December 9, 2011

Hobbit purist extremist fringe wingnut talk radio kook (and Constitutional scholar who worked in the Reagan Administration) Mark Levin challenges the "conservative" pragmatists in the rightwing movement media

From his show last evening [click over to The Right Scoop to listen to the audio]:

There’s only one way this country can be saved, with a conservative! And it’s high damn time that so-called conservative pundits, and conservative outlets, and conservative websites, and conservative magazines start acting their role! And I don’t just mean in their fundraising appeals, how conservative they are, but I mean use their intellectual power, use substance to support a conservative!

Romney is not a conservative. You’ve been going on and on about how Newt’s not a conservative. Great! So is the Weekly Standard going to endorse Santorum or Bachmann? Will National Review endorse Santorum or Bachmann? Will the Wall Street Journal editorial page, which has it’s own conservative problems with open borders and some other dumbass positions that it takes, will it be backing Santorum or Bachmann? Or are they all going to rally behind Romney? Now all of a sudden they want conservative purity when they apply it to Gingrich, but they don’t want conservative purity when they apply it to Romney

This went for Cain, as well — those who supported him were purists mesmerized by his charisma and not considered, politically literate voters sick of slick-talking establishment politicians backed by GOP money who tell us what we want to hear when campaigning, only to ease back into the status quo once elected; and besides, Cain isn’t even really conservative! — but that’s par for the course these days on the right, particularly among its opinion leaders and major media outlets.

I’m more convinced now than ever that nothing so disturbs Republican opinion leaders as an actual grass roots uprising that, led by presumptuous citizen activists whose distrust for a ruling elite is made manifest in rallies and town halls, threatens the influence of both the entrenched GOP political class and its attendant appendage of reliably GOP-first opinion shapers, most of whom have ties inside the Beltway.

Like the left, these power brokers and opinion shapers seem happy to use the “base” — in the case of the GOP, conservatives, classical liberals, certain libertarians, and right-leaning independents — to gain power; and yet it’s been clear in every legislative fight since the TEA Party contingent propelled the GOP back to power in the House (and significantly closed the margin in the Senate) in 2010 that, from the perspective of the establishment GOP, the conservatives had served their purpose, and now should shut up, fall in line, and recognize that they simply “don’t understand how DC operates.”

Even now, we’re being sold on “electability,” and the media is telling us all that’s left us is the choice of a perpetual candidate, and another DC insider, running as an outsider, whose solutions to problems seem very government-centric, and whose positions tend to change with the cultural ethos.

I’ll let you decide who is who.

There’s a reason the GOP and its pundits are driving certain candidates: they believe principles don’t sell, and that movement conservatism is too divisive to win a general election. Half a loaf is better than nothing, they tell us — and anything is better than a Marxist ideologue. So again, we all need to fall in line — or else we may as well cast our votes for Obama. Bachmann, Santorum? Not serious candiates. Pawlenty, Huntsman, Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie? Top tier.

Look: nobody wants to see Obama defeated more than I do. But I’m tired of the GOP using my disdain for left-liberals to force on me liberal Republicans who believe in big government (or, if you must, compassionate) conservatism — only with tax cuts!

I want a constitutionalist. A fighter. Someone who will at least try to move the needle back toward the classical liberalism upon which this country was founded and insist that we operate as a constitutional republic, not as some sort of dysfunctional post-constitutional dictatorship lent cover by an ideological oligarchy in the courts, and by a legislative branch that refuses to pass budgets once they’are able to lock one in that keeps the spending increases coming.

Can Gingrich or Romney be pressured into doing so? Yes, if they felt that’s what the zeitgeist demanded. But with our current House and Senate leadership on the GOP side, there is and will be no such pressure.

The ruling elite likes its place as the ruling elite. And gone are the days where most people run for office to make a difference.

The political class is getting rich while the rest of us suffer under the weight of its exertions of power and legislative and regulatory hubris. And the way to break the cycle is NOT to send our own status quo politicians to get rich, then rationalize such failure as a victory for the team.

Posted by Jeff G. @ 9:04am
341 comments | Trackback

Comments (341)

  1. I can get behind the idea of a the-hell-with-it vote for Santorum. But I do wonder how picked-through his legislative record is.

    Since this is the standard we’re going to be applying…

  2. But with our current House and Senate leadership on the GOP side, there is and will be no such pressure.

    I’m still hoping we can get enough outlaws elected that we can force some leadership changes. Looking at the various power struggles, though, I’m not sure we can get out of this without harm. Not just the Establicans and the Outlaws, either. I’m talking about the multilateral battles going on between Statists and Tea Partiers at the local and state level; between Washington and the several states; between the Administration and Congress.

    I’m confident that we will continue to make significant gains at the local and state levels, if only because these governments are by design more responsive to the electorate. What worries me is that the Obamocracy is consolidating power in the Beltway just as fast as they’re able, and nobody in Congress seems to be doing much to curtail it. I mean, every day that Holder walks around as a free man is a battle lost.

    I foresee some ugly battles coming as various states, individually or in concert, decide to push back against the over-reach from EPA, USDA, Commerce, and the other Washington armies that are being mobilized to keep them tied down. Interesting times…

  3. Mitch Daniels has accomplished more for the conservative cause than Santorum and Bachmann put together I think

    plus he’s way more electable cause he’s not weird

  4. If Daniels had run, hf, you would have found something to condemn him for eventually.

  5. All I’ve ever asked…
    ooops, I’m interrupting that comment for this update:

    I’m seeing a sidebar ad for Alan Grayson. That’s the Democrat Smart® way to spend campaign money.

    He’s fucking eyeballing me too.

  6. Most of the men of the founding times knew herds, knew how herds move, knew how to move herds, and knew as well that they were men and not herd animals. They knew, in other words, how to think for themselves and to move as individuals in concert with other individuals, as well as how not to fail to think for themselves and so how not to move as herd animals move. What they knew has been lost. Evidently lost with some relief, if not outright glee. Pity.

    Most men of modern times don’t know herds and herd animals all that well, save perhaps to the extent that they have become herd animals and know their own ease as such. A few men, on the other hand, have made a study of herds and herd animals, and of their fellow men as herds and herd animals. They have learned how to encourage men to behave as herd animals, how to teach them, how to nudge them, how to control them. These latter men are rewarded for their studies — and through their studies — with political power. Pity.

  7. Mitch Daniels has accomplished more for the conservative cause than Santorum and Bachmann put together I think

    Like putting himself out there when his country needs him most?

    plus he’s way more electable cause he’s not weird

    Weird being relative when it’s defined by a guy who shares musical tastes with teenage girls, I suppose.

  8. no he didn’t run this time – Team R only ran shit candidates this year for some reason

    that hasn’t been examined as closely as it should be I think

  9. “. . . Team R only ran . . .”

    As a verb, that isn’t actually what goes on, is it? I mean, if we want to look closer.

  10. I’ve always thought that being on the ballot was the first test of electability.

  11. …defined by a guy who shares musical tastes with teenage girls, I suppose.

    I think all our standards of behavior should be set by a guy with a weakness for Japanese pop music and six-dollar cupcakes. Beats the hell out of leaving it all up to some ancient books written by a bunch of “wise men” and tested by millennia of practical experience!

  12. Even now, we’re being sold on “electability,” and the media is telling us all that’s left us is the choice of a perpetual candidate, and another DC insider, running as an outsider, whose solutions to problems seem very government-centric, and whose positions tend to change with the cultural ethos.

    I’ll let you decide who is who.

    Wow. That’s a tuffy. Can we have a clue?

  13. What Pablo said, re “electability.”

  14. cupcakes are mostly like 3 or 4 dollars really a $6 would probably be like one of those jumbo ones but I never get those cause they’re mostly for sharing

    but yes I should have said attracted to their banner rather than run

  15. I’ve broached the subject of the mechanism that puts people on the ballot before, a mechanism we accept without much grousing (as a people, that is): namely, that the field is entirely self-selected, which, I don’t know to the bottom, but seems counter-republican to me, at least on the surface. But that’s another subject not fit to the subject of our current choices on offer.

  16. A few men, on the other hand, have made a study of herds and herd animals, and of their fellow men as herds and herd animals. They have learned how to encourage men to behave as herd animals, how to teach them, how to nudge them, how to control them.

    Those are sociologists, those who study groups and think that the individual is not so important as the group. For the greater good, they say. For purposes of manipulation, eg., classrooms, prisons and the workplace, ostensively. But we know that to be untrue.

  17. I should have said attracted to their banner rather than run

    It’s hard to find your inner William Wallace when you think the guys in woad are scary and offputting to others.

  18. The problem isn’t in the self-selection part. It’s in the winnowing of the field down to an acceptable number. Not enough of us ask “acceptable to whom?”

  19. Is self-selection republican as such though Ernst? Again, I’m not certain (that is, perhaps a better case can be made for it than I know how to make), but it doesn’t seem so to me.

  20. there are several who had a duty to run but didn’t is all I know

  21. Time to erect a quarantine wall along I-495; they’re pretty much the walking dead relative to us, feasting on our flesh and generally being too gross for words.

    Nuke it from orbit or not, just don’t let ‘em out.

  22. Ah, the pogue Colonel. A classic.

  23. Peggy Noon on the Newt:

    What they fear is that he will show just enough discipline over the next few months, just enough focus, to win the nomination. And then, in the fall of 2012, once party leaders have come around and the GOP is fully behind him, he will begin baying at the moon. He will start saying wild things and promising that he may bomb Iran but he may send a special SEAL team in at night to secretly dig Iran up, and fly it to Detroit, where we can keep it under guard, and Detroiters can all get jobs as guards, “solving two problems at once.” They’re afraid he’ll start saying, “John Paul was great, but most of that happened after I explained the Gospels to him,” and “Sure, Daniel Kahneman won the Nobel Prize, but only after I explained how people can think fast, slow and at warp speed. He owes me everything.”

  24. there are several who had a duty to run but didn’t is all I know

    Chris Christie? Paul Ryan?

    I can’t think who you might be talking about that you now want to place on the business end of this: Mitch =

  25. The link is in the word “Newt”. Hmm. No orange? See how he is?

  26. And this is why Peggy, as much as it pains her, must once again back Mr Obama.

  27. Or not. Hmmm.

  28. I was replying to myself in the #27.

    Yes, Jeff. Peggy has lost her marbles since there will never be another Reagan and people don’t want to read her books anymore.

  29. I can’t think who you might be talking about

    me and Mr. Froman talked about that the other day here

    Mitch Daniels I think. I also bet Mr. Kasich sometimes wonders but that maybe he should have foregone the governorship and thrown his hat in the ring with these hapless mooks. I think Rick Perry was a good foot to put forward… we had no way of knowing he wasn’t and never would be ready for prime time, and he can still do a lot of good by showcasing the salutary results of his brand of conservative leadership. I think charismatic lifeydoodle early-ryan-roadmap-endorsing Marsha Blackburn would’ve not been as zany as Bachmann, and I think she should be on the shortlist of veep candidates with Nikki Halley and that Rubio feller. I think absent Mr. Daniels, Paul Ryan had a duty to bring his ideas to the debate. I think Christie had a duty as well, though I wouldn’t have been a fan. He sure was content to suck up plenty of oxygen during the pre-game show.

    So there’s the 5 or 6 I would’ve been glad to see in the race.

  30. Well then sdferr, good luck turning back the clock to 1828. I’m shooting for 1892, myself. But I’d gladly settle for 1920.

  31. I’m not so much intent on turning back any clocks Ernst, as [re]-considering what we commonly take to be a “given”.

  32. Though I guess the only reason even that ever occurred to me was the selection of John McCain in the last go-round — not that what I take as a general dissatisfaction with the current crop as an intensifier of the notion doesn’t play a heightening role.

  33. Pingback: » The attack on Newt goes Sci-Fi - Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

  34. Santorum could do it. But only if his latest moves of touting his SoCon bona fides represent merely a foundation on which to build something bigger. Yes he’s expressly stated he wants to return this country to it’s Constitutional roots but specifics are in order. That and calls for a pro-growth, anti-oligarchy, free enterprise approach to our current mess.

