The Crowbar

As I’ve become more familiar with Andrew Sullivan’s blog, I’ve begun to note his left-wing populism and intellectual laziness.  For example, Sullivan has attempted to dismiss Bill Kristol’s recent reasonable but brief analysis stating that Arlen Specter’s defection to the Democrats “may help produce greater GOP gains in November 2010, and a brighter Republican future.” Maybe so, maybe not, but what’s interesting is Sullivan’s response. He entitles his two word post “Losing is Winning.” The two words he wrote would be “Kristol Daydreams.” I’m not a Harvard graduate with a PhD in Government, but Sullivan seems to be denying that political cycles exist. Maybe he skipped out on the American Government class? In America’s two party system, losing is winning and winning is losing. The Republicans are out of power for the moment, but it will last only as long as the Democrats don’t screw up the country too much. With a hard core socialist-leftist & zero executive experience n00b in the White House, Crazy Nancy in the House House, and Dirty Harry in the Senate House – that won’t take long. Duh. It appears that Sullivan’s visceral desire to see the Republican party marginalized has overwhelmed that intellectually superiour British brain of his. It’s all about gay marriage for him – I think he’s mad at the Republicans for not wanting the define marriage HIS way and he’s gonna make ‘em pay DEARLY. Whatever. Specter leaving the Republican party is good for the Republican party because when the Democrats screw everything up (and, oh, they WILL) it will make the Republican party as a whole look more attractive if it lacks leftist baggage. America is slightly center-right, which make the long term prospects of a center-right party quite strong – if that party manages to remain slightly center-right. Specter is a backstabber – let him go backstab the Democrats for awhile; for them, winning Specter to their side is losing.

There’s lots to challenge in this latest HuffPo post from Bob ‘conservatives please kill yourselves‘ Cesca, but this I found most amusing and disturbing:

On average, the same number of Americans who were killed on September 11 will die from cancer over the next two days. 40,000 people this month. More than half a million throughout the course of the year. Your chances of being killed at the hands of a terrorist, on the other hand, are comparatively remote. Some estimates show the odds at one in 9.3 million.

So what if OTHER Americans get killed in a terrorist attack, it probably won’t happen to you so you need not be concerned. Forget that those odds can fluctuate depending on how well the Obama administration handles homeland security. Forget that another successful terrorist attack would have a disproportionate psychological effect, discouraging Americans and empowering terrorists. Forget the massive economic damage it would likely cause. Just fugettaboutit! Ol’ Crazy Bob and his pals have everything under control. Eeesh.

OMG, the left has dramaticly convulsed with faux indignance about the not-torture memos foolishly released by Obama. The topic has now reached feverish proportions. I’ve noted, in their discourse, leftists are purposely confusing actual torture with hard core interrogation in order to keep themselves outraged enough to distract from the the painful truth they don’t want to face. The left needs something to be Extremely Upset about to keep themselves going, and the not-torture memos fit the bill quite nicely.  Brutal, Unpleasant Reality The anti-interrogationists label those who oppose their view as “pro-torture,” but, here’s the thing of it: Did you know that America trains some of it’s citizens to kill people with guns? It’s called an Army. Do you know what happens to the bodies fo the people on the receiving end of American Army guns? The bodies of people shot by guns die, are torn to shreds, mutilated beyond recognition or sometimes their brains explode, being hit with such extreme force that they spatter all about in a stomach-churning goopy mess. If a targeted person happens to survive being shot by a gun, the bullets that penetrate their body cause excruciating pain, internal bleeding and/or infection that often kills them anyway. If they survive that, the target can face major surgery, possibly amputation of a limb, and months or years of physical recovery. On top of this they will likely face years of psychological recovery – if they ever fully recover. Quite an unpleasant affair, no? Americans have been killing non-American people with guns for some time – no memos justifying that, though. Perhaps we should ban killing by Army guns too, considering how morally repugnanat it is. Oddly enough, people have been involved in killing Americans, too. For example, this event happened about 7 1/2 years ago: That video always puts things in perspective. Facts of the Matter Speaking of perspective, strange how the left didn’t stage a freak out when Obama recently fired missiles killing 15 people, including three children. So the left is OK with America killing children when necessary, but they have an epileptic seizure when a deranged psychopath bent on killing Americans capitulates after being strapped to the floor and having water poured on him six times a day for a month. And, some more moderate voices have joined the anti-interrogation madness. Fox News’ Shepherd Smith exclaimed recently, ”we are America, we do not f**king torture.” But Shep has no such problem with an American Predator drone strike killing children who happen to be in the vicinity of their terrorist relatives. Can you say ‘cognative dissonance?’ We encounter more dissonance in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. telephone poll released in November 2007. 58% of respondents said the government should be not be allowed to use waterboarding to try to get information from suspected terrorists. Altering the question to include the caveat ‘if the safety of you and your loved ones was credibly threatened’ would have significantly altered the percentage, probably placing pro-waterboarding respondents solidly in the majority. Asking that question (including the caveat) of the populace of New York in the months immediately after 9/11/2001 would likely show a dramatic majority in favor of waterboarding. It is easy to hold to lofty, unrealistic ideas over the telephone from the safety of home after six years of no subsequent terrorist attacks. Things change when people feel their safety is truly threatened. Part of the reason there have been no subsequent attacks is because hard core interrogation has proved effective. The CIA confirmed that Khalid Sheik Mohammad supplied the intelligence that aborted 9/11-style attack on Los Angeles:

