Monthly Archives: August 2011

Protip: How Leftists Lie

AN OBAMA APOLOGIST on the Hannity show did a pretty typical liar’s sleight of hand. Obaserve how this is done.

Parts of the health care reform act were proposed or approved by Republicans. So to say that Obamacare is socialist is factually inaccurate.

Got it? You see what she’s done there? The fallacious non sequitur is used with deliberate mendacity.

Call them on it.

I… Dunno

READING COMMENTS on Michelle Malkin’s post on the recall elections of fleebagging Democrats in Wisconsin…

What?! That’s still going on? What the fern is taking so bloody long?

The wheels of justice grind slowly, Dolly.

Is that what this is? Justice?

It is if the right side loses.

And by “right” you mean “correct”.

Right. Er… correct.

And which side would that be?

E-e-eggs-ZACK-lee.

Huh? What?

Which side is the right side depends on what side you’re on.

Well, DUH! But what side are we on.

Why, the right side, of course.

Grrrr. I’m-a-gonna kick yer ass!

I’m sure you will, Baby Doll. But — please — before you do, stop and think about it, would you?

Don’t need t’ stop. I can think and rant at the same time.

Multi-tasking, eh?

Nah. More like very fast time-sharing.

What. Everrr.

Really. But you were saying…?

Oh! Right! Some of the commenter’s at Michelle’s place urge anti-fleebagging legislation. One example given was to deny voting privileges to fleebaggers for — say — thirty days.

OK. So… what’s wrong with that?

Well… I’m not sure that unrestrained legislation is any more desirable than the opposite. As Twain said, “The only time a person’s money, property, and life are safe is when the legislature is not in session.” Gridlock, you see, can be your friend.

So, say I accept that for a minute, how does that apply here?

Well, fleebaggers do so in order to deny a majority a quorum.

Quo-what?

Quorum. The requirement that a parliamentary body of any nature have a minimum requisite attendance in order for any business to be legitimately done. Fleebaggers thus stall legislation by denying the body as a whole a quorum.

Well, yeah. That’s what all the bitching’s about!

Well, suppose Republicans in the House of Representatives had been able to deny the Democrats a quorum on Obamacare?

It would have saved a lot of grief, wouldn’t it… Oh! I see…

So anti-fleebagging legislation can be turned against any minority — perhaps even one fighting on the side of right and good. And, in general, anything that keeps a legislature from acting prevents it from doing any more damage.

But… There you’re assuming the legislature can do no good.

And your countervailing argument is…?

Well…?

I’m thinking! I’m thinking!

To quote Jack Benny.

Er…?

Benny was reputed to be so cheap that, if a robber threatened him, “Your money or your life,” he’d have to give the proposition serious consideration.

Oh.

Now, THAT’s funny!

Well … Yeah

GLENN BECK at about 9:30 Monday morning: “Did the Europeans go and conquer the Pharoah and put on his funny hat and enslave everybody?

Well, Glenn, I’ll take “Greek Style” for $500.

A: This dynasty was the last dynasty to rule ancient Egypt before the country was finally taken over by the Romans in 44BC. Its last pharoah was a famous woman.

Q: Who were the Ptolemies?

DING-DING-DING-DING-DING-DING-DING!

Scary thing is, I’m not so sure he was kidding.

Romney: No

I WILL MAKE this prediction: If Romney is the candidate, Obama gets four more years. It will be a sign to the patriotic, Tea Party right that the Republican Party, despite defeat after defeat, running generic country-club bluebloods when the rank-and-file want real people from flyover country, JUST. Doesn’t. Get. It.

So Glad Michele Bachman

WON IN IOWA. Not sure it will matter in the long run. The relevance of these early polls is mostly that they’re early. They don’t signify a large portion of the electorate, or even serve as particularly reliable bellweathers. But still…

Now, a lot of folks are going to moan on about Bachman because she’s religious. It astonishes me no more that in this country of all the nations of the world there are significant numbers of people who, if a politician goes to church more often than Christmas and Easter (or Rosh Hashona and Yom Kippur, or Eid, or whatever), all of a sudden they start moaning about the advancing theocracy. I’m not a big one for religion and politics in the same cart myself, but in my experience, most religious folk on the right just want to be left the hell alone. They wouldn’t be political if it weren’t for the virulent attacks on faith from the Left. And, having heard a good deal of what Bachman has said over the past couple-three years, she looks to me to be of that type. Yes, faith informs her politics. But — don’t kid yourself, bunky — the same is true of you. And if you try to deny it, I’m going to call you a liar to your face. Nobody has any proof on matters of God and everything, so we’re all operating on faith, and some folks ought to learn the humility to admit it — if only to themselves.

