Combs Spouts Off

"It's my opinion and it's very true."

  • Calendar

    February 2026
    S M T W T F S
    1234567
    891011121314
    15161718192021
    22232425262728
  • Recent Posts

  • Tag Cloud

  • Archives

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Cheney shooting

Posted by Richard on February 15, 2006

OK, I’ll admit that Dick Cheney shooting a lawyer has been good for quite a few laughs. A friend of mine suggested there may have been a second shooter on a grassy knoll. That led me to wonder if Oliver Stone has begun work on the screenplay yet.

But isn’t it time to stop badgering poor Scott McClellan about this and move on? The Wall Street Journal, in a funny opinion piece about the "unanswered questions" surrounding the event, noted this shining moment in American journalism:

11:27 a.m., Monday. Mr. McClellan finally holds a press conference and gets grilled. One reporter actually asks (and we’re not making this one up), "Would this be much more serious if the man had died?"

For the record, Mr. McClellan replied, "Of course it would." 

It’s only gotten worse since. Why wasn’t the press notified immediately? What are Cheney and his pals hiding? Exactly how drunk was Cheney?

I think it’s time to remind the press that they have no business hounding Cheney about this. The shooting took place during a private weekend on a private ranch. What happened is a private matter between Cheney and Whittington. They’re both consenting adults, and Cheney shot Whittington on his own time. The shooting has no impact whatsoever on Cheney’s duties as Vice President. These reporters need to get over their unhealthy obsession with who Dick Cheney chooses to exchange birdshot with in the privacy of their own ranch.

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments »

Carnival of Liberty, Valentine edition

Posted by Richard on February 14, 2006

New World Man is hosting Carnival of Liberty #32, and Matt’s done a tremendous job! He’s put together a special "love of liberty" edition for Vaientine’s Day, complete with a candy heart for each entry and a selection of quotes about loving liberty.

The candy hearts aren’t just pictures of off-the-shelf hearts — Matt "customized" them appropriately for each carnival entry. For instance, Forward Biased’s Speaking of Denmark got a heart that says "LEGOS." The heart for my post about Hillary at the UAW convention reads "NO 2 HRC."

As if that weren’t enough, Matt has even provided a soundtrack!

This week’s Carnival has musical accompaniment! Libertarian love songs is a playlist of songs that celebrate the emancipating power of love. Awww! Here’s the accompaniment part: These songs also appear on the radio.blog on the right side of my home page (below the ad and the handsome picture), so listen along — detach the player by clicking ‘Pop-Up’ at the bottom and you can keep listening as you click the Carnival links and once you navigate away from this site. Use of the ‘Crossfader’ is recommended, too. 

Terrific job, Matt! I can’t do any reading right now, but if the posts are half as clever as your presentation (and I’m sure they are), this is one heck of a carnival!

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Gore jumps shark at Saudi seminar

Posted by Richard on February 14, 2006

Remember all the criticism by Michael Moore and the MoveOn crowd of the Bush family’s coziness with the House of Saud? Moore’s execrable little propaganda film made a big issue of the Bush administration letting rich Saudis — and especially members of the bin Laden family — leave the U.S. shortly after 9/11, suggesting there was something sinister going on. For instance, Moore said the administration let Saudis "escape" without being interrogated:

DID THESE INDIVIDUALS GET SPECIAL TREATMENT BY LAW ENFORCEMENT?

Yes, according to Jack Cloonan, a former senior agent on the joint FBI-CIA Al-Qaeda task force, who is interviewed in Fahrenheit 9/11. Cloonan raises questions about the type of investigation to which these individuals were subjected, finding it highly unusual that in light of the seriousness of the attack on 9/11, bin Laden family members were allowed to leave the country and escape without anyone getting their statements on record in any kind of formal proceeding, and with little more than a brief interview.

Most Saudis who left were not interviewed at all by the FBI. In fact, of the 142 Saudis on these flights, only 30 were interviewed.

So, what are we to make of Al Gore, the semi-official spokesranter of the MoveOn crowd, accusing the U.S. government of singling out Saudis for mistreatment? This past weekend, Gore addressed a Saudi economic forum — which, by the way, had disinvited the Danes because of the "blasphemous" cartoons:

JIDDAH, Saudi Arabia — Former Vice President Al Gore told a mainly Saudi audience on Sunday that the U.S. government committed "terrible abuses" against Arabs after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and that most Americans did not support such treatment.

Gore said Arabs had been "indiscriminately rounded up" and held in "unforgivable" conditions. The former vice president said the Bush administration was playing into al-Qaida’s hands by routinely blocking Saudi visa applications.

And all the bin Ladens that the evil Bushies helped to "escape"? They paid for the event (and maybe Gore’s speaking fee; no one’s saying):

The Saudi Arabia seminar that was addressed by former Vice President Al Gore over the weekend in a speech that criticized the U.S. for being too tough on Arabs was sponsored, in part, by Osama bin Laden’s family.

