Deo volente.

A Conservative in America

I’ve said for a long time that the real reason- the only reason – for a conservative to be mad at the Democrats is that they are failing us as a second party.

You can be mad at individuals or at idiots, an awe-ful lot of whom happen to be Democrats. But you’re not mad because they are Democrats. You get mad at their “policies,” projects, or their activism, most of which seems to fly in the face of political theory about deferential republics.

No, the only thing to be mad at Democrats about is that they don’t give you a choice. You don’t like the way the GWOT is being run? Well, you’re not going to find an solution on the other side of the aisle, where the criticism is worse than the alternatives . Don’t like the Senate’s lack of resolve on immigration? Are you in awe that anyone can contemplate national sovereignty without secure borders? Don’t look now, but a Democrat Senate won’t help things.

So there’s no alternative on the issues that matter most. Do a similar comparison side by side on the economy, Iran, North Korea, the Dollar / Euro, South America, judicial activism, or any other serious issue.

The Republican party is the only place where there is actual debate and actual alternatives. The problem is that the debate happens over time in a Darwinian manner rather than at the voting booth. If only you could pit Republican against Republican – then maybe you’d hear a real solution to, say, the border fence that is so needed, or whether a strong dollar is better than a weak dollar. Instead you can choose the dollar, or you can choose the barter system. It’s really no choice at all.

It’s almost like someone asking you whether you’d vote for him or her for president. I’m serious, folks – I’ll take the rabbit.

So this November, I’m taking the rabbit. Don’t get me wrong – there are substantive candidates who deserve the vote, and there are candidates to vote against. But really, there isn’t a choice so much as a decision.


October 27, 2006 Posted by | Philosophy - General, Politics | Leave a comment

The Pope is riding the fence Politically, but not Religiously

I could spend several pages covering why I think Benedict is right on religiously in his recent remarks about Islam and its consuming volunteerism. I went into some length here as to why I felt like his remarks were carefully measured. I discussed the connection between his speech and the dearth of philosophical leadership in the West here, making the case that the Pope was drawing the philosophical lines that need to be drawn for the West and the East. Of course, most telling of all was the reaction by Islam at large: shock(!) and outrage(!) here.

Now he’s still not apologizing:

Pope Benedict said on Wednesday that his use of medieval quotes portraying a violent Islam did not reflect his views and were misunderstood, but he did not give the clear apology still demanded by many Muslims.

The leader of the world’s 1.1 billion Roman Catholics, whose speech last week has provoked al Qaeda groups to declare war on the Church, Iraqis to burn the Pope’s effigy and Turks to petition for his arrest, said he had not meant to cause offence.

That is a very political way of saying that he meant what he said. Every apology that he has made has been the same: the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt is right to understand that this is no apology at all.

But in that recognition, they are missing the bigger point of course.

“For the careful reader of my text it is clear that I in no way wanted to make mine the negative words pronounced by the medieval emperor and their polemical content does not reflect my personal conviction,” he said.

His said his intention had been to “explain that religion and violence do not go together but religion and reason do.” He said he hoped the furor could help encourage “positive and even self-critical dialogue.”

As I made clear, he was attacking the West’s uneasy relationship with Christianity first and foremost in the speech. But it was also clear that he wished this point to be understood in the context of Islam’s own ecclesiastical fall. The message seems clear enough: the West cannot come to grips with its need to destroy evil if it cannot distinguish evil from good, and the means of making that distinction lie in the West’s evolved religions.

If anything, Benedict was being dismissive of Islam.

Islamo-fascists are right to be concerned of course – America would be dangerous if she were decisive. And they would be doomed if America were both decisive and guided by a clear conceptualization of good vs. evil.

September 21, 2006 Posted by | Leaders of the West, Politics | Leave a comment

The UN: Just like your Middle School

I guess that everyone must think this is very cute, and how wonderful it is that world leaders can cut up, share a laugh, grow.

Peanut Gallery

Given that the US was paying for this venomous pile of bilge to speak to the UN – and by paying I mean in GDP-related man hours, federal tax dollars, and prime Turtle Bay Real Estate – I think its time to demand an official and comprehensive apology. This needs to come from both the Assembly at large for their peanut-gallery style chuckles and from the murderous thug Chavez himself.

Continue reading

September 21, 2006 Posted by | Jack-Asses, Leaders of the West, Politics | 1 Comment

The Conversation of the West – The Pope as a Western Leader

This last week has had one major headline … that the Pope has angered Muslims the world over with his comments at the University of Regensburg (full text).

There are two points that are not being made clear about this. A number of observers are quick to dismiss Benedict’s comments, to diffuse them and despoil them in their references to Islam. The implication is that he did not know what he was saying, that his comments need context in order to instill full comprehension. In fact, this speech wasn’t about Islam alone, but about how the West must first reconcile Religion and Reason (already done). Only by each Faith’s resolution to these essential issues can we save both.