But here’s another thing for the faithless among us to consider: the faithful are a significant voting bloc in this country. Not monolithic, by any means, but, if your candidate cannot speak to them in their language, using terms that make them comfortable with ideas, it doesn’t matter how strong he or she may be otherwise, he can’t get elected. Remember, even Obama had to fake right on that.

However, I don’t see Bachman as a primarily religious candidate. And on the most important issues of the age — Obamacare, the debt, taxes, spending, defense, regulation, local rights — she is pitch-perfect right down the line. She is, after all, the evil tebagger queen who wouldn’t let Obama’s debt deal pass Congress unless there was a repeal of Obamacare attached. The Democrats said that was what made her stance a non-starter, but that was spin. That stance was what scare them shitless. And will continue to scare them shitless. And we also know the lady has spine, because She. Would. Not. Back. Down. Not even in the face of Weepin’ John Boehner’s best arm-twisting. Why not? Because she can’t be bought. Won’t take pork. Won’t take earmarks. The Left tries to say that makes her a do-nothing, but what they’re really complaining about is that she won’t play their corrupt game. She’s there to fix the problems that game has caused in Washington, and that’s what the business-as-usual pols can’t stand.

In closing, I must state clearly that this is not an endorsement of Bachman. The only possible candidate I could endorse this early is Sarah Palin. But Michele Bachman is a close second. The election is currently framed as belonging to ABO — Anybody but Obama — but I might add, we don’t need no steenking statists — which means no Romney, and no Huntsman. And I ain’t too sure about Rick Perry. That Ron Paul took second says the right things, I think, without going off the rails. The country is demanding an end to statism, and end to the almighty bureaucratic state, and a return to individual liberty, individual rights, and individual responsibility.

God willing, we might just get it.

Cross-posted at Eternity Road.

The Caturday Post

HERE I AM STRUGGLING to get a service business to startup. Keep pulling on the cord, and all that happens is the thing tumbles a few revs and the exhaust hisses at me. No spark. Here I am working my fingers to the bone to get a story — just one story, any story — up for Kindle, with the idea of following it up with more on a regular basis. Had stories on my site(s) for ten years to no reaction, no comment… (see one-stroke metaphor above). And the stuff I post that people seem to like the most? Pictures of my cats.

Go thou and figure.

But I ain’t complainin’. After all, I do get to keep the company of cats. Such as Chester (whom I am not permitted to nick-call Chaz, although the temptation is strong) at right.

Or Earnie (below), who likes to sleep curled up on my chest.

Or Jane, who is sweet and affectionate, but most independent and not given to lap-cat behavior.

Some notes. These are mostly for Janet, who fostered our trio and recently lost a fur friend of her own, and no doubt hungers for news.

I spend the most time with Earnie, and so get to observe him the most closely. (Earnie and Chester are playing hockey with a piece of painter’s tape in the entryway just now. Had to stop to watch a singular powerplay.) From the day he came to live here, Earnie has reminded me of nothing so much as a miniature Boston Terrier. Yes, his ears and muzzle are more pointed than the dogs’ are. And it might be seen as an over-facile comparison, based almost solely on the coat markings — solid black above, solid white below, with boots and mittens. (Well, elbow-length opera gloves, if you can get past the gender-bending metaphor.)

But I must insist that there is a firmer basis for my simile. There’s something about Earnie’s body conformation — his stance and shape — that strengthens the likeness. The above shot is one of the first I’ve been able to get of Earnie that shows even a little how young and tiny he is. (Well, has been. He’s growing pretty fast. Toni came back from a few days in Michigan and commented on how he’s filling out.) His body is short and stocky in relation to most kittens I’ve known. At first, I was willing to allow it might just be that he’s younger — by quite a bit — than Chester and Jane. But that’s not it, entirely. He really is more square and stumpy where most kittens –once they get over roly-poly-ness — tend more toward lanky, like gawky teenagers. And his back end resembles the dog’s a bit more, too. He has a — forgive me, Lord — a wide stance. He’s kind of bow-legged. But at the same time, he has narrow hips (And a fat little belly!), so he has a kind of a tapered appearance from the back like the terrier. Plus, he doesn’t badoop as much.

(That’s our — Toni’s and mine — description of the kind of hopping gait of teeny kittens. They don’t run so much as they badoop. Rapid movement being accomplished by a rapid repeated cycling of the maneuver, described as badoop-badoop-badoop. Watch one run down stairs sometime, for an example.)

Earnie actually runs — albeit with a short-legged terrier’s gait.

Chester seems to have a bro-crush on Loki. He follows the older guy around and catpiles with him on the bed in the afternoons. Evenings, he likes to spend with me on the couch. We switch places from end to end as the evening progresses.

Chester seems to think he’s a Kennedy — entitled to lord it over the rest. But, since he weighs, like, five pounds, at best he can pick on the other kittens. The bigger cats just snort dirisively at him and go, “Yur Doon It Rong” when he attempts his cute little dominance moves. Earnie’s pretty feisty (comes of being the youngest of three, doncha know — gotta fight to survive) and the two of them are always doing that play-fight chaffering that sibling kittens will do (even if they’re not really littermates, which Earnie and Chester aren’t).

Jane, on the other hand, really is a lady, and a bit of a peace-maker, it appears. (She occasionally attempts to mediate spats between Karma and Aqua.) (Toni (on Aqua): “I wouldn’t have thought she could move that fast.”) So Jane, in her reactions to Chester’s attempts to assert dominance does this, “Relax and think of England” thing until Chester becomes really TOO annoying, and then she squirms free and trots off, leaving Chester looking cross-eyed at any observer with just the perfect “Wha’ hoppen?” expression.

If I can’t seem to get pictures of Earnie (and Chester, too, really), that accurately portray how young and small he is, my frustration with Jane is that I can’t seem to capture her incredibly beautiful coat. In photographs, it looks like this silvery-shimmery thing, albeit flat and two-dimensional. In life, the coloration is warmer. The gray is like a grayscale quadtone, with rich highlights and undertones, The lighter markings are creamy, rather than pure white, and seem to be cut into the darker background — sort of like a fade haircut. The whole has a kind of rich, country feel to it. It’s very hard to get it right under a flash, and it’s just the wrong time of year for good natural light in the house right now.

Oh, well.

Earnie has decided he wants to play with a USB cable. I have to persuade him that’s not a good idea. Have a great day!

Wrong Side of History

ON THE SEMINAL 1964 record album, Peter, Paul & Mary in Concert, Peter Yarrow, speaking interstitially, introduces for an embedded solo turn, “My friend, my compatriot, Paul Stookey.” (To thunderous applause.)

Yarrow has never made any secret of his leftward leaninings. He has appeared in support and solidarity with some of the last Century’s great monsters, including the Sandinistas of Nicaragua and their El Salvadorian counterparts. His band’s first major single was “If I Had a Hammer,” written by noted communist sympathizer, Pete Seeger.

But, at the start of the seminal decade of the 1960s, Yarrow and his ilk were truly (or, at least with convincing sincerity) embedded in the struggle on the side of right and freedom. It was only later that they became enmeshed in the lie that collectivism is or can be in any way allied with freedom. (And you have to wonder how delusional somebody has to be to miss that.)

At about the same time as that concert album was being recorded, I was coming to my first political awakenings, as embodied in the phrase, “Live and let live.” If all of the implications of that aren’t by now old friends to you, you should probably devote a few weeks’ thought to the notion.

We were, or might have been, compatriots.

The so-called progressives and liberals in the country were, at that time, engaged in the “civil rights” struggle. There were myriad forces arrayed from as many standpoints on the issue. But the principle at stake was — or should have been — that the power of the state must not be used to deny liberty to any citizens of that state. That the struggle devolved into a mad dash for spoils was entirely predictable — and was, in fact, predicted at the time — due in no small part to the fact that the movement seeking equal treatment for blacks was subverted by those famous “outside agitators” who sought to use it to their own nefarious ends — i.e., bringing about the dissolution and destruction of the West. If a noble cause, such as liberty and equality, it was reasoned, could be turned from that pure goal into a grab for ill-gotten gains as a part of a systematic exploitation of real and imagined grievances, the resulting turmoil could only redound to the benefit of nation’s enemies.

