spacetropic

saturnine, center-right, sometimes neighborly

February 27, 2007

Bring the Obama Drama

Zogby indicates that Obama is making "dramatic gains" in the past six week, advancing to 25% against Hillary's 33% (hat tip Daily Bellwether). Obama - who recently picked up a cool half-million in a drive by appearance here in Cincinnati - is also more popular among the younger Democrats, who quite reasonably expect a fresh political perspective following the past 19 years of Bush-Clinton.

This worries me somewhat. I don't want to be deprived of the entertainment value of a flame-out by Mrs. Clinton too early in the game. In these early appearances she's on-script, in carefully managed settings. Even her most loyal supporters acknowledge that when she's presented with unexpected, impromptu debates and tough questions - that's when the plaster begins to crack and Dr. Rodham is transformed to Hillaryzilla. And the "we shall destroy you" politics that we saw directed at David Geffen were just a tantalizing hint of what may be forthcoming.

The political handicapper in me wants to see Obama "on her six" for several months while she disintegrates, mostly due to self-inflicted wounds - over-reacting, handling the Bill issue awkwardly, tying herself into knots about the contradictions of her voting record and public statements. After all, Barack has the moral high ground when it comes to Iraq - it will benefit him greatly, during the leftward lurch that is required in the primary season, that he's always been against the war, no positioning necessary.

As a conservative I'd prefer to see Hillary (just barely) win the nomination, since she will expose even more floundering contradictions in the run-to-the center that will be required when the national cycle begins. Obama would simply be a tougher opponent if he gets the nod, and I'm willing to bet the "back room" of veteran political sharks from the Clinton team would jump on his bandwagon. Furthermore I'm guessing that post-nomination he will begin to address, for the benefit of the swing/center voters - the other important question: Aside from Iraq (because he's made it amply clear where he stands) how does America negotiate it's interests in a dangerous world?

And that's when Obama will start sounding themes of the tough statesman - instead of the principled opposition.

Tags: ,

February 26, 2007

Beers, Steers, and Metrocons

The Corner, via Instapundit:
We've all been ruminating on the need for Rudy Giuliani to do some hard thinking and plain talking about those social issues on which he is too liberal for a lot of Republicans: abortion, homosexual unions, gun rights. It may be that the greatest of these is gun rights. We folk at NRO being mainly a bunch of flabby Metrocons, perhaps we tend to underestimate this issue. Let's hope Rudy doesn't.
It's hard for me to imagine that gun control is going to lose Rudy more supporters than abortion, but there's a deep, strong gun culture in America - much more extensive than folks on the coasts tend to think. I lived in the South for a while, and it amazed me - it's just as prevalent here in Ohio, adjacent to Dixie.

Giuliani's greatest danger is that he "reads" like a Blue-stater. I've witnessed some Midwest conservatives begin to warm up to Rudy, but he hasn't yet rated wall-to-wall news network coverage. When this eventually happens it will become more obvious - the fast-talking, animated "New York" style will leave some people disaffected. They might be okay with what he's saying, but ... calm down there, fella.

(Word of the day, though: Metrocon. Should politicians like Rudy employ a team of five urban, knowledgeable conservatives ready to "make over" the lives of regular Red state joes? Or would this end in gunfire?)

February 25, 2007

Frank Luntz, writing in the Washington Post:
It is unfortunate that the Republican Party is currently dominated by hyperpartisan, gut-punching professional politicians and expert technicians whom I wouldn't want to face at the dark end of the electoral alley. They specialize in the flawless execution of "wedge" politics. That may have worked well in past elections, but no longer. The latest gimmick is "branding" -- a Madison Avenue technique -- to reverse the Republican slide. But political parties are not brands, slogans are not a replacement for ideas and you don't sell leaders the way you sell widgets.

