Cross-posted on Political Grind.
Charles Krauthammer, the clinically trained psychiatrist turned conservative columnist, whimsically announced a new mental disorder back in 2003: "Bush Derangement Syndrome." Krauthammer defined the condition as "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency—nay—the very existence of George W. Bush" (read the original Post column here).
Consider this recent example of BDS:
"I am writing because we have an emergency."
"There are ten steps that are taken in order to close down a democracy or crush a pro-democratic movement, whether by capitalists, communists, or right-wing fascists. These ten steps, together, are more than the sum of their parts. Once all ten have been put in place, each magnifies the power of the others and of the whole."
"Impossible as it may seem, we are seeing each of these ten steps taking hold in the United States today."
So writes Naomi Wolf in End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot, which reveals that the Bush administration is using the events of 9-11 to destroy democracy in America and institute a fascist police state. Most alarming, in her view, the Bush conspirators are not patiently sowing the seeds of a future or incremental conservative coup; Wolf expects a major crackdown on dissent (like locking people up in gulags) within the year.
What of Naomi Wolf and her call to arms?
24/10: The Sun Setting on Europe
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
Muslims continue to riot in the Netherlands. Now also in Brussels. Story.
Take one large unassimilated immigrant group. Add a religion that teaches its followers that they are superior to infidels and destined to rule the world. Place in a dish that has no confidence in its own value, and is crippled by political correctness.
Night is falling over Europe, again.
Take one large unassimilated immigrant group. Add a religion that teaches its followers that they are superior to infidels and destined to rule the world. Place in a dish that has no confidence in its own value, and is crippled by political correctness.
Night is falling over Europe, again.
Category: American Culture
Posted by: an okie gardener
With Halloween a week away, I reprint my post from last year suggesting viewing and reading material.
Most "scary movies" I dislike. They are what I think of as "shockers": the visual equivalent of jumping out of the dark and yelling BOO!, or worse, "gorefests" that shock in the same way the sight of a bad car wreck with its blood and death grabs the attention and causes the audrenaline to pump. To these movies I say, So what.
I do like "suspense" movies: the kind that induce sustained apprehension, like Jaws. And I like "weird" movies, that mess with my mind, challenge my thinking and perceptions, and disturb me at a deep level. Like The Exorcist. But mostly, I think the realm of The Weird is better done in literature.
So this Halloween, if you must watch a movie, I recommend The Exorcist, or the original 1925 Phantom of the Opera with Lon Chaney, or perhaps the 1922 Nosferatu, or maybe the 1932 The Mummy with Boris Karloff, or if you can find it the 1932 Freaks.
But, I recommend you read this Halloween. (more below)
Somehow the interaction of author and reader in the privacy of the mind, the necessity of one's own images and imagination, the quiet of a good book in a quiet house with only the reading light on, makes for a more satisfying experience of The Weird.
There are so, so many great pieces of weird literature, in length from short stories to novels, that even I recognize the presumption of picking out a "best of category" selection. (Though I'll probably try in a future post; apparently my hubris knows no bounds.)
What I want to do is make a few suggestions of some American authors you may have overlooked.
First, from the earlier days of literature in this country, two authors that may be overlooked because of the overpowering brilliance and reputation of Edgar Allan Poe: Washington Irving and Nathaniel Hawthorne. Both of these men turned out some great short stories of Weird Fiction. For Irving: most of you have probably seen one version or another of "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow," now read the story, and also "The Adventure of the German Student." Hawthorne could write with power of the darkness of human existence: "Ethan Brand," "Young Goodman Brown," "Feathertop," and of course The House of the Seven Gables.
Next, Ambrose Bierce: "The Death of Halpin Fraser," praised by H.P. Lovecraft as a "mountain-peak" of American writing.
And, if you've never read Robert W. Chambers, locking the doors before you begin reading his stories will not calm your nerves, they are fears of the mind and soul, not the body: "The Yellow Sign," and "The Maker of Moons".
