Friday, January 25, 2013

THE CONSERVATIVE COMEBACK PART 43,022.

The revanchism continues! The usual suspects are all het up about Hitlery saying, "What difference does it make?" -- which also happens to be the response of normal people when you tell them this whole Benghazi tsimmis is about whether the mob killed four people over a video or over the Siege of Cordoba.

Conservatives seem to sense this isn't going to burn the motherfucker down, so some of the nuttier ones like Rand Paul are expanding their conspiracy theories, which ThinkProgress notices, which in turn outrages Ann Althouse, who sees TP's headline "GOP Senator Pushes Gun-Running Conspiracy Theory During Benghazi Hearing" and complains,
Rand Paul asks a question. It seems histrionic to equate asking a question with pushing a conspiracy theory, and the truth is Hillary Clinton's answer has the ring of... lying. 
The effort on the left to stereotype Rand Paul as a nutcase is so strenuous that it stimulates my root-for-the-underdog instinct. And makes me suspicious. I feel a Rand-Paul-must-be-destroyed conspiracy theory blossoming within.
Maybe she'd prefer the characterization of the impeccably rightwing Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit: "Rand Paul: Benghazi May Have Been Cover-up for Obama Gun-Running." Or that of WorldNetDaily: "RAND PAUL: OBAMA IN GUNS-TO-JIHADISTS COVER-UP? 'A kind of international Fast and Furious in Benghazi.'" Or of Aaron Klein: "MEDIA IGNORE HILLARY’S BOMBSHELL BENGHAZI CLAIM. Secretary insists she did not know about gun-running at U.S. mission." I wonder if, when unbidden negative thoughts disturb her, Althouse tells herself they've been published at left-wing sites so she can discount them.

Other apparatchiks are working on getting city folk to love Republicans. Edward L. Glaeser at City Journal says "successful cities like New York and Houston surge with ambitious strivers and entrepreneurs, who should instinctively sympathize with the GOP’s faith in private industry" -- which sounds a lot like the "black people like to go to church, why won't they vote for our party, it's full of evangelical preachers?" argument we've been hearing for years. And sure enough, Glaeser seeks to win urbanites with school vouchers, congestion pricing, and knocking down lovely old buildings on the theory that developers will build in their place cheap apartments instead of luxury condos.

At least he acknowledges that the GOP's been punting city votes for years, but he doesn't seem to understand why. Hint: Cities are full of black people, hence Ooga Booga. And the point is moot anyway, as the In Thing for Republicans now is to disenfranchise cities by rigging the electoral vote.

When all else fails they can go back to previous formulae:


It's with love I say it: Don't ever change.

Thursday, January 24, 2013

TEARS OF THE CROCODILE.

When you spend your days thinking up ways to entertain the Global Warming is a Hoax crowd, as Henry Payne of National Review's Planet Gore does, you sometimes have to go with thin gruel:
At Monday’s inaugural, President Obama declared global-warming mitigation a second-term priority. On Tuesday, a deadly arctic blast here in the Midwest was a reminder of how frivolous that pursuit is.
Haw haw cold snap Al Gore is fat! But wait, it gets better:
Saving polar bears may be fashionable among rich elites, but Detroit’s jammed shelters this week are evidence that cold weather threatens the poor among us. City shelters reported they were at capacity as the frostbitten homeless took refuge from the bitter cold... 
While Detroit’s needy freeze, millions of federal dollars are going to the politically connected well-to-do. Inside the Detroit Auto Show this week, billionaire Elon Musk — one of America’s richest men — is displaying his latest Tesla electric SUV for the well-to-do, financed by a half-billion dollars in federal loans... 
Washington pols may get good press for protecting polar bears — but the real climate victims are freezing in city shelters.
It's a measure of their devotion to AGW denial that they're actually willing to pretend concern for poor people in public shelters to advance it. Payne's not very convincing, though. Maybe NR should put Kathryn J. Lopez on the job, and tell her to imagine those freezing paupers are aborted fetuses.

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

CONSERVATISM CANNOT FAIL; IT CAN ONLY BE FAILED.

From Mickey Kaus' lips to the Ole Perfesser's ears:
Does Fox News now have an All-Amnesty lineup? Looks like it. Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly have now fallen in line behind World Citizen Rupert Murdoch’s support of ”sweeping, generous immigration reform,” including a “path to citizenship.” Karl Rove was always on board, of course.
What about Fox News’ viewers? Are they going to go along like sheep? They now have no network that represents their perspective on what seems to be a key issue for Obama’s second term. Is it time for a new Fox? (Wouldn’t it be time for a new Fox anyway? That lineup has been stale for years.) …
The Republican Party isn't conservative enough; Fox News isn't conservative enough. Pretty soon they'll be telling each other what a liberal rag National Review turned into.

Soon enough there'll be no place for them to go for new voters except outer space.

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

THAT'S RACIST. NO, SERIOUSLY, THAT IS RACIST.

Ta-Nehisi Coates complains of the "half-assed social contract" applied to blacks since Reconstruction ("The black migrants did play by the rules, but they did not enjoy the right to compete"). Jonah Goldberg thinks he has a good one:
Coates doesn’t mention it, but it’s worth noting that many of the mechanisms of this “half-assed social contract” were forged and defended as progressive laws. The Davis-Bacon Act is the most famous example, in that it was designed to benefit white union members at the expense of equally qualified but less expensive black labor... 
Take, for instance, the minimum wage. The founding fathers of progressivism at the University of Wisconsin, but also such figures as Sidney Webb, saw the discriminatory aspects of the minimum wage as among its chief selling points...
So, in a nation where unions offer blacks a rare chance at higher wages, Goldberg portrays such wages as Liberal Fascist Racism; and in a nation where blacks traditionally get lower wages than whites, Goldberg portrays the minimum wage as Liberal Fascist Racism.

