Right Wing Nut House

Is there any purpose served by investigating allegations of ordering torture, illegal surveillance, and other sins alleged to have been committed during the years of the Bush Administration?

For those of us on both sides who are slightly less partisan in our view of government and politics, it is a serious question. For those who have already made up their mind on both sides, not so much. While they scream at each other across the great divide in American politics, serious people will have to grapple with the serious questions - legal and constitutional - raised by the actions of the Bush Administration over the years.

As I see it, there are two major roadblocks to investigating previous actions of the administration. The first is that much of what has been alleged involves top secret programs, only parts of which we have been given a glimpse. It is a dead sure bet that no one has seen the legal opinions written by the Justice Department for any of these alleged abuses which makes any charges of illegal or unconstitutional actions by the Bushies even more problematic.

To base an opinion only on what has come out in the press about the Terrorist Surveillance Program, for instance, has always puzzled me. Forming an opinion without all the facts is the definition of “half-assed.” And what information we have as far as the TSP is concerned has come to us largely from anonymous sources who may, or may not, have had sufficient access to information about how the program worked in its entirety, not to mention a question of their knowledge of the legal implications involved. Compartmentalization of information in these top secret programs is a given and the number of people who would have a good overall picture of how they worked would be few indeed.

The only way to find out for sure is to investigate how the program was set up, how it was run, the technical means employed, and the legal justification for them. (Torture is a different matter that I address below.) But is it possible to investigate the workings of a top secret, on-going intelligence program without compromising its effectiveness?

And this brings me to my second major roadblock to investigating alleged abuses in the Bush Administration; the probability that any such investigating will degenerate into a partisan circus.

The Judiciary Committee under John Conyers has written two reports since 2006 that goes into excruciating detail about illegalities and unconstitutional actions by the Bush Administration. The problem is - and Conyers admits it - is that nothing in either report constitutes a finding of fact. This is not surprising given that the overwhelming number of allegations are based on newspaper accounts, studies done by liberal think tanks, or reports from partisan left organizations like Human Rights Watch and the ACLU.

Here’s Conyers from the Forward to today’s release of a 457 page list of allegations against Bush and his Administration. He is quoting from an op-ed he wrote in 2006 after the release of his initial report, “The Constitution in Crisis.” After all that ”investigating,” we are left with little better than a political indictment of actions Conyers and much of the left disagrees with:

The administration’s stonewalling, and the lack of oversight by Congress, have left us to guess whether we are dealing with isolated wrongdoing, or mistakes, or something worse. In my view, the American people deserve answers, not guesses. I have proposed that we obtain these answers in a responsible and bipartisan manner.

It was House Republicans who took power in 1995 with immediate plans to undermine President Bill Clinton by any means necessary, and they did so in the most autocratic, partisan and destructive ways imaginable. If there is any lesson from those “revolutionaries,” it is that partisan vendettas ultimately provoke a public backlash and are never viewed as legitimate. So, rather than seeking impeachment, I have chosen to propose comprehensive oversight of these alleged abuses. The oversight I have suggested would be performed by a select committee made up equally of Democrats and Republicans and chosen by the House speaker and the minority leader.

The committee’s job would be to obtain answers - finally. At the end of the process, if - and only if - the select committee, acting on a bipartisan basis, finds evidence of potentially impeachable offenses, it would forward that information to the Judiciary Committee.

Conyers admits he has no “answers” - only questions. Hence, the idea of some kind of “bi-partisan” committee to look into these allegations (there are hundreds) and discover “the truth.”

The Judiciary reports take issue with the Administration over just about every action they’ve undertaken in 8 years. Signing statements, intelligence, detention policies, rendition (begun under Clinton and expanded under Bush), warrantless searches and surveillance, the Plame Affair, the politicization of the Justice Department, the states attorney imbroglio, and “enhanced interrogation” or torture.

How many are actual allegations of crimes committed and how many are reasonable (or unreasonable) differences of opinion over politics? We won’t know unless someone, somewhere investigates what went on. The question of whether we need answers or not is moot. We do. The problem is who is going to find the answers?

Conyers’ idea of a bi-partisan committee or commission made up equally of members from both sides won’t fly. The Republicans tried it with investigating intelligence leading up to the Iraq War and the Democrats rejected the findings and substituted their own narrative. There was also the 9/11 Commission that degenerated into a partisan tug of war and that failed to assess enough blame to either Clinton or Bush while going easy on Giuliani and the intel agencies. There was also the findings of the WMD Commission most Democrats rejected out of hand.

The fact of the matter is politicians are, well, politicians and asking them to forget that primary fact of their existence is absurd. Hence, Conyers idea of entrusting such a daunting task to Congress is, to my mind, a non-starter. Even beyond the 9/11 Commission or the other investigative committee reports on the war, any body that investigates the president must be beyond partisan suspicion.

