Meet Your Meat...If You Dare

Feast your eyes upon the grotesque matter that is known as "mechanically separated meat". This photograph, which has gone viral over the past week or so, candidly exposes the stuff of which chicken nuggets, hot dogs, and bologna are made.

There it is, a pink, gelatinous batter, coiled soft-serve style like a freshly-minted cat turd. It looks like no poultry that I have ever seen. If chickens were intelligent beings, they would look at this pasty, pink mush and wonder how it ever could have been recognizably one of their own. Then they might compare its makers with Hitler and call for a coalition of the willing to end this monstrous practice.

I wouldn't blame them. I am a proponent of eating meat, and veganism/animal rights activism pisses me off. However, the photograph above is a damning indictment of just how low our nutrition standards have become. If you want chicken, eat chicken. Don't eat hardened chicken glue.

Apparently, there was once something called "mechanically separated beef" as well. It is now illegal to produce such beef products due to health regulations. If mechanically separated beef is illegal, then the legally acceptable chicken-stuff must not be terribly far behind on the unhealthiness scale.

For having such a high standard of living, Americans sure do love to eat shit. No wonder our national waistline is expanding.

The Katy Perry and Elmo Controversy

Last week, the producers of Sesame Street engaged in a strange, uncommon practice. They censored Sesame Street. Apparently, a clip of Elmo cavorting with auto-tuned pop singer Katy Perry was deemed "inappropriate" due to Ms. Perry's bare legs and her revealing, skimpy party dress.

The clip in question is on YouTube, of course. Wave after wave of sympathetic comments have been posted, with thousands of people decrying those damned, Fascist pigs over at the Children's Television Workshop for prudishly ripping Perry's play date with Elmo off the air.

It's an innocent little number, for the most part. At the 1:42 mark, the laws of physics create an effect that cannot be ignored and lasts for a good ten seconds. There's your controversy, right there. I doubt it was intentional. (Also, freeze the video at the 1:35 mark for a humorous, telling image.)

However, I find it odd that Katy Perry was invited on in the first place. Other guests stars over the years could be called controversial as well, but Perry is a singularly sexualized figure. She of "I Kissed a Girl and I Liked It" fame would seem an unlikely choice for a program that teaches 5 year old kids how to spell. Parents that are uncomfortable with this are not unreasonable. Maybe next time, they can have Pink sing "Just Like a Pill" and teach Elmo about attention-seeking suicide attempts.

For what it's worth, Perry herself has gone on Saturday Night Live wearing a tight, low-cut Elmo shirt, spoofing the situation with exaggerated risque humor. Otherwise, she hasn't lashed out at the Sesame Street producers yet, which is a relief.

Perhaps this could have been nipped in the bud by a more intelligent guest casting director, or by a better costume designer. Regardless, it has now become a rallying point for those who believe that any sort of attempt to guard the eyes of children is the work of puritanical, paranoid maniacs.

It's not so much Perry's party dress (and her ample, wobbly pectoral region) that is the problem, nor is the clip itself a work of pornographic subversiveness. The problem is that parents should be able to monitor their children's television intake without accusations of fascist, puritanical intent. Also, Sesame Street ought to exhibit better judgment in guest stars. When you invite a pop singer who sells her sexuality as a major part of her brand, you are inviting this kind of trouble.

Returning to Form/Forming a Return

It has been months since I posted anything on this blog. There are several reasons for this, not the least of which is that I got married recently. Planning such an event consumes mental energy among other things.

I also stopped posting partly because the "Spirit of 76'" motif that I was utilizing did not serve me well. One day last spring, something occurred to me: politics don't matter, and I have nothing to say about them. At least, not on a regular basis.

This new worldview of mine is rooted in the fact that certain political outcomes seem to be unavoidable even in the face of popular opposition and supposed procedural impossibility. Yes, I am talking about the universal health care bill. I was led to believe that Senator Scott Brown would be "the final vote that would destroy health care". Hence, I drove through a rainstorm to vote for him. Lo, and behold, the bill somehow passed regardless. Who knows what back-alley arm-twisting, threats, and probably-illegal conspiring went into turning the president's certain failure on this issue into a success? Does anyone think it is odd that this bill, once dead in the water, somehow passed?

The experience made me realize that we, as citizens, have absolutely no control over anything that politicians do. Therefore, politics, just like weather, traffic, and natural disasters, are a part of the human experience that we must navigate and negotiate without any hope of changing them for the better.

As a result, why blog about politics? Blogging about politics has become about as useful and interesting as blogging about weather or traffic patterns. To do so occasionally might provoke interest, but to do so constantly will only provoke boredom. We seem fated to slave away under the inept dictatorship of a pack of several hundred suit-wearing numb-skulls, led by a charlatan-in-chief. Heath Ledger's Joker was right: it's all part of the plan. Even once-appreciable members of the opposition have either disappointed me with compromise (Senator Brown) or have become cartoonish, bloated versions of themselves, amping up their rhetoric without much subtlety or effect (Sarah Palin).

What else, then, ought I discuss? There is plenty else. And though I have no faith in politics anymore, I will still return to it occasionally. Politics is not good for one's daily diet. Yet a few political calories might go down nicely occasionally, like a fatty dessert that leaves you wishing afterward that you had not eaten it.

It must be said that political philosophy and geo-politics are far more interesting than American tabloid politics. I would rather discuss the need for stronger relations with India to counter Pakistan than the latest doings of John Edwards' mistress, of Sarah Palin's daughter, of President Obama's stupid lap dogs.

My new blog title retains my inherent old-fashioned, miserable Yankee outlook without being overtly political. Let's see how long my new experiment in blogging lasts. Perhaps it will take root, and perhaps it will be another six months before you read anything new here.

Palin on TV

Sarah Palin is going to have a TV show where she takes viewers around Alaska and shows them the wonder of it.

This is interesting. Is Sarah ruling out any further political ambitions? Not many presidential candidates film reality television series' about their home states. Is she trying to make a buck for her family? It would be understandable, even though the result will be that she will be taken less seriously as a leader. The left-wing media outlets MSNBC and CNN will ensure that people laugh at her for this by employing the usual exagerating and fact-twisting (and if people don't laugh, then, well...MSNBC will say that they are laughing).

Huckabee's foray into TV has had some success, and now Palin is following along. Will they jump back into the political fray in 2012, or will they stay on the tube? It will be fascinating to see how their TV career choices impact their actions and decisions.

Jacksonian Democracy

Last week, I finished reading American Lion by Jon Meacham. It is a colorful and enlightening read about a fascinating man. Rather than piling on minute biographical details, Meacham strives to present Jackson's life and doings in broader terms. His book is just as concerned with American politics during the 1830s and 1840s as it is with Jackson's personal doings.

President Jackson, the sixth of our nation's chief executives, was a strange blend of southern gentleman, warlord, kindly grandfather, and violent sociopath. When he wasn't literally playing Santa Claus at Christmas, bringing bundles of presents to D.C.'s orphans, he was horsewhipping his political foes and purging the southern states of their Native American inhabitants. With one hand, he drove the Native Americans on to a western death march; with the other, he chastised big bankers in the name of making America a better place for the downtrodden.

If you consider Jackson the first modern Democratic president (I use that term loosely here), a fascinating progression can be seen. Jackson was a big-government, federally-minded ruler, who expanded executive control over the country and sought to put capitalist "fat cats" into place. His dismantling of the National Bank is an eerie forerunner to the meddlesome regulatory ways of President Obama. However, Jackson was more politically incorrect than mostly any other president in the nation's history. His Indian removals are the fodder of public school moralizing (rightfully so). He saw absolutely no value in racial equality, and considered abolitionists a danger to the country.

In addition, he believed firmly in the use of violence and force to bend and break his opponents, be they tribal, international, or personal. If Jackson didn't like you, he might just shoot you, horsewhip you, or challenge you to a duel. As an army general, he even carried out unauthorized military actions against foreign powers (imagine if General McChrystal marched into Iran and destroyed the place without consulting the White House first). The tenderness of Jackson's domestic life is almost silly in its polar opposition to his public persona.

