Tag Archives: national review

Why, rancid populism? You’re soaking in it.

Now that the gabber-puss grapefruit has tied our poor Pauline to the tracks the National Review sees itself fit to leap into the frame stage right carrying a pair of red white and blue rose shears. My goodness what a development! And it was just past the nick of time…

…he is not deserving of conservative support in the caucuses and primaries. Trump is a philosophically unmoored political opportunist who would trash the broad conservative ideological consensus within the GOP in favor of a free-floating populism with strong-man overtones.

Look at this awful horrible no good man:

Trump’s political opinions have wobbled all over the lot…He has exploited the yawning gap between elite opinion in both parties and the public on immigration… Sometimes he wants to let Russia fight ISIS, and at others he wants to “bomb the sh**” out of it… His obsession is with “winning,” regardless of the means — a spirit that is anathema to the ordered liberty that conservatives hold dear… Indeed, Trump’s politics are those of an averagely well-informed businessman…if you have no familiarity with the relevant details and the levers of power, and no clear principles to guide you, you will, like most tenderfeet, get rolled.

dumping donaldThis ‘Trump’ is amoral and unprincipled. He has no idea what America’s problems are nor is he interested in solving them. He’s a loudmouth populist who will say anything to appeal to the unwashed masses who have overrun the right-wing. Well! What a white-hot indictment of conservative politics — and of the snarling seed-fruit who has so shamefully brought it down.

This last ditch effort of National Review’s is written by The Editors, meaning Rich Lowry. I have to wonder how Rich managed to get himself into this sorry position. How did he end up having to kneecap the 2016 Republican front-runner in order to save His America?

I don’t expect to hear anything from him regarding that. Because it wasn’t eight years ago that he watched a completely amoral and unprincipled newcomer bring a say-anything style to the presidential race in order to appeal to the slackjaw imbeciles. And lo-and-behold if it wasn’t Sarah Palin who flabbergasted The Editors.

I’m sure I’m not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, “Hey, I think she just winked at me.” And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing.

Is there any more rancid person in national politics than Palin? I’m thinking but I don’t have an answer.

It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America. This is a quality that can’t be learned; it’s either something you have or you don’t, and man, she’s got it.

Rich Lowry went apeshit for her. And what exactly is the difference between Palin and Trump? Here it is: He’s better at this horrible crap. She’s a little more obsessed with the military – that’s about it. Lowry thinks he can swoop right in and save the day but the Trump nomination has been in the making for many years. And if there’s anyone to blame for the Horror Named Trump you can start with the anti-intellectual immigrant-bashing unprincipled know-nothing cynical fuckwad, Rich Lowry.

Trump boasted Saturday that support for his presidential campaign would not decline even if he shot someone in the middle of a crowded street.

“I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters,” Trump said at a campaign rally here.

Douche? It’s all too late. Way too late.


The National Review is racist? Whut?

Kevin Williamson’s a racist. Here he goes again: “Inequality warriors vs. the family and the individual.” He warns us that when a french-fry drudge at McDonalds gets a 25-cent raise our children and our exceptionalism suffer.

The enduring nature of economic inequality may be a political blessing for progressives — it provides a perennial source of discontent…

…but let’s talk some pissy politics first. Kevin says the enduring nature of poverty ‘may be a blessing for progressives.’ The enduring nature of murder, rape and child molestation would have to be blessings too, right? Heck if you’re going to be all shouty-angry and want to ruin Kevin Williamson’s breakfast you should probably have a reason.

…but it is a problem, too, for one very important but under-appreciated reason: The main sources of economic inequality are not matters of public policy. They are instead rooted in the individual — including in the physical facts of the individual — and in the family, both of which have traditionally been considered outside of the public sphere.

The physical facts of the individual – Uncle Fester! Get out yer Grand Dragon Handbook, check the glossary. Tugging at his ill-fitted lab coat, fussing with his coke bottle glasses, Williamson pipes up and assures us that inner-city criminality, weekend promiscuity and the scourge of dark bodily humours are all matters of one’s birth. Klap klap. If you happen to be born with a cleft palate he would really rather you just pick up and move out of his neighborhood. Or, better yet, for him, die. C’mon – everybody knows that people don’t grow up poor, or end up depressed, or become beaten down by life. Those people, yaah zey are BOARN zat veigh. HA, prost! Gott in Himmel, chit choo sink I vaas no fun? Tsilly, tsilly.

