There may be a few typos in the doc, but that’s because it’s really old and locked. Whatever that means.
I had a poet friend who used to teach this short story as a “prose poem” in one of her classes. I was never sure what a prose poem was exactly, but I was flattered nevertheless.
Looking back on it, I hope that was the proper reaction.
Oh well, for those of you interested in a bit of light reading and able to open a doc…
As much fun as it’s been to react to news events, I like to look ahead once in a while, so I’m introducing a new category: “If Republicans Win the Senate in 2014.” This is Item One.
The least despicable excuse congressional Republicans can offer for failing to do this in the next Congress, if they’ve recaptured the Senate while retaining the House, is, “Obama would just veto it.”
Granted, the likely result of passing a bill that merely reads, “The Affordable Care Act is repealed,” would be entertaining for the wailing and gnashing of teeth it would inspire among the “progressive” Left, and would certainly be a net positive for the nation’s health coverage system, but at this point it would hardly be the kind of rallying point that Team R would need to build on its accidental and undeserved 2014 success at the ballot box. Rather, the repeal of Obamacare should be achieved by passing a bill that institutes free-market reforms from the roots up, eliminating the perverse incentives that the system has evolved over years of being driven by union contracts and meddling legislation.
A functional health coverage system would no longer be controlled by bean counters, corporate or governmental, but by the patients themselves. Health savings accounts and tort reform are two small parts of the reforms needed to achieve this, but they’re a decent start.
Of course Boehner and McConnell would argue that this, too, cannot be done because “Obama would just veto it.”
Send it to him anyway, you crybabies. Show that you’re good for something more than keeping Obama from running rampant during his last two years in office — because that selling point goes away in 2016. And if you don’t have something new to sell by then, your still-pissed-off base won’t be buying.
Which is nothing new, really — though as with Bob Costas, one wonders why it’s so suddenly racist now that all the liberal lemmings have started lining up for their places in tiny, metal PC boxes — only in this instance, I was listening live, and the charge carried with it an accusation that the person defending the name, Mike Ditka, was himself “a racist,” followed by intimation by a fellow broadcast personality that perhaps Ditka should be fired for having what amounts to a difference of opinion over what constitutes actual racism.
For instance, Ditka believes – and the club’s history backs him up — that the original name, a play on the Boston Braves, was meant as a honorarium to a Native American coach. But rather than rehearse that documented history yet again, I’d like to offer a few new thoughts. First, one of the arguments Darren McKee (aka DMac) made, is that just because something was okay at one time doesn’t mean it’s okay now. Though I can’t read his mind, I suspect one of the antecedents he had in mind when he made this comment was slavery, which of course has nothing whatever to do with the Redskins, the linguistic implications of a demand in name change, etc. But then, he’s a liberal sports talk host, so he can be forgiven for such blazing ignorance and such a glorious non-sequitur.
Second — and what irked me the most — was twofold, and is deserving of this public bitchslapping: it’s easy, as McKee proved, to cavalierly and without even a moment’s thought of repercussions, accuse a real-life person of a truly heinous mindset. That McKee believes he can see into Ditka’s heart and declare him “racist” based around arguments that have been made by many others, including the Native Americans he pretends to champion (although I guess the ones who aren’t offended by the “racist” team name aren’t really authentic natives, and are more like Uncle Tontos than the real Native Americans that this pasty white liberal sportstalk house presumes to speak for) is problematic enough; that he does so from a safe distance and without fear of being punched in the face for suggesting such a thing without any proof is part of the problem with these types of claims and the people who make them: not only do they do a disservice to those who are the victims of actual racism while widening the pool of “racists” to include just about everyone they disagree with, reducing the charge of racism to a mere rhetorical trope; but they don’t ever have to answer for having made the accusation.
