Right Wing Nut House

The links below are to sites written by people that are generally considered very smart.

Well…much smarter than me…which come to think of it isn’t saying much…or anything at all for that matter.

You ever notice that REALLY smart people have very large heads?

THE GOOGLE-MEISTER

Would you like to know what’s really going on in Iraq? One word…Chrenkoff! His bi-weekly round-up of “Good News From Iraq” is the result of painstaking searches of media sites both national and international. He brings you the news from Iraq that the MSM doesn’t cover.

This post on the circular logic being used by both Sunni moslems and western liberals about why the Iraqi elections aren’t legitimate is a must read.

AN AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE IN LONDON

Gregory Djerejian is an American by birth living in England. His blog, The Belgravia Dispatch, is a series of posts on culture, politics, and the media in America from a European perpsective. He also posts on European attitudes towards America.

Being a former State Department employee, he has some great sources of information in several European capitols. His coverage of the Balkans is outstanding (check out this post about Serbian war criminals writing award winning books). His recent coverage of the elections in the Ukraine should receive whatever the blogger equivalent of a Pulitzer would be.

THE MYSTERY MAN

Who is Wretchard? What is the Belmont Club? Does it matter?

Only if you’re a snarky NY Times reporter, one who recently suggested that Wretchard was a Republican hack.

Whether Wretchard is a nom de plum, a pseudonym for a group of writers, or someone’s real name isn’t important. What’s important is that, bar none, you won’t find better analysis of the WoT on the net.

For an example of what I’m talking about, this series of articles on the Iraqi elections ( here, here, and here) will convince you that you’ve got to blogroll this site if you want the most penetrating analysis of issues around.

THE WRITER

Victor Davis Hansen is one of the most prolific writers in the United States. His talent is on loan from the angels. He is a master of the arcane area of writing known as “the column.”

Usually writing between 750-1500 words, a good columnist will be able to identify, analyze, and summarize any issue while writing prose that both inspires and provokes thought. Hansen does that in spades.

I don’t think I’ve ever read a bad column by VDH. This one is no exception. Putting the war against Neoconservatives in an historical context while exposing liberals as anti-semites, the column, like all VDH pieces, makes you think. Isn’t that what smart people are supposed to do?

OLD EUROPE EXPERT

John Rosenthal is an expert in international relations who speaks 5 languages and has been published in both scholarly journals and mainstream press in several countries. He’s taught at Ivy League schools and other comparable European institutions.

Talk about scary smart…

His blog The Transatlantic Intelligencer can, at times, be a little to “wonkish” in that it deals with issues at a policy rather than political level. But that doesn’t take away from the brilliant analysis that John provides on issues affecting France, Germany and the US.

In this post, John takes on the international cultural diversity freaks and their drive to blur nationalistic lines by playing “identity politics.”

HOMETOWN BOYZ

The Chicago Boyz have a disclaimer on their blog that Chicago Boyz are not all boys and not all from Chicago. That being said, this group blog has a whole bunch of very smart people writing for it.

Their themes run the gamut; History, Politics, War & Peace, Incentives & Human Behavior, Economics, Markets, Finance,Technology,U.S. & Israeli Exceptionalism, Humor, Rock ‘N’ Roll, Galactic Conquest…truly a diverse group blog.

They’re all experts and they’re all REALLY smart.

Check out this post on US plans to hit Syria. Great stuff.

I know I’ve been sort of poking fun at some of these blogs but the fact is that if you read stuff by smart people, you can’t help but get smarter yourself.

One other thing you may have noticed. Site design on these blogs leave much to be desired. For God’s sake three of them or on Blogspot! Just goes to show that you don’t have to have a prize winning design on your site to get noticed.

That is, as long as you’re scary smart.

The American Prospect is one of those liberal publications so earnest in its desire to “do good” that making sport of their cluelessness hardly seems fair. Indeed, one could use a football analogy and penalize the perpetrator 15 yards, flagging him for unsportsmanlike conduct and piling on.

Don’t worry…we’re not gonna let that stop us.

The Prospect is running a contest to see if any of its readers can define liberalism in 30 words or less. No, I’m not joking:

We want you to submit a single sentence of no more than 30 words; click here to send an email to our editors. Please include your name and hometown (or, if you’d prefer that we withhold your name if we post your entry, let us know that instead). WeÂ’ll post some of our favorite entries as they come in, so bookmark this page and check back regularly.

The prize? Again, I’m going to have to quote directly because folks, you just can’t make this stuff up:

The Prospect staff will choose a winner by February 11, and he or she will receive a free one-year subscription to the Prospect, a copy of Arthur Schlesinger Jr.’s The Vital Center, an invitation to join our staff for a night out at our favorite haunt, and Robert Reich’s voice on the home answering machine.

“Robert Reich’s voice on the home answering machine?” I don’t know about you, but it may be amusing to try and think what message the former anti-capitalist, anti-business, pro high tax Secretary of the Treasury would leave on my answering machine:

“Hi! I’m Robert Reich and you’ve reached the residence of Superhawk. At the tone please leave your name, telephone number, IRS Identification number, and the amount you’ve paid in taxes for each of the last 8 years. Superhawk will get back to you. If I think you haven’t paid your fair share in taxes…so will the IRS…”

Scary prospect, that.

