I went to Notre Dame this weekend, and saw them lose their 9th game of the season. They lost to the Air Force Academy 41-24. Despite this season's abysmal record, this stadium was still packed (it's still ND football, after all), although tickets could be had outside the stadium for $10, alas.
The 105dB fighter jet flyover was really cool, even for the Irish fans.
I must say, Brady Quinn is missed (as is his favorite target, Jeff Samardzija); his picture is still all over the ladies' dorms. What was interesting to me was what I saw at the "Le Peep" Restaurant in Mishiwaka. The have signed photos from couple of celebrities, including a past Miss Indiana 2006, Betsy Uschkrat. There were two Brady Quinn Photos, both with scripture references written below the autograph. Here those references:
James 1:2-3:
Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance.
Proverbs3:5-6:
5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart
and lean not on your own understanding;
6 in all your ways acknowledge him,
and he will make your paths straight.
Maybe Joe Theisman was a little unfair for berating him for chewing gum and not having combed his hair when he was selected by the Cleveland Browns 2007 NFL draft. Or maybe the Bible verses were just for "the troops." But I thought his verse selection was worthy of note, and maybe he's the "real deal."
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Charles Schumer -- The Era of Reagan is Over
Let's not just pick on the junior senator from New York. Let's look at the senior senator, Charles Schumer.
Here's a recent quote of his:
“We’re about at the tail end of the Ronald Reagan era, where his ideas — fresh and, even as a Democrat, I’d say, many of them needed at the time — have just lost steam, lost resonance.”
--Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), 2007
The first comparable historic quote I thought of was this:
“So it is with a heavy heart that I assume the throne. Yet, out of the ashes of this tragedy, we shall rise to greet the dawning of a new era... {The hyenas start emerging, casting eerie green shadows and laughing hollowly}...in which lion and hyena come together, in a great and glorious future!”
--Scar, The Lion King, 1994
No more Hakuna Matata
Here's a recent quote of his:
“We’re about at the tail end of the Ronald Reagan era, where his ideas — fresh and, even as a Democrat, I’d say, many of them needed at the time — have just lost steam, lost resonance.”
--Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), 2007
The first comparable historic quote I thought of was this:
“So it is with a heavy heart that I assume the throne. Yet, out of the ashes of this tragedy, we shall rise to greet the dawning of a new era... {The hyenas start emerging, casting eerie green shadows and laughing hollowly}...in which lion and hyena come together, in a great and glorious future!”
--Scar, The Lion King, 1994
No more Hakuna Matata
Hillary -- One's First Wife
Back in 1992 some female reporter said George H. W. Bush wasn't popular with women voters because "he reminds every woman of her first husband." I guess some people knew what she meant, despite the fact that many women have either had only one husband or never married, and that even with some of his admittedly puzzling public policy stances Bush was a pretty solid and dependable guy (and a war hero). There were women who voted for GHWB who loved their husbands, something the harridan media elite wouldn't understand.
Now we're told that even large numbers of Republican women will get in the sanctum sanctorum of the voting booth and vote for Hillary. I hear that while Hillary will not carry the male vote, she will probably come close. She will supposedly also do very well with other traditional GOP constituencies. I assume most of this is either from push polls, or based on name ID. Maybe it's a result of spin from the Hillary camp and her water-carriers in the media -- the same type of people who trashed GHWB.
What I am not hearing (so I'll be the one to say it) is that despite ideology men in large numbers will vote for "ABH" (Anybody But Hillary) because she reminds them of their first wife. Even happily married men will vote against Hillary because she will remind them of somebody else's first wife. I've been married once, and for 23 years, and Hillary still reminds me of that octopus woman rising up from the sea at the end of Disney's The Little Mermaid. I can imagine what men who have gone through a bitter divorce must think.
Now we're told that even large numbers of Republican women will get in the sanctum sanctorum of the voting booth and vote for Hillary. I hear that while Hillary will not carry the male vote, she will probably come close. She will supposedly also do very well with other traditional GOP constituencies. I assume most of this is either from push polls, or based on name ID. Maybe it's a result of spin from the Hillary camp and her water-carriers in the media -- the same type of people who trashed GHWB.
