Jul
3
Oh no, pseudo celebrities - get them out of here
July 3, 2009 | 1 Comment
So yesterday, after encountering the LaRouche loons, I saw a camera crew filming something just north of Dupont Circle, crossing the street on Connecticut. Well, now I know why.
In the realm of most people don’t care, the Real World cast has begun moving into their house on S Street in Dupont Circle. A small gaggle of bloggers and gawkers greeted a few of the new cast members yesterday afternoon.
Ugh. So they are living an filming about a block from my office.
Time for a long summer vacation.
Jul
2
For Malta?
July 2, 2009 | Leave a Comment
Yeah, the punchline is kind of obvious after hearing this news.
Jul
2
Equal Opportunity Nutters
July 2, 2009 | 1 Comment
Walking down Connecticut Avenue towards Dupont Circle during one’s lunch hour involves running something of an obstacle course. Every day there are several pairs of fresh-faced twenty-somethings trying to get passersby to sign some kind of petition or fork over some money for some (usually liberal) cause. Just once I’d love to see someone from the NRA out there just to see what kind of reaction they garner, but I digress.
Today there was a group hanging out accross the street from the Metro, and - what is this? They’re protesting President Obama’s health care plan? Did the RNC just collectively grow a pair?
Nope, it’s the annual summer gathering of the Lyndon LaRouche society. Having lived in DC almost exclusively during the Bush administration, I forgot that the LaRouche people hate just about everybody. They even had a poster with Obama’s face on it, and a cute little Hitler mustache drawn underneath his nose. Obviously they just swapped that out from their Bush poster, but it’s the thought that counts.
(Oh, that image happens to appear on the LaRouche PAC website. Check it out.)
I’m always amused by the LaRouche people. It wouldn’t ever to occur to me to devote that much energy to any single political figure, let alone someone as whacked out as LaRouche. Then again, unlike the Ron Paul people, at least they manage to get outside every now and then.
So they’ve got that going for them.
Jul
2
Damned Lawyers
July 2, 2009 | 5 Comments
RS McCain with perhaps the greatest rant in the history of rants. It has it all: pointing out the complete idiocy of most drivers, and some good old-fasioned lawyer bashing. This part in particular is just classic:
How do you become a lawyer? By being the kind of goody-two-shoes apple-polishing teacher’s pet who excels at homework, who complies happily with all the rules, who accumulates a perfect-attendance record and daily gold stars from kindergarten onward, cheerfully filling out application forms, becoming vice-president of various student clubs, and devoting every effort to writing admissions essays — that is to say, by being the kind of obedient twerp universally despised by normal human beings.
And of course I will be spending most of the July 4th weekend at barbecues with . . . lawyers.
I hope I don’t undercook the burgers.
Jul
2
Icee Dems
July 2, 2009 | 2 Comments
Absolutely hysterical “misheard lyrics” video set to Pearl Jam’s Yellow Ledbetter.
Heh. Potato Wave.
H/t: Scott Keith.
Jul
1
Renegade Priests calls for retaliation against KoC
July 1, 2009 | 3 Comments
A friend of mine just emailed me this story:
Suspended Fresno priest turned gay activist Father Geoffrey Farrow has called for Catholic priests to retaliate against the Knights of Columbus for their support of Proposition 8.
Farrow was removed as pastor from the St. Paul Newman Center at Cal State Fresno in October 2008 for his outspoken defiance of church teaching over Proposition 8 and the issue of homosexuality.
In a post on his personal blog dated June 4, 2009 “Boycott the Knights of Columbus,” Farrow wrote:
“Many priests have E-mailed me and expressed their rage and anger over the hypocrisy of the Catholic hierarchy in supporting anti-marriage equality legislation…One of the organizations, which the bishops have effectively employed to do their dirty work, has been the Knights of Columbus.”
Farrow then asked “So, what can priests do to fight the anti-gay agenda of the bishops and the K of C?” His first suggestion:
“Borrow the full amount against your Knights of Columbus life insurance policy immediately. Take the check and invest the funds with an LGBT friendly fund. Do not pay back the loan.”
The blog post is here. Shockingly comment moderation is on. Can’t imagine why that would be. It is amusing to read the comments from the sycophants who have absolutely no clue as to what the Knights of Columbus do.
This petty call for vengeance is shameful and disgusting to be sure, but I also imagine that the Supreme Council is not exactly sweating too much. Still, it’s always a tragedy when someone who has taken a vow before God spits in the Lord’s face.