The Saudi BinLadin Group – which is Saudi Arabia’s largest construction company – is run by Osama bin Laden’s brothers and cousins. Jeddah, the site of the forum attended by Gore, is Osama bin Laden’s hometown.

Apparently, Gore will criticize the Bush administration in front of any audience for any reason. And his moonbat fans will praise and cheer him for it, no matter how irrational, nonsensical, contradictory, and false his accusations become. Glenn Reynolds characterized this particular bit of nonsense perfectly:

Only Al Gore could come up with the idea of criticizing Bush for not sucking up to the Saudis enough. Sigh.

Me, I’m thinking the novelty of Gore’s shtick has worn off, and he’s simply become tiresome. Can we all just thank our jucky stars that this moron didn’t become president, and then stop paying any attention to him?

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Weasel reads

Posted by Richard on February 14, 2006

If you haven’t had your fill of "comic jihad" or "cartoonistan" yet and are wondering where to find some fresh commentary and perspectives, check out the latest winning posts from the Watcher’s Council (or the complete list of nominees). The majority are about some aspect of the Danish cartoons story, and there are some very interesting and thoughtful posts.

Interestingly, though, the two winners aren’t about the cartoon issue. The top council entry was The Strata-Sphere’s 2006 Democrat Contract With Al Qaeda, a twist on the oft-heard suggestion that the Dems should/will try to emulate the GOP’s 1994 Contract with America. The winning non-council entry was The Anchoress’ Wellstoning the King Funeral, which had some unkind — and completely deserved — things to say about Jimmy Carter and Hillary Clinton.

The second-place finisher among non-council entries was The Pathetic Last Children of Nietzsche’s Pitiable Last Men, which I recommended — along with Van Der Leun’s The Voice of the Neuter is Heard Throughout the Land — last week. Curiously, the second-place council entry, ShrinkWrapped’s The Academy Awards, Pan-Sexuality, Narcissism, & Loneliness, seems tangentially related.

And don’t overlook New World Man’s The Flaw in Libertarianism, either:

The fellow with the brightest idea can’t do anything about it unless a great many people agree with him. That stinks when it’s your idea, but most ideas aren’t yours, and in fact most ideas are colossally bad ones, so in the main we compromise not being able to flip a switch and run things the way we want to so no one else can, either.

In this respect, Kleinheider’s right: libertarians aren’t interested in the dilution of anything, they want purity. When confronted with the reality they’ll never get it, they tend to bitch and sulk rather than compromise.

Sounds about right.

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Surprise! Hillary supports big government solution!

Posted by Richard on February 10, 2006

At the UAW conference Wednesday, Sen. Hillary Clinton quit moving to the center — heck, she reversed direction! Clinton echoed remarks to the same audience by socialist Rep. Bernie Sanders and perennial nutcase Ralph Nader, and embraced the idea that the problems of the American auto industry can best be solved by massive government subsidies, protectionism, regulations, and more direction and decision-making from Washington:

"The manufacturers and the UAW have called for a Marshall Plan. Let’s marshal our forces and get it done," Clinton said. "This is truly about the future of America."

Clinton echoed some of the other major themes the UAW is pushing, such as health care reform, limits on free trade agreements and research for energy-efficient technologies.

A "Marshall Plan" for the automobile industry — of course. How else can we rebuild all the bombed-out factories and infrastructure destroyed in the terrible war with Canada?

Oh, wait — there was no war with Canada, and there aren’t any bombed-out factories needing rebuilding. Here’s what the UAW means by a "Marshall Plan":

To stop the off-shoring of automotive jobs, the federal government should provide assistance to help auto manufacturers and auto parts companies retool and expand existing U.S. facilities to produce flexible fuel and advanced technology (hybrid, diesel, fuel cell) vehicles and their key components. In addition, to make sure there is a level playing field among all automotive companies, both domestically and internationally, this assistance should be structured so that it addresses the retiree health care costs of older automotive and other manufacturing companies. Please urge Representatives and Senators to strongly support legislation to establish this type of Marshall Plan for the U.S. automotive industry. Tell them this will create thousands of jobs for American workers and help protect the pensions and health care benefits that retirees have earned.

Yeah, we taxpayers need to subsidize the auto industry so they can continue to provide jobs like these for UAW members:

WAYNE — Ken Pool is making good money. On weekdays, he shows up at 7 a.m. at Ford Motor Co.’s Michigan Truck Plant in Wayne, signs in, and then starts working — on a crossword puzzle. Pool hates the monotony, but the pay is good: more than $31 an hour, plus benefits.

"We just go in and play crossword puzzles, watch videos that someone brings in or read the newspaper," he says. "Otherwise, I’ve just sat."

Pool is one of more than 12,000 American autoworkers who, instead of installing windshields or bending sheet metal, spend their days counting the hours in a jobs bank set up by Detroit automakers and Delphi Corp. as part of an extraordinary job security agreement with the United Auto Workers union.

The jobs bank programs were the price the industry paid in the 1980s to win UAW support for controversial efforts to boost productivity through increased automation and more flexible manufacturing.

