Rosamund Pike Rules!

It's that time again!

Robert Stacy McCain's blogging repertoire is getting back to full swing this morning after his normal weekend roundup was disrupted by the annual CPAC schmoozefest. Robert's got an early-morning entry up today, "Full Metal Jacket Saturday." He's calling all bloggers to get aggro with the aggregation! And don't forget about "Rule 5"!

Which bring me to Rosamund Pike, the lovely blond attracting your attention below (and here, but NSFW):

I'm always on the lookout for new blogging material (not Barack Obama naked unicorn art, however). So, while watching Fracture last weekend with Ryan Gosling and Anthony Hopkins, I became especially interesting in Gosling's love interest, Rosamund Pike.

I'm behind on my movies, I'll tell you, because I'm not familiar with Pike's acting. She appeared in Die Another Day, and thus I'm especially slacking on Bond flicks. And to think, I sometimes fancy myself as a movie buff! Blogging's a bad influence after all! No doubt the birdbrains at Sadly No! are preparing a devasting takedown of my "John Galt" perversions right now! I blame it all on Michelle Malkin and Glenn Reynolds!

Speaking of perversions!

Did you know that Jammie Wearing Fool is a precocious pre-Rule 5 blond-hottie blogger? That's right. While preparing a post on Gretchen Carlson, who R.S. McCain implicitly dissed yesterday in his comparative analysis of "'Morning Joe' vs. 'Fox & Friends'", I came across Jammie's post on Ms. Carlson featuring a beautiful bikini shot of Tara Conner, the nearly-dethroned Miss USA 2006. That's something else, and a change of pace from the milblogging and national security stuff I often read at allied blogs like AOSHQ and Jawa Report).

Now, the research into Ms. Carlson's post didn't find any bikini shots, so don't be suprised to see more Sports Illustrated posts around here (including perhaps even Dara Torres).

Okay, before I sign off here be sure to head back over "The Other McCain's." He's got the word out (with Amazon links) for Sam Childers' new book, Another Man's War: The True Story of One Man's Battle to Save Children in the Sudan. Childers runs the NGO "Angels of Africa," and he deserves your support.

And that reminds me. While we're on the topic humanitarianism, is Matt Welch going neoconservative? Maybe he's just being a troublemaker, like Little Miss Attila!

How Would the Left Respond to Mumbai-Style Attacks in the U.S.?

John Yoo was interviewed by the Orange County Register the other day. The article generated a little pushback on the left (see Harper's, TalkLeft, Think Progress, ACSBlog and Washington Independent).

Jeralyn at Talk Left was not happy, "This interview is a joke." No doubt she'd like Yoo in the dock for his "torture memos."

But Yoo's a good guy. He's got a piece up this morning at the Wall Street Journal, "Yes, We Did Plan for Mumbai-Style Attacks in the U.S.":

Suppose al Qaeda branched out from crashing airliners into American cities. Using small arms, explosives, or biological, chemical or nuclear weapons they could seize control of apartment buildings, stadiums, ships, trains or buses. As in the November 2008 Mumbai attacks, texting and mobile email would make it easy to coordinate simultaneous assaults in a single city.

After 9/11, we had a responsibility to consider all possible threats.
In the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, strikes on New York City and Washington, D.C., these were hypotheticals no more. They became real scenarios for which responsible civilian and military leaders had to plan. The possibility of such attacks raised difficult, fundamental questions of constitutional law, because they might require domestic military operations against an enemy for the first time since the Civil War. Could our armed forces monitor traffic in a city where terrorists were preparing to strike, search for cells using surveillance technology, or use force against a hijacked vessel or building?

In these extraordinary circumstances, while our military put al Qaeda on the run, it was the duty of the government to plan for worst-case scenarios - even if, thankfully, those circumstances never materialized. This was not reckless. It was prudent and responsible. While government officials worked tirelessly to prevent the next attack, lawyers, of which I was one, provided advice on unprecedented questions under the most severe time pressures.

Judging from the media coverage of Justice Department memos from those days - released this week by the Obama administration - this careful contingency planning amounted to a secret plot to overthrow the Constitution and strip Americans of their rights. As the New York Times has it, Bush lawyers "rush into sweeping away this country's most cherished rights." "Irresponsible," harrumphed former Clinton administration Justice Department officials.

According to these critics, the overthrow of constitutional government in the United States began with a 37-page memo, confidentially issued on Oct. 23, 2001, which concluded that the September 11 attacks triggered the government's war powers and allowed the president to use force to counter force. Alexander Hamilton saw things differently than critics of the Bush administration. He wrote in Federalist 74: "The direction of war implies the direction of the common strength, and the power of directing and employing the common strength forms a usual and essential part in the definition of the executive authority."

Read the whole thing, here.

Yoo demonstrates his critics' misunderstanding of the Founders' intent on executive power during wartime, and he suggests they've distorted and decontextualized his writing to benefit their far-left antiwar agenda. He adds that should the administration go along with the political antiterror witch-trials being pushed by congressional Democrats, the U.S. will be less prepared for potential domestic Mumbai-style attacks in the future.

Cell Phones and Soup Lines?

Here's a homeless guy taking First Lady Michelle Obama's picture with a cell phone, in a soup line? Is that a Blackberry? Not cheap, right? Maybe he lives out of his car, but he needs a phone to find a job? As Kathryn Jean Lopez quips, "we are a blessed people when our poor have cell phones."

Whatever the case, there's a pretty good debate online over his today. It turns out that Andrew Malcolm's post has kicked up quite a storm.

For example, as Dan Riehl notes, "Salon's Alex Koppelman decided to push back against the Right over the cellphone at the homeless shelter story."