Not too very long ago, a friend with leftward sympathies was inveighing against some perceived outrage from the Right, and bemoaning the putative loss of ground since the ’60s. She ranted, “Don’t those people remember what we fought for back then?”

It didn’t occur to me in that moment, but it has many times since that “we” were perhaps fighting for different things.

I, for one, was fighting against the overweening abuse of state power, in clear violation of the Constitution, by that amorphous “them” in Washington, DC.

And part of what the so-called “civil rights” strugle did was conflate the public and private. Where I agree it is invidious for the state to engage in discrimination on any basis, it is an improper use of government power to impose sanctions on the thoughts of the private citizen, no matter how odious men of goodwill may find them. And the “public accomodation” arrangements made in the lunch-counter debate crossed that line. Whereas a city-owned bus line could not — must not be allowed to — make black citizens sit in a segregated part of a vehicle; and whereas public parks and tax-supported facilities must not be permitted to be segregated on any basis (including making special provision for the religious practices and sensibilities of narrow groups), it is despicable and (yes) invidious for the state to say to the wholly private owner of a business of any nature that “You must do business with such-and-so, and you must satisfy his every whim and demand, no matter how odious to you!” (On pain of being denied “permission” to engage in business.) On the one hand, there is a clear affront to liberty, on the other there is a denial of enumerated constitutional rights of free association — not to mention that selfsame liberty and private property rights.

The property rights baby was thrown out with the poor customer service bathwater.

I’m reminded of the incident in the ’90s in which several black members of President Clinton’s Secret Service detail were allegedly shown poor service at Denny’s. The blacks alleged racial discrimination. Most of the rest of us called BS. “There’s no discrimination there; EVERYBODY gets bad service at Denny’s.” It was equal treatment in all its glorious action. I think the lunch counter argument was more of the same, albeit on steroids. The owners of the dime stores in question were engaged in egregiously bad customer service. And, on a level playing field, a less bigoted player would come along and — pardon the metaphor — eat their lunch by offering good — even obsequious — service to previously put-upon blacks.

Of course, the problem was that there were corrupt government forces in play — making it harder for new entrants in a field, erecting barriers in front of anyone who would want to start an integrated public accomodation, directing police to look the other way in cases of violence directed by the bigoted against such enterprises — or, indeed, against those who would even propose them. And, once that corruption in the state was removed, matters changed. And with startling alacrity.

And that’s where I and the militant Left parted company. I was after individual liberty. They wanted to use the power of the state to enforce their preference as to how to distribute the spoils. And this from the crowd that is so proud of having professionalized the bureaucracy and gotten rid of the spoils system in government hiring.

Uh-huh.

Corrupt “old” men, such as the Dulles brothers and Robert McNamara, and Lyndon Johnson, and myriad others — mainly (it should be noted) Democrats (perhaps less because Democrats tend to be evil old bastards, though they do, than that they were in the majority in Congress at the time) — were sending young American men off to die in a land war in Asia. And they were micro-managing the war from Washington. And, in fact, we had no idea until much later just how corrupt the management of the war was, and how poorly-justified it was. (Sometimes I think that our only function in that war was to act as a punching bag for the aggrandizement of Ho and Giap and the rest of that lot in Hanoi.)

But then, resistance to the war became support for the enemy, and all of a sudden, some of “us” were on the wrong side of history.

I also think there are prices too high to pay to save the United States. Conscription is one of them. Conscription is slavery, and I don’t think that any people or nation has a right to save itself at the price of slavery for anyone, no matter what name it is called. We have had the draft for twenty years now; I think this is shameful. If a country can’t save itself through the volunteer service of its own free people, then I say : Let the damned thing go down the drain!

–Robert Heinlein, Guest of Honor Speech at the 29th World Science Fiction Convention, Seattle, Washington (1961)

That quote bothered me a lot in the ’60s. It still does. But now, I realize the reason it angers me is that I understand the home truth in it, and it frightens me. If my native land is headed down the drain, and I can’t see what I can do about it, what’s to become of me?

On that basis, I thought resistance to the draft was entirely apropos. This is a land of freedom, not of slavery. We should live by our ideals, and the men and women who defend our freedom should not be press-ganged into it.

Still… Look at who it was who proposed the draft, and who defended it — and who proposes and defends it today: Democrats. Who ended the draft (as, indeed, who ended slavery)? Republicans. Yet, where do the leftists place their trust and support? Who’s in the right, here?

And who’s on the right and wrong side of history?

