tweedy snobs

John Derbyshire:

THE ECONOMIST endorsing Kerry? Feu! Listen:

"Still, on social policy, Mr. Kerry has a clear advantage: unlike Mr Bush he is not in hock to the Christian right. That will make him a more tolerant, less divisive figure on issues such as abortion, gay marriage and stem-cell research."

So being in hock to the modern left makes you non-divisive? Looking the other way while arrogant leftist state judiciaries re-define marriage is not divisive?

The "Christian right" isn't some gang of desperadoes holed up in a cave in Idaho; we are a vast swathe of the U.S. public. How "tolerant" will John Kerry be towards *us*?

There is no cause to be surprised, though. THE ECONOMIST has more positions an American conservative will disagree with than otherwise: on immigration, capital punishment, same-sex marriage... practically any social issue, in fact. This is a bunch of tweedy snobs, remember, whose understanding of U.S. society has some quite large gaps

The spin we've been subjected to on who is "divisive" makes my head spin. One lefty judge declares gay marriage OK, despite all our history and the wishes of the majority, and instantly anyone who disagrees is "attacking our ancient constitutional rights."

And Kerry is not divisive? Electing a Commander in Chief in wartime who is loathed by most of our military (for good reason) is "not divisive?" Being "pro-life" is "divisive," but being "pro-choice" is somehow not? How goofy.

And how important is it to be "non-divisive" anyway, if that means accepting things that are stupid or wrong? I think non-divisive is used here like "non-partisan" is usually used: conservatives should compromise their principles and agree with Dems so they can be praised as "non-partisan."

Hey, I got a real crazy contrarian idea. Why don't you Democrats, for a change, support your country and your President in this time of difficulty and war? And we will praise YOU as "non-divisive," and "non-partisan." For a bonus, we'll even call you "unifiers." Won't that surprise everybody!

Traditions trashed...

Good sense by Joseph Perkins...

Richard Nixon would have captured the 1960 presidential election but for five states he lost by 5,000 votes or fewer – Missouri, Illinois, Nevada, New Mexico and Hawaii.

Gerald Ford would have retained the presidency in 1976 but for two states he lost by no more than 5,600 votes – Ohio and Hawaii.

Though the 1960 and 1976 elections were close, though they turned on a few thousand votes in a handful of states, the outcomes were faithfully accepted by the American people, by Republicans and Democrats alike.

That's because neither Nixon or Ford demanded that the votes be recounted in the states in which they lost by narrow margins. And neither Nixon or Ford insisted they were denied election because of voting irregularities in some state or another.

Then there was the 2000 election. George W. Bush and Al Gore went to bed on election night uncertain whether they had won or lost...

.

.

Later, when all of Florida's voting precincts had reported their tallies, Bush had eeked out victory in the Sunshine State, pushing him over the top in the Electoral College.

But Gore refused to accept that he lost Florida, that he lost the presidency, by so small a margin. He refused to put the national interest before his own selfish interest.

He dispatched his lawyers to the Sunshine State to contest the election. And his lawyers used every legal maneuver in their arsenal to overturn Gore's defeat – challenging the manner in which Florida conducted its balloting, claiming that certain voter blocs were disenfranchised...

...And the nation is likely to remain bitterly divided following this year's presidential election. Because John Kerry is already gearing up to contest the outcome of the election even before voters go to the polls on Election Day.

In fact, lawyers for the Democrats already have filed some 35 lawsuits in some 17 states. And if Kerry goes down to defeat on Election Day, there almost certainly will be an avalanche of lawsuits claiming that the Democrat somehow was cheated out of the presidency....

Important reminder...

Our friend Brad writes:

Please remember that, because of the high turnout expected at the polls this year, Republicans will be voting on Tuesday, November 2nd, and Democrats will be voting on Wednesday, November 3rd.

Be sure to remind all your friends...

three-cushion cat-shot off the ceiling

Tormenting cats is no big deal, us neocon conspirators do it all the time. But we never even thought of ZERO GRAVITY!

I am just SO impressed...

(Go see it at the blog of that ol' cat flipper Dean Esmay)

Deceptive title...

I picked up at the library the book: Patrick O'Brian's Navy: The Illustrated Companion to Jack Aubrey's World. Sneaky title, you might think it was a companion volume to Patrick O'Brian's books. But it's actually a coffee-table book about the Royal Navy in the Napoleanic wars, with a few snippets about O'Brian.

As history, it's pretty banal, but as a picture book of contemporary illustrations it is quite splendid, with much I hadn't seen before. However, as a Patrick O'Brian fan, that's not what I want. What I'd like to see are dozens of detailed illustrations of HMS Surprise, showing every nook and cranny in minute detail. And the Sophie, and the Ringle. I want to see Pulo Prabang! And Kutali.

Somehow I don't think it's going to happen...

Conspiracy theories...

Andrea quoted this bit, from a Salon writer:

...I have heard it argued that if the neocon cycle is short-circuited by a Kerry victory, then the neocons will simply go back underground to nurse their wounds and reemerge with a newer and even more attractive, subtle and utterly destructive plot in four years, and people will believe them because they weren't fully exposed...

The thing you have to realize about conspiracy theories is that they are comforting, they shield the theorist from painful reality. This poor girl is comforted by the thought that the whole problem is a handful of bagel-munching Fagins with Sharon-chips implanted in their noggins. She would be very upset if she were forced to confront the fact that it's Bush who has captured the neocons, not the other way around. And that they are just one of many tools he is making use of.

And she would be terrified if she were to were realize, though I doubt if she is capable of it, that Bush and his administration are themselves but tools being used to forward certain things that need to happen at this point in our history. There are a batch of reforms and changes that have to be made now, for us to move forward into whatever strange possibilities the new century offers. America, and really the whole world, is now like a snake that needs to shed its skin if it is to keep growing.

Even if Kerry was elected, even if he chopped the heads off of everyone labeled "neocon," the "neocon plot" will continue, with only a little delay. We've already seen this in the Clinton years. Remember NAFTA? Welfare Reform? Those were Republican schemes, and Clinton was powerless to stop them, and had to make them his own.

The long decades of Democrat and Leftish political dominance have created a vacuum in our public life, which is pulling the Republicans into power. If Bush fails to lead now, the pressure will just intensify until needed chores are done by someone else. But he won't fail, I think. This moment in history has created George Bush, summoned him forth from the vasty deep to do certain jobs.