Of course, if you love Weird Fiction, you've not overlooked H.P. Lovecraft. He messes with my mind.
Most "scary movies" I dislike. They are what I think of as "shockers": the visual equivalent of jumping out of the dark and yelling BOO!, or worse, "gorefests" that shock in the same way the sight of a bad car wreck with its blood and death grabs the attention and causes the audrenaline to pump. To these movies I say, So what.
I do like "suspense" movies: the kind that induce sustained apprehension, like Jaws. And I like "weird" movies, that mess with my mind, challenge my thinking and perceptions, and disturb me at a deep level. Like The Exorcist. But mostly, I think the realm of The Weird is better done in literature.
So this Halloween, if you must watch a movie, I recommend The Exorcist, or the original 1925 Phantom of the Opera with Lon Chaney, or perhaps the 1922 Nosferatu, or maybe the 1932 The Mummy with Boris Karloff, or if you can find it the 1932 Freaks.
But, I recommend you read this Halloween. (more below)
Somehow the interaction of author and reader in the privacy of the mind, the necessity of one's own images and imagination, the quiet of a good book in a quiet house with only the reading light on, makes for a more satisfying experience of The Weird.
There are so, so many great pieces of weird literature, in length from short stories to novels, that even I recognize the presumption of picking out a "best of category" selection. (Though I'll probably try in a future post; apparently my hubris knows no bounds.)
What I want to do is make a few suggestions of some American authors you may have overlooked.
First, from the earlier days of literature in this country, two authors that may be overlooked because of the overpowering brilliance and reputation of Edgar Allan Poe: Washington Irving and Nathaniel Hawthorne. Both of these men turned out some great short stories of Weird Fiction. For Irving: most of you have probably seen one version or another of "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow," now read the story, and also "The Adventure of the German Student." Hawthorne could write with power of the darkness of human existence: "Ethan Brand," "Young Goodman Brown," "Feathertop," and of course The House of the Seven Gables.
Next, Ambrose Bierce: "The Death of Halpin Fraser," praised by H.P. Lovecraft as a "mountain-peak" of American writing.
And, if you've never read Robert W. Chambers, locking the doors before you begin reading his stories will not calm your nerves, they are fears of the mind and soul, not the body: "The Yellow Sign," and "The Maker of Moons".
Of course, if you love Weird Fiction, you've not overlooked H.P. Lovecraft. He messes with my mind.
23/10: Thinking About Harry Potter
Category: American Culture
Posted by: an okie gardener
What is a Christian to make of the Harry Potter stories? Cardinal George Pell argues that while the stories are not built on a Christian world-view, the virtues exhibited by Harry Potter are compatible with Christianity.
23/10: Hollywood Goes to War
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
Gotta love Hollywood. Watching Law and Order: SVU this evening. The setting was the war on terror, the themes torture and private military contractors. And the bad guys--us. (I will admit I did not watch the last twenty minutes of the show, way too preachy.
22/10: Rioting in the Netherlands
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
The dangers created by a large, unassimilated minority within a nation are on display again in the Netherlands, where rioting has lasted for days. Gateway Pundit has brought the news together.
I am unable to find anything in the English-language press about the riots. Most of the reporting in English seems to be coming through the blogosphere.
I am unable to find anything in the English-language press about the riots. Most of the reporting in English seems to be coming through the blogosphere.
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
The New York Post is on the job investigating the continuing saga of Hillary Clinton's fund-raising scandal. Apparently Hsu is just a part of a larger pattern of funny money coming from Chinese sources. It seems like 1996 all over again.
How can anyone trust a thing the Clintons do or say?
How can anyone trust a thing the Clintons do or say?
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Bosque Boys friend and contributor, Tocqueville, offers up this brief but perceptive analysis of the recently concluded gubernatorial race in the Bayou State:
1. You will note that all the Democratic Party theories about race, the South, and politics were again disproven as Louisiana elected a conspicuously dark-skinned Indian as governor. He won an absolute majority in a field of ten.