But then, resistence to the draft (and the war) became support for the enemy, and that was that for that, then.

Now, we’re ramping up to a Presidential election campaign. And I keep seeing and hearing of the tactics of the “outside agitators,” the “community organizers” being used to shout down and silence those who oppose the racial spoils system, the corrupt power-mongering,the support for, appeasement of, and kowtowing to America’s enemies, the cutting dead of America’s friends and allies, the vote-buying against fiduciary responsibility and with stolen money, the union thuggery, and the crony capitalism. And they call themselves progressives.

I propose to you that they are far from progressives. Instead, might I suggest they are CONgressives — from a joke on the Left, if con is the opposite of pro, then Congress must be… Progress must surely be defined as being away from benighted privation and toward enlightenment, liberty, and individual rights; away from collectivism and toward the apotheosis of humanity, the unrestrained vision of the human mind. That being so, then nothing the soi-disant Progressives propose or struggle in support of in any way represents Progress. And, if history has a right side and a wrong side, then the right side must be that which favors the march of progress toward the liberation of the human individual, and the wrong side is… the Left.

Also posted at Eternity Road.

Comin Atcha

AT THE SPEED of Life: Sarah Hoyt posits a future I’ve mentioned before as well. Does a better job than me, but then you’d expect that. RTWT.

Suddenly: printed airplanes. Your argument is invalid.

During the research for this post, I googled “Your Argument is Invalid” and discovered the Know Your Meme wiki at ICHC, linked above. The Internet! What a country!

The Ever-Tasteless

TINA BROWN AT the weekly rag (except that rags can be useful) Newsweek has descended into rank ad feminam in the current cover photo of Michele Bachman.

Knowing la Brown as the world does, this latest eruction can hardly be surprising.

I propose that the Right stop fucking whingeing about it and fight back. It’s not like we lack ammunition, as well as the moral high ground. We don’t even have to get our hands dirty.

All we need is the truth, to quote latter day middle-class hero, John Lennon.

I’m sick and tired of hearing things from uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocritics.
All I want is the truth.
Just gimme some truth.
I’ve had enough of reading things by neurotic, psychotic, pig-headed politicians.
All I want is the truth.
Just gimme some truth.

No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dicky Is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me
With just a pocketful of hope.
Money for dope.
Money for rope.

No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dicky Is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me
With just a pocketful of soap
Money for dope
Money for rope

I’m sick to death of seeing things from tight-lipped, condescending, mama’s little chauvinists.
All I want is the truth.
Just gimme some truth now.
I’ve had enough of watching scenes of schizophrenic, ego-centric, paranoiac, prima-donnas.
All I want is the truth now.
Just gimme some truth.

No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dicky is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me
With just a pocketful of soap.
It’s money for dope.
Money for rope.

Ah, I’m sick and tired of hearing things from uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocrites.
All I want is the truth now.
Just gimme some truth now.
I’ve had enough of reading things by neurotic, psychotic, pig-headed politicians.
All I want is the truth now.
Just gimme some truth now.

All I want is the truth now.
Just gimme some truth now.
All I want is the truth.
Just gimme some truth.
All I want is the truth.
Just gimme some truth.

Funny how thirty years ago, that sounded so counter-culture. Now, only the names on the Establishment have changed.

Just for Myself

I’M NOT ALL THAT excited about Al Gore’s gaffe (i.e.: accidentally dropping the mask in public) as some people are. All it tells me is that Al uses saltier language than I’d have thought. Otherwise, there’s nothing new revealed therein about his knowlege of science or his policy positions, and/or the correctness of either that I haven’t been aware of for decades. As far as I’m concerned, the man is a loser and a dunce, always has been, and is only saved from being the stupidest man in the Senate in the second half of the 20th Century by the fact that he shared membership in that — scorn quotes — “august” body with Joseph “Plugs” Biden.

Of COURSE This Douchebag

IS A DEMOCRAT why do you even need to ask?

The way elected Democrats have behaved for the last — ever — I cannot fathom why anyone votes for them. Don’t people know the quality of their politicians reflects back on the voters? If you elect douchebags, that makes you one.

It’s a law of thermodynamics or something.

Sorry for the Dearth of Free Ice Cream

I’VE BEEN STRUGGLING with a health issue the last couple of days — the same one that sent me to the hospital back in April. Working on it. Meantime, I’m pretty much useless.