Sadly, No!

Some Schumann for y’all jive turkeys.

I’m off to watch the Sox.

Also, I’ve developed a real love for cute women who play classical music. The guy playing this Schumann piece, while talented, is not a cute woman. Any suggestions for talented, hot classical musicians are welcome.

UPDATE: Brad is so, so in love:

She can also play the scherzo of Brahms’ second piano concerto *swoons*.

UPDATE 2: Not a hot woman, but this guy is pretty teh awesome. It’s like watching a gothy record store clerk play Lizst’s most popular music. He does very well, I might add:

I’m a little disappointed in the usual “War on Christmas” brigade. Where are you, Bill O’Reilly? Where are you, John Gibson? It’s already almost Halloween, and I haven’t heard a word from anyone yet about how the Liberal Commie Brigades have seized the North Pole in a double-pincer action lifted straight from Hannibal and started putting the Toy Workshops to the flame. Is it possible that they haven’t uncovered our plot to use extraordinary rendition on Santa Claus and send him to our secret prison in Uzbekistan where we will waterboard him until he confesses who funds his maniacal ‘give stuff away for free’ scheme?

But this year, in the spirit of peacemongering and appeasenikism which we Liberal Commie hordes are supposed to be known for, I’d like to try heading off the hostilities that seem to always ensue sometime in the next few weeks. Now, some of my fellow Liberal Commies may object that by placating our enemies, I am only throwing a wrench in our long-term plans to force everyone in the country to participate in a mass gay wedding ceremony each Winter Solstice, followed by the commemorative gay abortion the next Labor Day. Alas, all I can say is that I am almost always willing to give peace a chance.

My peace offering takes the form of a shopping guide for the always difficult to shop for wingnut in your life. Whether it’s that Fox-News-watching uncle you only ever see once a year at Christmas, or the brother-in-law who manages to bring endless awkward and uncomfortable silences to the Thanksgiving dinner table by quoting his favorite bits from Rush Limbaugh all night, how do you find the right gift for the ragingly insane in your life?

Well, you could start with this — the “God, Country and Capitalism” car magnet. So often, we liberals seem to forget that Jesus was a graduate of the Chicago School of Economics. Our atheistic ways mean that we rarely read His Supply Side Sermon on the Mount, with its stirring and heartfelt claim of blessings for those who manage offshore funds — for theirs will be the Kingdom of No Capital Gains Taxes. This tasteful and decorative magnet can be a reminder of the lessons learned from the parable of the loaves and fishes, when Saint Milton, in a moment of senile dementia, asked Jesus to feed the poor, and Jesus replied, “Though the power to multiply loaves and fishes is within my grasp, the creation of such fiat food would cheapen the supply of actually existing food, and lead to a dangerous spiral of food inflation. The poor shall be fed when Caesar stops taxing the small business owner, allowing him to create more jobs, for which these mooches who follow me will qualify.” The wingnut in your life will be grateful for your recognition of the fact that God is both an American and a capitalist, and will hopefully therefore shut up for at least five minutes about how George Soros is actually Stalin’s first cousin.

For a more overtly religious message, the Christian Republic T-shirt might be a better choice. Those pesky fifty stars represent states like New York and San Francisco anyway, and what good Christian wants to be reminded that those places exist? Get rid of them, and replace them with the symbol of the real ruler of America — George W. Bush Jesus. Remember, just like the ad copy itself says, these shirts are the perfect accessory for Jihad, so when you’re ready to burn down your local neighborhood mosque, be sure you’re dressed to impress! This is a gift sure to delight anyone who believes that America was founded as a Christian nation, no matter what some crazy documents on this subject might say.

Hopefully, my attempts at détente in the War on Christmas will bear fruit, and we can enjoy at least one holiday season without listening to interminable squeals of outrage from the right every time some poor department store clerk wishes them a “Happy Holiday.” With any luck, there’s a Nobel Peace prize in this for me, too.

Update: Oh, no. It appears I am too late. The War on Christmas has begun!

Mrs. Fields bans Christmas from their products and promotion

Here is a Christmas Plan They Can’t Ban!

It is time to take a stand. Sponsor your church in Project Merry Christmas.

It’s hard to believe this kind of religious intolerance can happen in America in 2007.

Mrs. Fields, the maker of those good cookies, has banned any use of the word “Christmas” from their products and Christmas promotions.

Clif adds: Sadly, No!

