NRO's The Corner: Obamacare ‘like a house on fire’ with more flammable parts yet to come

amazing that the lol @ maggie havent been deleted (yet)

^ comments I mean. earlier k-lo posted her usual lukewarm oatmeal about the catholic synod and got her ass handed back by the corner's reliably homophobic professional catholics. they're incredible, literally "more catholic than the pope" and utterly lacking what the nuns used to call the virtue of humility.

heard George Weigel on NPR today in the car and underneath his usual condescending bluster he sounded worried.

I had to mention George Will's column

One of the wonders of this political moment is feminist contentment about the infantilization of women in the name of progressive politics. Government, encouraging academic administrations to micromanage campus sexual interactions, now assumes that, absent a script, women cannot cope. And the Democrats’ trope about the Republicans’ “war on women” clearly assumes that women are civic illiterates.

it gets better

KEEP NRO WEIRD

https://twitter.com/reihan/status/525737392842752000

Gourd Opinion Haver ‏@SeanRMoorhead 17h17 hours ago

.@reihan I am a licensed sexual orientation reparative therapist in Provo. Put me on the reverse racism beat and you'll never regret it.

A Question of the Hour
By Jay Nordlinger

In recent years, I’ve had several occasions to go to Norway, and a visit to that country will make you think about immigration, assimilation, and all that jazz. So will a visit to Holland, for example. Anyway, I returned from Norway a couple of days ago.

While there, I thought of something Mark Steyn said — one of his greatest Broadway analogies ever. Some people think that a new Europe will be essentially like a cast change of Hello, Dolly! You may remember the “black Hello, Dolly!” (starring the great Pearl Bailey). Sure, the cast was of a different color. The show had a different flavor. But it was still Hello, Dolly!

Will Europe be that way? Will Norway still be Norway, only in hijab?

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/391152/question-hour-jay-nordlinger

How fucking dumb are these guys

You may remember the “black Hello, Dolly!”

Actually, no, since I'm not obsessed with maintaining our culture's racial purity, I do not remember that.

greatest broadway analogies

"Would The Book of Mormon be the same if it was performed by Muslim actors and instead of singing it was beheadings?"

The show had a different flavor. But it was still Hello, Dolly!

how pissed was Nordlinger to find out HD's title already had an exclamation point

man the 20th century was pretty gnarly huh dudes

https://twitter.com/HeerJeet/status/526750972341927936

(keep scrolling)

Benjamin Dueholm ‏@bendueholm 12m12 minutes ago
@HeerJeet They never do though. When Buckley died the eulogies were all about binge drinking and the harpsichord. Race politics vanished

Okay, let me give you a domestic version of the Africa business. Years ago, I spoke with a judge in West Virginia — a die-hard liberal Democrat who, as a young man, had worked with Sargent Shriver in the War on Poverty. I asked him, “Did it do any good?” Quietly, and with sadness, he said, “No.”

If an arch-right-winger like me says that — or even the best economist at the Cato Institute — that’s one thing. But for him to say that — I was kind of moved.

goole's friend is back:

For the Left, particulars do not matter: It does not matter whether Michael Brown was in fact shot in the back with his hands raised in a gesture of surrender, or whether that University of Virginia student did in fact suffer the horrific gang-rape described in Rolling Stone. For the Left, this is all tribal, white hats vs. black hats. Fraternity members and police officers are, in their view, by definition on the wrong side of every dispute. That is why we have such rhetorical inventions as “rape culture” and pervasive white supremacy—these are metaphysical propositions that cannot be disproved, because they are not subject to evidence. If the particulars do not support the general case, then the particulars either are ignored or are dismissed as lies produced by a conspiracy.

For the Left, this is a bit of a problem insofar as it touches police, because the Left believes in effectively unlimited state power. It is difficult to reconcile a taste for unfettered state power with a belief that those entrusted with that unfettered power are violent and psychopathic white supremacists.

If you doubt that this is a fundamentally tribal question, consider this: What would the Left’s reaction be if police officers were being hauled in on charges of sexually abusing children as frequently as public-school teachers are? We’d have presidential speeches and blue-ribbon commissions up to our lumbar clefts if that were the case. But public-school teachers are white hats, in the Left’s view, while police are black hats.

just magnificent

consider this

decries rhetorical inventions. promptly uses a rhetorical invention.

