The Noisy Lion :: Emerson News & Views

Nearer To Thee

2008-02-28T08:28:00.000-05:00

High-Class Boilerplate

2008-02-22T11:26:00.002-05:00

Barack Obama's biggest draw is not his eloquence. When you watch an Obama speech, you lean forward and listen and think, That's good. He's compelling, I like the way he speaks. And afterward all the commentators call him "impossibly eloquent" and say "he gave me thrills and chills." But, in fact, when you go on the Internet and get a transcript of the speech and print it out and read it--that is, when you remove Mr. Obama from the words and take them on their own--you see the speech wasn't all that interesting, and was in fact high-class boilerplate. (This was not true of John F. Kennedy's speeches, for instance, which could be read seriously as part of the literature of modern American politics, or Martin Luther King's work, which was powerful absent his voice.) --Peggy Noonan

In Obama's defense, JFK was working with the likes of Ted Sorenson. Still, I think Noonan (who has always been very kind to the Illinois senator) is right: it's Obama's presence that's remarkable, but stripped to bare text, his rhetoric lacks the gravity of a Lincoln, or an FDR, or a JFK/RFK.

Obama's Golden-Tongue?

2008-02-21T11:33:00.002-05:00

Might be more like a stolen tongue.

"Baracklash"

2008-02-20T11:12:00.001-05:00

It's hard not to be dazzled by Barack Obama. At the 2004 Democratic convention, he visited with Newsweek reporters and editors, including me. I came away deeply impressed by his intelligence, his forceful language and his apparent willingness to take positions that seemed to rise above narrow partisanship. Obama has become the Democratic presidential front-runner, precisely because countless millions have formed a similar opinion. It is, I now think, mistaken. --Robert Samuelson

Fidel Calls It Quits

2008-02-19T11:44:00.002-05:00

HAVANA (Feb. 19) - An ailing, 81-year-old Fidel Castro resigned as Cuba's president Tuesday after nearly a half-century in power, saying he will not accept a new term when parliament meets Sunday. --Anita Snow, AP

While I'm sure this won't change our official status with Cuba for quite some time (as his brother will most likely take over), I'd like to sign up now for the first legal cruise to Havana.

Happy Birthday, Mr. President

2008-02-18T11:55:00.002-05:00

An appropriate article honoring probably the greatest president -- certainly the greatest republican -- this nation has ever known . . .

George Washington earned the respect even of his former enemy, King George III, by doing something exceedingly rare in history: When he had the chance to increase personal power, he decreased it — not once, not twice, but repeatedly.

During the American Revolution, Washington put service before self. His personal example was his greatest gift to the nation. It has often been said that the “Father of our country” was less eloquent than Jefferson; less educated than Madison; less experienced than Franklin; less talented than Hamilton. Yet all these leaders looked to Washington to lead them because they trusted him with power. He didn’t need power.

Ironically, the piece appears in National Review, a journal that has consistently supported the expansion of executive power and privilege during the last seven years.

$698 Million

2008-02-17T19:34:00.005-05:00

How much money we're granting to Tanzania to combat disease in that east African country. Because, you know, our coffers are just bursting right now with surplus cash . . . This is typical Bush, selling out conservatism to ensure his legacy.

Look, I'm all for charity and aid, but only in proper doses. In a world of limited resources, there's a need for priorities. And the #1 priority of the government should be U.S. tax payers -- you know, the people who enable the government's very existence with their hard-earned buck. It's hard to see how their needs are best served by tossing half a billion dollars to third world paupers at a time when America itself is floundering economically.

By the way, Bush has now sent more money to Africa than his liberal predecessor Bill Clinton. Then again, Dubya makes Clinton look like Scrooge in more ways than one.

Bush the conservative -- when's that one finally going to bite the dust? I've said it before, I'll say it again: Bush is a hawkish liberal (the hawk part sorta thrust upon him after 9/11) with a couple social prejudices expected from a Texan. What conservative would find themselves messing around with this claptrap? . . .

"Bush also attended a roundtable on the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, program, which Kikwete said is saving lives and helping the African continent avert a health disaster. Bush has requested $30 billion over the next five years for the program."

To Be Fair

2008-02-17T18:58:00.002-05:00

There're bad guys on all sides of this great, long war.

Al-Kahtani was interrogated for 18 to 20 hours a day for 48 of 54 days; he had water dripped on his head and was blasted with cold air-conditioning and loud music to keep him awake; his beard and head were shaved; he was forced to wear a bra and panties and to dance with a male jailer; he was hooded; he was menaced with a dog, told to bark like one and led around on a leash; he was pumped full of intravenous fluids and forced to urinate on himself; he was straddled by a female interrogator and stripped naked; and more -- all under a list of interrogation methods personally approved by Rumsfeld. --The Atlantic

Pretty shameful. "Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one."

Witch!

2008-02-15T20:40:00.003-05:00

Human Rights Watch has appealed to Saudi Arabia to halt the execution of a woman convicted of witchcraft.

In a letter to King Abdullah, the rights group described the trial and conviction of Fawza Falih as a miscarriage of justice.

The illiterate woman was detained by religious police in 2005 and allegedly beaten and forced to fingerprint a confession that she could not read.

Among her accusers was a man who alleged she made him impotent.

Human Rights Watch said that Ms Falih had exhausted all her chances of appealing against her death sentence and she could only now be saved if King Abdullah intervened. --BBC

Kings. Witches. Beheadings. 1008 or 2008 -- you be the judge.

Eurabia Watch

2008-02-13T09:21:00.007-05:00

Authorities arrest three Muslim immigrants plotting to murder Kurt Westergaard, the Dutch cartoonist responsible for creating the now infamous Muhammad-in-a-turban cartoon. To celebrate, the newspaper reprints Westergaard's work. Right on.

Meanwhile, the Turkish Prime Minister declares Muslim assimilation in Europe is "tantamount to a crime against humanity."

Also, Dutch Catholics "rebrand" Lent as "Christian Ramadan."

"The image of the Catholic Lent must be polished. The fact that we use a Muslim term is related to the fact that Ramadan is a better-known concept among young people than Lent," said Vastenaktie Director, Martin Van der Kuil.

At the same time, Muslims in Oxford are pressing -- not so vainly -- to have daily prayers broadcast via megaphone from the minaret of a major mosque, despite the surrounding community being predominately non-Islamic.

And, last but certainly not least, 17,000 women in Britain are now being subjected to so-called "honor" violence every year. Read it and weep, Western society:

Up to 17,000 women in Britain are being subjected to "honour" related violence, including murder, every year, according to police chiefs.

And official figures on forced marriages are the tip of the iceberg, says the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO).

It warns that the number of girls falling victim to forced marriages, kidnappings, sexual assaults, beatings and even murder by relatives intent on upholding the "honour" of their family is up to 35 times higher than official figures suggest.

Ah, but don't worry about any of this, it's just a few rotten apples. Right, Jeff? Clash of civilizations wha'??

Which's Which?

2008-02-12T20:44:00.001-05:00

Numbers coming out of Virginia: McCain squeaks by Huckabee (Huckabee!) with 2-3 points, 47-45, while Obama trounces HRC by 25 points, closing the day out with 62 to her 47.

And McCain is the "presumptive nominee" while Obama is in a neck and neck struggle? Weird times, indeed.

I bet Mitt's starting to wish he stuck it out. I bet he would have played well in the Potomac Primaries, maybe snagged one or two other contests, and used that energy (as well as the mountain of establishment conservative support) to cinch the veep slot. Maybe he really is holding his horses for '12.

Eco-Fascism

2008-02-08T12:21:00.000-05:00

The global warming movement is finally revealing its true form: a hysterical, undemocratic, technocratic cult, one that wouldn't be all that out of place at the height of the French Revolution, say.

Liberal democracy is sweet and addictive and indeed in the most extreme case, the USA, unbridled individual liberty overwhelms many of the collective needs of the citizens. . .

There must be open minds to look critically at liberal democracy. Reform must involve the adoption of structures to act quickly regardless of some perceived liberties. . .

We are going to have to look how authoritarian decisions based on consensus science can be implemented to contain greenhouse emissions.

But wait, there's more green authoritarianism . . .

David Suzuki has called for political leaders to be thrown in jail for ignoring the science behind climate change.

At a Montreal conference last Thursday, the prominent scientist, broadcaster and Order of Canada recipient exhorted a packed house of 600 to hold politicians legally accountable for what he called an intergenerational crime. Though a spokesman said yesterday the call for imprisonment was not meant to be taken literally, Dr. Suzuki reportedly made similar remarks in an address at the University of Toronto last month.

...

"What I would challenge you to do is to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there's a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they're doing is a criminal act," said Dr. Suzuki, a former board member of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

"It's an intergenerational crime in the face of all the knowledge and science from over 20 years."

The statement elicited rounds of applause.

Rare

2008-02-07T18:55:00.001-05:00

2008 will end up pitting two senators against each other. It may not be the first time, but I'm hard pressed to recall another instance where that was the case. Should add another bizarre element to an already very bizarre election season.

Two Things I Don't Like

2008-02-06T09:35:00.001-05:00

The recent primary results from Super Tuesday give me two major causes for concern.

1) Hillary Clinton is winning the race for the Democratic nomination, but not because of the elections. She's simply gathering more 'super-delegates' than Obama. This is completely unfair. The people should choose who their candidate is, not a few 'special' Congressmen and governors.

2) John McCain is going to have to pick an awfully good running mate. Let's face it: McCain's old. His chances of dying in office are much greater than any other candidate still in the race. So his vice president has a better-than-average chance of becoming the next president. So please, McCain, please don't choose Huckabee to win over the hardline conservatives. That would be a really bad idea. Choose Condi instead - everyone likes her! Or, I do, at least.

Romney's Push

2008-02-06T01:23:00.000-05:00

McCain's lead in Cali is beginning to shrink. Not too much, but a noticeable amount -- some 3%. Apparently, this is explainable by the fact that absentee ballots were counted early, and these were overwhelmingly in the senator's favor. There's no way Romney will win CA, but if he can close the lead (say, 40 / 30), he'll save a lot of face.

Huge Night For GOP

2008-02-06T00:58:00.000-05:00

Can someone please explain to me the far right's love affair with Mitt Romney? I've been trolling RedState, Townhall and other bastions of conservatism, and I keep running into sentiments along these lines: "Ah, well, Mitt in 2012!" That slogan has even popped up at National Review, which is significant more cautious and sophisticated than RS and TH.

It's hard not to laugh at these delusional hacks (especially when you're a McCain man). When will they face the facts? Romney was shut-out in the south, repelled in the west, and embarrassed in much of the north. Self-identifying conservatives didn't rush his way, neither did Christian conservatives. There's also indications from exit polls that those concerned with the economy preferred McCain -- this after Mitt's people have begun shifting his image from Family Man to Business Man. Ah, the snarls of a poll-driven campaign.

How is a man who placed second in South Carolina and third in Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia, and Missouri supposed to represent the Republican Party? Granted, he may have done better without Huckabee, but how much better? Would a Yankee ex-RINO Mormon millionaire really have played well, even without competition? My guess is Huckabee is drawing on Republicans who dislike the Party of Bush, and they likely see Romney as the president's nearest heir (and rightfully so). Given McCain's semi change of heart regarding immigration and his military heritage, could the governor done all that better in a Huck-free race?

Long story short: With some 450 delegates, McCain is close to cinching the GOP nod. Romney still has a chance, but with only ~150 delegates, it's not looking good, not at all. That's a lot of ground to make up, and Mac is sure to do well by riding big momentum. The best Mitt can hope for is a miracle at a brokered convention (which is a miracle unto itself!). A McCain presidency -- even a McCain candidacy -- will hopefully rejuvenate Republican moderates, perhaps even kicking some life into the party's shriveling appendages in the Northeast, Rustbelt, and Mountain West.

In Praise of Common Sense

2008-02-04T12:27:00.000-05:00

Sir — A nation has a history, a culture, an identity. Britain is not France, Spain is not Germany, and none of these are Bangladesh or Morocco. Nor do their citizens want them to become so. People do not want to be overrun by foreigners of a strange religion, a different race, or exotic (and sometimes repulsive) customs, even if it means a 1% rise in economic growth. No amount of lecturing will change these attitudes.

This letter appeared in a recent issue of The Economist, in response to an article run by that publication advocating relaxed immigration policies. I join John Derbyshire in marveling at the undiluted candor and old fashioned simplicity of those sentiments. You rarely find such straight-forward commonsense in the mainstream media these days, despite the fact that many Americans are still sharp enough to realize that preserving national identity is part and parcel of preserving our republic as we know it.

If I have an objection to make, it's with the letter writer's decision to use the word "race" instead of ethnicity, though I supposed the ethnicity was implied in the customs bit.

It's remarkable -- also, remarkably scary -- that the notion of "particular community" is receding from American public discourse. In public, in polite company, it's increasingly difficult to articulate a desire for a "familiar" nation without immediately being labeled a bigot, xenophobe, racist, or know-nothing. Really a pity.

Give Me A Break

2008-02-04T12:05:00.000-05:00

Clinton cries again.

And she's supposed to be an example of strong, empowered womanhood? Riiight. By my reckoning, Hillary has done everything she possibly can to prove legitimate the patronizing expression that females are the "weaker sex."

When she's on the ropes, she cries. When she can't go eye to eye with the big boys, she whines. When she wants dirty work to be done, she drafts her husband.

Keep Ms. Waterworks out of the Oval Office, please.

Expect the Unexpected

2008-02-04T12:02:00.000-05:00

There's something to hate about that trite and illogical expression, but it's the one thing on my mind going into Super Tuesday. Especially after the heartbreak in Phoenix last night, it's hard to be confident about anything.

Unhinged

2008-02-02T15:22:00.000-05:00

"I would vote for the Devil over John McCain." --Ann Coulter, craven lunatic.

Clinton more conservative than McCain? Why won't anybody call her on these inane assertions?

John's Party

2008-02-01T14:43:00.000-05:00

If you go by the Florida returns, maybe this year positions aren't everything. Republicans on the ground think the conservative is the one who suffered 5½ years in the Hanoi Hilton. Republicans on the ground think the conservative is the one who has endured a lifetime in the rounds in Washington and survived as antispending, antiabortion and pro-military. Republicans on the ground think the conservative is the old fighter jock who'll keep the country safe in a rocky time ahead. And maybe Republicans on the ground are saying: He earned it. --Peggy Noonan

Borderline Treasonous

2008-02-01T12:30:00.000-05:00

Look, the military isn't perfect. It has used questionable tactics during these wars, and engaged in some behavior that should be roundly condemned. That said, is there any other way to describe this besides borderline treasonous?