Jul
1
The lunatic is on the grass
July 1, 2009 | 1 Comment
Normally I ignore Andrew Sullivan. The man is truly a despicable nutcase who deserves to be shunned rather than ridiculed. But his continuing obsession with Trig Trutherism is the sort accident by the roadside mess that is hard to ignore. But I am rather amused by a gay man discussing the events surrounding childbirth.
Todd recounts it:
But there were ominous signs–indications of an erratic nature. This is the third thing McCain could have discovered about Palin–a woman, after all, who kept a pregnancy secret for seven months, flew all the way home from Texas to Alaska with a near-full-term baby while leaking amniotic fluid, and then finally drove the 45 minutes from Anchorage to a hospital in Wasilla, all so that the child could be born in the 49th state.Actually, that latter point is a non-sequitur.
Palin could have gone to a major hospital in Anchorage and delivered the child and still have Trig as an Alaskan. But, no, she had to add an extra risk to her unborn child by ensuring her local hospital and family doctor could deliver the child - even if that extra 45 minutes (like the ten hours that preceded it) could have posed a deathly risk to a special needs infant, newborns who often need specialized care in delivery. It remains true that no one in the MSM will investigate the details of this truly bizarre story - and MSM journalists instead have devoted their efforts to demonizing any journalist who tries.
There’s a lot of madness to unpack here, but to me what stands out is this obsession with the amount of time it took for Sarah to get to her own family doctor. Naturally a guy who has no experience with childbirth believes that all labors go down like the ones in Hollywood pics. One minute the woman is screaming in pain, the next minute she’s rushed to a hospital, and then WHAMMO! Presto chango here comes the baby. All of this in the matter of a few minutes.
Umm, childbirth takes a bit longer than that.
But she was leaking amniotic fluid!
My wife’s water broke before dawn. We slept a little longer, got up, walked around, got some pizza, watched the Unsinkable Molly Brown, walked around some more, had dinner, and then went to the hospital at about 8:30 in the evening.
Like the excrable Sullivan, I don’t know all of the details surrounding Trig’s birth, and perhaps Governor Palin acted somewhat irresponsibly. But you know what? I have a feeling that someone who has given birth four times previously has a better sense of what she needs to do in such a situation than some insane blogger.
Anyway, the last word on Sullivan has already been written by Christopher Badeaux, so let that be it for now on Mr. Insaneo.
Speaking of insane bloggers, thanks to the great “American” band Pink Floyd for the song lyric that supplied the title of this post.
Jun
30
Shameless
June 30, 2009 | 4 Comments
With Pope Benedict XVI set to receive President Obama in a couple of weeks, surely progressive Catholics have too much self respect to try to make some sort of bizarre political hay out of the visit.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Last week witnessed Michael Sean Winters doing what Michael Sean Winters does best: writing logically strained, caricature-laden articles declaring that conservative Catholics have been put to shame by the Pope.
Eh, that’s mere little league stuff compared to this: The Catholic Democrats have announced their latest propaganda effort, titled the “Pope Greets Hope” Campaign. One can only stand in awe of the rhetorical brilliance of that one.
So, what are the Catholic Democrats saying in their letter to the Pope? I’m sure they have a long list of meaningful, orthodox requests.
We support your mutual efforts to:
- Build true understanding among nations;
- Eliminate nuclear weapons;
- Promote economic justice and reduce the poverty that diminishes the dignity and potential of people across the globe;
- Work toward the common ground of promoting the sanctity of all life;
- Encourage the world’s great religions to greater dialogue and understanding, thus promoting peace and tolerance;
- Support programs and policies that preserve God’s creation.
Well, at least they threw in something about the sanctity of all life, so they got that going for them.
We shouldn’t belittle the Catholic Democrats, after all this is similar to the initiative Catholic Republicans spearheaded during their “The Rottweiler meets the Decider” campaign last year. You remember that, right? There’s a link somewhere I’m sure. Just Google it.
I do wonder who the Catholic Dems think should be kissing whose hands.
Jun
29
Gettysburg
June 29, 2009 | 5 Comments
It only took me nearly 8 years of living within an hour and a half drive of the place, but I have finally been to every Civil war buff’s personal mecca: Gettysburg. Some attractions do not live up to the hype. This one exceeds it.
It is remarkable that when so many smaller Civil War battlefields have been developed over that this enormous, multi-level field has remained virtually untouched. The striking thing about Gettysburg is that it feels like a living memorial. Other sites seem like patches of green fields surrounded by new devlopments, while Gettysburg preserves so much of what the field looked like 146 years ago.