Many rank-and-file Republicans agree. But the party apparatus still doesn't get it. Over the years, I have become unpopular with the GOP hierarchy by telling the apparatchiks what they needed to know, not what they wanted to hear. Nowadays my work is far from the day-to-day grind of political partisanship. But if I were still in the thick of it, my guidance would be just 20 words long: Be bold, return to basics, stop telling, start asking, focus on results, abolish "earmarks" and embrace a permanent balanced budget.
Goes on to say...
Republicans need a spirited, intellectually based rebuttal to every piece of Democratic legislation and an alternative to every policy -- not a new parliamentary maneuver.
More.

February 23, 2007

News Rorschach Blotter

Here's one of those news stories that, merely by virtue of the fact that it is getting coverage will cause some people to get up in arms:
An argument with a cab driver about religious views ended with a trip to hospital for two Tri-state men. Andrew Nelson and Jeremy Inbus, both of Cincinnati, were in Nashville, Tenn., to visit a friend when they left a bar and hailed a taxicab. The two men told police they discussed religion with their driver, Ibrahim Ahmed, 37, until the conversation grew heated.

Nelson and Inbus told police they paid the driver and got out of the taxi, and police said Ahmed chased them down in a parking lot and tried to run them over.
Let's put on our wobbly, endlessly-uncertain relativist hats: Maybe, every day across America, there's a Presbyterian taxi driver trying to run down a Lutheran over the finer points of protestant theology - and it's just not reported! Maybe Andrew and Jeremy are both devout Muslims, and Ibrahim is a hardcore atheist who thinks that theocrats of all varieties are destroying the world.

This is the natural ass-end of multicultural sensitivity: Any assumptions, any judgements based on outward identifiers is nary a whisker away from wearing the linens. Don't you dare conclude anything about this story - you weren't there, after all, were you? Maybe the cab driver was really angry. Maybe they only claimed to have paid. Which would make the attempted vehicular homicide more understandable. You might run them over too. Who are we to judge?

Related: Dave Byrne flails away. I'm a lifelong admirer of his music, but when I read things like this I see him jerking around, doing the "you may find yourself" routine and pushing the glasses up his nose.

February 22, 2007

Poems and Consequences

It sounds like fodder for a writers workshop novel (with all sorts of important things to say about our age): High school students learn that their assistant principal is a poet, they ask for a copy of his book, and it becomes clear that a few of the poems have some "adult" content. Parents become concerned and the man is placed on administrative leave.

This actually happened to a man named Sean Yisrael, assistant principal here locally at Princeton High School in Sharonville. The circumstances are unclear, and the final outcome is pending an investigation. Some details are known about the poetry in question:
The book - "Words From A Poet" - was published by Yisrael in 2003. It includes many poems on a variety of subjects. Several poems explore sexual themes. Titles with strong sexual content include "I Like Big Women," "The Nasty Man In Me," "Dream Lover" and "Is It a Crime?"
Well, it might be a crime, but I doubt it. It was certainly a bad idea. Any educator (especially one in an administrative role) should err on the side of caution when it comes to kids. Much depends on the context in which it was given to the teenagers. If it was handed over a desk and the students told "Yes, I've published a few poems, you can have a look." then it's still a lapse of judgement - Mr. Yisrael knew that his verse contained some R-rated themes. Likewise, if the book was handed to the teenagers in the context of - "Yeah, I'm a natural freak. Check it out." - then Mr. Yisrael should find employment elsewhere, at the very least.

Poetry Plenty of sexual poetry has been recogni

February 21, 2007

The Glass Is 94% Full

The Gallup organization recently polled the American public with questions about their vote for president: All things being equal - would they vote for a woman, an African-American, or a Mormon? What about a really old person, or a homosexual? And while this blogger thinks excessive "identity politics" are tiresome and outdated - it still seems worthwhile to take the temperature of the American populace on these issues occasionally, given the social changes of the past 50-odd years.

There are two ways to look at the results - and which way you choose will be a function of your personality.