2. He was a Republican who defeated a Democrat. I suggest that, even if the media and the Democrats cannot determine who was responsible for the Hurricane Katrina disaster, the electorate in Louisiana understands perfectly well that the corrupt, clownish Democrat mayor of New Orleans and the bumbling Democrat governor of Louisiana warrant the lion's share of the blame.
If the Bush administration is responsible and the governor and the mayor were merely bystanders, one would hardly expect the party of Bush to sweep a Louisiana gubernatorial election with this ease. Coupled with the near defeat of Democrat Tsongas in Massachusetts, one would think that this result in Louisiana would send shivers down the spines of the Democratic Party.
A Post Script: Did you see that Harry Reid's approval numbers in Nevada are lower than Bush's numbers? I find no commentary to this effect in the mainstream media.
1. You will note that all the Democratic Party theories about race, the South, and politics were again disproven as Louisiana elected a conspicuously dark-skinned Indian as governor. He won an absolute majority in a field of ten.
2. He was a Republican who defeated a Democrat. I suggest that, even if the media and the Democrats cannot determine who was responsible for the Hurricane Katrina disaster, the electorate in Louisiana understands perfectly well that the corrupt, clownish Democrat mayor of New Orleans and the bumbling Democrat governor of Louisiana warrant the lion's share of the blame.
If the Bush administration is responsible and the governor and the mayor were merely bystanders, one would hardly expect the party of Bush to sweep a Louisiana gubernatorial election with this ease. Coupled with the near defeat of Democrat Tsongas in Massachusetts, one would think that this result in Louisiana would send shivers down the spines of the Democratic Party.
A Post Script: Did you see that Harry Reid's approval numbers in Nevada are lower than Bush's numbers? I find no commentary to this effect in the mainstream media.
~~Tocqueville
James Watson, Nobel prize-winning geneticist ("the father of DNA"), is under fire for racist remarks he made to London's Sunday Times Magazine.
Quoth he (as reported in the above British article):
He says that he is “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours–-whereas all the testing says not really”, and I know that this “hot potato” is going to be difficult to address.
His hope is that everyone is equal, but he counters that “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”. He says that you should not discriminate on the basis of colour, because “there are many people of colour who are very talented, but don’t promote them when they haven’t succeeded at the lower level”. He writes that “there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so”.
The Reaction?
International furor and universal condemnation.
According to the International Herald Tribune:
"London's Science Museum canceled a sold-out lecture, and the University of Edinburgh, where the scientist was to speak Monday, issued a statement saying it had withdrawn the invitation."
At which point, Watson canceled his book tour and returned to America. In addition to his engagements in London and Edinburgh, Watson was also set to deliver major lectures at Cambridge, Newcastle, Bristol and Oxford.
Reaction in America:
From TIME Magazine :
"There is no scientific basis for such a belief."
"For one thing, science has no agreed-upon definition of "race:" however you slice up the population, the categories look pretty arbitrary. For another, science has no agreed-upon definition of "intelligence" either--let alone an agreed-upon method to test it. All kinds of cultural biases have been identified in IQ tests, for example. If there is something fundamental in our brains that regulates our capacity to learn, we have yet to separate its effects from the effects of everything that we experience after we're born."
Having said that, TIME expresses some sympathy for Watson, wondering if the scientific giant "is less an arrogant bigot than an enthusiastic if misguided old man...."
Scott Simon, NPR's Weekend Edition anchor opines (linked here):
"Dr. Watson reminds us that Nobel Prize winners can also be fools."
Even Watson himself seemed outraged as his own statement, testifying now that he is at a loss to fathom how or why he would say such a thing; he is in full recant.
All parties are united in the certainty that Watson's remarks are completely inappropriate and absolutely false. Moreover, implicit in this humiliation, pursuit of similar ideas are prima facie evidence of racism, which is the ultimate career-ending condemnation.
