Unpacking Postmodernism

A big hat tip goes out to Dan Collins at PwPub. Dan links to David Thompson's interview with Stephen Hicks, the author of Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault. Thompson asks Hicks if "postmodernism marks a crisis of faith and a retreat from reality among the academic left"?

It is striking that the major postmodernists - Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Jean-François Lyotard, Richard Rorty - are of the far left politically. And it is striking that all four are Philosophy Ph.D.s who reached deeply skeptical conclusions about our ability to come to know reality. So one of my four theses about postmodernism is that it develops from a double crisis - a crisis within philosophy about knowledge and a crisis within left politics about socialism.

If you read all the way through the interview, Hicks evinces optimism that postmodernism, after a counter-movement in the academy, is "on the defensive."

I can't say outside of my field, but I'm not optimistic that postmodernism is in retreat in political science. Sure, some of the top scholarship remains firmly ground in positivist epistemology. Yet, it's becoming increasingly the case that top, mainstream works of academic political science are grounded in the radical ontology associated with the hardine postmodernist political agenda (see my recent essay, for example, "Violent Patriarchy in International Security"); and there's apparently a consensus in international relations that the largely postmodern "constructivist" paradigm has emerged as the main (legitimate) contender to the field's dominant approaches of the last 35 years, neorealism and neoliberal institutionalism. It's a complicated story, but at the most basic level constructivism represents the current "radicalist" paradigm in the field, drawing eclectically on a range of post-structuralist influences. As Stephen Walt has argued, constructivism "has largely replaced marxism as the preeminent radical perspective on international affairs." (Note: I hesitate to cite Stephen Walt, for between him and Michael Desch, the realist paradigm they champion is becoming almost a mirror image to the political praxis offered by postmodernists in political science, especially with regards to Israel and U.S. foreign policy. For more on that, see my recent essay, "America's Academic Tragedy.")

Islamic Gender Apartheid

I wanted to share with readers a couple of related essays: (1) Phyllis Chesler and Marcia Pappas', "Gender Apartheid - Not Our Agenda. Part One," and (2) Dr. Pat Santy's guest essay, "The Hijab: Thoughts of an American Muslim Woman."

According to Professor Chesler and Ms. Pappas:

The issue of Islamic/Islamist gender apartheid is one of epidemic and global proportions. Although it has reached American shores, the feminist establishment here remains tragically ambivalent about how to deal with forced veiling, arranged marriage, separatism, and honor-related violence, including honor killings. Many feminists fear that, were they to tie the subordination of women to a particular religion or culture, especially to Islam, that they would be perceived as “racists,” or “Islamophobes.” This fear trumps their sincere concern for womens’ rights and womens’ lives.

The issue, quite simply, is whether or not non-Muslim white folks can discuss Muslim-on-Muslim crime or black-on-black crime or whether only people who share the same faith and skin-color are allowed to raise this issue.

The issue is also whether American feminists really support an American foreign policy, which both President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton have indicated can or should be tied to womens’ rights. Feminists viewed President Bush’s post 9/11 invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq as morally outrageous and as far more hurtful to Afghan and Iraqi women than was their pre-existing subjugation. Some feminists believed that women had been better off, at least, in Iraq, before the American invasion. We may disagree with this analysis but, nevertheless, why would American feminists hesitate to condemn crimes against women which are being committed on American soil by immigrants, including Muslims, from Third World countries?

There's more at the link.

Professor Chesler and Ms. Pappas review the history of "mainstream feminist" indifference to the violent subordination of Muslim women. But see the anonyomous guest essay at Dr. Sanity's blog:

Every once in a while I come across published material that makes an attempt to defend the state and standard of women in Islam. Such material compares the clothed and cloaked women of the Islamic world to the undressed vixen-like women of the West, exposing all the ills of the Western views on women, their exploitation of women and the miserable state of such women. The material then goes on and states how Muslim women are not oppressed, but liberated; that they are dressed in liberation of not conforming to the degradation of the Western world’s sexual standards and lack of values and lack of modesty. The rhetoric shouts out in the voice of all Muslim women, that the veil is the choice of the modest, the choice of moral beauty and the standard of chaise and respected women.

But somehow all the rhetoric out there written in defense of the veil and defense of the cloaked women of Islam and of Arabia, strike an odd chord of wounded faith in me. I cannot seem to find such usual irate tirade against the sinful, immodest and unchaste women of the West, to be appealing let alone material to be accepted and treated with respected discourse. Somehow demonizing one party just to prove that the other side is better doesn’t bode too well for logical reasoning and discourse. Instead, it is quite distasteful and demeaning to not only the non-Muslims but to Muslims as well.

Read the whole thing, at the link.

In both of these essays, we see, as noted by Chesler and Pappas, "a politically correct 'cultural relativist' philosophy in which one standard applied to the West and another standard to the formerly colonized Third World."

The Folsom Cell Block National Culture

Via Memeorandum, Scott Johnson (a good read in itself), and Fausta Wertz, be sure to check out Victor Davis Hanson's essay at Pajamas Media, "Thoughts About Depressed Americans."

I read the essay earlier this morning. Hanson discusses the Obama administration's disastrous handling of the economic crisis, as well the rapidly collapsing level of trust Americans have in political and economic institutions, But I was really struck by Hanson's comments on the general courseness of our society, what I interpret as part of our larger social breakdown:

I was always an advocate of informality, of casualness, but now when on a plane, in a restaurant, at Starbucks, I am struck by the rare well-dressed person who does not crowd. How odd the extra-polite woman, who conducts herself with charm and grace at the counter, or the gentleman who opens doors, says excuse me, and whose intelligent conversation I enjoy listening in on—like a dew drop to someone thirsting in the desert. In contrast, when the punk walks by, with radio blaring, mumbling obscenities, flashing the ‘I’ll kill you’ stare,” it all leaves me in depression.