As Gavin predicted, giving the Nobel Prize to Al Gore has caused much gnashing of teeth, wailing, keening, rending of garments and cranial explosions among the usual suspects. So far my favorite comes from John Berlau who receives a pile of wingnut welfare from the Exxon-Mobil funded Competitive Enterprise Institute and who unleashes his jeremiad over at a place that rather humorously bills itself as “The American Thinker.” (Uh-huh. Rrrriiiiight.)

Berlau, apparently not one to shy away from hyperbole, thinks that giving the Nobel to Gore is the worst thing to ever happen since, say, Brown v. Board of Education or, alternatively, the death of Ronald Reagan:

Al Gore has won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. This choice, more than any other Nobel Committee selection, marks the end of a 105-year era.

Teh. Worst. Nobel. Evah. Worse. Than. Even. That. PEA-nut. Farmer.

In direct contradiction of Alfred Nobel’s last will and testament, the selection of Gore essentially means the Peace Prize can no longer be said to be an award for improving the condition of humankind. Looking at Gore’s writing, it’s far from clear that Gore even believes that humanity is his most important priority.

But, at the very least, the stated aims of Carter and even Arafat were the improvement of human life. Gore, by contrast, does not even profess improving the human condition as his fundamental goal.Rather, his stated desire is to stop human activity that he sees as ruining what he calls the “ecosystem.”

And since no humans actually, you know, live in the ecosystem, Berlau’s argument makes absolute sense.

And then we have some bonus wingnuttery from Berlau:

Awarding the prize to Gore in 2007 is the equivalent of honoring the Luddites who tried to stop the beneficial technologies of Alfred Nobels’s [sic] day.

Ooooooh. Berlau whips out the argumentum ad Ludditeum. Sadly, he seems to be confused about, er, dates and actual history and things. The Luddites were British textile workers who between 1811 and 1813 destroyed sewing machines and otherwise protested technological advances of the time. Alfred Nobel was born two decades later in 1833. Oopsie.

Clif adds:

A troll dropped by in the comments to extol a Wall Street Journal editorial (paid subscription required) that suggested some better alternatives than Al Gore for the Nobel Peace Prize. Here is my favorite suggestion from the WSJ:

Or to the people of Iraq, who bravely work to rebuild and reunite their country amid constant threats to themselves and their families from terrorists who deliberately target civilians.

Apparently, only foreigners have been killing and blowing up the people of Iraq. Well, at least you can say that the WSJ showed a bit of restraint in not suggesting that Bush and Cheney share the prize.

The WSJ also suggests a number of posthumous prizes, apparently blissfully unaware that posthumous awards of Nobel prizes are not permitted. I guess that the Murdoch cost cuts are already in place and that the editors have all had their Internet connections turned off.

I can’t tear my eyes away from the six-figure, nationally syndicated train wreck that is Michelle Malkin. Apologies. You all will have to vert your gaze upon her once more, as well. I’m selfish like that.

Anyhoo, while others may blog about heads of state and assorted matters of grave international import, I like to aim my arrow at loftier targets, mainly lonely wingnuts who comment favorably about the ravings of insane typists on crack. So here’s what we find in the comment thread on the latest from Her Rabidness, the Marchioness of Spittle-upon-Stalk:

On October 12th, 2007 at 11:02 pm, Jim M. said:

Take a look at some rough numbers vis-à-vis the Frosts’.

And for purposes of the analysis, we’ll use some very conservative numbers.

Let’s assume that the $45,000 per year figure is net income. And further that the private school tuition is free.

Let us also assume that their $1200 monthly mortgage on their residence includes property taxes.

Yearly mortgage payments on the residence come to $14,400. Let’s call it $14,000. Subtracting the mortgage payments from their annual net income leaves $31,000.

Let’s assume that the property taxes due on the commercial property are $500 per month (probably on the low side for that area). The annual property taxes for the commercial property would come to $6000 per year. Subtracting the property taxes on the commercial property of $6000 from the remaining net income leaves $25,000.

Next,, let’s further assume that the utilities on both the commercial property and the residence (all utilities including phone) comes to $600 per month for the residence (3000 square feet) and $200 per month for the business property. That is $9,600 a year. Call it $9000. Taking $9000 off the remaining net income now leaves $14,000.

The Frosts have 3 relatively new vehicles. For insurance purposes. we will assume that their rates were not seriously impacted by the accident. Insuring those vehicles in that area would run, say, $3000 per year. So after factoring in car insurance, there is $11,000 of net income left.