Continue reading

September 16, 2006 Posted by | Leaders of the West, Philosophy - General, Politics, Religion | 11 Comments

The Disputed “Path to 9-11” Scenes

Red State has the disputed videos available in Quicktime format. As I won’t destroy my computer by loading this demon application, I won’t be able to watch until somebody gets it in an open format. RS also links the letters that the Clinton Lawyers sent to Bob Iger, head of ABC. I reproduce chunks of the entire text here because it looks like the site is getting deluged and service is spotty.

Dear Bob, Despite press reports that ABC/Disney has made changes in the content and marketing of “The Path to 9/11,” we remailn concerned about the false impression that airing the show will leave on the public. Labelng the show as “fiction” does not meet your responsibility to the victims of the September 11th attacks, their families, the hard work of the 9/11 Commission, or to the American people as a whole.

How does this work exactly? What should ABC have labeled this? – Shitty Fiction? Is there some categorization for “Making my boss look bad?” No, what is really being set up here is the moral highground. This is like doing it for The Children ®

At a moment when we should be debating how to make the nation safer by implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, …

Sorry … Stop the tape. If I didn’t know this was written by Clinton’s lawyers, I could have told you that this was written by Clinton’s lawyers. This is almost verbatim, “I need to get back to doing the work of the President for the good of this country.” The arrogance is astonishing.

…”The Path to 9/11″ calls into question the accuracy of the Commission’s report and whether fabricated scenes are, in fact, an accurate portrayal of history. Indeed, the millions spent on the production of this fictional drama would have been better spent informing the public about the Commission’s actual findings and the many recommendations that have yet to be acted upon. Unlike this film, that would have been a tremendous service to the public.

Of course, no one was that concerned about Reagan or F911. But the real issue is whether any of this would have been a problem if Clinton’s team hadn’t been portrayed as incompetent and unfocused (allegedly – just like Clinton’s team, I still haven’t seen the movie either). As I said earlier, the problem is not the dramatization, it’s what’s being dramatized. The truth hurts.

Although our request for an advance copy of the film has been repeatedly denied, it is all too clear that our objections to “The Path to 9/11” are valid and corroborated by those familiar with the film and intimately involved in its production.


You know, I have no clue what my wife is giving me for Christmas, but I’m pretty sure that it’s going to suck. And I’ll go ahead to file for divorce because I know this thing. NOT. Because I live in a little place I like to call reality.

Continued after the bump …

Updates: Allah has the blogo-perspective on the videos.

And WND has Clinton’s aide Buzz Patterson saying that the film is correct (more on this below).
Continue reading

September 10, 2006 Posted by | GWOT, Philosophy of the Commons, Politics, Terrorists | Leave a comment

The Left and the State

Ace is getting pissed

The left has decided that talk of murdering politicians they don’t like is now acceptable. Cute, even. I have long been against such talk — including on this site, directed at people I personally loathe — but I have to say I’m getting to the point where I’m less willing to avoid it if the other side refuses to abide by similar common-sense restraints.

I can’t say I’m in complete disagreement. What is particularly dangerous is the notion that they can hide behind the Net’s anonymity, the “humor” gambit, or their collectivism to say that they didn’t mean it. It is precisely that identification with a group or with a philosophy that would give them license to pull a nut-brained stunt like this.

I can tell you one thing about the Left’s conspiracy theories – they all point the finger of blame at Bush and his administration. When and if they gain political power, given their philosophical roots, they will seek to assuage that blame by having the State proclaim him or his administration or his supporters as its enemy. Does anyone recall when Clinton sought to blame right-wing talk radio for the Oklahoma City Bombing?

I’m goddamned tired of the murder-talk and the left’s wink-wink-nudge-nudge response to it. I am sick of these vile fuckers subtly and not-so-subtly encouraging the assassination of duly elected or appointed members of the Bush Administration.

Here’s the problem: our political opponents are autoritarians all, believing in some mix of fascism, socialism, and communism. The ends justify the means, and only they are privy to what the appropriate ends must be. In that way, they are philosphical duplicates of jihadist assassins, for whom a loss of life is the means of advancing the argument.

Their delusion of grandeur is based on the flawed notion that they are both omniscient and representative of the State appratus. Just as there are already calls for an Impeachment hearing should the Republicans lose the House, there will be pressure put on elected Democratic representatives shoud they gain any power whatsoever. Because the ends justify the means. And if the elected officials don’t take action, don’t you think some jack ass would take a Democratic win as a mandate for sanction to act on the behalf of the State?

