Archive for November 14th, 2008

November 14, 2008

Megyn, with a ‘y’

Alas, she’s married. I’m married, too, but a guy can’t say, “Alas, I’m married,” or next it will be, “Alas, I’m divorced,” and then, “Alas, I’m living in a crappy efficiency apartment and three months behind on my child support.”

November 14, 2008

Infreakingcredible!

You can’t make this stuff up:

Years after being advised by a state agency to stop, the Dallas Independent School District continued to provide foreign citizens with fake Social Security numbers to get them on the payroll quickly.
Some of the numbers were real Social Security numbers already assigned to people elsewhere. And in some cases, the state’s educator certification office unknowingly used the bogus numbers to run criminal background checks on the new hires, most of whom were brought in to teach bilingual classes.

Ed Morrissey says this means teaching is “another job Americans won’t do.” Michelle Malkin says “I is for illegal.” Mexican teachers with Mexican students breaking American laws in American schools at the expense of American taxpayers, and some people still wonder why John McCain lost the election . . .

November 14, 2008

Amusing myself

In an e-mail just now, I wrote this:

“Compassionate conservatism” was nothing but “national greatness” in evangelical drag — baptizing the Nanny State, as it were. I liked conservatism back when it was mean-spirited much better than I like it now that it’s incompetent.

Sometimes my wife will walk past me at the computer and say, “Why are you smiling? You’re amusing yourself again, aren’t you?” Guilty as charged.

Otter to Boone in Animal House: “No, no, no. Don’t think of it as work. The whole point is just to enjoy yourself.”

Eric Stratton, rush chairman, damned glad to meet you!

November 14, 2008

Ace on Brooksism

Why he’s Blogger of the Year:

But why be coy about it, David? Why not just advocate for the positions you favor, rather than vaguely alluding to the idea that change is needed? What change?
You want the party to be more liberal. We get that. How about writing columns about the actual issues and actual positions you favor rather than forever nattering on about the hazy idea of “change” you can never quite rouse the courage — or effort — to detail?
There’s a dishonest aspect to this, too. Brooks — and Sager, and etc. — often avoid advocating substantively, on policy grounds, for their positions, instead preferring to argue in the neutral-sounding way that “We must do this to win.” And yet the polling data often does not even seem to support that position (nor do they offer much except naked assertion that adopting liberal policies will lead to electoral success). . . .
They’re really not arguing for a change in Republican strategy or policy. They’re arguing for a change in the Republican voting population itself — they want Republicans to change their opinions in favor of the minority, liberal-leaning Northeastern establishment opinion. Fine — that is their right. So start honestly and openly attempting to change Republican minds, rather than pushing nonsense like “pro-gay marriage policy is a net electoral winner.”

Ace has put his finger on the essential rhetorical trick of Brooksism:

Republicans are losing because they’re too conservative. Therefore, conservatives must support liberal policies, because otherwise Republicans will lose.

If the only proper political ambition for conservatives is to elect more Republicans, no matter what policies Republicans propose or implement, what’s the point of voting Republican? America already has one liberal party, why does it need two?

As Ace notes, Brooks insinuates and implies all this, seizing upon every turn of events to suggest that conservative domestic policy is a net political disadvantage, rather than coming flat-out and arguing (on policy merits) for gay marriage, abortion, etc. And you gotta love Ace’s walkoff:

I realize he’s a hack on a deadline and has to produce two columns a week. I realize that writing about nothing is a necessary skill for anyone expected to write consistently. . . .
But an excessively large fraction of Brooks’ columns seem to belong to the category of “I Got Nothin’ But a Deadline So Here Comes Some Bullshit.”

Maybe National Review could ask Ace to moderate next week’s panel instead of Brooks.

November 14, 2008

What’s wrong with the U.S. automakers, in three sentences

Not really complicated:

Total compensation per hour for the big-three carmakers is $73.20. That’s a 52 percent differential from Toyota’s (Detroit South) $48 compensation (wages + health and retirement benefits). In fact, the oversized UAW-driven pay package for Detroit is 132 percent higher than that of the entire manufacturing sector of the U.S., which comes in at $31.59.

(Via Charlie Martin.) If the Democrats in Congress really want to save the U.S. auto industry, that’s not really complicated, either: A nation right-to-work law.

November 14, 2008

Quote of the Day

“Can we please stop pretending David Brooks is a conservative now?”
Erick Erickson, Red State

Let me also point out that not once has David Brooks ever written about how hot Anne Hathway is. I’m just sayin’ . . .

