Can't Kill the Buzz of Liberty: Thoughts on Independence Hall

Actually, this seems like a comment from folks like snark-ass JBW:

Dear Dr Douglas: If you want to see the Liberty Bell, or the place where the Declaration of Independence was debated and signed, we have the originals here in Pennsylvania; you don't have to see faux copies.

But actually, that's from Dana at Common Sense Political Thought. I read his blog, and I admire is daughter, PFC Pico, and I link to him often - and most of all I wish I could have coffee with him in Philly. So, God bless him, why he was moved to post a little put down like that is beyond me. But it does serve as a catalyst to write about yesterday's event at further length.

I noted a couple of days ago that I hadn't been to Independence Hall at Knott's Berry Farm since I was in 5th grade. My class went there on a field trip. It's interesting that I've never forgotten the experience. I especially enjoyed seeing the replica of the Liberty Bell. As a local tourist website notes, "Walter Knott's deep love of country and home drove him to build the country's only brick-by-brick replica of Independence Hall." And that's the thing. Why would a Southern California entrepreneur spend his own money, in the 1960s, to build an exact version of the Pennsylvania State House, where our founding documents were signed? It's one of the most powerful affirmations of American exceptional one can make. Other people sure haven't taken that contribution for granted, as the Knott's Wikipedia entry notes, "Independence Hall was so well recreated that it was used in the 2004 film 'National Treasure'." And because admission is free, the facility is a phenomenal historical resource for our local communities. No doubt untold numbers of Southern California children have toured Independence Hall with their families and with their teachers and classmates. And I know many of those with less advantage -- and thus without the financial ability to travel to Philadelphia -- would never ridicule this fabulous historical recreation as a cheap "faux" copy. We're are blessed to have so cherished a replica here at home.

Of course, I'm sure Representative Royce knew exactly what he was doing when he invited Representative Bachmann to attend a rally at Knott's Independence Hall. The tea parties, and our few congressional leaders who really understand them, reflect the spirit of 1776. When I met Opus yesterday I told her and her friends that I've never participated as much in American politics as I have in the last year. I've been a political junkie for 25 years, and a political scientist almost as long. But I've learned more about our political system this last year -- and especially about the mass media! -- than I ever did inside a classroom.

And going to Knott's Berry Farm yesterday felt like I'd gone full circle from my childhood. That was forty years ago, and never would I have thought back then how much I'd come to love and appreciate our institutions so much. I teach the meaning of the Declaration of Independence every semester, and I can guarantee you that way too many students don't appreciate the fundamental philosophical foundations embedded in that piece of parchment. Many of them don't know that Jefferson's handiwork ties together a long line of Western political thought, handiwork that at that time was preserved for the ages in the founding of a new nation. They certainly don't know that later freedom fighters, like those fighting for liberty in Eastern Europe during the Cold War, would read the Declaration of Independence at their own revolutions from tyranny (e.g., Prague in 1989).

So, when we rally at events like this, no one takes for granted the real Independence Hall in Philadelphia. We wish we could be there with our fellow patriots. Michele Bachmann was so powerful yesterday in her effusive thanks to all the people who took time out from their busy lives to reaffirm the founding principles of our nation. She noted that it's going to take people like this to take the country back. David Horowitz, who gave a brief speech before Representative Bachmann was introduced, argued that the November 2010 elections were the most important elections in his lifetime. He even had to stop himself and admit, that yes, all elections seem like they're the most important ever. But he noted that the congressional midterms this year are an unmatched epic moment for Americans to apply the brakes, to slow the real push to Democratic-socialism in this country. This is not hyperbole. This is from a man who was one of the leading 1960s activists, one who knows real communist agitators and one who doesn't apply a lot of spin in his analysis (Horowitz rejects the "birther" talk and all that).

In any case, I just needed to vent about this -- since you can't kill the buzz of liberty! I told my good friend Jan at Vinegar and Honey that next to my family, I'm most happy when I'm with my fellow tea party patriots. I've been so enriched and strengthened this last year, with all the activism and comaraderie, I can't express how meaningful it's all been. My faith in America is constantly renewed. My hope is that my friend Dana at Common Sense Political Thought will keep these words in mind as we move forward in 2010 and work to rekindle the promise of events that took place nearly 235 years ago in his home state of Pennsylvania.

Obscenities in the Blogosphere

I've never thought using obscenities in blogging was acceptable.

When I started, I read political scientists who were bloggers (folks who had career reputations to maintain), and I considered blogging as a new form of journalism. Cursing just seemed unprofessional, and when I did see some use profanity it was normally accompanied by equally crass opinions. It was easy to dismiss these people as unserious.

I imagine someone would have to research it, but my feeling is that lefty bloggers are more comfortable with profanity in their blogging than conservatives. Certainly top left-wing bloggers, who are discussed in Katherine Seelye's piece, "Easing Off Online Obscenities," find crude language in blogging acceptable, even advantageous, and they've invented little decision rules on when cursing might be fine and dandy:

Has anyone noticed a decline in the use of obscenities in the blogosphere lately (well, at least when various public figures aren’t being quoted)?

Some prominent bloggers on a panel here at Netroots Nation said today that for a variety of reasons, they have scaled back their use of profanity. Others said they were swearing as much as they ever had.

Digby Parton, who writes on Hullabaloo.com, said she initially thought of her blog as an ephemeral form of conversation among friends and used vulgarities freely. But now she is read by a substantially wider circle and has cleaned up her language.
“I don’t use the same amount of profanity,” she said. “We’re taken much more seriously as a political force,” and she has a stronger sense that her words are “out there for posterity”....

Amanda Marcotte, who writes on pandagon.net and had been the blogmaster for John Edwards’s presidential campaign until some of her outside writings were deemed anti-Catholic, described her stance on the matter this way: “I curse and I’m vulgar and I make really, really dirty jokes.”

She said she uses obscenities to entertain people and “to show hypocrisy and the ridiculousness of society.”