The leaves us with two choices; naming a special prosecutor (or several) to impartially investigate potential abuses or, intriguingly, set up a Commission of private citizens a la the South African Truth Commission. The latter idea has some interesting possibilities but at bottom, is a little ridiculous. In South Africa, they were dealing with decades of apartheid as well as political murders and violence. Unless you think Bush is responsible for 9/11 or actually caused Hurricane Katrina, I think some kind of Truth Commission is a just too much drama for what is at stake in any investigation of the Bushies.

A special prosecutor would probably be the fairest and most efficacious way to investigate wrongdoing during the Bush years. I think one should definitely be appointed to address the issue of torture which is not a political issue and represents some of the most serious charges of illegality against the president and his people.

As for the rest of Conyers allegations, I just don’t know. The problem with special prosecutors is that once you appoint one, they are almost duty bound to find illegality come hell or high water (i.e. Scooter Libby, Ken Starr). If it would be possible to narrow the scope of what a special prosecutor might be tasked to investigate, it might be possible that such an examination of Administration actions could rise above partisanship and would be accepted by a large majority.

But perhaps, that is only wishful thinking. Obama himself recognizes the difficulties which is why he would rather “look forward” than behind:

Obama also views waterboarding as torture. To find out who authorized its use in interrogations, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers has introduced a bill creating a bipartisan commission with subpoena power. But when Obama was asked on ABC’s This Week whether he’d back such a commission, he was cautiously noncommittal.

“We’re still evaluating how we’re going to approach the whole issue of interrogations, detentions and so forth,” Obama said. “Obviously, we’re going to be looking at past practices and I don’t believe that anybody is above the law. On the other hand, I also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backward.”

Some Democrats who have strongly opposed the Bush administration’s detention and interrogation practices say they agree with Obama’s cautious approach. Among them is the Senate’s No. 2 Democrat, Dick Durbin.

“There’s a big debate going on about holding the previous administration accountable for [its] actions, and I would say for the time being that the Obama team is focused properly on the future,” Durbin said. “Our economy is so weak; we’re in desperate need of jobs. Before we start looking at the pages of history in the Bush administration, we should be looking at the obvious need to create jobs and create a new economic climate in this country.”

There’s a good reason both Obama and Durbin are cautious and it has little to do with the state of the economy. Congress or any Commission named can easily carry out its duties. Congress, especially, can do more than one thing at a time.

The danger that both Democratic leaders see is in the extraordinary difficulty in investigating Bush in a non-partisan manner and whose findings would be accepted by a majority of Americans. If the investigation would be seen as a partisan witch hunt, it would not redound to the Democrat’s advantage and might even hurt them at the polls. This would seem to make some kind of a special prosecutor even more likely but even there, Obama and the Democrats will tread cautiously.

Perhaps there will be more of a push for the facts by the American people of what happened during the Bush years than one can currently imagine. But like Obama, Americans tend to be a forward thinking people who tend not to dwell on the past. Except in this case, there may be good reason to find out what went on at the White House during the last 8 years. Whether it can be done believably and fairly is another question entirely.

I used to make great sport of Salon’s Glenn Greenwald and his idiotic rantings against Bush, conservatives, Republicans, and individual bloggers he would attack irrationally. There is no one on the internet who exaggerates more, takes what someone writes or says completely and dishonestly out of context more often, or sets up larger strawmen - knocking them down with the kind of feverish frenzy one might see in a 14 year old drama queen.

His over the top, hysterical warnings about the imminent demise of American democracy, his one dimensional take on everything from the war to same sex marriage, and his insufferable, loutish, smugly self righteous attitude figured to be just too tempting a target for many of us who see in him the epitome of netroots hypocrisy and stupidity.

But it got boring after a while to pillory Greenwald because he was so predictable. This is why he largely goes unchallenged these days; people are just too busy with other, more important matters, than going through one of his 3,000 word rants and calling him out for the lies, the exaggerations, the deliberate twisting of intent, and other grevious sins that is this sock puppet’s stock in trade.

Occasionally, however, the urge comes upon me to try to set the record straight. It may seem vainglorious for me to think that anything I write on my little blog matters a whit in the larger scheme of things - even in so insignificant a matter as Glenn Greenwald and his latest smears against those with which he disagrees. But winding up and throwing a haymaker toward Greenwald’s jaw - in a literary sense - is nevertheless a quite satisfying exercise emotionally and I will therefore indulge myself as I desperately need some spiritual uplift following the decline and fall of My Beloved Bears last week.

Greenwald has written perhaps the most dishonest, ignorant, deliberately deceptive piece on the War against Hamas that has yet been penned. And given the tripe that’s been vomiting forth from sites like The Nation and Firedoglake, that is a truly remarkable achievement.