And Koppelman got some pushback in return, from Kathy Shaidle:

Salon's Alex Koppelman is obviously a delusional liberal pantywaist who can't stand to have his romantic notions about "poverty" challenged (by someone who knows what they're talking about firsthand, and is also a better writer than he is.)

More at Memeorandum.

“Going Galt” Around the Blogosphere

The intense interest, advocacy, and backlash surrounding “Going Galt” is one of the more interesting blogospheric happenings I've seen in some time. It turns out that The Liberty Papers has a roundup, "Will Atlas Shrug? A Compilation of Blogosphere Commentary about “Going Galt”:

There’s a new craze hitting the conservative tubes on the Internets these days: “Going Galt!” While it’s difficult to identify an exact date of reference or to provide any unique person with credit for the general meme, Michelle Malkin and Helen Smith certainly deserve honorable mention for recently popularizing the phrase.

This movement seems to have manifested itself in two distinct, but related, forms: those who say, more-or-less, that “I ain’t gonna produce more that 249,999 dollars and 99 cents of taxable income” as well as those more accustomed to singing “Amazing Grace” than Twisted Sister taking to the streets across America chanting “we’re not gonna take it anymore.”

Here are some relevant (and hopefully balanced) quotes I’ve found on all sides of the aisle regarding this recent phenomenon. Enjoy!

Check the link for the compilation.

Hat Tip: Instapundit.

Picture of the Day, 3-6-09

From the Los Angeles Times:

Vantha Sao, 22, works on some knitting next to spouse Jay Mendes, 41, while watching the televised California Supreme Court hearing on Proposition 8 at the West Hollywood Auditorium. The couple were married in 2008.

You know, that whole thing last week - the lies Pam Spaulding told about this blog, the gay bestiality thing - was pretty pathetic, but eye-opening.

In all of my blogging on the radical gay agenda since November 4th, the question for me has always been about postmodern ideology and the left's stormtrooper political tactics. I don't go in for attacking homosexuals for bestiality, deviance, or anything else. That said, I think this picture above, part of the Times' gay rights coverage on the "loud and colorful" from yesterday, raises serious questions about what's really at stake in the same-sex marriage debate.

I mean come on: The younger guy is KNITTING!

Actually, I'm no absolutist on stereotypical gender roles, but there's something weirdly out of sync about a male homosexual with his husband attending a public rally while knitting away on some fluffy cap or sweater. Besides, knitting's a girl's thing!

So, what does this say about marriage? Are these guys adopting? What does the son say to his "dads" while hoping to make the JV football squad at the tryouts: "Gee, 'dads,' can you leave the knitting needles in the car ... might hurt my chances with the coach, you know?"

Anyway, I'm sure I've already said enough to get into trouble with the PC hordes of the nihilist left. But let me close with a passage from David Blankenhorn on the meaning of marriage:

I reject homophobia and believe in the equal dignity of gay and lesbian love. Because I also believe with all my heart in the right of the child to the mother and father who made her, I believe that we as a society should seek to maintain and to strengthen the only human institution - marriage - that is specifically intended to safeguard that right and make it real for our children.

Legalized same-sex marriage almost certainly benefits those same-sex couples who choose to marry, as well as the children being raised in those homes. But changing the meaning of marriage to accommodate homosexual orientation further and perhaps definitively undermines for all of us the very thing - the gift, the birthright - that is marriage's most distinctive contribution to human society. That's a change that, in the final analysis, I cannot support.

Photo Credit: Los Angeles Times.

Leave Rush Limbaugh Alone!

The right's internecine warfare continues this afternoon with Jeff Goldstein's takedown of Patrick Frey, "Better that Patterico fails, I think" (via Memeorandum):

In suggesting that the trouble here is that Republicans are straddled with the burden of having to explain Limbaugh’s nuance, Patterico (and Allah) are not only conceding the linguistic ground to the left, they are now actually helping perpetuate what, at least on Patterico’s part, he knows to be a lie** — an out of context quote whose real meaning he admits to understanding, but whose complexities will be lost on those of, well... let’s just say lesser intellectual stock — in order to avoid confusing people who can’t be bothered to get the actual context correct, or who aren’t at all interested in getting it right. All so these folks might find it more difficult to despise the right for the way the left has decided to portray it.

Whoa, that's both barrels, and you'll have to click on the link if YOU want the full context!

And don't forget the comments section (here and here)!

Obama's Killing American Capitalism

From Michael J. Boskin, "Obama's Radicalism Is Killing the Dow: A Financial Crisis is the Worst Time to Change the Foundations of American Capitalism":

It's hard not to see the continued sell-off on Wall Street and the growing fear on Main Street as a product, at least in part, of the realization that our new president's policies are designed to radically re-engineer the market-based U.S. economy, not just mitigate the recession and financial crisis.

The illusion that Barack Obama will lead from the economic center has quickly come to an end. Instead of combining the best policies of past Democratic presidents - John Kennedy on taxes, Bill Clinton on welfare reform and a balanced budget, for instance - President Obama is returning to Jimmy Carter's higher taxes and Mr. Clinton's draconian defense drawdown.

Mr. Obama's $3.6 trillion budget blueprint, by his own admission, redefines the role of government in our economy and society. The budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, adding more to the debt than all previous presidents - from George Washington to George W. Bush - combined. It reduces defense spending to a level not sustained since the dangerous days before World War II, while increasing nondefense spending (relative to GDP) to the highest level in U.S. history. And it would raise taxes to historically high levels (again, relative to GDP). And all of this before addressing the impending explosion in Social Security and Medicare costs ....

Increasing the top tax rates on earnings to 39.6% and on capital gains and dividends to 20% will reduce incentives for our most productive citizens and small businesses to work, save and invest - with effective rates higher still because of restrictions on itemized deductions and raising the Social Security cap. As every economics student learns, high marginal rates distort economic decisions, the damage from which rises with the square of the rates (doubling the rates quadruples the harm). The president claims he is only hitting 2% of the population, but many more will at some point be in these brackets.

