Archive for October, 2009
War Crimes Tribunal For Petreaus?
Friday, October 16th, 2009Why the UN Council going after Israel is dangerous:
Tactics deployed to hurt Israel inevitably cause collateral damage. It’s a good thing that the United States, and a handful of European countries, have opposed the referral of Israel to a war crimes tribunal, but they aren’t doing enough (and, of course, France and Great Britain absented themselves from the vote). They would do more, I think, if they understood that Israel represented a kind of test run for a uniquely nefarious idea. Israel may find itself in the docket soon, but the U.S., and Britain, and other Western democracies that are battling Islamist terror, may soon find themselves in similiar straits. Who could seriously argue that what happened in Gaza was unique? Talibs hide behind civilians in Afghanistan, and often those civilians get killed. It’s only a matter of time before David Petraeus, or Bob Gates, find themselves under attack from the same forces that want to punish Israel for trying to defend itself from a state-sponsored terror group seeking its elimination.
Conservatives Causing Problems: Clashing With GOP Establishment
Friday, October 16th, 2009The Grand Old Party rests on a false premise: Conservative ideas won’t sell anywhere but in conservative places. This premise is wrong, as Pat Toomey is proving in Pennsylvania. The national Republicans spurned Pat Toomey in favor of Arlen Specter. Look what happened there. And now, wonder of wonders, Toomey would beat Specter head-to-head. What changed?
Nothing.
The Republican party simply does not have faith in certain core ideals anymore because they believe that the American people don’t believe them anymore. They are wrong. I’ll get to that in a minute.
First, the Wall Street Journal’s Naftali Bendavid has a provocative piece about how Tea Party activists are tangling with GOP leadership:
But these newly energized conservatives present GOP leaders with a potential problem: The party’s strategy for attracting moderate voters risks alienating activists who are demanding ideological purity, who may then gravitate to other candidates or stay at home. It’s a classic dilemma faced by parties in the minority — tension between those who want a return to the party’s ideological roots and those who want candidates most likely to win in their districts.
Here is another false premise: Activists are demanding ideological purity. No, they are demanding
that the Republican party stand for something, anything.
How can a socialist call oneself a Republican? And what good does a Republican socialist do once in office? If the ideas of a candidate would have him or her voting Democrat 90% of the time, what good is it to have him? The Democrats are demonstrating this problem right now. Blue Dogs don’t want the health care plan and rightly so. They will be trounced back home should they vote to expand the government. But therein lies the dilemma: Democrats are for expanding government. They believe, fundamentally, that the government is the solution. Why be a Democrat if you don’t believe that? Progressive Democrats are rightly furious. It has been their goal for ages to socialize medicine. Now, with huge majorities, they’re still being thwarted–by their own.
Winning at all costs usually means not winning at all. Arlen Specter is self-serving loathsome creature. He swung back and forth making decisions that suited him. He had no ideological center. He has no core beliefs. Well, he has one: What is good for me?
The Republican party needs to stand for something. Isn’t a small-government bent, the least people should expect from the party? It seems that the Republicans still don’t know why they were voted out of office. It was not because they were “too conservative”. That argument would apply had they attempted to stick to any conservative policy. No, they lost because they strayed from their core beliefs.
So, until the Republican party gets clear, the Tea Party folks will be pushing back. And if that means losing some local elections until the Republican party gets religion, so be it. The American people do not want some softer version of Democrats. Obama won because he sounded like Ronald Reagan–all personal responsibility and low taxes.
The Republican party is putting up candidates who believe in big government because they believe that’s what the people want. They are wrong. The American people want an alternative to the soft socialism coming from the Left. The American people want jobs–that comes from smaller, not bigger government. The American people want spending cuts–that comes from fiscal responsibility on the part of Congressional members. These are all (or used to be) Republican ideals.
In the midterm elections, Republicans are going to sweep. People are sick to death of the Democrats already. Republicans should be scouring the landscape for solid conservatives who will deliver responsible legislation once elected. Right now, they’re treating the electoral ills wrong because they’ve misdiagnosed the cause.
Tea Partiers have it right. The Republicans need to pay attention or risk staying a minority party for a very long time.
P.S. And to those folks believing that there is going to be some magical Third Party to save the day, I say that the cure is to remake the Republican party, not go outside it.
via Memeorandum
Podcast: Rush Limbaugh & More
Friday, October 16th, 2009Unsurprisingly, John Hawkins and I disagree…again. What are the implications of the Rush smears?
Download MP3
To subscribe on iTunes, just click here!
When Melissa isn’t on the radio, you can find her at melissaclouthier.com and on Twitter. Her username is MelissaTweets.