No doubt he was a complicated man. In my opinion, he is too complicated for the age of the soundbite. That is why Meacham's book is so fascinating: ultimately, we don't know what to do with President Jackson. Progressive politics have marched so far beyond anything he could have imagined that his own Democratic successors are afraid to even mention him.

Politicians today will cite Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson, Reagan, and FDR as they try to position themselves. No one ever mentions Jackson. Libraries, colleges, and streets are named after the aforementioned, but far fewer landmarks and roadsigns bear the sixth president's name.

It is not for lack of importance that we leave him out of the presidential superstar club. In particular, Jackson left an indelible mark on the character of the executive office (one that subsequent presidents did not live up to; nobody remembers Martin Van Burn, John Tyler, or James Buchanan precisely because their vision of the presidency was less proactive than Jackson's). His use of the veto was hugely controversial in a time when American presidents were expected to let Congress do the lion's share of the governing.

Rather, it is the discomfort of his legacy that leaves Jackson on the back burner. Jackson was not unlike Obama, in that his basic governing philosophy called for massive federalization with anti-capitalist rhetoric. But you will never see Obama refer to himself as "a member of the party of Jackson". The racial and personal issues surrounding Jackson are too insurmountable.

What would Jackson think of the Democrats of today? He might be vaguely impressed with their social programming. He would also think that they were a pack of wimps, and it is not a stretch to imagine him firing pistols at them.

It is Finished

The healthcare debate is over. The quasi-socialist Democratic party is rejoicing in the orgasmic throes of victory, having successfully wrested control of the U.S. health insurance industry from the private sector. In a 219-212 vote, the healthcare bill passed. Not a single Republican voted for it.

I am in a blind rage. I can only offer my fragmented thoughts in the following paragraphs. Other more adept pundits have explicated the severity of this situation far more deeply than I ever could. I can only offer you a common man's fury.

The sheer numbers are dizzying. Over ten years, this bill will cost over $900 billion. Subsidized insurance will lead to soaring deficits and higher taxes. President Obama has consistently lied through his teeth about the economic ramifications of his pet project. Do not be taken in. You cannot spend $900 billion and claim that doing so is "deficit neutral".

It is safe to say that the United States will never again in its history be able to pay off the national deficit. We will owe other countries money until the end of our republic's existence (whenever that may be). Our inability to live within our means, and our addiction to the unfabricated concept of an all-powerful, all-helpful federal government, have brought us to this point.

Rest assured, President Obama is surely happy. He's made that quite clear, what with his arrogant, gloating pontificating: "This is what change looks like!" I agree with him. This is what his party's idea of what change looks like: ugly, divisive, inefficient, impractical, morally bankrupt. Everything about the Democrat's healthcare policymaking, from their use of bribes and kickbacks to their unfettered support of abortion, smacks of absolute moral cluelessness. They lied to the American people about the contents of the bill. They made it clear that they would pass it by any means neccesary, ignoring established procedures and the fact that only 30% of the country wanted the bill to pass. And they have disregarded the sacred desire of pro-life Americans to abstain from funding infanticide with their own tax dollars. The rape of my earnings by taxation each week is bad enough; that those dollars are now going from my paycheck to some bullshit "community health center", and ultimately to abortion providers, sickens me. The colonists rebelled against the British Empire for a hell of a lot less.

An aside to Representative Bart Stupak, the "pro-life Democrat" (there is no such thing): you, sir, are a dishonest, useless bastard. Your posturing as a pro-lifer means nothing in light of your ultimate weak capitulation to the White House. I take back every positive thing that I may have said about you. You have proven that, like every other Democrat in America, your natural sense of right and wrong is trumped by dollar signs and matters of political expediency. This is why I hate everyone of your ilk, and why I sincerely hope that the Democratic party is obliterated in November. The only good Democrat is an unseated Democrat.

In the past year Obama has directed the federal takeover of significant chunks of the U.S. banking industry, the U.S. car industry, and now the U.S. health insurance industry. When the market is bad, it's the perfect time to buy. The President has used the current economic downturn as an excuse to carry out the hyper-regulatory fantasies that Democrats have only been able to grasp at for the past fifty years.

This bill will be a massive burden on our country. Instead of real reform, we have a mere power grab. Liberals hated it when George W. Bush listened in on the phone conversations of terrorists, but they don't care about the protection of privacy when industry is concerned.

May God bless us with a repeal, whether now or some other day.

The Vote on Healthcare

Today is the day. I will say more later. For now, I merely hope this monstrosity of a bill does not pass.

Would You Wear Soda Cans In Your Hair?

Lady Gaga is now walking around with soda cans in her hair. This passes for news at 5:00 AM on a Saturday morning. I am taking this opportunity to state that Lady Gaga grosses me out and that underneath her outlandish costumes she is suprisingly...dudish.

Worse, her music. She sings, and I quote: "La la ah ah ah- ro ma, ro ma ma, ga ga ooh la la- stuck in a bad romance!"

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Why do all her songs have the same beat? No wonder people are getting progressively stupider. Their heads are being pumped full of this stuff.

Disgusting

Donna Simpson, of New Jersey, has only 400 pounds to gain before she reaches her goal of weighing in at 1000.

This is one of the saddest, most digusting things I have ever seen. Here is everything that is wrong with America: the laziness, the utter lack of moderation, the feeling of pride in one's vices, the lionizing of personal choices that ought to be seen as shameful.

Her "boyfriend" (eeeeew.......) supports this. He supports the fact that this woman is destroying herself with food. He must be one truly sick, mentally compromised son-of-a-bitch, to be frank.

And the fact that anonymous online creeps pay to watch her eat? Whoever those people are, they ought to be kept far away from the rest of civilization. This is even worse than the fact that "midget porn" exists.

Wishful Thinking

The Boston Globe says that Catholic opposition to President Obama's awful healthcare plan is "crumbling".

Bullshit. There is still an enormous number of Catholics who oppose this bill, on the grounds that it is undoubtedly going to lead to taxpayer-funded abortions.

I have more to say on this later, but know this: if the Catholic Church supports the Obama administration on this healthcare reform bill, it will reap the consequences. There will be stronger government promotion/coverage of abortion (if Obama can muscle, cheat, and lie this bill through Congress, he will surely defeat its abortion-restricting stipulations similarly). There will be a stronger Democratic party, willing to continue its march towards moral obliteration for all. And there will be an association of Catholicism with the American left that will weaken and hurt Catholicism's position opposite liberal licentiousness on many issues.

Biting the Hand That Feeds You

What the fluff? Patrick Kennedy, having ruled out reelection, went on a paradoxical House floor tirade. His target? It wasn't the GOP. Nor Scott Brown. Nor George Bush. Nor "the past eight years".

What was it? The media. Of all things, the media. The "cynical" media, as he calls "it"*. Railing against the lack of press coverage of the Afghan war, Kennedy pointed up at the gallery, shook his fist, gnashed his teeth, and decried the newsmen.

Was this a stunt? Are you kidding, Patty? The press has praised, promoted, covered for, and lied to protect the Kennedy family for 50 years. After all they have done to shield America's royalty from negative public opinion, Patrick blasted away. Left-wing reporters across the nation must be feeling as though they've been had.

This is the ultimate betrayal. In liberal eschatology, Kennedy will be in a lower circle of hell than Brutus, Cassius, and the Iscariot...and Joe Lieberman.

*One should not refer to the media as "it", since "media" is plural. The singular usage would be "medium".

Plural: The media are sadly devoted to left-wing causes.
Singular: The medium of print news is dying.

Pro-Life QB Tebow Heading to the NFL

Apparently, Heisman-winning quarterback Tim Tebow's Focus on the Family commercial during the Super Bowl isn't going to keep NFL teams from drafting him. Despite last month's whining from Planned Parenthood, Tebow will be conducting private workouts for the Buffalo Bills and Seattle Seahawks. He is expected to be taken early in the NFL draft this month.

