THE CONSERVATIVE CRACK-UP, CONT.

At National Review Kevin Williamson commends himself on grabbing and throwing a woman's phone during a theater performance because she insisted on looking at messages or something. Williamson was ejected for his tantrum.

While I am torn on the merits (I am against unseemly behavior at the theater, which seems to apply to both parties here), I note that Williamson has said before that he believes in bringing back the stocks for "crimes that undercut shared community life and encourage the further atomization of our society." From his new post I would imagine that he sees the woman's behavior as such a crime and his own behavior as blameless, atomization-wise. And I'm sure his attack is nothing compared to the punishment fantasies his imagination summoned after the incident ("two parties of women of a certain age, the sad sort with too much makeup and too-high heels..." Yeah, he's given it some thought).

I note also that Williamson fantasizes general applause for his actions:

In a civilized world, I would have received a commendation of some sort. To the theater-going public of New York — nay, the the world – I say: “You’re welcome."

Radicals always think The People are with them, despite all evidence.

BTW Williamson is also the guy who said Gabby Giffords' emotional but non-assaultive response to the Congressional gun vote was a "childish display."

WHERE THEY'RE COMING FROM.

It's a springtime for scandal in D.C., and most of the brethren are luxuriating in it. But there's a weird nervousness to their energy, and I think I see where it's coming from. DaTechGuy:

As a criminal investigation begins we’ve seen some the “I” word, Impeachment thrown about.

Now a lot of that is on twitter, but that’s no big deal, a lot of words are thrown about on twitter, but some of it has been thrown around in the press.

The funny thing is a lot of the people doing so are of the left,

This is not an accident, the left understand that talk of impeachment now would be a disaster, not to the president, but to those building the case against him.

He then tells us a story from Tip O'Neill's autobiography about how, back in Nixontime, Rep. Robert Drinan's early impeachment bill was briefly an impediment to the later successful impeachment drive, and comments:

I’ll wager not too may members of the Tea Party have read O’Neill’s book, nor GOP members of congress but I’ll wager plenty of people on the left have. They understand that if the GOP moves early, before democrats are on board, it becomes a party issue so they are going to do their best to force our hand before the facts are in evidence.

I don't know what's crazier -- that he thinks The Left is trying to protect Obama by talking about impeaching him (are Rep. Jason Chaffetz and all the other wingnuts talking about it double agents, then?), or that he thinks we all read Tip O'Neill's autobiography. (I guess nobody told him we only read Alinsky and porn.)

Over at National Review, the excitable Charles C.W. Cooke has an article celebrating the traditional conservative distrust of government, but goes a great deal further than the usual arghblargh. He calls the Founders' writings on the subject "codified paranoia" and seems to mean it positively ("and America is better off for it"); in fact, his article is called "In Praise of Paranoia." He affects to believe the recent IRS fuckup is "government tyranny" and says, "the IRS has done America a considerable favor... Next time an authoritarian [!!] explains how, say, a national gun registry will be just swell — and labels its naysayers as neurotic — his opponents will have a new and useful shorthand: 'IRS scandal.'" (For this analogy with the Tea Party scam to be perfect, actually, the people trying to get guns would have be intending to murder someone with them, and the tyranny would be that some of them would be delayed by the government in doing so.)

Later, chatting about his essay with friends, Cooke adds:

Odd as it might sound, having a sizeable portion of the population reflexively take the view that the government would hurt them if it could is, I think, a good thing. There are no black helicopters and there may never be any black helicopters. But isn’t it positive that people are worried about them?

Cooke has said some pretty crazy things on this head before, but now reveals himself quite literally committed to irrationality. I don't think he's the only one. For years they've cherished this dream, and now something shimmering in the distance convinces them that it's come true. They've been waiting for Amok Time so long that they can't even hold back enough to make it look good.

ANNALS OF THE CULTURE WAR, TV PARTY EDITION.

William F. Gavin at National Review on Mad Men:

...the show has degenerated into absurdity, loss of focus, and meandering plot lines. The main character has become eccentric, distant, increasingly mean-spirited, and disoriented. 

Gee, come to think of it, this sounds just like the Obama administration, doesn’t it?

At dinner tonight, Gavin told friends, "This soup is thin and bitter -- like Obama!" Leaving the restaurant, he buttoned his jacket and remarked, "The night's gotten cold, like Obama's relationship with the press. Or maybe like the corpses of the babies slaughtered by Planned Parenthood." But no one was left to hear him.

Elsewhere in the same venue, Greg Pollowitz:

Somebody Should Get Fired Over SNL's Benghazi Skit

It’s gotten to the point where I’m amazed when SNL is actually funny or relevant as political satire, but Saturday’s cold open wasn’t just a dud as a joke, but completely offensive to the four Americans who lost their lives in Benghazi.

I imagine Pollowitz drunk at some bar, yelling "This jukebox is full of lies!" Like I often say: Do they even know any normal people?

NEW VOICE COLUMN UP...

...about the Benghazi hearings and the inevitable rightblogger judgement that Obama and Hillary Clinton are guilty of murder and/or treason. Imagine how pissed they'll be if Obama isn't impeached! Actually we already have some idea.

CULTURE WAR: A NEW LOW.

Some guy at the American Enterprise Institute has started a "Greatest Conservative Rap Songs of All Time" list.  His first choice, a Justin Bieber joint, is intolerably stupid but, as always, the whole Zhdanovite idea is the stupidest thing, as shown by his mission statement:

The songs I discuss express support not just for pro-family social values, but also for small government and peace through strength.

If this list doesn't include "Mind of a Lunatic" I call bullshit.

UPDATE. I got another nominee:



What? Admittedly his flow's a little sticky. But hell, you might say conservatives invented rap.

AS USUAL, UNCLEAR ON THE CONCEPT OF CONSENT.

Shorter Charles C.W. Cooke: If Michelle Knight had voluntarily aborted, she'd be just as guilty as Ariel Castro.

UPDATE. I'm not even kidding:

Yet abortion is legal in Ohio, as everywhere else in the United States. This means that if you kill an unborn child in Ohio with the mother’s permission, it’s okay; if you do it without her permission, it’s murder. The unborn child, therefore, is only a life if the mother says it is a life. That makes no logical sense at all.

She's just a bourgeois rentier, is what, and Charles C.W. Cooke wants to nationalize her uterus. I have to hand it to him, though; if you'd told me someone would be insane enough to find an anti-abortion angle in the Cleveland horror story, I'd have predicted it would be Kathryn J. Lopez. Cooke's a real up-and-comer at National Review, and will no doubt loyally join K-Lo and Goldberg in the bunker when the suckers finally wise up and submit their publication to market forces.

THANK YOU, MARK SANFORD.

I already knew Mark Sanford's reelection was hilarious, but though I'm sure Elizabeth Colbert Busch is a nice person and would have represented South Carolina... well, would have been a better Congressional rep than Sanford, I warmed a little to the victor after reading this outburst at National Review by one Hilary Towers, "a psychologist and mother of five":

It is time for conservatives to publicly recognize the widespread phenomenon of spousal abandonment, and the system of “family law” that supports it, for what they both are — a national scandal. 

Among other things, this election result is a searing reminder that we have, as a nation, lost touch with what “redemption” really means — with the true power of God’s grace, which is the power to transform behavior. And behavior, after all, is a reflection of the heart. How much longer can conservative stewards of family values turn a blind eye to the very narcissistic lifestyle choices of our leaders that we are fighting so hard to weaken (and ultimately transform) in society at large?

To put it in some context, those sections of National Review's The Corner not currently given over to Benghazi broodings are mostly devoted to Kathryn J. Lopez's wailings over abortion, and those of affiliated God-botherers like Wesley J. Smith, the title of whose offering "Hollywood Biggies Love Late Term Abortionists" tells you pretty much what you need to know about the tone of the place these days.