While for many years most American politicians were racist to a greater or less extent, Goldberg only notices the racism of those whose legacies have actually been of some help to non-white Americans. (For him Robert Byrd is eternally a Klansman, but William Buckley was a great man who couldn't have meant all those things he said.)  In fact, any successful attempt to improve the lot of non-whites, such as diversity programs, Goldberg unfailingly identifies as the real racism ("If I give extra credit to Joe because he’s black, I’m making things just that much harder for Tom because he’s white"). I've never seen him speak well of a black person who wasn't a National Review author or a member of the Bush Administration. I'm not even sure if he likes Prince.

I used to think Goldberg did this shit because he came up as a fratty chucklehead who saw how much the grown-ups liked it when he acted "politically incorrect," and that he kept it up as part of a conscious attempt to peddle conservatism as the fun American ideology. But now that he is no longer remotely young and not even Goldberg is stupid enough to think conservatism is fun, I've come to the conclusion that he just doesn't like black people. I'm rather embarrassed that it took me this long to figure that out. The moron has outsmarted me at last! Farrrrt.

Monday, January 21, 2013

IT WAS A GOOD DAY.

For "Seneca Falls and Selma and Stonewall"; for the idea that it's not un-American to work together and share the bounty; for saying in the face of originalists, "while these truths may be self-evident, they've never been self-executing"; and of course for the LOL Opposition:


And oh yeah, for all the happy black folks in D.C.

Yeah, it was a good day.

UPDATE. The lulz keep a-comin': National Review's first-string bowtie Roger Kimball:
...The tone that he set: What was it? Reading through the speech (I will be honest: I couldn’t bear to listen to it live, I just couldn’t), I was haunted by an echo. The speech reminded me of something, of someone. Who was it? Woodrow Wilson? Yes, in part. But there was another ghost in the wings... 
Got it: “Peace in our time,” the president said, “requires the constant advance of those principles that our common creed describes: tolerance and opportunity; human dignity and justice.” 
Now, I am as keen on tolerance and opportunity, human dignity and justice as the next gun-toting bitter-ender. But “peace in our time”? Where have we heard that before? Who was the last politician to strut across the world stage proclaiming “peace in our time”? Why, Neville Chamberlain, of course. He stepped off the plane that brought him back from his meeting with Adolf Hitler on September 30, 1938, and the crowd cheered as Chamberlain told them about his meeting with the German führer...
Similarly, Obama used the words "I" and "me" a lot, just like Marshal Petain.

UPDATE 2. Wrote a little something about the speech for 2paragraphs.

UPDATE 3.  Commenters including Ron Thompson point out that Chamberlain actually said "peace for our time." The quote is so commonly misrendered that I would be inclined to give Kimball a break for using the wrong version, and even for not checking out what he probably assumed was a devastating coincidence before using it -- after all, he's only hurting himself.

However, smut clyde, tigrismus, and others inform us that Benjamin Disraeli and John F. Kennedy used "peace in our time," which means by the ancient conservative law of I'm Rubber You're Glue that they are now both retroactively Hitler. I hope Kimball's happy now!

Sunday, January 20, 2013

NEW VOICE POST UP...

...about Obama's gun proposals and the predictable rightblogger reaction. I got only a little into the Obama-Hitler stuff, because that's an evergreen at this point, but I do confess I enjoyed "OBAMA'S WHITE SCAPEGOATS...JUST LIKE HITLER DID TO THE JEWS AND OTHER MINORITIES" by some nut, as well as what we might consider the moderate conservative alternative, "Popular Parallels Between Hitler And Obama Are Wrong... But Obama Is Still A Tyrannical Narcissist."

I also enjoyed Gateway Pundit Jim Hoft's "Don’t Tell the Media... NRA More Popular Than Gun-Grabber Obama." One of these days they'll get smart and run the NRA for President.

Saturday, January 19, 2013

G.E. THE GREAT EMANCIPATOR.

Abraham Lincoln is an American saint -- well, for most of us anyway -- so there's not much you can do with him dramatically; either make him the absurd premise of a schoolboy joke (as in The Secret Diary of Desmond Pfeiffer or Hard Drinkin' Lincoln), or put him in the Disney Hall of Presidents. Even John Ford's Young Mr. Lincoln isn't really an exception; I love it, but it's a great film about a myth, not a man.

I didn't expect much when I heard Spielberg was having a go at Lincoln, so I can't say the film he made about him is a disappointment. In fact it's very enjoyable in a nostalgic way -- like all those high-toned historical-biographical epics on which Hollywood used to thrive before audiences began to lose interest in history unless it flattered their self-image very specifically, as Gandhi and Braveheart did, instead of trying to elevate them as movies like Wilson and The Life of Emile Zola had.

If you thought Tony Kushner's involvement might make Lincoln an elevating experience, well, it certainly elevates the tone. Kushner's a serious writer, but so was William Faulkner and I don't see the Library of America publishing a handsome edition of the screenplays he worked on. (Kushner did write Munich, which was a little more grown-up than what we're used to from Spielberg. But as I said when it came out, while Munich has some existential-thriller trappings, it's existentialism for dummies -- compare it to a story about wet work like Army of Shadows and you can see how sentimental it really is.)