At any rate, how do American Prospect readers define liberalism? Some early entries:

Liberals believe in providing economic opportunity and security for all Americans, protecting the freedom and dignity of all people, and using AmericaÂ’s power to make the world a better place. — Matt Roder, Chicago

Yes, I know. Matt is a Repbulican. Unfortunately, he lives in Chicago where Republicans are as rare as Limonium bahamense and people are injected with an anti-Republican serum at birth.

Equality for all, privilege for none. — Mark OÂ’Connor

Now that’s more like it. Short, sweet, and incoherent. Liberalism is a mish-mash of moralistic mush defined by terms like “equality” and “privilege” that have no real meaning except when used to either prove one’s own moral superiority or tag the oppositon as elitist scumbags. P.J. O’Rourke said it best:

The principle feature of American liberalism is sanctimoniousness. By loudly denouncing all bad things - war and hunger and date rape - liberals testify to their own terrific goodness. More important, they promote themselves to membership in a self-selecting elite of those who care deeply about such things… It’s a kind of natural aristocracy, and the wonderful thing about this aristocracy is that you don’t have to be brave, smart, strong or even lucky to join it, you just have to be liberal.

Here’s another:

Liberals stand for opportunity for the little guy and gal; for investing in America’s future and demanding a return on our common investment. — Matthew Arnold, Kenosha, WI

This guy is definitely not a modern American liberal. He’s much, much, too practical for wanting a return on investment. Then again, would a conservative write something so forced and inane as “opportunity for the little guy and gal?”

Finally, this fellow indulges himself in the full panoply of liberal looniness:

Democrats stand for a level playing field: opportunity and education; good health and good jobs; personal safety and financial security; tolerance and freedom; and a government accountable to the people. — Sam Pratt, Hudson, NY

To dissect such moonbattery would tax the faculties of Socrates. If the government guarantees a “level playing field” how can it, at the same time stand for “freedom?” Freedom for who? In order to achieve that level playing field, someone’s freedom is going to be curtailed (certainly not the liberals’ freedom…that just wouldn’t do). Similarly, if the government guarantees “personal safety” one would have to assume limits on personal freedom to prevent people from doing things that could potentially harm themselves…like eating at McDonalds or sky-diving.

Here’s P.J. O’Rourke on the difference between liberals and conservatives:

Conservatism is sometimes confused with Social Darwinism or other such me-first dogmas. Sometimes the confusion is deliberate. When those who are against conservative policies don’t have sufficient opposition arguments, they call love of freedom “selfish. ” Of course it is-in the sense that breathing is selfish. But because you want to breathe doesn’t mean you want to suck the breath out of every person you encounter. Conservatives do not believe in the triumph of the large and powerful over the weak and u seless. (Although most conservatives would make an exception to see a fistfight between Norman Schwartzkopf and George Stephanopoulos. If all people are free, George Stephanopoulos must be allowed to run loose, too, however annoying this may be.)

But some people cannot enjoy the benefits of freedom without assistance from their fellows. This may be a temporary condition-such as childhood or being me when I say I can drive home from a bar, just fine, thank you very much, at three a.m.-or, due to infirmity or affliction, the condition may be permanent. Because conservatives do not generally propose huge government programs to combat the effects of old age, illness, being a kid or drinking 10 martinis on an empty stomach, conservatives are said to be “mean-spirited.”

What’s truly amazing is that over the last decade or so there’s been a seismic shift in the definition of classic liberalism and classic conservatism. In short, the two ideologies have flip flopped. Liberals now stand for maintaining the status quo, fighting against change of any kind in government responsibilities like taxes, defense, foreign policy, social security, welfare, and the wise use of resources. Modern conservatives seek changes in all of these policies; not a return to a past where these policies didn’t exist but a fundamental shift in the relationship between the governors and the governed.

That’s what George Bush’s “Ownership Society” is all about. It’s not a reorganization of priorities but rather a redefinition of freedom in America. In a polyglot nation where people come from dozens of countries, speaking many languages and worshipping many gods, America has slowly been losing a true sense of identification with their own government. The cure for this, in the opinion of modern conservatives, is giving every American a financial and emotional stake in the country itself by allowing Americans to control their future. Personal retirement savings, health savings accounts, and a tax system that promotes investment and savings will give Americans a new sense of participation in America’s future.

Mired in the past, seeking to undermine freedom by abdicating any notion of personal responsibility, and obstructing changes in policies that would benefit all Americans; this is modern liberalism. The question remains if this tired, failed ideology can re-invigorate itself by allowing real self examination and introspective analyses of its faults.

UPDATE:

Welcome Polipundit readers! While you’re here, I’d like to draw your attention to a brand new conservative blog, “The Wide Awakes.” We’re a blog with 15 fantastic writers posting on a wide variety of subjects. Blogroll us!

Reaction at home and around the world to the President’s startling inaugural address was, if nothing else, predictable. Here’s a round-up of editorial opinion from newspapers here and elsewhere:

The New York Times sorta shrugged their shoulders as if to say “so what?”