Worse still, on the opposite end of the scale, is the master of the universe who elbows his way onto a plane while he blares on the telephone and blocks the aisle. I feel creepy after walking through an electronics store and seeing some of the video game titles and covers.

In short, I don’t want to hear any more Viagra or Cialis ads, no more douche commercials—please no more talking heads about penises that are enlarging, hardening, stimulated on the public air waves.

The sum of these foul parts is smothering us. I don’t want to know that there is a new sex clinic opening in Fresno, or hear another ad about how I can skip out on my credit card debt, or that some sort of food is stuck to my intestinal walls like spackle and paste unless I buy some gut cleansing product.

At some point, we need to say enough is enough, and try to find some sense of honor and decorum in these times of crisis. My god, the entire country has become some sort of Rousseauian nightmare, as if the Berkeley Free Speech Area circa 1970 is now the public domain, as if the culture of the Folsom cell block is now the national ethos.

That's makes for a pretty good line: "The Folsom cell block national culture." Indeed, I was thinking about that cell block culture this morning.

I exchanged e-mails with my friend Lynn from Virginia. She asked how it was going out West? I told her that I'm doing okay, but not all is well in California, especially in our darkened social-breakdown milieu.

I referenced a couple of stories at the Los Angeles Times. One is the tragedy of 18 months-old Emma Leigh Barker: "Mother of dead toddler found in Sylmar says she dumped body, authorities say." The baby's mother, Stacy Barker, claims her daughter died "accidentally." My money says that's baloney, of course, but check the comments at Free Republic for some skepticism. The second story is out of Oakland, where three police officers have been killed, and another is near death, after being shot during a routine traffic stop last night: "State mourns three slain Oakland police officers." And get this, the suspect, Lovelle Mixon, was killed in a firefight with police, but the kicker is that he "was wanted on a no-bail warrant for violating his parole on a conviction of assault with deadly weapon."

So, here we have a woman, Stacy Barker, who has concocted a web of lies to cover up the likely murder of her beautiful 18 month baby, and we have Lovell Mixon, who just killed three police officers with an "assault weapon" who at the time of the shooting was out on parole for a previous conviction for assault with a deadly weapon.

So yes, "the culture of the Folsom cell block is now the national ethos."

And here's this from Folsom State Prison's homepage, "Originally designed to hold inmates serving long sentences, habitual criminals, and incorrigibles, Folsom State Prison quickly gained the reputation of being the end of the line." I think there's some double meaning there, as we're certainly at "end of the line" for the historical restraints of traditional moral conservatism.

Blogging Buddies, or Pure "Bullshit and Lies"?

Pardon the crude title of the post, but I'm riffing off Ann Althouse, who's demonstrating how this whole Althouse/Ezra Klein controversy is both interesting and instructive

Althouse has a new post up on the brouhaha, "'Meta question. Is a tweet the equal of a blog post as cause for offense to be taken?'"

For a tweet, it's pretty normal to mention an association that pops into your head, while for a post one would want to conduct some research." Asks Ben Masel.

So Twitter is a special place for bullshit and lies?

I say to Ann, "Welcome to the blog wars," or, "welcome back," since Althouse needs no introduction (remember "Let's take a closer look at those breasts"?).

But we need some context: Some time back, in a blog post or an e-mail exchange, Ann told me how much she liked Matthew Yglesias. She said he was a real nice guy, and that she'd done Bloggingheads.tv with the guy. Yglesias was just swell. And that's fine. The problem for me is that it's one thing to be cordial in person, or during a video debate/dialog, and then turn around in outrage at the totally characteristic "bullshit and lies" from people like Ezra Klein. I don't know either of them, but as typical far-left moral relativists, they're peas in a pod. Perhaps if Klein had done Bloggingheads with Ann he wouldn't have slurred her as anti-Semitic? But it's academic really. If Yglesias had to take up sides, my money's on an alliance with Klein. For all we know, they're yapping about Althouse right now on JournoList. These folks could be eviscerating Ann in the comfort of their anonymity, and then days from now Matt could go on the next Bloggingheads episode and blow smoke up Althouse's behind.

Readers should go read the comment thread at Klein's post, "Are Ann Althouse's Commenters Anti-Semites?" It's a fairly all-star list of contributors, but "Aimai, an LGM regular, ought to give folks a flavor:

The problem with Ann's blog in general, and her commenters, is "how can you tell the dancer from the dance?" Its fucking morons all the way down. Sure, some sane people head over there to comment, and some liberals troll her comments, and some people are anti semites and some are just your typical crappy right wing racists who get off on having a woman law professor on their side and can't be bothered to see she needs to be drunk out of her mind and not very bright in order to be there.

But read the whole thread. Althouse jumps in there calling out Klein for his "unattactive weaseling." I could say the same thing about Yglesias, but I want to focus on the larger point. Why do we want to be such good buddies with hardline leftists bloggers? They hate us, they really do. They'll put on a mask in person, but they show no class in a quick Twitter post designed to deflect attention away from their real Machiavelllian inside game. I mean, if Klein's got the a source at the West Wing, who's to say JournoList doesn't get play among top White House staffers? Klein throws out the red herring of Althousian anti-Semitism, chums up the right wing waters, and even get conservative bloggers to defend him, like TigerHawk (with all due respect) in the comments to my post yesterday, "Ezra Klein Does Not Deserve to Be Treated Fairly."

So yes, it is all "bullshit and lies," and while I'm sure we can often get along with our political opponents, there's little upside to making buddies in the diabolical effluvience of left's blogospheric fever swamps.