Jesse Taylor, who founded pandagon in 2002 and was the online communications director for Gov. Ted Strickland, Democrat of Ohio, until earlier this year, moderated the panel. He said he found that he had been using obscenities so frequently that he simply tired of it (and was also constrained by outside writing that did not allow it).

Now, he said, “My use of profanity is much more targeted.” He still sometimes uses vulgarities as shorthand, he said, but he has found that using them less often gives them more power.

The panelists said there were various things they tried to avoid. Mr. Papa said he tried not to write about killing, especially in connection with mentions of the president. Digby said she was not comfortable criticizing people about their appearance. Ms. Marcotte said she tried to see how vulgar she could be “without crossing the line into being sexist.” She added: “My vulgarity stands out because people can’t believe a young woman is saying these things.”

In the end, no one seemed too concerned about the use of obscenities in the blogosphere or whether it undermined their arguments. They more or less shrugged over the recent off-color language used by Jesse Jackson about Senator Barack Obama, language that some mainstream media repeated and others did not.

I've noted previously how lefties use profanity in their campaigns of demonization. For the left nihilists, it must come across as more powerful, more essential, when President Bush, Joseph Lieberman, or right-wing commentators like Jonah Goldberg, are attacked with a big fat "f***" bomb.

I see it all the time. It turns my stomach, and I'm no wilting lilly.

Perhaps there's a time for it (if I pound my thumb with a hammer while working around the house, I doubt I'd be worried about throwing out a few choice expletives), but I don't expect serious people to take seriously the foul-mouthed potty rants of a bunch of raving online revolutionaries as incisive political analysis.

I mean, the tenor of most these discussions is inbred, to stroke the desires of crooked libidinous demonization among like-minded hard-left cohorts. I mean, just look at how Netroots Nation announced their panel on the bounds of acceptable blog language, "Different Tones and Wider Nets:"

One of the great debates of blogging is the general rudeness and shrillness acceptable within the discourse. Does profanity exempt you from being taken seriously? Are you necessarily "calmer" because you don't drop a few four-letter words? We'll discuss the tone and attitude of various pockets of bloggers, and also why, no matter what, Michelle Malkin is still worse.

That blurb is right on the main Netroots Nation homepage, and it's simply unfathomable to me that such discourse is considered okay. Michelle Malkin is worse that anyone's use of profanity?

It's not as if the bloggers profiled have advanced their journalistic or political careers by deploying gutter language. Amanda Marcotte, indeed, not only got the boot from John Edwards' campaign in 2004, her controversy cast tremendous doubts on Edwards himself: Did he endorse her vile language and demonization? Did he condone hate speech? Was this considered an acceptable level of discourse for a presidential candidate?

The answer is clearly no (see Jawa Report for the specifics of Marcotte's case). But the left bloggers want to make their own rules. They think the mainstream press "needs to let its hair down," which I perceive as the lefties' push to lower the bar on what's proper.

How might we explain all of this? Well, in my view, these folks are essentially Marxist, and at base, we might consider Marxist thought a doctrine of hatred, a secular demonology:

We hate those, whose existence urges us to reconsider our theories and our vocabularies. We hate what places a safe and irresponsible categorization of the world in jeopardy. We hate what threatens the purity and predictability of our perception of the world, our mode of discourse, and in effect, our mental security.

Thus, for the left, rather than consider that vulgarity has no proper place in the respectable exchange of ideas, crude language is a tool to beat down those who would challenge their way of seeing the world, especially those allegedly in the right-wing superstructure of greedy imperialistic designs.

**********

UPDATE: Dana over Common Sense Political Thought has a fabulous expansion of this topic, "Profanity Does Not Equal Persuasion.

Dana links to Pandagon, where we see, frankly, insane ramblings on why using profanity is okay, for example, from Atrios (actually, paraphrased Duncan Black):

Atrios says (extreme paraphrase) that, rather than worrying that snark and vulgarity will allow the right to shut down discourse, we should recognize that the right has already shut down the discourse and snark and vulgarity are a useful tool to shine a light on that fact. I would add that vulgarity isn’t just the light but the jackhammer - the right has built a bulwark of insensateness, and vulgarity and snark seem to be the only things which reliably break that down, even on a temporary basis. The reaction from righty bloggers when a progressive fails to live up to their fake idea of civility reveals that the bulwark is really a facade - the strong ideological defense they’ve built up is vital, since whenever it drops we see clearly that they don’t actually have an ideology.

To be fair, I noticed Pamela Leavey, of the Democratic Daily, was realistic in her sense of what's appropriate:

Personally after writing online for the Kerry campaign blog in ‘04, I’ve always written here with the “posterity” thing in mind. My thoughts have always leaned towards… You never know who’s out there reading your blog…

That's not the biggest moral repudiation of profane blogging, but certainly heading in the right direction.

Barrett Brown Doesn't Read Well

Barrett Brown has a new post up, entitled "Donald Douglas Answers My Questions and Then Some."

He's apparently upset that I suggested previously that he doesn't read well, and he responds:

Let us set aside the irony of someone claiming that his opponent “doesn’t read well” or “comprehend” particular brands of “dialogue” before going on to misspell a common word.

Hey, he's got me there! I really did misspell "merchandising," although it's not like I haven't addressed the point previously! See, "Blogging PNSfW; or, Now Hiring at American Power: Neocon Copy Editor!" So, yeah, it's true: I really do need that copy editor!

That said, seriously, Barrett Brown desperately needs to develop his critical reading skills. For one thing, I absolutely did not "respond" to his smear jobs. Stogie at Saber Point did. Brown writes, for example:

Having gotten into a dispute a while back with Donald Douglas of the prominent conservative blog American Power, I last week posted seven questions for Douglas regarding Robert Stacy McCain’s white supremacist activities, which Douglas, of course, does not recognize as such. Still, he has been kind enough to answer me ...

And:

Let’s take a look at how he’s managed to deal with them ...