To me, it's good news 94% of the public could care less if a candidate is black. There are people who feather their ideological nest with the assertion that the public, without the guidance of liberal politicians, is quite naturally racist, sexist, and (left unsaid, usually) congenitally stupid. They fear the hillbillies in Jesusland, and are convinced of their position among the enlightened few. It must be something of a shock to learn that skin color is irrelevant to the vast majority of people when selecting a president.

Now, this still means we have about 18 million racists - doing the math on a country of our population. Don't get me wrong, this is unfortunate - but this is a small fraction of the American public, and whatever societal harm they can do with their preconceptions is blunted by the fact that the vast majority of us stand in opposition. And I'm also willing to assume that this people are from an older demographic, and they are quite literally dying off.

The rest of the poll is interesting too - 92% would vote for a Jewish person, and 87% for a Hispanic. (None, to my knowledge are running.) And 72% of us would vote for a Mormon president, whereas a candidate on a third marriage only 67%. If you're playing along at home those buckets map to Romney and Giuliani. McCain doesn't fare so well - folks older than the age of 72 only earn 57%, whereas homosexual candidate a mere 55%. The two biggest downsides, in my opinion, are the 12% of the population who would not vote for a woman and the 45% who couldn't tolerate a gay candidate - although I can recognize the tidal demographic reasons in the latter case.

The most shocking news - only 45% of Americans would vote for an atheist. This should be a devastating blow to the secular Left, the folks who make it their stock and trade to endlessly ridicule the spiritual, churchgoing public. Americans appear to feel that any type of values are preferable to the faithless haze of materialism, and for all of their supposed bigotry, thank God (quite literally) that the level-headed American public is more eager and willing to elect a Jewish gay black woman over any muttering atheist.

The Big Meltdown

Winter has finally loosened it's grip on the Ohio River Valley, the snows of the past few weeks are turning the earth to wet mud - and this morning blanketing the earth with a meteorological phenomenon known as freezing fog. Spring is coming soon - and I hope this year it lasts more than a week or two before the heavy days of Summer.

And lately blogging has been sporadic. I've just had very little to say - and a shortage of time to say it. This should be changing in the days ahead.

February 16, 2007

Q: What Defeats Terror? A: Teamwork!

Things could have ended much differently for a plane full of folks travelling between Africa and the Canary Islands. According to the U.K. Independent:
Speaking to the gunman during the hijacking, the pilot realized the man did not understand French. So he used the plane's public address system to warn the passengers in French of the ploy he was going to try: slam on the brakes upon landing, then accelerate abruptly. The idea was to catch the hijacker off balance, and have crew members and men sitting in the front rows of the plane jump on him, the Spanish official said.

The pilot warned women and children to move to the back rows of the plane in preparation for the subterfuge, the official said.

It worked. As the plane landed on Gran Canaria, the man was standing in the middle aisle when the pilot carried out his maneuver, and he fell to the floor, dropping one of his two 7mm pistols. Flight attendants then threw boiling water in his face and at his chest, and some 10 people jumped on the man and beat him, the Spanish official said.
I know, some of you can't help but have a Tourette's attack about Bush and Iraq in response to any news story, but can't we just bask in the illuminating, brave inventiveness of this story? Wouldn't it be nice if Democrat and Republican - labor, socialist and conservative - moderate Muslim and holy-rolling Christian alike could conspire to slam the brakes then the accelerator - and throw boiling hot water in the face of the nutbag extremists?

Just allow me a moment of naivete.

February 14, 2007

Duck à l'Obama

With so little federal experience, the only way to understand Obama's position on many issues is to examine his track record as a representative in the Illinois legislature. Fair enough?

But there's a problem. On many issues (abortion, child safety, law enforcement) Obama didn't vote either yes or no when key legislation was put to a vote. Instead he voted 'present', which is functionally the same as a 'no' - but gives no indication what the representative actually thinks about the issue. (Article here, by Nathan Gonzalez in the Wall Street Journal.)