My solution is to have “DMac” invite Mike Ditka to the studio and call him a racist directly to his face. Or, if he prefers not to, he can detail the case for Ditka’s racism, which surely must go beyond his rather familiar argument that the current referent to “Washington Redskins” are a bunch of largely brown and white skinned professional football players being paid by Daniel Snyder to represent the DC franchise, and not an invocation of some kind of slur (especially since Native Americans themselves, by a healthy percentage, don’t want the name changed; that Native Americans themselves refer to each other historically as red skins or red people; and that Oklahoma literally translated means roughly the same thing, meaning after years of Sooners games, sportscasters everywhere should suddenly demand the college either change states or that the state change its name. Perhaps to DMacLand or Costasville.
Phil Simms has decided he might not use the name during his broadcasts of the team’s games. Fine. I like Simms, but I think if he goes this route (and I include Tony Dungy here, too) he’ll looks foolish, cowardly, and risk-averse — and that anyone who follows suit will be doing damage to our language by allowing that something clearly not meant as a slur must be a slur because certain people have decided it offends them. And I’ll make sure never to have Simms or Dungy over while I’m using a spade in my garden, just to keep them from having mini-strokes.
With DMac, on the other hand, the situation is far more sinister. Because not only does he want to hand over control of language to the heckler’s veto, but he likewise wouldn’t be averse to seeing a broadcaster, who makes his living engaging in speech, lose his livelihood because the speech he engaged didn’t comport with the current hairshirted liberal orthodoxy.
– All of which is doubly ironic, given that a day earlier DMac had noted how happy he was that the TV show “Naked and Afraid” finally featured a black cast member, because he was “tired of looking at white asses.” Oh, and yes, he was “impressed” by the black contestants, er, attributes.
What a fucking hypocrite. So much of what’s wrong with this country tied into a tiny little poseur’s bow.
Embrace your inner war monger.
No, I don’t care what Glenn Greenwald would say. No, I don’t care what some sniveling lefty apparatchik like timb, needing the virtual hugs of some kind — any kind, his life is so sad and empty — of online community, thinks. No, I don’t care that I’m called a “racist” or an “Islamophobe.” No, I don’t care if some jaggoff with hipster glasses wants to call me “chickenhawk.” No, I don’t care what the neo-isolationists in the libertarian movement have to say, with their smarmy dismissal of the real dangers to American interests presented by barbarians like these marauding zealots whose goal is power and subjugation. No, I don’t care what a group like CAIR has to say. No, I don’t care what some professor burps out about root causes, or understanding the importance of the sword in Islamic religious culture, while drawing parallels to the Christian use of beheadings (hint: one group used the tactic 9 centuries ago; one used it yesterday, and today, and will doubtless do so tomorrow, the next day, and the day after that).
No, I don’t care to hear the academic dissertations that routinely devolve into tu quoque moral relativism and jargon-laden abstractions. No, I don’t believe it is up to “us” to show “we’re better than them,” that by letting them lop the heads off of Christian children, or American journalists, or former allies in Iraq and not retaliating with similar brutality, we’ve taken a worthwhile moral highground: that’s a coward’s stance and leads to the emboldening of evil. No, I don’t believe we need to fight wars against avowed enemies who hide among civilians with “surgical precision”; fight wars to win and in so doing, end wars and end the desire to start new ones. Like the creepy Koranic trees who snitch on Jews so that they may be exterminated, perhaps it’s time for civilians to point out where the Islamists are hiding so that they may be obliterated. Or else they risk being obliterated in the blitzkrieg we should be unleashing.
No, I’m not worried about being called “bloodthirsty” by people who rely on the odds of their not being affected by Islamic radicalism to take the sanctimonious stance against the overwhelming use of US force. No, I don’t care that some clergy person somewhere calls out for “peace” without providing any any plausible path toward that end.
Instead, I say this: unleash utter hell on the monsters wherever they are. You don’t win wars by defeating generals; you win wars when the people demand the generals surrender, or else themselves begin to turn on them with force. And Obama’s beloved Muslim Brotherhood “moderates,” themselves born out of Nazism, should be returned to the rancid dust and sand from which they were birthed. Under tons and tons of rubble.