I want to stress Boskin's last point in particular: The increased marginal tax hikes on incomes above $250,000 are not trivial. I've been roaming around the web today, finding attacks on conservatives as stupid, irrrational, whiney, hypocritical, even criminal, but the underlying economic logic is unimpeachable.

That's your John Galt effect right there.

See also, "Mission Accomplished! Did Obama intentionally nuke the economy?"

Image Hat Tip: Liberty Pundit.

The War on High Earners

Things are getting very interesting!

Dr. Hussein Birdbrain has provided the link to Daniel Gross' piece over at Slate, "War on the Rich?" The basic meme here is that there's in fact no such thing as a war on wealth - it's a GOP sham.

To make that case, of course, leftists have to demonize conservative and "John Galters" as "stupid," or worse. Check out Jesse Taylor, for example:

I one day hope to earn enough money to consider acting like an irrational asshole and having it become national news ...

Steve Benen has a wrapup of why this is economically stupid, but what I wanted to talk about is this bizarre idea that going John Galt is in any way intelligent or feasible. John Galt is an expression of narcissistic self-destruction, the central character in a novel that expresses undeveloped adolescent frustration with being so fucking great that the world can’t even handle your greatness. Going John Galt requires you to be simultaneously so successful that it matters whether or not you do it, and so dumb that you’d consider making yourself worse off than you’d ever be under the terrible plan you’re avoiding. You imagine these lawyers, dentists and others, incapable of doing basic math yet possessed of sets of specialized skills, shuddering in the face of adversity as simple as having to mail in a rebate form while simultaneously rubbing their fingers over their tax returns, their top 2% Adjusted Gross Income proof positive that they’re smarter and of more use to society than the mechanic they screamed at because sparkplugs are fucking made up bullshit and everyone knows it.

What's interesting about this is not just Mr. Taylor's profane excoriation of market conservatives who might not want the state taking MORE of their money (on principle that they would rather reduce their own productivity than feed the freedom-crushing the beast of the state), but also that as evidenced by his link to Wikipedia, I'm betting Mr. Taylor's never read the book.

Of course, Matthew Yglesias hasn't read it, but that didn't stop him from attacking the "nightmare scenarios" of the revolt of the "titans of high finance."

The non-book reading collectivists are like that though: Kick, cuss, and then confiscate, and then let the commissariats sort out the rest

Man it's going to be a long four years...

Hat Tip: Common Sense Political Thought.

Getting Close to "Atlas Shrugged"

I didn't comment on Michael Hiltzik's piece earlier this week at the Los Angeles Times, "Obama Skews Battle Lines in "Class War." The article combined all the usual leftists characteristics - collectivism, dishonesty, and mendacity - and I was busy with teaching and other things at the time.

Yet amid all the debate about "Going Galt," I got a kick out of this letter to the editor this morning:

Hiltzik's column made me cringe. Why are we lumping someone making $250,000 in with people making $10 million?

I run a small business that employs 10 people who receive health insurance and paid vacation. I am already paying an inordinate amount of taxes between federal, state, property and city business taxes. Now the feds and the state are going to ask for more? With the current economic situation, that might mean having to let someone go. This whole thing was started by people making bad financial decisions, and now those same people are asking for a bailout.

This may be closer to "Atlas Shrugged" than Hiltzik thinks.

Bill Toth

Studio City

Leftists think this is all too funny, but I'm reading everyday about more and more regular folks - small business owners and working professionals - who really are "going Galt" in the sense of cutting back on productive output, freezing hiring, and letting workers go - that is, people are bascially contracting the type of personal activities that when multiplied exponentially constitute the dynamism of the American economy.

And the top staffers in the White House Office are pleading that they're just "pragmatists."

Right.

Makes You Want to Go John Galt...

The lefties are going crazy over the notion of "going John Galt."

Recall, for example, that Dr. Helen Smith put out the call to Americans who are cutting their own work output and productivity to avoid the Obama administration's conviscatory tax regime, "Going John Galt? Tell Dr. Helen About It ..."

Michelle Malkin and Glenn Reynolds have been hammering the issue as well.

But get a load of some of the responses to all of this among our nihilist antagonists. Starting off with a bang is Henry Farrell's, "Wingnuts of the World Unite!", which features "The ‘Go Galt, Go!’ Manifesto":

We proudly salute “Dr. Helen,” Glenn Reynolds, and Michelle Malkin, for identifying the only possible response to Barack Obama’s victory – ‘going Galt.’ By withdrawing their creative and intellectual achievements from the economy and stopping tipping waitstaff, the schmibertarian right can surely bring the parasites and Democrats to their knees. We look forward to these three thought leaders striking the obvious first blow, by refusing to blog for the ungrateful masses and withdrawing to a secret compound until the world capitulates to their demands! Only a universal wingnut blogging strike can bring the moochers to their senses. John Galt lives!

Keep in mind that Henry's an esteemed political scientist at George Washington University, and a Facebook friend to Juan Cole!

Now let's check the left's response to TigerHawk, and his video, "Who Are These "Rich' People?" over at the YouTube thread:

From "Commieatheist":

Jesus Christ, stop whining, you insufferable asshole. Your top marginal tax rate is being raised 3%. Big fucking deal. Grow a pair of balls and stop crying about how much harder you work than anyone else. Lots of people in this country work hard, but very few make as much money as you do. That's life! I am sick of rich fucks like you complaining about how hard you have it...

From "Rock6191":

Wow. "A face for radio" was my first impression. Then I listened to the words, and I wondered what inspires someone like this guy to open up himself to this sort of ridicule. All Obama is doing is raising the tax on that portion of someone's income that's above $250K. So, if you make $260K, the $10K above 250K is taxed at 38% instead of 33%. That means your tax only goes up 500 bucks. I wonder if this guy participated in some of those teabagging parties last week...