The bottom line: This incident reeks with hypocrisy. So much for academic discourse. So much for the scientific method of observation followed by experimentation to test hypotheses derived from questions formed through experience. The academy is ostensibly designed to promote free discussion, free thought, and critical thinking. Universities purportedly serve society as fortresses to protect the free exchange of ideas.
But, obviously, there are important exceptions. As for race, we have discovered as much truth as we are willing to accept. Clearly, any further discussion in this field of study must conform to our already agreed-upon correct conclusions.
I am not a scientist. I tend to put my faith in the scientific consensus. Even more instructive, I am a naive American idealist who desperately wants to believe that "all men are created equal." However, from my lay perspective, it seems cowardly and cynical to reward some dissenting voices and punish others simply because they challenge certain sacred societal absolutes.
Ironically, those enlightened American progressives who generally seem so ready to bemoan the "chilling effect" of suppression of free speech, are the most likely to join the chorus of zealots shouting down the unorthodoxy of Dr. Watson.
Quoth he (as reported in the above British article):
He says that he is “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours–-whereas all the testing says not really”, and I know that this “hot potato” is going to be difficult to address.
His hope is that everyone is equal, but he counters that “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”. He says that you should not discriminate on the basis of colour, because “there are many people of colour who are very talented, but don’t promote them when they haven’t succeeded at the lower level”. He writes that “there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so”.
The Reaction?
International furor and universal condemnation.
According to the International Herald Tribune:
"London's Science Museum canceled a sold-out lecture, and the University of Edinburgh, where the scientist was to speak Monday, issued a statement saying it had withdrawn the invitation."
At which point, Watson canceled his book tour and returned to America. In addition to his engagements in London and Edinburgh, Watson was also set to deliver major lectures at Cambridge, Newcastle, Bristol and Oxford.
Reaction in America:
From TIME Magazine :
"There is no scientific basis for such a belief."
"For one thing, science has no agreed-upon definition of "race:" however you slice up the population, the categories look pretty arbitrary. For another, science has no agreed-upon definition of "intelligence" either--let alone an agreed-upon method to test it. All kinds of cultural biases have been identified in IQ tests, for example. If there is something fundamental in our brains that regulates our capacity to learn, we have yet to separate its effects from the effects of everything that we experience after we're born."
Having said that, TIME expresses some sympathy for Watson, wondering if the scientific giant "is less an arrogant bigot than an enthusiastic if misguided old man...."
Scott Simon, NPR's Weekend Edition anchor opines (linked here):
"Dr. Watson reminds us that Nobel Prize winners can also be fools."
Even Watson himself seemed outraged as his own statement, testifying now that he is at a loss to fathom how or why he would say such a thing; he is in full recant.
All parties are united in the certainty that Watson's remarks are completely inappropriate and absolutely false. Moreover, implicit in this humiliation, pursuit of similar ideas are prima facie evidence of racism, which is the ultimate career-ending condemnation.
The bottom line: This incident reeks with hypocrisy. So much for academic discourse. So much for the scientific method of observation followed by experimentation to test hypotheses derived from questions formed through experience. The academy is ostensibly designed to promote free discussion, free thought, and critical thinking. Universities purportedly serve society as fortresses to protect the free exchange of ideas.
But, obviously, there are important exceptions. As for race, we have discovered as much truth as we are willing to accept. Clearly, any further discussion in this field of study must conform to our already agreed-upon correct conclusions.
I am not a scientist. I tend to put my faith in the scientific consensus. Even more instructive, I am a naive American idealist who desperately wants to believe that "all men are created equal." However, from my lay perspective, it seems cowardly and cynical to reward some dissenting voices and punish others simply because they challenge certain sacred societal absolutes.
Ironically, those enlightened American progressives who generally seem so ready to bemoan the "chilling effect" of suppression of free speech, are the most likely to join the chorus of zealots shouting down the unorthodoxy of Dr. Watson.
