‘USA! USA! USA!’ (I’m Just Saying That Because It Bothers Liberals So Much)

Posted on Comments

It is unfortunately predictable that the success of the U.S. effort that killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan would result in finger-pointing, one-upsmanship and needless politicization. For example, Nate Silver at the New York Times:

To state the obvious, this is good news for Barack Obama’s re-election campaign. I can’t imagine a single, atomized piece of news, foreign or domestic, that would be better for the President.
Although the Republican candidates had not seemed especially interested in making an issue out of national security — perhaps because Mr. Obama’s foreign policy has been fairly hawkish and not clearly differentiated from theirs — it at the very least neuters the issue for them. It presumably will become a significant talking point for the President — the sort of thing that swing voters will be reminded of in a commercial on the eve of the 2012 elections.
The news will also, almost certainly, trigger a significant improvement in Mr. Obama’s approval rating.

All of which is inarguably true, but it does seem a rather narrow way of looking at an event of such magnitude. Meanwhile, on MSNBC this morning, Joe Scarborough implied that Democrats didn’t want bin Laden dead, praising Obama for “courage and leadership [in] saying no to his own base” and “going against his own ideological leanings.” Here’s video:

The folks at Think Progress are offended. But indeed it appears that there are liberals so clueless that they didn’t find bin Laden’s death a cause for celebration. Continue reading ‘USA! USA! USA!’ (I’m Just Saying That Because It Bothers Liberals So Much) →

Not In Agreement With Insty Here

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

Insty links Victor Davis Hanson on the topic of America being in decline when many indicators argue for improvement.

Like Britain just after World War II, we have a leadership class that fundamentally doesn’t like the country it leads as it is, and wants to change it into something . . . less.

Britain’s leadership class, which grew up shell-shocked from WWI, had tried to outlaw war in 1928. Clearly and early example of Progressive policies achieving spectacularly opposite results, a mere dozen years later. So, after to World Wars, all that was left for Britain to do was commence crumbling, empire first, home islands more recently.
So is that a fair comparison with our Progressive Ruling Class?
I’d contend that our PRC isn’t interested in replacing the U.S. with something less. I daresay they want to scuttle the country, for all intents and purposes, by gaffing off immigration and border security, letting unions price American labor out of the market, and turning our schools into incubators for Marxist zombies.
The demolition of the dollar is nearly complete, as spooky dudes contemplate discarding the dollar in favor of something. . .else. You sort of know that even fewer, less accountable people will be making Big Decisions at that point. In fairness, the Federal Reserve is a cancer, and so the rest of the world may see little choice but ditching the dollar.
No, my non-vote of confidence in the PRC is such that I doubt they care for the United States at all.
So let that be a bit of fuel for the Tea Parties.

Question: Why Doesn’t The CompSci Matter In Computer Science?

Posted on Comments

by Smitty (via Digg)

Here is Anna North in Jezebel.com with another pothole in the road to societal destruction: “Why Women In Computer Science Matter”. Gender actually doesn’t matter, Anna, but National Offend a Feminist Week is all about exploring twisty little intellectual mazes to furious effect, let’s see what you have to say.

. . .in an editorial today, the Crimson’s Irene Chen points out that sophomore declarations aren’t the whole story. She writes, Continue reading Question: Why Doesn’t The CompSci Matter In Computer Science? →

Paul Krugman: Invisible Pimp Hand Strongly Squeezes Gay Buttock Near You

Posted on Comments

by Smitty (via PuffHo)

Krugman begins his NYT editorial recounting that the whole Wall Street crisis occurred on Bush’s watch. *Yawn*

So what’s the solution? The answer is regulation that limits the frequency and size of financial crises, combined with rules that let the government strike a good deal when bailouts become necessary.

I guess in the twisted mind of Krugman, regulation is like free speech; the answer to bad regulation is. . .yes, more regulation! In my ideal world, Krugman and his ilk would be forced to study control theory, where they may learn that the wages of more regulation is an overdamped system. In an ideal world, it may be OK, because almost nothing happens. In reality, you get the USSR.
Less regulation. Smaller markets, where the risks are more transparent, and the government isn’t finger-faddling everything. Crashes are like winter, a natural part of the system, chum.