What I am not hearing (so I'll be the one to say it) is that despite ideology men in large numbers will vote for "ABH" (Anybody But Hillary) because she reminds them of their first wife. Even happily married men will vote against Hillary because she will remind them of somebody else's first wife. I've been married once, and for 23 years, and Hillary still reminds me of that octopus woman rising up from the sea at the end of Disney's The Little Mermaid. I can imagine what men who have gone through a bitter divorce must think.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Rudy and the Christians
Rudy is the GOP front runner, and who woulda thunk it? He's pro-choice, pro-gun control, &c. Why is he the front runner?
He's cheerful and optimistic. Downright Reaganesque in this regard. Perhaps savoir faire and joie de vivre sometimes trump ideology (one of my pet theories).
But what should Giuliani say to the social conservatives to make sure he keeps his lead? My advice to Rudy is that he should say something like this:
"These days, we are all led to think we should either be overtly religious or else hostile to religion. But I can recall a day in which a person who has perhaps not been very religious in his life could nevertheless be respectful of religion. Remember the old movies? A not-so-pious character might take his hat off when a priest enters the room; or he might sincerely listen to the wisdom of an evangelical protestant minister. Well, ladies and gentlemen, I'm like that character in the old movies. Perhaps I haven't lived a life that lived up to someone's else's moral litmus test, but I will take my hat off to that priest, and will listen respectfully to that protestant minister. Jesus said 'render unto Ceasar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's'; I have done a good job in the role of Caesar in New York City. I have kept order -- a God-pleasing thing. And if I have failed to live up to God's high standards in the category of morals, please be aware that I am respectful of those who admonish me based on God's transcendent principles."
Why don't actual politicians ever say anything like this?
He's cheerful and optimistic. Downright Reaganesque in this regard. Perhaps savoir faire and joie de vivre sometimes trump ideology (one of my pet theories).
But what should Giuliani say to the social conservatives to make sure he keeps his lead? My advice to Rudy is that he should say something like this:
"These days, we are all led to think we should either be overtly religious or else hostile to religion. But I can recall a day in which a person who has perhaps not been very religious in his life could nevertheless be respectful of religion. Remember the old movies? A not-so-pious character might take his hat off when a priest enters the room; or he might sincerely listen to the wisdom of an evangelical protestant minister. Well, ladies and gentlemen, I'm like that character in the old movies. Perhaps I haven't lived a life that lived up to someone's else's moral litmus test, but I will take my hat off to that priest, and will listen respectfully to that protestant minister. Jesus said 'render unto Ceasar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's'; I have done a good job in the role of Caesar in New York City. I have kept order -- a God-pleasing thing. And if I have failed to live up to God's high standards in the category of morals, please be aware that I am respectful of those who admonish me based on God's transcendent principles."
Why don't actual politicians ever say anything like this?
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Turkey
Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, has apparently backed down from the resolution she had earlier pushed regarding Turkish genocide against the Armenians in 1915.
Now, this is an idea that surfaces from time to time. Armenian-Americans periodically urge their congress-critters to pass such a resolution.
Just why we should be doing this now, however, was a mystery to me. Eight years from now, in 2015, the centenary of this event would be marked. Marking the event at that time would represent nearly unanswerable timing for the Turks.
Coming now, however, I couldn't help but speculate that Ms. Pelosi was deliberately trying to undermine our war effort. We need the Turks in that part of the world; nevertheless, the Turks are at odds with the Kurds, a major constituent group of the Iraqi nation. And we want the Iraqi nation to succeed. To honor the slain Armenians at this time would be to antagonize the Turks, dissipate any leverage we might have with the Turks, and invite their incursion into northern Iraq against the Kurds.
I see today, however, that Ms. Pelosi has backed away from the resolution. Perhaps I misjudged her. On the knave-fool continuum, I had adjudged her a traitorous knave. I was mistaken. She appears now to be a clueless fool.
Now, this is an idea that surfaces from time to time. Armenian-Americans periodically urge their congress-critters to pass such a resolution.
Just why we should be doing this now, however, was a mystery to me. Eight years from now, in 2015, the centenary of this event would be marked. Marking the event at that time would represent nearly unanswerable timing for the Turks.
Coming now, however, I couldn't help but speculate that Ms. Pelosi was deliberately trying to undermine our war effort. We need the Turks in that part of the world; nevertheless, the Turks are at odds with the Kurds, a major constituent group of the Iraqi nation. And we want the Iraqi nation to succeed. To honor the slain Armenians at this time would be to antagonize the Turks, dissipate any leverage we might have with the Turks, and invite their incursion into northern Iraq against the Kurds.
