We Get Mail!
And since it happens so rarely, we're going to make the most of it.
Reader Dave reminds us of the NRO Corner conversation on the proposed increase in NEA funding. You know, stuff like this: NEA: INTERESTING TAKE [Jonah Goldberg] If this reader is right, I support Bush's move 100%: Mr.GoldbergOne possibility is that President Bush might use any controversy as an opportunity to restructure the NEA by dividing it into a National Endowment for Symphony Orchestras and a separate National Endowment for Homoerotic and Anti-American Performance Art and letting Congress decide how to allocate the funds.
Ha ha! What wits!
Anyway, Dave then makes the following observation: Speaking of Bush's relationship to art, did you notice that James Brown, who Great Leader sat next to at the Kennedy Center Honors, was picked up today on another domestic violence charge? Maybe James needs to go in for some of that marriage reeducation, I mean, counseling.
Hey, somebody should get some use out of this multi-million dollar program, so I think that's a great idea. Dave also mentions that the Kennedy Center choice to honor Brown by having the military chorus sing "Living in America" instead of Dave's choice, "Sex Machine." Which should be used as part of the Bush Marriage Indocrination program, IMHO.
Ann Coulter raises cheers, boos at MSE The auditorium of Shriver Hall was filled with members from across the political spectrum on Thursday night when conservative analyst Ann Coulter spoke as part of the Milton S. Eisenhower (MSE) Symposium series. Students and members of the community -- Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike -- arrived in such large number that the doors were soon shut and many were left outside to listen. "I wasn't expecting as big a turnout as we had for Patch Adams," said Abby Gibbon, a MSE Symposium publicity coordinator, commenting before the speech on the growing crowd. "It'll be a good show. There's definitely a lot of controversy."
Yup, that's why you should book Ann as a speaker for YOUR university: a lot of controversy. Plus, she's apparently more popular than Patch Adams!
And Reader Mike informs us that Bill O'Reilly made mention of Ben Shapiro's recent column (if you can call something lifted directly from Bill's writing a "column") taking Bill's side in that duel-by-book-sales with Hillary Clinton. So, it would appear that Ben's sucking up to Bill worked, and Ben may yet get to be Aqua Lad to Bill's Aquaman (to steal an analogy from commenter Ivan, the proprietar of Thrilling Days of Yesteryear).
7:13:40 AM
The Rest of TownHall Other than David Kay, the other big TownHall story was the Democratic primaries, and how all the candidates are crazy and/or phonies except for that nice young John Edwards (who will never win, so don't even think about voting for him); oh, and Joe Lieberman is good too, in that he's almost a Republican, but the Democrats unreasonably don't seem to be taking to him. We also have Rich Lowry telling us why poor people deserve to be poor, and Emmett Tyrell catching "The Passion."
Ollie decries those Democrats who won't follow the example of their brothers Zell Miller and Ed Koch, and vote for Bush in 2004. Georgia Sen. Zell Miller, the author of, "A National Party No More: The Conscience of a Conservative Democrat" (read review), has already endorsed President Bush's re-election, saying that Bush is "the right man at the right time" to govern America. Miller added at the time that many of the Democrat contenders for the presidential nomination, particularly Howard Dean, were trying to use the war in Iraq for "political advantage," which to the Georgia senator is a "disgrace."
Because a real leader like Bush would NEVER use the Iraq war for poltical advantage!
John Kerry will be the Democratic Presidential nominee because he's the unexciting default candidate in a field of losers. See, Dean is mentally unbalanced. Clark is an egotist, unstable, and might not actually be a Democrat. John Edwards is a nice, polite young man, but Dean didn't have the "decency of uncorking his mania" until it was too late for anybody to realize that Edwards exists, so Edwards will never win. And the stupid Democrats just won't vote for the best candidate, Joe Lieberman. So, the nominee will be Kerry, but only because the Democrats are a bunch of stupid, treasonous, Bush haters. All in all, serendipity has been Senator Kerry's new best friend. These unexpected factors came together to make this singularly uninspiring, northeastern liberal an overnight phenomenon.
When Limbaugh calls Kerry "uninspiring," he fails to mention that Kerry is also haughty and French-looking. The Democratic candidates (except for John Edwards, who is a nice, polite young loser) all flip-flop on the issues. And they're two-faced, or three-faced!
And that reminds me that Simpsons ep where Sideshow Bob, who is running for mayor, stages a photo op at the elementary school. He says in fakey voice, "Young friends, my opponent, Joe Quimby, is confused about your school system. Do you know what he does? He flip-flops. [Bob does backflips] Sometimes he doesn't know whether he's coming or going. [Bob does sideways duck walk]. He wants to sell your future short. [Bob shrinks into himself; the children clap and cheer.]"