Brown then proceeds to quote the entire set of responses to his post, "Seven Questions for Donald Douglas on the Question of R.S. McCain’s Racism." Of course, those are Stogie's responses, as I noted at the time:

Folks can read the whole essay for themselves. It's the same old worthless allegations ... In fact, I was actually going to ignore 'em. But since I had just spent the day with Robert Stacy McCain last week (and Brown's been reading my blog, suggesting that I'm "very close" with McCain), I thought I'd send the entry over to my good buddy Stogie at Saber Point. To my surprise, Stogie sent back a point-by-point rebuttal to Brown's "seven questions" (questions by the way which are themselves based in unsubstantiated assertions). So, here you go, in any case ...

And then at the end of Stogie's response, I wrote again:

Barrett Brown concluded his essay by saying he hoped that I'd "choose to answer these questions." Well, Stogie's answered them eminently well here, and I wouldn't have done so too much differently. But again I probably wouldn't have bothered to answer them at all, since Barrett Brown obviously didn't take care to address what I'd written in the first place (I've read American Renaissance, for example, and said what I thought about it already). Frankly, Brown stonewalled and mischaracterized my post, and I doubt he has the kind of decency that I'd expect in one worth engaging at a serious, substantive level altogether.

It's hard to see why Barret Brown thought that I'd responded to his seven questions, when Stogie actually had. Indeed, the very first comment at the post, from Dana at Common Sense Political Thought, took issue with Stogie's interpretation of the Old Testament. So, I'm restating the point for the record: BARRETT BROWN DOESN'T READ WELL! Perhaps Mr. Brown was so excited to nail me on misspelling "merchandising" that he frankly ejaculated prematurely dropped the ball on the big picture.

Indeed, that reminds me that I might as well restate my main contention from my previous entry, which is that Brown has "stonewalled and mischaracterized my post," and now on top of that he's calling me a "liar." That is, he quotes me as saying, that "I’ve looked through everything he’s linked," and then wrongly infers that I've read everything HE'S EVER LINKED WITH RESPECT TO ROBERT STACY MCCAIN. And thus, that allegedly makes me a liar. Actually, as anyone even vaguely familiar with blogging would know, when I say that "I’ve looked through everything he’s linked," that's an ovbvious reference to "everything" at the very post in which he attacked Robert as racist, which would be, "A Reply to Donald Douglas and a Restatement of My Offer to R.S. McCain."

Folks can read my original post if they're so bored that they've got nothing better to do. See, "A Theory* of Racist Smears and the Case of Robert Stacy McCain."

In any case, that's enough time-wasting with this True/Slant airhead. Barrett Brown has never addressed the main point of contention, which is that he's an unprincipled smear merchant who has nothing on Robert Stacy McCain which hasn't been addressed elsewhere. The question to Barrett Brown is why? Why devote an entire chapter in a book to rehashing years-old debates on Robert Stacy McCain's confederate ties. Stogie responded to those allegations perfectly well. But I'm looking for something a bit more illuminating. When I mentioned Barrett Brown's atheism, the point was to illustrate that gay rights and civil rights activists have one thing they can hang their hats on -- allegations of bigotry, racism, etc. I've already debunked the claims that McCain's racist, and Stogie's added additional commentary to cast futher light on the issues from a southern perspective.

I wouldn't spend time with Robert Stacy McCain if I thought he was a white supremacist. Whatever sins of racial insensitivity Robert's guilty of they happened before I met him. Had Robert attacked me or my family with bigoted slurs or deeply immoral racial prejudice I would have written about it by now, and repudiated them.

Perhaps Barrett "I Need to Learn How to Read" Brown might address those issues instead of beating around the bush of obfuscation, prevarication, and denial.

Political Science and Pop Culture Blogging!

I've been reading Professor Daniel Drezner's blog for years now -- in fact, I started blogging largely because of him. He's a pretty big scholar in the political science discipline. In fact, readers might enjoy his recent article (which I blogged about earlier), "Bad Debts: Assessing China's Financial Influence in Great Power Politics." But Drezner's also a culture blogger. He used to routinely post photos of Selma Hayek, the fabulous movie star also known for her endowment. (He linked recently to an article with Ms. Hayek's picture at the Wall Street Journal.) Interestingly, Ms. Hayek majored in international relations before turning to acting! And you know, there's something about hot women and politics. Fox News' Courtney Friel is a political scientist!

Anyway, I'm mentioning all of this after checking Drezner's blog this morning. He's updated the look a bit, with that new picture of him across the nameplate, which reads, "Daniel W. Drezner: Global Poltics, Economics, & Pop Culture."

And as readers have noticed, I've been discussing my own blogging around here, and while I may cut back on the output a bit in the new year, I'll continue to provide commentary on celebrity news and pop culture, with lots of babe blogging. I know some of my feminine readers could do without the breasts, but hey, us political scientists need our hotness diversions as well!

In any case, if I could just get Dana at Common Sense Political Thought to post some cheesecake once in a while, I'd be good!

Populism and the Peace Movement

Dana at Common Sense Political Thought has responded with a thoughtful essay to my earlier post, "Long Beach ANSWER Cell Mobilizes for March 21st Protest."

In "American Power Versus Populism," Dana notes that, " Dr. Douglas tends to post a lot about the behavior of our enemies in the Islamic world ... [but in his comments on the antiwar movement] it seems to me that he may have overthought the problem ..."

I may have, depending how we look at it. But let's review a bit more of Dana's essay, where he responds to my suggestion that the hardline leftist rallies and demonstrations against the "occupation" can't really be all about ending the wars abroad:

Why can’t it be all about “bringing the troops home now?” That President Obama has set a combat troops withdrawal date eighteen months into the future doesn’t mean that our friends on the left will somehow be satisfied with that; they want the troops home now!

Nor do I think that the anti-war movement has taken what he has called it’s “latest direction.” Rather, the anti-war movement, even in the 1960s, was very much a movement against the notions of power, very opposed to the idea that some people have more mower — and money — than others. From this came the simplistic notion that, in any conflict, the side perceived to have the most power is invariably the “bad guy” ....

