Jeremayakovka

Obama's Election Heralds America's "Long, Slow Descent Into The Third World"

It's been going on for some time now. In any case, what he said:

[T]he US is just as segregated as it was before Martin Luther King – in schools, streets, neighbourhoods, holidays, even in its TV-watching habits and its choice of fast-food joint. The difference is that it is now done by unspoken agreement rather than by law.

If Mr Obama’s election had threatened any of that, his feel-good white supporters would have scuttled off and voted for John McCain, or practically anyone. But it doesn’t. Mr Obama, thanks mainly to the now-departed grandmother he alternately praised as a saint and denounced as a racial bigot, has the huge advantages of an expensive private education. He did not have to grow up in the badlands of useless schools, shattered families and gangs which are the lot of so many young black men of his generation.

If the nonsensical claims made for this election were true, then every positive discrimination programme aimed at helping black people into jobs they otherwise wouldn’t get should be abandoned forthwith. Nothing of the kind will happen. On the contrary, there will probably be more of them.

And if those who voted for Obama were all proving their anti-racist nobility, that presumably means that those many millions who didn’t vote for him were proving themselves to be hopeless bigots. This is obviously untrue....

The United States, having for the most part a deeply conservative people, had until now just about stood out against many of the mistakes which have ruined so much of the rest of the world. Suspicious of welfare addiction, feeble justice and high taxes, totally committed to preserving its own national sovereignty, unabashedly Christian in a world part secular and part Muslim, suspicious of the Great Global Warming panic, it was unique.

These strengths had been fading for some time, mainly due to poorly controlled mass immigration and to the march of political correctness. They had also been weakened by the failure of America’s conservative party – the Republicans – to fight on the cultural and moral fronts.

They preferred to posture on the world stage. Scared of confronting Left-wing teachers and sexual revolutionaries at home, they could order soldiers to be brave on their behalf in far-off deserts. And now the US, like Britain before it, has begun the long slow descent into the Third World. How sad. Where now is our last best hope on Earth?

Global Caliphate Forces Anticipate, Interpret Obama's First Iraq Moves

From the Islamic Republic of Iran's Press TV: Taji Mustafa of the international, pro-global caliphate Hizb ut-Tahrir Party of the United Kingdom (!) is trying to cool somebody's jets in this recent, post-American election commentary.

Says Mustafa: Barack Obama is not Vladimir Lenin. He's not a revolutionary who has come with a new system to Washington DC, planning to overthrow the current system and turn everything upside-down.

Who? What rabble? To what revolutionary squads, cadres, kooks, and thugs is Mustafa speaking?

Thankfully, Jamie Kirchick  articulated the pro-American perspective. Note very well, in the final minutes, the confrontation between Kirchick and Mustafa. Kirchick, whom I respect for going on camera there, was way too polite (calling him, "Sir") - he should have tore Mustafa's (rhetorical) head off and spit his (rhetorical) brains into the camera....

(H/T Jamie)

Reliably Conservative Pundit "Gets" Obama's Deep Appeal To Blacks; Harlem Reunites; Bush Speechwriter Hails "My President"

There is more than one prize on which to fix our eyes.

Chicagoan Rick Moran, author of the Right Wing Nuthouse blog, attended the Grant Park Election Night Party and saw up close the unsprung emotions Obama's victory brought to many black people who also attended:

I suppose I got caught up in the emotion of the night due almost exclusively to the genuine and copious tears of black Americans. The ones I spoke to and interviewed were nearly speechless with joy. With a start, I realized something that had escaped me all these long months of writing and thinking about this race. For many African-Americans, this election was a spiritual event, something that transcended the corporeal and brought to mind ancestral yearnings and desires for freedom.

For perhaps many blacks, Obama is the word made flesh -- the redemption of the promise in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal." The small sample of blacks I interviewed all spoke of the shattering of barriers, the hope that an Obama presidency would translate into a more just society, and the belief that for them personally, their lives would never be the same.

This is a very good thing. It's a very good thing for any white man to notice, and in particular for this one to notice. The longtime Chicagoan apparently hasn't spent much time on the South Side. (That's not an accusation, just an observation.) More importantly, he's a conservative. And conservatives need to be curious about the victorious opposition - out of respect for their humanity as well as for fine-tuning our strategy.

There are piles of reasons to hold President-elect Obama's feet to the fire. To name three: his shady online fundraising, his (or rather, the MSM's and certain institutions') refusal to make all sorts of personal records public, and the highly questionable meaning of his being welcomed into office by some of America's sworn enemies. Those are questions of character and leadership. The fact of his election, however, is another matter altogether.

* * *

* UPDATES *

Rick reads Rahm

Harlem-based writer Sekou says 125th Street "was like standing in the midst of a massive family reunion as all of them found out that they had hit the lottery at the same time."

Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson provides historical context independent of the leftwing, Democratic Party narrative (which typically omits Republican ("The Party of Lincoln") advances for blacks): This presidency in particular should be a source of pride even for those who do not share its priorities. An African-American will take the oath of office blocks from where slaves were once housed in pens and sold for profit. He will sleep in a house built in part by slave labor, near the room where Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation with firm hand. He will host dinners where Teddy Roosevelt in 1901 entertained the first African-American to be a formal dinner guest in the White House; command a military that was not officially integrated until 1948. Every event, every act, will complete a cycle of history. It will be the most dramatic possible demonstration that the promise of America – so long deferred – is not a lie. I suspect I will have many substantive criticisms of the new administration, beginning soon enough. Today I have only one message for Barack Obama, who will be our president, my president: Hail to the chief..

"The United States of Audacity"

Fox News Captures The Significance Of Obama's Election

.
I can't think of another country in the world where you would have a significant minority that was once so maligned and so oppressed finally have one of its sons rise to this level. This is - you know, I don't care how you feel about him politically - on some level you have to say, "This is America at its grandest." The potential, the possibility - and what it says for our children, black and white - the image of Barack Obama and those little girls in the Rose Garden in these years to come I think is just stunning.
Agreed, Juan. Agreed.

"Now reality must intervene."
Agreed there, too, Jacob.

Forest, Meet Trees

The Republican brand may be "tarnished," John McCain definitely is "tarnished" (as in finished), but through it all conservatism sparkles: Kevin McCullough predicted Obama's ascension 23 months ago. Five decisive factors: raging liberals, disgusted conservatives, exhausted moderates, energized blacks, gullible evangelicals. Read it all.

* * *

More: Two red-blooded, blue-state residents (one Christian, one Jewish) don't need Weathermen to know which way the wind blows. Read "President Fraud."

Obamafada Watch

* Update * WSJ op-ed, "Obama is Stoking Racial Antagonism"

* 2d Update * The native ambition and aspiration of men, even though they be black, backward, and ungraceful, must not lightly be dealt with. To stimulate wildly weak and untrained minds is to play with mighty fires; to flout their striving idly is to harvest a brutish crime and shameless lethargy in our very laps.
- W. E. B. DuBois, The Souls of Black Folk

Is a litmus test whether one is racist or not whether one votes for Barack Obama or not? What are the burdens those of us will bear, we who freely and carefully decide that John McCain is the better man to be president?

Philly print columnist Fatimah Ali (who is black) sees "race war" already here, after saying two weeks ago that race war would arrive on the heels of a McCain-Palin victory: If McCain wins, look for a full-fledged race and class war, fueled by a deflated and depressed country, soaring crime, homelessness - and hopelessness!... But when Obama wins the White House, we may just see a revolution....

Harvard law prof Randall Kennedy (who is black) asks "What If [Obama loses?]" and answers "bitter disappointment" and "stark rage" for blacks at large, plus "feelings of dejection, anger and resentment" for himself.

