Since the attempted Christmas Day terror plot was foiled, there has been a plethora of commentary, and I have been playing catch-up. I was late to the game, having found out about the attempted attack two days after it occured (I took a break from TV and online news sources during my four day Christmas vacation; go figure, I missed out on something huge).
I personally find the plot's timing to be eerie. Just a few weeks ago, I discussed terrorism with my family and opined that an attack carried out over the holidays could be devastating. American morale is not at its highest, and the respite provided by the holidays is key to a stable national mood. It would not surprise me if terrorists symbolically used a western, Christian holiday as an opportunity to remind us that they want to bring our society to its knees.
I must say, I find it unforunate that the AFP and other media outlets are referring to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's "averted" terror plot. The plot was not "averted". To say it was averted is to imply that direct action was taken that derailed the scheme. Nothing could be further than the truth: it was a happy accident that the plane was not destroyed, and nothing more.
It is sad that the terrorist's own incompetence was all that stood in the way of innocent lives being lost. This incident has shaken the country's confidence in its federal government severely; bureucratic snafus and a lack of vigilance on our government's part are completely unacceptable. We know how real the danger is, and we ought to be past the point of making stupid mistakes.
There has been much scrambling on both sides of the aisle to either minimize or maximize the political effects of the plot, and the ensuing public ire. Some are blaming the Obama administration, while the administration's supporters are pointing to (who else?) George W. Bush, saying that he was never given any grief for presiding over faulty airline security regulations. I guess it's true that you can't let a crisis go to waste. For my part, though the partisanship on display in light of a serious terror plot is somewhat nauseating, I believe that the questioning of the Obama administration's handling of the incident is legitimate (just read Tony Harnden's compelling Telegraph piece on the subject).
Obama's initial dismissal of Abdulmutallad as an "isolated extremist" is particularly troubling, as it has become clear in recent days that the terrorist has clear ties to Al-Qaeda. Was Obama downplaying the scale of the plot? Was he misinformed? Was he lying? None of those three possibilities inspires confidence. Nor do the words and deeds of Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, who had to retool her initial assertion that "the system worked" in regards to U.S. security efforts to stop the attack.
Blame games aside, this incident is proof positive that the federal government needs to drastically reduce the bureaucratic lollygagging betwixt its intelligence, law enforcement, and security agencies if it is going to successfully protect U.S. citizens. After the Fort Hood massacre earlier this year, this need became obvious. Now we've been given a harrowing second reminder. There should not be a third.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Europeans: Obama Bigger than Jesus - Jesus: It Didn't Work for John Lennon
So much to tackle, so little time. For now, I have only a tidbit: what useless, spineless, philosophically-windswept, gullible, short-sighted fools those Europeans are. Even the most liberal American newspapers would never openly say that Obama is greater than Jesus, though they constantly imply it with savior imagery.
Such hyperbolic nonsense is unsurprising, considering the source. Europe is still drinking the Obama Kool-Aid, even after popular opinion has turned against the President's liberal agenda. For Europeans, the hope that maybe, just maybe, America will follow the same culturally vapid, materialistic, quasi-socialist path as themselves is embodied in Obama's rise to power.
Such hyperbolic nonsense is unsurprising, considering the source. Europe is still drinking the Obama Kool-Aid, even after popular opinion has turned against the President's liberal agenda. For Europeans, the hope that maybe, just maybe, America will follow the same culturally vapid, materialistic, quasi-socialist path as themselves is embodied in Obama's rise to power.
Friday, December 25, 2009
Merry Christmas, With Recommended Reading
A hearty "Merry Christmas" to anyone who reads this. As fate would have it, I am working tonight, and I figured I would take a moment to pass along the season's greetings.
I cannot complain. After 8AM, I am free. There are many people who are more unfortunate than myself.
Check out this brilliant blog post at First Things, in which both the complimentarity and tension between the Santa Claus mythos and Christianity are explored.
Also, have a gander at the strange event that occurred tonight as Pope Benedict XVI celbrated Christmas Mass. I wonder how a crazed person could get so close to him? It's a scary concept.
Finally, take a moment to remember why this day matters, and don't forget to be merry.
I cannot complain. After 8AM, I am free. There are many people who are more unfortunate than myself.
Check out this brilliant blog post at First Things, in which both the complimentarity and tension between the Santa Claus mythos and Christianity are explored.
Also, have a gander at the strange event that occurred tonight as Pope Benedict XVI celbrated Christmas Mass. I wonder how a crazed person could get so close to him? It's a scary concept.
Finally, take a moment to remember why this day matters, and don't forget to be merry.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
The Hijacking of Abraham Lincoln
I just finished reading Jay Winik's 2001 historical treatise April 1865: The Month That Saved America. Weaving together the chronology of the Civil War's fateful final month with background on the major players and events leading up to it, Winik's book provides both a comprehensive look at Civil War-era politics and an insightful commentary on how so many factors contributed to the conflict's end. It's a fantastic historical book, and I highly recommend that you purchase it. Amazon is hawking used copies for less than a dollar; you have no excuse not to buy it right now.
The book's appraisal of its central characters, including U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Confederate President Jefferson Davis, and Generals Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant, is appreciably honest. Winik admires all of the above, without whitewashing any of them.
In particular, his writing got me thinking about the legacy of Abraham Lincoln as it relates to today's political situation. Perhaps only two or three other presidents in history are as beloved and remembered for greatness as Lincoln. A well-cited Wikipedia article on presidential polls sees Lincoln as one of three perennial "greatest presidents", with Washington and Franklin Roosevelt taking the other two slots. Interestingly, according to the 1982 Murray-Blessing poll, Lincoln is just as loved by both conservatives and liberals.
No wonder, than, that during the past election cycle Old Abe's name was cited time and time again by the stumpers of both parties, primarily in two ways:
1, the Republican Party continued to remind us that it is, in fact, "the party of Abraham Lincoln" (and Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan), and that Lincoln is one of the great conservative heroes.
2, the Democratic Party continued to both draw and welcome parallels between its nominee, then-Senator Barack Obama, and Lincoln, framing both men as outsiders from rude beginnings who promise to bring change and unite the nation during times of crisis.
Last year I did not think much of such parallels. If I did at all, I remember being vaguely suspicious of Obama-Lincoln comparisons. Obama has always struck me as more of an anointed partisan standard-bearer than Lincoln (who was not always on the best of terms with his own party). Similarly, I thought it odd that John McCain would drop Lincoln's name, knowing that the Glenn Beck-fed Libertarian-Republicans of today are generally appreciative of states rights, to the point of identifying with the very Confederacy that Lincoln waged war against.
Winik's unburnished portrayal of Lincoln has given me clarity. When it comes to Abraham Lincoln, both parties are wrong, and neither can claim that, in their current form, that Lincoln would be onboard with their agendas.