    If he really wants to be a leader he needs to get out in front.

    The other thing we need to consider is that, regardless of which R wins, the next term may be the moment the left is waiting for – when they’ll attempt to bring it all crashing down. What better time to point the finger at everyone but themselves?

  35. Thomas D — once again, Rick Santorum videos http://tinyurl.com/bvbqk3a

  36. From the Legal Insurrection trackback, the House Historian that Newt fired in 1995 says that Newt sees himself as a real-life Hari Seldon:

    If men are from Mars and women are from Venus, Newt Gingrich is from the planet Trantor, a fictional world created by Isaac Asimov in his classic Foundation series about galactic empire. Newt’s master plan for America does not come from a Republican Party playbook. It comes from the science fiction that he read in high school. He is playing out, on a national and global scale, dreams he had as a teenager with his nose buried in pulp fiction.…

    Asimov’s fiction had greater sweep than the historical works of Toynbee and Gibbon. To an impressionable young man, the fate of one planet was nothing compared to an entire galaxy of worlds. As one paperback cover of Foundation proclaimed: “In a future century the Galactic Empire dies and one man creates a new force for civilized life.” Newt liked the idea of one man shaping the destiny of entire civilizations. That fictional man, Hari Seldon, was a special breed of historian…

    Here is Newt’s own explanation of … his fascination with Hari Seldon from his political manifesto To Renew America (1996), published during his tenure as Speaker.

    While Toynbee was impressing me with the history of civilizations, Isaac Asimov was shaping my view of the future in equally profound ways…. For a high school student who loved history, Asimov’s most exhilarating invention was the ‘psychohistorian’ Hari Seldon. The term does not refer to Freudian analysis but to a kind of probabilistic forecasting of the future of whole civilizations. The premise was that, while you cannot predict individual behavior, you can develop a pretty accurate sense of mass behavior. Pollsters and advertisers now make a good living off the same theory.

    Edward Gibbon saw the decline of Rome, Hari Seldon saw the decline of the galactic empire, and Newt Gingrich saw the decline of America. Newt says America’s decline began in the 1960s with liberal hippies and Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. History and fiction seem more exciting when there is decline. This gives heroes, visionaries, demagogues, and politicians something to fix.

    It all makes sense now…

  37. Noonan should stay away from satire, snark, or whatever the hell that was supposed to be, and stick to the high-ground sincerity she has learned to fake so well.

  38. Santorum could do it.

    I don’t think so. Rick Santorum is just not a likeable guy, speaking from my past experience as one of his constituents. He’s like a lot of guys who look great on paper, as has been noted here before. He checks off all the right Conservative boxes on the line-up, but then, to me, he goes off into the ditch with wanting to delve into peoples personal behaviors. Regardless of the passion that he puts into his anti-abortion rhetoric, neither he or anyone else is going to stop a woman or girl who wants an abortion from getting one. Wealthy women will always be able to get abortions. Poor women and girls will seek out risky means of doing so. No amount of legislation is going to change this.

  39. Santorum isn’t interested in peoples personal behaviors beyond preserving their inalienable rights. That he considers an unborn child to be in possession of those rights doesn’t equate to him wanting to deny you from exercising your rights.

    Just as by believing, as most of the country does, that marriage should be legally defined as the union of one man to one woman, does not equate to he wants homosexuality outlawed.

    But then hey, in a world busy removing restrictions on bestiality, I imagine Santorum does look kinda creepy…

  40. That doesn’t even make sense. You are not very familiar with his views.

  41. Oh, please, leigh — you’re claiming Santorum DOES want to outlaw homosexuality? Cite, or go home.

  42. And, really, would it kill you single-issue homosex voters to be flexible once in a while? I can guaran-damned-tee you there won’t be a lot of protection for “alternative lifestyles” should civilization fall.

  43. Crawford, my experience is that leigh and others like her are fighting against the socon cartoon in their heads. thor raised that to an art form…

  44. Wealthy people can buy whatever they want. Poor people will break the law and otherwise engage in risky behavior in order to get what they want. Might as well accept that the welfare state must continue to grow in perpetuity because we can’t change people’s behavior so it’s better to buy them off than let them learn in the hard school of experience.

  45. Rob, I did not claim that Santorum wants to outlaw homosexuality. I stated that Lee is not familiar with Santorum’s views. Views which not only include outlawing abortion, but restricting access to birth control. Not to mention his belief that women should not work outside the home.

    I’m hardly a single issue voter. I also don’t want to live in the 18th century.

  46. Leigh is a prime example of the ossified set-piece debate that nobody on the right wants, but everyone on the left wants to keep trotting out. It’s done so well for them in the past…

  47. …restricting access to birth control. Not to mention his belief that women should not work outside the home.

    Hard citation please.

  48. About Di’s 36, if that excerpted passage had come from Dreams instead of Renew the very same people would be praising Barry for his imaginative vision tempered by his historical insight.

    Feh.

  49. That’s ridculous, ThomasD. Nobody on the Right may want it, but that’s too damned bad. I am on the Right and it needs to be talked about.

    It’s really telling that certain posters, and it is always the same ones, tell me to go home, get lost, take a hike, call me a liberal, oh sorry, ‘libtard’, etc. I thought Jeff encouraged discussion of matters political on his blog?

  50. Sooo…you’re afraid if Santorum became president he would outlaw abortion, condoms, and women holding jobs.

    Yeah, I haven’t paid all that much attention to Santorum, you’re right there, so you’re probably right about the extreme menace he poses to society too.

    Oh, and I’ve never told you to go home, get lost, take a hike, or called you a liberal, but I have aony times taken exception to what you say.

    Quit crying.

  51. many times…

  52. Hard cite Leigh.

  53. Jeff encourages honest discussion of political matters here.

    Cite your sources or admit you cannot provide any.

  54. You want to win the ideological war? Stop alienating allies.

  55. Who is crying and why would you think I was talking about you, Lee?

    I’m not “afraid” of Rick Santorum doing anything. The voters of Pennsylvania handed him his walking papers is one of the most decisive trouncings of an R by a D in the state’s history when they elected Bob Casey, Jr. The likelihood of RS getting anywhere near the oval office is slim and none.

    What I am saying is that rather than take it at face value that Santorum is a “good man”, look at the man behind the mask. I don’t know him personally, but I know enough about him to dislike him.

    Here you go, ThomasD:

    In his 2005 book, It Takes a Family, he advocates for a more family values oriented society centered on monogamous, heterosexual relationships, marriage, and child-raising. He favors restricting or prohibiting abortion and is against homosexuality, saying the American public and their elected officials should decide on these “incredibly important moral issues”, rather than the Supreme Court, which consists of “nine unelected, unaccountable judges

  56. You want to win the ideological war? Stop alienating allies.

    Good advice for all, John.

  57. what has bob casey done in the last 5 years for pa?

  58. Your cite says NOTHING about “restricting access to birth control. Not to mention his belief that women should not work outside the home.”

    Would you like to retract those assertions?

  59. Interesting that you posit this as an ideological war John. Right now I’m most interested in establishing the veracity of particular assertions.

    Which, in an of themselves, are not ideological. Merely true or false.

  60. “why would you think I was talking about you, Lee?”

    Well, I was the one that challenged you, and no one said for you to go home, get lost, take a hike, or called you a liberal in this thread, so I guessed.

    As for your citation, it’s telling that you used someones review of Santorums book, rather than any direct quote from Santorum.

    This is the wrong place to play those games.

  61. “You want to win the ideological war? Stop alienating allies.

    Good advice for all, John.”

    Again, not on this blog.

    We want to win the ideological war with principles, not consensus.

  62. Santorum has frequently stated that he does not believe a “right to privacy” exists under the Constitution, even within marriage; he has been especially critical of the Supreme Court decision in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), which held that the Constitution guaranteed the aforementioned right, and on that basis, overturned a law prohibiting the sale and use of contraceptives.[44] He has described contraception as “a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”

  63. In terms of ideology I will concede that the desire to entrust “incredibly important moral issues” to a representative government selected by the Demos, rather than to an life-appointed black robed elite it much more liberal than it is conservative.

  64. Santorum faced controversy for statements against “radical feminism”, which he claimed had made it “socially affirming to work outside the home” at the expense of child care. Female voters resented his statements, and in his defense, he said that in a family of two wage earners, the second wage earner made only 25% of the first’s wages on average.

    News at the Goldstein household, no doubt.

  65. So Santorum doesn’t like Griswold, but still nothing that directly says he wants to ban birth control.

    You do know there are many people who hate Roe, but are not opposed to abortion?

    And still bupkis on women staying at home…

  66. So, based on your approach to these things, is it safe to argue that Leigh is ok with children suffering for the sake of a household earning a second income?

  67. Why is the leap to the children are suffering?

  68. Do you even read the things you paste?

  69. jeeze this Santorum person is so divisive no wonder he hasn’t caught fire with his zany conraception thinkings and his peculiar animosities

  70. Yes, I read them. I’m questioning your interpretation. Why is having two incomes a hardship that causes children to suffer?

  71. Presumably “at the expense of child care” means children being denied something.

  72. I lay it all at the feet of his psychologist father, happy. Let’s go all in.

  73. Why yes cupcakes, it is telling that these ‘bitter’ and ‘divisive’ discussions crop up whenever a candidate not suitably social left-squishy is brought up.

  74. Pingback: High-IQ stupidity | Re:harmonized

  75. Not necessarily, ThomasD.

  76. ThomasD, Santorum is saying that a woman’s place is in the home. Great, if that is wear she wants to be. Not great if she doesn’t. And further, who is he to make that decision?

  77. So to recap Leigh, you still have nothing from Santorum about “restricting access to birth control. Not to mention his belief that women should not work outside the home.”

  78. You want to win the ideological war? Stop alienating allies.

    Send me the list of things that will make my potential allies not feel alienated. We’ll see if we can work something out.

    Me, I feel alienated by people like you who are constantly telling people like me we need to accept your positions lest we alienate you.

  79. wear=where

  80. ThomasD, I know you are named for St. Thomas, the doubter. Do you need a bullet list? I can’t help you there.

    The man has a long record in public office and has authored several books. He’s not shy about his opinions.

  81. Not necessarily, ThomasD.

    That is your assertion, leigh. Whether it is valid is a subject unto itself.

    The question here is what is being communicated in this sentence.

    “Santorum faced controversy for statements against “radical feminism”, which he claimed had made it “socially affirming to work outside the home” at the expense of child care.

    You cited this in relation to your assertion that “women should not work outside the home.”

    Your argument, you show your work.

  82. Me, I feel alienated by people like you who are constantly telling people like me we need to accept your positions lest we alienate you.

    Exactly, Jeff. If I wanted groupthink, I’d head over to FreeRepublic.

  83. Your assertion that Santorum said “women…

    sorry.

  84. As to the right of privacy, nobody in their right mind likes Griswold. It’s one of the worst examples of the Court makin’ shit up. The right to privacy exists because the Court says so. What happens when the Court changes it’s mind?

  85. ThomasD, can you not read for content? Is there another was to read that sentence? I only speak American English, so perhaps I am handicapped. Please help me out.

  86. He’s not shy about his opinions.

    Then you should have no trouble backing up your assertions about the man’s positions.

    That, with all the material you freely admit available, you still cannot says more than I ever could.

  87. can you not read for content?

    I should have known better than to leave you the cheap out. Again, that you so quickly took it…

  88. #56, #82, that’s how you avoid alienating people. Take both sides!

  89. I’ve cited a number of examples. Am I supposed to do all of your research for you?

  90. Your examples have not substantiated you claims that Santorum has advocated “restricting access to birth control. Not to mention his belief that women should not work outside the home.”

  91. It’s not my research, when you are the one making the claims.

  92. All you have done is offered what other people have said about Santorum.

    You do see that, by your own standard, someone else could then quote what I asserted about you and declare it proven true?

  93. Thanks to the trackback from Re: harmonized, I can now add this to my rotating blurbs: “He’s also an intellectual fraud, a billowing gasbag of pedantry, hypocrisy, and self-pity, and the perfect poster boy for the puffed-up but ultimately hollow cult of superior intelligence.”

