Favorite poster from NR's "The Corner"

It is, but at the same time, it's almost what I would expect from her -- something completely batshit that she appears to be arguing for with a straight face.

lollllllll at wanting to pick a fact-check fight

Lowry has the right idea:

Wilson [Rich Lowry]

It's not even a close call: Shouting at the president during a joint address to Congress is juvenile and uncivil. Now, cocktail-party invitations can be addressed to NR World Headquarters. I'll have a double vodka straight-up. Belvedere, please.

He'd need to get drunk to try and forget his passing Palin fling.

Maybe those double Belvederes provoked the starbursts of joy.

http://www.enrincon.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/mr-belvedere.jpg

Belvedere, please.

Friday, September 11, 2009

No Logo Art for 9/11 [Jonah Goldberg]

Over at Google.

09/11 08:07 AMShare

whole damn thing is like that today

Boy, the NRO people are OBSESSED with the Google logo and when it changes and what for. I mean literally obsessed.

So what would they propose for a 9/11 Google logo? An extra "l", with smoke billowing out of both?

A giant poster of WFB, Jr., with the reflection of the Twin Towers twinkling in his merry eyes.

omigod Jay Nordlinger and his phony aw-shucks tone:

Funny about our new president. He seems to reserve his harshest words, and biggest stick, for two little, struggling democracies: Honduras and Israel. (Obviously, Israel faces greater challenges than Honduras, no matter what shape the Central American country is in.) Would that he were a fraction as tough on bad regimes — Iran’s, North Korea’s, Sudan’s, Venezuela’s, Cuba’s, Syria’s — as he is on those little democracies Israel and Honduras. Funny, this president.

By the way, he called Chávez “mi amigo” — his friend. Would he call Micheletti that? Even Uribe? He yukked it up with Daniel Ortega (over the Bay of Pigs). Would he yuk it up with Micheletti?

Curious, our new American president.

P.S. He doesn’t accept the legitimacy of Honduras’s government. Does he accept the legitimacy of Cuba’s?

Israel a "struggling" democracy? And we have no formal diplomatic relations with Cuba, so the answer to the last question is "No."

When did Obama "yuk it up" with Ortega?

When did Obama "yuk it up" with Ortega?

He made some joke about a big anti-American Ortega rant, he thanked Ortega for not blaming him for the Bay of Pigs invasion as he wasn't even born at the time or something.

heh "making fun of me" must read like "yukking it up with me" to these dudes

The whole thing is worth posting:

A Tale of Two Liberals [Jonah Goldberg]
One is nice, the other less so. See if you can guess which is which. The asterisks are mine, for the record. Liberal 1:

Jonah, you ignorant schmuck,

"Or consider Rousseau. This is a particular problem for me. I have some harsh words for Rousseau in my book. But I have some friends and acquaintances I admire who just love Rousseau. They say I'm reading him wrong. And as they are close students of the man and I am not, it's often very hard for me to win that argument.

You have the self-awareness of a curtain. On what f**king planet does can this be considered an expression of serious reading and thinking? You admit you haven't really read Rousseau in any detail, but you feel you can make confident generalizations about what he stood for.

Point me towards a passage in The Social Contract, or any of Rousseau's discourses, or any of his writings (surely there's a proto-Robespierre-type passage in La Nouvelle Heloise!) where his ideas come anywhere close to justifying mass slaughter, or slaughter of any kind.

Seriously. Get off you fat ass and read. What does Rousseau actually say? I know it must be hard work to actually consider what a thinker ACTUALLY WRITES, as opposed to the cliches that some invented caricature of a thinker stands for (your preferred method), but if you want to make arguments and stand by them, do the actual work of f**king reading the f**king work, for f**k's f**king sake.

But when I say, "Hey, look, Robespierre and the Jacobins were even closer students of Rousseau's and they found something in there that sanctioned the Terror. Did they all misread Rousseau?" And their basic answer is "yes." To which I say, okay, but does that really let Rousseau completely off the hook? If there's something in there that led very smart people to believe there was a philosophical and moral writ to slaughter thousands and erase society surely that should count against Rousseau on some level, even if it's only an indictment against his clarity of thought and writing. No?