In other words, conservatives are still stuck in their post-electoral tantrum, and in this chaos the moral scolds of the movement, who were remarkably easy to silence and shunt to the side when any prospect of victory was visible, have been left free to seize the mic and ululate. Their connection with the world the rest of us inhabit has always been tenuous, but now that they have no reason to compromise with reality they have gone practically Dominionist. So if for nothing else, I owe Sanford some thanks for inspiring the anguish I expect Towers' ravings represents among the fundies. This will make it that much harder for them to pretend to be sane whenever they appear before normal Americans.

Sanford's victory also hasn't done any favors to the logical processes of Jonah Goldberg, who spent the writing period between his third and fourth breakfasts trying to split the difference:

Let me say upfront: I would rather we lived in a society where adultery had a higher social cost. That’s not to say people shouldn’t be forgiving or that there should be no such thing as second chances. But ideally, I’d like it if things were less loosey-goosey. Cheat on your wife, and maybe you don’t get to run for public office anymore.

This prose version of flop sweat goes on for quite some time before Goldberg gets to the nub:

What was on the ballot [in South Carolina] was a choice between a woman who tried to dodge the fact she was a liberal running to advance the liberal agenda of the Democratic party and a conservative whose marriage fell apart because he fell in love with somebody else. I’m not condoning Sanford’s behavior — at all — but...

But there can be no crime bigger than liberalism, and if you people who think "values" is more than a slogan we use to con suckers would just get with the program, Goldberg could stop trying to reach you and devote his pie-hole to greater helpings of pie, as God and Lucianne intended.

[Sanford's] formidable wife didn’t run to the stage to gaze admiringly and forgivingly at her disgraced husband to lessen the political damage. She kicked him to the curb and moved on with her life. Every marriage is different and we can’t peer inside any but our own, but I admired Jenny Sanford’s response.

Of course, one could argue that Huma, Hillary, and Silda were more “pro-marriage” in that they stayed by their husbands. And that just gets us back to how the culture has changed. It’s a fascinating thing.

"Fascinating thing" is Goldberg code for "holy shit, I just obliterated my own point fart, fart..."

Speaking very broadly as there are exceptions all over the place, it seems like liberal political couples work harder to save their marriage after a sex scandal. Again, that’s just an impression. I haven’t tabulated all the cases.

"FaaarrrrRRRRRRrrrrrrRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRrrrrrrt..."

Or do they place less stock in the value of fidelity (it’s just sex, who cares?). It seems to me there are a lot of ways to dissect that. For now, suffice it to say the times have changed.

"...[spectacular, 4th-of-July cannonade of farts and sharts] Not to worry, I'm a legacy pledge nobody expects this to make sense fart, farrrrRRRRRRtt AND IN CONCLUSION JFK was disgusting and Colbert Busch loved JFK, I bet, please don't nobody check fart fart fart, AND IN DOUBLE SECRET fart CONCLUSION..."

It’s absolutely true that conservatives need to wrestle with the question of what we should expect from our politicians. But I’m not sure liberals have anything worth listening to on the subject.

Let's put it this way: That's not an egg he just laid. I hate to replay my greatest hits, but this is the stupidest thing ever written, and will remain so until Goldberg writes something else.

RAY HARRYHAUSEN, 1920-2013.

Fuck CGI.

NEXT TIME: THE GREEN GOBLIN IS SOLYNDRA!

PJ Media kulturkampfer John Boot has made these pages before, denouncing Bruce Springsteen for advocating "violent revolution, class-and-politics-based bloodshed, and the murder of bankers and perhaps other capitalists," and explicating "5 Core Conservative Values in the New Jackie Robinson Biopic 42." Now he gives us 850 words on the latest Hollywood threat to our way of life. Weatherman thriller The Company You Keep?  No:

Iron Man 3 Treats Islamist Terror Like a Joke

Not even kidding.

Iron Man, though, is a smart franchise and initially, despite its comic-book soul, took an admirably unsympathetic view to Islamist terror...

But then the kulaks got to them!

Yet Iron Man 3 is a huge step backward that openly mocks the War on Terror via the villain the Mandarin (Ben Kingsley).

Shane Black could have made the villain Allah Ishkabibble, an Al Qaeda kingpin working with Hillary Clinton on Benghazi, but he chose treason.

Spoiler alert: Read no farther if you don’t want a central plot twist ruined. But what happens in the second half of the movie is critical to understanding the spinelessness of Hollywood and its revolting willingness to reduce the War on Terror to a cheap laugh.

BuzzFeed oughta hire this guy. I will omit the spoiler, though you might find this bit spoilt in its own way:

Millions of fans too young to remember 9/11 will line up to see Iron Man 3, but it’s not just to them that Hollywood’s leading filmmakers have a duty. Reducing the alarmingly durable threat of Islamist fundamentalism to potty humor is an insult not just to Daniel Pearl’s family but to the millions of Americans who continue to wage the War on Terror. It’s as if, a decade after Hitler, a movie portrayed a Hitler-like villain as a harmless oaf who was no threat to anyone.

Nobody tell him about Achmed The Dead Terrorist. Glimmer-of-self-awareness bonus: Boot asks himself --

Am I asking too much of a comic book movie?

Doesn't last long, though. With this bunch it never does.

UPDATE. Responding to Boot's peculiar notion that it's counterproductive to make fun of the enemy in wartime, commenters point out that Hitler was a figure of fun in Der Fuehrer's Face, Plane Daffy, You Natzy Spy, To Be or Not To Be, All Through the Night, The Great Dictator, "Hitler Has Only Got One Ball," et alia. Of course it's possible Boot is familiar with all these entertainments, but unable to grasp the concept of "fun."

NEW VOICE COLUMN UP...

...about Jason Collins being gay and rightbloggers being unable to appreciate it. Sad for them, really. I mean, in a hilarious way.

I couldn't really work it in, but I also got a kick out of the whole Niall Ferguson thing, especially when Jonah Goldberg came waddling in to explain why Keynes' homosexuality was, too, valid grounds for discounting his economics:

So Keynes believed that Puritan values inclined people to embrace an economic theory (capitalism), but the Ferguson episode teaches us that it is now beyond outrageous to suggest that Keynes’s rejection of Puritan values inclined him to embrace a slightly different economic theory (Keynesianism)? Got it.

If you wonder where Goldberg gets the idea that gayness is synonymous with "rejection of Puritan values," go look at his recent farts on the subject; gays used to be society-wreckers who "wanted to smash the bourgeois prisons of monogamy, capitalistic enterprise and patriotic values and bask in the warm sun of bohemian 'free love,'" Goldberg has written, but in the 21st Century "the sweeping embrace of bourgeois lifestyles by the gay community has been stunning." Thus in Goldberg's mind Keynes was like some guy at the Anvil doing amyl and fucking a boatload of guys. And how can you take someone like that seriously?

And Goldberg thinks that Ferguson's apology is the result of a Soviet show-trial instead of a genuine reaction to shame -- which makes sense, since shame is something Goldberg's work and signature on same prove he's incapable of feeling.

NEXT WEEK: THE RED BADGE OF COURAGE -- IF ONLY THE GOVERNMENT HADN'T INTERVENED.

If you love conservatives telling you that works of art they like are conservative, you'll love Nick Gillespie, chief advance man for that conservative niche brand called libertarianism, giving the treatment to The Great Gatsby:

Ultimately, Gatsby is the great American novel of the ways in which free markets (even, and perhaps especially, black markets) overturn established order and recreate the world through what Joseph Schumpeter called “creative destruction.”

We're livin' in that orgastic future that year by year recedes before us, baby, and lovin' it! Gillespie also seems to think Meyer Wolfsheim is the hero of the book, and that The Sound and the Fury is "dated."

Sometimes all you need to become a philistine is a philosophy.

AND HOW COULD I EVER REFUSE/I FEEL LIKE I WIN WHEN I LOSE.