PETA: People For The Ethical Treatment Of Their Own Big Fat Wallets
Thursday, October 15th, 2009What do the PUSH Coalition and PETA have in common besides catchy acronyms? They’re shakedown artists extraordinaire. Over at Big Government, Mary Grabar has an excellent exposé on PETA (whom I’ve written about for Pajamas Media before). Here’s a bit of what she finds:
But as the corporate representative finds himself fending off charges by PETA, PETA may be profiting from donations and business deals with his competitors. For example, PETA on its website discourages supporters from attending the Ringling Brothers Barnum & Bailey Circus; it encouraged them to protest its Denver show on September 29, 2009, for alleged animal cruelty. In 2002, PETA president Ingrid Newkirk and several colleagues reportedly hectored families attending the circus in Savannah. Then, PETA targeted MasterCard for sponsoring the Circus and encouraged supporters to send their cut-up credit cards back to the company. Ringling Brothers spokeswoman Amy McWethy, disputing PETA’s claims of animal cruelty, pointed to the company’s licensing by the USDA under the Animal Welfare Act, open access to visitors and inspectors, and an elephant conservation center that harbors retired Asian elephants and contains the largest herd of the endangered species outside of Southeast Asia. A July 28, 2009, press release on the website claims that the PETA undercover video was “deceptively edited.” McWethy says the partnership with MasterCard was for a limited duration, but PETA claimed in 2004 that their pressure led to MasterCard’s decision to end the program.
MasterCard competitor, Visa, however, offers a PETA credit card that donates one percent of all purchases back to PETA. Visa, furthermore, is a sponsor of the 2010 Winter Olympics, the very same organization that PETA targets as one of its ten prominently displayed “campaigns” for cruelty on its homepage—as it does Barnum and Bailey. The link emblazoned with the Olympics logo leads the visitor to a page that tells him to “urge the Olympic Committee to help end seal slaughter.” Visa also has relationships with other companies whose practices conflict with PETA’s stated mission: the Kentucky Derby, Omaha Steaks, Nine West shoe company, and PETCO (against whom it waged a campaign several years ago).
It’s not about the poor, persecuted pets, it’s about pockebooks and power–PETA’s. PETA is like all the rest of the leftist-grievance exploiters: they want to radically change America to a place where all living things are equal. You, a human, are equal to Fido who is equal to your potted plant who is equal to that roach you just killed. No one is better or worse. No country is better or worse. Etc.
At PETA’s own website, there’s a hilarious post about Iams, the dog food maker, being cruel because, wait for it, they test the food with dogs to see if dogs will like it. PETA does endorse V-dog, though, which is a Vegan dog food ostensibly fed to…dogs. No dog testing though, so I’m guessing eating dog vegan sucks as bad as being a human vegan. How much money does PETA get to endorse V-dog? I’m guessing that it’s enough to not inspire too much curiosity on PETA’s part.
Businesses need to stop caving to these hypocritical crazies. PETA, like all these groups, is about empowerment–their own.
The Limbaugh Lesson: [Conservative] White Guys Finish Last–UPDATED
Thursday, October 15th, 2009If Rush Limbaugh can be black balled because his political views are not in line with politically correct orthodoxy no one is safe. If Rush Limbaugh can be thwarted economically because he’s maligned by racist words he doesn’t believe and he never uttered, no one’s economic dreams are safe–anyone can say that a person said anything and if that person believes something unpopular to the ruling class, they’re done.
Here is the hierarchy of economic safety in a politically correct charged world:
Least safe: White, middle aged, alpha-male, person of color who votes Republican, female who votes Republican
Less safe: Anybody who is white
Moderately safe: Anybody who is white and voted for Barack Obama
More safe: Anyone who is of color and voted for Barack Obama
Safer still: Anyone who is female and of color
Safest of all: Black, lesbian Obama voter (If she voted for Hillary in the primaries, she’s suspect.)
We are no longer a merit-based economy, we are a skin color and political ideology-based economy. We are exactly what Dr. Martin Luther King didn’t want: a place where people are judged not by their accomplishments, not by the content of their character, but by their color and political perspective.
And why is conservative put in brackets in the headline? Because white guys are suspect until they’re clear about their voting record. Once a white man admits that he made the “right” decision and voted for Barack Obama, people can relax…but only a little. White people are racists. They can’t help it. You just never know about white people, so it’s best to not get too comfortable.
UPDATED:
For an alternative view, Sean Hackbarth.
