Sadly, No!

That’s from Mark Twain. This is from Scott at Powerline:

A mighty wind

One of the reasons that the Claremont Review of Books is my favorite magazine is that, consistent with the mission of the Claremont Institute, the CRB wages intellectual battle on behalf of the founding principles of the United States. (Subscribe online here.) I am joined in my admiration for the magazine by a who’s who of stars in the conservative constellation including…

…the usual gang of wingnut-welfare fraudsters, with accolades by current Claremont Review contributor Michael Barone and the gilded kazoo stylings of the Claremont Institute’s own Washington Fellow, William J. Bennett.

Speaking of wholly disinterested testimonials, here’s another unmentioned reason why the Claremont Review of Books might be Scott Johnson’s favorite magazine:

Scott W. Johnson
Scott W. Johnson is an attorney and senior vice president of TCF National Bank in Minneapolis, a fellow of the Claremont Institute, and one of three founders and authors of the weblog, “Power Line.”

Coming up: Michael Vick spontaneously mentions AirTran as a carrier of notable appeal.

Above: They’re buttered on the inside

Whoops-a-daisy:

Gov. Kathleen Blanco angrily criticized President Bush on Wednesday for not mentioning 2005’s destructive hurricanes in his State of the Union speech, and said Louisiana is being shortchanged in federal recovery funding for political reasons.

Surely I can’t be the only one who read about this and suspected the president struck out a mention of Katrina victims from an earlier draft after watching a television profile on ecstatic Saints fans.

New Orleans: We’re winning

But you know the Bush motto: When you find yourself in a hole, keep diggin’:

White House spokesman Blair C. Jones said Wednesday that Bush wants the Gulf Coast region rebuilt as quickly as possible and that he was committed to helping New Orleans’ recovery.

“This year’s State of the Union was not a list of every ongoing and important issue before the President,” Jones said.

Translation: Fuck ’em. They don’t vote for us anyway.

Alas, the cock has now crowed much more than thrice. But when did its awful racket first disturb the barnyard, inciting so many jackasses to bray and warpigs to snort?

I’ve been reading an older biography of the Eighth President, Martin Van Buren: a Democrat, it’s true, but the original Master Triangulator of American politics; a Jacksonian, a creep, a man utterly without principle — in short, he had a wingnut’s spirit. I thought the following paragraph was funny:

..[M]ost important of his measures [as an immensely powerful State Senator] at Albany was one promoting the aggressive conduct of the War. For this he was hailed as the noblest of patriots, and doubtless he was so long as patriotism could be practiced at a safe distance from the smoke of the battle. He doted on calling the affair of 1812 the “Second War of Independence” and one of his published speeches “the Second Declaration of Independence.” But though he devoutly served the cause by drafting a bill for compulsory enlistment, he himself never smelt gunpowder. When the state he so professed to love was invaded, nearly everyone of consequence rushed to join the colors. There still existed at that time the now-obsolete theory of noblesse oblige, that men who rule a country are the ones to protect her in an emergency, but the Red Fox was a man too much ahead of his time to be influenced by any such trumpery. His own brother donned a uniform, the Governor, the Mayor, the Adjutant General, the Patroon, flocks of Senators and Assemblymen, three future Presidents and a dozen future candidates — family men all — but not Martin, though he dutifully spent his sessions cheering on the combatants and his recesses scouring the landscape for new recruits. Mr. Monroe, Secretary of War, so mistook the Kinderhooker’s zeal as to offer him an Army commission, but Martin […] preferred to express himself only in words. Not the least of his examples to posterity was this salutary mode of enacting patriotism. After his day there would never be an American War which was fought by the same men who encouraged it.

To his credit, though, Martin Van Buren was an excellent blogger.

Scene: Seven adults sit gathered around a television in a dimly lit, 1970s-style rumpus room, watching the Democratic rebuttal to President Bush’s 2007 State of the Union Address. Some are wearing flannel pajamas, eating ice cream directly from the container with large spoons. The others are sipping from highball glasses.

Jonah Goldberg: I wonder if Jim Webb wears a rug. Ha-ha.

John Podhoretz: [using ink pen to scratch between shoulder blades beneath flannel shirt] I’m as big a Jim Webb fan as anybody in the world, but I have a few superficial criticisms of his otherwise awesome speech.

Peter Robinson: Woof-woof! Who knew Master had so many bones left to toss us? Pant-pant. He’s still the best Master. Yes, he is. Aw-rooooo! [tries to scratch right ear with foot, tips over comically]

Jonah Goldberg: I’ll put it this way: This speech isn’t as boring as most Democratic rebuttals, but — heheheheh — lookit his hair.

Kathryn Jean Lopez: [scraping bottom of ice cream container] Who else here wishes George Allen had won?

Jonah Goldberg: [walking offstage] G’night, I’m off to read comic books under the covers by flashlight.

John Derbyshire: [looking up from newspaper] What’s especially revealing about Jim Webb is what he almost said about our troops.

Kathryn Jean Lopez: Hm. Surprising fashion choice by Nancy Pelosi. I expected her to show up in a red pantsuit and a tiara. It “suits” her. Get it? “Suit”?