My two cents: the Bills should sign him ASAP. They have not had much success at the quaterback position in quite some time. Stints by Doug Flutie, Drew Bledsoe, Trent Edwards, Kelly Holcomb, and J.P. Losman have all proven fruitless. Perhaps the Bills can revive their sad-sack franchise by building a team around a premiere young QB. They are in a tough division: playing the Patriots and Jets twice a year each is not easy, and adding a dominant young passer to the mix would surely make for some memorable clashes against old foes in the fall.

Tebow might just be a dream player, from a public relations standpoint. True, his pro-life views are controversial. But he's a driven, image-conscious young man, and he has shown courage by speaking his mind. Who would you rather have as the face of your team: Tim Tebow, or the party-animal/potential rapist Ben Roethlisberger? Look for some major discomfort amongst Pittsburgh Steelers players, fans, and management this year. Big Ben is a nightmare off the field and his once-promising career has almost been destroyed. Bringing in a nice, Christian guy like Tebow is safer for business, it would seem.

I intend to keep monitoring Tim Tebow on this blog. Charting the impact of his own beliefs (and the media covergae of those beliefs) on his NFL career will make for interesting study.

Publius: I Was Wrong About the Oscars

I was wrong about Scott Brown's chances and I was wrong about Avatar. It didn't win Best Picture. The Hurt Locker did, and deservingly so. I just want to be transparent on this one, so that no one can hold it over me.

Sunday was quite a big night for the Iraq War drama, as the list of winners shows. It won six trophies.

Credit where it is due: Avatar won Best Special Effects and Best Cinematography, both of which it deserved.

Also, it is worth noting that Star Trek won as Oscar (Best Makeup). Star Trek. Oscar. How strange is that?

All in all, I believe that the cause of worthwhile, engaging filmmaking won the day this time. The Hurt Locker is the first Iraq War film to strike a chord with audiences. It is well-crafted, apolitical, and thrillingly plotted.

Embarassing

The United States has apologized to terrorist-harboring dictator Muammar Gaddafi of Libya for criticizing his calls for Jihad against Switzerland.

Go ahead and click on that link. Read the story. This is one of the most humiliating and embarassing diplomatic blunders that Obama's White House has yet committed. Gaddafi's government has openly assisted terrorist groups that have killed American citizens in the past. And we are apologizing to him because we were critical of his calls for more terrorism?

If President Obama does not immediately rectify this situation, than he will cement his place the weakest, most impotent American president since Carter, as far as international relations are concerned.

Whacky PETA Activists Make Cheese From...Breastmilk???

This is one of the most bizarre and creepy things I have seen in months. PETA is trumpeting the arrival of a new kind of cheese. It is a cheese that does not involve animal dairy products. It is breast milk cheese. Luckily, this is only being done in one restaurant in New York. However, it strikes me as degrading, in light of my unshakeable belief in human exceptionalism. Mother's milk is meant for the nourishment of human infants. Shouldn't that be intuitive enough for most people?

Also, as far as sheer social niceties are concerned, can you imagine the social awkwardness and relational complications of eating something made from an adult woman's breast milk? Sorry, Katie, your stuff is okay, but I prefer the Brie. It could get awkward.

I despise PETA, and always have. Their radicalism is frightening. I would be more amenable to hearing about why KFC is evil for abusing its chickens if the people telling me about the abuse weren't a bunch of bullying, psychotic, left-wing nutjobs.

It's no secret that this group has done unsavory things. They handed out comic books to kids that proclaim Your Mommy Kills Animals. How low is that? And for a group that promotes animal rights, they sure kill a lot of animals. PETA admits to putting down critters on this awesome website, aptly titled PETA Kills Animals.

Additionally, PETA's highly sexualized ad campaigns have done more to degrade gullible, attractive women than they have to win over people's minds to the animal rights cause. When I look at PETA's materials, all I see are naked girls in cages and on billboards. Forgive me for not getting past that imagery. One recent stunt, involving a naked pregnant girl in a cage on Mother's Day, ranks as one of the least tasteful things since dead-animal jewelry hit the market.

My take: animals are made out of meat. Meat has been incredibly useful to human society. How we treat animals does say something about our own humanity (those kids who post themselves burning bunny-rabbits on YouTube are worthless hoodlums). However, animals in and of themselves do not share in our humanity. We ought to treat other creatures well because of our own dignity, not theirs.

School: "Don't Talk About Faith Here"

Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion, was promised to us by our founding fathers. The cornerstone of the American ideal is that we may pursue happiness and live without fear that our beliefs will be forcibly quashed by the authorities.

Tell that to the Wisconsin school principal who has given his Bible-reading high school student a talking to. Why? His open discussion of religion with other students was "disruptive".

Again we see that for all their talk of openness, the politically-correct are the first ones to silence those with whom they disagree. Luckily, this story has a happy ending, or at least not a negative one. The student was not officially rebuked or reprimanded.

However, it is not hard to see where an incident like this could ultimately lead. Talking about sex, drugs, and how awful George Bush was? That's fine. But talking about God? Mention Him and you'll earn you a trip to detention.

Hypocrisy

A black Tea Party protester who was selling buttons and flags outside a meeting was viciously, brutally attacked by Service Employees International Union members in Missouri last August. Today, Gateway Pundit announces that the perps will face trial.

I didn't know that this incident happened until today. Where are the cries of racism? Where is the NAACP? Why aren't the lefties speaking out on behalf of a man who was beaten, stomped on, and verbally assaulted with racist remarks simply for professing his political beliefs?

Because he disagrees with them. The left loves to talk about how it champions racial equality, but they will not raise a finger to defend a black man who opposes them. This shameful, disgusting selectivity undermines everything that liberals "stand for". Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and every other race-baiting mouth out there should be ashamed that they have let this incident pass in silence.

As for the SEIU: this incident is proof positive that big labor has still not moved away from its 1930s-style thug tactics. Union neanderthals use the same brutal tactics today that they did nearly one hundred years ago. The SEIU will do anything to stomp on those who don't enshrine the President that they stumped and cheated for.

The next time a liberal tells you that he or she supports free speech, laugh in his or her face.

Delahunt is Done

Finally. After decades of holding elected office, Rep. William Delahunt of the Massachusetts Tenth Congressional District has said that he is not seeking reelection in November.

Delahunt is not just a whiner and a spendthrift. He is possibly complicit in the cover-up of a murder or, at best, has been found to have acted negligently as a District Attorney.

Good riddance, and may another truck-driving, tax-cutting, hopefully pro-life Republican take his seat. The Scott Brown effect will hopefully continue.

The Oscars

This weekend, a band of elite, far-left personalities will get together and congratulate itself for all of its hard work in 2009. Having taken a vote amongst its members, this group will then tell the American people about how wonderful its products are and use the world stage it has erected to promote them.

No, it has nothing to do with healthcare reform. It's the Oscars, brought to you by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.

That was a cheap shot, I know, but you cannot deny that the Oscars are at least partially a political affair. In recent years, message movies like Million Dollar Baby (euthanasia = good), Brokeback Mountain (gayness = good), and Crash (racism = bad) have provoked "controversy" (I hate using that word; it's what THEY want us to say) by becoming Academy-sanctioned winners. Blowhards like Michael Moore have taken the stage at ceremonies, yelling "Shame on you, George Bush!", and the like.

To be fair, however, the Academy has also made some laudable choices in recent years that have bred public acceptance of cinematic work that might otherwise have been lost upon the masses. This, in spite of its politicking, mind you.

In 2007, the Coen brothers' bleak, bloody, philosophical adaptation of No Country For Old Men won the big prize. I can only quote the review on the back of Cormac McCarthy's paperback: it's a story "with themes as old as the Bible and as bloodily contemporary as the morning's headlines". Were I to explicate the film's value and its relevance to post-millenium America, I would be sitting here all day. Maybe it calls for its own post some time.