Once in a long while, a newly sworn-in president moves beyond the deeply felt but slightly bland oratory and says something that people will repeat long after he has moved into history. Mr. Bush’s speech did not seem in danger of becoming immortal, but its universal intent suited the day.

The New York Post, on the other hand, fairly gushed with praise:

George W. Bush made it clear yesterday that he has no intention of resting now. He has eloquently challenged himself and his countrymen — believing full well that he, and we, will be equal to the task.

We pray that he is correct

The Chicago Tribune was cautiously supportive:

Inaugural speeches sometimes rise to history. Here is a prayer that Bush’s words on Thursday live beyond the moment, and that the next four years are defined not by divisions, but by the values that all Americans share.

Note: Lots of these editorials closed with a “prayer” that Bush succeeds. Being something of an atheist, I find it disturbing that the MSM is getting religion. What’s next? Prayer Breakfasts in the New York Times editorial board room?

The Los Angeles Times was reliably negative and insulting to boot:

A small man (in our view), who became president through accident of birth and corruption of democracy, he has been legitimized by reelection, empowered by his party’s control of all three branches of government and enlarged by history (in the form of 9/11). His second inaugural address was that of a large man indeed, eloquently weaving the big themes of his presidency and his life into a coherent philosophy and a bold vision of how he wants this country to spend the next four years.

Not only does the editorial reveal that the LATimes has forgotten 9/11 (even though they mention it, it doesn’t seem to cross their minds that anything should change because of it) they, like all liberals, seek to trivialize the momentous and complicate the obvious. On Bush’s opposition to using American troops for promoting democracy in 2000:

Not only does Bush now think otherwise — in the most sweeping terms — but he does not even acknowledge that there is a cost involved or another side to the argument. He makes it sound simple. Terrorism is bad, freedom is good. Coherence comes easier when you don’t sweat the details.

What part of “terrorism is bad, freedom is good” is incoherent. Frankly, I’ve never heard it put better.

The Washington Times issues a call for Reagan-like optimism:

The president avoided the cynicism that consumes so much of establishment Washington. It’s the cynicism which allows the president’s critics to consistently underestimate his ability to lead — and a vision of leadership is what the president offered yesterday. Cynicism has never once broken the chains of a slave nor, upon the ringing bell of liberty, inspire others to wonder, as the president asked, “Did our generation advance the cause of freedom?”

USA Today quotes the beating heart of the speech and approves:

There should be no disagreement over the underlying logic of Bush’s words: “America’s vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one.” The question now is how the president will apply that logic.

The Wall Street Journal, as usual, gets it exactly right (Listen to the moonbats barking):

This clearly is a President transformed by September 11. He has drawn the essential lesson of that day, which is that the U.S. cannot consider itself safe from the world’s turmoil simply by ignoring it. In George Washington’s day, we could avoid “entangling alliances.” But not in a world where fanaticism bred in the tyrannies of the Middle East can hijack planes and fly them into office towers in Manhattan.

The Times of London, that diary of moonbat madness, can barely control themselves. Check that; they DON’T control themselves. That wet spot you see at the bottom of the editorial page is the result of a little “accident” caused by the editorial board of that ancient and august institution having a collective apoplectic fit:

Yesterday the transformation of George W. Bush from frat-boy-made-good to solemn champion of an urgent, messianic mission to transform the world was completed.

And this:

Four years ago he was the Accidental President, scion of a ruling family propelled into the highest office more by genetics and duty than by political zeal and ideological mission.

Victor, sort of, after a messy constitutional scrum left him in charge of a divided nation and holding a flimsy legitimacy, this apparently callow and unengaged new President seemed to match the times. America in January 2001 was fat, happy and self-absorbed with the trivia of the post-Cold War world.

Jeez! Get over it already!

The Toronto Star fairly sums up the dangers of the President’s policy:

It is hard to quarrel with a U.S. president who presents himself as a champion of democracy, and human rights. And Bush did say the U.S. has no intention of imposing its style of government on others.

But if U.S. pressure plunges the Middle East or Asia deeper into crises before those in Afghanistan and Iraq are sorted out, Bush may multiply the very tyranny, anarchy and terror he hopes to stamp out.

Finally, being THE company newspaper in THE company town for politics, The Washington Post gives a little, takes a little, and sums up the prospects for success of the President’s ambitious proposals for spreading freedom:

That’s a policy with which we agree — and which, until now, Mr. Bush has not pursued. He has promoted democracy when it has coincided with other U.S. interests, as in Iraq, Iran and the Palestinian territories. When opposition to tyranny has been at odds with security or economic policy — in Pakistan, in Egypt, in Saudi Arabia, in Russia, in China — the Bush administration of the past four years consistently chose to ignore and excuse oppression. Anyone judging by Mr. Bush’s speech yesterday would have to conclude that U.S. policy toward those countries, and many others, is on the verge of a historic change. If not, his promise of “the greatest achievements in the history of freedom” will be remembered as grandiose and hollow.

The President’s speech will take a few weeks to sink in. The ideals and goals are so profoundly different-radically different-than the pious, platitudinous bromides about freedom and liberty tossed out like candy from a parade float in previous inaugural addresses, that Americans are going to have to get used to the fact that a seismic shift in international relations could be on the way.

