Ed FitzGerald Splains Hisself

Does anyone else find articles like this hilarious? This is the first of two articles based on an interview with Ed FitzGerald. It pretty much leads off with Ed explaining why he shouldn't not be governor. Excerpt:

"We're going to take all that down and boil it down to saying, 'This is mysterious that someone was dilatory in something that was private,' " FitzGerald said. "Obviously, I should have handled it better, and I don't make any excuses for it, but it isn't a reflection and hasn't been a reflection on how I've conducted myself in public office."

Wait... private? How is a driver's license private? If you get stopped by a police and don't have a driver's license on you can you explain that "well really, officer, it is after all a private matter"? Does that work? Or how about "gee, officer, I'm sorry but I'm just a dilatory kind of guy." I think the whole point of government-issued licenses of any kind is that their nature is public, not private.

The whole "not a reflection on how I've conducted myself" claim is even more laughable. This whole incident is actually an example of how he's conducted himself. I happen to live next door to a public official and she is well-aware that everything done by her reflects on her. This is absolutely discernible in her behavior, bearing and things she chooses to converse about.

Ed FitzGerald has a shovel down there and is determined to dig himself out. Who wants to bet that the second part of the interview mentions Senate Bill 5?

"And now it's drawn me in"

One headlight is cool, too, but I like this video better.



I think bringing down the horse might have been the only new disc I purchased in 1996. It's the only '96 release I remember listening to on disc at any rate. That the the Matchbox 20 year, remember?

This song summed up 1995 for me

It was a really weird year. I think I had 2 dates.

These people make David Byrne circa '77 seem normal by comparison.



The lyrics should discourage going to palm readers.

Hillary Clinton scrubbed Benghazi documents

Fox News has the scoop here, but for some reason I can't embed that video. Here's a related one from YouTube.



The staffer told Ray Maxwell "Those are our orders," when he questioned the ethics of what he was being asked to do. Yup; that's the mentality. Maxwell is a hero.

"Why were you visiting the Great Satan America, Patriarch?"

Nasty Local Muslim Leader Keith: Why were you visiting the Great Satan America, Patriarch?

Patriarch: Shopping. We wished to do some shopping.

NLMLK: Shopping?

Patriarch: Yes, shopping.

NLMLK: But what was this "In Defense of Christians", Patriarch?

Patriarch: It is a shopping club.

NLMLK: A shopping club? Then what is it defending you from?

Patriarch: Unseemly high prices.

NLMLK: High prices? Not persecution? I have been told you visited the Great Satan to gain relief from being persecuted.

Patriarch: No, only high prices. We do not feel you persecute us. We only visited the Great Satan for the shopping.

NLMLK: And so who was this "Ted Cruz"?

Patriarch: Nobody. We had heard he offered group discounts.

NLMLK: And did he?

Patriarch: Yes, but there were Jews involved, so we rejected his offers.

NLMLK: I see. Good. One cannot be too careful when publicly traveling to the Great Satan and shopping as In Defense of Christians. Someone could misunderstand your motives, particularly the Jews. If nothing else, they might tempt you with inferior merchandise at ridiculously low prices.

Patriarch: No one could misunderstand our reason for being there. We were scrupulously careful about whom we associated with in our gatherings. Only other shoppers like ourselves.

NLMLK: Good, Patriarch, good. Say, would you happen to know where I could get a good deal on a Samsung 105-inch 4K? The curved one.

What have we learned from Dreher & Douthat's opportunistic attacks on Ted Cruz this week?

That a mean junior high school girl faction of conservatism will do whatever it takes to sleep with the quarterback, the quarterback in this case being internet blogosphere popularity at large, measured in site clicks from any comers. Principles are now so 20th Century.

That the facts of the Cruz situation simply don't matter. In fact, the facts of the matter were not only willfully rewritten, but also in the case of the rumor Dreher launched about Cruz cynically fielding advertizing based on his encounter, invented out of whole cloth and never retracted. What matters now are imputed and projected feelings, the universal currency of liberalism, NPR, and most importantly, those wonderful cat videos.

That for its loudest proponents, "Christian" has become nothing more than a marketing tool, like "new improved Tide". Dreher, Douthat and their fellow opportunists have seldom previously given a flying f*ck about the fate of Mideast Christians, but given the chance to score some internet hits at the expense of a Senator calculated to be most widely perceived as SNL material, they weep ostentatiously like the Walrus and the Carpenter. Next week something else will be the big blog hit score, and the Mideast Christians will once again be forgotten.

That the very, very best position to take is all positions. We saw this exemplified in Dreher's blogging this week (links in my posts below), where each subsequent post was recalibrated based on both responses to his previous ones and to the buzz on the internet at large and new, nuanced talking points contradicting his previous ones introduced to capture those eyeballs who might have frowned at something previously .

Welcome to the land of conservatism beyond principle or, rather, conservatism where "principle" now means how many "likes" and blog hits you scored today.

No need for facial tattoos...

...when a prospective employer can just type your full name into El Goog along with the name of your former employer and have a post featuring these "thoughts and rantings" returned. Short excerpt:

So, I will just write the truth and tell you all what happened.

Basically, I was screwed out of a chance to work for a rather nice trucking company.

Why, you say?

Because of a baseless and vicious accusation by a black lesbian woman.

I wouldn't think the blog author would mind my labeling this bit of over-sharing "thoughts and rantings" seeing that this is the title he has chosen for his blog address.

I wouldn't spend any time on CPA, but he did call my friend Keith a "clueless blowhole" yesterday which I wanted to counter by noting that Keith is not any type of hole, nor is he clueless.

CPA doesn't appear to be clueless either, but perhaps he should read this advice.

How to be the most successful TAC blogger in history

Suggest while never actually saying so that there's no side of any issue that you don't ultimately support.

That way, no matter what someone feels or believes, they will applaud you for speaking for them. That's how you build blogosphere market share, by becoming the rhetorical form that will embrace not only whatever content happens to be trending at any given moment, but, most importantly, all sides of it simultaneously.

That guy: he said what you were thinking. And what that other guy who was arguing against you yesterday was thinking, too. And what that woman who disagrees with both of you was thinking. Why, if it didn't look on the surface like a thoughtful, passionate opinion, you might have confused it for a Friday NPR news roundup.

What is TAC's "alt-conservatism"? Well, what would you like it to be? What alt-conservative values would make you like TAC the most? Exactly: just what you suggested, that's exactly what TAC stands for, too, and why you should become a subscriber today.

That ain't working, that's the way you do it. Money for nothing and your clicks for free.