Occasional commenters wax incendiary about race riots. Mostly, though, look for more obfuscations -- whether aggressive (like Ali's) or laconic (like Kennedy's) -- which obscure the race-, class-,  and religion-warriors who've hitched themselves to Obama's bandwagon.

So, we're supposed to believe that an Obama defeat -- after what will be 20 months of steady public exposure to and evaluation of  his (brand) name -- would be an outrage comparable to the assassination of MLK or the acquittal of certain LA policemen? Last month Dennis Prager (who is Jewish) recommended to shoot-to-injure graffiti taggers. How about against Obamafada taggers, vandals, rioters?

Pity any misguided blacks (and others) who might take to the streets (or worse) on Nov. 5. Pity anyone who tries to wrest guilt-concessions from mainstream Americans over this subject -- before, during, or after the election. Pity anyone who falls for it.

What's In The Left's Closet

A top-ten list compiled, annotated by Daniel Flynn:

10. Ayatollah Khomeini

Reflexive anti-Americanism initially moved the Left to embrace the Islamic Revolution in Iran. Mother Jones, for instance, in 1979 predicted that “if Khomeini or his followers take power” then “democratic reforms, freedom for political prisoners, an end to the astronomical waste of huge arms purchases, and a constitutional government” would follow. The Nation, Michel Foucault, and other pillars of the Left similarly projected their ideals upon Khomeini and company.

9. Manson Family Values

“I fell in love with Charlie Manson the first time I saw his cherub face and sparkling eyes on TV,” hippie guru Jerry Rubin professed. “His words and courage inspired us.” Weatherman hoisted “Charles Manson Power” banners, adopted a spread-fingered greeting to symbolize the fork with which the Manson murderers impaled a victim’s stomach, and even boasted a cell nicknamed “The Fork.” Weatherman matriarch Bernardine Dohrn infamously proclaimed: “Dig it: first they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, then they even shoved a fork into the victim’s stomach. Wild!”

[Read the rest]
(05/30) Link corrected - thanks Obi's Sister for the heads up.

Married to the Mob

Pat Buchanan's world is "Post-Christian America" and we're just living in it. He may be an incorrigible antisemite whose "America First" stances are too stark. He also firmly puts his foot down against gay marriage:

Homosexual marriage is not in the California constitution, else someone would have discovered it in 160 years. Where, then, did the state Supreme Court find this was a right?

Four of seven justices unearthed this right by consulting what Orwell called their "smelly little orthodoxies." They then decided to overturn the expressed will of the voters, declare their opinion law and order the state of California to begin recognizing homosexual unions as marriages. And they did it because they know the Times types will hail them as the newest Earl Warrens.

Related: Gay Patriot asks whether he's a Nazi sympathizer?
Previous JMK post on Buchanan.

Ed Koch - Liberal With Sanity

Found at Chaim's blog, Freedom's Cost:

Today, according to the most recent CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey, “71 percent of the American public disapprove of how Bush is handling his job as President, an all-time high in polling.” His position can be compared with that of Harry Truman who left Washington unpopular and alone in 1953. Today, with the passage of time, most historians and certainly the American people, see Truman in a different light, primarily for his willingness to stand firm against Soviet aggression, whether against Greece or South Korea, and proclaim the Truman Doctrine, effectively defending the free world from Soviet efforts to expand their hegemony. Like Truman, George W. Bush, in my view, will be seen as one of the few world leaders who recognized the danger of Islamic terrorism and was willing with Tony Blair to stand up to it and not capitulate.
-- Ed Koch

One Lifetime Feminist Writer To Another

I will honor and "hear" you even if -- especially if -- we disagree on particular subjects. You believe that Barack Obama can somehow save our country. You are moved by his oratory and character. I am bowed beneath the weight of tribal sorrows and fear for our country and our world no matter who becomes the next American President.

Read the rest of Phyllis Chesler's open letter to Alice Walker (where you can follow the links to Alice's original letter).

"He Was A Good And Decent Man"

Rick Perlstein on why William F. Buckley, Jr. was his role model.

"A Tribute to the Master" from the Center for Visions and Values at Grove City College.

Between friends: Charlie Rose hosts Buckley who reminisces about Joe McCarthy, Whittaker Chambers, Ayn Rand, Ronald Reagan .... It's impossible to defend McCarthy and it's super-impossible to defend his critics .... weighs in on Bush: He has not entirely succeeded in declaiming his own mission.... He has not successfully mobilized public sentiment on this issue [Iraq]. On conservatism: There isn't at this point a solid challenge posed by [i.e., to] conservatism.

"Every Time Someone Makes Bad Art, You Should Have The Right To Get Angry At Them!"

Mark Steyn at CPAC yesterday. Note especially the q&a at 18:20 forward.

Spit back in the face of ivory tower condescension against conservatives (i.e., those not, or no longer, indoctrinated by critical theory) being boors or hicks. Score one for coherent, confident culture!

The DoW of Pat Buchanan, The SoW of James Burnham

Fans of Liberal Fascism, unite!

Earlier this month, before dropping over $30 for the debut of Jonah Goldberg's (so far, wildly popular) Liberal Fascism, for $5 at a used bookstore I picked up for the first time ever a Pat Buchanan title, The Death of the West (2000).

I'm glad I did. It's a summary of the cultural, demographic, and economic trends that are the downfall of Western Civilization. It makes no particular case against militant Islam, although it does identify some of the harm it had already caused American interests; hence it cannot be accused of being particularly "Islamophobic" nor "isolationist." It identifies a culture war within American society, unappeasable and unavoidable -- very much as others, post-9/11, have acknowledged the jihad with Islam.

Rarely, however, do I notice Pat mentioned by name by post-9/11 counter-jihad pundit-authors. To pick a few, Mark Steyn in America Alone, Melanie Philips in Londonistan, or Claire Berlinski in Menace in Europe. Yet several of his basic observations and ideas pop up in their work -- declining Western birth rates, for example, or plummeting church attendance in Europe. If a schism exists between Pat and the rest, it seems to me everyone involved would benefit from a spirited debate that identifies just what are their (our) common interests. (In LF Goldberg devotes a few pages to him, btw.)

With an indecisive GOP primary season afoot (uncertain, weary, and chaotic all at once; "the party's falling apart," says Dick Morris) someone's got to ask: Where is American conservatism headed? How well (or poorly) is the Republican Party its "home"? And since the November election will be, in part, a second referendum on "The Bush Doctrine": Of the flagrantly liberal aspects of Bush's record -- nation-building abroad, government expansion at home -- which are worth keeping, amending -- or dismissing?

In The Death of the West Pat is neither grim nor optimistic, just diagnostic. For all the pitched partisanship and great American romance that make up a presidential election, it would be good also to administer a dose of Pat's "DoW-ism" to the Republican and national discussions already underway.

* * *

A pleasant surprise of DoW is its more than occasional literary references. In a way that in no way relies on the academiklatura (something which would surprise and annoy them, would any deign to read it) Pat clearly is well-read in American letters. He quotes from novels and essays only to illustrate his political points, but also -- mirabile lectu -- Pat believes that Western literature should be read (and written) to bolster, not undermine, the West. History -- not "the text" -- is literature's proper reference. In today's culture war that's radical. (That also helps to explain why so much contemporary scribbling may be many things, but certainly not literature.)

One of Pat's sources is James Burnham's The Suicide of the West (1964). It's out of print, but not impossible to track down in used form. So after finishing The Death of the West, I ordered a used copy of The Suicide of the West. It does not disappoint.