The test will come in redefining our relations with three countries: Saudi Arabia, whose cheap oil we so desperately need to maintain a strong economy; Russia, where authoritarianism is beginning to rear its ugly head and whose nuclear stockpile is still dangerous; and a nuclear Pakistan, who like Saudi Arabia, has radical islamo-fascist elements in the government that not only brutally oppress their own people but who pose a real threat to America’s existence.

Those three countries have gotten pretty much of a free pass over the last four years. And that’s where the Presidents rhetorical rubber will meet the real politik road. That’s where our “vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one” idea will be most severely tested.

Cross-Posted at The Wide Awakes

Watching the Condi Rice confirmation hearings on television yesterday was like entering Mr. Peabody’s Wayback Machine and emerging sometime before the election on November 2. I don’t think even Sherman would have relished this rehash of history. The histrionics and speechifying of Democratic Senators caused my breath to catch several times as I had to keep telling myself that it was January 19, 2005 not late October, 2004.

The same thought struck Hindrocket over at Powerline , just going to show that great minds think alike…the only difference being that Powerline gets around 59,000 more unique visitors a day than my modest little enterprise.

First, wasn’t it a novelty to see John Kerry in the Senate? I mean, the Senator formerly known as flip-flop has been in the news these past couple of weeks flitting like a butterfly, going from one photo-op to another trashing the President and the war-that-he-was-going-to-win-but-that-we-shouldn’t-be-fighting-because-it-was-a-mistake. Hobnobbing with the tyrants, despots, and kleptocrats all over the mid east, Kerry’s trip resembled not so much a Congressional junket as a tour of some washed up American rock star, still able to visit world leaders but unable to have his newest album crack Billboards Top 100.

I loved this article on Kerry’s trip in the SF Chronicle with the headline “Kerry cheered in Baghdad, decries Bush team’s ‘blunders’ Once criticized for war stance, he says force alone won’t win.

First and most laughably, if you click the link to the article and read it carefully you’ll be in for a surprise: Nowhere in the article does it mention that Kerry was “cheered” in Baghdad or anywhere else for that matter! The only people “cheering” at Kerry’s statements were Musab al-Zarqawi and his merry band of beheaders.

Then there’s the curious statement “Once criticized for war stance…” Jyah! As if! I haven’t heard anyone retract their criticism of Kerry’s war stance since the election. This isn’t headline writing…it’s cheerleading. All that’s missing was the link button to donate to “Kerry in “08.”

That being said, Kerry, Senator Babs, and the rest of their clueless cohorts sure put on a show for the moonbats. Here’s Hindrocket’s take:

The hearings on Dr. Rice’s confirmation centered mainly on the fact that Iraq didn’t have “large stockpiles” of unconventional weapons after all. Gosh, there’s a news flash. Unfortunately for the Dems, most Americans have figured out that 1) every intelligence agency in the world believed that Iraq had WMDs; 2) an American President who failed to act in the face of this consensus would have been irresponsible; and 3) Saddam had possessed and used WMDs in the past, and was making every effort to reconstitute those programs at the time he was deposed, so the absence of “large stockpiles” at that particular moment is not very relevant.

In any event, that battle was fought last November.

Yup.

It must be terribly frustrating to be a Democrat these days. I mean, it’s terribly frustrating to be a liberal any day what with the world constantly going to hell in a handbasket and nobody listening to your brilliant, albeit useless, analysis of why the United States is to blame for absolutely everything from global warming to the high price of mother’s breast milk. Hindrocket puts his finger on the ultimate cause of this frustration:

But the Democrats’ real problem isn’t their incoherence. It’s the fact that President Bush has four years to complete the Iraq operation. There was one, and only one, opportunity for the Democrats to capitalize on the administration’s alleged failures there, and that opportunity is now gone. My guess is that four years from now, our troops will have been withdrawn, Iraq will be a functioning democracy, various benefits of Iraq’s transformation will be visible throughout the Persian Gulf region, and most people will regard the Iraq war as a reasonably successful and probably necessary part of our long-term effort to stamp out Islamic terrorism.

At which point, of course, we’ll here no more of the refrain “wrong war, wrong time, wrong place.” We’ve already forgotten Afghanistan. You remember Afghanistan? That’s the country that just held free, open, democratic elections for the first time in it’s history. I wouldn’t blame you if you’d forgotten. After all, you probably missed the story when it was first reported back on October 10. I guess when 10 million people vote for the first time in their lives as a direct result of military intervention by the United States, it’s much more important to report John Kerry’s 15th different position taken on the war in Iraq. It just wouldn’t do to credit the Bush Administration for any success whatsoever. That would smack of partisanship.

Then, to add insult and pettiness to the injurious and libelous way in which they slandered Dr. Rice’s integrity, the Democratic leadership wants to delay the Rice confirmation until after the Bush inaugural. Led by Senator Robert (what’s wrong with the hood?) Byrd, the Senate will exercise it’s constitutional duty to advise and consent…while looking like the sore losers and obstructionist lickspittles that they are:

Underscoring the Democrats’ dissatisfaction, Senator Robert Byrd, an outspoken critic of the decision to go to war, announced late in the day that he would not allow the Senate to approve Ms. Rice without a few days of consideration of her lengthy testimony, and at least a token debate on the floor. His refusal to join in the unanimous consent of all Senators for a quick vote effectively torpedoed the administration’s hopes to have her nomination approved Thursday.

