Archive for September, 2009
You know, I don’t believe in political saviors. Politics and those who practice the art, are by definition, hmmm… how to say this delicately…. malleable creatures. Politics often boils down to expedience and ruthless pragmatism. Still, there are good and better ones.
If the gnashing of teeth by those on the left is any indication, Sarah Palin is one of the best.
Does artistic genius and contribution negate horrendous evil? No. This is how I’ve reasoned through the murky territory of great artists with personal failings: While they may be troubled and condemned personally, their art can stand on its own.
There is justice. You know, paying a penalty for a crime. Some justice is self-inflicted ala Michael Jackson. Some comes at the hand of the legal system ala Roman Polanski. One way or another, though, for society’s sake, diseased people like this need to be removed from the populace. Is the contribution to art sacrificed? Maybe. Don’t be a pedophile rapist, then.
I don’t give a shit about Polanski’s sad-sack sob story of a troubled Nazi dominated youth. Aw, too bad. You know what? There are lots of people walking this earth who have endured unspeakable evil and managed to grow up and live lives dedicated to the care and protection of the weak and defenseless.
I don’t believe living in the South of France, marrying and having a pack of kids is any sort of punishment. Aw, he can’t come back to America. Waaah! He can’t come back because he’ll be sent to jail because he raped a child. Does he think for one moment she’s forgotten the experience? Does he think she’s been free of his touch, smell, violation in her sexual life? Does he think that her relationships haven’t been invaded by his action? And HE wants absolution. His victim will get none.
The fact is, (and I have spoken vehemently against this in other posts by the way, but I’m including this reality as a grim acknowledgment of American justice) if Polanski gets raped in prison, guess what? He’s a grown man who can filter the experience through the psychology of adulthood. He violated a young girl. He shaped her psychological world.
Anyone defending Polanski has no moral compass and should be shunned. Those who aid and abet this monster are very nearly worse than Polanski himself. The psychotic deviants in the world often get help. I have no sympathy. Not even a shred.
Send Polanski to jail. Send the Hollywood elites to economic hell and ignore their work ’til it’s on pirated DVD.
Is there a rhetorical war? Yes. Are the leftists intent on “remaking America” blisteringly angry? Yes. Are the Silent Majority stirred? Yes.
Does that mean people are going to scoop up their arms and aim for dirty hippies or dudes in Brooks Brothers suits (both most likely liberals, but let’s just play along with stereotypes for a minute)? Please. As troubled as America may be economically, as difficult as life might be for people and businesses, it seems that we have a long way to go before civil war, dictatorship or coups occur.
People need to chill.
Consider all the ways they’ve undermined themselves. It’s delicious:
Racism: They’ve pulled the trump card too many times. Obama finished the narrative with his presumption of guilt with the arresting officer of his old buddy Yale professor Skp Gates.
Sexism: Between tossing Hillary Clinton like a used dinner napkin and treating Sarah Palin like the sexy high school librarian from a porno, the Left pretty much killed their credibility for loving women and equality.
“It’s for the children”: Uh, right. Tell the kids in D.C. trying to get a decent education that. Tell the 13 year old Roman Polanski rape victim. Tell the kids starving in the third world or dying from malaria because leftists won’t use DDT.
We love the poor. How about, “we love to tax the poor”. There have been tax increases already–on cigarettes that disproportionately affect the poor. Cap-n-Trade? Hurts the poor. GM buyouts? Creates poor people. School unions underperforming? Hurts the poor.
With Democrats running things, people have had just teensy taste of what liberalism does for and to a country and its people. Fundamentally all the “help” talk is really “we-don’t-think-you-have-what-it-takes” talk. Under the guise of helping, people feel disempowered and condescended to.
The health care debate revealed a callous disregard for the aging. It also showed the left’s collectivist tendencies: people aren’t viewed as individuals but as a group that either helps or harms the government’s desire for “fairness”.
Basically, the Democrats look mean and uncaring. In California, they care more about a smelt than people losing their property and livelihoods.
Anyway, the upside to their horrible positions and the nasty ideology at the foundation? When in power, it’s so much more difficult to lie. Oh, they can lie, but the policies and actions speak for themselves. People can see the truth. Ultimately, that’s good for America. Americans need to decide if they want that sort of America. Thankfully, they’re saying “no”.
New Podcast: Environmentalism’s Toll On The Poor, Foreign Policy Chaos & Should Someone Running For Office Have A Voting Record?Tuesday, September 29th, 2009
Phelim McAleer joined me to discuss his new movie “Not Evil Just Wrong“. We talked about how environmental policy hurts the poor the worst. It’s a fascinating discussion.
