Right Wing Nut House

I grew up with a tremendous respect for language and its utility for both function and beauty. Both of my parents were voracious readers whose tastes were grounded in the classics of western civilization, running the gamut from the Greeks to Studs Terkel. (Note: Anyone who doesn’t think Mr. Terkel is a master of language and idiom should read either Hard Times: An Oral History of the Great Depression or Terkel’s heartfelt anti-war screed Hope Dies Last which I do not agree with one iota politically but is a beautifully written book nonetheless).

My father in particular, loved poetry especially romantics like Emily Dickinson. If there is one thing about poets from that era I’ve always admired, it was the way they used the natural rhythms of the spoken word to draw pictures of ideas and emotions. Poetry in the 19th century was written largely to be read aloud. Hence, we have classics like Longfellow’s Midnight Ride of Paul Revere where you can hear the pounding hoof beats of the horse in the rhyme and meter of the language:

A hurry of hoofs in a village street,
A shape in the moonlight, a bulk in the dark,
And beneath, from the pebbles, in passing, a spark
Struck out by a steed flying fearless and fleet;
That was all! And yet, through the gloom and the light,
The fate of a nation was riding that night;
And the spark struck out by that steed, in his flight,
Kindled the land into flame with its heat.

I suppose all of this makes me something of an ethno-centric elitist. Ask me if I care. No one will be able to convince me that the English language in the hands of a master like Longfellow is anything but a thing of beauty, something to be loved and cherished forever. It is perhaps an outmoded concept that children should learn, memorize, and recite classic verse in that it gives them a confidence with language that many young people lack today. One need only listen to an interview with a typical 18 or 19 year old on MTV to be shocked by their inability to express themselves. And while it’s unlikely that the language skills of today’s youngsters has been anything but nominally affected by de-emphasizing the study of classic verse in high school, it nevertheless is indicative of a lack of concern regarding verbal and written communication skills among educators in general.

What brought on these reflections regarding poetry and language were two separate blog posts; one by the eclectic and enjoyable group of bloggers at Maggie’s Farm who, in addition to highlighting a “Bird of the Week” and writing of their experiences on a rural New England farm, also regularly post poetry on the site. No commentary or analysis; just good verse from excellent poets. Their most recent poetry post was Kipling’s “Tomlinson” which tells the story of a working class man confronting his life and mortality, told in Kipling’s inimitable style of plain, rollicking language and precise meter:

Now Tomlinson gave up the ghost in his house in Berkeley Square
And a Spirit came to his bedside and gripped him by the hair
A Spirit gripped him by the hair and carried him far away,
Till he heard as the roar of a rain-fed ford the roar of the Milky Way:
Till he heard the roar of the Milky Way die down and drone and cease,
And they came to the Gate within the Wall where Peter holds the keys.

“Stand up, stand up now, Tomlinson, and answer loud and high
The good that ye did for the sake of men or ever ye came to die
The good that ye did for the sake of men in little earth so lone!”
And the naked soul of Tomlinson grew white as a rain-washed bone.
“O I have a friend on earth,” he said, “that was my priest and guide,
And well would he answer all for me if he were by my side.”

The other blog post that started me thinking in this direction was an interesting piece from Jesse Taylor, proprietor of the center-left blog Pandagon. Taylor’s impassioned “In Defense of Cursing” echoes many of my own ideas about the proprietary nature of blogs and being able to publish whatever one pleases. In particular, Taylor takes on those who object to his use of language when he tries to refute what he sees as the idiocy of rightwing “nutjobbers:”

Why do I curse? One, because it’s my site. In my work for Jerry, in my work for eVote way back when, in any non-Pandagon work I do in the future, if the person writing my checks asks me not to curse, then I will not. But this is my site, which I pay for, on which I write what I want. More importantly, if you track my cursing, you’ll notice I often go several points without uttering anything stronger than “crap”. I have rules for this s**t, you know.

Now Taylor and I wouldn’t agree on what time the sun rises much less anything politically. And I find his hysterical rants against imagined conservative sins to be laughably shallow and desperately juvenile, full of the typical paranoia and hyper-exaggeration that passes for “analysis” on lefty blogs these days.

But when it comes to the scatological use of language, Taylor has few equals. My own past efforts in this regard degenerated into incoherence which is why I don’t try to use cursing to express myself anymore. I just don’t have the knack.

But in many ways, Taylor and I are two sides of the same mirror. He and I share a passion for politics as well as the driving necessity to use language in order to move, to provoke, to chastise (as opposed to simply criticize), to enlighten, and to poke fun at the opposition. For Taylor, the judicious use of obscenity is a calculated effort to shock his readers’ sensibilities and force them to confront language he sees as either imprecise or downright misleading:

For some reason, “You’re a f**king racist idiot” is a more offensive statement than “black people have less native intelligence than other races, and embrace poverty accordingly”. Even worse is the “the major goddamn drain on the budget is the tax cuts, as the federal budget has shown every f**king year since 2002″, which simply blows “the tax cuts have increased revenue, because that’s the power of fiscal conservatism” out of the water. A lie, an insult, a grossly racist imputation is afforded legitimacy because it’s said nicely.

Obviously, I believe Taylor is exaggerating the intent and dissembling the facts of the two statements he chose to highlight. But for his purposes, the obscenities served him well. Which brings me to my final point; does such language contribute positively to political discourse? Does it matter?

The short answer to both questions is no. It’s his blog and he can swear if he wants to. And as for political discourse, I’m sure Mr. Taylor would agree that neither he nor I are interested converting anyone. Polemicists are mostly about expressing their own opinion in as controversial and disputatious manner as possible and may the devil take moderation.