“Senator Byrd and others believe that the Senate’s advice-and-consent Constitutional responsibilities are not a rubber stamp,” Mr. Byrd’s spokesman said. (NY Times: 1/20)

Funny that the Senator from Kleagleville never exercised that “Constitutional responsibility” during the Clinton administration.

Rice will be confirmed. Life will go on. And Democrats will continue to supply some glorious fodder for this and other right sites on the web.

Stay tuned.

“What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like a god.” (William Shakespeare, “Hamlet“)

“Well, man may be an angel. But he damn well must be a killer angel.”
(Sgt. Buster Kilrean from the movie “Gettysburg“)

For perhaps the last time in his Presidency (barring some catastrophe) George Bush will have the undivided attention of the vast majority of his fellow citizens tomorrow as he stands on the steps of what promises to be a bitterly cold and snowy Capitol to take the oath of office for his second term.

What will he say? What CAN he say?

Will he, like Lincoln, seek:

“…to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations…”

Or, will he issue a call to battle, as John Kennedy did so eloquently in 1961:

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

Will he speak to the New York Times, Washington Post, and other critics of his policies-especially in Iraq? Here’s FDR in 1945:

We shall strive for perfection. We shall not achieve it immediately—but we still shall strive. We may make mistakes—but they must never be mistakes which result from faintness of heart or abandonment of moral principle.”

Personally, I’d like to hear something like this, from of all people Jimmy Carter:

Let our recent mistakes bring a resurgent commitment to the basic principles of our Nation, for we know that if we despise our own government we have no future. We recall in special times when we have stood briefly, but magnificently, united. In those times no prize was beyond our grasp.

But we cannot dwell upon remembered glory. We cannot afford to drift. We reject the prospect of failure or mediocrity or an inferior quality of life for any person. Our Government must at the same time be both competent and compassionate.

More likely, given the passions he has aroused both for and against him, the President may say something along the lines of this quote from Lincoln’s first inaugural address:

Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world? In our present differences, is either party without faith of being in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of Nations, with His eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North (blue), or on yours of the South (red), that truth and that justice will surely prevail by the judgment of this great tribunal of the American people.

He could also use another, more famous passage from that same address:

We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

George Bush is plain spoken, as unpretentious a man that has ever occupied the White House. His first inaugural Address was noteworthy for its stylistic beauty and ambitious rhetoric. The delivery left much to be desired. Since then, Bush has developed a distinctive speaking style and his speechwriters (as well as he, himself) have, judging by his outstanding acceptance speech at the convention, found the right pitch and tone for the President’s rhetoric so that it is capable of inspiring and moving an audience. This didn’t seem possible four years ago, as Bush’s choppy delivery and stumbles over pronunciations doomed the speech to mediocrity.

Bush will have the stage. I hope he can grab the audience and garner some momentum so that he can accomplish some of his ambitious goals over the next 18 months.

Originally uploaded by elvenstar522.

In last night’s episode, we learned the following:

Secretary Heller is a courageous guy. For the first time in living memory, a conservative politician is being portrayed in a positive light. Smart, brave, a loving father, a patriot…Heller embodies qualities that would normally be associated with the portrayal of a Kennedy or a liberal…

Which means, of course, that before he dies its gonna be revealed that he’s participated in some incredibly NASTY and EVIL stuff…Maybe.

Audrey is one strong woman. This would seem to be, on its face, an obvious statement. After all, she IS sleeping with Jack Bauer (the smell of death alone on that guy must make being in the same room with him much less the same bed an exercise in vomit control.) But its more than that. Most of us have never thought what we’d do in a hostage situation similar to Audreys. If I ever do find myself faced with what she’s facing, I would hope I’d have the strength of character to deny the terrorists their little spectacle.

Edgar is a total wimp. Fat computer geek Edgar (Chloe: “You’re a geek Edgar…But a good guy. Don’t ever change.”) Being under the thumb of uber-bitch Maryann is one thing. But for God’s sake, geek, don’t you realize you can now turn the tables on her? If you rat her out to Erin regarding her shenanigans, it’ll be the word of a temp against yours! (Edgar has obviously never played the game of hardball office politics before.)

Beruss Azaz has an Oedipus complex. Greek king Oedipus, who killed his father and married his mother, had nothing on poor teenage, angst-ridden, hormone riddled, Beruss. It remains to be seen whether the father or the mother is going to be the one that has to kill the kid and put him out of his misery. Whether that happens before Beruss rats out his hated father will have us all on the edge of our seats.