Hey-hey, ho-ho, the Marines in Berkeley have got to go.

That's the message from the Berkeley City Council, which voted 6-3 Tuesday night to tell the U.S. Marines that its Shattuck Avenue recruiting station "is not welcome in the city, and if recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome intruders."

In addition, the council voted to explore enforcing its law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation against the Marines because of the military's don't ask, don't tell policy. And it officially encouraged the women's peace group Code Pink to impede the work of the Marines in the city by protesting in front of the station.

In a separate item, the council voted 8-1 to give Code Pink a designated parking space in front of the recruiting station once a week for six months and a free sound permit for protesting once a week from noon to 4 p.m.

. . .

"I believe in the Code Pink cause. The Marines don't belong here, they shouldn't have come here, and they should leave," said Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates after votes were cast.

Straight Talk, That's For Sure

2008-01-31T11:29:00.000-05:00

Arizona Sen. John McCain refused to apologize yesterday for his use of a racial slur to condemn the North Vietnamese prison guards who tortured and held him captive during the war.

``I hate the gooks,'' McCain said yesterday in response to a question from reporters aboard his campaign bus. ``I will hate them as long as I live.''

. . .

``I was referring to my prison guards,'' McCain said, ``and I will continue to refer to them in language that might offend some people because of the beating and torture of my friends.''

McCain made it clear that his anger extends only toward his captors. As a senator, he was one of the leaders of the postwar effort to normalize U.S. relations with Vietnam.

Say what you will about the man, but Mac's as honest as they come. As for what he said, I really don't care. He can use whatever language he pleases when referring to the bastards -- yes, the bastards -- who beat him, starved him, and left him to rot in solitary confinement for two or three years. They broke his bones and his teeth in torture sessions which would last for days on end. By the time McCain emerged from the Hanoi Hilton, he had white air. The man was only thirty-three.

If he has a bit of pent up anger, well, that's understandable.

Please Riot Here

2008-01-30T14:03:00.000-05:00

Tell kids one thing, and they'll do the opposite. Definitely not going anywhere near Fenway, nope. Whistle . . .

Over the past few years, New England has been quite fortunate to have the Patriots as a regular participant in post-season contests. Unfortunately, at times some of the celebrating and disappointment has turned unruly, resulting in property damage, disturbance of the peace, arrests, personal injuries and even the loss of life.

With the Patriots and Giants scheduled to play in this coming Sunday’s Super Bowl, the College encourages you to root for your team, but asks that your behavior remains responsible, lawful and respectful of others and their property regardless of the outcome.

Boston Police Captain Evans recently sent a letter to all area colleges and universities. His letter states in pertinent part, “the BPD will be out in force in the Kenmore Square and Hemenway Street areas to prevent any disorderly conduct after the game. The areas surrounding Fenway Park will be closed during and after the game and many adjacent streets will be closed as well. Please do all you can to discourage your students from coming to these areas. Arrests will be made and acts of violence or vandalism will not be tolerated.”

Like Flies

2008-01-30T09:32:00.000-05:00

First Giuliani, now Edwards. Can't say I'm too torn-up over either exit.

Pure Hatred

2008-01-30T09:23:00.000-05:00

The conservative establishment is really, really, really unready to get on board with McCain. Witness the bitter -- and slightly deranged -- rantings of Michael Graham, a right-wing radioman from Boston . . .
Every day, [McCain] dreams of a world filled with happy Democrats and insulted Republicans. And he is, thanks to Florida, the presidential nominee of the Republican party.

Sure he does. The senator has a lifelong score of 80.something from the American Conservative Union, but whatever. I'm sure he wakes up everyday just looking to crush Republican hopes. Christ, these people are lunatics. It's almost as if they've been in asleep for the last eight years.

The "Stimulus" Scam

2008-01-29T11:24:00.000-05:00

But that seems unlikely to me. Keynesian theories about why output might increase usually rely on imperfections in markets or information. Producers get fooled into increasing their output for a while, before the errors are worked out and output falls back to its long-term level.

But that wouldn’t seem to be the case here. Let’s say the rebate checks get mailed out in May and June. A U.S. cigarette producer may notice a slight uptick in sales in those months as smokers spend their government checks. But cigarette producers probably watch the news and they will know that this is just a temporary blip. As such, they won’t add any new workers or buy any new machines.

So output would stay pretty fixed, while prices would adjust upward slightly to clear markets. But I don’t claim to be a Keynesian expert, so if one of our Keynesian readers wants to tell me where I’m wrong, I’d be happy to hear it. Until then, I remain convinced that the Bush/Pelosi scheme is crack-pot. --Chris Edwards

The Obama Temptation

2008-01-29T11:16:00.001-05:00

I'm not the only right-of-center joe with a soft-spot for the fiery senator from Illinois.

As a libertarian-minded conservative, I agree with almost nothing of Barack Obama's actual policy positions. Whether it is with education, health care, or fiscal matters, Obama is a liberal in the truest sense of the word. He fails to respect federalism and his policies can often border on socialism. Indeed, I have trouble identifying any policy positions of Obama's that appeal to me. In short, I think Barack Obama would make a terrible Head of Government.

Yet, as David Kopel has deftly noted, the Head of State is an entirely different role altogether, and regardless of your ideological perspective, there is something tremendously appealing about Obama. Indeed, several of his recent speeches - his Iowa victory, a speech on MLK Jr. Day, and the South Carolina victory - have given me goosebumps and caused me to swell with pride at being an American. --Josh Claybourn

In the end, I doubt my vote will go his way, but if he's elected I probably won't be tearing my hair out. (Hillary, on the other hand . . .)

The Old Bipartishanship Ruse

2008-01-28T01:40:00.000-05:00

"We need ... leaders who look out at America and see not an electorate to be sliced and diced and pitted against each other, but citizens who want to do great things together." --John Kerry, endorsing Sen. Obama

All those "great things" are, to be sure, finely pictured in the platform of the Democratic Party.

That's what bugs me about the appeal to bipartisanship: it's too often unrepresentative of the speaker's true agenda. Furthermore, it's usually presumptuous and condescending. No two people see the world the same way, there are real conflicts of opinion out there -- and that's alright. It's annoying to have some Washington suit not only belittle but flat-out dismiss legitimate differences just to sound enlightened, particularly when you know that said talking-head actually wants nothing to do with the other side's vision (which is, duh, entirely contrived to begin with).

For the record, I do believe there are national goals that can and should be pursued by the two parties working hand in hand to some degree. Similarly, there are certain issues that are best considered in a non-partisan light. A large plurality of Americans are not of (or for?) either political cult, and even many card-carriers are moderates who could sit with relative comfort on either side of the aisle. This reality means that a rigid red state/blue state, us vs. them mentality is not just unproductive, but unrealistic. It'd be nice for the hacks and die-hards to see this, and quit doggedly forcing every last detail of their philosophy on the rest of the nation.

However, some fights must be fought. In fact, a lot of fights must be fought. Because there aren't enough room for too many Big Ideas, not in the end. And this is common knowledge and common sense, which is why 75% of bipartisan talk is calculated nonsense that we can do without.

The (Social) Democratic Party

2008-01-28T01:20:00.000-05:00

Hillary Clinton is a "centrist democrat", "a pragmatist on the economy." So says Alan Dershowitz, writing in The New Republic today.

Huh. Well, accepting the legitimacy of that description, then relentless advocacy of universal healthcare now qualifies as a middle-of-the-road phenomenon. How depressing.

Hacktivists (For Real This Time)

2008-01-28T00:35:00.000-05:00

A group of hackers issues a declaration of war against the Church of Scientology. You know who to root for.

It's . . . Alive?

2008-01-27T22:04:00.001-05:00

Is it just me, or has The 1880 just gotten a make-over? No new posts, though. Too bad, it was one of the better publications started last year. And there were so many of them, right? Em Magazine, The 1880, EmCon (RIP), Urban Pirate . . .

I'd like to see it revived. If any of its people are reading this, do the right thing and get back to the snoop-and-gossip beat.

Eurabia Watch

2008-01-27T21:21:00.000-05:00

The Netherlands has spent the past several weeks in a political crisis out of a novel by Borges. People are worried that a politician might say something he has already said. And they are divided over how to interpret a film that may not exist. Last August, the anti-immigration legislator, Geert Wilders, wrote in the daily De Volkskrant: "I've had enough of Islam in the Netherlands - not one more Muslim immigrant. I've had enough of Allah and Mohammed in the Netherlands - not one more mosque." Mr Wilders, whose Freedom party controls 9 of the 150 seats in the Dutch lower house, also urged banning the Koran, which he calls "the Islamic Mein Kampf ".

But his announcement in late November that he would make a short film to that effect sent the government into a panic. The cabinet met in secret. It ordered foreign embassies to draw up evacuation plans in case of mob violence. It put the mayors of Dutch cities on alert. It arranged meetings with imams and other Muslim representatives, distancing itself from Mr Wilders' positions. The interior, justice and foreign ministers summoned Mr Wilders to meetings, and the country's terrorism co-ordinator warned him that he might have to leave the country for his own security. The government reportedly investigated whether it would be possible to block or delay Mr Wilders's broadcast.

Not that there is anything illogical about taking precautions against radical Islam. When the director, Theo van Gogh, made a 10-minute film critical of Islam in 2004, he was murdered on the streets of Amsterdam by a Dutch-born Muslim. The printing of cartoons showing the prophet Mohammed in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten sparked deadly riots around the world. Each time a gauntlet is thrown down, someone will credibly promise violence in the name of Islam. Mr Wilders' film idea was no exception. At the European parliament in Strasbourg last week, Ahmad Badr al-Din Hassoun, Grand Mufti of Syria, warned that Mr Wilders would be responsible for any "violence and bloodshed" that resulted from his film - and that the Dutch people would, in turn, be responsible for reining him in. Noor Farida Ariffin, the departing Malaysian ambassador, told De Volkskrant: "Compared to what I'm expecting, the riots over the Danish cartoons will look like a picnic." --Christopher Caldwell

John Edwards Outdoes Himself

2008-01-27T17:42:00.000-05:00

I just watched his S.C. defeat speech. He actually alleges that poor Americans have "no voice" in our democracy. Wait a minute, has universal adult suffrage suddenly been repealed? Have my guiltiest dreams come true?

Where's The Beef?

2008-01-27T16:51:00.001-05:00

So, Obama has proved once again that he's capable of some very pretty poetry. His victory speech is being roundly applauded, both by the establishment media and the blogosphere. It's even tickling certain conservatives, with fond words coming from National Review folks. (Andrew Sullivan is, of course, beside himself. Surprise, surprise.)

It's hard to disagree with the many generous things which have been written and said over the last twenty-four hours. Technically speaking, as an oration, it was quite a feat, at once smart and readable, exuberant and clear-headed, inspired and approachable. Without a doubt, Obama is the most eloquent American political speaker since Jack and Bobby Kennedy (sorry, Bill).

Last night's victory speech was everything a victory speech should be -- except substantive.

Fluffy and pleasant sounding, the tone and style were better suited for a college commencement than a do-or-die primary race. And, unfortunately, the noticeable absence of seriousness isn't surprising. More and more, I'm beginning to think that Obama is leaning too heavily on his famous rock star charisma. For such an intelligent man, he's consistently failing to produce a realistic treatment of the present state of American politics.

His initial articulation of the nation's present malaise was indeed admirable, and he seemed to have enormous potential as a unifying and transformative figure. He was openly lamenting the corrosive effects of Clinton-Bush era red state/blue state politics before it was the cool thing to do. Currently, every other word out of every candidate's mouth is "change", but Obama's been at that for a while now. His critique of the Boomer impasse earned him a ton of respect and a bunch of strange fellows (such as myself).

Now, however, at least in my book, the senator is failing to live up to expectations -- not to mention his own promises of being a new breed of American leader. When his politics aren't conventionally liberal, they're frighteningly nebulous and half-baked. His upsetting talk about bombing Pakistan some time ago might have been an early warning sign that this man is better suited to write presidential speeches than to give them.

"Hope" and "change" and "progress", these omnipresent but undefined notions constitute an unseemly amount of Obama's appeal. When I saw the senator speak in the Commons, I was blown away by the emotional intensity of his performance (note that word: performance), but the paucity of tangibles concerned me. He's always relied a good deal on feel-good abstractions (which is why he plays well among the well-educated, who have the educational experience and intellectual tools to deal with ideas), but I thought they'd fade away as he evolved into a national personality and the likely Democratic nominee. That doesn't appear to be the case, though, and the clock is ticking.

What's behind this unfortunate lack of maturity? Was Obama sainted too early? After all, an icon doesn't escape his iconography, he luxuriates in it. Maybe, if he had been more thoroughly scrutinized by the public and the media, he would have been put through the crucible, and forced to develop "at gun point", so to speak (see: Mitt Romney). Wouldn't that be awful, if his success was his undoing. That's the stuff of good novels, but it's difficult to watch in real life.

I've not given up on Obama yet, not even close, but I am beginning to doubt him. Hopefully, he'll do something I normally hate and prove me wrong.

Just A Quote

2008-01-27T15:42:00.000-05:00

"I would give the greatest sunset in the world for one sight of New York's skyline. Particularly when one can't see the details. Just the shapes. The shapes and the thought that made them. The sky over New York and the will of man made visible. What other religion do we need? And then people tell me about pilgrimages to some dank pesthole in a jungle where they go to do homage to a crumbling temple, a leering stone monster with a pot belly, created by some leprous savage. Is it beauty and genius that they want to see? Do they seek a sense of the sublime? Let them come to New York, stand on the shore of the Hudson, look and kneel. When I see the city from my window - no, I don't feel how small I am - but I feel that if a war came to threaten this, I would like to throw myself into space, over the city, and protect these buildings with my body." --Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead

When He's Good, He's Good

2008-01-25T20:43:00.001-05:00

Chuck Klosterman can be a whiny know-it-all, but this smart treatment of the Pats is worth checking out, even if you despise the finest team in NFL history. Nice bit of Bradyana, too.

With Enemies Like These . . .

2008-01-25T20:35:00.000-05:00

First, John McCain gets the endorsement of The New York Times, mouthpiece of the liberal East Coast establishment. Then, Bill Clinton is quoted speaking warmly of him, noting that he and Hillary (liberal arch-villain) are close friends, and that an election between the two of them would be "the most civilized in American history."