Foremost, Lincoln was essentially a federalist. Conservatives might like to drop Lincoln's name, but the fact is, the 12th president used his executive power do the very thing that they always complain about: he amassed federal power and literally forced the southern states back into line via the Civil War. Would a true, small-government, states-rights conservative ever support such a methodology? No way, as is evidenced by this work from the endlessly readable Harry Crocker.
Secondly, liberals ought to take note that Lincoln never intended to be the great healer of the American racial divide. A look at his comments on the subject prior to the Emancipation Proclamation are telling indeed. He was not driven by modern notions of political correctness and equality; primarily, he needed to imbue the dying Union war effort with a new sense of moral purpose. Look no further than his famed letter to Horace Greeley:
If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union
It would be unfair to say that Lincoln had a strictly utilitarian view towards abolition. His correspondence prior to the war, and during the early part of it, make clear the fact that he had sympathy towards the slaves and wanted to see slavery disappear as an American institution. Yet his efforts for the abolition of slavery and for general emancipation have to be seen in light of Lincoln's political savvy. He was not what liberal college professors would call a civil rights leader (as far as I can reason, the idea of freeing the blacks and segregating them, or sending them to Liberia, wouldn't qualify as an inspiring thing for a civil rights leader to suggest).
Therefore, in an ultimate sense Lincoln's legacy is not immediately relatable to either of today's political parties. He was neither conservative nor liberal as we define the two today. What was Lincoln, then?
He was magnanimous.
Today's political leaders enjoy defeating and punishing the opposition, shutting them out of the political process, blaming them, and marginalizing them. Obama, whose proponents always trumpet him with cornball monikers like "the president of change", "the bringer of the politics of transformation", etc, has done exactly this (look no further than the healthcare debate).
Lincoln did not. Lincoln reached not only across the aisle but across the battlefield, ensuring that a defeated Confederacy would not become a subjugated Confederacy. He exhorted the Union to accept the southern states' return with forgiveness, not brutality. Though he did not live to preside over the Reconstruction Era, he nevertheless impacted it by setting in motion a process of reconciliation, not retaliation.
I challenge you to name one politician today who can truly be called "magnanimous" in the Lincolnian sense. There are none. (In particular, the plethora of Democrats who continue to cite George W. Bush as the cause of all our current problems represent the opposite of Lincoln's approach.)
The next time you hear Lincoln's name on the campaign trail, be cognizant of the cheapness at hand. Some figures are too complex for the soundbyte age. The 16th president, in his glory and with his flaws, is a man not apt for comparison.
The book's appraisal of its central characters, including U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Confederate President Jefferson Davis, and Generals Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant, is appreciably honest. Winik admires all of the above, without whitewashing any of them.
In particular, his writing got me thinking about the legacy of Abraham Lincoln as it relates to today's political situation. Perhaps only two or three other presidents in history are as beloved and remembered for greatness as Lincoln. A well-cited Wikipedia article on presidential polls sees Lincoln as one of three perennial "greatest presidents", with Washington and Franklin Roosevelt taking the other two slots. Interestingly, according to the 1982 Murray-Blessing poll, Lincoln is just as loved by both conservatives and liberals.
No wonder, than, that during the past election cycle Old Abe's name was cited time and time again by the stumpers of both parties, primarily in two ways:
1, the Republican Party continued to remind us that it is, in fact, "the party of Abraham Lincoln" (and Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan), and that Lincoln is one of the great conservative heroes.
2, the Democratic Party continued to both draw and welcome parallels between its nominee, then-Senator Barack Obama, and Lincoln, framing both men as outsiders from rude beginnings who promise to bring change and unite the nation during times of crisis.
Last year I did not think much of such parallels. If I did at all, I remember being vaguely suspicious of Obama-Lincoln comparisons. Obama has always struck me as more of an anointed partisan standard-bearer than Lincoln (who was not always on the best of terms with his own party). Similarly, I thought it odd that John McCain would drop Lincoln's name, knowing that the Glenn Beck-fed Libertarian-Republicans of today are generally appreciative of states rights, to the point of identifying with the very Confederacy that Lincoln waged war against.
Winik's unburnished portrayal of Lincoln has given me clarity. When it comes to Abraham Lincoln, both parties are wrong, and neither can claim that, in their current form, that Lincoln would be onboard with their agendas.
Foremost, Lincoln was essentially a federalist. Conservatives might like to drop Lincoln's name, but the fact is, the 12th president used his executive power do the very thing that they always complain about: he amassed federal power and literally forced the southern states back into line via the Civil War. Would a true, small-government, states-rights conservative ever support such a methodology? No way, as is evidenced by this work from the endlessly readable Harry Crocker.
Secondly, liberals ought to take note that Lincoln never intended to be the great healer of the American racial divide. A look at his comments on the subject prior to the Emancipation Proclamation are telling indeed. He was not driven by modern notions of political correctness and equality; primarily, he needed to imbue the dying Union war effort with a new sense of moral purpose. Look no further than his famed letter to Horace Greeley:
If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union
It would be unfair to say that Lincoln had a strictly utilitarian view towards abolition. His correspondence prior to the war, and during the early part of it, make clear the fact that he had sympathy towards the slaves and wanted to see slavery disappear as an American institution. Yet his efforts for the abolition of slavery and for general emancipation have to be seen in light of Lincoln's political savvy. He was not what liberal college professors would call a civil rights leader (as far as I can reason, the idea of freeing the blacks and segregating them, or sending them to Liberia, wouldn't qualify as an inspiring thing for a civil rights leader to suggest).
Therefore, in an ultimate sense Lincoln's legacy is not immediately relatable to either of today's political parties. He was neither conservative nor liberal as we define the two today. What was Lincoln, then?
He was magnanimous.
Today's political leaders enjoy defeating and punishing the opposition, shutting them out of the political process, blaming them, and marginalizing them. Obama, whose proponents always trumpet him with cornball monikers like "the president of change", "the bringer of the politics of transformation", etc, has done exactly this (look no further than the healthcare debate).
Lincoln did not. Lincoln reached not only across the aisle but across the battlefield, ensuring that a defeated Confederacy would not become a subjugated Confederacy. He exhorted the Union to accept the southern states' return with forgiveness, not brutality. Though he did not live to preside over the Reconstruction Era, he nevertheless impacted it by setting in motion a process of reconciliation, not retaliation.
I challenge you to name one politician today who can truly be called "magnanimous" in the Lincolnian sense. There are none. (In particular, the plethora of Democrats who continue to cite George W. Bush as the cause of all our current problems represent the opposite of Lincoln's approach.)
The next time you hear Lincoln's name on the campaign trail, be cognizant of the cheapness at hand. Some figures are too complex for the soundbyte age. The 16th president, in his glory and with his flaws, is a man not apt for comparison.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Avatar: James Cameron's Foray Into Space and Political Correctness
Here is some recommended reading for you: one of my favorite writers, Steven Greydanus of DecentFilms, has published a thoroughly excellent review of James Cameron's Avatar. He gives the film a B+, and he explicates both its thematic weaknesses and its undeniable appeal as a sci-fi epic.
