Politics is said to make strange bedfellows. It appears to have an opposite effect in Italy, where Prime Minister Silvio Berusconi has pledged no sex until after the April 9 elections -- and its not even Lent. This reaffirms that Italy is a country where sex and politics are very important -- and very strange.
Still … I am dumbfounded. What public policy issues … what matters of governance … would make a head of state candidate pledge to refrain from martial sex as a campaign promise to the citizens. This is doubly confusing when you consider that Berlusconi is married to a very hot former actress, Veronica Lario.
On the other hand, America might have been a much happier place if Bill Clinton had promise to ONLY have sex with his wife – before and after any one of a number of election days. If I were Berlusconi, I would not have Bill Clinton as a house guest while imposing abstinence on my sexy wife.
The article reporting the PM’s promise noted the couple have three children. So, we can assume that his withdrawal to the drawing room is a sincere sacrifice.
How will the Italian electorate know if he is keeping his promise? Are there any watch-dog groups willing to monitor the Prime Minister’s bedroom? I know a lot of scandal rags would volunteer, but only if they thought there was a good chance of catching him in a lie … or better yet, catching her with another.
Well… this is more attention than the subject deserves, but it was too weird to pass up without comment.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
REACT: Cindy sells out America
Once the public spotlight has passed you by, it is not easy to get the ego boosting limelight back. This is obvious in the case of Cindy Sheehan. Her protest over the death of her war hero son seems to have brought her long-standing left wing kookiness into full public view.
Oh sure! At first, she gained natural sympathy for her sobbing appearances in the press. We were all hoodwinked into thinking she was merely overcome with grief. That was until it became apparent that she was using her son’s death rather than mourning it. Whatever were the tears of real grief, they gave way to cry-for-the-camera tactics -- and a nation took note.
It would appear now that her insatiable craving for media attention has driven her to the extreme of disloyalty to the troops she shames to acclaim. In the name of their well-being, she endangers them further by aiding and abetting their would-be killers. Sheehan is no longer a misguided grieving parent, but a traitor to both her son’s memory and this nation’s cause. She has become the international spokesperson for the murderous terrorists of the world.
Why such a harsh assessment? It is not the silly threat of taking on California Senator Dianne Feinstein in the next election. That is merely an ego-feeding publicity stunt that only adds to Sheehan’s publicity-seeking reputation. It is not even her hateful, anti-Bush remarks that only prove that free-speech is equally the right of the intelligent and articulate and those challenged in both categories.
The real offense is her r
ecent overseas adventure that brought her mania to the edge of treason. It is that image of her in Venezuela (left – of course), smiling broadly and embraced, figuratively and literally, by President Hugo Chavez as he reiterated his pervasive enmity for the United States and his allegiance to the world anti-American alliance. She gave a “thumbs up” as he condemned the United States action in Iraq, and as he promised to help finance Sheehan’s anti war petition drives. He offered to set up a tent next to hers outside the Bush Ranch in Texas.
For her part, Sheehan endorsed and supported has-been singer/actor Harry Belafonte’s claim, perhaps senility inspired, that George Bush is “the greatest terrorist in the world.” (Perhaps his signature recording, “Yellow Bird” was more his autobiographical anthem than the charming island ditty we all thought it to be). Sheehan is not a war hater. She has now proven herself to be an America hater. Is she could find Ben Ladin, I would not be surprised to see her issuing taped threats from a cave on the Pakistani border.
I guess Sheehan noticed that meeting heads of state is a boilerplate publicity stunt for virtually all ambitious senate candidates. Someone forgot to tell her however that you are still supposed to be a loyal America. World War II’s Tokyo Rose (unbowed and incarcerated) and Vietnam’s Hanoi Jane (repentant and rich) were not seeking high office.
However, it is good to know that no matter how badly things go for Bush, he can always count on the loony left to make him look good.
Postscript: As I again looked at the Sheehan/Chavez photo, I wonder if I have totally missed something. Is that a “thumbs up?” Or is she doing a line of South American snow off her hand? Is she supporting or snorting? Now THAT would make a lot more sense than any other explanation for both her bizarre emergence from well-deserved obscurity and her goofier public antics.
Oh sure! At first, she gained natural sympathy for her sobbing appearances in the press. We were all hoodwinked into thinking she was merely overcome with grief. That was until it became apparent that she was using her son’s death rather than mourning it. Whatever were the tears of real grief, they gave way to cry-for-the-camera tactics -- and a nation took note.
It would appear now that her insatiable craving for media attention has driven her to the extreme of disloyalty to the troops she shames to acclaim. In the name of their well-being, she endangers them further by aiding and abetting their would-be killers. Sheehan is no longer a misguided grieving parent, but a traitor to both her son’s memory and this nation’s cause. She has become the international spokesperson for the murderous terrorists of the world.
Why such a harsh assessment? It is not the silly threat of taking on California Senator Dianne Feinstein in the next election. That is merely an ego-feeding publicity stunt that only adds to Sheehan’s publicity-seeking reputation. It is not even her hateful, anti-Bush remarks that only prove that free-speech is equally the right of the intelligent and articulate and those challenged in both categories.
The real offense is her r
ecent overseas adventure that brought her mania to the edge of treason. It is that image of her in Venezuela (left – of course), smiling broadly and embraced, figuratively and literally, by President Hugo Chavez as he reiterated his pervasive enmity for the United States and his allegiance to the world anti-American alliance. She gave a “thumbs up” as he condemned the United States action in Iraq, and as he promised to help finance Sheehan’s anti war petition drives. He offered to set up a tent next to hers outside the Bush Ranch in Texas.For her part, Sheehan endorsed and supported has-been singer/actor Harry Belafonte’s claim, perhaps senility inspired, that George Bush is “the greatest terrorist in the world.” (Perhaps his signature recording, “Yellow Bird” was more his autobiographical anthem than the charming island ditty we all thought it to be). Sheehan is not a war hater. She has now proven herself to be an America hater. Is she could find Ben Ladin, I would not be surprised to see her issuing taped threats from a cave on the Pakistani border.
I guess Sheehan noticed that meeting heads of state is a boilerplate publicity stunt for virtually all ambitious senate candidates. Someone forgot to tell her however that you are still supposed to be a loyal America. World War II’s Tokyo Rose (unbowed and incarcerated) and Vietnam’s Hanoi Jane (repentant and rich) were not seeking high office.
However, it is good to know that no matter how badly things go for Bush, he can always count on the loony left to make him look good.
Postscript: As I again looked at the Sheehan/Chavez photo, I wonder if I have totally missed something. Is that a “thumbs up?” Or is she doing a line of South American snow off her hand? Is she supporting or snorting? Now THAT would make a lot more sense than any other explanation for both her bizarre emergence from well-deserved obscurity and her goofier public antics.
Friday, January 27, 2006
REACT: Yea! For Kennedy and Kerry
I am one happy conservative today. For awhile, I feared that the dreadful duo from Massachusetts, Senators Kennedy and Kerry, would not succumb to the temptation of filibustering the nomination of Judge Alito.
While a smooth victory would be nice, the idea of watching Kennedy/Kerry lead a political suicide squad, with the almost assured limelight-grabbing support of Senators Schumer, Durbin and Biden, is like snatching the golden ring. National Democrat Chairman Howard Dean will undoubtedly be the obnoxious cheerleader screeching on the sidelines, and the team owner, Senate Minority Leader Reid will puff up with pride for his team -- at least until their field performance produces a route. I love it.
What could be better than to see the liberals take on the role of obstructionist? In one bold, and rather inept action, they will divert public attention from the political weak points of President Bush. Suddenly, the beleaguered President will have the moral and popular high ground. That's right. Despite the whining of partisans and pundits, the public is not buying the argument that Alito is a dangerous extremist -- especially since the vast majority of the public shares most of his views, and he has come across as a pretty nice guy, to boot (and I suppose that is why the liberal extremists like to boot him).
The high visibility tactic will also bring more needed attention to the usurping role of the modern courts. The more the public understands the difference between interpreting laws and making laws from the judicial bench, the better off we will all be.
I certainly hope that Alito survives a filibuster, and I suspect he will if there remain enough sane Democrats in the Senate to override the wind bags. If not, there is another wonderful outcome. K/K and company will provide the political foundation for a change in the rules -- the nuclear options as it is misnamed. It is not only NOT a nuclear option, it is a pretty good reform. Had the Democrats, in the thralls of power madness, not decided to upend 200 years of tradition on Presidential appointments, no rules change would be necessary.
Once again, the Dems will be the party lacking integrity. It was not so long ago that they pledged no filibuster except in extremely rare situations. (In previous writings, I predicted “soon” would overcome “rare.”) This nomination, supported by most of the legal community and many even liberal democrats, does not come close to warranting a filibuster. The only motivation for a filibuster is personal arrogance, playing to the provincial outdated liberalism of their hometown constituencies, and a desire to "control" the courts by rear guard actions and anachronistic rules.
Another benefit for the Grand Old Party will be a significant decline in the election stock of the Dem team. Behind the headlines trumpeting Bush's popular descent is the reality of Democrat unpopularity. As Bush's rating fell, the ratings of the Dem leadership remained in the toilet. This makes it easier for Bush to ascend in the popularity polls, since there has not been a shift in loyalty. The Dems may hold sway with the press, but that does not mean much on election day. The last time the Dems (and press) hopefully predicted great gains for the donkey team, they actually lost seats. In 2004, the press even called the election a Kerry win. Within hours, the votes produced a strong win for the President and the GOP all across the nation. One cannot underestimate the blinding power of wishful thinking.
Even if the K/K team can convince enough Senate Democrats to commit cult-like mass suicide, and if, perchance, the nomination is blocked by brutal imposition of once-honored minority protections, is there any doubt that the next nominee will be just as much a strict constructionist as Alito?
The problem with the Dem game plan to keep the left lean in the Supreme Court is that the game is over. Bush will pick the next Supreme Court justice, and it will be a strict constructionist. The Court will shift to the right. Roe v. Wade will be imperiled -- as will a lot of other stuff. In fact, the rejection of succeeding Bush appointments is not likely to result in the nomination of a pseudo-centrist. No! No! No! Growing frustration with the blockers on the Dem team will give Bush ample opportunity to see more open space on the right flank. It is not often that the final outcome is known while one of the teams is playing on the field.
I fear the K/K foolishness will be short lived. There must be enough Democrats in the Senate to salvage their party from the ruinous tactics of the real extremists in America -- the ideological Siamese twins of elitist liberalism, the not-so-honorable Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry. They are truly out of touch with reality, But then again, the do hail from Massachusetts.
While a smooth victory would be nice, the idea of watching Kennedy/Kerry lead a political suicide squad, with the almost assured limelight-grabbing support of Senators Schumer, Durbin and Biden, is like snatching the golden ring. National Democrat Chairman Howard Dean will undoubtedly be the obnoxious cheerleader screeching on the sidelines, and the team owner, Senate Minority Leader Reid will puff up with pride for his team -- at least until their field performance produces a route. I love it.
