Dissecting Nihilism and Gay Marriage

Robert Stacy McCain has written on Ta-Nehisi Coates' essay, "Nihilism and Gay Marriage," where the latter attacks oponents of gay marriage as bigots and homophobes. Ta-Nehisi is responding the Andrew Sullivan's long essay excoriating Rod Dreher's social conservatism, "Be Not Afraid, Rod." I saw Sullivan's piece earlier, but I've covered this ground so much in the last six months that I skipped over the piece as nothing really new. Not only that. I'm currently reading Sullivan's Virtually Normal, so as to get a sense of this man's thinking prior to his mental deterioration over the last few years (in the Bush era). Plus, the gay marriage debate's picking up steam by the day; so long's as Sullivan's own sexual proclivities don't kill him before society reaches some satisfactory equilibria, we'll certainly be hearing more from the barebacked narcissist.

In any case, McCain has a great takedown, where he notes in particular:

Sully and his friends insult conservatives by supposing us to be cowards. If we disagree on what is, at heart, a question of policy, we are accused of vicious hatefulness. Indeed, we are said to be suffering from a psychological disorder, homophobia. To this insult - and their arrogant supposition that we are too stupid to know when we are being insulted - I quote one of the great heroes of cinema.

"Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining."
- The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976)

The discourse Sully means to have with us:

Sully: You're stupid.
Us: Excuse me?
Sully: You're mentally ill, too.
Us: What the . . .?
Sully: Hatemonger!
Us: Boy, I'm about to whup you.
Sully: Fascist!

He does not argue in good faith. We have on our side ancient tradition and religious orthodoxy. He has on his side the prestige of the intellectual elite. Ergo, we are ignorant rabble, and he is so infinitely superior to us that he can insult us with impunity, and we dare not even take notice of the insult.

Actually, I don't think Sullivan has "intellectual prestige" anymore. Ross Douthat, maybe so? Sullivan's mostly getting pulled along for the ride at the Atlantic, where's he's now an embarrassment to that previously august publication.

What's interesting here is actually Ta-Nehisi Coates' elaboration of the "bigots" and "homophobes" meme. It's just a dumb attack, first of all, and pure intellectual cowardice on top of that. The slam on conservatives as "bigots" and "homophobes" simply attempts to shut down debate, not encourage dialog or understanding. What's really bad about Ta-Nehisi is how he reverts to the infantile comparison of gay marriage activists today to black Americans during Jim Crow, Americans who faced the enormity of this nation's system of racial apartheid. There's is very little support for the analogy that Ta-Nahisi attempts, for example:

... in the white male paranoid mind, the deepest ambition of all black men lay between the two legs of some white woman--any white woman ....

Bigotry, in all forms, requires a shocking arrogance, a belief that other communities deepest desires revolve around your destruction. It is the ultimate narcissism, a way of thinking that can only see others, through a paranoid fear of what one might lose. The fears are almost always irrational. To go back to Chuck D, perhaps he was too cold when he said, "Man, I don't want your sister." But there was deep truth in it, the idea was, "Fool, this ain't about you and your fucked-up sexual hangups." In much the same vein when I read people complaining that gay marriage is a threat to traditional marriage, I think, "Fool, these gay motherfuckers ain't thinking about your marriage. This ain't about you and your hang-ups."

Bigotry is the heaping of one man's insecurity on to another. Sexism, racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, anti-Islamism, anti-immigrantism, really all come from the same place--cowardice. In his history of lynching, Phillip Dray notes that mob violence against black men wasn't simply about keeping black men in their place--it was about keeping white women in their place. Lynching peaked as white women went to work outside the home in greater numbers, developing their own financial power base. White men, afraid that they couldn't compete with their women, would cowardly resort to lynching. I am not saying that the anti-gay marriage crowd is a lynch mob. But in tying opposition to the sexual revolution what you see is, beyond a fear of gay marriage, a fear for marriage itself. A fear that their way of life can't compete in these new times. It's ridiculous, of course. But bigotry always is.

Well, yes, Ta-Nehisi, you are alleging traditional Americans to be a lynch mob, because you are conflating the kind of earlier racist bigotry with today's program of moral right that supports the normative conception of the traditional marriage union.

I wrote a post on all of this last November following the violent gay rights protests against Proposition 8, "Gay Marriage is Not a Civil Right." I link there to Eugene Rivers and Kenneth Johnson's, "Same-Sex Marriage: Hijacking the Civil Rights Legacy," where the authors note that:

There is no evidence in the history and literature of the civil rights movement, or in its genesis in the struggle against slavery, to support the claim that the "gay rights" movement is in the tradition of the African-American struggle for civil rights.

And:

It is precisely the indiscriminate promotion of various social groups' desires and preferences as "rights" that has drained the moral authority from the civil rights industry.

Ta-Nehisi Coates descends to the same level of invective found in Sullivan's "Christianist" slur. There's really no underlying argument in support of these claims. Such attacks as "bigots" or "Christianists" are either totally disconnected from historical facts and circumstances, or are just epithets of genuine nihilist hysteria seeking to bully those who hold majoritarian views on the appropriate role of tradition in society.

Of course, It's actually pretty disgusting how low this debate has devolved (to demential and demonism). But that's what you're going to get from folks like Andrew Sullivan and his allies, who are determined to force gay marriage on the rest of society, or die trying.

There's more of this debate at Independent Gay Forum, "Dreher's Conversation With No One." And also Memeorandum.

China Pushes for Bigger Role in World Economy

Well, to update some of my comments on the "one world currency" controversy (at Crooks and Liars, for example), the Los Angeles Times has an interesting article on China's rise to preeminence in world politics, "China pushes for bigger role in reshaping the world economy":

At a time when the U.S. and other traditional economic powers are weakening, China is flexing its muscles, signaling it will seek a much more assertive role in shaping the future of the world financial order.

The apparent shift in Beijing's approach is likely to be displayed at the Group of 20 nations' summit today in London, as China presses for changes in a global finance system long dominated by the U.S. and Western Europe.

Leading up to the gathering of the heads of 20 major developed and emerging economies, Chinese leaders have publicly criticized America's economic system, raised concerns about the safety of China's massive holdings of U.S. debt and, most recently, proposed the creation of a new international currency to replace the dollar.

At the same time, China is snapping up foreign oil fields and mines, ensuring that its raw materials cupboard will be well-stocked when the economy rebounds. This year China has signed deals with Iran, Russia and Venezuela for oil and gas deals worth tens of billions of dollars, and has made moves for stakes or outright purchases of at least seven mining companies.

Chinese companies are also looking to buy high-profile Western brands on the cheap, while recruiting foreign talent to upgrade China's technology. China's Geely Automobile Holdings Ltd. has reportedly talked with Ford Motor Co. about purchasing its distressed Volvo unit. And analysts on both sides of the Pacific have floated the prospect of a Chinese automaker acquiring General Motors Corp.'s venerable Buick line, if not the entire company, something once considered unthinkable.

China sees the global downturn as a once-in-a-century opportunity -- and it has the wherewithal to seize the moment. Although Chinese leaders too are struggling with shrinking trade and rising joblessness, their economy is still growing faster than those of other major nations. Chinese banks are more stable. And the Beijing government is sitting on the largest stockpile of foreign reserves in the world, some $2 trillion.

"They have fairly clear objectives of where they see their place in the new world order," said Oded Shenkar, a management professor at Ohio State University and author of "The Chinese Century." "They see it's time to position themselves more assertively" ....

In recent weeks Chinese leaders also have taken aim at the dollar. Premier Wen Jiabao expressed concerns last month about the stability of some $1 trillion of U.S. government bonds in Chinese hands. President Obama swiftly responded by declaring that foreign investors can have "absolute confidence" in Treasury bonds.

Beijing worries about the possibility of a falling dollar or serious inflation eroding the value of its investments, as Washington borrows record sums to dig itself out of the recession. Last week the head of China's central bank, Zhou Xiaochuan, raised the idea of creating a new global reserve currency to replace the dominant dollar -- a kind of super-currency made up of a basket of national currencies and controlled by the IMF.

Experts agree it would take years, if not decades, to design and manage a truly global reserve currency that could supplant the greenback. Many Chinese have urged Beijing to stop plowing so much of the foreign reserves into risky dollar assets and instead deploy the funds to acquire the technology and natural resources needed to fuel the nation's economy.

If a "new global reserve" currency were to replace the dollar, economies that have "dollarized" their local markets would seek to shift from the dollar a stronger unit of exchange. For the Chinese, behind this notion of a "super currency" is the yuan. The international system's premiere power will establish its currency as the reigning unit of international trade and finance. Today that role is played by the dollar. Before World War I, Britain's pound-sterling did the trick. Serious analysts of international monetary relations know the stakes involved in this debate. And the Chinese certainly know that when the renminbi replaces the dollar as the globe's sovereign currency, they'll have buried American hegemony.

See also, Dennis Wilder, "How a 'G-2' Would Hurt," on the debate over a U.S.-China strategic condominium, and the fallout this alliance migh have for international relations (via Memeorandum).

Maybe a Great Magnet Pulls ... All Souls Towards Truth...

I've got a lot of work this morning, so until later, please enjoy k.d. lang, "Constant Craving":

Don't miss as well, lang's performance at the 1993 Grammy Awards, where she won Best Pop Female Vocal Performance (here).

Twenty-First Century Marxism

From Christopher Hitchens' essay at Atlantic Monthly, "The Revenge of Karl Marx":

The late Huw Wheldon of the BBC once described to me a series, made in the early days of radio, about celebrated exiles who had lived in London. At one stage, this had involved tracking down an ancient retiree who had toiled in the British Museum’s reading room during the Victorian epoch. Asked if he could remember a certain Karl Marx, the wheezing old pensioner at first came up empty. But when primed with different prompts about the once-diligent attendee (monopolizing the same seat number, always there between opening and closing time, heavily bearded, suffering from carbuncles, tending to lunch in the Museum Tavern, very much interested in works on political economy), he let the fount of memory be unsealed. “Oh Mr. Marx, yes, to be sure. Gave us a lot of work ’e did, with all ’is calls for books and papers …” His interviewers craned forward eagerly, to hear the man say: “And then one day ’e just stopped coming. And you know what’s a funny fing, sir?” A pregnant pause. “Nobody’s ever ’eard of ’im since!” This, clearly, was one of those stubborn proletarians for the alleviation of whose false consciousness Marx had labored in vain.

Until comparatively recently, with the slight exception perhaps of certain pockets within the academy, it was a general tendency among educated people as well, even those of radical temper, to put their old volumes of Marx up on the shelf reserved for the phlogiston theory. Would we again need to consult Critique of the Gotha Program, or the celebrated attacks on Dühring and Lassalle? A few of us kept a bit of powder dry, just in case the times should turn dialectical again. One or two writers predicted that Marx’s relevance would be rediscovered: John Cassidy was arguably the most surprising of these in that one hardly expected, in the fall of 1997, an essay from the economic specialist of The New Yorker announcing that the co-author of the 1848 Communist Manifesto could turn out to be “the next” significant intellectual for those whose job it was to study the markets. James Ledbetter, himself an accomplished business journalist, has since produced an admirable Penguin edition of Marx’s journalism (most of the best, which was very good indeed, having been produced for Horace Greeley’s New York Tribune). And Francis Wheen, who wrote a notable biography of Marx in 1999, has now published an anatomy of Capital (as I shall henceforth call it), which concludes with the opinion that Marx “could yet become the most influential thinker of the twenty-first century.”

There's more at the link.

Here's Francis Wheen's, Marx's Das Kapital: A Biography.

We're seeing some twenty-first century Marxism in action this week. See, In Defense of Marxism, "Marching against the G20 summit in London." And, "G20 thugs impersonate police, break into bank."

Springtime for Nazis and Fiscal Conservatives?

Via Tax Day Tea Party, Chad Garrison at the Riverfront Times has published a despicable hit piece, "Nazis, Angry Tax Payers Can't Wait For April Rallies in St. Louis":

It's shaping up to be springtime for Hitler - and fiscal conservatives! - next month in downtown St. Louis.

As I mentioned earlier this month, a group of "like-minded" folks upset with the Obama administration's stimulus plan are planning a downtown rally on Wednesday, April 15.