Summary

The story wasn’t advanced very much. Heller and Audrey tried to kill themselves by turning on the gas…didn’t work. Jack got out of his little problem with the police by having Erin vouch for him (Sheesh! Not even a thank you!) and ended up watching as
terrorist Hasson “martyred” himself when he discovered that CTU was on his tail. Not to worry. At Jack’s request, a thermal overlay on a satellite image reveals the terrorist hideout. The conservative Republican President (who so far is pretty much of a non-entity) orders a cruise missile strike on the compound where the Secretary is just about to go on trial and Audrey is waiting to die. Erin orders Jack out of the area. Fat chance. I can guarantee that Jack’s body count next week is gonna go up considerably as it appears Jack is about ready to storm the compound all by himself to rescue his love.

We still don’t know what the main terrorist plot involves. We know that the next phase of it is an internet attack of some kind (Audrey recognized an American traitor working with the terrorists). Expect more of the plot’s outlines to be revealed after Heller’s trial is interrupted next week.

Body Count

Jack: 1 gratuitous wounding; 2 kills
Show: 54

Loose End

Jack is held up by the police for, according to the show’s time, more than 15 minutes waiting for his car to be retrieved from the convenience store parking lot. And yet, it takes him less than 20 minutes to catch up with Hasson. Do the math. If Hasson is going 60 MPH and is 15 minutes ahead, plus the additional distance he was ahead before the police stopped him, Jack would have to travel at close to the speed of light to catch up with him (actually, I don’t want to do the math. I’m no good at math. This is an algebra problem. Any sophomore’s in High School wanna give me a hand?)

Stay tuned for next week’s exciting episode where Jack either rescues Audrey and dissolves into a puddle of slobbering, weeping, quivering hunk of man-flesh or witnesses her death that will turn him into an avenging angel, shaking the thunder from the sky…Don’t miss it!

As you may or may not already be aware, members of the Watcher’s Council hold a vote every week on what they consider to be the most link-worthy pieces of writing around… per the Watcher’s instructions, I am submitting one of my own posts for consideration in the upcoming nominations process.

Here is the most recent winning council post, here is the most recent winning non-council post, here is the list of results for the latest vote, and here is the initial posting of all the nominees that were voted on.

Yours truly received a paltry 1/3 of a vote in a talented, crowded field that included Michelle Malkin, Capn’ Ed, John Hawkins, and Varifrank among others. The winning non-Council post was from the aforementioned Varifrank whose post “Today, I was Unprofessional” I myself linked to here.

My own contribution was entitled “Groping for Answers”. It’s about the Gonzalez hearings and the “torture narrative” repeated over and over by the left.

This week’s winning Council post comes via The Moderate Voice and fisks the Rathergate report right smartly:

Perhaps the biggest issue is how could a bunch of highly paid executives and Rather violate basic journalistic confirmation rules that are taught in any Journalism 101 class and not confirm this report? The panel details the steps that led to the report getting on the air and takes them to task. And, yes, competition is heated.

The program had gotten enough red flags on this story to hold a bullfight in Madrid…

Yup.

It seemed like a great idea. The bluest of blue newspapers, the Washington Post, sent one of its best young writers, David Von Drehle, into the wilderness of red state America to find the answer to the question foremost on the mind of any liberal worth his salt; how did George Bush win?

The earnestness with which the Washington Post attempted to uncover the secrets to electoral victory for their beloved Democratic party in an America that no longer pays much attention to them would be laughable if it weren’t so interesting as a study of the pathological nature of American liberalism.

The very premise of the project is reminiscent of New York Herald publisher James Gordon Bennett sending Henry Stanley to the darkest of Africa to find explorer/missionary David Livingstone in 1871. Stanley’s job was to find out whether or not Livingstone was alive and to bring back word of his explorations. Von Drehle’s charge-to find out why George Bush won-might not have the drama of that long ago journey of Stanley’s, but it certainly must have seemed to him just as arduous.

Beginning in Nebraska and ending up in Texas, Von Drehle’s journey encompassed 700 miles through the reddest of red counties, never coming within a hundred miles of a county that voted for John Kerry. He runs into his first problem with trying to describe red/blue divide in terms of height:

Blue islands and blue archipelagos, a blue isthmus here, a blue peninsula there, rise in a Red Sea that stretches from coast to coast. Rise quite literally, in many cases, because blue country is often marked by skyscrapers and high-rise condos and state capitol domes and university clock towers. Red country, as we shall see, is often quite flat.

I guess the states of Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Utah, and Nevada don’t have mountains as high as those majestic, snow capped Ivy League University clock towers.

Outside of Abilene, Kansas someone asked Mr. Von Drehle why the media never portrayed “people like him” in a positive light:

All I could answer was that we were tired of hearing pundits tell us about “Red America” and wanted a firsthand look. For months, the passions had been running awfully high. A lot of Democrats seemed settled on the belief that Bush supporters were stupid and selfish and sanctimonious, when they weren’t downright religious fanatics and bigots. Whereas the Republican op-ed types seemed to feel that every conservative voter west of the Mississippi was somehow endowed with an innate wisdom and bedrock virtue not seen since the last days of Socrates. When I first saw that county-by-county map, I felt drawn to go there, to hear for myself why George Bush was reelected. I did this knowing that Bush voters can be found anywhere. Why not just stay home and hunt for some here? I guess for the same reason a person might visit China and not just Chinatown.