Controversial efforts to boost productivity. So, in exchange for union permission to become more productive, auto makers agreed to spend billions paying "workers" not to produce anything. Riiight.

Some of the 12,000 "workers" in the jobs bank program don’t even have to "show up" anywhere — if they were laid off because their plant shut down, and if there isn’t another one within a reasonable driving distance, they just sit at home doing their crossword puzzles, and their checks come in the mail. $30 an hour, 40 hours a week, plus very generous benefits — total compensation of more than $120,000 a year. Year after year. There are "workers" who’ve been doing this for well over a decade.

And the problem isn’t just paying union "workers" to do nothing. There’s also the problem of paying somewhat above-market wages to get the grass around the factory cut:

… Just listen to Steve Miller a turnaround specialist who is steering Delphi’s restructuring process. He exploded the myth of America’s "endangered" union manufacturing jobs at his October press conference announcing Delphi’s move into Chapter 11: "We cannot continue to pay $65 an hour for someone to cut the grass and remain competitive."

Grass cutting is a manufacturing job?

Miller’s frank assessment of unsustainable labor contracts is a refreshing dose of candor in an industry that for too long has talked around union-labor costs in a way that is totally divorced from the realities of the U.S. labor market–much less the global labor market.

So where does the grass cutting come in? Well, the UAW has a rather expansive definition of what’s an auto worker (emphasis added):

As defined by the current United Auto Worker contract negotiated with the "Big Five" (GM, Ford, Chrysler, and top parts makers Delphi and Visteon), an auto "production worker" is a job description that covers anything from mowing grass to cleaning the toilets. In the real world, these jobs would be outsourced to $8 an hour, no-benefit wage earners, but on Planet Big Five, these jobs get the same wages as any auto line-worker: an average $26 an hour ($60,000 a year) plus benefits that bring the company’s total cost per worker to a staggering $65 an hour.

You’re probably thinking that the UAW must realize that things can’t continue as they are. You’re probably thinking that, after GM’s jaw-dropping $8.6 billion loss for 2005, the bankruptcy of Delphi, and all the other dire news out of Detroit, UAW president Ron Gettelfinger would be explaining reality to his members and preparing them to accept a more rational contract. If so, you wouldn’t be alone — but you’d be wrong:

Gettelfinger ought to be explaining to UAW members at General Motors Corp. (and Ford Motor Co. and DaimlerChrysler AG) the hard truth — openly and plainly — that above-market wages and lavish benefits were great while they lasted, but have come to an end. Trying to hold on to them to the bitter end will only cause companies to fail and lead to massive job losses.

He could explain the unpleasant reality that reducing pay and benefits will save companies and many jobs. Resisting the inevitable is futile, since judges can and will void union contracts.

Instead, the UAW leader asserted this week that the union is done granting concessions to faltering GM, which is just coming off an $8.6 billion annual net loss and whose bonds are rated as junk.

Gettelfinger can’t do the rational thing because there are too many people in his union who won’t stand for it. Many are already upset over the minimal concessions the union made last year, and there are grass-roots organizations clamoring for a more hard-line, confrontational stance. The unabashed socialists seem to be getting louder and stronger among the UAW rank and file.

So what’s a union to do when its policies are destroying the industry, but its members won’t face reality? Why, get the federal government to help, of course! Make the nation’s taxpayers support the auto workers in the style to which they’ve become accustomed! Hillary is more than happy to support such an effort. In fact, she beat the UAW to the punch, calling for massive government involvement back in October:

"The economic consequences of the government’s failure to address these matters will be severe," wrote Clinton, whose state stands to lose thousands of jobs if bankrupt Delphi Corp. closes plants in New York.

"A summit where everything can be put on the table, including legacy costs like health care and pensions, fuel efficiency, foreign competition and trade, could yield beneficial results and solutions for our auto industry."

A government summit to solve the problems of the auto industry. Reminds me of another government summit in which Hillary Clinton played a role. Maybe she could get Ira Magaziner to help out again.

I wonder if Sen. Clinton thinks the problems of the auto industry can be solved by making the federal government the sole provider of automobiles.

Full disclosure: I own 300 shares of Ford (which is actually doing much, much better in Asia than in the U.S., a big factor in my decision). But I’d rather see the share price rise because of actual company and industry improvements than because the feds shovel money at them.

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

We be English Geniuses, y’all!

Posted by Richard on February 9, 2006

OK, so I see this post on Eric’s Grumbles about a "Commonly Confused Words" test he took (he scored "English Genius").

Well, heck, I figure, I are a tech rider and he am an injun ear, so I shud beet him.

So I tuck the test. And I dun did beet him. Bearly (93% Expert vs. 86):

English Genius
You scored 100% Beginner, 100% Intermediate, 100% Advanced, and 93% Expert!
You did so extremely well, even I can’t find a word to describe your excellence! You have the uncommon intelligence necessary to understand things that most people don’t. You have an extensive vocabulary, and you’re not afraid to use it properly! Way to go!

Thank you so much for taking my test. I hope you enjoyed it!

For the complete Answer Key, visit my blog: http://shortredhead78.blogspot.com/.