What could be better than to see the liberals take on the role of obstructionist? In one bold, and rather inept action, they will divert public attention from the political weak points of President Bush. Suddenly, the beleaguered President will have the moral and popular high ground. That's right. Despite the whining of partisans and pundits, the public is not buying the argument that Alito is a dangerous extremist -- especially since the vast majority of the public shares most of his views, and he has come across as a pretty nice guy, to boot (and I suppose that is why the liberal extremists like to boot him).
The high visibility tactic will also bring more needed attention to the usurping role of the modern courts. The more the public understands the difference between interpreting laws and making laws from the judicial bench, the better off we will all be.
I certainly hope that Alito survives a filibuster, and I suspect he will if there remain enough sane Democrats in the Senate to override the wind bags. If not, there is another wonderful outcome. K/K and company will provide the political foundation for a change in the rules -- the nuclear options as it is misnamed. It is not only NOT a nuclear option, it is a pretty good reform. Had the Democrats, in the thralls of power madness, not decided to upend 200 years of tradition on Presidential appointments, no rules change would be necessary.
Once again, the Dems will be the party lacking integrity. It was not so long ago that they pledged no filibuster except in extremely rare situations. (In previous writings, I predicted “soon” would overcome “rare.”) This nomination, supported by most of the legal community and many even liberal democrats, does not come close to warranting a filibuster. The only motivation for a filibuster is personal arrogance, playing to the provincial outdated liberalism of their hometown constituencies, and a desire to "control" the courts by rear guard actions and anachronistic rules.
Another benefit for the Grand Old Party will be a significant decline in the election stock of the Dem team. Behind the headlines trumpeting Bush's popular descent is the reality of Democrat unpopularity. As Bush's rating fell, the ratings of the Dem leadership remained in the toilet. This makes it easier for Bush to ascend in the popularity polls, since there has not been a shift in loyalty. The Dems may hold sway with the press, but that does not mean much on election day. The last time the Dems (and press) hopefully predicted great gains for the donkey team, they actually lost seats. In 2004, the press even called the election a Kerry win. Within hours, the votes produced a strong win for the President and the GOP all across the nation. One cannot underestimate the blinding power of wishful thinking.
Even if the K/K team can convince enough Senate Democrats to commit cult-like mass suicide, and if, perchance, the nomination is blocked by brutal imposition of once-honored minority protections, is there any doubt that the next nominee will be just as much a strict constructionist as Alito?
The problem with the Dem game plan to keep the left lean in the Supreme Court is that the game is over. Bush will pick the next Supreme Court justice, and it will be a strict constructionist. The Court will shift to the right. Roe v. Wade will be imperiled -- as will a lot of other stuff. In fact, the rejection of succeeding Bush appointments is not likely to result in the nomination of a pseudo-centrist. No! No! No! Growing frustration with the blockers on the Dem team will give Bush ample opportunity to see more open space on the right flank. It is not often that the final outcome is known while one of the teams is playing on the field.
I fear the K/K foolishness will be short lived. There must be enough Democrats in the Senate to salvage their party from the ruinous tactics of the real extremists in America -- the ideological Siamese twins of elitist liberalism, the not-so-honorable Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry. They are truly out of touch with reality, But then again, the do hail from Massachusetts.
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
TIDBITS: Picking up on events while I was gone.
I am not sure if it is the effect of Chinese culture during my visit there, or the fact that America has gotten to be a stranger place in my short absence. The new year seems to be off to a good start of us right-wingers, however. For example:
Alito gets the Teflon Prize. I left with virtually every observer predicting a crushing senate inquisition of Supreme Court nominee Joseph Alito. The predicted thunderous clouds of war that, themselves, ended the bid by Harriet Miers, turned out to be nothing more than a light overcast. I assumed that the holiday season might have diminished the strident mood of the political left for the moment, but the post-season hearings fell remarkably short of their billing. In fact, the long awaited muddy-ing up of Alito not only did not happen, but the muddy missles appear to have splatted in the launcher’s own faces. Senators Biden, Kennedy, Durbin and Schummer (if vaudeville were alive today, that would be a song) appear to have made fools of themselves. Pompous, strident scurrilous and down-right dishonest, the four horsemen of the liberal apocalypse overplayed their parts, and a critical public collectively “boo’ed their performance.
Hypocracy award to Ted Kennedy. I cannot believe it. It is just to scumptiously funny. You understand that I think liberal ideologues are basically anti-democratic elitist hypocritics (and I think that only when I am in a good mood.) Occasionally, the fang of the wolf glints outside the concealing fur of the lamb. Rarely does it provoke more this-is-too-good-to-be-true laughter, however, than the recent discovery that Mr. Women’s Lib … the honorary “queen” of the lady leftists … belongs to … prepare to gasp in disbelief … belongs to … and can hardly believe it … belongs to AN ALL-MALE SOCIAL CLUB. Into the 21st Century, Teddy has kept up a 52-year membership and financial support in Harvard’s Owl Club. This did not prevent him from lambasting Judge Alito for a POSSIBLE long ago membership in Concerned Alumni for Princeton -- a group Kennedy charges with being anti-women and anti-minority. Alito does not recall the organization, and a search of the group’s files reveal no mention of the Supreme Court designee. Kennedy spokesperson says there is a big difference since the Senator’s membership is in a “social” club, and Alito’s dubious membership is in an “activist” group. To the senior senator from Massachusetts, it is less egregious to CURRENTLY AND PROVABLY belong to and support a sexist college alumni club than to be ACCUSED (by Kennedy, with no proof ) of belonging LONG AGO to another college (non-sexist) alumni club. In oxymoronic Kennedy logic, it is less of a crime to becaught today shoplifting than to be accused without evidence of shoplifting forty years ago.
If you ever doubt the vacuousness of liberal thinking, or the inherent intellectual dishonesty of its spokespersons, such examples bring the argument to closure. I suspect that what is left of the late-20th Century liberal feminists movement will rally to his defense, as they did for sexual predator-in-chief Bill Clinton -- reminding us again just how foolishly irrelevant the ladies of the left have become. (Hmmmmm. Should Bill Clinton be required to register as a sex offender? I can’t help thinking. If Hillary should ever become President, would 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue be on the national sex offender registry? Just kidding … but these days the funniest stuff is happening in real life.)
The Knock on the Noggin Award to Mayor Nagin. The liberal partisans and pundits never lose an opportunity to trash Preacher Pat Robertson when he places God’s intercessions on earthly events such as hurricanes that ravage the world or strokes that bring down Israeli prime ministers. Actually, I would not argue in Robertson’s favor. Even though we share substantial elements of political philosophy, I think he is a bit of a nut case. I am not about to take on his more messianic postulations. It is fair, however, to see if liberals dare distance themselves from the loonies in their bin. Which bring up the issue of New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin. You will recall many blogs ago, that I raised questions of his political sanity. I described his gang-bangeresque language on a talk show at the height of the Katrina finger pointing era as inappropriate of a person in his position. Weeeeell … seems like the Mayor is out to prove my case. In a King Day speech, and in a pandering or mocking oratorical style of a Black television minister, the Big Easy tough guy not only said that Katrina et al were God’s punishment for the war in Iraq and the low moral and ethical standards of the Black community, but that God intended … intended … that New Orleans should be a “chocolate city.” Only in liberal land, one can actually say that God intends an American city to be predominantly Black. (SIDEBAR: That reminds me of a time Mayor Daley was reported to say that Chicago needed a “white mayor.” Since I launched that bit of campaign controversy when serving as former Mayor Eugene Sawyer’s campaign spokesperson [and yes, I do like a lot of democrats], I got the inside dope on that one. Maybe someday I will write about it.) So there you have it. Mayor Daley making his city whiter and whiter, and Mayor Nagin promising to turn New Orleans to the “chocolate” (his word, not mine) capital of America. This can only happen in real life since no fiction writer would pen anything so absurd.
An Honest Abe Honorable Mention goes to television personality Stephen Colbert. A new word has entered the lexicon as the creation of Comedy Central’s jokester Stephen Colbert. “Truthiness.” As best I can tell, it defines statements, opinions, non-fiction books and resumes that claim an underlying truth regardless of the falsity of the facts. You have to understand that for liberal lies to be more widely accepted, we have to redefine truth. Like Clinton claiming that his genital hobbies were not sex. Or liberal educators creating “social promotions” as a euphemism for pushing kids from grade to grade without bothering to teach them anything. James Frey’s recent book, “A Million Little Pieces,” chronicling his recovery from crime and drug addiction, had a lamentable number of “pieces” (characters and events) that were created for heightened effect. Instead of humiliation and banishment from the ethical sanctuary, he is defended by the likes of Oprah Winfrey for what is termed “creative non-fiction.”
A newspaper columnist suggested that the “emotional” truth was as important at the “facts.” I am not even sure what an “emotional” truth is. If a guy in the padded room thinks he is Napoleon, is that an emotional truth that should be granted full parity with the fact that he is cork-screwed accountant from Pensacola? In recent years, many high visibility journalists were caught or confessed to invention in their news and feature writing. Most were ostracized from the community of scribes, as they should have been. But, methinks the standard of ethical expression is now being lowered by those who believe their opinions are more important that facts. Perhaps it is one reason such programs as The Daily Show are presented as news of the day instead of plan old fashion satirical comedy. The news feature of Saturday Night Live was offered as creative jest. Sadly, it seems to have fostered mutant programs that imply a … “truthiness.”
The lowered regard for truthFULness is seen when New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson has to explain the fact that he was never recruited by the Kansas City Athletics, as his resume claimed. Does he apologize for his false claim? Nope? He said he THOUGHT he had been recruited, but was mistaken. I understand since last year I THOUGHT I was elected pope, but I was only mistaken. Is that truthiness … or delusion … our just a bald face lie?
“Truthiness” is just a more contemporary term for a long existing word to explain truths within lies. It is “apocryphal.” When we describe a statement or anecdote as “apocryphal” we simply mean that the point may be well taken, but the story is … to use the precise term … bullshit. In fact, “bullshit” is the perfect word to describe the entire controversy over the redefining of “truth.” I offer this closing thought. There is no truth in truthiness. (SIDEBAR: In terms of creating new words, I am both an advocate and practitioner. Check out http://www.acrapulate.com).
Slip of the Tongue Award to Mayor Daley (again): Chicago’s Mayor Daley follows in his father’s footsteps in terms of malapropisms and creative verbage. Daddy Daley was famous for saying that the Chicago police were not there (at the 1968 Democrat convention) to create chaos, they were there to maintain it. Well in responding to the indictment of the Chicago City clerk, Daley the Second was asked if the scandal would further tarnish the already sullied image of his political machine. He replied “Its (sic) and individual. He’s subject to his own conduct. I’M NOT.” (emphasis added). If you have heard Daley responded in the indictments of his own senior staff last year, you would know that Daley truly does not believe he is subject to his own conduct. In fact, his apologists defend him by claiming the mayor is far too busy to know what is going on around him. Of course, this is not the first time public officials have used the “ignorant” defense to ward of complicity in corruption.
