Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
RSS Feed
View Profile
« November 2014 »
S M T W T F S
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30
You are not logged in. Log in
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
Decline of the West
Freedom's Guardian
Liberal Fascism
Military History
Must Read
Politics & Elections
Scratchpad
The Box Office
The Media
Verse
Virtual Reality
My Web Presence
War Flags (Website)
Culture & the Arts
The New Criterion
Twenty-Six Letters
Tuesday, 25 November 2014
No Peace--But Justice Even So
Topic: Decline of the West

 

I’m not as disturbed as perhaps I should be by the mob violence in Ferguson, Missouri—because I so totally expected it.

 

First, it seemed pretty clear that the grand jury was not going to indict Officer Darren Wilson for the killing of Michael Brown. The evidence that trickled out in the weeks and months since the shooting led me to the conclusion that the former had acted within the bounds of his lawful authority. Brown was a thug and a criminal; Wilson was trying to do his duty as a police officer. Brown assaulted Wilson and threatened the officer’s life; for that he forfeited his own life. This is of course tragic for Brown’s family and even for Wilson, who must live out his life with Brown’s death on his conscience. But this must be said: Michael Brown died in the commission of a crime. That is a fact, however much people would prefer to overlook it.

 

Second, it seemed evident that certain factions of the Ferguson protest movement were primed for violence. Even if the grand jury had indicted Wilson there would have been looting, burning, bricks and bottles flying through the air. What had been started on the day that Michael Brown and Darren Wilson met for the first and last time was not to be stopped by the pronouncement of a grand jury—whatever the grand jury pronounced. A parade of rabble-rousing outsiders, led by the egregious Al Sharpton, marched into Ferguson to make sure this happened. And let it be noted that media coverage of the incident and its aftermath, much of it highly speculative and irresponsible, played a major role as well in the fanning of the flames.

 

The prosecutor in the case, Robert McCulloch is now being condemned by some for being too “pro-police.” What seems to be meant by this is that instead of maneuvering the grand jury into returning a true bill—a thing he could easily have done by being selective in his presentation of the evidence—McCulloch laid out all the evidence. Reviewing it, the grand jury not only decided that Wilson had not murdered Brown but that no crime at all had been committed. Think about that. In the face of enormous public pressure to do something, to throw the outraged community a bone of some kind, the grand jury declined even to indict Wilson on a lesser charge like involuntary manslaughter. So if McCulloch had gamed the system to obtain an indictment he would have been kicking the can down the road—to a trial jury that would very likely have acquitted Wilson. That very thing happened in the Zimmerman-Martin case, with a duplicitous prosecutor obtaining an indictment under false or at least questionable circumstances so as to pacify the community with a show trial. But the scheme backfired badly when the trial jury acquitted Zimmerman. In this case, at least, no such farcical miscarriage of justice will ensue.

 

What the Holder-corrupted Justice Department might do now is a doubtful question but I’m skeptical that Darren Wilson will ever be prosecuted in federal court. Given the evidence, it would be practically impossible to convict him of violating Michael Brown’s civil rights—the bar is high for such a conviction under federal law. On the other hand, a flurry of civil suits is a virtual certainty. How these will turn out is anybody’s guess but probably they’ll end with a series of costly settlements.

 

So there you have it: Despite all the hysteria and hyperventilating, the Wilson-Brown case has played out according to the well-thumbed formulistic script of race-baiting and media sensationalism. There’s sure to be plenty of hand-wringing and finger-pointing in the weeks ahead, with charges of police racism on one side and of violent lawlessness on the other. But I doubt that we’ll hear much about the business owners whose life’s work went up in smoke last night, or the actual, flesh-and-blood residents of Ferguson, Missouri who still be cleaning up after the pundits and the activists have moved on. 


Posted by tmg110 at 11:14 AM EST
Updated: Tuesday, 25 November 2014 11:17 AM EST
Post Comment | Permalink
Monday, 24 November 2014
Snake Oil But No Canadian Oil
Topic: Politics & Elections

Just when you think you’ve figured out how clueless Barack Obama really is, he does or says something that makes you realize that that your evaluation was too charitable.

While Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu was trying desperately to save her political career via a Senate vote on the long-delayed Keystone XL pipeline, Obama was off on a junket to Myanmar (Burma). That didn’t stop him from sticking his oar in, though! Across the long waters came his oracular verdict on Keystone: “Understand what this project is: It is providing the ability of Canada to pump their oil, send it through our land, down to the Gulf, where it will be sold everywhere else. It doesn’t have an impact on U.S. gas prices. If my Republican friends want to focus on what’s good for the American people in terms of job creation and lower energy costs, we should be engaging in a conversation about what are we doing to produce even more homegrown energy. I’m happy to have that conversation.”

Oh really, Barry?

For starters, some of the oil flowing through the Keystone XL pipeline will come from North Dakota—which last time I checked was still part of the United States. Moreover, US gas prices are determined by a global oil market—meaning that no matter where that Canadian oil ends up, it will have an impact on US oil and gas prices. So our Community Organizer-in-Chief not only demonstrated his ignorance of the facts but his cluelessness regarding basic economics. Oh, and not incidentally he extended a middle finger to our neighbor to the north with that sneering reference to “the ability of Canada to pump their oil, send it through our land…”

This is the guy who, in 2008-09, was described as The Smartest Candidate and President Who Absolutely Ever was, He of the Perfect Trouser Creases, Healer of Partisan Division, Sweeper-Back of the Seas, Healer of the Planet, etc. and so forth, blah, blah, blah. Today he stands revealed as an arrogant know-nothing, a hubristic ignoramus. Ugh. Just ugh…


Posted by tmg110 at 10:45 AM EST
Post Comment | Permalink
Thursday, 20 November 2014
Everybody Call It Amnesty...
Topic: Politics & Elections

…but it isn’t. That’s the funny thing about the Community Organizer-in-Chief’s, er, President Obama’s, end run around the Constitution of the United States.

Wait, though, it’s not really that either. As a matter of law Obama may well be within his rights to suspend deportations of millions of illegal aliens and give them work permits. But all he’s doing is putting five million-odd people into administrative limbo. He can’t amnesty them, can’t make them permanent residents, can’t place them on a path to citizenship. They’ll be just as illegal tomorrow as they are right now. So what’s the point?

Obama probably thinks that by doing this he can put the squeeze on the incoming Republican Congress, forcing them into passing his version of comprehensive immigration reform. Some hope! The leverage he imagines he has is nonexistent and his unilateral action scotches any possibility that such a bill could reach his desk. At best, the GOP House and Senate will be sending to the Oval Office piecemeal immigration reform bills the contents of which the President will find highly obnoxious. Knowing Obama, he’ll pout and veto them, all the while decrying those obstructionist Republican bastards on Capitol Hill.

Unfortunately for Obama, in this political poker game Republicans hold the high card. The American people are opposed, repeat, opposed to anything that smacks of amnesty via executive action. Don’t believe me? Look at the polls. All the Republicans have to do is present themselves as grownups dealing as best they can with a presidential temper tantrum. To do this they don’t have to impeach Obama or shut down the government. They just have to force him into using his veto pen—over and over and over again. Given the temperament of our king-emperor, that shouldn’t be difficult.

I’m sure there are people on the Left smart enough to have figured all of the above. Probably they comfort themselves with the thought that the GOP, driven insane by Barry’s master stroke, will have another Ted Cruz moment—closing down national parks, ripping up the food stamps of the underclass, etc. But the campaign leading up to the midterms showed that Republicans have learned their lesson on that score. Instead they seem content to follow Napoleon’s advice: Never interrupt your enemy when he’s making a mistake. For President Obama, his party and whichever Democrat is destined to carry the 2016 presidential standard, that is very bad news indeed.


Posted by tmg110 at 5:59 PM EST
Updated: Thursday, 20 November 2014 6:00 PM EST
Post Comment | Permalink
The Coulter Method
Topic: Liberal Fascism

Progressives loathe and revile her, not so much because she’s a conservative, or a conservative woman, but because Ann Coulter is, well, rude to them. Oh, sure, most conservative pundits have now and then stooped to land a low blow against some paragon of the Left—just recently I had occasion to call Nancy Pelosi an idiot—but with Coulter the shots come hard, fast and constantly. She is neither polite nor politic, making no secret of her contempt for her ideological foes. And her feelings are heartily reciprocated—there’s even an “I really hate Ann Coulter” Facebook community!