The latest Obama ragegasm from Peggy Noonan is as horrible as you'd expect, but one section deserves special mention, concerning "two things that have weakened the Obama presidency and haven't been noted":

In the days after the 2012 election the Democrats bragged about their technological genius and how it turned the election. They told the world about what they'd done—the data mining, the social networking, that allowed them to zero in on Mrs. Humperdink in Ward 5 and get her to the polls. It was quite impressive and changed national politics forever. But I suspect their bragging hurt their president. In 2008 Mr. Obama won by 9.5 million votes. Four years later, with all the whizbang and money, he won by less than five million. When people talk about 2012 they don't say the president won because the American people endorsed his wonderful leadership, they say he won because his team outcomputerized the laggard Republicans. 

This has left him and his people looking more like cold technocrats who know how to campaign than leaders who know how to govern. And it has diminished claims of a popular mandate. The president's position would be stronger now if more people believed he had one.

They try all sorts of things to deny that they got beat in an election by a sitting President with a 7.8% unemployment rate, but this is the first time I've seen one of them try and tell me that Joe Blow of Middletown has been retroactively demoralized by the cold technocracy of the 2012 Democratic campaign. Wait till someone tells him about Karl Rove!

Noonan's other weakening point -- about how Obama thinks he can't make deals with Republicans just because they keep saying they don't want to make them but he should know better -- is merely the sort of bald-faced denial of reality that we've learned to expect from her. But the one about how Obama doesn't have a mandate because he's too good at politics is something special; it's so self-refuting it's almost a Zen riddle.

ARTY FARTY.

Shorter Jonah Goldberg: I bet those stupid liberal TV-show-makers thought they were making the Soviet Union look good, but I saw it and I still hate communism  farrrrt.

Longtime fans will be pleased to hear Goldberg's traditional empirical method is unchanged:

I gather the show’s creators think they are being subversive or at the very least very clever by getting viewers to root for the "bad guys." Those quotation marks are essentially Hollywood’s, not my own.

Maybe that was in the press packet. And:

Getting back to the slipperiness of popular culture, I have to wonder if the producers realize how much the show undercuts the Left, at least the Hollywood Left.

Leftists in Hollywood were always much more serious about communism than Leftists in New York and Washington, which inevitably led to the Socialist Workers Party purge of 1984. And:

Avoiding spoilers as much as possible, one character, an African-American Communist spy recruited from the civil-rights movement, should have the Left furious. If you take the character seriously (which I don’t necessarily recommend) he demonstrates not only the murderous commitments of the hard Communist Left, but he basically vindicates J. Edgar Hoover’s most extreme rhetoric about the civil-rights movement!

Expect this to be rolled up in conservative minority outreach: "Oh yeah, what about that guy on that show?"

AGAINST REASON.

Thanks Aaron M. Dellutri for directing me to this remarkable The American Conservative post by Eve Tushnet -- whose work I've noticed before -- suggesting we teach too much "critical thinking" in schools:

Critical thinking has so thoroughly colonized our idea of education that we tend to think it’s the only kind of thinking. Tests try to measure it, and ritzy private schools all claim to teach it. Critical thinking–analysis, not mere acceptance–is a skill we can all learn. And we’ve learned it too well. We’ve learned only critical thinking skills, and not the equally challenging skills of prudent acceptance: We don’t even realize that we need to learn when to say yes, and to what.

This sounds like a good line to try on that philosophy major chick you're trying to bang.

We teach students to find the undefended premises of an argument, or the contradictions in a claim. This is really easy.

Easy? Teachers, do you agree?

Every single argument has a premise for which it doesn’t and can’t argue, and every even mildly interesting worldview is built on conflict and internal tension. Not every contradiction is a reason to reject a worldview!

If some liberal were coming at her with a line like this, I imagine the words MORAL RELATIVISM would come flaming out of Tushnet's skull. But she's appealing to our higher unreasoning:

...What we don’t teach, and don’t even consider as something worth teaching, is the art of acceptance. The art of accepting somebody else’s thoughts, words, insights, and dwelling in them until they become your own as well. We don’t teach how to tell when you’re sure enough, when you really should take the leap of faith, when you should say, “Yes, my understanding is totally inadequate, but I believe"...

...And so we wait, and we keep our options endlessly open, hoping that some lightning-strike revelation will take the decision out of our hands. “When I met your mother I just knew...” “And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus, and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven...”

Lovely moments, surely, but how would you teach students to recognize them? "Tommy, look at Susie. Pretend she's the one for you, forever. Go!" "Well, Susie's nice and all but..." [Buzzer sounds, "F" dispensed.]

There's actually no place in education for such a thing, unless it's 1.) a cult leader's brainwashing session, or 2.) a school for religious instruction (but I repeat myself), which I suspect is the godly Tushnet's real model. Or, perhaps, a very bad classroom in which students are never challenged to go beyond what they already know, and are in fact given permission to stew in their own prejudices until they become a more transcendentally stupid version of themselves. You know -- the kind of place that folks who are always yapping about teacher "indoctrination" think a school should be.

We've been running with that old "reality-based community" thing for a while, but it never gets old because over time these people never get better at pretending that their real battle is not with liberalism but with Western Civilization.

UPDATE. Commenter Mortimer tells us this sort of thinking is popular even outside the meth labs of the right blogosphere -- from the Texas Republican Party 2012 platform (I don't know how I missed this):

We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs.

Sara Robinson has a nice essay on critical thinking and schools at AlterNet, in which she also sticks up for teaching "the arts, crafts and humanities" -- something else Tushnet opposes ("we fetishize self-expression and novel or counterintuitive approaches to problems..."). They're so often wrong about everything important that it's hard to believe that isn't their goal.

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT.

I don't usually do this, but my old colleague Steven Thrasher's story at Gawker, "Haaay to the Chief: The Military-Industrial Complex Conquers the Homos," is such gutsy journalism I'm sure many people will not even recognize it as such. Sample:

When SF Pride's electoral college of former grand marshalls selected Private Manning last week, it was time for these Professional Homosexuals to step in. Lisa Williams, SF Pride Board President, wrote that "even the hint of support" for Bradley Manning "will not be tolerated by the leadership of San Francisco Pride." Get it? Don’t even hint about it! 

The Professional Homosexual went on, completely without irony, to denounce her own organization's electoral college as "a system whereby a less-than-handful of people may decide who represents the LGBT community's highest aspirations as grand marshals for SF Pride," completely ignoring that she was one of a different handful vetoing their choice. According to her SF Pride bio, Williams is president of "One Source Public Affairs, a boutique consulting firm that specializes in the management of state, local and national political campaigns and strategic programs for non-profit organizations"...

As Jack Nicholson once said after doing a take with Brando on The Missouri Breaks: scorches the earth, doesn't he?

UPDATE. Some lively discussion of and dissension on Steven's story in comments. The main rap seems to be that he's just naively disappointed by the transformation of what used to be called the gay liberation movement into a political power brokerage that sometimes makes regrettable choices. (Longtime commenter Halloween Jack even calls the story "revisionist bullshit.") We can argue over what tradeoffs are worth making, certainly. I'd say the important thing is that Steven noticed the phenomenon at all -- especially the flow of military contractor money into big gay orgs. Too many people seem to miss that, in politics as in life, a lot of what looks like moral imperative is just arbitrage.

A CONSPIRACY SO VAST.

The President had some good gags at the White House Correspondents Dinner, one of the better (and better-reported) ones being, "These days, I look in the mirror and I have to admit, I'm not the strapping young Muslim socialist I used to be."

You all heard that one, right? You did? Well you're lying, because FrontPageMag's Robert Spencer has proven that the Lame Stream Media is covering it up:

Warner Todd Huston reported at Breitbart Monday that “in some of its reports on Saturday night’s White House Correspondents Dinner (WHCD), the Associated Press failed to include one of President Obama’s own gags.”