    Score!

  94. It’s nice when people care enough to make an effort.

  95. ThomasD, Isn’t that all any of us has to go on about others? Are no sources, be they newspapers, books, magazines and web articles not reliable sources any longer? I am not a public figue. Santorum is.

  96. So find where Santorum espoused those things that you have attributed to him.

    Or simply admit that they are nothing more (or less) than your own opinions of what he believes.

    I’m ok with people sharing their opinions, I do it all the time, I just expect people to be clear when they do so (or are asked to clarify fact v.s. opinion.)

  97. Leigh, Santorum believes if a couple wants to bring a child into the world, it’s best for the kids if one parent actually be with the children and raise them, and one parent be the breadwinner. Both are full time jobs. I wholeheartedly agree with that. However, that doesn’t mean I want to stop women from being able to work.

    You have not proven your assertions about Santorum, and it’s telling that your cites don’t include a link so we can look at context.

  98. Lee, Googling them mainly leads back to wikipedia.

  99. yea that linky thing is so handy

  100. [Yawn] We’re not going to roll back Row v. Wade, birth control is not going to be outlawed, women aren’t going to be required to stay home and take care of the kids, and there won’t be any burquas in our future either. Not so long as we live in something resembling the US of A. Lie awake contemplating these as serious possibilities? Perhaps you should talk to someone about your paranoia.

  101. See? Swen said so.

    You can trust a guy named Swen.

    So long as he’s, you know, not all swarthy like.

  102. Are there any swarthy Swens?

  103. svelte swens have their own sic code. you could look it up
    http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/sicsearch.html

  104. Something tells me googling svelte swens is gonna be so NSFW…

  105. Why is it, do you think, that the preferred attack on me is that I’m an intellectual fraud — this has come from both the left and the right, from academics and lawyers — and that the driving force behind the charge is that I seem to be able to ape the language of the academy, but that I nevertheless use my (powerful but quite superficial) rhetorical skills in silly, “iconoclastic” ways to promote intellectually vapid notions (in needlessly dense prose) that do little to actually challenge established academic notions about where meaning is to be anchored, how interpretation actually works, and why these things — the subversion of which is intended, cynically, as a means toward political ends, and yet has become a marker for contemporary epistemology — matter outside the rather arcane world of literary theory?

    If I am “an intellectual fraud, a billowing gasbag of pedantry, hypocrisy, and self-pity, and the perfect poster boy for the puffed-up but ultimately hollow cult of superior intelligence,” why spend so much time insisting on it? Clearly I’m not worth the trouble — especially if you find yourself criticizing my pedantry in a blog post that features fucking footnotes. Right?

  106. Internal DOJ Email: Kagan Was Brought Into Loop on Mark Levin’s Obamacare Complaint

    link

  107. Think I’d need to have a few drinks before trying to answer that question, Jeff.

    Oh, wait… it’s Friday night. I’m on it.

  108. I’m just having trouble getting my head around being fearful of a Christian, family values guy.

    It’s like the most ridicules boogyman ever.

    Meanwhile, they’re cool with teaching 6 year olds all about homosexuality. Because that has nothing to do with any moralist value system. Nope. Not at all.

  109. don’t forget the bestiality you may be able in the future to do in the us army

  110. See? Swen said so.

    You can trust a guy named Swen.

    So long as he’s, you know, not all swarthy like.

    Yep, Swen is an oversexed heathen Norwegian. On the other hand, one should be wary of half honky, half frito bandito, mackerel-snapping heteronormative Texan imperialists like me. ;-)

  111. it’s best for the kids if one parent actually be with the children and raise them, and one parent be the breadwinner.

    In a perfect world. Our world is far from perfect and is heavily taxed, too.

    I’m afraid I wouldn’t make much of a lawyer, but then I am not trying to be one, either. I linked to wiki (sorry, nr, my link-fu has failed me today) because it is a large article that is heavily footnoted.

    Swen, I agree that none of these things you mention are likely to happen and I don’t lie awake worrying about it, either. It’s the fact that we aren’t supposed to talk about the nutters in our party that bothers me more.

  112. Did I mention that I’m a Black* Norwegian? I am relatively swarthy, but still very trustworthy! :) All I’m sayin’ is there are plenty of real issues and problems we should be very worried about. Best not get wrapped around the axle over nonsensical fears of being dragged by the hair back to the 18th century.

    *Some think this comes from black African ancestry, others suggest Sami, Innuit, or Romany blood, but I think it’s more likely a genetic recessive somewhat akin to dwarfism. Tolkien may have borrowed his concept of dwarves from my ancestors. There’s more to it than being swarthy (check!), squatty (check!), muscular (check!), and short-tempered (yeah, check!). We’re also quite often left-handed (check!), very artistic mostly in making clever gadgets, toys, and musical instruments (check!) and great spelmen — raconteurs, story tellers, musicians and entertainers. My ancestors were spelmen in the Bergen area for centuries.

  113. 105 – The pattern I see is a dismissive attitude, in the absence of any actual accomplishment thereof.

    I’ve been shut down by people smarter, quicker, and better versed, more than a few times in my life, so I’m real clear on what it looks like. Most others do as well, that they cannot, or choose not to see their own lack of success, says they think that aspect irrelevant.

    Meaning it’s all nothing more than a practice in cultivating otherness.

  114. And who are the “nutters” leigh? The folks who express their honest personal opinions regarding abortion, birth control, child rearing, etc. — opinions often stemming from genuine religious belief? Or those who can’t accept their honest beliefs and think that makes them “nutters”?

  115. It’s the fact that we aren’t supposed to talk about the nutters in our party that bothers me more.

    I’m more bothered when people are made out to be nutters by nothing more than unsubstantiated assertions and carefully couched innuendo. See #113.

  116. “the preferred attack on me is that I’m an intellectual fraud”

    I think usually that means they haven’t a clue what the hell you’re talking about. The effort to figure it out is either too challenging(making the intellectual judgement suspect)or they can’t accept their fundamental assumptions have been managed and manipulated.

    Or they’re just assholes and think that’s your soft spot.

    Whatever, life’s to short blah, blah, blah…

  117. Those who wish to press their beliefs on others who perhaps do not share the same beliefs. Right wing engineering or Left wing engineering, it’s all bad.

  118. I am relatively swarthy

    Oh sure. All that means is you are peach tinged instead of pale blue.

  119. There’s more to it than being swarthy (check!), squatty (check!), muscular (check!), and short-tempered (yeah, check!). We’re also quite often left-handed (check!), very artistic mostly in making clever gadgets, toys, and musical instruments (check!)

    Do you work for a portly, white bearded guy, who favors the colors red and white?

  120. @105. Jeff, you use Frighteningly Big Words but don’t ascribe to the usual elitist line of self-styled intellectuals both right and left. I’d argue that doesn’t make you a fraud so much as a threat to intellectual frauds. And you’re surprised that they attack you?

  121. leigh posted on 12/9 @ 5:12 pm

    “it’s best for the kids if one parent actually be with the children and raise them, and one parent be the breadwinner.

    In a perfect world.”

    NUTTER!!!1!

  122. Leigh, please provide the link where you’re quoting the Santorum stuff from. It looks like a review or summary of the book rather than the book itself.

    Also please remember that POTUS cannot outlaw abortion nor enact much of the stuff Santorum is for.

  123. Do you work for a portly, white bearded guy, who favors the colors red and white?

    Nope, them’s elves. By all accounts dwarves and elves don’t get along, although I’ve never met any elves, but I don’t personally have any problem with fairies so long as they stay off my lawn.

  124. Darn, because, you see, I had a list…

  125. Oh, I see that you said that it was Wikipedia.

    That is the LAST place you should go to find out the truth about political figures.

    Isn’t that all any of us has to go on about others? Are no sources, be they newspapers, books, magazines and web articles not reliable sources any longer? I am not a public figue. Santorum is.

    Which means that his very own words, verbatim, should be available, as well as voting records and proposed legislation. Second- and third-order accounts of his beliefs are a poor substitute for his actual words and actions.

  126. Marcotte:
    What evo psych fans are invested in is not reality so much as denying the possibility of progress.

    Fans. Not scientists.

    Invested. Not researching or following interesting new questions arising in the context of new biological theories, in a search for the truth about human psychology.

    In denying the possibility. That own their efforts at researching their theoretical questions can possibly result in novel knowledge or perspective concerning the development of human emotional and other forms of cognition.

    Or, in other terms, it’s political (and not Marcotte’s politics!), this counter-science. Brilliant!

  127. It’s from here

  128. #occupy north pole take on the capitalist svelte swens

  129. So what’s on the list? I just built a forge to add to my considerable workshop. Now if I had a milling machine there’s be darn little I couldn’t make and I’m succeptible to bribery. :)

  130. Di, sorry. It’s the best I could do on short notice. ThomasD was getting impatient.

  131. Damn this is a good song.

  132. Santorum’s own campaign website (and Bachmann’s as well) doesn’t have a handy-dandy page devoted to links to his major speeches and addresses, even say, those merely from the campaign season itself. Turning them up in searches is harder than one might suppose. Would that the campaign create such a page.

  133. Newrouter wanted Christmas recipes yesterday. Here’s my contribution. Made at Monticello, no less.

    THOMAS JEFFERSON’S HOT CHOCOLATE

    Chocolate base:

    2 ½ oz unsweetened chocolate
    ½ C cold water
    Pinch of salt
    ¾ C sugar
    1 C heavy cream
    1 t vanilla extract

    In a heavy saucepan, combine the chocolate and water over medium heat and cook until the mixture is dissolved, smooth and thick, whisking out any lumps. Add the salt and sugar and continue cooking and whisking 3-4 minutes. Remove from heat and allow to cool.

    In a chilled bowl, whip the cream and vanilla together; stir into the cooled chocolate mixture. Transfer to a one quart container and store in the refrigerator.

    To make the hot chocolate, place a heaping tablespoon of the chocolate mixture in each cup. Add one cup of hot milk per serving and whisk until smooth and frothy.

    20 servings.

  134. That is a good one bh. Here’s another fresh off the press. Love these guys.

  135. 20 servings god bless america

  136. It’s very tasty, happy. It also keeps for a while, so you can share with friends.

  137. “Santorum’s own campaign website (and Bachmann’s as well) doesn’t have a handy-dandy page devoted to links to his major speeches and addresses”

    here’s one:

    link

  138. Those who wish to press their beliefs on others who perhaps do not share the same beliefs.

    By “press,” don’t you mean “coerce through the force of law”?

    If so, please say so; otherwise, it sounds like the old “as long as they don’t impose their religion on others,” which usually means “shut UP about your stupid values and sky-fairies and your judgey ways, you ignernt redneck.”

    Given that most of the social experimentation that we’ve done over the past century has resulted in disaster (and the perpetrators of the experiments are loath to admit it), it is essential that those of use who never engaged in the experiments (the control group?) offer a critique of What Went Wrong (as we knew it would).

    The family is the ultimate bulwark against the State, so the social experiments have all been designed to break the family apart so that the State has more and more cause to intervene. Even feminism, which rightly insisted on suffrage and equal rights under the law, had at its root the idea that women cannot be truly free until they are free from men and children. Expel men from the family core (like a fish needs a bicycle) and children fail to learn self-discipline. Separate women from their children and they fail to learn empathy.

    We have truly reaped the whirlwind, have we not? In our zeal to not be “judgmental” (read: to not uphold minimum standards of behavior), we have given people license to engage in socially destructive behaviors while robbing ourselves of the bases from which to plead for them to stop.

    People younger than 35 or so don’t remember that the sexual revolution was an explicit rejection of marriage and family for being too white-bread, conformist, oppressive, abusive, sexist, un-hip, etc. “We don’t need a piece of paper to prove our love” replaced marriage; living together was “freedom” from the stifling old ways; promiscuity was women asserting their sexuality. “It’s my body,” the sassy little sit-com stars declared, “and I can do what I want with it.”