I almost feel the like the left is doing this intentionally, so as to prove credible the far right's accusations that McCain isn't a conservative, and thus undermine the senator's bid for president. After all, Democrats must realize that McCain is the only Republican who can defeat them in '08, barring some kind of extremely upsetting national or global event. They know they can squash Romney or Huckabee, but when it comes to the maverick from Arizona, well, all bets are off. He has great pull among Independents, and might very well siphon off red state and national security Democrats (there's already talk of "McCain Democrats", which are the next gen "Reagan Democrats").

I bet the Limbaugh legion was giddy over the endorsement, and Bill's glowing assessment . . .

More Ground Surrendered

2008-01-24T11:41:00.000-05:00

How long before we can write-off Britain completely?

A story based on The Three Little Pigs has been rejected by a Government-backed awards event because it might offend Muslims... and builders.

The digital book, retelling the classic children's tale, was criticised by judges who said "the use of pigs raises cultural issues".

...

The "virtual" book is designed for use on computers and interactive whiteboards and aimed at primary school children.

Its publishers, Shoo-Fly, insist there is nothing offensive in it.

But judges for the annual BETT awards, which recognise excellence in educational technology, claimed they had "concerns about the Asian community" and insisted "the use of pigs raises cultural issues".

As a result, they "could not recommend this product to the Muslim community".

Tell me that joke again, you know, the one about Islam's ability to integrate into liberal Western society. Multiculturalism is the biggest sham ever forced upon the Anglo-American people. I hope we wake up and reject it before it's too late.

America the . . . Something

2008-01-24T10:44:00.000-05:00

Since the paradigm-shifting September 11th attacks, America has been dogged by a great crisis of identity. Who are we, as a nation? What is our mission, our place in the current of human events? These existential questions – expressions of inner turmoil – have defined the post-9/11 era, but in 2007 they were especially loud, especially pressing.

That terrible and cloudless morning six year ago undermined a wealth of "conventional wisdom." As the towers crumbled and the Pentagon burnt, illusions of pax Americana were laid to rest. The inevitable success of liberal democracy, a notion challenged only by the political margins during the 1990's, no longer seemed set in stone.

What a difference decade or so makes! The rapid transitions America has endured (from peace to war, from economic sizzle to economic fizzle, from sole superpower to embattled republic, etc.) have shocked and disoriented. More fundamentally, they have sparked a genuine identity crisis.

There is no longer a dominant narrative by which we can understand ourselves. Some imagine the United States as a champion of freedom; others condemn it as ruthless, imperial. Between and beside these, there are a host of other takes, some positive and some negative.

Uncertainty about "who we are" has been the driving force behind some of the year's biggest events. The immigration uproar, the baseball brouhaha, the grassroots' struggle with establishment politics, the tension between secularism and evangelical Christianity: these all stem from anxiety over a potential loss of integrity, and settled identity.

Yet the rash of self-doubt has played out most interestingly, and most strikingly, on the silver screen. (How wonderfully American, to repackage an intense social issue as pop culture swag. . .)

There was The Invasion and I Am Legend, which featured identity loss on a very literal level (the seizure of one's mind and body by alien power and unnatural impulse). Top grossing Spider-Man 3 dealt with dual personality, while The Number 23 explored schizophrenia.
Southland Tales, Enchanted, and Bridge to Terabithia showed external reality as fundamentally unstable, thus disallowing any chance of objective identity formation.

Perhaps the finest film of the year, There Will Be Blood, was a brilliant interpretation of the old tug-of-war between country and city, collectivism and individualism. It resonates today, as America is torn between rural (religious) populism and urban (secular) modernity. Similarly high-grade pictures like American Gangster and No Country for Old Men tackled identity difficulties through the lens of race and class.

Even the raunchiest comedies got in on the action, though in more oblique terms. Knocked Up, Juno, and Superbad featured characters trapped in hilarious limbo between youth and maturity—an identity crisis if ever there was one.

Cinema is a most sensitive medium: it can detect and capitalize on cultural phenomena long before they are articulated in other forums. The films of 2007 reveal an America that is unsure of its worth, skeptical of its destiny, and deeply insecure about its moral and intellectual underpinnings.

For now, we can enjoy this anxiety in its artistic representation. Eventually, however, we must deal with it in more pragmatic terms. America cannot lose its sense of providence and wallow in malaise. If it does, then a great project is diminishing, and the world will be the worse for it.

Grim Milestone

2008-01-22T15:08:00.000-05:00

35 years ago, the Supreme Court affirmed the so-called "right to choose", thus producing a society wherein it's perfectly okay to terminate a healthy human life, so long it's done before the little brat gets too big. Meanwhile, the torture and murder of domestic animals is not just taboo, but illegal and, in certain cases, punishable as a felony. Ah, moral relativism, what a beautiful thing.

Every decent person was up in arms about Michael Vick's dog fighting, but a large plurality of Americans -- perhaps most -- don't find much wrong with the willful destruction of hundreds of thousands of unborn children each and every year. Isn't something seriously wrong with that equation, particularly when the vast majority of abortions are not done out of medical necessity, but merely because pregnancy is an "inconvenience." An inconvenience.

I want to write more about this, but I'm saving it for an article in the next issue of The Beacon. Suffice to say that, to me, January 22 isn't cause for celebration, but for mourning.

Scary As All Hell

2008-01-22T11:02:00.000-05:00

"Even though cutting off the hands and feet, or flogging the drunkard and fornicator, seem to be very abhorrent, once they are implemented, they become a deterrent for the whole society.

"This is why in Saudi Arabia, for example, where these measures are implemented, the crime rate is very, very, low," he told The Sunday Telegraph.

In a documentary to be screened on Channel 4 next month, entitled Divorce: Sharia Style, Dr Hasan goes further, advocating a sharia system for Britain. "If sharia law is implemented, then you can turn this country into a haven of peace because once a thief's hand is cut off nobody is going to steal," he says.

"Once, just only once, if an adulterer is stoned nobody is going to commit this crime at all.

"We want to offer it to the British society. If they accept it, it is for their good and if they don't accept it they'll need more and more prisons."

Tell me that joke again, you know, the one about Islam's ability to integrate into liberal Western society. Face it, unless there's serious and widespread reform of Islam in the near future, it's going to come to blows with every democratic, freedom-based and freedom-loving civilization it touches. This Dr. Hasan isn't even a radical, and he still buys into the barbaric notion that we should be cutting off the hands of "fornicators"! Unbelievable, and beyond frightening.

The Jerry Springer Debate

2008-01-21T22:04:00.000-05:00

That was some tussle tonight. I'm surprised nobody walked away with a fat shiner, or a bloody nose. If the eventual nominee -- be it HRC or Obama -- scraps half as hard come general time, the Republicans haven't a chance. It'll be an absolute bloodbath. The Democratic primary has been a bit too dirty, but overall the combativeness is useful and positive. Remember what Hemingway said: "Strong at the broken places."

Of course, the internecine feuding could become too ferocious and fatally tarnish the victor, leaving him vulnerable to Republican tricks. That's always a risk, but perhaps one worth taking.

Both Clinton and Obama deserve praise. They proved their mettle, alright. Neither wilted in the limelight, though I think Obama's performance lagged towards the end. If I had to choose a "winner", it'd be HRC by a hair. Edwards continues to be a joke. When will he drop out already?

Mainly, I was struck by the essential weakness and incompleteness of the Democratic agenda, and how far they've fallen since the '06 triumphs. Coming out of the midterms, it seemed a robust, all-American, "purple state" liberalism was finally ready to emerge.

This brave new liberalism was colored by civil libertarianism and steeled by a healthy appeal to economic nationalism among Rust Belt and Heartland voters. Even the anti-war message was cloaked in that America First rhetoric (i.e. "American dollars for Americans, not Iraqis!").

This new liberal hearkened back to the "Reagan Democrat", but resisted playing into blue collar anxieties over sensitive cultural issues. At the same time, it situated deficit reduction as crucial, suggesting that tax raises were better suited to shrinking the national debt than expanding the welfare state. This 21st century liberalism was refreshingly free of technocratic sympathies (there was no talk of a "brain trust"), and it arose from the American interior by popular demand.

Unfortunately, the new liberalism doesn't appear to have had much staying power. The Democrats are back to their old games, bribing voters with the promise of curing all their problems using other people's money. The enormous and nefarious scheme that is socialized medicine is the base's favorite horse this cycle, and they candidates are clearly prepared to ride that sucker into the dust.

Babel

2008-01-21T19:42:00.000-05:00

I was lucky enough to have escaped the frigid winter weather this past vacation, at least for a time. A friend of mine has a house outside Miami, in Coral Gables, and I spent a week or so bumming around that handsome area, baking in the sun and swallowing iced drinks on South Beach.

Miami is a place rich with imported flavor, that's for sure. Particularly for someone accustomed to the vanilla provincialism of New England, the city is an engaging creature, almost exhausting in its novelty. Mostly, the melange of foreign sights and sounds is a positive element of life among the palms.

The locals' apparent disinterest in adopting the English language is, however, troubling. The prevalence of Spanish speaking among immigrants and natives alike confounds me. Now, the desire to maintain the old country's tongue is understandable, even commendable, but it shouldn't be the preferred means of communication. This is America, where the king's (corrupted) English is the lingua franca. New-comers should accept this reality, and deal with it.

I was shocked, then, when my host reacted violently to these precise sentiments. I told her the way I felt following a frustrating ordeal wherein the entire staff of a convenience store was unable to give me directions to a location nearby. You see, not one of them seemed even remotely familiar with English. In response to my questioning, they just shrugged and winced. (And I'm supposed to consider them my countrymen?)

When I expressed my anger at the communication barrier, she call me a bigot. "If they want to speak Spanish, let them," she said.

I responded, "That's fine, they can speak Spanish so long as they deal with English in public, so long as they have a working relationship with the language."

But even that compromise upset my, eh, broad-minded companion. "Language is an artificiality," she explained in a strained tone of voice, "an illusion." Ever the cosmopolitan, she concluded, "One isn't better than the other. People should be free to use whichever they want without a negative reaction to their personal choice."

I lit a cigarette and shut-up. The spat blew over soon enough, but returned unexpectedly not too long after. We scooped a mutual friend, who that night was feeling particularly sore about her boss.

"And the worst part is," she said, "he really hates it when people speak Spanish. He says everyone should speak English, or be shipped back to who-the-hell-knows-where. It's so . . . simian."

I sighed aloud.

"What?" she asked, turning to me.

"We were having a similar debate before getting you. Let's just say I'm not altogether unfriendly to your boss' suggestion. Assimilate or emigrate -- catchy, if a bit extreme. Okay, a lot extreme, but I'm of the same general frame of mind on the issue."

The two girls rolled their eyes, visibly disgusted at what one of them described colorfully as "stupid fucking white nationalism." (Note: Race has nothing to do with it. If Miami was super-saturated by unapologetic French speakers, I'd be equally disturbed.)

"Your idea of America is pathetic. It's so, like, depressing. Let's just listen to music."

The radio came alive, filling the car with Latino music. One of the girls changed the station: more foreign clamor. The next flip brought the same -- spitfire Spanish, spoken and song -- as did the one after that and the one after that. It actually seemed that the airwaves were captive to some south-of-the-border disc jockey spinning out of a salsa bar. There we were, cruising American soil, struggling to catch a familiar word.

"What the hell . . . " muttered one of the girls, sporting a restrained frown.

"Where're the real stations, the good ones?" wondered the other, chagrined.

I said, "Frustrating, right? It's so, like, depressing."

Faux-Feminism Watch

2008-01-20T12:04:00.000-05:00

Great, more faux-feminism care of Eve Ensler, the arch-enemy of women's progress herself. First, she forced upon us The Vagina Monologues, a vulgar text that sought to combat sexism by conjuring every female caricature imaginable (and without the slightest hint of irony!). Now, she's set to one-up that juvenile effort. Witness . . .

April 11 and 12 will find the Louisiana Superdome interior turned into a pink and red vagina -- "with a big vagina entrance," Ensler said -- as a setting for performance events, parties, parades, workshops, wellness and education programs, speakers, even spa treatments, which will be free to residents of New Orleans and the Gulf South. (Men are excluded only from the spa.) For those two days, New Orleans will be "the Vagina Capital of America," Ensler said. "We're coming here to say that we should celebrate New Orleans, cherish it, protect it, just as we do our vaginas, and make sure it goes on and on."

Great, once again Ensler is undermining women's equitable integration into society by symbolically reducing femininity to the vagina. Because, you know, that's not what patriarchy has done all along, right? Lady = Vagina; what a revolutionary formula!

Really, could these clitoris-transfixed bra-burners be any less self-aware?

McCain for America

2008-01-20T11:33:00.000-05:00

Since Fred Thompson obviously isn't going to survive primary season, I've aligned behind John McCain 110% (McCain/Thompson '08?/!). Being young and from the New England, my conservative sensibilities are somewhat moderate. Even so, I disagree with Sen. McCain on certain pressing economic issues, and also on immigration. I worry a little about his scalding temper, and his tireless support for the occupation of Iraq makes me, well, skittish.

Why, then, am I banging the senator's war drum? It's quite simple, really, and I think it's the same reason many "lay conservatives" have flocked to the Mac, despite serious policy disagreements.

The thing is, I desire a red-blooded patriot in the White House. A true patriot, you know, someone who has actually bled for this country, someone who has endured "it all." John McCain began serving America in 1955 (that's 53 years now -- heck, nearly as long as, oh, Mitt Romney has been alive!).

He hasn't quit since then, not once, never. The senator isn't some MBA biznizman worth half a billion dollars. He isn't a hot-shot lawyer or famous entertainer or golden-tongued orator or corporate shill or professional talking-head or backwater preacher. His has been a life of national duty and dogged public service. That level of commitment and self-sacrifice resonates with main street conservatives, who value active patriotism. The presidency would be a fine, appropriate, and well deserved coda to such a legacy.

Why the conservative establishment, as represented by National Review and Rush Limbaugh and the rest, has failed to embrace McCain is more than confusing. It's ridiculous. It proves that the institutional right remains incapable of ending its Reagan fetishization, even if it means supporting a man who's carefully tailored each and every aspect of himself to fit that antique ideal.