Even many conservative friends have taken me to task for being unyielding in this regard. “Can’t we all just get along” is a fine sentiment but hardly germane to politics as it is practiced today. Yes there are times when I bow to reason and logic to agree with Democrats and the left. But on The Really Big Issues of war and peace, the destruction of our culture versus the preservation of many of our values, and the best way to promote freedom and democracy at home and abroad, I stand as a man of the right and damn those who oppose me.

The votes are in from this past week’s Watcher’s Council and the winner is The Sundries Shack for Jimmie’s biting commentary on Islamism entitled “Memorial to Millions of Dead Jews Offensive to Muslims.” Finishing tied for second was a thoughtful article called “Regression” by Dr. Sanity and Dymphna at Gates of Vienna’s excellent analysis of Bill Whittle’s “Tribes” essay (which won going away in the non-Council category) “Sheepdogs Driving the Bus.”

If you’d like to participate in the Watcher’s Council vote go here and follow instructions.

GLENN REYNOLDS SAYS “DON’T MISS IT!”

I’m sorry to disappoint all of you who thought that your post highlighted the most clueless cluebat of the week, but I’ve got him. In fact, this guy will definitely make the short list for Cluebat of the Year.

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy was in Israel on a state visit and was taken to the Holocaust Museum and Memorial Site in Jerusalem, Yad Vashem, On September 8 during the visit, he asked - while perusing maps of European sites where Jewish communities had been destroyed - whether British Jews were not also murdered. That is, he was under the impression that Britain had been conquered by Hitler during World War II. At least we assume that he knew that it was World War II that Hitler started and not the Peloponnesian War.

The minister apparently was not content with this answer, which was given by the museum curator, and persisted, asking: “Yes, but were there no Jews who were deported from England?”

How beautiful is that? First, he’s French. Second, he’s a prominent member of the Chirac government. Third, he’s an educated Frenchman, a doctor of medicine with a Masters in Biochemistry - so of course Chirac makes him head of the foreign office. Third, how delicious is it that he made a fool of himself in Israel!

Compare this former Minister of Culture and his education with our own Secretary of State Condi Rice’s educational pedigree; University of Denver cum laude and Phi Betta Kappa in Political Science at age 19. A Masters degree from the University of Notre Dame and PHD in International Studies from the University of Denver.

Making Philippe Douste-Blazy Minister of Foreign Affairs would be like Bush making Dr. Phil Secretary of State. And at least Dr. Phil seems like he’d be smart enough to keep his yap shut and not make an utter, clueless fool of himself on the international stage.

Okay..I’ve started us off on the right foot. Why not spend a relaxing few minutes perusing this week’s gaggle of goose-brained jamokes whose cluelessness has been highlighted by our excellent bloggers and blogettes.

Réussir au monde qu’elle n’est pas asse’à être stupide, vous doit également être poli. (To succeed in the world it is not enough to be stupid, you must also be well-mannered.)
(Voltaire)

I dunno, Volty. It’s obvious you’re unfamiliar with the way French diplomacy works these days. “Rude and Stupid” is the title of the French Diplomat’s Handbook.
(Me)
**********************************************************************************

Wouldn’t you have loved being at the Hitchens-Galloway debate the other night? Well our Carnival Golden Girl Pamela from Atlas Shrugs was there and in her usual dainty, ladylike way hooted and hollered at Galloway and his moonbat supporters, drawing the ire of the lot of them. She’s got pics too!

The Squib has some interesting news from our friends north of the border and the Parti Quebecois. Evidently, the French-speaking seperatists will now require their candidates to be “floor-lickingly drunk.” Should make for an interesting campaign…in a French sort of way.

Van Helsing has Cindy Sheehan in the crosshairs of his crossbow (didn’t you people see the movie?) and regrets that the New Orleans “occupation troops” have been too professional to do the world a big favor.

Hey Ward Churchill fans! Those perspicuous pachyderms at Elephants in Academia have your updates for you. Um…make sure you step very carefully around there. Churchill left several steaming piles behind.

Pat Curley at Brainsters tells the story of a brainless hippy deported from Australia on rather specious grounds. The real story is found on the goofball’s website that includes some interesting ideas about what to do with money.

Beth at MVRWC has an absolutely hysterical post about her “Idiotarian Commenter of the Year.” Attention lefty wankers: Do not, I repeat, DO NOT venture there if you value your hide.

Harvey at Bad Example has some advice on “How not to run an NFL Website.” Being a fan of my beloved Bears, it doesn’t surprise me that the hated Packers are that clueless.

Northstar at The People’s Republic of Seabrook has the skinny on the clueless duo of Rene Zellweger and Kenny Chesney’s annulment after celebrating their fifth anniversary. That’s their fifth month anniversary.

The Soccer Dad takes on the mad mullah’s terrorist President, Mr. Ahmadinejad for his comments regarding the feds response to Katrina. I guess he forgot the fact that it took 6 days for his military and relief people to get to the site of Iran’s last earthquake. Must be the radiation from all that enriched uranium frying his brain.

Minh-Duc has written a fantastic essay on the Pledge of Alliegiance and why atheist Michael Newdow is barking up the wrong tree with his opposition to the words “under God” in the pledge. Great stuff from a Carnival favorite.

We’re all familiar with the fine art of fisking. Well AJ at The Strata-Sphere does a first class job of fisking Cindy Sheehan’s commentary via Michael Moore’s blog that’s as detailed and thorough a job as you’re going to see.

What’s this? One of our gentle homeschoolers at The Common Room being rude? America is truly in trouble if Equuschick can’t hold her tongue. Alas, read the post and you’ll see she was more than justified in her verbal takedown of a “generous” customer.

Tony at More than Loans worries that Bill O’Reilly now has him “defending” child molesters. Don’t worry, Tony. Mr. “O” has gotten to all of us at one time or another.