These animals are real, not part of some political chessboard that progressives like to move about on. They don’t care if you sympathize with them in Vanity Fair or, like one Russian soldier, refuse to convert and die a martyr to Catholicism.
They want to control you, me, your children, my children, the culture, religious belief, and the entirety of the world. The fact that this may be overreach — and the Caliphate an ultimate delusion — doesn’t mean heads aren’t going to be lopped off, and mass slaughter isn’t going to continue.
No, I don’t worry that you call me a war monger. I want the barbarism to stop. And if that means a kind of righteous barbarism is visited upon the animals in return for their attacks, advances, and slaughters of innocents — with the end result being that the aggressors are left in pulpy spots ground into the desert sand, unable going forward to continue their advancing and slaughtering — then what we have, morally, is a net good.
The American government — particularly under the most Islamist-coddling administration in history — didn’t kill James Foley. A sick asshole in a ninja suit pretending to be a holy warrior did, in order to get his rocks off. And there are thousands more like him, with more being recruited to engage in the wildings so long as there are no appreciable consequences. Watch the video. This is what we’re up against, and there’s no reason we need be.
What the world needs now is a cleansing fire. Not like that of the ovens of Dachau, but rather like the one that burned through the streets and tunnels and environs of Dresden. Without apology. Without remorse. Without a care of what some phony sanctimonious journalist will write, or what the terror-enablers in the UN will decree. Stick your international criminal court. And get your goddamned filthy assembly out of our country. You want a Caliphate? Fine. Then we’ll attach a fuse to the end of it and set that bitch on fire.
We saw evil like this in the 30s and we stood by and did nothing until it hit us in Pearl Harbor, thinking it wouldn’t find its way here. Today, it’s already found its way here and is secreting itself within our country thanks to a corrupt and outrageous border policy that has all but negated our national sovereignty.
We can sit back now and show our nuanced pose to the world, then pay the price later when a US city goes up in flames. Or we can strike now with such ferocity and such finality that the threat we’re destroying has to work its way back from the stone ages.
And yeah, I’m looking at you, too, Iran.
So. To all the preening liberals who may choose to point to this as evidence of bloodthirsty xenophobia or a thrill for war, I offer a preemptive response: fuck you and the sophistry you’ll use to condemn me. I hate war as much as anyone. I’m just not stupid enough to think we can simply wish it away — particularly against an enemy who takes such joy in showing their trophies, be they the heads of children on pikes or the digital video recording of executions. I don’t care why they do what they do. I care that they’re made to stop. By whatever means necessary.
That’s the real moral stand to take, unpopular amongst the finger-wagging nuanced crowd. And no, I don’t care about them, either.
Time for Jesse and Al to tuck their shameless tails between their legs and scuttle off back to nicely-appointed race hustling headquarters. But maybe they can grab a free big screen first. FOR JUSTICE!
Yesterday, after reciting what appears to the Darren Wilson’s account of his shooting of Michael Brown, I wondered whether any witnesses would back Wilson’s version which, I imagined, would be contradicted by Brown’s friends. Now comes a tweet from Christine Byers of the St. Louis Post Dispatch that “more than a dozen witnesses have corroborated cop’s version of events in shooting.” [Edit: she now says the Tweet doesn't meet publication standards; but that's a walkback, not an admission of poor sourcing]
I don’t know whether that’s true, but it would help explain why Wilson has not been charged, as the mob is demanding.
If Byers is correct, some interesting questions arise. Assuming that the “white cop killed innocent black for no reason” narrative implodes, will the angry mob go home? Or will it become even more incensed, as seemed to happen when the video of Brown’s robbery was released? Or will the facts make no difference at all, such that the protesting and looting continue until the mob gets tired or is forcibly halted.
I’m betting on choice number three.
Of course. Because the brutal truth is the majority of those “protesting” don’t give a good goddamn about Michael Brown. They’re there to break shit, steal stuff, and take it to “the Man.” The fact that the “politically active” “social justice crowd” is so tied to progressivism — as is a media that has helped fuel what was a tragedy into its current state of travesty – and so are themselves The Man, and not the counterculture warriors they so desperately want to be, is lost on these ideologically blinded dullards.
