The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Nolte Notion At Breitbart: Ann Romney As Sarah Palin Surrogate

Posted on | April 13, 2012 | 26 Comments

by Smitty

From the Well-That-Makes-Inverted-Lefty-Sense Department:

Ann Romney stepped into the White House’s line of fire by handling the situation … with absolute perfection.
And as she did, let me assure you, Obama’s Media Palace Guards completely freaked out.
Welcome to what will surely become “Palin II: The Nuclear Option.”
We all remember how John McCain so shook up the 2008 race with the VP choice of Governor Sarah Palin, that awful, terrible, no good college-educated, self-made mayor and governor who raised herself a lovely family. And we all remember, how for these sins, a full-court media rampage immediately began that was determined to destroy her. The media lied about Sarah Palin’s record, lied about the massive crowds that came out to see her, and worst of all, they attacked her children.
What we learned from this is that when it comes to protecting the Left and most especially Barack Obama, any virtue the other side holds that might hurt Their Precious One, must be annihilated. Furthermore, Ann Romney isn’t just an asset to her husband’s campaign, she’s also a direct threat to the very heart of Obama’s cynical reelection plans.

Seen through that lens, the Progressive War on Women comes partly into focus. Like the over-the-top assault on Rush Limbaugh over the Sarah Fluke disparagement, which had apparently been on the shelf for a while before instantiation, this seemingly random attack on Ann makes more sense as a leftover attack on Sarah Palin that was dusted off and launched.

Propaganda, too, begs for recycling. The Left invested so much effort into demonizing Sarah Palin that they probably couldn’t help themselves even with a 12-step program.

Given the Limbaugh-limbo and the Romney-o-rama, the Bush whacking this summer promises to be so excruciating, you’ll think yourself in Germany and W of Semitic extraction. This is because, as I realized this afternoon and commented on another post, Progressivism is an allergy to reality, and therefore must always be on the attack.

And here she goes:

Oh, play it, Rush:
I knows me some funny, and that there’s a hoot.

Update: via Instapundit, here is another important point:

This is not just a war of tired old feminists who are trying to justify the fact that most of them paid illegal, undereducated women, many of whom speak little or no English, to raise their children. This transcends Leftist feminist sensibilities and touches upon a core issue in statism — namely, who raises the children?
A small, but relevant, digression here: One of the most interesting books I’ve ever read is Joshua Muravchik’s Heaven On Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism. The title is self-explanatory. I highly recommend the book, simply because it’s so good, but I mention it here because of the chapter involving Israeli kibbutzim, which were intended to represent the purest form of voluntary socialism. Part of the socialist experiment was that children would be raised, not within family units, but as part of the cooperative. Only in that way could the kibbutz defeat unhealthy, selfish individualism and assure a new generation of people dedicated to the movement.

This triggers an idea for a truly bad combination Greek tragedy and Southern romance novel: Antigone with the Wind.

Louis Farrakhan Will Never …

Posted on | April 13, 2012 | 8 Comments

. . . have a column at National Review:

“White folks don’t produce black children — except [if] it‘s a white woman with a black man or a black man with a white woman and that’s the end of your race. So you’re dying a natural death these days. And without an AK47 ’cause the brother ain’t shooting no blanks.”

I’d denounce him, but you know who denounces Farrakhan? Racists!

If The Strategy Was Always Propaganda, Why Is A Charging Instrument That Sounds Like The Squawk Of A Sexually Aroused Gas Mask A Surprise?

