The Devil In Miss Jon’

Marie, Marie, love of my life, fire of my loins, I haven’t heard from you lately. How’s tricks? Are you being a good little Christianist? I assume you — what the hell?:

If Huckabee just so happens to be your candidate, you might like to investigate where he stands before you give him your endorsement. The fact that he feels comfortable invoking the name of God should not give him a fast track to the White House either as President or Vice president. Under scrutiny, the man is no saint.


Above: Wishes Jesus would Huck off — or off-Huck

That’s what I get for assuming, Marie. And you know what they say about that: it makes a (fine, firm, clad in a People Political g-string) ass out of u and (a not so fine) me both. But what’s with the hating on Huck? Isn’t he a good Talibangelical? I demand an eksplanashun!

Read the rest of this entry »

 

Putting His Mouth Where Our Money Is And Our Hearts Are

Jane says:

Senator Edwards, We Need You To Lead

John Edwards should challenge his rivals Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to go back to Washington, DC and fight against retroactive immunity for the telecoms.

The Republicans are not going to let Reid punt and extend the Protect America Act for another 18 months so it looks like the FISA bill is going to come back up again on Monday. Chris Dodd’s objection to Unanimous Consent still stands, so they will pick up in the middle of the Motion to Proceed debate.

[…]

John Edwards is the perfect person to lead with this message. Such an action would illustrate his genuine commitment to change and fighting vested interests in Washington, and hopefully it will channel that intense anti-immunity passion toward his campaign. He won’t be able to participate in the filibuster himself, but by offering to leave the campaign trail and go back to DC with Clinton and Obama he’ll be able to show leadership in challenging all Democrats to put thoughts of personal gain aside and join together in the fight to save the constitution.

It’s a good thing for everybody if Edwards takes up the challenge. First of all, it’s the moral thing to do. Second, it’ll push Obama and Clinton leftward, and since they are knee-jerk triangulators, this is the only sort of political push they’ll respond to. Third, it’ll gain Edwards traction and dollas from teh netroots, which in turn might just might put him back in a position of parity with the two frontrunners. Fourth, such a push might convince people who have been hesitant to believe that he means what he says.

Read the rest of this entry »

 

Kings For A Day

It’s Martin Luther King Day, and you know what that means: yes, it’s the day when conservatives all over the country get together and tell us that racism isn’t a problem anymore and that if MLK were alive today, he would certainly not countenance any black people talking about how they are treated unfairly.

No, what MLK was all about was color-blindness! Yes, he was only interested in a unified world where everyone behaved exactly like white people. He was not interested in nonsense like affirmative action or restitution for slavery, despite his many public statements to the contrary; even the fact that he wrote an entire book about it shouldn’t sway us into thinking that Dr. King supported anything as crazy as racial quotas or economic compensation in addition to legal equality.

This year, it falls to Paul Greenberg to write the definitive column on the legacy of Dr. King, who apparently, despite his opposition to the Vietnam War, support of democratic socialism, and economic bill of rights that called for a revolutionary change in the way that the government treated the problem of poverty, was a conservative!

Greenberg calls this lifelong liberal activist “the very definition of an American conservative,” and, after quoting the ‘not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character’ part of the ‘I have a dream’ speech (which is the only thing MLK ever said that conservatives seem to know anything about), he asks:

Is any passage more frequently cited against the quota system called Affirmative Action?

Well, not by right-wingers, that’s for sure. Anyway, let’s leave Greenberg, and his claims that a man who forty years ago was being denounced by people like him as a dangerous Communist insurrectionist is actually an icon of conservativism, and move on to Big Boy Jammies, where the appropriately-named Michael Weiss puts up another iteration of the argument that the last thing Martin Luther King would have wanted is for people to talk about racism. After approvingly quoting sections of the letter from Birmingham jail that distance King from radical black Muslims, Weiss says, in reference to Barack Obama’s campaign:

How’s that for self-criticism and telling people what they don’t want to hear? And when’s the last time you heard the moral conscience of any movement argue that the middle-class was a hindrance rather than an agent of social progress? Such candor came, moreover, from a man who really might have benefited in the short-term by selling his core principles to purchase a broader coalition of desegregationists. No candidate for high office, whatever the out-group he or she purports to represent, would ever get very far by striking such a “polarizing” chord.