What the f**k does this even mean? What "smart people" were led to believe that there was a moral and philosophical justification for slaughter during the French Revolution? Does Robespierre count as some kind of "intellectual?" And what the f**k do you mean by "erase society?"

As far as Rosseau's clarity of thought, read his actual writing and not just what some Republican "intellectual" has to say about him. I think you'll find he was a pretty clear and limpid writer, and even a cursory glance at The Social Contract should show you that his political ideal was the small city-state of responsible, often-participating citizens, not the Committee of Public Safety.

F**king hell. You're f**king hopeless.

[Name withheld]

And, liberal 2:

"But when I say, "Hey, look, Robespierre and the Jacobins were even closer students of Rousseau's and they found something in there that sanctioned the Terror. Did they all misread Rousseau?" And their basic answer is "yes." To which I say, okay, but does that really let Rousseau completely off the hook? If there's something in there that led very smart people to believe there was a philosophical and moral writ to slaughter thousands and erase society surely that should count against Rousseau on some level, even if it's only an indictment against his clarity of thought and writing. No?"

As I'm rarely going to have the opportunity to write to say that I agree with you 100%, let me make the most of this moment now! And, to tell you a story that could come straight out of "liberal professors run amuk on campus": both my husband and I were philosophy majors in college. Both of us were, and are, liberal Democrats. Both of us were told (me once, he twice) that we simply didn't "understand" Marx. (Which goes to show that in our case at least, liberals don't always equal Marxists...and don't get me started in Engels...) In my husband's case, the ensuing "misunderstanding" was enough that the professor gave him a lower grade in a six credit course; enough that he ended up graduating magna instead of summa.

On the other hand, I've also been told that I have "misread" or "misunderstood" Burke, Locke, Hobbes, Smith and Friedman, to name a few off the top of my head. Oddly, it is always conservatives (on campus and continuing up until today, since there are some of us who actually continue to read this stuff) who tell me this. Coincidence?

Funny how "misreading" sounds a lot like "disagrees with me" isn't it?

Thanks for the post. (I'm very anti-Rousseau myself.) Keep up the good work at NRO,

Liberally yours,

[Name withheld]

My pick for best K-Lo post ever:

When Sex Is Just Sex [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

Women seem to find it easier to handle if they don't have to think about it:

Millions of women drink alcohol before having sex because they lack confidence in their bodies, a study has found.

Almost half of those questioned said they preferred sex while under the influence of alcohol because it helped them to lose their inhibitions and be more adventurous.

Researchers, who surveyed 3,000 women aged between 18 and 50, found the average woman has slept with eight men, but was drunk with at least five of them.

On two of these occasions they couldn't even remember the man's name the next day.

k lol!

ugh man, just the thought

yummy

K-Lo is a virgin right?

Examine her tri-cornered hat.

not enough money in the world

lololol

Rereading the stuff upthread posted before Election Day made me lol so hard that my boss looked over and scowled.

Caption this:

http://lonestartimes.com/images/Benzion/jonah_goldberg_in_car.jpg

in my car at target - m4m - 40 (d.c.)
Date: 2009-09-23, 9:36 AM PDT
Reply To This Post

hey. chilling in my car at target, waiting for a bro to come along. just looking to kick back, talk politics, see where it goes. send photo.

"can't decide whether driving while drunk or texting while driving is worse until I've done both, knowwhatImean?"

When Sex Is Just Sex [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

Women seem to find it easier to handle if they don't have to think about it:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1215262/One-20-women-NEVER-sex-sober-lack-body-confidence.html?ITO=1490

Millions of women drink alcohol before having sex because they lack confidence in their bodies, a study has found.

Almost half of those questioned said they preferred sex while under the influence of alcohol because it helped them to lose their inhibitions and be more adventurous.

