▼
Friday, June 3, 2011
We're idiots
About two minutes in, the video gets behind the audio. That's a shame because this is an incredible performance.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Public Intoxication
I was ruminating on Paul Zummo's post from yesterday detailing the irony of Eugene Robinson's hand-wringing remark about Sarah Palin: "What the GOP should worry about is the intoxication that adoring crowds often induce in politicians." Obviously we wonder where he was during the fevered campaigns of 2008, of which this instant classic blog site might serve as a reminder.
I'm afraid that if we had the opportunity to bring this up to Mr. Robinson, the irony would be lost on him. He would probably respond that Barack Obama was not going to be intoxicated by an adoring crowd because, in the language of the street, he really is "all that", whereas Sarah Palin is merely some lady up in the wilderness. Maybe he would challenge us to produce a picture of Obama donning a lampshade or staggering down the stairs of a DC lounge shortly after one of his rallies. But who needs to do that? One visit to the aforementioned Obamamessiah site provides quotes from the man himself such as "We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek." Also: "This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." Also: "...a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Barack Obama." These are delusional remarks to make even for a man who aspires to be the chief of the executive branch.
I think Obama supporters would dismiss this all, however, and say that these were "just words" spoken the heat of a campaign, it was all figurative speech, etc, etc. Then that brings us back to the question, "What's wrong with Sarah Palin having enthusiastic followers now?" Hmmm. Why don't they just admit that they disagree with a woman who has a large following of a certain type of American citizen? That's what we do routinely with Obama, a President with higher approval numbers than it seems like his success-failure ratio should warrant. I think it's just that ridiculing the right has become the staple of the left, and it's so much easier than bringing up substance and forming arguments.
I'm afraid that if we had the opportunity to bring this up to Mr. Robinson, the irony would be lost on him. He would probably respond that Barack Obama was not going to be intoxicated by an adoring crowd because, in the language of the street, he really is "all that", whereas Sarah Palin is merely some lady up in the wilderness. Maybe he would challenge us to produce a picture of Obama donning a lampshade or staggering down the stairs of a DC lounge shortly after one of his rallies. But who needs to do that? One visit to the aforementioned Obamamessiah site provides quotes from the man himself such as "We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek." Also: "This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." Also: "...a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Barack Obama." These are delusional remarks to make even for a man who aspires to be the chief of the executive branch.
I think Obama supporters would dismiss this all, however, and say that these were "just words" spoken the heat of a campaign, it was all figurative speech, etc, etc. Then that brings us back to the question, "What's wrong with Sarah Palin having enthusiastic followers now?" Hmmm. Why don't they just admit that they disagree with a woman who has a large following of a certain type of American citizen? That's what we do routinely with Obama, a President with higher approval numbers than it seems like his success-failure ratio should warrant. I think it's just that ridiculing the right has become the staple of the left, and it's so much easier than bringing up substance and forming arguments.
Surprise, Surprise
"Stimulus to Cost $43 Billion More than Estimated". Things always cost more than expected when you're spending money which belongs to other people.
So who was right? It doesn't matter now, does it. The money is already committed. The people who enacted it don't care that they were wrong; they got what they wanted. Do you really think any of the big spenders look at this and say, "Oh, dear, we shall have to try to do better next time!"?
Obama and congressional Democrats enacted the law, arguing it would provide a quick jolt to the economy. Republicans opposed the law, saying it would increase deficits and wasn't designed to work quickly.
So who was right? It doesn't matter now, does it. The money is already committed. The people who enacted it don't care that they were wrong; they got what they wanted. Do you really think any of the big spenders look at this and say, "Oh, dear, we shall have to try to do better next time!"?
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Catholic Power versus Catholic Morals
Liked this article by Joseph Bottum. He uses Notre Dame's recent dropping of charges against pro-life protestors as an occasion to narrate the right/left political split in American Catholicism. I think the narrative is good; here's the crux:
Like all narratives boiled down into a short article, it's not a perfect account, and much more could be said on the matter, obviously. The Catholic Left would especially protest the idea that they alone ceded the moral high-ground, and support their point by mumbling something about seamless garments and how McDonald's doesn't pay a living wage. But the end result, the loss of moral authority in the political sphere, is the same regardless of whether the Catholic Church in America is divided or morally bankrupt on both sides. I'm glad that I'm not on the side that has to send out thugs to beat down fellow Catholics.
The curious part, however, was the way that it broke. The liberals, the left wing of the Murrayans, chose the political side, electing to join and support the American political establishment. And the conservatives, the right wing of the Murrayans, chose the moral side, electing to use Catholicism to call the nation to a higher morality that sees abortion as an outrage against human dignity.
The result is things like the clash on Notre Dame’s campus in 2009. No doubt the protesters believed themselves good Americans. And no doubt Fr. Jenkins, president of a Catholic school, believed himself to be pro-life. But the sides they’ve chosen in the Murray Project compel them all to certain behaviors—on the one hand, to march against the simple appearance of a pro-choice American president at a Catholic college, and, on the other hand, to have Catholics arrested for protesting abortion.
Like all narratives boiled down into a short article, it's not a perfect account, and much more could be said on the matter, obviously. The Catholic Left would especially protest the idea that they alone ceded the moral high-ground, and support their point by mumbling something about seamless garments and how McDonald's doesn't pay a living wage. But the end result, the loss of moral authority in the political sphere, is the same regardless of whether the Catholic Church in America is divided or morally bankrupt on both sides. I'm glad that I'm not on the side that has to send out thugs to beat down fellow Catholics.