Yes, I'm talking, of course, about Mitt Romney, an ex-RINO (so said Human Events) whose born-again conservatism was conveniently timed with his presidential campaign; a man who abandoned his state party to the wolves for the sake of personal ambition; a man with one term of governing experience; a man whose pandering is painfully obvious (life-long hunter, Soviet-style Michigan package, etc.)l a man with zero military know-how (!). It's beyond baffling, isn't it?

Thankfully, there's evidence of rank-breaking over at Nat'l Review following last night's results. Romney has won two uncontested primaries (Wyoming, Nevada), and one semi-contested one (Michigan), whereas McCain has triumphed in two key states (New Hampshire, South Carolina), both of which were difficult wins.

As Mark Steyn -- who's no McCain loyalist -- writes:

In that sense, McCain's is a genuine national candidacy. Rudy's campaign
announced itself as one, but, as I said a while back, it quickly turned into a
1-800 candidacy, rooted in no real area code, with no real physical presence, as
if he'd outsourced the thing to a call center in Bombay. That's why his
team have spent most of the last month artfully explaining why it doesn't
matter that ten per cent of American states have consigned "America's
Mayor" to a statistical asterisk. I'd love to hear from Lisa, David Frum or our
old pal JPod if this is truly where they expected the "frontrunner" to
be at this stage in the game: Two per cent in South Carolina, and a grand total
of one delegate.

On the Way Back

2008-01-19T15:19:00.000-05:00

So as my father was driving me back to Emerson this morning, we passed a car with a bumper sticker that read "Gay marriage doesn't scare me, no healthcare does." And while I'm sure that's not a new phrase or anything, it was the first time I've seen it. I thought "Wow, someone who realizes that gay marriage isn't that pressing of an issue, given all the other problems in the world" and I was happy for a few minutes (only interrupted by an old John Kerry bumper sticker).

And if you're wondering, it was an older woman driving.

Before Paul Was Paul, He Was Saul

2008-01-18T20:43:00.000-05:00

Hitchens apologizes for 1968. Peter Hitchens, that is. A competent, if incomplete, indictment of youth gone mad in paradise.

Bush = Liberal

2008-01-18T18:13:00.000-05:00

He'd make a fine Truman Democrat. Check out the spectacular tripe Michael Gerson, his former speechwriter and ideological co-conspirator, is pushing this week. It's mind blowing. I can't believe anyone believes Gerson and his neocon comrades are conservative in any way, shape, or form. Watch as he sneers at Thompson's understandable hesitation to send boatloads of hard-earned American money to dysfunctional African regimes.

Thompson's argument reflects an anti-government extremism, which I am sure his defenders would call a belief in limited government. In this case, Thompson is limiting government to a half-full thimble. Its duties apparently do not extend to the treatment of sick people in extreme poverty, which should be "the role of us as individuals and as Christians." One wonders, in his view, if responding to the 2004 tsunami should also have been a private responsibility. Religious groups are essential to fighting AIDS, but they cannot act on a sufficient scale.

Thompson also dives headfirst into the shallow pool of his own theological knowledge. In his interpretation, Jesus seems to be a libertarian activist who taught that compassion is an exclusively private virtue. This ignores centuries of reflection on the words of the Bible that have led to a nearly universal Christian conviction that government has obligations to help the weak and pursue social justice. Religious social reformers fought to end child labor and improve public health. It is hard to imagine they would have used the teachings of Christ to justify cutting off lifesaving drugs for tens of thousands of African children -- an argument both novel and obscene.

In the lifeboat dilemma Thompson proposes, we are asked to throw overboard either an American child with leukemia or an African child with AIDS -- and, by gum, it had better not be the American. The real issue is different: Should we increase the amount of money devoted to our generous cancer research efforts at the expense of African lives that can be saved for about $90 a year?

Daniel Larison, a wonderful paleocon, has some wonderfully pointed commentary on Gerson's inability to organize our national priorities in a matter even vaguely conservative.

P.S. This makes a good case for just how much the Democrats sacrificed by making a sharp left turn in the cultural arena. The Boomer Dems ran the party flat into the ground by scaring off Social Gospel liberals, who just couldn't abide by sharing an organization with abortionists and same-sex marriage cheerleaders, but who have zero problem with spending public money on "good works." They were a critical element of the long perished New Deal coalition, and their departure helped end liberalism's dominance of American politics.

Dixie Do or Dixie Don't?

2008-01-18T15:41:00.000-05:00

Huckabee spit polishes his image down South by loudly defending the flying of Confederate colors. The New York Times tells us . . .

“You don’t like people from outside the state coming in and telling you what to do with your flag,” Mr. Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas, told supporters in Myrtle Beach, according to The Associated Press.

“In fact,” he said, “if somebody came to Arkansas and told us what to do with our flag, we’d tell them what to do with the pole; that’s what we’d do.”

At a news conference on Thursday night, he said, “It is not an issue the president of the United States needs to weigh in on.”

I'm split on the issue myself. One one hand, it's stupid to claim that "outsiders" (presumably, anyone north of the Mason-Dixon) have no stake in the flying of the Stars and Bars. That flag represents a rebellious movement that was ended only after hundreds of thousands of "outsiders" lost their lives, with many others coming away maimed or mentally disturbed. For all non-Southerners, the Stars and Bars continues to be a reminder of that brutal conflict, and a symbol with significant emotional resonance.

Furthermore, the Confederates were, in part, fighting to maintain the cornerstone of their caste-based agrarian society: that is, human bondage. Thus the flag -- a flag of, for, and by the CSA -- is an icon of an illegitimate white supremacist nation that not only defended but championed a system of racial subjugation and exploitation. That being so, its continued veneration is a massive insult to all African-Americans, whose descendents suffered the greatest cruelties.

But . . . it's equally true that the Stars and Bars is a multifaceted icon. There are some liberal Yankees who are still eager to gloat over Appomattox. They would unfairly reduce the flag to an exclusively racist symbol, which is just wrongheaded. Undeniably, it is representative of the Old South, and its rich social, economic, and political heritage, not all of which is immoral or embarassing. Localism, particular community, respect of tradition, self-determination, popular sovereignty, anti-Caesarism, limited government -- these fine principles constitute the DNA of the Old South. They are notions to admire, and if a man looks into the Stars and Bars and sees those ideas, then more power to him.

After all, many people (particularly where I grew up, in New England) fly Revolutionary banners, or flags from the early republic (the circle of thirteen stars, etc.), and these represented the nation when it still accepted human bondage as alright, if not ideal. Yet, to most, those old school colors are not perceived as symbols of American slavery, but of American liberty. Isn't this somewhat of a double standard?

I suppose this is the ideal arrangment: keep the Stars and Bars off public property, but don't heckle others for giving it respect. The thing is a powerful, complicated symbol, rich it connotation, with meanings that range from despicable to utterly admirable.

Huckabee Gets Mean

2008-01-17T18:09:00.000-05:00

War of attrition on illegals, so says the ex-fat preacher. I'm kinda like the sound of that.

I'm defensive about this country, protective, and I don't think admitting wave after wave of poorly educated, poorly assimilated, and just plain poor Third World immigrants is a wise choice. Given that we're a post-industrial information society, that's simply a recipe for disaster. It'd mean the erosion of our Anglo-Saxon character, and our descent into a balkanized banana republic. No thanks to that.

That said, the logistics of what amounts to mass deportation are challenging, and the scope of the project is, to sell it short, daunting. There are tens of millions of illegals in the country, many of them deeply ingrained in the fabric of American labor and, to a lesser extent, American society.

As Ramesh Ponurru, one of National Review' brighter bulbs, writes:

I can just imagine some 60-year-olds in my home town, still at work in landscaping after 40 years, who have never been arrested, own homes, and haven't a clue what Oaxaca looks like after 40 years, suddenly put on a bus back there. So while it is easy to say, "I oppose amnesty in all its forms," note apparently how difficult it is for the candidates to make the next intellectually honest and logical corollary, "Thus I am for the mass deportation of all illegal aliens."

It is fine and good to talk of "attrition" by slowly and incrementally rounding up illegal aliens as they come in contact with government agencies and need various licenses, papers, statements, etc., but you are still talking about deporting millions, who are currently working and crime-free, rather promptly.

The odd thing is that should illegal immigration cease at the border, the pool of illegals here, properly screened, would become static, and not be replenished, and, if the past is any guide, within a generation melt into the American pot.So it seems that while "amnesty" is a political death sentence, so is mass deportation-the only element of the immigration debate that would play into the hands of the Democrats who otherwise lose big on the issue.

Lock down the border. Kick out any illegal picked up with a serious criminal record. Lower the quotas for Third World immigrants, even legal ones. That much is common sense, but more exteme measures require careful consideration. Not to mention delicate, humane handling.

We could have avoided this problem by locking down the border decades ago, but . . .

The Fredheads Are Coming

2008-01-17T14:51:00.000-05:00

His regular campaign e-reports are bubbly enough:

Fred's South Carolina surge is working!Two new polls by Zogby and Rasmussen, conducted just this week, show support for Fred growing. Thousands of internal calls by the campaign show Fred's strength increasing.It's Day 10 of Fred's South Carolina bus tour, and Fred is on fire!

Still, he's only at 16%, neck and neck with Romney but well behind McCain and Huckabee, who are tied with 24% each. And Romney has apparently abandoned efforts in S.C., which might bode well for Huckabee. With only a few days left, I'm not sure if Fred can manage it, though an upset would be awesome. I supported Thompson from the get-go; his dismal showing thus far has been disappointing, though I can't deny my affection for his "Quiet Cal" style. Just so refreshing compared to the zeal and statist rah-rah flooding from both sides of the aisle. Now if only he could just crack a smile . . .

Sin of Omission

2008-01-17T14:30:00.000-05:00

So, I just saw a replay of some Romney speech (I believe the one he gave upon winning Michigan), and he named George H.W. Bush as an inspiration. What an exciting, energizing executive upon which to model yourself! Really, thrilling. That Romney guy, he's really one for walking the edge.

But seriously, you can't help but also read the comment as a backhanded slap at the younger -- and certainly lesser -- Bush. Mitt said that he derives strength and ideas from the legacies of Reagan and Bush I, the implication-by-omission being that Dubya isn't worthy of the adulation or replication (shocker . . .).

Not that I'm complaining about the choice to steer clear of Bush II's legacy. I couldn't agree more, really. If there's a recent Republican tradition to be observed, it's that of senior rather than the junior George. H.W. was an old Yankee conservative, ambivalent on social issues, cautious in foreign affairs, and at least somewhat dedicated to fiscal discipline. He was far from a great man, but his administration was a charming and successful venture compared to his son's.

The "Big Tent", Again

2008-01-17T14:22:00.000-05:00

The realities of the GOP frequently conflict with its P.R. (which explains why hacks and spinsters are so valued by the party). While paying ample lip-service to limited government, constitutionalism, and Judeo-Christian morality, Republican actions – on a personal and collective level – consistently fail to advance those righteous principles.

Perhaps the greatest discrepancy between the supposed and the actual stems from the flawed claim that Republicans operate a “big tent” party. This has been standard mantra for a while now, but despite having been around the block, it remains mostly uncontested.

Rather than tolerating unorthodoxy, Republicans are notorious for enforcing lockstep march, and punishing any hint of ideological deviation. This prejudice is evident by the institutionalized resistance to Pat Buchanan’s bid in 1996, or John McCain’s independent-minded campaign in 2000, as well as the violent reaction of today’s establishment against Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, and others.

Indeed, the current Republican Party is a brittle and unadventurous organization, complacent with graying dogma. It eschews critical thinking, has a puny capacity for ideas, and a worrisome unwillingness (inability?) to consider even the most modest paradigm shift.

Crystallization began in the 1980’s – when conservatism finally exploded onto the national stage in two spectacular elections – but it reached completion following the neo-conservative putsch earlier this decade. During that stretch, there arose a GOP elite, ensconced primarily in Washington and Manhattan. These slick, coastal bigwigs have slowly produced a rigid mold into which all Republicans (and, presumably, all conservatives) must fit, or risk excommunication.

The present right-wing ideal – an unabashed hawk with Wall Street and White House loyalties, a nasty spending habit, and passing interest in constitutionalism – is relentlessly praised by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and National Review. There are, of course, other attractive qualities (an unusual amount of concern over the “gay agenda”, for example), but these are definitely secondary, often used to sucker Heartland voters to no real benefit of their own.

In enforcing this Republican model, the partisans of the “Reagan coalition” (a strange term, since much 21st century GOP policy would horrify the Gipper) have, very consciously, dismembered the Grand Old Party. Liberal, moderate, and libertarian cadres – those old boys from New England and the urban Northeast and the mountain West – are increasingly viewed as heretical, as is the expansive Old Right.

Now, it’s untrue to say that these blocs have been totally shut-out of party process. The Washington/Manhattan axis has seen fit to maintain a loose alliance with them, conjuring single issue firestorms (abortion, same-sex marriage, etc.) in order to keep relations somewhat viable. The upper-crust similarly manipulates right-wing populists (a.k.a. Christian Democrats, a.k.a. Reagan Democrats) and Bible Belt folk. However, the establishment has less obvious disdain for these types, owing to their impressive voting strength.

The net result of this hierarchically-imposed orthodoxy is an ever-narrowing definition of what it means to be in and of and for the “right.” The only chance for a more inclusive right-of-center party is popular rebellion, from the dirt on up. The disenfranchised groups must make their voices heard, their sentiments known. They must demand that their unique takes on conservatism are once again considered legitimate, and respected by the larger coalition. There must be no more institutionalized mockery and exploitation. It’s time that moderates, paleos, and all the others refuse to be second-class conservatives, second-rate Republicans.

This election suggests that the grassroots are in fact disgruntled, and itching to rock the boat. The candidacies of Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, and even John McCain represent insurgencies. Lou Dobbs’ new-found success is also good news, as is the public’s realization that unchecked multiculturalism, bellicosity, and globalization have the potential to destroy (what remains of) our republic.

Given the internal and external dangers currently facing America, the need for a truly “big tent” right is of the utmost importance. Yacht club grandees, red-meat nativists, cautious suburbanites, “Country” faction decentralists, pro-worker traditionalists, crunchy cons, isolationists, and constitutionalists may not have everything in common, but they can surely unite behind one slogan: “It’s Our Party, Too --- Give It Back!”

Ah well . . .

2008-01-15T21:04:00.000-05:00

It appears that Mitt's first gold is coming down the pipe right now. Okay, that's fine: Mac in S.C.! (Plus, in the end, is Romney really the worst the GOP could put up front? No, hardly.)