Category: Media and Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
From Reuters via the Washington Post:
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh raised $2.1 million for children of fallen Marines and law enforcement officers on Friday by auctioning off a letter from Senate Democrats denouncing him for a remark about 'phony soldiers.'"
An important story meriting prominent placement?
The Washington Post did not think so; they chose to bury the item on its "Nation" page under the "Wire" link. As of this writing (Friday night), the wire service account is underneath more than thirty other such stories.
When is Rush Limbaugh more newsworthy?
Very frequently--but mostly when he is in trouble.
He is front-page news when he demonstrates insensitivity toward an enfeebled celebrity venturing into the political arena (the Michael J. Fox tumult). Limbaugh has also found himself at the top of the page concerning his personal life, when his battle with addiction to prescription drugs found its way into the public domain or later when authorities detained him for carrying Viagra on an international flight. Evidently, those incidents were stories with high news value.
So, Limbaugh is a person of general public interest. Is there anything special about this particular story?
I think so. Limbaugh earned a record-breaking amount of money for a worthy cause. The ebay auction netted the biggest charitable contribution in the history of the online-bidding enterprise. Limbaugh more than doubled the previous record.
Did the story involve any other persons of note? Were there any compelling special interest angles?
You bet. The online charity auction was the ensuing chapter to a major imbroglio from the recent past. Fifteen days ago, Limbaugh found himself on the defensive when the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, and forty fellow Democrats in the Senate, charged him with making "outrageous...unpatriotic and indefensible comments" directed at soldiers dissenting against the war in Iraq. The story was above-the-fold news in all the major dailies and the network news shows.
The developments today unquestionably constitute a noteworthy follow-up to that featured story.
But what did all that add up to for the mainstream network news desks tonight? A big fat zero. I could find no coverage on the big three nightly news broadcasts or on the Newshour.
In fairness, I must accord some left-handed praise for the New York Times for at least covering the culminating event. They currently feature a full-length, in-house story on the front page of their website: Limbaugh Sells Critical Letter for $2.1 Million.
However, the story begins and develops with a pungently hostile slant. Check out this lead:
"After Rush Limbaugh referred to Iraq war veterans critical of the war as “phony soldiers,” he received a letter of complaint signed by 41 Democratic senators."
TWELVE (let me repeat, TWELVE) graphs later, we get Limbaugh's side of the story:
"Mr. Limbaugh has said that he was only referring to one soldier who was critical of the war and had served only 44 days in the Army and never seen combat."
In between, we learn that Harry Reid is a big enough person to applaud the charitable gift. Quoting Reid:
"I strongly believe that when we can put our differences aside, even Harry Reid and Rush Limbaugh, we should do that and try to accomplish good things for the American people."
We also learn that Rush was dead wrong in his character assessment of the Leader:
"He [Limbaugh] predicted the sale’s success would anger the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, a signer of the letter, who[m] Mr. Limbaugh calls 'Dingy Harry."
But no--Reid was just tickled pink over the news.
In a truly bizarre conclusion, the Times, consulting a purported tax law expert, insinuates:
"the Casey foundation [the high bidder] might be liable for taxes because it would have difficulty demonstrating that the purchase of the letter furthered a charitable purpose. [Quoting the tax attorney]: 'They’d have to establish the link between the transfer of money for that letter and promoting free speech, and that’s going to be tough.'"
Say what? I don't have a law degree, and I have no experience with the IRS--but come now.
A 2.1 million-dollar gift to a registered charity is going to be tough to justify?
Bottom Line: No fair-minded person can say that the mainstream media is a level playing field for prominent conservatives like Rush Limbaugh. In other words, objectivity is always subjective.
UPDATE: Thomas Lifson (link via RCP here) asks a question to which we all know the answer, but it is nevertheless brilliantly illustrative: what if a Republican leader had attacked a liberal media favorite in a similar manner, using the power of Congress to intimidate a major media outlet? Would the smashing return shot have been news?
