Friday, June 4, 2004
Andrew Sullivan, normally a blogger with whom I agree, is pushing WAY too hard on this one:
Here's a revealing sentence from National Review's profile of Roger Simon, ex-lefty blogger: "[When] it comes to social policy, he continues to lean hard to the left. 'I'm very liberal on social issues: pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, separation of church and state,' he says. 'I think racism and sexism are the greatest evils in the world.'" So allowing women to choose to seek an abortion is now a "hard left" position? And encouraging gay couples to have stable relationships is "hard left"? And being deeply concerned about racism and sexism is "hard left"? I won't even touch "separation of church and state."
Simon's own words belie Sullivan's protests. "Very liberal" is equivalent to "hard left", just as "very conservative" is equivalent to "hard right". Sure, there is a value judgement applied, but it's not as bad as Sullivan makes it appear.
Besides, Sullivan is a bit disingenuous with the way he frames the issues: "Encouraging gay couples to have stable relationships" is NOT the same as his vociferous support of gay marriage, and it is Simon himself, not NR, who characterizes opposition to racism and sexism as liberal. IN no way does NR endorse racism or sexism. Sullivan should know better; this is a tactic worthy of intellectual lightweights like Robert Scheer.
FWIW, I agree with both of them on the issues they raise, although my support of abortion is likely far less vigorous than either of theirs, and I don't have the visceral opposition to expressions of faith that many liberals and gays possess. I don't like it when it starts determining policy, but I don't want a government full of secular humanists any more than I want a government of fundamentalist Christians.
UPDATENo, I had not read The Corner before composing this entry. Apparently I was not the only one to note that Sullivan is off the mark.
posted at 10:10 PM | permalink | Comments (2)
Wednesday, June 2, 2004
Read Stephen Green's tales of woe as he dealt with Green Point Mortgage.
posted at 12:59 PM | permalink | Comments (0)
Raines continues disinformation
Howell Raines has been deposed from his perch atop the New York Times masthead, but he's still peddling his rhetoric. This column, from the Guardian, contains several lies and distortions, along with the usual helping of anti-Republican sneering one would expect from either Raines or the Wanker.
White House strategists are betting that leaving Iraq in 30 days - no matter what chaos ensues in that country - will leave them time to revise history between now and election day and, more importantly, get on with the work of destroying Kerry's image.
The first portion of the sentence is factually incorrect. Tranferring sovreignty does not constitute "leaving Iraq". There are no plans to pull our troops out at the end of the month. Raines either does not understand that the transfer of sovreignty does not entail a withdrawal of our forces, or does not care that he is distorting the facts.
As America's first war-hero candidate since John F Kennedy, he ought to be leading the national discussion on what went wrong in Iraq.
Raines conveniently leaves out (Republican) war hero George H. W. Bush, who remains the youngest person to ever be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (he was 20), and three Air Medals for his service in World War II, and (Republican) war hero Bob Dole, whose Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts form his World War II service don't compensate for the loss of the use of his right arm from the injuries he received while saving the radioman's life. As to Iraq, Kerry cannot lead the discussion until he figures out his own position on the war. Every week he has a new position, and it's hard to lead a dialogue when one does not have a clear position from which to debate.
The difference between him and Bush is that Kerry represents the liberal, charitable wing of the Privilege party and George W represents the conservative, greedy wing of the Privilege party.
Here Raines lapses into the jargon for which he developed his reputation at the New York Times. The simplistic shorthand that conservatives are greedy (presumably because they feel that they should not be taxed into the poorhouse by the government) was his preferred favorite theme while he was running the editorial pages, and it remained one of his favorites while he was running the paper.
There's hardly an American who does not know that George W got into the Air National Guard when others couldn't through his father's political pull, that he got into flight school ahead of others due to his father's political pull, that he was allowed to skip his normal weekend drills and make them up without being punished because of his father's political pull.
Let's see: Bush's father was just beginning his second term in congress when Bush joined the Air National Guard. Not a lot of pull there, but I'll go with it. However, the last statement is a lie, and I am quite sure that Raines knows it, as ANYONE can request to miss scheduled drill dates and make them up at a later time, regardless of their family's political influence (or lack thereof). At least he is not accusing Bush of not making up the timea popular, thoroughly debunked meme that is an article of faith among many Democrats.
As Al From of the Democratic Leadership Council noted, Americans aren't antagonistic toward the rules that protect the rich because they think that in the great crap-shoot of economic life in America, they might wind up rich themselves. It's a mass delusion, of course, but one that has worked ever since Ronald Reagan got Republicans to start flaunting their wealth instead of apologising for it.
First off, a quick look at the Forbes 400 (the annual listing of the 400 wealthiest Americans), shows that a significant portion of them were self-made. Even this highly critical report, bassed on a press release from the left-wing United for a Fair Economy, admits that almost a third of the list started from scratch, with no inheritance or large family business to build upon. It's no delusion that one can become wealthy without starting out with anything, as almost any sports star will attest.
Secondly, Raines actually believes that the rich should apologize for being wealthy? WTF? Only in the world of the guilty white southern boy is it something for which to apologize. And the people who are most liikely to "flaunt" wealth are the nouveau riche of whom Raines denies the existence, not those who have grown up wealthy.
There is a whole lot of other drivel in the article, but those four excepts are the most egregious (and easily rebutted) portions of the article. It's not surprising that Raines found an outlet for his writing in the Guardian; they are a match made in Hell, distinguishable only by their accents.
(Link courtesy of Instapundit.)
posted at 12:17 PM | permalink | Comments (0)
Tuesday, June 1, 2004
IdiocyIt's not just for leftists anymore
Earlier this week, we had a prime example of idiocy from the left end of the political spectrum, in the form of Reggie Rivers. (Go here for a nice summation of Mr. Rivers; this is also a nice summation. Both are chock full of links to irritated milbloggers who had something to say.)
Now, it's another week, and another idiot speaks. However, this time it's from conservative Robert Novak, whose continuing opposition to the Iraq war appears to be seeping into his coverage of events elsewhere. This column slurs the 25th Infantry Division, currently in Afghanistan. Says Novak:
Those arms are not what they seem. The basic U.S. strength in Afghanistan is 17,000 troops of ''straight-legged'' infantry -- conventional forces ill-prepared to handle irregulars. The new unit assigned to Afghanistan is the 25th Infantry Division, which has been stationed at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, and has not seen combat since the Vietnam War.
That's offensive to anyone in the military, but especially to Sgt. Hook. You see, the sargeant is in Afghanistan, since he is attached to the 25th Infantry Division. He takes strong exception to what Novak has to say about his unit, and also with Novak's characterizations of the people leading it. Go read what Hook has to say about all this, and remember that idiots come in all political guises.
UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers. Also, for some reason, comments were off for this post. I have rectified that error.
posted at 01:32 PM | permalink | Comments (7)
Sunday, May 30, 2004
What she said
Juliette has it exactly right. I'm tired of the sneering condescension doled out by the elitist twits who think that I can't understand the underlying reasons for the oath that I took when I enlisted (and reenlisted twice more). I'd put my IQ up against theirs any day, and I seriously think I'd come out on top. I don't appreciate having them make speeches (ostensibly on my behalf) with which I wholeheartedly disagree. Further, the equation of military service to slavery is so thoroughly indefensible and repulsive that words fail me.
UPDATE: Brad R. Torgeson of Pool of Thought has the definitive exchange of e-mails with Mr. Rivers in reference to the column. To his credit, Rivers remains civil throughout the exchange, but is unwilling to change his view that volunteer soldiers are treated as slaves.
posted at 12:54 PM | permalink | Comments (0)