Thousands Demonstrate at Orlando Tea Party

Glenn Reynolds has a great roundup of today's tea party protests around the country. Some of the folks attending the Orlando rally are boasting "John Galt" paraphernalia.

The photo above shows the son of one of Reynolds' regular readers, who sent in photographs along with this report:

I am an enthusiastic reader who has checked in with Instapundit nearly daily for almost six years. I thoroughly enjoy your perceptive comments and your quirky and often witty selection of stories and links, and I have cited you to my two sons often. One of them, Walker, is home for Spring Break from Stanford, where he is a junior. He is a libertarian, and he often finds himself philosophically isolated and lonely in Palo Alto. He and I attended the Orlando Tea Party this afternoon, and I have attached a photo of Walker there. While I am an inveterate issues nerd, always eager to read about and discuss political/economic/social issues, I have not been very active politically, so today was a rare treat for Walker and me. The crowd at the rally was friendly, enthusiastic, and good-natured, and we heard few comments directed towards the President or Congress that were nasty or personally derogatory.

Via Nice Deb, Central Florida News 13 has a report, "Thousands Rally Against Stimulus Plan at ‘Orlando Tea Party’."

Compare the tea party protests to the ANSWER marches around the country. Popular activism's alive and well, on both sides of the ideological spectrum. But which side will end up on the "ash heap of history"?

See also, Michelle Malkin, "Liveblogging the Lexington KY Tea Party" (via Memeorandum).; and Riehl World View, "Embracing The Coming Polarity Shift In American Politics."

Code Pink Hotties for the Revolution!

I never thought I'd be "Rule 5" blogging on Code Pink anti-Americans, but there's a first for everything. Via Ace of Spades HQ and Blackfive, check out "Code Pink Cuties":

More seriously, This Ain't Hell reports on the "ANSWER March on the Pentagon."

The photo-essay includes a banner hoisted by the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) that reads "TROOPS OUT NOW ... NO WAR BUT CLASS WAR ... OUT ENEMY IS AT HOME" ...

The PSL website boasts Che Guevara across the top banner, and the page features links to upcoming events, such as "SOCIALISM: THE TIME IS NOW - CONFERENCE AND WORKSHOP," in Los Angeles, scheduled for April 25. Some of the PSL links for today's Pentagon protest are hosted at ANSWER's website, and the group also mounted a demonstration in Los Angeles this afternoon. Here's the list of sponsors:

Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General; Cindy Sheehan; Ron Kovic, Born on the 4th of July; Paul Haggis, Academy-Award winning director and screenwriter; Edward Asner, actor; ActiAstLA, Addicted to War, After Downing Street, Al-Awda, the Palestine Right to Return Coalition (Los Angeles, Orange County, Riverside, San Bernardino Chapters), Alliance for Global Justice, American Friends Service Committee, Los Angeles, ANSWER Orange County, ANSWER South Bay, ANSWER Ventura County, Be Love, Campaign to End Israeli Apartheid-Southern California, Citizens Awareness Network, Las Vegas, Coalition for Equal Marriage Rights-LA, Coalition for World Peace, Code Pink, Cuauhtemoc Mexica, DAMAYAN Migrant Workers Association, Echo Park Community Coalition, Equality Network,Free Iraq Now, Frente Amplio Progresista en Los Angeles, Frente Indígena de Organizaciones Binacionales (FIOB), Frente Unido de Los Pueblos Americanos, Fullerton Junior College Invisible Children, Global Resistance Network, Granada Hills Peace Vigil, Hermandad Mexicana Nacional, International Socialist Organization, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Islamic Shura Council of Southern California, KmB Pro-People Youth, Labor Community Strategy Center, LGBT Greens, Middle East Children's Alliance, Minjok-Tongshin, Montrose Peace Vigil, Mount St. Mary's College-Amnesty International Club, Muslim American Society Freedom, National Assembly to End the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars and Occupations, National Committee to Free the Cuban Five, National Council of Arab Americans, Nicaragua Network, Office of the Americas, Orange County KPFK Support Group, Out Against War: LGBT & Friends Coalition for Peace & Justice, Palisadians for Peace, Partnership for Civil Justice, Peace Bakersfield, Progressive Democrats of America, Riverside Area Peace and Justice Action, Santa Monica College Feminist Alliance, Tendencia Revolucionaria de El Salvador, The People's Coalition, The People's Party, Topanga Peace Alliance, U.S. Labor Against War, United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA), Venezuela Solidarity Network, Veterans C.A.R.E., Veterans for Peace, Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Voters for Peace - U.S., WeAreChangeLA, World Can't Wait-LA, Youth Speak! Collective Point Loma Nazarene University; Jim Lafferty, Executive Director, National Lawyers Guild-LA; Juan Jose Gutierrez, Director, Latino Movement USA; Mimi Kennedy, Actor and Activist; Elaine Johnson, Gold Star Mother; Tina Richards, Executive Director, Grassroots America; Angola 3 Defense Committee; Herman Wallace, Political Prisoner, Angola Prison, Louisiana; Albert Woodfox, Political Prisoner, Angola Prison; Raul Pacheco, guitarist, Ozomatli; David Swanson, After Downing Street; Heidi Boghosian, Executive Director, National Lawyers Guild*; Michael Ratner, President, Center for Constitutional Rights*; Blase and Theresa Bonpane, Office of the Americas and so many others.

The Los Angeles Times provided the group media coverage for the event, with a map listing road closures adjacent to Hollywood and Vine. Here's a description of the scheduled events:

Protesters will stop in front of the Kodak Theatre and participate in a 10-minute "die-in," where demonstrators will lie on the street as loudspeakers blare the sounds of dropping bombs. Marchers will then carry coffins draped with the U.S., Iraqi, Afghan and Palestinian flags toward an armed forces recruitment office at Hollywood Boulevard and La Brea Avenue. The march will finish off with a short rally about 3:30 p.m. there.