My test tracked 4 variables

How you compared to other people your age and gender:

free online dating free online dating
You scored higher than 50% on Beginner
free online dating free online dating
You scored higher than 37% on Intermediate
free online dating free online dating
You scored higher than 63% on Advanced
free online dating free online dating
You scored higher than 79% on Expert

Link: The Commonly Confused Words Test written by shortredhead78 on Ok Cupid, home of the 32-Type Dating Test

It took me a minute to figure out the age and gender comparisons. I scored 100% on the Advanced questions, and that’s higher than 63% of test-takers of my age and gender. So, the remaining 37% of my cohort also scored 100%.

Hmm. There’s an anomaly in the results: only half of my age/gender cohort got all the Beginner items right, but nearly 2/3 got all the Intermediate items right. So, either the Intermediate items, on average, are too easy (or the Beginner items too hard), or the sample size is too small. Probably the latter; I suspect I’m well into the tail of the age distribution.

I missed one of the ten expert items (that’s 93%, not 90%, because some answers are worth 2 or 3 points). It involved a distinction between farther and further that’s tripped me up before.

It’s a pretty good test. I only had one quibble about a test item. You’re asked to fill in the blanks (from among the multiple choices) in this sentence:

The salad is tasty__ however, the soup tastes even __________.
a. : / best
b. : / better
c. ; / best
d. ; / better

Even if you choose the correct answer, however, there’s a problem with the sentence. However you fill in the blanks, the sentence bothers me. Do you know what I’m talking about?








This will mark me forever as an old prescriptivist fuddy-duddy, but I like the old William Strunk (later Strunk & White) rule about however: when used to mean nevertheless or on the other hand, it shouldn’t come first in a sentence or clause. As an interjection (my first sentence above), it’s OK. But you should only start a sentence or clause with however when it ‘s used as an adverb meaning in whatever way (my second sentence above). I’d rewrite the test item as:

The salad is tasty__ but, the soup tastes even __________.

Using but instead of however also satisfies the old rule that you should never use a big word when a diminutive one will suffice.

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

One more King funeral quote

Posted by Richard on February 8, 2006

Liberal law prof Eric Muller blogged in defense of Carter’s and Lowry’s politicization of Coretta Scott King’s funeral. I was struck by commenter Ardsgaine’s response, which made a great point (emphasis added):

A funeral shouldn’t be turned into a political debate. If some of the speakers decide to heap verbal abuse on some of the other attendees, then it’s only the forbearance of the ones being attacked that prevents it from becoming a free-for-all. Carter and the others who chose to attack Bush were counting on Bush to show more class and not get into a back-and-forth with them. Don’t you have a problem with that? That the dignity of the occasion was only preserved by Bush taking the high road? Where does that leave the Democrats?

I’m asking this question in earnest, because I don’t want to live in a one-party country. I don’t want a Pat Robertson presidency. I can see it coming though. It’s a race to the bottom, and the Democrats are way out in front. Instead of the my-party-right-or-wrong attitude, maybe you should start tugging on the reins just a little.

There have to be reasonable, well-intentioned, decent Democrats out there who do have a problem with that. There just have to be. I don’t want to live in a one-party country either — heck, I’m not too thrilled living in a two-party country. But right now, we’re desperately in need of a "loyal opposition" that doesn’t make average mainstream, reasonable Americans worry about our safety or shake our heads in disbelief and disgust.

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Utterly classless

Posted by Richard on February 8, 2006

Allow me to join the hundreds of bloggers who’ve expressed their displeasure at yet another funeral turned into a crude, classless partisan political rally. Rather than echo what others have said or point you to big name bloggers you’ve probably already read or can easily find, I thought I’d offer a sampling of sentiments you might have missed.

From Strange Women Lying in Ponds:

This is really too bad.  I can safely say that the vast majority of Americans treasure the Kings’ legacy (although I can think of a Democrat relative or two who didn’t like Dr. King at all in his day), and it is rather appalling that most of the attendees of this funeral were willing to turn it into a partisan circus.

From D.C. Thornton:

As I recover from a bad cold, I spent most of the day watching live coverage of funeral services for Las Vegas Metro Police Sgt. Henry Prendes.

Although I did not know Prendes personally, I was touched to the point of tears by the outpouring of love, respect, and admiration for a career police officer who answered the call of duty right to the very end. …

Meanwhile in suburban Atlanta, funeral services were held for the late Coretta Scott King. What should have been a dignified homage to memory of Martin Luther King Jr.’s widow and her legacy quickly turned into a crass and uncalled-for Bush-bashing circus.

There are places for partisan attacks; funerals aren’t one of them. The Democrats on the platform at King’s obsequies should be ashamed of themselves for their blatant showboating and “Wellstoning”.

From Watersblogged:

It was bad enough for Lowrey to turn the funeral of a woman whose husband sought to unite Americans into an opportunity to divide them, and to humiliate the President of the United States for political reasons. It was bad enough for a man preaching at the funeral of the widow of someone whose life was about ending irrational hate to use the opportunity to promote it. But for a man who has actually led this nation to use such a moment to undercut his successor even concerning an issue he feels strongly about is simply pathetic.