Let’s assume that the Frosts own one of those vehicles, and lease or finance the two others. And we will assume the leases or loans are long term, and further assume a down payment of about 10% of the vehicle costs was made at the time of purchase or lease. So we will figure that the combined car financing/lease expense is in the neighborhood of $350 per month per vehicle. So annual car finance expenses run at $8400 per year. Call it $8000. When applied against the remaining $11,000 of net income, the Frosts have $3000.

Let’s also assume they drive those cars, and that they put gas in them. But we’ll assume they do not drive much, and only spend $100 per month on gas, and since they take great care of their cars, their monthly car maintenance expenses for all 3 cars are $50 per month. That is another $1800 in annual expense, that we’ll call $1500, just to be conservative. Well, that now leaves the Frost’s $1500 – annually.

$1500 a year breaks out to $125 per month. Or a little over $30 per week for clothing, food and other essentials for a family of 4 ($8.00 per person).

And the left does not understand why people have a problem with this?

To which one can only say, ‘Bravo!’ sir — but while you, Jim M., may have proven conclusively by numbers pulled out of your ass that the Frosts are currently boiling their belts for dinner, we fear you’ve left out some important data. To wit:

Let’s also assume that the Frosts have a 10,000 ringgit-per-month lien on their state-of-the art Flux Zammerplaffen. But we’ll assume that it’s the Blammfenjab model and not the more expensive Klax Flappenmab Mach 2 edition. So that leaves the Frosts’ses’s with just Eleventy-five minus-a-gazillion Hooters Bux — annually.

Now let’s assume that an enormous Burmese python escaped from the Baltimore Zoo and took up residence in their attic. This takes care of their rodent problem, but just to be conservative, let’s say that the widowed aunt of a Tin Pan Alley lyricist prefers lima beans to Chopin. So now their monthly zoot suit bill amounts to a monkey sitting on an elephant. Let’s call it camel flapjacks, barstool.

42 cents breaks out to shave-and-a-haircut-two bits. Anyone for Slinky Meringue? Fiddlepoppers with tequila backs ($Pluto equals Clakkafrazz).

And the left does not understand why people have a problem with this?

Gavin adds: That’s a lot of quatloos!

Holy God, Malkin is still at it trying to smear the Frosts. The latest salvo is based on an anonymous email from an alleged right-wing neighbor of theirs.

A good source — and we’re very much not joking here — says that the Malkins make a very comfortable six-figure income, and employ two au pairs while Jesse ‘stays home with the kids.’ This source says that Jesse ‘stays home’ because he suffers from a diagnosed mental disorder, and is unable to work. If we’re talking health insurance, we certainly think this is relevant to the discussion that Michelle is intent on having about the Frosts.

And we want to go on the record, right now, saying that the Malkins’ ‘home address’ that’s routinely posted in people’s comments, usually prior to a victim-tantrum by Michelle, is not their current address, and is posted in all cases by people who have never posted at those sites before.

What we’re saying right now is that Michelle Malkin is a liar, is a faker, and is a provocateur.

Perhaps she’d like to debate us on this. We extend the usual invitation.

Above: Peggy Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal
and author of “John Paul the Great: Remembering a Spiritual Father”

Peggy Noonan wonders if it’s too early to start blaming eight years of disastrous and unpopular executive decisions on the next president, assuming that current Democratic trends continue:

If you are an absolute Bush partisan, you probably don’t really want a Republican to follow him and potentially, in decisions if not in words, rebuke him. That would be the worst thing, not being followed by Hillary or Obama. If the latter happens, the outgoing administration can–and will–blame the loss on lax candidates, on a party that wasn’t sufficiently inclusive, on congressional scandals, on immigration. “If only they’d followed our lead!”

It’s no wonder the modern Republican Party appeals to so many people; being a Republican means never having to admit you were wrong, which I suppose is more fun than the alternative. If anything, their candidates are rewarded for promising to be more wrong, and more often (e.g., “My view is we ought to double Guantanamo.”)

An election loss is, on balance, a small price to pay in the war against reality. It’s going fabulously, by the way. The war, that is.

Without looking at what the right-wing yammerers have been up to today, I’m going to predict that Al Gore’s Nobel Prize means that the Nobel is always already a liberal travesty that is shameful and sucks and is bad, and that it has for years untold been an embarrassment unto civilization that should be utterly denounced for its hateful and demented anti-Americanism. Supporting examples: Jimmy Carter, Arafat/Peres/Rabin (without mentioning Peres and Rabin).

Update: J.A. Baker, in comments, points out Iain Murray’s take on the burgeoning Nobel Prize Scandal of ’07:

Who Else Should Al Gore Share the Prize With?

