Rule 5 Sunday

by Smitty

Rule 5 Sunday returns, flush with URLs from National Offend A Feminist Week. What a pleasant challenge, attempting to figure out which posts should be FMJRA, and which should be Rule 5. So I blew off thinking about it, and just wrote the post.

There is your Rule 5 Sunday post. Peace and relaxation to all.

Go, Pamela!

Excuse the recto-cranial inversion that prevented me from previously noticing that longtime blog buddy Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs has a new book coming out.

The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America, written in collaboration with Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch, also a blog buddy, will be published in July by Simon and Schuster, but you can pre-order now at Amazon.com.

A note to reviewers and interviewers: Never call her “Pam.” She hates “Pam.” It’s always “Pamela” which, as linguistic scholars will note, is the Greek word for “honey.”

But don’t call her “honey,” either. Unless you’re a longtime blog buddy.

Exit Question: Will the Los Angeles Times assign the book review to Charles Johnson?

Exit Question 2: Speaking of Greek words, what’s the Greek word for “bailout“? And what’s the Greek word for “hell, no“?

If the Tea Party Movement Is Racist . . .

. . . does that make Bob Bennett a Magic Negro? I’m just asking, because the basic argument of Tea Party-bashers (like Charles Blow) can be summarized by the syllogism:

  • The Tea Party movement is anti-Obama;
  • Obama is black;
  • Ergo, the Tea Party movement is racist.

Which means that Bob Bennett must be black, or else Charles Blow is full of crap. And if you think Charles Blow is full of crap, you’re obviously a racist.

Remember: There are 5 A’s in raaaaacism.

People Of AZ And CA: Pay No Attention To Utah. I Repeat. . .

by Smitty

The top story is that Robert Bennett has been uninvited to a fourth term representing Utah as a GOP Senator. Also, it seems that he may not be allowed to try his hand at Liebermanism.

Just A Conservative Girl has the summary:

Senator Bob Bennett, 76, was given his walking papers today from the Utah GOP Convention. He was ousted on the second ballot earlier today. Bennett has been in office since 1992 even though he initially said he would only serve two terms.

Bennett has voted for mandated insurance, the wall street bailout, and is known for his earmarks. A combo that seems to be the kiss of death this election cycle. The Senator also spends little time with his constitutions and addressing their concerns. He has a war chest for his re-election that is said to be in the millions. During his last election he never ran an ad on television and yet still won with 69% of the vote. Another words, he figured he could stay in the senate as long as he wanted and to heck with the people he was there to represent.

Possibly a little bit harsh there. Let us be charitable and say Bennett did what he saw as his job, and the people of Utah re-arranged key parameters of that job for him, as is their prerogative.

Mark In Spokane makes a key point, emphasis mine:

A key thing to note about the Tea Party movement is that it isn’t necessarily friendly to Republicans, particularly establishment Republicans (like Bennett). It is friendly towards politicans who want to reform the federal government. As I keep saying, the Tea Party folks have a lot of similiarity to the Perot votes[sic] in the early and mid-1990’s.

Yes, I was one of those. You can flog me for splitting the conservative ticket in 1992, and I have two replies, both named George.

Back at the post title, what should AZ and CA glean from this? Is it possible to send RINO Johnny McCain off to work on his memoir after the 24 August primary? Does the fact that Carly Fiorina has the moneybags and is ensconced with The Right People mean that she gets the nod on 08 June to run against Boxer/Kaus?

Chris Cassone sent a link to a strongly critical essay by

Jim Riley (“Shemp” in King Obama video and King of Riley’s Farm), who very astutely summarizes what, at least I, am thinking about this debacle of another RINO at the top. And I got caught up in the Palinmania at Searchlight. It was hard not to… but rational conservative thought wins the day.

Read the whole thing, but here is the heart of Riley’s point:

How do you defeat the conservative movement? From the inside. You put up a war hero like John McCain, whose personal courage can’t be questioned but who has so little respect for our Constitution, he would have shut down the 1st Amendment 60 days before an election. You let people like Jihad-sympathizing Grover Norquist dominate gatherings like CPAC, because he can raise money, and then you send boys off to war behind leaders too timid to call Islam the enemy. You lionize a flag-waiving, gun-toting, beautiful mom, like Sarah Palin, who loves her country, but is too shallow to understand that endorsing global warming John McCain and shouting “drill, baby, drill” just do not compute. You have Fox News tell us just enough of the truth to garner our sympathies, but then you have Glen Beck calling Geert Wilders a fascist for exposing Islam, (and you watch Rupert move his headquarters to Dubai.) You ask for a limited government, but then you steer clear of the very social conservatism, the values vote, that would make limited government possible.