Now here's a response at Daily Kos:

Go live your Randian fantasies, go create that wonderful utopia in which only the most wealthy are permitted entry, and you are not burdened with the outrageous insult of having to contribute back a proportionate share of your income in order to help maintain the very fabric of the nation around you. I can see now that the thought that you might have to pay the same share of your income in taxes that your housekeeper does has drained your already pale blanched, and the thought of having to pay as much in taxes as your wretched mothers and fathers did, a few decades before you, is nothing less than an armed assault on your beachheads.

What fool would suggest we possibly return to the same tax polices that existed under that shameless wealth-stealer and Stalinist, Ronald Reagan? And what insane person would dare seek to treat achievers identically to the lower classes, the people with grubby hands and only one house?

And of course, this isn't all about class war, or so they say.

Glenn Beck's looking more like a prophet all the time...

The North Vietnamese Communists Weren’t So Bad...

It's interesting to see how debates on the Obama administration's foreign policy are playing out on the left.

As I noted the other day - and Jason at The Westen Experience has picked up - the left is spinning a triumphalist meme on the redeployment from Iraq. With public opinion finding a majority of Americans seeing the war as won, Democrats have shifted to the stance of progressive wise men.

A couple of posts I'm reading this morning got me thinking some more about this. One of these is NeoNeocon's post on Vietnam and the antiwar movement, "Advocating Defeat Without Consequences: “Ending” the War. This passage is key:

The Left ... has always blamed America’s actions during the Vietnam war—and especially the bombing of Cambodia—for the ascendance of the brutal Pol Pot regime and its later killing fields (see this article, especially pages 6-7, for an argument against that controversial theory, as well as an explanation of its journalistic origins). The Left has also consistently minimized the suffering of the people of South Vietnam when the North took over. To the Left, the Northern Vietnamese Communists weren’t so bad, and the Cambodian Communists (who even they have to admit were pretty nasty folk) would never have succeeded but for the actions of the US in fighting them and their North Vietnamese allies.

Not only does the Left whitewash the consequences of the American defeat in Vietnam. I’ll go even further and say that to the Left, the Vietnam pullout was actually a victory—for them. It’s something they had promoted for a long time, and they finally won. What’s more, except for the rare Vietnam revisionist historian, their version of history won; it has come to dominate the texts and the press. And so the Left neither wanted—nor needed—to look at the negative consequences of the defeat for others.

The second post I'm reading is Mark Harvey's, "Callin' All The Clans Together," which adds some profane outrage at the antiwar defeatism on both left and right:

Personally, I didn't bleed for this Nation, nor did I carry one of my best friends trying to get him to safety and medical attention as his blood ran down my back just to have some limp-wristed holier-than-thou "get along with the enemy" conservatives tell me that I am a goddamn fucking black helicopter republican. First off, I am not a republican. I am a pissed off DAVFW and if any of the above offends you, kiss my ass. By the way, my friend made it back to safety after his life left him. His last words to me were, "Hey man. Get your hand off my cod sack bitch." He died 5 minutes later. Fuck Obama.

I want to stress Mark mention of the "get along" conservatives, who are the very same "antiwar conservatives" who have made common cause with anti-Americans of the far left.

California Supreme Court Set to Uphold Prop 8

The Los Angeles Times reports on today's arguments before the California Supreme Court:

The California Supreme Court strongly indicated Thursday it would rule that Proposition 8 validly abolished the right for gays to marry but would allow same-sex couples who wed before the November election to remain legally married.

The long-awaited hearing, which came as dueling demonstrators chanted and carried banners outside, was a disappointment for gay rights lawyers.

They had hoped the same court majority that overturned the state's previous marriage ban would conclude that Proposition 8 was an impermissible constitutional revision.

Two members of that majority -- Chief Justice Ronald M. George and Justice Joyce L. Kennard -- expressed deep skepticism toward the gay rights lawyers' arguments. Without their votes, Proposition 8 appeared almost certain to survive.

The other two justices who ruled in favor of marriage rights last year - Carlos R. Moreno and Kathryn Mickle Werdegar - seemed more open to the revision challenge. Moreno even helped gay rights lawyers with their arguments.

But the court revealed no division on whether to uphold the marriages of an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who wed before November.

Even Justice Marvin Baxter, the court's most conservative member, observed that the couples got married after receiving the right by "the highest court of the state."

"How can we deny the validity of those marriages?" Baxter asked.

The court's ruling is due within 90 days.

There's more at the link, but check Dale Carpenter at Volokh Conspiracy for some of the legal trade-offs the Court must make to come to its expected ruling. Looking ahead, will a simple majority by initiative be able to strip the fundamental "rights" of any numerical minority in the state?

No matter what happens, the gay marriage debate doesn't end here.

A legal rights group, Gay & Lesbian Adocates & Defenders (GLAD), filed suit on Tuesday to challenge the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (DOMA). The federal law grants an exception to Article IV's Full Faith and Credit command for states' obligations to each other (which requires that states recognize the acts, records, and judgments of other states). So, things at some point will move up from the state level to the federal courts - in California, for example, following the resolution of the Prop 8 challenge, but also in other parts of the country where gay activists are pressing their advantage in the perceived leftist climate engendered by economic crisis and Obamessianism.

Recall, though, that just 31 percent of Americans currently support full same-sex marriage rights (when the question is asked with the alternative responses of "civil unions or partnerships for same-sex couples," or "no legal recognition for same-sex couples"). So, we'll be back to largely a political war over defining what it means to uphold traditional values, but also a struggle to seek a moderate compromise that might work to calm the culture wars before things become so intractable the nation sees a repeat of the worst violence and excesses of the civil rights era.