Then, I talked with Steve Schippert of Threatswatch about Obama’s handling of Afghanistan and the new threat in Iran.
Finally, John Hawkins and I argue about whether people should vote if they’re going to run for office: Hello Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina. Which side did he come down on? It might surprise you, but I can tell you here and now…he’s wrong!
Great music suggestion by Moe Lane of Red State and more!
Here come Barbara Boxer and John Kerry to unsave the day and destroy the world. Just a bit:
What Barbara Boxer and John Kerry have crafted is yet another payoff to cronies couched in world-saving terms. It’s a pay-off to California. It’s a pay-off to environmentalist wackos. And, it’s all based on flim-flam science.
Americans need to know how bad this all is for them. This bill, along with health care and card check will kill the American economy. It is not without irony that I write this post the day that Angela Merkel of Germany wins in a landslide on tax cuts. The German people see the mistakes they made and move away from them. American liberals, filled with hubris, believe that somehow their grand plans will be different. They’re right. If they enact these bills, America will be worse off than the worst European socialist state.
Please go read the whole thing. I talk about what it will do for taxes, the economy and who gets paid off and why. And it’s all based on b.s. science.
Liz Cheney spoke at the Smart Girls Summit in Nashville–alas, I missed it. But I’ve seen her interviewed and she’s got her daddy’s smarts and her mama’s grit. (Her mom is smart, too.) She was featured by the New York Times:
Liz Cheney is “a red state rock star,” declared Rebecca Wales, one of the organizers of this event, the “Smart Girls Summit.”
“The future of the Cheney message,” added a conservative blogger who goes by the name of Fingers Malloy (a rare man in this crowd, and even rarer, one with a Mohawk). He also called her “one of the fresh faces of our movement.”
It is a source of debate whether “Cheney” is an asset or a liability for this 43-year-old lawyer and former State Department official who keeps turning up on TV, at lecterns and in discussions about future Republican candidates. There is also the question of whether the “Cheney message” on national security — which essentially translates to an aggressive and interventionist approach — is something the Republican Party should be trumpeting, or burying.
What is clear is that Ms. Cheney, at a minimum, has become a rallying point for conservative views on national security. In a broader sense, she is being promoted as a rising star of the Republican Party, one who is hardly shying from the Cheney brand. (She is married to the lawyer Phillip Perry, but uses her maiden name.)
Ms. Cheney’s resolute national security positions seem to differ not at all from those of her favorite vice president. “I think you’d be hard-pressed to find any daylight at all between Liz’s and my father’s views,” said her younger sister, Mary Cheney. “It’s not because she’s been indoctrinated. It’s because he’s right.” Mary Cheney was prominent in her father’s vice-presidential campaigns but has drawn fire from some conservatives for having a child as part of a same-sex couple.
Well, I say go Mary and go Liz. Your folks raised you Right. We need plain-spoken, honest conservatives running for office. We need more conservative women running for office.
Glynnis MacNicol of Mediate notes the New York Time’s editor Bill Keller sudden fascination with all the news that’s fit to print–not just the part of the news that helps Democrats feel good about themselves. Well, this will be a real education:
Which is a major problem. You may not like Glenn Beck, you may think he is a nut job. You may think what he does is not journalism, you may think that in a perfect world of objective, reasoned, researched news reporting he should not have a place. But you ignore him at your own peril. Actually, there is the argument to be made that the Times ignores him at everyone’s peril — it is their job, after all, to watch and report on things the rest of us may not have the stomach for or any interest in. They are supposed to be watching Fox News so that other people don’t have to, not the other way around.
According to Hoyt the Times has recognized this and assigned an editor to watch Fox(!) along with a bunch of other sites they don’t normally like to sully themselves with “to brief them frequently on bubbling controversies.” Ha! They should just read Mediaite more. Alas, managing editor Bill Keller “declined to identify the editor, saying he wanted to spare that person “a bombardment of e-mails and excoriation in the blogosphere.” Good luck with that.
So, the New York Times is assigning someone to watch Fox. Heavens to Betsy! What radical thing will the Time’s do next?
The irritating thing, of course, is that they’ll watch Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann and think nothing because they agree with them. These yapping fools make sense to the NYT editors, but the the number of people watching MSNBC would indicate that their views are hardly representative of mainstream American views. Meanwhile, Beck and Fox in general, make huge numbers and the network even has a slight liberal tilt (don’t all news organizations?). And still, the New York Times has ignored them.
We’ll see how this endeavor goes. The NYT’s should be ashamed by the stories they’ve missed and the bias that causes them to ignore a whole segment of the reading public.