I see today, however, that Ms. Pelosi has backed away from the resolution. Perhaps I misjudged her. On the knave-fool continuum, I had adjudged her a traitorous knave. I was mistaken. She appears now to be a clueless fool.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Dr. Granholm
The Michigan Republican Party (Saul Anuzis, Chairman), has put out a clever radio ad, in classic radio soap-opera style, dramatizing how a dying patient" (the Michigan economy) was killed by "Dr. Granholm," who raised taxes when even the medical support staff knew that this was the wrong treatment modality. Short and to the point.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Al Gore
Al Gore has just won the Nobel Peace Prize, but the inconvenient truth is that the folks at Nobel never rescinded Yasser Arafat's award, and Mr. Gore decided not to refuse the award on that basis. Nobel & Co. should have stuck to dynamite -- a useful product -- rather than continue to blow up the few remaining fragments of their credibility.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Yoko in Iceland
John Lennon’s widow, Yoko Ono, unveiled something called the "Imagine Peace Tower" on an island near Reykjavik, Iceland on what would have been John Lennon’s 67th Birthday. One would hope she refrained from singing.
Apparently, light will emanate from this monument in an eco-friendly manner each year from October 9 (Lennon’s Birthday) until December 8 (the day he was shot). If I lived in Iceland, I think I would rather see the aurora in the night sky, but, alas, I’m not an Icelander.
What really grated was when I heard on NPR that Yoko intoned that the enslaved and persecuted will be there each year, "in spirit," or some such nonsense. Would that John Lennon had never penned the execrable "Imagine," the lyrics of which glorify communism, the ideology that enslaved and persecuted more people than even National Socialism. Maybe then I’d be listening.
IMAGINE:
“No heaven”= atheism
“No possessions”=communism; dictatorship of the proletariat
“No countries”=international communism; one world government
“No possessions”=communist abolition of private property
Here are my rewritten lyrics to this song:
Imagine there's no heaven,
It's easy if you try,
What's right and what's wrong,
defined by the strongest guy,
Imagine all the people
bleeding in the streets...
Imagine there's no country,
It's easy if you dare,
Constantly on the run,
from tribal warfare,
Imagine all the people
in a Hobbesian nightmare...
You may say I'm a liberal,
but I'm not the only one,
I hope some day you'll join us,
And the world will die as one.
Imagine no possesions,
I wonder if you can,
No food and no shelter,
A famine in every land,
Imagine all the babies
Dying all over the world...
You may say I'm a liberal,
but I'm not the only one,
I hope some day you'll join us,
The founding fathers' work will be undone.
Copyright 2007, the Michigan Oracle
Apparently, light will emanate from this monument in an eco-friendly manner each year from October 9 (Lennon’s Birthday) until December 8 (the day he was shot). If I lived in Iceland, I think I would rather see the aurora in the night sky, but, alas, I’m not an Icelander.
What really grated was when I heard on NPR that Yoko intoned that the enslaved and persecuted will be there each year, "in spirit," or some such nonsense. Would that John Lennon had never penned the execrable "Imagine," the lyrics of which glorify communism, the ideology that enslaved and persecuted more people than even National Socialism. Maybe then I’d be listening.
IMAGINE:
“No heaven”= atheism
“No possessions”=communism; dictatorship of the proletariat
“No countries”=international communism; one world government
“No possessions”=communist abolition of private property
Here are my rewritten lyrics to this song:
Imagine there's no heaven,
It's easy if you try,
What's right and what's wrong,
defined by the strongest guy,
Imagine all the people
bleeding in the streets...
Imagine there's no country,
It's easy if you dare,
Constantly on the run,
from tribal warfare,
Imagine all the people
in a Hobbesian nightmare...
You may say I'm a liberal,
but I'm not the only one,
I hope some day you'll join us,
And the world will die as one.
Imagine no possesions,
I wonder if you can,
No food and no shelter,
A famine in every land,
Imagine all the babies
Dying all over the world...
You may say I'm a liberal,
but I'm not the only one,
I hope some day you'll join us,
The founding fathers' work will be undone.