Are "Christian Hipsters" Christian?

Via Vinegar and Honey, I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised to learn about "Christian hipsters" at Andrew Sullivan's. So, who are these folks, and more importantly, what do the stand for? Not much, actually, at least in terms of Christian moral traditionalism:

A "Christian Hipster" as described in this article merely describes a person who both believes in Christ and explores the world for themselves, rather than taking their Pastor/Mother/Father/Dobson's opinion as unquestionable. I don't resent being lumped in with what should be a larger portion of American believers. I revel in it!

Mother/Father? Geez, and that's not all: "Are You a Christian Hipster?"

Christian hipsters don’t like megachurches, altar calls, and door-to-door evangelism. They don’t really like John Eldredge’s Wild at Heart or youth pastors who talk too much about Braveheart. In general, they tend not to like Mel Gibson and have come to really dislike The Passion for being overly bloody and maybe a little sadistic. They don’t like people like Pat Robertson, who on The 700 Club famously said that America should “take Hugo Chavez out”; and they don’t particularly like The 700 Club either, except to make fun of it. They don’t like evangelical leaders who get too involved in politics, such as James Dobson or Jerry Falwell, who once said of terrorists that America should “blow them all away in the name of the Lord.” They don’t like TBN, PAX, or Joel Osteen. They do have a wry fondness for Benny Hinn, however.

Christian hipsters tend not to like contemporary Christian music (CCM), or Christian films (except ironically), or any non-book item sold at Family Christian Stores. They hate warehouse churches or churches with American flags on stage, or churches with any flag on stage, really. They prefer “Christ follower” to “Christian” and can’t stand the phrases “soul winning” or “non-denominational,” and they could do without weird and awkward evangelistic methods including (but not limited to): sock puppets, ventriloquism, mimes, sign language, “beach evangelism,” and modern dance. Surprisingly, they don’t really have that big of a problem with old school evangelists like Billy Graham and Billy Sunday and kind of love the really wild ones like Aimee Semple McPherson.

These guys sound like "Christian leftists" (or "moral pussies," frankly). Notice how pretty much the entire "hipster" spiel mounts its attack on Biblical literalism and right-wing theological traditionalism, especially of the post-Reagan-era variety.

The problem here is that when folks move away from contemporary evangelicalism or charismatic ethical doctrines, "Christian hipsters" shift from eternal moral standards and ethical rationalism to a loose self-reverential standpoint. That is to say,"Christian hipsters" are opposed to a moral hierarchy of ecclesiastical goodness, and are hence less rational since their theology is based on subjective wants rather than on objective standards of righteousness.

Or, if you're not a "Christian hipster," you're a "Christianist."

Gupta Worried About "Financial Impact" of Gov't Post

Dr. Sanjay Gupta, who is CNN's rock-star medical correspondent, will not join the Obama administration as U.S. Surgeon General. It turns out the Tom Daschle tax-cheat scandal left Gupta with a bad taste in his mouth, but the real reason is ... wait for it! ... money:

Gupta, who was once named one of the "sexiest men alive" by People Magazine, was never officially named to the post and continued to report on CNN. He did not issue a statement or explain his decision Thursday. Sources said the medical journalist told CNN executives that he wanted to devote more time to his medical practice and to his duties at the network.

But one source close to him said he was very disheartened by Daschle's fate and fearful he was not going to get a prominent role in the health reform process. Gupta has built a lucrative media empire that includes appearances on CBS as well as CNN and book deals. He had expressed concern to friends about the financial impact on his wife and children.

And so, where's the outrage on the left with these "upper-class idiots" who are actually more worried about maintaining a decent standard of living than downsizing for the "pulblic welfare"?

Oh wait! Here it is: It turns out Gupta was getting hammered for "'his mugging of Michael Moore over Sicko' and for having a cozy relationship with drug companies." Okay, Gupta's a wingnut! Yo, you "working affluent," no criticism of left-wing freak-show movie directors and "cozy" professional partnerships with drug producers working to provide the best medical care in the world!

Check Out Suzanna Logan!

Well, the blogosphere's a little more welcoming with the addition of Suzanna Logan to the neighborhood.

Suzanna hung out with Robert Stacy McCain at CPAC last week, and she's being mentioned as a young conservative with a bright future (very bright ... click for pictures).

Well, Suzanna was blogless at the conference, but not any more. She's here to tell you how in the world she threw caution to the wind and created her own Blogger home:

During CPAC last week, I found myself in the fortuitous position of being introduced to Taki's Magazine's golden boy Mr. Spencer (we both knew it was coming), or as he is more commonly known, not least to himself, "The All-Important Magazine Editor.” (He will from here on be known as TAIME.) At first glance, he's one of those charm fellows we all adore so. At second glance, he’s … well, actually, I didn’t get a second glance. Why? I was bloglesss.

Sure, we could attribute his almost immediate leave of absence from the bar where we were chatting to a lack of chemistry, a mutual and instant dislike, my having forgotten to apply deodorant that night, etc. But it’s much more fun to assume that it was actually a result of my admitting without requisite shame that not only did I not have a blog but I had little intention of starting one.

You'll have to read the rest for the clever resolution, and be sure to leave a comment. Jimmie at Sundries Shack is getting in a good word before Suzanna's blog takes off like Barack Obama coffee mugs!

And since I'm linking around, don't miss a click through to Taki Mag's, The Sniper's Tower.

Cynthia McKinney at Long Beach City College

Cynthia McKinney, the former U.S. Representative and 2008 Green Party presidential nominee, spoke at Long Beach City College today. Ms. McKinney visited the campus at the invitation of the college's Cultural Affairs Council, in honor of Women's History Month.