We did the audio auto tour, but we undoubtedly could go back again, especially when the little one is a bit older. It’s not easy doing an auto tour of a gigantic battlefield with a f0ur-month old screaming in her car seat, and once settled down and even sleeping, who wants to stop and look around? But there is so much to see. Not only are the fields preserved, but there are numerous memorials - hundreds if not thousands - scattered about. I’m sure one can easily spend two or three entire days exploring all that it has to offer.
Anyway, here are a couple of shots. That’s the view from below of Little Round Top, with Devil’s Den below.
Here’s one of Trostle Farm. Note the cannonball mark still there.
This is by the Angle, site of Picket’s charge.
The Pennsylvania Memorial.
And of course, the author and his daughter. Poor kid. I really hope she likes history, or she is going to have one bored childhood.
Jun
26
My sentiments exactly
June 26, 2009 | 4 Comments
Jonah Goldberg captures precisely how I feel about the death of Michael Jackson, or at least the media coverage of it.
Jun
25
A man betrays his vows before God, his wife’s trust, and his children’s faith. Obviously this means that it’s time for the Republicans to jettison social conservatism.
As I have argued elsewhere, it is time to purge the Right’s politics of social conservatism. Personal values should be left entirely to the private sphere. The Right should make social toleration and pluralism its new plank. Indeed, there is plenty of contrast between real pluralism and the groupist multiculturalism most of the far left embraces. And you can still have your Bible, virtues and righteousness in the free market of values—i.e. at home and at church.
Of course, there are egregious moral acts the discovery of which no politician – Democrat or Republican – should survive. Breaking a solemn contract with a spouse may very well be one of them. But legal bedroom behavior between consenting adults ain’t one of them. And public moralizing has definitely become a political liability for Republicans. The Right has set up the conditions such that no one in their party can ever have a peccadillo. They have driven their sinful behavior into a black market of their own creation. In the age of transparency, however, your trysts and broken taboos will be sniffed out quickly. And it’s not just for politically pragmatic reasons that the Right should give up on public moralizing a la Falwell. It’s also that it’s none of the government’s business what people do in their bedrooms, so it doesn’t belong in ANY platform.
This is wrong on multiple levels. First of all, a conservatism purged of social conservatism is no longer conservatism. But that’s a more abstract theoretical issue.
Borders makes the same mistake that leftists and moderates often do: they conflate a socially conservative political ethos with some sort of drive for complete social control. One would think that legal prohibitions on adultery and other sins were actually a part of the Republican platform. But most conservatives appreciate the limits of trying to impose legislative sanctions on immoral behavior. I’m going to gloss over the implications of the sentiment that “personal values should be left entirely to the private sphere,” because I understand what Borders is driving out at least politically. But Borders is essentially arguing against a strawman.
As for Borders’s contention that the “Right has set up the conditions such that no one in their party can ever have a peccadillo,” well yes and no. It might be true that Republican peccadilloes are highlighted because of the party’s ostensibly conservative social views, but so what? What exactly is the proper response? “Yeah, our culture is a rotting cesspool, and the decline of the family is one of the leading causes of this cultural decay, but let’s not mention any of this just in case one of our politicians has a strong desire to go diddle someone that ain’t his wife?” The fact that Mark Sanford couldn’t keep it in his pants doesn’t mean that, say, abortion is any less of an evil to be eradicated or that marriage is any less sacrosanct.
There are really two lessons to be learned from all this:
- Put not your trust in princes. The right’s disappointment stems from the fact that Sanford was considered a presidential front-runner in 2012. Though I was a fan of Sanford myself, somehow I think the world can carry on without the man ever becoming President. We’re such a president-centric society that we forget that no one man is the salvation of a country or a party. Let’s stop obsessing over who the “next Reagan” is going to be and recognize that politicians will almost always disappoint us.
- Man is, in fact, a sinful animal. I don’t want to get all theological here, but believe it or not only two people have ever walked the planet without sinning. Obviously some sins are worse than others, and as I said Sanford betrayed God, his wife and his children. But he’s not a hypocrite - he’s a sinner. (In fact he’d be a hypocrite only if he actually didn’t think adultery was a sin and yet preached the evils of marital infidelity.)
The existence of sin shouldn’t silence social conservatives. In fact, it’s just the opposite. While I agree with Max Borders in so far as I do not think that there are legislative solutions to most of the moral problems we confront, we will go nowhere as a society if we bury our heads in the sand and whistle pass the cultural rot that marks our civilization.
Jun
25
Public greets state-run media propoganda special with yawn
June 25, 2009 | 1 Comment
Normally I would chastise my fellow Americans for being so dis-interested in public affairs, but I think I will make an exception in this case.