Ann Althouse is hilarious while excoriating the Time’s. She calls bullshit:
So you’re assigning somebody to get the clues you’ve been too lame to pick up, and yet you don’t want people to be able to send him clues because — you’ve got to be kidding! — he’d get too much email. Who with any level of connectedness has not learned to deal with a ton of email?! Come on. I want to just yell “bullshit!,” but I’ll spell it out. I get 100s of email messages every day, and it’s not even my job to pick up clues. I deal with it, and it’s not even that hard. You have an email address that is different from the one you use with people you know and trust, and you scan the first lines as they appear in the inbox. From that alone, you can see what’s going on, and you can choose to click through to whatever you want and spend as little as half a second reading it if you are any good. Damn, if your clue-getter isn’t able to do that, you might as well give up and write more stories about what middle-aged moms in Park Slope are saying about popsicles and iPhones.
And as for the desire to avoid excoriation in the blogosphere… have a nice day.
When I finally get down to business, interruptions infuriate me. I like to work and be completely focused on the task at hand and finish it and be done. Motherhood has thwarted me over and over. Motherhood is non-stop interruptions. But so is working online from home.
I’m writing and BAM! an IM. I’m IMing and BAM! and email. Basically, working on line from home, though better than being in a cubicle, can be just as frustrating. I’ll interrupt myself with a YouTube clip or a Twitter check or a Facebook update or an email to do. I have online ADD and it can make me crazy. Does it make me evil, too?
But then a funny thing happened: I noticed that the more things I could do with ease on my computer, the harder it was to focus on any one activity. My natural inclination to jump from one thing to another prematurely was now aided and abetted by technology—the very thing that was supposed to be helping me. Then, after the PDA and cell phone became a part of my daily life, I found myself, like millions of others, faced with even more interruptions, and it became increasingly difficult to concentrate. The technological advances that once seemed so liberating had become oppressive.
I came to realize that multitasking isn’t something to be proud of. In fact, it’s unethical, and good managers won’t do it themselves and will not require it of those they manage.
Here’s why multitasking is unethical.
When you multitask, you’re doing a lot of work, but you’re not doing most (or any) of it well. A new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences revealed that people who fired off e-mails while talking on the phone and watching YouTube videos did each activity less well than those who focused on one thing at a time. Psychiatrist Edward M. Hallowell, author of CrazyBusy: Overstretched, Overbooked, and About to Snap! (Ballantine, 2006), puts it this way: “Multitasking is shifting focus from one task to another in rapid succession. It gives the illusion that we’re simultaneously tasking, but we’re really not. It’s like playing tennis with three balls.”
A friend of mine complained because when I IM’d I might be doing something else, too. “You’re not paying attention and you’re not doing anything very well.” When I’d write an incoherent sentence that was unrelated to the conversation, she’d complain. My brother and sister roll their eyes and say, “There she goes again” when I lose interest and start doing something else.
My multitasking is not only counter-productive, it’s rude. Holy cow! Multitasking is evil!
So how can I stop this? How can I ignore the Twitter updates, the IM ping, the email whoosh, the phone call, the text alert? I might miss something!
My solution is vicious deadlines. Deadlines freak me out and the potential of dropping a responsibility scares me. As for human relationships, I’m trying to be more focused and present when I engage. My attention span is so short….
Anyway, I think Bruce has a point. Multitasking–having too many things going simultaneously–means that nothing gets ones full attention. This is a problem. Something worth doing, is worth giving full energy to.
Technology can solve problems, but it has created some, too. The ability to have so many things going has made it so people pay less attention to things that matter most–usually that’s the people in their lives.
What is the best defense against a predator? A passive defense and kind words. Enter Colorado environmentalists who romanticize the black bears’ increased boldness and the attacks that come with them.
But this is just a metaphor, really. Our new President sees the worlds predators–Iran, North Korea, Al Qaeda, etc.–and sees a fuzzy widdle puff ball that needs to be petted.
That’s right, our enemies will back off because they’re soothed, snuggled and condescended to, to death.
Liberals don’t see enemies–except for people who are willing to say “hey, that’s an enemy! That animal will try to eat me if he has a chance.” The only enemy is someone willing to say the truth or who has a desire to defend himself.
Now, sometimes, the bear gets really hungry and invades the human territory. Wildlife officials intent on keeping environmentalists, peaceniks and the lovers-of-all-things-sweet and safe happy walk a line and say things like “make yourself look big and scary”. See, the innocent victim shouldn’t shoot the attacker, oh no. And then, the bear comes into the house and starts stealing food and wrecking things and terrorizing residents. Isn’t that cute?
Yeah. The liberal philosophy is the same everywhere: Coddle predators and call decent citizens criminal.
S.E. Cupp notes that President Obama is putting his enemies in “time-out”. Libs ruin parenting, too!