Obama said: “These days I look in the mirror and have to admit, I’m not the strapping young Muslim Socialist that I used to be.” But, noted Huston, “in one version of the night’s story (as seen at Huffington Post, Time Magazine, Breitbart Wires, the Ottawa Citizen, and The Columbian to name a few), the AP’s Bradley Klapper forgot one part of the President’s joke,” reporting his words as “I’m not the strapping young Socialist that I used to be,”

Why? Did they think it had too much of a ring of truth?

Why did some editors at AP or at the publications that picked up the AP story think it necessary to run interference for Obama on this point?

The rest of the column is about how Obama is too a big Muslim.

You may be wondering what Spencer and his fellow idiots are trying to accomplish. My guess is, they're thinking about future generations. No one living at the present moment and aware of the news could possibly believe AP is purposely blocking Obama's famous joke. But down the road apiece, when the shattered remnants of the White People's Party are living in survivalist treehouses in the Dakotas, they're tell their children how Obama even admitted he was a Muslim and the media covered it up, and produce some dog-eared Wayback Machine files as proof. After all, they're big on heritage.

UPDATE. Speaking of the WHCD, Conan O'Brien apparently made a joke about Duck Dynasty and National Review's Greg Pollowitz spends hundreds of words ferociously insisting it wasn't funny. When I read that stupid thing about the reality show being a conservative touchstone, I thought it was just one guy's foolishness, but apparently it's a thing: Rod Dreher has gotten in on it, as have S.E. Cupp and those crazy kulturkampfers at Acculturated.

I kind of take the point, though -- if you're the sort of person who chooses what crap TV shows to watch based on ideology, <foxworthy>yew might be a conservative!</foxworthy>.

LIBERTARIAN OUTREACH ON GAY RIGHTS.

Hey, an NBA player says he's gay, great. This is something liberals and libertarians can agree on, right? Not if libertarians can help it! Matt Welch at Reason:

The Importance of Allowing People to Say That You Can’t Be a Gay Basketball Player and a Christian

He's talking about ESPN's Chris Broussard, who for the crime of criticizing the gay basketball player was beaten to death. Okay, not murdered, just beaten. Okay, not beaten, just criticized by people on Twitter, which is still censorship (because anything short of responding to Broussard's mouth-fart with "Intelligent people can disagree" and a pat on the back would be).

Broussard is predictably getting beaten to a rhetoric pulp on Twitter. And while I think today is a wonderful, watershed day for people (especially the artist formerly known as Ron Artest) to live as open and free as they wanna be, I agree with the New York Post editorial Robert George here: "Chris Broussard spoke what more than a few players feel. If such comments aren't expressed, a real conversation can't be had."

Actually America had this conversation for years. Thesis: "DIE FAGGOT!" Antithesis: (cries of pain). Fascist that I am, I don't see any point in reviving it.

And sometimes engaging with the I'm not ready to go that far just yet crowd brings out the best in activists. See, for example, Martin Luther King's "Letter From a Birmingham Jail."

MLK was glad people were opposing him -- in fact, he'd have been disappointed if people suddenly gave up and let him have what he wanted. Where'd be the fun in that? And getting assassinated was just an inevitable part of the process.

There is only one possible explanation for Welch's bizarre post: As I've been saying for years, libertarianism is just a hipper line extension of conservatism, the rightwing version of Budweiser Black Crown. So if liberals like something you'd imagine libertarians would approve, Reasonoids still have to maintain the anti-liberal brand positioning by bitching about it in a way the mouth-breathers can approve. The cleverer ones will do it by explaining how gay rights is statist, but with the kind of funding they have, there's really no need for a libertarian to be clever. Q.E.D.

NEW VOICE COLUMN UP...

...about the rightbloggers who think the Boston bombings are a good reason to stop the immigration bill, or immigration in general. The whole thing reminds me of the Palmer Raids as performed by a clown troupe.

GEORGE JONES, 1931-2013.

Just heard. I'll have something more to say later, maybe. His music was my good companion through some bad times; next to Sinatra in the When No One Cares era, maybe, nothing suits a sorrow binge like George Jones. (He's good when you're not sad, too, I later found out.) And while I normally don't give a damn what happens to famous people, his apparent ascent into happiness late in life was very cheering to me.

For now it's enough to say that along with everything else, George Jones was one hell of a singer.



UPDATE. He could be funny, too. Used to cover this one in a country band I was in:



UPDATE 2. In comments TomParmenter supplies "Rock  It," a number Jones did in his "Thumper Jones" secret rockabilly identity. But does anyone have tape of him singing as Donald Duck?

UPDATE 3. Just wanted to add:

• In high school a friend of mine saw him at the Westbury Music Fair and told me Jones was using the name "Tammy" in place of female pronouns, which got some gasps from the crowd. I thought maybe Jones had just been having an episode, but then I saw him on TV singing "If drinkin' don't kill me, Tammy's memory will" on some awards show. I can understand trading in on one's legend -- he did have a funny number called "No-Show Jones," and joked about his drinking -- but think about what it would take to declare yourself like that, to keep telling people that you'd had that one big love and it didn't work out. Jones was in show biz, but I think the feelings the songs talk about weren't an act.

• The "Ragged But Right" clip shows a younger, lighter Jones; his vocal instrument is pure and strong and he doesn't mess with it much. And that kind of material ("White Lightnin'," "Love Bug," etc.) doesn't call for messing with. The later Jones most people know, though, is the one singing those heartbreak songs, and by then he'd learned a few tricks. I think of "A Good Year for the Roses," where he moves between a low, confidential delivery ("After three full years of marriage it's the first time that you haven't made the bed") and those amazing, keening high notes ("As you turn and walk a-way..."). I say "tricks," but they don't sound tricky -- because, as difficult as most singers would find that kind of transition, Jones made it seem very natural, like that's just how it had to be sung. And that's part of what gives me goosebumps whenever I hear it. He goes from a wounded murmur to something like a howl of pain, and back again; the thing he's talking about isn't just sadness, it's torment; the inconsolable sorrow of lost love. The reason you can bear it, and maybe the reason he could, is that he made it into art.

THE NEW HISTORY'S GREATEST MONSTER.

Dame Noonington's hate-on for Obama has engorged to the point where she's comparing him unfavorably to Jimmy Carter. If we invade Syria, expect Noonan to pen a column from the POV of Bashar al-Assad, who will have mellowed becomingly with age, and whose personal happiness she will posit as the real reason that emotional cripple in the White House is after him.

REALITY TV VS. REALITY.

You stupid hippies think you own this country? Well, PJ Media's David Vicker has news for you! Duck Dynasty is popular!

Each week millions think they’re tuning in to watch the crazy and entertaining antics of a bunch of hirsuit, rich rednecks... What viewers are really watching are the Bitter Clingers candidate Obama so famously disparaged at a San Francisco campaign event back in 2008, and the Makers that President Obama denigrated in his “You didn’t build that speech” of 2012. If anyone in America clings to God, guns and religion, and did build that, it’s the Robertson clan...

..in a reliably Republican redoubt in rural Louisiana. Good for them, but what does that have to do with America in general? Well, to hear Vicker tell it, it's aspirational:

If annual sales, endorsement deals, and TV ratings are any indicator, the brand of Americanism these swamp rats are peddling is white lightning in a bottle. Down on our luck, out of hope, and sick-and-tired-of-change Americans can’t get enough of Duck Dynasty’s message, or its messengers. They take us back to the ideals that really work in this country.

The paterfamilias of this duck-call dynasty is worth about $10 million, in a parish where the estimated median household income in 2009 was $32,777. (Percentage of residents living in poverty in West Monroe, Louisiana in 2009: 25.3%.) And apparently the Robertsons are looking for a raise from their TV show.

Again, good for them; anything the traffic will allow, as the old song says. TV's currently full of Duck Dynasts and Real Housewives and such like; they're the modern equivalents of the swells and toffs whose adventures impoverished Americans have enjoyed following since the screwball comedies of the Great Depression. But nothing in our history suggests these entertainments mean the American People didn't mean what they said when they elected a President last November who was less than duck-dynastic.