President Obama’s town hall meeting on health care delivered a sickly rating Wednesday evening.
The one-hour ABC News special “Primetime: Questions for the President: Prescription for America” (4.7 million viewers, 1.1 preliminary adults 18-49 rating) had the fewest viewers in the 10 p.m. hour. The special tied some 8 p.m. comedy repeats as the lowest-rated program on a major broadcast network.
Evidently the American public had much use for an hour-long info-mercial from The One as I did.
H/t: Pundette.
Jun
24
Pride and Prejudice and Zombies
June 24, 2009 | 5 Comments
Not only is this the title of a book, but it will soon be a major motion picture. I have to see this.
Jun
24
You have got be kidding me
June 24, 2009 | 6 Comments
Sanford confesses to affair
Resigning as head of RGA.
“Trying to work through something we’ve been working through”
Family knew before trip to Argentina
Working through the last five months
Chokes back tears
Says first and only time unfaithful
“Way more detail than you ever want”: met this person 8 years ago, and “certain irony,” she was separated, “ended up in incredibly serious conversation about why she should get back” with her husband, exchanged e-mails
“What I did was wrong”
“We developed a remarkable friendship,” and about a year ago “sparked into something more than that,” “sparking thing,” “serious over-drive into where do we go from here,” “how do you be honest,” “spent the last five days crying in Argentina”
On a purely personal level this is simply awful. I can only hope that the Governor and his wife work through this somehow.
On a political level - I’ll see you folks in 2016.
Jun
24
Episcopalian Priestess: God rejoices in abortion choice
June 24, 2009 | 1 Comment
Courtesy of Matt Archibold comes this charming comment by an Episcopalian priestes on abortion.
After reading the 3 June article, “Pregnancy-loss Prayers”, I found the text for Rachel’s Tears online and was sickened to discover that the rite for abortion is couched wholly in terms of sin and transgression. The Episcopal Church, by resolution, has long held that women have the freedom to choose an abortion. It is not considered a sin. That this new rite begins with the words, “I seek God’s forgiveness…” and includes “God rejoices that you have come seeking God’s merciful forgiveness…” is contrary to the resolution. Women should be able to mourn the loss of an aborted fetus without having to confess anything. God, unlike what the liturgy states, also rejoices that women facing unplanned pregnancies have the freedom to carefully choose the best option - birth, adoption or abortion - for themselves and their families. No woman makes this decision lightly or frivolously. But each needs the non-judgmental and non-coercive support of her faith community to make the best decision for her circumstances.
The wording of this liturgy focuses solely on guilt and sin instead of the grief and healing that may accompany a very difficult but appropriate decision to terminate a pregnancy. If anyone is paying attention at the General Convention, this rite should not be approved.
Sick. This is the same madness that LeRoy Carhart was spewing a couple of weeks ago. The difference is that Carhart is, functionally, a paid assassin, while Nina Churchman is, ahem, a member of the clergy. The former at least has a reasonable motivation to use twisted theology in order to justify his lifestyle, whereas the latter is simply twisting theology in order to feed her ideological predisposition.
Jun
23
Oooooh, that smell
June 23, 2009 | 1 Comment
The Art of Manliness has a list of 15 Manly Smells. I can’t dissagree with any of them, but I do think cigar smoke isn’t that far behind pipe smoke.
Jun
23
Banana
June 23, 2009 | Leave a Comment
Back some two decades ago or so the New York Post came thisclose to folding up. I remember a front page that simply had a portrait of Alexander Hamilton, the newspaper’s founder, with a tear in his eyes. I can’t help but think it’s time to reprint that image considering what has become of his home state.
In a surprise move, Democrats filed into the Senate chamber this afternoon and took control of the rostrum for the first time since June 8, when a historic Republican-backed coup seemingly broke their majority.
The 31 senators took their seats and put Sen. Andrea Stewart Cousins (D-Yonkers) on the podium. The press was blocked from entering and watched events unfold through windows.
Democrats entered the chamber through the Lieutenant Governor’s Office, which is connected to their conference room through a series of back doors. Smith spokesman Austin Shafran said Democrats would not let Republicans into the chamber until the special session, preventing them from attending a 2 p.m. Republicans called as a way to preemptively occupy the gilded meeting hall. Sergeants-at-arms, which are still controlled by Smith, were posed at the chamber gates.
“Isn’t that interesting?” Turncoat Democrat Sen. Espada Jr. (Again with the Turncoat stuff. Has the guy started a new party called the Turncoat Democrats?) said when informed of the Democratic lock down. “What reform that is. We are going to get out of session at two o’clock.”