    Because sex without strings attached? Men haaaaate that!

    We’re learning too late why those old “taboos” were in place: When the parents put their desires and emotions ahead of duty and responsibility, the children suffer; these ill-raised children fail to mature because they had no role models, and society loses the ability to sustain itself.

    Santorum’s family-friendly prescriptions aren’t mere “beliefs” in the same way that some people believe in Yahweh and others in Allah. (Theology and religious cosmology are impossible to prove and ends up being a matter of taste or custom.) These prescriptions are ancient wisdom, borne out time and again by bad experience. (You think libertine behavior hasn’t been socially acceptable before?) As hard as they are to live by, they’re really the only way to construct a healthy society.

    Sorry, but there it is. It’s not a matter of belief or opinion but of demonstrable fact.

  139. I want to try it

    my next christmas thing here at the office week after next I’m a buy the salvadoran bread pudding and then nuke it gently and then drizzle a little of that mexican condensed milk stuff on it

    it’s ridiculous!

  140. we should elect a president what will help us all have sex the right way

  141. Yeah, they have a great sound, Swen. Kinda island, kinda jam music. Dug where he broke out the harmonica around 3:00.

  142. Why is it, do you think, that the preferred attack on me is that I’m an intellectual fraud

    “He’s an intellectual fraud” = “Damned if I know what he’s talking about”

    How often do they actually address your arguments? How often do they even come close?

    It’s comfier to call you a fraud than to admit they’re not smart enough to grasp your arguments, having been made in all those long sentences and other icky stuff.

    Because when a long sentence is written, you can’t go back and parse it, see. Only when it’s auditory.

  143. we should elect a president what will help us all have sex the right way

    Not. The President’s. Job.

    Which is why it’s not scary to elect Santorum, if you think his social views are scary.

  144. “we should elect a president what will help us all have sex the right way”

    we have if baracky signs the “bestiality bill”

  145. Dicentra, you don’t need to lecture me. Did we not, you and I, have a conversation just the other day about our faiths? Do our faiths not share the same tenets, well, for the most part?

    I don’t want anyone to tell me how to live my life or to stand in judgement of me exept the Almighty. I extend the same courtesy to y’all.

  146. Well said, Di. And here you have it God Bless America, where we all have a right to our own beliefs and the right to express those beliefs even if they make others uncomfortable.

  147. The political left, if we listen to them, are right about the most constantly, consistently, judgmental sort to ever walk the earth (far from being zealous to avoid judgment), provided you take their judgments of political propriety as singularly absolute and upright. Anything else is just hateful evil.

  148. @144. It’s all for the Occupy the Barnyard folks!

  149. Dicentra, you don’t need to lecture me.

    The lecture wasn’t for you, it was for ‘feets. O_o

    I was also hoping to address the idea that it would be a horrible thing for Santorum to be POTUS because then he’d enact The Handmaid’s Tale quick as you please.

    1) He can’t. POTUS does not have that kind of authority.

    2) His ideas about family life are salutary, not dangerous.

    3) I know almost nothing about how you or anyone else on this blog lives his/her life; ergo, I can’t possibly be condemning y’all’s individual behavior. I also know that people usually do the best they can but things don’t turn out ideally on account of other people having a say in how one’s family life does or does not happen.

    4) My condemnation is of society at large for promoting false ideas about families and human sexuality and for having such a short memory, e.g., living together used to be a hipster’s alternative to marriage: now it’s supposed to be a good way to prepare for it (when in actuality it increases divorce).

  150. Yes, sdferr. The Left are very judgemental as well as being fiends for control.

  151. Obama disowned his church. I guess that’s the future.

    It sure turns out to be pragmatic as hell.

  152. Ah, sorry for the misunderstanding, di.

    It is quite true that the POTUS does not have that kind or power. However, we have seen the escalation of executive orders by Obama, the appointing of Czars and recess appointments of all and sundry. Truly, I do not fear a Santorum in office. I DO fear what Obama will be able to do before he is through. I worry most about the judiciary. There are many Federal Judegeships that are vacant and the time is ripe for such an one as he to appoint people that are to his liking, like nobodies business.

  153. So’d we ever resolve whether or not Rick Santorum believes Margaret Atwood came up with a pretty good idea?

  154. Okay, one more, and one of my favorites.

  155. I think Santorum is a niche candidate like how pistachio is a niche flavor of pudding… one that is very popular among Indian Americans by the way – the kind from India not the teepee ones

  156. Here’s another good Better Man, Swen. Thematically, they’re sorta related.

    Hey, thanks for the heads up on these Playing for Change folks. I’m YouTubing through their catalog now.

  157. Jeff, you attracted another lute player? What’s up with these fragile musicians who want to break every string they own to tear you down?

    I left a comment there that won’t survive moderation. But, here!

    Seems your intent was, using some 25-plus entry paragraphs of yawn-inducing fluffery (oh! and those three footnotes are teh icing, my man!), to set-up those last two sentences; two sentences that are nothing more than a run-of-the-mill crescendo of so-obvious LeftLibProgg hatreds. As a matter of fact, I’d guess you wrote those two lines first, then sat around for months consuming no telling how many joints, picking and grinning on your two-string lute, trying to figure out a way to properly get ‘em out there without seeming so spiteful, hateful and jealous.

    A shame, really. All that work for nothing, as you still come across as insanely spiteful, hateful, jealous, and, unfortunately for your own eggshell ego, easily dismissed.

  158. Of interest:

    It turns out that 80 percent of unmarried evangelicals (18 to 29) are sexually active. Yes, 80 percent. For all unmarried young adults the total is 88 percent. Oh, and even as 80 percent of young unmarried evangelicals are sexually active, 76 percent of evangelicals still believe sex outside of marriage is wrong. Even worse, 65 percent of women who abort their children identify as Catholic or Protestant Christian — that’s 650,000 Christian abortions per year.

  159. If I am “an intellectual fraud, a billowing gasbag of pedantry, hypocrisy, and self-pity, and the perfect poster boy for the puffed-up but ultimately hollow cult of superior intelligence,” why spend so much time insisting on it? Clearly I’m not worth the trouble — especially if you find yourself criticizing my pedantry in a blog post that features fucking footnotes. Right?

    Footnotes huh? Well it must true then. I mean, no one would go through the bother of lying in their footnotes.

    A puffed-up but ultimately hollow gasbag huh? Does that make Jeff a corn pop, sugar smack, or cocoa puff?

  160. the kind from India not the teepee ones

    “Dot, not feather,” is how they kids say it these days.

  161. dot not feather that’s very cool

    the dots are the future the feathers are the past

  162. Here ya go bh, the Playing for Change website. that’ll keep you busy for awhile.

  163. “the kind from India not the teepee ones”

    That’s silly, that you clarified that.

    Like someone would think that anyone using a hyphen could stop with just one.

  164. there’s this dot in la and she’s dating a taco and her parents don’t know and together they made a wee taco dot but she aborted it against his wishes cause she said her parents would disown her

    but they’re still together, for they are very much in love

  165. Hyphenated Americans are the future.

    They were also the past, only we used to just call them Americans. Whether they were Sioux or Swede was incidental.

  166. The Native Americans around here call themselves Indians. The only people who seem to find the need to call them Native Americans are the people who make documentaries about them. My family on my mother’s side is supposed to be part Cherokee, but no one can prove it.

  167. I used to know a Dot — because her name was Dorothy and that was her other name, Dot — she liked to dance. Touch Barack Obama.

  168. I’m thinking calling a Hindu “a dot” to his face may have consequences.

  169. That’s one of those great old fashioned nicknames. I’ll be pleased when old-fashioned names for boys and girls come back around. My kids have normal names since we dared to be dull, but so many of their classmates and friends! Ei yi yi. So many Dakotas, Bailey’s, Tiffany’s, Brooklyn’s, Emily’s. It’s like calling roll at a lap dance club.

  170. did she like to dance the polka?

  171. So I asked one of the local tacos whether he preferred “hispanic” or “latino”. He laughed and said ‘we’re not political, we’re just Mexicans’. But he probably wouldn’t much care for being called a taco. I can see why, I’ve tried his tacos and… Well, it’s been a looong time since his family came from Mexico. “Hamburgers” would be more accurate.

  172. hindu guys don’t get all dotted up I don’t think I think that’s just for the women-folk… my boss person is relatively hindu and he never has any dots but sometimes he brings us tasty oranges from his orange trees

  173. Nope, she was more a Watusi or Twister, but popular freeforms of all sorts. Rub Barack Obama.

  174. They were “beaners” when I was a kiddo out in California, but that was only for the ones you didn’t like. Other than that, they were just kids with Spanish names. That was before they started getting all political with the La Raza stuff.

  175. My Hindu friends would go for the ashes adornments on special occasions, but it wasn’t a regular thing by any means. Dust Barack Obama.

  176. Emily is a respectable name.

    If you name your boy Sioux, there will be consequences…

  177. You know, Lee, I thought that too. I meant to write Savannah or Cheyenne or Chantel of which there are plenty.

  178. Why is it, do you think, that the preferred attack on me is that I’m an intellectual fraud — this has come from both the left and the right, from academics and lawyers — and that the driving force behind the charge is that I seem to be able to ape the language of the academy, but that I nevertheless use my (powerful but quite superficial) rhetorical skills in silly, “iconoclastic” ways to promote intellectually vapid notions (in needlessly dense prose) that do little to actually challenge established academic notions about where meaning is to be anchored, how interpretation actually works, and why these things — the subversion of which is intended, cynically, as a means toward political ends, and yet has become a marker for contemporary epistemology — matter outside the rather arcane world of literary theory?

    It’s a hell of a lot easier than arguing. Which, I might note, the ploy itself is intellectual fraud.

  179. Whether they were Sioux or Swede was incidental.

    Not in the Minnesota River Valley. Not in 1862.

  180. the dots build nice temples in wpa. the christians went corbusier in the ’60-70′s and that stuff looks east german.

  181. This is sorta outta left field but we’re talking about the future and stripper names so… a friend asked me the other day, “Think they play dubstep at strip clubs now? Think it’s even possible to shake it all sexy to dubstep?”

    That really cracked me up for some reason. It helps if you try and picture it.

  182. I used to belong to St. Mary of the Mount when I lived in the ‘burgh. We had such a great view up there. I love all the Orthodox churches dahntahn, too.

  183. Surely it’s possible to shake it all sexy to anything, given the naked parameters, or . . . ? Cuff Barack Obama.

  184. “I think we need to elect a leader who understands these issues and is willing to go out and fight for them, as well as the economic issues that are important to our country,” he said. “I’m concerned if we don’t have anybody in this race who is a full-spectrum, three-stooled Reagan Republican who has the passion not just to cut government, not just to cut taxes, but to stand up for the American family and fight radical Islamism and make sure that America is free and safe and prosperous and morally decent and good and that will be blessed by God. That’s what I believe. That’s why I’m here and I believe the people of Iowa have begun to recognize that.”

    link

  185. I’m not so sure myself, sdferr.*

    Cracks me up either way though.

  186. It’s from here

    Wiki, being footnoted, leads to a source for the representations made. In this case, that’s an interview with Stephanopoulos transcribed at Think Progress. I don’t see anything particularly scary there, and I’m not seeing some of the representations made above. One of them particularly strikes me, it having made an appearance in yesterdays news; the “restricting birth control” one. While Santorum isn’t quoted mentioning it, I am sure as hell all for it because the fool I found providing Plan B to my 12 year old daughter without my knowledge would get his ass beat. If I still had a 12 year old daughter.

    It isn’t every day I think Sebelius got something right. I

  187. Looky here:

    There is one other scenario for Perry in Iowa — and it involves him becoming not a spoiler for Gingrich or Romney but rather a major contender in his own right.

    There is some chatter in Republican political circles that Perry’s ads are (finally) starting to take hold in the Hawkeye State and that his support is beginning to bump upward.

  188. Yes, Pablo. I mentioned above that I linnked the wiki article because it is heavily footnoted.

  189. Hey bh, either that Ethiope looking guy (not sexy, to these eyes) is amazingly awesome good at simulating video slow motion, or we’re watching a near equivalent to autotuning sight to sync with sound. The paint titted chic in the Bassnectar thinger there is another story. Baste Barack Obama.

