Category Archives: Political Commentary

Economics, Humor, Philosophy, Political Commentary, Social Commentary

Idiot Alert

Over at Reason, the sad tale of a free-loader wannabe:

The group was now “out of food, hadn’t slept in days and were really cold,” and decided, in a grubby version of Dunkirk, to abandon the mission and head back to England. Boyles is disappointed-but not deterred. He is, the BBC reports, planning “to walk around the coast of Britain instead, learning French as he goes, so he can try again next year.” At which point the cycle begins anew, when, upon reaching Baden-Baden, the poor lad will realize that he should have also studied German.

As Wilde said in another context, one would have to have a heart of stone to read this and not laugh out loud.

Humor, Political Commentary

Her Next Career

Iowahawk provides a glimpse of Hillary!’s future in the restaurant business.

Describe Incident(s) (be specific, including time)

At initial clock-in at 3:55 4/21/08, Sharon says Hillary refused to change into uniform skirt, which she said was demeaning, unflattering to legs. Hillary agreed to wear skirt only after lengthy argument between Sharon and Hillary’s attorneys. After numeorous complaints from customers, Hillary allowed to wear pants.

On 4/22/08, Sharon arrived for dinner shift, found restaurant unstaffed. Entire crew was in breakroom, where they said Hillary forced them to attend something called “Sausage Pricing Taskforce.”

Disciplinary Action:

Verbal reprimand; ordered new pantsuit uniform from District 6 Supply (size 18 short)

It gets better, naturally.

Political Commentary, Popular Culture, War Commentary

Where Have The Heros Gone?

6 Comments

It’s not a new subject, but Lileks muses on what’s happened to Hollywood (and popular culture in general):

…imagine a story conference for the Beowulf movie: you know, I see modern parallels here – not surprising, given the timelessness of the epic. But the Mead Hall is civilization itself, an outpost constructed against the elements, and Grendel is the raging force that hates the song they sing-

“They hate us for our singing!” Knowing chuckles around the table.

No seriously, he does hate them for their singing. That’s the point.

He hates what they’ve built, what they’ve done, how they live their lives.

“Maybe he has reason. That’s the interesting angle. What drives Grendel?”

Yes, you’re right. You’re absolutely right. No one’s ever taken the side of the demon in the entire history of literature, especially the last 40 years. By all means, let us craft an elaborate backstory for the guy who breaks down the door and chews the heads of the townsfolk, that we may better understand how we came to this point.

History, Political Commentary, Popular Culture, Social Commentary, War Commentary

Confused

11 Comments

Selena Zito writes that all of the remaining presidential candidates are Scots-Irish.

Really? This is the first I’d heard that Hillary! was of Scots-Irish descent. I’d always assumed that she was from Puritan stock. That’s the way she’s always acted. And Obama is obviously, at best, only half Scots-Irish.

Zito doesn’t seem to quite get the concept, either:

How can there be such scant understanding of a 30 million-strong ethnic group that has produced so many leaders and swung most elections?

Perhaps because political academics and pollsters parse the Scottish half off with the WASP vote and define the Irish-Catholic half as blue-collar Democrats. They are neither.

There is no “Irish-Catholic half” of the Scots-Irish. Scots-Irish aren’t Irish at all. Neither are they Scottish. They were mostly Anglo-Saxon, not Celtic. They were also a violent people with an honor culture, mercenaries from the border area between England and Scotland. As the article notes, they were sent by the English to colonize Ulster, to get them out of Britain after the war between England and Scotland was settled and they had no more need for them. The ones too violent for Ulster were shipped off to America, so they’re a double distillation of the most violent culture that the British Isles produced. After they fought (mostly for the South) in the Civil War, many of them headed out west.

People who think that America is too violent blame it on the proliferation of guns. But they confuse cause and effect. We have a lot of guns because we have a lot of Scots-Irish (aka rednecks). But it comes in pretty handy during war time.

Political Commentary, Popular Culture, Science And Society

Proves Her Point About The Math Thing

11 Comments

Charlotte Allen is embarrassed to be a woman. She gets the math wrong here, though:

Women really are worse drivers than men, for example. A study published in 1998 by the Johns Hopkins schools of medicine and public health revealed that women clocked 5.7 auto accidents per million miles driven, in contrast to men’s 5.1, even though men drive about 74 percent more miles a year than women.

Since the statistic is on a per-mile basis, the fact that men drive more miles a year is irrelevant. So the disparity–5.1 versus 5.7–is actually quite small, and perhaps within the statistical error.

Of course, the thing that statistics like this don’t reveal is how many accidents they cause, unbeknownst to them, because they are oblivious to their surroundings. I’m always bemused by someone who I know to be a terrible driver bragging about the fact that they’ve never had an accident. Not to imply that men don’t do this as well, of course.