How about that well known peace campaigner Osama Bin Laden, who implicitly endorsed Gore’s stance – and that of the Nobel committee – in his September rant from the cave:

[T]he life of all mankind is in danger because of global warming resulting to a large degree from the emissions of the factories of the major corporations; yet despite that, the representative of these corporations in the White House insists on not observing the Kyoto accord, with the knowledge that the statistics speak of the death and displacement of millions of human beings because of global warming, especially in Africa.

At this point it might be worth noting, as Jeremy Lott reminds me, that Gore was a strong supporter of the first Iraq war and a hawk in the Clinton White House.

When last we caught up with Murray, he was peddling dirt-grade junk science from a bailiwick at the low-budge Competitive Enterprise Institute. Then again, talking to Jeremy Lott probably helps numb the self-awareness.

You know who else didn’t believe in global warming? Adolf Hitler, that’s who!!!

At this point it might be worth noting that Hitler was a strong supporter of public highways and fuel-efficient automobiles.

PS: Rush Limbaugh Loses Nobel.

Radley Balko is making sense:

Hillary Clinton voted for both the Patriot Act and its reauthorization. She voted for building a wall on the U.S.-Mexican border. She voted to loosen restrictions limiting the federal government’s ability to wiretap cell phones. In the past, she has supported a robust role for the federal government in enforcing “decency” standards in television and music. She teamed up with former Sen. Rick Santorum on a bill calling for the federal government to restrict the sale of violent video games.

Leftists concerned about the entertainment industry’s increasingly imperial stand on copyright might take a cue from copyright guru Lawrence Lessig, who wrote on his blog for Wired magazine: “Of all the Dems, I would have bet she was closest to the copyright extremists. So far, she’s done nothing to suggest to the contrary.”

What about secrecy and executive power? It’s difficult to see Hillary Clinton voluntarily handing back all of those extra-constitutional executive powers claimed by President Bush. Her husband’s administration, for example, copiously invoked dubious “executive privilege” claims to keep from complying with congressional subpoenas and open records requests — claims the left now (correctly, in my view) regularly criticizes the Bush administration for invoking. […]

President Bush has recently had some nice things to say about Hillary Clinton, leading some to speculate that Bush sees her as the Eisenhower to his Truman — a candidate from the opposing party who criticizes his foreign policy during the campaign, but will likely pursue a very similar policy should she be elected.

As a libertarian, it will at least be entertaining to watch the left squirm while defending Hillary Clinton’s “right” to employ the same executive powers and engage in the same foreign policy blunders they now argue that President Bush has superceded his authority in claiming. And it’ll be equally fun to watch the right cry foul when President Hillary claims the same powers they have so vigorously fought to claim for President Bush. The problem, of course, is that entertaining as all that might be, an increasingly imperial presidency isn’t good for our republic.

Neither is our overly interventionist foreign policy, or the continuing erosion of our civil liberties, be it in the name of “family values,” government paternalism, the war on drugs, or the war on terror.

Basically, he’s right.

I will not support Hillary Clinton in the primary. Of all the Dem candidates, she and Joe Biden are the ones I least want in the White House, for the reasons ably outlined by Mr. Balko. I’ll vote for her if she wins the Dem nomination, simply because America cannot take another Bush-style Republican calling the shots- and let’s face, all of the major GOP contenders are Bush-style Republicans. I think Hillary would be marginally better on a lot of these issues than the major GOP candidates, and I think that she’s more prone to being influenced by the ACLU on civil liberties matters than the Bushies are. But her instincts on executive power and an imperial foreign policy seem completely wrong to me. Here’s hoping Obama (or someone not named Biden) can rally an upset.

And now for a short break from the wingnut smear job of 12-year-old brain trauma victim Graeme Frost , let’s saunter over to the Wall Street Journal where Daniel Henninger is all lathered up about the totally unfair smear job on the 56-year-old drug addict Rush Limbaugh:

I would like to put a question to [Hillary Clinton]: Would you defend Rush Limbaugh’s speech rights against the pressure that was brought upon him on the floor of the Senate by your colleagues Harry Reid and Ken Salazar? Colorado’s Sen. Salazar went so far last week as to say he’d support a Senate vote to “censure” Mr. Limbaugh. Rhymes with censor.

OMFG. It’s the irrefutable “rhymes with” argument. Hillary says she wants to support the troops. Rhymes with deport. And then there’s Barack Obama. Rhymes with Osama.