What would the Left’s Right's reaction be if police officers were being hauled in on charges of sexually abusing children as frequently as public-school teachers priests are?

something along the lines of "allowing homosexualists to become cops opened the gates to perversion" no doubt

I don't even understand Williamson's question, no matter how many times I've read it.

it actually makes LESS sense the more you "think" about it

this is genuinely dazzling work

false equivalence is the fallacy of our time

the answer is, i'd be happy? i think i'd be happy about that.

We need to close the year with a post from NRO's house intellectual Kevin Williamson:

To add just one thing to Quin’s excellent observations: Some of my lefty/opportunistic correspondents have asked: “How could something like this possibly happen? How could somebody accept an invitation to speak to a group without being sure what that group is about?”

Answer: Easily, in my experience.

Like politicians, opinion writers receive a great many invitations to deliver talks about the things we care about. I imagine that Steve Scalise gets a great many more than I do. But I myself have, within recent memory, accepted an invitation to give a talk (I believe it was to be about the national debt) to a perfectly respectable-sounding organization (Something Somethings for Liberty, I think) that turned out to be something else: Birchers, in this case, not David Duke nut clusters. I withdrew when I discovered what they were about. But it is not difficult to imagine that if I had a politician’s packed speaking schedule rather than my own comparatively leisurely one, I might have shown up and given my entitlement-reform talk to a bunch of people who think that Dwight Eisenhower was a Soviet agent.

On the other hand, it is more difficult to explain away all those photos of noted Democratic and progressive leaders in the company of Louis Farrakhan. Is there anybody who doesn’t know what he is about?

https://twitter.com/NRO/status/560890219897974784

boom

jews aren't white, the UN told me so

I need to poll these:

Following up on Joel’s post about Governor Jindal’s comments on assimilation yesterday, here’s my top-ten list of what we should expect from those who want to become Americans (and those who are already Americans, for that matter). The list was first published in a National Review Online column nearly 15 years ago, and it was fleshed out in this congressional testimony seven years later:

1. Don’t disparage anyone else’s race or ethnicity.

2. Respect women.

3. Learn to speak English.

4. Be polite.

5. Don’t break the law.

6. Don’t have children out of wedlock.

7. Don’t demand anything because of your race or ethnicity.

8. Don’t view working and studying hard as “acting white.”

9. Don’t hold historical grudges.

10. Be proud of being an American.

My list and Governor Jindal’s appear, unsurprisingly, to be similar — especially, per Joel’s post, with regard to my last item.

1. Be proud of anyone's race or ethnicity.
2. Don't disparage anyone's historical grudges.
3. Respect children out of wedlock.
4. Don't demand to speak English because "acting white."
5. Don't view working and studying hard as "being an American."

If it weren't for the fact that every item on that list can be viewed as racist code, one might view it as pretty innocuous.

"Don't hold historical grudges" is my fave on there; totally a reasonable request.

"Sure your grandparent's generation violently suppressed my grandparent's generation but I see no point in thinking about that now; doesn't inform our modern world in any way."

"No backsies"

That Was Then, This is NRO

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-square/2015/02/rich_lowry_hates_tables_and_gr054151.php#

Lowry's editorial in Politico re the Vox interviews with Obama is petty and snarls and that's not even getting into his comparison of Ezra Klein to Leni Riefenstahl. Lowry's invocation of "traditional marriage" and his venom re spending, taxes and regulation is comically cliche at this point.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/vox-obama-rich-lowry-115134.html#ixzz3RjdjDVQp

Holding historical grudges is the national pastime in the American South.

regional pastime, please

http://c10.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/styles/original_image_with_cropping/public/homepage-featured-image/miley2.jpg?itok=a98-H1_e

by Fred Schwarz February 19, 2015 6:29 PM

I think Obama does love America; he just has a funny way of showing it. Some people see love as a partnership: “I love you, so I want to support you and reassure you and help you achieve all your goals.” But there’s also the type of person who sees love as a project: “You’re a total mess, but because I love you, I’m going to make you lose 20 pounds and get rid of those awful clothes and find you some new friends to hang out with and tell you what to read and improve your taste in wine and get that squeaky sound in your car fixed and maybe get you off your butt a little bit on weekends, darling.” Obama’s love for America is of the second type.