Also in 2007, one of my favorite films of all time was raised to prominence as a result of its many Oscar nominations. Paul Thomas Anderson's There Will Be Blood is the Citizen Kane of the 21st century, a parable on greed and personal corruption that never veers into the realm of heavy-handed, anti-capitalist tripe like so many similarly-themed pictures.

Going further back, you can't knock the academy's love for Lord of the Rings from 2001-2003. In the wake of a new era of war and strife, the Academy wasn't so attached to its deconstructionist, relativist worldview that it couldn't honor one of the greatest good-versus-evil stories of all time.

Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. My point is, the promotion of worthwhile films that stimulate a better understanding of human nature and the world is an important undertaking. When the Academy gets it right, I am appreciative. When they get it wrong, which is fairly often (just look back at the sheaf of message movies that were nominated last year), I get indignant. I do not look to the Academy's vision as far as my own film choices go; however, mostly everyone else does, and so the Academy's failure bothers me for their sake.

Let us segue into this year's nominees. For the first time since the '40s, there will be ten Best Picture nominees. They are:

-Avatar
-The Blind Side
-District 9
-An Education
-The Hurt Locker
-Inglourious Basterds
-Precious
-A Serious Man
-Up
-Up in the Air

I admit to only having seen five of the ten: Up, Avatar, District 9, The Hurt Locker, and Inglorious Bastards. From what I have seen, the most deserving film nominated here is Up...almost. Almost, I say, because I was awfully fond of The Hurt Locker, and it has grown on me since I watched it.

Up is one of the most profound meditations on aging, loss, and love that I can remember seeing on a movie screen. It's a Pixar cartoon, meaning that its emotional power is complemented by strong writing, animation, and character development. In a now-famous opening montage, a couple's life together is vividly, beautifully telescoped into just a few short minutes of footage, from its hopeful beginning to its touching end. Who would have thought that the medium of 3D animation would be capable of such depths?

The Hurt Locker is an Iraq war film for people who are sick of preachy Iraq war films. Recent stuff like Lions for Lambs and The Valley of Elah got so lost in anti-war messaging that they were ignored by audiences. The Hurt Locker is different: it's about characters within the war. In particular, the film follows Staff Sergeant William James, an IED bomb squad soldier whose strange addiction to the adrenaline rush of war compromises his relationships with other soldiers and his family at home. The story works on various levels. As an action film, it is relentlessly thrilling. I've seen too many movies, so I usually don't get pushed to the edge of my seat, but The Hurt Locker left me slack-jawed. In addition, James' bizarre obsession with insanely dangerous situations is engaging. There are men like him, men who lose themselves so completely in their martial pursuits that the rest of life becomes a blur. The movie has little to say of "the cause", of "George Bush", of "blood for oil", etc. It is focused on more primal issues, and hence, it is a living, breathing motion picture and not a screed.

Which film will win the big prize? Probably Avatar. A cornocopia of liberal ideas and strong special effects, James Cameron's sci-fi epic is the biggest, brawniest contender, and the highest-grossing film in history. It will not be denied.

This is disappointing. Up and The Hurt Locker represent the best filmmaking of the year, from what I've seen. Even Quentin Tarantino's Inglorious Basterds and Neil Blomkamp's District 9, neither of which strike me as "great" films in the classic sense, both qualify as far more interesting and more competent than Avatar (and, as sci-fi, District 9 is far more inventive).

Liberal ideals will win the day this year. Avatar is entertaining schlock, and I enjoyed experiencing its trippy worlds and its blue aliens. It is, however, representative of the Academy's political priorities, and all that implies. Perhaps next year, we'll see another victory by something more worthy, in the fashion of 2007. As usual, don't hold your breath.

Congratulations, First Things!

This month's issue of First Things is now online/in print. The issue merits special attention because it marks the twentieth anniversary of First Things' publication.

There is no other comparable journal of religion and public life. First Things provides the most stimulating, useful, and generally well-written commentary I've ever encountered.

One must be thankful that giants such as Father Richard John Neuhaus, Joseph Bottum, and George Weigel have walked in our time.

The Horror of Not Having Insurance: Woman Wears Dead Relative's Dentures

Via the Gateway Pundit: a Democratic congresswoman told a hilarious story about how one of her constituents had no insurance and was therefore forced to wear her dead sister's old dentures. Oh, the humanity.

This is the stuff of some Industrial-era, steampunk satire from 1880s London. Frankly it cracks me up, not because I am a heartless bastard but because it proves that the Democrats will literally say anything, however ridiculous, to make their case. I doubt the anecdote is even true, and if it is true, it is bizarre. Anyone who wears her dead relative's old dentures is a kook, regardless of whether she has health insurance or not.

Do you think she ripped the denture's from her dying sister's mouth, or did she wait until the woman was already dead? I'm surprised Representative Slaughter didn't fill us in on that detail.

Harry Reid Painting With Broad Strokes: "Unemployed Men Are Abusive"

That wondrous assclown Senator Harry Reid of Nevada has struck again.

"Women don't have jobs either, but women aren’t abusive, most of the time," he said. "Men, when they're out of work, tend to become abusive," the majority leader added. "Our domestic crisis shelters in Nevada are jammed.”

Allow me to dissect this. First, Reid is making a tremendously broad generalization. Second, he is weakening himself along moderate voters by sounding like a paranoid feminist. Third, his comments make the state of Nevada look like a miserable place to live. If you were a senator, would you loudly proclaim that your state's domestic crisis shelters are "full" and that its unemployed men are a pack of abusive bastards!?

Why do politicians say things that are patently untrue, and make up false premises in order to serve their agendas? It is supremely insulting to those of us who actually know what is going on. We have let far too many senators, congressmen, and executive officials get away with this nonsense.

(Digression: NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and other similar organizations are likely cheering all of this alleged abuse, as it gives them a fresh swath of moral high ground on which they can pontificate about the evils of masculinity. Nothing makes feminist, pro-choice Nazis happier than crimes against women. I am willing to bet that they start using Reid's false statements in their promotional/PR materials.)

The Ticking Clock

The Iranian government seems to be preparing itself and its people for war. This is not neccesarily news, as most sane people have seen this coming for years. However, in recent weeks, the agitating of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has become more pronounced. His threats and insinuations against Israel continue to intensify, to the point where he is now openly elaborating on what a potential war might look like, and how battle lines might be drawn. A complacent world can no longer reassure itself that Iran poses no threat to anyone.

Doubtless the recent apparent action by Israel against Hamas is stoking Iran's anger. Israeli agents brazenly took out a hit on a Hamas leader, using European passports to infiltrate a hotel in Dubai where the target was staying. The incident has created a diplomatic mess, but it illustrates Israel's refusal to conduct its own War on Terror by any sort of politically correct rulebook. Israel and Iran are on a collision course, and Israel is clearly not going to blink.

Meanwhile, discussion of a potential conflict remains muted and sparse in the U.S. We continue to call for sanctions and warn that our fuse is running short. This is all well and good, but idle talk had better give way to preparation. What will we do if Israel ends up fighting a multifront war against Iran and its neighbors? What if Iran sees no distinction between Israel and the U.S., and includes our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan as part of its list of potential military targets when things get hot?

The writing is on the wall, and we had best start gearing up for the inevitable. The last thing I want to see is a third front in our current war against Islamic terrorism. However, events are moving rapidly in the direction of armed conflict. We better figure out how we intend to respond.

Back in 2003, some said that Iraq and Iran were equally threatening to world peace, and that any military action against one or the other would still leave us with a net total of one dangerous Islamo-fascist state. It's an interesting line of thinking. Here we are, seven years later, staring down a pissed-off and (possibly) nuclear-armed Iran. Of the "elective wars" that we could have fought, did we choose the right one? Would Saddam Hussein be as much of a threat in 2010 as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? I don't know the answers, but the questions intrigue me.

Tiger's Moment

Today, Tiger Woods shall walk the secular via dolorosa that men ranging from Governor Elliot Spitzer to David Duchovny hath trod. It is the sex scandal admission press conference, an ordeal that has become a staple of American public life and mainstream media coverage.