I had wanted to write something about Avatar, but Greydanus' article summarizes my feelings accurately. No need for a straight-up review from me. I will say that I enjoyed the movie immensely. Its environmentalist, "noble savage", ecopantheist, anti-capitalist messaging is impossible to ignore. Yet there are amazing worlds on display here, and a tight, effective script put to good use.
It's not Lord of the Rings. Cameron's uses every politically-correct idea and staple Hollywood plot convention imaginable, so there are few narrative or philosophical surprises. However, if the film's layout and moral compass are predictable, than its inventive design and world-building more than compensate. I enjoyed the casting, as well.
I almost feel guilty for enjoying it so much- but not that guilty. Putting aside the allegory (it's difficult, I know), Avatar can be enjoyed on its own terms.
There are larger questions to asked, here. What does the film say about us, as a people? What do we look for from our sci-fi? Where is it going, and where has it been? Stay tuned. I have a lot more to say on the subject of science fiction and its place in the American cultural consciousness. Just not this morning.
I had wanted to write something about Avatar, but Greydanus' article summarizes my feelings accurately. No need for a straight-up review from me. I will say that I enjoyed the movie immensely. Its environmentalist, "noble savage", ecopantheist, anti-capitalist messaging is impossible to ignore. Yet there are amazing worlds on display here, and a tight, effective script put to good use.
It's not Lord of the Rings. Cameron's uses every politically-correct idea and staple Hollywood plot convention imaginable, so there are few narrative or philosophical surprises. However, if the film's layout and moral compass are predictable, than its inventive design and world-building more than compensate. I enjoyed the casting, as well.
I almost feel guilty for enjoying it so much- but not that guilty. Putting aside the allegory (it's difficult, I know), Avatar can be enjoyed on its own terms.
There are larger questions to asked, here. What does the film say about us, as a people? What do we look for from our sci-fi? Where is it going, and where has it been? Stay tuned. I have a lot more to say on the subject of science fiction and its place in the American cultural consciousness. Just not this morning.
Friday, December 18, 2009
It's Sad That People Care About Levi Johnston
Of all the aggravating pukes who have graced the tabloids lately, there is one who reigns supreme above the rest. He is emblematic of America's love for useless people. His name is Levi Johnston, and he is as distasteful a fame-seeker as they come.
You all know the tale: Johnston got with Bristol Palin. They found that she was with child. The two publicly acknowledged the pregnancy. They announced they would be married. They broke up. Johnston has pimped himself to the media.
There it is. Like so many of today's celebrities, Johnston is receiving attention for no good reason. The root of the word "celebrity" is "celebrate", though these days you don't have to do anything worth celebrating to be celebrated. In this case, a young man is famous for getting a seemingly pleasant, attractive young lady pregnant, leaving her, and then embarking upon a cross-country media campaign. He is no better than Paris Hilton, Kim Kardashian, or Rachel Uchitel, all of whom are famous for doing nothing (other than a lot of rich guys).
So what of this media campaign? What is Johnston's goal, exactly? To clear his name of any potential charges of negligence? No. To stump for his prior/potential mother-in-law's enemies out of revenge? No. To promote abstinence, or non-abstinence, or to talk about teenage parenthood, or grouse about what life under the thumb of Sarah Palin is like? No.
Johnston has no real angle at play, no direct line of attack, from what I can glean. He's been jetting from talk show to talk show, gracing the couch of Tyra Banks, the desk of Larry King, and so on. Dressed like Edward Cullen, replete with mall-boy bouffaint and clothes he couldn't afford a year ago, Levi has merely been fielding softball questions about his fifteen minutes of fame. Naturally, there's some bomb-lobbing towards the Palin family matriarch ("time to take the gloves off", he impotently promises here). Overall, though, there is no substance. He just seems to like attention for attention's sake.
In fact, Johnston does not seem to have anything worthwhile to say about his experiences. Consider the following exchange he had with Larry King last April, when Larry asked him how his relationships with the Palins fell apart:
Larry: So what happened?
Levi: I don't know what happened. I think somewhere along the lines, we just weren't hitting it off anymore and...
Larry: But they won't let you see your kid?
Levi:No. I can go over there and see him. But it's kind of an uncomfortable thing for me to go over there. You know, I want to be able to take him and do that kind of thing, go do the father thing with him and I can't.
Larry: Why can't you?
Levi: You know, I'm not sure...
"I don't know." "I'm not sure." Phrases of doubt, of non-clarity, of an utter and unabashed cluelessness, are peppered throughout the transcript. You really don't know, do you, Levi? Than why did you go on a major national news program? If I had fifteen minutes on Larry King, I don't know what I'd talk about, but I would try to prepare somehow.
Now, you might not like Bristol Palin or her message. However, at least she knows what she thinks. At least she actually thinks something. She has shared the experience of her teenage motherhood with other young people in order to educate them about the issues of abstinence and teen pregnancy. This strikes me as a reasonable line of thinking for a person in her position, or at least an intuitive way of connecting her life circumstances to larger societal issues. (Whether she should be parading around in public so much is a legitimate question; there is some contradiction between her role as an "abstinence spokesperson" and her own disavowing of abstinence as a viable lifestyle choice, and perhaps it would be most approrpriate for her family if she stayed out of the papers altogether).
Now, as the year winds down, we have been treated to far more of Levi Johnston than anyone could have imagined. Levi Johnston has posed for the pornographic Playgirl magazine. Apparently, he collected $100,000 to bare his rear end for the mag, though Levi's Johnston remains incognito. This outrageous move has secured him a place as a national joke, but being a joke in America can sometimes pay well, and therein lies my disgust.
After all, here we have a young man who could have been a role model for what a responsible teen father would look like. Instead he is merely someone who turned tail on his family in order to make some money doing porno, trashing his baby's grandmother, and booking talk segments. He could have had a nice life with a pretty girl, but nay, he has chosen the way of the well-paid boot-licker. He shall be the delight of the weak-minded, the laughingstock of the serious, and the talking-point of the clueless.
His lack of direction and values, and our own obsession with people of his ilk who seek publicity and shame themselves for the hell of it, do not bode well for us. That Levi Johnston has risen to such prominence is indicative of our country's maddening, base desire for mindless "infotainment" and juicy gossip. These things serve no purpose, and as they crowd the public's collective mind, attention to real public affairs material wanes.
You all know the tale: Johnston got with Bristol Palin. They found that she was with child. The two publicly acknowledged the pregnancy. They announced they would be married. They broke up. Johnston has pimped himself to the media.