I mention this because the hatred directed against Ann Coulter by progressives, though understandable, is more than a little hypocritical. It’s not as if the Left is populated by high-minded, furrow-browed intellectuals who specialized in seeing all sides of every issue and would never, ever be so crude as to engage in personal invective. Remember Bill Maher! Remember Occupy Wall Street! Remember the crude insults that were directed against George W. Bush! (Sample: Protest sign reading, BUSH THE ONLY DOPE WORTH SHOOTING. Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk…)

It occurs to me that one reason why progressives hate Ann is that she’s just better at smash-mouth ideological brawling than they are. From the Left, as I had occasion to be reminded today, most rebuttals take the form of adolescent, often passive-aggressive, name-calling. A comment of mine in another venue attracted the attention of a leftie who took the trouble to dispute my point. It was inadvisable of him to do this, for my comment took the form of a series of facts. I pointed this out, which he did not like. Well, the guy’s distemper was perhaps understandable given the outcome of the recent elections. But he didn’t leave it at that. No, he had also to throw in a gratuitous insult—as sort of an exclamation point, I suppose you'd call it. Now I shan’t say who he is or what the insult was—that doesn’t matter. I will say, though, that it was a stupid thing to do because it made him look like a small, tiny person who really has no point of view, just a tangled bundle of attitudes.

Yes, I know, it was a small thing. But it got me to thinking about the art of the political insult and then about Coulter, who sends progressives into a three-foot hover every time she opens her mouth, e.g. “If you wanted to teach people about the great things about America, a college campus is the last place you’d send them. Even fanatical Muslim terrorists don’t hate America like liberals do.” Har-de-har! Sure, it’s over the top, absurdly exaggerated, even cruel—but it’s a target hit, overturning all the armchairs in the faculty lounge. A hurtful truth fashioned into a nasty, underhanded zinger: that’s the Coulter method and nobody on the Left can replicate it.


Posted by tmg110 at 12:11 PM EST
Updated: Thursday, 20 November 2014 12:19 PM EST
Post Comment | Permalink
Wednesday, 19 November 2014
Pipeline to Political Oblivion
Topic: Politics & Elections

So Tom, you ask, what’s your take this morning on Senator Mary Landrieu’s chances of reelection? Well, between slim and none I’d have to go with the latter. Her last hope, such as it was, crashed and burned on the Senate floor last night.

Landrieu is running some fifteen points behind her GOP opponent in the run-up to the December runoff election that will decide her fate. For want of a better idea, she embraced the Keystone XL pipeline, a long-delayed energy project that’s very popular in the Pelican State. She would demonstrate her ability to get things done by pushing a bill through Congress to jump-start construction of Keystone. Well, how has that worked out for her?

First President Obama gave the embattled Louisiana incumbent the back of his hand, promising to veto such legislation if it ever landed on his desk. Then, yesterday evening, the Senate failed by a single vote to pass her bill—which had already cleared the GOP-controlled House. Two pretty obvious signs that Landrieu’s own party considers her a goner!

So far, the Senator has offered no response to questions regarding her view from under the bus…


Posted by tmg110 at 9:27 AM EST
Post Comment | Permalink
Cold Snap
Topic: Verse

Winter came early this year—blowing snow
Over the fallen leaves before my rake
Could harvest them. Though by the calendar
Autumn has a month to run—though the tree
Out front has yet to shed its crown of gold—
And though the solstice has yet to swallow
The slender ration of remaining light—
Winter has come. Come in her livery
Of gray and bone, congealing the waters,
Sending the brown new-stubbled fields to sleep.
The mornings lately have been cold and stark
And slow to shed the mantle of the dark.


Posted by tmg110 at 8:18 AM EST
Updated: Wednesday, 19 November 2014 8:39 AM EST
Post Comment | Permalink
Monday, 17 November 2014
Barry to America: Bite Me
Topic: Politics & Elections

That’s what it comes down to, President Obama’s threat to grant amnesty to illegal aliens by executive fiat:  a raised middle finger brandished in the face of the American people.

 In the midterm elections the people delivered their verdict on Obama and his policies in the form of an emphatic thumbs-down. And as was clear from the tone of his post-election press conference the President didn’t like that, not one bit. So now, it seems, he’s determined to punish us for that shocking display of lèse-majesté. One can almost envision him staring into the mirror and whispering, L'État, c'est moi.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said of Franklin D. Roosevelt that he had a “second-class intellect, but a first-class temperament.” Of Obama it could be said that the proportions are reversed. No one will ever call him stupid or even intellectually average, but no one will ever describe his as a man of broad and sympathetic character. He has the pettiness and narrow-mindedness characteristic of clever people who are too much impressed with their IQ scores. People like that react unpleasantly when crossed.

Executive amnesty, of course, will be the final undoing of Barack Obama’s presidency. Its legal and constitutional dubiety means that its supposed beneficiaries will merely be projected into a Twilight Zone between illegal and legal status. Executive orders do not possess the full force of law; what the current president does by them can be undone with a stroke of the pen by the next president. Nor will it provide a path to citizenship. Very clearly, the Constitution of the United States invests Congress with the power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (Article I, Section 8). But the President’s ill-advised, not to say malicious, action will kill the possibility of immigration reform legislation for the remainder of his term and probably beyond. And finally, executive amnesty will touch off another uncontrollable wave of illegal immigration, creating scenes of chaos at the border that will light a political firestorm. All this because our peevish, pouting president has his knickers in a twist over the outcome of the midterm elections.

How all this will play out politically is difficult to say. The incoming Republican Congress can of course make life difficult for the Obama Administration in any number of ways, but the GOP congressional leadership seems fearful of overplaying its hand. Any attempt to defund the mechanisms of executive amnesty would provoke a presidential veto and raise the possibility of a government shutdown—which the President, with the willing assistance of his media claque, would blame on Republican “obstruction.” On the other hand, executive amnesty is likely to prove extremely unpopular with the American people—perhaps even with Hispanic Americans once they realize that Obama’s action is legally perilous. And whoever carries the Democratic Patty standard in the 2016 presidential election is going to be stuck defending the President’s high-handed action. 

It’s too bad that we have a president so irresponsible as to make such calculations necessary.


Posted by tmg110 at 4:04 PM EST
Post Comment | Permalink
Saturday, 15 November 2014
Citizens or Servants?
Topic: Decline of the West

There are some superficially plausible arguments in favor of national service: the idea that all young Americans should, upon reaching the age of eighteen, render a year of service to the nation. Writing today in the Washington Post, retired US Army general Stanley McChrystal lays out the case:

[T]oday I’m calling on voters, donors and future candidates to work together to make a “service year” a common expectation and opportunity for all 18- to 28-year-old Americans. This would be an American version of universal national service—appropriately voluntary but socially expected. Through such service, young Americans from different income levels, races, ethnicities, political affiliations and religious beliefs could learn to work together to get things done. Such a project should be a defining issue of the 2016 election.

McChrystal envisions a system in which military service would be one option among many: public works, healthcare, education, etc. In this way, he thinks, the sense of shared service that earlier generations enjoyed thanks to the military draft could be resurrected. Note that he also terms it a “common expectation” rather than a mandatory demand—a distinction, I fear, without much of a difference.

There are many objections to such a scheme, of which its enormous potential cost is only the most obvious. As the Obamacare debacle has reminded us afresh, a big government program is a teeming womb of incompetence, inefficiency, waste, corruption, rent seeking, etc., etc. It’s all too easy, for instance, to envision the wire-pulling that would go on to ensure that this senator’s daughter or that CEO’s son lands some plum assignment. But these, to me, are secondary objections. Musing over General McChrystal’s plea for national service I ask myself: Is this not un-American?

Supporters of national service appeal to history in the form of the military draft, the Peace Corps, AmeriCorps and, going farther back, to New Deal-era programs like the WPA. There are other historical examples, though: the Reichsarbeitsdienst (RAD, i.e. National Labor Service) of National Socialist Germany and its counterparts in other totalitarian/authoritarian regimes. Now of course the various proposals for a US national service program have little in common with the paramilitary RAD. But in one respect, I fear, they’d replicate an RAD function: political indoctrination.

It’s obvious that such an enormous program could not be directly administered by the federal or state governments. Inevitably, large parts of it would have to be run under contract. And it’s all too easy to imagine the kinds of contractors who’d line up for a piece of the national service pie. The National Immigration Law Center, anybody? Or how about Human Rights Watch? And then there’s the Rainforest Action Network. Or why not conservative nonprofits like The Heritage Foundation and Hospice Patient Alliance? Advocates of national service would no doubt say that partisan politics would be rigorously excluded from the program, but as a practical matter this would be impossible to enforce. The temptation to propagandize a captive audience of conscripted young people would be irresistible.

Finally, there’s the essential question: What does it mean to be a free American citizen? From the founding of the United States of America down to the present day the principle of compulsory service has been considered obnoxious, to be tolerated only in circumstances of grave national peril. At the end of the Vietnam War, America abolished the military draft without regret. The experience we’ve acquired since then shows that America is much better served by armed forces composed of true volunteers. And the same, I believe, would prove true for any form of national service.

General McChrystal rightly notes that the military draft fostered a sense of shared service. But this was a byproduct of the system, not its objective. Those of us who served, willingly or not, in the draft-era military knew that we hadn’t been summoned to the colors for the purpose of making us better citizens. There were borders to guard, allies to support, wars to fight. But his argument for national service puts social engineering ahead of the tangible benefits he cites. And that kind of nation-building is, I submit, profoundly un-American.

Let the opportunities for voluntary service be multiplied. Let those young people who freely volunteer to serve their nation or their communities in any capacity be honored as we honor the members of our military. But please—no comprehensive national service program, even if “socially expected” rather than overtly compulsory. As free citizens, we have no business forcing such a civics lesson on fellow citizens, just because they’re young.


Posted by tmg110 at 11:10 AM EST
Post Comment | Permalink
Friday, 14 November 2014
We Have a Winner!
Topic: Liberal Fascism

I know that there’s plenty of competition for the title, but this morning I would like to nominate House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi as Leftie Ass-Clown of the Year (so far).

Reacting to the embarrassing comments of Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber, who cheerily opined that he relied on the stupidity of the American people to get the Affordable Care Act passed, Pelosi sputtered that she’d never heard of the guy. “I don’t know who he is and he didn’t help write our bill,” she insisted.

Oh? Here’s the Minority Leader (long may she retain that title!) rhapsodizing about the wonderfulness of the ACA in November of 2009 (emphasis added):

We’re not finished getting all of our reports back from CBO, but we’ll have a side by side to compare. But our bill brings down rates. I don’t know if you have seen Jonathan Gruber of MIT’s analysis of what the comparison is to the status quo versus what will happen in our bill for those who seek insurance within the exchange. And our bill takes down those costs, even some now, and much less preventing the upward spiral.

The video of both statements may be enjoyed here

From this we can conclude that Nancy Pelosi is either (1) a shameless liar or (2) an idiot. I waver between these options but it seems to me possible that when Professor Gruber was speaking of the stupidity of the American people, he was thinking of the House Minority Leader…


Posted by tmg110 at 8:34 AM EST
Post Comment | Permalink
Thursday, 13 November 2014
Whatever It Takes: Lousiana Edition
Topic: Politics & Elections

Sure, if you pay attention to American politics cynical calculation, two-facedness and plain dishonesty seem barely worthy of remark. But some cases are so glaring that they can’t be overlooked. Such a one is the Keystone pipeline conversion of Senator Mary Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana. Since no one gained a 50%+1 majority in the state's three-way midterm Senate race, Landrieu finds herself facing off against her main GOP challenger, Congressman Bill Cassidy, in a runoff election to be held in December. As things stand at the moment Cassidy is favored to win, providing Republicans with a ninth Senate pickup.

President Obama is highly unpopular in the Pelican State and this hurts Landrieu who like all Senate Democrats has been his loyal and craven enabler since 2009. A particularly sore point is energy policy, e.g. the Obama Administration’s opposition to the Keystone pipeline, a project whose completion would greatly benefit Louisiana’s economy. So what’s an embattled incumbent to do? Well! You’d never know it from her past record but Senator Landrieu is a Keystone hawk. All along she’s been writhing with frustration over the Obama Administration’s refusal to move on the project. So there she was on the Senate floor, demanding action on Keystone. And wouldn’t you know it: Landrieu’s Democratic colleagues in the Senate seem suddenly willing to hold a vote on Keystone. Of course, President Obama has signaled that he’ll veto any such bill if it reaches his desk…

Though Landrieu touted her support for Keystone during her original reelection campaign, the voters seemed unimpressed. But if at first you don’t succeed—double down on the cynical pandering! I doubt, however, that such lead-footed political two-stepping will save this past-her-sell-date hack from the fate that has already befallen eight of her Senate chums.


Posted by tmg110 at 8:52 AM EST
Post Comment | Permalink

Newer | Latest | Older