Sunday, May 03, 2009
Bravely Standing By His Bold Statements
By trying to airbrush them out of history via a misuse of copyright law. All class.
Saturday, May 02, 2009
Payback Is A
Leftists are incapable of thinking more than one step ahead, if that. The shape of things to come:
No, hedge funds care what rich people think. And if you were a rich people, how would you react to the news that a hedge fund manager who had a senior lien had refused to allow his claim to be treated like unsecured debt in a bankruptcy? Would you be outraged and pull your money? Remember that as a rich people, you could have donated large sums to the UAW, or the US government, if you wanted to.
This might well be good publicity for the holdouts. I'd certainly rather put my money in with Oppenheimer than with someone manager who is going to toss his fiduciary duty to the winds and make large tax-free gifts to the United Auto Workers. But then, I'm not very patriotic.
Which brings us to the real question, which is, when did it become the government's job to intervene in the bankruptcy process to move junior creditors who belong to favored political constituencies to the front of the line? Leave aside the moral point that these people lent money under a given set of rules, and now the government wants to intervene in our extremely well-functioning (and generous) bankruptcy regime solely in order to save a favored Democratic interest group.
No, leave that aside for the nonce, and let's pretend that the most important thing in the world, far more interesting than stupid concepts like the rule of law, is saving unions. What do you think this is going to do to the supply of credit for industries with powerful unions? My liberal readers who ardently desire a return to the days of potent private unions should ask themselves what might happen to the labor movement in this country if any shop that unionizes suddenly has to pay through the nose for credit. Ask yourself, indeed, what this might do to Chrysler, since this is unlikely to be the last time in the life of the firm that they need credit. Though it may well be the last time they get it, on anything other than usurious terms.
You Lose
Link:
We've reached the point where those of us on my side of the gay marriage issue, if we want to avoid a backlash of our own making, need a remedial primer on how we lose, and how we lose again. I've said most of this before, and so have others, but it obviously needs to be said again. So...
When we let a foul-mouthed caricature like Perez Hilton become the spokesman for our cause, we lose. And when we defend that foul-mouthed caricature for using rhetoric that we would call hate speech if it came from the other side, we lose again.
When we label Miss California Carrie Prejean as a bigot (and worse) for calmly answering a question about gay marriage rather than calmly saying that she's wrong, and here's why, we lose. And when we then say that President Barack Obama, by opposing gay marriage on religious grounds, is somehow actually being inclusive, we show a level of hypocrisy that those Americans we need to win over will see as far worse than any level of hypocrisy we're trying to point out on the part of Miss California. And we lose again.
When we tell the opponents of gay marriage that it won't be taught in schools and then San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom performs a lesbian wedding in front of a first-grade class on a field trip, we lose. When we don't even realize that what Gavin Newsom did was a self-defeating stunt, we lose again.
When we pretend that we're the majority view on this issue, we lose. When we start to believe that we actually are the majority view on this issue, we lose again.
When we tell the opponents of gay marriage that we're not trying to impose our views on their lives and then drive a woman from her job for donating $100 to the "Yes on 8" campaign, we lose. When we don't rebuke -- and rebuke hard -- those on our own side for this kind of harassment, we lose again.
When tell the opponents of gay marriage that they're stereotyping all gays and lesbians and then label everyone on their side, from someone who would beat a 19-year-old to death for looking effeminate to someone who supports civil unions but not marriage, as "haters," we lose. And when that stops being just a self-defeating political tactic and we actually start to believe that anyone who doesn't meet us 100% of the way on this issue really is a "hater," we lose again.
These should be simple things for our side to understand. They're just not as satisfying emotionally as what we need to do if we're actually going to win on this issue...
Steyn
Good stuff.
It begins:
It begins:
We’re still in the first 100 days of the joyous observances of Barack Obama’s first 100 days, and many weeks of celebration lie ahead, so here are my thoughts:
President Obama’s strongest talent is not his speechifying, which is frankly a bit of a snoozeroo. In Europe, he left ‘em wanting less pretty much every time (headline from Britain’s Daily Telegraph: “Barack Obama really does go on a bit”). That uptilted chin combined with the left-right teleprompter neck swivel you can set your watch by makes him look like an emaciated Mussolini umpiring an endless rally of high lobs on Centre Court at Wimbledon. Each to his own, but I don’t think those who routinely hail him as the greatest orator since Socrates actually sit through many of his speeches.
On the other hand, if you just caught a couple of minutes of last Wednesday’s press conference, you’d be impressed. When that groupie from the New York Times asked the president about what, during his first hundred days, “had surprised you the most . . . enchanted you the most . . . humbled you the most and troubled you the most,” Obama made a point of getting out his pen, writing it down and repeating back the multiple categories: “Enchanted,” he said. “Nice.” Indeed. Some enchanted evening, you may see a stranger, you may see a stranger across a crowded room, but then he scribbles down your multi-part question to be sure he gets it right, and he looks so thoughtful, and suddenly he’s not a stranger anymore, and the sound of his laughter will ring in your dreams.