Here's something Spielberg said about Kushner to Deadline Hollywood:
SPIELBERG: It wasn’t anything that he did on Munich that convinced me. I knew he was the right guy for the job when I saw Angels In America for the first time on Broadway.
DEADLINE: What specifically about Angels In America swayed you?
SPIELBERG: It showed me that Tony has a vivid introspective knowledge of what makes people tick. And he expresses his thoughts in words, in sentences and ideas, and the silences between the words in a way that reminded me of Paddy Chayefsky in his heyday.   
Paddy Chayefsky! I guess it's possible Spielberg was making a mean joke. But I think he sincerely admired Kushner's dramaturgy, and also that, like Chayefsky, Kushner can make sententiousness go down easy; the audience wouldn't question that something important was being discussed, but they also wouldn't be bored. Look at the first scene of Lincoln, after a vicious, muddy skirmish between black Union soldiers and Confederates: A pair of black soldiers stand in the rain and describe the battle; one is slightly more aggressive in complaining about his regiment's privations than the other; Lincoln -- revealed only gradually to be the man they're talking to, and sitting under a canopy -- seems interested, even slightly amused, says little, reveals nothing. White soldiers come in; they recite the Gettysburg Address till they get stuck on the ending. When they have gone, the quarrelsome black soldier finishes it.

Okay, so it makes Chayefsky look like Friedrich Durrenmatt. It plays well, though, and is just Spielberg's speed -- uplift with class.  

The plot centers on the fight to pass the 13th Amendment, in the course of which Lincoln is revealed to be a consummate wheeler-dealer -- but that has always been part of the Lincoln legend; as Tad Gallagher observes about Ford's Lincoln, he's "not above a bit of dissimulation, cheating or force to get things done." Maybe this is part of why we love Lincoln -- he shows that even when your ambition is a little engine that knows no rest, you may still do great things that can justify it. That Lincoln's ambition was turned toward ending slavery makes it easier to believe; you probably couldn't get the same kind of drama out of a battle to pass the Revenue Act.

Munich was about idealists who wade in blood but somehow keep their souls clean, and Lincoln is about a man to whom the muck of politics does not adhere even as he clambers through the filthy roominghouse attic of his political fixers. Abe is practically magical; at one point he suddenly appears in Edwin Stanton's war room, unobserved till he breaks his silence. Several times (or maybe it just seemed like several times) his cabinet is near rebellion, and Abe defuses the situation with some cornpone humor (which, frankly, must be magic as the jokes aren't that good). Much of William Seward's dialogue could be boiled down to "Ooooh, you'll be the death of me yet, Abraham Lincoln!" Lincoln confounds friend and enemy alike, and finally gets the big job done.

There's also some Lincoln family drama in there, but rather than "humanizing" Lincoln it adds to his mysterious quality. Political talk frequently creeps into Abe's discussions with his wife Mary. She is shown more than once to use politics to communicate her feelings to him. Abe accepts and takes part in this mode of discourse. (In one scene, when she tongue-lashes Thaddeus Stevens within his hearing, Abe takes it with the same mysterious amusement he shows in his first scene; no "It's bad enough when you act like that in the privacy of our own home" for this Lincoln.) In another scene Mary has sunk again into her recurring depression over their dead son Willie, and Lincoln goes to comfort her; though his impatience flashes, he recovers and explains that he couldn't allow himself to be taken over by grief as she is; he explains this as his personal weakness, but it is evident that it also involves his duty, from which he must not waver. Thus he gently filibusters her into submission.

Americans have a nose for hypocrisy (and a distrust of ambiguity) and like to think their heroes are the same people at home as they are in the arena. This Lincoln meets that test to such an extent that the restless mind may wonder over it; when he is not engaged in politics, where dissimulation is taken for granted, what is he really thinking and feeling?

Gentle as he goes, Lincoln is shown to have a capacity for wrath, and at one point he slaps his son Robert for suggesting he's afraid of his wife. This moment stands out emotionally; for once Lincoln's reaction suggests actual self-doubt, rather than the ruminative self-debate he displays elsewhere ("Do you think we choose to be born? Or are we fitted to the times we're born into?"). We keep up our wondering about Lincoln in the actual political sphere: When he appears to get fed up with the cabinet and rails that he is "clothed with immense power," is this feeling overtaking him, or just a trick to sway minds weaker than his?

Simultaneous with this portraiture -- which is after all the come-on; there's a reason the movie is not called Team of Rivals after the book -- there's the Congressional fight over the 13th Amendment and various related intrigues; these are handled ably (even amusingly, as when W.N. Bilbo proposes a skeezy deal to the wrong Congressman, who is armed with a front-loading pistol), and achieve the necessary interest in how the thing was done. In this are some grace notes that are emotionally satisfying, none more so than Thaddeus Stevens bringing home the House Bill of the 13th Amendment and presenting it to a woman who appears to be his housekeeper. But by an large it's all just an excuse to bring back Lincoln, a reliable act on the circuit. The filmmakers even tack on a death scene and part of the Second Inaugural at the end, in case you feel you haven't gotten your money's worth.

Though I wonder what about John Williams' modest score rates an Oscar nomination, every craft aspect of the movie is very well done. The acting's a feast. Daniel Day-Lewis' approach is just right for the otherworldly Lincoln; he rarely meets anyone's eye, yet he seems sociable; his conversation is discursive, but you would never imagine that he isn't paying attention. Sally Field finds a way to make poor Mary Todd's neurosis interesting: She at least begins each outburst in the direction of her subject, and lets its energy build until it is clearly a little larger than the conversation. Tommy Lee Jones was clever to make Stevens so good at his job that he hardly has to think about the sequence of insults he's about to unleash.