Alito gets the Teflon Prize. I left with virtually every observer predicting a crushing senate inquisition of Supreme Court nominee Joseph Alito. The predicted thunderous clouds of war that, themselves, ended the bid by Harriet Miers, turned out to be nothing more than a light overcast. I assumed that the holiday season might have diminished the strident mood of the political left for the moment, but the post-season hearings fell remarkably short of their billing. In fact, the long awaited muddy-ing up of Alito not only did not happen, but the muddy missles appear to have splatted in the launcher’s own faces. Senators Biden, Kennedy, Durbin and Schummer (if vaudeville were alive today, that would be a song) appear to have made fools of themselves. Pompous, strident scurrilous and down-right dishonest, the four horsemen of the liberal apocalypse overplayed their parts, and a critical public collectively “boo’ed their performance.
Hypocracy award to Ted Kennedy. I cannot believe it. It is just to scumptiously funny. You understand that I think liberal ideologues are basically anti-democratic elitist hypocritics (and I think that only when I am in a good mood.) Occasionally, the fang of the wolf glints outside the concealing fur of the lamb. Rarely does it provoke more this-is-too-good-to-be-true laughter, however, than the recent discovery that Mr. Women’s Lib … the honorary “queen” of the lady leftists … belongs to … prepare to gasp in disbelief … belongs to … and can hardly believe it … belongs to AN ALL-MALE SOCIAL CLUB. Into the 21st Century, Teddy has kept up a 52-year membership and financial support in Harvard’s Owl Club. This did not prevent him from lambasting Judge Alito for a POSSIBLE long ago membership in Concerned Alumni for Princeton -- a group Kennedy charges with being anti-women and anti-minority. Alito does not recall the organization, and a search of the group’s files reveal no mention of the Supreme Court designee. Kennedy spokesperson says there is a big difference since the Senator’s membership is in a “social” club, and Alito’s dubious membership is in an “activist” group. To the senior senator from Massachusetts, it is less egregious to CURRENTLY AND PROVABLY belong to and support a sexist college alumni club than to be ACCUSED (by Kennedy, with no proof ) of belonging LONG AGO to another college (non-sexist) alumni club. In oxymoronic Kennedy logic, it is less of a crime to becaught today shoplifting than to be accused without evidence of shoplifting forty years ago.
If you ever doubt the vacuousness of liberal thinking, or the inherent intellectual dishonesty of its spokespersons, such examples bring the argument to closure. I suspect that what is left of the late-20th Century liberal feminists movement will rally to his defense, as they did for sexual predator-in-chief Bill Clinton -- reminding us again just how foolishly irrelevant the ladies of the left have become. (Hmmmmm. Should Bill Clinton be required to register as a sex offender? I can’t help thinking. If Hillary should ever become President, would 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue be on the national sex offender registry? Just kidding … but these days the funniest stuff is happening in real life.)
The Knock on the Noggin Award to Mayor Nagin. The liberal partisans and pundits never lose an opportunity to trash Preacher Pat Robertson when he places God’s intercessions on earthly events such as hurricanes that ravage the world or strokes that bring down Israeli prime ministers. Actually, I would not argue in Robertson’s favor. Even though we share substantial elements of political philosophy, I think he is a bit of a nut case. I am not about to take on his more messianic postulations. It is fair, however, to see if liberals dare distance themselves from the loonies in their bin. Which bring up the issue of New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin. You will recall many blogs ago, that I raised questions of his political sanity. I described his gang-bangeresque language on a talk show at the height of the Katrina finger pointing era as inappropriate of a person in his position. Weeeeell … seems like the Mayor is out to prove my case. In a King Day speech, and in a pandering or mocking oratorical style of a Black television minister, the Big Easy tough guy not only said that Katrina et al were God’s punishment for the war in Iraq and the low moral and ethical standards of the Black community, but that God intended … intended … that New Orleans should be a “chocolate city.” Only in liberal land, one can actually say that God intends an American city to be predominantly Black. (SIDEBAR: That reminds me of a time Mayor Daley was reported to say that Chicago needed a “white mayor.” Since I launched that bit of campaign controversy when serving as former Mayor Eugene Sawyer’s campaign spokesperson [and yes, I do like a lot of democrats], I got the inside dope on that one. Maybe someday I will write about it.) So there you have it. Mayor Daley making his city whiter and whiter, and Mayor Nagin promising to turn New Orleans to the “chocolate” (his word, not mine) capital of America. This can only happen in real life since no fiction writer would pen anything so absurd.
An Honest Abe Honorable Mention goes to television personality Stephen Colbert. A new word has entered the lexicon as the creation of Comedy Central’s jokester Stephen Colbert. “Truthiness.” As best I can tell, it defines statements, opinions, non-fiction books and resumes that claim an underlying truth regardless of the falsity of the facts. You have to understand that for liberal lies to be more widely accepted, we have to redefine truth. Like Clinton claiming that his genital hobbies were not sex. Or liberal educators creating “social promotions” as a euphemism for pushing kids from grade to grade without bothering to teach them anything. James Frey’s recent book, “A Million Little Pieces,” chronicling his recovery from crime and drug addiction, had a lamentable number of “pieces” (characters and events) that were created for heightened effect. Instead of humiliation and banishment from the ethical sanctuary, he is defended by the likes of Oprah Winfrey for what is termed “creative non-fiction.”
A newspaper columnist suggested that the “emotional” truth was as important at the “facts.” I am not even sure what an “emotional” truth is. If a guy in the padded room thinks he is Napoleon, is that an emotional truth that should be granted full parity with the fact that he is cork-screwed accountant from Pensacola? In recent years, many high visibility journalists were caught or confessed to invention in their news and feature writing. Most were ostracized from the community of scribes, as they should have been. But, methinks the standard of ethical expression is now being lowered by those who believe their opinions are more important that facts. Perhaps it is one reason such programs as The Daily Show are presented as news of the day instead of plan old fashion satirical comedy. The news feature of Saturday Night Live was offered as creative jest. Sadly, it seems to have fostered mutant programs that imply a … “truthiness.”
The lowered regard for truthFULness is seen when New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson has to explain the fact that he was never recruited by the Kansas City Athletics, as his resume claimed. Does he apologize for his false claim? Nope? He said he THOUGHT he had been recruited, but was mistaken. I understand since last year I THOUGHT I was elected pope, but I was only mistaken. Is that truthiness … or delusion … our just a bald face lie?
“Truthiness” is just a more contemporary term for a long existing word to explain truths within lies. It is “apocryphal.” When we describe a statement or anecdote as “apocryphal” we simply mean that the point may be well taken, but the story is … to use the precise term … bullshit. In fact, “bullshit” is the perfect word to describe the entire controversy over the redefining of “truth.” I offer this closing thought. There is no truth in truthiness. (SIDEBAR: In terms of creating new words, I am both an advocate and practitioner. Check out http://www.acrapulate.com).
Slip of the Tongue Award to Mayor Daley (again): Chicago’s Mayor Daley follows in his father’s footsteps in terms of malapropisms and creative verbage. Daddy Daley was famous for saying that the Chicago police were not there (at the 1968 Democrat convention) to create chaos, they were there to maintain it. Well in responding to the indictment of the Chicago City clerk, Daley the Second was asked if the scandal would further tarnish the already sullied image of his political machine. He replied “Its (sic) and individual. He’s subject to his own conduct. I’M NOT.” (emphasis added). If you have heard Daley responded in the indictments of his own senior staff last year, you would know that Daley truly does not believe he is subject to his own conduct. In fact, his apologists defend him by claiming the mayor is far too busy to know what is going on around him. Of course, this is not the first time public officials have used the “ignorant” defense to ward of complicity in corruption.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
SIDEBAR: Back from China
Since I do little to promote this blog (seeing it as more or less my archives of contemporary thinking, and maybe notes for a future book) I do not presume that I have been “conspicuous by my absence.” However, for those souls whose travels have brought you here by aimless Internet exploration, a click of a mislocated “arrow” or one of those inexplicable reasons a search engine delivers you to a site totally unrelated to your inquiry, let me explain my current absence from the keyboard. I have been in China, and you can read more about that if you explore www.harbex.com. It was a great trip, but now I am back. Nothing more to say.
Thursday, December 29, 2005
REACT: Bye bye Berghoff's
Gads! First Chicago loses Meigs Field, then Marshall Field's ... and now the landmark Berghoff's restaurant. Chicago is fast joining the sterile homogenized urban cities that are morphing all over the world.
Sometimes the loss is sad, but understood. Many past institutions simply lost their public appeal. They could no longer survive in modern society. The old theaters that created the original "theater district" were good examples of that. The Woods. The Roosevelt. The State and Lake. We almost lost the flagship Chicago Theatre -- a close call about which I know a lot.(Check out the old news clips is you don't believe me.) Same for Montgomery Ward's.
As a guy devoted to a preservationist tradition, the Meigs/Field's/Berghoff's triple whammy is hard to accept.
I guess what really makes me ornery is the fact that we are lost these institutions because of callous decisions. The people in charge have no devotion to tradition or the feelings of those of us who paid homage (and no little money) to those traditions. We are the jilted lovers, with all the pain and anger.
As a free market conservative, I must respect the owner's right to make the decisions (except in the case of Meigs since WE are the owners, not the mayor.) In terms of Field's and Berghoff's, I have no legal recourse, nor would I want any. However, I see nothing un-conservative about never offering my patronage to Macy's nor that new catering business that will take over the Berghoff's space.
I would hope that there are enough of us jilted lovers to bring down Macy's downtown store. If you recall, I have previously expressed my hope that the Macy's takes the tube, and the building becomes a residential loft conversion. As for Berghoff's, hopefully the catering business will collapse as a response to the callous decision to close the venerable restaurant, and a new owner will re-establish some versions of the old place. Of course, that may not be possible if the heiress/owner vandalizes the place in the name of modernization.
Despite their solicitous words and sad tones, I hope the Berghoff family understands that their fame has been transformed into infamy -- and their sorrowful words are meaningless.
Sometimes the loss is sad, but understood. Many past institutions simply lost their public appeal. They could no longer survive in modern society. The old theaters that created the original "theater district" were good examples of that. The Woods. The Roosevelt. The State and Lake. We almost lost the flagship Chicago Theatre -- a close call about which I know a lot.(Check out the old news clips is you don't believe me.) Same for Montgomery Ward's.
As a guy devoted to a preservationist tradition, the Meigs/Field's/Berghoff's triple whammy is hard to accept.
I guess what really makes me ornery is the fact that we are lost these institutions because of callous decisions. The people in charge have no devotion to tradition or the feelings of those of us who paid homage (and no little money) to those traditions. We are the jilted lovers, with all the pain and anger.