A heartening passage about modern literature runs as follows:

It is also ironic that liberalism -- so prevalent among modern intellectuals and so widely regarded as the truly creative outlook in modern society -- has failed to attract any of the major creative writers of our century. Professor Lionel Trilling [described by a former student here] who seldom deviates from the liberal line on specific political or social issues though he is mildly heterodox in theory, discussed this little remarked but surely significant fact in an article published in 1962 by the magazine Commentary. He pointed out that none of the major writers has been a liberal and that most of them have been anti-liberal; and that there is no great twentieth-century literary work infused with the liberal ideology as De Rerum Naturae, the Aeneid, The Divine Comedy, Don Quixote, Faust, and War and Peace were infused with other ideologies. In the twentieth century, Professor Trilling declares, there has been "no literary figure of the very first rank . . . who, in his work, makes use of or gives credence to liberal or radical ideas." Many secondary writers and a substantial majority of critics have been and are liberals; but Henry James, Marcel Proust, Ezra Pound, William Butler Yeats, James Joyce, Andre Gide, Thomas Mann, T. S. Eliot -- all of whom the liberals so much admire, so frequently imitate and so endlessly comment on -- have all been, often explicitly and scornfully, anti-liberal. (pp.135-136)

* * *

Search inside this book!

.

John Vincent Coulter, RIP

Father spent most of his nine-year FBI career as a Red hunter in New York City.

Rush's Caucus Night Roundup

Short takes on the long picture. Phoned in last night to Fox.

Huckabee is tapping in to a sentiment of someone who is a straight-talker, or who appears to be ....

Found at Political Party Poop.

Lesbian Tammy Bruce Calls Today's Mainstream Media A "Gestapo"

Via HuffPo, Sean Penn Muses Execution of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Mistrusts Ms. Rodham Clinton's "Poisonous Ambition"

[E]xisting law provides that the likes of Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld and Rice, if found guilty, could have hoods thrown over their heads, their hands bound, facing a 12-man rifle corps executing death by firing squad.

In the same post, Don't underestimate the damage [Ms. Rodham Clinton's] poisonous ambition can do to this country.

Diana West Reaches For Her Hillary Archives

In order to keep the heat on Ms. Rodham Clinton:

It's as though Hillary Clinton believes she has no past to reckon with; no broken trust to mend; no reason to acknowledge that, to name one example, amassing hundreds of FBI files of Reagan and Bush (I) officials for political use in the White House is a Bad Thing, even if neither she nor anyone else in the White House was actually indicted for it. And it's as though everyone else agrees.

Titles she mentions in "Don't Close the Book on the Clintons":

Sellout: The Inside Story of President Clinton's Impeachment
by David Schippers
The Breach: Inside the Impeachment and Trial of William Jefferson Clinton
by Peter Baker
Friends in High Places Our Journey From Little Rock to Washington, D.C
by Webb Hubbell
State of a Union: Inside the Complex Marriage of Bill and Hillary Clinton
by Jerry Oppenheimer
Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton
by Barbara Olson (d. Sept. 11, 2001)

September 11th Is A Date Which Will Live In Infamy

Partisan liberals are gearing up for their "stop Rudy" campaign. I can feel it.

Here are some choppily edited video clips, found at Dana Goldstein's blog (who found it at Talking Points Memo), of Rudy Giuliani's frequent invocations of September 11th during interviews, debates, and campaign appearances. Dana calls this a tick (as in, a nervous tick), whereas I would say it's a tack -- a strategy to remind Americans of his own leadership, certainly, and by extension of the leadership of many other Americans on that awful and awe-inspiring day.

.

.
People who take issue with a leading presidential candidate, one who oversaw the most intense locus of that day's crisis -- oversaw it more directly than either the president or vice president -- should have to answer the following:

"September 11th is a date which will live in infamy."
Do you agree , or disagree, with that statement? (Yes or No.)

.
If recalling September 11th really is distasteful to the good folks at TPM, I guess I could placate them by trying to convince Giuliani to invoke some other date. Say ... February 26th? That day in 1993, on the watch of then-President Bill Clinton and then-Mayor David Dinkins (both Democrats), saw the first attempt by Islamic terrorists to blow up the World Trade Center. The savages' spectacular plan included the intended release of cyanide gas into the tower's ventilation systems -- plus the wishful thinking that the tower's collapse would bring down its twin. So one good that conceivably could come out of a ticky-tacky discussion of whether to invoke or to not invoke September 11th would be to connect it back to February 26th.

February 26th turned out, as a matter of luck, not to be catastrophic -- loss of life and property were minimal -- though it was a precursor to September 11th. For Khalil Sheik Mohammed, an uncle and adviser of one of the plotters, went on to become the chief coordinator of the September 11th attacks. The lessons KSM learned from February 26th were: Never send a fanatical homicide bomber to do a fanatical suicide bomber's job and America might send in spooks and prosecutors, but she won't send in the Marines. What was for the civilized world, at the end of the day on February 26th, effectively a reprieve from catastrophic terror should in hindsight have been a clarion call. Whereas for Islamic fanatics it was a casting call.

Something often omitted from remembrances of September 11th is that, like February 26th, only strokes of fate and luck made that day somewhat less catastrophic than it otherwise would have been. The desperate courage and determined outrage of a few dozen passengers successfully (if tragically) diverted United Flight 93, which had been piloted (targeted) at the Capitol or the White House. That many WTC employees hadn't yet arrived to work when the first planes struck (and that many who had also had time to evacuate) drastically reduced the number of human casualties on that day.

All this is to acknowledge (and perhaps the Talking Points Memo crowd will find common ground with me here) that Giuliani's leadership should not be permitted to eclipse the near unimaginable bravery and stoicism of the many thousands gone on September 11th. Where we diverge is that I believe Giuliani is within his rights -- moreso, his duties -- to invoke our national memory of it. Actually I welcome the kind and gentle, but firm manner by which he speaks for all of us -- he exhibits a fundamental remembrance and pride, plus the littlest hint of grief and a whiff of defiance. And of grapeshot.

I have to wonder, what would partisan liberals prefer Rudy Giuliani do than revive memories of September 11th? Do they wish that he discuss Ms. Rodham Clinton's unreliable mentions of her daughter Chelsea's whereabouts in lower Manhattan on that morning? If that is the case, there may yet be an occasion for Giuliani to do so.

Roger Kimball Comes To Bury Mailer, Not To Praise Him (Really)

Roger Kimball must have been polishing this piece for months, if not years. He seems to have read every book ever written by and about the two-time Pulitzer Prize winner and five-time marriage loser (also, one-time marriage winner).

From Kimball's "Norman Mailer, A Dissenting View":

No one combined critical regard, popular celebrity, and radical chic politics with quite the same insouciance as did Mailer. From the late 1940s until the 1980s, he showed himself to be extraordinarily deft at persuading credulous intellectuals to collaborate in his megalomania. Although he modeled his persona on some of the less attractive features of Ernest Hemingway—booze, boxing, bullfighting, and broads—he managed to update that pathetic, shopworn machismo with some significant postwar embellishments: reefer, radicalism, and [Wilhelm] Reich, for starters. The glittering example of Mailer’s commercial success was obviously the cynosure that many aspiring writers set out to follow: his neat trick was to combine cachet with large amounts of cash.

.
Wow! I thought I had shrewd opinions about stormin' Norman. E.g., JMK on The Castle in the Forest: Adolf Hitler was more of a genius -- and more evil -- than Norman Mailer ever was or will be. And that may make Norman jealous. Previous JMK blog entries about Mailer here and here.  