Mr. Right forgoes the satire this week (I know…I miss it too) but makes up for it by linking to what has to be the moonbattiest site on the internets.

Wonder Woman at North American Patriot has more on Cindy Sheehan and her Magical Mystery Bus Tour. Check out WW’s site for some excellent commentary from a “conservative atheist.” (Join the club!)

Not content with trying to ban smoking outdoors on your own property, the PRMC (People’s Republic of Montgomery County), according to Matt Johnston, has now decided to inhibit free speech - once again on your own property. Would somone please send the Montgomery County Commissioners a copy of the US Constitution?

Mensa Barbie dons a skintight fireproof racing suit (I wonder if she likes NASCAR?) to give us the most clueless world record listed in Guiness. Judging by the result, the gentleman’s work should be exhibited at the Guggenheim as a sterling example of modern art.

Cao at Cao’s Blog sums up the firestorm over the “Crescent of Embrace” in the memorial for the passengers of Flight #93. Excellent piece with some original thinking.

Fausta at Bad Hair Blog “unmasks” Hugo Chavez for the moonbat moron that he is. Maybe “The Laughing Goat” is reading the tea leaves a little too closely.

Mean Ole Meany is picking on Mary Landrieu so you don’t have to. Now, what’s this about his female dog named “Roger” and Blackjack Dealer School?

Reaganites Unite want us to turn down Vincente “Crazy like a” Fox’s offer to flood the US with laborers to help rebuild New Orleans. As if they don’t have enough problems already…

Flash! The Nose on your Face informs us that the same judge who ruled the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional has now ruled that the Constitution itself is unconstitutional! Great political satire!

Raven takes the Euro-twits to task for their attitude toward Iran’s suggestion that it share its nuke technology with other Islamic states. Quoth the Raven: Nevermore. “It’s all a bunch of bulls**t. Iran has no interest in energy production and anyone who believes this should live in France or Germany.”

Scientist-philosopher Bergbikr from TMH Bacon Bits takes on that noted Climatologist (or is it gynecologist?) Bill Clinton for his comments on global warming and hurricanes on Meet the Press. Wasn’t that debunked within about 15 minutes of when it first appeared?

Miriam pines for the good old days when women had never heard of PMS and no one had ever heard of “midlife crisis.”

Robbie at Urbangrounds has some issues with Rolling Stone Magazine and their editorial policy. How a great mag went south. Pity.

Batya at Shiloh Musings spanks Likud leader Uzi Landau for comparing himself to Harry Truman. I agree with Batya that the party of Begin has seen better days and better leadership.

Watching Barbara Boxer is a full time job for Elisa at Boxer Watch. There are times, Elisa says, when Babs makes her job too easy!

Mark Coffey has the perfect machine for those of us missing our daily laughfest from the New York Times editorial page. It’s “The Times-o-Matic.”

Mr. Satire blesses us with two uproarious posts this week: “President Bush Asks Nagin, Blanco and Brown To Evacuate Americans to Andromeda Galaxy” and “Mephitic French PM de Villepin Suggests Shower and Soap To Combat Welfare Fraud.

Finally, here’s my takedown of one of the lefty trolls who email me from time to time.

When the history of the twentieth century is written a hundred years from now, I suspect that there will be a paragraph or two on William Jefferson Clinton. While there will be volumes written about the Roosevelts, Wilson, Reagan, and even Johnson, I doubt whether Clinton’s legacy will rate much attention from future historians for one simple reason; nothing much happened during his Presidency.

Clinton had the misfortune (from his own perspective) of being the very first “post-cold war” President. For more than 50 years, through economic crisis, war, and the standoff with communism, the American Presidency was where the action was. But following the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the stirrings of democracy in Russia, it was as if the hot air was let out of a balloon. Suddenly, the Presidency as an office, began to revert to something closer to what the founders intended; a Chief Executive who disposed what the Congress proposed. While it’s true that the Presidency still wielded enormous power in foreign affairs, the American people made it crystal clear with the defeat of Bush the elder (and the election of his son in 2000) that they wanted a President who stayed at home to mind the economic store and not go gallivanting off on foreign adventures.

“It’s the economy, stupid” was more than a catch phrase for the Clintonistas; it was a mantra that when repeated ad nauseum signified the changing nature of the Presidency. While it was generally true that even during the cold war the American people voted their pocketbook when casting a ballot for President, that simplistic explanation never took into account the underlying relationship between an American citizen and their President.

When catastrophic nuclear war was a real possibility, the American people wanted a President that they could poke in the chest and feel a hardness, something more substantial than the platitudes and bromides heard during an election campaign. This is why the vote for President is the most personal, most complex vote any American makes. The decision to vote for one man over another was always based on intangibles, something that President Carter’s pollster Pat Caddell brilliantly elucidated during the Democratic primary campaign of 1980.

Caddell believed that even though Senator Ted Kennedy had a 30 point lead over Carter in the fall of 1979, primary voters would turn against him once his “character” was made an issue. For Caddell, it wasn’t just Chappaquiddick that was in play, it was Kennedy’s ultra liberal “squishiness” that the Democratic voters wouldn’t be able to stomach. To illuminate Kennedy’s character problem, Caddell then designed a series of “man in the street” interviews with ordinary Americans that were absolutely devastating in their impact. Carter turned that 30 point deficit into a series of stunning primary victories that destroyed Kennedy’s presidential ambitions forever.

Clinton’s problem in 1992 was similar to Kennedy, but the election dynamic had changed. The character issue now dealt with how closely Americans could identify with their President on a personal level. This was a luxury not available to Democratic Presidential aspirants from Adlai Stevenson to Michael Dukakis. So Clinton’s venality could be seen in the context of personal peccadilloes that all men are either tempted to engage in or are actually guilty. In a very real way, Clinton’s faults became political pluses; something Republicans to this day refuse to acknowledge and could never understand.