Copyright 2007, the Michigan Oracle
Monday, October 1, 2007
Limbaugh and the "phony soldiers"
Frankly I'm getting tired of the amount of hyperbole in politics these days. What kind of fatuous lunatic do you have to be to actually believe that Rush Limbaugh really intended to insult US troops as a group? The man's pro-military statements have been borderline hagiographic for 20 years.
Maybe I'm guilty of the same thing by calling many Democratic members of Congress "fatuous lunatics." But don't they have something better to do than take one of Mr. Limbaugh's comments out of context, and in a bad-faith manner purposely convey a meaning 180 degrees from what he meant? Shouldn't they be passing legislation, or something?
On second thought . . .
Maybe I'm guilty of the same thing by calling many Democratic members of Congress "fatuous lunatics." But don't they have something better to do than take one of Mr. Limbaugh's comments out of context, and in a bad-faith manner purposely convey a meaning 180 degrees from what he meant? Shouldn't they be passing legislation, or something?
On second thought . . .
Hillary vs Obama
Barak Obama accused Hillary Clinton of having the “wrong” kind of experience to lead America. Hillary, of course, is touting her experience over the less-experienced junior Senator from Illinois. Obama portrayed Hillary as someone adept at gaming the system, in contrast to someone like himself who can bring about the kind of fundamental change this country needs.
Bill Clinton came to his wife’s defense, painting Obama as a callow youth ill-equipped to handle our current knotty foreign policy challenges. “We didn’t have the terror threat [in 1992]. We didn’t have the troops in Iraq . . . Her experience is more relevant and more compelling,” Clinton said.
Mr Obama, as if he had set up the whole exchange and had waited for this moment, replied with some of Mr Clinton’s own words to George H.W. Bush from 1992: “You can have the right kind of experience and the wrong kind of experience.” Hillary, again, has the “wrong kind of experience.”
I wish someone would have quoted Patrick Buchanan from 1992 (at that time speaking on the subject of the Arkansas governor’s lack of foreign policy experience):
“Bill Clinton's foreign policy experience stems mainly from having breakfast at the International House of Pancakes.”
Bill Clinton came to his wife’s defense, painting Obama as a callow youth ill-equipped to handle our current knotty foreign policy challenges. “We didn’t have the terror threat [in 1992]. We didn’t have the troops in Iraq . . . Her experience is more relevant and more compelling,” Clinton said.
Mr Obama, as if he had set up the whole exchange and had waited for this moment, replied with some of Mr Clinton’s own words to George H.W. Bush from 1992: “You can have the right kind of experience and the wrong kind of experience.” Hillary, again, has the “wrong kind of experience.”
I wish someone would have quoted Patrick Buchanan from 1992 (at that time speaking on the subject of the Arkansas governor’s lack of foreign policy experience):
“Bill Clinton's foreign policy experience stems mainly from having breakfast at the International House of Pancakes.”
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Spacey
Actor Kevin Spacey decided to go to Venezuela to visit dictator Hugo Chavez, joining Hollywood airheads Sean Penn and Danny Glover as tinseltown useful idiots.
"Spacey."
Aptly named.
"Spacey."
Aptly named.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Ahmadinejad at Columbia
Columbia could find no reason to exclude Ahmadinejad from speaking at the university.
Hey, if truth is relative, Columbia may as well be consistent and not discriminate between good and evil. I'd love to hear what criteria they use at Columbia to teach students to discriminate between truth and error, good and evil, "s*** and Shinola" (as grandpa used to say), etc.
Hey, if truth is relative, Columbia may as well be consistent and not discriminate between good and evil. I'd love to hear what criteria they use at Columbia to teach students to discriminate between truth and error, good and evil, "s*** and Shinola" (as grandpa used to say), etc.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Dan Rather
In commenting on Dan Rather's recent lawsuit, I can't do much better than review what I wrote 3 years ago:
September 10, 2004:
CBS was caught, having fallen for obviously forged documents purporting to show Bush's bad behavior while in the Texas Air National Guard. These documents were filled with the indicia of the modern word processor, not the 30+ year old typewriter. The superscript "th"; the "proportionate spacing"; the testimony from the conviently 20-years dead Jerry Killian's widow and son that Killian would never have written this stuff, all mean nothing to Dan Rather and CBS.
Rather than face the extreme embarrassment of having to admit that they've been "had", Dan Rather and CBS are just "gutting it out." They have enough trial lawyer friends at CBS to know that bad lawsuits can eventually be favorably settled, as long as one spends enough money on "expert witnesses" paid handsomely to support one's absurd position.
So expect Rather and Co. to intone solemnly on this, as if they are hot on the trail of the next "Watergate." Meanwhile, everyone else will be hot on the trail of the real story: That this is the next "Jayson Blair."
I am glad I went out on a limb early to say that the Bush National Guard memos shown recently on CBS's "60 Minutes" were forgeries. I have spoken to document experts before, and I recognized "authority" when I saw similar experts comment on these items.
September 13, 2004:
John Fund in the Wall Street Journal notes this:
"Earl Lively, director of operations for the Texas Air National Guard in the 1970s, told the Washington Times that the memos are 'forged as hell.'"
I would say they were "forged IN hell -- in the Devil's Smithy."
***
The yeoman efforts of Little Green Footballs in exposing this phony story only served to meticulously document the obvious. Anyone looking at the Bush National Guard memos could tell at a glance that they were done on a modern word processor and not a vintage typewriter. Expert analysis only reinforced this. Rather may feel that CBS breached their contract, hanging him out to dry and leaving him with a legacy of shame. While this lawsuit is about money, it is also about Mr. Rather trying to move himself out of the "knave-fool" continuum (where there currently is a split of opinion as to where on that continuum he resides). He would like to be seen as an honest journalist again, so he is asserting that he thinks the story was true. However, if he succeeds in convincing us that he actually believes this yarn, he'll only convince us that he's a fool. These documents were so obviously fraudulent that no one with his credentials could possibly fall for it, and, whether knave or fool, he was sacked "for cause."
I think he's banking on the belief that enough of US are fools and might actually believe him.
Mind you, he might admit again that the documents are "not verifiable" (he probably won't say "fraudulent," despite items like this, comparing one of the "1972" documents with the same text typed on MS Word in 2004. But what does it say about Dan Rather that he lacked the good sense to bail out on this story? Once again: Is he a knave or a fool?
I hope the lawyers on both sides charge the heck out of their clients, CBS and Rather. And in the end it would be great if they both could lose.
September 10, 2004:
CBS was caught, having fallen for obviously forged documents purporting to show Bush's bad behavior while in the Texas Air National Guard. These documents were filled with the indicia of the modern word processor, not the 30+ year old typewriter. The superscript "th"; the "proportionate spacing"; the testimony from the conviently 20-years dead Jerry Killian's widow and son that Killian would never have written this stuff, all mean nothing to Dan Rather and CBS.
Rather than face the extreme embarrassment of having to admit that they've been "had", Dan Rather and CBS are just "gutting it out." They have enough trial lawyer friends at CBS to know that bad lawsuits can eventually be favorably settled, as long as one spends enough money on "expert witnesses" paid handsomely to support one's absurd position.
So expect Rather and Co. to intone solemnly on this, as if they are hot on the trail of the next "Watergate." Meanwhile, everyone else will be hot on the trail of the real story: That this is the next "Jayson Blair."
I am glad I went out on a limb early to say that the Bush National Guard memos shown recently on CBS's "60 Minutes" were forgeries. I have spoken to document experts before, and I recognized "authority" when I saw similar experts comment on these items.
September 13, 2004:
John Fund in the Wall Street Journal notes this:
"Earl Lively, director of operations for the Texas Air National Guard in the 1970s, told the Washington Times that the memos are 'forged as hell.'"
I would say they were "forged IN hell -- in the Devil's Smithy."
***
The yeoman efforts of Little Green Footballs in exposing this phony story only served to meticulously document the obvious. Anyone looking at the Bush National Guard memos could tell at a glance that they were done on a modern word processor and not a vintage typewriter. Expert analysis only reinforced this. Rather may feel that CBS breached their contract, hanging him out to dry and leaving him with a legacy of shame. While this lawsuit is about money, it is also about Mr. Rather trying to move himself out of the "knave-fool" continuum (where there currently is a split of opinion as to where on that continuum he resides). He would like to be seen as an honest journalist again, so he is asserting that he thinks the story was true. However, if he succeeds in convincing us that he actually believes this yarn, he'll only convince us that he's a fool. These documents were so obviously fraudulent that no one with his credentials could possibly fall for it, and, whether knave or fool, he was sacked "for cause."