.
Most telling is to compare Mailer's recent major effort with that of one of his ex-friends and contemporaries, ex-liberal Norman Podhoretz. Norman M's final work is an exploration of the psychological formation of Adolf Hitler whereas Norman P's most recent work is the case for the destruction of Islamofascism. Mailer looks back at the 20th and even the 19th Century whereas Podhoretz focuses on the present and looks ahead to the rest of the 21st Century. It's more evidence that, post-9/11, so-called liberals are rather regressive and so-called neocons are rather progressive....

When The Going Gets Tough, The Tough Get Bork

Jonah Goldberg serves up salient recollections of the demagogic obstruction of one of the most qualified men, of any philosophical stripe, from taking his rightful place on the Supreme Court -- Judge Robert Bork:

[Senate Judiciary Comittee member Ted] Kennedy’s assault rallied left-wing interest groups to the anti-Bork banner for an unprecedented assault on a man liberal Supreme Court Justice Warren Berger dubbed the most qualified nominee he’d seen in his professional lifetime. As Gary McDowell noted recently in the Wall Street Journal, that time span included the careers of Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black and Felix Frankfurter.

* * *
His supreme jurisprudence may have been thwarted, but his cultural influence can still be felt. JMK highly recommends Robert Bork's Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline.

Memo To Conservatives: Avoid Ad Feminam Attacks Against Ms. Rodham Clinton

* Updated (10/23) * HRC's pollster boasts that 1/4 of GOP women will vote for her.
.

This past weekend TAPPED blogger Kate Sheppard reacted to something I've sensed from the very outset of Ms. Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign: ad feminam attacks against the former First Lady do nothing to engage the left nor (more importantly) the middle during the long, rhetorical slogfest underway between now and November 4, 2008. Here Sheppard is less than impressed with talkradio personality Mark Levin for having dubbed Ms. Rodham Clinton "Her Thighness."

As matters of principle and strategy, conservatives should not dismiss Sheppard's complaint. Principle, because the candidate needs to be confronted on her record; strategy, because "ideologically moderate white women" just might hold the key to the White House. Indulging a conservative chuckle now could easily lead to hearing the roar of many a woman voter later. For believe it or not, as this poll suggests, Ms. Rodham Clinton could (if only by default) prove "a uniter, not a divider." Then again, if we grant that a woman deserves to be respected for her mind, we should also insist that a woman be disrespected for her mind, if she so deserves....

For my part I prefer more substantive and slyly argumentative epithets to demolish the polished artifice of "Hillary," such as "the junior senator from New York," or "the Shady Lady," or "Madame Macbeth." Or as I once quipped here:

Oh, and I was going to have some comments about that other Democratic presidential candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton, but it turns out that under a Rodham Clinton Administration, you could be audited by the IRS if you use the word "dyke."

.
Previous:
"Excuse Me? God Has Summoned Hillary Rodham Clinton?"
"Southpaw Hillary Throws A Sucker Punch"
"C'mon Hillary, It's Chinatown"
.

Rudy's Rumbles Felt On The Left

* Update *(10/19) * Daniel Pipes clarifies his departures from the Bush Administration's policies in "Giuliani's Fresh Start": I twice voted enthusiastically for George W. Bush, am proud to have been his nominee [to the United States Institute of Peace] in 2003, and predict historians will rate his presidency a success. But presenting Rudy Giuliani and his advisors as Bush administration clones is nonsense. News magazines might consider doing some research before spouting off.
.

A prospective Giuliani nomination means a commitment to continue and refine the Bush Doctrine, to pursue a forward military and ideological strategy against Islamofascism. Unfortunately liberal opinion makers are viewing this with alarm. Scott Lemieux at The American Prospect's blog TAPPED quotes Matthew Yglesias, Joshua Michael Marshall, and Matthew Duss on the matter. In "STOP RUDY" Lemieux makes a hanky-grabbing point about the truly catastrophic foreign policy Giuliani would likely pursue were he to succeed at being elected, a policy that would kill millions of people. Makes me want to grab a hanky all right, and wipe a nether region with it.

Remember Noam Chomsky's October 2001 slander that invading Afghanistan would lead to genocide? Chomsky, it says in that link (scroll down), warned that millions would die within the next couple of weeks. I recall Norman Finkelstein's radio remarks in March 2003 comparing the imminent invasion of Iraq to Hitler's invasion of Poland. Yet supposedly mainstream liberal pundits think this way -- their talking points derive from the extreme left (and the Jewish extreme left, at that). Lemieux goes on to finger Giuliani's brain trust as the culprit in the persons of Daniel Pipes, who braves implacable Islamic ideology (at home even more than abroad), and Norman Podhoretz, who consistently rectifies the errors of contemporary American liberalism, most recently in World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism. (WWIV reviewed here: "a bracing read, and a necessary one.")

Lemieux also poo-poos Giuliani's lack of foreign policy experience. As if Ms. Rodham Clinton has a competitive resume to put forward in that department. And as if her brief and undistinguished Senate career weren't made possible, arguably, by the prostate cancer that forced Giuliani in 2000 to stand down from a head-to-head contest with her for the seat.

The left's stubborn refusal to concede hawkish Jewish-Americans a place at the table, to consider the grave process by which they (we) have arrived at our convictions, has been and stands to remain the death knell (morally, if not always electorally) of the Democratic Party. Just ask Joe Lieberman -- and Rudy Giuliani.

.
Previous: "Giuliani In San Francisco And His 12 (13?) Commitments For America"

More Left-Wing Incitement To Assault Right-Wing Personalities

Web site not only urges, but offers $1,000 to anyone who assaults Ann Coulter.
Found via Kevin McCullough.

Previous: "A Pie For A Pie Only Makes Whole World Blind, Deaf, Dumb"

How To Talk Back To Liberals And Conservatives (When You Must)

The following is an excerpt from Ann Coulter's new book, which could have been called How To Talk Back To Liberals And Conservatives (When You Must), but which instead is called If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans:

Liberals’ response to unbridled right-wing speech makes the Muslims look laid back. Reacting with stupefied indignation whenever someone disagrees with them—especially in a way that makes people point and laugh at liberals—they seem to be in a constant state of outrage. Liberals, and the conservatives who fear them, have a look of perpetual outrage, kind of the way Nancy Pelosi has a look of perpetual surprise.

About twice a year for nearly a decade, I have upset the little darlings with some public statement, and yet they manage to summon fresh outrage for each new offense. Each time they think I can’t “sink any lower”—I proceed to do so! And by the way, if they’re going to keep using the tired formulation “This time, she’s gone too far!”—can I get an admission that the last sixteen times were, therefore, not “too far”?

I’m almost at the point that I could put together an entire speech containing only lines that make liberals cry. It would be a rather disjointed speech, involving references to Muslims, Katie Couric, Bill Clinton, Max Cleland, Muslims again, Norman Mineta, Justice Stevens, the Jersey Girls, more on the Muslims, Jack Murtha, John Edwards, still more on the Muslims, and Lincoln Chafee—among many others.

To compensate for all the Republicans who go supine at the sound of liberal squalling, I would include a short section in my speech on Strom Thurmond’s contributions to America. I’d fire some of Bush’s U.S. attorneys. I’d have a few jokes about Abu Ghraib—which I think I’m entitled to. I suffered more just listening to the endless repetition of those Abu Ghraib stories than the actual inmates ever did. Then I would wrap it up by laughingly referring to a liberal in the audience as a “macaca.”

Of course, if I start going around making disjointed speeches that make liberals cry, Barack Obama might accuse me of stealing his act.