The implicit conclusion of the work done by Charles Murray and others on the relationship between hereditary intelligence and socio-economic outcomes makes our elites uncomfortable…if intelligence is mainly hereditary, then being really smart is no more a personal accomplishment than being really tall or being really pretty…

Charles Murray? Die Fahne hoch! Die Reihen fest geschlossen!

Affirmative action has been one way of refusing to deal with that reality.

Colored people are stupid and that’s science, but that’s not what science says. You can’t handle the truth, but that’s not what the truth says. And Kevin thinks everybody other than him has some sort of defect.


National Review visits a black neighborhood (the horror)

I don’t want to tell you how to spend your precious vacation time, but you should consider joining Kevin Williamson on an amazing post-election Caribbean cruise this November. Imagine the fun it would be. Over seven glorious days, you and 700 conservatives hob-nobbing with the geniuses who compose the National Review.

On any random evening you could pull a stool up to the bar and sit right next to the likes of, say, Kevin. And with any luck he would buttonhole you about the egregious moral failure of Illinois governor Pat Quinn, as he just did in the magazine. He might even kick off the conversation the exact same way he did yesterday, recalling a gripping encounter with the indigenous wildlife:

East St. Louis, Ill. — ‘Hey, hey craaaaaacka! Cracka! White devil! F*** you, white devil!” The guy looks remarkably like Snoop Dogg: skinny enough for a Vogue advertisement, lean-faced with a wry expression, long braids. He glances slyly from side to side, making sure his audience is taking all this in, before raising his palms to his clavicles, elbows akimbo, in the universal gesture of primate territorial challenge.

Why does this exposé on “Pat Quinn’s crumbling Illinois” begin with a gesticulating primate? I don’t know. Maybe it would pain your heart to learn how pitiful the local fauna have become. Does it matter to you that Kevin’s chimpanzee is currently in the third grade?

Luckily for me, he’s more like a three-fifths-scale Snoop Dogg, a few inches shy of four feet high, probably about nine years old, and his mom — I assume she’s his mom — is looking at me with an expression that is a complex blend of embarrassment, pity, and amusement, as though to say: “Kids say the darnedest things, do they not, white devil?”

I don’t know about you, but I’m really impressed with Kevin’s ability to discern animal emotions. I have no idea how to decipher a “complex blend of embarrassment, pity, and amusement” on a monkey’s face, but then simian-whispering is an opaque art. Maybe if I owned a pair of Rich Lowry’s glasses – like the ones he was wearing when he thought he saw the Reticulated Snow Baboon, Sarah Palin, wink right at him – I might get myself a bitchin’ cabin on the Lido Deck with bar privileges, right next to Kevin’s.

It’s not the last challenge like this I’ll get here where the sidewalk ends, or the most serious one.

There’s some menace echoed in the title, here: “Where the Sidewalk Ends,” which sounds like being overtaken by Amazonian swamps, or African jungle. There’s also the rest of Kevin’s piece, which I got about halfway through before he came across yet another Snoop Dogg (so 1994), and I gave the tale up. It’s never clear why Kevin believes “danger and despair” have overrun the state of Illinois, unless he’s just some sort of random racist.

Incidentally do you recall? Were there many apes in The Heart Of Darkness?

…then onward and downward toward the Mississippi until finally arriving at my terminus in East St. Louis, where instead of meeting my Kurtz I get yelled at by a racially aggrieved tyke…

Because I forget the story. Was it about a politician who turned civilization into a jungle? Or was it about a white supremacist’s boat ride to hell?


Where Krauthammer embraces SCIENCE to prove SCIENCE is stoopid

Charles Krauthammer has become so venerable a figure on the right that he seems to have been promoted into permanent status. A man with an endless gig. So should Obama proclaim an ‘I Like Ants’ day of observance, the Conservatives Fighting Ants lobby will flash-publish a couple magazines, one featuring a scowling Krauthammer on the cover and the other highlighting his page-one screed. As far as they’re concerned he probably knows more about Theoretical Physics than even bugs, so Chuck’s a no-brainer here.

Climate Science. National Review. Along came Jones.

“The debate is settled,” asserted propagandist-in-chief Barack Obama in his latest State of the Union address. “Climate change is a fact.” Really? There is nothing more anti-scientific than the very idea that science is settled, static, impervious to challenge.