Recently, Clinton has engaged in a series of activities designed to create a legacy that will overshadow the inconsequentiality of his time in office. His participation with the President’s father in both Tsunami and hurricane relief are, I’m sure, heartfelt efforts to assist the humanitarian efforts in these twin disasters. And while many Republicans have criticized his “Clinton Global Initiative” as an exercise in hubris, the fact is it successfully brought together world leaders in an organized way to talk seriously about problems facing all of humanity.

This is no small achievement which unfortunately has been overshadowed by the aftermath of Katrina. But leave it to Bill Clinton to mix the selfless with the selfish, the heartfelt with the heartless. In an interview on This Week, Clinton blasted President Bush for his Administration’s handling of relief efforts in the immediate aftermath of Katrina as well as the President’s policies in Iraq, the economy, and even Afghanistan:

Former US president Bill Clinton sharply criticized George W. Bush for the Iraq War and the handling of Hurricane Katrina, and voiced alarm at the swelling US budget deficit.

Breaking with tradition under which US presidents mute criticisms of their successors, Clinton said the Bush administration had decided to invade Iraq “virtually alone and before UN inspections were completed, with no real urgency, no evidence that there were weapons of mass destruction.”

The Iraq war diverted US attention from the war on terrorism “and undermined the support that we might have had,” Bush (sic) said in an interview with an ABC’s “This Week” programme.

Clinton said there had been a “heroic but so far unsuccessful” effort to put together an constitution that would be universally supported in Iraq.

John Hinderacker at Powerline allows himself to engage in a little hyperbole on the issue of past-presidents criticizing their successors:

This has never happened before. Until now, both parties have recognized a patriotism that, at some level, supersedes partisanship. Consistent with that belief, former Presidents of both parties have stayed out of politics and have avoided criticizing their successors. Until now. The Democrats appear bent on destroying every element of the fabric that has united us as Americans.

This is true up to a point. While Eisenhower never overtly criticized Kennedy for the Bay of Pigs fiasco - an operation planned under his Administration - he let it be known to several prominent newspaper friends that he was unhappy at Kennedy’s performance. And acting as a surrogate for his former boss, Richard Nixon was harsh in his criticism of Kennedy’s handling of the matter.

Also, Jimmy Carter regularly criticizes American policy under his successors although no one pays any attention to him. Anyone who heard his speech at the Democratic Convention knows that Mr. Carter never let tradition stand in the way of a pouty, sanctimonious rant.

So while not unknown, it is unusual for a President to lash out at a successor in this manner. The language Clinton uses as well as the forum - a Sunday morning talk show - was designed to get the maximum amount of exposure for at least two 24 hour news cycles. In other words, Bill Clinton once again is the talk of the town, something I’m sure he relishes more than anything except returning to the White House.

And that ultimately what this may be about. One could probably say that this marks the official beginning of the 2008 Presidential campaign. The titular head of the Democratic party has fired a shot across the bow of the campaign of any putative Republican nominee. For unless President Bush self destructs, or the economy goes south in a big way, or progress in Iraq is arrested or reversed, the President will have an enormous say in who is standing at the podium delivering an acceptance speech at the 2008 Republican convention. And it should go without saying that the nominee will have run in the primaries on Bush’s record of achievements. Hence, the Clinton political challenge should be seen in the context of him being a stalking horse for his wife Hillary.

As he makes the transition from statesman to surrogate, Clinton may find that his statements will receive more critical scrutiny from the press. It is unfortunate that his current rant against the President will not. As Hinderaker says quite correctly, Clinton “flat out” lied:

Clinton’s assertion that there was “no evidence that there were weapons of mass destruction” is a flat-out lie. The Consensus Estimate of the American intelligence agencies has been made public, and we have quoted from it and linked to it on many occasions. America’s intelligence agencies said, with a “high degree of confidence,” that Saddam possessed both chemical and biological weapons. These were the same intelligence reports that Clinton received as President, so he is well aware of them. His statement was not a mistake, it was a lie.

Lori Byrd at Polipundit has even more evidence from Clinton’s own mouth and reiterated as recently as 2003 that his Administration firmly believed that Saddam had WMD.

So the question isn’t really about the ex-President’s selective memory, it’s about attacking the current occupant of the White House on behalf of his wife’s forthcoming Presidential candidacy. And it may even be about the great unspoken question of Hillary’s candidacy: What role will Bill Clinton have in her administration?

With the world such a dangerous place again, Americans appear to be inclined to couch their Presidential vote in terms of personal security, something John Kerry found out to his detriment in 2004. Will Bill Clinton add to or subtract from a Hillary Presidency in this regard? Will Republicans be able to use the fact that America was sleepwalking through the 1990’s as al Qaeda gathered its forces to attack us? Or will the presence of Bill Clinton allow Americans to think back to the days before 9/11 when the world seemed a much simpler and less stressful place?

Bill Clinton is the wild card of the Presidential campaign of 2008. And I suspect, that fact gives him an enormous amount of pleasure. Because win or lose, the Clintons are about to make history - something any ex-President would give their right arm to achieve.

One of the more interesting things about having a post linked by dozens of liberal blogs is the different kind of clientele this site has gotten recently.

My Katrina Response Timeline was linked to by more than 180 blogs and dozens of forums and chat rooms. Not all of them, however, were conservative. And the fallout from this has been literally dozens of lefty trolls whose comments and emails have given new meaning to the term “hate mail.”

I’ve had to delete a dozen or so comments on my posts due to obscene language. I’ve deleted 3 or 4 others for being overly insulting. But it’s the volume and ferocity of the emails that has surprised me.