Liberal hysteria about conservative speech always follows the same pattern; I call it “The Five Stages of Conservative Enlightenment.” There are public denunciations, demands for apologies, letter-writing campaigns, attacks on the sources of your income, and calls for censorship. There will be lots of wailing, but no facts refuting the point behind your hysteria-inducing statement. Liberals prefer denouncing people with idioms—over the top, gone too far, crossed the line, beyond the pale—not substance. Whose line? Whose pale? It almost makes you think they don’t want to talk about the substance.
.

Video: This is the funniest book you've ever done. -- Sean Hannity
.

Gay Marriage and The Constitution

Here's The Guy From Boston considering the question of gay marriage before the Constitution -- the U.S.S. Constitution, that is.

The reasoning could be tweaked just a little, but it sums up my feelings.

Schnitt Listed

Last weekend JMK's August 16 post advertising Islamo Fascism Awareness Week (Oct. 22-26) was linked by Todd Schnitt. Todd (or "MJ") is Clear Channel radio's popular talk show personality in the morning and afternoon drivetime slots in the Tampa/St. Pete, Miami, Charleston, Biloxi, and Birmingham markets.

Thanks, Todd, for sending readers this way. May it send more college students to Islamo Fascism Awareness week, and may this mention send more listeners your way. (ftr, "Schnitt List" is his phrase, not mine.)

See also: The Schnitt Show's "Global Warming Files"

Dick Comes Clean About Hillary's Stains

There is no question [Hillary Rodham Clinton] had her eye on public office, as opposed to service, long ago.
-- Dick Morris, campaign manager of Bill Clinton's 1996 re-election

.
Some of the most reliable "Hillary watchers" are ex-Clintonistas, perhaps none more than Dick Morris. Read Dick fisk a five-minute Hillary campaign video -- of husband Bill Clinton going to bat for "Madame Macbeth":

Bill says: Hillary could have written her own job ticket, but she turned down all the lucrative job offers.

The true facts are:  She flunked the DC bar exam and only passed the Arkansas bar. She had no job offers in Arkansas and only got hired by the University of Arkansas Law School at Fayetteville because Bill was already teaching there. She only joined the prestigious Rose Law Firm after Bill became Attorney General and made partner only after he was elected Governor.

Read it all.

Blog Fest West Only Ten Days Away

The 18th. Mark it and make it. More info here.

As Congress's Approval Ratings Tank ... Ask GOPublius, Ask Lew, Ask Jackie

GOPublius sees in it a boon for Republicans, while Lew at Right in a Left World urges popular political reinvigoration to thwart Democrats' machinations -- now that they supposedly have Karl Rove's playbook.

* * *

And now ... a few words ... from Jackie Mason:

Giuliani In San Francisco And His 12 (13?) Commitments For America

* Update (07/25) : Welcome, Pajamas Media readers. *

* Update: Giuliani and Dennis Prager discuss the Democrats' latest presidential debate *

Yesterday myself and some other "9/11 Neocons" attended Rudy Giuliani's appearance before 150 supporters in San Francisco. The SF Chronicle's coverage, despite the facts related, showed itself again as a rather obfuscating liberal media tool ("Giuliani, in S.F., blasts Democrats as 'defeatists'"; H/T Dave R.). Contrary to what the Chron grudgingly reported, Giuliani's address was genial, relaxed, and substantive. He peppered an at times technocratic talk on energy independence with all-American anecdotes and metaphors, striking a balance between the avuncular and the authoritative.

To start, Giuliani pulled out a card with his "12 Commitments" campaign theme printed on it. Affecting humility, he said that, not being as competent as God, he needed 12 (not 10) principles by which to govern. (He made only one other reference to God -- during his concluding statement about what a gift it is to live in America -- striking a moderate but clear tone on a vital subject.) For anyone who finds contemporary American culture "dysfunctional," this campaign theme recalls the self-reliant 12 steps of popular self-help programs. Simple and strategic.

The emphasis of Giuliani's talk was not to "blast" Democrats but to set in motion an incremental overhaul of American energy policy that does not toe the "global warming" political line and is integrated with a larger strategy to defeat totalitarian Muslims. He referred to a "tag team" of presidents, from Eisenhower through Nixon, who determined to and then delivered on their promise to put an American on the moon. He spoke in detail about the untapped possibilities of ethanol, coal, nuclear, and wind & solar energies, introducing terms like "carbon sequestration" and professing his readiness to extend federal subsidies to businesses that develop these resources. And Giuliani insisted that there can be no success without benchmarks, examples of which he suggested. This is the kind of constructive (not destructive) criticism for which during the '04 campaign I turned to the Democrats and came away largely disappointed.

Striving for Kennedyesque vision and Trumanesque humility, the ex-Democrat Giuliani appealed, first to Republicans, and -- if the MSM would permit it -- to voters of both parties to significantly alter the economic and environmental direction of the country. Just don't count on the Chron if you want to learn about this.
.

Republicans are going to have to work very hard for recognition of their leadership on where environmental rubber meets the road to crushing Islamic totalitarianism. Earlier this month I attended a talk by Clint Wilder, co-author of The Clean Tech Revolution (as of today ranked #1661 on Amazon). During the Q&A I asked him to identify, in terms of his thesis, which presidential contenders were worth watching. John Edwards was the only name he put forward (without offering specifics). When phrasing my question I introduced that Newt Gingrich had a book due out soon, A Contract With The Earth. If Mr. Wilder had any knowledge of this, however, he sat on it. My guess is that this influential author is behind the curve on Republican environmental initiatives.

Another notable moment was when Giuliani insisted on the importance of calling Islamic terrorists "Islamic terrorists" -- and on calling out the Democratic contenders for ignoring our gravest reality. For this the hero of 9/11 is now being targeted, as Pamela blogs, by the Council on American-Islamic Relations. (Note the heated comments in Pamela's post, btw.) For my part, I was preparing to press Giuliani to make a similar "commitment" to set "benchmarks" regarding citizenship for immigrants -- in particular, Muslim immigrants -- but unfortunately the Q&A time ran out and my question remained unasked. This is a question that has to be put to the entire GOP field -- not just to Giuliani -- again and again until they start coming up with answers.

Certain Giuliani supporters, enthused to see Their Guy in person, prefaced their questions with, "When you're president..." or "President Giuliani...." Yet when shopping around for a presidential candidate we shouldn't look for one to come up with all the right answers, nor falsely praise one who might seem to do so. This temptation is real and ever-present. Instead what we should do is insist that our presidential candidates ask the right questions. Asking some of the right questions is what Giuliani has set out, at this still early stage of the campaign season, to do.

* * *

From time to time my "9/11 Neocon" comrades and I checked over our shoulders in case any camouflaged Code Pinkos might pop up and pull any stunts. Turns out we weren't far off the mark: that day they were bare-breastedly besieging Hillary's brand new local headquarters.

Afterwards some of us went out for eats at The Sabra Grill, San Francisco's premier (probably only) glatt kosher downtown restaurant. Because we'd been spared the Code Pinko prank, our appetites fortunately were in good form.

Victor Hanson Fisks Every Single Word Of NY Times Editorial Demanding Immediate US Withdrawal From Iraq

.Every single word.
.(H/T Seraphic Secret)

Dennis Prager: "America Needs a Fourth of July Seder"

National memory dies without national ritual. And without a national memory, a nation dies. That is the secret at the heart of the Jewish people's survival that the American people must learn if they are to survive....

Dennis's entire piece available here.