Domestically, our friends on the left, and, unfortunately, too many people in the middle as well, see the wealthy and “corporations” as the enemy, as people and institutions which have to be brought to heel and made to pay more and more, this even though most Americans who have jobs are employed by, you guessed it, corporations!

It’s really as simple as the notions of populism, a discourse which supports “the people” versus “the elites.” Scholars have attempted all sorts of explanations concerning the origins, philosophy and strength of populism, but it seems to me to be less a philosophy than a catchall for simply envy and resentment; “He has more money than we do, so he must have cheated us somehow.”

The populist notion, which we can date back at least as far as the legends of Robin Hood, stealing from the rich to give to the poor, has not always led to the best of results. Due to a constant e-mail group dispute with a lady whom I considered to be an out-and-out anti-Semite — Art and Yorkshire know to whom I refer — I decided to read Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf last year. People expect the book to be filled with anti-Semitism and racism, and it is, but through much of the book der Führer uses a populist methodology: not only are the Germans the greatest people and greatest culture in the world, but they have been unfairly cheated of their birthright and oppressed by the undeserving elites, the democratic powers of England and France, and, of course, by the Jews. Even the supposedly Jewish notion of the equality of man is but a lie by people temporarily in advantage to keep down those who really ought to be the leaders of mankind.

The problem with populism is that it is a know-nothing philosophy, assuming it could be dignified with the name philosophy. It is an us-against-them demagoguery, and the kinds or rational and realistic arguments Dr Douglas brings to the table concerning the attitudes and behavior of, say, the Palestinians really mean little or nothing: the populist both supports and identifies with the oppressed little guy, the side with less power, because he is the little guy, the guy with less power, and that is a feeling which occurs on a simplistic and emotional level.

This is an excellent discussion, and the truth is Dana and I don't really disagree all that much about the ultimate agenda of today's hardline leftist coalition.

I'd only add a couple of points, especially on populism as it relates to ideology.

Populism in the United States has never really been revolutionary. Some of the greatest outbursts of populism have resulted from a breakdown of effective governmental performance and popular disgust at the absence of clear choices between the parties. Teddy Roosevelt's probably the most important populist in the sense of rousing enough voters to nearly shatter the two-party consensus in 1912. More recently, Ross Perot very well could have won the White House had he not badly miscalculated by withdrawing prematurely from the presidential race in 1992. Other populists, of course, have tapped into some of the more irrationalist or racist strains of American politics (Ron Paul).

I'm pushing fifty, so I was still a kid during the Vietnam-era protest movement. But my understanding of it has primarily been one of antiwar activism within a period of social-cultural revolutionary change, for example, with the civil rights and women's liberation movements. To the extent that some groups at the time were genuinely radical, in the politics of the New Left and campus radicalism, much of this stuff literally died out by the time I was in high school. In the 1990s there was very little going for traditional "antiwar" groups, and in fact there was hardly any anti-government agitation during the Clinton years.

I was at UCSB throughout the period, and the idea of protests against things like the airwar over Kosovo was practically unheard of. People on the left were generally pleased with the Democrats in power, and to the extent that there were demands for a more "progressive" agenda, it was more of nuisance multiculturalism and political correctness. Indeed, today's radical left is pretty much a direct response to the Bush adminstration's policies and the ascent of conservative power in Washington. International ANSWER, the neo-Stalinist protest organization, formed just three days after the September 11 attacks in 2001.

So, from my own perspective, while it's true that there's certainly much "anti-establishment" politics to the radicalism of the Vietnam generation, the changes in culture, environmentalism, academics, and "free-and-easy" lifestyles are a largely a function of the activism of the 1960s protest generation.

I've been on a college campus, as a student or a professor, continuously since 1986. With the exception of some anti-nuclear activity in the late-1980s (some of my friends were going to the nuclear ranges in New Mexico to protest, as well as the Gulf War demonstrations), my sense is that this past few years has seen the emergence of a critical mass of anarchist-revolutionary activity on the scale of world-historical importance. Perhaps the "Battle of Seattle" anti-globalization protest in 1999 was the harbinger, but today's protest generation is more than just "bring the troops home." This is an anti-Semitic kill-the-Jews culture that seems unprecedented, and even unreal to me.

So, I'm not so much disagreeing with Dana than elaborating a bit more as to where I'm coming from and why I see a qualitative change to the type of radical-left activism at home and around the world today.

By the way, be sure to read John Tierney's essay along these lines, making the case for a new stage of the "peace" movement, "The Politics of Peace: What’s Behind the Anti-War Movement?"

The irony of the modern “peace” movement is that it has very little to do with peace— either as a moral concept or as a political ideal. Peace is a tactical ideal for movement organizers: it serves as political leverage against U.S. policymakers, and it is an ideological response to the perceived failures of American society. The leaders of anti-war groups are modern-day Leninists.

This last notion of today's activists as neo-Lenists (or neo-Stalinists, as I refer to them, given their totalitarianism), is particularly troubling to me, since as a professor on a campus that boasts a local cell of the ANSWER network, I see the world communist movement up close and personal. Rather than educating students into the dominant traditions of Anglo-Protestantism and the American political culture of egalitarianism and individualism, today's leftist academics glorify tyrants and murderers while privileging an ideology of anti-Americanism. Students are shortchanged, and the political, cultural, and economic destruction of this nation continues apace.

Today's Democratic-leftists love it, although they don't always admit what their real agenda is. Indeed, they often align themselves with the extremist anti-Israel factions of today's antiwar right.

If in that sense these folks are "populists," perhaps Dana's approach to all of this is pretty close to mine after all.

Republicans: Leading America's 2nd Emancipation

From RagingElephants.org, "Urgent: “MLK, Jr. Billboard Project”":

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard good conservatives and Republicans ask the question, “How can we begin sharing with the African-American community the true history of the GOP? We’re the party that freed the slaves!” For many, maybe even you, it’s a concern that so many in the Black community don’t know the history of the party and we’re always looking for a way to get the truth to them. The party that always wanted to keep them down was the Democratic Party. The party that really shares their values is the Republican Party.