The piece then goes on to lump Sean Hannity, Newt Gingrich, and the American Family Association with the National Socialist Movement, who are demonstrating on April 18, three days after the national tea party protests. The National Socialists (Nazis) are marching to protest the Obama administration's program to eliminate "the White man."

For Chad Garrison, obviously, there's no separating the tea party populists marching for limited government and the National Socialists marching for the master race.

No doubt David Neiwert would approve these smears.

Gird you loins, conservatives!

Hat Tip: The Right Side of Life.

Neoconservatism: Mainstream Voice of National Security!

Behold the coordinated attacks between the antiwar conservatives and their leftist brethren on the revival of neoconservatism at the Kristol/Kagan Foreign Policy Initiative (via Memeorandum):

First, the "realist" Stephen Walt, "Would you buy a used foreign policy from these guys?" (don't miss the worst-case photo illustration at the post). Then, Robert Farley, "Will They Get What They Want?":

I'm guessing that FPI is going to be a good deal less successful than PNAC. For one, not many people seem to be buying into the efforts of neocons to distance themselves from the Iraq War.

Then there's The Raw Story, "Scooter Libby shows up for neoconservative foreign policy summit." And also, Matt Duss at the Wonk Room, "Brose: Neocons Are Just Alright," which links to conservartive Christian Brose's, "Neo-cons gone wild!" (which has even more links). Duss is interviewed by Rachel Maddow at the YouTube above.

But for the first time in a long time, I'm happy to quote from Matthew Yglesias, "The Inevitable Triumph of the Neocons":

The commanding heights of the information economy remain incredibly friendly to neocon perspectives. Kristol, Robert Kagan, and Charles Krauthammer are still all there op-edding away at The Washington Post. The Council on Foreign Relations is staffing up with neocons, adding Elliot Abrams to its arsenal. The Very Serious People at the Brookings Institution remain more likely to collaborate with neocons than with, say, Stephen Walt. And the FPI’s unveiling was validated by the attendance of Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) and John Nagl, head of CNAS the left-of-center national security think tank of the moment. Basically, neoconservatism continues to be the mainstream voice of right-of-center national security—the perspective that establishment-oriented institutions feel compelled to shower with respect. The odds of a Republican president getting elected within the next 12 years are extremely high, and the odds of such an administration being heavily influenced by Foreign Policy Initiative ideas strike me as good.

I love it!

On this, I'm kind of like Yglesias: Where he thinks the neocons will have more influence than do all the other neocon-haters cited above (and that's including Brose), I think progressives like Yglesias and his nihilist netroots allies will have more influence than Ronald Brownstein allows in his recent essay, "Why Obama Can't Satisfy The Left."

Brownstein says, for example, "The bottom line is that, compared to Republicans, Democrats are operating with a much more diverse electoral coalition - and one in which the party's ideological vanguard plays a smaller role." That may be so, based on exit polling data from the November election. But the mainstream of the Democratic Party is already so far to the left, with the Obama White House, and the Pelosi/Reid Congress, that any successes on the right of the spectrum are to be celebrated. (And check with Joe Lieberman before dismissing the "smaller role" of the party's vanguard.)

So, go FPI!

Dawn Johnsen for U.S. Office of Legal Counsel?

For reference, the New York Times has a big story on President Barack Obama's legal appointments, "Storm Clouds Gather Over Obama Nominees." The piece focuses on David F. Hamilton, who's a federal appeals court nominee, and Dawn Johnsen, who's nominated to lead the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department.

Putting Hamilton aside for now, it turns out that Johnsen's a radical ideologue. Kathryn Jean Lopez has a piece on this, "Dawn of the Left: Obama’s pick to head the Office of Legal Counsel reveals the president’s radicalism":

If you still think that President Barack Obama is about hope and change and moms and apple pie and nothing objectionable or radical, consider his nominee for the head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, Dawn Johnsen.

Her record sets off many alarm bells. Some of them have to do with her views on abortion. Regardless of what the New York Times might say — they called her position on abortion “hardly unusual” in a recent glowing endorsement — you’d have to be doing a tour of women’s-studies courses to find a lot of people who agree with her that pregnancy is slavery.

Read the whole thing here.

But see Johnsen's entry at "Discover the Networks":

Throughout her legal career, Johnsen has consistently opposed any regulations that would infringe upon a woman's right to undergo a taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand at any stage of pregnancy, for any reason whatsoever. For example, she opposes 24-hour waiting periods before abortions can be performed; she rejects parental-consent requirements for minors; and she rejects laws against the procedure commonly known as partial-birth abortion.

In a 2006 op-ed piece opposing Samuel Alito's confirmation as a Supreme Court Justice, Johnsen declared that no judicial nominee should be eligible to serve on the federal bench unless he or she abjured any and all restrictions on access to abortion. "The notion of legal restrictions as some kind of reasonable 'compromise' -- perhaps to help make abortion 'safe, legal, and rare,'" she wrote, "proves nonsensical."

Along with such notables as David Cole, Harold Koh, Noah Feldman, and Cass Sunstein, Johnsen was a contributor to the 2009 book The Constitution in 2020, wherein she wrote:

"Progressives must not portray all abortions as tragedies ... Senator Hillary Clinton, in a 2005 speech commendable for setting forth a pro-choice, pro-prevention, pro-family agenda, took the aspiration a step in the wrong direction when she called for policy changes so that abortion 'does not ever have to be exercised or only in very rare circumstances.'"

Johnsen views the United States generally as a nation rife with all manner of injustice, including racial discrimination against nonwhites. In an April 2008 article which she penned for Slate, Johnsen lamented that "the U.S. incarcerates more of its people -- and for longer periods -- than any other nation, bar none." Most disturbing, she said, was "the devastatingly disproportionate rates of imprisonment of racial minorities." This inequity, she explained, was in large measure a result of "how we treat drugs: the crack/cocaine disparity and beyond that, the fact that African Americans face disproportionately higher rates of arrest, prosecution, and conviction and disproportionately longer sentences." "And those disparities," Johnsen added, "… translate to amazingly high rates of African Americans who subsequently are prohibited from voting, unable to find jobs, ineligible for student loans ... the ramifications go on and on and on."