As an example, liberal Democrats have for a long time attacked (in a thousand different undercutting, undermining sneering ways that are hard to confront) our armed forces. And with them the whole idea of "national defense," and the idea that we can use our power to make the world a better place, and to fight evil. And that our country is a force for good, and that our ideas are worth defending, and spreading to other places.

But what have they really done? Their nihilism has created a vacuum, a hunger in Americans for leaders who have the faith of earlier generations. A hunger for patriotism, and to honor the sacrifices of our soldiers. If Kerry is elected, that won't go away, and Democrats won't be able to escape its force. Think of the recent Dem Convention, with all those Lefties pretending to salute Old glory with tears in their eyes. Think of Kerry on the campaign trail, praising Reagan and pretending to be a man of faith. The "plot" is everywhere.

Poor cupcake imagines that if only the "plot" were exposed, it would be foiled. But there's nothing hidden, so nothing can be uncovered. Bush explains the plot in every speech. He says what he and the Republicans are going to do, and then...does it.

More on the California ballot-jungle...

I recently mentioned blogger Dave Franks' comments on the California Ballot Initiatives. Now Andrew Cory has done the same. He's a Democrat, but still has some good ideas, so take a look. You can find his posts here...

Who never sings but once...

SUGGESTED BY THE COVER OF A VOLUME OF KEATS'S POEMS

Wild little bird, who chose thee for a sign
To put upon the cover of this book?
Who heard thee singing in the distance dim,
The vague, far greenness of the enshrouding wood,
When the damp freshness of the morning earth
Was full of pungent sweetness and thy song?
Who followed over moss and twisted roots,
And pushed through the wet leaves of trailing vines
Where slanting sunbeams gleamed uncertainly,
While ever clearer came the dropping notes,
Until, at last, two widening trunks disclosed
Thee singing on a spray of branching beech,
Hidden, then seen; and always that same song
Of joyful sweetness, rapture incarnate,
Filled the hushed, rustling stillness of the wood?
We do not know what bird thou art. Perhaps
That fairy bird, fabled in island tale,
Who never sings but once, and then his song
Is of such fearful beauty that he dies
From sheer exuberance of melody.
For this they took thee, little bird, for this
They captured thee, tilting among the leaves,
And stamped thee for a symbol on this book.
For it contains a song surpassing thine,
Richer, more sweet, more poignant. And the poet
Who felt this burning beauty, and whose heart
Was full of loveliest things, sang all he knew
A little while, and then he died; too frail
To bear this untamed, passionate burst of song.

-- Amy Lowell

Ghirardelli bunker-buster....whooo ha!

Mrs P amused Charlene immensely with her proposed menus for Election Eve parties:

...As a Kerry presidency would be slippery and oily, eel stewed in it's own juices for the maincourse seems appropriate. Skate would work nicely too. Gull's eggs for an appetizer would be extravagant and reflect Mr. Kerry's own tastes. Should the salad be a composed one, just tossed with pansies and other edible flowers or a wedge of iceberg with french dressing?...

Considering what a conspicuous football tosser Mr Kerry is, possibly Gatoraide should be drunk? Or perhaps Perrier, the beverege of bicycle racers?

A Bush menu is much easier. Chilled Absolut straight up for starters. Smoked salmon on toast for an appetizer. A chopped salad. Beef Wellington with roasted root vegetables. And a chocolate bomb for dessert. Cigars and brandy even for the ladies...

After the landslide victory we Republicans can stop pretending to be nice folks and implement the New Order. Und zey vill OBEY! So, Baked Alaska for dessert? "Mr Moore, please come along quietly. Your transport to the North is waiting..." [You can ignore that, just teasin' our friends who are into conspiracy theories]

vacant lots, a gyro stand, a park and spots between two houses

Current politics in a nutshell...

The Republican Party of Wisconsin checked the addresses of more than 300,000 people registered to vote in the city with a software program also used by the U.S. Postal Service.

Republicans found that 5,619 addresses may be non-existent and then visited a number of the addresses. They snapped photos showing vacant lots, a gyro stand, a park and spots between two houses where the address should have been...

So what's the Democrat response? Well, keep this in mind when you hear those moonbat charges that nasty fascistic Republicans are "destroying democracy:"

A spokesman for John Kerry sharply criticized the move by Republicans, saying it was merely to prevent people, most likely those who lean Democratic, to vote.

"This is part of a consistent effort on their part to try and call the legitimacy of the electoral system into question," said George Twigg, Kerry's Wisconsin campaign director.

"Time and again Democrats have been working to encourage more to participate and encourage high participation. Republicans continue to file these often wildly inaccurate challenges to attempt to disenfranchise people," Twigg said

The average gyro stand is home to at least a dozen Democrat voters. And they are being disenfranchised! Intimidated! Enslaved!
(thanks to Betsy N)

Redistricting...

I mentioned Gerrymandering a few posts back, and AOG has some interesting thoughts. And Dave Sheridan mentions in a comment that Ted Costa (he of the recall that made Arnold our Gov.--thanks Ted!) hasn't given up his hopes of getting redistricting reform on the ballot.

I confess that the other thrilling events of these times had driven Mr Costa's effort right out of my head. And probably out of a lot of other people's, or else the measure would be on the ballot, and we'd be voting on it next week. And I think that's GOOD—people have a limited capacity for excitement and change, and with all the other brouhaha right now, voters would likely reject any plans that promised upheaval. Better to wait a bit. Costa's web site is Fair Districts Now.

If 9/11 didn't wake them up, nothing will...

John Hawkins does a great job of demolishing Andrew Sullivan's argument that putting Kerry in the White House would force the Democrats to get serious about national defense...

...Summing this all up: putting John Kerry in the White House isn't going to make liberals, other than the odd Christopher Hitchens type, get serious about national security. Remember that the Democrats had a credible candidate running for the nomination who was serious about national security. His name was Joe Lieberman and he got BURIED. What does that tell you, especially in the post-9/11 world we live in, folks? If 9/11 didn't wake the Ted Kennedys and Nancy Pelosis of the world up, what makes anyone think putting John Kerry in charge of Iraq will do the trick given that Kerry can just let Iraq nosedive into the pavement and blame Bush for it?...

Just to be fair....

There have been a LOT of photos passed around of Senator Kerry looking like a doofus, with footballs and soccer balls bouncing off his head, or riding his $6,000 bike wearing Spandex. So to be fair, here's one of President Bush in a moment of klutziness, (the only one I've encountered) dropping his dog, Barney....