The talk was poorly attended. Perhaps four people were in the audience. Before speaking Ms. McKinney approached me and I introduced myself as a professor at the college. I also spoke with her for a few more minutes after her prepared comments.

Ms. McKinney is friendly and polite in person. Upon my introduction, she mentioned that her "dream" was to become a college professor. When I inquired as to her training and qualifications - perhaps in the law - it seemed as though her lack of professional credentials in such areas were a disappointment to her. She asked if she could put me on her e-mailing list, so I gave her my business card and thanked her for visiting. Talking with her in such a cordial yet intimate fashion was interesting - particularly in my case, as a blogger who routinely exposes and repudiates the radical politics for which Ms. McKinney advocates.

She had prepared comments on her recent ill-fated "humanitarian" mission to Gaza during Israel's December campaign against Palestinian rocket attacks. The best report on this is from Israel Matzav, "Moonbat McKinney's Boat Turned Back by Israeli Navy."

In Ms. McKinney's recounting, the boat on which she was travelling was being pursued by Israeli gunships. The Israeli navy had allegedly harassed her boat with menacing search lights, in a belligerent cat-and-mouse fashion, and then finally surrounded her vessel. Ms. McKinney claimed to have been rammed by one of the Israeli ships: "I think they were trying to kill us ... that's the only explanation" for being hit, she said. Ms. McKinney went on to explain how harrowing was the experience, as she "can't swim" and was wearing "no life jacket."

She mentioned that two lawsuits were currently in preparation, one by the Free Gaza Movement, who had sponsored the humanitarian mission, and the other by the "Malaysia Peace Organization." According to Free Gaza, " The movement organizers are pursuing legal actions against the government of Israel for piracy on the high seas as well as damages to the boat. Estimates range from 100 to 150 thousand euros and will take five months to repair."

Yet, for all of this, Ms. McKinney appeared as something of a wastrel of the social justice movement. Perhaps due to sparse attendence and no media, Ms. McKinney's discussion came off as the hopeless wimperings of a preposterous victim. This was not what I expected from one who is otherwise reputed as a morally righteous freedom fighter in the international peace movement. There was, for example, nothing approaching the fire-breathing manifesto seen in the video above, which features Ms. McKinney's speech to the Re-Create '68 rally outside at Democratic convention last August. As well, she did not say, as she had in December 2008, that "What I am recommending is the creation of a political movement inside my country that will constitute a surgical strike for global justice." No, the former presidential candidate appeared much like a spent nuclear rod, highly radioactive but small in volume.

Ms. McKinney said she had no immediate plans to run for public office. She did indicate that she'll continue her networking within the social justice movement. And with that I wished her well and said goodbye.

Should Steele Quit?

I can't say that Michael Steele's appointment as RNC chairman knocked my socks off. I didn't even write a post about at the time. I do have seriously questions about the man's intelligence and integrity, however, after he bashed Rush Limbaugh the other day.

Some bloggers have called for Steele's head, and now we've got a Dr. Ada Fisher of the RNC calling for Steele's resignation.

On MSNBC Wednesday, Norah O'Donnell discussed Steele's tenure so far with Jennifer Skalka of Hotline On Call (via Newsbusters):

O'DONNELL: He's 30 days on the job, he's says he's made some mistakes. But the bigger question a number of Republicans here in Washington are raising is, there's no political director at the RNC, there's no finance director, that person just recently left. There's almost nobody left at the RNC, except a couple of consultants that are advising Steele. He says he's doing it to clean out the party and restart it anew, but is that part of the problem?

SKALKA: Well, I think part of the problem is that he's show-boating on television instead of doing some of the internal reorganizing that members want to see him doing. You know, he's got a big task ahead of him, from fund-raising to revamping the online operation for the party. There are some pretty -- pretty big tasks ahead and I think there are folks who want him to get to it and stay off the air for now.

Not to put too much faith in the memes coming out of MSNBC, but if Steele's not really doing PARTY ORGANIZATION, but rather public relations, it's truly going to be a "long winter."

(As to whether Steele should quit? Well, the party's already in deep disarray, so it's not as if GOP fortunes can sink that much lower. Give the guy another month or two - kind of like a "probationary period" - and see how things go in the meanwhile, especially with fundraising and committee staffing. It couldn't hurt to look around for someone with more charisma, in any case. If Republicans really do have a shot at picking up some seats in 2012, the party can't really afford more public relations fiascos like we've seen this week.)

**********

Video Clip: RNC Chairman Michael Steele on Sean Hannity's Show, via Gateway Pundit.

Living Through "Atlas Shrugged," While Leftists Haven't Read It!

David Weigel reports that Representative John Campbell suggests that "People are starting to feel like we’re living through the scenario that happened in "Atlas Shrugged'" ...

John Campbell is my congressman (in Orange County's 48th Congressional District), so please forgive me for a little burst of pride amid all of the collectivist rage that's taking over this country. He's been a consistent small-government advocate, and he blogs at the Green Eyeshade.

"Going John Galt" is turning out to be a big phenomenon on the right, although SOME leftists can't help but try to score some cheap points on all this - and they haven't even read the book!

See for example Matthew Yglesias: "Rep. John Campbell Literally Taking His Policy Cues From Ayn Rand Novels":

I haven’t actually read the book but my understanding is that in Atlas Shrugged they’re actually building a high-speed rail link from Las Vegas to Disneyland.

That's quite revealing. It's a good bet Henry Farrell's never read it either, despite his new Facebook page snarking conservatives for their "going Galt" wingnuttery.

Gee, and that's coming from someone who's "friended" Juan Cole? Wonders never cease!