We suffer from frustration because it appears that many of our party leaders are at a loss for how to get the message to the communities of color that we have always been the party of equality, prosperity, and individual liberty. Sometimes it appears we are just feeling around in the dark trying to grasp for an answer and we keep coming up empty handed.

The team of RagingElephants.org feels we have a plan that will be effective. Our mission is to focus on “messaging”, to engage the communities of colors with truth, and compel them to learn more about the party of Lincoln and reassess their political affiliations.

Our messaging has to rely heavily on “old media” — radio, TV, periodicals, and billboards. Although the rise of new media has been fast and furious, the facts are it’s still a relatively small number of people that enjoy Facebook, Twitter, and all the other social networking sites. Everyone has a radio, a TV, or passes by billboards most everyday.

Our next big messaging project is a massive billboard in the African-American neighborhood of 3rd Ward/Sunnyside, in Houston.

A few weeks ago when this revelation came to me, this billboard was not available and was being leased. Just a few weeks later, on my way to my church that’s in this neighborhood, what do I notice? — it’s available. I think this is divine intervention and we have to take advantage of this opportunity, NOW!

What’s so special about this billboard? It sits at the Martin Luther King, Jr. exit of the 610 South Loop in Houston. And we want to lease the billboard with the phase, “Martin Luther King, Jr. Was a Republican” to greet everyone that intends to travel on MLK, Jr. Blvd.

We think this is the type of messaging — psychological warfare, if you will — that will go a long way to achieving our goal of compelling voters from minority communities to become aware of the political history of their community, and take a fresh look at the GOP and conservative principles.

See also, KRIV FOX 26 Houston, "MLK Billboard SparksHeated Debate":

Also, see Common Sense Political Thought, "What would Dr King say?"

Collectivized Rights

I mentioned previously that some of the commenters on the "going Galt" phenomenon had not actually read Atlas Shrugged. On the other hand, I noticed that a couple of entries into the debate have explained what "going Galt" is. For example, Dana at Common Sense Political Thought has "The Rationale for “Going Galt”. And Laura at Pursuing Holiness has "On Going Galt," which she defines as, "a conscious decision to produce less as a form of protest."

And boy has that idea enraged a lot of people on the left!

I read Atlas Shrugged a couple of years ago, but this week I've been skimming through my copy of The Virtue of Selfishness. Especially good is the chapter on "collectivized rights," which is available at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights:

The notion of “collective rights” (the notion that rights belong to groups, not to individuals) means that “rights” belong to some men, but not to others—that some men have the “right” to dispose of others in any manner they please—and that the criterion of such privileged position consists of numerical superiority.

Nothing can ever justify or validate such a doctrine—and no one ever has. Like the altruist morality from which it is derived, this doctrine rests on mysticism: either on the old-fashioned mysticism of faith in supernatural edicts, like “The Divine Right of Kings”—or on the social mystique of modern collectivists who see society as a super-organism, as some supernatural entity apart from and superior to the sum of its individual members.

The amorality of that collectivist mystique is particularly obvious today in the issue of national rights.

A nation, like any other group, is only a number of individuals and can have no rights other than the rights of its individual citizens. A free nation—a nation that recognizes, respects and protects the individual rights of its citizens—has a right to its territorial integrity, its social system and its form of government. The government of such a nation is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of its citizens and has no rights other than the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific, delimited task (the task of protecting them from physical force, derived from their right of self-defense).

The citizens of a free nation may disagree about the specific legal procedures or methods of implementing their rights (which is a complex problem, the province of political science and of the philosophy of law), but they agree on the basic principle to be implemented: the principle of individual rights. When a country’s constitution places individual rights outside the reach of public authorities, the sphere of political power is severely delimited—and thus the citizens may, safely and properly, agree to abide by the decisions of a majority vote in this delimited sphere. The lives and property of minorities or dissenters are not at stake, are not subject to vote and are not endangered by any majority decision; no man or group holds a blank check on power over others.

Such a nation has a right to its sovereignty (derived from the rights of its citizens) and a right to demand that its sovereignty be respected by all other nations.

But this right cannot be claimed by dictatorships, by savage tribes or by any form of absolutist tyranny. A nation that violates the rights of its own citizens cannot claim any rights whatsoever. In the issue of rights, as in all moral issues, there can be no double standard. A nation ruled by brute physical force is not a nation, but a horde—whether it is led by Attila, Genghis Khan, Hitler, Khrushchev or Castro. What rights could Attila claim and on what grounds?

Read the whole thing at the link.

Doug at Below the Beltway has a cool post from last year on the The Virtue of Selfishness, Obama Shrugged."

But see also Dr. Helen's post from this week, where she notes that Clemson University is hosting a summer conference on Atlas Shrugged.

Plus, Brian at Liberty Pundit has "Liberals Love To Assume." Brian's making a comeback to the blogosphere, so head on over there and say hello!

Heavy Rain Closes Colleges in Long Beach

It was a torrential downpour when I ran out from my office building yesterday to head home from work. I had parked by the athletic facilities, and thus after pulling my car out I drove south on Faculty toward Conant, and then right over to Lakewood Boulevard south, which is my normal route in the afternoon. Perhaps I should have thought twice about it (although at the moment it was raining so hard I doubted an alternative route would have been better). Lakewood was totally flooded and I thought some of the cars might stall from the high water -- mine included. Police had set up a detour at the Lakewood Boulevard and Spring Street intersection, and I traveled east on Spring to Bellflower Boulevard to the 405 southbound. And to my surprise, not a car was on the freeway when I pulled up around the on-ramp. No doubt the 405 was flooded not too far up the road northbound, and the traffic on the other side of the freeway was backed up. When I got home, ABC 7 was showing clips of the Lakewood Boulevard undercrossing (which goes literally under the Long Beach Airport) totally flooded out with mud and debris:

Unlike Long Beach State, where the semester doesn't start until next week, my college is open for classes. Here's the message at the LBCC website as I logged on from my kitchen laptop to write this post:

Thursday January 21, 2010, 4:30 p.m.