The coolest thing, politically, this year...

How do you like it? ONE WEEK before the election, the Administration says it will submit a big fat $70 billion bill for the War on Terror next year. That's the most gutsy thing since Babe Ruth pointed to the fence.

And breathtakingly honest. A major slap-in-the-face to the "Bush Lied" crowd.

shuffle to the CEN-TER...

Andrea Harris just dealt with Jeff Jarvis's latest in a much wittier way than I ever could:

I once remarked that reading Jeff Jarvis’s blog is like staring at a train wreck full of naked old people: appalling, but you just keep peeking between your fingers...

Read her piece first. Then, if you want more details, here's my take:

Here's how Bush could have had a landslide
He's gonna.
: Or to put it another way: Here's how Bush could have had my vote -- and if he'd managed to get the vote of a lifelong Democrat, a Bill Clinton Democrat at that, then he could have gotten millions more unexpected votes and he would have run away with this election. But he's not. Why? Well, he coulda, shoulda....
Ooooh. Little Miss hard-to-get.
1. He should have called Iraq a one-year war (at least), not a one-week war.
"Our boys will be home by St Patrick's Day!" I remember Bush pledging that.
...He should have known that only when we had installed democracy in Iraq could we declare victory.
Bush didn't declare victory. This probably refers to that "Mission Accomplished" sign...but a mission is not a war. Oooops, I forgot. Mr Jarvis is in the "press." They don't know icky military things like that, even after bloggers tell them repeatedly. Besides, that story was too good to check.
He should have put in sufficient resources to do that while better securing the lives of Iraqis and our soldiers.
So eeeeasy, these wars. Clinton would have made it look simple. I bet Jarvis also subscribes to the criticism that we put too many resources into Iraq; that our military is "overstretched," a thin burned-out husk...
He should have managed our expectations and should not have declared victory.
Anybody can fight battles and kill terrorists. But a WORTHY war-leader concentrates on "managing expectations." You're right, Jarvis. Don't ever vote for someone who doesn't "manage expectations" well.

I wonder if he even knows the war is REAL? That it actually exists outside of what the press reports and the candidates debate? I once saw a cartoon, with this dad fixing a flat tire in the rain...and he's saying to his children inside the car, "This is real life! We CAN'T change the channel!"
...I supported getting rid of Saddam and bringing democracy to Iraq and the Middle East (in what was once known as the Tom Friedman doctrine). But like many others who supported this move, I'm disappointed, dismayed, distraught, distressed -- pick your dis -- at the administration's inability to win the peace.
You and Friedman are jerks-of-a-feather. "Are we there yet?" 18 months and we haven't "won the peace?" I bet they don't even stick with their wives for 18 months. Well, we ARE winning the peace. The slow hard way, even if the butterflies can't stick it.

Jarvis's other reason for not voting Bush is domestic:

2. He should have served the center.

Hey, if Bush can become an interventionist and nation-builder, it's not so damned far-fetched that he could have become a centrist, or at least played one on TV.
Ugly news, Jeff. Bush IS the center. The measures he advocates routinely poll 60 or 70%. America is a conservative country with a conservative President. And every election, a few million more Americans have that little lightbulb go on above their heads.
After his unvictory in the last election, he should have gone to the center in an effort to really win the next time.
So if it was an "unvictory," how'd he manage to pass 3 big tax cuts, Fast Track, NCLB, HSA's, Missile Defense? Plus use his executive authority to jettison Kyoto and ABM, limit Stem-Cell research, and implement Faith-Based Iniatives? You better pray you never see Bush after a "victory."
And after 9/11, he should have owned the center to make himself the president of all America in this time of need.
"Why can't he just go to the CEN-TER, where we liberal Democracts dwell at the CEN-TER of CENTRIST politics, just as it has always been, world without end, Amen."? I bet Jarvis still has a Che t-shirt tucked-away at the back of his underwear drawer. He doesn't know he's old gray Castro, stumblin' again.
He could have appointed someone respected instead of John Ashcroft.
Hate to break this, but there's a ton of us who respect John Ashcroft very much. But hey, we NEED the Jarvis vote--let's go back to Janet Reno.
And a little less talk about talking with God would have helped, too.
Oooooh. NOW we get to the nub. But Jeff, if YOU are the CEN-TER, why is former alter-boy saying that his "faith" will guide him when he gets to the White House? I mean, we both know he's lying, but WHY does he have to say that?

Could it be he's "moving to the center?"

No

I often have negative comments about the State Department, so I must, in fairness, report when I hear something good from them:

QUESTION: Did you hear that Castro fell?

MR. BOUCHER: We heard that Castro fell. There are, I think, various reports that he broke a leg, an arm, a foot, and other things, and I'd guess you'd have to check with the Cubans to find out what's broken about Mr. Castro. We, obviously, have expressed our views about what's broken in Cuba.

QUESTION: Do you wish him a speedy recovery?

MR. BOUCHER: No.

(Thanks to Pejman)

Never let anybody to say that you shed your blood in vain...

...It was, however, the words of Humaila Akrawy, an Iraqi citizen, that were perhaps the most poignant of the evening. Her sister was killed for working with Americans, her brother was killed by Saddam Hussein's secret police, and another sister was targeted by Uday Hussein and had to be smuggled out of the country.

She spoke of the Iraq's gratitude to America and the troops who helped to free the country and its people from the terrorism of Saddam Hussein. She said the troops are, indeed, winning the war, because if they weren't, the insurgents would ignore them.

"I can never tell you how grateful I am and how grateful my people are for your sacrifice. You left your homes … to fight for a people you have never known," Akrawy said. "When the sun sets over the deserts and mountains of Iraq, the good people of Iraq look at the West and are happy to know that the sun is rising to the people who rescued us from the darkness and evil of Saddam.

"Never think that your work in Iraq was wasted," she continued. "Never let anybody to say that you shed your blood in vain. You have given the people of Iraq, of Afghanistan, the chance to be free."[link]

There are always, of course, people who think that braving great dangers and difficulties to help make the world a better place, is only for saps and suckers.

I don't have a problem with this...except

This is an AP photo of the congregation at the Airy Church of God in Christ in Philadelphia. Who's preaching? Ted Kennedy. What's the sermon? Vote for Kerry. (Taken from PowerLine. Thanks)

Now I happen to think that Christianity and Judaism are America's secret weapon. I think there is a one-to-one correspondence between the drastic decline of Old Europe and the drastic decline of European churches and belief in God. So if politics forces Ted to preach to Christian believers, my thought is that it will keep him a little more honest and and a little more American than would otherwise be the case.

