How to Win the Nobel Peace Prize In 12 Days

Tommy De Seno at Justified Right posted a great piece about how to win the Nobel Peace Prize in 12 days. After outlining Obama's schedule for his first 12 days in office, De Seno concludes:

So there you have it. The short path to the Nobel Peace Prize: Party, go to meetings, skip church, release federal funding to pay for abortions in foreign countries, party some more.

Geez. We do more than that during the 12 days of Christmas.

Our President: the Leader of the Free World

Muammar Gaddafi, the dictatorial leader of Libya, the "mad dog of the Middle East," advocate of Islamic Socialism, who gave a hero's welcome to the man convicted for the Pan Am Flight 103 tragedy, just told the United Nations that "We are glad to have a Son of Africa as president of the United States. We would be content to have President of Obama be president of American forever."

Meanwhile, President Obama apologized to the United Nations for his country, and naively delivered the United States over to the whims, demands, and control of the UN.

Oh yeah, and did we mention that Congress just voted NOT to require Senators to read the proposed healthcare legislation, NOT to publish a brief synopsis of the legislation for Americans to read, and NOT to publish the estimated costs of the proposed healthcare bill?

Wake up, America.

Is There Something in the Water in South Carolina? Yeah -- it's called red clay.

Stephen Conn has posted what amounts to yet another one of those "historical" pieces about South Carolina; ironically, it's stereotyping of South Carolina is itself a stereotype of the self-righteous rhetoric that many historians publish under the guise of historical analysis when it comes to Southern history and culture (although I'm sure he's just giddy over how brilliantly original he thinks he is).

Mr. Conn is a history professor at Ohio State University, and his little essay was published by the History News Service, self-described as "an informal syndicate of professional historians who seek to improve the public's understanding of current events by setting these events in their historical contexts." Unfortunately, it's not the thought that counts when it comes to historical research, and Mr. Conn's piece does little to improve the public's understanding of current events, but is more to serve as a soapbox for his personal political preferences.

Consider some of his more humorous statements:

Joe Wilson's recent outburst is just the "latest in [South Carolina's] long, distinguished history of not-quite-ready-for-democracy political behavior."

We're not quite sure what one must do to become "ready for democracy". Perhaps Mr. Conn thinks that Joe Wilson's comments were a little too commonplace and have no place in the civilized halls of Congress. Then again, isn't democracy nothing more than government by the people--the common people? And isn't Congressman Wilson's comment an echo of the many outburts made by citizens around the country at the numerous town halls that have been held in recent weeks. Perhaps Mr. Conn thinks those passionate Americans are not quite ready for democracy either.

In his recounting of the infamous Brooks-Sumner Affair, he asserts that "This is why it's apparently so important that people be allowed to carry firearms: to prevent good Samaritans from intervening when your friend wants to beat someone up. Keitt was censured by Congress, which is probably one reason the NRA was founded."

We appreciate his sarcastic humor--clearly he's an NRA fan--and by no means condone Preston Brooks' actions. But Conn (or is it Con?) conveniently ignores any sort of discussion of what precipitated this incident, or the history of: The Duel (pronounced Doo Ell). While our modern minds may find dueling a bit barbaric (in fact, dueling was falling out of favor even by this point in history, and Brooks' would have broken South Carolina law and been stripped of political office had he participated in a duel with Sumner), dueling had long had a place in American culture, and Brooks was merely following the protocol of the Code of Dueling. The fact that the House of Representatives voted not to expel Brooks after this incident indicates that his actions were not that uncommon--in their historical context (remember the History New Services' stated purposes??).

"The reason Sumner deserved his beating, as far as the good folks from the Palmetto State were concerned, was that Sumner was an abolitionist and he went to Harvard."

No, the reason Sumner deserved his beating was because he had publicly ridiculed Brook's relative, Andrew Butler. But we suppose it's more fun to portray South Carolinians as ignorant Yankee-hating racists.

NB: Sumner's long diatribe against Butler took place in the Senate Chambers, lasting over 3 hours, during which he made fun of Butler's stroke-created physical impairments. Compare that with Wilson's two-word outburst, challenging the accuracy of Obama's statement, not a physical disability--you tell us which is "not quite ready for democracy."

South Carolinians so loved their slave system that they were the very first to secede from the Union.

Thousands of books, theses, dissertations by as many historical scholars and you've reduced the many nuances of the Civil War to this? This is sloppy at best, Professor Conn, and it's the kind of broad generalizations we expect to see in a 3rd grade essay.

The most beloved South Carolina politician of the more recent past was Strom Thurmond, segregationist, bigot, and all-around standard-bearer for South Carolina.