Here’s one from an admirer in Canada:

Rick - I read your article “The greatest political appointee in history”, and checked on John Adam’s biography. I came across the following quote:

‘…On November 1, 1800, just before the election, Adams arrived in the new Capital City to take up his residence in the White House. On his second evening in its damp, unfinished rooms, he wrote his wife, “Before I end my letter, I pray Heaven to bestow the best of Blessings on this House and all that shall hereafter inhabit it. May none but honest and wise Men ever rule under this roof.” ‘

I assume you and the rabble you are arousing believe Bush to be honest and wise.

Adams also made peace with the French, but I also assume that, as Superhawk, you probably wouldn’t make peace with anyone, but believe only in total domination of America over the lesser mortals that inhabit the rest of the planet.

I will have to read more to try to understand your arrogance and aggressiveness.

Tomorrow, I will tackle your article on Cindy Sheehan to see if it is anything more that a load of abusive garbage - suitable for rabble, I suppose.

Garbage like this I can handle. It only proves my point regarding liberal elitism. This one, however, was too good not to give a response:

I don’t usually involve myself in abject stupidity, but I really must say that you folks have taken this theme to unbelievable heights!! A masterful job if ever I have seen one and I have been on this earth quite a long time.

A staunch, unshakable Republican (?) friend of mine sent me your site with the comment that he considers the views expressed here as “main stream” America. If that is so, I am truly sorry and saddened for this nation and the American people.

If what I have read here is an example of the American “main stream”, then the “Grand Experiment” has failed!! As I read what is written here, I see in my minds eye shades of Goring and Gobles; I taste the flavors of Stalin, Lenin, Marx and Benito Mussolini. My mind cannot help but conger up images of Torquemada’s Spain!

You are one sick bunch of little boys and girls!

Mind you, I am not a Democrat, a liberal, Green or Libertarian. I am not a Republican, conservative, or Neocon, and I’m Damned sure not one of you!! I am a pragmatist. Under normal circumstances, I will not put my hand on a hot stove, stand in the rain without cover, or piss in my own, and everyone else’s, Post Toasties as you are so gleefully doing.

I feel very sorry for your mommy and daddy, they must have been very kind hearted - or they would have drowned your silly ass at birth!

I didn’t have the heart to tell the idiot that I was the only writer on the site. Instead, I took the ignorant wretch to school with this response:

Thank you for your note. However, I feel it necessary to correct it for the numerous mistakes made in context, spelling, and grammar.

Rick Moran
RWNH

The only response I got from the gentleman was “I rest my case,” whatever that meant.

Actually, he proved himself smarter than I thought…He quit while I was ahead.

Alright, I’ll admit it. I’m lazy.

There are so many things I’ve wanted to write about recently - Able Danger, Iran, our space policy, the UN, the idiocy of the left, the Antietam anniversary, shake up at the CIA - the list goes on.

For a long while I was trying to post at least twice a day. Lately, it’s been a struggle to post even once. That will change this week as I’m making a commitment starting tomorrow to post at least once in the morning and once in the late afternoon or evening.

After all, it’s not like there’s nothing to write about! I just have to get my lazy ass in gear…

To my loyal readers (and I know there are one or two of you out there) I thank you for your patience. And to those of you who perhaps recently discovered this site, I’d like to welcome you and express the hope that you’ll check in once or twice a week. I won’t disappoint you.

Calling all bloggers!

You have until Monday night at 10:00 PM to get your entries in for this week’s Carnival of the Clueless.

Last week’s Carnival was the best yet with 34 entries from both the right and left side of the political spectrum hammering those individuals and groups among us who are truly clueless.

Here’s what we’re looking for:

Each week, I’ll be calling for posts that highlight the total stupidity of a public figure or organization – either left or right – that demonstrates that special kind of cluelessness that only someone’s mother could defend…and maybe not even their mothers!

Everyone knows what I’m talking about. Whether it’s the latest from Bill Maher or the Reverend Dobson, it doesn’t matter. I will post ALL ENTRIES REGARDLESS OF WHETHER I AGREE WITH THE SENTIMENTS EXPRESSED OR NOT..

You can enter by emailing me, leaving a link in the comments section, or by using the handy, easy to use form at Conservative Cat.

Cindy Sheehan is a living photoshop image. Set her down anywhere on the planet, put a microphone within 10 feet of her, and out of her mouth will spew the counterintuitive, the illogical, and the jaw dropping rants of a half-crazed, drooling dervish; a maddening combination of weepy radicalism and angry ideologue. Her appearances, now carefully scripted and choreographed, have degenerated into caricatures of her once tearful soliloquies. She has truly and totally been captured by the revolutionary left.

Does she realize what her benefactors have done to her?

These are not your garden variety leftist lickspittles who are holding Cindy Sheehan hostage. The hard-eyed men and women who now surround her are not interested in political change except as it can be used to achieve their revolutionary ends. People like Cindy Sheehan (unwittingly?) and Ward Churchill (willingly) are stage actors in their Grand Drama of the Republic. They are the cockroaches of our culture who thrive on chaos, grow strong in disaster, and whose message resonates the most with those on the fringes of society.

Thus are the armies of the revolution built.

They have learned their revolutionary craft at the feet of the masters. Lenin, Mao, and Hitler all came to power amidst chaos and unrest following some great upheaval. Revolutionary Russia seethed with discontent but it took the massive societal dislocations of the Great War to hasten the advent of Bolshievism. Mao’s ultimate victory was sealed in the immediate aftermath of World War II as the 4 year Chinese Civil War ravaged the countryside and cost up to 6 million lives. And Hitler came to prominence and power first when the hyperinflation of the mark impoverished the middle class in the early 1920’s and later as the Great Depression destroyed it.