He's still an immensely likable politician - but with apologies to Mr. Biden, a vote of "here" doesn't add up to a very "articulate" stance, at least when it comes to actually going about the business of being a lawmaker. Being a responsible leader means sometimes taking a difficult stand on issues that may be unpopular in some circles - and the failure to do so signals the possibility that the politician has more ambition - more of a desire to avoid the entanglements of practical politics - than anything else. Complain all you like about Romney's changing platform on abortion, or Rudy's excessive tolerance, but at least they can be nailed down somewhere, today. Obama, in contrast, ducks controversy.

He has plenty of time to fill in the blanks, but this aspect of his voting record fails to impress.

Related: My favorite libertarian lesbian, Camile Paglia, is back posting at Salon. I'm not claiming to agree with CP on many issues - but her candor and insight is unmistakable - especially in her most recent, lacerating analysis of Hillary and Barack.

Social Politics and Double Standards

Mitt Romney was on the Today Show this morning after the official announcement of his candidacy for president. Detailed questions about how he would handle the economy or emerging international challenges were non-existent. Instead he endured the same predictable harangue over Mormon faith and his changing position on what the media claims are hot-button social issues to conservatives.

Note how the same jonsing for hypocrisy doesn't exist when the media covers the Democrats. Instead, these candidates are met with near-fawning adoration. Hundreds of reporters covered Obama's announcement while Romney rated a few dozens. And rarely (if ever) do the Matt Lauer's of the world zero in on all of the self-contradictions and feints towards the center that put a candidate like Hillary at odds with her respective base - the anti-war, ant-corporate, and mostly anti-Christian "progressive" Left. There's ample room for embarrassment there - but instead let's talk about Hillary's bravery and courage.

And if Romney's personal faith or Rudy's two divorces are fair game topics, always mentioned by the third paragraph as if by MSM fiat - let's throw out this big, ugly bag of cats in an interview in the interest of fairness: Hey Hillary, has Bill promised to cinch up his pants (this time for sure), or do you expect the burning bright lights of the media to conspire to look the other way for the duration of your time in office? Because it's either one or the other - and we all know you're a two-for-one deal.

(And if this seems like a mean, unfair, Fox News-y question - consider that even the New York Times is treading gingerly towards this fat and nasty problem with coverage that acknowledges "a potential liability because of the questions [Bill Clinton] provokes".)

Frankly, it's a useful sham - having the media so intently focused on issues it thinks will divide the Right - instead of the issues that may really resonate - such as leadership, confidence and vision. Brendan Minter in the Wall Street Journal, recently observed this curious dynamic while writing about a Giuliani campaign event recently:
Mr. Giuliani delivered his South Carolina speech to several dozen conservatives. One woman who attended told me she wonders whether electing a president who successfully took on the mob in New York is what it will take to finally break through the entrenched education political culture. Christian conservatives make up the core of the school-choice movement in the state. If they come to the conclusion that Mr. Giuliani is on their side and has the leadership qualities to achieve lasting and meaningful change, he may prove a surprisingly strong contender.

Sen. McCain will have his own problems winning over Christian conservatives. A man who won media accolades by cutting against the base of his party will be ill-equipped to win the nomination.
Rudy seems to clearly understand how to present his strong points to conservatives, moving past the few issues where some may disagree. He has been campaigning relentlessly for GOP candidates for the past five years, building up his network. And he certainly benefits from John McCain holding down the role of the compromised RINO who can't be trusted. Many conservatives may feel like they've been given clearance to adjust their expectations with regard to a candidate without feeling like they are getting a served an unreliable phony - which to them (fairly or not) is manifest in John McCain.

The dynamics are taking shape, and it gets more intense from here forward. It's only February 2008, but this election is now underway.

February 12, 2007

Rudy On Nonbinding Resolutions

At a meeting with California Republicans Rudy deconstructed the uselessness of the Democrat congress:
"In the business world, if two weeks were spent on a nonbinding resolution, it would be considered nonproductive," Giuliani told the lunch crowd, setting off a burst of laughter. He called the concept "a comment without making a decision."
He went on:
"Presidents can't do nonbinding resolutions. Presidents have to make decisions and move the country forward, and that's the kind of president that I would like to be, a president who makes decisions."
The current congress has done very little besides clamoring with complaints and criticism. I defy anyone to explain the current coherent policy position of the Democrat Party with regard to Iran, for example.