Arafat Chic

From Reut Cohen's new essay at Pajamas Media:

My distaste for the keffiyeh fashion trend is similar to my displeasure at seeing silly young women sporting Mao handbags, which many Asians and Peruvians take offense to. I would not wear a Che Guevara shirt as I see no reason to identify with a madman who massacred innocent Cubans. Therefore, I believe the general public needs to be cognizant that the trendy scarf they feel compelled to wear is offensive to people like me who have lost loved ones because of PLO terrorism.

I am a Middle Easterner and I am not offended if someone chooses to wear traditionally Middle Eastern clothing. At Sephardi/Mizrahi hennas and weddings, the theme is typically “Middle Eastern” and I have never been ashamed of the culture that my grandparents were from. However, the keffiyeh is a different case altogether as it is a symbol of Palestinian terror and not merely a Middle Eastern garment used to protect oneself from sand or dirt. This trendy scarf has extremely negative connotations — in this case it is a garment that is associated with Arafat, who is arguably one of the most murderous individuals of our time.

While an individual has every right to wear a garment, people need to be aware that symbols — such as the swastika, Klan robe, or keffiyeh — can never be removed from their meanings. It is difficult to separate the political statement of Palestinian terror from this particular garment.

I've yet to see a student on my campus wear Arafat chic.

Che Guevara's still the rage, and Barack Obama gear is in vogue. But give it time. Both Anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism are in the charts.

Redefining Individualism

One of the reasons that I've hammered the folks at Ordinary Gentlemen so much is not just because of their fundamental cowardice and dishonesty, but because they're extremely easy targets as well. It makes for interesting blogging, in any case, and the much-needed clarification of ideas.

E.D. Kain provides us with another opportunity this afternoon, in "Redefining Prosperity." E.D. is of course defending the dramatic Democratic expansion of government under Obama's fiscal policy, but he's also trying to justify this power grab by offering a new model of public purpose, an all-American revisionist philosophy of statism that's offered as if it's so self-evident that we should look upon those clinging to "archaic" conceptions of individualism and liberty as literally less biologically-evolved.

Check this out:

Individualism ties in well with the Republican Party’s superficial promise of small government through lower taxation. Democrats, on the other hand, believe that to some degree the State needs to intervene, to provide social safety nets in a society that obviously merits them. They have more faith in the power and beneficence of the government. Republicans are equally bound to the State, but believe in a broader partnership between it and private institutions. Both place an enormous amount of faith and emphasis on the individual. The irony, of course, is that individualism and the size of the State are bound inextricably, the one to the other. The more Americans become boxed into their “liberating” roles as individuals, the more detached we become from our communities and families. These antiquated institutions become accidentally irrelevant. Once upon a time, our family was our social safety net, and the community an even broader one. Yet, as we’ve been increasingly driven into our roles as individuals - through political and economic policies as well as through rapid technological development - and as our faith in community and family has dwindled, we have become ever more reliant on the State to provide for our needs.

Read the whole thing, here.

But let's note right away that E.D. might have set his essay up with some kind of definition of "individualism." Most scholars working in political culture don't use the necessarily popularized version of "rugged individualism," for the manifest reason that it's a term that easily abused, "John Wayned" into some kind of caricature of a phenomenon that should really be thought of as a more complex ideational identity of self-reliance and freedom from interference by the state (lower case for "state," as it's not a proper noun).

When we refer to "individualism" we're not latching onto some snazzy catch-word that's hip with the inside-the-Beltway conservative class - although certainly Rush Limbaugh and others take advantage of the powerful imagery associated with the historically-undeniable notion that people are better off to grow and prosper when LEFT ALONE. Indeed, the development of the democracy in many respects has been driven by individualism. The sense here is of a classically liberal orientation between the citizen and the state, WITHIN a constitutionally-limited polity based on respect for freedom of conscience and property rights.

Note something here as well: We think of individualism as a central component of our American ETHNIC identity, and especially as a psychology of values encompassing our mythic ideals as an immigration society. Over the centuries the immigrants to our shores who helped build and grow this nation have been glued together by a shared dream of acceptance, egalitarianism, and opportunity. And by egalitarianism I mean specifically equality of opportunity, the chance for average people prosper in the absence of hierarchical categories of aristicratic or ecclesiastic privilege. To read works like Gordon Wood's, Radicalism of the American Revolution, and Louis Hartz's, The Liberal Tradition in America, is to be regaled in the powerful moving force of an anti-feudal culture that has been unmatched as a developmental model in the history of the world.

Notice what Robert Bellah says about the power of this classic American political culture in today's day and age:

I believe I can safely borrow terminology from Habits of the Heart and say that a dominant element of the common culture is what we called utilitarian individualism. In terms of historical roots this orientation can be traced to a powerful Anglo-American utilitarian tradition going back at least as far as Hobbes and Locke, although it operates today quite autonomously, without any necessary reference to intellectual history. Utilitarian individualism has always been moderated by what we called expressive individualism, which has its roots in Anglo-American Romanticism, but which has picked up many influences along the way from European ethnic, African-American, Hispanic and Asian influences.

What's interesting in Bellah's piece is how he agrees with E.D. Kain's basic point on the power of the state, but the RESULT of the power is not to create greater DEPENDENCY on government, as E.D. avers (and desires). No, the state works to reinforce, with a world-historical enmority, the power of markets. And markets in turn unleash the productive capacity of individuals to create and produce and innovate, which advances society through wealth creation and the consolidation of entrepreneurial social capital.

Note that Bellah's writing twenty years ago. He's lamenting at that time the shift toward radical muliticultualism, which we know now is even more pronounced today. Bellah sees individualism and robust civic identity as the bulwarks against the more fissiparous tendencies of multiculturalism; the individualistic and civic levels form the social glue of communities that E.D. Kain has written off as "irrelevant."