The SSAPC (we must abbreviate) is a decidedly modern invention. President John F. Kennedy's sexual dalliances were known amongst the White House press corps in the '60s, but back then, dirty secrets were still dirty and, well, secret. There were some thing you just didn't talk about.

Nothing is off the table now, though. What was once the ultimate private act is now the ultimate public act. This is the era of Paris Hilton and "Snooki". Rare is the man who has not seen Kim Kardashian's nethers. In such a climate, airing someone else's sexual baggage is not only common, it is a cottage industry.

So there is no way off the hook. Tiger has to do this. Otherwise, he will never be able to begin the long, slow resuscitation of his personal and professional image. Expect him to express regret, to cry, to make much of the pain he has caused Elin and the kids. Perhaps a therapy session on Oprah's couch is in order.

Mind you, I am not saying that ALL the hubbub surrounding Tiger's issues is neccesarily good or bad. The media coverage of a man's sins seems inherently unethical to me, but then, so does the alternative. Some commentators have raised legitimate points about Tiger's duplicity. This was a man who was hailed for his discipline, would you believe. A world in which Tiger Woods can get away with all of this wouldn't be much better.

But what if our cultural obsession with sex, inherent in today's looming media circus, is part of the problem? Blatant moral relativism has replaced moral principle in the classroom, the home, the newspaper, and even the Church in some cases. Can we really elevate a talented, popular man to such blinding heights of celebrity and, given the world's general lack of sexual mores, expect him not to succumb to temptations like Tiger has? Can we fault the wayward for their disordered appetites when we have instructed them from childhood that nothing is inherently wrong and that sex need only be consensual to be acceptable?

The answer to all of this is formation. Formation that, if it is not religious in nature, should at least instill a more generic sense of restraint, fidelity, and integrity.

Joe the Fickle Plumber

"Joe the Plumber" is blasting John McCain and Sarah Palin, saying that McCain "used him" and "I don't owe him shit".

This is what happens when a populist appeal backfires. McCain made much of the "Joe the Plumber" archetype, and how "Joe" represented the typical American common man. Standing up for the little guy is one thing, but McCain should not have elevated one particular little guy to the national stage as a camapaign prop. To do so was poor politics and poor judgment. If "Joe" decides he wants headlines, a book deal, or a reality TV show, all he has to do is make inflammatory statements. People don't like it when their 15 minutes of fame expire.

The Dems Are Dropping Like Flies...For Now

Numbskull Representative Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island will not be seeking re-election in November 2010.

Neither will Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, who is ahead in the polls but is sick of being part of a do-nothing Congress.

Nor will Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut. Nor will Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota.

Clearly, this is because the Democrats know they have infuriated the electorate by failing to save jobs, wasting tax dollars at a tremendous rate, and attempting to foist an unwanted healthcare reform bill upon the country. They want to walk out before they are kicked out.

Self-preservation is more than a small part of this. By refusing to run for re-election, and by distancing themselves from the Obama administration, these fellows can preserve their hopes for making a political comeback one day.

One troubling rumor even sees Patrick Kennedy running against Scott Brown in 2012. Given that he is a whiny, immature carpetbagger/drunkard, I think he would lose...but the prospect of his attempt still makes me sick.

Sarah Palin vs. Family Guy (Or, Liberals Hate Disabled People, Part II)

First Things is reporting on Sarah Palin's response to a Family Guy episode that makes fun of people with Down's syndrome, and in particular, her child.

Family Guy is one of those shows that pretends to be equally offensive to everyone yet always ends up slyly, sarcastically endorsing liberal ideas. The creators of the show are the type of Cheeto-eating, fat-ass Generation Xers who deride anyone who finds their humor offensive as "oversensitive" or "paranoid". They get away with both making political/social statements through their work while simultaneously claiming that they are not doing so and that anyone who takes them seriously is too uptight.

Family Guy sucks, as a show. Occasionally it features a funny moment or two (I laugh at Herbert the Pervert's teeth whistle). However, tangential gag writing, shitty animation, and an overuse of truly obscure pop trivia bog it down severely. (For what it's worth, Fox's King of the Hill is three times as funny and contains actual character development, stronger animation, and surprising thematic depth.)

Anyways, you can chalk this up as yet another example of liberal hatred towards the disabled, the likes of which I cited recently.

It's All About the Tea Party

The recent Tea Party convention, and its keynote address by Sarah Palin, loom large over the national discourse today. I will have more to say later, but I think it's fascinating that the conservative stalwarts of 2008 are now being pushed askew in 2010. Is the country banking hard right all of a sudden?

Orangutuan Picks Colts

I know which team I am putting my money on today. Kutai the Orangutuan, a zoo-dwelling primate in Oregon, has picked the Colts. This hairy, orange little fellow has correctly predicted four out of the last five Superbowl victors.

Snivelling Patrick Kennedy Gets Snarky When His Party Loses

Representative Patrick Kennedy has called Scott Brown's election "a joke". Way to treat your new colleague(who, by the way, outranks you by virtue of his seat in the Upper House).

This is a classless, juvenile display from a spoiled, egotistical little prince who can't stand the fact that his worthless ideology is losing traction in the public eye.

Good Riddance, Paul Kirk

Interim U.S.-Senator Paul Kirk (D-MA) is a Senator no more, and Scott Brown has taken his place. Good riddance, Kirk.

I find it both telling and humorous that nobody came to his final Senate speech, which was about bipartisanship, of all things (as if he knows anything about that particular concept). You would be hard-pressed to find a more boring, career left-wing bureaucrat than this guy. They'll always remember him in D.C. as a guy who sure knew how to clear a room.

Congratulations to Scott Brown, on his swearing in.

Rahm's "Retarded Democrats" Remark

Those loving, caring, social justice-promoting Democrats have shown a real disdain for the mentally handicapped lately. First, there were the pro-abortion propagandists who made posters that depicted fantasy images of Sarah Palin aborting her son Trig, emphasizing the child's Down's syndrome as a major selling point for the wonders of infanticide. Then, there was President Obama's "Special Olympics" remark. Now, liberal guru/White House advisor Rahm Emmanuel is apologizing for referring to some Democratic lawmakers as "retarded".

There is something afoot here. The left wing of the U.S. has promoted and presided over what essentially amounts to an extermination of disabled babies, after all.

Do I believe that Obama, Emmanuel, and lefties of their ilk are intentionally attacking the handicapped with their gaffes? No, because such gaffes are politically dangerous, and a politician stands to lose much by making derisive statements about the disadvantaged. However, perhaps, on a subconscious level, the callousness of America's current attitude towards Down's syndrome children (roughly 90% get aborted) is beginning to filter into public speech. It's an interesting trend, at the very least.

Common Sense Proposals

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Virginia) has outlined some basic proposals that, he maintains, could be enacted to alleviate U.S. economic woes. These are non-inflammatory, essentially apolitical ideas that both Republicans and Democrats can get behind. The outcome would be an enhanced environment for economic growth.

I fear that good stuff like this will be passed up in favor of the usual party-driven, hackneyed, talking point BS that elected officials resort to in times of crisis. Common sense proposals like these would do much for our ailing economy, but will they fall on deaf ears?

Pelosi: Bipartisanship is Great...But Not Really

The wondrous Nancy Pelosi never ceases to disappoint. After the President's multitudinous yet hollow calls for bipartisanship on healthcare reform during the State of the Union address, and after the Democrats have repeatedly accused the GOP of refusing to work with themselves on healthcare, Pelosi contradicts:

"We...have the responsibility, if we can't find...common ground, to stand our ground on principles," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, rejecting bipartisanship as a goal unto itself. "If we can't find a bipartisan way to do it, we are not going to say, 'Well, if it is not bipartisan, we are not going to do it.' We are going to do what we believe."

In other words: even though the American people don't want our stupid healthcare bill, we are going to forcefeed it to em'. If you don't want in, then to hell with you.