BUT, shouldn't there be some frightful torments-of-Hell for those vile prating hypocrites who think the influence of the "Christian Right" is an unnatural cancer that threatens our way of life? But somehow "Christian Kerry-voters" aren't? If those ladies were holding Bush/Cheney signs, we would be hearing howls about the "Christian Taliban" destroying the "separation of church and state," and forcing women into back-alley abortions.

There is, of course, a difference that renders the situation perfectly logical. The difference is that neither Kennedy nor Kerry nor Clinton nor Carter nor their "Democrat" followers have the least morsel of interest in the views of church ladies. Those women, statistically, probably favor school vouchers and Faith-Based Initiatives, and oppose gay marriage and abortion. But their views will not influence the "Democrat" Party in any way. They are just plantation workers. They are suckers. They are being used.

We remember the fall.....of The Wall

The very interesting new blog Patum Piperium thinks Mr Kerry is stuck in the past, not just stuck before 9/11, but before 1991. Before the fall of the Soviet Union...

...I remember listening on the radio a year later. There was a report about a university in the former Soviet Union where students had just been told that literature would no longer be taught to them through the barbaric, distorting prism of Marxist-Leninist "theory". I remember the shout that went up from those students. It hit me like a blow, even through a car radio. It was deep and resonant and triumphant and heart-stopping. It sounded as if it expressed the pent-up longing of an entire people which, of course, it did.

I remember that Mr. Kerry and his friends told us none of that would ever happen. That if we tried we'd just rock the boat and end up in a nuclear holocaust. (Besides, who knew? Perhaps we were just as bad as the Soviets!) And now they're trying to tell us all that all over again. Except that this time our enemy is even more dangerous.

Don't despair. If Kerry starts getting to you in the next two weeks, just open a modern atlas and try to find Leningrad on a Russian map.

There's a sort of person, we see them often here in SF, who was not thrilled by the fall of Comunism. And the same people were mostly not thrilled by the fall of Saddam Hussein.

I could forgive them if they were, like, you know, Communists...or Ba'athists....But they aren't. They just think it's sort of tacky for all those ordinary little people to take matters in their own hands, without it being arranged by large international institutions. And anyway, it might help Bush!!! (Senior or Junior) Ugh!

Those Soviet students make me think of the many pieces I've quoted that were written by Iraqis. Writing about the astonishing joys of freedom. Bliss of things we take for granted, like a soldier now having comfortable boots. Try this one or this one. Lotsa people aren't thrilled by these. Don't want to know about it. I think their hearts are cold and dead.

A single death is a tragedy. A million deaths is something the UN can live with...

UNITED NATIONS Oct 22, 2004 — The United Nations won't train judges or prosecutors for the Iraqi tribunal that will try members of Saddam Hussein's regime because it has no mandate and doesn't work with courts that can impose the death penalty, a U.N. associate spokesman said Friday.

"The Secretary-General (Kofi Annan) recently stated that United Nations officials should not be directly involved in lending assistance to any court or tribunal that is empowered to impose the death penalty," Stephane Dujarric said at a news conference.

"We have no specific mandate for this," he said. "In addition … we have serious doubts regarding the capability of the Iraqi Special Tribunal to meet the relevant international standards."...

Those are important standards! There's the Calmly Watching Genocide standard. The Wink at Nuclear Proliferation standard. The Israel Is To Blame For All Problems standard. The Palestinians Get a Pass On Mass Murder standard....

Most importantly, the NGO Comfortable Lifestyle standard always comes first.

The Iraqi courts are pariahs because they can impose the death penalty. So what did the UN call Saddam Hussein, who shoveled hundreds of thousands of people into mass graves? A Member.

(Thanks to Winds of Change)

Cranking up the outrage machine...

The new Battlegrounders page at NRO is worth following. This is from a good piece, You can't be a poll worker: You're a Republican, on Democrat vote fraud in Arkansas:

...This story has special resonance for me, since I am, regrettably, far too personally familiar with Judge Burr's m.o. Two years ago, I served as a pollwatcher in Ms. Burr's precinct, and asked Judge Burr why there was no separation between traditional ballots (cast by people who showed ID) and challenged ballots (cast by people who refused to show ID) as state law required. When the judge responded that she had decided not to follow state law, I raised a fuss and insisted that she call a county election commissioner. A Democratic election commissioner showed up in minutes and, to her credit, fixed the problem immediately by insisting that all challenged ballots be placed in a separate envelope.

But out of the corner of my eye, I saw an assistant whispering into a phone. Sure enough, the state Democratic party promptly sent over protesters, cranked up the outrage machine, and issued a press release decrying yet another instance of a Republican trying to intimidate voters — this despite the fact that I never spoke to a voter, but only insisted that the authentic and possibly inauthentic ballots remain separate. Democrats in the state legislature fixed the problem in the next legislative session by eliminating the ballot-challenging procedure in such cases, which guaranteed that in future elections any possibly fraudulent votes would be commingled with the good ones...

Fraud is the only option left for the dying Collectivist Party...

Through the ballot thicket...

If you are a Californian you might want to take a look at this post by Dale Franks, who has good advice on this year's California elections:

One of the interesting things about elections in California is the Ballot Initiative, a remnant of progressive Governor Hiram Johnson who implemented the initiative process at the beginning of the 20th century. This means that every election, all manner of wise and unwise things are floated about for presentation to the voters on the ballot.

For some reason, this year’s election is more full of such measures than most, and with the election less than two weeks away, I guess it’s time to actually look at them, and see what this year’s collection of political hacks and special interests are trying to shove down our throats...

We liked what one commenter said:
Thanks for the review!
As a Bay Area resident, I've often relied upon the San Francisco Chronicle for assessing ballot propositions; if they endorsed, I would likely vote against.

One man's mistake is another man's smart move...

A reader writes:

John
You're the war guy. How would you rate Iraq by historical precedent? Aren't there always screw-ups? Ever read A Bridge Too Far? As I recall they dropped a bunch of Polish paratroopers right on a Panzer unit. They were slaughtered. Then of course there is the Light Brigade, Picket's Charge, Battle of the Bulge, etc.