For all of his shortcomings (and he certainly had them), Senator Thurmond is perhaps one of the clearest individual examples of America's evolution as a nation--particularly with regard to race relations. Again, one would have hoped you could put Thurmond in his historical context, noting how his views on blacks, integration, etc. evolved along with the rest of the country. A Dixiecrat, yes, but also a Democrat, and then a Republican. Opposing the Civil Rights Act, yes, but wasn't it Abraham Lincoln who said that he never intended the social and political equality of blacks and whites--including making "negroes" voters? Maybe this is why Thurmond is such a standard-bearer: he progressed, rather than remaining stuck in his ways.

Re: Mark Sanford: "Even in South Carolina's illustrious political history, one is hard pressed to think of another politician who combines self-indulgence with sanctimoniousness in such generous portions."

We're sorry, was this a historical piece or a New York Times op-ed? Sanford's affair is a sad tale, and he should have handled things in the aftermath differently than he did. But we can appreciate his honesty (as public and ill-advised as it was). Even Prof. Conn recognized that it "took a particular kind of moral and political courage." Which cannot be said of his sorry excuse for a historical piece.

Perhaps the type of courage the Conn Man is looking for is best illustrated by a Congressman from HIS home state of Ohio, former Rep. James Traficant. We're sure we don't need to remind you, Mr. Conn, that Mr. Trficant (of Ohio) was just last week released from federal prison after serving a 7 year terms for racketeering, bribery, and other corrupt activities. Ah, the all-around standard bearer for Ohio. We're sure you also remember that the Congressman (from Ohio) WAS expelled from the House of Representatives (i.e. his conduct was actually considered reprehensible--in it's historical context). Mr. Traficant (D-OH) said this:

"I will take with me a file, chisel and a knife. I'll try to get some major explosives to fight my way out. Then when I get out, I'll grab a sword like Maximus Meridius and as a gladiator, I'll stab people in the crotch."

Now that's democracy!!

Mr. Conn, we have a degree in History--just like you. And Mr. Conn, we often voice our political ideologies and preference--just like you. The difference is, we don't parade our opinions about as historical scholarship under the auspices of a History News Network. And the only reason we even take the time to mention your recent article is because, as an historian, "legal scholarship" like this is an embarrassment and disgrace to our noble profession.

Maybe your dislike for the South is also a product of history--the history of your university's sorry excuse for a football team that can't win a game against decent competition, including the last few times it played the University of South Carolina, or Upper Georgia, or whatever. Or maybe you're just jealous of our way of life. You wouldn't be the first: there must be a mass exodus of Ohioans coming to South Carolina to warrant something like this.

On second thought, maybe we shouldn't be too harsh on the OSU football team, or Mr. Conn--it could just be something in their water.

Where do you get your news?

We like ESPN.

At least, we like them when they do what they're good at.

Sports.

For the most part, ESPN provides us with good coverage of all the breaking news in the world of sports, and ESPN.com is our number source for all things sports. When it comes to sports, ESPN are experts.

So stick to what you know. Please. Keep up with your 24-7 over-the-top sports commentary and analysis, but leave the political punditry to the folks who have actually studied things other than a play book and sports almanac.

More and more, we seem to find ESPN writers commenting on things other than sports, or worse, using a sports related story to advance a political perspective.

Consider this story from ESPN.com, where Pat Forde uses a story about Rick Majerus as a back-door promotion of stem-cell research, abortion, and (maybe?) even Hillary Clinton. Think its just a coincidence that Majerus' pro-choice views were highlighted during the week of the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade? We doubt it.

That's not all:

• There was the article (and Sportscenter segment) on the firing of the Univ. of Missouri lacrosse coach, which was unapologetically pro-gay in its emotive reporting.
• Speaking of lacrosse, how can we forget their coverage of the Duke lacrosse scandal? ESPN often seemed less concerned with the lacrosse team and more interested in exploiting the racial tension in Durham and pointing a finger at the white, middle class lacrosse players at an expensive private university
  
• Or this story about a kid athlete from Atlanta, in jail for having oral sex with a 10th grader. A moving story, no doubt. Nevermind that he broke the law -- ESPN finds it necessary to write this story using the oft-used political template of a "backwards South" with "archaic laws" that just can seem to catch up with the modern progressive society that ESPN lives in.
  

We thought ESPN had decided that sports and politics just don't mix. Isn't that why they fired Rush Limbaugh from Sunday NFL Countdown?