"First Thoughts": Be Careful About Blasting Obama for Supreme Court Remarks

First Thoughts cautions conservatives not to be too quick to judge Obama for the criticism of the Supreme Court that he doled out in his State of the Union address. Twas' the all-powerful nine justices who rammed abortion down our throats, after all.

Looks like I'm not the only one who felt this way!

State of the Union Post-Game Thoughts

For sheer exhaustion and sheer lack of interest in hearing truthless partisan rhetoric, I cannot claim that I have delved into President Obama's State of the Union address enough to give an "analysis" of its every in and out. However, I have seen enough of it (and have read enough of the transcript) to give a low-down.

Here are some thoughts on Obama's address:

Joe Biden nodded with approval at everything Obama said, with a stern sort of smile on his face. Nancy Pelosi looked more squirmy and frowny. That spanking that her healthcare bill took must still be fresh in her mind.

A word on demeanor: thankfully, he didn't use that damned shouting lilt that emerged at certain town meetings.

"Bad work on Wall Street is rewarded, while hard work on Main Street isn't." Well, Mr. President, who was doing the rewarding?

Cries against bipartisanship? A need for Republicans to do more than "say no"? Seeing as how the Obama White House and the Pelosi Congress have effectively shut the GOP out of the healthcare reform process, this comes off as unstudied hypocrisy. It is all too easy to point out the speck in others' eyes without acknowledging one's own plank.

There was much talk of "the people". The dreams of the people, the stubborn resilience of the people, the hopes of the people. I get queasy whenever any politician resorts to lofty generalities about "the people". It smells of overripe Latin American populism (and yes, some Republicans are guilty of this too). It also seems a tad desperate.

"From some on the right, I expect we’ll hear...that if we just make fewer investments in our people, extend tax cuts for wealthier Americans, eliminate more regulations, and maintain the status quo on healthcare, our deficits will go away. The problem is, that’s what we did for eight years. That’s what helped lead us into this crisis. It’s what helped lead to these deficits. And we cannot do it again." It seems that Obama has a pathological need to blame George W. Bush for almost every single problem his own presidency has run into. In a State of the Union address, a solemn and typically dignified occasion, this cheap trickery is particularly disgusting and unwelcome.

Finally: Obama's criticism of the Supreme Court for its campaign finance decision was awkward. Now, conservatives need to be fair here. I'm no fan of the Supreme Court's unchecked power and its arrogant assertion of its own opinions as law (see Roe vs. Wade). If a president blasted the Supreme Court for that particular decision, I would be applauding. However, given that Obama was blasting the Court for a ruling that I agree with, I was disappointed. The real question is whether or not such political posturing ought to be occurring at such a solemn and (ideally) non-partisan occasion? If Obama had been more discreet, more veiled, less open, would the idea he expressed have been more acceptable?

President Obama's State of the Union Address

As the President of the United States prepares to deliver the annual State of the Union address, I can only ask one question: what can he say? What has he done during the first year of his presidency to alter the union's prospects for the better? What can he point to as he stands before the entire country and attempts to justify his first year as our leader?

In light of diving poll numbers, State Senator Scott Brown's bill-killing victory in the Massachusetts senate race, and the basic failure of "Obamaism" in terms of claiming legislative victories, there is not much material to draw from.

The massive spending/stimulus packages? Utterly ineffective.

Obama's decision to send reinforcements to Afghanistan? Right, perhaps, but late.

Obama's healthcare bill? Dead in the water.

Obama's attempts to campaign for Democratic candidates around the country? 0 for 3.

Unemployment? Higher than it was a year ago.

Lay-offs? Steadily streaming.

Hence, there is not much good news to share. Most are expecting a fundamentally reactive presentation. Now is not the time for Obama to jog onstage and arrogantly reassert the failed healthcare reform initiative that he pushed in 2009. Now is not the time for him to set his chin angrily and raise his voice into that telltale shout that he uses when he wants to "talk tough" about his agenda. When you're being hammered by your constituents, and when your cheerleaders in the press can barely conceal the public's anger, you must give an inch or two. Is it not a bad sign for Obama that he's already publicly mulling over the ramifications of losing in 2012?

Look for Obama to reach for some middle ground, hawking his policy goals with renewed rhetorical vigor while simultaneously acknowledging the brick walls.

Give

Give to Catholic Relief Services as they continue to bring aid to the suffering population of Haiti. Each day, the numbers of dead rise, and needs of the living increase.

The whole point of being conservative is believing that it is not a federal bureaucracy, but rather real people, who ought to respond to disaster. Be one of those people. I cite Catholic Relief Services as the best charity to give to because the Catholic Church has been tending to the needy for two millenniums. Your money will not be misappropriated or misplaced, nor will it end up funding immoral practices (those heartless, tacky, murderous bastards at Planned Parenthood are using the quake to push their anti-life agenda; read, be disgusted, and choose your charities wisely).

Also, read this post from The Anchoress. The part about the couples adopting Haitian orphans will make your eyes water. Truly, the couple mentioned exemplifies everything that is good in humanity. Tragedy can indeed inspire the greatest heroism.

The Haitian Mission

It says something about our country that, in spite of the fact that we are fighting two wars overseas, the U.S. has committed significant military forces to the security and rebuilding of Haiti. The Haitian mission will be costly for our country, but the right thing to do is never easy. At least 20,000 U.S. soldiers, with their requisite equipment and supplies, will be deployed by January 24th, according to the Department of Defense.

Naturally, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez sees our relief operation as an opportunistic "military occupation" (Lord knows that Haiti has so much to offer for the imperially inclined). He goes so far as to accuse the U.S. of causing the quake with a secret earthquake-inducing superweapon!

Anyone who sees our presence on the island as an "invasion" is certifiably moronic. The Haitian people are at the mercy of the worst elements within their society: armed gangs of looters and criminals have a habit of taking disaster relief supplies for themselves. The presence of our military will facilitate a more effective framework for international aid missions.

Man Threatened With Death For Posting Unflattering Michelle O Pic

I guess you can't poke fun at Michelle Obama without being targeted by stalker types.

I'm going to link to the unflattering pic, too. Consider this reparation for all the unflattering pictures of George W. Bush that every major American newspaper ever ran.

And if anyone threatens me with death...bring it, foo'. I'll have Elmo eat your heart!

A Day of Mourning

On this anniversary of the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade decision, read the late Richard John Neuhaus' speech on the pro-life movement. It's been republished over at First Things. The great Father Neuhaus was one of the most eloquent defenders of the unborn in recent memory.

How tragic it is to think of the nameless, faceless generations that would now walk this Earth had abortion remained an illegal practice. This is the greatest of our national sins: that we allowed nine robed dictators to infer a non-existent "right to privacy" from our Constitution that allows a doctor to kill an unborn child on behalf of its mother. I've never been able to fathom the philosophical connection between a right to "privacy" and a right to do whatever one wishes, right up to killing another human being.

Our cowardly politicians continue to hide behind empty rhetoric in order to avoid the consequences of admitting abortion is wrong. "We can't impose our views on others!" "Women can do whatever they want with their bodies!" Such statements, taken as Gospel by the gullible masses, are so at odds with common sense moral principles. If we can "impose" our opposition to littering, tax-evasion, and assault and battery on those whom we penalize for such offenses, why should abortion be any different? Does taking another human's life really count as a mere exercise of control over one's body?

These are the questions that the left does not want you to ask. The answers are obvious, but the implications of the truth would destroy the liberal utopian ideal. Therefore, abortion advocates hate anyone who expresses qualms about unfettered abortion access. Question their permissive, anti-human ideology and they call you a misogynist, a neanderthal, perhaps even a racist for good measure (because Lord knows, if you disagree with anything that the Democratic Party does, you MUST hate minorities). What they will not do, in my experience, is respond in a logical, sensible, or scientifically sound way.

Be thankful that maybe, just maybe, the common folk are waking up and realizing all of this. A majority of Americans are pro-life, according to Gallup. Maybe one day, when the Democratic Party and the pro-choice press have spent their credibility, the majority feeling will translate into action.