This isn’t so much a Stanley and Livingstone meme as much as it’s a motivation similar to what drives photographers and writers for the National Geographic. After all, you can go to Detroit and find a community of Afghan exiles. But its so much more exciting to get dressed up in your Banana Republic khakis, jump in your Travelall, and hit the road to Kandahar. It should also go without saying that there’s not much chance of contracting dysentery in Dearborn.

In Waco, NE Von Drehle stopped at a bar to talk to the yokels. His description suggests some kind of blue state safari where the Thompson’s gazelles are spooked by the site of a blue state big white hunter:

A minute ago there were 12 regulars seated in the puddle of light beyond the pool table. Seven men clustered quietly together while five wives chatted amiably at the table beside them. Turns out a good way to get folks moving in Waco, Neb., is to introduce yourself as a reporter from Washington, D.C.

Considering the hit pieces they’ve done on conservative Republicans since Richard Nixon, can you blame them?

How about this breathtaking description of life in “The Red Sea” as he calls Bush country:

One of the first things worth noting about the Red Sea is that people live there because they like it. (Several people proudly pointed out to me that there are no houses on the market in Waco.) This basic fact strikes wonder in some city dwellers, who live in cities because they love cities. They love the bustle, the myriad options, the surprises and the jolts and the competition. It can require a leap of imagination to perceive that there are people who seek precisely the opposite, and not just on weekends and vacations.

This “leap of imagination” apparently escapes even Mr. Von Drehle who “reports” the momentous news that people live where they live because they want to. How can something so self evident be considered a surprise except to the most completely clueless? Notice also that Mr. Von Drehle doesn’t believe there are “surprises,” or “jolts,” or “competition” in red state America because people who live there “seek precisely the opposite.” What people seek in places like Waco, NE is a decent place to raise their children and respite from nitwits like Von Drehle who constantly tell them how ignorant they are for not wanting to live in a place where if you leave your door open at night (as they do in Waco and countless other small towns in red state America) you’re more than likely to be murdered in your bed.

One resident of a Nebraska town remarked how he liked being able to throw a snowball as far as he could without hitting anybody. Too bad Mr. Von Drehle couldn’t have stood in the path of that snowball. It would only be fair after he slimes the gentleman who made the remark:

I couldn’t help noticing that among the people Paul Kern won’t likely hit with a far-flung snowball are black people, openly gay people and people born in foreign countries. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, York County, Neb., is 97 percent white and more than 98 percent U.S.-born. One of the area’s distinctive entertainments is, Kern said, “watching a ballgame where all the kids on both teams are white, if you can believe that.

“Not that there’s anything wrong with the other!” he hastened to add. “But just to show you how it is around here.”

Anyone want to guess whether or not Mr. Kern actually used the term “distinctive entertainment” when talking about watching two teams of all white ballplayers?

One of the more fascinating aspects of the article was this study about the relationship between voters and their marital status:

There are 30 states — including all the Red Sea states — in which married couples form a majority of all households. Bush won 22 of the 30, by an average of 21 percentage points. The eight that went for Kerry were very narrow victories, an average of five points. Utah, with the highest percentage of married folks, gave Bush his largest ratio of victory: 71 to 26.

A similar relationship was found in states where married couples were outnumbered by single people and where the percentage was about equal. Mr. Von Drehle, tries to draw some conclusions about the data:

One could dream up all sorts of theories about this. Married people have, on average, a more stable financial situation. They have, on average, more avenues of support in times of trouble. You might say that marriage involves the surrender of certain personal liberties in favor of creating lasting institutions. You might say marriage favors stability over experimentation. All of these might point, on average, to a more conservative disposition.

Only a liberal would believe that conservatives are for “the surrender of certain personal liberties in favor of creating lasting institutions…” It must make it easier for them to believe that a happily married John Ashcroft cheerfully tried to gut the constitution because he had no problem with American citizens surrendering personal liberties.

Von Drehle actually comes close to summing up the Bush voter rather well and in a straightforward manner:

After a campaign in which the Democrat made very little effort to seek their votes, the Red Sea folks decided to cast their ballots in large numbers for George W. Bush. Something he said or did struck a chord with some note of their own political music. Maybe it was the feeling that bureaucrats just don’t get it. Or the idea that elitists hold the heartland in contempt. Maybe it was the worry that traditions are under attack. Maybe it was the view that coastal culture is an enemy, not a friend, in the effort to raise children. For some, it was the feeling of authenticity and apparent horse sense. The attitude toward land and resources that comes from living amid an abundance of both. The significance of personal faith.

Von Drehle’s travelogue doesn’t give him the single overarching answer he’s looking for. How could it? In a nation of 290 million people, it’s impossible to pigeonhole 60 million of them by trying to discover their motivations for voting, especially when it comes to voting for a President. Von Dehle, to his credit, realizes this:

I suppose there are no great surprises there — these views represent many of the strands that have been collected over the past generation into the political camp we call “conservative.” But the focus on this common label may obscure the individual nature of these voting decisions. I met regular churchgoers and people who attend church seldom if ever. I met young libertarians and elderly prims. I met a wealthy man and a man unemployed and deeply in debt. I met people who admire Bush and people who have little regard for him.

I imagine this might disappoint those people who seek a large and unified explanation of something as important as a presidential election. How much more satisfying it is — especially for those who make a living from explaining elections in catchy sound bites — to conjure up overarching themes, towering trends, looming like alps over an election. Nothing sells like a big trend story, whether the trend is “right-wing backlash” or “values revival.”

Mr. Von Drehle seemed to make a mostly good faith effort in trying to understand those strange and wonderful creatures who inhabit what he calls “The Red Sea.” And aside from several gratuitous slaps at attitudes and traditions of his subjects, he made some cogent arguments and observations about his travels.

What bothered me more than anything was the underlying theme running through the entire article that he was almost in a foreign country and that the observations he was making was of a different America than the one from which he came.

I wish he had concentrated more on what unites us as Americans than on what divides us as political and cultural adversaries.

UPDATE:

Pat over at one of my old favorites Kerry Haters points out more Von Drehle cluelessness. It involves a woman who says she couldn’t support Kerry because he was pro gay marraige and pro abortion. Von Drehle sniffs:

Later, I double-checked what Kerry had said on those subjects. During his campaign, he opposed same-sex marriage and said that abortion was a private matter. But Joyce Smith heard it the way she heard it, and voted the way she voted.

Pat’s comeback:

Look, this is one of the signal problems that Democrats have, something that I have commented about on more than one occasion. They don’t say what they really believe, but their actions speak louder than words. What is John Kerry saying when he says that abortion is a private matter? Essentially that he’s in favor of it. As for gay marriage, Kerry’s either lying, or completely out of touch with his own party.

Absolutely correct. For all their talk about changing how the party talks to voters, wanting to speak the “values language” of the Republicans, the fact is, the Democrats won’t get anywhere until they stop trying to hide who and what they are. Voters will vote for people who they have disagreements with. But they won’t vote for people they know are liars.

BTW, check out Pat’s excellent blog at Brainsters

Originally uploaded by elvenstar522.

Picture of Titan’s surface taken from about 8 miles up. The picture shows what could be a “lake” of frozen methane, a clearly defined shoreline, and a mist-shrouded horizon. The picture below is an enhanced 3-D view of the same topographical features.

Originally uploaded by elvenstar522.

The pictures were NOT processed by NASA or the European Space Agency. Instead, the raw images were downloaded and processed using open source image technology. (HT: The Professor. Note the link is to Spaceref.com due to very slow page loading). Titan enthusiasts were impatient with the slowness with which NASA and the ESA were releasing the processed images from the Huygens lander so they took matters into their own hands.

The second picture in the sequence above is an extrapolated image using image processing software. It allows any image that’s scanned to be viewed from any angle. The color has been added according to the ESA color scheme seen in this picture.

Note the clearly defined channels running down the bluff into what scientists think may be a methane (or perhaps hydrocarbon) lake. The second picture shows what could be an island in the background.

Weird. Odd. Spectacular.

Originally uploaded by elvenstar522.

Van Helsing over at Moonbattery alerted me to this disturbing bit of news:

In perhaps the most appalling example of moonbattery ever to arise at the relatively courageous Fox, the network has agreed to pay for the sin of having dared to air a show featuring Muslim terrorists by distributing to its affiliates two propaganda pieces produced by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a fifth-column Islamist organization with terrorist links.

Who is CAIR? Professor of Mid East Studies at Harvard Daniel Pipes ticks off some interesting things that CAIR has been associated with over the last few years and tells us what’s wrong with an organization its spokesman Ibrahim Hooper describes as being “similar to a Muslim NAACP.”

For starters, it’s on the wrong side in the war on terrorism. One indication came in October 1998, when the group demanded the removal of a Los Angeles billboard describing Osama bin Laden as “the sworn enemy,” finding this depiction “offensive to Muslims.”

In 2001, CAIR denied his culpability for the Sept. 11 massacre, saying only that “if [note the "if"] Osama bin Laden was behind it, we condemn him by name.” (Only in December was CAIR finally embarrassed into acknowledging his role.)

CAIR consistently defends other militant Islamic terrorists too. The conviction of the perpetrators of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing it deemed “a travesty of justice.” The conviction of Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind sheikh who planned to blow up New York City landmarks, it called a “hate crime.” The extradition order for suspected Hamas terrorist Mousa Abu Marook it labeled “anti-Islamic” and “anti-American.”

Not surprisingly, CAIR also backs those who finance terrorism. When President Bush closed the Holy Land Foundation in December for collecting money he said was “used to support the Hamas terror organization,” CAIR decried his action as “unjust” and “disturbing.”

So not only is CAIR an apologist for terrorists, they’re a fundraising arm for one of the most murderous and lethal group of thugs in the world, Hamas.

Van Helsing gives us his take:

Although Fox is leaving it up to their affiliates when and even whether they will run the CAIR pieces, the fact that they feel the need to negotiate with these villains will send a chill up any sane person’s spine. It is the equivalent of agreeing to distribute SS propaganda during World War II.

Spot on. I sincerely hope the Fox affiliate here in Chicago refuses to air this claptrap. After all, Jack Bauer has enough on his plate already. It’d be a pity if we had to let him loose on his erstwhile employers for supporting the very thing he’s fighting against.