Yet it doesn't get much more political than this. When ESPN commentator Ivan Maisel reported on the alleged sexual improprieties recently surrounding (now former) Arkansas football coach, he wrote this:

A self-described supporter of Arkansas athletics acquired Nutt's cell phone records through a Freedom of Information Act request. Media members across the nation, including this one, received pdf files detailing Nutt's communications.

The innuendo came at no extra charge. Nutt's detractors have put him in the impossible position of proving a negative--he must have cheated on his wife because there is no proof that he did not.

It is a maneuver borrowed from national politics, Rovian in style and execution. Karl Rove, the chief political advisor to President George W. Bush, made his career on attacking an opponent's strength. In the 2004 presidential election, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth eviscerated Sen. John Kerry's stature as a war hero. Kerry's candidacy never recovered.

Rove had no visible affiliation with the Swift Boat Veterans, except that a tactic he made famous benefited his candidate.

Three years later, the tactic has been imported to Arkansas and used against Nutt.

Really, Ivan? We thought the openly biased anti-Bush reporting was something only the New York Times did.

Guess we were wrong.

Guess ESPN is no longer just an Entertainment and Sports Programming Network.

Mind Boggling

In the 2006 Fiscal Year, the United States Government was paying approximately $46,347,031 per hour on interest payments to the holders of the National Debt.

Dr. Nancy Pelosi, Prof. of Old Testament Bull S--

The Bible tells us in the Old Testament, 'To minister to the needs of God's creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us.' On this Earth Day, and every day, let us pledge to our children, and our children's children, that they will have clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, and the opportunity to experience the wonders of nature.

- Nancy Pelosi, Earth Day 2008 Press Release

Evidently it's not the first time she's done this.

The Tabletalk is now offering a reward to anyone who can find this "quoted" passage in the Old Testament. Or the entire Bible, for that matter. Don't bother - it's not in there.

This passage, on the other hand, is:

"A false witness will not go unpunished, and [she] who pours out lies will not go free." Proverbs 19:5

Oh yeah, and it warns about this too:

[T]hey exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the [creation] rather than the Creator . . .

Keep up the good work, Professor P. With this kind of track record, we certainly trust you with our Congress.

Why Most Voters Shouldn't Vote

"Often the most fanciful ideas become the least questioned assumptions. In this election season a few have made themselves apparent, such as the notion that "change" is good by definition and "experience" is definitely good. Yet an even better example is the oft-repeated platitude that greater voter participation yields a healthier republic."

So says Selwyn Duke of the American Thinker. We think you should read the entire essay.

Election 2008 . . .

. . . it could be worse. Consider these great orators of the Democratic Party*:

• "One man with courage makes a majority."--Andrew Jackson
  
  
• "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."--Franklin D. Roosevelt
  
  
• "The buck stops here."--Harry S. Truman
  
  
• "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."--John F. Kennedy
  
  
• "They gave me a hat. I have the hat to this day. I have the hat."--John Kerry

At least we're not dealing with that last guy as a potential candidate anymore.


*Borrowed from the Wall Street Journal

Obama = Messiah?

Excuse me, but this sounds more like a cult than a political campaign. The language used here is the language of evangelical Christianity – the Obama volunteers speak of "coming to Obama" in the same way born-again Christians talk about "coming to Jesus."

But he's not Jesus! He's not going to magically enable us to transcend the bitter partisanship that is tearing this country apart. And even if he is elected, in no way will that show that somehow we have "gotten beyond" race.

Kathleen Geier of the liberal TPMCafe (and an Edwards supporter) commenting on this article.

“I’ve been following politics since I was about 5." “I’ve never seen anything like this. This is bigger than Kennedy. [Obama] comes along, and he seems to have the answers. This is the New Testament. This is surprising.”

Chris Matthews in the New York Observer

Perhaps it's my atheism at work but I found myself increasingly wary of and resistant to the salvational fervor of the Obama campaign, the idealistic zeal divorced from any particular policy or cause and chariot-driven by pure euphoria. . . . I don't look to politics for transcendence and self-certification.

James Wolcott, a left leaning contributor to Vanity Fair.

See for yourself.

Foreclosing on the NYT

Query whether Hillary, if elected president, will bail out the increasingly struggling New York Times much like she intends to bail out thousands of Americans who borrowed more money than they could afford when they purchased their last home.

It seems consistent, and would only be fair. Consistent, because both plans mean propping up a business that "the market" has determined is not profitable/successful. Fair, because, well, she owes them.

Palmetto Politics

Our Boring Governor

Laughing with the next (?) POTUS

Who has the funnier family, the Obamas, or the Romneys?
We laugh, you decide.