whadda maroon

by JAY NORDLINGER

February 22, 2015 10:21 PM

1) The host can’t stop stoking racial grievance. Great — exactly what America needs. 2) The idea that women don’t have equal rights in this country is a lie — a lie that, year after year, does harm. 3) Harry Belafonte is the opposite of a humanitarian: the loyal supporter of one of the most brutal dictatorships of our times, the Castro regime in Cuba, which has imprisoned, tortured, and killed thousands of innocent people.

sounds more like a list of demands

most otm corner comment ever, amid the homophobic campfire circle on a thread about the Atlanta fire chief

I have a lot of gay friends, every single one of them says they knew by 9 years old that they were gay. My guess is that most of them (gay people). Would say something similar. Are you going to tell me that's a choice? Or do you think maybe it's genetic? I don't think this guy should have been fired but can we stop with this fiction that people are really choosing this. Are there some people who might experiment or be unsure? Of course but for the vast majority this is who they are and apologies to lady gags but they were born that way. I wish you guys would stop acting like gay people are doing something wrong. It almost seems like you think they are gay to piss you off

there's also a sliver of a good idea in J-Goldberg's post about blacks and Hollywood but it's buried in balderdash.

by Deroy Murdock March 3, 2015 10:37 AM

As Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses a joint session of Congress today, controversy continues to rage over whether House speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) should have invited him without consulting Obama. As it happens, Boehner did alert the White House an hour before the speech was announced. Whether or not that counts as consultation is an open question. It’s worth noting though that Congress is a separate and co-equal branch of government. If Congress wants to hear someone speak, it does not have to get permission first from Obama or anyone else in the White House. At some point in the near future, Congress, or at least the Senate, may have to approve or reject whatever deal Obama makes with Iran. America’s duly-elected legislators have every right and power to summon whomever they wish to give them information and perspectives to help them make decisions on any such agreement, as well as broader American policy on the Middle East. Bibi accepted an invitation extended to him by Boehner. Bibi was under no obligation to check and see if Obama “approved” of Congress’ invitation. Bibi is the most blameless character in this story.

If the prime minister were trying to weedle his way onto the House podium without permission, I would be all for keeping him from speaking, or at least for legislators boycotting his appearance. But as it happens, Bibi was asked to address both houses of Congress. And both houses of Congress he should and shall address. Members of both parties and both chambers should listen to his outlook and then meditate on and debate the merits of his message. This is how democracies operate. If Obama can’t handle that, he can ask to address a joint session of Congress and offer his own views on how to handle Iran and the rest of the blazing inferno that we affectionately call the Middle East. If the president does not appreciate the fact that Boehner did not consult him before making a decision, perhaps he now knows how Congress feels about his relentless rule by decree. Obama did not consult Congress before issuing his executive orders on amnesty, nor on the numerous unilateral changes he made to Obamacare. As he himself is fond of saying, he’s “gone around Congress” numerous times, as a matter of course. Indeed, Obama plans to structure his intended atomic agreement with Iran in such a way that Congress cannot approve or reject it, either.

As he has so many times before, the president hopes to issue an Iran deal like a pronouncement from the throne. So, before the administration continues its tantrum over not being consulted, it should consider consulting Congress when it wants new laws written or old laws revised. This is how we do things in America. Obama should leave the decrees to his friends in Tehran.

It’s worth noting though that Congress is a separate and co-equal branch of government.

i think this is right, it's been kinda weird seeing the big critics of executive power (to the detriment of the other branches of government) defending its exclusivity in this case. (nb i understand foreign affairs, or at the very least inviting foreign leaders maybe be different but still it's a weird argument to lean on that this is insulting to the executive.)

Limbaugh Says Obama Treats Netanyahu 'Like A White Policeman From Ferguson' 42 minutes ago

still it's a weird argument to lean on that this is insulting to the executive

how is this weird. it's insulting to the executive.

Bc the executive should have less power not possibly made up new powers