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
Jun
22
Still here
June 22, 2009 | 2 Comments
So I was with my friend Adam and his family celebrating the bris of his newborn son, when I get a text message basically asking me if I am still alive after the Metro derailment. Then another text. And another.
What they referring to was this.
Simply horrible.
As for me, I had left work early for the aforementioned bris, and I believe that the train was heading in the opposite direction from which I would be taking it at that time. Also, I usually take the bus home in the evening. I think I will be taking the bus a lot more now.
Jun
22
Lazy blogging
June 22, 2009 | Leave a Comment
I’m a little swamped right now, but I should return to normal blogging activities fairly soon. I would just remind you all that I’m still blogging at First Things, and my latest post just went up.
Also, there’s another interesting post in the “what is conservatism?” category, this time from Darwin Catholic over at the American Catholic. Those of you who have not been readers of this blog for too long might be interested in my series of essays on conservatism starting here. That’s actually the last part, and you can work your way backwards through the links.
Jun
18
How do you like dem apples?
June 18, 2009 | 5 Comments
I wasn’t really going to comment on the 3578734895723894569783th (give or take) debate on “real conservatism,” this time involving RS McCain, Dan Riehl, and Conor Friedersdorf, but after reading Friedersdorf’s take, I couldn’t help but think of that scene from Good Will Hunting.
WILL: Of course that’s your contention. You’re a first year grad student. You just finished some Marxian historian, Pete Garrison prob’ly, and so naturally that’s what you believe until next month when you get to James Lemon and get convinced that Virginia and Pennsylvania were strongly entrepreneurial and capitalist back in 1740. That’ll last until sometime in your second year, then you’ll be in here regurgitating Gordon Wood about the Pre-revolutionary utopia and the capital-forming effects of military mobilization.
CLARK: Well, as a matter of fact, I won’t, because Wood drastically underestimates the impact of –
WILL: “Wood drastically underestimates the impact of social distinctions predicated upon wealth, especially inherited wealth…” You got that from “Work in Essex County,” Page 421, right? Do you have any thoughts of your own on the subject or were you just gonna plagiarize the whole book for me? Look, don’t try to pass yourself off as some kind of an intellect at the expense of my friend just to impress these girls.
Look, I’m the last guy who is going to completely mock citing classical authors in an effort to bolster one’s argument, but simply bandying the names Kirk and Oakeshott around like it makes you some intellectual bigshot is a little off putting. Yeah, I’ve read those guys. And Burke. And Hayek. And Sowell. And Buckley. And on and on and on and on.
But you know what? Absent a critical analysis of what those guys said, all I’m doing is repeating a bunch of names. They get us no closer to a true definition of conservatism, if one really exists.
Also, this all misses the larger question: which voices are authoritative in the quest for arriving at a clear definition? Kirk laid down his six tenets, and while I am fundamentally in accord with them, does that mean that anyone calling themselves conservative ought to mindlessly ape Kirk as if he were the voice of God whose authority should not be questioned? Furthermore, these great (and they were great, all of them) voices of the right were hardly in agreement on all policy questions. I don’t think that Buckley was quite as isolationist as Kirk, for starters. Sure, they shared fundamental precepts, but we shouldn’t just gloss over their disagreements. Much as there is a danger in just speaking of the “Founders” as though they were a monolith, we have to clarify what elements of these thinkers we find so compelling.
There is a lot to admire in Russell Kirk, but he is not the be all end all of conservative thinking. I doubt Conor Friedersdorf thinks so either, but maybe he could offer up a little more substantive than name dropping a few guys who are going to make all the right people all tingly.
Update: Some linky love from R.S. McCain and Donald, err, Dr. Donald Douglas.
Now Reading
Planned books:
- The CEO of the Sofa by P. J. O’Rourke
- Cosmic Liturgy: The Universe According to Maximus the Confessor (Communio Books.) by Hans Urs von Balthasar
- After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory, Third Edition by Alasdair MacIntyre
- Decline and Fall by Evelyn Waugh
- Origen Spirit and Fire: A Thematic Anthology of His Writings by Hans Urs von Balthasar
Current books:
-
Master and Commander (Movie Tie-In Edition) by Patrick O’Brian
-
The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice by Philip Jenkins
Recent books:
- Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel — Why Everything You Know is Wrong by John Stossel
- Conquests And Cultures: An International History by Thomas Sowell
- The Age of Strict Construction: A History of the Growth of Federal Power, 1789-1861 by Peter Zavodnyik
- Machiavelli’s Liberal Republican Legacy by Paul A. Rahe
- Congress v. The Supreme Court by Raoul Berger