Greenwald is a liar. Either that or he is so oblivious to facts, reason, and logic that he must experience life on the level of a two year old. How else would you describe his opening to this anti-Israeli screed that drips with venomous hatred against his political enemies:

This Rasmussen Reports poll — the first to survey American public opinion specifically regarding the Israeli attack on Gaza — strongly bolsters the severe disconnect I documented the other day between (a) American public opinion on U.S. policy towards Israel and (b) the consensus views expressed by America’s political leadership.  Not only does Rasmussen find that Americans generally “are closely divided over whether the Jewish state should be taking military action against militants in the Gaza Strip” (44-41%, with 15% undecided), but Democratic voters overwhelmingly oppose the Israeli offensive — by a 24-point margin (31-55%).  By stark constrast, Republicans, as one would expect (in light of their history of supporting virtually any proposed attack on Arabs and Muslims), overwhelmingly support the Israeli bombing campaign (62-27%).

The smear written here - so casually made - that “as one would expect” (as if everyone were as intellectually dishonest as Greenwald), Republicans have a “history” of supporting “any proposed attacks on Arabs or Muslims.” What history might that be? A favorite Greenwaldian subterfuge is to throw as many charges against his enemies just to see if any stick. This one’s a biggie, of course.He is saying that all Republicans are bigots and hate Muslims and Arabs - without one single example or any evidence to support his wild, unsupported lie.

No, very few people “expect” Republicans to act in such a bigoted manner - especially 62% of them - except Greenwald and his ilk whose exaggerated sense of disproportion allows them to posit all kinds of evil without offering a scintilla of proof. Supporting wars against Saddam Hussein and the Taliban for reasons of national security is not the same as hating Muslims so much that Republicans relish the thought of killing them. The fact that I have to point this out would seem silly to most rational people except Greenwald apparently believes it - or is a liar.

It would also be relevant point out that while Democrats and liberals were willing to allow Muslims to be slaughtered in Bosnia and Kosovo, it was Republican support that allowed a Democratic president to go to war against orthodox Christian Serbia and save them. Does that mean that liberals hate Muslims because they didn’t mind seeing them murdered and raped? In Greenwald’s world, yes.

If possible, this statement is even more dishonest:

It’s not at all surprising, then, that Republican leaders — from Dick Cheney and John Bolton to virtually all appendages of the right-wing noise machine, from talk radio and Fox News to right-wing blogs and neoconservative journals — are unquestioning supporters of the Israeli attack. After all, they’re expressing the core ideology of the overwhelming majority of their voters and audience.

What “core ideology” is that Mr. Greenwald? The subtext is, we assume, the same as above; that the GOP hates Arabs and Muslims. And where in God’s name did this worthless dreck of a human being come up with the idea that the “overwhelming majority” of Republican voters and audience hates Muslims?

It might be interesting to have Mr. Greenwald link to the poll that shows that the “overwhelming majority” of Republicans buy the “core ideology” of bigotry and hate against Muslims and Arabs. It is this kind of deliberate smear that Greenwald gets away with for the simple reason no one takes the time (or wastes it) in responding.

This calumny is not your run of the mill political mud wrestling where eye gouging and leg twisting is done with relish and opponents end up covering themselves in manure when all is said and done. This is the world according to Glenn Greenwald - a very special place where simply having him say that up is down, black is white, and the “overwhelming majority” of Republicans are bigots makes it so.

Note I have not called Greenwald an “anti-Semite” for opposing Israel’s war of survival against an enemy whose public policy toward their neighbor is total destruction. You can be an idiot without being a hater. But his selective outrage against Israel (and tepid, pro-forma objections to Hamas’s cruel barrage of rockets targeting civilians in Israel) is indicative of someone without moral awareness. Is he deceiving us or himself? A good question that too many on the left - lacking the desire for introspection as they do - fail to ask themselves.

But what really has Greenwald’s panties in a twist is the fact that American political leaders of both parties have, for the most part, taken Israel’s side in the War:

Ultimately, what is most notable about the “debate” in the U.S. over Israel-Gaza is that virtually all of it occurs from the perspective of Israeli interests but almost none of it is conducted from the perspective of American interests. There is endless debate over whether Israel’s security is enhanced or undermined by the attack on Gaza and whether the 40-year-old Israeli occupation, expanding West Bank settlements and recent devastating blockade or Hamas militancy and attacks on Israeli civilians bear more of the blame. American opinion-making elites march forward to opine on the historical rights and wrongs of the endless Israeli-Palestinian territorial conflict with such fervor and fixation that it’s often easy to forget that the U.S. is not actually a direct party to this dispute.

As Israel’s biggest and best ally and virtual guarantor of their existence, of course we have an abiding interest in the conflict. The wonder is that Greenwald evidently feels sticking a knife in the back of your ally while she is fighting for her life by condemning this bomb going off in the wrong place or that bullet not hitting its intended target is just fine. Better yet, take the morally reprehensible position of a “pox on both your houses” and condemn everybody. That way, you can do away with the only democracy in the Middle East as an ally and simply treat them as we might look upon Sierra Leone or Gabon.