Dawn Johnsen for U.S. Office of Legal Counsel? Brought to you by President Infanticide.

April Fools? UC San Diego's Admissions Gaffe

April Fools?

Via the Los Angeles Times, "UC San Diego admissions gaffe dashes students' hopes - again":

Cole Bettles had been rejected by a raft of universities when he received an e-mail from UC San Diego on Monday congratulating him on his admission and inviting him to tour the campus. His mother booked a hotel in San Diego, and the 18-year-old Ojai high school senior arranged for his grandfather, uncle and other family members to meet them at the campus for lunch during the Saturday orientation.

"They were like, 'Oh, my God, that's so awesome,' " Bettles said. Right before he got in bed, he checked his e-mail one last time and found another message saying the school had made a mistake and his application had been denied.

In fact, all 28,000 students turned away from UC San Diego in one of the toughest college entrance seasons on record had received the same misfired message, raising their hopes only to dash them again in a particularly cruel twist on the perils of instant communications in the Internet Age.

UCSD admissions director Mae Brown called the snafu an "administrative error" but refused to say whether the mistake was made by one or more members of her staff or by a contractor or if those responsible would be disciplined.

The e-mail, which began, "We're thrilled that you've been admitted to UC San Diego, and we're showcasing our beautiful campus on Admit Day," was sent to the entire freshman applicant pool of more than 46,000 students, instead of just the 18,000 who had been admitted, Brown said.

The error was discovered almost immediately by her staff, which sent an apology within hours.

The admissions director, who said she was in the office Monday until midnight answering e-mails and phone calls from disappointed students and their parents, said she took full responsibility for the error.

"We accessed the wrong database," Brown said. "We recognize the incredible pain receiving this false encouragement caused. It was not our intent."

All applicants were notified by e-mail weeks ago that admissions decisions were available online, according to UCSD officials, but Bettles said he was unaware he'd been rejected.

"It was really thrilling for a few hours; now he's crushed," said the young man's mother, Tracy Bettles. "Unless you have a high school senior, or remember what it's like, you don't know. It's really tough on them."

Read the whole thing, here.

Related: "College applications now an open (Face)book: High school seniors learn a downside to social networking: lack of privacy over acceptance or rejection by universities."

A Tea Party Manifesto

There's tremendous promise for conservative and traditional Americans in the burgeoning tea party movement. The grassroots resistance to the Obamocratic bailout-welfare state is sowing the seeds for a conservative revival, and frankly, that's why leftists are so intent to delegitimize conservative activists who are taking to the streets saying, "Enough!"

Will Collier, however, says the movement's still inchoate - folks need a "tea party manifesto" to focus populist anger into a specific program of limited government policymaking:

If the Tea Party movement is going to amount to anything more than people who wouldn't normally go to a protest protesting, it's going to have to come up with a consistent set of concrete (and realistic) goals, and clearly express those goals to the press and to the rest of the public.

Check the post for the full "manifesto," which includes a "moratorium on bailouts, whether for Wall Street bankers, General Motors, or the irresponsible guy down the street who "bought" too much house. 'Failures must be allowed to fail'."

See also:

Hoosier Army Mom, "Calling all Hoosiers!," a call to mobilization for "Nationwide Tea Party Day."

Little Miss Attila, "And in California, Before April 15th . . . It’s Time for Tea," which features a list of dates and locations for Calfornia's tax-day tea party protests.

Hat Tip: Glenn Reynolds. Also at Memeorandum.

America, Behold Your Future

"America, behold your future."

That's a quote from Pundette's post on the story out of Britain, "Fire kills child, 3, and parents as police prevent neighbours from trying to rescue them," and the reponses from Jay Nordlinger and Mark Steyn.

Check the links (Davey Davis says, "We were willing to risk our lives to save those kiddies but the police wouldn’t let us"), but here's this from Steyn:

New Hampshire's great motto, "Live free or die," is not just a bit of bloodcurdling stemwinding but a real choice that Britons, Canadians and, alas, Americans ought to ponder: You can live as free men, with all the rights and responsibilities and vicissitudes of fate that that entails. Or you can watch your society decay and die before your eyes — as England, once the crucible of freedom, dies a little with every day.

I hope folks have also read Steyn's recent magisterial essay, "Prime Minister Obama: Will European Statism Supplant the American Way?"

Steve Benen: Economic Illiterate, Moral Degenerate

Steve Benen, at the Washington Monthly, illustrates the classic leftist combination of total hubris and moral bankruptcy, in his post on Michele Bachmann, "Polling a Policy That Doesn't Exist":

Last week, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Looneyville) convinced herself that U.S. currency is under attack (it isn't) and the threat of a "global currency" is real (it isn't). What sparked the paranoia was a Chinese proposal to replace the dollar as the world's reserve currency, which of course has nothing to do with Bachmann's bizarre ideas.

I've written about this at length, (see, for example, "Leftists Launch "Currency Trutherism" Against Bachmann").

Actually, Ms. Bachmann didn't convince herself of anything. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's suggested last week that he was open to the displacement of the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency. Indeed, Geithner specifically claimed that the world economy needed a "new global supercurrency" as a unit of international commerce and exchange. Check the links, folks. Benen's just smearing Representative Bachmann, nothing less. And for him to say that the dollar isn't under attack is completely ignorant. While we're not seeing market-crashing speculation, over the last week international investors have fled the dollar for the safety of gold on the the New York Mercantile Exchange. And as Martin Hutchinson argues at the Asia Times, there is "no reason to believe that the dollar represents a sound store of value, the principal function of a reserve currency."

So let's be clear about all of this: (1) No, it is not likely that the U.S. dollar will be replaced anytime soon, for the main reason that the U.S. economy, for all it's problems, remains the world's largest, and will continue to be the motor for growth and development worldwide for decades to come; yet (2), the Obama administration's monetary incompetence, combined with Chinese financial assertiveness, means that Representative Bachmann's demands for policy clarification from Secretary Geithner are perfectly reasonable. The U.S. dollar cannot remain the world's reserve currency forever, and Geithner's gaffe certainly reflects a subconsciousness knowledge of the dynamics of currency power in international relations.