In the memo itself, the Justice Department’s Bradbury told the CIA’s Rossi: “Your office has informed us that the CIA believes that ‘the intelligence acquired from these interrogations has been a key reason why al Qa’ida has failed to launch a spectacular attack in the West since 11 September 2001.”

That’s called “actionable intelligence,” but the left is convinced we have placed ourselves in Grave Moral Danger by obtaining it through harsh coercion.  Blood-Colored Glasses The humiliating truth is the left doesn’t have the stomach to face harsh, ugly reality. Protecting America is a dirty business and most leading liberals don’t like dirty – it offends their delicate sensibilities. They’d rather put the terrorists in therapy or send them home with reparations.  The debate the left is trying to usurp is about where we draw the line, about what is and isn’t too much. Waterboarding and the other coercive techniques used by the CIA walk up to that line, but not past it. It is good for America to question itself, to ensure we are doing the right thing, but the left keeps trying to rescue us from the thoughts they’re afraid we’ll have. They tell us there is no way they can be wrong, no way any opinion other than theirs can possibly be considered – and you’re vilified if you do. But, the leader of the left has already showed signs of retreat from his previous life as an anti-”torture” leftist. Obama knows that he’s in dangerous territory by “banning” these techniques. His adminstration’s waffling shows he wants it both ways; to obtain vital intel without using harsh coercion – but I can’t help but get the feeling he wants the “torture” option in his back pocket. Obama is responsible for protecting the U.S. from another terrorist attack; he knows he has undermined himself and, believe you me, he’s worried about the ramifications. He needs hard core interrogation to stop those insane maniacs from killing more innocent Americans, but he promised to shut down Gitmo and gave the terrorists an interrogation resistance manual to boot.  Left wing opinion leaders have made a major misstep in selling the waterboarding-as-torture narrative, though given their warped ideology it was probably inevitable. The attitude which produced that narrative, ignoring all unpleasantries and hiding inside a hero costume made of faux morality and self-righteousness, is what undermines American security and will be ultimately responsible for the needless, preventable deaths of more Americans at the hands of terrorists.

Michelle Malkin has taken intolerant Liberals to task for their double standards, disrespect, and lack of civility about the Miss California/Carrie Prejean fiasco.

But in the Age of Obama, there’s no room for such nuance and inconvenient truths. A decent young woman is a “dumb b*tch” for holding the same view of marriage as the Obamessiah. A conservative campus speaker is bullied as a hatemonger by wild-eyed hatemongers. A grassroots movement is debased as a bunch of racist vulgarians by a media mob of racists and vulgarians. Civility and tolerance have taken a left-hand turn down a one-way street. So much for changing course.

I disagree with Malkin’s assertion that left wing rage and incivility is merely an effect of  the “Age of Obama.” This has been happening for longer than a few months; and, it’s getting worse. Blogger Andrea Tantaros also leverages her crowbar, painting a more accurate picture:

This issue goes beyond beauty contests and reveals a much scarier truth: You cannot voice a dissenting opinion without being assaulted by the progressive left. The left is not interested in debating, only suppressing debate.  Destroying your life and career is the sentence for anyone who dissents on these issues. The activists will carry out the sentence with the willing assistance of a compliant media.

Many on the left incorporated rage and abuse into their political discourse during the Bush years and the Miss USA/gay marriage fiasco is partly a result of that incorporation. Conservatives must continue to challenge the left (and often themselves) to return to more civil and respectful discourse. If conservatives fail in this task, the left may well continue down the dark path of hate they have chosen.