All of which would be highly relevant if King had been running for President, or for any political office at all, which of course he wasn’t. But hey, who cares? It’s not like Obama is really black anyway! Weiss quotes with great admiration the ever-reliable Christopher Hitchens:

negative campaigning
Above: actually a white man

We are trying to get over the hideous legacy of slavery and segregation. But Mr. Obama is not a part of this legacy. His father was a citizen of Kenya, an independent African country, and his mother was a “white” American. He is as distant from the real “plantation” as I am. How — unless one thinks obsessively about color while affecting not to do so — does this make him “black”?

Ha ha! Yeah, of course! Because we all know, racism and segregation in America have only to do with the legacy of slavery, and not at all one’s black skin! Most racists would not just look at a black person and decide to discriminate against them; they would first determine if he was an African-American, and thus part of the legacy of slavery, or an African,* in which case there would be no reason whatsoever to discriminate against them. Plus, he’s biracial, and no one has ever discriminated against mixed-race people in America! Thus, presto-change-o, Barack Obama is not black, and therefore has never experienced any racial discrimination, and any attempt by him to engage in ‘identity politics’ is itself shameful racism of the sort that Martin Luther King, were he alive today but thankfully he’s not, would totally condemn. How far we’ve come, Lord, how far!


* If it made even the slightest bit of difference, one might point out that Kenya was not an independent African country during the first 27 years of Barack Obama’s father’s life, and that he spent his entire childhood and teenage years in a British colony that was often brutally oppressed. In fact, Kenya was not even independent when Obama himself was born; it wouldn’t become so until he was 2 years old, and Obama’s father did not return to Kenya until many years after. One might even point out that when he married his white American wife, interracial marriage was still illegal in 22 states. But it’s Hitch we’re talking about, and he’s never been one to let facts get in the way of a nice bit of demagoguery.

 

Help An Author Out

I’m planning on writing a book called “Conservative Communism: The Collectivist Temptation from Mao Zedong to the Hoover Institute”. Basically, the premise of the book is that even though people think that Communism is a phenomenon of the Left, it should be obvious to any serious scholar that Communists have more in common with today’s conservatives than they do today’s progressives. I mean, Lenin outlawed prostitution, and Focus on the Family wants to keep prostitution outlawed. Mao thought all businesses should be supported by the government, and modern conservatives think that the government should avoid taxing businesses and give them all kinds of grants and free money. You can see that they’re basically the same thing. Anyway, I’ve only just started working on this, but I can guarantee you that this argument has never been made in such detail or with such care.

But I really need some help from some of my loyal readers. You see, I’m working on a chapter of the book which requires me to read a lot about and by Russell Kirk. There’s simply no way I can read it all, nor do I really need to. But if there are any real experts on Kirk out there – regardless of ideological affiliation (as long as you’re a liberal) – I’d love to ask you a few questions in case I’m missing something.


Update: From the inimitable Jeff Fecke in the comments:

conscom.jpg

 

The Final Countdown

I’m just peeking out from under my end-of-term pile of papers to commemorate the glorious new era we enter today.

There are exactly three hundred sixty five days left in the worst administration this country has ever been unlucky enough to know. Barring any last minute impeachments, of course.

The final countdown commences!

 

Shorter Jonah Goldberg

Cloudy Fortunes for Conservatism

luther3panel1.jpg

  • There they are! That’s them—the Running-Dog Liberals! They shot Cyrus!

‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard.


* Cf.

 

Shorter Pastor Swank

Barack Obama’s Hoax Hope

swank200px.jpg

  • How many dictators have offered their populace hope? How many times have these despots leveled their citizenry in blood baths? Candidate Obama, your game fiendish is onto by me!

‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard.


 

Shorter Bryan Fischer

Separation of Church and State: Straight from the Mind of Hitler

fischerzed.jpg

  • If that Jonas Goldblatt guy on TV can get away with this crap, then by Jingo, I want a piece of the action.

‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard.


 

Right, looks like…*

What do you get when you somehow manage to crank up the stupid beyond 11? Frank “Stanton Carlisle’s EditorSalvato:

This being understood, why did each and every one of the undecided Democrats in Frank Luntz’s Nevada focus group blame President Bush for things that only Congress has the authority to enact? The answer is simple. They are unschooled on the constitutional authorities of our government and the governmental process and they are reacting emotionally rather than in an educated manner. […] Granted, it is the president who most often signs legislation into law[.]

Most often?

Now is the time when we dance score an own goal:
Read the rest of this entry »

 

From the Sadly, No! Inbox

Kids today, with their YouTubes and their video editing skills:

Watch the whole thing. More here.