When one’s moral compass goes in a circle and taking the “out” that the survival of an ally is none of your business might be satisfying from an ideological standpoint but is hardly practical or even desirable. Taking sides in a war is a necessary evil when it comes right down to it. The US is not Sweden or Switzerland, although Greenwald might prefer that kind of “neutrality” to the sort of practical realization that the survival of Israel is important to the US national interest.

Whew! Remind me not to ask Greenwald to be an ally.

The rank deceitfulness of Greenwald is really getting tiresome. The idea that this ignorant hypocrite - as ignorant and hypocritical as any right winger he wants to name - has been given such a big megaphone at Salon would be incomprehensible except when you realize that his followers among the netroots are equally obtuse and perfidious when it comes to attacking their political and ideological enemies.

With that kind of devoted following, he’ll probably grab a Pulitzer someday.

In my youth, I fancied myself an actor. A degree in theater from Drake followed by a couple of modest successes with professional dinner theaters had me confident that I would be able to make a living someday.

Then, one day, I wandered into an audition in Chicago for some long forgotten musical. It was a “cattle call” where anyone and everyone was invited to try out. You bring a piece of music to sing and a short speech from a play and when your name is called, you go onstage and give it your best.

I had gone through this routine several times in my short career so I knew it was the longest of long shots. Usually, the director (or assistant director) cuts your song after a few bars with a very loud and impersonal “Thank you, we’ll be in touch,” and that’s it. You can wait 8-10 hours for a chance to be told in “theaterese” that you’re a chump for even trying so go home and get a law degree or something that will help you make a living.

Waiting in the back of the theater, I watched as one rather plain looking woman trudged to the middle of the stage and announced her name. The music started - “Another Hundred People” from Company was what she had chosen to sing - and when she opened her mouth, it was pure magic. It was incredible the talent, the verve, the sparkle that she put into the piece. The director let her sing a few bars more than anyone else - no doubt as mesmerized as I was with her ability - and then yelled “Thank you,” and that was it. The plain Jane trudged off the stage and back into pure obscurity.

It was then I realized that talent had little to do with “making it” in show business. That woman had as much talent as Barbara Streisand - perfect pitch, astonishing phrasing, and a vibrato that put a lump in your throat - but was destined to fail. Hard work, having a good agent, and making your own breaks counted more than any talent one might possess. That and a supreme, inner confidence in yourself to be able to withstand the constant barrage of people telling you that you are no good, that you can’t make it, that you are wasting your time. If you listen to the rich and famous actors, almost all of them have the same stories of struggling for 5, 10, even 20 years before realizing their goals.

It was then and there that I was cured of the acting bug and decided to take up my father on his offer to place me as an intern in the Sears government affairs office in Washington, D.C. I vowed never to regret that decision. But every once and a while (especially when I see some jamoke of an actor like Hayden Christiansen who can’t act their way out of a paper bag getting paid a gazzillion bucks in Star Wars), I think what might have been if I had the courage to pursue that dream.

Here I am 31 years later, I haven’t been on a stage since that day, pursuing another dream - that of making a living as a writer. What an odd and serendipitous set of circumstances that have brought me to the point where I can claim a modest success in going after that dream. I haven’t lit up the sky with my name or changed the world with my pen. But I know that my thoughts have caused some of you to re-examine your own beliefs just as many of the thoughts you have shared with me have forced me to rethink some of my own conclusions.

This coming year, I have resolved to write more - a lot more - than in 2008. I hope to write a book and contribute to other conservative publications. Where that will leave this blog, I am unsure. I am already fighting time constraints to get something on this site nearly everyday. But I suspect, as with many things, if it is important enough to you, you will find the time to do it. This site and you, oh, gentle readers, are indeed important to me. For that reason, I hope you stick with me during the coming year - a year that promises to be very interesting and productive.

The years are beginning to pass as if I were walking downhill now - not like when I was a kid and summer lasted forever as did the school day. Somewhere along the way in the last few years, I began to notice a blurring together of weeks and months. Wasn’t the election just yesterday? And it seems but an eyeblink has occurred since we celebrated the Fourth of July. Is the baseball season over already? Or are they getting ready to start up again?

A function of age no doubt. The big “Double Nickel” lands next month and I am discovering that I have less and less enthusiasm in “celebrating” birthdays. What’s there to celebrate? Getting one year closer to the end?

Yes, it’s true that you become more fatalistic the older you get.

But it is also true that with a modicum of good health and a song in my heart, I can still kick up my heels and enjoy life. And I fully expect 2009 to be full of joyful moments and laughter, and love and all the things that make life a fullfilling and rich experience for those of us lucky enough to live now, here in the United States.

And I hope the same for you.