Found this cubic zirconia on Truthdig: ‘Creepy’ Karl Rove on Meghan McCain’s Twitter Trail:

You know a social networking trend has gone too far when: (1) Karl Rove has caught on, and (2) Karl Rove attempts to “friend” you—or, in Meghan McCain’s unenviable case, follow you on Twitter. Ew.

Ew? Not sure if it was Robert Sheer, Zuade Kaufman or someone else who wrote that, but ‘ew’ speaks volumes about their maturity level. The image forming in my mind: a 13 year old girl with friends says, “Oh my God, Karl Rove is, like, sooooo creepy!” followed by “Ewwwww!” in unison and then lots of giggles. Heh. Truthdig then cites McCain at The Daily Beast:

Karl Rove follows me on Twitter. That’s creepy. I joined Twitter a few months ago; so far, it has been a liberating way to transition from political to personal blogging. It’s allowed me to share the less-serious aspects and humorously uncensored moments of my life. But there’s also been a downside: I am now being followed by Karl Rove, and my local sheriff, and God knows how many other political pundits. We need to take Twitter back from the creepy people.

Yep. The giggling 13 year olds image has become vivid. I guess McCain just can’t STAND that guy Rove because he, like, keeps following her on Twitter and stuff.  In an interesting turn, McCain then talks about how SHE has explored Rove’s Twitter feed:

On the surface, Karl Rove’s Twitter feed intrigues me. Here’s a guy who for years has been perceived as some kind of inaccessible man-behind-the-curtain figure. And now he Tweets numerous times a day. I’ve never met him in person, which only makes our Twitter relationship even weirder. And to be honest, I find Rove’s Tweets boring. Sometimes he takes questions; other times he talks about his appearances on cable news and other shows. But he doesn’t say anything substantive. If I had to guess, I’d say Rove has a “ghost Twitterer” (as in a ghost writer) or an assistant updating his feed for him. Oddly enough, Rove’s Tweets seem to reveal a softer side to him. Call it savvy marketing, but I find it disingenuous.

Wow, she’s been doing an awful lot of thinking about Rove. I’m finding it hard to imagine that Rove has spent as much time (if any) exploring McCain’s Twitter feed. Maybe Rove isn’t as interested in McCain as she seems to believe. Wait a sec. Obsession over someone who pays no attention to you… isn’t that kinda creepy??

Warner Todd Huston of NewsBusters apparently thinks that it’s A-OK to make use of the invectives “celebutard” and “idiot” when making the case against the ignorant rants of Jackie Chan and John Cleese. Though Huston does call Cleese and Chan “useful idiots,” he does not use “celebutard” in the text of his post. His post does, however, have a graphic that uses the word: Using such words goes beyond civil discourse, especially “celebutard.” This is beneath the talent of Huston; there are more effective and clever ways of highlighting the foolishness of celebrities like Chan and Cleese. I implore Huston and NewsBusters to issue an apology and take the next fork to the high road.

Markos Zuniga must have run out of coffee considering how limp his attempt to tie all conservatives to some guy who planned on murdering 88 people and then trying to kill Obama:

So conservatives are suing the Department of Homeland Security for keeping a watchful eye over neo-Nazis and militia types, because apparently they’re all part of the same team. Still, I just don’t understand why conservatives would want to embrace this crowd: <- [Original Kos link, maybe was mistake? I found the story quoted below here.]

According to testimony given in court yesterday, authorities originally believed Daniel Cowart, 20, of Bells, and 18-year-old Paul Schlesselman of Helena-West Helena, Ark., were planning a possible attempt to rob and kill Clark and Judy Cowart. Cowart and Schlesselman were later charged with planning a crime spree that would have involved killing 88 people and decapitating 14 blacks. The spree would have ended with an attempt to kill President Barack Obama. They were arrested Oct. 22 and have been held without bond since then.

Yeah, there’s such an uprising of conservative support out there for Daniel Cowart. Then again, I guess the only big blogs talking about Cowart are Kos and LittleGreenFootballs. For being “part of the same team” as Daniel Cowart, conservatives have a funny way of showing it.  Aside from that, this really is Zuniga taking a crack at the conservative outrage over the DHS “rightwing extremism” report (pdf):

Seems logical that DHS would keep a close eye on potentially violent hate groups and extremist organizations, but conservative bloggers, and House Minority Leader John Boehner, and Fox News, and Rush, and Glenn Beck, and all the rest of that crowd think its outrageous that the FBI would keep close tabs on the likes of Daniel Cowart and Paul Schlesselman.