Most people are not paying attention to this issue simply because international monetary policy is a complex areas of public affairs (see, "Americans VERY confused about Economics and Personal Finance"). And as Michele Bachmann's not a household name, the netroots rodents of the radical left get free rein to slur her reputation. Then, of course, a lie, told often enough, becomes accepted as truth (a variant of astroturfing, so common on the left).

This is why it's important - now more than ever - to smackdown these idiots when and where they cut loose with their insane leftist trollery.

**********

P.S.: Benen's post also makes a lame attempt to delegitimize Scott Rasmussen's polling organization, and no wonder, since on this issue, most Americans agree with Representative Bachmann: "88% Say It’s Important to Keep The Dollar as America’s Currency." And note how the background discussion to the poll demonstrates just how dishonest Steve Benen is:

China’s top government banker and a United Nations panel have both proposed that the dollar be replaced with a new global currency. However, only 21% of American adults believe the proposal is intended primarily to help the global economy.

Gird your loins, folks. Don't buy the Big Lie that Michele Bachann's an extremist (as have some on the right). As I've argued in a number of recent posts, this administration, and especially the radical left, may well destroy the United States of America.

God help this nation.

Daniel Larison's Paleoconservative Historical Revisionism

The paleoconservative mind works in strange ways.

As I noted in my recent post on Barack Obama's neoconservative pragmatism, Daniel Larison, the "big" paleocon blogger at the American Conservative, lives in a strange world of anti-American faux-conservatism, topped off with a dollop of antiwar nihilism. For one who attacks neoconservatives as "fantasists," Larison must certainly be drinking from the same alleged draft of Koolaid as those "evil" neocons he seeks to excoriate. Today's example is from his post hammering Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who argues in an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg that Iran, following the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, avoided the lapse into pacifist funk like the British, and their collapse of will during the interwar years. Netanyahu argues, in fact, that Iran's more aggressive than ever, and that the leadership in Tehran is afflicted by a "wide-eyed fanaticism" that poses a threat to Israel and the entire Middle East.

But here's Larison's response, such as it is (he shifts the example from the British case to the French, oddly):

People will endure remarkable hardship, at least once, to expel an invader from their country. Like France after Verdun, the horrific experience might be great enough to force a nation into a purely defensive posture, but even post-WWI France, which is a better comparison with post-1988 Iran, did not sink into pacifism.

Indeed, the occupation of the Rhineland, security guarantees to central European states and the building of the Maginot Line all point not to pacifism, but to an assumption that another war might come and France should be prepared for it. The Maginot Line came out of the experience of Verdun, which was that the defensive position held the overwhelming advantage in modern warfare; the problem with the Maginot Line was not that it was defensive and therefore somehow “weak” or pacifistic, but plainly enough that it did not guard the entire border.

Larison reverts back to a discussion of Britain after this, but a brief examination of his thesis demonstrates he's simply clueless on the international politics of the pre-WWII European balance of power.

Historians have long since shown that "pacifism" in the interwar context is captured by the entire collapse of social will that indicates a stage existential crisis far beyond numbers of men under arms or military armaments. The French case is even worse than the British, for as Eugen Weber has shown in his book, The Hollow Years: France in the 1930's, the entire national posture in France in the face of the rising Nazi challenge was one of national decay, moral laziness, and cowardly inaction. If anything, the Maginot was the greatest French symbol of the refusal to fight. I mean, really, the Maginot Line was a huge national system of underground bunkers within which French troops could hide from German Panzer divisions! There was no "overwhelming" advantage to defense on the eve of World War II. It was the opposite, as the German High Command's blitzkrieg strategy was to illustrate in the rapid defeat of the French in 1940. Basic books of French interwar history have covered the theme of French pacifism and moral decay for decades. William Shirer's The Collapse of the Third Republic is the central first-hand journalistic account, and the outstanding scholarly synthesis of the historiography can be found in Robert Young's, France and the Origins of the Second World War. Young's theme is strategic "ambivalence" rather than pacifism, so if folks want to quibble with details, you might be able to throw Larison a bone with that.

But France isn't really as important here as is Iran's manifest intentions toward strategic domination of the Mideast region. Larison's going to downgrade the threat from Tehran because I seriously doubt he believes in Israel's right to exist, and he certainly doesn't support America's historic stand in support of the Jewish state. It's not in the "national interest," you know.

In any case, there was another interesting debate on Iran today, surrounding the publication of a propaganda piece in today's Los Angeles Times by Ali Akbar Javanfekr, a spokeman for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The essay is a respone to President Barack Obama's "Nowruz Address." Read the whole thing. This part is especially good:

The Iranian nation, in keeping with true Islamic precepts, does not covet the territory of other countries and has not attacked any other country. We have always acted only in defense of our land. We wish other countries well, and we even pray for our foes. We hate death and destruction -- and wish prosperity and a better life for all nations.

Our Iranian civilization, culture, beliefs, traditions and Islamic values are incompatible with terror, war and bloodshed. Mr. Obama should take note that the era of gaining superiority through weaponry and state-sponsored terrorism has expired. The world must move forward ruled by divine values, rationality, morality and respect for culture.

But check out, for contrast, Abraham at Occidental Soapbox, and his comments on Obama's diplomatic outreach to Iran:

Obama's communiqué to Iran is not the manifestation of a new era in foreign policy. His is a well-worn foreign policy of appeasing implacable enemies. Obama is insisting to himself and to us as a nation that his peace overtures will somehow be received productively by a regime whose constitution is based directly on the Quran and which has contempt for our very notion of what life is and should be. And so the mutual respect Obama apparently seeks with Iran is by definition impossible. The United States is simply treading water, albeit more eloquently under Obama than under Bush, while our destructive and ultimately self-destructive enemy strengthens itself and prepares for the inevitable conflict.

We have learned that our President can pronounce "Eid-eh Shoma Mobarak", but we have not been given any compelling reason to hope for a non-violent political solution to the confrontation with Iran. It is the most dangerous foreign policy conundrum of our time, and will become increasingly dangerous if Mr. Obama's friendly orations continue with no political horizon in sight.

In any case, Daniel Larison can chew on this for a while.

I'll have more later ...