This is Krauthammer’s gig: Blinding brilliance. What’s crystal clear he holds up to the light like tarmacadam. We know the world is warming and that there are fundamental forces involved in driving this disaster, and we know what these are, and they come without controversy among scientists. But Chuck will have you know: The latest fine-scale modeling is in dispute. This is interesting to him. He will ignore that though the Theory of Gravity was tinkered with today it was not rendered as to make his furniture float to the ceiling. SCIENCE goes on like this, with the fundamental understanding of a thing in place and the details being moved around. Rather than pay heed to any of that, Krauthammer reads USA Today.

It was long assumed that mammograms help reduce breast cancer deaths. This fact was so settled that Obamacare requires every insurance plan to offer mammograms (for free, no less).

Now we learn from a massive randomized study — 90,000 women followed for 25 years — that mammograms may have no effect on breast-cancer deaths. Indeed, one out of five of those diagnosed by mammogram receives unnecessary radiation, chemo, or surgery.

Now he’s learned from a new…study. How many of those, from climate meteorologists, has he laughed at? And what about the 150 years of studies on evolution? *cough* Chuck scrapes the dregs of his intellect to find enough SCIENCE to fell the SCIENCE of cancer screening. Then he wields the same weapon to dispense with all of Global Warming going back, what, a hundred years?


The Lord gave it mutliple chambers and repeating fire. It was good.

Over at National Review we see David French donning the holy gunfighter’s duster and cowboy miter. Having neatly set the brethren in their pews ($19.99 a year online, $29.50 in print) he bids them all lower their heads. And they pray: Oh heavenly bangstick, hallowed be thy aim.

I’m virtually certain that David Frum was simply trolling Twitter (a popular pastime) when he tweeted on Saturday: “Hypothesis: the people who most want to carry are the very last people on earth who should be allowed to carry.”

That was exactly what many Americans were thinking after getting a load of this guy:

As Rolling Stone reported last year, [Michael] Dunn, a 47-year-old white man, had opened fire on an SUV containing Jordan Davis, a 17-year-old African-American high school senior, and three of his friends in Jacksonville, Florida on November 23rd, 2012… Dunn fired 10 bullets at the SUV, then drove away to his hotel without ever calling the cops. Police found no gun in the teenagers’ car, no witnesses reported ever seeing one, and Dunn’s own girlfriend said he’d never mentioned that the boys had a shotgun before he was arrested.

French could at least acknowledge that someone as cold-blooded and homicidal as Dunn should never own a gun. It’s common knowledge that there are many more Americans just like him. But in French’s answer to Frum we’re not talking common sense any more, we’re talking a kind of religion. French himself could not be more worshipful and he gives you the gospel:

In my experience, those individuals who carry do so because they very consciously do not want to belong to the class of citizens that is inherently helpless — totally reliant upon the state to protect not just themselves but their family, friends, and neighbors. If the choice is between protectors and protected, they choose to be protectors.

The .38 Is My Shepherd I Shall Not Want. It’s no more complicated than that. Given the choice between being one of the Chosen and one of the Sheep, French goes with the former. It’s a war out there, Amen. So he shall carry a gun. And he shall be saved. Simple, isn’t it? If only every person in America could be armed 24/7, we could take dominion over this Earth. Or whatever’s left of Beirut, Idaho.

As for you heathens…

The protected class has a different view. The protected class is a dependent class — not economically dependent of course, but dependent on the state in perhaps a more fundamental way (for their very lives)…Walled off from gun culture, they read the occasional, aberrant story of (legal) gun-owner stupidity or recklessness and cower in fear of a nonexistent threat. (While of course blithely sending their kids off to far more dangerous activities, like swimming in neighbors’ pools or riding in neighbors’ cars)…

…or playing jokes on neighbors’ kids…

An Arkansas man faces a murder charge for allegedly gunning down a car filled with teenagers who had wanted to play a prank on his son. One of the passengers, 15-year-old Adrian Broadway, died from a gunshot wound to the head on Saturday.

The teens said they were pranking Willie Noble’s son by covering his car with eggs and leaves, which is when Noble reportedly arrived with a shotgun.

One of the Chosen wouldn’t have eggs and leaves left on his son’s paint job so he shot a 15 year-old girl in the head. I’d like to see where French would hide the moral of this (legal) story in his Bible. Will there be an Errata page? Is it in Misfires And Revelations? Sometimes the good guy with a (legal) gun sends an unarmed teen to (oops) hell. As long as the Good shooters are still well-armed and ready for the Bad shooters, it’s a small price to pay. There are matters of perspective here, but we can leave those to the hippies and Unitarians.