  190. Right. And that’s where the Wiki footnote for Santorum’s crazy-ass views leads. There’s not much there there.

  191. Which is why you don’t trust Wiki for political stuff.

  192. Oh, he’s amazingly awesomely good at that.

  193. Hat-trick D’man Wideman, cheers. Color Barack Obama.

  194. I use it a lot, wiki, I mean, to look up medical diagnostic things that I need to explain. It’s good for that kind of stuff. I agree about the political stuff being double plus unreliable. I apologize for hurrying and not being more thorough.

  195. wiki is my favorite except I’m tired of looking at the pictures of the beseeching wiki gnomes

    it makes it all too painfully real

  196. Yeah, the Bassnectar thing — what do they call that, “techno”? — is largely annoying, but the crowd is interesting. Just dip me in honey and throw me into the audience! :)

  197. The wiki gnomes all look like they could use a hot bath and a bowl of soup. I’m refusing to read their message. Just to be obstinant.

  198. That’s more dubstep than techno, Swen. It’s the bass wobble thingy that makes the difference. (Thanks to Mr. Internet, here’s a tutorial. You, too, can soon be making weird noises.)

    That Bassnectar crowd is clearly rolling on several thousand dollars worth of E. Hope they were drinking plenty of water.

  199. This is my favorite :

    DELUXE CHEESECAKE

    20 servings
    Begin early in the day or a day ahead

    Pastry:

    1 ½ sleeves of graham crackers (most of a one pound box), crushed
    2 sticks of butter, melted and cooled
    ¼ C sugar
    Grated peel of one small lemon

    Filling:

    5 8-ounce packages cream cheese, softened
    1 ¾ C sugar
    5 large eggs
    ¼ C milk
    3 T flour
    2 large egg yolks
    Grated peel of one small lemon

    1. Mix graham crackers with sugar and butter. Press into a 10-inch by 2 ½” springform pan.
    2. Preheat oven to 475 degrees.
    3. In a large bowl, with mixer at medium speed, beat cream cheese just until smooth; slowly beat in sugar, scraping bowl often with rubber spatula. Add eggs, milk, flour, egg yolks, and lemon peel; beat 5 minutes, occasionally scraping bowl.
    4. Place baking sheet on lower rack. Bake cheesecake on middle rack 12 minutes. Turn oven control to 300 degrees; bake 35 minutes longer. Turn off oven; let cheesecake remain in oven 30 minutes.
    5. Remove cheesecake from oven; cool completely in pan on wire rack. Cover and refrigerate at least 4 hours or until well chilled.
    6. When cheesecake is firm, with spatula, loosen pan side from cheesecake and remove; loosen cake from pan bottom; slide onto serving plate.

  200. the percentage of 17 year old girls what don’t know someone 18 who can buy Plan B for them is probably an infinitesimal number that is very small to where the existence of such people is highly theoretical at best

  201. “I apologize for hurrying and not being more thorough.”

    AAGGGHH!

    Apologize Smopologize. “more thorough”? How about a real quote from a real link backing up your assertions?

  202. I’m kinda fascinated by cheesecake since i had that one in Texas that was so amazing … but I have no idea what it was that made it so effing sublime – my friend T asked though and maybe she remembers for so I can google similar recipes

  203. I’ve heard him speak on a number of occasions, Lee. He’s a strange duck.

    What’s with you and apologies? Are they not good? If you never apologize, you never admit you made a mistake. Mrs. Bascom will straighten you out on that right quick.

  204. Smopologize sounds dirty

  205. “the percentage of 17 year old girls what don’t know someone 18 who can buy Plan B for them is probably an infinitesimal number “

    Leaving aside your fuzzy concept of math, are you saying 17 year olds should have free access to heroine ‘cuz it’s readily available from the school pusher anyway?

  206. Heroin is prolly easier to get on the corner than Plan B.

  207. I’m just pointing out a fact

  208. when you’re 17 to get plan B you just need to hand money to a friend of your what’s 18 and go with them to a rite-aid or a walgreens or a duane reede whatever

  209. *your’s* I mean

    these kebabs in the oven smell amazing

  210. Happy, you really need a KitchenAid mixer to make a proper cheesecake. They’re kind of pricey, so maybe you need to find a friend who will let you use their kitchen.

  211. Here’s an even more attractive crowd with a hook that ‘feets will recognize.

  212. i have a hugely expensive cuisinart i hardly ever use

  213. “are you saying 17 year olds should have free access to heroine ‘cuz it’s readily available from the school pusher anyway?”

    yep if you want to ” fundamentally transform society

  214. dev is more america than all 57 states put together Mr. bh

    I love her

  215. “when you’re 17 to get plan B you just need to hand money to a friend of your what’s 18″

    18 yo guilty of practicing medicine w/o a license. oh yea we don’t do rule of law anymore. viva taco scum.

  216. that’s not how it works mr. newrouter

  217. not in real life

  218. what size fedora does hf like?

  219. “not in real life”

    i know because all you dick weeds keep telling me what laws are ok. allan ackbar!

  220. see in real life you don’t know this happens every day all around you so it’s not at all upsetting

  221. “that’s not how it works mr. newrouter”

    yea holder should be frog marched whereas libby should poke out fitzgerald’s statist’s eye. ax blago or rezko?

  222. here is a song for to hear… it’s about relatively current events – I’m gonna play it tomorrow cause I don’t think my friend p ever heard it

  223. Wow, that’s awesome.

  224. Ching chong, it means I love you

    Ting tong, I don’t actually know what that means.

    And the hand clapping.

    Bravo.

  225. brain dead bleach blond progg bitch vs. the other

  226. That could work as an alternate title, nr.

  227. There’s a million ways to say fuck you

    That was one of them.

  228. “I’m just pointing out a fact”

    Please don’t

    I find it hard to bare no malice.

  229. I’m just saying

    it’s one of those issues that’s much ado about nothing

  230. Have ya’ll seen where 4 NRC commissioners (2 Dem, 2 Rep) have ganged up against the chairman (back on Oct. 13) Jaczko, who’s a Dem, saying he’s gone completely out of control — or bonkers — pick ‘em?

  231. the percentage of 17 year old girls what don’t know someone 18 who can buy Plan B for them

    I love these arguments.

    When I was 17, I didn’t know how to score drugs, get a fake ID, find a back-alley doctor to “fix” things, or any of those other things that “nearly all” teens know.

    I also didn’t sneak out of the house at night or lie to my parents about being at the library when I was actually doing something else.

    Yes I know I was weird. But so were all my friends, none of whom knew or did any of that stuff, either. No doubt there were those in my high-school class who did, but most of us plain did not.

    “They’re going to do it anyway.”

    There’s something to be said for not socially endorsing something. When you’re a teen who doesn’t want to do bad things, it’s helpful to have society at your back saying “no” so that you don’t have to be the only one standing athwart peer pressure.

    You want society to make it easier for your kids to say no or not?

  232. i’m looking for the christianist guacamole recipe. viva avocado.

  233. “it’s one of those issues that’s much ado about nothing”

    Of course. Nothing.

    Millions of Americans are aborted, and millions of Mexicans with their anchor babies invade the country
    illegally every year. How could the American way fail, I ask you?

  234. @222 reminds me of a local tv guy in the’50′s saying about the no.1 japan guy flying over the us: “there’s a nip in the air”

  235. Plan B isn’t a an abortifacient it’s a drug you have to “score” it’s a drug you have to go to the pharmacy and be 18 or be with someone 18 to get

    personally I endorse Plan B cause of it’s better than waiting and having an icky abortion

    plus lots of teen girls who have sex for whatever reason aren’t in a good place in their life to have a kid, so thank goodness Jesus and Plan B both are there for to help them through their turbulent adolescent years

  236. it’s *not* a drug you have to score I mean

  237. I’ve been wildly off-topic as is my habit but towards the topic I like what di is saying here:

    There’s something to be said for not socially endorsing something. When you’re a teen who doesn’t want to do bad things, it’s helpful to have society at your back saying “no” so that you don’t have to be the only one standing athwart peer pressure.

    And, wait a second, from earlier:

    These prescriptions are ancient wisdom, borne out time and again by bad experience. (You think libertine behavior hasn’t been socially acceptable before?) As hard as they are to live by, they’re really the only way to construct a healthy society.

    I’m not religious (well, not by belief, I’m sorta religious socially) nor am I staunch on the social side. But this makes sense to me.

    It’s the basic idea behind conservatism itself, pretty much. Don’t monkey around with shit unless you have a really, really good reason and are wiser than twenty very old men with white beards. Otherwise, you’re pretty much better off letting it happen very slowly and, hopefully, locally rather than everywhere at once.

    You don’t have to be social con to recognize the sense of a cautious Burkean conservatism, right?

  238. Abortifacient is a word like prismatic. Words that exist without my knowledge. Like bugglebear or snerf.

  239. bosh and twaddle bye bye slaveries everywhere at once and hello hoochie suffrage everywhere at once and hello tasty alcohols everywhere at once and bye bye bigotry against gay soldiers everywhere at once

    tipping points!

    Someone should write a book.

  240. ok I admit I had to read that “Re:” thingy with the footnotes …

    this made me giggle:

    It’s clear from Marcotte’s blogging that she has an active interest in science and she’s fairly well informed.

    /warmup act

  241. Slavery didn’t go away everywhere at once. It was a problem at our founding. Lasted quite awhile. Try and handle that right off the bat and we wouldn’t have a US of A. (Here’s where I chant USA, USA, USA to play to the crowd.) Nor did the ladies get their chance to start voting commie en masse.

    Not saying it’s cool, super optimal or everyone gets to live a perfect life while the kinks are hammered out. It’s not. We’re humans. We work our way through things.

    But, again, that’s sorta a conservative thing, isn’t it? That humans aren’t perfectible, that governments wouldn’t be the mechanism to bring it about even if we were anyways?

  242. Don’t monkey around with shit unless you have a really, really good reason and are wiser than twenty very old men with white beards.

    Or, first law of remodeling: don’t remove a wall unless you know why it’s there.

    In the case of slavery, we were able to remove that wall because the industrial revolution provided an affordable alternative to slave labor.

    In the case of suffrage, women started agitating for the vote around the time they could find work outside the home to sustain themselves—again because of the post-agricultural society.

    In the case of alcohol, Prohibition was a progressive idea that meant to address the exorbitant drinking that (mostly) men engaged in right before going home and beating their wives and kids. Prohibition may have been revoked, but it also broke the back of the excessive drinking cycle.

    As for bigotry against gay soldiers, we don’t know what the eventual result of that will be, do we?

  243. In regards to Plan B … anyone else find it ironic that SHOCK ANGER HOWLS OF OUTRAGE accompany the questioning of wisdom of handing a powerful drug to any 11 or 12 year old that can hand over the cash at the checkstand … but these same kids cannot have access to children’s ATVs because of the fear kids may lick the handlebars?

  244. Point of order…

    Slavery still exists.

  245. no but what I mean to say is, there were lots of good reasons at the time to not free the slaves or give hoochies the vote or legalize tasty alcohols or threaten unit cohesion with gay people who might do something off-puttingly gay at a critical time or whatever

    it’s not always about good reasons and bad reasons it’s about an innate sense of justice

    if you can hear white trash panderbumpkin rick perry juxtapose gay soldiers with kids not being allowed to celebrate christmas and not say hey you unjust white trash monkeyfuck those gay soldiers are putting their lives on the line for so these kids can worship in freedom and you my crassly desperately pandering friend have no business being the commander in chief of those gay soldiers then your innate sense of justice is not particularly finely-honed I don’t think

  246. so just be glad you don’t have to diagram that sentence

  247. that is a very good point at #245 I think

  248. here for you to hear is a song about tipping points

  249. it’s not always about good reasons and bad reasons it’s about an innate sense of justice

    An innate sense of justice that doesn’t give a rip for unintended consequences, apparently. As long as someone can frame the issue in terms of “fairness,” you fall right for it.