Rick Moran
Proprietor
Right Wing Nuthouse

I am pleased to announce that this blog has been named as a finalist for “Best Conservative Blog” in the 2009 Weblog Awards.

The last time I was a finalist was in 2005, also for Best Conservative Blog. No doubt this surprises some of you as much as it surprised me. Still, I’m pleased that the Awards Committee saw fit to include me as a finalist this year.

No doubt I will finish last or next to last given the quality of the competition:

   Victor Davis Hanson
  RedState
  Ace of Spades
  Power Line
  Eject, Eject, Eject!
  Plumb Bob Blog
  Michelle Malkin
  American Thinker
  Blue Collar Muse
  small dead animals
  Little Green Footballs
  Right Wing Nut House
  The Next Right
  Atlas Shrugs

Frankly, I had no idea nominations were going on. Otherwise I would have directed my readers to the site - not only to nominate me but to take part in nominating your favorite blogs in other categories as well. Not sure who nominated this blog but whoever you are, thank you.

I was glad to see my friends Tom Lifson, Rich Baehr, and Ed Lasky nominated at American Thinker, one of my employers. AT is a finalist in both the Best Political Blog and Best Conservative Blog category. More brainpower among those gentlemen than the entire liberal side of the blogosphere. They deserve the recognition.

Voting starts January 5. As I said, I fully expect to finish far off the pace but it still warms my cockles that there are a few people who still consider me a conservative worthy of approbation. I am proud and humbled at this singular honor.

btw - a great big shoutout to Kevin Alyward and his team who have, as they do every year, expended an enormous amount of time and energy to pull this thing together.

Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the house
Not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse.
The stockings were hung by the chimney with care,
In hopes that St Nicholas soon would be there.The children were nestled all snug in their beds,
While visions of sugar-plums danced in their heads.
And mamma in her ‘kerchief, and I in my cap,
Had just settled our brains for a long winter’s nap.

Should Right Wing Nuthouse continue the tradition of recapping each episode of 24 when the show picks up again on January 11, 2009?

That’s the poll question I’ve posted above in order to get a sense from my reader’s as to whether the tremendous investment in time would be worth it to them - and to me.

For the past three seasons, I have blogged every episode of 24 with the dedication of a Franciscan monk. When I started, I was virtually alone in doing so - a solitary, very unknown blogger with a unique take on the show - a combination of world weary cynicism about TV’s portrayal of conservative values with a dash of pop culture snark. As far as I know, I was the first chronicler of 24 to include a “Body Count.”

Since then, there have been a number of imitators. Some have original takes of their own. Some sites even liveblog the night’s episode. Many are very good. Some are pretty sucky. The point being, I’m hardly the only game in town anymore when it comes to this genre of blogging and I have a decision to make.

The process of writing one of these summaries is quite laborious. I watch the entire show twice (once for personal enjoyment) while taking copious notes during the second viewing. I then watch parts of the show a third time, gleaning quotes and nuance from some of the scenes. After all that, I write a 1500-2000 word essay that includes an introduction that tries to fold themes from the episode into a mythic-historical perspective.

My problem is that now I have two jobs which take up 10-12 hours a day of my time. I would love to continue writing these summaries but don’t want to do a half assed job and just throw something together in a couple of hours. It will take a genuine committment on my part to produce the kind of recaps I have in the past. And before I make that committment, I would like your thoughts on the matter.

The readership of this blog has changed quite a bit since those early days. It grew tremendously, then shrank precipitously, and has now grown again thanks to an influx of the kind of reader who thinks deeply about politics and ideology rather than having simple-minded, knee jerk reactions to issues based on litmus tests and talking points. Many of you may be unaware of my previous writings on Jack Bauer and the show’s place in our political culture. Suffice it to say that many of the posts that I am most proud of on this blog are in the 24 archives.

My passion for the show led to my being invited to contribute to a best selling book on the show: Secrets of 24. To be included in a book that featured the writings of so many well known journalists, writers, theologians, philosophers, and members of the cast was a real treat.

My essay from the book (Chapter 2, page 50) is entitled “The Circles of Hell: Dante, Daniel Boone, Gary Cooper, and . . . Jack Bauer:”

Bauer has transcended the entertainment world and become a political talisman; stroked by the right and bashed by the left, 24 has become the favorite guilty pleasure of the political class in America. Even many liberals confess their addiction to the show, despite Bauer’s enormously troubling use of torture and the cavalier way in which he disregards the constitutional niceties. And many conservatives, seeing Jack taking the fight directly to our enemies (along with maintaining a moral certitude that is both refreshing and emotionally satisfying), cheer their hero on as he battles evil.

We watch spellbound as he relentlessly pursues the enemies of the United States with a frightening determination and dedication that brooks no opposition from friend or foe. His disputes with the national security bureaucracy are fought with the same tenacity and brutal “win at all costs” mindset with which he battles the terrorists seeking to destroy us. In this respect, Bauer is a man outside the law rather than someone of the law.