There it is. Like so many of today's celebrities, Johnston is receiving attention for no good reason. The root of the word "celebrity" is "celebrate", though these days you don't have to do anything worth celebrating to be celebrated. In this case, a young man is famous for getting a seemingly pleasant, attractive young lady pregnant, leaving her, and then embarking upon a cross-country media campaign. He is no better than Paris Hilton, Kim Kardashian, or Rachel Uchitel, all of whom are famous for doing nothing (other than a lot of rich guys).
So what of this media campaign? What is Johnston's goal, exactly? To clear his name of any potential charges of negligence? No. To stump for his prior/potential mother-in-law's enemies out of revenge? No. To promote abstinence, or non-abstinence, or to talk about teenage parenthood, or grouse about what life under the thumb of Sarah Palin is like? No.
Johnston has no real angle at play, no direct line of attack, from what I can glean. He's been jetting from talk show to talk show, gracing the couch of Tyra Banks, the desk of Larry King, and so on. Dressed like Edward Cullen, replete with mall-boy bouffaint and clothes he couldn't afford a year ago, Levi has merely been fielding softball questions about his fifteen minutes of fame. Naturally, there's some bomb-lobbing towards the Palin family matriarch ("time to take the gloves off", he impotently promises here). Overall, though, there is no substance. He just seems to like attention for attention's sake.
In fact, Johnston does not seem to have anything worthwhile to say about his experiences. Consider the following exchange he had with Larry King last April, when Larry asked him how his relationships with the Palins fell apart:
Larry: So what happened?
Levi: I don't know what happened. I think somewhere along the lines, we just weren't hitting it off anymore and...
Larry: But they won't let you see your kid?
Levi:No. I can go over there and see him. But it's kind of an uncomfortable thing for me to go over there. You know, I want to be able to take him and do that kind of thing, go do the father thing with him and I can't.
Larry: Why can't you?
Levi: You know, I'm not sure...
"I don't know." "I'm not sure." Phrases of doubt, of non-clarity, of an utter and unabashed cluelessness, are peppered throughout the transcript. You really don't know, do you, Levi? Than why did you go on a major national news program? If I had fifteen minutes on Larry King, I don't know what I'd talk about, but I would try to prepare somehow.
Now, you might not like Bristol Palin or her message. However, at least she knows what she thinks. At least she actually thinks something. She has shared the experience of her teenage motherhood with other young people in order to educate them about the issues of abstinence and teen pregnancy. This strikes me as a reasonable line of thinking for a person in her position, or at least an intuitive way of connecting her life circumstances to larger societal issues. (Whether she should be parading around in public so much is a legitimate question; there is some contradiction between her role as an "abstinence spokesperson" and her own disavowing of abstinence as a viable lifestyle choice, and perhaps it would be most approrpriate for her family if she stayed out of the papers altogether).
Now, as the year winds down, we have been treated to far more of Levi Johnston than anyone could have imagined. Levi Johnston has posed for the pornographic Playgirl magazine. Apparently, he collected $100,000 to bare his rear end for the mag, though Levi's Johnston remains incognito. This outrageous move has secured him a place as a national joke, but being a joke in America can sometimes pay well, and therein lies my disgust.
After all, here we have a young man who could have been a role model for what a responsible teen father would look like. Instead he is merely someone who turned tail on his family in order to make some money doing porno, trashing his baby's grandmother, and booking talk segments. He could have had a nice life with a pretty girl, but nay, he has chosen the way of the well-paid boot-licker. He shall be the delight of the weak-minded, the laughingstock of the serious, and the talking-point of the clueless.
His lack of direction and values, and our own obsession with people of his ilk who seek publicity and shame themselves for the hell of it, do not bode well for us. That Levi Johnston has risen to such prominence is indicative of our country's maddening, base desire for mindless "infotainment" and juicy gossip. These things serve no purpose, and as they crowd the public's collective mind, attention to real public affairs material wanes.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Nuclear Dreams Can Come True
Check out this lovely image of Iran's recent long-range Sejil-2 missile being tested. The projectile's launch, which "hit the defined target" according to Iranian officials, is a clear and frightening signal from Iran that it remains serious about developing a nuclear arsenal.
This test comes just as a British newspaper leaked word that Iran has been developing a trigger device that has no civilian application whatsoever: it is strictly a component used to build nuclear weapons.
It is easy to compartmentalize our Middle Eastern woes. Lately, as the question of the U.S. commitment to Afghanistan has been hotly debated, the public discourses on Iraq and Iran have died down somewhat. Our attention is fixed firmly on the question of our troop surge in Afghanistan, and President Obama's plans for that particular conflict. This is understandable. However, waking up to the sight of an Iranian-made missile, capable of delivering a nuclear payload up to 1200 miles, being tested is certainly uncomfortable. Accordingly, our policy towards Iran is being given a little more thought.
Inevitably, people will be disappointed with what they find upon closer inspection of our policy. Remember that nuclear missile defense shield program? The one that President Obama discontinued, in order to please our "friends" in Moscow? I wonder if anyone of the Pelosi/Reid mindset will take a second look at it, given the circumstances we now find ourselves with. It would sure as hell be a good time to have nuclear defense capabilities.
As for the renewed political and economic sanctions that President Obama has promised to level at Iran: have sanctions ever really worked? Have they ever proved a genuinely useful alternative to armed conflict or more strenuous diplomatic measures? In Cuba, they failed to bring about the downfall of Castro's communist regime. In Iraq, they failed to even remotely deter Saddam Hussein from his evil deeds. In North Korea, they continue to be employed despite Kim Jong-Il's continued nose-thumbing. As Congressman Ron Paul points out, sanctions may even have the effect of hurting the very people that hate Iran's government the most: its own citizens.*
In the coming months, President Obama and both houses of Congress had best retool the strategy considerably. Tepid sanctions and liberal grandstanding on the issue of nuclear defense systems are not in our best interests right now. Iran has taken the game to a new level, and we ought to carefully consider the threat now posed to U.S. interests, as well as a course that we can chart to safely defuse this situation.
*- Despite my respect for the man, I am not part of the "Ron Paul Revolution". Nor do I completely agree with everything he says in the above article. But on the particular issue of sanctions, I can see his point.
This test comes just as a British newspaper leaked word that Iran has been developing a trigger device that has no civilian application whatsoever: it is strictly a component used to build nuclear weapons.
It is easy to compartmentalize our Middle Eastern woes. Lately, as the question of the U.S. commitment to Afghanistan has been hotly debated, the public discourses on Iraq and Iran have died down somewhat. Our attention is fixed firmly on the question of our troop surge in Afghanistan, and President Obama's plans for that particular conflict. This is understandable. However, waking up to the sight of an Iranian-made missile, capable of delivering a nuclear payload up to 1200 miles, being tested is certainly uncomfortable. Accordingly, our policy towards Iran is being given a little more thought.
Inevitably, people will be disappointed with what they find upon closer inspection of our policy. Remember that nuclear missile defense shield program? The one that President Obama discontinued, in order to please our "friends" in Moscow? I wonder if anyone of the Pelosi/Reid mindset will take a second look at it, given the circumstances we now find ourselves with. It would sure as hell be a good time to have nuclear defense capabilities.