Coulter Blows Her Nose With Liz Edwards's Hankie

Ann responds to Liz here, in one part, quoting Democrat strategist Bob Shrum in his new book, No Excuses:

[Kerry] was even queasier about Edwards after they met. Edwards had told Kerry he was going to share a story with him that he'd never told anyone else — that after his son Wade had been killed, he climbed onto the slab at the funeral home, laid there and hugged his body, and promised that he'd do all he could to make life better for people, to live up to Wade's ideals of service. Kerry was stunned, not moved, because, as he told me later, Edwards had recounted the same exact story to him, almost in the exact same words, a year or two before — and with the same preface, that he'd never shared the memory with anyone else. Kerry said he found it chilling, and he decided he couldn't pick Edwards unless he met with him again.

Previous: "Boo Frickin' Hoo, Liz"

Boo Frickin' Hoo, Liz

* Updated *

(7/4) Brent Bozell: "Elizabeth Edwards Favors 'Rage'"
(7/1) "Edwards Eye For The Straight Guy"
(6/28) The AP  does the Edwards' and DNC's dirty work, gets fisked (see below)
.

This is news?

Yesterday Elizabeth Edwards publicly appealed to Ann Coulter to stop couching political criticism of her and her family in the form of personal attacks. She appealed as the mother and the wife that she is, although not as the lawyer and seasoned national campaigner that she is -- and as the First Lady that she would like very much to become.

Contending that Coulter's criticisms diminish the level of political debate, Edwards attempted to single out one of the most -- perhaps the most -- widely-read and influential political satirist of our generation for being better at what she does than just about everyone else in the business. As usually happens when she's on the MSM's hot seat, Ann's ripostes were downplayed or ignored.
.
Let's get a few things straight, Liz:

* Ann's a satirist -- she does what she does with humor, hyperbole, and invective. That's her job, her duty, her calling, her raison d'ecrire.

* Ann's not running for office, doesn't hold office, has never held office. She has no real, enforceable political power -- not the kind of power that you and your husband are seeking and have already (during his term as Senator) enjoyed. Your style and your ruses should be of more concern to the public than Ann's, starting with your soft Southern voice whose posed politeness positions itself as if beyond reproach. I didn't describe your face in a previous post as "equal parts Mona Lisa and Joseph Stalin" for nothing.

* The faggot "rehab" joke from last March, the one referencing your husband, was a deft comic intervention having to do with the (ab)use of language and with shabby moral standards that permit a self-incriminating gay-hater (actor Isaiah Washington) to skirt the consequences of his actions by trying to pin the blame on "alcoholism." (Mark Foley did something similar when his sins went public. Both stink for it.) But a conservative who draws attention to the general state of our political culture can't count on receiving even-handed treatment alongside a liberal who appeals for sympathy when it's suggested he shares traits with one or another "identity group" -- can she?

* Since you don't like the attacks Ann directs at you and your family, Liz, you're demanding she perform her punditry as if strict laws against libel existed here in the U.S. the way they do, say, in Great Britain. Those laws don't exist here, not because our political culture presumes we will conduct ourselves with the restraints they impose. Those laws don't exist here so that we are free to act without their restraints. I venture that if American libel laws so permitted, you'd leap at the chance to try Ann in court. But you can't try her in court, so you're attempting to try her in the court of public opinion.

* Earlier this year when career leftwing pundit Molly Ivins died -- Molly Ivins, who had pilloried the president in two bestsellers, Shrub: The Short But Happy Political Life of George W. Bush and Bushwhacked -- Molly Ivins, who succumbed to breast cancer, which you've been diagnosed with -- Bush made sure to praise her quick wit and her commitment to her political beliefs, to the point where they would be missed (!). The target of Ivins's calls for impeachment said that he respected her convictions, her passionate belief in the power of words, and her ability to turn a phrase. Liz, if you and your husband think you have what it takes to be presidential, take a cue from someone who has experience at it.
.
Previous:
"'Ann of Arc' and 'International Ann Coulter Day'"
"Elizabeth Edwards Awareness Month"

Related:
Josef K's 8-minute video deploring John Edwards's epithet "bumper sticker" to describe the war on terror.

.
* Update *

The MSM is as boring as it is annoying.

The AP's Nedra Pickler gets a byline for reporting Coulter's suggestion that she wished [Edwards] would be "killed in a terrorist assassination plot." and that this supposed incivility is directly boosting contributions to the Edwards campaign.

The AP glosses over the fact that Ann did not express a specific desire of hers that Edwards be assassinated. While referring to specific, demonstrated desires by those who so loathe the Bush Administration that its officials be assassinated, she implied clearly that should she demonstrate such a desire towards a Democrat she would, in terms of precedent, be doing nothing out of place or egregious. She did so to make a sarcastic point that surpasses the limits of what our current political culture permits (or does not permit) her (or anyone) to say when criticizing John Edwards, but which it permits in criticsms of Dick Cheney and of the president.

Expressed desires to assassinate have become so common in our political culture that the MSM  -- those paid professionals who set, or should set, our political culture's tone -- routinely ignore them as unworthy of scrutiny or censure. Assassination desires against this Bush Administration have been extolled as cinema and as rap music and have been attempted at least twice by real terrorists, as well as by the one who tried to have an ex-president (this president's father) assassinated. No doubt they will be expressed by those who would like to see the next and/or soon-to-be former President of the United States assassinated, regardless of his (or her) political party.

While drawing sensational attention to herself, Ann was also calling substantive attention to our political culture. It's one that has allowed the expression of such -- not just criminal but evil -- desires to become acceptable. Regardless of the direction in which her invective was aimed, she was giving active expression to the passive frustration people of all political stripes feel at an American political culture which has forsaken its obligation to identify and insist upon such standards -- standards which should hold for all of the people all of the time.

It's unfortunate that liberals can't get (let alone enjoy) the humor in Ann's recent defense of herself and her work. Even President Bush from time to time laughs at himself in front of liberals, including when he's sitting at the same table as his most dogged critics. There just seems to be no point in sharing humor with liberals. As Christopher Hitchens has said, if you have to explain why it's funny, then it's no longer a joke.

After throwing their remote controls at their TV sets and after electronically donating to the Edwards campaign, liberals should thank Ann for her dedication (no matter how ironically, provocatively, and even negatively expressed) to fairness, intelligence, and morality in American politics -- specifically in American political commentary and even more specifically in the MSM.

If the Edwards campaign is so lagging in fundraising that it has to rely on compromised reporting about Ann Coulter for cash influxes, how tired and exhausted must it be? Yowza! Yowza! Yowza! They shoot silky ponies -- I mean, horses -- don't they?

Were Orwell alive today, would he shake Ann Coulter's hand? Of course not! He'd be too busy applauding her.

Oh! And I was going to have some comments about that other Democratic presidential candidate,  Hillary Rodham Clinton, but it turns out that were she to become president you might expect to be audited by the IRS if you use the word "dyke."

"Fear Is A Complete Waste Of Time" - Tony Snow

Blogbuddy GM Roper was contacted last year by Tony Snow after GM revealed, bravely and humbly, that he'd been diagnosed with cancer. GM reposted the email on his site, which Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) linked to, and which Michael Barone (USN&WR) has linked to. Now Tony has revealed that his cancer has returned.

.
GM, Tony, Glenn, and Michael are four of the classiest guys you'll ever come across -- in this case, where the blogs, the MSM, and even the White House meet.

.
Previous on GM:

"Tune In Online To Hear 'The Polar Express'"
"Kids"

Stormin' Norman's New Novel

Self-described "Left Conservative" Norman Mailer has a hefty new novel out which speculates that incest, molestation, and (other) child abuse turned Adolf Hitler into Adolf Hitler. When Debbie Schlussel heard about The Castle in the Forest, she shot it down in six words:

Pop psychobabble absolves the H0locaust!? OY.

.
Ow!
.