So what better place for Cindy Sheehan to bring her Magical Mystery Tour Bus than the storm ravaged city of New Orleans. Not only will she be able to rail against her imagined nemesis President Bush, but her script supervisors and image consultants have some wonderful visuals they can use for the travelogue DVD they are making of this quixotic, cross country defeatist tour. Are they consciously trying to evoke memories of Ken Kesey’s Merry Pranksters and their coast to coast “Electric Kool-Aid Acid Tests” where, besotted with drink and tripping the light fantastic on LSD, Kesey sought a changed reality that included being able to experience the psychedelic without the use of drugs?

I doubt whether the sourpuss lefties who are running Sheehan actually have the sense of humor to understand what Kesey was trying to accomplish so any parallel would be purely accidental. And Sheehan herself, suburban and sheltered for most of her life, acts the part of someone who has been so intellectually starved that the radical ideas she’s been exposed to hit her full force and bowl her over, so raw and powerful are the emotions engendered by the combination of the loss of her son and the imagined gain of a belief system that explains that horrible fact.

Sheehan on the tragedy in New Orleans:

I don’t care if a human being is black, brown, white, yellow or pink. I don’t care if a human being is Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, or pagan. I don’t care what flag a person salutes: if a human being is hungry, then it is up to another human being to feed him/her. George Bush needs to stop talking, admit the mistakes of his all around failed administration, pull our troops out of occupied New Orleans and Iraq, and excuse his self from power. The only way America will become more secure is if we have a new administration that cares about Americans even if they don’t fall into the top two percent of the wealthiest.

That quote could have come from “A Communist Revolutionary Handbook” stressing as it does the brotherhood of man, the evils of capitalism, the wildly exaggerated rhetorical flourish of “occupied” New Orleans, and a call for a “new Administration” despite the fact that even if Sheehan and her cohorts got their wish and George Bush rode off into the sunset (or climbed the steps of a guillotine) his Vice President, whose connections to Haliburton have been fodder for leftist bombast since Mr. Cheney took the oath of office, would carry on pretty much as before.

These are truly the bottom feeders of American politics. And Sheehan, once hailed as the Madonna of the American anti-war movement among the more mainstream Democrats finds almost all of her erstwhile supporters tip-toeing away hoping no one will notice or remember that they and their allies in the media made her such into such a heroic figure. No peacenik Joan of Arc she. There will be no Sheehan led assault on the still 2/3 majority idea that we must stay in Iraq until the job is done. Now she looks behind her and instead of seeing throngs of admirers she sees the crouching tigers and hidden dragons who only see the war as a way to divide America so they can conquer her.

Should we pity her loss? Yes, but for how much longer? When does her radicalism negate whatever sacrifice she has given in the effort to defeat Islamism, that other radical ideology whose rhetoric about the west and America is so similar that it could have been born of the same mother’s tongue? In Sheehan’s case, her message of hate will continue to fade until only the echoes of abomination and self-loathing are heard in the mostly empty halls and rooms of a radical on the declining slope of noteriety.

Sophocles rightly said “Only the dead are free from pain.” For Cindy Sheehan, there will come a time when she prays for the playwright’s wisdom to overtake her folly.

UPDATE

For a true and proper fisking of Mrs. Sheehan’s idiocy, AJ at Strata-Sphere is a must read.

Goldstein adds some thoughts from Billy Jack.

LGF (whose server crashed when Drudge linked the original post) has some truly great and funny thoughts in the comment section.

John Cole has an interesting picture of Mother Sheehan fraternizing with the enemy.

John Hawkins thinks Sheehan still is “an influential and beloved figure on the left, and she obviously speaks for much of the anti-war crowd in this country.” I disagree, although she’ll have one last major hurrah at the anti-war rally in Washington next week. After that, only C-Span will have any interest in her.

Sister Toldjah has a revelation regarding one of Cindy Sheehan’s new friends in Louisinana.

This article originally appears in The American Thinker

Much has been made of the fact that the President’s appointment of Michael Brown to head up the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was a matter of pure politics, a plumb assignment given to a loyal partisan who was a college roommate of Bush confidante and former FEMA head Joseph Allbaugh.

This may be true. And it also may be true that although Brown proved himself competent in other disasters, his performance in the aftermath of Katrina has been almost universally condemned both by partisan Democrats and even many Republicans. The criticism is usually attributed to the fact that Brown’s appointment was based not on his competence to do the job but rather his political connections.

The one does not necessarily preclude the other. There are numerous examples in history of Presidents appointing cabinet officials for political reasons who turned out to be outstanding, even brilliant public servants.

Abraham Lincoln’s cabinet was made up almost entirely of men who had opposed him for the Republican Presidential nomination. Salmon P. Chase was a former senator and governor who Lincoln named Secretary of the Treasury and later Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. A lawyer with no experience in finance whatsoever, Chase proved himself to be an able and innovative Treasury Secretary. He is generally credited with keeping the government on sound fiscal footing while raising the cash necessary to pay for the Civil War.

Another political appointee of Lincoln’s was Secretary of State William H. Seward whose policies helped to keep England and France on the sidelines during the war. Intervention by either of those two European superpowers could have spelled doom for the union. Edwin Stanton, who took over at the War Department for Simon Cameron, a corrupt political appointee, was an outstanding administrator and oversaw the rapid expansion of the armed forces.

Lincoln’s most unusual and most successful political appointee may have been newspaper publisher Gideon Welles who served as Secretary of the Navy. It was Wells who commissioned the ironclad Monitor whose famous battle with the CSS Virginia changed naval warfare forever. Wells also came up with the plans for a naval blockade of the South that eventually contributed mightily to ending the war.

None of these men were especially suited for the tasks assigned them. And yet, each performed magnificently in very trying times. Lincoln, like all Presidents, chose his subordinates based on a wide variety of factors, not the least of which was loyalty. And in Lincoln’s case, the political factor of geographic balance was vital to maintaining the support of a majority of northern citizens.