As a free market conservative, I must respect the owner's right to make the decisions (except in the case of Meigs since WE are the owners, not the mayor.) In terms of Field's and Berghoff's, I have no legal recourse, nor would I want any. However, I see nothing un-conservative about never offering my patronage to Macy's nor that new catering business that will take over the Berghoff's space.
I would hope that there are enough of us jilted lovers to bring down Macy's downtown store. If you recall, I have previously expressed my hope that the Macy's takes the tube, and the building becomes a residential loft conversion. As for Berghoff's, hopefully the catering business will collapse as a response to the callous decision to close the venerable restaurant, and a new owner will re-establish some versions of the old place. Of course, that may not be possible if the heiress/owner vandalizes the place in the name of modernization.
Despite their solicitous words and sad tones, I hope the Berghoff family understands that their fame has been transformed into infamy -- and their sorrowful words are meaningless.
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
REACT: Kwanzaa schmanzaa
Today marks the first day of the now widely recognized holiday of Kwanzaa. Perhaps this bad idea will evolve into something good. I hope so. Unfortunately, Kwanzaa was conceived as a pseudo celebration of separation.
It was invented in 1966, at the height of the highly racist black separation movement, by a guy named Maulana Karenga, who is described as a "cultural nationalist." For those who understand liberal euphemisms, the guy was a black racist. Of course, liberals think of that term as an oxymoron, since in their view only whites are capable of racism.
Please do not misunderstand. I am not against an invented holiday. Hallmark does it all the time – and I am sure the folks at the greeting card company are thrilled with Kawanzaa.
The problem with Kawanzaa is that it is what it is -- an artificial attempt to maintain America as a two society nation. Since most blacks are people of faith, and overwhelming Christian, the imposition of this new holiday is a cynical effort to suggest that Christmas is more of a white thing. I’m dreaming of a white Christmas takes on a whole new meaning.
I would think that our strong black Baptist churches would be up in arms over trumping the Christmas season. It is sort of a reversal of the ancient times when Christians trumped Pagan holidays to eradicate them. That's how we got December 25th as the official, albeit dubious, birthday of Jesus. Now we have this neo Pagan effort to return the favor, and black pastors are either ignoring it or embracing it.
The promotion of Kawanzaa by the nation's best known, if not the most reverent, black pastor, Jesse Jackson, suggests that he values his secular role in maintaining his flock outside the mainstream more than he desires integration into a common culture. He is truly the political descendent of Mr. Karenga insofar as using accusations of racism in order to prevent assimilation.
Having said all this, I am resolved to the reality that Kawanzaa will be around, promoted by wolf-ish racists in sheep’s wool. However, since the vast majority of people celebrating Kawanzaa are good and descent, it is my hope that this holiday will, by popular celebration, rid itself of the malignant intent of the founders and early advocates. After all, Thanksgiving did not start out on such a high note, either. It was invented, and eventually made a national time of good will by Abraham Lincoln.
I think that is already happening to Kawanzaa. Maybe Hallmark will be more influential in defining This new holiday than Jesse Jackson, et al. Let’ hope so.
It was invented in 1966, at the height of the highly racist black separation movement, by a guy named Maulana Karenga, who is described as a "cultural nationalist." For those who understand liberal euphemisms, the guy was a black racist. Of course, liberals think of that term as an oxymoron, since in their view only whites are capable of racism.
Please do not misunderstand. I am not against an invented holiday. Hallmark does it all the time – and I am sure the folks at the greeting card company are thrilled with Kawanzaa.
The problem with Kawanzaa is that it is what it is -- an artificial attempt to maintain America as a two society nation. Since most blacks are people of faith, and overwhelming Christian, the imposition of this new holiday is a cynical effort to suggest that Christmas is more of a white thing. I’m dreaming of a white Christmas takes on a whole new meaning.
I would think that our strong black Baptist churches would be up in arms over trumping the Christmas season. It is sort of a reversal of the ancient times when Christians trumped Pagan holidays to eradicate them. That's how we got December 25th as the official, albeit dubious, birthday of Jesus. Now we have this neo Pagan effort to return the favor, and black pastors are either ignoring it or embracing it.
The promotion of Kawanzaa by the nation's best known, if not the most reverent, black pastor, Jesse Jackson, suggests that he values his secular role in maintaining his flock outside the mainstream more than he desires integration into a common culture. He is truly the political descendent of Mr. Karenga insofar as using accusations of racism in order to prevent assimilation.
Having said all this, I am resolved to the reality that Kawanzaa will be around, promoted by wolf-ish racists in sheep’s wool. However, since the vast majority of people celebrating Kawanzaa are good and descent, it is my hope that this holiday will, by popular celebration, rid itself of the malignant intent of the founders and early advocates. After all, Thanksgiving did not start out on such a high note, either. It was invented, and eventually made a national time of good will by Abraham Lincoln.
I think that is already happening to Kawanzaa. Maybe Hallmark will be more influential in defining This new holiday than Jesse Jackson, et al. Let’ hope so.
Saturday, December 24, 2005
OBSERVATION: To whom it may concern: Merry Christmas!
Shhhh. I am about to give away a big secret. I know this will come as a shock to many people who follow current events in the media.
Okay! Here it is. Put your ear closer so I can whisper. “Christmas is a Christian holiday.” You didn’t hear that? I said … "Christmas is a Christian holiday." Not yet? OKAY. “CHRISTMAS IS A CHRISTIAN HOLIDAY!!!” So there. I said it. Yep, it is also a national holiday -- even in the god-loathing season of political correctness.
We all get a lot of time off from work to celebrate Christmas. I know we have piled on Hanukah, a Jewish holiday of second or third level theological relevancy, and we even invented that silly Kwanzaa thing to make sure we maintain our segregated society. We can sort of edge in Ramadan. But still … the official holiday is Christmas. And furthermore, the brightly lit shrubbery in so many bay windows is a … CHRISTMAS tree. It is not a holiday tree any more than the Jewish Menorah is a holiday candelabra.
Frankly, I think it is cool to have a season of love and caring incorporating all the religions --- and any atheists who care to be loved (not easy).
The political correctness Nazis are doing there best to emulsify our heritages into some sort of gray blob of secular celebration – squeezing out the rich colors and nuances of our ethnic differences. The major assault has been on religion. It is still kosher (if you will) to celebrate each others traditional foods, costumes and secular customs. But when it comes to sharing each other’s religions, we act as if church-going is a criminal activity.
Political correctness makes the simple things needlessly difficult. I am Christmas guy, but like most of us, I am very okay with a little common sense and etiquette. I send “happy holiday” cards to my list because we have many friends not of the Christian faith. If I meet a fellow Christian, I offer a hearty “Merry Christmas.” If I meet a Jewish friend, I offer a “Happy Hanukah.” If I do not know, then I wish them a, “Hey, have a great holiday and a Happy New Year.”
It is not courtesy, however, that underlies the attempts to de-Christian my holiday. There is nothing inappropriate, or offensive, in offering Christian symbols – even religious ones – as an expression of the season in commercial locations and government venues. Christmas carols should be heard in any public venue, and I don’t mean just Jingle Bells and I Saw Mother Kissing Santa Claus. And not only do I not take offense at having the nativity scene stand alongside a Menorah, I think it is wonderful. It is exactly the kind of respect and sharing that creates our sense of an overarching culture, bring our differences into harmony.
The public arean was never meant to be the fallow ground that separates us, but the common ground that unites us. Political correctness? Bah! Humbug!!
Okay! Here it is. Put your ear closer so I can whisper. “Christmas is a Christian holiday.” You didn’t hear that? I said … "Christmas is a Christian holiday." Not yet? OKAY. “CHRISTMAS IS A CHRISTIAN HOLIDAY!!!” So there. I said it. Yep, it is also a national holiday -- even in the god-loathing season of political correctness.
We all get a lot of time off from work to celebrate Christmas. I know we have piled on Hanukah, a Jewish holiday of second or third level theological relevancy, and we even invented that silly Kwanzaa thing to make sure we maintain our segregated society. We can sort of edge in Ramadan. But still … the official holiday is Christmas. And furthermore, the brightly lit shrubbery in so many bay windows is a … CHRISTMAS tree. It is not a holiday tree any more than the Jewish Menorah is a holiday candelabra.
Frankly, I think it is cool to have a season of love and caring incorporating all the religions --- and any atheists who care to be loved (not easy).
The political correctness Nazis are doing there best to emulsify our heritages into some sort of gray blob of secular celebration – squeezing out the rich colors and nuances of our ethnic differences. The major assault has been on religion. It is still kosher (if you will) to celebrate each others traditional foods, costumes and secular customs. But when it comes to sharing each other’s religions, we act as if church-going is a criminal activity.
Political correctness makes the simple things needlessly difficult. I am Christmas guy, but like most of us, I am very okay with a little common sense and etiquette. I send “happy holiday” cards to my list because we have many friends not of the Christian faith. If I meet a fellow Christian, I offer a hearty “Merry Christmas.” If I meet a Jewish friend, I offer a “Happy Hanukah.” If I do not know, then I wish them a, “Hey, have a great holiday and a Happy New Year.”
It is not courtesy, however, that underlies the attempts to de-Christian my holiday. There is nothing inappropriate, or offensive, in offering Christian symbols – even religious ones – as an expression of the season in commercial locations and government venues. Christmas carols should be heard in any public venue, and I don’t mean just Jingle Bells and I Saw Mother Kissing Santa Claus. And not only do I not take offense at having the nativity scene stand alongside a Menorah, I think it is wonderful. It is exactly the kind of respect and sharing that creates our sense of an overarching culture, bring our differences into harmony.
The public arean was never meant to be the fallow ground that separates us, but the common ground that unites us. Political correctness? Bah! Humbug!!
Sunday, December 18, 2005
OBSERVATION: Rahm Emanuel is not politically correct.
As I wrote the earlier item on congressional candidate Tammy Duckworth, I came to realize that Rahm Emanuel needs a name adjustment. Since his party is leading the fight to eradicate any traces of religiosity from the public commons, I think he needs a name change. "Emanuel," the name given to Jesus Christ as the arrival of God, seems totallly inappropriate.
Rahm may well have a messianic complex, and thinks he is God's gift to the world, but still not proper to present himself in public with such an obvious religious name -- and a Christian one to boot (which is exactly what the PC Nazis would like to do). He should not be listed on the congressional role call, least our highly vulnerable ungodly athiests have siezures.
Maybe Rahm Godless would be ok. Or, Rahm Faithless? Oh! I got it. Rahm (Happy) Holiday.
Rahm may well have a messianic complex, and thinks he is God's gift to the world, but still not proper to present himself in public with such an obvious religious name -- and a Christian one to boot (which is exactly what the PC Nazis would like to do). He should not be listed on the congressional role call, least our highly vulnerable ungodly athiests have siezures.