To see what’s really going on, follow the money. Wall Street used to favor Democrats, perhaps because financiers tend to be liberal on social issues. But greed trumps gay rights, and financial industry contributions swung sharply toward the Republicans in the 2010 elections. Apparently Wall Street, unlike the voters, had no trouble divining the party’s real intentions.

In my mind, Federalism looks very libertarian. The Federal government shouldn’t be interested in individuals, period. Interest in making a buck is a reasonable corporate goal. Caring about private behavior of people is not. What a decadent conflation you have there, Krugman
1

And one more thing: by standing in the way of regulations that would limit future financial crises, Republicans are giving further evidence that they don’t really care about budget deficits.

Krugman, your faith in regulation is truly religious, is it not? What sort of teleological point does regulation offer you, sir? What kind of afterlife does it promise, this regulation which you think can save you?
No, fixing budget deficits is going to be a result of trimming the Federal government back to its Constitutional bounds, twerp. Then an only then can the American people pursue salvation where they find it in an economic context that is as safe as anything born manually, invisible pimp hand or otherwise.

How Early Is Too Early To Warn Your Son About Those Girls? The Third Trimester?

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

National Offend A Feminist Week is the time that we celebrate all things good, lasting, and traditional, at the expense of the occasional harpy. This year’s celebration finds me especially exultant, as I have convinced my wife that my heritage is worth preserving in the human gene pool, in that most pre-historic, patriarchal and pre-Critical Theory sort of way: parenthood.
You can theorize, but you never know until faced with the reality of new life, just how daunting the challenges can be. For example, Nicholas Dietrich Smith (current working name for the lad, Lord willing he be born hale) could be faced with little girls toting guns instead of jump ropes:

can you believe this noise?
Because nothing says 'Trying to improve the situation' like giving a pump-action shotgun to a little girl.

Continue reading How Early Is Too Early To Warn Your Son About Those Girls? The Third Trimester? →

How Smitty Killed Osama bin Laden

Posted on Comments

By now, you’ve seen the headlines at Memeorandum:

Osama bin Laden Killed by U.S. Strike

Bin Laden Is Dead, Obama Says 

Sources: Al-Qaida head bin Laden dead 

BREAKING: BIN LADEN DEAD

Osama Bin Ladin Loses Popularity
and 30cc of Brain and Skull But
Mostly 30cc of Brain and Skull

Everyone was suspicious last year when Admiral Smith got his orders to deploy to Afghanistan. Why was this middle-aged naval reserve officer from Virginia being sent halfway around the world?

The cover story that he would be providing IT services for troops based in Kandahar and Bagram was plausible.

But of course, it would be. Nudge, nudge.

However, those of us who know Smitty to be a natural-born killer were deeply suspicious. Continue reading How Smitty Killed Osama bin Laden →

Obligatory Osama Post

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

Expressed in image form, I’m weighing in somewhere around here:
One suspects that this is The Real Deal. The political cost of Type II error, which would come in the form of a valid “Neener, neener, neener” tape from bin Laden, would be in the catastrophic range.
This is good news, obviously. Let us rejoice for the Commander in Chief. Bad onya to any conservatives who refuse to take a break from the Politics In Everything stance and give a little hurrah for the POTUS. Or at least be gracious like Gov. Sarah Palin. If he gets the blame for all that goes wrong, it’s unjust to deny him credit when something goes right. Oh, and a giant thumbs up to those bad mike foxtrots that conducted the operation, whatever form it took.
Osama is strategically significant. He hasn’t mattered much tactically since Tora Bora. His demise may open up a few more policy options for the administration. Denying him a 9/11 10th Anniversary gloat also falls in the ‘kinda nice’ category. Closure for the victims of 9/11 is great thing.
I sincerely hope that the Administration is deft in building upon this to improve the situation in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the broader region. Heaven knows a little letup is long overdue.
Again, props to the POTUS!
Actual news coverage available at Hot Air.
W’s reaction here.
And check Great Satan’s Girlfriend.
A word of caution: anyone who thinks this means the whole struggle is over is self-identifying as a rube.