, is to misunderstand her from the beginning. Appreciation for sarcasm, which Borchers has not demonstrated online, is a prerequisite for comprehending the post-modern conservative.

Demonstrating the left’s eager accolading of all things anti-conservative, Mother Jones Magazine has called the founder of CoulterWatch subversive. For what? Daring to say bad things about Ms. Coulter from a conservative standpoint? It’s been done (see above). Let’s face it, when a middle-aged man defends himself by noting that the FBI has determined he’s not a threat to a particular woman, desperate, not subversive, is the first word that comes to mind.

Cross-posted at Modern Conservative

Tags: ann coulter, Coulter Watch, Daniel Borchers
Posted in Current Events | No Comments »

On Wednesday, an alleged reporter was escorted out of the White House after he jumped the rope separating reporters and private guests.  He was trying to obtain President Obama’s autograph, but the Secret Service quickly stopped him.  Apparently the President’s biggest threat really is being patronized to death. 

While some of President Obama’s fans will break the law to get his autograph, others are starting to freak out over his subdued performance.  Never mind that he’s been in office for less than three weeks.  New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd is bothered that it took Tom Daschle’s resignation to get Obama to stop mimicking the elitist attitude he lectured Americans about for two years.  Dowd also complains that Obama screwed up by not editing out the parts of the stimulus bill that have the appearance (Just the appearance, ma’am?) of “Democratic drunken-sailor spending.”  Newsweek’s Michael Hirsh thinks the new President’s No. 1 problem is that he’s ceded too much ground to Republicans.  Joan Walsh, Slate’s editor in chief, imagines that Obama is losing the stimulus debate because Republicans have been lying about the economy for thirty years, and the Commander in Chief isn’t being assertive enough to overcome that. 

This swift backlash opens up the possibility that the President may be more of a mascot than a leader.  After all, he was elected for being a charismatic, minority embodiment of liberal clichés.  For example, he echoed the penultimate liberal neophyte’s talking point when he mocked John McCain for supporting “trickle-down” economics.  The liberals who voted for Obama were really voting for themselves, but now that their new toy isn’t performing like it did on the commercials, they’re getting fussy.  This isn’t the first sign that “hope” is fleeting.  Remember how gay activists felt “betrayed” leading up to Obama’s inauguration?

The shine is rubbing off of Barack Obama.  He’s starting to look tentative and dare I say inexperienced.  While he’ll almost certainly navigate his way out of his current slump, perhaps conservatives should feel lucky we’re squaring off against Obama now as opposed to 2016, where he would have potentially had five times the executive seasoning he does now.   

The dire stimulus bill is saturated with billions of dollars which have nothing to do with jump-starting the economy.  The National Review broke it down, and the vast majority of problems with the bill involve programs which simply don’t address the economic crises, and clearly should be debated in a separate bill.  These include $50 million dollars for the NEA, $1 billion for the Census Bureau, and $650 million for digital-TV coupons.  Republicans oppose the stimulus package because it truly is a Democratic wish-list.  How come Maureen Dowd seems to be the only Obama supporter who understands this? 

The abundance of wasteful spending at a time the United States should be watching its wallet is less aggravating that the impression that Democrats don’t care.  They aren’t even pretending to be the party of fiscal discipline anymore.  The aforementioned Michael Hirsh glibly excuses the stimulus bill’s manifest flaws by writing: “There’s no way anyone can spend $800 to $900 billion quickly without waste and boondoggles.”  Why isn’t he concerned about abuse?  What about cynical attempts to package pork in an “emergency bill?”  Asking Americans to pay $6 billion on building projects in the guise of emergency legislation is like ordering a pizza after dispatch takes your 911 call.  It’s selfish and immature and should be exposed as such.  

Cross-posted at Modern Conservative

Tags: Obama, obama supporters, stimulus
Posted in Current Events | No Comments »

It’s axiomatic:  Bridgestone ran a light-hearted, playful, and G-rated ad with Mr. and Mrs. Potato Head in a car, (which was also the Super Bowl’s funniest commercial), and feminists found a way to take offense.  Animal rights activists also got into the act, as did sociologists.  Feministing didn’t even argue it that it was sexist.  They just threw up a post with the words “Superbowl sexism,” as if the commercial’s alleged misogyny speaks for itself. 

The term “political correctness” has been outdated for a while.  Shouldn’t the underlying assumptions that gave birth to it be disappearing as well?