This is to say that people are not "boxed in" by our historically individualistic culture. Our overwhelming norms and practices as a people are DRIVEN and SHAPED by it. Individualism is what creates a natural aversion to the power of the state. And this is not new. It's not as if the state itself is coterminous with large welfare-policy provision, as E.D. implies. The ORIGINAL state was the medieval actor that arose following the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. Modern democratic societies emerges as a specific reaction to the absolutism of the national monarchies in Europe. Does it really make any sense in the American context that people today are abandoning "communities" and families" in favor of hegemonic state structures that are alleged to be atomizing them out of their natural social elements?

Indeed, the argument's absurd. One of the most talked about phenomena in the last couple of decades has been an extreme form of suburbanization found in "gate-guarded" master-planned communities. California's well known for this form of hyper-individualism. People who are successul in their businesses or professional careers need very little from the state other than a system of legal order of rights and contracts, and the public goods of community safety (police). Following the race-riots and social welfare liberalism of the 1960s and 1970s, increasing numbers of middle class Americans withdrew from the macrosociety to affluent enclaves away from the danger and decay of the inner cities. These communities of choice allowed for the preservation of a radical individualism that finds not a greater reliance of the state but an increasing flight from it.

Perhaps this is the version of contemporary self-sufficiency that E.D. should be excoriating. While it may be true, as E.D. says, that this type of individualism works at cross-purposes to community, it's of the larger macrosocial community, not that of the family and family-neighborhood enclaves. In turn, it's fundamentally illogical that growing the state will work to solve whatever "crisis of individualism" E.D.'s trying to elucidate. Big goverment kills liberty. If people feel threatened by creeping socialism and unescapable high taxes to pay for the entitlements of the ever-increasing left-wing hordes, they'll flee to where freedom's to be found. It's no wonder that many radical nihilists today are mocking and demonizing those like Glenn Beck or Glenn Reynolds for offering scenarios of American anarchy or of an emerging "John Galt" revolt of the productive classes.

E.D. Kain's groping for some ideological-philosophical justifcation for a left-libertarian consensus. But as Matt Welch noted the other day, this left-classical liberal alliance is dead on arrival. E.D. and his allies keep hammering the point because they want to be "progressive" without being hammered for their ideological capriciousness (if not outright cowardice). So far, these guys are striking out badly.

Taxing the Affluent Rich

Dr. Hussein Biobrain, in his manifest frustration, has now bailed out on our "debate" over the Democratic Party's class warfare. He does, however, have a new post up that's typical of the puerile fare you'll find there, "Upper-Class Idiots." As always, I'm blown away at the explicit demonization of working professionals with regards to the Obama administration's plans to soak high-income earners. The progressive numbskulls at Lawyers, Guns and Money even have a post up entitled, "Working Hard or Hardly Working?" And here's the key passage:

Personal income levels are excellent proxies for measuring the extent to which people are "working hard" in this sense of hard work ... In other words, our society on average consists of people who "work hard" who make lots of money and people who don't. Higher marginal taxes on high earners thus have a net effect of moving wealth from relatively hard working people to relatively lazy people.

If you think about it for five seconds it's actually totally implausible that the correlation between "hard work" in this sense and increasing income is even mildly positive. To believe it is, you have to believe that highly paid high status professionals hate their work far more than working class people who are doing dangerous, physically taxing, and/or extremely boring work for low pay.

I'm going to be writing more on all of this, since we're in the middle of huge national debate over individualism versus statism. But in the meantime check out this episode from Tigerhawk TV, "Who Are These "Rich' People?" Tigerhawk, in his reasonable and eminently considerate fashion, explains how the "working affluent" not only work much harder than those at lower income levels, but are MORE PRODUCTIVE overall, and that taxing individuals and families like this will indeed put the final nail in the coffin of the current economy:

There's another point I'll mention here on all of this. The leftists have latched onto the idea that the "tea parties" against the administration's are simply about taxes and outrage "that someone else might get a bigger piece of pie than them." But's the protests and the backlash against taxing the "working affluent" are all of a piece. As Paul Hsieh notes at Pajamas Media:

America’s future is at stake. Do we want to enlarge an already-bloated welfare state that tramples on our rights and strangles the economy? Or do we want a limited government that protects our rights and allows individuals to prosper and thrive?

These are the questions that the Democratic-leftists will have to address as they continue to push for the biggest expansion of government in American history.

Rule 5 Rescue: Paulina Porizkova

I kept visiting over at Robert Stacy McCain's during CPAC weekend to see if he'd get the new installment of Rule 5 Sunday posted. McCain was obviously too busy schmoozing with the young conservative (and hot!) cognoscenti to pump out the next edition of Robert's Rules of Disorder.

The visits weren't wasted, in any case. One of McCain's Rule 5 updates featured a link to the page of the Badger Blog Alliance, which hosts a picture of IndyCar racer Danica Patrick and a link to her recent swimsuit gig with Sports Illustrated.

I'll tell you ... I still consider myself a pretty hip guy, but I'm out of the loop on Sports Illustrated's annual extravaganza. I do take my time at the bookstore or supermarket when I see the latest edition, but I guess - being married and all - I don't get quite as excited at the latest releases of the scantily-clad supermodels frolicking in the waves for photo-spreads at far-flung tropical locations.

Back in the day, of course, I was a connoisseur of Paulina Porizkova's modeling - and you can see why above! It all started with Porizkova's first Sports Illustrated cover feature in 1984. If a guy can be swept off his feet, well, that's me! She posed for the magazine's cover the following year as well, and she became a pop-culture phenomenon when she married Ric Ocasek of The Cars. In the mid-1990s, Porizkova reached something of a professional high-point when she became the face of Estée Lauder's prestige cosmetics line. Shortly after that I think she faded from the public spotlight a bit, but I'll never forget her - never, ever!

In any case, I'll have more Rule 5 reminiscing later, and be sure to check back here this weekend for the next "full metal" edition.