Fantasies like Vicker's remind me of hippies who thought the country was really with them because Bonnie and Clyde and The Graduate were big at the box office, despite the electoral returns.  Counterculture's a fun game to play when you're losing, but if culture, counter or otherwise, is meaningful to you, then its effect on electoral results -- actual or mitigating -- will not be so important. Decades later, Bonnie and Clyde and The Graduate are still worth watching, though. Can we expect the same of Duck Dynasty? If so, then politics is the least of our problems.

KILL US ALL, LET GOD SORT US OUT.

A lot of what the brethren have written about Boston has been deranged, but leave it to PJ Media/NewYork Post blowhard Michael Walsh to raise the bar. In this emission, his point is that with last week's lockdown the "pusillanimous toads... Gov. Deval Patrick and Mayor Mumbles Menino" had the city "cowering in fear" when they should have sent all Boston's able-bodied citizens out to shoot up the suspect and whatever got between him and them, or something equally butch.

There's plenty that's stupid and offensive in this, but connoisseurs will appreciate this bit about the 2004 Beslan school massacre, which Peters offers as a preferable model:

Note that, when the Russian military finally stormed the school, they were accompanied by armed residents of the village, desperate to save their children. In typical ham-handed Russian fashion, the former Soviets managed to kill almost as many people as they saved — but the point is they fought back.

Much better than last Friday's result, which was casualty-free as well as successsful, but without honor.

Sometimes I wonder if Walsh is just one of Col. Ralph Peters' secret identities.

POST-TRAUMATIC ATTENTION DEFICIT SYNDROME.

At The American Spectator Jeffrey Lord has one called "Jihad Blows Up the Liberal Utopia" and as you may have guessed, it reflects the growing rightwing consensus on Boston, which appears to boil down to Since you fuckers won't listen to us on any other topic, let us win you back with Terror! 

But as we saw in my recent Voice column, these guys also appear to have lost the self-discipline required to focus exclusively on the war-drum -- as one imagines they would if they were really serious about it -- without breaking into a tom-roll of talking points unrelated to the subject. It's like they want to go back to the Bush Years (now under new management and rehabilitation -- watch this space!), and they want to go now -- so rather than wait for Terror to soften the sheeple's minds, they just yell "Boo!" and then start yelling about deficit spending.

So after starting on-topic with "The Liberal Utopia is a land where gun background checks prevent mass murder" (I didn't say reasonably, I said on-topic), Lord veers, telling us the jihad has also blown up the Liberal Utopia of Social Security, Medicare, War on Poverty, etc.

He reaches what I would say is the nadir here, on the subjects of gun control and the apparent successor to Lena Dunham as the right's favorite female hate-object, Gabby Giffords:

Next up was former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who took to the Op-Ed page of the New York Times to say “I’m furious.” Giffords accused the Senate of being in the “grip of the gun lobby” fearful of political consequences. 

Gifford’s statement was filled with irony. There are people aplenty out there who have also discussed issues other than guns as being a problem in this area of violence in America. Indeed just this last Sunday Boston’s Cardinal Sean O’Malley not only talked about guns but the role of abortion in what O’Malley called a “Culture of Death.” But did Gabby Giffords want to talk about abortion as a contributing factor?

In case you're wondering if you imagined it: yes, he did just ask why a woman who was shot in the head is more interested in gun control than abortion.

If their movement ever acquires a leader, I suggest for starters he or she should pass out some Ritalin.

TRIPPING.

Just looked in on Ed Driscoll's latest, yet another sprawling stream-of-semiconsciousness about how America was destroyed by the beatniks of the Frankfurt School and whatnot, and it's all too convoluted to pull apart but let me at least share with you this wonderful passage:

1968 contrasted the two American space programs: real-life NASA had to compete for attention with the Cinerama visions of Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, the top-grossing film of 1968, which smuggled its Nietzschian philosophy into movie theaters via space stations and talking computers, and was a magnificently photographed and scored exercise in liberal fascism.

Perfect as it seems, it's the next line that really makes it:

I don’t use the phrase lightly.

Please don't ever show him Forbidden Planet. They'll have to scrape him off the ceiling with a broom.

UPDATE. Big_Bad_Bald_Bastard wins comments: "The black monolith represents the 90% Democratic African-American voting bloc." But the game ain't over! e.g. GregMc: "My god! It's full of shit!"; Spaghetti Lee: "'Lower the top marginal income tax rate, HAL.' 'I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.'"

UPDATE 2. This reminds me of the great Mad parody "201 Minutes of Space Idiocy," which reminds me of a lovely Film Comment article on Mad movie parodies you should read.

NEW VOICE COLUMN UP....

.... about Boston. It runs long, but I had a superabundance of material. For example: The Czech Republic's press release, forced by general ignorance, that told people Chechans were not from the Czech Republic but from Chechnya, might prompt any number of reactions -- but check out this amazing response:

National 'Education' Association: YOU OWN THIS IGNORANCE.

John Birch Society paranoia PLUS War on Terror paranoia -- that's brilliant. Sometimes it's hard to believe they extemporize! 

WHAT, THEY FEEL SHAME?

Yeah, I wouldn't sign it either.

UPDATE. They finally put Kevin Williamson's name on it -- guess he drew the short straw.

ALSO, LET'S STORE GAS OVER BY THE SMOKERS' CORNER.

Cynical old cuss that I am, I never expected Democratic gun legislation to accomplish anything except the further embarrassment of their enemies. Looks like that's how it's playing out. The votes seemed choreographed to deliver maximum attention with minimal effect. They must think it was a good one to lose: Ours is a gun-friendly country, but not a gun-crazy one, and the sight of honkies jubilant at the defeat of a popular and harmless background check law may pay dividends for the Democrats down the road.

If that doesn't do it, we can always count on lunatics like Jack Dunphy to help. At PJ Whatsit he comments on a Ready Houston video that shows office workers fending off a shooter with chairs and coffee pots.  While he commends the can-do spirit, Dunphy is yet unsatisfied -- he wants those desk jockeys armed:

Wouldn’t it be far preferable to bring a gun to the gunfight instead of a chair or a coffee pot? ...If I were to enter an office building under those circumstances and ask some fleeing worker where the gunman was, I would hope to hear an answer like this: "He’s face down in the stairwell. Williams from accounting shot him."

I bet many of you folks are at an office right now. Take a look around.



Sure, arm the workplace. What could go wrong?

UPDATE. Arm the teachers, too.

DUH-BLE STANDARD.

Shorter Ole Perfesser: People expect me to disseminate bullshit indiscriminately -- what's your excuse?

UPDATE. Oh yeah, readers remind me, there's also his charming tweet to Gabby Giffords. Some guys prefer their targets wounded, I guess.

ALSO TOTALLY CONSERVATIVE: THOSE DELICIOUS BALLPARK FRANKS.

You knew it was coming -- from John Boot at PJ Media:

5 Core Conservative Values in the New Jackie Robinson Biopic 42

Among these:

2) There’s no substitute for a strong, loving nuclear family.

Demonstrated thus:

Robinson never knew his own father, who left his mother and her five children when Jackie was still a baby. In 42, when he gets the good news that the Brooklyn Dodgers want to give him a shot at being the first black player in the major leagues (in reality, there were some black players in the early days of baseball back in the 1880s), Jackie phones up his girlfriend Rachel (Nicole Beharie) and asks her to marry him right away. Later in the film, Jackie is seen cuddling his newborn son Jackie Jr. and telling him, “I’m going to be with you till the day I die.” Robinson, who along with Rachel raised two other children as well, was as good as his word, remaining a family man until his too-early death at age 53.

I'd like to see an extended version, in which scenes of Robinson eating prove the conservative value of nutrition.

UPDATE. In comments, Doghouse Riley: "The part about how Robinson -- who called himself an independent, but supported Republican candidates -- left the party after what he witnessed of the '64 convention and became a Democrat? Demonstrates the conservative value of voluntary deportation, I suppose."