The idea that our Iraqi problems would be solved if we had had more troops in the beginning is now accepted as a fact. But when pressed this view doesn't hold up very well. Seal the borders? That would have taken a million troops and casualties would have been higher. Looting? The problem was not numbers, it was that soldiers aren't police. Reports that soldiers were standing on corners doing nothing are probably true. So we could have used 3 times a many standing on corners doing nothing?

The usual military solution to looting is: All looters will be shot. It's very effective.

But somehow gunning down Iraqis who probably rationalized that they were getting their stuff back from Saddam doesn't seem very sensitive. Even Kerry would agree with that.

By historical standards this has been a war with astonishingly few mistakes. And the "mistakes" criticized are mostly "whatever Bush does is wrong." I remember fisking some clank-brain who said we should have had a draft and sent 500,000 Americans to mingle with the Iraqis in the villages and make friends. That's stupid in a dozen ways--I won't insult you by enumerating them. But imagine the criticisms if our government actually did such a thing!! Yow!

The real issue is that things that are called "mistakes" are only mistakes in relation to a particular goal that they move us away from. If you assume we have a different goal, the same thing may not be a mistake.

And the critics won't say what their goal is! Or what they think America's goal should be. That's sneaky. Dishonest. For instance, a frequent subtext of criticisms is that we ought to aim for stability over democracy. But they won't say that out loud! So you can't pin them down on it. Consider the oft-heard statement that we should have kept the Iraqi Army intact. This is, implicitly, an argument in favor of turning Iraq over to a Sunni strongman so we could get out. The old army existed for that reason above all others, and keeping it alive would have strongly tended towards that result. [keeping the old army was also a very impractical idea; click here for the CPA's reasons...which the critics invariably ignore.]

Similarly, many critics seem to assume that bringing democracy to Arab countries is quixotic, if not impossible. But they won't say this openly. They imply it by criticizing instances where we let the Iraqis try things, and make mistakes, and have failures. If our goal is democracy, we should be letting some problems fester, with the hope that the Iraqi people will be motivated to act. We should be letting the Iraqis do some very stupid things, like looting their own schools and hospitals, so they learn that that's not what freedom is all about. We should NOT solve all their problems, or make them perfectly comfortable. But it is hard to argue with those "critics," because they won't reveal where they stand on the bigger question. Or even admit there IS a question.

Correct, sort of...

James Webb has a piece in OpinionJournal about the "Scots-Irish," one of the important groups of settlers that formed America, and their importance in American politics. But his tone and his facts seem a bit off, like someone looking down on his subject from a height.

The Scots-Irish are derived from a mass migration from Northern Ireland in the 1700s, when the Calvinist "Ulster Scots" decided they'd had enough of fighting Anglican England's battles against Irish Catholics.

Actually, the "Scotch-Irish," their common name in our history, are better described as North British borderers. Only a minority of them came from Ulster. The book to read is David Hackett Fischer's splendid Albion's Seed. And the bit about they'd had enough of fighting Anglican England's battles sounds like an attempt to impose the stupid Vietnam template (which really doesn't even fit the Vietnam War) on the Ulster protestants...who only migrated to America if they were younger sons who had no land. Otherwise they were as willing to fight Catholics as their American cousins were to fight Indians.

Note comments section--Scott Chaffin thinks I may be wrong about Webb...

Webb also seems kind of tone-deaf when writing about George W Bush:

...Speaking in a quasirural dialect that his critics dismiss as affected, W. is telling his core voting groups that he is one of them. No matter that he is the product of many generations of wealth; that his grandfather was a New England senator; that his father moved the family's wealth South just like the hated Carpetbaggers after the Civil War; that he himself went North to Andover and Yale and Harvard when it came time for serious grooming. And as with the persona, so also with the key issues. The Bush campaign proceeds outward from a familiar mantra: strong leadership, success in war, neighbor helping neighbor, family values, and belief in God. Contrary to many analyses, these issues reach much farther than the oft-discussed Christian right. The president will not win re-election without carrying the votes of the Scots-Irish, along with those others who make up the "Jacksonian" political culture that has migrated toward the values of this ethnic group....

Webb, I suspect, picked up his "facts" from other Democrats in his literary circle. So. let's dissect this paragraph:

Speaking in a quasirural dialect that his critics dismiss as affected,
I love that "critics dismiss" formula. What's your opinion, Mr Webb? In fact, Bush talks like most people from his part of Texas.
W. is telling his core voting groups that he is one of them.
If you actually asked those core groups, they would tell you this is patently true.
No matter that he is the product of many generations of wealth; that his grandfather was a New England senator;
This is misleading. The Bushes have never had Rockefeller-type wealth, they've all needed to work. Prescott's father earned his money in Ohio. Prescott was successful on New York's Wall Street and was in middle-age before he entered politics.
that his father moved the family's wealth South just like the hated Carpetbaggers after the Civil War;
This is a deceptious sneer. Each generation of Bushes seems to move somewhere else. And George HW Bush moved to Odessa Texas to make money, not spend it. He didn't move the "family," or its wealth, just himself and his young bride...and not very much money. And Odessa (and its suburb Midland) was an oil-patch full of fortune hunters from all over the country. The "Carpetbagger" sneer is totally inapplicable.
that he himself went North to Andover and Yale and Harvard when it came time for serious grooming.
I went to college in Berkeley. Did that make me a long-haired peacenik? No, because you are where you grow up. Bush went off to school in New England, but he remained a Texan (including carrying a paper cup to class at Harvard to spit tobacco juice into) and always went back to Texas as soon a possible. And married a girl from...Midland.
And as with the persona, so also with the key issues. The Bush campaign proceeds outward from a familiar mantra: strong leadership, success in war, neighbor helping neighbor, family values, and belief in God. Contrary to many analyses, these issues reach much farther than the oft-discussed Christian right. The president will not win re-election without carrying the votes of the Scots-Irish, along with those others who make up the "Jacksonian" political culture that has migrated toward the values of this ethnic group
Correct, sort of. But tone-deaf. The Scotch-Irish culture IS the Jacksonian culture, and other American groups have migrated towards it.

Webb uses terms like "familiar mantra" as if he assumes that political campaigns normally fake common American values out of cynical calculation. He must be a Democrat. They love to imagine that Bush is a New England elitist just faking his Red-State values, because that is exactly what Kerry is doing right now--and looking like an elitist fool.

#167: Preparing for Defeat – Amazing Disgrace

KRUGMAN TRUTH SQUAD

Paul Krugman's column Voting and Counting (10/22/04) would be better headlined Preparing for Defeat – Amazing Disgrace.