Researchers, who surveyed 3,000 women aged between 18 and 50, found the average woman has slept with eight men, but was drunk with at least five of them.

On two of these occasions they couldn't even remember the man's name the next day.

that picture may be one of the saddest pictures i've ever seen

Is he strapped to the seat?

the daily mail picture editors are amazing at their jobs

bonus points for misreading a daily mail misreading of a shitty misleading poll (carried out by "femfresh" which i gather is a hygiene product company?)

xps

even more heights of amazingness

Just One of the Obtuse Lines from Obama's Speech to the U.N. -- By: Peter Kirsanow

"And I pledge that America will always stand with those who stand up for their dignity and their rights -- for the student who seeks to learn; the voter who demands to be heard; the innocent who longs to be free; the oppressed who yearns to be equal." Except, of course, if they happen to be Iranian dissidents.

Galactic obliviousness from someone who doesn't normally lack even an iota of self-awareness.

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/7562/sizeqd8.jpg

I DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT IRANIAN DISSIDENTS

from that daily mail thing:

What's really amazing is the fact that despite the poor body image, so many women are so pretty while men are not always so. I see so many mediocre-looking men who have mediocre careers, who do not dress well or have the best hygiene with some extremely beautiful, intelligent, and classy women. In fact studies have shown that evolution has caused women to become markedly more beautiful over the last several thousand years while men are still as ugly as they were during the caveman era. So many women bend over backwards to please their men and many men do not even know when their woman has to fake an orgasm just to make her man proud. And yet women are not confident about themselves!!! How is this???!!!

- Rajeev Kumar, Chicago, USA, 23/9/2009 19:01

poor rajeev. poor, sensitive rajeev.

How is this???!!!

Lifestyle Options [Mark Steyn]

The Mamas and the Papas and the kid. Mackenzie Phillips:

"I Slept With My Own Father," Reveals Daughter Of The Mamas And The Papas Singer John Phillips

One day at a time, for ten years. Three-quarters of the Mamas and Papas are dead, which would appear to be statistically improbable. But don't worry, the "free love" crowd stuck around long enough to leave a lot of sad damaged people in their wake. California dreamin' on such a winter's day . . .

none of that sounds like a lifestyle option to me.

Yes, clearly Denny Doherty's death at 66 from an abdominal aneurysm is attributable to the free love generation.

I wonder what Mark Steyn would say about the website for conservative Furries.

the website for conservative Furries.

By now I shouldn't be surprised at anything that appears after the words "the website for" yet here we are again.

hahahaha

Is Obama Naïve? [Michael Ledeen]

I don't think so. I think that he rather likes tyrants and dislikes America. I think he'd like to be more powerful, I think he is trying to get control over as much of our lives as he can, so that he can put an end to the annoying tumult of our public life. As when he said (about health care) to the Congress, "Okay, you've talked enough, now it's time to do the right thing (my thing)." And he's trying to end American power in the outside world. He's saying "I'm going to stop us, before we kill again."

There is nothing unusual about elitist hatred of freedom. Back in the 18th century, when book publishing really got going, British authors were infuriated that they had to submit to the judgment of a marketplace. They didn't want to be judged by people who were obviously inferior to them, and there was a great rage among the intelligentsia, including some very famous men. And in modern times, we can all name famous intellectuals who fawned all over Mussolini, Stalin, Fidel, and even Hitler.

American politics are very fractious, and always have been. Leaders are constantly frustrated, and some of them come to yearn for an end to our freedom. They think they know best, they just want to tell us what to do and have us shut up and do it. I think Obama is one of them. He's not naïve. It's different. He doesn't like the way things work here, he thinks he can do much better, and he's possessed of the belief that America has done a lot of terrible things in the world, and should be prevented from doing such things ever again. The two convictions mesh perfectly. It's The Best and the Brightest run amok.

Democratic leaders' envy of tyrants' power can be understood. But it can't be forgiven.

Yup he's a crazy person.