And if these types of ad-hoc remarks are a preview of the lucid, intelligent discourse we can continue to expect from Giuliani, then it will be captivating to watch how he takes on a potential rival like the meticulously-scripted Hillary Clinton - a candidate whose positions are so equivocal it beggars belief.

Faith-Based Meteorology

The storm is supposed to be here tomorrow. As of this moment, just about every major news outlet disagrees on the type and extent of precipitation that this storm will entail. We might be socked under with nine inches of snow, or it might rain, or get a little icy. Or all of the above. Or none of the above.

(And yet our understanding of long-term climate change has attained a state of such pristine moral certainty that to merely continue to ask questions is to become equivalent to a denier of the Holocaust. And we are often being told this, without a twitch of irony, by extreme secularists who think folks who have spiritual faith are stupid. But ... I digress.)

So to celebrate this spirit of brainless panic - after work today I intend on visiting the local mega-supermarket. I will grab a cart and begin pushing it down the aisles at a running pace, while shrieking girlishly, throwing random products into the basket, and knocking down the elderly. After purchasing enough evaporated milk, sunflower seeds and canned yams to survive the next ice age I will then fishtail dangerously towards home where I will instruct the wife and children to huddle for warmth while I take position near the door with the family musket - for when polar bears and homeless rioters lay siege.

Or maybe I'll just scrape off the car and head to work tomorrow.

February 9, 2007

The Smashmouth Realpolitik

Andrew, Andrew, Andrew - we've been talking about this for years. You describe how your fellow activist Green Josh Nelson attempted to participate in discussion at the Kos website by posting a journal entry about a Ralph Nader book signing. This, I could have told you in advance, was going to lead to trouble - the political equivalent of dishing out spicy tempeh bisque at a West Texas chili cookoff.

But to your point; your lament:
I can't help but wonder, what's the entertainment value of reading a Web site that only showers praises on one party and treats anything else as evil? What's the intellectual value of only reading people who agree with you? More importantly for these activists turned media, what's the political value of only discussing the issues with people who already are on your side?
From having perused both highly partisan websites on both the Left and Right, the entertainment value is negligible, unless you get a few guffaws from endlessly bashing those wily Demon-crats or Republi-jerks or whatever lame slam the regulars use. It's a bitter laugh, but comforting to folks with partisan anger. And the idea of "intellectual value" is also a non-applicable standard. The ideology has been comfortingly set in stone, and doesn't need to be challenged when there are elections to be won.

And that's the only point. Kos is in the business of influencing the agenda, sharing information, and creating momentum such that existing centrists Democrats move Left, and new more Leftist Democrats get elected next time. It's a testbed for rhetoric, talking points, and issues which resonate with the net/nut-roots, and it allows funding targets to be identified and developed.

Politics is an intensely pragmatic, brutal, full-contact sport when played at the national level. There's always someone willing to go lower, hit harder - and throw people over the side, especially if (as Nader has, in the minds of many Democrats) they have lost repeatedly. There is no "moral victory", and very little value in ideological "discussion" - except about what issues should be emphasized (which ones resonate) and which ones can or should be adjusted to appeal to a greater swath of the electorate.

More often than not it's even baser than that - a matter of deciding what noxious politics and strange bedfellows you can "put up with" to get a candidate who reflects, if you're lucky, 60-70% of your values.

February 6, 2007

Astro-Nuts!

A NASA astronaut has gone completely crackers. Lisa Marie Nowak went skyward at taxpayer expense last July as a mission specialist aboard Discovery. Yesterday she allegedly decided to stalk and assault another (lady) astronaut over the affections of yet a third (mister) astronaut. This has all of the markings of another simmering legal system drama to occupy the news networks during the slow days.