November 14, 2008

Ted Haggard, victim

All aboard the Pity Express:

Haggard appeared Nov. 2 at the Open Bible Fellowship in Morrison, Ill. . . .
Haggard spoke about how his “struggle with sin,” involving a male prostitute and drug purchases, grew out of a sexual incident with a man employed by his father when Haggard was 7 years old. . . .
Haggard said in the sermons that although he was living a wonderful life with his wife, Gail, five children and his New Life family, he suddenly found himself caught in sin’s trap.
“When I became 50 years old, I don’t know if it was pressure, or if it was midlife crisis, or if it was just psychological determinism (as) Freud would say, or whatever — I don’t know what it was — but for some reason what happened to me as a child started to produce fruit,” he said.

Uh, I’m 49, so I guess next year I’ll have to hire a bodybuilder to bring some meth and meet me in a motel room, right? And that will be all right, so long as I can tell some scary story from my childhood to justify it.

It’s probably cruel and wrong to mock Haggard, and I don’t mean to ridicule the idea of penitence and redemption. But what he’s really saying is, “Hey, it’s not my fault. I’m OK now. Can I please go back to my influential multimillion-dollar megachurch ministry?”

Well, no you can’t, Pastor Ted. You’ve brought shame to the church, and your career as a minister/evangelist is over. Permanently. Finito. Ended. Eighty-sixed. Finished. Did I already say “over”?

Go to work at Wal-Mart and get over it.

November 14, 2008

‘End the Fed’ protest scheduled

Critics of the Federal Reserve Bank are going to be holding demonstrations nationwide Nov. 22. If you want to get rid of some of that worthless fiat money, I’ll take it. Because I’m patriotic like that.

November 14, 2008

AIG bailout looking more stupid daily

Your tax dollars at work:

American International Group plans to pay out $503 million in deferred compensation to some of its top employees, saying it must tap the funds to keep valuable workers from exiting the troubled insurance giant.
News of the payments to top AIG talent comes as the federal government has just put more money into saving the company from bankruptcy, beefing up the total public commitment to $152 billion. Meanwhile, members of Congress are questioning the company’s expenditures — including lavish business trips to resorts — during a time when taxpayers are on the hook for the bailout.

Look, if they don’t mind screwing over their stockholders, why should they mind screwing over taxpayers? By the way — because I’m a patriotic American entrepreneur and not some phony-baloney corporate stooge — Anne Hathaway is hot.

UPDATE: Hank Paulson “doesn’t know what the hell he’s doing.” And also, Anne Hathaway is still hot.

November 14, 2008

Anne Hathaway, just because

Look, the election’s over and traffic for political blogging . . . eh, it’s not so hot right now. So if readers aren’t hitting the tip jar, buying books or buying T-shirts, a capitalist blogger has to do something, right? And if Hollywood starlet Anne Hathaway wants to display about 30% of her right breast, who am I to obstruct her First Amendment right to free expression? That would be un-American. If I don’t post pictures of Anne Hathaway’s boobs, the terrorists win. Which also justifies this photo of Anne in a see-through dress:

And, because I Support The Troops, here’s another sexy see-through pic of Anne, who’s the subject of Oscar buzz for Rachel Getting Married:

Also (audio cue: Lee Greenwood, “God Bless the USA”) there’s this nice cleavage shot:

Now, I suppose that I could offer some sort of flimsy excuse about this post being a statement of Jessica Valenti-style “sex-positive feminism,” but it’s not. No, it’s a reminder that you should hit the tip jar, buy a T-shirt, or buy a book. Because I’m a capitalist blogger. The government’s not going to give me a bailout just because the traffic’s down this month. And if you don’t do something to put some cash in my grubby hands, I might be forced to keep posting more pictures of beautiful Princess Diaries star Anne Hathaway in her underwear. Like this one:

And you wouldn’t want that to happen, would you? Besides, pretty soon, the Obama administration will re-institute the Fairness Doctrine, and only members of the “progressive netroots community” will be allowed to blog about Anne’s sweet rack. So hit the tip jar and strike a blow for freedom! Otherwise, I’ll question your patriotism.

UPDATE: Dr. Melissa disses our darling. It’s the blonde/brunette thing again. My brunette wife hates her some blondes (and don’t even mention redheads). More generally: What’s up with chicks refusing to admit the hotness of other chicks? I mean, there are some male stars whose supposedly irresistible appeal to the fair sex has always eluded me (Tom Cruise? The dude’s practically a midget! What part of “diminuitive” don’t you understand?) but in general, you’ll never hear guys say, “That Brad Pitt is so overrated.” We just don’t care. They’re freaking movie stars, OK? It’s not like Brad Pitt’s going to swoop into town and run off with our womenfolk or anything.