As for the renewed political and economic sanctions that President Obama has promised to level at Iran: have sanctions ever really worked? Have they ever proved a genuinely useful alternative to armed conflict or more strenuous diplomatic measures? In Cuba, they failed to bring about the downfall of Castro's communist regime. In Iraq, they failed to even remotely deter Saddam Hussein from his evil deeds. In North Korea, they continue to be employed despite Kim Jong-Il's continued nose-thumbing. As Congressman Ron Paul points out, sanctions may even have the effect of hurting the very people that hate Iran's government the most: its own citizens.*
In the coming months, President Obama and both houses of Congress had best retool the strategy considerably. Tepid sanctions and liberal grandstanding on the issue of nuclear defense systems are not in our best interests right now. Iran has taken the game to a new level, and we ought to carefully consider the threat now posed to U.S. interests, as well as a course that we can chart to safely defuse this situation.
*- Despite my respect for the man, I am not part of the "Ron Paul Revolution". Nor do I completely agree with everything he says in the above article. But on the particular issue of sanctions, I can see his point.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Required Reading: "Time" Top Ten Lists
Paradoxically, despite its questionable leanings, I like Time magazine.
I like it because it is well written, comprehensive, and not nearly as nakedly partisan and obnoxious as other similar broad-scope commentary magazines tend to be. Let's be honest: Newsweek is just about unreadable these days, what with its replacement of good writing with inflammatory, subpar, college-level snarkiness. If I had a nickel for every time that Newsweek gave President Obama an "up" arrow rating in its weekly, over-simplified "who's up, who's down" featurette, I'd be rich. (Actually, I'd be richer if I had a nickel for every "down" arrow that they've given Dick Cheney, who seems to be the target of Newsweek jeers every day; maybe they're running out of other stuff to talk about).
Anyways, Time it is, and the Time year-end feature is now online, consisting of fifty separate top ten lists for the year (everything from the usual Ten Best Movies to more obscure stuff, such as Ten Most Awkward Moments and Ten New Weird Species). I highly recommend parsing this for at least a little while. There is some useful information here, and if nothing else, the exhaustive lists will jog your memory of 2009's most interesting news stories and events.
It can be both depressing and enlightening to relive a year in public affairs. Here you will be reminded of the heroism of our soldiers in the Middle East, and you will relive the irrelevant hype surrounding Octomom. You will read about the monumental debate surrounding congressional healthcare bill, and you will see the faces of Lindsay Lohan, Susan Boyle, and Miley Cyrus. The panorama of America, in all its complication, gloriousness, and stupidity, is such a thing to behold.
I like it because it is well written, comprehensive, and not nearly as nakedly partisan and obnoxious as other similar broad-scope commentary magazines tend to be. Let's be honest: Newsweek is just about unreadable these days, what with its replacement of good writing with inflammatory, subpar, college-level snarkiness. If I had a nickel for every time that Newsweek gave President Obama an "up" arrow rating in its weekly, over-simplified "who's up, who's down" featurette, I'd be rich. (Actually, I'd be richer if I had a nickel for every "down" arrow that they've given Dick Cheney, who seems to be the target of Newsweek jeers every day; maybe they're running out of other stuff to talk about).
Anyways, Time it is, and the Time year-end feature is now online, consisting of fifty separate top ten lists for the year (everything from the usual Ten Best Movies to more obscure stuff, such as Ten Most Awkward Moments and Ten New Weird Species). I highly recommend parsing this for at least a little while. There is some useful information here, and if nothing else, the exhaustive lists will jog your memory of 2009's most interesting news stories and events.
It can be both depressing and enlightening to relive a year in public affairs. Here you will be reminded of the heroism of our soldiers in the Middle East, and you will relive the irrelevant hype surrounding Octomom. You will read about the monumental debate surrounding congressional healthcare bill, and you will see the faces of Lindsay Lohan, Susan Boyle, and Miley Cyrus. The panorama of America, in all its complication, gloriousness, and stupidity, is such a thing to behold.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Coming Soon to the Western World: Chinese Reproductive Policy
According to the Canadian Financial Post's Diance Francis, the whole world ought to adopt China's one-child policy, due to our problems with overpopulation.
That anyone in the western world would seek to impose the Chinese government's brutal, totalitarian reproductive policy on anyone else is frightening. A couple's freedom to have more than one child is so basic and essentially sacred that only a complete left-wing fanatic could suggest this.
One imagines a white-washed office, staffed by people rehearsed in Pelosian talking points, with posters on the wall that boast sweet, politically-correct nothings like "Strength Through Selectivity", "Healthy Communities Now", and "Family Wellness Planning: Your Right". At bulletproof teller windows, smiling government bureaucrats will hand out reproductive licenses, process applications for babymaking, and so on. Behind the partition, a phone bank is set up, to which good citizens can call and report "unauthorized reproductive activity" to some DSS-style social workers who will promptly dispatch the offenders to punitive sterilization clinics (though these will be given some kind of nice, friendly-sounding name, like "Family Service Centers", or something). Illicit children? They can be retroactively aborted, of course.
Does this sound good to you, Ms. Francis?
Of course, if you call a communist a communist, outrage and whining ensue. Diane Francis, and those like her, are always the first to complain when their communist ideas earn them the accompanying monikers from all the mean, freedom-loving people who disagree with them. Yet what other adjectives can you ascribe to this stuff? It's the wishful thinking of the Obama age. The government should control everything, yes, even the number of children you have.
Sadly, I wouldn't put it past certain elements among the U.S. left to try to consolidate this kind of power with the federal government. They despise the family unit, and they value massive government intrusion on social matters, as the recent healthcare debacle shows.
I actually find it hard to muster much more of a rebuttal to the article in question, beyond my acute anger and disgust that such garbage is even published anywhere west of Beijing. Arguing with the devil is not difficult, but it is tiring. Francis' proposition is so blatantly opposed to the precepts of a free society, so brutish, so narrow-minded, so Orwellian, that picking it apart further would seem unneccesary.
If anyone does agree with this crap: please move to Canada. You will find plenty of other socialist morons that feel the same way, and you can set up whatever sort of reproductive police state you like. Hopefully, we'll still be here to laugh at you when your society has withered and failed.
That anyone in the western world would seek to impose the Chinese government's brutal, totalitarian reproductive policy on anyone else is frightening. A couple's freedom to have more than one child is so basic and essentially sacred that only a complete left-wing fanatic could suggest this.