But what's of more interest is that the Democrats' party line with regard to the upcoming election is becoming clear. Last weekend, Eric Holder, the former Reno Justice Department deputy and currently head of the Democrat's "election task force", made a revealing comment to Chris Wallace on Fox News. He said, "If all those who want to vote are able to vote and if all of their votes are counted, John Kerry will be elected president." Today Paul Krugman said similarly, "If the election were held today and the votes were counted fairly, Senator John Kerry would probably win." In other words, if Kerry loses two weeks from now, it will be because the Republicans cheated somehow.

What does one say to this?

We think the Republicans need to get over their tendency to take the Democrats as worthy counterparties for a reasonable discussion of these issues. In fact, the Democrats are a bunch of jerks transitioning from permanent majority status to permanent minority status and are behaving badly. The return of civility will have to a wait a new generation of Democrats bred to be proper minorities. Remember the inanities of the Ev and Charlie Show (after Sen. Everett Dirksen and Rep. Charles Halleck) on which they would appear at weekly press briefings and joke about their political impotence as the Republican leadership in congress?

Can anyone imagine Daschle and Pelosi ever doing this? No way! The Democrats need new leadership that accurately reflects their new political role and status.

[The Truth Squad is a group of economists who have long marveled at the writings of Paul Krugman. The Squad Reports are synopses of their discussions. ]

Krugman is pushing the "disenfranchisement of minority voters" line hard. It's pure BS; poor and black districts always have a higher percentage of spoiled ballots, no matter what the voting system. It's just an excuse-in-advance to not accept the results of the election. Actually, they have already admitted defeat. Admitted it by having Kerry run as a duck-huntin' God-fearin' gun-totin' cheese-steak-eatin' flag-salutin' terrorist-smashin' church-goin' reg'lar American guy....

As Hugh Hewitt said: "How do you ask a goose to be the last goose to die for a campaign stunt?  How do you ask a goose to die for a photo op?" 

UN: Not only worse than you imagine, it's worse than you can imagine...

Here's a strange tale about working with the UN, The jaded, seamy side of peace:

...Six years later, after stints in Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Rwanda and Liberia, the three came to believe that not only is the U.N. unable to keep pace with its grand ideals in the new world order, it actually allowed two genocides. They cope by immersing themselves in their work, alcohol, faith and "emergency sex."

Thomson, who spent two years pulling bodies out of mass graves in Rwanda and the Bosnian town of Srebrenica — corpses of people who had sought safety with the U.N. — concludes: "If blue-helmeted U.N. peacekeepers show up in your town or village and offer to protect you, run. Or else get weapons. Your lives are worth so much less than theirs."...

On the same subject, remember how the UN in Iraq didn't want protection from US forces? They are changing their mind.

...But without volunteers, the United Nations asked the U.S. command of the Multinational Force to supply protection, whether or not American soldiers were involved, diplomats said.

"We can't just treat them as undesirables," said one U.N. official, speaking on condition of anonymity...

... Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in London on Tuesday he had tried to raise a brigade but "we haven't done very well."

"And it's the same governments who are asking me to send in my civilian staff who are not going to give any troops to protect them," he said...

But Kofi, you can't expect soldiers to go into danger? (Reminds me of those police in Britain who wouldn't go into the house where the woman was being murdered...because it wasn't safe.) Hey, I've got an idea! Maybe these oh-so-multilateral type countries will send troops--if we provide Coalition soldiers to protect their soldiers? How's that for a solution!

70% solution acted on immediately and violently...

I get really bugged by the notion that the Iraq Campaign, or the Battle of Tora Bora, or anything, should have been conducted without mistakes. That's so stupid! Wars aren't like that. This is from a letter posted by Lorie Byrd at PoliPundit, by a marine, who puts it better than I can:

...That is why Armchair Generals are so annoying. They look at one thing in isolation with all the time in the world to think about it and say confidently “the answers obvious". But when you are out in the fight everything looks different. Nothing is ever seen in isolation. You never have enough time. You never know more than 1/10 what you need to know. There will always be blunders.

But the job has to get done anyway. And to get this kind of job done boldness is essential. A leader who never blunders, but who doesn’t take the fight to the enemy is worthless. A leader who sets about to win - win ugly if needs be - is priceless.

One thing the Marine Corps taught me is that a 70% solution acted on immediately and violently is better than a perfect solution acted on later. My experience has proven this true time and again...

...Most people and events are beyond your control. Most questions you don’t have time to answer. Most facts you will never know. But you have to press the attack anyway. No matter how ugly it gets, you keep going until you win.

Kerry doesn’t understand that. Everything he did during the Cold War and everything he says about this one states as much. He represents those who would never blunder, but who would not take the fight to the enemy...

A leader who sets about to win - win ugly if needs be - is priceless. That's exactly right. And it's often the fear of mistakes, of losses, that paralyzes the will to win.

Medieval finery...

A.M. Mora y Leon has an interesting piece in American Thinker, about women in Afghanistan:

European friends send me news photographs of women in Afghanistan voting for the first time, emphasizing they are wearing traditional blue burkas. And these photos supposedly prove that Afghanistan’s women at the polls are hardly “liberated,” as one put it, but remain living the same backward lives as they did under the Taliban. Somehow, the election turnout of women in burkas is supposed to be proof of America’s failure to improve anything in Afghanistan through elections. And in their conclusion, the election would change nothing, too.
 
But looking much more closely at the photos, I see many of signs of change. My first impression is the gorgeousness of the womens’ dress. I look at the sleeve-work. The ornate embroidery. The high quality of the fabrics. The perfect folding and draping and fitting, the delicacy of the caps.  A few years ago, these women were wearing rags. Now, instead of looking like mountain hillbillies, they look rather regal in medieval finery.  
 
Not all of the women in this line look rich and elegant, but quite a few do. It’s a hint of some wealth appearing in this dirt-poor war-ravaged country. Womens’ lives are improving and with it women are feeling freer to express themselves a bit, even if their masks remain...(thanks to Jim Miller)

We should remember that the burkas were not invented by the Taliban, they are traditional in Afghanistan. The hunger of Europeans/Democrats to find evidence that nothing has been improved by US actions is very revealing of their state of mind. And totally stupid as far as US politics goes. Americans are a can-do crowd, and the Democrat's position as the party that's happy when problem-solving fails is not going to fly with voters.