[prolonged, awkward silence]

Kathryn Jean Lopez: Jim Webb sure is masculine. Almost too masculine, as Andrew Sullivan says.

[another prolonged, awkward silence]

Kathryn Jean Lopez: Nancy Pelosi changes her outfits more often than Mariah Carey, and she eats chocolate constantly without worrying about her figure. Don’t you just hate her!

Jonathan Adler: [clears throat] Energy conservation plans will do nothing but increase taxes and fuel production.

Peter Robinson: The president’s performance was positively Reaganesque. There. I said it.

Jonah Goldberg: [wanders onstage, wearing pajama top and distended jockey shorts] Jim Webb reminds me of John Kerry, except he’s more hostile to capitalism and has a less of a neck. [picks up ice-cream container from floor and tips it upside down to noisily slurp what’s left]

Jonah Goldberg: [wipes mouth] Am I the only one who was distracted by how much Nancy Pelosi blinked while the president was speaking? What a hypocrite!

Kathryn Jean Lopez: [thumbing through encyclopedia] I’ve found some new information that might possibly discredit Jim Webb’s criticism of the president’s war plan.

Ramesh Ponnuru: [suddenly picking up telephone receiver and shouting into the wrong end] Please, Brer Webb! Please don’t throw the Democrats back into the triangulation briar patch. Anything but that! The Republicans will never win another election again! Please!

Kathryn Jean Lopez: [halting, as she continues to read an encyclopedia entry] You can’t trust … Jim Webb on … the military … because … he’s, um … grinding a partisan ax over Harry Truman’s antipathy toward the Navy and … oh, I give up. I wonder if he’s secretly a Republican? [grabs laptop computer and begins typing furiously]

A single gunshot is heard just offstage, followed by a thud. The curtain falls.

Jerome Corsi asks a simple question:

What crime is committed when two Border Patrol agents* shoot in the buttocks a fleeing drug smuggler who has abandoned a van containing 743 pounds of marijuana?

After arguing that the law under which the officers were convicted does not apply to them, he goes on to answer his question:

The applicable law would seem to first involve the INS Firearms Policy. In that policy, there appears to be the following.

Section 7(A). Discharging a firearm shall be done only with the intent of stopping a person or animal from continuing the threatening behavior which justifies the use of deadly force. When deadly force is justified, an officer may use any level of force necessary up to and including deadly force.

Section 7(B). Firearms may be discharged under the following circumstances:

(1) When the officer reasonably believes that the person at whom the firearm is to be discharged possesses the means, the intent, and the opportunity of causing death or grievous bodily harm upon the officer or another person.

Since when is “fleeing” considered threatening behavior?

Jeff Goldstein, Jeff Goldstein, Jeff Goldstein is trying his best to make me famous. I’m touched: Rather than send ‘Pablo’ and ‘Vercingetorix’ to beat me with axe-handles or threaten my toddler or ‘show me where Jimmy Hoffa is buried,’ instead he sent them on a frantic net search so thorough that it gives child-abducting, serial-killing stalkers (or Tacitus, for that matter) a bad name. And geez, just because I googled ‘cock’ and its synonyms with ‘Jeff Goldstein!’

Gah, after suffering such unwanted attention, my only recourse is to see the shrink, reach for the Klonopin I keep in a nifty Richard-Nixon-headed Pez dispenser, and start threatening to slap people with my cock. ‘Look at it! It’s so tiny and puce! Wingnut Scientists tune their instruments to my cock!’

Gavin adds: Oh great, now we’ll get even more Google searches for the terms ‘Jeff Goldstein’ and ‘cock.’ It’s like if there were a bomb made out of Google or something.

Demogenes Aristophanes adds: When Jeff Goldstein was born, he slapped the doctor. …With his cock.

Retardo Montalban Substance Mc Gravitas HTML Mencken adds: While I admit I love this role of being the amateur-who-is-critiqued-by-the-professional (or, actually, by the failed-in-professional-and-academic-circles-‘professional’), with regard to creative writing of awesome atrociousness, I think Almost-Perfesser Pasty is still wounded by this exchange.

After being mildly disappointed with George W. Bush’s previous Iraq speech, John Hinderaker gives tonight’s State of the Union address a big thumbs up:

Above: Cry havoc and let loose the dogs of corn

A Return to the Good Old Days

I hadn’t intended to watch the State of the Union speech tonight, but my wife tuned in part way through. In contrast to his “surge” speech a week or two ago, I thought President Bush was back on his game tonight. The speech was a reminder that it’s a good thing to be President. When he offered a sentence about Iraq that ended with the word “victory,” the Democrats had no alternative but to stand up and cheer.

Apart from the ceremonial trappings, there was a good reason why so many Senators and Congressmen had to voice their approval: the President’s logic was compelling. The importance of Iraq; the disastrous consequences of failure; the grave long-term stakes in the Global War on Terror; and the need to give our new strategy a chance to succeed, are all hard to dissent from.

The President finished strong, with his introduction of a series of American heroes, the kind of thing he does best.