I think he's banking on the belief that enough of US are fools and might actually believe him.
Mind you, he might admit again that the documents are "not verifiable" (he probably won't say "fraudulent," despite items like this, comparing one of the "1972" documents with the same text typed on MS Word in 2004. But what does it say about Dan Rather that he lacked the good sense to bail out on this story? Once again: Is he a knave or a fool?
I hope the lawyers on both sides charge the heck out of their clients, CBS and Rather. And in the end it would be great if they both could lose.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Comments on Tasered University of Florida Student
I would hope no one would think I was advocating indifference to civil liberties violations by offering up a parody to the University of Florida incident in which the student was tasered. It is a bit chilling to think that the police could come in and taser a non-violent individual for trying to ask a question. However, I think this incident was a put-up job, as if the victim had read Carlos Marighella's "Mini-Manual" but who, instead of inspiring serious revolutionary activity, decided to create a farcical incident tailor-made for the YouTube age (recall that the Mini-Manual was de rigeur for 1970's Marxist revolutionaries).
When the storm troopers come, I hope I would have the courage to join with those with whom I who disagree on other matters and stand up to the thugs. But on a college campus, there is always a danger of youthful group-based overexubrance, and when things get heated, ugly incidents sometimes need to be put down before general mayhem ensues. In this case, I think if Mr. Kerry had the cojones he could have said, "Thirty seconds, man. I'll answer your question, but others have questions, too." Or maybe somebody with a bullhorn could have said the same thing. No one would have had to be tasered or arrested, if this guy was for real.
But this guy probably would have kept at it until he was physically confronted, yelling, "OW, OW!!" at every opportunity in order to show he was being repressed. This stunt would show how repressive the "powers that be" actually are.
It was Karl Marx who said, "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce." In the 1970's we had the Baader-Meinhof Gang / Red Army Faction. Now we have this guy. He was ripe for parody.
When the storm troopers come, I hope I would have the courage to join with those with whom I who disagree on other matters and stand up to the thugs. But on a college campus, there is always a danger of youthful group-based overexubrance, and when things get heated, ugly incidents sometimes need to be put down before general mayhem ensues. In this case, I think if Mr. Kerry had the cojones he could have said, "Thirty seconds, man. I'll answer your question, but others have questions, too." Or maybe somebody with a bullhorn could have said the same thing. No one would have had to be tasered or arrested, if this guy was for real.
But this guy probably would have kept at it until he was physically confronted, yelling, "OW, OW!!" at every opportunity in order to show he was being repressed. This stunt would show how repressive the "powers that be" actually are.
It was Karl Marx who said, "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce." In the 1970's we had the Baader-Meinhof Gang / Red Army Faction. Now we have this guy. He was ripe for parody.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Monday, September 17, 2007
The Detroit Lions
My Lions are 2-0.
Of course, the two wins were against two teams who were almost as, or more, hapless than the Lions were in 2006.
Nevertheless, I'll savor any Lion perfect record that is more than one week into the season.
Is Donovan McNabb less than 100%? If so, I can dream of a Lion victory next week at Philadelphia, and a 3-0 record. However, I'm prepared for a 2-6 record in a few weeks.
In case you don't know, being a Detroit Lions fan is a hereditary disease and there won't be any effective gene therapy developed in my lifetime. So here I am.
But whatever happens, Jon Kitna has proven himself as "the man."
Of course, the two wins were against two teams who were almost as, or more, hapless than the Lions were in 2006.
Nevertheless, I'll savor any Lion perfect record that is more than one week into the season.
Is Donovan McNabb less than 100%? If so, I can dream of a Lion victory next week at Philadelphia, and a 3-0 record. However, I'm prepared for a 2-6 record in a few weeks.
In case you don't know, being a Detroit Lions fan is a hereditary disease and there won't be any effective gene therapy developed in my lifetime. So here I am.
But whatever happens, Jon Kitna has proven himself as "the man."
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Greenspan and the free flow of oil
Drudge has a link to a Sunday Times of London article that quotes Alan Greenspan as saying the primary motive for going into Iraq is oil.
“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” said the former Fed chairman.
Well, so what?
The left will say, "See? See? It was about oil." The White House is probably thinking, "Great. Just what we need. Now everybody will think we went in there for a purpose that wasn't noble."
But what's not noble about keeping the oil flowing at market prices?