This is precisely why we cannot start talking like that as a party or as a group. Classical liberalism and rugged individualism cannot tolerate an “ends justify the means” motivational component, because they don’t. The means are the ends that we seek. The way that you do things is important. And the State is not the god of the Republicans – we don’t serve it; it serves us.
Communism and socialism are known as the governments of thugs, becuase they are the first groups to benefit from the ability to hide vicious criminality behind the veneer of righteousness. The Democratic nutroots are devouring that political methodology, and this is why they are a danger to the US. They would allow anything as long as it promoted the State agenda.

We are living in dangerous times when a group of people would act on the behalf of the State to advance an un-democratically supported political agenda.

September 7, 2006 Posted by | Philosophy - General, Philosophy of the Commons, Politics, Sweet Crazy | 7 Comments

Bush should listen to Larry Kudlow

I love Larry Kudlow – the guy has quals and a great demeanor. He’s also insightful like a satellite in a hurricane:

Folks are very unhappy about Republican management of the war. Voters on the left want an immediate pullout — a terrible idea. People on the right, like me, want to win the war, but the president is not unveiling a truly new victory plan. His own Pentagon just issued a gloomy Iraq report that chronicles near-civil-war sectarian violence and the security problems in that country….But this will not resonate for the election. … It is too late to make this sale.

He’s right. What’s starting to scare me is the lack of a nationalized Republican campaign to get the local politicians elected.

The ACLU Democrats will keep carping about chemical plants, bridges, and tunnels. And Republicans must counter with highly publicized votes on surveillance expansion. This is what stopped the terrorists in the London plot. Folks know this. There’s also the issue of probable-cause warrants, which could delay FISA approval. Crucial days could pass as the government authorities argue needlessly about criminal intent and the matter of detaining suspects for tough-minded interrogation. Republicans must get loud on this front. There also should be no question about the legality and utility of the SWIFT financial tracking program. Or NSA wiretapping of al-Qaeda phone calls to people living in the United States. Or telco data-mining for phone-call patterns here at home.

Bush’s administration repeatedly acts like the crusty veteran who gets the work done (good), but whose myopia is thinking that the job ends where the work does (bad). For what the administration has actually engaged on, they get nearly an A every time, which is true even for the B- they get in Iraq. But what good is it to create Guantanamo if you’re not going to protect it for the tool that it is? What good is it to go after Al Quaeda’s finances with operational success if you give up on the legalistic wranglings that will let the programs continue?

Anyway, Kramer is worth listening to. What’s the use of his having a blog if you’re not going to listen to him?

September 2, 2006 Posted by | GWOT, Homeland Terrorism, Politics | Leave a comment

Meredith Viera Could take Ms. Cougar any Day

Meredith Viera, formerly of the view and now switching to Today, puts us some common sense:

What do you say to women who want to have it all?

I hate that expression. When I left 60 Minutes, I had women who came up to me very angry and said, “You know, you were proof you could have it all. How dare you leave?” I thought that was ridiculous–I would lie to myself to create a lie for everybody else? You have to prioritize. If you can fit in job and kids and be comfortable with it, great. At that point, I realized I couldn’t do it and give my kids and husband what they needed.

Viera has a point. It’s roughly the same point that Katherine Hepburn used to make about raising a family, which was that she couldn’t give it the focus and attention that it deserves and so she never did it. These are women who know their limitations and who know reality when they see it.

Now for the gratuitous image …

Continue reading

August 28, 2006 Posted by | Politics | 1 Comment

Sexual Politics

Allah is, as Ace suggests, exploring the studio space. It’s Friday – time to throw gas on smoldering fires. The bit about porn I’ll just let go … better men than I are on it.

But the bit about Forbes’ article on career women is funny. Evidently it caused enough stir that they took the post down and then re-upped it as point / counterpoint. What is really a pretty reasoned and factual article by Michael Noer is taken as a slap in the progressive face. So they got some stringer, and a woman to boot, to do the refutation in the name of balance.

So the balanced diversity thing is a little silly. And the fact that the refutation is anecdotal, poorly written, and a fluff opinion piece certainly didn’t stop the editors from doing their bit for the cause. But really, this is all pretty funny …The best part? Here are the titles …
Point: Don’t Marry Career Women

Counterpoint: Don’t Marry A Lazy Man

That’s not a counterpoint. That’s an attack.
Continue reading

August 25, 2006 Posted by | Philosophy of the Commons, Politics, Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Slate – Idiots who Cater to the Elites

Did you know, a la this graphic , that …

  • The EU and Israel are friends?
  • That the realationship between Iran and Lebanon is “complicated”?
  • That Lebanon and Syria are enemies?
  • That Al Quaeda ad Hezbollah has a “complicated” relationship.

I smell nuance. It’s on my shoes.

Continue reading

August 23, 2006 Posted by | GWOT, Politics | 1 Comment