Maybe Rahm Godless would be ok. Or, Rahm Faithless? Oh! I got it. Rahm (Happy) Holiday.
REACT: Dems have no shame.
Regarding Iraq, I suspect the Democrats are about to be, as my mother used to say, “too smart for their britches.”
They may be too quick to bury Bush, and lay their future on anti war sentiment. The enormous success of the Iraqi election and the likelihood of improved reports from that liberated nation, and maybe even a modest troop reduction, will wreak havoc on the viciously strident and ruthlessly partisan strategy reflected in such Democrat hardliners as Peolsi, Dick Durbin, Ted Kennedy, screamer-in-chief Howard Dean, and the congressional races point man (Should I have said “person”?), Rahm Emanuel.
As the Dems political cheerleader in Congress, many of the most partisan party activists see in Emanuel a shrewd and effective money raiser and candidate recruiter. There is no question of his brittle partisanship, and his myopic ambition to win elections at all costs. The approach, could backfire --- and hopefully will.
The most prominent case in point is the “recruitment” of Tammy Duckworth to knock off the other Democrat primary candidates for the Illinois’ congressional seat being vacated by Henry Hyde. Emanuel and Durbin have successfully lobbied a female double amputee war veteran to enter the race. It took gobs of financial IOU’s, pre-programmed national exposure by the more than cooperative George Stephanopoulos, of ABC television, and whatever else Emanuel could promise within the edge of reason and law.
One can respect Duckworth’s duty to country, and the price she paid, and still reject her as a candidate on the basis of qualification and process. She is neither a resident of the district in which she plans to run, nor has she had any experience that would naturally suggest any credibility for public office. It is irrefutable that Emanuel’s only interest in her are her missing legs, and opposition to the war in which she lost them. He hopes that she will be, to use the expression, the poster child of anti-war, anti-Bush sentiment.
In her announcement, she says that only a person on the ground can understand Iraq. That is nice rhetoric, but an absurdity of the first magnitude. I will buy that when we put students in charge of the urban school systems. More significantly, it reveals that Emmanuel is going into the next election cycle with a one-issue strategy. He does not care that Duckworth is dangerously clueless on taxation, budgeting, education, and the million other issues that face the Congress.
Since this is a seat in Congress, and not a tryout for the Special Olympics, Emanuel may find that voters are not only too smart to be taken in, but totally offended by the crass cynicism and myopic vision of his political strategy. In producing the huge sign-up bonus for an experientially unqualified candidate, Emanuel insults the electorate by assuming mindless gullibility and superficiality. This is one case where the public can prove Lincoln correct when he opined that you cannot fool all the people all the time.
Consider this. Without the unfortunate injury, her selection would have been considered profoundly stupid. Emanuel, himself, would have scoffed at the idea.
They may be too quick to bury Bush, and lay their future on anti war sentiment. The enormous success of the Iraqi election and the likelihood of improved reports from that liberated nation, and maybe even a modest troop reduction, will wreak havoc on the viciously strident and ruthlessly partisan strategy reflected in such Democrat hardliners as Peolsi, Dick Durbin, Ted Kennedy, screamer-in-chief Howard Dean, and the congressional races point man (Should I have said “person”?), Rahm Emanuel.
As the Dems political cheerleader in Congress, many of the most partisan party activists see in Emanuel a shrewd and effective money raiser and candidate recruiter. There is no question of his brittle partisanship, and his myopic ambition to win elections at all costs. The approach, could backfire --- and hopefully will.
The most prominent case in point is the “recruitment” of Tammy Duckworth to knock off the other Democrat primary candidates for the Illinois’ congressional seat being vacated by Henry Hyde. Emanuel and Durbin have successfully lobbied a female double amputee war veteran to enter the race. It took gobs of financial IOU’s, pre-programmed national exposure by the more than cooperative George Stephanopoulos, of ABC television, and whatever else Emanuel could promise within the edge of reason and law.
One can respect Duckworth’s duty to country, and the price she paid, and still reject her as a candidate on the basis of qualification and process. She is neither a resident of the district in which she plans to run, nor has she had any experience that would naturally suggest any credibility for public office. It is irrefutable that Emanuel’s only interest in her are her missing legs, and opposition to the war in which she lost them. He hopes that she will be, to use the expression, the poster child of anti-war, anti-Bush sentiment.
In her announcement, she says that only a person on the ground can understand Iraq. That is nice rhetoric, but an absurdity of the first magnitude. I will buy that when we put students in charge of the urban school systems. More significantly, it reveals that Emmanuel is going into the next election cycle with a one-issue strategy. He does not care that Duckworth is dangerously clueless on taxation, budgeting, education, and the million other issues that face the Congress.
Since this is a seat in Congress, and not a tryout for the Special Olympics, Emanuel may find that voters are not only too smart to be taken in, but totally offended by the crass cynicism and myopic vision of his political strategy. In producing the huge sign-up bonus for an experientially unqualified candidate, Emanuel insults the electorate by assuming mindless gullibility and superficiality. This is one case where the public can prove Lincoln correct when he opined that you cannot fool all the people all the time.
Consider this. Without the unfortunate injury, her selection would have been considered profoundly stupid. Emanuel, himself, would have scoffed at the idea.
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
SIDEBAR: McCarthy remembered
Note: SIDEBAR is the term I use when talking about my personal experiences that relate in someway to news of the day. In news reporting, it refers to a secondary feature, usually in a "box," that highlights a facet of the primary news story. It is borrowed from the legal profession, when judges and attorneys stand to the side of the public "bar" (judge's bench) to engage in an unrecorded private discussion.
Some of the most delightful moments I can recall were private dinners with Gene McCarthy, the former U.S. Senator from Minnesota, when he visited Chicago. His claim to public fame is much to narrow to describe him. For sure he mounted a presidential campaign that drew attention to the political vulnerability of President Lyndon Johnson – who sought refuge in withdrawing from the 1968 race.
While McCarthy’s anti-war sentiment was more on procedure than purpose, he became the personification of the anti-war, pacifist movement. He was the Pied Piper of the hippie peaceniks.
In private, he would confess that he was neither anti-war nor a zealous reformer. His opposition to Viet Nam was based on his belief that the conflict was not Constitutionally sound. He felt we entered without the proper authorization, and that the war was expanded solely by Presidential decisions without the oversight of the Congress.
On matters of reform, he was even more surprising. He completely rejected prevailing reform views found popularized in the press. While seemingly a very honest and principled politician, McCarthy was a product of the old school. I recall one particular conversation in which he rejected the reformer appellation. “You know, Larry,” he said, “if you purify the pond the lilies die.” He said there was always a need of a bit of sediment in the system.
On another occasion, McCarthy compared reformers to a priest in his home town, who urged parishioners to express their devotion by making more use of the vigil candles. He even installed additional banks of the red glass holders to accommodate more use. “Eventually,” said McCarthy, “the good farther burned the church down.”
“That is what unbridled reformers tend to do,” he added. “They will burn down the whole place.”
His descriptions of his colleagues were tinged with a certain Irish sarcastic wit. When I inquired about Jimmy Carter, he alleged that the former president learned most of what he knew in the Navy on board submarines, and unfortunately there was only room for very small books and Reader’s Digest.
He did not give a much better assessment of Ronald Reagan. He just saw him as entirely too ignorant to be president. Ditto Jerry Ford. Ditto Richard Nixon. All fell victim to McCarthy’s acerbic wit.
He lost the wit, however, when talking of the Kennedy’s. There was no gentleness, or Irish kinship, in his hatred of the Kennedy family. When talking of the Kennedy family, there was none of the poetics or humor. There was only an unabated bitterness. He blamed the Kennedys for preventing his nomination as the Democrat candidate. His loathing for Bobby Kennedy was not tempered by the New York senator’s tragic death. He considered him an unprincipled opportunist who made his play for the presidency only after McCarthy had brought down Johnson. He was not wrong.
On total, one got the impression that McCarthy held himself to be of more substantial presidential timber than any who succeeded where he had failed. And yet, there was a charming aristocratic air about the man. When talking about issues, and things other than his political colleagues, he was fascinating --- a compendium of knowledge and insightful correlations.
He was at his best, however, when he played the story teller or the poet. Whether at the dinner table with my wife and me, or before a modest audience, he was on stage. He would, at no obvious provocation, recite long verses from memory. I recall at one event, he held stage for more than forth-five minutes on a single poem.
Seeing all the press attention and adulation he received in death, I could not help by wonder where the press had been these many years as he lived in virtual public oblivion.
Some of the most delightful moments I can recall were private dinners with Gene McCarthy, the former U.S. Senator from Minnesota, when he visited Chicago. His claim to public fame is much to narrow to describe him. For sure he mounted a presidential campaign that drew attention to the political vulnerability of President Lyndon Johnson – who sought refuge in withdrawing from the 1968 race.
While McCarthy’s anti-war sentiment was more on procedure than purpose, he became the personification of the anti-war, pacifist movement. He was the Pied Piper of the hippie peaceniks.
In private, he would confess that he was neither anti-war nor a zealous reformer. His opposition to Viet Nam was based on his belief that the conflict was not Constitutionally sound. He felt we entered without the proper authorization, and that the war was expanded solely by Presidential decisions without the oversight of the Congress.
On matters of reform, he was even more surprising. He completely rejected prevailing reform views found popularized in the press. While seemingly a very honest and principled politician, McCarthy was a product of the old school. I recall one particular conversation in which he rejected the reformer appellation. “You know, Larry,” he said, “if you purify the pond the lilies die.” He said there was always a need of a bit of sediment in the system.
On another occasion, McCarthy compared reformers to a priest in his home town, who urged parishioners to express their devotion by making more use of the vigil candles. He even installed additional banks of the red glass holders to accommodate more use. “Eventually,” said McCarthy, “the good farther burned the church down.”
“That is what unbridled reformers tend to do,” he added. “They will burn down the whole place.”
His descriptions of his colleagues were tinged with a certain Irish sarcastic wit. When I inquired about Jimmy Carter, he alleged that the former president learned most of what he knew in the Navy on board submarines, and unfortunately there was only room for very small books and Reader’s Digest.
He did not give a much better assessment of Ronald Reagan. He just saw him as entirely too ignorant to be president. Ditto Jerry Ford. Ditto Richard Nixon. All fell victim to McCarthy’s acerbic wit.
He lost the wit, however, when talking of the Kennedy’s. There was no gentleness, or Irish kinship, in his hatred of the Kennedy family. When talking of the Kennedy family, there was none of the poetics or humor. There was only an unabated bitterness. He blamed the Kennedys for preventing his nomination as the Democrat candidate. His loathing for Bobby Kennedy was not tempered by the New York senator’s tragic death. He considered him an unprincipled opportunist who made his play for the presidency only after McCarthy had brought down Johnson. He was not wrong.
On total, one got the impression that McCarthy held himself to be of more substantial presidential timber than any who succeeded where he had failed. And yet, there was a charming aristocratic air about the man. When talking about issues, and things other than his political colleagues, he was fascinating --- a compendium of knowledge and insightful correlations.
He was at his best, however, when he played the story teller or the poet. Whether at the dinner table with my wife and me, or before a modest audience, he was on stage. He would, at no obvious provocation, recite long verses from memory. I recall at one event, he held stage for more than forth-five minutes on a single poem.
Seeing all the press attention and adulation he received in death, I could not help by wonder where the press had been these many years as he lived in virtual public oblivion.
Saturday, December 10, 2005
REACT: Congressman in GOOD scandal?
First, I have to say upfront that Congressman Bobby Rush and I come from opposite ends of the political spectrum on most issues, but I still like him as a person.
Recently I read about his financial problems, which lead to the potential seizure of his family home in Illinois and his vacation condo in Michigan. Perhaps his church project and the significant demands of office were draining too much money. However, I saw something praiseworthy where others seemed to have seen only scandal.
When you consider California Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham (a conservative Republican – ouch!) taking in a whopping $2.4 million in bribes and the Illinois’ “stash the cash in my bag” political culture, it is refreshing to find a public servant who is in trouble for NOT having enough money. It almost makes him a normal guy. I am sure Bobby has had his share opportunities to accept envelops filled with “Ben Franklins.” To his credit, he appears to have resisted temptation. I’ll take some temporary personal finance problems over ill-gotten gains any day. Good for you Bobby!!.
Recently I read about his financial problems, which lead to the potential seizure of his family home in Illinois and his vacation condo in Michigan. Perhaps his church project and the significant demands of office were draining too much money. However, I saw something praiseworthy where others seemed to have seen only scandal.
When you consider California Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham (a conservative Republican – ouch!) taking in a whopping $2.4 million in bribes and the Illinois’ “stash the cash in my bag” political culture, it is refreshing to find a public servant who is in trouble for NOT having enough money. It almost makes him a normal guy. I am sure Bobby has had his share opportunities to accept envelops filled with “Ben Franklins.” To his credit, he appears to have resisted temptation. I’ll take some temporary personal finance problems over ill-gotten gains any day. Good for you Bobby!!.
REACT: Iraqi hostages among their "friends?"
The report of a bunch of westerners associated with Chicago-based Christian Peacemaker Teams being captured by ruthless criminal Iraqi terrorists seems to confirm the lunacy of the left these days. First and foremost, what on earth were these people doing there in the first place? There is a war going on, being waged by people who HATE westerners -- and especially hate infidel Christians. I know there are many people moved by a sense of moral mission willingly face danger, and even death, when the cause is noble. I have enormous respect for those people. They are the saints among us.
Teams is not of that ilk, however.
For whatever their stated intention, Teams appears to be part of a propaganda industry dedicated to demonizing America, its people, culture, and causes. Teams spokesperson Kryss Chupp was quoted as describing the work of Teams as purely humanitarian. “We’re not a proselytizing organization,” she alleged. Very noble, but very untrue.
The same article quoted the group’s official reaction to the kidnappings. They said, “We are angry because what had happened to our teammates is the result of the actions of the U.S. and U.K. government (sic) due to the illegal attack on Iraq and oppression of its people.” One can only imagine what that official statement might have sounded like if they did proselytize. Their web site further supports the murders of Iraq over the liberating allied army. Yes, I said “liberating” because that is the view of the vast majority of Iraqi citizens. Teams is in league with terrorists, and in opposition to U.S./Israeli/U.N. efforts to rid the world of them.
It is particularly outrageous that they should advance the lies that this war is illegal, and the vast majority of the people of Iraq are being oppressed by America, and its allies. I have very little sympathy of anyone who would be so morally corrupted as to aid and abet the murderous terrorists, and psychopath tyrants, at the expense of our troops (including my grandson and youing cousin), and the many innocent civilian victims (Christian, Jew or Muslim) of unimaginable terrorist brutality and cruelty.
While the express humanitarian purposes, their mission is to publicize the propaganda of the enemy – to parrot the Anti-American rhetoric of the terrorist network. They now rest in the bosom of their allies. The hostages should be pleased to be “hosted” at the “invitation” of their oppressed compatriots – safe from the protection of the country they so disparage.
I sincerely hope and pray they will be rescued, perhaps by the military forces they so despise. I would revel in the irony. I also hope and pray that after experiencing the “hospitality” of their “friends,” they will see the light. Should they not survive, perhaps the lesson will be learned by others. We should be reminded that “those who will not recognize evil cannot fight against it” – perhaps they cannot even survive it.
Teams is not of that ilk, however.
For whatever their stated intention, Teams appears to be part of a propaganda industry dedicated to demonizing America, its people, culture, and causes. Teams spokesperson Kryss Chupp was quoted as describing the work of Teams as purely humanitarian. “We’re not a proselytizing organization,” she alleged. Very noble, but very untrue.
The same article quoted the group’s official reaction to the kidnappings. They said, “We are angry because what had happened to our teammates is the result of the actions of the U.S. and U.K. government (sic) due to the illegal attack on Iraq and oppression of its people.” One can only imagine what that official statement might have sounded like if they did proselytize. Their web site further supports the murders of Iraq over the liberating allied army. Yes, I said “liberating” because that is the view of the vast majority of Iraqi citizens. Teams is in league with terrorists, and in opposition to U.S./Israeli/U.N. efforts to rid the world of them.
It is particularly outrageous that they should advance the lies that this war is illegal, and the vast majority of the people of Iraq are being oppressed by America, and its allies. I have very little sympathy of anyone who would be so morally corrupted as to aid and abet the murderous terrorists, and psychopath tyrants, at the expense of our troops (including my grandson and youing cousin), and the many innocent civilian victims (Christian, Jew or Muslim) of unimaginable terrorist brutality and cruelty.
While the express humanitarian purposes, their mission is to publicize the propaganda of the enemy – to parrot the Anti-American rhetoric of the terrorist network. They now rest in the bosom of their allies. The hostages should be pleased to be “hosted” at the “invitation” of their oppressed compatriots – safe from the protection of the country they so disparage.
I sincerely hope and pray they will be rescued, perhaps by the military forces they so despise. I would revel in the irony. I also hope and pray that after experiencing the “hospitality” of their “friends,” they will see the light. Should they not survive, perhaps the lesson will be learned by others. We should be reminded that “those who will not recognize evil cannot fight against it” – perhaps they cannot even survive it.
Saturday, November 26, 2005
OBSERVATION: How bad is the GOP hurting?
Taking into consideration the public opinion reports, the results in the recent state elections and the general reporting, one could easily presage big trouble for the GOP in the 2006 mid-term elections. Not as well covered by the press are the equally abysmal polling results for the Democrats. Despite the ebbing enthusiasm for Bush II, the Democrats are hard press to convince the public that they are any better. If there is any conclusion to be drawn, it is that a "plague on both houses" is the prevailing sentiment. This suggest little chance of a Democrat bust out in the by elections.
While the press made much of President Bush losing two state governorships, it failed to adequately point out the fact that both seats belonged to Democrat incumbents – and New Jersey was a long shot going in. There is not a lot to suggest that the voters were swinging away from the GOP.
The upcoming election season of 2006 may not be all that great for the GOP, but we should not place too much to emphasis on current issues. Historic trends must first be considered. If the GOP loses in 2006 far exceed "normal" off year outcomes, THEN we can begin to look at true voter shifts.
While the press made much of President Bush losing two state governorships, it failed to adequately point out the fact that both seats belonged to Democrat incumbents – and New Jersey was a long shot going in. There is not a lot to suggest that the voters were swinging away from the GOP.
The upcoming election season of 2006 may not be all that great for the GOP, but we should not place too much to emphasis on current issues. Historic trends must first be considered. If the GOP loses in 2006 far exceed "normal" off year outcomes, THEN we can begin to look at true voter shifts.
REACT: She's baaaaaack.
The good thing about Hurricane Katrina, it seemed to have knocked Cindy Sheehan off the media "must publicize" list. But, just when I was putting her non-presence on my Thanksgiving list, she re-emerged as the biggest turkey of the day. She is back in Crawford, Texas hoping to spoil President Bush's holiday dinner.
I like what George Will had to say about her. He opined that she is a Republican plant, designed to make the anti war claque look both nasty and stupid. Those were not exactly his words, but the point was made.
Outside of the media desire to bring down the President, one is hard pressed to see the news value in her crusade. Despite her national exposure and photo ops with the likes of Jesse Jackson, she is hardly able to muster enough protestors to sell out a small town high school play. Let's face it. For all the media hype it receives, the anti war movement is pathetic --- even more so BECAUSE of all the media hype. Without the benefit of much press attention, an old geezer like Billy Graham can fill a coliseum just by promising to show up.
With web sites, book deals and even talk of a movie, the mournful Cindy is the Martha
Stewart of the disloyal opposition. She even got herself arrested, too. A badge of honor to the strident left.
Like the ant at a picnic, Sheehan does not amount to much in reality, but there is an annoying pestiness about her. For me, she has one redeeming value, however. She serves as a convincing example of the liberal bias of the major news media.
I like what George Will had to say about her. He opined that she is a Republican plant, designed to make the anti war claque look both nasty and stupid. Those were not exactly his words, but the point was made.
Outside of the media desire to bring down the President, one is hard pressed to see the news value in her crusade. Despite her national exposure and photo ops with the likes of Jesse Jackson, she is hardly able to muster enough protestors to sell out a small town high school play. Let's face it. For all the media hype it receives, the anti war movement is pathetic --- even more so BECAUSE of all the media hype. Without the benefit of much press attention, an old geezer like Billy Graham can fill a coliseum just by promising to show up.
With web sites, book deals and even talk of a movie, the mournful Cindy is the Martha
Stewart of the disloyal opposition. She even got herself arrested, too. A badge of honor to the strident left.
Like the ant at a picnic, Sheehan does not amount to much in reality, but there is an annoying pestiness about her. For me, she has one redeeming value, however. She serves as a convincing example of the liberal bias of the major news media.
SIDEBAR: Political stridency (case in point #2)
Note: SIDEBAR is the term I use when talking about my personal experiences that relate in someway to news of the day. In news reporting, it refers to a secondary feature, usually in a "box," that highlights a facet of the primary news story. It is borrowed from the legal profession, when judges and attorneys stand to the side of the public "bar" (judge's bench) to engage in an unrecorded private discussion.
The most recent incident of right wing political stridency run amok (previous blog item) reminded me of another incident ... or maybe several more incidences … of the damage done to good old conservatism by the extremists in our own house.
As most every knows, I am a very hard-line pro-lifer. That did not prevent me from being attacked by one of the religious vigilantes.
Several years ago, I was leading a fight to reopen Chicago's lakefront Meigs airport after Mayor Richard Daley shut it down and painted an "X" on the runway. The effort to reopen was successful, much to the chagrin of the mayor. So, five years later, Hizzoner bulldozed the runway like a vandal in the middle of the night. But, that is another story.