Tonight’s weather forecast for Long Beach predicts more rainfall, but at this time, both LAC and PCC campuses are scheduled to remain open for evening classes. We will notify you immediately if there are any changes via email and updates on the LBCC home page.

Please continue to exercise caution when walking around/within campuses, as the walkways and floors may be slippery.

Eloy O. Oakley,
Superintendent-President

Thanks to Dana at Common Sense Political Thought, who asked if my house was dry. That's an affirmative. But it's gnarlier around here than I can remember for a long time.

Check KABC-TV Los Angeles for updates on the Southern California storms.

Who Are the 238 Presidential Scholars, Historians, and Political Scientists Polled for the SRI Presidential Rankings? — UPDATE!!

It's just comedy, really.

The main story's here, at Politico: "Professors rank President Obama 15th best president." Also Cassy Fiano offers the best one-paragraph summary:

Some “scholars” made a list ranking our presidents from best to worst. Apparently, President Zero is already a better president than Ronald Reagan, and predictably, Dubya is ranked one of the worst. Gee, this list sounds objective. Oh, and guess who number one is? FDR!

Exactly.

Some "scholars" placed Democrat FDR and Democratic-Republican (Anti-Hamiltonian) Thomas Jefferson ahead of Republican Abraham Lincoln.

Hey nothing like a little partisanship in an "objective" scholarly ranking.

And note something else: Here's the headline to the Siena presidential survey from 2006, "Experts: Bush Presidency is a Failure: Little Chance to Improve Ranking." More objectivity, no doubt.

I've checked the SRI links (the summary and the crosstabs). There's no information on the poll's respondents, which violates ethical survey sampling methodology.

Here's the contact information: Professor Tom Kelly: 518-372-7890 or Dr. Douglas Lonnstrom: 518-783-2362. I'm looking for e-mail addresses, and will update with those when I find them. And when I get it, I'll publish the list of the 238 "objective" scholars as well.

I should be laughing, and then I remember that these idiots are in charge of educating a large portion of today's youth. Society's going FUBAR.

**********

UPDATE: Just got off the phone with Professor Tom Kelly at Siena College. He told me the survey's "anonymous." He was was real nice. I asked if I could see the list of survey respondents. He said, "Well that's the thing. The survey is anonymous." I doubt Professor Kelly was up on things like Memeorandum. I asked about criticisms of left-wing bias at the poll, and he said, "Oh, I've heard things like that before." You think? Only a far-lefty could love a polling monstrosity like this. When I inquired a bit more about the identity of the respondents he said the reason for anonymity was designed to increase "objectivity." Hmm... Probably more likely to increase physical safety. He mentioned that the poll had gained reputation and the survey's write-ups have been published in Presidential Studies Quarterly, although I don't see a citation at the Wikipedia entry. (But here it is: "Rating the presidents: a tracking study," by Douglas A. Lonnstrom , Thomas O. II Kelly.) Frankly, only academics could like something like this.

(Well, actually, the MSM eats it up. See "In a new hard time, FDR's aura endures." Professor Kelly is interviewed there. Also, here's the Siena press release, "Siena Poll: American Presidents.")

Stuff like this is frankly another blow on the credibility of high-falutin scholarly research. As Rick Moran points out at American Thinker:

It's that the nation's public intellectuals operate so much in a cocoon that they don't realize people are laughing at them when they make Barack Obama the 15th best president of all time, while giving him "high marks for intelligence, ability to communicate and imagination." The evidence for any of that is so lacking that it obviously exists only in the minds of the respondents.

Additional commentary at Common Sense Political Thought (in high demand, obviously) and TrogloPundit (so simply even a Troglo can do it!).

Ducking Sniper Fire? Actually, Clinton "Misspoke"

Here's the YouTube of Hillary Clinton's visit to Bosnia, the same stop where she recently claimed to have ducked sniper fire:

Clinton claims she "misspoke," but boy, this one's looking like a real whopper of a misstatement!

A number of bloggers are hammering Clinton's dishonesty and political opportunism:

* Common Sense Political Thought: "Hillary Clinton: A Pathological Liar."
* Hot Air: "Walking Back the Tuzla Sniper-Fire Run."
* Sundries Shack: "Holy Crapweasel! Someone Call the Language Police!"

See also the New York Times, "Clinton ‘Misspoke’ About Bosnia Trip, Campaign Says."

More Americans Joining Military Amid Jobs Downturn

The New York Times reports on the trend in armed services recruitment, with more Americans "joining the military, lured by a steady paycheck, benefits and training."

Well, the daughter of one of our good blogging friends, Dana at Common Sense Political thought, is among the numbers of new enlistees. This has triggered some understandible emotions at the Pico residence:

Well, Autumn’s big day is coming: her recruiter is coming tomorrow at 1100 to pick her up for transport to the Harrisburg Military Entrance Processing Station. We had thought this would occur on the 20th, but her actual processing starts early on the 20th, so the Army is transporting her up on the 19th. As it happens, I had a couple of vacation days to use, and I took off tomorrow and Tuesday, so the change won’t be a problem for me.

After processing, she’ll be on a plane to Fort Jackson, South Carolina, for nine weeks of basic training ....

So, she leaves in about 14½ hours for the biggest, hardest test of her life. We’re all really proud of her.

I really admire folks like Autumn. My hat's off, thanks all around, and good luck!

See also the interesting discussion from "xbradtc," "Recruiting in tough times ... ":

I recall a meeting at the Indianapolis War Memorial ... Our battalion commander ... reminded us that the nation’s people did not exist to serve in the Army, but rather that the Army existed to serve the nation. The whole point of the service was to help the nation achieve peace and prosperity. “If I catch you hoping for a recession, I’ll nuke you into next year!” T’was a lesson I took to heart.