Podcast: Not Hot For Teacher With Jimmie Bise And Tabitha Hale
Thursday, October 15th, 2009Jimmie Bise of Sundries Shack and Tabitha Hale of Pink Elephant Pundit join me to discuss the spork incident which morphed into discussing socialism and central educational planning which morphed into talking the Nobel Peace prize. Believe it or not, it all relates.
To subscribe on iTunes, just click here!
Standards of Decorum: Real World & Internet Version
Wednesday, October 14th, 200987% of Houstonians polled say that politicians should be held to a higher standard when it comes to rhetorical decorum. Turns out that Rahm Emmanuel has a potty-mouth and Joe Biden routinely says “f*ck”.
And then there is the internet. I have passed along “adult” language tweets. When I write on Twitter, I assume a more adult audience. That is, while I don’t want to be foul, sometimes language can be…flowery. That has lost me followers here and there who are averse to a little salt. One expressed shock and said that I wasn’t kid-friendly. Why are kids following my Twitter stream? Personally, I don’t think kids should watch the nightly news. It gives such a false and skewed perspective on the world…no bad words necessary.
This is what one blogger at Suburban Oblivion said about a chiding mom:
I received a message on a social media site recently asking that I tone down the language on my blog. Seems she feels what I write is not fit for young eyes.
Hey please watch the profanity i have young kids in my family that are on facebook and are on my page and i dislike being chewed out by there mothers and fathers for profanity on my page.
thanks for understanding, B
First I started to laugh. I have NEVER claimed what I write is child-friendly. Given the number of times a day I use the word ‘fuck’ on Twitter alone, I think it’s pretty clear I will never hit less than an ‘R’ rating. My humor is for adults, not children, clearly.
Then she follows with this:
As a parent, it is your job to keep your children from reading adult content on the internet.
As a parent, it is your job to not visit sites containing said adult content if you cannot keep those children from hanging over your shoulder and reading.
As a writer, it is not my job to censor myself so you don’t have to do your job (see above).
Seriously people..grow the fuck up and parent your kids, and quit expecting everyone on the internet to change their way of doing things just so you don’t have to.
So, I’m wondering. Is there two different standards? I’m pretty much the same in the real world as I am online. Every once in a while I’ll say ass or shit at home and get a scolding from my kids. Same thing happens online.
And while everyone is kvetching about naughty words, I think it’s important to have some perspective. This is an example of real nasty language. Bad words might be offensive to some, but what should really bother people is disgusting lies, obfuscation, and purposeful disseminating of disinformation.
Public Works Not Working, Mass Transit Not Moving: A Conservative Perspective
Wednesday, October 14th, 2009Matt Lewis writes a must-read piece about a conservative view on public transportation. I’m not going to get into the details of it, but I urge you to read it.
Here is where conservatives and Republicans need to get with the program: the government does have a role in public life. Infrastructure and defense are the two obvious roles. The problem for conservatives, is that they haven’t given enough thought to the implementation of tax dollars for infrastructure. This void has been filled with leftist fantasies. The results haven’t been effective or pretty. That is, both form and function have stunk.
I believe that it is a thoroughly conservative notion to use public monies for public purposes in positive ways. Conservatives need to give more thought to how. When conservatives get involved, their philosophy drives beauty. Since they triumph the achievements of the individual, they are more likely to prize a unique, local, and beautiful representation rather than a bland statist ideal.
Sid Burgess wrote to me on this subject. He said:
The start is making our communities communities again. Then those INDEPENDENT and strong places will create change in the government that are needed. Our founding father got it, we just forgot the purpose of local governments.
Sid also said of public transit:
As a conservative myself, I have often lamented at the wasteful and ultimately bankrupt ideas of moving hundreds of millions of people via car and highway. Until we build roads that have lifespans much longer than a decade, we must be willing to consider most financially sustainable methods.
Conservatives need to stop ceding this ground to liberals. Conservation, integrity, efficiency, and longevity are thoroughly conservative notions. It’s time to embrace them again.
Why Would Americans Be For An Afghan Surge?
Wednesday, October 14th, 2009Americans poll positive on surging in Afghanistan. Why would that be? Because most Americans have dealt with moles, ant-hills, head lice, or some other kind of nasty infestation. The bugs die when they are 1. exterminated and 2. the environment is cleaned up.
Libs hate George W. Bush for his warmongering ways. They’re giving Barack Obama a hypocritical pass. But Bush knew that this two pronged approach is necessary to rid of pests…especially murderous pests. Killing them works, but making the environment clean so that bugs don’t grow is important for prevention.
Americans have stayed amazingly consistent: Kill the bugs. Clean the house. This is just common sense.
H/T Instapundit