Now, In any other circumstances you would assume this person - who (allegedly) drove all night to assail her rival, using diapers so she wouldn't have to stop - was probably bonkers already. Friends must have seen the signs - maybe had "a thing" about the way her laundry was folded, or she received instructions from her schnauzer, or she parked the shuttle sideways and filled the dashboard with plushy toy animals.

But Lisa Nowak is a United States astronaut. Her resume appears to be very impressive. She was a test pilot and held advanced degrees. No reasonable person would make the case that she's in the program for any other reason than merit. And NASA certainly doesn't let people be astronauts if they have a noticeably big helping of crazy on their mental dinner plate. While the tests may have changed from the Right Stuff days - when men engaged in hand to hand combat with gorillas while spinning around in a centrifuge and simultaneously doing linear algebra problems - presumably there are still some grueling standards in place to make sure people aren't shreiking maniacs.

Nowak either slipped though this process, or she cracked. The edifice of psychological health might be much more precarious than we admit. Certain trigger event (as simple as an infection, some have theorized) can to throw the mind towards imbalance.

Or maybe it's nothing so grandiose - and she just wasn't going to let that bitch get away with her man.

Tags: , ,

February 5, 2007

The Gang of 14 Revisited

I'm not an expert in Senate parliamentary procedure. But when I read news stories like the one, today, about the GOP's use of "parliamentary procedure" to "block debate" about Iraq, I read: The GOP lawmakers filibustered this turkey - just like the Democrats did for Bush's judicial appointments.

But the Republicans tried to change the rules in 2005 and were blocked by the 'gang of 14' - the much-vilified centrists from both parties who thought that what's good for the goose is good for the gander - and so it's better not to change the rules. And, if you're playing along at home, the geese had control of Capitol Hill until last Fall, at which point the ganders were swept honking into office.

I'm waiting for my friend NBS to post, in outrage, over this brazen and irresponsible use of the filibuster on the part of the GOP to block debate on Iraq. (In a filibuster someone keeps talking, right?)

Giuliani Hints and Recent Hires

Rudywatch update:
"There's a real good chance," Giuliani said Saturday, another coy response to what has been a constant question on the campaign trail.

The shift in campaign organization, however slight, is an indication that Giuliani likes the response he's received as he gauges support while traveling the country. Behind the scenes, Giuliani has been busy supplementing his cadre of New York loyalists with Washington-savvy political operatives, establishing a fundraising network, and setting up a campaign headquarters - signs of a campaign moving forward.
The article - and all media coverage, when it comes to Giuliani - underscores his lack of support among social conservatives because he's the "not anti-gay, twice divorcee" candidate, which is fine by me, of course. But I'd like to think some of those Washington-savvy operatives are hard at work at how the different aspects of the Rudy narrative will play among primary-season voters - and studying, with academic intensity, the South Carolina bitch-slap that McCain expereinced in 2000 at the hands of a Bush campaign that was intently going after the base.

It's entirely possible that consensus - or at least an electorally significant plurality - can be acheived behind a candidate like Rudy. But it will require bigger-picture thinking on some issues. A perfect example is judicial appointments, an item on which social and libertarian conservatives do inevitably agree, if they set aside the flamethrower social issues and consider the frightening implication of a runaway judiciary armed with an expansionist agenda.

On this issue - while providing copious, likeminded linkage - Nixguy observes:
Rudy is not a conservative in the gut on social matters. But he will nominate the kind of judges that social conservatives want on the bench. And that’s the bottom line here.
And elsewhere Bill Sloat at The Bellwether Daily picks up on the news that Rudy has gotten serious here in the Buckeye state by hiring Brian Tringali, an experienced pollster. There's no way that snake-oil spinmeisters can create a powerful candidate from thin air - but hopefully folks like Tringali can take Rudy's gravitas and phenomenal compentance at the helm of government and (with the help of some data points from polling) tailor it to an obvious and trustworthy message that clicks with Red State voters.