And that, of course, reminds me of Jonah's REAL message to the voters: " No children have ever meddled with the Republican Party and lived to tell about it." Then there's John Kerry. It might be slightly inaccurate to say there are only two Kerrys, considering his gift for being on so many sides of an issue. What's also confusing is that, unlike Dean who evolves into new personas and then sticks with them for a while like, say, a Michael Jackson, Kerry tends to switch between his personalities constantly in a Jekyll-and-Hyde fashion.
John Edwards talks about "two Americas" -- one rich, one struggling. But in reality, there are two Americas: one hardworking, married, and paying taxes; and one lazy, having illegitimate babies, and in need of a kick in the ass so it will stop making us taxpayers support it. Poverty in America is primarily a cultural phenomenon, driven by a shattered work ethic and sexual irresponsibility. [snip] According to the Heritage Foundation's welfare expert Robert Rector, the typical poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work annually, or about 16 hours a week. This number holds in good economic times and bad, because it is a factor of attitudes toward work rather than the availability of jobs. If the amount of work in these households were equivalent to one adult working 40 hours a week, roughly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of poverty. The problem is not, as liberals argue, low wages. If you are only working 16 hours a week, you will pretty much be poor unless you're a TV anchor. Raising the minimum wage isn't going to help someone working so few hours. It is the amount of work that matters. If a single mother works full time at the minimum wage -- factoring in such income supplements as the Earned Income Tax Credit and food stamps -- she will not be poor.
Yes, if that single mother works full time at minimum wage she will make $12,168 a year -- enough to (barely) lift a family of two out of poverty. Of course, that single mother is going to have to find some kind of care for that child so she can work full-time, which is not going to be easy on what she can afford to pay. And it might not be very GOOD care. And she may not get insurance with that minimum wage job. So, a good single mother, even with the best work ethic in the world, might find it more responsible to stay home with the child (or maybe work a couple of shifts a week when her mother or somebody can baby-sit) and accept welfare and Medicaid, even though there are jobs available -- unless those jobs pay enough to help her adequately provide for her child. The New Hampshire primary showed that Wes Clark is crazy, that Howard Dean has got to stop being crazy if he wants to get back on top, that John Kerry is just another waffling politician (no opinion on the botox rumors from Paul), that Joe Lieberman is moderate (and nobody likes them), and that John Edwards is adorable. Who knows, Howard Dean might even make a comeback. But the presidential candidate who's ideally positioned just now is Hillary Clinton - for 2008.
Palm Beach county is oppressing Rush Limbaugh, and nobody cares! The Founding Fathers would be outraged! Governments have attempted to suppress criticism for centuries. The Founding Fathers were acutely aware of that, and provided strong protections in our system of government for dissent and for free speech. But would Thomas Jefferson, for instance, have anticipated that a journalist's fellow communicators would remain silent while one of their own was being threatened with jail?
Well, if pillhead Ben Franklin was being threatened with prosecution because he'd violated drug laws, I can't see Thomas Jefferson rewriting the Constitution just to get him off. (And who is threatening Rush with jail at this point? I think that must just be a drug hallucination on Emmett's part.) Limbaugh has admitted to becoming hooked on prescription drugs while trying to mollify the pain he has suffered from back and ear maladies. No one disputes he suffered this pain. No one I have encountered claims he was taking the prescription medication OxyContin for kicks.
Yo, right here! I say he was taking the "prescription" meds for kicks. I say that he STARTED taking the drugs when they were prescribed for pain, but found that if he took a bunch of them, they made him feel REALLY good. Rush said as much when he got back from rehab. So, at least two of us say he took OxyContin for kicks. Every authority I have consulted tells me that given his admission and given his voluntary rehab, he would normally be let off. The Hollywood coke snorters get this sort of judgment. Why not Limbaugh? Should he have been snorting coke?
Why not? He obtained a drug illicitly, and took it for its euphoric effects. Cocaine, OxyContin -- what's the diff? The harassment of Limbaugh provides another unlovely glimpse into the workings of the liberal elites. From the days of FDR, they have used the law to persecute political opponents. FDR used the IRS and FBI against such an array of opponents from former Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon, to publishers Moses Annenberg and Col. Robert R. McCormick, to labor leader John L. Lewis. All were innocent. Limbaugh is in good company.