    So, how about the unfairness inherent in the free market?

    there were lots of good reasons at the time to not free the slaves

    Good reasons or “good” reasons? Because there were some fairly compelling arguments floating around, such as “They won’t know how to fend for themselves, having been kept like caged animals” and “They’ll come back and kill us in our sleep.”

    They didn’t wreak vengeance against their owners, but the did struggle to fend for themselves, largely because the white folk didn’t give them a fair shake.

    Even so, how can something not be about good or bad reasons?

    The reason slavery was instituted is easy to suss out: cheap labor. So it’s safe to remove that wall on account of you know exactly why it’s there.

    So why do societies frown on abortion, ‘feets?

  250. Re: sdferr’s link @231.

    Either the press and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee can’t get a quote from a letter right or the Chairman of the NRC really is batty if he wrote this in a letter to the White House.

    “I follow the law, I respect the policy duly established by the Commission even if I disagree with it, and I faithfully executive Commission policy as I oversee the staff of the agency,” he said.

    Or there is some new-speak in the higher levels of our government that I was not aware of.

  251. your innate sense of justice is not particularly finely-honed I don’t think

    Entirely possible. Fact is: it really doesn’t matter in the least what I think. I’m cool with both parties.

    But, let’s pretend we live in a very small society made of three people. We have gay soldier (he’s sorta more than that) and religious dude (him, too). They both have very well refined senses of justice and honor and morals and principles and everything.

    But they disagree. So I’m standing over here and saying, “How about we stop talking about all that for a bit and get a few beers instead. Maybe watch the game.”

    You know that’s good advice. It’s exactly what you’d do in real life. You don’t just run into the room and start slashing around with your finely-honed sword of justice. You let them hang out, drink some beers, and watch the game. Then later everyone is cool and we can all joke about how it was sorta awkward before.

  252. why does the human breast stir at the cry of full speed ahead damn the torpedoes?

  253. As for Darleen’s cogent point:

    The Left wants to micromanage every aspect of our lives except sex.

    Why?

    Read Brave New World, for starters. Then recall my point about progressives wanting to supplant the family with the State. Then contemplate how much self-discipline it takes to restrict one’s sexual activity to the familial context and how that kind of self-discipline can translate to other aspects of one’s life.

    And then ask yourself which population is easier to control: one that exercises and values self-discipline, or one that is intoxicated by self-indulgence?

  254. that wasn’t a you you Mr. bh

  255. Also, I don’t give a rip if gay soldiers serve openly (they’re already there “covertly”). Whether it messes with morale or unit cohesion is a matter for the military to sort out.

    However, if they find that being openly gay causes problems—lots of them—I want the military to be able to go back to the old order if need be. Their mission is win wars, not to be “fair.”

  256. If the integration of the armed services now seems to have been inevitable in a democratic society, it nevertheless faced opposition that had to be overcome and problems that had to be solved…*

  257. if you can hear white trash …

    Everything after this I didn’t hear at all.

    You could at least make your racial slurs original.

  258. oh. After that I said that Perry is a bigot who is buying ads slandering the servicemen of the armed forces of the united states.

  259. There are different orders of objects with which to monkey around though, I think, or at least so far as Burkean political conservatism is concerned.

    I mean, it’s one thing to monkey around with a bowl of fruit, rearranging the oranges, apples and bananas to suit an obsessive fixation on triangles, say, or dispensing medicines under some legal order which may be attempted and on discovery of difficulties, rescinded at law in the same manner in which it was ordered, and quite another to frivolously alter an exquisite and difficult to achieve Constitutional balance of multiple domestic powers in a government, for instance, by granting to one of those powers in that manifold system of relations a novel authority with attendant controls and threats over one or many of the other separate powers, which in turn was or were intended to be preserved whole and independent, and which may, under the new circumstances, lash out in an attempt to regain its or their former position[s] in ways we mayn’t be able to predict.

  260. slandering all of them?

    Or just calling into questions policies which offer fairness to a minority while the culture of the majority is trampled upon?

  261. Yes, I think that’s clearly true, sdferr.

  262. Didn’t take it as a you you, ‘feets. No offense taken. Just fielded that as a random you, not a specific you, because I wanted to move towards my gay dude, religious dude and bh doing shots metaphor.

    (Yeah, we’re doing shots now. It’s working perfectly. Stay away with that sword of justice. We’re making progress here.)

  263. hey here’s a tip Mr. bh

  264. pineapple vodka!

    ok here’s what you do

    get a punch bowl

    add a spot of ice

    add a good half bottle of pineapple vodka

    a good half bottle of coconut rum (cheap stuff is fine)

    add about a quarter gallon or so of sherbert (lime, orange – who cares – something tropical) … try and make little balls or just spoonfuls

    add one (1) can of 7 up

    BAM! Holiday punch with a huge huge kick that your guests will really enjoy sipping on.

  265. Which is why I’m with geoffb, bh, as to the untoward effects of the popular election of Senators. Boo, boo, say we. Cutting the power of the States out of this measure has been worse, and worse more wide rangingly, than the ratifiers had imagined; placing first in the hands of the demos at large and secondly in the hands of the Senators themselves powers from the Federal government that mount athwart the interests of the States in contradistinction to the central government, in turn allowing the growth of the central government in a direction never contemplated at the original framing of the Federal architecture. Or so I believe. And lest I forget again: Tweak Barack Obama.

  266. If the integration of the armed services now seems to have been inevitable in a democratic society

    That’s actually re-integration. Woodrow Wilson segregated the armed forces because them darkies shouldn’t get their darkie germs on Our Kind, because of the eugenics and stuff. Prior to that, the armed forces weren’t segregated.

    Whether something should be changed depends on whether the old order was based on a falsehood. Wilson segregated the troops (and inspired Jim Crow laws) based on the idea that Africans are in essence and by their nature inferior to Europeans. It’s the same kind of thinking that inspired Hitler to “cleanse” Germany.

    But race is a purely cosmetic thing and there’s no inherent, genetic superiority in any of the races.

    Ergo, the basis of troop segregation was a filthy lie. Ergo, the segregation had to go.

    Not granting women the vote was based in part on the idea that women didn’t have the brains or good sense to vote. As a false idea, it had to go.

    Not allowing gays to serve openly in the military was partly a bigotry thing, but the concerns about fraternization are not based on a lie, i.e., gay men actually do fraternize with other gay men, and as we’ve learned in other contexts, if a superior has a sexual relationship with an inferior, it messes with group cohesion and morale.

    Whether it turns out to be a problem is a matter of observation, not a matter of truth vs. lies.

  267. i would bet you money the sum total of problems gay soldiers cause will forever be dwarfed by the costs imposed by knocked-up soldier hoochies

  268. “hey you unjust white trash monkeyfuck those gay soldiers are putting their lives on the line for so these kids can worship in freedom and you my crassly desperately pandering friend have no business being the commander in chief of those gay soldiers then your innate sense of justice is not particularly finely-honed I don’t think”

    Actually, the white trash monkeyfucks mostly wonder why the gay soldiers have to be categorized in the first place. I mean, when DADT ain’t good enough, you know we aren’t talking about intolerance, we’re talking about an agenda.

  269. don’t ask don’t tell was very much part of a bigoted largely white trash christer agenda of rationalizing the discharge of soldiers for no other reason then they were found to be gay

  270. *than* I mean

  271. the costs imposed by knocked-up soldier hoochies

    Letting women serve in combat is the result of a lot of innate senses of justice. Because the idea that women are physically weaker than men is just a social construct and is therefore a lie and therefore must go. So is the idea that men and women serving together in close contact will result in morale and cohesion problems. And pregnancies.

  272. but that has nothing to do with combat per se even

  273. Okay, by the juxtapositions, I get #267 now, sdferr.

  274. Speaking of monkeying, how would a cheesecake be if made with one third spiky young gorgonzola, one third Camembert (or perhaps a Double-cream or Mascarpone) and one third ricotta, and maybe a third less sugar? Punt Barack Obama.

  275. Gross, I’m thinking.

  276. Jeff,

    “Clearly I’m not worth the trouble — especially if you find yourself criticizing my pedantry in a blog post that features fucking footnotes. Right?”

    I’m quite tickled by Zimmerman referring testily to “the ultimately hollow cult of superior intelligence” in a blog post tagged “stupid conservatives.” And this is the same Professor Zimmerman who spends considerable time and effort trying to establish as vividly as possible that he, being a leftwing academic, is much cleverer than we are.

  277. #273 Not to pick a nit, but “Because the idea that women are physically weaker than men is just a social construct and is therefore a lie and therefore must go.” Have you clearly thought this statement through?

  278. With respect to firefighting, the military, etc., my reaction has always been, some women are strong enough to do certain jobs, while many are not, so set a single standard you think the job requires and then allow that standard to be determinative, regardless of sex. That is, if men are required to do, say, 50 pushups, women applying to the same position should likewise have to do 50 pushups. That seems relatively easy and I’m surprised how controversial is such an insistence, oftentimes.

  279. I hear you, Jeff. I got in an argument in undergrad with a girl who insisted that I was just being sexist by saying that women, most of us anyway, are not cut out for jobs that require extreme strength and endurance. I figure I know what I’m talking about since I have two brothers in law who are profession firefighters. We are simply not built the same way and pretending that we are is ridiculous.

    Studies have shown that female soldiers suffer a tremendous number of pelvic stress fractures from basic training with requires a lot of jogging with full packs over heavy terrain. Anyone who has taken a human anatomy class knows that male and female skeletons are easily identifiable by their pelvic structure.

    Look at how strong you are and all of the training you have put into it. I doubt if there are many women with that level of fitness.

  280. With respect to firefighting, the military, etc., my reaction has always been, some women are strong enough to do certain jobs, while many are not, so set a single standard you think the job requires and then allow that standard to be determinative, regardless of sex.

    Unfortunately, the moment that’s tried the Biology is Really Social Construct advocates start bandying about the phrase disparate impact.

    Generally, men and women have separate talents with some number of overlap. Not all military jobs entail humping 80 pound packs 20 miles through a hot, humid jungle, or scorching desert. Women are excellent marksmen, pilots, doctors, etc.

  281. Yes, Darleen and those are not combat positions. Women pilots do not engage with the enemy.

  282. leigh

    There are women pilots who do, and should, engage the enemy. If they fly and shoot as well as the male pilots, why not?

    Ever read Starship Troopers?

  283. I really don’t want to savage chicks for having ambitions that they aren’t physically well suited for, but leaving aside firefighting and miltary combat, even in something as comparatively simple as basketball the physical differences are overwhelming. I’m friends with a bunch of chicks who played Division One basketball in college, and we actually had to ban them from coming to the courts with us because having even one of them on our team made it nearly impossible for us to win any games. We tried to be accommodating at first since they’re our friends and also serious basketball players, but there are only so many times that you can suffer the interminable wait to get back on the court after losing before you say fuck this shit.

  284. even one of them on our team made it nearly impossible for us to win any games.

    So they didn’t meet the physical standard of teams you fielded and faced?

    Then fine, they don’t meet, they don’t play.

    But can you clarify that is what you’re saying, not that somehow it is their female presence that is causing some dynamic leading to failure?

  285. There are seven female Kiowa helicopter pilots, according to that rather breathless article. If they fly and shoot as well as the male pilots According to the article, the interviewee did not. “Gosh! This is really cool! I should learn to aim (paraphrase)!” Munitions are expensive. Training is expensive. Helicopters are expensive. Troops on the ground looking for air support are priceless.

    I’m not trying to pick a fight or pick nits, for that matter. I know there are a number of commercial airline pilots who are female and some women who fly light planes, as well. I am unaware of any female pilots who are CH-47 pilots, for instance. Or female squadron commanders of air fleets.

    And, no, I have never read Starship Troopers since having read some oher Heinlein stuff, I am convinced he is a chauvanist pig and a closet statist.

    Abe, I don’t blame you for banning chicks on you b-ball team. I got kicked to the curb from pick up baseball for the same reason. I kick ass as a girl, but I’m better suited as a ballgirl (get your mind out of the gutter) when the rest of team is mainly dudes.