The theater of thoughtfulness is critical to the president’s success. He has the knack of appearing moderate while acting radical, which is a lethal skill. The thoughtful look suckered many of my more impressionable conservative comrades last fall, when David Brooks and Christopher Buckley were cranking out gushing paeans to Obama’s “first-class temperament” — temperament being to the Obamacons what Nick Jonas’s hair is to a Tiger Beat reporter....
Whose Side Are You On?
Great essay, many excellent turns of phrase. H/T The Anchoress.
Contains this quote from Pascal:
Contains this quote from Pascal:
Why is it that, when I see a limping man, I feel sorry for his plight? But when I meet a limping mind, I am irritated beyond words? Because the limping man knows he is limping; the limping mind accuses me of limping.
Friday, May 01, 2009
He Doesn't Have The Slightest Clue About The Difference Between The Legislative And The Judicial Functions
He promises the best philosopher kings to rule us:
“I will seek somebody with a sharp and independent mind, and a record of excellence and integrity,” he said. “I will seek someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book, it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives, whether they can make a living, and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes, and welcome in their own nation. I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with peoples hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.”
Infantile Cliquism That Should Have Gone Out After Elementary School
The toddlers are at it again:
Really CNN? [Mark Hemingway]
CJR:
Just now above the chyron “First 100 Days: Assessing the Swagga,” CNN’s T.J. Holmes (billed in the teaser to the segment as “our resident swagger expert”) assembled a panel of other presumed such experts and asked them:
What have you all seen? Maybe you haven’t said it publicly in some interview or something, but, you know, hanging out with your boys, having a beer somewhere. Did you see something that the president did and you were like, that’s a brother right there. Like he just has a bit of a swagger that is familiar to black men.
Evidence of “swagga” offered by the panel included: Obama being corrected by his wife during an interview and accepting it graciously; and, Obama hugging people.
My other favorite bit — CNN anchor Kyra Phillips teased the segment by saying, "If you look closely, you might notice the commander in chief has more swagger than Mick Jagger . . ." That's some fine journalism, right there. Between this and getting Susan Roesgen some more camera time, they'll be atop the ratings in no time.
UPDATE — A reader asks, "Wasn't it just yesterday that a swaggering president was a bad thing?" The answer to that is clearly yes:
White House Watch: Bush swagger could crimp domestic agenda
Obama rejects swagger of Bush for a sober analysis of economic crisis
Republican Convention Turns on the Macho Swagger, Misrepresents Bush Legacy
Bush's Iraq swagger a distant memory
A Bit Too Much Texas Swagger
Lame Duck Bush Has Swagger, Not Waddle: President Continues To Do As He Pleases
Swagger to the center: Bush is in danger of leaving the country in far worse shape than he found it. It's time for a new direction
How to Swagger and Bully Your Way to Disaster: Bush's Foreign Adventurism
. . . and etc. There's much more where that came from.
They Just Want To Help
Seen here:
We also have a joke from reader Scott:
One afternoon an investment banker was riding in his limousine when he saw two men along the roadside eating grass. Disturbed, he ordered his driver to stop and he got out to investigate.
He asked one man, "Why are you eating grass?"
"We don't have any money for food," the poor man replied. "We have to eat grass."
"Well, then, you can come with me to my house and I'll feed you," the banker said.
"But sir, I have a wife and two children with me. They are over there, under that tree."
"Bring them along," the banker replied.
Turning to the other poor man he stated, "You come with us, also."
The second man, in a pitiful voice, then said, "But sir, I also have a wife and SIX children with me!
"Bring them all, as well," the banker answered.
They all entered the car, which was no easy task, even for a car as large as the limousine was. Once underway, one of the poor fellows turned to the banker and said,
"Sir, you are too kind."
"Thank you for taking all of us with you."
The banker replied, "Glad to do it. You'll really love my place. The grass is almost a foot high."
The First Leftist Professor Was The Serpent In The Garden
Who else could take a situation like Paradise and make his students think they are oppressed and need to rebel? I ran across a great article mentioned at What's Wrong With The World.
excerpt:
excerpt:
A few years ago I was asked by the instructor of a philosophy class, then titled “Roots of War,” to discuss with his students the culture of the U.S. military community. After identifying myself as a former career military officer, I discussed my impression of our military’s culture. When I was done, a young woman who had been glowering at me and holding her arms tightly across her chest raised her hand. When called upon she vehemently said, “I don’t agree with you. I don’t think it is anything like that. You have just been brainwashed by the military.”
“OK,” I said, “what do you think our military’s culture is like?”
“Well, certainly nothing like that,” she sputtered. I could see some heads in the class nodding in agreement.
I asked, “Could you share with us your experience in or around the military?”
“I haven’t had anything to do with the military,” she indignantly replied.
“Have you extensively studied the U.S. military or worked with current or former members of the military?”
“No,” she angrily said.
“So where have you gotten your impression of the military’s culture?” I tried to ask softly.
“I am entitled to my opinion, and I think you are a Nazi!” was her voracious reply. The class was clearly enjoying her attack on me at this point and the philosophy professor sat smugly satisfied.