Except that Rush isn't innocent (well, he's yet to be proven guilty, but his lawyer did try to negotiate a plea). There are laws against obtaining controlled substances under fraudulent circumstances. Rush apparently broke those laws. But Palm Beach County prosecutors, having apparently leaked information about the case as well as some of the negotiating documents between them and Limbaugh's lawyers, now want Limbaugh to plead guilty to a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. Emmett, buddy, you gotta quit mainlining "the passion." As everybody knows, the prosecutors offered him probation for his guilty plea. And probation, community service, and random drug testing sounds more than fair to me -- presumably Roy just rejected the offer because Rush just doesn't want that felony on his rap sheet. Limbaugh's lawyer, the respected civil libertarian Roy Black, considers this "preposterous." It is worse than that, which is presumably why the American Civil Liberties Union has filed a legal brief on behalf of Limbaugh. You know, if you do a Google search for "respected civil libertarian Roy Black," you won't get a single hit. However, if you just search for "civil libertarian," you will find that it's the Alan Dershowitz defination of "a conservative who is under investigation."
And no, the Civil Liberties Union does NOT consider the prosecution's plea offer "worse than outrageous." They probably think it's way better than Rush deserves. They just hold that medical records should not be obtained with a search warrant rather than a subpoena. I even agree. But I don't think that Rush is innocent, nor that he's a martyr for his political beliefs. He's a famous drug addict who broke the law. That's about it.
But hey, we'll let Emmett have the last word: Still, it is repulsive to see the rest of the press sitting quietly by. That Limbaugh, a first offender and recovering addict to pain killers rather than street drugs, is being unfairly harassed is clear to anyone but a political zealot. Conceivably, his harassment will end in court appearances and even a jail term. Will that please his opponents? "We got Limbaugh on an OxyContin charge." It might be a first.
And that concludes our TownHall Festival of Conservative Thought and Wackiness. Be sure to join us next time for even more merriment.
3:34:16 AM  | |
TownHall Does David Kay
Yes, the assorted pundits who dole out conservative wisdom at this Heritage Foundation-sponsored forum finally got around to reading my Lucianne.com List of reactions to David Kay's latest assertions, and to write columns using these ideas. In their David Kay pieces, the TownHall pundits especially focused on: #7. Well, if Bush was wrong, then so were all the intelligence agencies, the Brits, the Germans and your precious Clinton!
But they also relied heavily on: #11. It doesn't matter whether Iraq had WMDs, because the Iraqis are Arabs/Muslims and needed their asses kicked.
However, because they are slightly less scary than the Lucianne.com readers, they did change it to "It doesn't matter whether the Iraqis had WMDs because Saddam was an evildoer and needed his ass kicked."
And then, inspired by Sadly, No!'s hot new contest The REAL Scandal, they usually concluded with: "So, even though there weren't any WMDs, which was the reason the President said we were going to war, the REAL scandal is that the America-hating liberals wanted Saddam to keep menacing us.
So, with that background, let's recap the TownHall Kay columns for today:
Some #3 ("Kay SAID he found weapon-related program activities, so what's the big deal?) A big heap of #7 (everybody, including Clinton, said Saddam had WMDS). Plus, "Hey, maybe the WMDs were moved to Syria, so we should think about invading them next," and a dash of "Heck, even Saddam's officers thought he had WMDs, so who can blame Bush for being wrong, since we've all been the victims of a vast practical joke?" Chuck's conclusion: Bush had no choice but to got to war because . . . well, because even though the sanctions were working, we were just tired of Saddam, okay? Under the circumstances, and given what every intelligence agency on the planet agreed was going on in Iraq, the president made the right choice, indeed the only choice
A whole bunch #7. Some "It was the CIA's fault," concluding with the modified #11 (Saddam was an evildoer), and a big scoop of "the REAL scandal." Also, how many times must we remind the Democrats that the president never argued that the threat was "imminent?"
It is those who opposed the war, not those who supported it, who have a lot to answer for.
Maybe the House will hold investigations of un-American activities, and Mona can MAKE them answer for it. ("Are you now, or have you ever been opposed to the war?")
Lots of #7. Some "Saddam and his own officers thought they had WMDs." But none of that matters, because Jeff never cared if there were ever any WMDs. After all, Saddam was an evildoer and needed his ass kicked. The war was right and proper because Saddam was a homicidal dictator who ruled with staggering brutality, because he provided support to international terrorists, and because Baathist Iraq was a threat to its neighbors.
But above all because of 9/11. What that day's attacks made clear is that we will not have peace until the fascism that grips so much of the Arab Muslim world is confronted, crushed, and transformed into something more decent.
A cup of #7. A tablespoon of #3 (Kay DID find weapon-related program activities). A dash of #4 (maligning Kay -- which Joel makes his own by implying Kay is only making controversial statements so he can maybe write a book and get it published someday). Bake for an hour and 375 degrees and you get the bottom line: we didn't know what was going on, so we had no choice but to invade Iraq. Even in a world of uncertain intelligence—probably a permanent reality until God decides to spy for us—a president’s job is to guard against the worst potential scenarios.
So, there you have our TownHall commemorative David Kay edition. It will undoubtedly become a keepsake in years to come.
3:33:44 AM |
|
No comments:
Post a Comment