Yes We Can! ... Overthrow the Government!

This photo shows neo-Marxist anti-globalization protesters at a London demonstration on Saturday, March 28th. For the complete slideshow, see "In photos: 'Britain G20 Protests'."

At the Los Angeles Times' slideshow, one photo shows protesters hoisting a banner that reads, "Can We Overthrow the Government? ... Yes We Can!"

Note that President Barack Obama has now touched down in Britain, and security is extremely tight. The Daily Mail reports, "City on alert for anarchy as Obama sweeps into London for G20 talks with world leaders." At Bloomberg, "London Protesters Threaten Bankers, Evoke Executions."

Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal's describes the preparations as "fortress-like security for world leaders," and the article features a photo of a protest-banner that reads, "Capitalism Isn't Working ... Another World is Possible."

I pray for the president's safety, but for those who say, "it couldnt' happen here" ... it already is, here and here , and that's just for starters.

Sarah Palin: Compassion, Confidence, Leadership

Courtesy of Conservatives for Sarah Palin, check out this Sarah Palin promotional trailer, "Soul & Fire":

Palin's clearly threatenting to the political left. As Greg Sargent reported yesterday, "Sarah Palin Is The New Rush Limbaugh."

Commissar in Chief

I guess Robert Romano sent this out before David Horowitz put up his essay yesterday warning against "Obama Derangement Syndrome":

Romano says a "new order" has arrived in America:

This new order is decidedly fascist, and it will rapidly proceed to being outright socialist. First, the monster will subsidize, then it will take ownership, and then it will destroy the American economy.

But check out Investor's Business Daily as well, "Meet The New Boss":

A president of the United States orders the chief executive officer of General Motors to resign. The same president is further ordering Chrysler to merge with Fiat, the Italian firm specializing in flimsy cardboard boxes on wheels.

This new reality should send a chill down the spines of all Americans. The federal government has begun to run U.S. companies.

President Obama said Monday, "my team will be working closely with GM to produce a better business plan."

To that confident assertion he added these stern sentiments:

"They must ask themselves: Have they consolidated enough unprofitable brands? Have they cleaned up their balance sheets, or are they still saddled with so much debt that they can't make future investments? Above all, have they created a credible model for how not only to survive, but to succeed in this competitive global market?"

Who is in a better position to know the answers to these questions? Rick Wagoner, the GM CEO for nine years and former GM chief financial officer who has been with the automaker since the late 1970s, even running one of its foreign affiliates in Brazil, and who holds a Harvard Business School MBA?

Or President Obama, a former community activist from the south side of Chicago with a great rhetorical gift?

The president answered that question this week by ordering Wagoner's firing.

Imagine if it were not GM, but your own small business employing a handful of people.

I've long refrained from attacking Barack Obama for his totalitaraian inclinations, and I recently praised President Obama on his "pragmatism" in foreign policy; but this administration's recent moves on the economy are simply breathtaking in the centralization of power in the bureaucratic state. It's no wonder those tea parties keep growing.

Related: Via Memeorandum, David Brooks dubs the president "Car Dealer in Chief," but I like "commissar" better. See also, Law and Order Teacher, "Nationalization Continues."

On Income Inequality

I blog too much on nutbob extraordinaire Matthew Yglesias already, so I ignored his recent comments on taxing the rich. The guy is so far out on the left he's literally off the charts:

What if we had a 95 percent marginal tax rate on income over $10 million? What dire consequences would flow from this? What dire consequences?

But Maggie's Farm has responded, here, and especially, here:

While it may be overly simplistic to divide people into the producers (of profits) and the non-producers, there is still something to it. And there is something to it psychologically too, because the non-producers often carry a small secret uncomfortable feeling about being more directly dependent on the effort and profit of others to produce the $ to cover their paychecks.

The creation of wealth is a kind of magic from which everyone benefits. I am sick of the CEO-bashing and business-bashing and bashing of commerce. The Left acts according to the foolish and economically moronic illusion that wealth (and poverty) are static, and operate on a zero-sum basis. That's what "Gimme yours" comes from.

There's more at the link.

Via Dan Collins, see also the great piece at American Thinker, "Whom the Gods Would Destroy":

What are we to make of liberal Americans who live with obsessional hatred of their own country? Especially when their country is the most prosperous, lovable, and overall, the most benevolent country in the world?

Angie Harmon: "I Disagree With Obama"

I miss watching Angie Harmon, and not just for her wholesome attractiveness. As Jack McCoy's assistant district attorney on Law and Order, her voice alone would melt you.

Now, this post is not an official "Rule 5" entry. Considering Ms. Harmon's in the news today, for her comments on Barack Obama, I'd suggest this entry qualifies as "using cheesecake in a highly relevant fashion," as my friend Stogie has suggested.

But check out the article for yourself, "Angie Harmon: I'm Not Racist Because I Disagree With Obama":

Angie Harmon is not afraid to come out and say she doesn’t like how President Obama is handling the job — but she’s sick of having to defend herself from being deemed a racist.

"Here's my problem with this, I'm just going to come out and say it. If I have anything to say against Obama it's not because I'm a racist, it's because I don't like what he's doing as President and anybody should be able to feel that way, but what I find now is that if you say anything against him you're called a racist," Harmon told Tarts at Thursday’s Los Angeles launch of the new eyelash-growing formula, Latisse. "But it has nothing to do with it, I don’t care what color he is. I’m just not crazy about what he's doing and I heard all about this, and he’s gonna do that and change and change, so okay … I'm still dressing for a recession over here buddy and we've got unemployment at an all-time high and that was his number one thing and that's the thing I really don't appreciate. If I'm going to disagree with my President, that doesn't make me a racist. If I was to disagree with W, that doesn't make me racist. It has nothing to do with it, it is ridiculous."

Speaking of dislikes, the starlet has also had enough of the double-standards in the media.
"I do think McCain would have done a better job, only because I think he has more experience. I also think if W or John McCain or Reagan would have gone and done a talk show, the backlash would have been so huge and in his face, and ‘What is our president doing? How unclassy!’ But Obama does it and no one says anything," Harmon said.

And in spite of the scornful opinions most of her Tinseltown counterparts have shared on Gov. Sarah Palin, Harmon remains a true fan.

"I admire any kind of woman like her. My whole motto is to know what I stand for and know what I don't stand for and have the courage to live my life accordingly and she does exactly that. The fact that this woman has made the decisions she's made and literally lived her life according to that and takes heat for it is absolutely disgusting to me," she added. "People cannot look at this woman. I really think they're afraid of her and her morals, ethics and values and the fact that she hangs on them. Is she the most experienced person in the world? But she was running to be the Vice President, so we then put the most inexperienced person as the President. That didn't make any sense to me."

Now, that's talking hot conservative politics!

There's more at the link, via Memeorandum.

Ann Althouse Marriage Controversy

I sent Ann Althouse an e-mail congratulating her on her recent engagement (as did many others, no doubt). She's marrying her longtime commenter Meade, and this is after two years of communicating online and a couple of months of courting in person.

But Andrew Sullivan has issues with it, and Althouse responds:

Why is this something that you choose to mock? Is there something ridiculous about a blogger coming to love someone who she first knew through writing in the comments and developed an affection for over a period of years? Or is it just that we decided to marry within 2 months of meeting each other in person? My parents met in the Army and got married 2 weeks later and loved each other until they died many decades later. I'd really like to know what part of my experience deserves "OMFG."

AND: Sullivan posts the time line part of the email I sent him and says:

I did watch [Bloggingheads], but got a little confused with the various timelines (I'm not much clearer now). And I'm all in favor of the right of straight bloggers to marry their straight commenters. It's a civil right. And more than I am currently allowed after living with my husband for almost five years.

This isn't about legal rights. This is about how individuals treat each other, and I want to know why you disrespected me. Explain why you linked to Pandagon's scurrilous OMFG, which, as you know, means "Oh, my fucking God." Is that the way you mean to speak to me? Is that the way you talk about God?

I doubt Ann will be doing Bloggingheads.tv with Sullivan anytime soon. Why she still tolerates Matthew Yglesias is beyond me, but Ann's nice that way ...

The "OMFG" reference is to Jesse Taylor at Pandagon, who illustrates one more time the demonology and intolerance of the nihilist left.

**********

UPDATE: Meade provides a phenomenal reason why folks should read the comments sections:

I agree with Beta Conservative in objecting to the personal attacks on Andrew Sullivan. I also agree with Althouse and many others that, as free and full citizens of this great nation, same sex couples deserve all the rights and responsibilities accorded to opposite sex couples.

FWIW, the digital arc that led me to the woman who I love and promise to marry went something like this: Somewhere around September 25, 2001, I read an article on Islamist terrorism in the NYT magazine by a writer who was new to me, Andrew Sullivan. I found that article to be eloquent and persuasive. A web search on his name led me to Andrew's blog which led me to James Lilek's blog, Glenn Reynold's blog, and, finally, Ann Althouse's blog.

Although I have disagreed with some of the positions he's taken since 2001, I will be forever grateful to Andrew Sullivan for what he wrote following September 11 and for being the first in a series of links that led me to my true love, Ann Althouse.

Now that's some interesting degrees of separation.

Cattlemen's Culture Fades in San Diego County

This morning's Los Angeles Times features the story of Steve Tellam, a fourth-generation cowboy in San Diego County. Tellam's cattle business has dwindled since the 1970s, his herd slipping from over 6000 head to 500 today.

Steve Tellam possesses a century's worth of accumulated knowledge about a way of life that is all but extinct in Southern California. Great wealth is not the goal. The singular passion and purpose he has for his work is its own reward.

"If we broke down what we make to hours worked - that would be too depressing," Tellam says. "But I still have the greatest job in the world. I ride horses every day. I'm out here with eagles, wild turkey, deer - all this wildlife. I have freedom. It's a great life and a tough business."

Read the whole thing at the link.

Tellam has broken his kneecaps three times*, his knee plates twice, and his collarbone. He can't remember how many fingers he's broken. "He nearly lost a hand when his wrist got tangled in a rope tied to an angry cow." He can't get comprehensive health insurance, because companies won't underwrite it for him. He's pays $1000 a month for catastrophic coverage, a sign of cowboy individualism and self-reliance (and a part of the culture's that's slipping away as well).

* Correction appended.

David Frum: "Conservatism as an Alienated Cultural Sensibility"

Readers may recall my earlier post on Glenn Beck, "Worst Case Scenario? Preparing for Anarchy in America," as well as my more recent entry, "Michele Bachmann, Saving America," which features video of Beck hammering Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's market-crashing gaffe on the replacement of the dollar as the world's reserve currency.

Well, Beck's in the news today with the New York Times' essay, "Fox News’s Mad, Apocalyptic, Tearful Rising Star," plus the additional commentary at Memeorandum.

The article praises Beck, saying that the Fox News host "is suddenly one of the most powerful media voices for the nation’s conservative populist anger." Then the Times proceeds to tear him down as if he's some whacked out Black Copter/Roswell conspiracist. That meme alone would be unsurprising coming from the Times. But what caught my attention is that the essay includes an interview with David Frum, who is foisted off as some reference authority on Beck's supposedly marginalizing conservative appeal:

The conservative writer David Frum said Mr. Beck’s success “is a product of the collapse of conservatism as an organized political force, and the rise of conservatism as an alienated cultural sensibility.”

“It’s a show for people who feel they belong to an embattled minority that is disenfranchised and cut off,” he said.

Frum's not the only "authority" on conservative populism cited at the article. But his inclusion here is highly significant, in that he's a key ringleader for a "new right" of "progressive Republicans." Recall that Frum, along with David Brooks, is leading the "dinner party conservatives" in their attacks on the grassroots tea party movement now sweeping the nation, so expect to see more marginalization of folks like Glenn Beck, Glenn Reynolds, Michelle Malkin, and Little Miss Attila, who are rallying a real salt-of-the-earth constituency against the Obamocratic Europeanization of America.