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh raised $2.1 million for children of fallen Marines and law enforcement officers on Friday by auctioning off a letter from Senate Democrats denouncing him for a remark about 'phony soldiers.'"
An important story meriting prominent placement?
The Washington Post did not think so; they chose to bury the item on its "Nation" page under the "Wire" link. As of this writing (Friday night), the wire service account is underneath more than thirty other such stories.
When is Rush Limbaugh more newsworthy?
Very frequently--but mostly when he is in trouble.
He is front-page news when he demonstrates insensitivity toward an enfeebled celebrity venturing into the political arena (the Michael J. Fox tumult). Limbaugh has also found himself at the top of the page concerning his personal life, when his battle with addiction to prescription drugs found its way into the public domain or later when authorities detained him for carrying Viagra on an international flight. Evidently, those incidents were stories with high news value.
So, Limbaugh is a person of general public interest. Is there anything special about this particular story?
I think so. Limbaugh earned a record-breaking amount of money for a worthy cause. The ebay auction netted the biggest charitable contribution in the history of the online-bidding enterprise. Limbaugh more than doubled the previous record.
Did the story involve any other persons of note? Were there any compelling special interest angles?
You bet. The online charity auction was the ensuing chapter to a major imbroglio from the recent past. Fifteen days ago, Limbaugh found himself on the defensive when the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, and forty fellow Democrats in the Senate, charged him with making "outrageous...unpatriotic and indefensible comments" directed at soldiers dissenting against the war in Iraq. The story was above-the-fold news in all the major dailies and the network news shows.
The developments today unquestionably constitute a noteworthy follow-up to that featured story.
But what did all that add up to for the mainstream network news desks tonight? A big fat zero. I could find no coverage on the big three nightly news broadcasts or on the Newshour.
In fairness, I must accord some left-handed praise for the New York Times for at least covering the culminating event. They currently feature a full-length, in-house story on the front page of their website: Limbaugh Sells Critical Letter for $2.1 Million.
However, the story begins and develops with a pungently hostile slant. Check out this lead:
"After Rush Limbaugh referred to Iraq war veterans critical of the war as “phony soldiers,” he received a letter of complaint signed by 41 Democratic senators."
TWELVE (let me repeat, TWELVE) graphs later, we get Limbaugh's side of the story:
"Mr. Limbaugh has said that he was only referring to one soldier who was critical of the war and had served only 44 days in the Army and never seen combat."
In between, we learn that Harry Reid is a big enough person to applaud the charitable gift. Quoting Reid:
"I strongly believe that when we can put our differences aside, even Harry Reid and Rush Limbaugh, we should do that and try to accomplish good things for the American people."
We also learn that Rush was dead wrong in his character assessment of the Leader:
"He [Limbaugh] predicted the sale’s success would anger the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, a signer of the letter, who[m] Mr. Limbaugh calls 'Dingy Harry."
But no--Reid was just tickled pink over the news.
In a truly bizarre conclusion, the Times, consulting a purported tax law expert, insinuates:
"the Casey foundation [the high bidder] might be liable for taxes because it would have difficulty demonstrating that the purchase of the letter furthered a charitable purpose. [Quoting the tax attorney]: 'They’d have to establish the link between the transfer of money for that letter and promoting free speech, and that’s going to be tough.'"
Say what? I don't have a law degree, and I have no experience with the IRS--but come now.
A 2.1 million-dollar gift to a registered charity is going to be tough to justify?
Bottom Line: No fair-minded person can say that the mainstream media is a level playing field for prominent conservatives like Rush Limbaugh. In other words, objectivity is always subjective.
UPDATE: Thomas Lifson (link via RCP here) asks a question to which we all know the answer, but it is nevertheless brilliantly illustrative: what if a Republican leader had attacked a liberal media favorite in a similar manner, using the power of Congress to intimidate a major media outlet? Would the smashing return shot have been news?