    Anyway, BBL. I have errands to run.

  286. According to the article, the interviewee did not

    Um, somehow I think you didn’t really read the article. She muffed her first shot, due to excitement.

    Like men don’t do the same thing?

    I am convinced he is a chauvanist pig and a closet statist.

    oh, lord.

  287. What I’m saying is that in spite of having the requisite skills to be good basketball players, they’re not up to the physical aspects or the speed of the game in competing with guys. They struggle to cover in man to man. They’re useless in the paint and even if they can get open they struggle to get shots off or make quick passes in the lane. And in this example – I have plenty of others – we’re talking about girls who had four years of college paid for because of their basketball skills going up against guys who were probably just average to pretty good players in high school.

  288. “The right to privacy exists because the Court says so.”

    I would say the right to privacy is one of the natural rights our esteemed founders were in such a pother to guarantee, so they amended the Constitution to do so. That would be the Ninth amendment, thank you very much, the rock upon which much government activity should founder.

  289. “He’s also an intellectual fraud, a billowing gasbag of pedantry, hypocrisy, and self-pity, and the perfect poster boy for the puffed-up but ultimately hollow cult of superior intelligence.”

    Gingrich?

  290. It would be a service if you would demonstrate how to derive such a right (of privacy) from nature Brett, rather than simply posit it (as though by magic). Don’t take this request, however, in any way as to deny your (or our) ability to derive such a right, so much as a challenge to ourselves to revive the fundamental meaning of natural right as such, in detail, and therefore as well what we mean by nature under such a scheme. We have, for instance, ample precedent in Hobbes and Locke of just such reasoning detail, deriving the right to life, liberty (Hobbes), and property (Locke). Or, in the alternative, point directly to some other’s detailed derivation of a right to privacy from nature.

  291. “It turns out that 80 percent of unmarried evangelicals (18 to 29) are sexually active.”

    In my part of the world, which styles itself as the bible belt’s buckle, legal abortion has rendered single motherhood respectable.

  292. “Generally, men and women have separate talents with some number of overlap. Not all military jobs entail humping 80 pound packs 20 miles through a hot, humid jungle, or scorching desert. Women are excellent marksmen, pilots, doctors, etc.”

    Darleen, you don’t see the problem there?

    Or you don’t care if the men get to be the donkey and the women get to ride in comfort.

    Equality my ass.

  293. “I entered the Air Force Academy and tried to convince my congressman to give women a chance,” said Rhyne. “He told me that families were not ready to see their sisters and wives coming home in body bags.”

    Rhyne was not buying it. Then, in 1993, the secretary of defense permitted women to enter fighter pilot training.

    Rhyne was accepted and has never looked back. She has been a pilot for more than nine years, has accumulated more than 800 hours of flight time and two Operation Northern Watch combat missions.

    But she is the exception rather than the rule. Out of more than 12,000 Air Force pilots, only about 460 are women. Female fighter pilots are even rarer, with 46 Air Force-wide, according to the Air Force Personnel Center, Randolph Air Force Base, Texas. Spangdahlem AB currently has three female fighter pilots, Rhyne; 1st Lt. Leigh Noel, 22nd Fighter Squadron; and Capt. Michelle Vestal, an A-10 Thunderbolt II pilot from the 81st Fighter Squadron.

    *

  294. 12/6/2006 – MAXWELL AIR FORCE BASE, Ala. (AFPN) — As she attends Air War College here, the first female pilot in the Department of Defense to fly in combat reflected on some of her career experiences so far.

    An A-10 Thunderbolt II pilot, Lt. Col. Martha McSally is also the first female in the Air Force to serve as the commander of any combat aviation squadron, to include fighters and bombers.

    “The first role of women as military flyers was during World War II as Women Airforce Service Pilots, an organization disbanded after the war,” Colonel McSally said. “When women resumed flying in the Air Force, a law prohibited them from flying in combat,” she said. “In 1984, I was attending the U.S. Air Force Academy and told my first flight instructor that I was going to be a fighter pilot. He just laughed, but after Congress repealed the prohibition law in 1991, and I was named as one of seven women who would be put through fighter training, he looked me up and said he was amazed I had accomplished my goal.”

    Colonel McSally was selected for fighter pilot school in 1993, but it was another year before she actually arrived. After completion of her training, she was deployed to Kuwait in January 1995.

    “I was a young and new fighter pilot and here I was in Kuwait,” she said. “On my first flight over Iraq, we were enforcing the no-fly zone, and as I crossed the Kuwait/Iraq border, I’ll never forget the feeling I had that I had asked for this and now I was here.”

    In July 2004, she took command of the 354th Fighter Squadron at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Ariz. — becoming the first woman to command a fighter squadron.

    *

  295. True dat, Lee. Women who go through Basic have a significantly larger number of injuries than do men under the same circumstances. I’m unclear about how one would avoid Basic, even as an officer candidate or if one could or should. Most commissioned officers are either OCS graduates or were in ROTC in college, since we are hypothetically talking about pilots and doctors, although Warrant Officers are enlisted as are medics.

  296. “Because the idea that women are physically weaker than men is just a social construct and is therefore a lie and therefore must go.” Have you clearly thought this statement through?

    I was being totally facetious for ‘feet’s sake, wording an obviously false statement the same way as the true ones I’d made prior to show the contrast.

  297. The ‘White Lily‘ (from gentler times)…

    In late 1942, Litvyak was transferred to the 9th Guards Fighter Regiment, and then very shortly after, in Jan 1943, she was transferred again to teh 296th Fighter Regiment, which was later renamed to the 73rd Guards Fighter Regiment. On 23 Feb she was awarded the Order of the Red Star. During her combat career, she scored 11 solo kills and 3 shared kills. Many German pilots she shot down were in shock that they were shot down by a woman. A German fighter ace shot down and captured outright refused to believe a woman had shot him down until he was brought before Litvyak, who described to him the details of the dogfight that only the two pilots engaged in the combat would know. She was not invincible, however. She was shot down two or three times (22 Mar 1943, 16 Jul 1943, and possibly another time) and at least one time she sustained serious injury to her legs, but she refused to be sidelined.

    In early 1943, Litvayk was made a second lieutenant. On 1 Aug 1943, Litvyak flew a Yak-1b fighter on a combat mission. She was shot down by a group of eight German fighters. Because her body was not found, Soviet leadership assumed she was captured. Since Joseph Stalin had always believed that a captured Russian was to be automatically considered a traitor, she did not receive the award of the Hero of the Soviet Union like some thought she deserved. Her remains were not found until 1979. On 6 May 1990, Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev finally granted her the Hero of the Soviet Union award with a posthumous promotion to the rank of lieutenant.

  298. Darleen, you don’t see the problem there?

    Or you don’t care if the men get to be the donkey and the women get to ride in comfort.

    Equality my ass.

    Excuse me? Tell me what male Navy pilot must meet the exact same standards of a male Army infantry.

    The military is not “one size fits all” and if you have an excellent sniper, doctor, pilot, it doesn’t matter whether they are XX or XY as long as they meet the standards.

  299. Meet Polly-Jan Bobseine

    Sometimes you’ve got to keep your mouth shut and sometimes you’ve got to call it like it is and sometimes you’ve just got to call attention to a superior American and champion for women in the armed forces and on the front lines.

    Senior Airman Polly-Jan Bobseine is a Special Forces Fire Team Journeyman with the 823 Security Forces Squadron (SFS) in the US Airforce and served in the both the Iraq and Afghanistan theatres of war.

    She was chosen from 270,000 enlisted airmen as one of the top 12 Outstanding Airmen of the Year in 2008 which was preceded by Combat Command Outstanding Flight Level Airman of the Year 2005.

    Bobseine was home schooled in New York State graduating in 2000 where she competed and won the New York State Junior Trap Title as well as challenging the field in the regional High Powered Rifle competition. [...]

    Polly-Jan Bobseine is a top Special Forces Sniper and has been awarded The Air Force Achievement Medal with 2 Oak Leaf clusters as well as the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal and a Terrorism Service Medal, Air Force Expeditionary Service Ribbon with 2 gold bars and qualification as Expert in small arms, both rifles and pistols—there are many more honours but you get the picture.

    As the world learned with the Seal Teams and Osama, Special Forces avoid the limelight with practised ease but Polly-Jan made a bit of stir on Easter Sunday 2008. She was at work, concealed and in position to observe and protect a road way that lead to a NATO Base in country. She observed a terrorist planting an IED (improvised explosive device) on the road surface. Her shot was 725 yards or seven plus football fields, away. The bomber was bent over the asphalt excavation to place the device in the roadway when Polly-Jan squeezed the trigger. A perfect centered kill shot in the butt, causing him to keel over, detonating the IED. He was eviscerated into martyrdom.

    The subsequent explosion eliminated any doubt that this bomber was an innocent bystander, which locals often remonstrate when the kill was investigated and verified.

    Airman Bobseine has literally become the poster girl for females in active duty rolls, with the image of her lining up a shot with an M-24 sniper rifle while wearing pearl earrings, still going viral. She has proven that she can wear whatever she wants.

  300. Hmm. All these women pilots are in the Air force?

  301. Or you don’t care if the men get to be the donkey and the women get to ride in comfort.

    If everyone is made to live up to the same standards for the job, then there should be no complaints. But if the women are being coddled while them me do heavy lifting (in the same job), then there’s a problem.

    I have no first-hand knowledge of what’s actually happening in the military, but I can easily see the feminists insisting that women be treated differently here and there, and the men resenting it.

  302. Too, we hear it pisses the hell out of the Jihadists to learn one of their own has been tagged “you’re it” by an American lady. Which, as psychological warfare goes, ain’t too bad.

  303. I thought the wimmins weren’t allowed to be jailers at Gitmo anymore because of the titties or something?

  304. To highlight why that concept is so important, the Marines were represented at the conference by a few legends of the Marine aviation field, all of whom are highly decorated female officers.

    They were women such as Lt. Col. Sarah Deal, the very first female Marine pilot, Capt. Jill Stephenson, the first women Marine to fly the EA-6B Prowler into combat and Maj. Jennifer Marino, a highly-decorated CH 46E Sea Knight pilot who is now part of HMX-1, the squadron that transports the President of the United States.

    While each pilot in attendance was dedicated to the ideals of the WAI conference, and each carried multiple combat deployments under their belts, they all had one qualification they were most proud of – the Eagle, Globe and Anchor.

    “Being in this position, it makes us feel proud, sure,” Marino said. “Not because we’re female, but because we’re Marines.

  305. “The military is not “one size fits all” and if you have an excellent sniper, doctor, pilot, it doesn’t matter whether they are XX or XY as long as they meet the standards.”

    So, you don’t care then, got it.

    Equality my ass. Equality is real important when discussing doctors and fighter pilots. Why isn’t it important when discussing ditch diggers and roofers?

    You know, the jobs guys end up with because the firefighter jobs were given to women that can’t do it as well, under the name of equality.

    My ass.

  306. Stephanie Rose

    In Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. military has fought wars unlike any in American history. Neither war has had clear front lines — meaning that anywhere can turn into a combat zone.

    And that means that women, who officially don’t have combat roles, have been battle-tested — few more so than Chief Warrant Officer Stephanie Rose.

    Rose was among the first women to fly the Apache attack helicopter, and she is currently serving her third combat tour, this one in northern Afghanistan.

    As a pair of landing choppers blasted dust across the airstrip, Rose and Capt. Nicole Jordan showed a group of visitors around the cockpit of an Apache Longbow helicopter. Even after hundreds of flight hours, the aircraft still clearly holds a thrill for anyone who gets to pilot one.

    “There’s nothing I could think of I’d rather be doing. It’s better than driving a race car,” Rose says.

    Rose and her sometimes co-pilot Jordan initially resisted the suggestion that it’s at all remarkable for women to be flying combat helicopters. The Apache flies the same, no matter who is at the controls, Jordan says.

    “We all do the job, and some of us do it better than others,” she says.