Now while I haven't read TCITF and am not going to for a while (certainly not before it appears in paperback), I don't grudge Stormin' Norman for trying figure out Little Adolf. Having already come out with his "Jesus novel" -- reinterpreting Christ seems to be a late-career project of at least a few left-leaning novelists (Kazantzakis, Saramago) -- there can't be that many subjects left which Norman Mailer finds compelling. Still, my gut reaction to hearing about this project was little more than a shrug.

.
As I wrote in the comments at Debbie's post (only slightly modified here):

.
[Mailer's] intellect will roam, but rarely will it hit home.

[Although Jewish himself,  his] protagonists typically are anything but Jewish, or else only partly or vaguely so (as in An American Dream and Harlot's Ghost). They are obsessed with power, whether political or interpersonal (esp. between men & women), usually both. All this describes Adolf Hitler to a tee. Now that I think about it, I'm surprised Norman never got around to Adolf before.

Writing about Hitler's childhood is curious but not brave. Nor is it necessarily relevant, certainly not in terms of the "great American novel" expectation that has trailed Mailer around throughout his career:

1) Hitler's dead and gone.

2) Fascism is less an enemy of liberal democracy than the many varieties of socialism (Baathist, Castroite, Chavista, Sandinista, and of course, the academic kind).

In brief, Adolf Hitler was more of a genius -- and more evil -- than Norman Mailer ever was or will be. And that may make Norman jealous.

.
The sequel to Harlot's Ghost -- that's his next, and possibly last, novel to which I'm looking forward.

To begin to figure out Stormin' Norman, Gentle Reader, (let alone Little Adolf), I direct you to how nearly 25 years ago James Baldwin summed up his wayward old friend. Norman stopped being a writer, he said, and became a celebrity. And that, I believe, refers to the Norman Mailer of nearly 50 years ago.

OY! and OW!

And you know just how suspect fame is to JMK.

Previous: "' The Last 4th of the 20th Century" or, Storming Stormin' Norman Mailer"

Chillin', Not Trillin (No. 5) - "Ann of Arc"

I was going to have a few comments on Ann Coulter, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you compare an American conservative to anything French.

.

Ann Coulter these days reminds me of Joan of Arc, to wit:
.
Ann of Arc

In a land overrun by foreign enemies ... divided within ...
she's the bravest warrior to appear in generations ...
inspiring thousands to battle ...
and victory.

Then she's betrayed by her own people ...
put on trial for heresy ...
convicted ... condemned ...
and publicly executed on a pile of faggots.

.
* * *

And now, a public service announcement and station identification politics....

.
It's a subject "polite" people don't talk about, but every 11 seconds in America a woman thinks Well-behaved women rarely make history. A woman can think about making history anywhere, anytime: at home, work or school ... in a back alley or bedroom ... behind closed doors or in the great outdoors.

Often a woman thinks about making history in the presence of a man she knows intimately. It can be her husband, boyfriend or even another family member. Only a fraction of the times after a woman thinks about making history does she ever tell anyone about it. A woman who thinks about making history might spend the rest of her life burdened or even consumed by intense feelings of shame, inadequacy, and rage. And studies show that thinking about making history damages not just the woman who thinks, but all her relationships. Everyone is affected when a woman thinks about making history.

But there's hope. Thanks to the courageous efforts of many women (and men), today all across America women are no longer just thinking about making history. Women are talking about and women are making history. Now. More than ever.

The next time a woman thinks about making history in America -- the next time a woman makes history in America -- what are you going to do about it?

.
* * *

I have pre-dated this post for March 8 in honor of International Women's Day Ann Coulter.

Fox News Channel recently rolled out the 1/2 Hour News Hour featuring her as vice president. So far, so good. I dare Fox and the Rightosphere to take it to the next level by declaring

March 2: "International Ann Coulter Day"

Lenny Bruce was reincarnated as a shicksa Republican goddess and career conservatives can't deal with it. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, George Will.

Ann, you are right, it was an excellent joke. Thanks for beginning "the conversation"!

* * *

Rehab "a total indulgence," says American Idol judge.

From George Bernard Shaw's introduction to his play Saint Joan (which I read in high school and out of which copied the following into my diary): The test of sanity lies not in the normality of the methods, but in the reasonableness of the discovery.

Edwards "kind of cute." -- Barack Obama

* * *

Oh, and I was going to have a few comments about the other Democratic presidential candidate, Ms. Rodham Clinton, but it turns out that under a Hillary Administration you could be audited by the IRS if you use the word "dyke."
-- JMK

Whither Israel?

FrontPage Magazine's "Symposium" series presents some of the best news analysis in the blogosphere. Today's discussion brings together Rael Jean Isaac, Caroline Glick, David Keyes, Kenneth Levin, P. David Hornik, and Jamie Glazov to discuss "Israel's Test."

Oscar Mild - A Quick Fisk Of TNR's Oscar Blog

*Updates (2/28) * "The movie magic is gone," says LA Times;  McCain announces on Letterman (confirms my digs at Gore (below))

Today at AmThink Cinnamon Stillwell has an article up lamenting the ho-hum partisanship of this past Sunday's Oscar ceremonies. She calls them "an orgy of liberal self-congratulation" for having extolled and propagated their versions of diversity and environmentalism.

While not breaking ranks with Oscar's cultural commissars, the The New Republic manages to acknowledge, inadvertently at times, some of the ceremonies' glaring flaws and peculiarities. Here are a few fisked posts from its blog series Oscar Wild!:
.
David Thomson states the obvious in the inappropriately named "Patriotic Gore":

The Academy made it very clear last night that they want Al Gore to run.... If you were crazy (and I think we have to admit that a lot of us are), you were even prepared for Gore to announce that he was running last night, there and then, on the spur of the moment. But Al rides without spurs.

And truth to tell, he looks more and more as if his personal campaign to save us from hot gases is to inhale as many of them as possible. [emphasis added] Last night he seemed to be wearing a tuxedo that used to be reserved for Orson Welles. So he joshed us about running and looks completely out of shape. I take that as the surest sign that he is not competing.... But being edgy and rivalrous was never quite his thing. And he plainly reckons that to declare your candidacy at the Academy Awards is simply too vulgar for words. He's that out of touch--he doesn't see that our fear of vulgarity is melting quicker than the ice floes.

In fact, had Gore announced then and there it woudn't have been vulgar -- it would have been savvy and historical. It also would have been a massive, indirect fundraising pitch. Remember when Schwarzenegger announced his campaign for California governor on The Tonight Show? The future Governator sure overcame any so-called "fear of vulgarity" on that sound stage. Fortunately, Arnold knows some things about acting and producing, and crowd-pleasing and competing, which the former Vice President does not.

Henry Riggs plays the race card (nationality card?) with "The Year of the Mexican": I wouldn't vote for an anti-immigration candidate, and I wouldn't shake hands with Tom Tancredo. But those people are out there, and they aren't doing too badly for themselves these days. Hollywood knows this, and I think that Hollywood, for once, is right.... What nationality is more lefty chic right now than Mexicans? If Oscar voters want to scratch that political protest itch, some or all of these Mexican nominees may benefit.

That's "anti-illegal immigration" to you, buddy.... If Hollywood is right this time, then please say in what areas you think it's wrong.... Lastly, name names: Will you state for the record what other nationalities are "lefty chic" right now? Thank you, btw, for admitting that awards are handed out as expressions of political or multicultural sentiment, as opposed to artistic merit.

David Thomson calls The Lives of Others -- a drama about East Germany's massive and repressive police-state apparatus (and the winner for Best Foreign Film) -- "The Real Best Film of '06" because it's an American film in anticipation. He pegs it as a parable for what the United States is allegedly turning into. Ja wohl!