This nomination is still way up in the air. Now even the prospect of a brokered convention doesn't seem so crazy. In fact, it seems sensible. As it presently stands, Feb. 5 may not really decide all that much. It might confuse, rather than confuse.

If the Republicans know what's best for them, they'll end up settling with McCain. Here's hopin'.

Calling the Wolverine State

2008-01-14T19:47:00.000-05:00

Nobody can say with any real confidence who will win tomorrow's GOP primary in Michigan. On the eve of this critical contest, McCain and Romney are running neck and neck. And given the breathtaking events in New Hampshire, pollsters and pundits alike are spooked. Few hard predictions have been issued by the T.V. and radio men.

Me, my money's on McCain. The senator's bold and forward-looking vision for Michigan labor may not push him over the edge (just too hard to hear for many laid-off autoworkers), but I imagine Romney's calculated polish has, on some level, offended potential voters. On the other hand, McCain's grandfatherly appearance and knockabout personality are decidedly Midwestern, and should've endeared him to the Wolverine State.

Then there's the iffy matter of immigration, which will hurt the AZ senator, but I don't think Romney has fashioned himself a staunch enough nativist to draw robust support from the Minuteman crowd.

Maybe I'm banking too much on personality. Maybe Michigan voters are too conservative to accept a Republican who doesn't foam at the mouth over Mexican strawberry pickers, a Republican who's willing to state a hard truth: global capitalism is killing the Midwestern auto complex, and unless we're willing to go the way of aggressive protectionism, that trend ain't getting any better. America is rapidly becoming a post-industrial society; certain parts are feeling the disorientation of change in a particularly negative way. That is, sadly, the nature of the market, the same market that once drove America's automotive field to global prominence. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust . . . money makes and unmakes with equal ease.

Perhaps tax incentives could be used to anchor heavy production and manufacturing at home, but again, will Americans (and REPUBLICANS??) support that degree of interventionist government?

Anyway, Michigan to McCain, by a small but respectable margin (+2.5pts??).

Will I regret that in some twenty-four hours? Stay tuned . . .

Patriots, Not Partisans

2008-01-14T15:41:00.001-05:00

I think the great appeal of John McCain and Barack Obama among the grassroots and on Main Street has much to do with their muscular patriotism. Both men exhibit an honest love of country, a wholesome affection that stands in stark contrast to the bellicose nationalism of the GOP and the Democrats' standard "America's okay" anemia.

They don't appear strictly beholden to party interests, nor are they easily lured into ideological crusades. McCain and Obama understand the presidency as a chance to unite and lead the whole United States, not just red states or blue states.

Their shared passion also explains why many thoughtful individuals are smitten by both at once, and why N.H. independents were neatly divided between their respective camps. An Obama/McCain general election really couldn't turn out badly: regardless of who loses, America would win.

Santorum Slams McCain

2008-01-14T15:33:00.001-05:00

Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania's most sensational puritan, has come out against the senator's presidential bid. Yet another reason to vote McCain, mm?

“The bottom line is that I served 12 years with him, 6 years in the United States Senate as leader, one of the leaders of the Senate — the number-3 leader — who had the responsibility of trying to put together the conservative agenda, and almost at every turn on domestic policy, John McCain was not only against us, but leading the charge on the other side.”

Helpless Romney supporter Kathryn Jean Lopez brings you the full story.

Performer-Enhancing Steroids?

2008-01-14T12:05:00.000-05:00

We all know about the steroid allegations against athletes. It's not like that's ever been a surprise, either - some people will do whatever they can to gain an advantage on the field. So the claims against Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, and Chris Benoit aren't that hard to believe.

But in a new investigation, it seems the sports stars aren't the center of attention anymore, but the stars of the music industry - most notably in the urban genres of rap and R&B. The biggest artists named in the report include rappers 50 Cent, Timbaland, and Wyclef as well as renowned singer Mary J. Blige.

And since steroids don't have any effect on vocal chords - as far as I'm aware, anyway - the question becomes why? Yes, they can help prevent the appearance of aging just as well as Botox injections and yes they can help improve the overall growth of muscles, but what effect does that really have on a professional career in the music industry?

Everyone has come to expect rappers like 50 Cent to have extremely large muscles, but I fail to understand how that effects the music. Would hits like "Candy Shop" have been less successful if he didn't look the same? It's too bad I can't actually answer that, as I have no clue how much the image goes into marketing...but I'd guess it wouldn't have much of an effect since there are 'bands' out there like The Gorillaz.

And then there's Mary, who surely doesn't have to worry about muscle mass. Instead, she's (if the allegations are true) probably caught up in the never-ending attempt to look younger. This I don't understand, either. I'm much more impressed with performers who age gracefully in the spotlight rather than hide their age with artificial supplements.

I suppose I'm just stumped, then. Since I can't see the performers while the CD is playing, it just doesn't matter to me.

Dirty Little (Public?) Secret

2008-01-14T10:14:00.000-05:00

Well, well. The Romney campaign is out for laughs, asserting that a pro-Huckabee group is up to no good in Michigan.

"It was an attack call masquerading as a poll," Hoekstra said in a phone interview . . . Hoekstra said the calls attacked Romney on his past support for abortion rights, gun control and gay rights.

This is really so terrible? Basically, team Romney is upset that team Huck is pointing out the obvious: the former governor of Massachusetts' Reaganite conservatism is freshly acquired (to put it nicely). Funny thing is, there was a time -- a time in the not-so-distant past -- when this was public knowledge. Mitt was once your standard Yankee moderate, a RINO in bed with the likes of Linc Chafee and Chris Shays and Olympia Snow.

Throughout most of his public life, Romney situated himself away from the culture warrior wing of the GOP: he was first and foremost a competent and honorable manager, a man capable of shrinking and streamlining the state. That's a basic formula for New England's right-of-center politicians, particulary in Massachusetts (see: Jane Swift, Paul Cellucci, etc.). During his Senate run in 1994, he even declared openly for abortion.

It's a pity, then, that Romney let opportunism get the better of him. His (fairly rapid) transformation into a torture-praising, church-storming virtuecrat (well documented in Harper's September '07 issue) is one of the more bizarre consequences of this election. Ultimately, I think the change undermines the future of his career, severely impugning his integrity as an individual and a public servant. Once you start rubbing elbows with the wrong folks, their stink can really stick.

Ah, what things men will do for the White House. But what does it profit a man, if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?

The Bush Legacy

2008-01-13T22:33:00.000-05:00

Eight years of bleeding heart conservatism -- that is, big guvmint conservatism, sham conservatism. Even Jonah Goldberg freely admits as much now . . .

When Huckabee says that, he means it in the same way that Bush promised not to surrender health care and education (another Huckabee issue) to his opponents when he ran as a "compassionate conservative." As a result, we got the biggest federal government expansion into education in history and the largest spike in entitlement spending since the Great Society?

Is limited government conservatism dead? That question is on the forefront of every right-of-center American mind.

If that notion is exhausted, then along what ideological axis are self-described "conservatives" to align? Will reactionary social policy be the central organizing principle? Maybe kneejerk nativism? War and torture and bald-faced corporatism?

So many questions to be answered . . .

Doug's Opening Thoughts, Election and Otherwise

2008-01-12T21:27:00.001-05:00

Look! I finally figured this blogger thing out! For a while I was feeling completely inept, but hopefully I won't make any big mistakes for the time being.

Anyway, I'm quite excited to have this opportunity to write in a more informal manner than on the actual opinion page. Don't get me wrong, I love The Beacon, but mild rants and spur-of-the-moment outbursts seem more appropriate here (but don't worry, Phil, I'll definately keep it professional and, hopefully, thought-provoking) and I'm more likely to have a lot of those than ideas for full-blown articles.

Overall, I'm looking forward to the upcoming semester and I hope we can really move the section in a positive direction.

Introduction aside, this election has me worried. The stakes (as far as I'm concerned) have never been higher in economics, foreign policy, and domestic issues such as equal rights and education - yet none of the candidates seem to have a grip on reality; some even go as far as saying that there is no real problem with social security. Seriously? Get a reality check.

But my biggest concern is Hillary Clinton. Where did she come from? New York? No, she only moved there because she knew she could win a Senate seat. Her husband's shadow? More likely.

The recent remarks Bill made have me wondering what Hillary would be without him. It's gotten to the point where he can't even make a comment without having a major impact on her campaign.

But is he enough to win her the election? In AOL's latest straw poll, Hillary is leading with support from 51% of Democrats...so, maybe. But I don't understand where the support is coming from. It's not like she has the experience - oh, sorry, I forgot that none of the top three Democrats have any real experience...

I guess we'll wait and see.

John McCain's Conservative Conundrum

2008-01-12T17:56:00.000-05:00

Common knowledge: John McCain is not a hardline conservative.

He's right-of-center, sure, but his positions on campaign finance reform, environmental warming, immigration, tax cuts, and institutionalized torture set him apart from many of his Republican colleagues. Perhaps more critically, the senator has long refused to play nice with the vulgar and vitriolic breed of culture warrior that has consumed the modern GOP -- thus rendering him a total black sheep.

He has a deeply-held but closely guarded sense of righteousness. It causes him to "act out" now and again, to chafe against the demands of Washington partisanship. Detractors and cheerleaders alike call McCain a "maverick", but I disagree with that characterization, which implies that an unnecessary degree of contrarianism. In reality, he's just an old timer, set in his ways, confident of the integrity of his moral compass.

Anyway, the senator's ideological unorthodoxy, abrasive temperament, and history of cross-aisle overtures have earned him knots of enemies among the right's media-political monolith. In certain corners, there was visible delight over the sight of his faltering campaign.

But now "The Mac is Back." Not only is the Mac back, the Mac is dominating. An easy win in New Hampshire established the senator as national frontrunner. This come back frustrates the National Review set, that loose fraternity of the canon conservatives which dominates right-wing airwaves and magazine pages and pulpits. It means Mitt Romney, their horse in the race, is in danger of losing. Their money's in serious jeopardy.

So they've switched into attack mode. Rush Limbaugh regularly beamons McCain's success, and the lesser dons of talk radio have followed suit. There's serious anxiety at The Corner. National Review, mouthpiece of D.C. conservatism, endorsed Romney (who, entirely coincidentally, once contributed to that exact publication!); they consider him the only thoroughbred conservative. By their estimation, he's bears a fine enough resemblance to Ronald Reagan to carry the party standard come November. He's the "most conservative", thus he deserves to be the nominee; so goes their logic.

But what does that imply? That Republicanism is now beholden to an agenda "solid right" in every way, shape, and form? There was a time when true red voters still gave equal ear-time to liberal and moderate candidates, a time when the GOP was a more balanced organization. Well into the 1970's, the Republican Party was freckled with "purple" conservatives -- Rockefeller, Ford, Eisenhower. Even the first Bush flirted with so-called RINOdom here and there.

The GOP will always be the more conservative party (the more American party...), but it need not become a party of, for, and by strict conservatives. There must be as much room for the Chamber of Commerce man as there is for the Club for Growth man. There must be room for Main Street, not just K Street. Maybe America is sick of the Republican right. Maybe, maybe, it craves the rejuvination of the GOP's middle -- of the GOP's heart.

John McCain is the only man with power to exorcise the far right from the inner sanctum of the Republican Party. His win in N.H. should excite anyone who doubts the potential and questions the intentions of GOP wingers. Down with the extremes, power to the center.

Hacktivists?

2008-01-09T18:39:00.000-05:00

The New Republic website is currently down -- without explanation. It has been out of order for at least a day now, perhaps longer.

This comes on the heels of editor Jamie Kirchick exposing almost certainly harmful info on the independent-minded congressman from Texas.

I don't mean to cast aspersions, but Paulists are known to be extraordinarily net-savvy, not to mention zealous and strongly opposed to establishment media organs. Certainly, the Paul campaign sanctioned no extra-legal 'direct action', but could some pugnacious "hacktivists" have taken it upon themselves to settle the score, so to speak?

The Big Tent Party

2008-01-09T17:29:00.000-05:00

More musings from the highway south.

Between the leave-me-alone Paulists, the neo-con bloc (which remains hardy despite setbacks), the big government "heroic conservatives", the know-nothings, the coporatists, the increasingly noisy evangelicals, and the emerging right-wing populists ("Christian democrats" indeed), the GOP is actually starting to resemble the "big tent party" it has claimed to be all along. Some of these impulses are temporary, but I suspect that the days of mindless Reagan emulation are over.

Despite the appearance of certain unsavory characters, I for one welcome this change. There's so much talk about the death of the old social-fiscal-defense coalition -- well, maybe that's a good thing. I don't think the traditional Republican loyalties are gone, they're just rearranged, repackaged: they must be accessed and exploited through novel means.

In this hyperactive century, it's critical not to fall back solely on the "tried and true", even if that's the old school conservative thing to do. Getting stuck in a rut is about the worst thing a party can do to itself. Aren't there new alliances to be formed, fresh dynamics to be created? Let's forget the retro act and have on with this brave new party. Gazing backwards doesn't maintain political capital, it allows it to dimish via stagnation. Forget that.

Some Thoughts

2008-01-08T22:14:00.000-05:00

1. As I write this (on the road in Virginia), it appears Obama will lose to Clinton in New Hampshire. That's too bad, though I think the media set Barack up to lose. And, as I said before, the Clinton machine is daunting. The pundit class was foolish for dismissing it so easily (wishful thinking much?). "There will be blood . . ."

2. Mitt Romney is in deep you-know-what. He has been running as the perfect "Reagan Republican": a defense conservative, a social conservative, a fiscal conservative. In Iowa, he lost to Huckabee as a so-con; tonight, he lost to McCain as a def-con. Very likely, he'll lose again to Huckabee in S. Carolina. What's left, then? There's no way he can revamp himself as penny-pincher numero uno. Plus, that's not exactly what GOP voters are looking for right now (later, Rudy).

3. Many folks -- in the grassroots and in the media-political establishment -- have been hammering home the "fact" that these early primaries will thin the field. It appears, however, that they've done the exact opposite. Forget the margins and percentages: on the Democratic side in particular, this thing is wide open, and getting wider. Look at the delegate count: Obama has 18, Clinton 17, Edwards 14. That's very competitive. The GOP is mixed-up as well: Romney with 23, Huckabee with 17, McCain with 7, Thompson with 6. (Those numbers don't figure in everything that happened tonight.) This campaign is just getting started . . .