More than once, I found potential recruits who were wholly qualified, but had no great desire to serve. If that young man or woman had a solid plan, they had my best wishes. Often, when you spoke to a young man or woman, they would immediately tell you, “I’m going to college.” Fair enough. But a few probing questions would soon tell you that they had no idea what they were going to college for, what they wanted to study, how that major would help them, how they planned to pay for school or pay off student loans. Those were the folks that I would recruit.

Preserving the American Nuclear Deterrent

As a candidate, President Obama repeatedly announced his intentions to pursue a "nuclear free world." In October 2007, Obama pledged a reduction of stockpiles of fissile material, with the ultimate goal of ridding the world of nuclear arms. In July 2008, at his speech in Berlin, Obama called to "renew the goal of a world without nuclear weapons." And in April this year, Obama told a crowd in Prague that "his administration would 'reduce the role of nuclear weapons” in its national security strategy."

These announcements are striking in the context of the history of American strategic policy. And as Keir Lieber and Daryl Press argue in their new article at Foreign Affairs, the nuclear peace of the last 60 years has perhaps dulled the sense of urgency that ought normally reside in discussions of high nuclear politics. Should the administration carry out its repeated pledges to make dramatic unilateral cuts in U.S. stockpiles, our country's national security might well face new extreme dangers.

Here's a passage from Lieber and Press', "The Nukes We Need: Preserving the American Deterrent":

The central problem for U.S. deterrence in the future is that even rational adversaries will have powerful incentives to introduce nuclear weapons -- that is, threaten to use them, put them on alert, test them, or even use them -- during a conventional war against the United States. If U.S. military forces begin to prevail on the battlefield, U.S. adversaries may use nuclear threats to compel a cease-fire or deny the United States access to allied military bases. Such threats might succeed in pressuring the United States to settle the conflict short of a decisive victory.

Such escalatory strategies are rational. Losing a conventional war to the United States would be a disastrous outcome for any leader, and it would be worth taking great risks to force a cease-fire and avert total defeat. The fate of recent U.S. adversaries is revealing. The ex-dictator of Panama, Manuel Noriega, remains in a Miami prison. The former Bosnian Serb leader, Radovan Karadzic, awaits trial in The Hague, where Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic died in detention three years ago. Saddam Hussein's punishment for losing the 2003 war was total: his government was toppled, his sons were killed, and he was hanged on a dimly lit gallows, surrounded by enemies. Even those leaders who have eluded the United States -- such as the Somali warlord Muhammad Farah Aidid and Osama bin Laden -- have done so despite intense U.S. efforts to capture or kill them. The United States' overseas conflicts are limited wars only from the U.S. perspective; to adversaries, they are existential. It should not be surprising if they use every weapon at their disposal to stave off total defeat.

Coercive nuclear escalation may sound like a far-fetched strategy, but it was NATO's policy during much of the Cold War. The Western allies felt that they were hopelessly outgunned in Europe at the conventional level by the Warsaw Pact. Even though NATO harbored little hope of prevailing in a nuclear war, it planned to initiate a series of escalating nuclear operations at the outbreak of war -- alerts, tactical nuclear strikes, and wider nuclear attacks -- to force the Soviets to accept a cease-fire. The United States' future adversaries face the same basic problem today: vast conventional military inferiority. They may adopt the same solution. Leaders in Beijing may choose gradual, coercive escalation if they face imminent military defeat in the Taiwan Strait -- a loss that could weaken the Chinese Communist Party's grip on power. And if U.S. military forces were advancing toward Pyongyang, there is no reason to expect that North Korean leaders would keep their nuclear weapons on the sidelines.

Layered on top of these challenges are two additional ones. First, U.S. conventional military doctrine is inherently escalatory. The new American way of war involves launching simultaneous air and ground attacks throughout the theater to blind, confuse, and overwhelm the enemy. Even if the United States decided to leave the adversary's leaders in power (stopping short of regime change so as to prevent the confrontation from escalating), how would Washington credibly convey the assurance that it was not seeking regime change once its adversary was blinded by attacks on its radar and communication systems and command bunkers? A central strategic puzzle of modern war is that the tactics best suited to dominating the conventional battlefield are the same ones most likely to trigger nuclear escalation.

Furthermore, managing complex military operations to prevent escalation is always difficult. In 1991, in the lead-up to the Persian Gulf War, U.S. Secretary of State James Baker assured Iraq's foreign minister, Tariq Aziz, that the United States would leave Saddam's regime in power as long as Iraq did not use its chemical or biological weapons. But despite Baker's assurance, the U.S. military unleashed a major bombing campaign targeting Iraq's leaders, which on at least one occasion nearly killed Saddam. The political intent to control escalation was not reflected in the military operations, which nearly achieved a regime change.

In future confrontations with nuclear-armed adversaries, the United States will undoubtedly want to prevent nuclear escalation. But the leaders of U.S. adversaries will face life-and-death incentives to use their nuclear arsenals to force a cease-fire and remain in power.

The authors go on to outline the advanced technological basis for maintaining a robust "counter-target" nuclear deterrence policy. Lieber and Press speak of the "grim logic" of rational decision-making, and they anticipate criticisms from those who'd claim that their war-gaming scenarios are "macabre." But as they note:

Deterrence depends on the capacity to carry out threats. Retaining that capacity is not a sign that the United States has moved beyond deterrence to a war-fighting posture for its nuclear arsenal; rather, the capacity to execute threats is the very foundation of deterrence.

It's not a mystery as to why this administration is so intent on dismantling the strategic security apparatus that's kept great power peace since the end of World War II. This president sees the United States as the greatest threat to internatioanal order - that's why he's toured the world making apologies for American policies and power projection, and that's why he won the Nobel Peace Prize. But hopey-changey platitudes of world peace are essentially exogenous to the logic of military-strategic rationality. Ignoring these facts will make war more likely, not less, with an even greater risk of catastrophic loss of life.

**********

UPDATE: See also Common Sense Political Thought, "Foreign Policy 101: Do We Really Want to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons?"

