Category Archives: Political Commentary

Faux Pas

Does anyone really buy this?

In her statement, Power said her comments “do not reflect my feelings about Sen. Clinton, whose leadership and public service I have long admired.”

No, of course not. You don’t really think she’ll do anything necessary to attain power. You just said that for no reason at all.

Sometimes, to slightly paraphrase Freud, a cigar really is a cigar.

Of course, she’s saying what non-Clinton-koolaid drinkers have been thinking for many years, but whose loyalty to their political party exceeds their loyalty to common decency.

I think that I’ll just keep the corn a poppin.’

The State Of Education In California

Lileks has some thoughts:

Of course, home-schooling Bolsheviks will have less reason to complain soon. “This bill would delete provisions that prohibit a teacher giving instruction in a school from teaching communism with the intent to indoctrinate or to inculcate in the mind of any pupil a preference for communism.” Apparently the teacher’s right to teach Communism trumps your right to school your kid yourself.

What a world. Sometimes, when I look at the educational system here–primary, secondary, college–I wonder if we really won the Cold War.

[Update mid morning]

Apparently the LA Times got the story wrong (What! Say it ain’t so!) about not allowing unaccredited parents to home school, so the situation in California is not as dire as originally thought in regard to home schoolers.

Maybe it was just wishful thinking on the part of the Times’ reporter and editor, since that paper has long been in the tank for the teachers’ union.

The Chicago Way

Rick Moran explains.

The parallels with the Clintons in 1992 remain amazing:

  • We have people who have a record of corruption (almost by definition in the case of Obama, because it’s not possible to come out of Chicago politics, particularly Democrat politics, without being corrupt). And the corruption involves (among other things) shady real-estate deals.
  • The couple both have law degrees.
  • The wife is loved by the left, and is problematic with the non-left.
  • The media swoons for them, and doesn’t bother to ask any of the local journalists about their local past which, if they had, would have provided a rich vein of ore that would provide themselves and the nation a lot of info about what we were all in for if they were elected.

    The difference, and problem (of course) for them is that there is no Ross Perot this year to suck off squishy Republican votes. Neither of the Dems’ candidates have a prayer of winning this year, but I’ll enjoy watching the fratricide, which will just make the landslide all the larger, and perhaps provide coattails for the Congress.

Back To The Drawing Board

Lileks:

I just remembered that I called the Bob Davis show this morning to talk about the new theory re: Moses and the Ten Commandments: dude was high. Apparently a professor somewhere has suggested that the entire experience was the result of a mushroom or some such ceremonial intoxicant. I called to say I didn’t believe it, because if Moses was tripping we wouldn’t have ten commandments. We would have three. The first would make sense, more or less; the second, written half an hour later, would command profound respect for lizards who sit on stones and look at you, because they’re freaking incredible when you think about it, and the third would be gibberish. Never mind the problem of getting the tablets down the mountain – anyone who has experience of watching stoners try to assemble pizza money when the doorbell rings doubts that Moses could have hauled stone tablets all the way down.

“Steny Hoyer Didn’t Get The Memo”

This is highlarious. I liked this comment:

And we wonder why democrats can’t get a damn thing done.

Every answer they give to a question sounds like a 16 year-old kid standing in front of a clerk at a liquor store trying to remember the address and birthdate on his fake ID he just acquired from some smelly hippy from the wrong side of the tracks.

I hope to God (whatever that is to you) that someone writes a period piece on the democratic-controlled house and calls it “Lessons in Stupid – the Pelosi years.”

“Steny Hoyer Didn’t Get The Memo”

This is highlarious. I liked this comment:

And we wonder why democrats can’t get a damn thing done.

Every answer they give to a question sounds like a 16 year-old kid standing in front of a clerk at a liquor store trying to remember the address and birthdate on his fake ID he just acquired from some smelly hippy from the wrong side of the tracks.

I hope to God (whatever that is to you) that someone writes a period piece on the democratic-controlled house and calls it “Lessons in Stupid – the Pelosi years.”

“Steny Hoyer Didn’t Get The Memo”

This is highlarious. I liked this comment:

And we wonder why democrats can’t get a damn thing done.