Sound familiar? It should. Hollywood long has prospered making heroes of such men although not quite in the same context. Jack could best be compared to the small town sheriff who finds himself up against the ruthless outlaw gang as Gary Cooper played in the classic western High Noon. Cooper’s portrayal of Marshall Will Kane, who must vanquish a gang of criminals bent on revenge on the day of his wedding, had many of the same points and counterpoints found in the character of Jack Bauer. It is the solitary nature of his fight - the man willing to do his duty against terrible odds - that brings to mind Bauer’s predicaments as Jack flies from the frying pan into the fire week after week, always coming out on top because in the end, good must triumph over evil.

Even if I don’t blog every episode, I will probably write something about the show from time to time. Any thoughts you have on whether I should continue this enjoyable but time consuming tradition would be appreciated.

Today marks the shortest day of the year and the longest night. In keeping with the idea that the sun is at its farthest distance from the equatorial plane, it is depressing to think that winter, enclosing the Midwest in its icy grip, has only just begun and that the warmth and beauty of summer is so very far away.

The ice storm of Friday gave way to a blizzard last night as the winds howled at 40 mph and powdery snow whipped across the barren, empty farmer’s fields where just a couple of months ago, corn stalks reached toward the sun and wheat waved in the warm, gentle breezes. Is there any lonlier sound than that of the groaning of the wind as it rips through the leaveless trees, bending branch and limb in supplication to its power?

Lying alone in bed, Zsu-Zsu gone to Ohio to see her grandchildren, I began to understand why the ancients believed in spirits and other phantasms of the night. It was as if a strange apparition was outside of my bedroom window and as the sash rattled in the gale, it made it sound as if some ghostly form was seeking to come in, clamoring to enter my bed chamber and the relative warmth therein. (Cue the Cowardly Lion: “I do believe in spooks, I do, I do, I DO believe in spooks…”)

The storm has died down but has been supplemented by temperatures hovering near zero with a windchill closing in on -20 degrees. My Beloved Bears play their most hated rival Green Bay tomorrow night where the temps are expected to be as cold or colder. The game should be a real throwback, a test of human endurance and manhood as much as an athletic contest. And despite not having been to a Bears game in years, you couldn’t pay me to be in Soldier Field tomorrow night and witness what for My Beloveds will be the biggest game of the year. I am a fanatic, not a lunatic.

The Solstice is actually celebrated in many regions around the world. If you don’t believe me, check out Wikpedia which lists a couple of dozen parties that will be going on today in various countries and among some of the lesser known religions. As you might expect, the Wiccans are going to town as are the “indigenous” people of Finland, Sweden, and Norway:

The Saami, indigenous people of Finland, Sweden and Norway, worship Beiwe, the sun-goddess of fertility and sanity. She travels through the sky in a structure made of reindeer bones with her daughter, Beiwe-Neia, to herald back the greenery on which the reindeer feed. On the winter solstice, her worshipers sacrifice white female animals, and with the meat, thread and sticks, bed into rings with ribbons. They also cover their doorposts with butter so Beiwe can eat it and begin her journey once again.

I suppose I can think of better ways to entertain myself when it’s cold and snowy outside but on the other hand, the butter bit is a nice touch. Reindeer butter must be awesome to withstand the cold and still be edible.

In God’s name why? What possessed our prehistorical ancestors to feast and fornicate on this day of all days? The Summer Solstice, I can see throwing a shindig for. But how crazy of a party animal do you have to be to rock ‘n roll when bone chilling cold and the prospect of several more months of winter are staring you in the face?

I understand the notion that the time to make merriest is when you have the least to celebrate but isn’t embracing a Saturnalia in the dead of winter kind of carrying the idea a little too far? I guess our ancestors weren’t very bright bulbs when it came right down to it.

Some of these societies who celebrate the Winter Solstice are no longer with us. That makes sense given their idiocy in holding a blowout when being exposed to the elements is so uncomfortable that it doesn’t matter how much meade, or beer, or whatever beverage you imbibe, you can still freeze to death. Dying happy isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be - especially when being warm and alive is the alternative.

Apparently, German pagans really went to town on this day and still see something to celebrate even in modern times. Don’t these goofs realize that just because their ancestors were born a couple of nuts short of an almond tree doesn’t mean they have to follow their traditions like lemmings going over a frozen cliff? The Germans are generally a practical, down to earth people but this yule tradition smacks of brainlessness.

So please leave me alone in my delicious depression as I gladly wallow in feeling sorry for my weakening constitution that can barely tolerate even looking at snow and ice much less being out in it. In this respect, the classic cartoon character, the reluctant penguin Chilly Willy, who hated the cold even more than I, are probably brothers under the skin.

And I say to hell with the Winter Solstice and anyone who thinks holding a soiree to celebrate it is a grand idea.