But by far the most spectacularly successful political appointee of all time came about as a result of one the first acts of the Second Continental Congress of 1775; the naming of a Commander in Chief of the citizen army encamped outside Boston.

Up to 12,000 militia had gathered to lay siege to the city following the April battles of Lexington and Concord. The Congress wanted to claim the army as its own but to do that involved some very delicate political maneuvering. The army was made up almost entirely of Massachusetts militia with a smattering of units from other New England states. Clearly, a way must be found to nationalize the army so that it at least appeared to represent all 13 colonies.

Enter a young lawyer from Massachusetts named John Adams who had a burning desire to see America independent of Great Britain. Adams originally had plans of his own to lead the army but realized what was needed most was the naming of a commander who would nationalize the effort.

There were candidates galore for the job. President of the Congress John Hancock had the advantage of being one of the wealthiest men in America but shared the same disadvantage as Adams; he hailed from Massachusetts. Israel Putnam, the pugnacious Major General currently in charge of the motley collection of militia and volunteers occupying the heights outside of Boston, was from Connecticut and had fought at Bunker Hill. But he was considered too provincial and perhaps too old by some to lead the army. Other General officers serving in the “New England Army” as it was called either weren’t well known or didn’t have the experience to lead such a large body of men.

Besides, “the business needs a Virginian” as John Adams was said to have remarked. Adams recognized that if the Congress were to name a Commander from the south, it would unite the colonies behind the army and make it easier for the states to support its functions. Since Congress itself had no money, the army would be entirely dependent on contributions from the states for its sustenance - a fact of life that the Continental army dealt with until the end of the war.

If the “business” did indeed require someone from the largest and oldest colony, Virginia obliged by supplying three qualified candidates for the job as Commander in Chief. Two of the candidates had extensive if not distinguished service in the regular British army. Charles Lee had joined the army at age 12 and steadily moved up the ranks. He served as an officer under General Braddock during the Fort Duquense expedition, a military adventure that saw his other rivals for command - George Washington and Horatio Gates - also present at that famous but ill-fated battle. After marrying the daughter of a Mohawk chief, Lee went back to England where he served in Portugal and Poland. Considered a brilliant tactician, he was nevertheless thought to be arrogant and eccentric - two qualities that came to the fore later in his career.

Horatio Gates was another officer in the regular British army whose experience outshone even that of Lee. In addition to service in the colonies during the 7 Years War, he also participated in the capture of Martinique, one of the more spectacular British victories of the war. He rose to the rank of Major but due to his lowly social status was prevented from further advancement. He retired in 1769 and moved to Virginia.

Almost to the end of the Revolutionary War, Gates had admirers both in and out of Congress who believed that he was the best man to lead the American armies to victory. The reason for this is largely hidden from us as Gates’ military abilities were more than once found wanting. However, in 1775 he looked like a pretty good bet except for one thing; many in Congress simply didn’t trust the fact that he had recently immigrated from England.

John Adams had his own candidate from the beginning; a Virginia planter and former Commander of the Virginia militia named George Washington. Washington had the advantage of being well known throughout the colonies for his service during the 7 Years War, having in effect started the conflict with France by attacking a small party of French regulars near today’s Pittsburgh. He also distinguished himself in retreat during the Fort Duquense fiasco for which he became something of a hero . Otherwise, Washington’s military experience was extremely limited. In fact, he resigned his commission in the militia in 1759 because the British refused to make him an officer in the regular army.

But Adams had bigger fish to fry than simply naming a commanding general. Washington had served in the Virginia House of Burgess and was as well known a political figure in the south as he was a military commander. It was part of Adams intent to cement the planter class in Virginia and the rest of the south to the cause. For that reason as well as the necessity to name a commander based on geographic balance, Adams successfully nominated and shepherded Washington’s election to the position of Commanding General of the Continental Army.

There’s no doubt on paper that Washington was the least qualified of the three Virginians to lead the Continental army. While obviously a capable man, there was really nothing in his background to suggest greatness as a military commander or leader of men. As it turns out, Washington began his career as Commanding General with the disastrous New York campaign during which the Continental Army was almost destroyed. But Washington eventually developed a strategic sense that far outstripped both his rivals for command and his enemies. It was George Washington who saw early on that if he could keep his little army from being destroyed, the Revolution would go on. Following his brilliant victories at Trenton and Princeton, Washington stuck to that strategy until the end of the war. It is doubtful that the European trained Gates or Lee would have been any where near as successful.

Appointing people to positions based mostly on politics - even to positions of enormous importance - has been done by every President in history. Harry Truman named Jame Byrnes, a long time politician with zero experience in foreign affairs, as Secretary of State in 1945. In his less than two years in that position, Byrnes proved himself to be pretty much of a non-entity, eventually being eased out by Truman in 1947.

George Bush miscalculated when he named Michael Brown to the position of FEMA Director. But that doesn’t mean he appointed Brown thinking he wouldn’t be capable of doing an outstanding job. There are usually good reasons for appointing some one to fill an important position in the federal government. Sometimes, those reasons are political. Call it “cronyism,” the fact is that President’s want people they can trust implicitly in key positions. It’s just at times, the individual named just doesn’t seem up to the challenges posed by the office. In that case, good Presidents cut their losses and get rid of the appointee as soon as that becomes evident as Bush has now done.

And while it may not satisfy his critics, Bush has a tremendous ability to expertly judge talent. Don’t be surprised if his recently named FEMA Director R. David Paulison proves himself more than capable of handling the job.

CORRECTION

Despite initial reports that Michael Brown was a college roomate of former FEMA Director Joe Allbaugh, they are apparently untrue. Allbaugh and Brown were friends in college but not not roomates.

I apologize for the error.