Meanwhile, Josh Nelson is promoting re-hashed, speculative reasons why various Republican candidates may or may not be viable. These types of cartoonish, B-movie analyses should be encouraged, since it causes folks on the Left to congratulate each other over how much they have figured out the evil conservatives.

The Spittin' Mad Antiwar Extreme

One of the most immensely entertaining smackdowns in the blogosphere can be seen in the exchange between Tom Blumer and The Dean of Cincinnati over the matter of Vietnam veterans being, literally, spit upon after returning home from the war.

The web forensics are complicated. But it goes like this: Some corners of the Left have decided, for some mystifying reason, to suddenly "debunk this myth". To do so they are propagating the account of Jerry Lembcke, a Vietnam vet turned sociologist who claims that these episodes are all apocryphal. But many credible accounts exist, as Blumer fastidiously documents. And at least one blogger turned veteran says it happened to him personally. And still another person comes forward with this refreshingly candid account (via Instapundit):
... I was a red-hot leftist (marxist) revolutionary back then, and I did spit on a couple of returning vets. From the safety of a crowd, behind a barricade and a police line.

I was an America-hating asshole and a coward. I’ve learned better, and I’ve learned to feel regret for my shameful actions then.
Of course, all of this is difficult to prove according to the standards of folks like Jack Shafer at Slate, who wants a police report or news story as "evidence". There are two obvious problems with this. First - while it may be the habit of the aggrieved, pseudo-Marxist Left to make a federal case out of every perceived slight - it would be entirely inconsistent with the character of most military folks to call the cops over such an incident. Second, and most simply, journalists were very proudly against the war at the time - to such a degree that Vietnam-era "reporting" is one of the most treasured tales of baby boomer journalism. Why would they publish that story?

Let's not fool ourselves - all of this is really about Iraq. Some on the Left have chosen this moment to practice a quibbling, legalistic revisionism in an attempt to rehabilitate the image of the historic antiwar protestor. Of course, it's entirely possible to be strongly against any war - while treating those who disagree (or those who do the fighting) with a basic amount of respect. But, for whatever reason, the adherents of this far-Left orthodoxy consider it some forbidden heresy to admit that, both recently and in the past - some protestors might have gotten carried away.

Talk about picking your battles.


Update: Improved linkage. Also, thinking about the recent withdrawal of John Kerry from the 2008 race in the wake of his implied insult to the troops - it occurs to me that there are some circles that seem to be defective, cognitively, when it comes to recognizing how respectful and honored most Americans feel towards those who serve in the military.

And by most I even mean most Demcorats - heck, everybody short of the English Department at UC Berkley. Folks in the non-extreme Left would be doing the radicals a favor by requesting - not demanding, lest they twitter about censorship - that they simply stop digging a hole on these issues and shut their loud and tedious spitters.

Tags: , ,

February 4, 2007

Purple Reign

Prince was once pilloried for his filthy, over-sexual antics - but how many stars who reached their apogee in the 80s have retained his class? The man endures - a consummate entertainer. I'm not sure if his super bowl halftime show exceeds the Rolling Stones, last year - but in the heavy Florida rain he brought his A game, thanks in part to the eye-popping visuals. And what greater American moment - everyone knows the words, the "ooos" of the Purple Rain chorus, the crowd singing, accompanied by a neon-lined marching band.

Good game, too.

February 1, 2007

Terror-Free Cartoon Marketing

After having read the news, this morning, about the guerrilla marketing initiative for Aqua Teen Hunger Force that brought the city of Boston to a halt with devices that looked like bombs - and then afterwards, seeing a segment on MSNBC about the Omaha gas station that is marketing itself as "terror-free oil" - since the petroleum is bought from countries that do not trade with terror-financing regimes like Saudi Arabia ...

... I think the companies that do promotion for other popular cartoons (The Simpsons, Spongebob. etc.) should dial up their ad firms and quickly produce spots that proudly announce that they are "terror free cartoons". Clever and sardonic product differentiation!