Dear Comcast:

It has been quite a few months since my last letter - a fact that no doubt has caused you to heave a sigh of relief. Allow me to take this opportunity to apologize for some of my more - shall we say - enthusiastically boorish remarks that, while reflecting exactly how I felt at the time, have since caused me to regret if not the substance then certainly the enjoyment I got out of skewering your company.

When I referred to Comcast as “a conniving, evil, money grubbing, anti-capitalist pox upon decent commerce” I may have overstated my case a bit. And when I called your corporate leaders, “greedy, acquisitive, loutish babbits with no more concern for the customer than a drunk ocelot” I suppose I could have chosen my words more carefully.

So let’s just look at that as water under the bridge and move on, alright? Besides, I have a favor to ask and I think it important that we start with a clean slate.

The favor I ask is simple: Please buy Mediacom.

Now, far be it from me to give you business advice in these troubled economic times. But really, you’ve been buying up just about every other cable company in America so purchasing my cable provider shouldn’t put you out too much, right? And given the level of service and the meager lineup of products Mediacom offers, they certainly can’t be worth very much. I’m not saying you could take them over by depleting your petty cash account but how expensive can these jamokes at Mediacom really be?

I never thought I would say it - never thought in a million years that I would ever utter the words “I miss Comcast.” But it’s true. I didn’t think there was a company in America who could match your disregard for customer service, your piss poor delivery of products, the constant problems with equipment, the interruptions in service, the service reps who learned their craft at some school they found on the back of a matchbook, or those cheerless voices on the phone who made your customers feel they were prisoners at Abu Gharaib rather than well, you know, the people who paid your salaries.

But then, we moved here to Streator, IL and discovered Mediacom.

Now, I would never accuse a company of being run by crooks - at least on this site. But what else do you call a company that takes your money and gives so little in return? Weekly internet outages, extraordinarily niggardly choices in products, a 19th century technological plant (do hamsters turn the generators that fail so regularly?), interruptions in all services, half hour to hour waits to get through to talk to a human being who turns out to have little or no knowledge of what is going on and tells you so with the manners of a goat, and a colossal cluelessness that permeates their corporate culture at every level.

At least you had about 50 HD channels, crystal clear reception on non-HD channels, and an on demand library that featured 1000 free movies and programming from other channels. Mediacom has less than half the HD channels, analog broadcasting on most non-HD channels that makes me want to look into buying rabbit ears in order to get better reception, no free movies, few free programming on demand options from other channels, AND NO NFL NETWORK!

This forces me to try and watch Thursday night NFL games on my computer using their pirated broadband signal. At least I think it is pirated. All I know is I am paying $60 bucks a month for 15 MBPS and by the time it is squeezed through their jury rigged, spit, gum and bailing wire, Rube Goldberg devised broadband cable, it is slower than DSL (according to various speed tests I’ve taken) and the picture keeps freezing and pixelating on me. This is common with all broadband video I try to watch - including any high quality porn I wish to enjoy. I mean, what’s a classic porn addict to do when Christy Canyon freezes in mid-moan?

You may suggest that I look into the dish. I have. From what I’ve heard from my neighbors - many of whom tried the dish and have since returned to cable - the folks who contract with Dish Network to install the hardware are, if anything, more clueless than Mediacom’s techies. After several visits trying to clear up an unwatchable picture, one of my neighbors just gave up (it is as flat as a pancake for hundreds of miles around). Besides, getting the dish won’t solve my internet problems although I am getting to the point where if I can be promised uninterrupted service I may just go for satellite broadband.

So, Comcast, you can see my dilemma. You are a gigantic corporation with massive resources. I have no doubt whatsoever that if you were to purchase Mediacom, you’d be able to elevate their service to at least the rock bottom level you offer. I eagerly await your reply.

Your friend,

Rick Moran

The blog will go dark for 4 days as I take some time off to decompress and recover my wits.

Now some of you would say I had little or no wit to begin with. I beg to differ. You must differentiate between some of my recent scribblings which, an objective observer might indeed say, were “witless” and the meandering thoughts that course through my head which pass for “wit.”

The former is a result of not having had a true day off in a very, very long time. As many of you know, I am Associate Editor at The American Thinker (where I post 5 or 6 blog posts everyday) as well as being employed as Chicago Editor of Pajamas Media. Both of those jobs are in addition to posting a daily essay on this site. The election and its aftermath gave me a case of burnout that I can only now address by taking some time off at Thanksgiving.

When doing something you love becomes a chore, you know it’s time to step back and recharge the batteries. Writing has not been any fun at all for most of this month and since I believe the last time I took a day off was probably the last time Sue and I went to Reno which was just about 2 years ago, I think I’ve earned a little R & R this weekend.

As far as the latter, I will spend most of this weekend catching up on some reading and trying to stay away from the internet except to find out what’s happening in the world. A little football, some movies (I might watch the LOTR trilogy - all special editions), and a lot of napping.