I continue to marvel that I was for so long an admirer and supporter of that small, irresponsible man, Jimmy Carter. And I wish that I could take two trips backward in time- one to change my vote to Gerald Ford in 1976, and the other to change it to Ronald Reagan in 1980.

From Catholic and Enjoying It:

Since politics takes the place of religion for the Left, they have developed the bad habit of taking fundamentally religious occasions (like the funerals of Coretta Scott King and Paul Wellstone) and turning them into cheap little 15 Minute Hates. Normal people are appalled by such crass acts, as they were by the Wellstone FuneRally

I oppose the war. But this was low and dishonorable.

From Publius’ Forum:

If you are a leftist, you do not have to be civil. Your hate, your ire, you incivility, your just plain not being nice can be on full display at any time, whether it is an "appropriate" time to display these character traits and emotions or not.

James Burnham once said of leftism that it "… is not a consciously understood set of rational beliefs, but a bundle of unexamined prejudices and conjoined sentiments. The basic ideas and beliefs seem more satisfactory when they are not made fully explicit, when they merely lurk rather obscurely in the background, coloring the rhetoric and adding a certain emotive glow.”

Apparently, that emotive glow trumps civility and comportment. A leftist is not required to be reserved or to observe public composure or rationality. …

From The Reform Club:

Paul Wellstone’s "mourners" — the out-of-town, nationally prominent Democrats who turned his memorial service into a political monster truck rally — thought the evening a rousing success. They had no idea that their behavior appalled all Minnesota. A lib has to sink pretty low to get scolded by the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, but they had negative altitude to spare.

There will be no such bucket of cold water this time. Mrs. King’s funeral will be spun clockwise and counterclockwise by platoons of pontificators, who have no idea how such shenanigans would have been viewed by her, or are viewed by those modest, ordinary, unremarked people who carry on her legacy. It’s too bad. Would that something could make Jimmy Carter as silent as his vice-president has been since 2002.

From Just My Opinion:

Why, of course, these people feel a need to stake out any side in the first place at a funeral of someone like Mrs. King, or Rosa Parks or, most infamously, Senator Wellstone speaks to their own desperation, pettiness and complete and total lack of, not only class but of real honest respect for the person being put to rest. It may be the ultimate application of the slogan "the personal is political" to turn something as persnal as a funeral into an occassion for trying to score cheap political points.

From Politechnical Institute:

Appalling desecration of Coretta Scott King’s funeral- turning it into a political whine-fest. The woman deserved more. A genuine heroine in the struggle for Civil Rights, the wife of Martin Luther King, Jr. stood by her man through tumultuous times- both for the nation and their marriage.

And that scumbag Jimmy Carter, who last week urged funding of Hamas, had the appalling nerve to use this historic figure’s funeral as an occasion to beat a political drum.

It’s beyond time for all Americans to see Carter and what’s left of the Democratic party for what they are. Vicious, hate-filled bigots who will stoop to any level to score political points.

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Voice of the neuter

Posted by Richard on February 8, 2006

I’ve been catching up on my reading and checking in on some blogs I haven’t visited in a while. One of those places was The Smallest Minority, where I was fortunate enough to find this exhortation from about a week and a half ago:

Two recent pieces I cannot recommend strongly enough:

Gerard Van Der Leun’s The Voice of the Neuter is Heard Throughout the Land, and Robert Godwin’s The Pathetic Last Children of Nietzsche’s Pitiable Last Men. Read them in order. Read them carefully. And be prepared to think about them pretty hard.

Knowing that Kevin’s strong recommendation is worth a lot, I did as I was told. Wow. Let me second his strong recommendation. The Van Der Leun piece in particular is simply must reading. It’s sort of about Joel ("I despise our troops") Stein. Specifically, it’s about Hugh Hewitt’s radio interview (a "full flensing") of Stein (I heard part of it live and can confirm Van Der Leun’s characterization, but follow his link and listen for yourself):

What is of interest to me here is not what Stein writes or says. His own words damn him more decisively than a thousand bloggers blathering blithely What interestest me is how he speaks.

You hear this soft, inflected tone everywhere that young people below, roughly, 35 congregate. As flat as the bottles of spring water they carry and affectless as algae, it tends to always trend towards a slight rising question at the end of even simple declarative sentences. It has no timbre to it and no edge of assertion in it.

The voice whisps across your ears as if the speaker is in a state of perpetual uncertainty with every utterance. It is as if, male or female, there is no foundation or soul within the speaker on which the voice can rest and rise. As a result, it has a misty quality to it that denies it any unique character at all.

The writing is wonderful, the point is powerful, and the closing is devastating — by all means go read it. And don’t skip the comments; there are some great ones. In fact, commenter Charles offered a poem I liked so much I’m reproducing the whole thing here:

Totally like whatever, you know?
By Taylor Mali

In case you hadn’t noticed,
it has somehow become uncool
to sound like you know what you’re talking about?
Or believe strongly in what you’re saying?
Invisible question marks and parenthetical (you know?)’s
have been attaching themselves to the ends of our sentences?
Even when those sentences aren’t, like, questions? You know?