Rich Lowry again comes off as the least crazy person in the room:

Liking Tyrants and Disliking America [Rich Lowry]

That's way over-board. It's a horrible speech, accompanied by dreadful policies from Honduras to Eastern Europe. But it's not that Obama positively likes tyrants and thugs. It's just that he thinks the policies we'd want to see him adopt vis-a-vis those countries are flatly mistaken, short-sighted, not worth the cost, or all three. E.g., I'd like to see him prevent a Taliban takeover of a chunk of Afghanistan. But if he pulls out and (based on a political judgment or flawed cost-benefit analysis) adopts a stand-off strategy that allows the Taliban to regain lots of territory in Afghanistan and perhaps even topple the government, I'd never conclude that he therefore likes the Taliban. There's no doubt that Obama has an allergy to American power and a hostility to American exceptionalism, but, alas, these tendencies themselves are firmly within the American tradition. Is he left-wing and very wrong? Of course. But he's not rooting for the Basij militia.

someone send an e-mail to steyn with the subject line "lifestyle options" and include this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Markoff

Friends, neighbors and former teachers expressed shock and disbelief at the charges.[10][11] A classmate of Markoff's who had travelled with him to attend speeches given by Ann Coulter and Karl Rove stated, "We were surrounded by such a left-wing student body, and he was more like me: he didn’t really share those sentiments. He was a traditionalist as far as things like men and women’s roles in society. He was a throwback from a more conservative era." [12]

And of course Andy McCarthy is the craziest:

Obama Likes Tyrants and Dislikes America . . . and Here's More Proof [Andy McCarthy]

Michael hits the nail on the head . . . and then comes this: The Obama administration has notified Congress of the State Department's intention to contribute $400,000 to foundations run by Muammar Qaddafi's two children — $200,000 each for daughter Aisha and son Saif. Saif, you may recall, is the son who escorted the Lockerbie terrorist Abdel Baset al-Megrahi home to a hero's welcome in Libya after President Obama sternly "warned" Qaddafi that there was to be no hero's welcome.

Illinois Republican congressman Mark Steven Kirk (House Appropriations Subcommittee on State/Foreign Operations) has sent Obama a letter asking him to rescind the funding.

Could somebody please tell this president that this is not just Annenberg Foundation cash he's passing out to his personal terrorist pals like Bill Ayers but American taxpayer dollars he's doling out to the terrorist tyrant behind the murder — in just that one incident — of 270 people, including 189 Americans.

Just 40 months to go. God help us.

Hell, even Rich Lowry disowned that post.

Re: O Captain [Jonah Goldberg]

Just for the record, I find virtually any play on that Claude Raines line to be an insufferable political cliche. What really rankles is when politicians find it necessary to first explain the context before they make the joke as if no one has ever heard it before. It happens at least every few months on Sunday talk shows. "This is like the scene in Casablanca when Claude Raines . . . etc" I usually shout at the TV: Really? You just think of that? And then expletives fly. I've heard Al Gore describe that scene several times, each time as if he was the first to make the joke.

wwwooowww

Social-Engineering Watch [Mark Krikorian]

The Left will occasionally deny that they favor immigration because it makes America less white. But they see such an outcome as so self-evidently desirable, that they often will admit it; a case in point was a professor from UC Santa Cruz who presented a paper at a conference I organized years ago, answering in the affirmative the question "Is America Too White?"

Bill Clinton did the same yesterday on Meet the Press: The "vast right-wing conspiracy" is still there, but "It's not as strong as it was because America has changed demographically." In other words, the less white America is, the better, a theme he addressed as president, as well.

As John O'Sullivan wrote years ago in NR, if different groups of Americans had children at different rates, resulting in changes in the ethnic (or religious or whatever) composition of the nation, that's nobody's business one way or the other. But mass immigration, especially in the context of the low fertility levels that are inherent to modernity, represents social engineering in its purest form, the elite's decision to dissolve the people and elect a new one. Instead, how about we leave social engineering to the ChiComs and just let today's American moms and dads decide what tomorrow's America will be like.

09/28 11:28 AMShare