In short, you muddy the waters, you weaken the cure, you promote cowardice in the ranks. You make people think that the Republican party is your last best hope, that Fox News is “the only thing we’ve got,” that above all, we just need to put up someone who can win–even if, um, that person doesn’t represent our cause very well. You create heroes who aren’t really heroes, and leaders who aren’t really leaders, and then you fail to identify them for what they are — traitors. You look with contempt on a “purity test,” because that, after all, would make the conservative cause true, simple, and victorious. The enemy of the socialist, the radical environmentalist, the globalist, and the corporate monopolist is mental and moral clarity. You pretend that you want another Ronald Reagan, but if someone rises in the ranks, with Reagan’s clear moral vision, you make sure he’s defeated in the primary.

Dispassionately now, we can all agree that we’re in a bad position. The quibbling comes from thumb wrestling over evolutionary verses revolutionary change.

While I have precious little confidence in the Grungy Old Poobahs (GOP), and would not mind seeing McCain and Fiorina get the Bennett treatment, what really matters is:

  • Maximum expression in the primaries.
  • Quick reformation behind the primary victor.
  • Primary victors allowing reasonable policy modulation from all supporters, not just their initial ones.

The point of our representative democracy is that the name emerging victorious represent everyone. The overaching sin of the current administration is that its executive thinks people voted for Barack Obama, when, in fact, they voted for a President. Too much time spent at higher societal altitudes is a major input to this sort of confusion. Hopefully CA and AZ voters will help Fiorina and McCain deal with the ailment by choosing DeVore and Hayworth.

Further thoughts:

Linked By The Mighty Gerard! UPDATE: NOAFW Badge Of Honor

by Smitty (h/t Obi’s Sister via email)

This blog is honored to have had National Offend A Feminist Week show up on this famous radar.
We salute Gerard for great taste in beverage assistants and excellent fire control.

Update: WyBlog has the NOAFW badge of honor!

UPDATE (RSM): Allow me to suggest that Mr. Wysocki could use some work on his phraseology:

“[G]et me some f—ing coffee, ok bitch?”

No, no, sir! Patriarchal oppression in the workplace is far more effective when you employ diminuitive endearments, in the manner of a hard-boiled film noir tough guy. Get yourself into the mindset of Bogey or Mitchum, circa 1947. Nobody’s ever heard of that ugly loudmouth Betty Friedan, and the first “sexual harassment” lawsuit is still a good 30 years in the future.

So you say, “Get me another cup of coffee, sweetheart.”

Naturally, the little lady is grateful for the opportunity to make you happy. The “sweetheart” just shows what a big-hearted softy you really are, underneath all that rugged manliness.

Take notes, fellas. This could be on the final.

An Incendiary Speech, Purportedly By A UCLA Prof

by Smitty (via SaveThisCountry)

Sure, it’s tough rhetoric. However, there is little context. The speaker is purportedly a UCLA professor. No name or date associated.

My suggestion is to watch, think, and under-react. History and Economics will likely bulldoze the South American Socialist countries the professor touts. It’s fair to guess that, when Chavez is done destroying Venezuela, this goofball professor will blame a capitalist plot.

To quote the Captain, Road Prison 36: “Some men you just can’t reach.”

Update: Gateway Pundit is a bit more exercised. Oddly, as a military type, my threshold for concern seems a lot higher. Surround him with people who ask factual questions, point, and laugh, say I.

Update II: American Power adds more details: This is Ron Gochez, and the speech is from 2007. And the gentleman appears not to have improved much with age.

I Just Don’t Buy The ‘Fat Finger’ Excuse

by Smitty

Terry Jones on Front Page repeats the assertion that somebody hit ‘B’ when they meant ‘M’ and load-shed an awful lot of Proctor and Gamble, sending the Dow into Stuka mode. Jones then throws out the idea that there will be a ‘do over’ for these ‘accidental’ trades.

Something I’ve figured out in the time I’ve been doing information systems is that among the major goals is to protect the data from users and users from data. The amounts of money involved are staggering. The negative side effects for permitting noise data inputs are severe. We’re expected to believe that the system doesn’t require some sort of approval chain to make large-magnitude moves?
Continue reading I Just Don’t Buy The ‘Fat Finger’ Excuse →