We can and should do more to make ourselves more energy independent. But for the time being, our "pursuit of happiness" is in no small measure powered by oil. If a soldier dies to keep the oil flowing, he dies so his somebody can afford to drive to her daughter's soccer game, or some liberal can drive to a peace rally. And so Cindy Sheehan can afford to travel to Crawford, Texas.
I suppose people don't need to drive to work or ship goods. If the free flow of oil is threatened, we should just say, "Wow, this is a tough break. I guess we'll just have to have another Great Depression."
So oil is not just about oil. Oil powers other things. And the free flow of oil insures a fair income to those who are selling it as well (which is fair to the people living in those countries, if they have consensual governments -- gee, just what Bush has been pushing).
I don't think Greenspan meant to say he thought the war was offensive to him. I think he meant to say, "This is the way it is; why not say so?"
Bush is afraid people will think his little cabal of oil people just want to make money. He invites this kind of speculation by being secretive about things that could be talked about openly. Why can't Bush say what I'm saying here? He probably doesn't trust people to accept it, so too many people don't trust him. Ronnie could have communicated it.
Any soldier who has died for the free flow oil has died for the American way of life as we know it, and has therefore died for freedom, just as American soldiers always have.
UPDATE: Since posting these thoughts, I've come across this clip from Peter Beinart and Jonah Goldberg in which they discuss the meaning of Greenspan's statement. Beinart seems to be saying one thing I pretty much had in mind but didn't get into, namely that oil in that region finances everything, and so everything, including human rights abuses, etc., seems to be connected to oil; whereas Goldberg seems concerned about the way the media uses a statement like Greenspan's to leave a reductionistic "blood for oil" conception in the public's mind. In any case, I agree with both that the war wasn't started primarily "to make Haliburton rich."
“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” said the former Fed chairman.
Well, so what?
The left will say, "See? See? It was about oil." The White House is probably thinking, "Great. Just what we need. Now everybody will think we went in there for a purpose that wasn't noble."
But what's not noble about keeping the oil flowing at market prices?
We can and should do more to make ourselves more energy independent. But for the time being, our "pursuit of happiness" is in no small measure powered by oil. If a soldier dies to keep the oil flowing, he dies so his somebody can afford to drive to her daughter's soccer game, or some liberal can drive to a peace rally. And so Cindy Sheehan can afford to travel to Crawford, Texas.
I suppose people don't need to drive to work or ship goods. If the free flow of oil is threatened, we should just say, "Wow, this is a tough break. I guess we'll just have to have another Great Depression."
So oil is not just about oil. Oil powers other things. And the free flow of oil insures a fair income to those who are selling it as well (which is fair to the people living in those countries, if they have consensual governments -- gee, just what Bush has been pushing).
I don't think Greenspan meant to say he thought the war was offensive to him. I think he meant to say, "This is the way it is; why not say so?"
Bush is afraid people will think his little cabal of oil people just want to make money. He invites this kind of speculation by being secretive about things that could be talked about openly. Why can't Bush say what I'm saying here? He probably doesn't trust people to accept it, so too many people don't trust him. Ronnie could have communicated it.
Any soldier who has died for the free flow oil has died for the American way of life as we know it, and has therefore died for freedom, just as American soldiers always have.
UPDATE: Since posting these thoughts, I've come across this clip from Peter Beinart and Jonah Goldberg in which they discuss the meaning of Greenspan's statement. Beinart seems to be saying one thing I pretty much had in mind but didn't get into, namely that oil in that region finances everything, and so everything, including human rights abuses, etc., seems to be connected to oil; whereas Goldberg seems concerned about the way the media uses a statement like Greenspan's to leave a reductionistic "blood for oil" conception in the public's mind. In any case, I agree with both that the war wasn't started primarily "to make Haliburton rich."
Friday, September 14, 2007
The Anti-War Crowd -- Not All on the Left
Newt Gingrich has said that there is an 80-20 chance the Democrats will take the White House next year. I am not sanguine about Republican chances in '08, but my view is that it's more like 60-40. The reason is that I refuse to underestimate the Democrats' ability to offend the American people.
The Democrats are in a bind. They may very well win the White House next year, and again, I put their chances at better than even. The Republicans have really screwed the pooch. But let's explore this bind I claim the Democrats are in:
The anti-war hard left is acting as if the majority of the country is in agreement with them. The Democratic candidates for president dare not cross them. But why?
