Archive for January 26th, 2009

January 26, 2009

Irresponsible, amateur, anti-factual, emotion-saturated blogging

Jules Crittenden responds to feedback from “the man charged with keeping the Navy’s nuts tight.” Imagine that’s a tough job, but . . .

(Via Instapundit)

January 26, 2009

Obama on ‘sound science’

“Year after year, decade after decade, we’ve chosen delay over decisive action. Rigid ideology has overruled sound science. Special interests have overshadowed common sense. Rhetoric has not led to the hard work needed to achieve results.”
President Obama, overturning Bush-era EPA rules

January 26, 2009

Bailouts are not sexy

C’mon, you know you want to click this link.

But bailouts? Bailouts are not sexy. Go ahead. Click the link. I dare you.
UPDATE: Linked by VodkaPundit, using his Braille keyboard.
January 26, 2009

Damon vs. Kristol?

Big Hollywood provocateur/entrepreneur Andrew Breitbart stirs up an intellectual grudge match between Bill Kristol and Matt Damon, who told the Miami Herald:

“He’s an idiot — he wrote that we should be grateful to George Bush because he won the Iraq war. We! Won! The! War!”

On Sunday afternoon . . . Bill Kristol — in an email exchange with Big Hollywood — agreed to debate Matt Damon on his Hollywood home turf  . . .

Hey, Andrew, how about doing it at the Reagan Ranch Center in Santa Barbara? I’m sure YAF would be up for it, and they could bus in lots of College Republican girls who would certainly love to see that sexy hunk Bill Kristol debate what’s-his-name. (Chicks dig neocons. Go figure.)
Breitbart throws some chum in the shark pool by reminding us that what’s-his-name dissed Sarah Palin:

It’s like a really bad Disney movie, ‘The Hockey Mom.’ Oh, I’m just a hockey mom from Alaska, and she’s president. She’s facing down Vladimir Putin and using the folksy stuff she learned at the hockey rink. It’s absurd.”

But the weenie won’t accept the debate invitation. When it comes to forensic combat, he’s a chickenhawk.

(Thanks to Smitty for the tip!)

UPDATE: Allahpundit:

Who has more to lose? It’s received wisdom on the left that Kristol’s the ne plus ultra of conservative idiocy, as today’s theatrical nutroots overreaction to his leaving the NYT demonstrates. If Damon — whose every interview on politics mentions his Harvard pedigree for extra gravitas — goes toe to toe with him and loses, his lefty intellectual cred will be smashed.

He’s a chickenhawk, I tell you!
January 26, 2009

A makeshift cab, the real economy

“. . . As it happened, the van wheezed its way to our house, and as Walt and I shook hands, him accepting 25 bucks with a huge smile, it was impossible not to reflect on the state of the economy and how men of ostensible good will had fallen off the grid, with no upside on the horizon. My son berated me, claiming that the hobo might’ve had a gun and stuck us up, but I told him to hush his mouth and go read a book. . . .”

January 26, 2009

Immigration and the GOP

A panel discussion is planned Thursday in D.C.:

Bay Buchanan, Jim Pinkerton, Peter Brimelow, and Marcus Epstein discuss how immigration control is vital to future Republican Success. . . .
“Immigration and the 2008 Republican Defeat,” will be released by The American Cause on January 29 at 12:30 p.m. at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. The study is a detailed analysis of every single Republican seat lost in the 2008 House Race, that shows in virtually every race the Republican supported amnesty or the Democrat supported tough border security.

I plan to go check it out.

January 26, 2009

Pelosi: ‘They reduce cost’

(BUMPED; UPDATES BELOW) Children are a net budget expense that Nancy Pelosi says government can’t afford:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?
PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children’s health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those – one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?
PELOSI: No apologies. No. we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.

Or, as some used to say: Lebensunwertes Leben.

UPDATE: “Brilliant. No People = No Costs!”

UPDATE II: Don Surber:

Stephanopoulos could have pointed out that the reason the health costs for kids are rising is that Pelosi just led the charge to expand SCHIP to cover families of 4 that have incomes of more than $80,000 a year.

Right. On the one hand, liberals insist on ever-expanding entitlements “for the children.” On the other hand, they insist on pushing birth control to reduce the Baby Menace. Pelosi is one of those alleged Catholics whose politics are 180 degrees out of phase with her own church.

UPDATE III: Ed Morrissey asks: Cui bono?

UPDATE IV: Drew M. at AOSHQ:

And by the way, why does ‘family planning’ cost so much? As many morons can attest to, not having sex is pretty damn inexpensive.

Yeah, rich guys get all the good stuff.

UPDATE V: Michelle Malkin: “Up next: Emergency funding for suicide manuals and euthanasia education.”
January 26, 2009

‘Stimulus’ psychology

“The central argument in favor of the stimulus among its proponents is not over the merits of the particular legislation, but simply that we have to do something to revive the economy and that the crisis requires action. Psychologically, this reminds me of the man who is impatiently waiting for the elevator, and who continuously presses the already-lit elevator button even though he knows it won’t make the elevator come any faster. “
Philip Klein

January 26, 2009

The Gonzo of Coulter

From my latest essay at Splice Today:

Given the Newtonian opposition of their political loyalties, and their vastly different literary ouevres, the fans of Hunter S. Thompson and the fans of Ann Coulter are very near to being mutually exclusive sets. A Venn diagram would show an almost infinitesimal overlap between Set A (those who admire the drug-addled king of gonzo) and Set B (those who admire the acid-tongued right-wing blonde). Yet as one of the few occupants of Set AB, I find striking parallels between the two, and wonder why others don’t also see these parallels.

January 26, 2009

NAACP: Time for a change!

Change your police chief, that is, to match “demographics”:

The West Metro NAACP is protesting the alleged use of excessive force by Douglasville [Ga.] Police during a recent arrest at a duplex on Duncan Street.
The NAACP’s allegations stem from the arrest of Khiry Hodge, 19, on a charge of obstruction. The group alleges that Hodge was beaten by police at the time of his arrest. . . .
Police Chief Joe Whisenant, who was present at the time of Hodge’s arrest, said the SWAT team was at the residence to serve a warrant to [20-year-old Daniel ] Perry on drug-related charges.
The SWAT team served the warrant as a precautionary measure because police had reason to believe there were weapons inside the home, Whisenant said. . . .
Kimberley Alexander, president of the West Metro NAACP, said Friday at an NAACP press conference at the Duncan Street duplex that “neither suspect resisted arrest” prior to the alleged beating of Hodge. . . .
Alexander went on to say that Whisenant should resign as police chief in light of the incident.
“The demographics in this county are changing, so after 25 years, it’s a good time to retire … it’s a good time to move on,” Alexander said.
Whisenant responded by saying he has no plans to move up his planned retirement date.
“I hope to stay four more years if I serve at the pleasure of the mayor and council,” Whisenant said.

Interesting. Douglas County (a suburb of Atlanta) is 63% white, but because it’s 33% black, the NAACP boss implies that “demographics” requires the dismissal of the veteran police chief, who happens to be white. And why? Because a guy arrested on dope charges says he was roughed up during the arrest.

Even if the suspect is telling the truth, the NAACP’s argument supposes that (a) no drug suspects are ever roughed up in communities where the police chief is black, and (b) roughing up a drug suspect is automatically a “racial incident.” But I imagine more people will be outraged by the implicit argument that no white man can be a police chief in any community that is 33% black.

Thanks for the tip from reader Sylvia, who says: “First rule of the hopeychangey ‘post-racial’ era: Fire the white guy.”