One imagines a white-washed office, staffed by people rehearsed in Pelosian talking points, with posters on the wall that boast sweet, politically-correct nothings like "Strength Through Selectivity", "Healthy Communities Now", and "Family Wellness Planning: Your Right". At bulletproof teller windows, smiling government bureaucrats will hand out reproductive licenses, process applications for babymaking, and so on. Behind the partition, a phone bank is set up, to which good citizens can call and report "unauthorized reproductive activity" to some DSS-style social workers who will promptly dispatch the offenders to punitive sterilization clinics (though these will be given some kind of nice, friendly-sounding name, like "Family Service Centers", or something). Illicit children? They can be retroactively aborted, of course.
Does this sound good to you, Ms. Francis?
Of course, if you call a communist a communist, outrage and whining ensue. Diane Francis, and those like her, are always the first to complain when their communist ideas earn them the accompanying monikers from all the mean, freedom-loving people who disagree with them. Yet what other adjectives can you ascribe to this stuff? It's the wishful thinking of the Obama age. The government should control everything, yes, even the number of children you have.
Sadly, I wouldn't put it past certain elements among the U.S. left to try to consolidate this kind of power with the federal government. They despise the family unit, and they value massive government intrusion on social matters, as the recent healthcare debacle shows.
I actually find it hard to muster much more of a rebuttal to the article in question, beyond my acute anger and disgust that such garbage is even published anywhere west of Beijing. Arguing with the devil is not difficult, but it is tiring. Francis' proposition is so blatantly opposed to the precepts of a free society, so brutish, so narrow-minded, so Orwellian, that picking it apart further would seem unneccesary.
If anyone does agree with this crap: please move to Canada. You will find plenty of other socialist morons that feel the same way, and you can set up whatever sort of reproductive police state you like. Hopefully, we'll still be here to laugh at you when your society has withered and failed.
Ireland, the Pope, and Crappy '90s Musicians
Reuters is reporting monumental news today. It's news that could very well bring the Catholic Church to its knees. Sinead O'Connor wants the Pope to resign!
The androgynous '90s has-been from Ireland is apparently so cheesed off at the Pontiff over Ireland's Catholic sexual abuse scandal that s/he wants him to quit being Pope. Well, shit!
This kind of narrow-minded, hateful, ill-informed bloviating is dispiriting. However, it's also kind of funny. It's funny because no normal person gives a rat's ass about what Sinead O'Connor thinks. Good luck bringing down the papacy, Sinead. You may have found some faux "bishop" to ordain you, but generally speaking, nothing you do is front page news. I somehow doubt that you have the political capital to destory major world religions.
I'm not just saying this because I happen to be Catholic and believe that Pope Benedict XVI is a great Pope. I'm saying this because Sinead O'Connor is a laughable monument to the awfulness of 90s' alternative rock, and an avatar of radical silliness. Her words are charged with the usual pompous entitlement used by all crappy activist musicians in such situations. "I demand the Pope stand down for his contemptible silence on the matter and his acts of non-co-operation with the inquiry," says s/he. Demand? Well, how about I demand that you lick a toad?
I guess I shouldn't be so dismissive, as this is a serious and heartbreaking situation. Stil, it is obvious that Sinead's accusations are false, and that they are representative of a radical, Catholic-bashing few. The Pope does care about abuse victims, not just those victimized in Ireland but all over the world. Does no one remember the meeting between the Pope and several American abuse victims that occurred when he visited New York in 2008? Clearly, the man's heart is with those who were hurt. Any reasonable person can see this.
I am in no way defending those who perpetrated or covered up these horrendous acts of abuse. Genuine criticism of Church leaders in Ireland is fair game. Bomb-throwing, while it is to be expected, is not. Therefore, it's a shame that the public discourse has been hijacked thusly.
I happen to live in the Archdiocese of Boston. From 2001 until well into the last few years, the Church in my area was rocked by a similar scandal. What preceded the scandal? Decades of laxity. Decades of touchy-feely, pot-smoking, effeminate '70s ideology being presented as truth at the seminaries. Decades of a top-down refusal to foster a genuine, healthy masculine culture among priests. I won't get into it further in this post, but order this book and you'll get the straight story.
Therefore, it would seem that the very same permissive modernist ideology that Sinead O'Connor seems to embrace is the same ideology that has led to scandal in the first place. Let's not forget that before 2001, pedophilia was actually something that the liberal establishment wanted to legitimize. They previously defended it as an institution that isn't neccesarily damaging to the children involved. They don't dare do it (openly) anymore, because they would lose all credibility with the average American. One cannot argeu, however, that they used to.
Overall, my hope is that the neccesary cleansing of the Irish Church can take place, accompanied by a just and fair public discourse. Outrage will be an important part of that discourse, and rightfully so. However, as the Sinead story shows, there will inevitably be those who use the scandal as an opportunity to attack the Church and its teachings. It will not be the pursuit of justice, but rather mere hatred of the Church, that will ensue if the Sineads of the world take seize the microphone on this crucial issue.
P.S. Reinforcing my earlier point, I like this piece by Guardian commentator Gerald Warner. His article describes how the new age, touchy-feely religious movement is to blame for the current Irish problem.
The androgynous '90s has-been from Ireland is apparently so cheesed off at the Pontiff over Ireland's Catholic sexual abuse scandal that s/he wants him to quit being Pope. Well, shit!
This kind of narrow-minded, hateful, ill-informed bloviating is dispiriting. However, it's also kind of funny. It's funny because no normal person gives a rat's ass about what Sinead O'Connor thinks. Good luck bringing down the papacy, Sinead. You may have found some faux "bishop" to ordain you, but generally speaking, nothing you do is front page news. I somehow doubt that you have the political capital to destory major world religions.
I'm not just saying this because I happen to be Catholic and believe that Pope Benedict XVI is a great Pope. I'm saying this because Sinead O'Connor is a laughable monument to the awfulness of 90s' alternative rock, and an avatar of radical silliness. Her words are charged with the usual pompous entitlement used by all crappy activist musicians in such situations. "I demand the Pope stand down for his contemptible silence on the matter and his acts of non-co-operation with the inquiry," says s/he. Demand? Well, how about I demand that you lick a toad?
I guess I shouldn't be so dismissive, as this is a serious and heartbreaking situation. Stil, it is obvious that Sinead's accusations are false, and that they are representative of a radical, Catholic-bashing few. The Pope does care about abuse victims, not just those victimized in Ireland but all over the world. Does no one remember the meeting between the Pope and several American abuse victims that occurred when he visited New York in 2008? Clearly, the man's heart is with those who were hurt. Any reasonable person can see this.
I am in no way defending those who perpetrated or covered up these horrendous acts of abuse. Genuine criticism of Church leaders in Ireland is fair game. Bomb-throwing, while it is to be expected, is not. Therefore, it's a shame that the public discourse has been hijacked thusly.
I happen to live in the Archdiocese of Boston. From 2001 until well into the last few years, the Church in my area was rocked by a similar scandal. What preceded the scandal? Decades of laxity. Decades of touchy-feely, pot-smoking, effeminate '70s ideology being presented as truth at the seminaries. Decades of a top-down refusal to foster a genuine, healthy masculine culture among priests. I won't get into it further in this post, but order this book and you'll get the straight story.