[Gavin adds: It is irrefutable that ‘universal health care’ rhymes with ‘universal wealth scare,’ and that ‘Edwards’ = ‘dead birds.’ Also, welcome to the Wall Street Journal’s ‘O-Ed Age.’ Notice there is no ‘p’ in it; please keep it that way.]

Of course, the woes of Rush aren’t limited to rhyming schemes:

When Sen. Reid attacked Mr. Limbaugh on the floor of the Senate, some felt that Mr. Limbaugh was a big boy and perfectly capable of defending himself. I’m not so sure. If Mr. Limbaugh and his critics at Media Matters want to have a street fight, that’s their business. But Sens. Reid and Salazar aren’t just a couple of opinionated guys; they are agents of state authority, and they were leaning hard on Mr. Limbaugh.

Clearly if Reid and Salazar hadn’t laid off Oxycontin Rush, he’d have had no choice but to quit his radio job and spend the rest of his life as a sex tourist in the Dominican Republic.

But wait, what’s wrong with this picture? Isn’t there just a tad bit of irony in Henninger’s hissy fit about the weight of state authority leaning hard on private individuals for things they’ve said? There’s not a single word from Henninger about the Senate resolution condemning the MoveOn ad about General Petraeus. Imagine that.

Now explain to me again why it is such a bad thing that Rupert Murdoch is buying the Wall Street Journal.

Just because James Lileks has spent most of the last six years being terrified by Arabs doesn’t mean he doesn’t have time to be terrified of teenagers. When they’re not giving him insufficiently deferential service at Taco Bell, they’re menacing his neighbors by hanging out in the alley smoking their devil weed:

I did not encounter roving bands of youths, as had been reported by a neighbor this morning – she had the gall, the cheek, the pure flaming presumptuousness to think she could drive her car down the alley; little did she know that four youts from the neighborhood high school had decided it was 4:20 time, and they would just stand in the middle of the alley and huddle around a joint. They did not move for her car. She persisted. They parted. Later she observed them entering a neighbor’s car parked in the alley, and she shouted a warning. They slunk off, muttering something about the alley being public property, and declared her to be a Bitch.

This insolent behavior, unprecedented in the history of teenagers, prompts Li Li to wish for less criminals this Christmas, after which he goes totally off the rails and accuses Norman Pohoretz of being sober. But I’m not here today to share with you the Man from Fuddles’ concern about the stoned teens skulking around in our residential alleyways; my topic today is the gangs of dangerous middle-aged men, drunk on their own sense of entitlement, hanging out on the Corner.

Like most liberals, I hate myself, and when I’m feeling especially down on myself, like if I’ve spent the last three days reading a deranged ex-cheerleader heaping abuse on a handicapped 12-year-old, or if my real father won’t return my calls no matter how many chickens I slaughter, I punish myself by reading the National Review‘s group blog, the Corner. All day long.

And, because like most liberals, I hate other liberals, I’m going to make you all suffer with me.

I started drinking just after midnight…

Peter Robinson: The father of one of my co-workers is a genius.

Peter Robinson: No, really, he’s an unalloyed genius. A titan of intellect. The greatest man since Michaelangelo.

Kathryn Jean Lopez: Seriously, you guys, go buy his book and maybe we won’t have to smell John’s pizza feet any more.

K-Lo: And speaking of geniuses, how about that Clarence Thomas? You’ll love his new book, unless you are some sort of touchy bitch.

K-Lo: Another damn liberal activist judge is preventing the DHS from doing its job just because their actions might be illegal.

K-Lo: That patronage system is still workin’ out pretty well for us.

Michael Rubin: Iran is bad and they should feel bad.

K-Lo: I am interpreting an extremely reluctant series of comments by a NARAL spokeswoman as a ringing endorsement of Rudy Giuliani.

K-Lo: Maybe if we get Barack Obama on our team he’ll stop making us all look so bad.

Jonah Goldberg: Hey, guys! I’m back! From my trip! I…guys? I’m back! I got you these t-shirts that say “MY AWESOME BEST FRIEND JONAH WENT TO MR. ROGERS’ NEIGHBORHOOD AND ALL I GOT WAS THIS LOUSY T-SHIRT”. Guys? Hello?

K-Lo: Some broad I never heard of won an award or something. How do I set my Google News alerts to “I don’t care”?

Mark Steyn: I would prefer my politicians to know as little about politics as possible.

K-Lo: I think we should give the long-dead John Edwards infidelity story some more attention, because the unimpeachable National Inquirer is standing behind it.

Pantload: If that guy from Law & Order is such a great actor, how come he never co-starred with a monkey?
Read the rest of this entry »