It is logical to keep “keep a close eye on potentially violent hate groups and extremist organizations.” Attacks can come from the left and the right. However, conservatives have a right to be outraged at a report that casts such a wide net when defining right wing “extremism.” If you are “antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use’ then the report seems to be talking about you. If McCain had been elected and his DHS pick produced a similarly sloppy report called “Leftwing Extremism…” what do you think Zuniga’s reaction would be? It would be epileptic. I’m taking a wait and see attitude. I’m not convinced that Janet Napolitano’s DHS truly intended harm with this report. Anyone with half a brain would have known it would be a lightning rod. The DHS is a ginormous bureaucracy, which adds up to less than half a brain. It stinks more like overall incompetence to me.

John Aravosis over at AMERICAblog has accused former CIA director Michael Hayden of cowardice. Hayden has criticized Obama’s senseless release of the CIA “torture” memos:

“What we have described for our enemies in the midst of a war are the outer limits that any American would ever go to in terms of interrogating an al Qaeda terrorist. That’s very valuable information,” Hayden said during an appearance on “Fox News Sunday.” “By taking [certain] techniques off the table, we have made it more difficult — in a whole host of circumstances I can imagine — for CIA officers to defend the nation,” he said.

Aravosis gets snitty:

Yeah, that’s cute. Except that the US agreed a long time ago that torture was off the table. And even John McCain is opposed to torture. But of course, Hayden has a more personal reason for opposing the release of information pertaining to the torture of foreign prisoners. Mr. Hayden, I suspect, isn’t very interested in spending the rest of his life in some foreign prison as a war criminal.

Yes, I’m sure Hayden is shaking in his boots. Eerily similar to the Global Warming topic, all of Liberalati has declared the debate over where the line between interrogation and torture is drawn to be SO over. They sure to love to be in charge of definitions, don’t they? Take a look at Wikipedia’s waterboarding entry – it has Liberalati fingerprints all over it. Who are those “legal experts, politicians, war veterans, intelligence officials, military judges, and human rights organizations”, anyway? Phew! I’m smelling the putrid stench of “consensus.” So, following in Aravosis’ footsteps, I’ve decided that I am the ultimate authority on what constitutes torture. I thusly declare reading Aravosis’ blog, AMERICAblog, to be a form of torture. I call on the Obama administration to finish taking over the internet and then shut down Aravosis’ blog due to the long term psychological damage his writing inflicts on those who choose to read it.  Huh, so this is what it feels like to be a modern liberal opinion leader? I feel almost god-like and I’m starting to think that I am.

Krugman joins the 183 crowd:

I think I ought to say something about the torture memos — namely, that there is now no way to view the people who ruled us these past 8 years as anything but monsters.

There is no way, eh? Krugman the populist economist has spoken, the debate over what constitutes torture is SO over.

We had all these rationalizations of torture over the “ticking clock” and all that — then we learn, for example, that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times in one month. I really don’t even want to think about all this. But this was our government — and these people might be back.

Yes, those TERRIBLE rationalizations. I mean, the HORROR of pouring lots of water 6 times a day on someone who knew of plans to murder Americans to get them to spill the beans. What HAVE we come to???? Are the walls of civilization CRUMBLING??? OHHHH!!!! I just can’t think about it either! C’mon Krugman, get a grip.

Feministing is fairly tame for a feminist website, but sometimes they get a little wacky:

Sociological Images has a great short post about Facebook’s default avatar - which appears to be a white male.

Ay carumba! Say it ain’t so: The oddest part is they are seriously questioning the whiteness of the image, as though it somehow represents the ‘white’ ethnic background to the exclusion of others. This, apparently, is in contrast to the orange avatars Facebook uses in it’s “illustration of global connection.” Sorry, not buying it. You can upload almost any image you want as your profile pic, so this is just plain silly. White, in this context stands for ‘blank slate,’ not ‘ethinc group.’ It’s just so ridiculous to be seriously discussing the subject even amongst sociologists, aren’t there more important subjects? Aside from that, why does it have to be a man’s silhouette? As Feministing commenter Tsunade says:

It could be a lesbian. I TOTALLY had that haircut!

Ha! In honor of all this silliness, I propose a new generic avatar that may resolve any concerns: