A RIGHTWING PUNDIT WHO CAN TALK TO KIDS.

A scene in the “21 Jump Street” movie taps into a recent generational change I’ve been noticing among Millenials.

RUN! RUN FOR YOUR too late -- Matt K. Lewis of the Daily Caller is trendspotting.

“He’s trying, he’s actually trying,” Tatum’s character says (pointing at some kid who seems to be minding his own business). “Look at the nerd!” When the nerd takes umbrage at this, Tatum’s character punches him and says: “Turn that gay-ass music off.”

Surprisingly, the crowd sides with the nerd, and one of the cool kids says, “That is really insensitive.”

Was this in the trailer? I seem to remember that with a record scratch and a rad little kid with a fauxhawk yelling "Fish out of water!" Here's Lewis with the thumbsucking:

The premise of this scene illustrates an interesting new phenomenon. Today’s “cool” kids no longer think “trying” makes one a nerd. (Nor do they condone casual gay-bashing.) Times have changed. And since they turned this generational shift into the plot point of a movie (ironically, Jonah Hill’s character becomes the popular kind in this new paradigm), I’m guessing others will notice.

Maybe they will, as soon as they finish snarling over the Muppets boycotting Chik-Fil-A.

Indeed, they have. Speaking at the July 2012 Portland/CreativeMornings, author and literary critic William Deresiewicz...

RUN! RUN FOR YOUR too late, again. I gotta work on my explosive strength.

...observed the same phenomenon. Regarding today’s young people, he notes, “[T]hey’re all incredibly nice. They’re all…polite, well-spoken, pleasant, moderate, earnest.”

At all the college classes I teach and the lectures I give, kids are constantly kissing my ass. They're so nice!

Comparing today’s rock idols to the musicians of yore — who trashed hotel rooms and talked about how many groupies they slept with (think Channing Tatum’s character’s fantasy) — Deresiewicz argues that today’s bands are “all like low-key, self-deprecating, post-ironic, very earnest, very eco-friendly sort of presentation.”

In other words, they suck.

Deresiewicz also observes that “trying” and being entrepreneurial is actually considered “cool” these days. “It’s like every artistic or moral aspiration is now expressed in terms of starting your own business, whether it’s food or music or good works,” he says.

This, of course, is dramatically different from the way things used to be.

Yeah, remember the 1980s and that radical firebrand Alex P. Keaton? You don't? Good, you're just the kind of sucker who'll swallow this bullshit whole without flinching. Who else would? Maybe a couple of culture-war wingnuts who know better will at least pretend the kids were a shaggy librul menace until Jonah Hill taught them to care because it sounds like a promising Romney-era meme, but at the end of the day they'll trudge down to their panic rooms with the Poverty Sucks and Ghostbusters posters on the wall, watch old videos of teen heartthrob Dan Quayle, and weep.

After considering some other idiotic theories, Matt K. Lewis comes up with this:

First, economic incentives work. When blue collar kids could slide through high school and still get a job paying $19 an hour in a factory, school could legitimately be seen as a joke — a waste of time. That trend has obviously come to an end. (It probably ended in the 1970s, but it might have taken a generation or so to become clear.)

WHEN THE FUCK WAS THIS? Every factory job I had in the 70s paid in the single digits. Maybe Lewis' old man owns a factory?

The rest is just as bad, but here are the bad-good bits:

“It’s uncool if you don’t try,” one young co-worker told me.

Intern at Daily Caller = Voice of a generation. There's also a "one young person told me" quote, hundreds of words long, that begins, I shit you not: "I see the entrepreneur spirit in a lot musicians, especially electronic musicians..."

Ultimately, I think technology and the internet are the most important reason for this generational shift...

That's when, bleeding from the eyes, I gave up, but I had a reading robot crawl the page and when it came back, smoke streaming from its apertures, it croaked, "There is a lot to this, and clearly something interesting is afoot" before self-destructing.

I predict the young people of today will outlive us, the poor bastards.

LAND OF HOPE AND GLORY.  Dan Riehl in 2009:

You may recall that on about his first day in office Obama returned a famous bust of Winston Churchill to Britain. That was seen as something of an insult to Britain by many. He gave the British Prime Minister tapes of his own hopey changey speeches, which many saw as egotistical but was also a statement of sorts, saying, you aren't really so special, sport. Perhaps it's the message in his speeches he actually wanted the PM to get? 

In the video below you'll find that for Obama there was no bow to the Queen of England. His wife even broke protocol by reaching out to give her a pat at some point, as I recall... 

This is a man who, unlike most Americans, doesn't view Western Civilization as all that. 

Dan Riehl today:

Get over it, Britain. You're a second rate, semi-degenerate nation still on the way down because you went too far to the left too long ago for anyone to care about. Don't expect us to wring our hands over what you losers did. We're too busy fighting to make sure it doesn't happen here...

Mostly a bunch of feckless wankers if you ask me. Put a Gold Medal on that and aim it at the Queen's arse. 

What a difference a Mitt Romney goodwill tour makes.

HAYSEED. If anybody could put me in conditional sympathy with Nanny Bloomberg, it's Ole Perfesser Glenn Reynolds, talking about Bloomberg's crack about the police going on strike:

I predict that such a strike — not that it’s likely to happen — would lead to less crime, and far less political support for the police. Meanwhile, just to prepare against the eventuality, I think I’ll go buy a gun.

Forget about the dumb idea that pulling out the cops would bring down crime. (Maybe he's never been to a big city.) Is there anything that better typifies Reynolds' politics of faux-redneck resentment than a threat to get back at the Mayor of New York by stocking his McMansion in Bumfuck, Tennessee with another gun? 

THE OLD PLAYBOOK. Oh brother:

In remarks that may prompt accusations of racial insensitivity, one suggested that Mr Romney was better placed to understand the depth of ties between the two countries than Mr Obama, whose father was from Africa.

“We are part of an Anglo-Saxon heritage, and he feels that the special relationship is special,” the adviser said of Mr Romney, adding: “The White House didn’t fully appreciate the shared history we have”.

Then he pushed in his nose and winked.

Romney's advisors say that as President Romney "would seek to reinstate the Churchill bust displayed in the Oval Office by George W. Bush but returned to British diplomats by Mr Obama when he took office in 2009."  They're still going on about that bust, even though it was meant to be returned all along and no one gives a shit except the two million conservatives who blogged about it at the time.  In fact, all of this nonsense is a rehash of one of the more ridiculous rightwing fits of 2009, when the Obamas were alleged to have dissed Queen Elizabeth because something something no curtsey, thereby shattering what had once been a great "Anglosphere" alliance of Christopher Hitchens and anybody else who didn't like wogs.

I understand that this is the time of the campaign cycle where you shore up your base [cue "Theme from Deliverance"], but Romney seems to be overdoing it. When he gets to Tampa Bay he's going to have to lock out all the conservatives, pack the audience with shills (maybe he can get them from the same place he gets Twitter followers), and lead them in a rousing chorus of "We Are the World" to make people forget he spent most of the summer pretending to be Barry Goldwater.

UPDATE. Hm, the Romney campaign says it's an "anonymous and false quote from a foreign newspaper." Whether they're telling the truth or backpedaling, it's a positive thing that they don't want to be identified with it. The new story is that it's all the Obama campaign's fault for believing Romneyites would engage in such behavior ("Relying on Blind Quotation, Race Injected in Presidential Race"). Well, guess we'll all have to wait until we're dead and God tells us what happened.

UPDATE 2. The Telegraph stands by its story.

WINGNUT COLLOQUY. Here's the sentence that set him off:

At first their outrage was attracted by an on-air report by ABC News' Brian Ross on the shooter's identity after his name, but no details, had been revealed. Ross said this: "There's a Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado, page on the Colorado Tea party site, talking about him joining the Tea Party last year. Now, we don't know if this is the same Jim Holmes, but it's Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado."

Then ensued:

To recap: The guy misapprehended the sentence and called me a liar; when his error was pointed out to him,  he pretended not to be able to read.

I stopped talking to him at this point, but I should never have started.  (I even went out of my way to be civil, which you all know is a great effort for me.) My problem was, I tried to figure out how he came to his misunderstanding. Maybe he thought the clause pertained to "attracted" rather than "report" -- but then, why would I have inserted immediately thereafter the very details Ross revealed?

But his responses revealed what I should have known from jump -- that he's just a yelling bot, and has no premises at all. He exists to denounce liberals and trawl the attention of big-name conservatives. He isn't there to listen, except for the sound of his own name.

The internet's full of people like this. They make outrageous statements and when they're called on them pretend not to know what's going on. And a lot of them mistake what they're doing for actual argument. It's like "Firing Line" with dialogue from "Pee-Wee's Playhouse."

And it seems this style is bubbling up to the big-name guys, too. I saw a clip recently of James Taranto on the Lou Dobbs show, and though when I met Taranto years ago he was mild-mannered and easy to talk to, on the show he was bellowing like a Fox News clown. Matt Lewis used to be a relatively sensible conservative writer, and now at The Daily Caller he's writing boob bait like this "guns don't kill people, movies do" thumbsucker.

It's getting to the point where you can't talk to them at all, and that's a real bad point.

UPDATE. Dyer has apologized to me, which is gracious of him. (I wasn't fishing for it, because in my experience people who demand and exult in apologies are assholes, and only mention it to credit him.) He still thinks I misunderstand him, and who knows, maybe I do. Anyway I welcome to opportunity to stop seething at him. Everyone else, however...

NEW VOICE COLUMN UP, about the rightblogger reaction to the Colorado movie massacre. Basically, it's like this, only worse. In the year since Anders Breivik, they've actually gotten crazier.

DID A LITTLE OBIT of sorts for Alexander Cockburn at the Voice.

I GIVE IT FOUR FARTS. I just found this thing on the internet, a promo from something called Young America's Foundation -- which sounds like a cheap knock-off of Young Americans for Freedom, but turns out to be partners with YAF, as well as longtime custodial service at the Reagan Ranch. It promotes a DVD doc called The Conservatives, which from the trailer looks like the dystopian opening sequence of Atlas Shrugged Part I followed by scenes from corporate image advertising, accompanied by rightwing pundits telling you how great capitalism is. Perfect for your next Romney G&T/servant-horsewhipping fundraiser!

The trailer's not much, but I just love the splash page image:

It reminds me of the posters for Mystery Men, except repulsive. (Superheroes from left to right:  Li'l Reagan, Braygirl, Drunky Fart, The Wad, The Black Stossel, Screechy, and The Yacht Broker.) As with all wingnut welfare projects, the necessity to attract audiences has been obviated, so no one at YAF/YAF cares what the world thinks, but didn't the pundits get a look at the ad before it went up? I should think Mark Levin would at least have demanded they airbrush into his portrait a Nehru jacket and Mr. Bigglesworth.

As to Goldberg, I can't tell whether they simply couldn't get a better picture, or whether he has purposefully opted to transition his public image from Cheeky Conservative Bad-Boy to Professor of Liberal Fascism. The smart-guy glasses, the Van Dyke, the slightly askew forelock, the capture in mid-hector -- maybe he thinks all this makes him look intellectual. But I am put more in mind of a midwestern high school principal in the big city for a convention, back at the hotel after several drinks at the T.G.I. Friday's down the street, attempting to intimidate a desk clerk into removing in-room snack charges from his bill. "Now listen to me, Renaldo, I am not some bumpkin who doesn't know what's going on. See this card? Read what it says. Read it. It says I am a Marriott Elite Membership Member. Now whenever I stay at a Marriott, I show them this card and my Cheetos are comped. Always, Renaldo. You call the main office. Go ahead, I'll wait. I'll wait right here. Because you know what they'll say? They'll say, 'Mister Goldberg gets his Cheetos comped because Mister Goldberg is an Elite Membership Member.' And this is in fact central to my point that I am not paying twenty-one dollars for seven little tiny bags of Cheetos that were open when I got there and not even Crunchy. Farrrt. Now I suppose you'll accuse me of incivil-ilitism. Well, allow me to remind you that you started it, and that he who smelt it dealt it. Q.E.D. I rest my case, right here on this couch. Ooof. Go ahead, I'll wait. Call the head office, Renaldo. Call Mr. Marriott. Three dollars for a bag of Cheetos. Fuck. [snores]"

LITTLE HELP. Jay Brida, whom some of you know as one of the geniuses of the comments boxes here at alicublog, has a problem: A loved one who's cancer-free. Why is that a problem? Because getting cancer-free in the Land of the Fee leaves you with a metastasizing mountain of debt. Now Jay's fundraising to defray Ana's absurdly high medical bills. This week he even held a benefit event for the cause, which must have been painful for him because he hates people. Jay raised some bucks, but that's just a patch on what's needed. Whattaya say? I kicked in and you know I'm a skinflint. Go thou and do likewise.

CULTURE WAR HIGH COMMAND, LACKING CANNON FODDER, ENLISTS MENTALLY DEFICIENT VILLAGERS, ARMS THEM WITH SHARPENED STICKS WHICH THEY POINT THE WRONG WAY. Via Chuck Gilligan, who got it from Paul Krugman, I bring you this Gary Silverman FT item in which Suzy Welch, former editor in chief of the Harvard Business Review and wife of GE blowhard Jack Welch, tells a no doubt dumbfounded TV audience the difference between Romney singing "America the Beautiful*" and Obama singing "Let's Stay Together":

In an appearance on CNN with her husband, Mrs Welch suggested that Mr Obama’s personal style and choice of musical material define him as a member of a “different America”...

“It’s the difference between the songs that they’re singing,” Mrs Welch said. “Mitt Romney didn’t exactly do a beautiful job on that song, but think about what he’s singing, OK? I mean it’s that patriotic song and he goes all the way through it. Then you’ve got the very cool Barack Obama singing Al Green. That is the two different Americas. Isn’t it?”

I still think this thing can go either way because the economy sucks, but when you listen to these guys make their case, it really sounds like they only expect to carry Fritters, Alabama; whatever counties have an active neo-Nazi movement; and Utah.

*UPDATE. Originally had the Romney song as "God Bless America" until some guy in comments gave me a hard time. Speaking of comments, here's Ben: "Al Green, being in his late sixties, now leaves much of the day-to-day work of destroying America to John Legend."

THE RIGHT HAND DOESN'T KNOW WHAT THE RIGHT HAND IS DOING. Warner Todd Huston at Breitbart's Big Hollywood on Monday:

SPIN ALERT: The House Did NOT Vote to Repeal Obamacare 33 Times

Last week, the Old Media reminded the public that the July 11 vote was the "33rd time the Republicans voted to repeal Obamacare." Only there is a little problem with that claim. It isn't true...

The Old Media wanted America to think the Republicans were just being petty and partisan. They were playing advocates for Obamacare again, not reporting the facts.

Interesting! But Huston should have first alerted his Breitbart colleague Ben Shapiro:

I know, no one's playing attention, but they should still try and keep up appearances.

WHY DO THEY HATE AMERICA? Michael Walsh after the Supreme Court ruled on Obamacare:

It’s tough to accept that perhaps a majority of our fellow Americans would cheerfully trade liberty for a false sense of security.

Michael Walsh this week:

But if Romney thinks [Obama Alinksy blah blah is] going to enrage the good people of America, he’d better think again, and fast. Thanks to changing demographics, the Left’s relentless assault on the American educational system over the past half-century, and the Regressives’ control of the media, it’s an open question whether such folks are still a majority. 

Michael Walsh is very disappointed in you, America. But you still have a chance to get on his good side! He hasn't given up hope that you hate homosexuals as much as he does. All you have to do is find Walsh calling Rahm Emanuel "The Ballerina" hilarious, and he'll know you're regular. Why ain't ya laughing? Michael Walsh is very disappointed in you, America...

Elsewhere on the PR team, Bernard "Ask Me About Liberal Bias" Goldberg is wringing his hands about Mr. Obama's horrid Class War:

Will class warfare work?  Are there enough independent and undecided voters out there who will be seduced by the president’s arguments? 

“You’ll never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public,” either P.T. Barnum or H.L Mencken said (even the experts aren’t sure which one said it).  The observation may be cynical, but either P.T. or H.L had a point.  So I’m not  at all sure the president’s latest foray in the war against the wealthy won’t work.

And Nick Gillespie, who was wearing black leather when you punks were in Pull-Ups, lectures the kids about the real enemy, their Boomer parents:

Take a break from getting yet another tattoo on your ass bone or your nipples pierced already! And STFU about the 1 Percent vs. the 99 Percent! 

You're not getting screwed by billionaires and plutocrats. You're getting screwed by Mom and Dad. 

Systematically and in all sorts of ways. Old people are doing everything possible to rob you of your money, your future, your dignity, and your freedom...

Except Nick -- he's the Randroid priest who can talk to kids. How can he miss with material like this: "C. Eugene Steuerle and Stephanie Rennane put out a study for the Urban Institute last summer that should have caused far more riots than anything that happened at Zuccotti Park." Oh, and this: "You're the mark here, the chump who's believing in Bernie Madoff even after the grift has been revealed." Can he sell it or can he sell it?

People joke about Romney pandering, but with guys like this doing Bizarro World advance work for him, I can see why he's trying so hard to lighten things up.

Refresh my memory: Were we this obnoxious when we were losing?

TODAY'S CHILD OF ZHDANOV is one Lee Habeeb, who at National Review tells us all that Woody Guthrie was a commie so we all better stop liking his so-called songs. To this end Habeeb portrays a 2009 performance of "This Land is Your Land" in Washington, DC as a terrorist attack from beyond the grave:

As the event came to a close, Pete Seeger and Bruce Springsteen led the crowd in a rendition of Woody Guthrie’s “This Land Is Your Land,” a song most of us think we know, but don’t — a song we love, although we might not if we knew why the song was written and what the song is really about.

And what the man who wrote the song was about, too.

What most Americans don’t know is that Guthrie didn’t like Irving Berlin’s “God Bless America” and wrote “This Land Is Your Land” as a rebuttal.

What most Americans also don’t know is that Guthrie didn’t like his own country and wanted to fundamentally transform it along the lines of his heroes, Marx and Lenin.

And what most Americans had never heard until that day in Washington, D.C., was a stanza that is typically left out of public presentations of “This Land Is Your Land” because it is so radical. The lines are as radical as the writer himself, who dedicated his life to the overthrow of capitalism and private-property rights.

Hope and change were in the air that cold winter day, and Seeger and Springsteen figured it was time for America to hear the rarely performed stanza.

There was a big high wall there that tried to stop me,
A great big sign there said, “private property”;
But on the back side, it didn’t say nothin’;
That side was made for you and me.

No wonder we’ve never heard that stanza. It changes Guthrie’s song from a celebration of America into a bitter indictment of a nation built on unjust private-property rights.

One of these days Habeeb is going to have to explain to us why no one ever sings the second, third, or fourth verses of "The Star Spangled Banner." I bet it's pretty nefarious.

Then Habeeb tells us more about how Woody Guthrie was a commie, and then the old story about how the Pilgrims learned communism was no good ("and there it ended, the American experiment with collectivism") -- at great and tedious length, maybe because,  dull as he is, even Habeeb began to sense that trying to lecture people out of liking music is totally insane.

But he does eventually come back to tell us who else not to like:

Guthrie was the first musical icon of the 20th century to make it cool to sing songs about the workers’ revolution, ushering in the later tunes of Phil Ochs; Joan Baez; Billy Bragg; Jackson Browne; Crosby, Stills and Nash; Green Day; and the Clash.

It no longer shocks me that such freaks at Habeeb exist, but I'm still not sure why venues such as National Review promote them instead of locking them in the attic. Aren't they interested in attracting normal people, who would recoil instinctively from anyone who buttonholed them in real life and started yelling, "You have to stop liking 'Suite: Judy Blue Eyes,' it's communist -- the Pilgrims knew"? Maybe they're given up, and want only a saving remnant of loons.   

NEW VOICE COLUMN UP about the Romney speech to the NAACP and the pleasure the brethren got out of it. Special Condi Rice kicker!

I couldn't find a spot in there for this thing by Lloyd Marcus, mainly because I thought it would take too long to explain him to outsiders, even if I included this video. For n00bs, Marcus is the Tea Party's most visible black figure (and visibility is crucial to that gig), and this is what he wrote at American Thinker this week:

NAACP Furthers Mission of KKK

 In the heat of passion during a radio interview, I said, "The NAACP, Congressional Black Caucus, and Democratic Party are more destructive to blacks than the KKK!"

After the radio show, I thought my statement may have been a bit over the top.  Upon further thought, though, I concluded that my statement is true.  Before calling me crazy, please hear me out.

Or you can just call him crazy right now and save yourself some time. In case you're disinclined to get out of the boat, here's the closing:

Proudly declared as an effort to assist black America, the Obama administration announced that it has softened the penalty for possession of crack cocaine. 

I suspect the KKK cheered, "Right on brothers!  Right on!"

I would suspect Marcus of being a double agent, except he seems like the type to go up to one of his employers and say, "Wait, are you my real boss or the guy I'm spying on?"

AND PEOPLE WONDER WHY I DRINK. Apologies for the paucity of posts this week. They've piled a ton of new work on me at my job (to "compensate" they've replaced some of my writing work with editing work, which they appear to believe is easy) and I seem to have a lot of side projects going.

But I'll be frank with you -- a lot of it is just malaise. Sometimes I just can't even, as the kids say. This election seems to have surpassed the last one for stupidity already, and it's only July. I mean, look at this thing from the wingnut meth labs of Lee Stranahan:

So, someone on Facebook posted the following picture showing Barack Obama apparently dressing the same as….Ann Romney. Who wore it best?

And DANG — it’s funny. I posted it to Twitter.

The President is wearing a blue striped shirt and white pants; Ann Romney is wearing a blue checked shirt and white pants. Which turn out to have been shorts, which just makes it funnier.

"FUN! RT @Stranahan: The Vetting Of The President’s Outfit: aka Mom-Jeans-Gate bit.ly/NsrFQx | New on my blog," tweets Sissy Willis. If you look up "Obama mom jeans" on Twitter, you will see this has now become a full-blown thing ("@DurrantMark: Given how he throws a baseball and his affinity for mom jeans, I think Obama wants to make history again by becoming the 1st woman president").

It makes one long for the quiet dignity of the Bush-Gore debates.

WHITE MAN'S BURBLE. Been awfully busy. I hear Mitt Romney spoke to the NAACP. How'd it go, Darleen Click?

If nothing else, Romney has demonstrated how so many American blacks are willing to betray the work of the Civil Rights movement in order to be taken care of by Master in the Big White House.

OK, I see I didn't miss anything: Among the brethren, the preordained message is that if black folks don't like Romney, it's all black people's fault. Tom Robberson at the Dallas Morning News:

When the NAACP boos Romney as he’s speaking, they demean the political process and they send a strong message to Republicans: Don’t even try to talk to us because we’re not going to listen. That’s how you write yourself off the political agenda and guarantee that your issues receive back-burner status should the opposition make it into the White House or Congress.

Funny, in their Tea Party mode these guys are all about how We The People are in charge and those durned politicians are working for us, not the other way around. Robberson seems to think it's We the People who work for the politicians when We the People aren't white. Actually I doubt he thinks of them as We, at that. And from the general "good for him, telling off those nih[clang]"  line among the rightbloggers, Robberson seems to have plenty of company. Jamelle Bouie called it.


Oh, hold on -- Dan Riehl:

Boston black leader backs Romney at NAACP gathering

The saving remnant! That man may be lonely but he'll never miss a meal. 

NEW VOICE COLUMN UP, about rightblogger reactions to the death of Andy Griffith. You know the drill.

CATCHING ON. Here's the latest horseshit from BuzzFeed:

The New Obama Typeface: Revolution Gothic
A source points out that President Barack Obama's new typeface is Revolution Gothic, a style inspired by retro Cuban propaganda posters. Who vets the fonts?

So far so Drudge. But, to my delight, this is immediately followed by the Obama camp response:

(Obama press secretary Ben LaBolt emails: “Your GOP operative should have had the courtesy to stay sober before noon, and BuzzFeed should go back to labeling cat slideshows.”)

I hope this perfectly sensible and hilarious reply catches on and the Democrats eventually start responding to all this stupid shit with an animated gif of Joe Biden giving the jerk-off salute.

CHACUN À SON GOÛT.  Michael Walsh likes Paul Ryan as Romney's VP:

...he speaks in the cadences of a younger America; he’s like a Quentin Tarantino character come to life, minus the profanity. Obama’s manufactured persona extends down to his mannered way of speaking, with the dropped “g’s” and the use of the word “folks,” but Ryan’s hip, rapid-fire staccato is the real thing.

You mean this guy?



He's like a mortician who went into life insurance sales without retraining.

Why might Walsh see Ryan as more hipsterrific than Obama?

Second — the deal clincher — is that Ryan is not afraid of Obama. Born in 1970, Ryan’s not dragging around any sixties baggage or angst or animus; he came of age during the Reagan administration and radiates some of the Gipper’s Sunny Jim optimism. Plus, he’s already shown he can take a punch from the president, who clearly fears him:

In this context, the only meaning I can discern in "not dragging around any sixties baggage or angst or animus" is that Walsh believes Ryan is not ascared to be called racist because Reagan, and his example will lift the people out of their terror of the Afro overlord.

Style isn't much, but when you're reimagining GOP stiffs as Tarantino hepcats* whom people will like better than Barack Obama, you don't even know what style is.

* though I can see Ryan offering America a watch he's had up his ass for two years. 

SEX MAD. This is one of those post-modern stories where we start with the bloody, chaotic finale  --

We social conservatives hold the line on same-sex marriage not because we think it is more destructive than abortion and no-fault divorce (obviously it is not) but because all of these trends are rooted in the same destructive ideological and spiritual impulses that lead us to discard natural law, privilege adult wants over all other values, and erase even our most long-held liberties in the name of sexual desire.

-- and, working our way backwards, try to answer the question: Just how could this character, or anyone, become convinced that homosexuals and fornicators are conspiring to "erase even our most long-held liberties in the name of sexual desire"?

It's a losing battle. The perpetrator is National Review's David French, a nut. Recall him in May shaking his fist at Griswold v. Connecticut, in which the wicked Supreme Court condemned America to freely-available birth control: "Think for a moment of the awesome power of the sexual revolution over law and logic," thundered French. "Is there a single legal doctrine that can stand against the quest for personal sexual fulfillment?" Recall also his 2011 stab at Kim du Toit butchliness, in which he told us that, due to a "collaboration between radical feminism and a particularly sappy and sentimental Christianity... the ideal man becomes—in many essential ways—a woman: emotionally available, always eager to talk, never afraid to shed a tear, and ready, willing, and able to shoulder the household workload."

So we're never going to get a coherent narrative out of this. But we can at least get this frisson: It turns out French's premise is loonier than his conclusion. It's not merely or even mainly the removal of legislative chains from their straining libidos,  nor a perverse desire to destroy David French's liberty, that has all these homos and heteros getting it on with such ferocity.

The Sexual Revolution Depends on Big Government

I ain't even kidding.

Our fatherless kids are being fed breakfast, lunch, and sometimes now even a school dinner, and why not ban Happy Meals if there’s no competent parent around to say “no”? In fact, much of the apparatus of state entitlement is built around the presumption that citizens should enjoy a certain standard of living regardless of their personal choices and conduct.

If citizens were forced to bear more of the weight of their sexual decisions, would those decisions be different?

Were ours again a godly Republic, wastrels such as these would be starving, unable to summon the energy to stiffen or lubricate, much less mount. But like an indulgent parent, Big Government willfully feeds them till, fattened into strapping bucks and welfare queens, they fuck till freedom is no more. (Presumably some of them got a little extra feed, went totally nuts and demanded gay marriage.) This must be why Michelle Obama wants them to eat fresh vegetables -- once they're full of spinach, their genitals will engorge like Popeye's forearms, and their jackhammer couplings will shake America to its very foundations!

This brings to mind a lovely story told by Danny Hutton of Three Dog Night in the Brian Wilson doc, I Just Wasn't Made for These Times, about the night he and Iggy Stooge went over to Wilson's and the addled Beach Boy had them singing "Shortnin' Bread" for over an hour. Hutton says Iggy turned to him and said, "I'm gettin' out of here -- this guy's nuts!" I like to imagine Robert George saying that about French.

WHAT I LOVE ABOUT AMERICA. I hope you're enjoying your Glorious 4th. Let's see how some of the brethren have chosen to commemorate it. Here's Scott Johnson at Power Line, reflecting on the Lincoln-Douglas debates:

In that speech Lincoln had famously asserted that the nation could not exist “half slave and half free.” According to Douglas, Lincoln’s assertion was inconsistent with the “diversity” in domestic institutions that was “the great safeguard of our liberties.” Then as now, “diversity” was a shibboleth hiding an evil institution that could not be defended on its own terms.

Look beyond the outrage against common sense, and you may see that when Johnson associates "diversity" (i.e., black people getting a break) with the white supremacist Douglas, that is itself a tribute to diversity. Is it not wonderful that our marketplace of ideas has room even for such humble sellers of cracked pottery as Johnson who, in a less generous society, would be shunted off to street-corners, there to gibber on soapboxes? Johnson too is part of our beautiful rainbow.

You might say the same of Breitbrats, as shown by their headline today:

GOOGLE CHOOSES COMMUNIST-ORIENTED ‘THIS LAND IS YOUR LAND’ JULY 4TH THEME

I feel for them. I went to Bing, hoping for their sake it was blasting "Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue," but it showed the Empire State Building -- its lights were red, white, and blue, sure, but it's still a symbol of New York, the capital of commies. One of their commenters seems to get it:

Isn't it Bing a Bill Gates/Microsoft creation, another liberal and global government tool or fool (it's all the same to me)?

And at Forbes, where the mere fact that bankers have not hung rotting from lampposts since 2008 should be sufficient cause for holiday joy, Bill Frezza yells at the "majority of Americans" who "now subscribe to an expansive view of government as both great provider and beneficent leveler..." He goes on:

Little by little, the home of the brave and the land of the free has become a nation of rent-seeking dependents clamoring for their share of state largess. Even before the latest entitlement blowout called Obamacare, we crossed the line where more than half of Americans receive some kind of assistance from the government every month, paid for by the fewer than half that still pay income taxes. As we move into the future and the number of dependents grows while the taxpayer pool shrinks, we call the result social justice rather than its old name: theft...

If we were still a nation capable of shame with enough intellectual integrity to call things as they are, if we hadn’t debauched our language as badly as our currency, if we had the courage to look in the mirror and see how woefully we have squandered our Founders’ legacy, this Fourth of July would be a day not of celebration but of atonement.

That Frezza is comfortable spitting on the country that keeps him in broadband is further testimony to our nation's spirit of toleration. In that sense dissent truly is the highest form of patriotism -- and it's even better when wingnuts are the unwitting exemplars of it.

Ready to go, willing to stay and pay (U.S.A.! U.S.A.!) 

UPDATE. Ed Kilgore's got the right idea: "I’m no longer going to quietly accept lectures on patriotism from people who hate my country because they don’t rule it and my vote is equal to theirs."

UPDATE 2. On the other hand, conservatives don't like it when someone else does the dissenting -- like Chris Rock, who tweeted, "Happy white peoples independence day the slaves weren't free but I'm sure they enjoyed fireworks." That charmer Robbie Cooper at Urban Grounds responds, "You are free to pack you shit and move back to Africa at any time," and quotes a bunch of white people who also don't appreciate Rock's lack of gratitude. At least Cooper is clear -- I'm still trying to figure out Gateway Pundit Jim Hoft's response: "Without the Founding Fathers, the Constitution and Declaration the United States would be a completely different country today." Indeed them was!

UPDATE 3. I don't know why, but I got the feeling I should look in on Jeff Godlstein and see what he was doing for the 4th. This, it turns out:

July fundraiser [sticky; new posts below; JULY 4 UPDATE]...

update: Thanks again to all who’ve contributed. I’m about half-way to my goal this month — which, with my pittance from Google ads, means I’m about half-way to the pistol I’ve decided on, the FN FNP 45 Tactical (with a Trijicon dual illumination amber MOA 7 sight)...

On Independence Day, it’s heartening to think that I’ll soon be taking advantage of one of our true remaining rights and arming myself and my family.

Again, thank you all for your continued support of the site. If you can manage it this month, I’d appreciate the consideration, because this arming the family thing is not cheap, and — despite what Obama might say — I’m not one of the “rich.” I just don’t collect government money. And there used to be a difference…

Can't wait for the next announcement! Maybe it'll come from the local PD.

DON'T LOOK. Following up of the loony rightwing reactions to the Obamacare decision, I see the CBS story about it has engendered a new outrage -- over the fact that John Roberts reads newspapers. National Review's Avik Roy:

Did Roberts Cave To Left-Wing Media Pressure?...

Perhaps, the next time a Republican president nominates a Supreme Court justice, he should make the candidate swear to never pick up a newspaper.

The bottom line, if Jan Crawford is right, is that conservative justices can be blackmailed by left-wing editorialists. It’s not a pretty picture.

I'm often amazed by the superhuman powers conservatives ascribe to the media -- corrupts our youth, brainwashes the sheeple, etc. -- but this is the first time I've seen one of them describe the mere viewing of contrary opinions as "blackmail." Roy really seems to think that if the Chief Justice of the United States sees an op-ed in the Times he'll not only be so confused he can't rule straight - he'll also feel as if he has to do what the op-ed says or something terrible will happen. Maybe this is how that alleged Obama threat against Roberts' children was supposed to work: Through coded messages in newspapers. We're through the looking-glass here, people!

Epistemic closure? We didn't know the half of it.

NEW VOICE COLUMN UP, several hours early because our power went out and I have to do all my internet at safe houses out in the sticks. (Thanks, Kia's cousin Felita!) As some of you have already guessed, it's on the Obamacare decision, and it's extra-long and packed with stupid.

I still had to cut stuff, so here are some outtakes. First, one of the more fevered contributions to the mass rightblogger analysis of John Roberts (Is he Benedict Arnold, or Bill Holden in Stalag 17?), from Start Thinking Right and called "Why Did John Roberts Play Brutus In The Shakespearean Tragedy Of ObamaCare?" (Update: Aw, shoot -- that one's actually in the column. Oh well, relive those glorious seconds here!) 

Chief Justice John Roberts, to his great personal disgrace, put the 'reputation' of the Supreme Court ahead of the law, the Constitution, and the nation... Call it the Stockholm Syndrome, which amounts to the desire for a captive to please the terrorists in order to stay alive.

So that's why Roberts blinks so much -- it's Morse Code hostage messages! (This 2,446-word item ends, "the beast will come.  When he does America will vote for him.  And then worship him.  And then take his mark.  And then burn in hell forever and ever.")

On the more housebroken tip, there's Jeffrey H. Anderson at PJ Media, telling us "Obama Distorted the Obamacare Ruling" by referring to it as the Affordable Care Act -- not because this  elides the full name of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, but because everyone Anderson knows calls it Obamacare. I expect Anderson also complains when the Democrat Party calls itself the "Democratic Party." I mean, who do they think they're fooling?


UPDATE. Since I gave you a repeat here I guess I owe you another outtake. Andrew C. McCarthy:

Led by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court decided that Americans have no right to due process. Indeed, the Court not only upheld a fraud perpetrated on the public — it became a willing participant. 

Whereas if the Court decided that they could instead haul the American People off to secret prisons and torture them, that would be fine by McCarthy.  He's a cop who plays by the rules, so long as they're not in the Geneva Conventions. 

UPDATE. Bad links fixed.

DON'T BLAME ME, I VOTED FOR SINGLE PAYER. Despite my lack of enthusiasm for the ACA, a dog's breakfast of industry bribes that enables minimal coverage for all Americans, I have been enjoying the weeping of the wingnuts. I'm keeping my powder mostly dry for Sunday night's Voice column, but here's one of my current favorites: Paul Krugman wrote a typically reasonable column about the ACA, calling it "an act of human decency that is also fiscally responsible. " Near the end he says,

But what was and is really striking about the anti-reformers is their cruelty. It would be one thing if, at any point, they had offered any hint of an alternative proposal to help Americans with pre-existing conditions, Americans who simply can’t afford expensive individual insurance, Americans who lose coverage along with their jobs. But it has long been obvious that the opposition’s goal is simply to kill reform, never mind the human consequences. We should all be thankful that, for the moment at least, that effort has failed.

This is how libertarian T.P. Carney, whose sad case we have considered before, reacted:

The butthurt is strong with this one.

SHORTER NICK GILLESPIE: How about if we call them "Food Stamp Queens" instead? Maybe then people won't notice we're assholes.

IT'S A SMALL WORLD. At National Review, Kevin D. Williamson snarls at the proles and their déclassé leader:

Could somebody please get Barack Obama to shut up about “outsourcing” until some undergraduate aide has explained to him what the word means? As it stands, the president is showing himself an ignorant rube on the subject, and that is to nobody’s advantage. 

The Obama campaign, as you probably know, has been running ads denouncing Mitt Romney’s role at Bain Capital, in which Romney made various business deals that had the effect of making a whole lot of money for Bain’s customers while also allowing a lot of dirty foreigners to eat, and God knows the world would be better off if a billion-some Chinese were hungry and desperate, that being an obvious recipe for global stability.

I think there must be some small, special sub-audience at rightwing publications, possibly comprising Megan McArdle and a couple of her commenters, who think that normal Americans watching their jobs and their whole economy circle the drain should give a shit about the Chinese the way rich investors do.

Because the Obama campaign knows that one of its most important constituencies is economically illiterate yokels — a demographic to which the president himself apparently belongs — it is on the airwaves claiming “Romney’s never stood up to China — all he’s ever done is send them our jobs.’’ (Whose?)

"Whose?" You know, to people like this, Americans today are like Mau Maus, Apaches, or any other dispossessed indigenous peoples; when they demand back what was theirs, the Williamsons snort and wonder how these wretches could possibly claim such a right --  was it they, after all, who built this perfectly lovely foreign office, pavilion, and fountain? Well, maybe their labor built it, but the thinking was all the colonizers' -- all the wretches did before was live on it, fulfilling in no way the demands of global capital. "Whose?"

What Williamson's defending is well-explained in BusinessWeek, where they don't have to try as hard to bullshit anyone. The magazine discusses the trend away from sending jobs to India (you will note they use "offshoring" and "outsourcing" more or less interchangeably):

[Latin America and eastern Europe] are challenging the subcontinent’s dominance in outsourcing as American corporations increasingly ship higher-level jobs offshore. India had substantial advantages in offshoring’s first phase: plenty of English speakers to staff call centers and enough tech talent to run remote data-processing and computer support centers—all at about a 60 percent discount to stateside workers. But having wrung substantial costs out of back-office functions, U.S. companies are exporting skilled white-collar jobs in research, accounting, procurement, and financial analysis. 

Because these jobs aren’t mass-processing functions, India’s forte, there are greater opportunities for countries such as Argentina and Poland, which have higher labor costs than India. Using an outsourcing firm to hire an entry-level accountant in Argentina, for example, costs 13 percent less than a similar U.S. worker, while an Indian worker would cost 51 percent less. But many employers moving higher-end jobs offshore care about more than just getting the lowest wage. “The higher-value outsourcing jobs require a greater understanding of business context and a higher amount of interaction with clients,” says Phil Fersht, chief executive officer of HfS Research, a Boston outsourcing research firm. 

Cities such as São Paulo have large groups of young people with engineering and business school degrees who speak English and are capable of doing everything from developing video games to analyzing mortgage defaults for U.S. companies...

In other words, having laid waste to American blue-collar jobs with cheap equivalents overseas, they plan to do the same with executive and even lower-management functions. (C-suite types, of course, needn't worry.) You have to spend a bit more up front, but in the long run it's worth it! 

The same people who used to bitch about foreign aid are now telling us we should be happy that our livelihoods have been wealth-extracted, because some of the skim went to workers in other countries. Are these fuckers still wearing American flag pins? The things should be setting their lapels on fire.

UPDATE. Some commenters recognize Williamson's POV as a libertarian schtick. Yes, it is -- see McMegan Junior Grade Katherine Mangu-Ward sneering at protectionists who "make the case that American jobs are intrinsically better or more valuable than Chinese jobs" and their "skewed, provincial view of the world."

Bonus it-figures from Mangu-Ward's item: "Matt Yglesias blogs about the story here, and his analysis is spot on." Yglesias, whom Chuck Gilligan more recently finds defending Apple's $22,800/yr as the correct wage for "geniuses" (those of us who are not geniuses will of course have to make do with less), will in the Romney Administration join the New York Times as its token liberal columnist.

SHORTER ROGER L. SIMON: Home? I have no home. Hunted, despised, Living like an animal! The jungle is my home. But I will show the world that I can be its master! I will perfect my own race of people. A race of conservative filmmakers which will conquer the world! Ha ha ha ha ha ha!

NEW VOICE COLUMN UP, following some of the more miserable rightblogger Pride Week posts. The Rod Dreher one is a pip -- a long passive-aggressive whine about how unfair it is that the New York Times is nice to gay people, and Rod Dreher has to put up with it week after week because the New York Post is a piece of shit. I couldn't get too deep into it, or I would have included this:

The point is, even though its fortunes have been diminished over the past decade, as have the fortunes of all newspapers, the Times has unparalleled power because it has the attention of elite opinionmakers. Media bias exists not in telling people what to believe, but in framing the context for which an event or phenomenon can be understood. A paper as powerful as the Times may never tell its readers that America should go to war with Freedonia, but if it devotes hugely disproportionate coverage to the wickedness of Freedonia, and the noble efforts of anti-Freedonia Americans, then we should not be surprised when public opinion moves steadily in favor of war with Freedonia. All decent people support war with Freedonia, right? What kind of unpatriotic Americans oppose war with the wicked, liberty-hating Freedonians? You see how this goes.

That's one hell of an example. I know the Times has supported imperialism in its own way many times, but given that at the start of the last big war, when you could at least hear some dissenting voices at the Times, Dreher was all in for the big win, that takes balls, or whatever Dreher has instead of balls.

SHORTER BYRON YORK: Obama didn't like the dull, soul-sucking corporate job he briefly held before devoting his life to public service, whereas Mitt Romney loved the choice gigs to which his status as the son of a governor entitled him, and firing people. I think we know which candidate Americans will relate to. [pushes in nose, rolls out lower lip, sticks out tongue]

JESUS, FREAK. Mmm, that was a nice dinner. Wonder if there's something about the Terrible Obamatyranny of Birth Control for Catholics at National Review this evening... Oh, here we are, Michael Potemra:

The U.S. publication of the new biography Thomas Becket: Warrior, Priest, Rebel, by John Guy, could not be more fortunately timed: The recent controversy over the changing of HHS rules in a way that erodes previous protections for religious freedom has put the issue of church-state conflict near the top of the American agenda.

I wonder if they'll use this as a book cover blurb.

We all grew up with the story of the angry King Henry II thundering to his associates, “Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?” As Guy points out, this phrasing is apocryphal. More reliable reports render what the king said as follows...

I see Potemra's a student of Amity Shlaes' "when in doubt, pad it out" journalistic method.

King Henry’s men got the message. (Which, incidentally, makes the assassination of Becket the first recorded instance of an executive-ordered drone strike against a domestic opponent.)

Seen a certain way, the graduation of Potemra from Catholic torture enthusiast ("Was it appropriate for a Catholic TV network to provide a platform for a torture advocate? In my view, the answer is yes") to opponent of drone strikes would be an advance. But that would presuppose you could believe anything Potemra says about morality.

The fate of the four assassins offers a cautionary tale about power and loyalty. Far from rewarding their deed, King Henry soon turned on them, and they ended their lives in exile; in the words of a chronicler cited by Guy, they “spent out their lives” in the East, “in fasting, vigils, prayers, and lamentations.” Just two decades after their assassination of Becket, a visitor to Jerusalem found their graves there, with the epitaph “Here lie those wretches who martyred the Blessed Thomas, archbishop of Canterbury.”

Like I said, these guys are all about wish fulfillment. The Administration moves heaven and earth, so to speak, to provide contraception to non-observant employees of Catholics without requiring the Church to pay for it, and Potemra, having expanded this in his mind to an assault on his religion, warns by dire insinuation that all who serve the tyrant Obama -- yea, even unto Kathleen Sebelius! -- will be exiled and buried in unconsecrated ground.

Well, to each his own historical fantasies; I would rather fast forward some centuries to the day Henry VIII finally threw the Whore of Babylon out of England. Good times!  And Harry the Eight lies in St. George's Chapel, Windsor.

DO WE HAVE TO BRING HIM? It's charming that Chris Christie likes to go to Springsteen concerts, and it speaks well of him that he can enjoy the concerts despite disagreeing with Springsteen on matters of politics, an admirable trait well beyond the reach of Max Boot and a million other miserable kulturkampfers. Where it all goes wrong in Jeffrey Goldberg's essay is here:

Christie believes fiercely that Springsteen would understand him if he only made the effort.

As would Princess Leia, no doubt.

But here’s what I told him I imagine Springsteen might ask: “Governor, do you really believe it’s a level playing field? Do you really believe that marginalized people even have access to opportunity?”

“Look,” Christie said to the imaginary Springsteen...

I have an overactive, indeed feverish, imagination, but I stopped pretending to challenge my artist heroes like this when I was a little boy. The "I bet if I said to him" style is not exalted by application to rock stars. I love Evelyn Waugh and even if given the opportunity (e.g., in hell) would not dream of trying to talk him out of being Evelyn Waugh so he could reform and spread the good word about single payer. There really is a difference between a nerd and a dork.

Much as I dislike Christie, I blame Goldberg for this. He's insufferable. He seems genuinely hurt on the Governor's behalf that "Springsteen studiously ignores Christie at shows" and that Springsteen "doesn’t seem to care that Christie is the sort of Republican many Democrats find appealing." He bets Springsteen is "confused" that his fans vote for Christie, as he does not have the sophisticated electoral analytic skills of Jeffrey Goldberg at his disposal. (Here's his resume, though!) Plus this:

I asked him if he thought Springsteen was a hypocrite. This suspicion has scratched at me ever since my discovery, a dozen years ago, while visiting Boston to interview one of his guitarists, Steven Van Zandt, that Springsteen and his band had parked themselves at the Four Seasons.

Christie tells him off there, and probably enjoyed having a straight man set him up for his subsequent rant about bootstrap economics. Which, along with Goldberg's opportunity to get funky with a rightwing heartthrob, is really the only reason why this extended bro-hug exists.

UPDATE. Lovely comments. whetstone asks why I disliked Goldberg's article: "I thought rich asshole boomers Jeffrey Goldberg and Chris Christie having a Civics 101 dialogue with Invisible Bruce Springsteen while waiting, pining for their hero to toss a sweaty bandana their way was exactly the Waiting For Godot 21st-century America deserves." You know, I can't argue with that.

Several commenters share Keith's intuition that "so many Republicans have this unspoken assumption that all rich people should vote for them, and that the ones who don't are hypocrites or class traitors." Well, yes. The other latest culture-war boohoo is that Jon Stewart is rich yet he "openly criticizes, condemns and mocks rich Americans," which of course is hypocrisy. I don't know why these guys don't choose literacy as their standard for hypocrisy instead: "Jon Stewart knows how to read and write, yet he attacks Mitt Romney, who also knows how to read and write. What a phony!" That would leave Jonah Goldberg as the only one above suspicion.

I could fill the page with your genius, but No More Mister Nice Blog also had a good swipe at Goldberg's essay and his commenter Victor's reaction should be backed up:

"I compartmentalize," Christie says.

I guess that's what happens when you have 4 stomachs.

ANDREW SARRIS, 1928-2012. Back in my youth I was a film nerd. My high school buddy Jim and I would call each other up when the TV Guide came out on Wednesday and gleefully inform each other that Hatari! was on Channel 11 on Monday. I went to the opening runs of major directors' movies; when I got to New York, I went to the opening nights. I haunted the Thalia and the Carnegie Hall and the Bleecker Street Cinema and Theatre 80 St. Marks, looking for promising curios and oddities. If I went with someone, afterwards we'd get coffee and we (or at least I) would talk feverishly about the movie, whether it was good or bad; if alone, and I frequently was, I would call someone up and bend their ear about it.

Over time I acquired a lot of other things to pay attention to and drifted out of that particular nerddom. But I carried a few valuables away from that experience. First, I was able to feel unashamed love for something most people just think of as time-filling junk, but which I knew was valuable. In a world like the one we live in, this is good training.

Second, it gave me something to be interested in and find out about from writers who were experiencing it and talking about it at the same time I was. The theater was a sometime thing, and literature happened a long time ago, but the movies were always running, in museums and in grindhouses, and some smart people were writing about them.

There were several critics I followed, but Andrew Sarris was my favorite. It had less to do with his style -- there were plenty more stylish, or in any case flashier, film writers -- than with his seriousness -- not sententiousness or solemnity, but the sense you got right from jump that Sarris was seriously interested in the problem of a film, and in the problem of film history which that film, like all of them, had something to do with.

No, it wasn't about solemnity, though I can't think of a joke he ever made that I laughed at. Sometimes he'd drag his own life, or at least his obsessions, into the discussion, and though it was sometimes embarrassing (my friend Bob and I still keep up a running joke about his creepy appreciation of Jodie Foster: "My enchantment has turned to enchainment"), I knew he wasn't bullshitting me, that he wasn't bringing himself into the discussion because he wanted attention, but because he thought it would help explain why the movie in question interested him. He was trying to be clear about his feelings, so that they could be more than feelings and fit the purposes of criticism.

It was Sarris who made me an auteurist, and I still am. It isn't because it explains everything; it only takes a few Stephen Frears movies to convince you that some directors are just talented stage managers and that's all there is to it. And some of Sarris' auteurist conventions were comical ("Less Than Meets the Eye"), as he came to admit. But Sarris was getting at something with his auteurist criticism that, over years of looking at art of all kinds and sometimes making it, I have come to believe in even more strongly than when I was a semiotic-struck kid: That artists in their work express something more vivid and (sometimes) lasting and important than the obvious themes and sensations and craft; that they also express something like personality, which may have very little to do with the personalities they carry around in public, but which is likewise rich and multivaried and mysterious; that this personality is telling its own story, along with whatever plots and concepts the artist might be using; and that to really know an artist's work requires, more than clinical attention to details (though you better cultivate that too), openness not only to what the artist is telling you, but also to who they are.

This is the thing people are talking about when they say, if they mean it, that they love Mozart or Shakespeare or, for that matter, Alfred Hitchcock. And it's the real thing. Sarris did no little to show me that, and for that I loved him.

YOU KIDS GET ON MY LAWN! I see that Michael Gerson has a column about how Obama is the guy who really started the culture war. To Gerson, culture war is working out a way for non-observant employees of Catholic organizations to get birth control while Republicans try to keep it away from everyone, no matter who they work for.

But those of us who've been watching the war for decades know it's not about who Alinskied who, but really about wish fulfillment. Case in point -- Roger L. Simon:

Are Liberals the New Squares?

They've been working this angle since "South Park Conservatism," and it never gets over. And this one isn't going to break the streak:

I mean – do you think Deborah Wasserman-Schultz is hip? This is one of the meanest things I’ve ever put in print or online, but that’s the girl who was standing in the corner at the sixth grade cotillion and you said, “Oh, no. Do I have to dance with her?”

I can see a Simon reader asking "what's a cotillion?" and, after Simon's patient and dreamily nostalgic explanation, asking "Who's Deborah Wasserman-Schultz?"

But give Simon credit --  he seems to have figured out that selling Mitt Romney and Grover Norquist as hipsters is a losing proposition, so he comes up with ringers:

Of course, most can’t countenance this. They continue to believe that government spending is cool, that it is a good thing (how square is that?), but out of the corner of their ears they are beginning to hear a different song: 

Libertarians are the cool guys.

Alas, he never explains this; I like to imagine he was thinking this shot of the Potsie and Fonzie of Freedom would render all argument moot:

The libs don't know, but the Heartland Institute understands.

Surely no actually youngperson will go for this, so you have to wonder who Simon's audience is. The answer: Conservatives of a certain age who remember when the girls thought Alex P. Keaton was dreamy, Nancy Reagan had taste, and Poverty Sucked -- that is, when they were cool. They can't even pretend anymore, but they can sure sit around the klavern and tell each other how not cool the new jacks are. Which is kind of sad, because cool is something that it's only cool to obsess over when you're a kid. 


(I do hope Simon stays on this track, though, and tells us next week he's seen Girls and thinks Mamet's kid looks pretty now that she's stopped dressing like a tomboy.)

NEW VOICE COLUMN UP, about the latest Obama Hitlerism (the immigration order) and the rightbloggers' latest John Wilkes Booth, Neil Munro.

One of the odder outtakes was Paul Mirengoff of Power Line, who accused Obama of "squandering opportunities for long-term consensus in order to gain short-term political advantage" -- and yes, he was talking about Obama's opportunities with the Republican Congress, whose members will now, per Mirengoff, be "even less likely than before to cooperate with the administration on this issue now that it has acted so high-handedly and in such a patently political manner." Yeah, Obama really blew it with John Boehner there. What might have been! 

UPDATE. Sheriff Joe Arpaio responds by arresting a six-year-old illegal. Bryan Preston at PJ Tatler says it's the fault of Obama and the MSM:

HuffPo headlined this story with that site’s customary balance and restraint:

Joe Arpaio’s Office Arrests 6-Year-Old Suspected Undocumented Immigrant

The headline more than suggests that Sheriff Joe has done something wrong and arrested a little girl all by herself.

Actually, the headline more than suggests (that is, it says) that Arpaio’s Office Arrests 6-Year-Old Suspected Undocumented Immigrant, because that's actually what happened. The other details appear in the parts of the story below the headline, which to be fair may not be something the Tatler's readers ever bother with.

Better still is Preston's family-court-judge lecture to the little Salvadoran refugee girl's parents:

We also shouldn’t exonerate the little girl’s family in all this. Six-year-old girls don’t make the decision to cross borders on their own, they don’t hire the smugglers, they don’t make this trek unless some adult has made the decisions for them. These family decisions to abandon one country and break the laws of another, and continue to break those laws every day, don’t start with the six-year-old...

You and I, we look at this story and see a desperate act by a poor family to give their daughter a better life; Bryan Preston sees it as a young punk shoplifting citizenship because her mother didn't read enough Charles Murray.

HOT AIR. They're actually arguing anti-sharia legislation at National Review, with Ramesh Ponnuru surprisingly against it. Torture enthusiast Andrew C. McCarthy is of course for it, and brings in one David Yerushalmi, "the principal author of the model legislation," as a ringer. Yerushalmi is a pip. He starts out like this:

As a lawyer versed in the jurisprudential traditions of our own constitutional and common law, in the Talmudic law followed by orthodox Jews, and in usul al fiqh, or Islamic jurisprudence, I thought I might touch upon the utter incoherence of Mr. Schmitz’s arguments.

Given Mr. Schmitz’s style of disputation, it would be useful to take note of the architecture of Mr. Schmitz’s essay as we critique it.

The stage directions "[scratches cheek with walking stick]" and "[ruffles cape]" seem to be missing. How does this guy win cases? I know ordinary people would look at this cloud of gas and think, "Christ, what an asshole"; maybe judges have a higher tolerance.

Anyway he keeps pumping it out, and eventually gets around to explaining that the Constitution is insufficient to defend Americans from sharia law because of 1.) libel tourism, and 2.) some lady who lost a custody hearing because "the court enforced a Pakistani Sharia court’s judgment of custody in favor of the father even though the mother had argued that she was not provided due process because had she gone to Pakistan to contest the case, she could have been subject to capital punishment for having a new relationship with a man not sanctioned by sharia. "

Libel tourism is not enabled by sharia but by the lower libel bar in England; maybe Yerushalmi should really be defending Americans from the malevolent influence of the Church of England instead of Islam. As for the poor mother, her rough luck appears to be that her old man skipped to Pakistan, and the U.S. court had no authority to make Pakistan a safe place for her to be, so he, untrammeled, got a judgment that the court felt compelled to uphold. But courts uphold unfortunate custody judgments all the time, even without minarets in the background. It's not like a judge has authorized someone getting his hands cut off because some local ayatollah demanded it.

One of the most ridiculous things about Very Serious conservative magazines is that whenever rightwing nuts come up with some boob bait to rouse the masses politically, they come up with lapel-pullers like Yerushalmi to make it look legit and intellectual-like. The average punter will presumably just see the big block of big words and go, "See, that there funny-boy lawyer says Mooslims suck cause-a joo-ris-pru-denshul." But it all falls to pieces when you actually read them.

THICK AS THIEVES. So Michelle Malkin and Juan Williams were on Sean Hannity's Fox show, and Williams was, as usual, playing the good liberal, patiently reciting facts while Hannity bellowed bullshit at him and Michelle Malkin made faces.

It's a living, folks -- and a very good one; as you may recall, back in 2010 Williams was fired by NPR for remarks he made on Fox about being ascared of Muslims, whereupon he was immediately given a two million dollar contract with Fox. Not bad pay for a ten-minute bellow every so often.

After Williams told Hannity, who yelled counterpoint, that Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation of the Valerie Plame case did indeed show that Plame was a covert operative,  Malkin got to recite a set piece in a funny voice: "All you can do, Juan, is say 'Plame, Plame, Plame,' and 'Blame, Blame, Blame, Bush Bush Bush." No, honestly. Go see, it's on around 5:30 in.

This seems to have roused Williams, who told Malkin, "I'm a real reporter, I'm not a blogger out in the blogosphere somewhere, I'm gonna tell you something..." And on he went about how reporters "in a free society, in a free press, reporters go and talk to officials..." which I'm sure is what he thinks journalism is.

Hannity yelled at Williams some more, then graciously gave Malkin "the last word." And what a last word it was. "The American people are sick," said this tribune of the people, "of the kind of snotty condescension from liberal elitist journalists like Juan Williams who tell us that the rest of us are not doing our jobs." Then she demonstrated what that job was, telling us that when Eric Holder was "shamefully approved and nominated to be Attorney General, he had already had a long record of bastardizing national security and the rule of law..." whereupon her skull split open and jets of blood and bile shot out of it, more or less.

We who have free souls, it touches us not. Rightbloggers, on the other hand, immediately declared victory over the hated Lame Stream Media. "OUCH: Epic," hehindeeds Ole Perfesser Instapundit. "Michelle Malkin Smacks Down Juan Williams," asserts The Rightnewz. (No, I never heard of them either, but then I never heard of All American Blogger before he was crowned the Breitbart Laureate of Blogs.) "Whoa!" declares Jim Hoft, "Michelle Malkin ABSOLUTELY Destroys Juan Williams..." etc.

But my favorite response is that of Jammie Wearing Fool: First, because he actually says, "Yet another nail in the MSM coffin." Boy, does that bring me back. How long's the internet been on the verge of killing the MSM now? Ten, twelve years? And yet Williams, as much as Citizen Journamalist Malkin, is still yapping away on the TV -- and making, I am sure, quite a bit more doing it than she is. The MSM is still kicking; journalism, well, that's something else.

But better still, Fool says this:

Considering it was bloggers who came to this boob’s defense after he was canned by NPR, condescendingly referring to Michelle Malkin as “just a blogger” tonight on Hannity wasn’t exactly showing his thanks.

Thanks? Oh, Fool, don't you know? In the immortal words of Bill Fields, never give a sucker an even break.