Therefore, it would seem that the very same permissive modernist ideology that Sinead O'Connor seems to embrace is the same ideology that has led to scandal in the first place. Let's not forget that before 2001, pedophilia was actually something that the liberal establishment wanted to legitimize. They previously defended it as an institution that isn't neccesarily damaging to the children involved. They don't dare do it (openly) anymore, because they would lose all credibility with the average American. One cannot argeu, however, that they used to.
Overall, my hope is that the neccesary cleansing of the Irish Church can take place, accompanied by a just and fair public discourse. Outrage will be an important part of that discourse, and rightfully so. However, as the Sinead story shows, there will inevitably be those who use the scandal as an opportunity to attack the Church and its teachings. It will not be the pursuit of justice, but rather mere hatred of the Church, that will ensue if the Sineads of the world take seize the microphone on this crucial issue.
P.S. Reinforcing my earlier point, I like this piece by Guardian commentator Gerald Warner. His article describes how the new age, touchy-feely religious movement is to blame for the current Irish problem.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Sudden Democratic Urges
Today's Boston Globe offers a depressing little tidbit about the current race for Ted Kennedy's open U.S. senate seat. It seems Martha Coakley, who is suddenly adamant that Massachusetts residents be treated to the full democratic process, refuses to debate Republican candidate Scott Brown unless third-party Libertarian candidate Joseph L. Kennedy (no relation to those Kennedys) is included.
Here we have naked political strategizing disguised as populist insistence on fairness. Coakley says, "I'm a Democrat, we live in a democracy, and this is one of the treasures that we have...If people can get the votes and get the support, they're allowed to get their message out to voters. ... He has done what Massachusetts says he needs to to be on the ballot here. In that sense he puts himself out as a candidate.''
Do not be fooled by this stammering extollment of the virtues of the democratic process. Magnanimous Martha is simply trying to split the Tax Day Tea Party crowd away from Brown, as Kennedy will easily siphon their votes away. By insisting on Libertarian involvement in the debates, she can turn this into a 70-15-15 race, rather than a 70-30 one.
Technically, there is nothing illegal or unethical about any of this. Nor does it really matter. It is, however, laughably insincere and (to those who follow local politics) somewhat aggravating.
The Democratic Party of Massachusetts is the party that refused to let the gay marriage issue be decided by popular vote, dictating through legislation that legally enshrined gay marriage is the law of the land. It is the party that recently has seen quite a few of its members (including former House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi and State Senator Diane Wilkerson) tossed out onto their butts due to abuses of power and ethics violations. It is the party that hands out high-paying government jobs to its friends and supporters.
Yet now, it is the party telling us to consider our voting options, in the name of fairness and democracy! I wish that the lefties had been as accomodating when it was time to give gay marriage a popular referendum.
Here we have naked political strategizing disguised as populist insistence on fairness. Coakley says, "I'm a Democrat, we live in a democracy, and this is one of the treasures that we have...If people can get the votes and get the support, they're allowed to get their message out to voters. ... He has done what Massachusetts says he needs to to be on the ballot here. In that sense he puts himself out as a candidate.''
Do not be fooled by this stammering extollment of the virtues of the democratic process. Magnanimous Martha is simply trying to split the Tax Day Tea Party crowd away from Brown, as Kennedy will easily siphon their votes away. By insisting on Libertarian involvement in the debates, she can turn this into a 70-15-15 race, rather than a 70-30 one.
Technically, there is nothing illegal or unethical about any of this. Nor does it really matter. It is, however, laughably insincere and (to those who follow local politics) somewhat aggravating.
The Democratic Party of Massachusetts is the party that refused to let the gay marriage issue be decided by popular vote, dictating through legislation that legally enshrined gay marriage is the law of the land. It is the party that recently has seen quite a few of its members (including former House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi and State Senator Diane Wilkerson) tossed out onto their butts due to abuses of power and ethics violations. It is the party that hands out high-paying government jobs to its friends and supporters.
Yet now, it is the party telling us to consider our voting options, in the name of fairness and democracy! I wish that the lefties had been as accomodating when it was time to give gay marriage a popular referendum.
Equal Opportunity Adultery
The revelation of golf superstar Tiger Woods' many dalliances with sleazy women has come as a shock to many. Not to me. With fame and fortune come opportunities for illicit pleasures aplenty. In fact, even without fame and fortune, we live in an age of utter libertine subjugation to our base impulses. Money and prestige only make seeking gratification easier, which is why we have entire useless publications devoted to examining the prurient escapades of the celebrity set. I am not entirely sure why anyone is surprised about all of this.
I will say this: Eugene Robinson, of the worthless Washington Post, is a moron. He has taken the Tiger debacle in a whole new, completely unhelpful direction by insinuating that there is some kind of self-targeted racism at play in Tiger's choice of mistresses. The black golf pro's choice of busty, Playboy-style white women reflects a lack of diversity, says Robinson. Shame on Tiger for not screwing a few black, Latino, or Asian women while he was at it. If you're going to cheat, cheat in a more politically-correct fashion.
Apparently, should any of you readers ever decide to become serial adulterers, I recommend that at least one of your illicit partners be a minority. That way, hurt feelings can be avoided (except for your wife's hurt feelings, but those are aside the point; once the damage is done, liberal ire over non-diverse sexual attraction ought be your primary concern).
How nauseating. Yet, again, how unsurpising. Last week as I perused the Boston Herald, all the full-page images of Tiger, a black man, juxtaposed with his posse of caucasian sluts, stood out like sore thumbs. For race baiters, the contrasting skin colors of the parties involved are just too good to be true. Someone was inevitably going to seize on it.
Robinson's conspiracy theory about Tiger's presumed disinterest in minority women hasn't garnered much traction. This is probably because even other whiny, oversensitive editors and journalists know that these kinds of comments are infuriatingly off-base. Only a desperate person would drag the race issue into a fairly mundane sex scandal situation that is not at all germane to it. That Robinson suggests Tiger's exclusively white taste is a result of insecurity might be even more offensive. Is "security" defined as "having sexual preferences that cut across a multitude of ethnicities"?
People who try to stir up bad feeling needlessly are one of the primary reasons why the public affairs discourse in our country is so charged with artificial "controversy".
I will say this: Eugene Robinson, of the worthless Washington Post, is a moron. He has taken the Tiger debacle in a whole new, completely unhelpful direction by insinuating that there is some kind of self-targeted racism at play in Tiger's choice of mistresses. The black golf pro's choice of busty, Playboy-style white women reflects a lack of diversity, says Robinson. Shame on Tiger for not screwing a few black, Latino, or Asian women while he was at it. If you're going to cheat, cheat in a more politically-correct fashion.