We see this all the time with Kerryblogger types. Sullen silence when the news is good. Then when something goes wrong (Or even appears to, like the burkas mentioned above) they get a spring in their step and a gleam in their eye. "This is SOOOOOO BAD" they write. "I am SOOOOOO HEARTBROKEN that the America I love has descended into failure/folly/fascism/blindness/moral-bankruptcy...So I have to use my utmost eloquence to tell the world how loathsome this country is (when a Republican is in the White House)." Fflorrrpfh...

Now this is exciting!

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is going to do battle with Gerrymandering! Or so says Daniel Weintraub of the SacBee:

...But he also took a much more important step for the long run. He offered a full-throated endorsement for reforming the way legislators draw district lines, and taking that power out of the hands of elected officials. He says he will be challenging the Legislature to put a reform initiative on the ballot. He doesn't say when, but I hope he means next year, in a special election. It's silly to let legislators pick their voters, when it should be the other way around. If Schwarzenegger can change that, he will truly deserve the reformist governor credentials he seeks.

Republicans have been pushing reform and transformation in a great many areas, but I've long been wishing I could tap some shoulders and say, "Uh, guys, since you're taking the engine out of the car anyway, wouldn't this also be a good time to fix the Shibawichee?"

Well, I won't hold my breath, but an end to the gerrymander is high on my list of desirables...Of course it's hard to blame Republican assemblymen for not being eager to end this particular problem. In many states they've been crushed under the weight of Democrat redistrictings for a long long time. In the South, in places like Texas, we're talking a hundred years or so. Now that they are becoming the majority in more and more statehouses, it's time for some payback...
(Thanks to Armed Liberal)

Balagan!

One of the pleasures of blogging is following the lives of other bloggers. I've been following Rinat for almost three years, since she was Renata, a Brazilian girl thinking of moving to Israel. A long journey, with many a setback, many a humble job. Now she's a journalist, covering the Knesset! What fun. This is from a post about her work:

...There was this humble writer today, running from a place to another today, in a deep stress, ready to kill someone. I was covering the political factions and the committees when, on my way from the 5th floor to our desk, I hear a familiar voice saying me "shalom!". Guess who? Opposition and Labour leader, Shimon Peres, going down with his spokesperson. I smiled, of course... Replied, asked what's up... He remembers me due to the fact he's crazy about Brazil, hehehe. While we waited for the elevator, Justice Minister, Tommy Lapid, joined us. And suddenly I see myself in the same elevator with some of the most proeminent people of the country...

Despite the whole stress, I had a second to think about how I love my job, my country and my new life. Everything seems to suck sometimes, but I have fun. I definitely do.

Can't both be right...

Beldar tries to reason with the moderate Kerry supporters who don't favor appeasement in the War on Terror...

...If John Kerry keeps his promises to "fight for this country" — if he keeps his promise not to cut and run in Iraq, for instance — then he's going to seriously piss off, indeed to completely alienate, somewhere between a quarter and half of the people who've voted for him, and probably a much larger percentage of his intelligensia, fundraisers, and activists. If we're not out of Iraq come next July, there's going to be a boom market in "Dean '08" bumper stickers. Because just like you're working on the assumption that when elected, Kerry will indeed take the fight to the enemy, they're working on the assumption that when elected, Kerry's going to get us out of the "wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time." You and the moonbats can't both be right about what Kerry will do. Can we agree on that much, surely? Can we agree that the straddle that might succeed in getting Kerry into the White House can't last once he's there?...
. . . . . . . . . .

...And LBJ had a solidly Democratic Congress, and demonstrated, unparalleled skills in manipulating it, which a President Kerry certainly won't have. For John Kerry to fulfill your vision for his presidency — for him to run a "smarter, more effective" fight against the terrorists — he's not only going to have to fade the heat from the Howard Dean wing of the Democratic Party, he's going to have to line up and make effective use of Republican allies. He's going to have to be slicker than Bill Clinton ever dreamed of being, and he's going to have to dance not with them what brung him, but with them what his former dance partners (who'll be screaming "backstabber!") believe to be devils incarnate. He'll need more votes than just John McCain's — you know that, don't you?...

Somebody's fooling themselves. The moderate types are thinking they can get their man elected by using the Deaniacs, who will then fade away. The moonbats have something similar in mind, but with the roles reversed. They can't both be right. So what does history tell us? Girondists or Jacobins?

“moral darkness”

From the President's speech in New Jersey:

...The Senator who is skeptical of democracy in Iraq also spoke with sympathy for a communist dictator in Nicaragua in the 1980s, and criticized the democracy movement as “terrorism.” His misguided policies would have impeded the spread of freedom in Central America. The Senator who claims the world is more dangerous since America started fighting the war on terror is the same Senator who said that Ronald Reagan’s policies of peace through strength actually made America less safe. The same Senator who said the Reagan presidency was eight years of “moral darkness.”

In this campaign, Senator Kerry can run from his record, but he cannot hide...

It was just pathetic to hear Kerry praising Ronald Reagan in the debates. I can imagine the "activists" and "Progressives" rolling their eyes and saying, "He has to say those things to get the morons to vote for him." Same with the faux patriotism and flag waving at the convention. I'm right in the heart of some prime Kerry territory, and I can tell you, those guys would rather have gnomes and pink flamingos on their lawns, than an American flag on their house. They build a campaign of deception from the ground up, then tell me with a straight face that Bush shouldn't be President because he "lies."

Great tactics...

I loved this story of the Protest Warriors infiltrating a pro-Kerry rally at the Eiffel tower....

...Induhviduals came up to argue. One of our precepts had been not to lose your cool and pointlessly argue back, but to fish out a copy of a BBC article on the latest mass grave unearthed, and ask arguers (noncommittally) what they happened to think about that. On the reverse side of the sheet of paper, for French people, was the photocopy of a Le Monde article explaining that "it is almost impossible to find anyone in Iraq (outside of the fallen Ba'athist members) who supports the position" of the "peace camp". (Both had the merit not only of not being partisan litterature, but of coming from mainstream media sources that are traditionally anti-American — sorry, anti-Bush.) Rounding out the items on the photocopy was a picture taken from one of the mass graves, the point being to show the picture to someone while asking, in an Americans-Anonymous-wise fashion, "What do you think this person's wife/mother/son thinks of Bush's 'war for oil', the 'peace camp' position, and the slogan 'No more war'?"

Too too strange and funny...