It was a good night for President Bush. Will it matter? I doubt that very many people who are on the fence were watching. But for the President’s long-term supporters and for all who are serious about winning the war that has been thrust upon us, it was an inspiring, confidence-renewing performance.

Pst. John. I have an awful secret to tell you. The President’s long-term supporters now comprise a whopping 28% of the American populace. Maybe it’s time for y’all to just hide away in your super-awesome treehouses for the next two years playing Magic: The Gathering while intelligent people figure out how to get us out of Iraq. Just a suggestion.

Gavin adds: Hey, like John says, the logic was compelling and many such as myself were forced to stand up and voice approval. This important thrust-upon-us war with its new strategy has stakes that are grave and disastrous with the failure and freedom with not-an-option of negotiating with madmen in the terror and generational victory of civilization in Iraq, with the Sunni 9-11 extreme Syria Shiite terror and the Hamas Al Qaeda madmen arming the Iraq terror extreme warlords with Iranian weapons to kill Americans, in an act of war which is thrust upon us of disastrous consequences, for freedom and victory.

Our oceans don’t protect us like we thought all during the Cold War, you know. Plus, like the President says, if we keep doing the same thing over and over in Iraq with this new strategy which is new, Ol’ Yeller is coming home.

Well, thanks to the BBC we learned that:

The Taleban movement has earmarked $1m to set up schools for children in southern Afghanistan

Abdul Hai Mutmain said a Taleban panel would start commissioning schools in March and April, 2007

And finally, we learned that:

In Zabul province, 148 out of a total of 188 schools remained closed during 2006

And now here it is, your moment of zen:

In December, during a visit to Kandahar province, President Karzai admitted that almost half of over 700 schools in the southern zone, that includes Kandahar, had been sealed due to insecurity.

(Thanks to Strange Forces for the link.)

The following ad is currently posted over at Redstate:

This is ridiculous. I am just as capable of writing a book as ill-informed, poorly researched and logically incoherent as the one Dinesh has just written. In fact, I bet if I didn’t put my mind to it, I could write a book that is vastly stupider than Dinesh’s. But do you see any liberal book clubs or think tanks lining up around the block to help me promote the 900-page tome I wrote about my balls? Haaaaaaail no. I want some moonbat welfare, dammit. Tell Sug Daddy Soros to start ponyin’ up.

UPDATE: I don’t know if Atrios has “wheeeeeeeeeee”-ed this one yet, but it’s definitely worth wheeeeeee-ing about:

President George W. Bush’s approval ratings are now the lowest for any president the day before a State of the Union speech since Richard Nixon in 1974, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Sixty-five percent of those surveyed said they disapprove of how Bush is handling his job as president while 33 percent approve. The rating matches Bush’s career low in a May 2006 poll.

Seventy-one percent of Americans said the country is on the wrong track, up from 46 percent in an April 2003 poll, the month after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. A majority of those polled this month don’t approve of how Bush is handling the Iraq war, terrorism or the economy.

Well. I’m sure Bush’s speech will rally the nation by overtly attacking the leftist parasites that are sapping America’s moral will to defeat evil, right? Anyone? Bueller?

Travis adds: Am I missing something, Alt-Rock? I read that whole article, and I didn’t see any data about impeachment. I woulda figured…

UPDATE II: This is the best one yet:

President Bush will deliver his State of the Union address Tuesday night to a nation that’s strongly opposed to his plan for increasing troops in Iraq and deeply unhappy with his performance as president, according to a CBS News poll.

Mr. Bush’s overall approval rating has fallen to just 28 percent, a new low, while more than twice as many (64 percent) disapprove of the way he’s handling his job.

28 PERCENT????!!!!! My gods, will we ever have enough ponies?!!!?

Why, hello! It’s Dinesh D’Souza! No, no, no … it’s not a bad time at all. Do come in, Dinesh. Hey gang, guess who’s here? Dinesh D’Souza! We were just talking about you, Dinesh!

c01nxx0rzz!!!

What’s that, Dinesh? Pelosi what? “Pelosi’s crew and Osama bin Laden share common goal”?

Ha ha ha … good one, Dinzzors! Funny, funny stu … wait, you’re being serious? But … but … linking Democrats to terrorists is just sooo 2004, don’tcha think? Or is this a ‘retro’ thing you’re doing here? Like an ’80s party, only with more 9-11 and less 90210?

Okay, we’re game. Let the fun begin:

Pelosi’s crew and Osama bin Laden share common goal

The Pelosi Democrats sometimes appear to be just as eager as Osama bin Laden for President Bush to lose his war on terror. Why do I say this?

Because you’re an asshole? Because your ability to accurately describe reality has zero correlation with your continued receipt of large amounts of money from various rightwing foundations? Because the ‘Big Lie’ strategy requires lots of repetition? Because the same bullshit has been said by thousands of other Cheeto-stained wretches, and you’re too lazy to think up an original smear? Because David Horowitz owes you money and you’re trying to jumpstart his loony Discover the Network website?

Are we getting warm yet?

Read the rest of this entry »