Media Criticism, Political Commentary, War Commentary

Crickets Chirping At The ICRC?

2 Comments

With all the hue and cry about Korans in toilets in Guantanamo, where are all the staunch defenders of the Geneva Conventions now?

The terrorists are operating within civilian areas, many times with the actual assistance of these civilians, and more often than not with their tacit approval. Brace yourselves for the palestinian propaganda offensive going into overdrive, including stories about civilian deaths, many of which may not be true.

Here’s another point:

We are lectured a great deal about the importance of democratizing the Middle East as, somehow, a strategy to defeat terrorism. I do not want to reargue this issue or make too much (again) of the fact that popular elections have thus far succeeded in empowering terrorists.

My question for the moment is this: Does this democratization ever entail any responsibility? The Palestinian “civilians” were given a choice in 2006, and they chose to elect Hamas — a choice that was overwhelming in Gaza, where the terror organization — having ousted the more “moderate” terror-mongers from Fatah — now rules. If the civilians, eyes wide open, opt to be led by a terrorist organization whose chief calling card is its pledge to destroy Israel (a sentiment shared by a large majority of the “civilian” population), how upset are we supposed to get when the said civilians get caught in the cross-fire that is provoked by the savages they elected?

I have always thought that one of the aims of the Israeli pullout of Gaza was to demonstrate that the Palestinians are incapable of forming a functioning state, and of having someone accountable when Israel is attacked. If that was the goal, it seems to have succeeded. Hamas has declared war (or actually, Hamas has never not been in a state of war with Israel, since the destruction of Israel is one of its primary purposes), and now it will have to accept the consequences.

Hamas is blatantly violating just about every one of the Geneva Conventions, I suspect, but I fearlessly predict that only Israel will be charged with “war crimes.” We know that the world will claim that the death of every innocent civilian in Gaza, among whom these war criminals hide, will be Israel’s fault. No one, after all, can ever violate the Geneva Conventions except for the US and Israel, even when they don’t.

Hmmmm…I wonder what the ICRC has to say about this?

[wandering over and reading]

The most recent release related to the subject is from Thursday, in which it simply tells both sides to “use restraint” against killing civilians. It says nothing about military operations among civilians in Gaza, or indeed anything specific at all, about anyone’s behavior. I thought that they were supposed to be the defenders and upholders of the Conventions? Why can they not denounce this?

[Update a little while later]

I just reread the release at the ICRC site, and I just can’t get over it. Let’s just unpack this one graf:

Numerous rockets have been fired at the Israeli towns of Ashkelon and Sderot, hitting civilian areas and landing inside a hospital compound. At the same time, the Israel Defense Forces have carried out several air strikes inside the Gaza Strip. On both sides, there have been civilian fatalities and injuries.

Really?

“…rockets have been fired, and ‘at the same time’ the IDF have carried out several air strikes.” Surely they don’t mean literally “at the same time”? As though both Israel and Hamas decided to bomb babies, just for the hell of it?

All right, no doubt by “the same time,” they are simply expressing an equivalence between them, not literally saying that the events were simultaneous. Of course, the reality is that first the rockets were fired, with the deliberate intent of killing Israeli civilians to the maximum degree possible, given the crude aiming capability of the rockets, which was followed, afterward by air strikes from Israel whose purpose was to take out the facilities that were launching the rockets in order to prevent further rocket attacks.

This moral equivalence, with no mention whatsoever of the daily, ongoing war crimes by Hamas, is simply nauseating. The ICRC may have moral standing in the world, but it has none with me.

[Update on Sunday afternoon]

A good point in comments. The release isn’t even neutral. “Rockets were fired” (passive voice–who knows who fired them? Maybe they fired themselves?) versus the active and specific “IDF carried out air strikes.”

[Update a little later]

Here it comes. The Saudis (who else?) are accusing Israel of war crimes. And not just any war crimes, no. Nazi war crimes.

And a bad word for the state that is actually committing war crimes.

[Via LGF]

Philosophy, Political Commentary

Was Burke A Fascist?

19 Comments

Some thoughts from Jonah.

And I thought this bit, while not directly pertinent to the point, did seem pertinent to some recent discussion here.

The reaction from so many liberals to William F. Buckley’s death is a good case in point. How many of them insist that even though Buckley recanted his earlier views on race that these views are all important and eternal when it comes to assessing the man? But the fact that the founding fathers of Progressivism and modern liberalism were chock-a-block with imperialists, racists, eugenicists, fascist-sympathizers and crypto-fascists is not only completely irrelevant but tediously old news? Am I alone in seeing a disconnect here?

No. No, you’re not.