Want to be really edgy? Pretend the cop may have actually been justified in the shooting, especially given his broken orbital socket and the fact that the “unarmed teen” appeared, by many accounts, to be charging at him like a 300 lb bull elk.
Because that’s like, Hunter Thompson-type stuff right there — not the easy task of siding with the race baiters and the perpetual grievance groups that can’t seem to go a day without looking for some high profile victimization to exploit. And failing miserably most of the time.
Imagine! When you signal you have no intention of really doing any kind of heavy military retaliation against the march of the Caliphate, the Caliphate becomes emboldened. But no worries, the Administration is working to “authenticate” the video (one of Foley’s friends has already done so, but hey, if they can stretch this out long enough, Obama can finish his vacation, and, you know, priorities), and once they do, they’ll offer a firm verbal rebuke — just before they blame Bush.
“ISIS had recently threatened to kill U.S. journalist James Foley to avenge airstrikes the United States has conducted in Iraq, a senior U.S. official told ABC News,” ABC reporters Arlette Saenz and White House correspondent Jonathan Karl reported on Wednesday.
The White House had been aware of the threat prior to the release of a video Tuesday night that appears to show the beheading of Foley and warns that militants will carry out a similar act against U.S. journalist Steven Sotloff, who went missing in August.
President Obama was briefed on the video aboard Air Force One Tuesday night as he returned to Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, from Washington to resume his August vacation. The White House said the intelligence community is working to authenticate the gruesome video that allegedly shows Foley’s beheading.
Combined with the unconfirmed revelation that Foley’s killer, an ISIS militant with a pronounced British accent, may have been a former Guantanamo Bay detainee, this is shaping up to be a particularly bad news cycle for the White House.
[...] the revelation that the White House was aware of the threats to Foley’s life and was unable to provide for his safety will prompt administration critics to sharpen their attacks on Obama’s approach to the crisis in the Middle East. In the wake of what may have been a preventable atrocity, some of that criticism will be quite valid.
Of for Chrissakes, what the hell has happened to us? Whether the actual beheading of a photojournalist was preventable or not — good thing we got Bergdahl back, though! SCORE! — the bottom line is this: Obama is, by inaction, the intentional and preemptive removal of force from the table, and a consistent show of allegiance to the Muslim Brotherhood, helping to forge a new Hell in the Middle East, where slaughter is now the norm, and Obama’s response is to pass the buck and tee it up on the Vineyard.
Let’s stop being pretend journalists hewing to ostentatious and strained feints toward objectivity. Obama has greatly weakened the US at home and abroad, and the fact is, this was his plan: fundamental transformation.
The Marxist ideologue wanted to “level the world’s playing field”; he’s always felt the US got rich off the backs of others, and that as a colonialist, capitalist exploiter, it deserved some comeuppance. Opening the borders, turning the middle east over to the Islamists while kneecapping the Israelis, the Kurds, and the eastern Europeans who’d broken from the hell of communism with the help of Obama’s school-age bete noire, Ronald Reagan — in combination with opening the borders to change the nature of citizenship and create an electoral tipping point toward takers who will always vote for more corrupt government so long as they get their freebies, and rekindling racial and identity animus — well, this is who he was, is, and always will be.
Some of us saw that. Others decided it was more important to pick a not-previously used color from the crayon box and take our chances, in the process, washing away “our national guilt” — which I daresay doesn’t belong the vast majority of us anymore than does winning the revolutionary war.
I’m repulsed by all that’s going on. I barely recognize this country anymore. And worse, I barely recognize a good portion of its citizenry, who have been so programmed to follow PC dictates and are so suckled on the idea they “deserve” unearned “esteem,” creating a public discourse that’s filled with boisterous ignorance, that some days I just want to go tend to my garden and tune everything else out.