Via Hot Air: Washington D.C.’s only progressive talk station, aptly named Obama 1260, is switching to a business-talk format.  Now where will residents of our nation’s capital find a liberal point of view? 

Oh. 

I’ve always believed that the right’s dominance in talk radio is directly related to supply and demand:  liberal talking points of varying quality can be found anywhere:  In the classroom, at the movies, and in the hearts and minds of anxious young people all over America.  News outlets such as NPR, PBS, and the big three networks provide information in a manner sympathetic to liberal sensibilities.   When they deal with politics, the majority of stand-up comedy and television shows are often so predictably liberal they’re unwatchable. 

Because good talk radio isn’t purely issue driven, liberal talk radio can’t compete with the deluge of leftist networks on the straight news front.  Since radio isn’t as versatile a medium as television, stations such as Obama 1260 can’t offer their viewers something on par with The Daily Show when it comes to recreational outlets.  More entertaining, more respectable and simply many, many more liberal perspectives are readily available to anyone who might be in the market for Randi Rhodes.  Paradoxically, the liberal dominance of popular culture makes it much more difficult for progressive radio outlets to succeed. 

In contrast, conservative talk radio introduces people to a point of view they’re not tripping over every day.  In general, Americans actually have to tune into Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh to hear conservatism articulated in public.  The biggest threat to Fox News and its lineup of right-wing commentators would be another network just like it. 

Anyone who truly wants liberal talk radio to succeed needs to acknowledge this.  But the left’s insistence on viewing itself as perpetually victimized on all fronts will keep liberals from learning this lesson.  This is what happens when your ideology is shaped by a coalition of self-conscious “victims.” 

But everyone has their own theory about this.  What’s yours? 

Cross-posted at Modern Conservative

Tags: obama 1260, superbowl sexism
Posted in Current Events | No Comments »

In Russia, more than a dozen rallies were held over the weekend, calling for the nation’s leaders to resign.  Fueling the fire among Russian activists are concerns over their government’s approach to the worldwide economic crisis.  They’re angry about growing unemployment; half a million Russians lost their jobs in December.  They’re angry about protectionist used car tariffs, which will raise the price and diminish the supply of foreign cars in Russia.  They’re angry about the rising costs of food and other consumption goods, and unrelated to the economy, they’re upset about the Kremlin’s suspected murder of political dissenters.  Justifiably, the Eurasian natives are becoming increasingly restless.    

On one hand, this is somewhat comforting.  Russia views America as its chief geopolitical rival.  In November, 2008, they conducted joint naval exercises with the Venezuelan navy, knowing full well it would provoke the United States.  Russia has also been helping Iran develop a nuclear program for years, and continues to strengthen its strategic ties to Iraq’s excitable neighbor.  Dmitry Medvedev’s government is actively vying for more influence and oil (especially in the Middle East and Central Asia) and acts as if making out with America’s biggest enemies is the best way to attain those things. 

Put this all together, and it becomes apparent that a changing of the guard in Moscow would help secure America from a corrupt, powerful government tirelessly maneuvering to reclaim Russia’s past glory, if not necessarily it’s ideology.  But change isn’t necessarily a good thing. 

It’s quite possible that if Russia’s internal troubles grow out of hand, they may produce something worse than what already exists.  Growing domestic unrest has no doubt contributed an urgency to Medvedev’s latest social networking, and it’s not unreasonable to believe that his government may attempt to unite a slowly fracturing country by turning their collective anger towards the “true” cause of the world’s current economic woes (translation: The United States) or an America-friendly proxy, such as Georgia (again).

Despite counter-protests in support of their governance, Medvedev and Vladimir Putin are more vulnerable than one may suspect.  Taking the lead in protesting the duo’s split executive rule are communist groups of varying stripes, who want to resurrect the ghost of Lenin.  Putin’s popularity remains high, but history has demonstrated that nothing can match communism’s ability to exploit economic populism.  The Russian revolution of 1917 is generally believed to have broken out spontaneously among an unhappy population.  This left the door open for the Bolsheviks to take control in October, 1917.  Putin’s state is more stable than Nicholas II’s, but a combination of worsening economic conditions and Russia’s radical traditions could pave the way for another dramatic upheaval.

This is discomforting.  If the small but apparently growing percentage of Russians unhappy with the current Russian Federation ever overthrows their current rule and replaces it with something similar to what they had during most of the 20^th century, it will lead to a government even more morally bankrupt and potentially dangerous than Medvedev’s determined Russian bear. 