Reality Check

2008-01-07T08:20:00.001-05:00

Barack Obama: very much a liberal. By NARAL's reckoning, he's a flawless abortion advocate. Pity.

Even so, he continues to make stellar impressions on the right.

You Spin Me Right 'Round Baby

2008-01-07T07:40:00.000-05:00

Mitt Romney, a dominant favorite in New Hampshire just weeks ago, said Sunday that a "close second" to Arizona Sen. John McCain would be a significant feat on Tuesday [...]

In the Politico interview, Romney dismissed talk of staff tension and made it unmistakably clear that he will simply turn attention to Michigan and elsewhere if he falls short here Tuesday.

Romney said a close second-place finish would be impressive considering the attention McCain has paid the state over the past eight years.

--via Politico

More than one person has attempted to locate the source of my pretty serious animosity towards Romney. They've all pointed to the obvious: Romney has proven his managerial chops in business and (to a lesser extent) in government, he's not a total neocon, he's a moderate who's playing right in order to win the GOP nod. I don't really disagree with any of those points, and I'll add that Mitt appears to have a kind heart and a clear mind and an admirable sense of patriotism.

But, ultimately, the man is a bamboozler of the first order. He perpetually has a finger to the wind. He's a husk of a candidate, driven by instincts more appropriate for private enterprise than public service. I doubt his ability to heal the wounds of the Clinton-Bush era, to restore our civil liberties, to end institutionalized torture, to move forward a unifying immigration program.

Oh, and he wants to double the size of Guantanamo. Awesome.

ABC Debates

2008-01-06T12:45:00.000-05:00

ABC, as in, Anybody But Clinton. Can we all agree that last night's Democratic performance wasn't every-man-for-himself, but rather a concerted effort by Richardson, Edwards, and Obama to effectively undermine Hillary's shot at the nomination? She complained about the "pile on" strategy once before, and I didn't really buy it.

Now, however, the charge seems legitimate. Nobody's looking to befriend Hillary. Despite Obama's newly acquired status as frontrunner, she remains the person to beat. That's telling. If she can't squeeze a win out of N.H. (increasingly doubtful), she'll be in fairly mortal danger. Even if the party base is still willing to lend an ear, the most visible power players are aligning against her. That includes Richardson, a man twice appointed by her husband to prominent positions inside the executive branch. Ouch.

On the GOP side, there were no winners. I think Romney failed to take a much needed stand. There's no way he triumphs in New Hampshire now. There's still Michigan, but even that's looking increasingly precarious. Wouldn't savor being on his team at the moment.

Ron Paul played the black sheep/crazy uncle (yawn). He's finished. I'll be surprised if he polls over 10% in New Hampshire. McCain held his ground but didn't do anything to impress; Thompson and Giuliani were both so-so.

Huckabee made a few cute quips, and probably distinguished himself the most. For his efforts, he'll enjoy a small bounce in the Granite State, and large one in Michigan.

Not a very exciting night, except for Hillary's near meltdown. Almost a Dean moment -- almost.
Well, with the coming and going of that zero-gains debate, I think all the pieces are in place. Barring something major, something unexpected, N.H. will pan out thusly . . .

DEMOCRATS
1. Obama (by 5 or more)
2. Clinton

3. Edwards (trailing, a lot)

REPUBLICANS
1. McCain (again, 3 - 5)
2. Romney (solid second)
3. Distant third, will only matter if it's Huckabee, and even then not so much

My Thoughts Precisely

2008-01-05T12:13:00.000-05:00

Senator Obama has weaknesses, including his inexperience and his liberalism, and they matter. We’re electing a President, after all, not deciding on a prom date. And so scrutiny on Obama’s positions, which has largely been missing from the campaign so far, will increase – and that will eventually take a toll. The impressive but vague and abstract appeal of Obama should decrease as the prosaic side of politics – namely, a candidate’s stand on the issues – begins to push aside the poetry side of politics.

What Obama has working in his favor, I think, is that his areas of vulnerability are off-set to some extent (and maybe to a large extent) by his personality, his tone, his bearing. He is inexperienced – but he radiates a sense of good judgment. He has a liberal voting record – but he comes across as largely anti-ideological and certainly as anti-radical. Those things should help him down the road, though they will certainly not inoculate him. --(neocon) Peter Wehner, Commentary Magazine

There Will Be Blood

2008-01-05T11:38:00.000-05:00

Clinton elicits boos and groans from fellow Democrats at the largest political dinner in New Hampshire history. James Fallows describes her entourage -- even the dapper Billy Boy -- as deeply shaken. Michael Crowley, who flew from Iowa to New Hampshire with the Clintons, pens an article in The New Republic that paints a fairly morbid scene. And Jonathan Chait, also writing in TNR, calls Hillary "toast."

I'm not so certain. The Clinton machine is vast and formidable. It maintains a huge pool of resources: media spinsters, skilled behind-the-scenes agents, vicious attack dogs, big name surrogate campaigners. Also, tons of treasure. Make no mistake, the Clintons aren't going down without a goddamn tough fight. It'll be tooth and nail if New Hampshire goes to Obama. All their hard-earned political capital is at stake here. Failing to capture the Democratic nomination could mean the end of their public lives in any meaningful way.

It's hard to picture, a day when Bill and Hillary are out of the spotlight. They've managed to stay center stage for going on two decades. But that's the way the chips will fall, particularly if Sen. Obama triumphs. No more Clintons. Say that again. Savor the taste, the texture: No. More. Clintons.

But first Obama must drive the stake through the heart; he must seal the crypt. Does he have the strength to do so? Does he have the will? I'm not yet convinced.

Ironically, they would fade with the Bushes, their rival house. What poetic justice! A two-for-one deal. Farewell York, farewell Lancaster. Good riddance, to both.

Only The Dead

2008-01-04T19:40:00.000-05:00

Sure, all things being equal I would have preferred to have more time, but I have no business complaining with all the good fortune I've enjoyed in my life. So if you're up for that, put on a little 80s music (preferably vintage 1980-1984), grab a Coke and have a drink with me.

Major Andrew Olmsted, a frontline soldier who blogged for small venues and large, died yesterday in Iraq. He was killed in the line of duty. These are his last public words; they appeared in the Rocky Mountain News, to which he sometimes contributed. This is his goodbye letter, which he wrote this past July, with orders it be published if he lost his life in battle.

I read many of his writings, always taken by their warm intelligence and easy wisdom. Now, more than ever, these numerous blurbs are worth hunting down and taking to heart.

I lived my life better than some, worse than others, and I like to think that the world was a little better off for my having been here. Not very much, but then, few of us are destined to make more than a tiny dent in history's Green Monster. I would be lying if I didn't admit I would have liked to have done more, but it's a bit too late for that now, eh?

Why Support McCain?

2008-01-04T13:28:00.000-05:00

For one, we could spend the next 4+ years watching his exceedingly attractive 23-year-old daughter Meghan do the Beltway's shop-n-party circuit. I've always thought she's quite the specimen, but mow I discover (thanks to The Plank) that she has a blog.

Not only that, but she listens to The Smiths, Iggy Pop, Bad Religion, Jeff Buckley, and Miles Davis, among other greats. Oh, she's also a fan of The Life Aquatic, (hopefully ironic) karaoke, and Italian high fashion.

What're the chances the other candidate spawn have such good taste, or are so easy to look at? There's Romney's strapping lads, complete with swept hair and goofy plastic smiles. I guess they're alright if you go for the Sear's catalogue type. But given their Mormonism, there'll certainly be no drunken party shots, a la Bush twins (Jenna pictured).

Paul and Huckabee have, uh, homely broods. Plus, one of Huckabee's sons may have killed a dog, which is awfully weird and weirdly awful. Thompson's kids are young, though his (newest) wife is pretty enough.

Then there's Giuliani's children, Andrew and Caroline. They're both college age, and probably more than a little feisty, if they've inherited even a shred of their father's DNA. However, we probably wouldn't see much of them: they're reportedly estranged from Rudy. Shocking, right?

The Dem off-spring are a little better. The years have been kind to Chelsea (then, now), and Edwards' elder daughter is fairly cute (also, strangely physical with daddy). Obama's two little girls (Malia Ann and Sasha) are still itty-bitty, so . . .

Abortion and Pop Culture

2008-01-04T10:59:00.000-05:00

When Knocked Up exhibited a genuine antipathy for abortion culture, I was somewhat surprised. Set in the heart of the "left coast", featuring a Jewish stoner and an E! anchorwoman (not exactly your typical pro-lifers), the film portrays termination not as something wrong, but as a fundamental non-choice. In a real way, that's much worse.

Then I saw Juno, which went a step further than Knocked Up: instead of giving abortion the "silent treatment", it presented a proactive critique. The "Clinic Scene" (which, I think, will receive extensive study in the future) is an exceptionally queasy look at pregnancy termination.

So, stepping back, what we see here is a culture with shifting perceptions of child-bearing. With death and destruction -- both abroad and at home -- characterizing the external world, it seems there's suddenly a social imperative to re-sanctify pregnancy, and thus reaffirm the value of life.

As I see it, this new (old) impulse, combined with an actual decline in U.S. abortion rates (especially among adolescents), is reason for cheer.

Your Caucus Coverage

2008-01-03T19:03:00.000-05:00

The internet, truly an excellent series of tubes. Two digital billboards provide up-to-the-minute caucus coverage. Here's one for the Dems, here's one for the Repubs.

(Hat-tip to the inimitable Andrew Sullivan.)

Good Spot, Bad Spot

2008-01-03T12:35:00.000-05:00

Romney's new anti-McCain attack ad "Remember" is solid enough: down to earth, respectable tone and policy critique, no cheap shots.

Meanwhile, Rudy's new ad "Ready" is fairly despicable. It makes LBJ's infamous "Daisy" spot look innocent. This is fearmongering at its worst, and with seriously bigoted undertones to boot. The strangest thing is, Giuliani doesn't need to lean on Islamofascism so much, so why does he?

Through a Looking Glass, Darkly

2008-01-03T11:21:00.000-05:00

I hesitate to forecast the caucus results for two reasons: (1) because they're crooked and shouldn't matter; (2) my predictions tend to be, er, wrong. But I've got the gamblin' itch, so here goes . . .

DEMOCRATS
1. Obama
2. Edwards
3. Clinton (okay, this is wishful thinking)

REPUBLICANS
1. Huckabee
2. Romney
3. Thompson (late-breaking surge helps him just edge out McCain)

Also, as Andrew Sullivan points out, why haven't more people been discussing a Thompson-McCain ticket? Their kind of old school, laid back conservatism could only help the GOP, and would be a welcome change after the idealism of Bush-era neoconservatism. The only thing is, McCain would be too old, too tired to run for prez in 2016. So the GOP would have another insanely hectic primary that year. Of course, that assumes a victory in 2008, and then in 2012, which is taking a lot for granted . . . If I had my way, it'd be McCain-Thompson. That's a fine pairing, good for the party and good for America.

The Face of Evil?

2008-01-03T09:45:00.000-05:00

Reports coming from Texas suggest that Egyptian immigrant Yaser Abdel Said appears to have murdered his two teenage daughters, Sarah and Amina. Ages 17 and 18 respectively, the girls had supposedly humiliated Said and disgraced the family name by adopting Western customs and clothing.

So-called "honor killings" are not uncommon in the Islamic world. With the rise of Muslim immigration, they're now becoming more frequent in Europe. One noteable case in Britain made major headlines because of its abject brutality: Banaz Mahmod, a pretty 20-year-old girl was strangled with a bootlace, eviscerated, and buried in a garden by her father and uncle after falling in love with the "wrong" man.

These savage acts are beginning to occur in the United States, though this case might be the first to attract major attention. That is, if the press has the balls to cover it. Since many Muslims have proven themselves absolutely intolerant of liberal critique, the media has visibly avoided hard coverage. (Thankfully, the Beacon has distinguished itself as an actively critical voice.)

Take, for example, the spineless phraseology deployed by the Dallas Morning News:

Police are also looking at the motives which may have led Said to possibly murder his two teenage daughters, one of whom called 911 from a cell phone near the spot where the girls were later found.

Police say they are looking into the possibility that the father was upset with his daughters dating activities.

Hint hint, nudge nudge.

Says friend Kathleen Wong: "I'm definitely 100% sure that it was her dad that killed [Sarah] . . . She's always told me that she was always so scared of her dad . . . Even at school if a teacher joked around like, 'I'm gonna tell your parents about this', she would like totally flip out and start crying like, 'please don't tell'."

That's via The Washington Times' Fishwrap, which has been doggedly on the case. Kudos for that. (Also, hat-tip for the pics, though these and others are available on Amina's MySpace, linked below.)

Other friends allege that Said was abusive and openly hostile to American lifestyles (which begs the question of why he didn't keep himself planted in Egypt -- where, by the way, this sorta thing wouldn't cause too big a stink).

Fortunately, this story has the real potential to explode, particularly when Said is apprehended and the honor killing is verified. Amina and Sarah were beautiful girls, and there's nothing the American public likes so much as damsels in distress (see: Jon-Benet, Laci, etc.).

For now, take a look at Amina's MySpace. Her quote is awfully appropriate: "Do not take life too seriously. You will never get out of it alive."

It's time for Americans to wake up, to face reality. When taken to extremes, Islam can be an extraordinarily dangerous and corrupting force. Granted, that's true of any religion, but it seems that these days, it's Muslims more than others who are enthralled and inspired by faith's dark side.

No more apologizing, no more excuse-making, no more looking the other way. If this was in fact an honor killing (and signs point to YES!), then here, in a nut shell, is the clash of civilizations: the zealous thuggery of backwards superstition versus the liberality of Enlightened modernity.

There's only one question to be asked: Whose side are you on?

The Caucus: Crazy, Completely

2008-01-02T11:59:00.000-05:00

To paraphrase John Edwards, there are two Iowas. One is in the popular imagination, where the locals care passionately about their caucus and talk earnestly with presidential prospects in their living rooms. Then there's the actual Iowa, where most people are indifferent and a small band of the politically active act as extras in the media's stories from the heartland.

Iowans' participation in the caucuses is notorious: 6 percent of eligible voters showed up in the 2004 Democratic caucuses -- translating to about 125,000 people. If that number got much lower, voters might be outnumbered by the thousands of journalists, campaign staffers and volunteers who crowd Des Moines's hotels, flights and restaurants, reading tea leaves to divine what the small minority of Iowa voters will do on Thursday. --Dana Milbank, writing in The Washington Post

(At left, a trio of caucus-goers. God bless America.)