Leaders in a crisis have only two options; either they can try to control events or have events control them. Judging by the remarks made by former FEMA head Michael Brown in this interview with the New York Times, it appears that leaders at all levels - local, state, and federal - not only became captive to events surrounding the aftermath of the hurricane, but also failed to work together to get on top of the situation, wasting precious hours dithering about a “unified command structure” while the situation in the city spiraled out of control.

If it was Mr. Brown’s purpose to defend his actions during the disaster, he did a horrible job. Brown is revealed to be clueless, an absolutely disasterous choice to lead an agency where a hard nosed “can do” attitude is absolutely essential. Instead, he appeared in New Orleans believing himself to be a glorified waiter - someone whose job it was to write down the state’s order for hurricane relief rather than act as an executive who should have anticipated what was needed and behaved accordingly. This quote from Governor Blanco’s communication director is revealing:

Governor Blanco’s communications director, Mr. Mann, said that she was frustrated that Mr. Brown and others at FEMA wanted itemized requests before acting. “It was like walking into an emergency room bleeding profusely and being expected to instruct the doctors how to treat you,” he said.

It’s clear that Brown believed his job was to stay in the background and act as a facilitator of federal help:

When he arrived in Baton Rouge on Sunday evening, Mr. Brown said, he was concerned about the lack of coordinated response from Governor Blanco and Maj. Gen. Bennett C. Landreneau, the adjutant general of the Louisiana National Guard.

“What do you need? Help me help you,” Mr. Brown said he asked them. “The response was like, ‘Let us find out,’ and then I never received specific requests for specific things that needed doing.”

Of course, the scope of the disaster made “specific requests” moot. New Orleans needed everything and they needed it yesterday. Once this became clear - certainly by Tuesday morning- Brown should have been screaming for every available federal resource to be put into the pipeline and sent towards the beleagured city. Instead, like a good little waiter, he sent a list of what the city needed to Baton Rouge!

The next morning [Tuesday], Mr. Brown said, he and Governor Blanco decided to take a helicopter into New Orleans to see the mayor and assess the situation. But before the helicopter took off, his field coordinating officer, or F.C.O., called from the city on a satellite phone. “It is getting out of control down here; the levee has broken,” the staff member told him, he said.

The crowd in the Superdome, the city’s shelter of last resort, was already larger than expected. But Mr. Brown said he was relieved to see that the mayor had a detailed list of priorities, starting with help to evacuate the Superdome.

Mr. Brown passed the list on to the state emergency operations center in Baton Rouge, but when he returned that evening he was surprised to find that nothing had been done.

“I am just screaming at my F.C.O., ‘Where are the helicopters?’ ” he recalled. ” ‘Where is the National Guard? Where is all the stuff that the mayor wanted?’ “

This is simply unfathomable. Officials in Baton Rouge were already overwhelmed and Brown wonders why his little “to do” list wasn’t acted on?

This was a man in clearly over his head. This should have been apparent to the White House when Mr. Brown called to complain that he couldn’t get a “unified command structure” going with the state of Louisiana:

On Monday night, Mr. Brown said, he reported his growing worries to Mr. Chertoff and the White House. He said he did not ask for federal active-duty troops to be deployed because he assumed his superiors in Washington were doing all they could. Instead, he said, he repeated a dozen times, “I cannot get a unified command established.”

Here’s where Governor Blanco proved herself to be an empty suit. It’s apparent that this lack of “unified command” applied not just to coordination between state and federal authorities, but also between the governor’s office and the Louisiana National Guard. This becomes clear when General Honoré shows up and someone finally takes charge of the situation:

By Wednesday morning, Mr. Brown said, he learned that General Honoré was on his way. While the general did not have responsibility for the entire relief effort and the Guard, his commanding manner helped mobilize the state’s efforts.

“Honoré shows up and he and I have a phone conversation,” Mr. Brown said. “He gets the message, and, boom, it starts happening.”

There is no more damning piece of evidence that proves that officials at all levels of government simply froze up in the face of the daunting challenges posed by the aftermath of the hurricane.

Of course, it wouldn’t be the New York Times unless they tried to place the blame squarely on the White House. This piece of editorializing shows that the Times has a knack for not letting relevant facts get in the way of some good old fashioned Bush bashing:

But Mr. Brown’s account, in which he described making “a blur of calls” all week to Mr. Chertoff, Mr. Card and Mr. Hagin, suggested that Mr. Bush, or at least his top aides, were informed early and repeatedly by the top federal official at the scene that state and local authorities were overwhelmed and that the overall response was going badly.

Mr. Brown’s version of events raises questions about whether the White House and Mr. Chertoff acted aggressively enough in the response. New Orleans convulsed in looting and violence after the hurricane, and troops did not arrive in force to restore order until five days later.

New Orleans “convulsed in looting and violence” less than 24 hours after the hurricane hit because of the absence of local police (a third of whom simply deserted their posts) and the necessity of using the National Guard in the effort to rescue the thousands of citizens trapped on rooftops and in crawl spaces by the flooding.

And the reason that the troops didn’t arrive until “five days later” (there were 7,000 National Guardsmen on the ground in less than 3 days) was because Governor Empty Suit didn’t ask for the troops until Wednesday - two days after the hurricane struck.

It would have been an interesting New York Times article to read if the President had sent in troops on his own. I daresay the Times would be calling for the President’s impeachment following Mr. Bush’s declaration that the state of Louisiana was in rebellion - the only way the President would have been able to send regular army troops into Louisiana to help in law enforcement activities.

The interview with Michael Brown shows that President Bush made an error in judgement when he named this political hack to head up FEMA. But it also shows what happens when events outstrip the ability of leaders to manage them. The monumental nature of this disaster was clearly beyond the competence of governmental institutions to handle. It was made worse by the failure of those in leadership positions to act decisively.