Declarative sentences – so-called
because they used to, like, DECLARE things to be true
as opposed to other things which were, like, not –
have been infected by a totally hip
and tragically cool interrogative tone? You know?
Like, don’t think I’m uncool just because I’ve noticed this;
this is just like the word on the street, you know?
It’s like what I’ve heard?
I have nothing personally invested in my own opinions, okay?
I’m just inviting you to join me in my uncertainty?

What has happened to our conviction?
Where are the limbs out on which we once walked?
Have they been, like, chopped down
with the rest of the rain forest?
Or do we have, like, nothing to say?
Has society become so, like, totally . . .
I mean absolutely . . . You know?
That we’ve just gotten to the point where it’s just, like . . .
whatever!

And so actually our disarticulation . . . ness
is just a clever sort of . . . thing
to disguise the fact that we’ve become
the most aggressively inarticulate generation
to come along since . . .
you know, a long, long time ago!

I entreat you, I implore you, I exhort you,
I challenge you: To speak with conviction.
To say what you believe in a manner that bespeaks
the determination with which you believe it.
Because contrary to the wisdom of the bumper sticker,
it is not enough these days to simply QUESTION AUTHORITY.
You have to speak with it, too.

Bravo! Thank you, Charles, for bringing that to our attention. And thank you, Taylor Mali, for writing it and making it available on line. There are more like it at that link. Check out How to Write a Political Poem — absolutely marvelous!

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Lots of great reading

Posted by Richard on February 7, 2006

When you’re looking for worthwhile reading, the posts nominated by the Watcher’s Council are always worth checking out. The two posts at the top of the latest voting results complement each other nicely and are well worth your time. Both are by ex-liberals looking back at the events that helped bring them to their senses. The winning council post is New Sisyphus’ Our Liberties are Our Liberties, Even If, and Especially if, That Pisses Mohammed Off, which looks at the West’s responses to Islamist challenges, starting in 1989 with Ayatollah Khomeini’s fatwah against Salman Rushdie:

When Cody’s, the famous Berkeley bookstore, was fire-bombed for carrying The Satanic Verses, the reaction was not what I would have then expected, yet another nail in the coffin of my leftism. I tried to imagine if the muted reaction would have been the same if a militant Christian sect had bombed the store for carrying Chomsky and found myself laughing at the very thought.

The winning non-council post is A mind is a difficult thing to change–Part 6 B (After 9/11: war is interested in you), which is the latest installment in neo-neocon’s wonderful recounting of her slow journey out of the intellectual wasteland of New York liberalism. This rather long (5000 words) episode spans the period from 9/11/01 to the astonishingly rapid victory in Afghanistan, and like past installments, it’s fascinating, introspective, and insightful reading:

I was still regularly reading my old liberal sources (NY Times and Boston Globe, the New Yorker and even some new regulars such as the LA Times, the Guardian, and the New Republic). But now I was also reading the Telegraph and National Review, the Wall Street Journal and the Jerusalem Post, MEMRI and English versions of Arab papers, Canadian and Australian and Scottish ones, and the blogs–a vast cacophony of voices. And it was becoming clearer and clearer–at least to me–that the arguments in the media from the middle or the right were making more sense–and had more predictive value–than those emanating from the left.

It was as though I were sitting in a court of law as a member of the jury and being asked to decide a case. Before, I had heard only the presentation from one side. Now I heard both sides, and was trying to give both a fair hearing, and to approach my task without prejudice or preconceived notions. I was reluctantly coming to a certain distressing conclusion: more often than not, the voices on the left were less credible than those on the right.

Arnold Kling, in his TCS Daily column Stuck on 1968, provides yet another look back by a former liberal:

Given the state of knowledge in 1968, I can understand why an intelligent person might have believed in the Conventional Wisdom at that time. However, since 1968, considerable evidence has accumulated that challenges the Conventional Wisdom. In some cases, the evidence turned out to be so overwhelming that beliefs were quietly discarded from the Conventional Wisdom.

A rational response to this record of powerful evidence against the Conventional Wisdom might be to reconsider one’s views, as I have done. Instead, it seems to me that liberals have become more close-minded and more dogmatic.

For more great posts on a variety of freedom-related subjects, don’t miss Carnival of Liberty #31, hosted in no-nonsense fasion by Louisiana Libertarian Kevin Boyd.

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

google-search

Posted by Richard on February 7, 2006

Search
Combs Spouts Off
Google search is very thorough, but literal (finds words in blogroll, for instance).

Google

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Essential liberty, temporary safety

Posted by Richard on February 6, 2006

Over at Protein Wisdom, commenter Robert Crawford offered this great observation about the Mohammed cartoon kerfuffle:

Just a week ago, the left was arguing, in the most forceful way it knows—banners—the Ben Franklin quote about giving up liberty in exchange for freedom. Granted, they were starting with a distorted version of it, but the “essential liberty” they were concerned about surrendering was the right to make international phone calls to known terrorists without being listened to. The ACLU lawsuit admitted that was their concern.