Ezra Klein Does Not Deserve to Be Treated Fairly

Late last December, when Israel's Gaza incursion was winding down, I had this to say about Ezra Klein:

Ezra Klein deserves an honorable mention in this rogue's gallery of self-styled 1930s-appeasement look-alikes.

Readers should check the original post for context, but Klein's extreme relativism is endlessly infuriating, and, frankly, I plain just don't like the guy. So readers can see my interest in the serious pushback against Klein's attack on Ann Althouse.

It turns out William Jacobson's on the case in his post, "Ezra Klein Smears Ann Althouse:

Ezra Klein, blogger for the "liberal" American Prospect, got caught by Politico coordinating his stories with other liberal bloggers and journalists. Exposed for being a journalistic fraud, Klein needed an enemy. He found Ann Althouse. Althouse, who has a very popular blog, could be considered "conservative" (as in, when a law professor doesn't kneel at the alter of Obama, she is a "conservative").

Althouse's crime? She linked to the Politico story in a post at 8:54 a.m. on March 19, 2009 under the title "The Journolist." Althouse's blog gets tons of comments, unlike mine, which only gets a lot of comments when there is an Instalanche. Apparently, some of the comments were hostile to Klein, so Klein decided to take out Althouse by smearing her as an anti-Semite.

Klein's attack on Althouse is pure "faux" outrage. The guy was raised Jewish but has confessed his agnosticism, and he apparently "hates" anything having to do with organized religion. That's perfectly in keeping with Klein's secular collectivist agenda, but check the comments at Althouse's follow-up post, "''Did Ezra Klein post anti-Semitic comments to set up Ann Althouse?'":

Ezra is a hate-monger ... As such, everything is in play. He deserves nothing but contempt. And he certainly does not deserve to be treated fairly.

Full Metal Saturday Challenge!

I got in on the ground floor of "Robert Stacy McCain's Full Metal Blogging."

It's a good thing, too, since "The Other McCain's" traffic-building, link-ragin' sensation is attracting quite a following. In fact, Moe Lane's looking to escalate the genre, throwing down the gauntlet with his post, "You Want Rule #5, RS McCain?," which includes the video from Rafael Defense Systems' promotional Bollywood dance sequence for the Aero India 2009 air-show in Bangalore.

That's good stuff, no doubt, but if folks are escalating to fire-cracker hot videos, I'm laying down some jams with Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta, a.k.a, Lady Gaga! I like the Lady's influences, but she's a bit too hot, in fact, although I'm still hankering for more bikini shots of Katy Perry!

Some of our blogging partners are keeping things on the up and up, of course. Pundette's got a thorough link roundup in, "Saturday Link-Fest 3/21." That entry links to British blogger, Marianne, who's asks new friends to stop by and peek over her "virtual picket fence" once in a while.

Little Miss Attila gets into the action as well, with inside-intel on Robert Stacy McCain's California conservative conferencing action! She links to Suzanna Logan, who's been hyper-scaling the stats on Sitemeter, garnering some Instalanche action!

Dan Collins is kicking up a storm in the hot side-gig at Protein Wisdom's Pub, so check it out.

But see also Jason at The Western Experience, who's more concerned with "nation-blanketing in Afghanistan" than the more down-home diversions of babe-blogging.

**********

P.S.: Lady Gaga's about as far as I'm going to go on the hotness scale. As much as I like Blake Lively, there's something a bit forward in Rolling Stone's cover story this week, especially for parents imploring "Keep it in your britches, son."

**********

P.P.S.: If American Power readers would like their blogs included in some of my link-explosion roundups, just drop me an e-mail and I'd be glad to spread some link love.

The Courts and the Culture Wars

I'm reading Robert Bork's, A Time to Speak: Selected Writings and Arguments, as noted previously. This afternoon I read Bork's essay, "Olympians on the March: The Courts and the Cuture Wars." Once again, I can't share enough how much these essays are resonating with me.

In "Olympians on the March," Bork examines the shift from a legal constitutionalism in the courts to a political advocacy masquerading as jurisprudence. Most of the change came in the 20th century, and the Warren Court was the turning point to a socialization of the law. According to Bork, "As a consequence of the Warren Court's preference for equal results rather than equal justice, it politicized every branch of the law, statutes as well as the Constitution. Ironically, the Court's favored constitutional implement was the clause of the Fourteenth Amendment promising 'equal protection of the laws.'"

The "Olympians" are the educational and social elite. Here's Bork's key passage on this progressive elite:

Judges belong to the class that John O'Sullivan first identified as "Olympians." The political philosopher Kenneth Minogue described the philosophy of this class:

Olympianism is the project of an intellectual
elite that believes that it enjoys superior enlightenment
and that its business is to spread
this benefit to those living on the lower slopes
of human achievement .... Olympianism
burrowed like a parasite into the most powerful
institution of the emerging knowledge
economy - the universities.

From there the infection spread to other culture-shaping institutions, most notably the Supreme Court which was accused, justly in my opinion, with reasoning backwards from desired results to spurious rationales.

Further, check out this passage on the Court's radical cultural rights:

The Supreme Court is enacting a program of radical personal autonomy, indeed moral chaos, piece by piece, creating new and hitherto unsuspected constitutional rights: rights to abortion, homosexual sodomy (and, coming soon, homosexual marriage), freedom from religion in the public square, racial and sexual preferences. None of these is justified by the actual Bill of Rights.

I could easily multiply examples. But the underlying philosophy of the Olympians--if it deserves so dignified a name as "philosophy"--is wonderfully summed up in the famous "mystery passage" that Justice Anthony Kennedy first articulated in an opinion reaffirming the made-up constitutional right to abortion. "These matters," Justice Kennedy wrote for the Court,

involving the most intimate and personal
choices a person may make in a lifetime
[abortion, etc.], choices central to personal
dignity and autonomy, are central to the
liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
At the heart of liberty is the right to define
one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the
universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs
about these matters could not define the attributes
of personhood were they formed under compulsion
of the State. [emphasis added]

Although this passage instantly attracted some measure of the ridicule it deserved, Justice Kennedy chose to repeat it in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), which pretends to discover a constitutional right to homosexual sodomy. What other practices, we may wonder, are now "at the heart of liberty"? Kennedy's aria about "the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning," etc., is not simply laughable intellectually; it also tells us something grim about our future, the Court, and a people that supinely accepts such judicial diktats.

While searching for some of Bork's essays online this afternoon, I came across a Reason magazine book review of Bork's "Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline. Reading the piece provides some insight as to why libertarians are wont to form alliances with radical leftists, as we're seeing in the "liberaltarian" rage that's been going around online. If Bork's ideas are seen as "extreme" by some (especially as he apparently calls for censorship in Slouching Towards Gomorrah), there's actually not much a cultural conservative can quibble with, at least, if one's concerned about the very breakdown in radical licentiousness that leftist are determined to spread.

Churchill Supporters Slur 9/11 Victims as "Little Eichmanns"

I imagine I shouldn't be surprised, but supporters of Ward Churchill, the discredited former professor at the University of Colorado, have defiled the historical memory of the victims of the 9/11 attacks. El Marco has a new photo-journalism report, "Americans Are Not “Little Eichmanns”."

Read the full report here.

El Marco has uploaded a number of brief 9/11 obituaries from the New York Times. I vaguely remember reading a couple of them at the time.

If you have the stomach, check out the blog of the Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist Movement Denver, and see in particular, Ben Whitmer, "Why I Support Ward Churchill":

I defend Ward Churchill because he was the first to write the obvious about the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks on September‭ ‬11,‭ ‬2001.‭ ‬That the technocrats on the upper levels of the World Trade Center weren’t targeted because they provided some symbolically metaphysical representation of American power‭; ‬they were targeted because they made their living on the bodies of Arab children.‭ ‬

Yeah. Right.

There's more, unfortunately ...

Governor Palin Rejects Stimulus-Funded Gov't Expansion

Via All American Blogger, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has rejected half of the federal stimulus money available to the state. In refusing all the money on the table, Palin said the funds "are contingent on the state increasing the size of government, chipping in more dollars or passing new laws that Alaskans might not want."

All American Blogger has the link to Governor Palin's press release. See also, Conservatives for Sarah Palin, "Palin Looks Forward to Public Discussion on Stimulus Funds."

Disrespecting the Presidential Office

I think I've gained some street cred (blog cred?) with Dan Riehl on the question of the dignity and stature of the office of the presidency. I noted this morning that Barack Obama's gaffe last night wasn't the least of his infidelities, but also that his media appearances were lowering the bar on the dignity of Oval Office. As I noted, "the President's 'Special Olympics' faux pas is really a bit much, not just for its complete cluelessness, and the very indignity of a comedy appearance amid national crisis ..."

Apparently, a number of right-bloggers haven't appreciated the seriousness in Obama's relaxation of presidential etiquette and morality. As Dan notes:

I've seen similar commentary to this elsewhere on the Right regarding Obama's Special Olympic's flap. Unfortunately, it pretty much convinces me that a lot of blog commentary on the Right today is relatively useless. And there are two reasons for that in this particular case ....

To start with, it isn't about the humor ... frankly, I don't see much wrong with that, as I'm not easily offended. But what was it Bush tried to do most when taking office post-Clinton? Do you even remember?

He tried to bring a little dignity back to the office, that's what. Because he respected the office. Guess what? Obama doesn't. Just as he doesn't really respect a lot of things that once warranted some respect in this Republic. It just amazes me to see so many allegedly informed Right-siders scream about how the Left wants to undermine American institutions, yet faced with a perfect example of it they can't even understand it's going on.

Well, after blogging about Barack Obama and the Democrats continuously for almost a year, I feel readily able to testify to the utter obliteration of values, rectitude, and order in this administration. I remember very clearly, in 2001, when President George W. Bush took office, the New York Times ran a comparative analysis of the Clinton and Bush White Houses. Bill Clinton was very informal. He worked hard, sure, but his style was loose and unorganized. George W. Bush, by contrast, was at work by 7:00am. He stressed a code of punctuality for all meetings, and he ALWAYS dressed in a suit and tie (and formal dress was required of visitors to the Oval Office). G.W. Bush ran an even tigther ship than his own father's: "Many officials in the Bush White House said they were struck by how there seemed to be far less back-stabbing than there had been even in Mr. Bush's father's White House."

But it's not just about attire and punctuality. It's attitude. It's almost as if President Obama is actually inviting charges that he's disrespecting the office. On his first day, he made it a point to be photographed by Time without a coat and tie. And remember that "larger point" ... the new president wasn't just going casual; he was sending the message that his predecessor was a stuffed shirt and he was going to do it differently.

It seems to me that there's a majesty to the office that goes beyond the individual occupant in power. Barack Obama campaigned for a year as a coolster, someone who was down with the younger generations. President Obama makes it known that he likes the Rolling Stones, and one of his biggest priorities in office is to install a basketball court in the White House (and now he's picking tournament brackets for the NCAA Championship). Sure, he's entitled, but when he makes it a point to go on Jay Leno's show amid a both a national crisis and an executive scandal, and is quick to ridicule - however inadvertently - those of limited physical abilities, it seems as though slapping down some late-night jive is more important than slapping down his own administration's tax-cheats and policy imbeciles.

All of this was on display last year: From the "presidential seal" disaster, to the Berlin speech last summer at Adoph Hitler's favorite monument (the Siegessäule Victory Column), to his waffling reply to Pastor Rick Warren at Saddleback (suggesting that on the right to life would "reduce the number of abortions in America"), there's been little reasurring about this man, his candidacy, and whether this administration will take culture, values, and tradition seriously.

So I want to thank Dan Riehl for laying it out there as he has. The underlying messages beneath Obama's gaffes are enormously telling in how this presidency will govern the nation in a period not only of disruption, but outright social decay.

Sarah Palin on the Special Olympics

Michelle Malkin's got a new post up, "Why Can’t Obama Tell a Good Joke?" (via Memeorandum). But don't miss this video, "Governor Palin's Address to the 2009 Special Olympics in Boise, Idaho":

It's great to see Governor Palin in the news again. She's a good woman, a great mom, and she'll make a great president.

For stark contrast, see, "Obama Apologizes for Calling His Bad Bowling 'Like the Special Olympics'."

Hat Tip: Terry Frank.

The Left's Love Affair with Tyranny and Terror

Here's a brief roundup on Jamie Glazov's new book, United in Hate: The Left's Romance with Tyranny and Terror:

Ronald Radosh has this:

After 9/11, the social-democratic political philosopher, Michael Walzer, asked the readers of Dissent magazine a tough question: “Can there be a decent Left?” His essay was in reality an appeal for its creation, since Walzer was smart enough to realize that so many who spoke in the name of the Left that horrific year were anything but. But now, so many years later, little has changed. If anyone has any doubts about this, there is no better place to start than Jamie Glazov’s important new book, United in Hate.

Kathy Shaidle has published a great piece on the book last week at Pajamas Media, "Exposing the Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror." And World Net Daily discusses the critical acclaim for United in Hate:

Critical acclaim is mounting for the newly released "United in Hate: The Left's Romance with Tyranny and Terror," by Jamie Glazov, with President Reagan's national security adviser, Robert C. McFarlane, calling it a "must-read."

In his book, which assuredly will make so-called "progressives" see red, Glazov describes the unholy alliance between jihadists and people like Michael Moore, Sean Penn, Ted Turner and Noam Chomsky.

He uses the Leftists' own words to reveal their agenda of death, and now a flood of praise is pouring in.

McFarlane said it is "the redefining work for 21st Century readers of an eternal message."

Also blogging:

* ACT! For America, "United in Hate."

* Phyllis Chesler, " “The Battle for Liberty, The Struggle Against Despotism.” An Interview with Author Jamie Glazov."

* Israpundit, "Shining the Light on Leftist and Islamic Hate."

* Saberpoint, "United In Hate: Why the Left Loves and Glorifies Tyranny."

Ann Althouse: "Ezra Klein Owes Me a Correction..."

From Ann Althouse, "'Ann Althouse Sure Has a Lot of Anti-Semitic Commenters'":

Ezra Klein tweets — without a link to any particular comment.

Well, Ezra, I do not delete comments based on viewpoint. I believe in the marketplace of ideas, and to the extent that there are some anti-Semitic comments here, there are many more comments that strike back. Is it not better to have scurrilous ideas out in the sunlight where they can die?

ADDED: In fact, Ezra Klein owes me a correction. He has published a lie about my blog. Alternatively, let him list the commenters he's writing about — I can search their old comments and see if there is anything that deserves to be called anti-Semitic — and we will see if his list constitutes "a lot." I think he cannot do it, so he really ought to put up a correction immediately.

Ann is usually pretty restrained regarding flame wars, but I LOVE IT when she call these folks out. Let's see if Ann gets her correction.

**********

UPDATE: Ezra Klein issues an explanation/partial apology ... Althouse is not particularly thrilled ...

More at Memeorandum.

Glenn Reynolds at Hofstra Law School

Professor Glenn Reynolds is at Hofstra Law School this week. He participated in a panel discussion yesterday on energy and the environment, but he was a little taken aback upon arrival: "It was a little weird ... to get here and see my face staring out from posters, Big Brother-like, all over the place." Read more at Instapundit.

Obama's Message to the Iranian People

Charles Lemos, at MyDD, argues that Presient Barack Obama's "Message to the Iranian People" marks the beginning of an "Obama Doctrine":

While it is still too early to fully articulate the totality of an Obama Doctrine, it is clearly not the Bush Doctrine of American exceptionalism and unilateralism. The Obama Administration is committed to diplomatic avenues that addresses the full range of issues that separate the United States and its adversaries based on engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect and to pursuing constructive ties that provide greater opportunities for partnership and commerce.

But check out Abe Greenwald at Commentary, who calls bull on claims of transformational "hopenchange" diplomacy:

Barack Obama released a video message intended for Iranians and their leaders, wishing them a happy Nowruz (Iranian New Year) and stressing all the usual Obamisms about hope, diplomacy, togetherness, and mutual respect. Obama supporters can swoon and Obama detractors can stew, but trying to establish a connection across intense cultural lines is nothing that Obama brought to the presidency. It is perfectly in keeping with George W. Bush’s unstinting effort to appeal to the world’s Muslims at every opportunity ....

There are two main differences between Bush’s Muslim outreach and Obama’s ambidirectional variety. First, as a man in whose life faith plays a central role, Bush could simply appeal to Muslims as members of an Abrahamic religion. He didn’t gild the lily, as Obama does, by condescending to one “great culture” after another, and citing the universal peace dreams of tyrants. Second, Bush never thought embracing the world’s peaceful Muslims was a substitute for threatening, or using, force against the world’s less peaceful Muslims. He knew that saying nice things was less important than doing necessary things. When it comes to Iran, there’s no indication that Obama sees a difference between the two.

See also, Ed Morrissey, "Video: Good Morning, Iran!", as well as Memeorandum.

Obamateur Hour at the White House

This week's AIG fiasco has already provided Republicans with a fabulous opening for hammering Barack Obama's incompetence and Democratic Party corruption. But the President's "Special Olympics" faux pas is really a bit much, not just for its complete cluelessness, and the very indignity of a comedy appearance amid national crisis, but for what all of this tells us about President Obama's entire governing philosophy.

Via Powerline, Mark Steyn has coined the best phrase to capture the Obama's recent ineptitude, modified slightly: "Obamateur Hour at the White House."

Steyn's also got a nickname for the President: "Barack Oprompta." For more on that, check Michelle Malkin, "Obama’s “Special Olympics” Joke: The Teleprompter Made Him Do It!".

Lots more at Memeorandum. See also, Dan Collins, "Sardonic, Without the Chops."

Irresistible Michelle Malkin

If there is any single indicator of Michelle Malkin's enduring significance on the political right, it's the truly clinical love/hate relationship with Malkin on the malevolent left.

Look at this picture: That's Michelle Malkin graciously providing a photo-op at CPAC to Adam P. DuPont, a.k.a, "tas" from Comments From Left Field.

Now, if you click over to the original post (opens a new window), and then point and click your mouse on the picture, you'll see the prompt labeled, "Evil and I."

That's right, evil ... so, you tell me: If Ms. Malkin's so "evil," why is Mr. DuPont so exceptionally eager to be photographed with her?

Recall that Mr. DuPont has allegedly "made a specialty out of attacking 'wingnuts' - those he identifies as 'right wingers' ... from behind his internet handle, careful not to reveal his own name." But he was willing to compromise his anonymity to meet Michelle Malkin? Interesting, to say the least, especially since she's considered so "evil." Michelle Malkin's got some kind of "dark attraction" thingy going, you think?

But check out TBogg for another case in point. It turns out that the "demonic ridicule machine" actually put in a request to "friend" Ms. Malkin on Twitter.

I have been denied by that little rage imp, Michelle Malkin. I clicked on the 'follow button' and got this for my troubles:

You have been blocked from following this account at the request of the user.

It's like she was just waiting for me ... which is kind of stupid because I can still go to her twitter page and read what the twit wrote; I just don't get updates.

I say good for Michelle Malkin! Damn right she was waiting ... these nihilist collectivists are freaks!

Let's face it, these guys are stalking her. They're looking to get bragging rights for photo-opportunities, or "Twitter-follower" privileges, so they can expand their snarky repertoire, and boost their own blogging creds by bandwagoning on Michelle Malkin's unparalleled success as a citizen journalist. And it's not just that: These folks are totally quivering in their boots in humbled awe of Michelle Malkin, of her confidence, courtesy, and courage. And I've no doubt they'd take her down if they had means and opportunity. It's a threatening thing, in that sense.

But remember: We're not even two months into the Obama administration, and we're seeing things looking up on the right, and leaders like Michelle Malkin are leading the charge.

Blake Lively Soft Porn

Okay, my wife gets Rolling Stone (as a magazine subscription promotion of some kind), and after she brought the mail in tonight with the latest issue, she said "I think this a little risqué."

She's referring to Rolling Stone's cover story, "The Nasty Thrill of “Gossip Girl”." Click here and you'll see what she means.

Blake Lively is hot, no doubt. However, my son watches Gossip Girl and, frankly, I don't think he understands the symbolism of Ms. Lively and her co-star "slurping a cone."

I'm not going to begrudge Rolling Stone for selling magazines. Some of my masculine readers have appreciated some of the breast-blogging around here, so I'm not one to criticize. I will note that publisher Jann Wenner, a top hard-left cultural standard-bearer, is sending out conflicting messages for young people. You've got the sexy cover on the one hand, and then you've got the magazine's special section, "The RS100: Agents of Change," and trailing the pack at No. 100 is Taylor Swift. The country star is 19 years-old. Her claim to fame as an "agent of change"?

At 19, the biggest star in country and teen pop has managed to keep her head on straight — no drinking, no smoking, no limousine peekaboo — without seeming like a prude. Swift has given country music a new audience: teen girls who identify with her wholesome persona as much as her music.

So, what's it going to be?

You've got "Blake Lively and Leighton Meester melting cones from coast-to-coast," and then you've got Ms. Swift who carries herself with grace and maturity, "without seeming like a prude."

I'm sure Robert Bork's getting a kick out of the incongruity.

Richard Holbrooke and AIG

I've never cared much for Richard Holbrooke. He's a pompous ass who has rightly and repeatedly been denied the secretary of state's post.

But there two bits of news worth mentioning on Holbrooke: (1) He was on the board at AIG in March 2008, "when those bonsuses were decided"; and (2) he's been identified as one of a number of special recipients of Countrywide Financial mortgages, the same loan product that Senator Christopher Dodd received.

Obama's poll numbers are falling, and as the administration looks increasingly corrupt and incompetent, the ground is being steadily prepared for a decisive repudiation of the Democrats by 2012.

See also, "Inside AIG-FP, Feeling the Public's Wrath" (via Memeorandum), and also, "Dodd's Deep Doo-Doo."

Hat Tip: Moe Lane.

Matthew Yglesias on "Atlas Shrugged"

A couple of weeks back, Matthew Yglesias attacked GOP Representative John Campbell for literally "taking cues" from Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, and then concluded:

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.

Now, in response to Caroline Baum's argument that Barack Obama needs corporations like AIG more than they need him, Yglesias says this:

Atlas Shrugged is a stupid book, Ayn Rand is a stupid woman, and John Galt’s ideas are stupid. That said, none of them are nearly this stupid. Rand’s novel isn’t about a world in which executives who build companies based on a lot of incorrect decisions, then pay themselves millions of dollars while bankrupting their firms ...

Atlas Shrugged is a beefy novel, over a thousand pages long. Yglesias must have a lot of leisure time to enjoy works of profound literary and philosophical importance; either that, or he's one helluva power reader!

It's bad enough to repudiate rational self-interest as the guiding ethic of a moral political economy, but attacking Ayn Rand's objectivism, and those endorsing it, without having read the book is beneath contempt.

No doubt the thought police over at American Nihilist and Lawyers, Guns and Money will be on top of the case, calling out Yglesias for his abject dishonesty and total stupidy.

**********

UPDATE: Instalanche!

Aging Charles Manson: Reflections

Today's Los Angeles Times has published a new photograph of Charles Manson. It turns out that officials at Corcoran State Prison have released Manson's picture, which is an updated inmate photo used at the facility.

The full Story is here, including this passage:

This August marks the 40th anniversary of the Manson killings, which stunned the nation and effectively marked the end of the counter-culture, "flower power" era of the 1960s.

Manson and other members of his so-called family were convicted of killing actress Sharon Tate and six other people during a bloody rampage in the Los Angeles area during two August nights in 1969. Prosecutors said that Manson and his followers were trying to incite a race war that he believed was prophesied in the Beatles' song "Helter Skelter."

As a kid, my only knowledge of the murders came from skimming my parents' copy of Vincent Bugliosi's, Helter Skelter: The True Story of the Manson Murders. But when I became a skatepunk around 1980 or so, I was always going to gigs up in Hollywood. Black Flag, the seminal L.A. punk rock outfit was the rage, and Raymond Pettibone, the brother of Black Flag guitarist Greg Ginn, published a series of anti-establishment concert flyers that often featured images of the Manson family. I have a copy of the one above, which used to trip me out, with its captions, "Charlie, you better be good. It wasn't easy getting in here you know," and "creepy crawl the Whisky," for the Whisky a Go Go on Sunset Boulvard.

The flyer for Black Flag's Baces Hall gig on October 24 (1980?) is here. This concert is famous for the "riot" that broke out there (see Punk 365). I use "scare" quotes because no one was actuallly rioting inside the concert. I don't know what happened outside, but the LAPD came into the hall with full battle gear and mowed down the punks with truncheons. My buddies and I booked it out the side door, and the cops had sealed off the street with barricades. I was driving and as I started to get away a couple of skinheads screamed for help and we opened the door to let them in. The car was rolling as this happened, so it all seemed pretty surreal at the time.

Anyways, I was about 19 or 20 at the time. We were up in Hollywood a couple of times a week for concerts. The Starwood on Santa Monica Boulevard had punk night every Tuesday and Wednesday night. Rodney Bingenheimer was the DJ. Click here for the concert flyer announcing shows for Black Flag with Middle Class, Social Distortion, and the Adolescents.

Click here for a compilation of Pettibone's Black Flag concert flyers.

In any case, readers now know more about me, and the things I did when I was a punk-rocking skateboarder! I came of age in the 1970s, and the era of stadium concert-rock was giving way to the new punk grooves from New York, London, and Los Angeles (about tens years after Ann Althouse's flower days, although check out Robert Stacy McCain for some ramblin' on the more common doings of "my generation"). When I see kids wearing all the punk paraphernalia nowadays it just reminds me of all the good times I had back in the day. I have a large bank-slalom competition photo of me on the wall in my office, and kids sometimes come to office hours and say, "Cool, who's that?" Then they trip out when I say, "Oh, that's me, about thirty years ago."

One of these days I'll upload and blog the skateboarding photos that I have on file. But that's for another day.

President Obama Visits Orange County

Nice Deb provides the video from Barack Obama's town hall meeting yesterday at the Orange County Fairgrounds, not far from my home. Let's just say he still fires up the base:

In Washington, of course, the outrage continues over the AIG scandal. Michelle Malkin's got the hot coverage, for example, "First, They Came for AIG bonuses":

The House is set to vote today on the retroactive, confiscatory 90 percent tax on bailout-funded bonuses. Lawmakers say the tax will apply to Fannie/Freddie bonuses. But who knows what the hell will end up in this Chicken Little measure ...

More at Memeorandum.

Winning in Afghanistan

Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman counter the creeping defeatism on Afghanistan, at today's Washington Post, "Our Must-Win War: The 'Minimalist' Path Is Wrong for Afghanistan":

As the administration finalizes its policy review, we are troubled by calls in some quarters for the president to adopt a "minimalist" approach toward Afghanistan. Supporters of this course caution that the American people are tired of war and that an ambitious, long-term commitment to Afghanistan may be politically unfeasible. They warn that Afghanistan has always been a "graveyard of empires" and has never been governable. Instead, they suggest, we can protect our vital national interests in Afghanistan even while lowering our objectives and accepting more "realistic" goals there - for instance, by scaling back our long-term commitment to helping the Afghan people build a better future in favor of a short-term focus on fighting terrorists.

The political allure of such a reductionist approach is obvious. But it is also dangerously and fundamentally wrong, and the president should unambiguously reject it. Let there be no doubt: The war in Afghanistan can be won. Success - a stable, secure, self-governing Afghanistan that is not a terrorist sanctuary - can be achieved. Just as in Iraq, there is no shortcut to success, no clever "middle way" that allows us to achieve more by doing less. A minimalist approach in Afghanistan is a recipe not for winning smarter but for losing slowly at tremendous cost in American lives, treasure and security.

The entire essay is available, here.