The Left's War on Sovereignty

I just watched a brief interview with John Bolton on Fox & and Friends. His comments on the show reminded me of his recent article in Commentary, "The Coming War on Sovereignty":

While the term “sovereignty” has acquired many, often inconsistent, definitions, Americans have historically understood it to mean our collective right to govern ourselves within our Constitutional framework. Today’s liberal elite, by contrast, sees sovereignty as something much more abstract and less tangible, and thus a prize of less value to individual citizens than it once might have been. They argue that the model accepted by European countries in the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, which assigned to individual nation-states the right and responsibility to manage their own affairs within their own borders, is in the process of being superseded by new structures more appropriate to the 21st century.

In this regard, they usually cite the European Union (EU) as the new model, with its 27 member nations falling under the aegis of a centralized financial system administered in Brussels. On issue after issue, from climate change to trade, American liberals increasingly look to Europe’s example of transnational consensus as the proper model for the United States. That is particularly true when it comes to national security, as John Kerry revealed when, during his presidential bid in 2004, he said that American policy had to pass a “global test” in order to secure its legitimacy.

This is not a view with which the broader American population has shown much comfort. Traditionally, Americans have resisted the notion that their government’s actions had to pass muster with other governments, often with widely differing values and interests. It is the foreign-policy establishment’s unease with this long-held American conviction that is the motivating factor behind A Plan for Action, which represents a bold attempt to argue that any such set of beliefs has simply been overtaken by events.

Bolton's making specific reference to a new plan, from the Brookings Institution, under consideration at the Obama White House, "A New Era of International Cooperation for a Changed World: 2009, 2010, and Beyond."

In addition to Bolton's article, see Mark Steyn's recent National Review cover story, "Prime Minister Obama: Will European Statism Supplant the American Way?"

Steyn links to another Brookings author, Parag Khanna, and his article, "The Metrosexual Superpower: The Stylish European Union Struts Past the Bumbling United States on the Catwalk of Global Diplomacy."

Steyn has the take down of Khanna's piece

The war on sovereignty is a war on American power and leadership. And should should we indeed see the collapse of American leading role in world politics, we will see as well the collapse of Western civilization.

Andrew Breitbart on the Left's Internet Hooligans

Via Memeorandum, check out Andrew Breitbart's essay on the digital disinformation war leftists have waged on conservatives, "Online Activists on the Right, Unite!":

Uninvited Democratic activists are on a mission to demoralize the enemy - us. They want to ensure that President Obama is not subject to the same coordinated, facts-be-damned, multimedia takedown they employed over eight long years to destroy the presidency - and the humanity - of George W. Bush.

And:

The left ... uses disinformation to inundate the advertisers of conservative-leaning talk shows to intimidate them from financially supporting popular mainstream shows.

Which is what Think Progress is attempting to do with Bill O'Reilly right now.

But what's especially noteworthy for me is Breitbart's discussion of the left's secular demonology, which I've discussed on this blog many times:

So now that the right is vanquished and thoroughly out of power, why doesn't it learn from its conquerors and employ similar tactics?

The answer is obvious. The right, for the most part, embraces basic Judeo-Christian ideals and would not promote nor defend the propaganda techniques that were perfected in godless communist and socialist regimes. The current political and media environment crafted by supposedly idealistic Mr. Obama resembles Hugo Chavez's Venezuela more than John F. Kennedy's America.

The Huffington Post, Daily Kos and other left-leaning sites benefit from the right's belief that there are rules and decorum in political debate and civic engagement. Of course, every now and then, a curious right-winger will go in and engage in discussion at a left-wing site, but rarely under purely disingenuous and mass coordinated means.

David Brock, John Podesta, am I missing something?

As a prolific consumer of online content, I value nothing more than the sincere expression of opinion that differs from mine. Sometimes I am even moved or swayed from my dogma. But that was not the type of communication that got Mr. Obama elected.

The American right is in a heap of trouble in a media age that doesn't shun the goons and liars that have poisoned the political process and won the American presidency by breaking the rules of fair play. It is time to fight back, but it won't be easy. The enemy is willing to do and say anything in order to win.

One of the left's great representatives of radical secular demonology is here.

See also Saber Point for a discussion of "The Dirty Online War Against Conservatives."

**********

UPDATE: Robert Stacy McCain has a big, awesome essay on this, see, "Andrew Breitbart Shows Why He's Becoming One of the Most Important Columnists in America Today."

American Europeanization

Mark Steyn's recent essay at National Review, "Prime Minister Obama: Will European Statism Supplant the American Way?", is the best essay yet on the steamroller to socialism that is the Barack Obama presidency:

Most Americans don’t yet grasp the scale of the Obama project. The naysayers complain, Oh, it’s another Jimmy Carter, or It’s the new New Deal, or It’s LBJ’s Great Society applied to health care. You should be so lucky. Forget these parochial nickel’n’dime comparisons. It’s all those multiplied a gazillionfold and nuclearized — or Europeanized, which is less dramatic but ultimately more lethal. For a distressing number of American liberals, the natural condition of an advanced, progressive Western democracy is Scandinavia, and the U.S. has just been taking a wee bit longer to get there. You’ve probably heard academics talking about “the Swedish model” and carelessly assumed they were referring to the Britt Ekland retrospective on AMC. If only. And, incidentally, fond though I am of Britt, the fact that I can think of no Swedish dolly bird of the last 30 years with which to update that gag is itself a telling part of the problem. Anyway, under the Swedish model, state spending accounts for 54 percent of GDP. In the U.S., it’s about 40 percent. Ten years ago, it was 34 percent. So we’re trending Stockholmwards.

And why stop there? In Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales, government spending accounts for between 72 and 78 percent of the economy, which is about the best a “free” society can hope to attain this side of complete Sovietization. Fortunately for what’s left of America’s private sector, “the Welsh model” doesn’t have quite the same beguiling euphony as “the Swedish model.” Even so, if Scandinavia really is the natural condition of an advanced democracy, then we’re all doomed. And by “doomed” I’m not merely making the usual overheated rhetorical flourish in an attempt to persuade you to stick through the rather dry statistics in the next paragraph, but projecting total societal collapse and global conflagration, and all sooner than you think.

Many folks have certainly heard similar warnings of the left's demands for American Europeanization, but Steyn's analysis is so lucid, putting demographic, economic, and globalizing factors into such stark analytical focus, that the argument here must be considered the benchmark by which "Obamunist" arguments are measured.

Read the whole thing, here.