Even with his predictions of looming apocalypse, Mark Steyn remains still a happy Jeremiah. Victor Davis Hanson by contrast is just a Jeremiah.
And like the Old Testament prophet before him, he is filled with lamentations, this time for his native California...and for his country as well.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Don't Misunderstand...
I should have been a bit clearer in my last post.
There is nothing necessarily nefarious about the development of an insular political sub-culture. I'm not suggesting that the former Vice President is guilty of a bad will. He no doubt genuinely believes that unless a person is effectively beltway born and bred, they're just not up to high office.
In a country of 300-plus million people, I find that notion at the very least amusing.
But I can also find it dangerous. One thing is clear: By and large, the people who got us into our current mess, whether they call themselves Democrats or Republicans, liberals or conservatives, have got to go.
There is nothing necessarily nefarious about the development of an insular political sub-culture. I'm not suggesting that the former Vice President is guilty of a bad will. He no doubt genuinely believes that unless a person is effectively beltway born and bred, they're just not up to high office.
In a country of 300-plus million people, I find that notion at the very least amusing.
But I can also find it dangerous. One thing is clear: By and large, the people who got us into our current mess, whether they call themselves Democrats or Republicans, liberals or conservatives, have got to go.
"Not worth a bucket of warm piss"
Such was Texan John Nance Garner's famous estimation of the vice presidency, an office he held for eight years under FDR.
Even founder John Adams found the position less than, uh, substantial:
Former Vice President Dick Cheney yesterday called John McCain's choice four years ago of Sarah Palin as his running mate a "mistake", thereby insulting not only McCain and Palin, but also untold thousands of conservative voters who not only liked seeing her name on the ticket, but even viewed it as a way of salvaging an otherwise wasted vote.
That's not what this is all about.
(For heaven's sake, can anyone seriously imagine the buffoonish Joe Biden--a previously well-established buffoonery, by the way--as president? Even his own party never gave him anything more than single-digit support.)
Cheney did not commit an unforced error yesterday; his comment was deliberate and demonstrated once again something very important about the nature of our currently uncomfortable politics. That is, the struggle is not only between Democrats and Republicans, nor even between liberals and conservatives, it's also a struggle between insiders and outsiders.
Cheney, as capable as he is, is a consummate Washington insider. As an insider, he, like any insider, has over time collected and written innumerable political IOUs, fashioned countless personal and professional relationships, along with the binding loyalties that attend. As such, he owes and is owed and respect for those debts sometimes, if not often, trumps fidelity to both party and ideology.
I'm afraid what this all means is that Washington wont change until Washington changes. Like her or not, Sarah Palin represents change...threatening change.
Even founder John Adams found the position less than, uh, substantial:
My country has in its wisdom contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived; and as I can do neither good nor evil, I must be borne away by others and meet the common fate.So when did the choice of a vice president become so momentous?
Former Vice President Dick Cheney yesterday called John McCain's choice four years ago of Sarah Palin as his running mate a "mistake", thereby insulting not only McCain and Palin, but also untold thousands of conservative voters who not only liked seeing her name on the ticket, but even viewed it as a way of salvaging an otherwise wasted vote.
That's not what this is all about.
(For heaven's sake, can anyone seriously imagine the buffoonish Joe Biden--a previously well-established buffoonery, by the way--as president? Even his own party never gave him anything more than single-digit support.)
Cheney did not commit an unforced error yesterday; his comment was deliberate and demonstrated once again something very important about the nature of our currently uncomfortable politics. That is, the struggle is not only between Democrats and Republicans, nor even between liberals and conservatives, it's also a struggle between insiders and outsiders.
Cheney, as capable as he is, is a consummate Washington insider. As an insider, he, like any insider, has over time collected and written innumerable political IOUs, fashioned countless personal and professional relationships, along with the binding loyalties that attend. As such, he owes and is owed and respect for those debts sometimes, if not often, trumps fidelity to both party and ideology.
I'm afraid what this all means is that Washington wont change until Washington changes. Like her or not, Sarah Palin represents change...threatening change.
Monday, July 30, 2012
Liberalism Sucks!
First it was trans fats, then it was salt, after that soda sizes, now baby formula. What's next? With a moniker so apt it has went from being funny to eerily ominous, Nanny Bloomberg, the mayor of New York City, quite simply won't stop until he's stopped.
What you, what all of us, must understand if we don't already, is that this is not a case of liberalism run amok.
This IS liberalism.
What you, what all of us, must understand if we don't already, is that this is not a case of liberalism run amok.
This IS liberalism.
Saturday, July 28, 2012
Chicken $#!+
Who knew the "smell of someone fryin' chicken" could make you dial 911? Well, the mayors of Chicago and Boston anyway.
If Mark Steyn's weekly column at NRO is not yet a staple of your reading diet, for heaven's sake, WHY NOT?
Please read his latest as he disects the Left's reliably police-state reflexes in the Curious Case of Chick-fil-A.
If Mark Steyn's weekly column at NRO is not yet a staple of your reading diet, for heaven's sake, WHY NOT?
Please read his latest as he disects the Left's reliably police-state reflexes in the Curious Case of Chick-fil-A.
Some of My Best Friends Are...
In case you were wondering, the Sage has been otherwise preoccupied with weddings and company and sundry other diversions.
But there's nothing like a comment from the San Francisco Savant Nancy Pelosi to bring one back to this beleaguered planet.
As savvy as Ms. Pelosi is, she just can't figure how a Jewish American could ever be a Republican. After all, "they're smart people," she reminds us and as such should know that they're "being exploited."
Well, at least she allows that they're still Jewish. In the case of black Republicans, as we are instructed, they simply cease to be black at all.
But there's nothing like a comment from the San Francisco Savant Nancy Pelosi to bring one back to this beleaguered planet.
As savvy as Ms. Pelosi is, she just can't figure how a Jewish American could ever be a Republican. After all, "they're smart people," she reminds us and as such should know that they're "being exploited."
Well, at least she allows that they're still Jewish. In the case of black Republicans, as we are instructed, they simply cease to be black at all.
Monday, July 23, 2012
Libs and Cons and Guns
Most people do not either embrace or shy away from gun ownership because of their ideology, liberal or conservative. Rather, it's the other way around.
If your reaction to the terrible news from Aurora was a feeling of frustration over the inadequacy of current gun regulation, then you're likely to be a liberal. If, on the other hand, your reaction was to wish that someone in the audience had been armed, then you're probably a conservative.
Is it possible even to "split the difference" between, much less reconcile, these two informing impulses?
If your reaction to the terrible news from Aurora was a feeling of frustration over the inadequacy of current gun regulation, then you're likely to be a liberal. If, on the other hand, your reaction was to wish that someone in the audience had been armed, then you're probably a conservative.
Is it possible even to "split the difference" between, much less reconcile, these two informing impulses?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)