DEMOCRACY PROMOTION IN ACTION.

At National Review, Otto J. Reich complains about the Venezuelan elections:

If I were still assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs I would urge the secretary of state to not recognize the results of this election unless and until independent auditors documented that it was accurate. Even then, it was not a free or fair election. All assets of the national government were mobilized to support Maduro and international observers and media report widespread “irregularities” in the process.. the will of the Venezuelan people is being thwarted.

From Wikipedia:

Reich held the post of Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs at the time of the 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt on April 11, 2002 against Hugo Chávez. On the day Pedro Carmona was installed as president, Otto Reich summoned ambassadors from Latin America and the Caribbean to his office to express their support and that of the US administration for the new government.

They should start hiring guys off the street to do this sort of work, just to avoid this sort of embarrassing backstory. Then again, why bother?

NEW VOICE COLUMN UP...

...about the Rand Paul speech at Howard, and what a great success it was with the real audience, which was not the one in the actual room.

UPDATE. The paragraph breaks went away for a while, but they seem to be back now; please let me know if the formatting goes haywire again.

IS THIS WHAT WE SENT YOU TO COLLEGE FOR?

At PJ Media, Susan L.M. Goldberg explains that Family Guy is the poisoned fruit of feminism. No, really. A section about what a terrible father Peter is begins with this:

Never has a term been so despised in the ivy halls as “The Patriarchy.”

Later:

Whether it’s the military, the doctor, or the monkey in the closet, the men on Family Guy do more to avoid perceived threats than to confront them, even if it means putting their own self-respect on the line. Ironically, while feminism focuses on the disenfranchisement of women, it has often done so by disenfranchising men.

Later still:

Whether playing up to feminist theory or playing into the results of a generation of male bashing, Family Guy’s definition of masculinity is the monster pieced together between books and over Cosmos.

The italicized Cosmos is in the original, so I don't whether Goldberg means the drink or the Carl Sagan TV show. (It's also possible her demoralized copy editor was laying a trap to find out if she can even read.)

Best part is Goldberg's bio:

Susan L.M. Goldberg is a writer with a Master's in Radio, Television & Film...

Wingnuts used to make fun of cultural studies gush -- look at all those liberal brats "studying" Madonna! Now they're not only going to college for it (and worshipping the queen of CultStud crap, Camille Paglia), they're writing a ridiculous amount of horrible cultural studies gush themselves.

They seem to think they're plumbing the Dark Mystery of the Arts to find the pulse of the electorate, but they just remind me of Chris Cooper trying to kiss Kevin Spacey in American Beauty. 

ANNALS OF THE CULTURE WARS.

Brad Todd at the Daily Caller:

Washington’s pundits have been united this spring. They’ve concluded that a single shift in culture on gay marriage has marooned one of America’s political ideologies from the public majorities of tomorrow.

The pundits are right that one political philosophy is being left behind but wrong about which one. It is liberals, not conservatives, who are chained to an ideology built for yesterday’s culture. The proof of this realignment is not on cable news, but...

I have to admit, folks, at this point I was very interested to see what, besides the political events of the day, presaged this conservative ascendancy.

... but on cable television’s hippest drama, “Mad Men,” which this week kicked off its final season to great fanfare.

Blink. Blink.

I thought next he was going to say that Mad Men shows the ruinous legacy of the liberal 60s because they made Don suicidal and Betty fat; alternatively, that it shows how great life was when women and black people were oppressed. Those would have made some sense on a juvenile level at least. But... To boil it down for you, the left is old and gross because Obamacare is sooo LBJ and soaked in "the collective emotional DNA of the post-war era," which the kids don't like because it's analog.

LBJ sold that audience national retirement pensions as easily as the age’s Mad Men built national brands of soap and beer. Similarly, the rest of society’s institutions nationalized as well — the American Legion, the Moose Lodge and the Methodist Church saw their ranks explode as the parents of Baby Boomers equated quality with conformity.

Fifty years later, Budweiser now disguises its products as pseudo-craft brands and the Methodist Church is withering in plain sight. The dominant brands of this age are not purveyors of conformed consumption but enablers of individualization — Apple, Google and Facebook.

And any fool can see that if you like social media and fake microbrews, you're just naturally gonna be right wing.  Haven't you seen Twitchy? Also:

Customers at the decade’s most ubiquitous national food merchant, Starbucks, have developed an entire language to express their half-caf, soy-no-whip, double-shot individual solutions.

It's like the conspicuous consumption of the Reagan era, only much cheaper, which is good because since our economy was destroyed in 2008 fancy coffee is about all we can afford.

So why, in the era of individualization, is the American political left still selling top-down mandatory standardization in everything from health insurance to local electricity generation? When nearly every thriving national brand succeeds by empowering Americans to seek and achieve different results, only the Democratic Party is peddling redistribution and a system that on its best day generates only mushy mediocrity.

Todd, you will not be surprised to learn, is an ad man, and this ripomatic reminds me of those post-Berlin-Wall corporate ads in which former slaves of Sovietism stepped into the sunlight and had a Coke and a smile. Only that's a bit out of style now. It's harder to convince people you represent the future when your suit is caked with dust from the demolition job you've done on the American Dream and your pockets are stuffed with fraudulent securities. Also, if you want to own "choice" as an equity, maybe identifying yourself with the dying anti-gay cause isn't such a hot idea.

I hope next they try to bring back South Park Conservatism and put Steve Crowder in charge. I could use a laugh.

UPDATE. Slightly edited because, like all the greats, I am constantly fiddling with my own work.

UPDATE 2. In comments, Mr. Wonderful asks:

There's got to be a name for this--this confident extrusion of analysis and prediction that seems so astute until it dawns on you, and your dog, that it is objectively, visibly wrong. Is this what they mean by "post-modernist political commentary"? Where they type something like, "Bernie Sanders, whether he knows it or not, is actually a Republican, because he's a member of the Senate, which is one of our oldest and most traditional public institutions"?

PoMoPolComm might work, but being a traditionalist I prefer "bullshit."

CONSERVATIVE MINORITY OUTREACH CONTINUES, CONTINUED.

Rand Paul did even worse than I expected. He literally did talk about Republican efforts on behalf of black citizens a century ago, and then explained the 20th-century switch in electoral trends this way:

You may say, "oh that’s all well and good but that was a long time ago what have you done for me lately?"

Ingrates!

I think what happened during the Great Depression was that African Americans understood that Republicans championed citizenship and voting rights but they became impatient for economic emancipation. 

African Americans languished below white Americans in every measure of economic success and the Depression was especially harsh for those at the lowest rung of poverty.

The Democrats promised equalizing outcomes through unlimited federal assistance while Republicans offered something that seemed less tangible--the promise of equalizing opportunity through free markets.

In other words: The Democrats bribed you to forget all your old friends. No mention of Republican racial politics from the Compromise of 1877 to Nixon's Southern Strategy, nor of the traditional conservative attitude toward integration and equal rights, nor Jesse Helms, nor Strom Thurmond, et alia and ad nauseam. The Civil Rights Act Paul only mentioned defensively, as something from which he'd "never wavered" except for that part about using the power of the state to enforce it.

Layer in a generous helping of self-pity ("and when I think of how political enemies often twist and distort my positions... My hope is that you will hear me out, that you will see me for who I am, not the caricature sometimes presented by political opponents... Republicans are often miscast as uncaring or condemning...") and you've got a perfect speech -- not for the folks at Howard University, but for the commenters at Reason who seem to understand Paul perfectly ("Maybe Paul should have offered up more free shit since that seems to work so well").

So in that sense it was a great success.

CONSERVATIVE MINORITY OUTREACH CONTINUES.