Posted on | April 13, 2012 | 33 Comments

by Smitty

Allahpundit is confused, probably because he’s screwing up and attempting rational analysis of a Lefty ploy again:

I don’t understand Corey’s strategy in charging him with murder two. Maybe she thinks Zimmerman will plead to a lesser charge, but if it’s anything less than manslaughter she’s going to take tremendous heat for having gone too easy on him. That’s a weird predicament for a politically-minded prosecutor to put herself in. She’ll take some heat even if she gets him to cop to manslaughter, in fact, since manslaughter is a crime of simple negligence and people who want him prosecuted believe Zimmerman’s far more morally culpable than that. (This is all assuming he’d be willing to make a deal, which, given the weakness of the charging instrument, he probably isn’t.) In fact, I also don’t get why she insisted on filing an affidavit of probable cause instead of taking the case to a grand jury. If they refused to indict him, she could have blamed them for him getting off and claimed she’d given it her best effort. As it is, if Dershowitz is right, her own affidavit’s about to be tossed by a judge and then she’ll have to answer for why she couldn’t even get to first base on a conviction.

Allah, Allah, Allah. If the Left had facts, they’d pound the facts. If they had law, they’d pound the law. Having neither, they’re setting up to pound the courts.

Law is based upon reason, and a reasonable person sees through the farce at work, as the truly sad death of a little boy is molded, claylike, into something completely different. The judge is going to apply reason, and reject this, and the Left is going to cry foul. And there will be an appeal. And it will fail upward, rolling up to the SCOTUS, if possible.

The Left will blame the courts, and try to use this as a rallying point to whip up the troops about these ‘activist’ judges who are denying ‘justice’ to Trayvon. What a despicable, evil act that will be, if it unfolds that way. I’d like to be wrong, but the patter of the last three years is nothing if not consistent in its diabolical, omnidirectional attack on all we hold dear.

The interesting question, after all this, will be George Zimmerman’s take. He’s being crucified on the false cross of the Left’s quest for power. Does he break, and blame himself, or does he realize what a sick, Satanic scam the Left is running?

Admittedly obscure title reference:

Warning: Brain-Bleach Shortage!

Posted on | April 13, 2012 | 22 Comments

Inadvertantly caused by Ed Morrissey:

NOW President Terry O’Neill ignores the First Rule of Holes (stop digging!) and provides another cycle for Republicans to defend Ann Romney and stay-at-home moms. Instead of leaving bad enough alone, O’Neill appeared on Ed Schultz’ MSNBC show last night and attempted to rewrite Hilary Rosen’s faceplant . . .

“Holes . . . Hilary Rosen faceplant”?

You’re twisted and depraved, Ed. We will not soon forgive you for that mental image. Also, this video of The Other Ed:

If a woman’s choices were (a) Ed Schultz or (b) lesbianism, could anyone really blame her for choosing (b)?

Meanwhile, guess who is accusing the Catholic League of “hate” for “raising the wholly irrelevant issue of Hilary Rosen’s sexuality”?

You know who doesn’t think Hilary Rosen’s sexuality is wholly irrelevant? Hilary Rosen. Maggie’s Notebook chronicles Rosen’s radical “transformative” activism with her ex-partner, Elizabeth Birch. And Donald Douglas writes at American Power:

So let’s be honest here: Rosen’s homosexuality has everything to do with how she sees family, motherhood, and work. . . .
Just because someone is gay doesn’t mean you can’t talk about how their gayness radicalizes their politics.

No one is proposing to infringe on Hilary Rosen’s constitutional right to plant her face wherever she chooses, but . . . Wait a minute: Jay Carney personally knows three people named “Hilary Rosen”?

Read all about the White House “suicide pact” with CNN.

Lena Dunham, Sandra Fluke, Joy McCann

Posted on | April 13, 2012 | 70 Comments

One of them’s got an HBO series called Girls and has been called “The Voice of Her Generation,” because . . . I dunno, because magazine editors need angles for feature stories. Anyway, 26-year-old Lena Dunham says (perhaps unintentionally) revealing things in interviews:

If you notice my mincey language, it’s just that I’m still shedding the fact that I went to Oberlin College and if you slightly mangled your women’s/gender studies pronouns, you’d be sent to some Guantanamo for liberal arts students. . . .
I know that sex is in itself a political act, and that can’t be denied.