For the sake of Russian civil rights, I prefer their prevailing corrupt state to the radicals leading the domestic charge against him.  The top-down authoritarianism of Russia’s current government is preferable to the organic totalitarianism Russia’s most organized protestors are trying to reinstate.  It’s no secret that journalists have a bad habit of getting themselves murdered under mysterious circumstances after criticizing the Russian government.  But even a passing glance at Cuba, North Korea, and Venezuela will show that communist states don’t tolerate the free press any more than Putin is believed to.  

For the sake of American security, there is also no reason to prefer the resurrection of Soviet-era policies.  Not too long ago, the U.S.S.R. was America’s biggest military threat.  Replacing Putin with the next Stalin won’t create a government any friendlier to America’s fundamentally anti-communist republic.    

Without a viable third option, Russians are trapped between a thuggish semi-permanent regime (Putin could still become President under certain circumstances), and an opposition which desires to emulate a system which coupled militarism with economic ineptitude like no other.  All of a sudden I don’t feel so bad about being forced to choose between John McCain and Barack Obama last year. 

Cross-posted at Modern Conservative

Tags: economy, protest, Russia
Posted in Current Events | No Comments »

My prediction for the 2009 Superbowl:  Pittsburgh 31, Arizona 20.  I keep hearing that the Steelers haven’t faced an offense like the Cardinals will put on the field.  Well, the Cardinals haven’t played a defense as good as the Steelers (no, the Eagles don’t count).   Pittsburgh is also more balanced and experienced than Arizona, and it’ll show in the second half of Sunday’s game. 

MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann is a fantastic production.  It’s fast-paced, appealing to look at, and it covers enough offbeat stories to truly serve as an alternative to other news programs.   So how come Nancy Grace, who can spend an hour arguing about a fuzzy video where Casey Anthony may be gyrating while singing “where’s my baby!” has drawn more viewers in the adults between 25-54 demo the past two months? 

In fact, Grace and Olbermann have been neck and neck in the ratings for a while now.  How can this be?  Nancy Grace is a fine host, but like most legal shows, her program tends to whistle a single note for months, only to abruptly switch to another monotonous note for another chunk of the year.  Perhaps that’s because Countdown isn’t different in that regard.  Aside from his oddball segments, Keith Olbermann has belted out the same anti-conservative album for years.  The host of Countdown has proven to be just as predictable as Nancy Grace’s borderline tabloid subject matter (there’s only so many ways to say “faux news”).  Considering how impressive the rest of MSNBC’s flagship program is, this is a shame.   

After a Spanish judge threatened to investigate seven Israeli officials for a 2002 attack on Hamas that had nothing to do with Spain, the country reversed itself, and has now decided to put a leash on their legal system to prevent abuse of “universal jurisdiction.”  This is a welcome development for the shrinking minority of those who cherish liberty more than unbridled “justice.”

The concept of universal jurisdiction is simple: it posits that courts in one nation have the legitimate power to prosecute anyone who commits something as severe as a war crime, even if the alleged crime occurred outside that nation’s borders and involved no one tied to that nation in any way. 

Amnesty International defends universal jurisdiction by arguing that some crimes (such as torture) are so heinous that anyone who commits them should not be able to find safe haven anywhere (I’ll let the readers comment on how this principle relates to amnesty).  Yet the concept of boundless jurisdiction ignores the plain fact that some legal systems are much fairer than others, and lectures by international bodies don’t cause corrupt judiciaries to reform.  Even in the same country, the makeup of court cases (including, but not limited to: differences in judges, juries, lawyers, and media coverage) can produce unpredictable results.  Under universal jurisdiction, anyone frivolously accused of certain grievous acts has a chance of being tried under a wide array of variously imperfect legal systems.   

Also, an untempered desire to make the world a better place will eventually compel someone to argue, “Why limit ourselves to such a narrow band of crimes?  Hate crimes are crimes against humanity.  Racism is a crime against humanity.  These should be under universal jurisdiction.”  Few things are more certain than the fact that if universal jurisdiction is ever fully implemented, one day some American conservative will be imprisoned overseas for joking about the ears on his local DMV’s bejeweled Barack Obama statue, possibly years after the fact. 