Then there's the often wrong, often self-absorbed but always amusing, always bullish Christopher Hitchens, penning a laugh-out-loud piece for Slate . . .

It is quite astonishing to see with what deadpan and neutral a tone our press and television report the open corruption—and the flagrantly anti-democratic character—of the Iowa caucuses. It's not enough that we have to read of inducements openly offered to potential supporters—I almost said "voters"—even if these mini-bribes only take the form of "platters of sandwiches" and "novelty items" (I am quoting from Sunday's New York Times). It's also that campaign aides are showing up at Iowan homes "with DVD's that [explain] how the caucuses work." Nobody needs a DVD to understand one-person-one-vote, a level playing field, and a secret ballot. The DVD and the other gifts and goodies (Sen. Barack Obama is promising free baby-sitting on Thursday) are required precisely because none of those conditions applies in Iowa. In a genuine democratic process, these Tammany tactics would long ago have been declared illegal. But this is not a democratic process, and besides, as my old friend Michael Kinsley used to say about Washington, the scandal is never about what's illegal. It's about what's legal.

The Iowa caucuses are absurd and not "undemocratic" but, as Hitchens points out, counterdemocratic. They allow a small band of political nerds, serial campaigners, fierce partisans, and old geezers to unfairly sway the outcome of the primaries, and thus the general election. If Iowa wants to keep it's cherished first-in-the-nation status, then it should be made to institute a normal, secret-ballot primary.

50 Worst People of the Year

2008-01-02T11:02:00.000-05:00

A hilarious compilation of the year's most loathsome figures, courtesy of The BEAST. My three favorite . . .

#26, William Kristol: Charges: Bears the burlesque Cheshire grin of a sophist born with a large silver spoon jammed sideways in his mouth. A second generation neocon raised in the tradition of Straussian perception management and myth creation, Kristol is basically lying about everything -- always -- and he knows it. Whether at the helm of Rupert Murdoch's Weekly Standard, appearing on Murdoch's Fox News Channel, or co-founding the disastrous Project for a New American Century, Bill is arguably the most egregious media hawk of a generation. Seems to have suffered no ill impact to his career or prestige despite having been completely wrong about everything to do with Iraq and Iran, and actually laughs about it with obnoxious frequency.

Exhibit A: "First of all, whenever I hear anything described as a heartless assault on our children, I tend to think it's a good idea. I'm happy that the President's willing to do something bad for the kids."

Sentence: Corners of mouth torn apart by metal hook towing mules and face stomped by high-heeled elephants.

#25, Mormon Jesus: Charges: Least plausible Jesus. We heard his brother is the devil -- OMG! Won't even let his flock have a cup of coffee in the morning -- what a jerk. As with any celebrity comeback, lacks the oomph of the glory years. Won't stop baptizing dead people from other religions, which they generally don't appreciate as much as he thinks.

Exhibit A: Loves Mitt Romney, Harry Reid, and Glenn Beck. And magic long johns.

Sentence: Interrupted during the game by Mormon missionaries.

#17, Hillary Clinton: Charges: Began in politics as a teenage Nixon supporter -- that's twisted. Moved on to corporate law, representing Wal-Mart and bravely defending Coca-Cola from disabled employees. Married out of ambition. Failed miserably as the first lady of health care. Has spent whole of senatorial career as a hawk and a panderer. Would have no shot at becoming president if she didn't just happen to be married to one already.

Exhibit A: Has deftly avoided the flip-flopper label -- by never, ever answering a question directly or committing to a position in the first place.

Sentence: Victim of vast right wing conspiracy to shove a brick up her ass.

(Illustrations by Ian Murphy, c/o The BEAST)

Remembering Bhutto

2008-01-01T22:32:00.001-05:00

Benazir Bhutto wasn't perfect, but she was crooked where others are thorougly warped. A democrat, an advocate of liberty, she brought hope to a troubled corner of the globe. Whatever Bhutto's past errors, she died a martyr for the finest causes: social and political liberalism.

She leaves a brave and excellent example to follow. Here's hoping somebody takes up her cross.

To Benazir Bhutto, slain by thugs while campaigning for president, Dec. 27, 2007. Rest in peace.

Huckaboo

2008-01-01T21:46:00.000-05:00

The man's good: he has managed to charm and disarm a New Republic man. This yokel just might be able to chuckle-and-wink his way into the White House. The polls support that possibility (...emerging probability?). Imagine that.

Well, I've said it before, I'll say it again: Mike Huckabee represents pretty much the worst his party and country have to offer. His bleeding heart conservatism, his aversion to critical thinking, his blatant disinterest in policy --- these are massive faults. People are not taking them seriously enough.

Some folks are alarmed by his backwater evangelism, and I can't say it doesn't raise any red flags for me. It's ultimately quaint, though, and not really dangerous.

What's troubling is the governor's loose spending, embarassing tax plan, lack of foreign policy credentials (and foreign policy interest!), and suspect connections to political Christianity. He manages to embody the worst of liberalism and the worst of conservatism at the same time.

If this small-minded -- though probably shrewd -- tribune of Wal-Mart nation wins the GOP nomination, I'm very much hoping the Dems serve up a palatable choice, because I'll be looking their way. He can only hurt the United States.

Fred the Quiet

2007-12-29T23:35:00.000-05:00

Last year, I wrote favorably about Fred Thompson for a Beacon election symposium. Since then my fondness for him has only increased. And it's not that I've grown more attracted to his issue positions; his demeanor on the trail has been the turn-on.

The former senator isn't glitzy or done-up. He avoids showboating and is never shrill or self-righteous. He's not dull or dumb, of course, just entirely unpretentious. His words are natural, his tone easy, his presentation unhurried, with a grandfather's sense of confidence.

Most impressively, Thompson doesn't seem eager to please. You won't find him pandering on the street corner. You won't find him hollering from atop the soapbox, that bully's puplit.

So, naturally, the rat race that is 21st electoral politics rubs him the wrong way. Witness these wonderful remarks:

BURLINGTON, Iowa -- Fred Thompson said Saturday he does not much like the modern form of presidential campaigning and that he "will not be devastated" if he doesn't win the election.

"I'm not particularly interested in running for president," Thompson said, but rather he feels called to serve his country.

"I don't know if you have a desire to be president," Burlington attorney Todd Chelf told Thompson during a question and answer session raising an issue that has dogged his campaign.

"I am not consumed by personal ambition," Thompson responded. "I'm offering myself up."

This understanding of the democratic process recalls the thinking of earlier times, when politics was more than a beauty pageant and charm contest.

Thompson knows himself as a public man: it is his duty to present himself honestly, to articulate his platform with clarity. Then, he must step back and let the people do as they may. There's no bread and circus; he's no Roman patron (though he may be something of an American Cincinnatus, sort of).

We have suffered eight years of Clinton ambition, and eight years of dogmatic neoconservatism. I, for one, am tired of ideological zeal. I am sick of worldly men, regardless of their stripe.

The American republic would do well to have a drowsy administration for a while. Of all the viable candidates, Thompson is really the only one under whom federal interventionism would be curtailed, and federal expansionism slowed.

That brings to mind a nice campaign slogan: "For peace and quiet, Fred '08."

'Tis the Season

2007-12-24T14:57:00.000-05:00

There isn't a better time to pray -- or, if that's not your style, just to hope -- for peace and love on earth. Whether you believe Jesus of Nazareth was the messiah or simply a well-meaning Jewish carpenter, it's hard to deny the inspirational core of his life and teachings.

Eat and drink, be happy and safe. Merry Christmas!

The Giuliani Question

2007-12-24T10:16:00.000-05:00

The anxiety of social conservatives over Rudy Giuliani has greatly shaped public discourse regarding his potential nomination and election. This narrative has left another begging for notice: that is, concern over Rudy's so-called "authoritarian" tendencies.

Unease about the mayor's strong-man rep proliferates across the political spectrum, alarming Democrats and Republicans alike. While this has been a favorite liberal meme, it's now being assumed by entities that fall significantly right-of-center.

The new issue of The American Conservative, for example, features Giuliani dressed in what can only be described as a fascist uniform (complete with flashy armband). The accompanying articles decry Rudy as a warmonger, a libertine, and, yes, an authoritarian.

It's difficult to disagree with the first couple of accusations. Indeed, the mayor is quick with the bellicose rhetoric (but is it Reaganesque huff-and-puff?), and his social stances are charmingly moderate. How many other GOP candidates are serial monogamists who've paraded about in dresses and lived with gay men in a Manhattan penthouse? Exactly...

However, I am bothered by the authoritarian claim, and I notice that author Glenn Greenwald (of Salon fame) fails to really substantiate his bold assertion. He uses next to no hard examples; the most damning evidence produced is a quote (taken out of context?) from 1994.

It reads:

"What we don’t see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do. "

Granted, this is a garbled -- not to mention extraordinarily Catholic! -- articulation of "freedom." I doubt if he would stand by those words, particularly given his apparent admiration of "strict constitutionalist" judges.

Still, I am hard-pressed to figure out when (if ever) Giuliani actually imposed state power to the genuine detriment of liberty. Yes, he supports Bush's questionable surveillance and detention programs, but so do many Republicans, including nearly every one running for the nomination. As much as you may disagree with the operations (and I largely do), they aren't off limits until the Supreme Court says as much.

Plus, American history is loaded with over-bearing and over-reaching executives, some of which are fully canonized civic saints (Abraham Lincoln, FDR, even JFK).

Now, as mayor of NYC, was Giuliani a bully? Probably. Is this a bad thing? Hardly. Rudy's drive, muscle, and demand/ability to micro-manage helped turn NYC from an ungovernable, post-industrial waste to a thriving, 21st century metropolis.

"[Giuliani] crushed seemingly immovable bureaucracies, took control away from the most sacrosanct municipal fiefdoms, and forced the city’s powerful unions and political factions into submission," Greenwald strangely whines in The American Conservative.

That's just fine by me. If he can do the same to the federal government, more power to him (literally). So long as his exertions aren't aimed at rolling back civil liberties, he's free to be as aggressive as he pleases.

A president isn't a mayor. The federal Constitution cannot be as easily side-stepped as the "long-standing limits on mayoral [power]", which Greenwald bemoans Rudy for having violated. Particularly after Dubya, Congress (all Democrats and a lot of Republicans) are going to have a hawk-eye for executive power abuse. Similarly, one would like to think SCOTUS has learned something of a lesson.

In short, a mountain has been made out of a mole hill. Giuliani is a tough-fibered cosmopolitan, an able administrator and tireless manager, a tested enemy of public corruption. In his time, he has tackled squeegee-men, white collar crooks, and everyone in between. A hard Catholic upbringing instilled in him a sharp sense of justice, and a limitless capacity for work. Isn't this precisely what we want -- what we need -- in a national leader? After sixteen years of scandal, equivocation, and incompetence, we must say: enough is enough!

A bit of wisdom -- fitting, I think -- to leave you with. It brings the of-so-Roman mayor to mind, and offers revealing commentary on his character, and his potential.

At daybreak, when you loathe the idea of having to leave your bed, have this thought ready in your mind: I am rising for the work of man." Should I have misgivings about doing that for which I was born, and for the sake of which I came into this world? Is this the grand purpose of my existence-to lie here snug and warm underneath my blanket? Certainly it feels more pleasant. Was it for pleasure that you were made, and not for work, nor for effort?

Look at the plants, sparrows, ants, spiders, and bees, all working busily away, each doing its part in welding an orderly Universe. So who are you to go against the bidding of Nature? Who are you to refuse man his share of the work?

To live each day as though it were your last-never flustered, never lazy, never a false word: herein lies the perfection of character. --Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations"

I (Don't) Heart Huckabee

2007-12-16T17:28:00.000-05:00

It is a shame to devote the first post of this blog to Mike Huckabee, but he is a very dangerous man who deserves more than a little scrutiny. So let us hold our noses and proceed.

The Huckabee phenomenon is horrifying but of little surprise. In most every way, he is George W. Bush's natural successor. The two are remarkably similar. Both had less-than-stressful governorships, both exhibit ideological confusion, both lead public lives characterized by guiltless participation in the spoils system. (Both like running...)

More importantly, both are married to political Christianity. However, where Bush's relationship with evangelicals seems calculated and fairly exploitive, Huckabee's is natural, genuine, and proud. Critics have long bashed Dubya for his overt religiosity, but next to the preacher from Arkansas his exhibitionism seems rather timid.

Plus, Bush's faith rarely serves as the driving policy force. Christianity informs his decisions, yes, but it does not act as the one and only source of context. On the contrary, the president has been smart enough to surround himself with clever men, men far too cynical to use the whole heaven-and-hell routine as a regular inspiration for earthly governance.

Huckabee, on the other hand, is a self-branded "Christian leader." His political thinking emerges solely from his spiritual orientation. For example, he is skittish about Iraq because, well, the Bible says war is bad. Christ, that Hebrew hippie, was a peace and love sorta guy. And Huckabee seeks to emulate his messiah.

That's why he wants the state to play dear mommy: to care for the people's health, to regulate their morals, to lift the poor and embrace the foreigner, etc. Never mind that his policies wouldn't facilitate any of this ('FairTax' help the poor!?), it's the thought that counts.

To make matters worse, the governor has clear disdain for expertise. "I may not be the expert that some people are on foreign policy," he declared recently, "but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night." The only thing more depressing than a person reveling in his own ignorance is a person who wants to be president reveling in his own ignorance. Michael Dale Huckabee: The Aww Shucks! Candidate. His international stances -- presented this month in Foreign Affairs -- are facile and unambitious.

Small-minded, bleeding heart conservatism isn't good for the GOP and it isn't good for America. It would destroy the Republican coalition by alienating Wall Street, defense hawks, libertarians, and the few remaining moderates. More pressingly, it would really harm this country. Huckabee's election would mean unabashed statism, ruthless culture war, and disastrous foreign policy.

Some will quibble with calling the governor a conservative. I understand this objection. At his core, Huckabee is a right-wing religious populist. His presidency would mean a win for pedestrian ideas and values which are reactionary even by my standards.

That isn't what America needs right now. It isn't what America requires.

Gen. Peter Pace mouths off

2007-09-28T15:17:00.000-04:00

AP: 9/26

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, caused a stir at a Senate hearing Wednesday when he said he believes homosexual activity is immoral and should not be condoned by the military. Pace, who retires next week, said he was seeking to clarify similar remarks he made in spring, which he said were misreported.