I especially admired some short performances that haven't gotten much attention.  There are the Kushner stalwarts Bill Camp and Elizabeth Marvel as a regular, down-home, all-American pair of bigots, and Stephen Spinella as Stevens' purist associate Litton.  Jackie Earle Haley as the Confederate Vice-President, Alexander Stephens, figures in an interesting sequence. In a doomed negotiation with Lincoln, while his fellow Rebs bluster, Stephens (previously shown in a meeting with black Union officers to be smarter than his comrades) tells the President that the war will end not only slavery but the South's way of life. Stephens shows no obvious outrage over this, nor regret, though we may assume he has felt both. Here Spielberg does something that struck me as significant; he photographs the already strange-looking Haley in an unflattering light that makes him seem slightly deformed. I imagine the idea was not to dehumanize him in the usual sense of undercutting his argument by making him look bad, but to suggest that he represents a literally alien species, and that he is aware that it is passing from existence. Maybe there's just something in Spielberg that always makes me think of extra-terrestrials.


Thursday, January 17, 2013

THE CONSERVATIVE COMEBACK, PART 34,282.

Daniel Henninger at the Wall Street Journal:
Where Is the GOP's Jay Carney?
Wait... don't tell me...
Republicans need a party spokesman who is smart, articulate, credible and TV-savvy.
Yes -- remind us all of when we fell in love with Marlin Fitzwater!
The current Republican class in both houses may be the best in a generation. On economic policy, the party is more unified than ever around growth, and it wants to be the party of government reform.
So the problem couldn't possibly have anything to do with that.
The Republicans need a lamplighter out front every day—a smart, articulate, credible and TV-savvy party spokesman. OK, spokesperson. A Mary Matalin or a Kevin Madden.
I predict that in a couple of weeks Henninger will demand Republicans hire a charismatic, foul-mouthed dwarf to follow Reince Priebus around.

THE LONG CON.

Tonight, at the top of his usual umpteen from-my-cold-dead-hands posts, this is what I saw at The Ole Perfesser's site tonight:


It links to Bloomberg's Mayor's Against Illegal Guns and their Demand a Plan page ("Join more than 800 mayors and over a million grassroots supporters to demand that Congress step forward with a plan to end gun violence").

I thought maybe the ad was instantly-generated content, and that if I accessed the site from Shooty McRedneck's IP address I'd get something else -- Wise emergency rations, maybe. But on the right side, I saw another such ad with PJ Media co-branding:


It's even more fun viewing these ads on Instapundit's "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" search page, right above items like "Crimes of gun-grabbing mayors: Second Amendment group exposes Bloomberg’s hypocrisy. An awful lot of these mayors do turn out to be crooks, don’t they?"

I love capitalism. Seriously, get me a good enough price and I'll run those mangled-fetus pro-life ads. I know how to deal with their kind.

There's a lesson in this, but it takes a long time to read.

UPDATE. The PJ Media banner's always there, irrespective of ad content, so I guess the Bloomberg ads are contextual, possibly based on keywords. It's win-win for the Perfesser, as commenter Helmut Monotreme says, because it "just props up their hypothesis that liberals are coming to take their guns."

I still want those mangled fetus ads. Roe v. Wade, Roe v. Wade, Roe v. Wade. C'mon, Randall Terry, your money's as good as anyone else's.

UPDATE 2. In comments Robot Slave was giving me a hard time about my lack of internet advertising awareness, so I went and looked at a paper:
In recent years, Internet advertising has become increasingly tailored to individual users. In the simplest case, contextual advertising, advertising networks choose which ads to display on a webpage based on the contents of that page. In the more complex technique of online behavioral advertising (OBA), advertising networks profile a user based on his or her online activities, such as the websites he or she visits over time. Using this profile, advertising networks show ads that are more likely to be of interest to a particular user, charging a premium price to do so.
Ah, so Instapundit's ad network sized me up and thought I'd go for some anti-gun ads, huh? You lose, Madison Avenue!

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

PRESIDENTIAL TROLLING.

I see Obama proposed some weak-ass gun rules, including executive orders such as "Starting a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign," "Issuing a presidential memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations," and (my favorite) "Nominating an A.T.F. director."

This may or may not save any lives, but it has definitely achieved this:


Already the talk radio guys are over the top (Mark Levin: "UnAmerican," "fascistic"; Rush Limbaugh: "With Kids as Human Shields, Obama Will Unveil Left's Long-Held Plan to Grab Guns"). It's nothing new -- they've been calling Obama Hitler for years. But the current controversy is built, one might say, to exacerbate the tendency. Guys like Limbaugh and Levin used to set their own level of crazy -- now they're basically trying to outdo Alex Jones, and Jones isn't making it easy for them. It won't be long before they're all singing La Marseillaise and declaring each other freedom fighters.

When the dust settles and very little is accomplished, people will remember that Obama tried to Do Something, and his loyal opposition was a bunch of nuts yelling about the Third Reich. 

I do get tired of nothing ever getting much better, but at least it's fun to watch Obama troll.

UPDATE. In comments, Michael points us to this week's, and possibly this year's, golden nutcake award winner: Bob Owens, formerly known as Confederate Yankee, bragging about how easy it would be for him and his buddies to take out a power station:
Were an angry group of disenfranchised citizens to target in a strategic manner the substations leading to a city or geographic area—say, Albany, for example—they could put the area in the dark for as long as it took to bring the substations back online. Were they committed enough, and spread their attacks out over a wide enough area, perhaps mixing in a few tens of dozens of the residential transformers found every few hundred yards along city streets, they could overwhelm the utility companies ability to repair the damage being caused or law enforcement’s ability to stop them...