  307. Maybe back up to where equality as such is important. Then move forward with the nugget from there, keeping the bounds of its importance intact contextually.

  308. the important thing is to build redundancy into the system

  309. Why isn’t it important when discussing ditch diggers and roofers?

    What about “meets the standards of the job, regardless of sex” that I’m saying that you’re not getting, Lee?

    Does someone have to qualify first as a ditch digger before they are allowed to take the MSAT?

    Do you disqualify a superior sniper or helicopter pilot from flying missions because they can only bench-press 100 lbs instead of 200?

    Women are not going to generally meet the physical standards required of the job of infantry. So are a lot of men. So what? How does that disqualify them from being military snipers, pilots or other jobs that do not have the infantry physical standards as part of their job?

  310. plus somebody has to make the sammiches

  311. Should someone 5ft 5 and 110 pounds even be considered for the military? Except maybe for cook or baker or something?

    Ahem … “Audie Murphy”

  312. My question is, how many women want to do these kinds of jobs? If they are capable, and it appears from the citations above that those cited certainly are, is it a wise investment of DoD dollars or is it an experiment in equality for the sake of political correctness? I say that it presents the Armed Forces and these women with a Hobbson’s Choice: do they want a career or a family? Are they will ing to forsake bearing their own children for their careers? If I were doing the hiring, and thankfully, I am not, I would look long and hard at my choices if it were down to Lt. Josh or Lt. Jennifer. Lt. Jennifer is pregnant and grounded. Lt. Josh’s wife is pregnant and he is deployed. Simple math, as our prez likes to say.

    I have mentioned before that my husband is a retired Army Colonel. He was a CH-47 combat pilot, is very highly decorated and has over 13,000, that’s right, 13,000 hours of flight time. He is also an FAA flight instructor and instrument rated instructor. He worked as a commercial airline pilot after he retired, as well. I confess to sharing his sexist views of women in the military. But, the world changes with us or without us.

  313. Darleen, Audie Murphy was Infantry.

  314. “What about “meets the standards of the job, regardless of sex” that I’m saying that you’re not getting, Lee?”

    Getting it.

    “Don’t let a girl do a man’s job,” read placards during a demonstration after a 1983 court decision to change a screening test, to give females a better shot at fire department jobs. [...]

    The city didn’t hire its first women firefighters until 1982 after the group sued claiming a physical exam discriminated against the fairer sex. But even today, some male firefighters dispute that decision. “It’s a physical job. It requires physical strength,” Deputy Chief Paul Mannix told the Post. “People ask why there aren’t more women in the Fire Department. Why aren’t there more women in the NFL or Major League Baseball?” He added that having a different physical test for women is harmful to the department. “You can’t get away from the fact that this is a physical job. This is a dangerous job and they are trying to dummy it down.”

    Equality!

  315. michelle rodriguez is gonna be in the next resident evil movie

    that’s so not fair to the zombies

  316. Michelle Rodriguez has the upper body strength for firefightings I think. Dykes are good that way.

  317. she has a vulnerable side too though

    but that’s not her moneymaker

  318. here is her looking all vulnerable and sweet like a little disney princess

  319. Is that right before she snaps you like a wishbone?

  320. I’m probably just bitter ‘cuz in 1984 when I was trying hard to get a firefighter job, the white men quota were all full up, sorry.

    Lucky for me no one relaxed the standards on using a 90 lb jackhammer. Otherwise, I coulda starved.

  321. That sucks, Lee. Operating a jackhammer doesn’t allow for much time loafing around the firehouse watching “Andy Griffith” reruns.

  322. It also don’t carry the same wage, bennies, or prestige.

    Probably why the wommins aren’t suing for the jackhammer owners to only use 40 pounders, so they can get in on the sweet, sweet gravy train.

  323. No it sure doesn’t. Or the great pick up lines when you were single.

  324. “It would be a service if you would demonstrate how to derive such a right (of privacy) from nature…”

    I’m no Locke, so that is a tall order. Leaving aside that our foundational political philosophy very much depends on the hand-waving notion that our rights to life, liberty, and property are “self-evident,” i.e., indemonstrable by anyone by any means save intuition, I see life as impossible without property, which is impossible to gain without liberty, and that appears to be naturally so. Privacy is a freely chosen value, which makes it a matter of liberty, and also a matter of being secure in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects,” which makes it a matter of property.

    The neglected Ninth amendment declares the enumeration of rights in the Constitution shall not be construed (by anyone, it appears; Congress is not mentioned) to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people. I submit that privacy is one of those rights. This amendment should put paid, were it either respected or enforced, to those who say “such and so is not in the Constitution,” an argument that betrays a lack of the presumption of liberty. That argument also sows the seeds of tyranny. Many, for instance, believe that a repeal of the Second amendment would mean the individual no longer had the right to keep and bear arms. Nonsense, of course, as the right of self-defense is eternal.

    The Constitution grants no rights but guarantees them. Should the subsequent government neglect to do so, it will have fallen into the tyranny our founders would prevent.

  325. None of us are (Locke or Locke-like). Nevertheless, we’re human, so subjected as such to what natural inclinations humans have. And it seems to me, there’s nothing ruling against our having thoughts on those conditions and their political consequences.

    Let’s set the Ninth aside, if we may for the moment (despite its being a fine resting place for whatever right to privacy we might establish), since unless we can firmly establish privacy as a natural right straight up from the ground, the Ninth amendment won’t do us much good as a justification to it (which is just more talk about hand-waving).

    I’m not sure what you mean by intuition Brett, in your summary “indemonstrable by anyone by any means save intuition”, since I don’t think that’s what Hobbes does in fact, though I have to allow that without understanding the specifics of intuition as you intend it, I could be wrong. Hobbes, I mean, says something to the effect that “all men fear death (and most especially violent death) and seek to avoid it”, so it’s here, upon this universal condition of all men (so he claims), in this lowest of low common denominators ["We must therefore resolve, that the Originall of all great, and lasting Societies, consisted not in the mutuall good will men had towards each other, but in the mutuall fear they had of each other."], that he lays down the first natural right (and there too, their natural equality, being equally capable of taking one-another’s lives by his lights), the right to life, or its preservation, which for him amounts to the same. So the means to self-defense goes hand in hand with the first right, the right to life, and with the means the decisions how to effect that preservation, for who but the possessor of that life has a greater interest in it, asks Hobbes, so how would that interest ever be better effected when placed in the hands of another?

    I have an unfortunate allergy to *value* as a term of political art, especially when it comes to natural right theory, as value has no place at all therein; so I’m at a loss too with “freely chosen value” as a ground to privacy as such.

    What I’d be inclined to do, I guess, is examine our most basic desire[s] for privacy as human beings where they occur to us, to see whether — at that gritty level — there’s something perfectly inescapable about the condition, hence to fit us as to our nature (and not, we see, something “freely chosen”) — in the same manner as our immediate fight to live when confronted with life-taking circumstances. So, for instance, to be crude about it, people most want privacy when knocking boots together, say, or taking a dump, and so on. Yet though they (we) seek privacy, is there a natural necessity we can find in the desire? But is success at crapping conditional on privacy? (So necessary.) Or success at getting one’s rocks off, say, predicated on being alone as two people bumping uglies? But not, as one?

    Yet, of course, we’re still confronted by the remaining simple desire (“Get the hell out of my room!“, or, “I’m busy in here, leave me alone!“), whatever the linkage between privacy and functional success at our basest acts.

    But that’s just a place to start, and far from any place to finish. Squeeze Barack Obama.

  326. Privacy as a “right” appears to me more as a function of other rights rather than a right in and of itself. In one of my undergrad pre-law courses the prof said he thought the Supreme Court would have been on firmer ground had they based Roe v. Wade and other “privacy” rulings on autonomy instead.

    Autonomy is clearly implied by the assertion of rights to life, liberty and property; without autonomy — free will, individuality, whatever one prefers to call it — there is not only no purpose to these rights, there is no footing for them.

  327. That looks good to me McGehee (privacy as derived contractually, so to speak, not as a first principle in itself but secondarily to them) — good tacitly anyhow, unless something better turns up — ‘specially as how fundamental natural rights stand out to us in a way that’s nearly impossible to overlook (once we’re put on to the scent), being “natural” in the manner of ubiquitous and all-embracing, all up-in-our-facey, as life itself is in that context. So autonomy, in that sense, would be tautologically inherent to the first right.

  328. Take a look at the neat trick FDR does with property rights, by sleight of hand, (from the Commonwealth Club Add.):

    Every man has a right to his own property; which means a right to be assured, to the fullest extent attainable, in the safety of his savings. By no other means can men carry the burdens of those parts of life which, in the nature of things afford no chance of labor; childhood, sickness, old age. In all thought of property, this right is paramount; all other property rights must yield to it. If, in accord with this principle, we must restrict the operations of the speculator, the manipulator, even the financier, I believe we must accept the restriction as needful, not to hamper individualism but to protect it.

    Severe him from his family, his people, his community; make him the shade wandering in the wilderness and hence the ward of the State, and control of other’s property comes into the government’s grasp. Pummel Barack Obama.

  329. Sever, I meant.

  330. I ♥ Martha McSally. Not only is she my Warthog flying homegirl, but she was not having the Islamobot walking body bag bullshit.

  331. every last saudi royal pervert should be mubaraked up one side and down the other I think

  332. Darleen, in a nutshell, you can *always* become infantry even if you were, say, a signal puke.

    Adding women to the mix creates a lot of problems that you don’t really get with unisex outfits. Then again, adding women to the mix pretty much doubles your available pool of soldiers. (Although I don’t understand why women don’t have to register for the draft too.)

    Note that adding gay/lesbians to the mix does *not* double your available pool for the price of even more headaches. It seems like a really bad idea to me.

  333. I ? Martha McSally.

    Mixed feelings about this one. What if a foreign army base were in our country and the soldiers walked around nekkid when not in uniform? Wouldn’t we be within our rights to ask them to cover up when on our streets (allowing, of course, that in-shape nekkid soldiers would not be any kind of eyesore)?

    On the other hand, the abaya is something that’s been imposed in recent decades by the Wahhabists and their belief that women are evil temptresses in league with shaitan, and who must be controlled utterly lest they corrupt the society entire.

    It’s like being fine with calling Rhodesia “Zimbabwe” because they wanted to revert back to the name of the old African society instead of honoring some European invader, but not using “Myanmar” for Burma because the former is the name given by a tyrannical junta that the people hate hate hate.

  334. Note that adding gay/lesbians to the mix does *not* double your available pool

    No, but the gays and lesbians who want to serve in the military are already there and have been for years; they just “didn’t tell.”

    Again, it’s for the military to sort out. If readiness is seriously affected by sexual tensions (caused by either sex or orientation), the military should be able to limit the makeup of units accordingly.

  335. Yeah, well, you’ve never been a company commander.

    No, but the gays and lesbians who want to serve in the military are already there and have been for years; they just “didn’t tell.”

    You know, people trot that crap out as if it has any real meaning. Guess what: if they are able to hide what they are doing to the extent that it doesn’t bother anyone, then it can’t be a problem. That changes when the covers are stripped away, so to speak.

    Or to put it another way, John Wayne Gacy’s neighbors thought he was real nice guy until they started pulling bodies out of his basement.

  336. Mixed feelings about this one. What if a foreign army base were in our country and the soldiers walked around nekkid when not in uniform? Wouldn’t we be within our rights to ask them to cover up when on our streets (allowing, of course, that in-shape nekkid soldiers would not be any kind of eyesore)?

    Did we ask them to come protect us because we can’t do it ourselves?

  337. LBascom posted on 12/10 @ 12:32 pm

    Late to this and I hope you see this, Lee (yesterday we had all three grandsons for the day)

    But nowhere have I advocated relaxing physical standards for jobs. Indeed, that sort of bullshit is what I’ve railed against for years.

    You have one relevant standard that all applicants. Period. No race-norming, no sex-norming.

    And this goes the other way, too. Males should not be discriminated against if they want to be nurses or grade school teachers.

  338. Pingback: Rededication [guest post by motionview]

Leave a Reply