Now, though, the loudest refrain—and not, admittedly, always from the same people—is that freedom has limits, and we need to be more sensitive, yadda yadda yadda.

Is there a more essential liberty than free speech? Than the ability to freely criticize a religion?

Is there a more temporary safety than appeasing religious fanatics? Than appeasing fanatics bent on world domination?

Let’s compare and contrast. A Danish newspaper printed the twelve cartoons below, and irate Muslim fanatics burned buildings and killed people.

Mohammed cartoons

Meanwhile, here in George W. Bush’s Amerikka, where civil liberties have been destroyed, regime opponents are being spied upon and suppressed, Christian fundamentalists are well on the way to imposing a theocracy, and we’re all victims of Rethuglican intolerance and repression, the Revolutionary Communist Party’s World Can’t Wait movement held an anti-Bush rally in Washington, D.C. this past Saturday.

One of the attendees at the (sparsely attended) World Can’t Wait rally was this smirking woman holding a poster showing Bush beheaded.

poster of Bush beheaded
The consequences for this over-the-top expression of displeasure with the President? She was scorned and ridiculed by Freepers ("She’s off her meds." "Her artwork needs a little help. Maybe she should sign up for Islamofascist Drawing Class 101."), Michelle Malkin, and Capt. Ed Morrissey, among others.

But if Zawahiri called to congratulate her for her efforts, I bet the NSA listened in.

BTW, in case you’re interested, that Free Republic post has more pictures of the rally, including one suggesting that there were about as many Port-a-Potties as demonstrators.

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

Support Denmark

Posted by Richard on February 4, 2006

Support Denmark

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Buy Danish!

Posted by Richard on February 3, 2006

Matt Donegan is lucky that he only lost his job. If he’d made hate-filled, bigoted comments about Muslims instead of blacks and women, he might have been forced to go into hiding in fear for his life, like the Danish cartoonists who dared draw pictures of Mohammed. And, no, their depictions were nowhere near as crude and insulting as Donegan’s blogging — but judge for yourself [Update: See small versions of the cartoons below] (cruder, more insulting cartoons of Mohammed were circulated in the Middle East, but they were never published — they were fakes created by Danish Muslim clerics apparently in order to inflame Muslims).

HNN blogger Judith Klinghoffer has lots of terrific posts about this issue — just keep scrolling.

Hamas has indeed begun to moderate. Judith pointed to this Reuters story from Gaza, which reported that some clerics were calling for "severing the heads of those responsible" or "the slaughter of those who harmed Islam and the Prophet," but Hamas supporters suggested a less extreme solution:

At a rally organized by the Islamic militant group Hamas, which won Palestinian parliamentary elections last week, as many as 50,000 protesters called for the cartoonists to be punished.

‘Let the hands that drew (the cartoons) be severed,’ they chanted.

To put Muslim outrage over these unflattering and mocking, but mild cartoons into perspective, Middle East media analyst Tom Gross gathered together some Arab cartoon depictions of Jews, Americans, and other non-Muslims, but his site is currently unavailable because he’s exceeded his bandwidth limit. Fortunately, Silent Running has made Tom’s 15 Arab cartoons available for your revulsion; this is what disgusting, hate-filled cartoons really look like. If you want to thank Silent Running, go to their Cafe Press store and order some "Buy Danish" gear.

Neal Boortz made up a long bullet list of things that didn’t provoke Muslim outrage — mostly things that involved beheadings, explosions, mass murders, etc. — and then argued:

Come on, is this really about cartoons? They’re rampaging and burning flags. They’re looking for Europeans to kidnap. They’re threatening innkeepers and generally raising holy Muslim hell not because of any outrage over a cartoon. They’re outraged because it is part of the Islamic jihadist culture to be outraged. You don’t really need a reason. You just need an excuse. Wandering around, destroying property, murdering children, firing guns into the air and feigning outrage over the slightest perceived insult is to a jihadist what tailgating is to a Steeler’s fan.

I know and understand that these bloodthirsty murderers do not represent the majority of the world’s Muslims. When, though, do they become outraged? When do they take to the streets to express their outrage at the radicals who are making their religion the object of worldwide hatred and ridicule? … 

Well, a few moderate Muslims have spoken out. A Jordanian editor printed three of the cartoons to show how mild they are and pleaded with his readers:

"Muslims of the world, be reasonable," said the editor-in-chief of the weekly independent newspaper Al-Shihan in an editorial alongside the cartoons, including the one showing the Muslim religion’s founder wearing a bomb-shaped turban.

"What brings more prejudice against Islam, these caricatures or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras or a suicide bomber who blows himself up during a wedding ceremony in Amman?" wrote Jihad Momani.

Momani was fired. So far, no reports of his head being found anywhere.