How many days with partial power or no power, how many nights in the dark, would it take before the local economy collapsed in the targeted area? Insurgents could cripple a city, region, or state, without ever firing a bullet at another human being. 
Progressives seeking to undermine the Constitution seem to think they hold all the cards. I would warn them that they are not remotely prepared for what will happen if they attempt to cross Constitutional boundaries and natural rights. 
It could be a cold, dark winter. 
Tread carefully.
Owens recently appeared in a PJTV video with Ole Perfesser Glenn Reynolds ("Are lawful Americans preparing for civil war? Bob Owens of Bob-Owens.com thinks so. Hear why as Glenn Reynolds discusses the Second Amendment on this InstaVision"). Reynolds either hasn't noticed what a crackpot the guy is or has been watching too many episodes of Doomsday Preppers and come to believe all the white people who failed to materialize for Romney are out there waiting for him and Owens to sound the final trump. Shine on, you crazy conservative comeback!

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

DRUNK AS A...

Jeffrey Lord is having a bravura breakdown at The American Spectator. He's attacking Joe Scarborough in an essay of over a thousand words, which is rather like using anti-aircraft guns on Howdy Doody.

According to Lord, Scarborough's crimes are 1.) accusing Sean Hannity and Mark Levin of birtherism -- not quite accurate, as these esteemed broadcasters merely promoted birthers rather than birtherism; and 2.) siding with Colin Powell, who thinks the GOP might be a tad racist, which is itself the worst kind of racism (i.e., the kind that makes the GOP look racist).

Lord's fugue includes abusive statements from Hannity and Levin, dudgeony characterizations from Lord himself (e.g. MSNBC is "a network that spews racism and bigotry"), and several single sentence-fragment paragraphs, including "Disgraceful," "Say again: despicable," "To which I would add: Period," "The progressive card," and "Potrzebie." (Kidding about that last one.) It's like hearing Larry Kudlow teach rhetoric to kindergarteners.

Much of it is about how Democrats are the real racists. ("Race and Progressives," says Lord, "have been... the ham and eggs of the Democratic Party," with a side of mendacity and a garnish of deceit.) Did Powell question Sarah Palin's use of "shuck and jive" in relation to President Obama? Why, sir, Chris Matthews said to Rachel Maddow, "What has it been like, as you shuck and jive, hang out with the men over there, the women over there, in uniform risking their lives every day?” which I guess makes Chris Matthews racist against Rachel Maddow -- and, Lord quavers with outrage, not only that:
The “men over there,” the “women over there” were American troops serving in Afghanistan. The New Pittsburgh Courier (whose owner describes the paper as part of America’s “black press”) did a little research on the number of blacks in the American military — including “over there” where Maddow had spent her time, according to Matthews, “shucking and jiving” with said troops. It seems that a full 9% of Americans killed in both Afghanistan and Iraq were black. 
Some shuck. Some jive.
Potrzebie. Walnuts!

No wait, it gets better: In answer to Powell's complaint about Republicans calling Obama lazy, Lord retorts that Obama called himself lazy, making Obama racist against himself. But not as racist as those old-timey Democrats.

Now, any lunatic can talk about Copperheads or the Democratic hegemony in the South until for some unexplained reason all the good ol' boys became Republicans, but the following of Lord's indictments are, in my experience, unique:
How many times has Scarborough talked about the Federal Reserve on his show? Social Security? The federal school lunch program? No idea, but I bet lots.

But one can Google away and never find ole Joe talking about the racist formula used to create these programs...

• Social Security? Why, Joe never quite gets round to talking about all those racist progressives who scared the hell out of white voters with race so they could stay in office and pass Social Security. A prominent example being old Mississippi Senator Theodore Bilbo, a card-carrying Klan member and deeply proud of creating a program for the old folks. 
• School lunches? That would be a program from the great Southern Manifesto Senator Richard Russell, the segregationist Senator from Georgia, who singlehandedly got what is known today as the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act passed in 1946.
Social Security and school lunches as racist plots -- I swear you could comb Free Republic all day long and not find anything like this. Good Lord!

Sunday, January 13, 2013

NEW VOICE COLUMN UP

about Chuck Hagel's nomination and his investigation by citizen journalists. A hilarious amount of it seems to be about mischievously making points by which no normal person would be swayed -- cf. Robert Stacy McCain: "Hagel nomination and Left's dilemma: Do they hate Israel more than they love gays?" har har, as well as "By Any Means Necessary," "they bring a knife, you bring a gun," "The Chicago Way," "If that vicious bastard Andrew Sullivan supports Hagel, this is reason enough for any patriotic American to oppose the Hagel nomination," and -- here's real berserker logic for you -- "the conservative strategy must be aimed at making that 'win' as damaging as possible to the reputation of the Democratic Party," etc. I'm beginning to think McCain's a mole. But who would pay him?

Thursday, January 10, 2013

TRY THIS SIMPLE TEST.