"Are there wonderful Americans who happen to be homosexual serving in the military? Yes," he told the Senate Appropriations Committee during a hearing focused on the Pentagon's 2008 war spending request.

"We need to be very precise then, about what I said wearing my stars and being very conscious of it," he added. "And that is, very simply, that we should respect those who want to serve the nation but not through the law of the land, condone activity that, in my upbringing, is counter to God's law."

This is out of line. I don't care where Peter Pace stands on Don't Ask, Don't Tell and homosexuality in general, he should keep it to himself. The fact that an acting Joint Chiefs chairman would say something more befitting the now-defunct Crossfire than a Senate hearing is mind-numbing. Aren't military leaders supposed to maintain apolitical positions?

I don't care that Pace espoused a conservative stance: he's entitled to his point-of-view. He could have said he wants all the troops out of Iraq tomorrow. It would have been equally inappropriate.

Traditionalists may complain about the lack of discipline in today's military, but who would've guessed that would be manifest in the soapbox preachings of an out-of-line General at a Senate hearing?

The journalist jury?

2007-09-16T22:44:00.000-04:00

This week's incident involving O.J. Simpson and a robbery is a bit surreal. When the story first broke, CNN displayed a large red headline saying "O.J. Simpson suspect in armed robbery." It's enough to keep anyone glued to the channel and create considerable buzz about the story.

Any story involving Simpson is too good to be true for the media, since Simpson's murder trial in 1995 redefined the concept of media spectacle.

It's also a bridge the media will never let him burn.

Simpson re-ignited the spectacle by nearly releasing a book called If I Did It, which would have described how he murdered ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend, Ron Goldman -- if he had done it, of course. The concept is highly suspect, but no one can really be sure if he is guilty. Only a jury can decide that, and the message they left between the criminal trial (not guilty on all counts) and 1997 civil trial (guilty of wrongful death and battery) was mixed.

So this incident involving a Simpson's theft of his own memorabilia in Las Vegas had me wondering: does the media (and the consumer, as well) want to see Simpson guilty of something?

Alan Keyes? This is getting rediculous...

2007-09-16T19:37:00.000-04:00

He ran for President in 1996 and 2000 and has recently decided he will do the same in 2008.

That's right, the GOP savior is here. Alan Keyes is running for President of these United States.

The Republican field is already bloated with candidates no one has heard of, even more so than the Democratic one, so I don't think this move was sanctioned (or is being smiled upon) by Republican higher-ups. This seems to be a maverick, inconsequential candidacy announced by a public figure whose effectiveness and popularity has clearly lapsed. Think Ralph Nader, but with a "R" next to his name.

But it's funny as hell. (Also funny as hell: Keyes's website)

Bill Richardson was the last Democrat to announce his candidacy, and he did so on May 21. The voices begging Al Gore to jump into the race have grown hoarse and have finally subsided, but then again, they very well may have given their support to Clinton, Obama, or Edwards. After the withdrawal of Tom Vilsack in February, there are eight Democratic candidates. The field is solidifying, and potential voters are settling in.

There are ten Republicans, but twelve have tried to win the nomination: Jim Gilmore and Tommy Thompson ended their campaigns over the summer.

Yes, it's only three more candidates than the Democrats, but it suggests restlessness, a lack of enthusiasm, and volatility among Republican devotees. Fred Thompson's candidacy, however, could change all that. Chances are, this other September announcement won't matter.

Fred Thompson jumps in, comments on coldness of water

2007-09-06T13:10:00.000-04:00

On last night's "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno", Former Sen. Fred Thompson announced what most of us already knew: "I'm running for President of the United States."

After months of hemming and hawing and waiting for the perfect moment, the GOP's most-hpyed choice for the nomination is now officially in the race.

Yesterday's GOP debate (broadcast by Fox News) brought some gentle chiding from other candidates in the Republican field. "Maybe we're up past his bedtime," Sen. McCain joked.

On last night's Colbert Report, the captions of "The Word" seemed to sum up political sentiment towards Fred Thompson. In describing opening Christmas presents, Colbert likened Thompson to an unopened present still under the tree as February approached, where one could hope and dream about what was inside (caption: Reagan), only until the present was opened and its true contents were revealed (caption: Fred Thompson.).

Is it too late for Thompson? I don't think so. Republicans have expressed dissatisfaction with their choices for President, and at this point in time, most Americans (even likely primary voters) have taken only superficial interest in what figures to be a marathon campaign. National polls are more of a reflection of name recognition and residual opinions than a calculated decision on a candidate of choice (see McCain, John and Hilary, Clinton).

Of course with the game of hopscotch going on with primary dates, the first wave of primaries could take place anytime in December. This of course will benefit firmy established campaigns, so for Thompson wants to win, his campaign will have to be decisive, sharp, and message-oriented -- a 180 from how it is operating right now.

Call 1-800-LARRY-CRAIG for a good time

2007-08-29T14:21:00.000-04:00

The recent barrage of Republican scandal can add another chapter to its book of misadventures: the airport sex-capades of Idaho Senator Larry Craig.

Craig has scored top marks from socially conservative groups like the Family Research Council, and has been lauded as a defender of “family values.” In recent years, Craig has worked to add a definition of marriage amendment to the Constitution and voted against a bill to extend hate crime protection to acts motivated by sexual orientation.

And now this.

It is past ironic that so many conservative Republicans have been caught engaging in such reprehensible sexual behaviors when their political personalities are defined by social conservatism—the least part of which is public sex between strangers. Maybe that’s it—there’s the political personality, and then there’s the person. The two are two, not one. With all the graft, deceit and hypocrisy in this era’s American politics, these facets of our politicians have become more exaggerated and divergent than ever before.

There is something quite Puritanical about it all—that while trying to expel the demons and impurities of society at large, these men themselves fall victim. In these conservative circles there seems to be a denial of any and all human urges, an unwillingness to recognize the innate, biological justification for homosexuality, and an insistence on hiding behind the veneer of a super-human, saintly and sinless shtick.

Many Evangelicals have created a false sin hierarchy, placing homosexuality near the top, and greed and hatefulness near the bottom. Within this system, even discussing the possibility of homosexuality within Larry Craig-ian circles is dangerous at best.

In so tirelessly fighting homosexuality in American culture, Craig’s feelings of self-loathing and the repression and denial of aspects of his sexual being have resulted in the senator’s anonymous, reckless pursuit of public sex.

Pastor Ted Haggard, former President of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), resigned his post in November after news of his involvements with male prostitutes were made public.

In Jesus Camp, Haggard put his face close up to one of the documentary-makers’ cameras and chided “I think I know what you did last night[…]If you send me a thousand dollars, I won’t tell your wife.”

Haggard’s words turned out to be stunningly on-the-mark. But instead of describing the behaviors of others, they described his own: secretive sexual involvement with a male prostitute. Haggard stepped down as pastor of his mega-church and as President of the NAE last November.

In fairness, Democrats are not any less guilty of similar activity (there is no evidence that such inappropriate sexual behavior is motivated by political party). Gary Condit, Jim McGreevey and Bill Clinton all immediately come to mind.

It is possible these people are not even gay. Maybe they were so repulsed, so revolted, so horrified at the concept of their own potential gayness that instead of rationalizing and thinking and praying about the matter, they engaged in this destructive, unexpected behavior. The sad thing is, stories like this will be less and less unexpected from this point forth.

Why hello there

2007-08-27T17:14:00.000-04:00

I'm Chris Girard, one of captains of the opinion section ship this upcoming year, along with Chris Auclair (my co-editor. I'm sure Chris will be blogging here posthaste). I am a Sophomore Political Communication/Theatre Studies double major and a contributor to last year's opinion pages.

It is a little odd I am so involved with the Beacon and journalism is neither of my two majors, but I feel Emerson's PoliCom courses will render me sufficiently equipped for what is to come. I have a lot to learn and a tough act to follow. Last year's editor, Pat Boyle (a fellow PoliCom major), brought professionalism and wide coverage of issues to the opinion page, and his impact on the section is evidenced by the sizable pack of talented writers contributing to the section. I look forward to a good year filled with provocative, well-informed writing and comprehensive coverage of the issues of our time.

I'll start on that later. Right now, I must feed my cat.

Out with the old, in with the new at the Beacon Opinion Blog

2007-04-28T19:05:00.000-04:00

Hey guys,

First, I want to thank all those who have followed this blog since Mike and myself launched it last semester. Your comments and feedback have been valuable.

I will be leaving The Beacon to begin a co-op with The Boston Globe next semester. My assistant Britt will be moving on to the sports page and our editorial cartoonist, busy with his BFA, will not be staying as a weekly contributor.

So that means I will no longer be maintaining this blog. That job will go to the new opinion co-editors, Chris Auclair and Chris Girard, who will begin in September. Both currently bloggers, they should have no problem taking over and improving the blog.

Thanks again and see you in September,

Pat

Congress Takes a Crucial Step for DC Representation

2007-04-19T16:32:00.000-04:00

The results are in according to the Associated Press, and the House has made a 241-177 decision to grant DC voting representation in Congress. This legislation would increase the body of the House from 435 to 437 seats (additionally adding an extra seat for Utah as well to maintain Democrat/Republican balance). The bill now moves on to the Senate, then finally to the President (who has, once again, threatened a Veto).

I watched the debate preceding the vote on C-Span, and was pleased to see champion of such legislation and frequent Colbert guest Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D) lay a verbal smackdown to the opposition. Hopefully this footage will surface online soon, because it was AWESOME. Tom Davis, a Republican of Virginia's 11th district (my home turf), also showed his support, stating that his fellow Republicans needed to "see through the fog of armchair constitutional analyses and do the right thing."

The "fog" that Davis is referring to is the argument that the language of the Constitution states that members of the House shall be chosen "by the people of the several states." Many Democrats, however, cited multiple examples where similar language has been bypassed by Congress in order to apply certain federal principles to DC citizens (i.e. Income Taxes, etc).

Furthermore, it is my sincere belief that this matter should be observed from a perspective that looks to the inherent morals and values of this country. We are a Representative Democracy. The 23rd amendment already affords DC residents the right to vote for President. There is no reason these people should not have equal say in the coequal Legislative branch. A citizen of DC is a citizen of the United States, and now for the first time in over 200 years, our government is treating them like one.

***EDIT***

Yes, I found it!

UK Press Union Boycotts Israeli Goods

2007-04-17T15:50:00.000-04:00

The National Union of Journalists, a 40,000 member union in Britain, has voted to boycott Israeli goods in protest of their military policies in the occupied territories.

While I understand the mindset behind such an act, I'm surprised and a little disappointed that it is coming from a journalists union. Does such a policy not compromise the objective perspective reporters are supposed to have? A journalist union should not be in the business of taking one position over another in such a tangible way.

Tragedy in Virginia

2007-04-17T15:31:00.000-04:00

Here at the Beacon Opinion Blog, our thoughts go out to all those affected by the savage shooting at Virginia Tech.

The Presidents' Cash Out

2007-04-13T20:04:00.000-04:00

According to an Associated Press article published by Yahoo News, the Bush family reported an annual income of $765,801 last year. Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife, Mary, reported approx. $1.6 million. I suppose I should not be surprised, and its understandable that families in such a position would have some serious investments (we all know about Dick Cheney's). Still, I find concern in these numbers being so high.

The Presidential salary is $400k. The Vice President makes $200k. Considering the time commitment these jobs require (or SHOULD require), it seems inherently excessive that so much extra money is being collected. When exactly are they taking a break to pursue other financial interests? SHOULD they be pursuing other financial interests? I imagine they have people working for them who do all of their investing, and that they probably don't forgo their administrative duties to direct these people. However, based on Cheney's ties to Halliburton it is not far fetched to theorize that such investments may affect policy decisions.

To put things into perspective, the Clinton's actually left the White House in debt. The Washington Post reported that they were approx. $12 million in the hole (due to campaign and legal fees) to be exact. Sure they're worth a combined $60 million now, but at least they waited until AFTER Bill's Presidential term to make that money (it came almost entirely through book deals and speaking fees for non-charitable events).

It seems practical that a President's financial sources should be limited to taxpayer dollars. It would certainly help to fix the problem so many have with lobbyists and the private sector holding too much sway over the federal government.

***UPDATE***

Obama's family income came in at $991,296 last year. This number, while also high, has been fully accounted for by the newsmedia. $506,618 are from book royalties, and the rest is largely salary money from him and his wife (who technically makes more than he does). I suppose its fair to say that transparency along these lines would be adequate and perhaps more ethical than restricting income for politicians.

Fox News's love of Tony Snow

2007-04-12T23:20:00.000-04:00

First Cal Thomas. Now Bill O'Reilly:

One of the reasons I cut the Bush administration some slack is that Snow answers my questions on and off the record. And if Tony Snow tells me something, I can bank it. He doesn't lie or mislead, ever.

Wow.

Bringing the Sudan conflict one click closer

2007-04-12T22:30:00.000-04:00

In our age of rapid technological advancement, there is naturally much commentary about its potential dangers, from tangible things like how the Internet is an effective tool for hate groups to the more vague, as in how it is eroding real human relationships.

The future of technology in general and the Internet specifically remain to be seen. But The Christian Science Monitor has reported a really fascinating story that shows how it is now easier than ever to take a close look at the world thousands of miles away without ever leaving your computer.

Even more interestingly, that world is the war-torn nation of Sudan in Africa. From the article:

"Now anyone with a high-speed Internet connection can zoom in on satellite images of any of the 1,600 devastated villages and get detailed information provided by the United States Holocaust Museum in Washington.

The collaboration is an effort to raise awareness about the three-year-old conflict that has killed more than 200,000 and displaced more than 2.5 million people by giving ordinary people access to images generally available only to spies, diplomats, and heads of state."

How truly incredible this story is. If the Internet can be used in this way, imagine how it will change our very concept of history. The genocide in Sudan can never be denied; the evidence, in the form of decimated villages, is right here on our hard drives.

RIP Vonnegut

2007-04-12T00:46:00.000-04:00

Novelist Kurt Vonnegut dies at 84

The world lost one of its funniest and most irreverent voices with the passing of Kurt Vonnegut. I'm not going to describe his wit and brilliance for you. He can do that himself:

"Just because some of us can read and write and do a little math, that doesn't mean we deserve to conquer the Universe."

* * * *

"The best jokes are dangerous , and dangerous because they are in some way truthful."

* * * *

"Thanks to TV and for the convenience of TV, you can only be one of two kinds of human beings, either a liberal or conservative."