And of course, eating. I have been given permission to go off my diet (I’ve lost 48 pounds since September) and will glory in the feasting. I am too old to carouse and go out wenching but Sue has volunteered to make my stay at home more than worthwhile.

I’ll be back at it come Monday.

Patrick Ruffini and Mindy Finn have a nice write up in today’s Washington Post regarding their new web effort Rebuild the Party.com. The website features a list of endorsers that constitutes a who’s who of the rightysphere as well as a plan they would like to see the GOP adopt that, includes the recruitment of 5 million new Republican online activists, reorganizing the RNC, developing a new fundraising model, and rebuilding the grass roots infrastructure of the party.

All ambitious goals to be sure. But are they achievable?

Everybody agrees the GOP must become more web savvy and that a better connection has to be made to conservatives online. Few would also argue with the notion that efforts must be made to catch up to the Democrats in online fundraising and organization. But then we have the problem with the Republican party itself and its refusal to get serious about the kinds of reforms that would make a conservative like me proud to belong once again.

If Ruffini wants me to promote candidates, raise money, and urge volunteers to work for campaigns he better put a burr under the ass of the party leadership and get them busy on changing just about everything about the organization that contributed to its defeat these last two elections. These are not just technical adjustments or changes around the edges. We are talking about fundamental alterations in people, policy, and ideology that would make the Republican party worth getting excited about again.

Republicans are about ready to fall into a couple of traps that losing parties apparently can’t avoid when the dust settles following a debacle such as they have experienced the last two election cycles. The first is the belief that the reason for being rejected by the voters is that their candidates weren’t “pure” enough ideologically and that only by pushing forward “true conservatives” can the GOP find its way back.

I don’t dispute the necessity for putting up more conservatives for office. But the idea that you can have some kind of lock step litmus tests to determine who a “true” conservative might be is nuts - and counterproductive. There are plenty of competitive congressional districts where one of those “true” conservatives would get slaughtered by most Democrats. When 70% of the country does not identify itself as “conservative,” you are deliberately setting up the GOP for defeat if you advocate only “real” conservatives receive support.

There are candidates that would be completely acceptable to the vast majority of conservatives who would fail some of the litmus tests given by the base. A party that seeks to diminish its ranks by making membership dependent on a rigid set of positions on issues is a party doomed to maintaining its minority status. The Democrats made the exact same mistake in 2000 and it cost them in 2002 and 2004.

Only when they stopped listening to people like Kos and recruited dozens of candidates that reflected the realities of their specific district did they break through in 2006 and 2008. These candidates were not hard left ideologues but much more pragmatic in their politics. That didn’t mean they were “conservative” or even “moderate.” It means they were attractive candidates with decent name recognition, well funded, well organized, and in tune with local concerns. And they wiped the floor with our guys.

The other trap the GOP appears to be springing on itself is the idea of “me-tooism.” “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” may have worked for Bugs Bunny, but to see Republicans seeking to alter the disastrous Bush/Obama policies on bailouts only by proposing less money or nibbling around the edges rather than uniting to oppose these fundamental alterations in American society only proves that the vast majority of them are not worthy of conservative support. On this, the most important issue that has come before the Congress in a generation, the GOP is failing the test.

Pat believes that changes in the party can be effected by uniting the conservative community online and forcing the GOP to make necessary alterations. I believe he is being overly optimistic. What should come first, party reform or rightroots activism? What good would all of Pat’s great ideas be if they came to fruition and the GOP was still a party of pork-loving, deficit embracing, open border hugging, lobbyist kissing corrupt hacks? Is Ruffini saying that by initiating the kind of activism he is looking for online that the party will, either naturally or by osmosis, magically reform itself into an organization that conservatives would feel justified in backing?

This, is not an insignificant point. As is stands now, the rightroots are more conservative than they are Republican. And the noises being made by many GOP officeholders are not encouraging. The transformation of our economy into some kind of quasi-socialist managed disaster is going on with barely a peep from Republicans. Yes there are some like Senator Inhofe who are trying to hold the line. But if the GOP is interested in employing the conservative online community in a bid to help the party back to power, it would be helpful if a few more congressmen and senators joined the fight, proving that they were worthy of conservative support by acting like, well, you know, conservatives.

In the end, despite the undoubted genius of Ruffini and his friends, I can’t see him making much headway until the Republican party rediscovers its fundamental philosophy and its primary purpose for existing; to elect honest and ethical candidates who espouse conservative values . Not litmus tests but rather shared principles of governance with room for disagreement and debate.

Can Ruffini’s template for conservative activism and organization goad the GOP into that kind of a reformation? I think Pat is counting on that happening. But from where I’m sitting, it would appear to be an uphill battle to motivate online conservatives to join a cause where their activism would be exploited by those who don’t share their principles or care for their opinions.