Hi. Do you live in America? Ever had a job there? Good. Let me show you something that The Anchoress wrote about why the minimum wage is evil:
Prior to minimum wage laws, a smart employer knew that he could not keep good employees without paying them their worth. Once employers were told what they “must” pay, however, it created a baseline that mentally (and perhaps emotionally) narrowed, rather than broadened an employers sense of what wage was fair or deserved. In fact “fair” and “deserved” went out the window. If all a businessman (or woman) had to do was make sure a minimum wage was being paid, what did fairness or merit have to do with anything?
And that sort of thinking, born of the good-intentions of our own government — is how we get to the reality of a 20-year employee making $8.25 an hour, and having to live a pretty hardscrabble life.
OK, people who've worked for actual bosses, and observed first-hand why they do and don't give raises -- does your assessment suggest to you that employers pay as little as they can get away with because that increases their profit margins? Or does your experience suggest that they pay as little as they can get away with because the government inflicted upon them "a baseline that mentally (and perhaps emotionally) narrowed, rather than broadened an employers sense of what wage was fair or deserved"?

If the former, congratulations, you're a normal human being living in the actual world. If the latter, congratulations, you may have a job as a conservative columnist.

SQUARE PEG.

Victor Davis Hanson goes on for more than 4,200 words about how everybody loves you if you're "hip" -- which in his lexicon is just another word for "liberal" -- and it's just not fair. One of his dozens of examples:
Would Google have had more trouble for all its outsourcing and overseas tax avoidance had it been named American Internet, Inc., or if its founders had grown up together as good ol’ boys in Mobile, Alabama, who still had a nagging propensity for putting patriotic slogans under the Google logo when the browser pops up each morning? Imagine waking and hitting the American Internet, Inc. logo — and then reading “Live free or die” before your search. (How odd that liberals — e.g., “the medium is the message” — always lectured us about advertising-driven false demand, and then became past masters of deceptive branding.)
I thought that's what Bing was for.

The odd thing is, Hanson never seems to grasp how these alleged hip people and things  -- he includes Starbucks, Jay-Z, "Snoop Dogg," Al Gore, and Katie Couric, believe it or not -- acquired whatever cachet they have. Since he hates them, the explanation can include nothing of what they offer the public, which severely limits his options.

Midway through he comes upon an answer that's at least plausible --
Could not Wal-Mart put memorable lines from Shakespeare on its plastic bags, or a Greek hexameter from Homer, or sell vitamin water called Sophos, Kalos, or Logos, or pipe in John Lennon’s “Imagine”?
You're getting warm, Doc -- marketing might have something to do with it. But Wal-Mart has a marketing budget, too, and it eschews Shakespeare for Low Low Prices. I don't hear them crying that they're misunderstood, and I sure don't hear them crying poor.

Alas, this explanation would cost Hanson his opportunity for self-pity, so he avoids it, and retreats thus:
Hip: borrowing became “stimulus”; entitlements, “investments”; and paying it all back became “paying your fair share.” In Obama’s case, he is not just black, but black with an exotic name and a liberal ideology, unlike a Clarence Thomas, who is most unhip...
I predict the first "hip" thing Hanson will adopt will be emo.

Wednesday, January 09, 2013

IT'S OUR OWN STORY EXACTLY! HE BOLD AS A HAWK, SHE SOFT AS THE DAWN.

Acculturated is a new dispenser of culture war ordnance that yells "WHY POP CULTURE MATTERS" from the masthead.  Connoisseurs of the genre will find it a little bit Culture 11 and a little bit Speculative Rightwing Ladymags The Perfesser Wants Created.

One thing the Acculturati like to talk about is Downton Abbey. (Here's a thing where Emily Esfahani Smith twits Simon Schama for calling it "snobbery by the bucketful." "The scenes take place in and out of a manor inhabited by tony aristocrats," sniffs Smith. "Its appeal is aesthetic. As an art history professor, Schama should know this." I'm pretty sure she's not kidding.)

And in case you thought Jonah Goldberg had farted the last word on the subject, get this: Ashley McGuire lets us know up front that she's sophisticated and Has Agency --
I’m no dummy. My last order from Amazon included The Feminine Mystique, Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics, and Kate Millett’s Sexual Politics.
-- But she watches crummy TV shows. Why? Not merely to relax; that'd be common.
I simply think that I (like my fellow educated female consumers of garbage television) am looking for intrigue. Intrigue that gives us something to talk about. Something to think about. A framework to ponder our sex. 
Television is a sort of social barometer, and as women we are particularly inclined to take the temperature of our society and it how it views us and treats us.
Those days when you were a kid and imagined TV shows really spoke to you and your generation? That's why you have this coming to you -- McGuire pondering her sex:
It’s a sort of lifeline to any woman drowning in the thick waters of modern culture... 
Indeed, the show evokes wholly contrary thoughts about womanhood and feminism. As I watch the show, I find myself fighting between two selves. One side of me hardly envies the women of the era, when marriage was a woman’s only ticket in life, when the corset still grasped the fashion industry, when one make-out session with an exotic boy could ruin your prospects for life. 
But then one side of me envies the women of Downton ever so slightly. Envies the thought of my husband referring to me as “her ladyship.”
In previous sub-generations, ladies who didn't want to live in Dallas might yet have envied the women of Southfork and dreamed of falling under the spell of courtly if amoral J.R. Ewing. But when the show was over and the Asti Spumante drained, I don't think their fantasies spurred them to social analysis like this:
Are we happy with where we are? Do we demand enough of men? Do we demand enough of ourselves? Can we do better than table flipping in Jersey or ten plastic surgeries? Are we really that much better off today, or are today’s television shows any indication that there is still much work to be done?...
The women of Downton want driving lessons, they want jobs, they want the vote. But are there things from that era that we have thrown away that might have had value?...
If only we had cars and servants with crisp aprons! Clearly society has failed us.
Did respect for a woman’s reputation keep men in check and protect ourselves from winding up like Ethel, pregnant and scared? Did good-old-fashioned esteem for women raise the odds of winding up like Anna and Mary, wives who had been thoroughly woo’ed by good men?    
We'll never know now; there's no time machine to whisk us back to the days when women were thoroughly woo'ed and could do without that spinster's toy, the Vote. Ah well; there's still a little Red Bicyclette left, and a page where one can send eloquent essay-length distress signals that Ross Douthat may pick up. In the words of Martin Mull: It's not that great and it's late and once again, honey, you lose.