Beer Politics

Which of the presidential candidates would you rather have a beer with in 2008? That's the question that the National Beer Wholesaler's Association is asking. An interesting question, though we fail to see how that "quality" bears any relation to the requisite merits for elected office. If anything, it's probably a disqualification - most of our more entertaining drinking buddies would make terrible presidents, and fun for pints does not = good for president.

And yet, the poll is revealing. After all, our generation epitomizes the coffee shop and pub culture - we're generally not going to march, or riot, or get too dirty in one cause or another, but by golly if we won't sit around and talk about it over a cup of coffee or a couple of beers. For Gen X, perhaps the most important characteristic we look for in relationship, and in trusting someone, is authenticity. Who are more authentic than then the folks you regularly imbibe with, or the seemingly intelligent philosophe who's always at the coffee shop?

A few other comments:
The leader in the poll is Obama. This underscores our general perception of his campaign as one of identity politics and/or populism. "You drink with me and I'll drink with you...and we will drink together, and we will vote together..."

Ron Paul and John McCain are second and third. This probably because we can count on them having some pretty sweet war stories that will come out after pint 5 or 6.

One wonders why Huckabee and Romney are even on the poll. Mormon's don't generally drink, and the once Baptist preacher probably wouldn't even step in the bar with you to begin with. Maybe it's some sort of twisted desire to be the one who gives them their first drink.

Hilary is right in the middle. This is baffling. We're not sure who would vote to have her along on the pub crawl, especially since the thought of her laugh combined with alcohol reminds us too much of Jessica Walters as the ever-tipsy Lucille Bluth in Arrested Development.

Perhaps most surprising is how low John Edwards ranks. Surely, after the bookoodles of money he's made as a noble plaintiff's attorney, we could bank on ol' John picking up the tab for the night. Which is why we'd vote him number one.

Let's not Rush to conclusions

As we anticipated, people have strong and differing views on Rush Limbaugh. That’s why we began the title of our post with “Say what you will.” Our point was not to defend or demolish Rush Limbaugh’s political theories or cultural critiques, but to point out that regardless of what you think about him, he’s good at his job. Our opinion on this point remains unchanged.

What is his job? As we alluded to, and as he often states on his show (which I have listened to for more than 5 minutes), his job is:

“Illustrating absurdity by being absurd.”

What’s absurd? That an elected official would purposely misrepresent the words of a private individual with whom he knowingly and consistently disagrees, in order to smear that individual’s reputation, and then attempt to use his political clout to force that private individual to shut up. How did Rush illustrate this? By being equally absurd and auctioning off the written “threat” on eBay. What’s more, he gave the ridiculous proceeds to a support the very people he was alleged to have criticized.

That’s clever, if not brilliant.

Georgie and Married Man raised some interesting points:

"you don't think rush limbaugh is a hypocrite for calling for tougher sentences for drug felons and then developing a drug habit of his own?”

First, that’s a straw man that has little to do with the current topic. Perhaps that was Married Man’s point. Whether Rush is a hypocrite (in terms of drug use/punishment) is of no consequence when it comes to what he said about soldiers, how it was portrayed by Reid and the Drive By Media, and how Rush responded with one of the more clever things I’ve seen.

Second, we don’t happen to think that Rush is a hypocrite. If Rush argued for stricter drug punishments, and then was convicted of drug usage and said those stronger sentences didn’t apply to him, that would be hypocritical. As far as we know, he hasn’t done that. If Rush condemned drug usage, and denied that he had a problem (in the face of counter evidence), that would be hypocritical. He hasn’t done that, either. But to advocate for a certain standard, even if that person fails to live up to the standard, is not necessarily hypocritical. I once read a good definition of hypocrisy: hypocrisy is best understood as saying something while intending to do something else. For example: if a person has a tendency toward alcoholism, and advocates for sobriety (himself abstaining from drink), but while at a party is given a drink and gives in to the temptation, we would say that person is weak. But not an hypocrite.

Contrast that with Reid who, faced with Rush’s clever idea of raising money for a veteran’s children charity organization, attempted to take credit for the idea (which was not his), encouraged people to support the cause and give money to the charity, but then refused to support the charity himself. I’m not sure if that qualifies as hypocrisy, but sure as heck walks the line.

“however, your STRONG defense of rush limbaugh really bothers me. i'm not calling for him to be taken off the air and am mindful of your free speech argument. if you actually listen to this man for 5 minutes, however, it's really hard not to feel yourself enraged with anger. either at the people he's talking about or at himself for his hatred.”

Hatred is a strong word. We’ve listened to Rush off an on since we were in high school. He is not a man of hate. We’re not sure what exactly you’ve heard that makes you “enraged with anger”, so we’ll refrain from attempting to defend something we know nothing about.

this show, and shows like this, are harmful b/c they are so freakin' divisive.”

We’re not sure what you mean by “shows like this.” Since you admitted that you are mindful of free speech arguments, we’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you don’t mean conservative talk shows in general. If you did, then the sole “divisive” feature of the show would be its political leaning. This leaves us with either talk shows in general, which we doubt you meant, or else this is a reference to similar shows of hatred. We know of no such shows.

It’s not our position to offer an apology for Rush. We happen to think he’s generally an intelligent voice in the midst of increasingly noisy political discourse. We don’t always agree with him, but we generally do. More importantly, however, we recognize that Rush is a constant target of attack by those who disagree with him, and (like this recent instance) they generally choose to attack the person, rather than analyze the merits of what he has to say. Rush has often jumped to the defense of others when they have been attacked unfairly.

For once, we thought we’d do the same.

Say what you will, Rush Limbaugh is good at what he does

Harry Reid's latest political maneuver is absolutely disgusting, despicable, and contemptible. He does not deserve the title of Senator, he has no business representing our government, and even a place as corrupt as Las Vegas does not deserve such a dirty politician.

Most of you have probably heard the controversy over Rush Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" comment. As usual, Rush said nothing wrong. As usual, he was right. And as usual, those who oppose free speech and the free exchange of ideas intentionally, purposely, and maliciously twisted Rush's words. The goal? Make a self-proclaimed and outspoken American Patriot look like a hypocrite (Rush), while making these America hating "americans" look like actual patriots. Not only did multiple Senators use the floor of the U.S. Senate as a soapbox for defaming Limbaugh (see also the torts of slander and libel), but 40 Democrats signed a letter to the President of Clear Channel (radio syndicate that hosts Limbaugh) strongly encouraging him to confer with Limbaugh about Limbaugh's commetns. Translation: Make him stop staying stuff we don't like...or else. These weren't just any Democrats - these were the big dogs.

As the saying goes, never kid a kidder. Rush Limbaugh makes a living off of illustrating absurdity by being absurd. Which is why he put the letter on eBay, with the proceeds going to help the children of soldiers killed in the war. Rush promised personally to match the auction proceeds. It sold for $2.1 million. Rush kept his word. The Dems looked stupid. Brilliant.

This is where Reid gets disgusting. At 12pm today -- no coincidence, one hour before the auction ends and the start of Rush's daily radio show -- Reid went on the Senate floor and ATTEMPTED TO TAKE CREDIT FOR RAISING THE MONEY FOR the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation. Absolutely incomprehensible. The clip is here - Breitbart mislabels it as Reid's thank you to Limbaugh. It was no such thing. It was a blatant attempt by Reid to credit himself and the other 39 nutjob Democrats for the idea of putting the letter on eBay and giving the money to the kids.

This blatant lie and outright thievery makes me want to puke.

Reid criticized an American general. When that backfired, he chose to misrepresent a patriotic American and abuse his position as Senator by leveling personal attacks on a private citizen.
He further abused his power by threatening a radio syndicate to censure the speech of one of its shows, and when the historic letter documenting his and his hooligan cohorts' abuse of power was flipped around and used as a vehicle for good, Reid tried to take credit for the fruit of that creativity. Not only did he take credit, but he encouraged the members of teh Senate (and presumably the American people) to support the cause by bidding and/or contributing to the charity, but simultaneously refused to give a single dollar from his own pocket.

But that shouldn't surprise us. After all, Reid illegally uses campaign funds (i.e. other people's money) to tip the doormen at the Ritz Carlton (i.e. for his personal expenses).

Of course, who are we to talk? The only thing we've ever given the Ritz Carlton are $150,000 of stolen jewels.

Child's play in Iraq

Augustine wrote that "Moral character is assessed not by what a man knows but by what he loves." We would add that character, along with courage and leadership, is also assessed not by what a man says, but by what he does.

That's why we like this piece from American Thinker - it's thought provoking, if not right on the money. Whether it's current Congressmen or presidential hopefuls, Democrats or Republicans, we are growing weary of politicians who do more whining than working, and who's "new solutions" are nothing more than just recycled rhetoric.

It is true: government is run like a business, and many businesses are structured like our government. And yet most elected officials, if they acted as corporate directors they way they act as politicians, would be booted out by the shareholders quicker than you can say cumulative voting. Their ideas are as unoriginal as Gob Bluth, and their efficiency and productivity make Columbia's downtown Wendy's look like a well oiled machine.

Talk is cheap, Washington, and its a fact of life that you only get what you paid for. And just like any business, if the customer's don't get what they demand and deserve, they'll take their business somewhere else.