You gotta read this post, Tragically Hip by Dawn Eden, who has a life full of hip accomplishments and juxtaposes them with her support for the President...the effect is wacky, but not illogical. Bush is a transformative President, like Lincoln and FDR. He and his party my party are changing things utterly. A new age is being born, and what's so hip about sitting on the sidelines and wishing things were like they used to be?

...Working for a nightclub, I shepherded legendary bluesman Lowell Fulson through the check-in process at the Gramercy Park Hotel, and I support the Bush administration's faith-based initiative. • By the way, I did not go upstairs with him, and he was a perfect gentleman, and I believe our president is right to support school vouchers. • I support my local independent music retailer, and I am pulling that voting-booth switch for George W. Bush on November 2. • I can order sushi in Japanese, and I believe George W. Bush has great insight and surrounds himself with capable advisers. • I got 700 verbal and 640 math on my SATs—before the scores were recentered—and I believe the president cares about the poor and the powerless. • I own every album ever released by Phil Ochs and am thanked in Michael Schumacher's biography of him, There But For Fortune, for research assistance, and I believe our troops are right to overwhelmingly want Bush over Kerry for their commander in chief. • I received my bachelor's degree in communications from New York University, where Neil Postman gave me an A-minus in Media Criticism, and I am thankful to have a pro-life president. • I hugged Timothy Leary, and I am voting for George W. Bush. • I take public transportation everywhere, and I believe the president is right to oppose the Kyoto Protocol. • John Flansburgh of They Might Be Giants came to my dorm to give me free passes to distribute for their show at Danceteria—they were opening for an upstate band called 10,000 Maniacs, and I believe the Democratic Party has lost its moral compass...

This is just a small part of her post....

Targeted yet lethal

Steyn, more great stuff, with an appreciation of John Howard...

...But Howard, for a man routinely described as having no charisma, manages to hit just the right tone. The French got all the attention in the days after September 11 with that Le Monde headline – "Nous sommes tous Americains" – but even at the time I preferred Howard's take: "There's no point in a situation like this being an 80 per cent ally."

You can take that one to the bank. The "we are all Americans" stuff turned out to be not quite as straightforward as at first glance, and masked a ton of nuance, evasion, sly Yank-bashing and traditional Gallic duplicitousness as ripe as an old camembert wrapped in Dominique de Villepin's poetry. Even when they were touting that headline, the French were never more than 34 per cent allies.

By comparison, that ABC radio interview three years ago where Howard did the 80 per cent riff is brimming with great material. I especially liked this bit: "I'm sure the Americans will behave in a targeted yet lethal fashion."

Lovely line. If this war really were made in Hollywood, that would be the poster tag: Targeted yet lethal. And it works better in Howard's blunt, commonsensical voice than it would in Blair's strangulated reading-the-lesson-at-Princess-Di's-memorial vowels or Bush's Euro-infuriating Texan drawl...

The reactionaries cling to the idea of France and Germany as "allies," partly because they just don't want to admit that that era, their era, is over.

But really, think about who you'd want to have with you in your foxhole, when the bullets are flying?

Can't be true...

This is impossible. Everyone knows that Iraq is a distraction from the War on Terror:

[Fox News] BAGHDAD, Iraq — The militant group led by terror mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi , believed to be behind many deadly attacks in Iraq, has declared its allegiance to Usama bin Laden, citing the need for unity against "the enemies of Islam."

The declaration, which appeared Sunday on a Web site used as a clearinghouse for statements by militant groups, said al-Zarqawi's Tawhid and Jihad group and Al Qaeda had been in communication eight months ago and "viewpoints were exchanged" before the dialogue was interrupted...

My immune system is in over-drive...

The best defense against post-modernism is having to deal with the quotidian concerns of everyday life...

by Annoying Old Guy

The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on...

Afghan men using a donkey carry ballot boxes in the district of Parian about 95 miles northeast of Kabul October 8, 2004. Afghans went to the polls this Saturday in the country's first direct presidential election, which also will be a major test of the U.S.-led nation-building efforts since the 2001 ouster of the Taliban.[Reuters photo. Link to story]

I hasten to add that in a place as backwards and poor as Afghanistan, there's a high likelihood that things will go wrong. I know that—and if it does, you "Democrats" and Kerry-supporters are welcome to chide my naivete as you hug yourselves with joy. But that won't change the fact that you've missed the History Train. In recent decades democracy has been spreading by 1½ countries a year.

fight for the lifeboats, suckers...

It was only a few years ago that Afghanistan was an important example of oppression to the "feminist" crowd. Here's a good article on how they are NOT thrilled that Afghan women have been liberated from the Taliban:

HERE'S A CHUNK of President Bush's standard stump speech: "Think about what happened in Afghanistan. It wasn't all that long ago that the Taliban ran that country. Young girls couldn't even go to school. They were not only harboring terrorists, they had this dark ideology of hate. And people showed up in droves to vote. Freedom is powerful. People have gone from darkness to light because of liberty. The first voter in the Afghan presidential election was a 19-year-old woman."

And here's Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women: "In only three-and-a-half years, George W. Bush and the right-wing leadership in Congress have undermined and eroded more than four decades of advancements for women. . . . We are declaring a State of Emergency for women's rights and calling upon all of our allies and supporters to get involved in the election process to put an end to the relentless attacks on women."...

...The folks over at NOW seem even less enthusiastic about the progress in Afghanistan. The NOW "Issues" page headed "Women in Afghanistan" hasn't been updated for two-and-a-half years. And there is no mention of the Afghan election on the main pages of the NOW website. Calls requesting a statement went unreturned...

This is a subset of the more general lefty claim to be "anti-fascist." Until, of course, George W Bush started overthrowing actual fascist dictators.

But really, what a fun time to be alive. The hags at NOW betrayed their cause, sold out the advancement of women in favor of the their own advancement in Democrat politics. They are no more happy with Condaleeza Rice's success than the NAACP is. And now the Democrat Party is going down, and taking them with it. I LOVE it. So richly deserved. Fight for the lifeboats, you frauds. Elbow the weak aside...

And keep in mind, they sold-out for boodle, not principle. There's a ton of political pork at stake. Thousands of staff and advisor jobs to fill. Thousands of political appointments, plus committees and conferences and visiting-professorships and feminist-in-residence slots. They are on the political/bureaucratic/academic/literary/mainstream-church gravy train, because the horrible alternative is working for a living! With any luck a bunch of them will have to do just that. I hope I hope I hope I hope I hope I hope....