HuffPo has an article up saying of course Rick Perry committed egregious felonies. Waste of time, so I’m not linking here. However, Eugene Volokh, who has covered this earlier, today offers up some analysis of Perry’s so-called “impermissible motive” which is what the fascist Democrats (but I repeat myself) are hanging their tinfoil hats on.
Rather, the theory is that there’s some broad unfaithfulness or impropriety in what the Governor was doing that warrants criminal punishment even in the absence of a clear definition of what is improper.
That can’t be constitutional. It’s unconstitutionally vague for the law to require that people present “‘credible and reliable’ identification” to police officers when asked to do so (see Kolender v. Lawson (1983)), because this “necessarily ‘entrust[s] lawmaking ‘to the moment-to-moment judgment of the policeman on his beat’’” and “encourages arbitrary enforcement by failing to describe with sufficient particularity what a suspect must do in order to satisfy the statute.” It’s likewise unconstitutionally vague for the law to be read as banning votes or vetoes under a “they don’t faithfully execute the duties of the office” standard.
Indeed, the vagueness problem is, if anything, especially great here precisely because it involves a restriction on a political official’s exercise of his political actions. If prosecutors can prosecute legislators or governors just because they think those officials aren’t faithful public servants (rather than because the officials engaged in some specifically prohibited action), the result would be (1) unfairness to the officials, who don’t know what can get them prosecuted, (2) for some officials, deterrence of actions that might catch the ire of a hostile prosecutor, and (3) a vast risk of discriminatory criminal enforcement by prosecutors who have a political axe to grind against a politician (whether or not this particular prosecutor in the Gov. Perry case has such an axe to grind).
UPDATE: Oh look! A grand juror who indicted Perry demonstrates her level of integrity.
Rho Chalmers, who disclosed to the Houston Chronicle yesterday that she was a member of the grand jury that indicted Texas Gov. Rick Perry, was an active delegate to the Texas Democratic Party convention during grand jury proceedings. Chalmers’ active participation in Democratic state politics is important because she claimed yesterday to the Houston Chronicle that her decision to indict Perry, a Republican, was not based on politics.
“For me, it’s not a political decision,” Chalmers told the newspaper. “That’s what a grand jury is about – take the emotion out of it and look at the facts and make your best decision based on your life experience.”
More troubling, however, is the fact that Chalmers attended, photographed, and commented on an event with Democratic state Sen. Kirk Watson while grand jury proceedings were ongoing.
Isn’t that special?
James Foley, an American journalist who went missing in Syria more than a year ago, has reportedly been executed by the Islamic State, a militant group formerly known as ISIS.
A YouTube video and photos purportedly of Foley emerged on Tuesday. The video — entitled “A Message to #America (from the #IslamicState)” — identified a man on his knees as “James Wright Foley,” and showed his beheading.
“This is James Wright Foley, an American citizen of your country,” an Islamic State militant says in the video, which has since been removed by YouTube. “As a government, you have been at the forefront of the aggression towards the Islamic State. You have plotted against us and have gone far out of your way to find reasons to interfere in our affairs. Today, your military air force is attacking us daily in Iraq, your strikes have caused casualties among Muslims.”
The video also shows another man on his knees who is identified as American journalist Steven Sotloff. The Islamic State member says that Sotloff’s future “depends” on President Obama’s “next decision.” Sotloff, a freelance journalist, went missing in Syria in August 2013.
A post on the “Free James Foley” Facebook page addressed the reports on Tuesday, saying, “We know that many of you are looking for confirmation or answers. Please be patient until we all have more information, and keep the Foleys in your thoughts and prayers.”
Geez, Barry, how’s that inclusive politics of no victor/no vanquished workin’ for ya?
Not if local reporters like this one keep speaking Truth to cronyism and neo-aristocratic indulgences.
Sorry, but the “let’s hide Barack away” strategy ain’t gonna work with Hillary. At least, I hope not. Of course, I suppose that depends on who the GOP nominates.
Because I get the feeling, say, McCain would indeed volunteer to hold her crown for her.