Isaac Chotiner bemoans the utter lack of good, middlebrow films by asking "Where Have All The Good Movies Gone?" Yet he refuses to provide the obvious answer: that diversity of professed political opinions -- or better yet, the absence of professed political opinions -- would force filmmakers to focus exclusively ... (Think, think!) ... on filmmaking.

.
As Sam Goldwyn used to say, "If you want to send a message, call Western Union." We need Sam now more than ever.

Dennis Miller - Comedian Pundit

* Update 2/18 * "I Got Hate Mail!"

Ever since he hit the bigtime on Saturday Night Live, I always thought Dennis Miller was ... ok. Consistent and punchy, if not riproaringly funny. There's an abrasive side to him, too, which doesn't really win me over and which, frankly, I chalked up to him being short. (Short guys who get ahead in life learn early on to fight for attention, turf, the limelight, etc.) So when he moved into football broadcasting I was surprised but also impressed. It showed he was curious and hungry, as well as multi-talented. What next? I wondered.

Since 9/11 Dennis Miller's become an outspoken celebrity supporter of a forward, aggressive, American posture toward engaging Islamic terror. It's completely changed the way I see him. Now I appreciate his abrasiveness and punchiness like never before. With those, he boils down his message to some of the shortest and funniest sound bites around. Here's a clip of his recent remarks on Bank of America, Rudy Giuliani, and Anna Nicole Smith.

Bushwhipped

From today's New York Times obit of syndicated left-wing columnist and best-selling author Molly Ivins:

On Wednesday night, President Bush issued a statement that said he “respected her convictions, her passionate belief in the power of words, and her ability to turn a phrase.” Mr. Bush added:   “Her quick wit and commitment to her beliefs will be missed.”

Molly Ivins was one of the Bush Admninistration's most aggressive enemies. For years the author of Shrub and Bushwhacked not just criticized the administration and its policies but openly mocked Bush's person. She was a female Michael Moore (albeit with a bigger vocabulary and a few more degrees to her name). Her fan club, if she has one, could be called "Code Ink."

So what did the president (or his handlers) possibly convince himself he would gain by issuing such a bland and expansive encomium? Because you don't praise people who despise you: they only despise you even more. You are dumb, George. We all know it. (You're not all dumb, but you are really dumb on this one, this time around.)

When Sparks Fly

This post is a nod to at least one loyal JMK reader, D-----, who can't stand Ann Coulter's reputation. (She says she can't stand Ann Coulter, but admits she's never read her. Whatever.)

.
One of JMK's favorite pundits, Chris Hitchens, lights into another of JMK's favorite pundits, Ann Coulter, in his review of her bestselling Godless (linked at the end of this post). I happily own and have gratefully studied several of her titles, Slander, Treason, and How To Talk To A Liberal (If You Must), all of which I recommend. I'm not entirely down with Godless, though. I browsed it in the store, but passed, not being hungry for arguments in favor of Intelligent Design (or rather, arguments against arguments against I.D.). I enjoy the many thrilling mysteries that come with considering both the theory of evolution and the myth of creation, neither of which are fact and neither of which, imho, have to be accepted as fact.

Few can dish it out like Hitch, an atheist who has made a career as a free-swinging Trotskyist contrarian. "Trotskyist" is a term I use loosely; in his case, it's someone prepared to tell any Marxist-in-power to stuff it, as Hitch does in a 2005 debate with UK MP George Galloway. And few can take it like Ann, a conservative Christian commentator whose satirical style is simply shock and guffaw.

.
Each has acres of turf to protect, but also common ground:

Try sipping this single sentence, Hitch writes, and then rolling it around your tongue and palate for a while:

If Hitler hadn’t turned against their beloved Stalin, liberals would have stuck by him, too.

Well, I am being paid to parse and ponder that statement and I don’t understand it, either. Does it intend to say that liberals loved Hitler but drew the line at his invasion of the Soviet Union? Should it, rather, be interpreted as meaning that liberals were in love with Stalin but jumped ship when he was attacked by Hitler?....

and

If it matters, I am with her on the tepid climate of moral and political relativism which, while it wants all children to do equally well at exam time, also regards the United States as no worse than the Taliban and thus, by an unspoken logic, as no better. But a polemic against this mentality cannot really be written by a McCarthyite.
.
.
Reader D---- might agree with Hitch, although at least in Hitch's case he has read what he's criticizing. So, D---- (and every Gentle Reader), put your safety goggles on and then click over to Hitch's review.

Chris Hitchens on Free Speech and Religion

For his passionate love of the King James Version of the Holy Bible, of Thomas Jefferson, of George Orwell, and of contrarianism generally, Chris Hitchens is one of America's living treasures. He's an atheist who, for the most part, has his head screwed on right. Elementromythia links to a series of video clips of one of our contemporary masters of free thought and the English language in "'Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too.' - Voltaire."

Elizabeth Edwards Awareness Month

October must be Elizabeth Edwards Awareness Month. If only because Debbie Schlussel just made me aware of Elizabeth (i.e., Mrs. John) Edwards's new, best-selling autobiography, Saving Graces, one of whose principal themes is the author's fight against breast cancer. It's "a smokescreen," charges Ms. Schlussel, one whose realpolitik purpose is to serve as "a critical part of [her husband's] comeback strategy." I haven't yet looked inside Saving Graces, but the Detroit-based pundit makes a pointed case for not giving the book the benefit of the doubt:

[I]t will boost his standing with women and mothers who have dealt with breast cancer or seen it - everybody knows somebody who has been stricken with breast cancer. It's also a way to cover up that [John Edwards] - as a trial attorney - has been part of the problem with rising health care costs in this country.

"It's a very effective campaign strategy," said Schlussel. "And nobody can attack somebody with breast cancer."

.
While we should never judge a book by its cover, we may, for starters, judge this book's cover.

"Finding solace and strength from friends and strangers," this one offers/declares/confides. How comforting that might be to anyone who has ever longed to be saved. Saved from the ordeals of cancer, mercifully, and (noting the utter lack of context in which Mrs. Edwards's "saving graces" are posited) saved from anything else too. For the cover projects universal appeal by casting off its specific appeal, that of fight against cancer and -- as suggested by "graces" -- whatever religious conviction that fight may have instilled in or confirmed for her. It makes me think of the premise of Ann Coulter's Godless, of the liberal tendency to purge Christianity from the public realm while insinuating a stealthier, more sinister and secular version of religion. It also, frankly, leaves me with a creepy sensation that Big Sister, or Big Cancer Survivor (in any case, a face that's equal parts Mona Lisa and Joseph Stalin), is watching me.

Speaking of role models for surviving breast cancer, combative conservative commentator Laura Ingraham comes to mind. Diagnosed and treated a year and a half ago for the very same disease, Ingraham has since resumed her rounds on radio and television, including a professional tour of Iraq. She seems to have opted not to refashion her chiseled talking head into the softer face of "breast cancer survivor."

Case in point is last summer when she sported a hot pink blazer for Code Pink founder Medea Benjamin's guest appearance on Fox News Channel.

. . ...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
It was a stark visual rebuttal to the pink constantly on display by Code Pink, not to mention the ubiquitous pink ribbon featured in breast cancer "awareness" campaigns. Now that's inspirational!

.

.

.

.

.

I don't doubt that Mrs. Edwards has certain lessons to impart from her lived life. Given the ethereal packaging for what is properly a substantive genre, however, my concern is whether her autobiography contains enough lessons, and ones beneficial to the entire nation -- not just to her and her husband's political ambitions -- to justify an entire book.