I decided to end this ridiculous exchange: “So let us review. You have no personal experience or knowledge of the military. You have not studied the military. You cannot explain why you disagree with me. And you think you are entitled to your opinion. Well, I agree with you on one point. You do have a right to an opinion, and I have a right to point out that yours is an ignorant opinion—ignorant because by your own admission it is not based on any facts, education, research, or experience. Your opinion is apparently based on nothing more than simple ignorant prejudice.”
The class was silent for a moment. The young woman began to sob and yell at me, “You can’t say that to me!”
I replied, “Yes I can, because it is the truth.”
The now visibly upset philosophy professor said, “Doug, you are being a little harsh on her."
“No Ron, I am just stating the truth.”
“Well Doug, you have to respect her feelings.” Much of the class was nodding in agreement while attempting to soothe the young woman who was now obviously enjoying the attention.
“Gee Ron, I thought this was a university where we discussed subjects rationally using facts and logic.”
“A lot of us feel the same way she does,” the philosophy professor responded, as if that were justification for her ignorance and her personal insults.
Fed up with the charade, I walked out of the class.
...
Not very long ago a student approached me, pointed at my office door, and announced, “You can’t say that!” She was pointing to some articles taped to the door that challenged the foundations of global warming theory.
“I believe the arguments presented in those articles are scientifically sound, and I am not at all convinced that human-caused global warming is occurring,” I replied.
Much to my surprise her outrage suddenly faded and, smiling, she said, “Yes, but if people don’t believe in global warming they won’t stop polluting.”
Quickly recovering from my initial shock, I replied, “So the end justifies the means? You would lie to people just to advance your agenda?”
She smiled sweetly and said, “Well, people don’t know what is good for them.”
As she departed, I turned to a colleague standing across the hall who had overheard the entire exchange. “Can you believe that?” I sputtered.
“She is right Doug, and you should take that stuff off your door before you get in trouble,” he replied as he turned, walked into his office, and closed the door.
It was suddenly very obvious to me why that young woman believed that “people” could not be told the truth and that the end justifies the means.
California’s annual budget crisis is now a well-known issue. Last May, a student approached me at the end of class and perkily said, “I missed class last Monday because I was at the rally in Sacramento for more funding for the universities.” She was obviously fishing for an excused absence.
Instead, I asked, “So just where will that additional money come from?”
“What? Um, well they can take it from the prisons,” she stuttered.
“The prisons are overcrowded and facing federal mandates. Do you want them to release felons back on to the streets?” I responded.
Stunned, she burst out, “No, of course not, but you don’t understand, I have to graduate. I need my classes.”
“So this is about you—your personal needs—not the efficacy of the educational system or the greater good,” I suggested.
Her smile disappeared and a dark countenance fell across her face as she said in a low, angry voice, “So do I get an excused absence?”
Where does such thinking in university students come from? The answer is that it comes from the university itself. As further evidence I offer the following example. Recently, I completed a required program of instruction that was intended to improve my teaching. Among the required readings were two particularly disturbing books presented as critical to our personal and professional development. The first, Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher, by Stephen D. Brookfield, stated that our job is “to increase the amount of love and justice in the world” and “change the world.”[1] Brookfield described faculty with an “anti-collectivist orientation” as “obstructionist dinosaurs standing in the way of desirable innovation and reform”(249).
[more good stuff follows]
Thursday, April 30, 2009
If I Can't Trust Them To Identify The History And Origins Of Intellectual Movements, Why Am I Supposed To Trust Them About The Origins Of Life?
Melanie Philips tries again to educate those who refuse to be educated, resulting in the usual dishonest/willfully blind/bigoted ape-riot in the ensuing comments.
Our No-Class Punk-In-Chief
GayPatriot:
Recall how many Democrats, left-wing bloggers and their allies in the MSM dismissed former President George W. Bush as “divisive.” He engaged in name-calling, a friendly acquaintance of mine alleged recently. It was refreshing, he said, to have someone in the White House whose rhetoric is more uplifting, less acrimonious.
He later acknowledged that he has grown tired of watching the news, so hadn’t heard much of Obama’s presidential rhetoric. Methinks that with Obama’s increasing ubiquity on the airwaves, that may be a good thing for the Democrat’s standing among Americans.
But, my acquaintance’s words notwithstanding, the president has been more critical of his fellow Americans than have perhaps any of his predecessors at least since Nixon. As to his immediate predecessor, can anyone recall when George W. Bush mocked ant-war rallies, using a descriptor cooked up by the most extreme conservative blogs? Did he try to dismiss the various organs of the news media which criticized him on a regular basis (e.g., New York Times, Washington Post, Newsweek, MSNBC) as outlets where he’s “not very popular”?
Commenting on the President’s recent statement, “Those of you who are watching certain news channels on which I’m not very popular, and you see folks waving tea bags around,” Moe Lane observes: “He’s not really all that gracious when it comes to dealing with people that don’t already love him, is he? Kind of smirky, with a faint flavor of exasperation.“ As Glenn opines in linking the post, “Say what you will about George W. Bush, he had a skin whose thickness wasn’t measured in Planck lengths.“
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