Thanks to Jack Fowler at National Review for steering his readers to this amazing promo:

It reminds me of my first job in high school, cold-calling people from a crummy office in downtown Bridgeport to try and get them to attend a presentation about a Florida real estate development scam called Rotunda. (You can read how Rotunda played out here.) It was run by something called the Cavanaugh Corporation, which claimed as one of its partners Ed McMahon -- whose autographed photo we cold-callers offered as a premium.

Also, I never noticed before how much Allen West looks like Alfred E. Neuman.

If you have to watch one of the crazy videos, this is the one: West on Hollywood! After a few fish-out-of-water gags about coming to Los Angeles -- when someone offers him some sushi, he says "I don't eat bait" -- he gets right down to how liberals won't let you say what you really want to, and conservatives are "so afraid of the Hollywood backlash that they meet in secret," by which I guess he means no one goes to their parties except Roger L. Simon. "Is this the America that some of us fought for?" roars West. "Is this some type of new Soviet-style Politburo being formed? Regardless I find it utterly disgusting to think that many of us who fought for the freedoms of our nation so that now it seems a handful of individuals get to define who can and who cannot speak..." He's also mad that Hollyweird stars are against guns: "I doubt Jim Carrey will be invited to give the start command at any NASCAR race. [Pause for laugh.]"

This scam is brought to you by PJTV, who seem to have gotten the down-on-his-luck West the way William Grefe got Rita Hayworth.

IF I CAN DREAM.

Press release:

U.S. Senator Rand Paul, R-KY, will speak at Howard University on inclusion in the Republican Party at 11 a.m. on Wednesday, April 10.

Imagine if Paul's appearance at Howard meant he was serious about minority outreach, as Colbert I. King at the Washington Post seems to think he is. Imagine if he owned up on behalf of the Republican Party to the Southern Strategy, by which the GOP won and held the South (and not a few Northern votes) by portraying themselves as the party of keeping you-know-who in line, and how that strategy persists to this day -- or rather to yesterday, he might say, because, he might even dare to admit, Republicans are not getting anywhere as a white people's party, and have surrendered to the necessity of treating black Americans as actual constituents rather than as objects of ooga booga, and are interested in hearing what they want.

Imagine how refreshing, not to say cleansing, such a speech might be! Because contrary to what Republicans seem to think, black Americans are hip to politics, and would probably appreciate it if Paul cut the bullshit and were willing to deal.

A beautiful dream. But --

Sen. Paul’s speech will focus on the importance of outreach to younger voters, as well as minority groups. He will also discuss the history of the African-American community’s roots in the Republican Party and current issues, such as school choice and civil liberties.

In other words: We used to be the Party of Lincoln, you people should love vouchers, etc. Kind of like Mitt Romney at the NAACP, but with more crazy eye-gleam.

Maybe he'll surprise me, but it sure looks like the Republicans are still, despite every motivation to do better, moving with all deliberate speed.

UPDATE. Commenter mds reminds me of what I had forgotten, even though I wrote about it at the time: that in 2010 Paul came out against the Civil Rights Act. Which would make him the perfect Republican to extend the olive branch! In fact, I think he should start weeping and announce he has sinned against his brothers -- "Forgive me, moochers!"

Is this thing going to be on TV?

NEW VOICE COLUMN UP...

...about the slow shift rightbloggers are making, in their hour of defeat, from yelling about gay marriage to yelling about straight marriage. You may not notice it yet, but I predict it'll be a comer; it'll be their chance to do outreach to gay people by giving the scolds, nags, and shrews in their community a place of welcome. Hell, they might even turn Andrew Sullivan back around.

ROGER EBERT, 1942-2013.

Here's my appreciation from 2004 of what Ebert did with his "Great Movies" section, which was the thing that turned me around on him. For years I'd considered him a lightweight, but his very good writing on difficult films made me appreciate that while his style might be glib, he wasn't -- he saw things in the pictures, and talked easily about them in a way all kinds of people could understand. That's a very great gift in a critic. And he kept his gift, and at the job, right to the end.

Also, here's a nice story Ebert told on himself as a green kid:

I had been in Chicago four months and I was sitting under the L tracks with Mike Royko in an eye-opener place. A Blackhawks game was playing on WGN radio. The team scored, and again, and again. This at last was life. 

“The Blackhawks are really hot tonight,” I observed to Royko. 

He studied me. “Where you from, kid? Downstate?” 

“Urbana,” I said. 

“Ever seen a hockey game?” 

“No.” 

“That’s what I thought, you asshole. Those are the game highlights.”

That whole column, like a lot of his columns, is well worth reading.

SMART ASS.

James Taranto is laying the contempt on thick in his best Professor of Liberal Fascism manner -- "complete sophistry," "embarrassing philosophical error," "philosophical narcissism," etc, so you know he thinks he's got a Good One. His target, A. Barton Hinkle, made the crucial error of embarrassing Taranto, who had defended the proposition (not that he necessary thinks so himself! Read the fine print!) that the institution of marriage rather than any specific marriages would be harmed by gay marriage.

Hinkle rightly found this to be nonsense: "After all, you would not say a virus 'threatens humanity' if, in fact, no individual human person was ever harmed by the virus."

For his rejoinder, Taranto postulates a virus of his own:

The Hinkle virus is so fast-spreading that it soon infects every person alive, but it is largely benign. It has no effect on men, and only two effects on women: (1) it is passed on to any children they have, and (2) any children they conceive after infection will be born homosexual.

Blink. Blink.

The Hinkle virus would seem to fit its namesake's criterion that it does no harm to any individual human person. We have established as a condition of the experiment--and we trust that in the real world Hinkle agrees--that it is not harmful to a woman to give birth to a homosexual child, nor is it harmful to a child to be born homosexual. And since the virus affects the sexual orientation only of the yet-unborn, it should not disrupt any existing heterosexual relationship.

Yet it should be obvious that the Hinkle virus would threaten humanity by dramatically reducing the incentive to reproduce...

Taranto could as well have said "any children they conceive after infection will be born male" -- nothing wrong with being male, right? -- or "any children they conceive after infection will be born female" -- nothing wrong with being female, right? Which in the long run would have an even more dramatic effect on reproduction, if not on the "incentive to reproduce." We could use this, I suppose, as proof that masculinity presents a threat to mankind without blah blah. Or femininity!

But Taranto's point isn't really that "X may harm humanity without harming particular humans." It's more like You liberals think homosexuality is harmless, but what if everyone turned gay? 

He follows this with reams of universals-vs.-particulars guff to retroactively class it up ("Humanity is not 'simply the sum of the humans in it' any more than A. Barton Hinkle is simply the sum of the cells in him, or those cells are the sum of the atoms in them"), but they don't relate to his virus analogy at all. They're just fancy cover for a dumb joke about gays -- such jokes being among the last pieces of armament the anti-gay-marriage side has left.

Like I said before: This is how you know you're winning.

WHY NOBODY LIKES THE GOLDBERG FRAUD SQUAD.

Jonah Goldberg has been leading a charge of his fellow creeps against the large numbers of disability beneficiaries in the United States. He's already had some answers, but I think this response of his deserves another:

The most intriguing complaints come from people who are in effect saying that, since they have serious disabilities, it’s outrageous for me to question anyone’s disability claim. I think most people can see the flaw in this thinking. In fact, I’m flummoxed as to why people with real disabilities wouldn’t be the ones clamoring the loudest to stamp out fraud. Maybe disability checks would be more generous if voters thought they were subsidizing fewer cheats?

It would be difficult for Goldberg to see it, considering who he hangs out with, but not everyone is like him. And, in rare good news for the Republic, there are even fewer people like him than there used to be.

Back in sunnier times, when there seemed to be some relationship between the good fortune of Wall Street and the average American's purchasing power, we had an easier time believing that there was something morally superior about making money, and therefore something wicked about being poor. Those old Reagan-era stories about welfare queens and strapping young bucks with T-bone steaks, idiotic as they were, got a lot of people who should have known better to think, yes, maybe we should reform welfare, because even though snatching back some of the scraps we've been throwing the paupers won't enrich us much, it would be better for America and our souls if we at least tried to be mean sons of bitches. For look at the Masters of the Universe! It's not charitable instincts powering their economic miracle, but enlightened self-interest.

Came the collapse, that hooey became harder to swallow. Since it's turned out that the worse we do the more Wall Street rallies, we can't even stand the smell of it.

Conservatives are still telling us about the queens and bucks, though, trying to get us back into pauper-bashing shape. Fox News reports the so-called poor have refrigerators so why are they complaining; well-fed rightbloggers are outraged that welfare recipients spend some of their money on fast food and movie rentals; Jonah Goldberg wants to know which of these cripples are faking it, and his asshole buddy is talking about this guy he knows who pulled himself up by his bootstraps so why can't they, etc.

It isn't going over like it used to because there's this funny thing about Americans: We tend to be nicer to each other when times are rough than when they're easy. We get more sympathetic to other people who are having it hard in life because we know we're only a few paychecks away from it ourselves and, being human, we react with sympathy, rather than like George Costanza to a fire at a children's party.

And this applies in ambiguous circumstances, too -- what Goldberg in his pretense of magnanimity calls the "grayer area." If someone's a bum who spends the change you give him on drugs, he's still a bum; if someone's living off the dole, it's still not much of a living, and it certainly affords far fewer options and rewards than a viable working life. And if some disability pensioners are less disabled than the law might allow, what a sad pass they've come to, that they would go through all that to claim some miserly stipend. That poverty is not pure -- "the poor," Jimmy Breslin has said more than once, "are a pain in the ass" -- doesn't mean it's not poverty.

But maybe you need to have some minimal capacity for empathy to see that. Someone who wonders why the disabled aren't as eager as he is to turn in frauds, and offers them fatter checks in hopes of motivating them, probably doesn't qualify.

UPDATE. Comments are more eloquent than I was; here's a prime cut from D. Johnston:

That, my lazy little friend, is why people with "real" disabilities hate what you're doing - they understand your true intent. There is no part of me that believes you are honestly interested in rooting out fraud. There are sectors of the government far more vulnerable to fraud - the military, for instance - that you don't seem to care about. They believe - as do I - that your objective is to make people think that people on disability are liars so you can spend the next twenty years using them as scapegoats.

MEGAN McARDLE, FIXED.

"...I think Susan Patton is basically right: people should be looking to get married as early as possible. I say this as someone who married late, and since I wouldn't want to have married anyone except my husband, I'm glad I waited. But" it's not like you losers have anything so great to look forward to.

YOUR MOMENT OF GOLDSTEIN.

How's the left oppressing patriots today? With video games!  Here's an NPR story:

Back in 2007, in the first installment of BioShock, Levine created a world based on Ayn Rand's individualist philosophy and let it play out. This time, Levine has turned a game into an Aristotelian tragedy and used the model of great tragic heroes.

I couldn't give a shit about video games, but apparently at some point the Bad Guys in this one are revealed to be racists, which prompts this arrgh-blaargh from The Virginian:

NPR broadcast an article today about a developer of a violent video game in which the bad guys were Christians who revered the Constitution and were blatant racists. Of course with a theme like that it's obviously comparable to one of the great tragedies of literature... 

To NPR this is just like Hamlet or Oedipus. This is an NPR employee's dream of all that's wrong with America; America's founders, the religious heritage, and,of course the racism of everyone who's not part of the NPR family.

Like I said, I don't care about gaming and the NPR story doesn't mention it, but are the Founding Fathers really in BioShock Infinite? Because that would great to use in history classes. It speaks to the kids!

But The Virginian's a piker -- the aargh ain't blaarghy till Jeff Goldstein gets at it:

It’s out in the open now. There’s no longer any real pretense of objectivity. Each time the progressive media “report” favorably on something they characterize like this (fairly or not) — and no switch comes down to sting their hands — they grow ever more emboldened... 

They are the ones they’ve been waiting for, they were told. And it invigorates them. It gives them a sense of purpose and momentum. Because through the heart of every leftist runs the blood of totalitarianism, of confirmation bias, of rank bigotry and a mob’s lust for violence, for punishment, for blood, for inflicting suffering on those who dare oppose their designs...

Gasp! Not confirmation bias!

I don’t care who rolls their fucking eyes at my saying this. Circumstances have taught me that in several years, when the political winds allow them to do so, those very same people on “my” side will be saying the very same things I’m writing on now, pretending there wasn’t a time they rolled their fucking eyes at the True Believers, the embarrassing Hobbits who were preventing them from wooing the moderates.

To paraphrase LBJ's analogy, he's outside the tent, pissing himself.

I eagerly await Bill Whittle's take.

UPDATE. This story seems to have been covered previously by Big Breitbart and by Mytheos Holt, whose culture war training has got him thinking correctly about how to cover a game stoners play when they're bored:

Naturally, the creators denied any intent to specifically attack Rand, arguing instead that their general intent was to criticize extremism of all stripes. And considering that the first game treats Andrew Ryan (who isn’t even the main villain of the original Bioshock) with far more sympathy than it treats the all-but-explicitly communist villain of Bioshock 2, Sofia Lamb, who willingly traumatizes her own daughter and leaves a trail of corpses behind her in her pursuit of a utopian society, one could argue that the series had been comparatively right-leaning up until Infinite.

After much study of the struggle of competing Tendencies in this video game series ("In other words, the Leftist mass movement could come off mildly more sympathetic, though not much"), Holt finally feels he can answer the question, "Was the game created by Marxists/atheists?"  The answer may surprise you!

Coming soon: Which pornographic Tumblrs are consonant with free enterprise? (Trick question! Only pay sites embody the robot Founders' vision.)

UPDATE 2. Commenter Gromet informs us that "Breakout was the last truly God-fearing and patriotic game" because "your job was to destroy a band of rainbow colors." Wait, what about the Hunger Games?

NEW VOICE COLUMN UP...

...about the gay marriage cases at the Supreme Court and all the hysteria they have engendered among the brethren. The ones where they try to play it cagey are even better than the ones where they aargh-blaargh sanctity of marriage etc, I think -- but you'll all have your own favorites, I'm sure.

REPUBLICAN MINORITY OUTREACH CONTINUES.

What could go wrong?

For those of you who have blissfully forgotten, Herman Cain is the black Donald Trump whose ridiculous Presidential run briefly excited the brethren until he resigned in ignominy, which they tried to blame on liberals.

Next up: Allen West makes a buddy picture with Chris Christie.

PROBLEM SOLVED.

So John Tracinski asks how do we get the youngs to vote GOP, but spends most of his column telling us that the college kids vote for liberals because the liberals brainwash them all with dependency and communism; after several rounds of these old Al Capp routines (only not funny) he cuts to an unexpected solution:

Yet the biggest failure of the right is that it has lost the economy’s technological elite.

Today’s John Galts and Hank Reardens are not in a valley in Colorado. They’re in a valley in California. The Hank Rearden of Silicon Valley, an innovator who started out in a garage and built a company which became the most valuable in the world, was Steve Jobs. But Jobs was—let’s be honest here—kind of a hippie. He had many of the virtues of an Ayn Rand hero, but a very different personal philosophy.

That brings us to what I think is the most important question to take away as the right examines how to reform itself. How does it win Silicon Valley? How does it get the best, most innovative segment of the youth, the ones who are actually plugged in to a vital and growing area of the economy, to see the value of free markets and to want to fight for them? I put it this way because I think that if the right learns how to win over the young innovators and entrepreneurs of Silicon Valley (and its many equivalents across the country), it will go a long way toward learning how to win over the youth vote.

Hmm, a Randian tech genius who believes the rest of the world is merely an appurtenance to his reality -- the answer is obvious: get John McAfee out of jail and back into the game! Hell, it worked with Tom DeLay.

SHORTER MICHAEL WALSH:

Fraud exists, so helping people is stupid.

(Actually, this could be the Shorter for the entire conservative movement.)