During the earlier battle, I received an irate call from what I had always perceived to be a pro-life friend. He screamed into the phone, threatening to never associate with me or my activities again. (Listening to him at the moment, I considered that a blessing). In fact, I have not seen nor heard from him since (definitely a blessing).
One prominent personality in my Save Meigs coalition was Richard Phelan, fromer president of the Cook County Board of Commissioners. Despite his Catholic upbringing, and the plea of his fellow communicants, Phelan personally ordered the restoration of abortions at the county hospital. Needless to say, I was among those who thought excommunication was not inappropriate. However, those were the days of Cardinal Bernadine, who was more interested in his civic public relations than Catholic doctrine.
I explained to the caller that Phelan was the attorney for a group of pilots how had sued the mayor over the issue. But, that was not a suitable response. Having my airport cause supported by Phelan was unacceptable, period. It apparently was my obligation to myopically confront the former board president in the most hostile manner at each and every opportunity. For the caller, society had only one issue.
Finally, in frustration, I told the caller that if he could bring evidence that they were performing abortions at Meigs airport, I would cease my campaign to have it reopened, and disassociate myself from the scorned Mr. Phelan.
As a postscript, I should add that the caller was not one of the highly visible anti-abortion activists, but a ubiquitous fellow traveler. Never the guy on the podium, but the one always yelling from the rear of the room. You know the type, I am sure.
The most recent incident of right wing political stridency run amok (previous blog item) reminded me of another incident ... or maybe several more incidences … of the damage done to good old conservatism by the extremists in our own house.
As most every knows, I am a very hard-line pro-lifer. That did not prevent me from being attacked by one of the religious vigilantes.
Several years ago, I was leading a fight to reopen Chicago's lakefront Meigs airport after Mayor Richard Daley shut it down and painted an "X" on the runway. The effort to reopen was successful, much to the chagrin of the mayor. So, five years later, Hizzoner bulldozed the runway like a vandal in the middle of the night. But, that is another story.
During the earlier battle, I received an irate call from what I had always perceived to be a pro-life friend. He screamed into the phone, threatening to never associate with me or my activities again. (Listening to him at the moment, I considered that a blessing). In fact, I have not seen nor heard from him since (definitely a blessing).
One prominent personality in my Save Meigs coalition was Richard Phelan, fromer president of the Cook County Board of Commissioners. Despite his Catholic upbringing, and the plea of his fellow communicants, Phelan personally ordered the restoration of abortions at the county hospital. Needless to say, I was among those who thought excommunication was not inappropriate. However, those were the days of Cardinal Bernadine, who was more interested in his civic public relations than Catholic doctrine.
I explained to the caller that Phelan was the attorney for a group of pilots how had sued the mayor over the issue. But, that was not a suitable response. Having my airport cause supported by Phelan was unacceptable, period. It apparently was my obligation to myopically confront the former board president in the most hostile manner at each and every opportunity. For the caller, society had only one issue.
Finally, in frustration, I told the caller that if he could bring evidence that they were performing abortions at Meigs airport, I would cease my campaign to have it reopened, and disassociate myself from the scorned Mr. Phelan.
As a postscript, I should add that the caller was not one of the highly visible anti-abortion activists, but a ubiquitous fellow traveler. Never the guy on the podium, but the one always yelling from the rear of the room. You know the type, I am sure.
Friday, November 25, 2005
SIDEBAR: Political stridency (case in point #1)
Note: SIDEBAR is the term I use when talking about my personal experiences that relate in someway to news of the day. In news reporting, it refers to a secondary feature, usually in a "box," that highlights a facet of the primary news story. It is borrowed from the legal profession, when judges and attorneys stand to the side of the public "bar" (judge's bench) to engage in an unrecorded private discussion. Don’t you just want to slap a friend around when they go stupid on you.
I was recently dressed down by a conservative colleague for my friendship with President Clinton’s former Democrat National Chairman David Wilhelm. My compliment of Wilhelm brought on a venomous attack from the erstwhile ally, a guy who does not know David at all. The irrational hatred of the former President, and the relationship between him and David, was enough to not only personally slander my friend from the other side of the aisle, but to suggest my own disloyalty to the cause for merely associating with the guy --- and even worse, liking him personally. My sin was nothing more than the temerity of saying something truthfully nice about a person on the strident right hate list – or in this case an associate of a person on the strident right hate list. I could not have been more berated if I had complimented Hitler on population planning at a Bnia Brith meeting.
Let me first clear the record. I think Bill Clinton was a morally and ethically challenged, to say the least. His only chance at a legacy is to become the First Hubby of the first woman President. There is no doubt he tarnished the very important moral authority of the White House. His foreign policy was a disaster, and he produced no great memorable programs. Clinton is doomed to be remembered in history more for his erection than his election.
He had three saving graces, however. First: He is what you might call a “charming rogue,” and we tend to like charming rogues. I always figured if Hillary did not kick him out of HER house, no reason for the country to kick him out of the White House. Perhaps that sounds heretical to my blood thirsty brethren. But as a devoted conservative, I think removal from office should be reserved only for the most heinous acts. Bad character and lying are not sufficient. I mean, how many could survive in office against such a standard? I do favor a recall method, however, since it is the people who decide, not the politicians. Then the standard of removal is no higher than public opinion as reflected in the voting booth – as was the case in California.
Second: Clinton was confronted by an overly exuberant GOP, looking less like savvy politicos and more like prune-lipped school marms. The fact that Clinton was not removed from office was more the fault of the Republican lynch mob perception than grassroots support for the Prez. Please understand, I think the impeachment was well deserved for his perjury, if not for his oval office cigar habit. The problem was the removal from office. That is where the GOP and the public departed.
(I had occasion to offer solicited advice to the House Judiciary Committee at the time. I suggested that the House and Senate GOP announce UPFRONT that they did not intend to remove Clinton, but only would impeach him as an appropriate black mark on his already questionable legacy. Without fear of removal, the public would have clamored for the impeachment. I would have removed the Dems most popular argument. Under such a scenario, I think the courts may well have gone beyond pulling Clinton’s law license and really indicted him on the perjury charge – resulting in a possible post-term conviction. But alas, my free advice was given equal value)
Third: If we conservative can get past the personal animus, we have to admit that Clinton governed more to the center than the left, except for a few egregious, and (mercifully) failed, programs pushed by the browbeater-in-chief, Lady Hillary. He did a few things we right wingers could even applaud. The manifest disappointment of the left should be our gauge on those issues.
For the most part, however, I was outspoken critic of Bill Clinton, as a President and as a person. So, what does all that have to do with David Wilhelm. That is the point. Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Let me say that David is most certainly a Democrat partisan – even more than I am Republican. He and I can look at the same clock and not agree on the time of day, at least on most issues. On the other hand, David is one of the most descent human beings I have known – especially in politics. He is respectful of other opinions. A surprisingly mild and soft spoken guy. He has a heart of gold. I knew him before he was THAT David Wilhelm … and after. The experience did not corrupt him – literally or figuratively.
It bothers me that so many people see politics as a blood sport. Modern times seem to require the casting of every person into the friend or enemy camp. There are no subtleties, no nuances. You are saintly or evil. In fact, hardly anyone fits into those categories. Most people are a blend of good and evil, right and wrong – even the person you see in the morning mirror.
You may have noticed, I referred to my attacker as an “associate” and David as a “friend.” That was no accident. I much prefer the company of a good person with whom I have broad policy disagreements (and great debates) over that of a hateful ally. So the next time you may spot me having diner in a restaurant, the person across the table is more likely to be David Wilhelm than that other guy.
I was recently dressed down by a conservative colleague for my friendship with President Clinton’s former Democrat National Chairman David Wilhelm. My compliment of Wilhelm brought on a venomous attack from the erstwhile ally, a guy who does not know David at all. The irrational hatred of the former President, and the relationship between him and David, was enough to not only personally slander my friend from the other side of the aisle, but to suggest my own disloyalty to the cause for merely associating with the guy --- and even worse, liking him personally. My sin was nothing more than the temerity of saying something truthfully nice about a person on the strident right hate list – or in this case an associate of a person on the strident right hate list. I could not have been more berated if I had complimented Hitler on population planning at a Bnia Brith meeting.
Let me first clear the record. I think Bill Clinton was a morally and ethically challenged, to say the least. His only chance at a legacy is to become the First Hubby of the first woman President. There is no doubt he tarnished the very important moral authority of the White House. His foreign policy was a disaster, and he produced no great memorable programs. Clinton is doomed to be remembered in history more for his erection than his election.
He had three saving graces, however. First: He is what you might call a “charming rogue,” and we tend to like charming rogues. I always figured if Hillary did not kick him out of HER house, no reason for the country to kick him out of the White House. Perhaps that sounds heretical to my blood thirsty brethren. But as a devoted conservative, I think removal from office should be reserved only for the most heinous acts. Bad character and lying are not sufficient. I mean, how many could survive in office against such a standard? I do favor a recall method, however, since it is the people who decide, not the politicians. Then the standard of removal is no higher than public opinion as reflected in the voting booth – as was the case in California.
Second: Clinton was confronted by an overly exuberant GOP, looking less like savvy politicos and more like prune-lipped school marms. The fact that Clinton was not removed from office was more the fault of the Republican lynch mob perception than grassroots support for the Prez. Please understand, I think the impeachment was well deserved for his perjury, if not for his oval office cigar habit. The problem was the removal from office. That is where the GOP and the public departed.
(I had occasion to offer solicited advice to the House Judiciary Committee at the time. I suggested that the House and Senate GOP announce UPFRONT that they did not intend to remove Clinton, but only would impeach him as an appropriate black mark on his already questionable legacy. Without fear of removal, the public would have clamored for the impeachment. I would have removed the Dems most popular argument. Under such a scenario, I think the courts may well have gone beyond pulling Clinton’s law license and really indicted him on the perjury charge – resulting in a possible post-term conviction. But alas, my free advice was given equal value)
Third: If we conservative can get past the personal animus, we have to admit that Clinton governed more to the center than the left, except for a few egregious, and (mercifully) failed, programs pushed by the browbeater-in-chief, Lady Hillary. He did a few things we right wingers could even applaud. The manifest disappointment of the left should be our gauge on those issues.
For the most part, however, I was outspoken critic of Bill Clinton, as a President and as a person. So, what does all that have to do with David Wilhelm. That is the point. Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Let me say that David is most certainly a Democrat partisan – even more than I am Republican. He and I can look at the same clock and not agree on the time of day, at least on most issues. On the other hand, David is one of the most descent human beings I have known – especially in politics. He is respectful of other opinions. A surprisingly mild and soft spoken guy. He has a heart of gold. I knew him before he was THAT David Wilhelm … and after. The experience did not corrupt him – literally or figuratively.