Spain demonstrated a remarkable respect for sovereignty by promising to scale back its legislative ambition.  The rest of the western world would be wise to follow suit. 

Cross-posted at Modern Conservative

Posted in Current Events | Comments Off

I just got Ann Coulter’s new book.  I always get Coulter’s books late.  I’ll explain later when I give my first impressions of it. 

I see that Forbes has listed Arianna Huffington as the second most influential liberal in the U.S. media.  She’s an immensely talented writer, if one can get past her trademark hectoring tone.  But #2?  By all accounts, Arianna’s smart, but her eloquence and wit can’t mask her silly, indiscriminate denunciations of all things Republican (“…Thursday night’s valedictory speech was quintessential Bush: delusional from beginning to end”) nor can it prevent her from succumbing to callow sentimentality (the day before Obama’s swearing in, she commented: “…we are all being inaugurated tomorrow”).

If Arianna Huffington is the second most influential liberal in the media, there’s more hope for conservatives than I thought (or less hope for Americans, depending on your point of view).

Andrew Warren, the CIA station chief in Algeria (a country almost entirely made up by Sunni Muslims, which won’t help on the geopolitical front), is being investigated for allegations that he drugged and raped at least two Muslim women.  Helping provide intelligence on al Qaeda in Algeria may be brave, but it doesn’t excuse sexual assault.  Warren should be brought to trail, and if he’s guilty, he should be severely punished. 

Sadly, this is being politicized as it unfolds.  This story is starting to be molded in some circles (including the respected, but occasionally hyperbolic Huffington Post) as a commentary on yet another “ugly American.”  But rape isn’t American or even nationalistic; to suggest otherwise demonstrates an unhealthy anxiety about the nature of my countrymen.  Warren’s alleged behavior is a symptom of his own moral failure; he didn’t assimilate the prevailing belief (at least in the west) that rape is something a man shouldn’t ever commit.  It does not suggest to rational people than Americans routinely behave as he’s alleged to.  Sadly, this may generate anti-American repercussions anyway, precisely because rational isn’t a word I would use to describe most human beings. 

Cross-posted at Modern Conservative

Posted in Current Events | No Comments »

DCCC must be the roman numerals for “zero.”  The left-wing advocacy group has heard some of Rush Limbaugh’s recent remarks and is claiming that Rush hopes that “President Obama fails to meet America’s challenges.”  They even started a petition against Limbaugh for attacking Obama.  For anyone who’s interested, here’s the DCCC page where anyone can sign the petition and say anything they want to Mr. Limbaugh. 

You may have already heard Limbaugh’s actual words: “I want Obama to fail,” followed by a complete lack of context.  Isolated, the radio personality’s comment suggests that he wants America’s economy to flounder and its’ citizens to suffer so miserably they’ll never vote Democrat again, or something along those lines.  Coming from such an influential figure, these sentiments would be terrible if only they were true. 

From watching this video, it’s clear that Rush is merely saying that he doesn’t want Obama to succeed in enacting a far-left agenda, which would be disastrous for America.  Sadly, it isn’t being taken that way by Obama’s supporters, who seem more interested in demonizing a long-hated figure than reaching for perspective. 

This may be my biggest pet peeve.  I don’t mind when I’m criticized for the things I actually say and mean; I mind when I’m misrepresented and end up taking flack on the basis of that misrepresentation.  Likewise, Rush Limbaugh is being hated for spreading messages he didn’t spread.  The idea that he wants Obama to fail in making America prosperous is slanderous. 

A younger version of me would have trolled liberal blogs, taunting the left about their emotionalism.  But that doesn’t do a whole lot of good in the real world.  So instead I contacted the DCCC.  I made it a point to be polite and let them know they’re making a mountain out a molehill.  I don’t expect the organization to care, but I’ve been surprised in the past by how some of the most far-left groups have responded to me after I let them know I was writing to approach them, rather than attack them.  Here’s the note I sent, which pretty much summarizes what I just wrote:

I am writing in good faith, not to insult you.  (The best way to deal with strangers is to first extend an olive branch).

In your petition against Rush Limbaugh, you’ve taken his words out of context to mean that he wants America to fail under Obama.  But it’s clear in his interview on Hannity (the source of his comments) that he means he wants Obama to fail in enacting (these are Limbaugh’s words) a “far-left agenda.”

Please take note of this before continuing your current campaign. 

I don’t imagine my words will do any good, but at least I can pretend I’m empowered. 

Posted in Current Events | No Comments »

This garbage.  Apparently Nancy Pelosi strongly supports the idea of spending hundreds of millions of dollars on birth control as an economic control.  I understand the logic.  One of the biggest obstacles to wealth is having children before marriage.  But it’s not my responsibility to pay for someone else’s bad judgment.  Yet this is only the first of many problems with Pelosi’s vision. 

While it doesn’t look like it’s going to make it through, the idea of birth control becoming a national economic concern, to be treated with mechanical contraception, as opposed to a personal matter, best dealt with through family and community, is creepy.  But it makes sense from a purely economic perspective.  The less people are living in a society, the easier it is to allocate a finite amount of resources (it’s funny how this never comes up when liberals discuss illegal immigration).  It’s a sign of the times that Americans are abandoning their own alleged principals in an eerily socialistic obsession with material goods (capitalists are preoccupied with property rights; socialists are preoccupied with property). 

America is being sucked back into the 1930’s, where economic matters pushed moral concerns out of the public eye.  On one hand, this is helpful.  The focus on our fragile economy has pushed the left’s moral crusades, most notably environmentalism, far down America’s collective list of concerns.  Unfortunately, the same force that finally muffled the earth tones has also degraded the importance Americans place on illegal immigration, crime, and general morality.  I don’t think we’re a financial meltdown away from a Chinese “one-child” policy, but given the growing lack of concern with moral issues, it wouldn’t surprise me, either. 

Don’t get me wrong, economics matter; even before it was recognized as a school of thought, the allocation of resources has profoundly affected every community that’s inhabited the earth.  It’s great that American citizens recognize how important the economy is.  But even more fundamental to the well-being of humanity are moral concerns.  That this may sound fanatical in the current political climate scares me. 

Nevertheless, the argument that morality is more important as economics isn’t a polemical claim.  What good are riches if a citizenry isn’t honest, faithful, or even peaceful?  What good is a well-run society if it doesn’t respect free will?  If a suspension of human dignity is what takes to get the trains running on time, then damn the trains.  The Matrix appears to be a fantastically efficient society, but I don’t see humans climbing into pods and plugging themselves into a bioelectric grid. 

You might say, “Who cares about things like abortion when unemployment is going up and more families can’t pay their rent?  How can morality make my family more secure”?  The answer is that it can’t, at least not directly.  But if society is willing to disregard moral boundaries in the name of economic security, it’s only a matter of time before it ignores constitutional boundaries as well.  A nation wholly preoccupied with wealth won’t be concerned about term limits or whether or not Daddy spends months in jail for undermining El Presidente’s master plan.  There’s a reason communist societies aren’t free; communism’s totalistic concern with economic matters leaves little room for anything else. 

Just like most Americans, I want the economy to come back to life.  I just don’t want see my nation’s moral and political heritage atrophy while we’re all waiting for that to happen.    

Tags: economy, morality, Pelosi
Posted in Current Events | No Comments »

Congratulations, Barack Obama has been elected President.  I mean that whole-heartedly.  If our representative democracy placed Mr. Obama in power, I respect that decision.  “President Obama” isn’t a pleasant thing to say, but I’ll have at least four years to get used to it. 

Now I hear it’s time for America to heal and become united.  There’s no more room for partisanship; the world’s become much too dangerous for politics as usual to be anything but destructive, right?  Now we should all open the door and collectively begin a new era of American politics, equipped with fresh ideas.  As Obama’s inauguration speech implies, this country should let go of the ”stale” right-wing/left-wing dichotomy, and unite in laying the foundation for a prosperous American future.

Do you agree with that?  Of course you do.  Now that your guy is in charge, the polarity strategy is a threat to your power, not a path to it.  But where were your calls for unity under George W. Bush?  Sure, there was a week right after 9-11 where his opponents bit their tongues and put partisan bickering aside, but now you’re even complaining that gave him a free pass to push his “war agenda” through. 

It would be easier to believe your affection for unity is sincere if you would have acted a bit differently at the turn of the millennium.  With all due respect I take offense to your cynical appeals to our better nature.  You see, the biggest reason America was a polarized nation after George W. Bush was elected is because Democrats threw an eight-year temper tantrum during his term.  George Bush didn’t divide America, you did.  Please don’t shut me out; let me explain. 

