Posted on April 15, 2006
Has a face.
Yep. That pretty much makes sense.
Update: You read the article of course. So now you know that it’s all summat to do with a father she never met, cigarettes, faux booze, Newt Gingrich and blog post comment-gazing: 10. 20. Two hundred. Ooh!
Oh, yes: And Darfur.
We all blog for different reasons, I suppose, and for your essential primal scream relaxation technique, a blog probably has lower life cycle costs than psychotherapy. And I suppose that if you’re condemned to greet the morning every day not with light heart and glad hope but rather with simmering rage and glowing anger, having realized that your favored 2004 presidential candidate still isn’t in office, it’s probably useful to know that there are others – many others – who feel just like you do.
To re-discover the what the warm love of the angry left feels like in those comment holes, take a gander at this HuffPo post by Joe Klein, wherein the Time magazine writer attempts to clarify the difference between right-thinking liberals on the one hand, and hate-America leftists on the other. It’s a distinction that the left-leaning Klein should have been qualified to make, if I’m any judge. But apparently I’m not: It’ll quickly become clear to you in his coments that liberals or leftists or what-have-you’s DO NOT HATE AMERICA!
The just HATE YOU, Joe Klein! You BASTARD!
Back To The Index
Posted on March 8, 2006
When, under pressure, a politician blurts out the truth?
The people doing the fighting think it’s going pretty well. The people doing the writing think the whole thing is doomed. Has been, really, ever since that sandstorm. That was when the tide shifted:
Posted on April 17, 2006
No – not the angry one. That left, with its childish temper tantrums, potty-language-as-a-substitute-for-rational-debate and moaning, self-indulgent navel gazing has gotten quite a bit more attention than they really deserve, and a period of reflective silence from them would be very much appreciated.
I’m talking about the classical “liberals,” the way the word used to be defined: The post-enlightenment political ideology of those who wanted to extend and protect the liberties and rights (both personal and property) of individuals against tyrannies of all sorts, whether those tyrants be national fascist regimes, or antagonistic aggregations of aggrieved interest groups demanding obeisance to their own definitions of moral propriety. People who understood that because democratic majorities could also be tyrannies, that the principal role of a properly drawn constitution was to protect individuals from the potential depredations of the state:
Posted on January 16, 2006
Interesting read yesterday in the San Diego Union-Tribune on the Greek tragedy which has become the life of Randy “Duke” Cunningham.
Tue – July 19, 2005
Josh Chafetz * of the Oxblog sends us to an article written by Johns Hopkins University Professor Eliot Cohen.
In it, Cohen is asked three questions, but it’s the last that gives plangent context to the first two:
You supported the Iraq war when it was launched in 2003. If you had known then what you know now, would you still have been in favor of it?
You are a military historian; what does the history of war have to tell us about the future of Iraq?
Your son is an infantry officer, shipping out soon for Iraq. How do you feel about that?
You owe it to yourself to see how he answers.
** Link gone – Ed.
Posted: Tue – November 23, 2004
On the Fourth Estate
Have you noticed since the election ended that all of the people who actually make a living being partisans have pretty much gone back to the business of running the government, or running the opposition? All of the wilder threats and accusations have pretty much faded into dark. No one’s talking about the draft, or gran’s social security or taxing and spending. It’s an off year, and we’re back to the business of governing.
Posted: Mon – August 30, 2004 at 06:24 PM
From time to time, I’ve had the occasion to discuss why I won’t argue America’s interaction with the world from a zero-sum, morally neutral point of view.
Here’s why .
Atefeh Rajabi appears to have been a fairly normal 16-year-old: sulky, disobedient, and eager to have sex. In London, those attributes earn lectures from parents and teachers on the importance of acting responsibly and not being offensive. In the city of Neka in Iran, where Atefeh Rajabi comes from, they get you hauled up in front of a judge.
Atefeh’s typical teenage behaviour meant that she was charged and found guilty of “acts incompatible with chastity”. The judge in the Islamic court ruled that the appropriate penalty was death. That’s right: death. Her sentence was confirmed by Iran’s Supreme Court.
And that penalty was carried out, by hanging her from a crane in full view of the city. Pour encourage les aûtres.