Every answer they give to a question sounds like a 16 year-old kid standing in front of a clerk at a liquor store trying to remember the address and birthdate on his fake ID he just acquired from some smelly hippy from the wrong side of the tracks.

I hope to God (whatever that is to you) that someone writes a period piece on the democratic-controlled house and calls it “Lessons in Stupid – the Pelosi years.”

Space Arms Control Speech

Would a ban on space weaponry be verifiable? It seems intuitively obvious to me that the answer is “no.”

I think that this is a key point:

The President’s Space Policy highlights our national and, indeed the global, dependence on space. The Chinese interception only underscored the vulnerability of these critical assets. Calling for arms control measures can often appear to be a desirable approach to such problems. Unfortunately, “feel good” arms control that constrains our ability to seek real remedies to the vulnerabilities that we face has the net result of harming rather than enhancing U.S. and international security and well-being.

I always trust hardware over paper and good intentions.

New Amsterdam

I don’t actually watch that much network television, but I have to admit that I probably watch more Foxfare than anything else.

Tonight, there premiered a new show, called “New Amsterdam.”

It’s an interesting premise. A man who was born in the early seventeenth century (or even a century before) is given eternal (or almost eternal–hang on) life in perpetual youth. He lives that long life in what was at that time New Amsterdam, but what become shortly thereafter (once the British took it from the Dutch) New York.

He sees the village evolve into a town, then into a city, then into the greatest city in the western world (if not the world itself), which is why it was attacked six and a half years ago by those to whom the western world is an anathema to their seventh-century beliefs. But I digress.

He becomes a homicide detective in that great city, and his knowledge of the past is a great aid in solving gotham crimes.

As I said, an interesting premise. I mean, given that CSI, Wherever, is one of the biggest hits on network television, how could any producer turn it down?

But there’s a (supposedly) dark undercurrent to the story.

His eternal life is not viewed, by the story writers or himself, as a blessing. It is apparently a curse. He cannot end his life volitionally. The only way to put an end to this (apparent, and obvious, at least to the script writers) misery of endless youth and health is to find his true love.

Then he can die.

Just how perverse is that?

Let’s parse it.

OK, so you’ve “suffered” through four centuries of youthful life, in perpetual health, in a world in which your chances of dying are nil, and you apparently don’t even suffer any pain, though this is a world in which even dentistry is barbaric for at least the first three hundred years. And now, after having seen a little village purchased with beads on a little island at the mouth of a river, you’ve watched it become the most powerful city on the planet, you want to check out?

You’re in the early twenty-first century, about to enter a world in which many may join you in your longevity, though without the “burden” if having to find their true love to end it.

Well, both boo, and hoo.

Here’s the thing that makes this science fiction (or rather, speculative fiction).

In the real world, people who are offered the gift of living forever will also have the capability of ending that endless life, barring some sadistic fascist government that (like some perceptions of God) thinks that the individuals are the property of the state, and not of themselves. If they really get tired of life, they will check out, either legally and easily, or illegally and in a more difficult manner. But the will to die, if it is strong enough, will win out.

So to me, the real suspension of disbelief in this new series is not that a man could live for four hundred years, but rather, that he would have to live that long in misery.

Thus, it is more of a morality tale, based on unrealistic premises, than one based on anything resembling the true future.

I hope that no one decides that long life is a bad thing, and more importantly, that no one thinks that it is something that no one should have, based on this foolish, deathist premise.

Now This Was Just Mean

Actually, it sounds like something I would do, if I had nothing better (or more entertaining) to do:

I just had a young lady, age 22, call me up from the Clinton campaign to see if I had voted yet. I said no, but it was raining, and I wasn’t sure I was going to get out and vote. She wanted to know who I was supporting, Hillary or Obama? I said it was difficult to choose between the two of them, and asked for her opinion. I kept that poor girl on the line for about a half hour (work-wise, I was having a slow day). I had her jumping through hoops on NAFTA, health care, the war in Afghanistan, etc. No matter what we talked about, I would get squishy and head off in a different direction (that’s my usual impersonation of a lib). I started expressing my concern that “the minority community” would feel betrayed if Obama doesn’t get the nomination. “What will this do to future of the Party?”

But at least he’s not as rough on telemarketers as this guy.