Apparently, should any of you readers ever decide to become serial adulterers, I recommend that at least one of your illicit partners be a minority. That way, hurt feelings can be avoided (except for your wife's hurt feelings, but those are aside the point; once the damage is done, liberal ire over non-diverse sexual attraction ought be your primary concern).
How nauseating. Yet, again, how unsurpising. Last week as I perused the Boston Herald, all the full-page images of Tiger, a black man, juxtaposed with his posse of caucasian sluts, stood out like sore thumbs. For race baiters, the contrasting skin colors of the parties involved are just too good to be true. Someone was inevitably going to seize on it.
Robinson's conspiracy theory about Tiger's presumed disinterest in minority women hasn't garnered much traction. This is probably because even other whiny, oversensitive editors and journalists know that these kinds of comments are infuriatingly off-base. Only a desperate person would drag the race issue into a fairly mundane sex scandal situation that is not at all germane to it. That Robinson suggests Tiger's exclusively white taste is a result of insecurity might be even more offensive. Is "security" defined as "having sexual preferences that cut across a multitude of ethnicities"?
People who try to stir up bad feeling needlessly are one of the primary reasons why the public affairs discourse in our country is so charged with artificial "controversy".
Thursday, December 10, 2009
The Senate Snooze-Fest
The Boston Globe, in an article surprisingly devoid of left-wing cheerleading, has outlined the opposing campaign strategies of yesterday's Massachusetts senate primary winners. The differences between State Senator Scott Brown (R-Wrentham, MA) and Attorney General Martha Coakley (D-Pittsfield, MA) are not surprising.
He is a true Massachusetts Republican, a trumpeter of financial responsibility, an opponent of socialized medicine, with liberal values akin to the umpteen other Democrats sitting on Beacon Hill.
She is a typical feminist liberal, the kind of person despised by the average Texan, so brazen in her socially progressive agenda that she initially refused to support the Senate's current health insurance reform bill because, apparently, it doesn't provide unfettered abortion access.
The Globe sums it up thusly: Brown is going to "go after" Coakley, and seek to expose her past foibles as Attorney General. Coakley is going to simply ignore Brown.
How will it end? With a handful of diverting headlines, a low turnout, and a victory for Coakley. Her ascension is pre-ordained. The party bosses, union leaders, and whiny activist groups will stump for any idiot who arrays himself (sorry, herself) with the blue jackass of the Democratic Party. It helps that Coakley is the consumate politician: quiet, cool, unemotional. Her primary campaign largely consisted of cautious, poll-supported posturing. She's as much a master of positioning herself as President Obama (only she has none of his public speaking chops).
I predict that this is going to be one of the most bland, boring political excursions the state has seen since...well, 2006, when Deval Patrick handily beat up on poor Kerry "Muffy" Healey. (More on Deval's doomed re-election bid later. I suspect he will lose, but he is losing strictly due to incomprehensible stupidity, and not misdirected party allegiance).
There is no chance for Brown. He cannot excite the conservative base of Massachusetts, should such a thing exist. Coakley's machine, which was revving even while Teddy was still warm on his deathbed, is unstoppable.
Even if the fiscally minded Republicans who own Financial District counting houses show up to vote, the Christians, so central to every GOP victory, likely will not. You can only cheat a man so many times before he refuses to play. Brown's centerfold photoshoot and his mousy support for abortion are telltale signs of his inevitable failure to live up to Republican ideals, and the grassroots right won't bother mustering any momentum for him. He smells, feels, and looks like the kind of Republican who acts pro-life during the campaign season and then laughs at the Evangelicals behind closed doors, once they've inked their ballots.
Granted, I hope I am wrong. The lesser of many evils is always my preference. I will vote for Brown.
Regardless of my hopes, we are left with a probable Democratic victory. Massachusetts seems incapable of thinking/reasoning/debating its way out of the status quo. These pre-programmed elections, in which watered-down, underfunded Republicans lose to wealthy, well-connected Democrats, will continue on and on. Turnout will stagnate further, as even liberals stop showing up to vote. When you've clinched it, why waste the gas?
Politics in Massachusetts remain a boring, frustrating spectator sport. The lack of competition and realistic alternatives to the liberal status quo have left us in the doldrums. Hopefully, we'll wake up before our state marches away into national irrelevancy.
He is a true Massachusetts Republican, a trumpeter of financial responsibility, an opponent of socialized medicine, with liberal values akin to the umpteen other Democrats sitting on Beacon Hill.
She is a typical feminist liberal, the kind of person despised by the average Texan, so brazen in her socially progressive agenda that she initially refused to support the Senate's current health insurance reform bill because, apparently, it doesn't provide unfettered abortion access.
The Globe sums it up thusly: Brown is going to "go after" Coakley, and seek to expose her past foibles as Attorney General. Coakley is going to simply ignore Brown.
How will it end? With a handful of diverting headlines, a low turnout, and a victory for Coakley. Her ascension is pre-ordained. The party bosses, union leaders, and whiny activist groups will stump for any idiot who arrays himself (sorry, herself) with the blue jackass of the Democratic Party. It helps that Coakley is the consumate politician: quiet, cool, unemotional. Her primary campaign largely consisted of cautious, poll-supported posturing. She's as much a master of positioning herself as President Obama (only she has none of his public speaking chops).
I predict that this is going to be one of the most bland, boring political excursions the state has seen since...well, 2006, when Deval Patrick handily beat up on poor Kerry "Muffy" Healey. (More on Deval's doomed re-election bid later. I suspect he will lose, but he is losing strictly due to incomprehensible stupidity, and not misdirected party allegiance).
There is no chance for Brown. He cannot excite the conservative base of Massachusetts, should such a thing exist. Coakley's machine, which was revving even while Teddy was still warm on his deathbed, is unstoppable.
Even if the fiscally minded Republicans who own Financial District counting houses show up to vote, the Christians, so central to every GOP victory, likely will not. You can only cheat a man so many times before he refuses to play. Brown's centerfold photoshoot and his mousy support for abortion are telltale signs of his inevitable failure to live up to Republican ideals, and the grassroots right won't bother mustering any momentum for him. He smells, feels, and looks like the kind of Republican who acts pro-life during the campaign season and then laughs at the Evangelicals behind closed doors, once they've inked their ballots.
Granted, I hope I am wrong. The lesser of many evils is always my preference. I will vote for Brown.
Regardless of my hopes, we are left with a probable Democratic victory. Massachusetts seems incapable of thinking/reasoning/debating its way out of the status quo. These pre-programmed elections, in which watered-down, underfunded Republicans lose to wealthy, well-connected Democrats, will continue on and on. Turnout will stagnate further, as even liberals stop showing up to vote. When you've clinched it, why waste the gas?
Politics in Massachusetts remain a boring, frustrating spectator sport. The lack of competition and realistic alternatives to the liberal status quo have left us in the doldrums. Hopefully, we'll wake up before our state marches away into national irrelevancy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