Let me close by countering Mr. Frum’s hypothesis with one of my own: “The people who most want to carry are those who most clearly understand their responsibilities to their families, their friends, and their fellow man.”

Nobody is more serene and calm, and no one is more acutely aware of his own responsibilities to mankind. And the Dalai Lama carries an AK under his vestments. This comports nicely with everything we’re learning about gun nuts.

The study links the abandonment of the background check to an additional 60 or so murders occurring per year in Missouri between 2008 and 2012.

“Coincident exactly with the policy change, there was an immediate upward trajectory to the homicide rates in Missouri,” said Prof Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research.

“That upward trajectory did not happen with homicides that did not involve guns; it did not occur to any neighbouring state; the national trend was doing the opposite – it was trending downward; and it was not specific to one or two localities – it was, for the most part, state-wide,” he told BBC News.

But what’s the point in arguing? Or in bothering to notice these things? Gun ownership in America is a cult and it’s insulting to even try and discuss it with the faithful.


National Review is an excellent periodical he lied

She looms.

Hillary, Relentless and Shameless
National Review | February 14, 2014

The phrase “Clinton fatigue” entered the political lexicon during the previous century; by this point, we surely must have entered the age of Chronic Clinton-Fatigue Syndrome.

Clintons are bad. Bad I tells ya. And if there’s one thing we can say about Hillary now…what would it be? What’s the word? Maybe ‘invisible.’ It certainly wouldn’t be ‘relentless’ or ‘shameless.’ Those would be accurate descriptions of National Review. Also: Pubescent. Pathetic.

It transpires to nobody’s great surprise that Mrs. Clinton was more than a passive victim in the sexual scandal that preceded her husband’s impeachment on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice…

She was an active victim of the Lewinsky sex scandal? Clearly she arranged the little contretemps to her benefit. I’d ask where the hell you get off in squeaking such a fart, but of course Bill Buckley’s still rotting in his grave. I could blame you, but I can’t really be too sure.

President Clinton strutted into church waving a Bible the size of a telephone directory while Democrats painted his critics as the second coming of Roger Chillingworth, if not Padre Torquemada.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton, after bitterly dismissing the cookie-baking, “Stand by Your Man” model of wifehood, did precisely that. (The chocolate-chip-cookie recipe she shared with Good Housekeeping was excellent; Bill would later plagiarize a cookie recipe for a cook-off against Cindy McCain and Michelle Obama)…

Eva Braun stayed with her husband! Caligula stole a cookie recipe!

The Clintons are our national grotesques.

I can’t imagine what climate scientist Michael Mann is going to do with Buckley’s house of slobber. Turn it into an ammonia works. Or a whorehouse. A torture chamber, with a fresh coat of paint.


I score it for Pajama Boy

Another day, another Obamacare stiff knocked the hell out. You liberal fanatics keep pushing these wimps into the ring, Charles C. W. Cooke keeps sending ’em right back out on a stretcher. When will you learn? When will it stop? And what of ‘fiasco’ do you not understand? By the way, this one . .


. . yeah. He’s a nice kid, pretty kid, but Charlie don’t know whether to fuck him or fight him:

And now, courtesy of Organizing for Action, we have Pajama Boy, a metrosexual hipster in a plaid onesie who wants you to spend your precious Christmas days talking to him about the president’s vision for health insurance.

Get a load of that mess. Courtesy the president, this weirdo’s about to ruin your Christmas. Any minute now he’ll launch into a “dialogue about the evils of heteronormativity or micro-aggressions” and nobody wants to hear that. Nobody normal, that is. He looks like one of those “liberal-arts students at Oberlin,” where, Charles informs us, the “League of Nations Union is now the Queer Students Assocation.” How’s that? So look out you readers at National Review:

Pajama Boy has evidently managed not only to get into the warmth of your house to do his proselytizing, but to make himself a cup of hot chocolate and to get into his bedtime clothes to boot . . These, suffice it to say, are people you do not want quartered anywhere near you.

We take it for granted that’s exactly the message Obama was trying to get to the people, that he’ll be boarding flesh-and-blood human beings in your houses a week from Wednesday. Otherwise Charles would only be engaging in a bit of shadow-boxing, and Jesus knows National Review writers never do that.

But if I may distill Charlie here, the point would be that the problem with this mutant outreach (actually it’s the big problem with Obamacare, as it is with Obama) is that it knows nothing about real people. The Obots are clueless as to who qualifies for actual Americans – the folks they’ve now got to convince or cajole if they’re to save this presidency from epic disaster. About this I’m not guessing, Cooke declares it right in the middle of his screed:

The harsh truth is that the advertising machine behind the Obama administration seems not to really know what normal human beings are like.

And that’s why it’s doomsville for Barack, et.al. I mean, who features this sort of fay freak in an ad? It’s hilarious, if it’s not disturbing. Pathetic. I’d say this Jobs/Urkel trog is the sort of thing that only another troll would dream up.

Because Pajama Boy is OFA; and OFA is Pajama Boy. The vaguely androgynous, student-glasses-wearing, Williamsburg hipster isn’t a clever marketing idea. It is the id of the Obama machine made public. Of course he’s made it onto the propaganda.

Because the propagandist featured his turbo-geek self in the ad. If that isn’t the height of narcissism, you’d think. No wonder Charles sits there, staring at the slobbering misfits and spazzes of this martian administration and tearing his hair out. Nobody – I mean nobody – is really like this…

My former National Review colleague Dan Foster once rather depressingly suggested to me that The Big Bang Theory’s star geek, Leonard Hofstadter, was far from the loser that he needs to be for the joke to work, but instead the “voice of our generation.”

. . except for somebody who isn’t normal, at least Cooke-wise. He might be the voice of someone’s generation if we’re to take a National Review confidante seriously. And now Jesus Christ they appear to be running the government, much in the same lame way that MSNBC runs your life.

Pajama Boy is, as Obama might put it, a composite character: part Chris Hayes, part Rachel Maddow, part Lena Dunham. One of the funnier photoshops from last night features the caption, “Mommy said I could stay up late tonight.” If so, he isn’t waiting for PBS to broadcast the boobs and bad language on imported British comedies, as overgrown children once did; he’s ignoring his bedtime to ensure the Howard Zinn special on All In records properly.

And we don’t have to guess that it’s really Charles who stays up late at night, to see if he programmed his TV properly for new episodes of “Duck Dynasty” . .

. . because we all know that nerds can do that sort of thing in their sleep. And I think I’m getting a whiff of the real reason why Mr. Normal is pissed off. Then there’s the original, primordial freak – the woman on the pop-up page of the pre-jiggered ACA site:

. . Adriana, the painfully neutral and carefully ambi-racial stock-model-from-everywhere whose face became so synonymous with HealthCare.gov’s hilarious launch that she had to be replaced with a graphic plugging an 800 number.

Remember her? The one that looked painfully like a maybe Native Latina Asian Pacific Islander American? Charles was hip to that ruse: This is a blatant overture to ethnic people. There’s just no fooling the guy. Though he dug up the actual model’s actual name, don’t try to tell him that she’s “what normal human beings are like.” There’s no point in trying that because, like her internet image, she’s neither Caucasian nor male. And what about this?

In Colorado, when OFA-wannabe group, ProgressNowColorado, was charged with selling the law to young people, it drew on the worst of cartoons. All the women were sluts; all the men were idiots; all the girls were playing extremely violent sports.

All of them. Sluts, idiots and bruisers:

Have you ever seen such monsters? No wonder Charlie’s upset – not one of the bunch appears to be sitting at a computer terminal, trying to convince the world that it’s full of losers. Look at them, my friends. That’s just not what normal human beings are like.

Speaking of grotesquery, did you hear the one about the election of 2012? Where the nerdy black guy kicked the homo-basher’s lily white ass from coast to coast? Poppy Perfect refused to reach out to about half of America because the flunkies were beneath the dignity of his campaign. Which meant he never had a fighting chance. So the modern world yawned, and it kindly returned him to a life of fabulous wealth, casual indifference and obscurity. He made for a proud and a handsome loser, and for that we congratulate everybody involved.

We’re no longer a nation of just white-male people. What we have become are public freaks and fays, all around, above and below, for better and worse. I suppose for some people there are academic points to be made here about the Obama administration not being what we once used to call real Americans. But then whose to say who, or what, that really is? The entire history of the country is essentially the destruction of this conceit, and I’m glad for that. I’m certainly not now going to take any prodding over it from Charles C.W. Cooke, the toff from Cambridge, England.


Shat from the shutdown, no. 4 (Rich Lowry)

The right-wing tries to justify the shutdown. An ongoing series.

Day 4 of the Delay Obamacare Stalemate. It’s not going well for Republicans.

On day three of the partial government shutdown, a new CBS News poll reveals that a large majority of Americans disapprove of the shutdown and more are blaming Republicans than President Obama and the Democrats for it.

Fully 72 percent of Americans disapprove of shutting down the federal government over differences on the Affordable Care Act; just 25 percent approve of this action.

Senior GOP officials are furious. Big Business CEOs and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have lined up firmly with the president. Republican deep-pocket donors have thrown up their hands and begun to walk away. And, perhaps most distressingly, because the extortion scheme was orchestrated in a haphazard way, it’s become impossible for the conspirators to back out without suffering serious political damage. Now would be a good time for National Review to swoop in and save the day.

There’s no need for Republicans to panic. The government shutdown is not some kind of crisis for American governance (although it certainly does not count as best practices either), or for the party. It always seemed unlikely to produce major Democratic concessions, though, and it still does.

Gee, thanks. You’re being very helpful.

Conservatives should therefore calmly assess the options now available to them. As they do so, they should continue to advocate bills to fund portions of the government, such as the National Institutes of Health, countering the media/Democratic spin about Republicans’ intransigence.

Which the Democrats have all blocked. Without consequence. Anything else?

An alternative that appears to have the support of Speaker John Boehner is to negotiate a “grand bargain.” Republicans would get tax reform, entitlement reform including changes to Obamacare, and other desired reforms . . [but] The politics of this adventure seem impossible: The parties are just too far apart on these issues.

No prospect there. You’re an invaluable resource. Anything else?

A modest bargain makes more sense than a grand one. Democrats would get a temporary increase in spending, and in return Republicans would get a delay of the fine on people without health insurance. Depending on the amount of spending involved, that deal could be a good one for Republicans.

Finally! The clever solution. The Republicans should try to . . delay Obamacare. I never considered that. Wait, wasn’t that legislation already written and passed by Republicans? Yes, and then summarily shredded by the Democrats. Even if the bill should resurrect itself and somehow make it through the Senate, the president has vowed to smash it with a sledgehammer. So how exactly is this a way out of the nightmare? Incidentally, there’s a provision for mental illness entitlements in Obamacare. Just sayin’.

Of the options, the most promising seems to us to be the modest bargain, because the potential payoff — a delay in the mandate — would be more valuable than the Vitter amendment, and more likely than Democratic capitulation to a continued shutdown.

So it’s time to try the modest way. Where Republicans force Democrats to give them everything they ever wanted. This is why National Review is the greatest science fiction periodical in the nation.


This song is over

Witness for yourself the death of a politician.

No one in recent American history burst onto the political scene as spectacularly as Sarah Palin in 2008. John McCain’s surprise VP pick made the covers of both Time and Newsweek. Her highly anticipated speech at the September national convention jump-started the moribund Republican campaign. People who normally despised politics watched it and were thrilled. National Review editor Rich Lowry fell hisself utterly in love:

By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America. This is a quality that can’t be learned; it’s either something you have or you don’t, and man, she’s got it.

But Lowry didn’t yet know the real Sarah Palin.

“Though I was during the campaign running for V.P., I was banned from talking about Jeremiah Wright and Obama’s friend Bill Ayers,” Palin said in a Fox News interview. “Couldn’t talk about that. Couldn’t talk about Obama’s lack of knowledge, and job inexperience, and the things that he said like America had 57 states, things like that.”

This is who she is.

Palin continued, “in the campaign, Greta this is important for Americans to understand, I wasn’t allowed to talk about things like that because those elitist, those who are the brainiacs in the GOP machine running John McCain’s campaign at the time, said that the media would eat us alive if we brought up these things.”

A caustic human being. Stupid to boot. Her glorious time on the American stage is drawing to a close and all she can think to do is be nasty. The more Americans see of Palin the Politician, the less they find to like.

It’s not a match up likely to occur but Clinton would destroy Sarah Palin in a hypothetical match up in the state, 53/37, including a 62/25 lead with independents. There’s no appetite among Alaskans for Palin 2016 – only 16% think she should run to 78% who think she should not, and even among Republicans just 18% would like to see her make a bid.

Her time is up. All she has left is her ambition.


Rich Lowry vs. the Great Emancibaggers

You pick this week’s National Review from off the top of the mail pile (oh goody) and you look at the cover. In bold white print it says “Lincoln Defended.” So you squint and look a little closer, and that’s when it smacks you. “Abraham Lincoln?”

Yes, Abraham Lincoln. 130 years post-Reconstruction the thug house that is America’s political right-wing still teems so disturbingly with bug-eyed Lincoln bullies that the tower of bi-monthly conservative discourse is trying to talk sense to them.

It won’t work, of course. These patriots consider it a mark of Flawless Character to be happy that Lincoln was assassinated. After all he suspended habeas corpus! He waged war on values America! He stole their living breathing property!!1! The list of grievances is so extensive that it’s impossible to corral all the victimized politics-groups:

. . A few founding figures of this magazine were firmly in the anti-Lincoln camp. Libertarianism is rife with critics of Lincoln, among them Ron Paul and the denizens of the fever-swamp at LewRockwell.com. The Loyola University Maryland professor Thomas DiLorenzo has made a cottage industry of publishing unhinged Lincoln-hating polemics. The list of detractors includes left-over agrarians, southern romantics, and a species of libertarians — “people-owning libertarians,” as one of my colleagues archly calls them — who apparently hate federal power more than they abhor slavery. They are all united in their conviction that both in resisting secession and in the way he did it, Lincoln took American history on one of its great Wrong Turns.

The conservatives who happen to despise Abraham Lincoln on personal, political and/or philosophical grounds are then known to be, but not limited to, Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, their readers, subscribers and followers, true Libertarians, self-appointed intellectuals, university academics, internet kooks, farmers, redmecks, racists, Southerners, supremacists, Confederates, dinosaurs, debutantes, Rich Lowry’s friends and the founders of the National Review. In other words, one-third the GOP.

All of this, mind you, is only possible because of the disastrous flaw of the organic conservative brain. The poor overheated organ has no capacity for appreciating reality. It is instead obsessed with a far inferior thing: Philosophy. That’s why Lowry’s arguments in support of Lincoln, to counter specifically those against, are entirely taken with esoterics:

As I argue in my new book, Lincoln Unbound, Abraham Lincoln was perhaps the foremost proponent of opportunity in all of American history . .

. . whereas the rest of us are satisfied with ‘He Saved the United States.’ Misguided souls. Let us call them ‘The Great Emancibaggers.’ Then let us speak no more of this crap.


And by self-regarding deathcult snob, I mean you

If I’d have known he was going to have this sort of week, I’d have sent flowers.

Only yesterday Victor Davis Hanson attacked mulitculturalism for the bazeenth time. At the crux of the evisceration he found it instructive to drag the Tsarnaevs out into the public square. The problem with the terrorists he claimed was you. Tolerance was what led them to believe that “they could continue to live as Russian Muslims inside the United States.” That’s why they blew up Boston.

I suppose you could call this cry of Hanson’s “Rampart Xenophobia.” He’s implying that the bigger an asshole you are, the safer society becomes. Have you ever seen a terrorist throw a bomb at Victor? Q.E.D.

So having punctured the melting pot, today he takes on the Summer of Love.

Ideas of the 1960s have grown reactionary in our world, which is vastly different from the America of a half-century ago.

Civil rights and feminism and all that bleeding heart crap, they’ve become the cogs and tubes of government. And just what hippy would that be, sopping up its mushy benefits? Which lazy slob has his pockets full of Victor’s cash?

Take well-meaning subsidies for those over age 62. Why are there still senior discounts, vast expansions in Social Security and Medicare, and generous public pensions? Five decades ago all that made sense.

It’s grandma. Though she was no fan of the potheads, they handed her the keys to the treasury anyway. Because why? Kindness and treason. This is fairly obvious, not that it doesn’t require plenty of explaining. Don’t worry, we’re only in the second paragraph.

A heckuva essay. On Victor’s part a towering effort. He throws everything he hates about America into a tie-dyed bandana, knots the four corners and hucks it in the trash. Some decades are useful to a man that way, like a contractor’s bucket. Revenge gets even sweeter when you can slag the Home Depot squishes for giving you the stupid thing for free. People think being a National Review writer is more complicated than this but people are wrong.

And do tell, what is the Sixties’ greatest crime? Awareness.

If Latinos are underrepresented at the University of California, Berkeley, is it because of stubborn institutional prejudices, which, however, somehow have been trumped by Asian-Americans enrolling at three times their percentage of the state’s general population? If women are so oppressed by men, why do they graduate from college in higher numbers than their chauvinist male counterparts?

For three paragraphs Victor goes on this way asking only rhetorical questions about opportunities, minorities and education. As in: ‘If this one big thing is true, then what is this mote from my ass?’ And these points are devastating. Why? Because Victor is the only one allowed to write his column. Otherwise we’d take to it and call him a bitch. The National Review knows what it’s doing in erecting discursive fences high enough to prevent reasonable people from scrambling over and kicking his butt.

But, now, in particular. How to defeat the hippy education? This. Is Good.

In reaction, private diploma mills are springing up everywhere.

Make the system for-profit.

. . there are no “diversity czars” at DeVry University. There is no time or money for the luxury of classes such as “Gender Oppression” at the University of Phoenix. Students do not have rock-climbing walls and are not addressed by Michael Moore at Heald College.

Killer. For-profit colleges are nationwide scams that suck up loans, provide fourth-rate educations and destroy financial lives. Students are left with little hope for employment or for getting out of debt. But at least no one has to suffer through ethnic studies or Jane Fonda, right? Not that there aren’t personal tragedies abounding here. But sacrifices need be made once Victor settles upon the real threat to our existence . .

Scan the government grandees caught up in the current administration’s ballooning IRS, Associated Press, and Benghazi scandals. In each case, a blue-chip Ivy League degree was no guarantee that our best and brightest technocrats would prove transparent or act honorably. What difference did it make that Press Secretary Jay Carney, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Attorney General Eric Holder, President Barack Obama, and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice had degrees from prestigious universities when they misled the American people or Congress?

College snobs. Feast your eyes upon them. They hand out benefits with one hand and cut down ambassadors with the other. And you can’t find one decent enough to offer a ‘Sorry’ to Victor. But just what did you expect? Our higher institutions have long been overrun with the self-centered and the irrelevant . .

. . now-aging idealists of the 1960s long ago promised us that a uniformly degreed citizenry — shepherded by Ivy League–branded technocrats — would make America better by sorting us out by differences in age, gender, education, and race. It is now past time to end that ossified dream before it becomes our collective nightmare.

— Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. His new book, The Savior Generals is just out from Bloomsbury Books.

So it’s time to replace the whole lot. Beginning with the self-aware.

Plus: Via Amazon.

This review is from: The Savior Generals: How Five Great Commanders Saved Wars That Were Lost – From Ancient Greece to Iraq

Average Customer Review
2.7 out of 5 stars (6 customer reviews)

1.0 out of 5 stars
Riddled with errors-did anyone fact check this book?
May 23, 2013 By UVAalum

A fan of Victor Davis Hanson’s work, I eagerly anticipated the release of this book. I jumped immediately to the chapter on Matthew Ridgway in Korea. I was very disappointed by the seemingly high number of minor errors (reference to Eisenhower and MacArthur as four-star generals, reference to Ned Almond as a Marine general, etc.). For me, basic errors in a book like this call into question the very tenets of the author’s argument. Don’t publishers employ fact-checkers and editors anymore?

1.0 out of 5 stars
May 23, 2013 By William H. Korman

The Civil War was lost but for General Sherman? There was this other guy named Grant who figured pretty strongly in the final outcome.


Let’s try this again

It’s not like Victor Davis Hanson hasn’t been giving it his best. It’s more likely you haven’t been buying it. What else could it be?

Multiculturalism — as opposed to the notion of a multiracial society united by a single culture — has become an abject contradiction in the modern Western world.

It’s only one word, but it’s a contradiction. Get it? Oh come on.

Romance for a culture in the abstract that one has rejected in the concrete makes little sense.

There. Now you’re convinced. Victor’s been saying this identical thing about tolerance for more than 10 years. So what’s wrong with you?

Maybe you’re like me. Maybe you live in a city where different people live. Seven or eight miles east of my home, you can see why Los Angeles has the largest population of Koreans outside Asia: Koreatown. 120,000 people packed into 3 square miles. It comes complete with signage and billboards in a crazy foreign language. It teems with exotic food and strange smells.

It’s also majority Latino, surprise. You can see Mexicanos working at the corner market who don’t speak much English but who do speak Korean. Maybe then you wonder, ‘How the hell am I supposed to impose my white ways upon this stew of humanity?’ And why should I try?

. . the Tsarnaevs had some sense that the United States was a freer, more humane, and more prosperous place than the Russia they left, but they also felt no love for it, felt no pressure from their hosts to cultivate such love — and believed that they could continue to live as Russian Muslims inside the United States.

But that’s what Victor wants. If the Western world is to be saved, that is, this is how it’s to be done. The immigrants need to feel “pressure from their hosts to cultivate such love.” And the Tsarnaevs really shouldn’t “continue to live as Russian Muslims.” I don’t know, that sounds like a lot of work. Also: fuck you.