George Bush isn’t the polarizing figure you think he is.  He’s an open, self-depreciating, and dare I say likeable fellow.  Even reliably left-wing sources such as Ted Kennedy and PBS concede that he’s personable.   Sure, he wears his religion on his sleeve, but Christians aren’t inherently mean-spirited.  Remember that Bush didn’t win two elections by promising to be strident.  He ran on a platform of big government, “compassionate conservatism,” and he pretty much ran the country that way, spending like an Obama voter who just got paid by ACORN to register in 13 different counties.  He dramatically increased not only defense spending, but threw barrels of money at education and even an expensive prescription drug plan.  

You hated him despite all this, but he didn’t hate you back.   Chances are you barely registered on his radar.  Yet somehow the bizarre way he says “nuclear” was supposed to justify undisguised disgust.  One of Bush’s best moments came in 2004 when at an annual Radio and Television Correspondents dinner, when he joked during his slideshow presentation, “…those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere.”  This is remarkable because the man took one of his most embarrassing moments and not only drew attention to it, but made light of it (I aspire to be that good natured).  Obviously the opposing Democratic Party didn’t see it that way.  Being his political opponents, they ignored Bush’s good humor and instead said that he wasn’t taking the issue seriously enough, which is to say bland enough to be printed in a high school textbook. 

In stark contrast to an affable President who has enough charity and self-esteem to earnestly poke fun at his own self, you drove around for years with Kerry/Edwards ’04 stickers on your car, clearly communicating the message that you reject George Bush and everyone who supported him.  Eight years after the fact, you still complain about the outcome of the 2000 election.  You even set up a passive-aggressive website apologizing to the rest of the world for Bush’s re-election.  You compiled lists of “Bushisms” knowing full well that every public speaker, even President Obama, can be made to look like a doofus if you isolate their linguistic mishaps.  Out of your own accord, you did everything you could to disassociate yourself from Republicans, conservatives, and what is colloquially known as “red state America.” 

George Bush didn’t call you stupid every day for eight years, but you did it to him.  George Bush never protested in front of your home, harassed your children, and mocked you as someone’s puppet as you did to members of his administration.  The neocons didn’t experiment with what Michelle Malkin calls “Assassination chic,” an undoubtedly well-adjusted industry which deals in perverse fantasies of George Bush’s murder.  You can disagree with every single executive decision he made, but what kind of unresolved emotional trauma produces the kind of person who revels in the death of someone they merely disagree with?  

In the dawn of the new Obama administration, you have placed the responsibility for unifying the country exclusively on the shoulders of your opponents, just as you’ve done in the past.  You blamed George Bush for not conforming to your ideas about the Iraq war, without budging from your anti-war stance.  Likewise, you’re calling for the American right to fall in line behind a leader who promises to enact several policies which are likely to be completely antithetical to conservative values.  If America in fact unites under Barack Obama, it won’t be because he’s a “transformational figure,” but because you won’t be waging a cultural filibuster against every program he proposes.  Sure you want America to unify, but you conveniently leave out that you will only allow that to happen under the condition that your mandate is being driven.  Your calls for unity are a sham, designed to shame your opponents into silence. If by some miracle John McCain had become President, you would be perpetually agitating Republicans in abject rejection of an America united under a moderate conservative.  

To summarize:  You did everything you legally could to undermine the prospect of an America united behind George W. Bush.  Now that your guy’s in power, all of a sudden we’re living in a post-partisan era?  Sorry, dear.  The chickens will be coming home to roost this year.  But I will pay homage to your behavior under George W. Bush’s presidency (during a time of war, no less). 

Out of nothing but protest, I’m going to drive for four years with a McCain/Palin sticker on my car’s rear bumper.  I’m going to laugh unnaturally at Obama’s speech flubs, even though just like Bush’s, they’ll rarely be funny.  I’m going to proudly sport t-shirts that say “F*ck Obama.”  I’m going to frivolously accuse him and his administration of crimes against humanity.  If Barack Obama passes on bad information in good faith, like Bush did with WMDs, I’m going to insist that he was lying instead of misinformed, clinging to badly worded documents which “prove” my point. 

Actually, I’m probably only going to do the bumper sticker.  I’ve learned from watching you that stewing in hatred for eight years can make an opposing administration feel much more hellish than it truly is.  While you’re pleading for unity (lest someone undermine your political power) I’ll be calling for perspective.  Like most other conservatives, I’ll support President Obama when it makes sense because my country’s well-being is partly dependent on his performance.  But I will also be reminding Americans that he’s not a post-partisan pragmatist, but a charismatic leftist.  Barack Obama’s ideas aren’t new; they can be traced back to a long-standing philosophical heritage known as “liberalism.”  Pretending otherwise is patently anti-intellectual.  Whether you like it or not, the left/right dichotomy will be more relevant under Obama’s presidency, because it’s perfectly suited for shedding light on the nature of his ideals. 

I harbor no illusions about the effect of this very personal letter.  After reading this, you will undoubtedly defend your blinding hatred of America’s 43rd President, while refusing to acknowledge the glaring contradiction manifest in your behavior under Republican rule and the cloying requests for unity which you employ now that a man who reflects your sensibilities is arguably the most powerful person in the world.  I reject your unity, because it doesn’t mean dialogue and bipartisan compromise; it means get out of your way so you can “remake” America without having to deal with your critics. With all due respect, I refuse to sacrifice my conscience on the altar of your vision, even if it makes me a “cynic.”

Tags: Bush, Obama, post-partisan, Unity
Posted in Current Events | No Comments »

…may surprise you.

One of the reasons conservative commentators focused on Barack Obama’s associates during the 2008 election season is that they’re so obviously radical.  The Big Blue O’s former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, preaches flame-throwing liberation theology.  William Ayers, an unrepentant domestic terrorist whose violent past is such a casual part of his identity even conscientious citizens don’t raise an eyebrow to it, has hosted a fundraiser for Obama and donated to his campaign.  Like her husband, Michelle Obama is not particularly unpleasant, yet she’s vulnerable to the siren song of victim politics.  More than once she has claimed:  “Every woman I know, regardless of race, education, income, background, is struggling every day to keep her head above water.”  If I were foolish enough to take Mrs. Obama’s words to heart, I would be forced to conclude that Oprah Winfrey is a misstep away from some sort of breakdown.  

Yet President Obama isn’t guilty by association.  For all of his boring, conventional liberalism, Barack Obama won’t be the most terrible leader our country has endured (America’s future presidents would likely have to sabotage the economy to surpass the downward spiral of Jimmy Carter’s reign).  As much as an Obama presidency would lurch the country leftward, the most disturbing prospect of his rule is not his executive power, but the worst behavior of those who voted for him.  I’m afraid that a victory by Obama will legitimize the hatred, arrogance, and aggression of not Obama or his cabinet, but Obama’s most vocal supporters.  Now that a relatively young idealist has become the President of the United States, it could be seen by his constituents as a four-year mandate to act out. 

Once liberals see one of their own in the oval office again, what will become of American culture?  This isn’t an abstract question.  In between the economy, the Middle East, and the millennial generation’s corny communitarianism, the nation won’t be able to return to the tranquil 1990’s, so what kind of culture will Obama’s rule inspire?  Will those who think the government created AIDS to get rid of black people start to be taken seriously?  Will our educators be trained by more people like the aforementioned professor Ayers, who won’t concede that bombing the U.S. capital is terrorism?  Will it empower the immature activism of people who vandalize property in democracy’s name?  Barack Obama’s presidency will be a victory for the deepening politicization of American culture, which will please the “vote or die” crowd.  But as anyone can observe every time an election draws near, this isn’t a good thing, as it invariably leads to political strife and the further institutionalization of resentment. 

This was clearly demonstrated through the misbehavior of many Obama supporters during the 2008 Presidential election, particularly in their treatment of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin after John McCain announced her as his running mate.  Because she’s a conservative woman, one left-wing entertainer called her a traitor, and commented how Palin would be gang-raped in her neighborhood.  Another liberal actor condescendingly compared her achievement to a shallow family film.  Many uninformed citizens believe that Palin wanted to ban books from public libraries, even though many of the books on the supposed blacklist hadn’t even been published when she purportedly tried to censor them.  Even the twenty-year old son of a Democratic representative has been indicted for breaking into her e-mail account and attempting to distribute the contents for the entire world to see.  Most embarrassingly for her opponents, aging feminists complained that Palin isn’t authentically female because she isn’t liberal.  This is only the tip of an iceberg full of outlandish editorials, bad comedy skits, and weeks of internet message boards filling to the brim with anti-Palin talking points, all fed by the unrelenting production of shallow objections to a stunning range of topics spanning from tanning beds to her personal faith. 

Governor Palin was blackballed for being a normal, imperfect American woman living a normal, imperfect American life with a normal, imperfect American family.  Everything from her daughter’s pregnancy to her sister’s (all too common) ugly divorce became a distraction from genuine issues.  Republicans and Democrats alike rightly criticized Palin’s poor performances in her post-nomination interviews, but the malice directed at her by Obama voters would have been more appropriately reserved for pedophiles and slave owners.  This behavior wasn’t limited to anonymous internet trolls, but professors, generally likeable actors, and even the occasional figurehead of an entire movement (Gloria Steinem).  Given the Obama campaign’s ambivalence for free speech, the prospect of such intolerant citizens having a representative in the White House is understandably creepy.  Bald partisanship, not judicious compromise, will be the hallmark of Obama’s America. 

Case in point: When Barack Obama chose the moderately conservative Christian Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration, a substantial part of his base lost their emotional bowels.  Gay activists felt “betrayed” by his selection, which only makes sense if fidelity means refusing to associate with social conservatives.  The gay community’s political fringe feels disrespected by Obama’s choice, which suggests they believe the world revolves around them—what else can one to make of their insistence that Obama stop talking to Rick Warren so they can feel more secure about his affection for them?  Predictably, some LGBT activists have angrily pleaded for Warren to step down.  Surely the Stonewall Reenactment Club will stage at least one small protest at today’s massive inauguration. 

It’s gotten to the point where entertainers have been forced to become more sane and even-tempered than the masses who worship them.  But Obama never promised to blacklist everyone to the right of him.  In fact, he campaigned as a pragmatic centrist and talked endlessly about reaching across the aisle.  Surely his supporters were aware of this.  Obama has pleasantly surprised me by living up to his word (Don’t jump to conclusions, it’s only his first day), but somehow this has disgusted much of his base.  Did they think he was lying?  Are they mad now that it appears he wasn’t cynically mouthing platitudes to the rubes just to get elected?

Yet President Obama is not completely innocent in this matter.  In his two-year tour for the Presidency, Obama implicitly encouraged the same self-righteous crusading he’s now bedeviled by.  In September, he told his followers “I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors.  I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican.  I want you to argue with them and get in their face.”  No report on whether or not he expects them to dress in white shirts, black slacks, and black ties while traveling door to door, carrying copies of A People’s History of the United States.

If President Obama keeps living up to his word, he will only create more extremists on his side.  Consider the President’s roundabout plan for mandating 50 hours of community service for middle and high school students (100 for college students).  There’s nothing wrong with community service, but anyone familiar with the way activism works knows that non-profit organizations are vulnerable to politicization.  Non-profit groups such as Campaign for America’s Future are so plainly anti-conservative that the prospect of a student being compelled to serve time under one of their “community leaders” is essentially an engine for turning students into left-wing activists.  Obama’s plan risks mandating young Americans to participate in partisan politics before they’re mature enough to resist emotional appeals and other types of indoctrination. 

Obviously one must take into account the predictable counter-argument that conservatives aren’t all winners, either.  Certainly some small-minded nutballs on the right are fixated with Barack Hussein Obama’s middle name, or strangely insistent that he’s not an indigenous American, but they don’t set the tone for the right like the MSNBC crowd does for the left.  Part of this is because Republicans don’t generally call on their supporters to be more obnoxious.   

In the end, the most disturbing part of Obama’s rise is that it indirectly affirms a worldview shared by the left’s most extreme voices.  It gives credence to the idea that America is fundamentally unjust and needs to be remade, not merely reformed.  It confirms the thoughtless assumptions of young neophytes, who seem to imagine that all conservatives are irredeemable liars, hypocrites, and dopes.  It gives more seasoned liberal lawyers and judges a green light from the highest office in the land to contort the Constitution around the myth of modern American oppression.  It rewards the hateful mob who went out of their way to call Sarah Palin “stupid” in their collective attempt to sway the election.  Perhaps worst of all, Obama’s rise to power sends the message to aspiring community organizers that harassing complete strangers with unsolicited political commentary is something commendable, rather than juvenile.  Make no mistake; Obama’s America will never be as bad as Obama’s Americans.  Maybe he’ll learn that the more he contends with them. 

Parce parce precor.  

-Afghan Whig

Tags: ayers, inauguration, Obama, obama supporters, palin, wright
Posted in Current Events | 2 Comments »