Assclown of the Week: Keith Olberman

Apparently, because Scott Brown is a white male, owns a pickup truck, and opposes the healthcare plan of a black president, he is racist, and so are those who voted for him.

Thus sayeth Keith Olbermann, the liberal blowhard whose false, useless, race-baiting, hateful hyperbole was unleashed on TV screens across America prior to the Massachusetts senate election.

Liberals have begun to utilize the race card in truly bizarre, irrelevant ways. A Democrat loses to a Republican, even though neither candidate is a minority? Blame racism. A majority of Americans oppose the Democratic healthcare reform bill? Blame racism. It is utterly absurd. When will minority commentators stand up and object to this patronizing, utilitarian ass-kissing? Isn't it somewhat condescending and insulting to have fat, white, old, liberal "journalists" constantly invoke your race as a weapon against those whom they dislike?

Olbermann deserves to be sued for libel on this one. Keith, you are indeed the Assclown of the Week, and you may yet be Assclown of the Year.

On Victory

Scott Brown is headed for D.C. Truly, his victory on Tuesday ranks as one of the greatest political upset victories of all time. With his admittance to the Senate, the GOP will now be able to stop the ridiculous Democratic healthcare reform bill from passing.

Ought Publius eat crow, given his earlier post declaring that the race was, in fact, a non-race? Sure. I was wrong. But I wouldn't dream of deleting my hopeless December rant. It stands as a tribute to the limits of healthy skepticism. Miracles happen after all.

I have come to admire many things about Scott Brown during this campaign. Granted, there is room for improvement. However, Brown ran the kind of campaign that I believe America has needed for years: it was honest, positive, energetic, and devoid of hyperbolic sniping (alas, on the last of these, Coakley was the dead opposite, what with her patently false "Scott-Brown-Hates-Women" ads). I believe he will be an effective and hard-working U.S. senator, and I look forward to seeing what he contributes.

As far as his conservative credentials go: he needs to ante up and oppose abortion flat out. On the greatest civil rights issue of our day, he is not entirely reliable. Yet his desire for healthcare worker conscience protections, and his opposition to partial birth abortion, are healthy signs. There is a moral compass present in Brown that we can work with. Supporting him while simultaneously holding him accountable is the right curse.

I will say this for Martha Coakley: had she so desired, she could have stomped her feet and demanded copious recounts in light of her defeat. Instead, she took the high road (finally) and conceded when it became mathematically impossible for her to pull ahead. Still, her campaign is destined to go down as one of the most lethargic, lame election bids in history. Her defeat can rightfully be attributed to both a general lack of excitement amongst the Democratic base and a massive surge of pro-Brown energy in the suburbs. While the vapid, brainwashed masses of densely-populated Newton, Wellesley, Cambridge, and Brookline probably turned out for Coakley, it was the mass of commoners across the rest of the state that put Brown over the top.

The common man hath spoken. Obamacare has been repudiated, honesty and integrity on the campaign trail has been rewarded, and the liberal element in American politics has been made to look arrogant, out of touch, and unpopular. Obama has begun his post-defeat two-stepping, but it's all for naught. Good luck to Senator Brown as he takes his place in the higher chamber.

P.S. Glenn Beck's blistering attack on Scott Brown is frown-worthy. Brown's joke about his daughters' "availability" was innocent/harmless. Ayla Brown thought so, at least. Though I appreciate a decent amount of Beck's material by and large, I disagree with him here.

Biden: If You Can't Beat Em...

...then change the rules.

After all, who needs a majority? When you've got the anointment of Obama on your side, why bother with things like rules and procedures?

Clearly, the Dems are preparing us for the new round of unethical behavior on their part that a Scott Brown victory will trigger.

Obama's Last-Minute Trip to Boston

Again, I return to the subject of the pending Massachusetts election. At this point it has become a national story. The intensity was ratcheted up today by President Obama's last-minute, emergency trip to Boston, where he stumped for Coakley after spending a couple of weeks saying that he had no plans to do so.

Obama's visit is indicative of the Democrat's utter terror at the prospect of losing. Earlier this week, one poll showed that Brown was not only alive and well, but leading the race. This made Coakley's shy, non-campaigning, and her increasingly negative tone, seem ever more inappropriate; you can't project complacency and arrogance when you're losing. Hence Obama came to invigorate her lackluster campaign with some liberal, hope-and-change magic.

Needless to say, the president is worried about Brown's ability to kill the healthcare reform bill that is currently being rammed down our throats. It's highly unlikely that he would have flown to Massachusetts if the bill was already a done deal. Obama's visit is yet another example of his White House's constant "campaign mode" method of dealing with public policy challenges.

If Brown wins, Obama will have spent political capital on a high-profile, losing battle. Surely, a Brown victory will be seen as a repudiation of Obama's presidency. This is Massachusetts. It is the most liberal state in the union. A Republican victory here would be a clear sign that liberalism is not as embraced in America as its proponents want everyone to think.

P.S.- Is it not delightful that the vile blob of uselessness known as Representative Barney Frank (D-Newton) is already trying to distance the Democratic establishment from Coakley, should she lose?

P.S.S.- Senator Chuck Schumer is an asshole. His crude, politically-irrelevant cutdown of Scott Brown leaves me unable to call him anything else.

Prayers and Support for Haiti

Our thoughts and prayers are with those affected by the disastrous earthquake in Haiti, where unknown thousands of people are hurt or dead. This is truly a catastrophic event. As the world mobilizes to lend aid to the suffering, we should find reputable charities and venues through which we can donate relief funds.

We should remember that as much as we complain about recessions, stock market problems, and other fiscal woes, there are some who have it worse than we do. Haiti is a destitute country that has never had any real social or economic infrastructure, and the strife caused by this earthquake can be multiplied tenfold as a result. There were no building codes, no speedy 911 services, no reserves of supplies and money at hand just in case. We live like kings in comparison.

Sticks and Stones: Dems on the Ropes

Nyeh nyeh nyeh nyeh nyeh nyeh! The Democrats in Massachusetts, collectively reeling at the horror of a potential Scott Brown victory in the January 19 senatorial election, have resorted to childish taunting maneuvers. According to today's Boston Herald, they are (believe it or not) making some kind of snide insinuation that Sarah Palin ought to endorse Scott Brown, and that somehow, this would help there cause, because no one likes Sarah Palin.

I am not exactly sure what is being said, in this case. When a whiny child is wrong about something and knows it, he will often grope for oblique, immature, illogical quips that he can use to annoy and insult others for his own gratification. This DNC press secretary is following suit. Can't think of anything worthwhile or original to say? Attack Bush and Cheney. Still can't think of anything? Attack Sarah Palin (who, by the way, is being hit with major new allegations of stupidity and incompetence; perhaps a review of this forthcoming book is in order).

Ultimately, the DNC's sniping illustrates that the Democratic Party is (pardon me) scared utterly shitless of Scott Brown. Senators Kennedy and Kerry, along with Congressmen Delahunt and Capuano, traditionally ignored their marginal Republican challengers, running non-campaigns that yield 70-30 victories. Not this time. Coakley's mousy, silent bid for the Senate has backfired. You can't ignore a guy who has made as huge an impression as Brown; he raised nearly a million dollars in one day!

Will he win? I don't know. I believe that any prediction I make would be a 50-50 guess. In an earlier post, I aired my criticisms of both Brown and the race in general, and believed the situation looked dim. It's still not a lock, by any means. The left-wing machine in Massachusetts is quite powerful.

However, while I still have reservations about Brown's stance on crucial issues, he is the only choice for those of us who are looking for leadership and common sense instead of left-wing demagoguery. The longer his dogged, honest campaign has run, the more I've come to like his style.