Think about it: Whenever the President orders a military attack, the polls immediately report presidential approval ratings of, say, 80%. Now let's assume that 80% of the people would approve of an invasion if America were able to invade and take care of business in an expeditious fashion. Invariably, however, victory takes a little longer, and the approval ratings sink.
It is my view (and forgive me for using rough estimates) that perhaps 20% of the country is of the hard, anti-war left. On the other extreme, perhaps 20% would like us to nuke Iran, China, etc., tomorrow. The rest are in the middle. The problem is that if half of the country is Democratic, and all of the hard lefties are in the Democratic fold, then 40% -- or nearly half -- of the democratic coalition is of the hard, anti-war left, even though they are on the fringe when the whole of the population is considered. So no wonder the Democratic candidates need to kow-tow to them.
But the hard, anti-war position is a loser in the general election. George McGovern found that out in 1972 in the midst of the unpopular Vietnam War -- when he lost 49 states -- even his own south Dakota. Calling General Petraeus "General Betray-Us" is a losing proposition of the same type.
It is my view that many of the people who initially cheer an invasion have not seriously analyzed their position, and when victory is not immediately forthcoming, they turn against the effort even if our people are still in the field. But if my analysis is correct, many of these new anti-war people are anti-war not because "war is dangerous for children and other living things" (as the 60's poster read) but because they would have liked to have seen more PROGRESS on the war front, and they have lost patience with a president who refuses to change tactics and who has allowed himself -- and the country -- to get mired down in a "quagmire."
In sum, I think half of the anti war sentiment in this country consists of people who think we haven't fought this war in the George Patton / William Tecumseh Sherman fashion. Assuming they're all receptive to a flower-power campaign is a ticket to another GOP victory.
Hillary Clinton understands this. I think most of the others do as well. If they can dance on this tightwire (sounding like an American, yet not getting the nutroots too upset) and they can perhaps avoid falling Karl Wallenda-like in November 2008, and the White House will be theirs. But is won't be as easy as many think.
The Democrats are in a bind. They may very well win the White House next year, and again, I put their chances at better than even. The Republicans have really screwed the pooch. But let's explore this bind I claim the Democrats are in:
The anti-war hard left is acting as if the majority of the country is in agreement with them. The Democratic candidates for president dare not cross them. But why?
Think about it: Whenever the President orders a military attack, the polls immediately report presidential approval ratings of, say, 80%. Now let's assume that 80% of the people would approve of an invasion if America were able to invade and take care of business in an expeditious fashion. Invariably, however, victory takes a little longer, and the approval ratings sink.
It is my view (and forgive me for using rough estimates) that perhaps 20% of the country is of the hard, anti-war left. On the other extreme, perhaps 20% would like us to nuke Iran, China, etc., tomorrow. The rest are in the middle. The problem is that if half of the country is Democratic, and all of the hard lefties are in the Democratic fold, then 40% -- or nearly half -- of the democratic coalition is of the hard, anti-war left, even though they are on the fringe when the whole of the population is considered. So no wonder the Democratic candidates need to kow-tow to them.
But the hard, anti-war position is a loser in the general election. George McGovern found that out in 1972 in the midst of the unpopular Vietnam War -- when he lost 49 states -- even his own south Dakota. Calling General Petraeus "General Betray-Us" is a losing proposition of the same type.
It is my view that many of the people who initially cheer an invasion have not seriously analyzed their position, and when victory is not immediately forthcoming, they turn against the effort even if our people are still in the field. But if my analysis is correct, many of these new anti-war people are anti-war not because "war is dangerous for children and other living things" (as the 60's poster read) but because they would have liked to have seen more PROGRESS on the war front, and they have lost patience with a president who refuses to change tactics and who has allowed himself -- and the country -- to get mired down in a "quagmire."
In sum, I think half of the anti war sentiment in this country consists of people who think we haven't fought this war in the George Patton / William Tecumseh Sherman fashion. Assuming they're all receptive to a flower-power campaign is a ticket to another GOP victory.
Hillary Clinton understands this. I think most of the others do as well. If they can dance on this tightwire (sounding like an American, yet not getting the nutroots too upset) and they can perhaps avoid falling Karl Wallenda-like in November 2008, and the White House will be theirs. But is won't be as easy as many think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