Full Metal Saturday: Bar Refaeli

It's been busy blogging around here the last few days. In fact, I hope readers send viral my first hand report from yesterday, "Pasadena "May Day! May Day!" Anti-Socialism Rally."

And I'm going to busy today as well, running my boys around to art classes and math tutoring. So I'd better started with my "Full Metal Reach Around" and "Rule 5" action. Check out Bar Rafaeli and "The 2009 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition Cover":

Those just tuning in to my Saturday "Reach Around" tradition might check out how it's done at No Sheeples Here!: "Full Metal Jacket Reach-Around." Plus, TrogloPundit's got, "A little early Rule #2 action." And the guys at Maggie's Farm get hot with some linky love of their own!

"Rule 5" is key to the genre, so I'm happy to find David at Thunder Run doing some hot Rule 5-ing! And don't forget to check out Wellywanger!

I'm checking over at Monique Stuart's, and she's branching out into "hotness" analysis. Suzanna Logan's on the case as well. And as Fausta Wertz illustrates, even German Chancellor Angela Merkel's good for a little Saturday fun! And more at Pat in Shreveport's, "Saturday Linkage with Russell Crowe."

See also:

* Astute Bloggers, "MAY 2ND 1989: THE IRON CURTAIN OVER HUNGARY COMES DOWN."

* AubreyJ, "Short note from AubreyJ ..."

* The Blog Prof, "NY Gov Patterson Settles Racial Discrimination Suit."

* Common Sense Political Thought, "Just give us the dirt."

* Crush Liberalism, "Photo of the week, “Barney Frank” edition."

* Gayle's Place, "Let Me Become an Illegal Alien, PLEEEAAASE!"

* Hummers and Cigarettes, "Progressives: Finding Humor In Their Hypocrisy."

* Instapundit, "CONCORD MONITOR: The More Restraints On Earmarks The Better."

* Legal Insurrection, "Why Is Deval Patrick On Anyone's List?"

* Little Miss Attila, "Stacy McCain Tries to Annoy Feminists ..."

* Michelle Malkin, "Obama’s choices: Gird your loins," on David Souter's retirement.

* Midnight Blue, "@FollowFriday," on Sarah Palin on Twitter.

* Moe Lane, "Joe Sestak not making way for Arlen Specter?"

* PFB Blog, "Sexist Beyonce Says Michelle Obama is her “hero”."

* Pundit & Pundette, "Creating demand for bigger government."

* The Real World, "LIE: TAX CUT FOR 95% OF AMERICANS."

* The Rhetorican, "Clash of the Enlightened Beings Continues!"

* Riehl World View, "He Who Judges."

* Right Wing Sparkle, "Kathleen Parker Finally Gets Something Right."

* Robert Stacy McCain, "Video: Gay gynephobia."

* Snooper Report, "The changing World."

* Sparks From the Anvil, "Waterboarding Pales in Comparison to the Comfy Chair."

* Sundries Shack, "Souter’s Gone. Let the Democratic Carnage Begin!"

McCain to Obama: Make Afghanistan Decision Now!

From the Boston Globe, "McCain to Obama: Send Troops Now":

Senator John McCain, President Obama's Republican foe last year, has largely supported his rival since the election.

But now, the Vietnam War hero and Iraq troop surge supporter is putting increasing pressure on Obama to send more troops to Afghanistan -- and do it soon.

The president has held six war councils and counting to decide the strategy going forward, and some expect him to wait on deciding on his top commander's request for as many as 40,000 additional troops until after the Nov. 7 Afghan presidential run-off election.

But McCain said on "The Early Show" on CBS this morning that the war policy in Afghanistan "has been reviewed time and again" and it's time to act because the long delay "is not helpful to our effort" and is frustrating military commanders and making allies nervous.

And in an op-ed posted online on CNN today, McCain calls on Obama to move as quickly as possible to grant General Stanley McChrystal's request for additional troops.

McCain notes that he supported the Afghanistan strategy that Obama laid out in March, when he announced his decision to dispatch 21,000 more US troops. And the senator also stresses that he backed Obama's appointment of McChrystal as the top US commander on the ground -- so the president should listen to the general now.

See McCain's article at CNN, "Why We Can — And Must — Win in Afghanistan."

RELATED: Common Sense Political Thought, "Is President Obama's Foreign Policy Making a Difference Yet?"

Banning Trolls

James B. Webb is a lot of fun to have around. The amusement factor is seriously unmatched, which is why as obnoxious as he is, I've never banned him. These are good lulz. Some time back I gave JBW a hard time about his radical atheistic progressivism: "James Webb, Atheist Hypocrite, Loves teh Gays." Come to find out then that the dude's seriously homophobic. Anyway, he was trolling away in the comments all day yesterday. It's not high-brow illumination, but what can you do? JBW's never made a principled empirical argument that he could back up, so WTF?

And speaking of trolls, the proprietor of Common Sense Political Thought's got a problem, so check the discussion that's broken out: "Open Letter to Dana Pico." Some folks are having a hard time with the free speech argument, but it's simple: Ban the pricks. It's like Amy Alkon said of the Sadly No! progressives: They're a bunch of "sick fuck adult losers." Yeah, but unlike RacistRepsac3, some are good for a few laughs, like the atheist hypocrite homophobe JBW.

Mom Gets Contempt of Court for Taking Kids to Jury Duty

Now this is not right ... "Juror Penalized for Taking Kids to Court: Judge Held Mom Without Child Care in Contempt for Bringing Young Kids to Court":

But see the Detroit Free Press, "Judge's Move to Jail Juror is Criticized by State Court: Mom Had to Weigh Day Care, Civic Duty."

Sounds like a mean judge. That said, courts give potential jurors months to plan ahead. Maybe the mother, Carmela Khury, is an activist.

ADDED: Dana from Common Sense Political Thought, at the comments:

According to the story, she had day care planned, but it fell through at the last minute.

Sounds to me like the judge lacks judgement.

Not an activist, I guess ... ?