Reid's Obama Gaffe Is Telling Indeed

Yesterday, Senator Harry Reid (D-Nevada), the Senate Majority Leader and the White House's healthcare reform lackey, apologized for racially insensitive comments that he made during the 2008 presidential campaign season. The apology was prompted by the fact that Reid's quotes will be appearing in Mark Halperin and John Heileman's new book Game Change, which will detail the 2008 campaign. The crux of the controversy is that Reid apparently referred to then-Senator Obama as a "light-skinned" African-American "with no negro dialect-unless he wants to have one", and remarked that the country would accept such a candidate with ease.

From what I have read, Reid's statements about Obama being "light-skinned" and lacking "a negro dialect" seem to be drawing the most heat from the media. I find the context of the remarks even more disturbing, though.

Remember that Reid was assessing Obama's strength as a candidate when he made these remarks. That he felt the need to appraise Obama's lack of darker skin and his caucasian speaking voice as positive selling points for the Democratic Party is telling. It would seem that at the highest levels, the Democrats were indeed conscious of Obama's viability in regards to the race card. Reid apparently saw potential in Obama's lack of typical African-American features; had Obama been a "blacker" candidate, would Reid have been more ambivalent? What if Obama had featured what Reid called "a negro dialect"? Apparently, the Democrats (or at least their Majority Leader) want their candidates to be diverse, but only to a point. They claim to be the party of tolerance, but African-Americans with "a negro dialect" need not apply.

Being white, I can't speak for African-Americans on how they feel about this. I would guess, however, that many of them are insulted, and I cannot blame them.

P.S. Yes, I know, Reid apologized. Politically-motivated apologies, spurred only by the fact that the initial offense is becoming public, do not impress me.

P.S.S. Reid's chances of re-election are not promising. I look forward to the embarassment that the healthcare reformists will face when half of them are given a beatdown at the polls when the time comes.

P.S.S.S. If Reid runs for re-election, I am willing to bet that ACORN will stage a coup in Nevada.

Strange Minutiae of the Week: Woodrow Wilson Was A High Roller

Considering that he is, in hindsight, seen as a somewhat weak president, Woodrow Wilson was an odd choice for the now-extinct $100,000 bill. I would expect a Washington, a Lincoln, perhaps one of the Roosevelts...but Wilson? Maybe because the heavy hitters of the presidential lineup graced other bills, the Treasury had to dip into the second tier of U.S. presidents/officials for the big notes.

If kids today were aware of any of this, I'm sure there'd be all kinds of jokes about dropping Wilsons, snorting white powdered substances out of Wilsons, etc.

For a possibly accurate crash course in other extinct cash, check out Wiki.

Liar of the Week: U.S. Senator Paul Kirk

Ah, the pie crust promise: easily made, easily broken. After pledging not to endorse anyone in the race for the open Massachusetts senate seat, interim-Senator Paul Kirk has gone ahead and endorsed Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley. Mission accomplished: talk a good game to your constituents, make them think that you are going to stay above the partisan fray, and then go back on your word the second that people aren't paying attention (after all, Kirk is hardly a household name, and has kept a low profile in the Upper House; his endorsement's effectiveness does not trouble me, only the fact that he made it at all).

After all the cornball moralizing that the Democrats have engaged in for themselves and their annointed one Obama, with their gag-worthy "hope and change" and (my personal favorite) their "politics of transformation", it's reassuring to remember that they don't live up to one single blessed word of it. They are liars, and in this particular case, Paul Kirk is a liar. He has explicitly broken a promise made to the people of Massachusetts.

How come all of these educated adults with law degrees have the gall to say one thing, do another, and expect us not to care? Because we let them get away with it by re-electing them, by remaining ignorant of what they are actually doing, and by failing to hold them accountable.

He's far from perfect, but State Senator Scott Brown is looking like a better and better candidate these days (and a more viable one, at that). The complacent, fat-cat Massachusetts Democratic Party treats the people of our state like we're stupid. Let's prove to them that we know when we've been lied to.

Who's Afraid of the "T" Word?

SPIEGEL: Madame Secretary, in your first testimony to the US Congress as Homeland Security Secretary you never mentioned the word "terrorism." Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?

Janet Napolitano: Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word "terrorism," I referred to "man-caused" disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.

- Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, March 2009 interview with Der Spiegel

In light of the gaping security breaches that became evident during the failed Christmas Day bombing plot, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano's above statement has become a major subject of debate and ire across the U.S. Coupled with her initial pronouncement that "the system worked" on Christmas Day (ignoring the fact that a disaster was averted only by terrorist stupidity), Napolitano's past statement is causing major concerns about her efficacy as one of the nation's top security officials.

Some are calling for her head. Some are coming to her defense. Predictably, Obama has made it clear that (barring mass public opposition) he will not be swayed by Napolitano's detractors.

Napolitano's demure attitude towards the word "terrorism" is far more troublesome than the left is willing to admit. Mind you that for me, the recent controversy is merely so much more icing on the cake. From the beginning, I never liked her. A great piece from American Thinker briefly and rightfully reminds us that Napolitano branded pro-life individuals and returning military veterans as domestic security threats. This nakedly partisan approach to national security suggests a lack of focus on the real danger. For all their whining about Bush and Cheney's "totalitarian" ways, lefties seem awfully willing to use homeland security powers against those whom they find distasteful.

Perhaps we should merely expect Obama's DHS secretary to target those who disagree with him, on political principle. But for a sitting DHS Secretary to openly deride the term "terrorism" as part and parcel of "the politics of fear"? It's ridiculous. By cloaking the reality of today's terrorist threat in politically-correct language so as not to scare people, Napolitano and company seem to be the ones who are most afraid. They are afraid of the truth. Terrorism is a real, potent, and unpredictable threat that we face. There is no point in calling it anything other than what it is. Semantics can't change the facts.

P.S.- Obama's nomination of Erroll Southers for the long-vacant Transit Security Administration leadership position is running into some fresh snags. Looks like he was censured by the FBI in the past, and GOP senators are none too happy. How many more senate confirmation woes can Obama afford before his political capital is effected?

Good Riddance

This morning, Publius smugly smiles at the idiocy of these Afghan terrorists who undertook a suicide bombing mission and ended up being its only casualties. As Winston Wolfe said: "Better you than me, gentlemen."

Doubtless similar situations have arisen between 2001 and now, but this is the first time I have actually heard of such a thing occuring in Iraq or Afghanistan. Be thankful that the terrorists involved were only able to bring harm to themselves, and not to the battered population of Afghanistan nor the American and Afghan security forces that protect it.

Should we rejoice in occasions such as these? Philosophically, I don't know. I feel guilty for finding the story funny, yet I cannot muster one iota of sympathy for a pack of murderers who blew themselves up while targeting innocent people.

One of warfare's cruel ironies is that there is the occasional macabre slapstick to be found on the battlefield. I've heard more than a few veterans relate stories that are, in their eyes, both horrifying and darkly humorous.

Does how we react to these stories say something about our nation's character? Is there such thing as an appropriate response? Am I thinking way too much about this? Post your comments. I'm interested in what you might say.

Happy 2010, Plus Recommended Reading

This is my inaugural post of 2010. I suppose it would have had more impact had I authored it a couple days ago, but I have been busy. A belated "Happy New Years" to all.

I can only hope that 2010 will be better than 2009. Last year that saw countless economic woes and employee lay-offs, infuriating failures of national leadership, mounting terrorism both at home and abroad, and protracted warfare involving U.S. troops across the Middle East. It doesn't get much worse than that. However, there can be improvement if America is willing to pull itself up by its boot straps and demand more of its leaders and institutions. This year, we will have the opportunity to toss the bums out of Congress and start afresh. This strikes me as one of the most crucial things that the American people can do this year.

So keep your hopes high and your expectations low, as you peruse some recommended reading for the week:

-Heather McDonald at the Wall Street Journal brilliantly demolishes the "crime-as-a-symptom-of-social-injustice" theory.

-Joe Carter at First Thoughts airs an infuriating New York City Health Department pamphlet that helps people learn how to "safely" shoot heroin.

-George Weigel, writing for The National Review, explicates just war theory in regards to Obama the Afghanistan situation. This brilliant article appeared in December, and I forgot to link to it sooner.