In the West, where it’s easier for Muslims to speak out, the Free Muslim Coalition condemned Muslim reaction against the cartoons and concluded:

When will Muslims wake up and realize that their intolerance of opposing opinions is keeping them in the dark ages? When will Muslims realize that respect must be earned and not forced through violence and coercion? When will Muslims realize that individual liberty and freedom of expression are fundamental human rights? When will American Muslim organization provide solutions to Muslims rather than instigate problems? The Free Muslims Coalition hopes that the answer to all these questions is soon.

But the most passionate, stirring statement on this subject came from Muslim apostate and author of Why I Am Not a Muslim, Ibn Warraq:

Unless, we show some solidarity, unashamed, noisy, public solidarity with the Danish cartoonists, then the forces that are trying to impose on the Free West a totalitarian ideology will have won; the Islamization of Europe will have begun in earnest. Do not apologize.

This raises another more general problem: the inability of the West to defend itself intellectually and culturally. Be proud, do not apologize. Do we have to go on apologizing for the sins our fathers? Do we still have to apologize, for example, for the British Empire, when, in fact, the British presence in India led to the Indian Renaissance, resulted in famine relief, railways, roads and irrigation schemes, eradication of cholera, the civil service, the establishment of a universal educational system where none existed before, the institution of elected parliamentary democracy and the rule of law? …

… The west is the source of the liberating ideas of individual liberty, political democracy, the rule of law, human rights and cultural freedom. It is the west that has raised the status of women, fought against slavery, defended freedom of enquiry, expression and conscience. No, the west needs no lectures on the superior virtue of societies who keep their women in subjection, cut off their clitorises, stone them to death for alleged adultery, throw acid on their faces, or deny the human rights of those considered to belong to lower castes.

Go read the whole thing. Please!

Then join the Support Denmark campaign. Or buy something Danish — here’s a list of suggestions, complete with links.

"I Support Denmark" over Danish flag

UPDATE: I’m belatedly joining the "Muhammad Cartoons Blogburst" suggested by E.L. Core and promoted by Michelle Malkin (I think I’m number 150-something). Here are all twelve offending Danish cartoon images of the prophet, the ones for which people are being threatened with beheading, butchering, or (from the more moderate Islamists) cutting off of the hands:

Does that strike you as pretty tame stuff? Mocking, but not exactly vicious or hate-filled? Much ado about very little? Me too.

Technorati:  

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

Fired for blogging?

Posted by Richard on February 3, 2006

A loyal reader in the City of Brotherly Love clued me in on an interesting story from neighboring Delaware. A Dover Post reporter was fired because of what he wrote on his blog:

Matt Donegan, a copy editor and reporter for the newspaper, was fired by Dover Post Editor Don Flood after a reader reported the blog entries to Sussex County radio talk-show host Dan Gaffney.

Flood said some of the blog entries were "extremely offensive and just contrary to what we believe here."

Donegan, 24, said his firing is "a freedom-of-speech issue, and I don’t think I was treated fairly in this case."

"What I wrote … was rude, but it doesn’t make it wrong," he said.

My Philly friend wondered if this isn’t something like being fired for smoking at home. I don’t think so. For starters, you have to understand that this low-life was spouting some pretty vile racist and misogynist crap on his blog. Plus, he revealed himself to be an ignorant clod (he thinks Alaska is an island). The Philadelphia Weekly’s blog, Philadelphia Will Do, has some choice excerpts. Warning: that link may not be work-safe due to language and point of view.

Donegan has, of course, contacted the ACLU, EFF, etc., and insists that he has a right to write what he wants on his own time at his own blog. Well, of course he does. But Don Flood has a right to staff his newspaper with reporters who aren’t ignorant, bigoted misogynists.

Donegan wasn’t working as a welder, biologist, or accountant, where one might argue that his personal opinions expressed on his own time are irrelevant to his work. Jack put it well in a comment to that Philadelphia Will Do post:

If I had a writer who made racist comments, including saying he hates covering sports events at a majority-black school, and that writer was who I sent out to cover those areas in an objective manner…don’t you think that would raise eyebrows?

My guess is it would do more than raise eyebrows. Would it bother you to learn that a cop was a member of the KKK? The opinions and beliefs (and general ignorance) of a reporter — no matter where or when expressed — can’t be irrelevant to the reporter’s work because of the nature of that work.

I don’t believe in the liberal myth of journalistic objectivity — it neither exists nor is desirable. For instance, I have nothing but contempt for the clowns at CNN, Reuters, etc., who refuse to "take sides" between Western Civilization and Islamofascism. But it’s exactly because reporters can’t and shouldn’t have no beliefs and opinions that their employers can and should be concerned about those beliefs and opinions. Donegan may say, a la the current J-school orthodoxy, "I’m on the clock now, working as a reporter, so I’ve switched off my personal beliefs and opinions. I’ve become completely objective." But that’s as big a load of crap as anything on his blog; you can’t do that, you can only pretend.

If the person we’re relying on for an objective, fair, reliable description of events turns out to be a highly biased, hate-filled ignorant ranter — well, I’d kick him out on his ass, and fast.

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »