Thursday, May 01, 2008

Ugly Comedy

A bunch of political points today, mostly courtesy of National Review:

A bunch of Hawaiian secessionists take over a palace and allow entry only to natives (in the racial sense) and some others. I don't mean to be unkind (ah, who'm I kidding? Of course I do), but I wonder how many ordinary people would have been able to enter the palace back in the "glory days" of the monarchy. (h/t)

The CIA reports that to make up for its population decline, Russian will have to import massive amounts of people, including "Russians from the former Soviet states." (h/t) My first thought on reading that was, "Well, maybe Russia has problems ("Maybe?"), but that'll certainly improve matters in the Baltics, Ukraine, etc." I can certainly see Russia, in the not-too-distant-future, bounded by the Urals and the Don-Volga. Let's hope it goes well.

Hillary, alas, is getting charming. Holding out hope for an Obama convention victory now. One upside I heard for a Hillary victory is that black turnout will be depressed and the Congressional picture will look better for Republicans. Unfortunately for that scenario, congressional districts are so racially gerrymandered that it wouldn't make much of a difference. Of course, such a scenario would affect the presidential race, but if Obama would lose more decisively than Hillary anyway, why bother?

One thought did pop into my head this morning: Doesn't the whole Democratic primary setup- proportionally divided states side-by-side with superdelegates- perfectly symbolize the Democrats faux-populism combined with condescending elitism?

Anyway, speaking of Hillary, I came across this: Asked who she'd go out with, she says Lincoln. (h/t) Now, I can't really blame her (see what I mean?)- when faced with those who say that he's achieved mythical status, I respond, "Because he deserves it." Problem is, it looks like the too-easy answer. Ah well, the tradeoffs we make.

When conservatives get pet projects, it's time to look out. See this, for example. It reminds me of something Jonah Goldberg pointed out about reaction to his book: "Sure, those people were all fascists- all except the one guy (philosopher, usually) that I like!" (I've seen it regarding philosophers in general, when people get their hobbyhorses. And causes in general- see the sad case of D. Klinghoffer, for example.) Rod Dreher basically left conservatism (I don't care what he says) over the issue of asthma or something. And now we have ethanol. (Also, I'm not saying it applies here, but often there are big-business funding fingerprints over these things.) And evolution. And more. It's time to put the foot down: "Small government means small government. No exceptions."

Finally, a bit of ugliness. I have to disagree with Ramesh Ponnuru here. When I see Sullivan use a line like that, I don't think theology (I imagine those who think of theology more themselves would, and it's a logical conclusion); rather, I read it as "Evil [Jewish] neo-cons manipulated us into a war in Iraq." No, I wouldn't put it past Sullivan- he's amply demonstrated that he is driven to madness by his hobbyhorses. As to "little" and "boy", well, the former is clearly along the lines of "You've got a nice Army base here, Colonel...we wouldn't want anything to happen to it." The latter is perfectly appropriate for a fawning fanboy like Sullivan- who, in any event, is a poofter. An anti-Semitic poofter. So there.

Anyway, that's what I thought of when I saw this, linked from here. Sorry, but I really can't see the (double) use of "neoconservative" (you remember Brooks' line- "con" short for "conservative", "neo" short for "Jew"- and its frenzied reaction, and Rush stresses this as well) and the reference to the American Enterprise Institute as being accidental, even more so in light of this church's actions towards Israel. Like I said, ugly. And which side of the spectrum is it coming from?

Oh, and speaking of the Religious Left, how funny is it that every Tom, Dick, and Harry on that end thinks they're qualified to say what's "grounded in Biblical tradition"? From a theologian, maybe, but who is this guy? (h/t)

Enough for today. Peace out, all!

3 comments:

Liz said...

I humbly remark that this was a great post. Thanks!

Nachum said...

Thank you!

Effie said...

Good for people to know.