Another young mind permanently warped by feminism, you see. Frank Bruni of the New York Times comments on her opus:

You watch these scenes and other examples of the zeitgeist-y, early-20s heroines of “Girls” engaging in, recoiling from, mulling and mourning sex, and you think: Gloria Steinem went to the barricades for this? Salaries may be better than in decades past and the cabinet and Congress less choked with testosterone. But in the bedroom? What’s happening there remains something of a muddle, if not something of a mess.

What is happening, of course, is the increasing failure of what anthropologists would call “pair-bonding,” which is in turn related to the waning of what economists would call “division of labor.” Complementarity — the idea that men and women are fundamentally different, and that these differences are essential to their cooperative partnership — has been rejected in favor of competition, under a legal/political/cultural regime based on a zero-sum game.

The entire Sandra Fluke controversy was played out in this context: Women go to law school. If women law students don’t have contraceptives, they can’t have sex without risking pregnancy, and motherhood would hinder their education and career advancement. Therefore, the university must be compelled to pay for women law students to get contraception, or else the women are being victimized by the Oppressive Hegmonic Patriarchy.

Veruca Salt, feminist: “I want the whole works and I want it now!”

Woe betide anyone who responds to this imperative demand by suggesting that maybe Georgetown Law students should keep their britches on, or who points out that students attending a school where tuition is $46,865 a year might be able to spare $9 a month for birth-control pills. Read more

No, Whoopi, Rosen Said Precisely What She Was To Say

Posted on | April 13, 2012 | 25 Comments

by Smitty

Thanks, Whoopi. I’ve personally never failed to value my mother’s decades of commitment to the vocation of raising well-adjusted children:

On the other hand, rolling over for Hilary Rosen shows a lack of critical thinking. #OccupyResoluteDesk and his lackeys have reached the point where they are guilty until proven innocent, in my mind. That’s a suck-tacular result; we’re raised to offer the benefit of the doubt. That, too is a piece of American Exceptionalism that bears restoration.

Nice Deb rounded up yesterday’s study in ‘Fogress’, and Rush Limbaugh, unexpectedly, falls short of buying the White House story. Further love from a couple more great ladies, Just a Conservative Girl and The Lonely Conservative.

Update: linked by Da Tech Guy.

GOOD NEWS!

Posted on | April 13, 2012 | 20 Comments

The insanity defense works for smoking in an airport:

Denver Police say they’re not going to investigate a case involving a woman who stripped naked at Denver International Airport on Tuesday. . . .
The woman was reportedly upset and was taken to a local hospital for a mental evaluation.

Judging from available photos, the woman was a Reubensque natural blonde. More background on the case:

A female passenger at Denver International Airport caused a stir Tuesday morning when she stripped naked inside Concourse B, airport officials said.
The incident happened at about 8:45 a.m. when, according to DIA spokeswoman Jenny Schiavone, the woman was caught smoking a cigarette at gate B81, in a non-smoking area.
At some point after airport workers told her to extinguish the cigarette, the woman took off her clothing. It wasn’t immediately clear why. However, Denver Police say it was unrelated to the smoking issue.

So if you’re caught smoking in an airport, just take off all your clothes and plead insanity. We’ve all been under enormous psychological pressure lately. There are unconfirmed rumors that this unindentified passenger is a Republican who found herself unable to cope with the realization that Mitt Romney will be her party’s presidential nominee.

Post-Primary Traumatic Stress Disorder strikes again . . .

If An Academic Says It, That Makes It OK

Posted on | April 13, 2012 | 22 Comments

by Smitty

Check out this picture of the World’s Youngest Blogger a year ago:

Via Breitbart:

Two medical ethicists connected to Oxford University are arguing in Oxford’s Journal of Medical Ethics that babies have no moral status, and can be killed because they are only “potential persons” rather than “actual persons.” They also argue that if a newborn is disabled, it can be killed.
The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said in their defense, “The goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises.” When asked about the threats made against the article’s authors, he casually categorized them as “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.”

Here he is today, reacting to this wretchedness:

Lord have mercy.

Udpate: linked by Da Tech Guy. Go, Pete!

« go backkeep looking »

    About

    This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

    Subscribe to our feed

    Search

    Admin