It bothers me that so many people see politics as a blood sport. Modern times seem to require the casting of every person into the friend or enemy camp. There are no subtleties, no nuances. You are saintly or evil. In fact, hardly anyone fits into those categories. Most people are a blend of good and evil, right and wrong – even the person you see in the morning mirror.
You may have noticed, I referred to my attacker as an “associate” and David as a “friend.” That was no accident. I much prefer the company of a good person with whom I have broad policy disagreements (and great debates) over that of a hateful ally. So the next time you may spot me having diner in a restaurant, the person across the table is more likely to be David Wilhelm than that other guy.
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
OP ED: Governor Ryan: The $10 million baby.
Illinois Governor George Ryan and his crew were bully politicians with a well known penchant for ruthlessly destroying the lives of the disfavored, while shamelessly enriching the lives of a rather sleazy band of insiders. Their lack of principle, absence of ethics and contempt for the public good have been established beyond any question. The only issue to be resolved is if their skullduggery rose to the level of punishable crime. In some cases, even that has been proven.
Now, we come to learn that this once powerful ne’er-do-good enjoys the pro bono (for the “public good?”) services of a major law firm at the expense of the partner’s profits, and the many clients who will have to make up some of the loss. Ryan already has consumed more than $10 million dollars in free legal services from Winston and Strawn, and the final figure is expected to be double that – not including appeals, if he is convicted. In the meantime, a lot of honorable citizens of modest means and minimal clout will find it impossible to be represented by lawyers willing to do pro bono work on their behalf.
Ryan’s attorney thinks the jury should know of his law firm's generosity, least they think the former governor has a stash of cash. The Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer wisely suggests that to give that information to the jury is to beg the question, “why?” Good question.
It will be interesting to see if the Internal Revenue Service also will give the former governor a financial gift by not seeking the taxes due on the Winston and Strawn donation of services. For commoners, the provision of such services is a taxable event. But, that is another potential news story. But, maybe the press will also give Ryan the professional courtesy of not inquiring. No end to the potential gift list.
Yes, Virginia, there IS a Santa Clause – even for naughty old men.
Now, we come to learn that this once powerful ne’er-do-good enjoys the pro bono (for the “public good?”) services of a major law firm at the expense of the partner’s profits, and the many clients who will have to make up some of the loss. Ryan already has consumed more than $10 million dollars in free legal services from Winston and Strawn, and the final figure is expected to be double that – not including appeals, if he is convicted. In the meantime, a lot of honorable citizens of modest means and minimal clout will find it impossible to be represented by lawyers willing to do pro bono work on their behalf.
Ryan’s attorney thinks the jury should know of his law firm's generosity, least they think the former governor has a stash of cash. The Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer wisely suggests that to give that information to the jury is to beg the question, “why?” Good question.
It will be interesting to see if the Internal Revenue Service also will give the former governor a financial gift by not seeking the taxes due on the Winston and Strawn donation of services. For commoners, the provision of such services is a taxable event. But, that is another potential news story. But, maybe the press will also give Ryan the professional courtesy of not inquiring. No end to the potential gift list.
Yes, Virginia, there IS a Santa Clause – even for naughty old men.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
OP ED: Liberals about to lose in court.
Despite right-wing panic, George Bush knew he had nominated a solid conservative in Harriet Meirs. It did not play out that way. The lack of judicial record and experience that was believed to be a benefit backfired into a disadvantage. Instead of befuddling the opposition of both philosophic wings, it united them in fear – each thinking she would sell out to the other.
Not willing to make that mistake again, the President chose the only kind of candidate he will nominate, a strict constructionist conservative pro-lifer – currently Samuel Alito. Unless the Democrats are willing to block every Supreme Court nominee for the next three years, they have no chance of a pro-abortion justice. The Senate minority is disingenuous in saying there should be no “litmus test” while placing an absolute prerequisite on the question of one specific decision.
The battle may be long and ugly. The pledge not to filibuster is likely to be broken by desperate Democrats, and the Senate may have to change the filibuster rule to re-establish the simple majority “consent” envisioned by the founders (not a bad reform in its own right). The current Democrat position is nothing less than minority dictatorship – attempting to force the nomination of THEIR candidate by obscene obstructionism and character assassination.
Despite short term desperation tactics, the Court will soon shift decidedly to the right. The liberal allusion to “balance” is a public fraud – an arrogant euphemism for liberal dominance. The Supreme Court has nine members so that there is never a “balance” on any issue. The Court is not in balance today, it is a precariously liberal court about to become a conspicuously conservative Court – and the ramifications go well beyond the issue of abortion.
Though seemingly unrecognized, or openly confessed, abortion is not a winning issue for liberals. Most Americans disapprove of abortions, as a practice. Most Americans disfavor various extreme forms of legal abortions. Under the new court, the practice will not be extended. Via various legal challenges, it is more likely that the most egregious and unpopular abortion practices and laws will be trimmed, to say the least.
After time and legal evolution, it is even likely that Roe v. Wade will be overturned in a restoration of moral underpinning (as it should be). One hundred and fifty years ago, the Democrat-controlled Supreme Court declared that blacks had no rights as citizens. The Dred Scott decision was eventually overturned by moral enlightenment – and Republican appointments to the Court.
Even the overturning of Roe v. Wade will not ban abortions, as fear-mongering liberals peddle the argument. It simply de-federalizes the issue, leaving the states in the business of setting legal standards based on local values. If abortion is so popular with the masses, one presumes that states would legalize the procedure. Of course, if I were a pro-abortion liberal, I would not presume the assumption … nor the outcome.
Not willing to make that mistake again, the President chose the only kind of candidate he will nominate, a strict constructionist conservative pro-lifer – currently Samuel Alito. Unless the Democrats are willing to block every Supreme Court nominee for the next three years, they have no chance of a pro-abortion justice. The Senate minority is disingenuous in saying there should be no “litmus test” while placing an absolute prerequisite on the question of one specific decision.
The battle may be long and ugly. The pledge not to filibuster is likely to be broken by desperate Democrats, and the Senate may have to change the filibuster rule to re-establish the simple majority “consent” envisioned by the founders (not a bad reform in its own right). The current Democrat position is nothing less than minority dictatorship – attempting to force the nomination of THEIR candidate by obscene obstructionism and character assassination.
Despite short term desperation tactics, the Court will soon shift decidedly to the right. The liberal allusion to “balance” is a public fraud – an arrogant euphemism for liberal dominance. The Supreme Court has nine members so that there is never a “balance” on any issue. The Court is not in balance today, it is a precariously liberal court about to become a conspicuously conservative Court – and the ramifications go well beyond the issue of abortion.
Though seemingly unrecognized, or openly confessed, abortion is not a winning issue for liberals. Most Americans disapprove of abortions, as a practice. Most Americans disfavor various extreme forms of legal abortions. Under the new court, the practice will not be extended. Via various legal challenges, it is more likely that the most egregious and unpopular abortion practices and laws will be trimmed, to say the least.
After time and legal evolution, it is even likely that Roe v. Wade will be overturned in a restoration of moral underpinning (as it should be). One hundred and fifty years ago, the Democrat-controlled Supreme Court declared that blacks had no rights as citizens. The Dred Scott decision was eventually overturned by moral enlightenment – and Republican appointments to the Court.
Even the overturning of Roe v. Wade will not ban abortions, as fear-mongering liberals peddle the argument. It simply de-federalizes the issue, leaving the states in the business of setting legal standards based on local values. If abortion is so popular with the masses, one presumes that states would legalize the procedure. Of course, if I were a pro-abortion liberal, I would not presume the assumption … nor the outcome.
Friday, October 28, 2005
TIDBITS: What a difference a week (or so) makes
I take a bit of time away from my blog rambling, and the world turns.
1. My prediction that Harriet Miers will be confirmed is out the window. Frankly, I underestimated the zeal of a good portion of the right wing lobby in opposition. I am not sure it was warranted, but it had its effect. I am also not sure it was a good strategy in the long run. It is my belief that Bush will not sway from his intent to name a conservative strict constructionist to the Court.
2. The Sox and world champions. Even as a Cub fan, I admire the quality of the team. They reflect everything good about baseball. In a day where sports is a brutal industry, it is good to see a team who seems to think the game of baseball is just that, a game -- something to be fun for players and fans. One cannot argue that they are a high performance team, too. They dominated the season and routed some pretty good teams in post season play. This was a solid, well deserved victory by a team that played excellent baseball with great dignity. I would even dare to say that outside of NOT snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, they played baseball like the beloved Cubs. Congrats from Wrigley Field.
3. Gas prices in surprise drop? Methinks it has something to do with those embarrassing high profits the gas giants are reporting. It does not take an economist (which my degree says I am) to figure out that those power powerhouses gouged the public. Katrina, Iraq and SUV's provided a good excuse, but it is now obvious that there was another significant driving force in the price surge -- greed. I am a free market guy, but we have to know that the oil oligopoly is not necessarily a free market force. Of course, if one result is the collapse of SUV sales, the world will be a better, and safer, place.
4. Some things did not change in my blog absence. I impolitely referred to Governor George Ryan's I-want-to-be-your-friend-while-I-dump-on-you protégé as a sleaze. Well, he has now completed his time in the witness stand, and he never demonstrated any other trait. Humility, veracity, honestly and dignity eluded him to the end of his tortured testimony.
1. My prediction that Harriet Miers will be confirmed is out the window. Frankly, I underestimated the zeal of a good portion of the right wing lobby in opposition. I am not sure it was warranted, but it had its effect. I am also not sure it was a good strategy in the long run. It is my belief that Bush will not sway from his intent to name a conservative strict constructionist to the Court.
2. The Sox and world champions. Even as a Cub fan, I admire the quality of the team. They reflect everything good about baseball. In a day where sports is a brutal industry, it is good to see a team who seems to think the game of baseball is just that, a game -- something to be fun for players and fans. One cannot argue that they are a high performance team, too. They dominated the season and routed some pretty good teams in post season play. This was a solid, well deserved victory by a team that played excellent baseball with great dignity. I would even dare to say that outside of NOT snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, they played baseball like the beloved Cubs. Congrats from Wrigley Field.
3. Gas prices in surprise drop? Methinks it has something to do with those embarrassing high profits the gas giants are reporting. It does not take an economist (which my degree says I am) to figure out that those power powerhouses gouged the public. Katrina, Iraq and SUV's provided a good excuse, but it is now obvious that there was another significant driving force in the price surge -- greed. I am a free market guy, but we have to know that the oil oligopoly is not necessarily a free market force. Of course, if one result is the collapse of SUV sales, the world will be a better, and safer, place.
4. Some things did not change in my blog absence. I impolitely referred to Governor George Ryan's I-want-to-be-your-friend-while-I-dump-on-you protégé as a sleaze. Well, he has now completed his time in the witness stand, and he never demonstrated any other trait. Humility, veracity, honestly and dignity eluded him to the end of his tortured testimony.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