Tuesday, January 08, 2013

ANNALS OF THE CULTURE WARS: A VERY SPECIAL JONAH GOLDBERG EDITION.

The Pantload on Downton Abbey:
I do wonder what the left, particularly the British left, thinks of the show. For starters, one of the chief villains is gay.
We can stop right there; you could make a parlor game out of guessing Goldberg's other insights ("the whole point of the show is to sympathize with the landed gentry," "the one fairly radical lefty in the show... remains something of a bore," etc). The thing that defies imagination is: What does he think is going on? Is he trying to using conservative hanky code to find if Abbey's producers would like to provide the entertainment on the next NR Sadcruise? Or is he laying the groundwork for the case that, when the history of early 21st Century conservatism is written, Julian Fellowes will be the Goldwater of the Kulturkampf? (After all, as Goldberg's colleague Jay Nordlinger noticed years ago, Fellowes once complimented America. Maybe he's a mole in the commie arts community, and can be recruited to make movies with Bill Whittle.)

Oh, one more thing, from the aesthetic part of Goldberg's episode review:
Indeed, the whole show felt bizarrely cut up, like they had to put it together at the last minute.
At last he's talking about something he understands. [Farrrt.]

A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

I think National Review's trying a rethink:


"Meant to be together forever" -- sounds like a Bieber joint, yes? This Jesus cover boy, Christopher West, goes in for the usual Anti Sex League ordnance -- he counsels "infinite bliss" over rim jobs, and asks leading questions like "can’t we see that such a notion of choice is actually the negation of freedom?" But he has a softer, daisy-strewing  side, too, and rhapsodizes that "art is the language of the heart." Kathryn J. Lopez asks him if there's any art around now that he likes; he replies,
I’m not an art critic. I can only speak to what moves me personally. And I’d have to say that today, in the specific sense of right now, I am stunned by the artistry expressed in the movie adaptation of the musical Les Misérables. I saw it three times in its first week of release. Treat yourself and go see this movie.
Roger Scruton he ain't. Instead of having to beg change all the time ("National Review is not a non-profit — we are just not profitable"), NR should just convert to a pictoral format a la Tiger Beat.

UPDATE. Commenter Montag2 directs us to this intriguing 2009 item at the Catholic News Agency:  "Christopher West’s ideas on sexuality ignore ‘tremendous dangers,’ Alice von Hildebrand says." Excerpt:
The news segment showed [West] calling for Catholics to complete “what the sexual revolution began.” He also described “very profound” historical connections between Hugh Hefner and Pope John Paul II. 
West spoke to CNA on Friday, claiming the report somewhat sensationalized his views. He also denied several characterizations conveyed by the news story, explaining that he believed Hefner to be right in rejecting “the disease of Puritanism” but radically wrong in beginning the “pornographic revolution.” 
He had told ABC that Hefner had a "yearning," an "ache" and a "longing" for love, union and intimacy.
Well, clearly Hef's a fan of marriage. I expect after this scare West went and sinned no more, or he'd never have gotten close to K-Lo's inbox. True, he's responsible for provocative titles like The Love That Satisfies, but the Theology of the Body Institute West serves as a "research fellow" seems to have no hot tubs or encounter rooms. Still, his theology stirs some controversy -- for example, there was
the argument between Dr. Scott Hahn and Christopher West on the set of “Franciscan University Presents” which turned Dr. Hahn into a “closet critic” of West and his theology after West disagreed with Hahn when Hahn said the proper response if he was to see his colleague's naked wife's would be to turn his eyes away.
 His colleague's naked wife's what, I'd like to know. Maybe it was something innocent, like a tax-exempt contribution.

UPDATE 2. Oh wait, they explain further down:
... [Dr. Scott Hahn] told West that if he were to see a friend’s wife [the friend being fellow panellist Dr. Regis Martin] naked, it would be his responsibility to look away. West responded, ‘No, it would be to not lust.’ [Hahn] and West took turns repeating themselves until the moderator called for a break in the program.
You gotta admit, it beats This Week with George Stephanopoulos.

Also from that same report: "James J. Simons, who by his own admission listened to West over 100 times... argued that it is right to baptize people naked in front of an entire church so everyone can see them and it is right for women to read in church topless." Next time a conservative starts going off about wacky liberal arts courses, I'll bring this up.

UPDATE 3. "And, as if on cue," comments Alexander von Humbug, "Sullivan quotes West approvingly." Looks like there's a big PR push for West among the sort of people who would like him, and I wonder why, as they could disseminate the book as effectively by just handing out copies at David Brooks' parties. It's not like normal people will ever give a shit.

Monday, January 07, 2013

IT'S GOOD FOR YOU.

My old friend Martin Downs, M.P.H. Dartmouth, has embarked on a very interesting project:  "a full picture of sexual health in the United States" based on an index of 26 measures of sexual health. (Full report here.) The fun part of the project is the resulting Sexual Health Rankings™, which finds Vermont, Connecticut, and New Hampshire the most sexually healthy states, and Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas the least healthy. Lots of opportunity for mean regionalist jokes there!

But it's also a sign of where public health's going in general, and how it breaks against cultural tides. The indicators include the expected relative incidence of STDs and rape but, taking off from the World Health Organization's idea of sexual health as "not merely the absence of disease, dysfunction or infirmity," but also "a positive and respectful approach to sexuality and sexual relationships, as well as the possibility of having pleasurable and safe sexual experiences, free of coercion, discrimination and violence," they also consider access to contraception and abortion, sex education in schools, gender equality (partly measured by "proportion of seats held by women in state legislatures"), and "sexual satisfaction" measured by the "proxy indicators" of percent of population married or partnered, and general good health ("numerous studies show that self-reported health is positively associated with sexual satisfaction, and that worse self-reported health is a strong predictor of sexual dysfunction").

You may quibble with some of the metrics; I'm not sure how well you can track sexual satisfaction in the aggregate, short of a Masters and Johnson version of Nielsen Ratings or a test panel made of these. But I like the idea of defining sexual health more humanely than would, say, medical authorities at an Army induction center. Old-fashioned as I am, I still tend to think of public health as reactive, eradicating abnormalities clearly identified as disease -- as in, hmm, people in this village are dying of cholera, let's see if we can stop it. But in some communities, the appearance of such agents of death was once so commonplace as to be considered the norm; it's only when somebody began to think that it didn't have to be that way, and that it could be changed by something other than prayers and mumbo-jumbo, that human health progressed.

Now we see folks turning this approach to conditions no one considered public health issues before -- obesity, for example. Because our general fatty-fat-fatness doesn't look like cholera, and can't be fixed by replacing the town water pump, we are slow to identify it as disease. There's also a better reason: Because the nobs then might determine that we must be saved from ourselves, and try to keep us from having eating barbecue potato chips and onion dip because we must not know what we're doing to ourselves.  Lord knows I've felt resistance myself in the face of Mayor Bloomberg's nannying on the soda tax and all that.

Maybe the problem there is that we're Americans, and everything having to do with pleasure confuses us. Maybe we stuff ourselves with junk because we're missing something in our lives, and our leaders try to take these palliatives away from us without any genuine concern for us except as cogs in their machine and reflections of their own enlightenment, and offer us nothing in return except good citizenship medals.

But with this sex thing I don't see a downside. Gender equality?  Access to women's health services? "Pleasurable and safe sexual experiences, free of coercion, discrimination and violence"?  That doesn't sound like health nazidom to me. Maybe that's because it's about giving access to more choices instead of fewer, and normalizing pleasure instead of restricting it. In any event, I'd sure rather have that than a healthy snack.

Sunday, January 06, 2013

NEW VOICE COLUMN UP...

...about the alleged end of the culture war. Both rightwingers and leftwingers have suggested it's done, but I say this is America, where no grift stops until it runs out of suckers -- and this one's not even close to running out.

I should mention that the white-flag-waver with whom I started the column, Matt K. Lewis, has in a follow-up hedged on his original claim that "The culture war is over, and conservatives lost." Now he thinks there's a chance. Among his proof points:
The good news for cultural conservatives is that a new generation, aided by new technology, might finally conspire to change things. Young conservatives like R.J. Moeller — the man who brought comedian Adam Carolla and Dennis Prager together — are dedicating their lives to ideas and culture, not overt partisanship.
Apart from creating the headline lounge act in Hell, this is what Moeller's about.  I'm sure he can get people to pay him for it, but it hardly seems like a way to win hearts and minds.

UPDATE. In comments Spaghetti Lee has an angle:
I think the overtly churchy, you're-going-to-hell culture warriors are going to fade out, honestly. Who the hell is going to replace Pat Robertson or Maggie Gallagher when they bite the big one? I think we're going to see/are already seeing a rise in its more insidious cousin, the libertarian conservatives who are too hip and cool and with it for things like making sure 90% of the country actually has livable incomes and that the air and water supplies aren't full of poison...
He numbers among them the Randroid priest who can talk to kids.

Friday, January 04, 2013

HOW'RE YOU GONNA KEEP 'EM DOWN ON THE FARM AFTER THEY'VE SEEN THE FARM?

Some guy at Ace of Spades is excited about Atlas Van Lines' map of what states have more mover-outers and what states have more mover-inners:
Frankly, I'm surprised that CA and MI are treading water on that chart but then again it is only one source and does not indicate what type of people are moving in and out (i.e. producers or takers).
The idea (or "narrative," as these dinks like to put it) is that big bad blue states are bleeding "producer" population, and soon will be overtaken by Workers' Paradises like North Dakota. Similarly, Some Other Guy at RedState headlines his story about another mover's poll (United Van Lines'), "Unchanged: Americans Are Still Fleeing High-Tax, Forced-Unionism States With Good Reason," followed by lots of hurp-durp about lousy blue states boy won't they be sorry.

Well, it's always instructive to do what rightblogger readers are unlikely to do, and click the links. At the United Van Lines site:


I'll be durned -- Americans are flocking to Washington, D.C., even though such geniuses as Ole Perfesser Instapundit, Nick Gillespie and David Brooks were just telling us it's the moocher capital of the evil Hunger Games empire.

And the United Van Lines item the RedState link takes you to is sub-headed, "Washington D.C. the Most Popular Destination During the Election Year." Guess America's really Obama-depraved after all!

Don't worry -- it looks like there'll be plenty of room in DickCheneyland for them all to Go Galt in.