Lenin and Stalin Look-Alikes

Shoot, these guys would go over well right here in the U.S. of A.!

At the Wall Street Journal, "In Moscow, Lenin and Stalin Look-Alikes Jostle for Tourists’ Cash":

MOSCOW—In the shadow of the Kremlin, Joseph Stalin and Vladimir Lenin clashed over how to divvy up the spoils of their little enterprise.

Lenin felt he wasn’t getting a fair share, while Stalin’s apparent grievance was his erstwhile comrade’s betrayal in forming a new alliance—with another Stalin.

A dozen or so impersonators—who specialize in duping dictators—work the crowds near Red Square, jostling for cash from tourists’ wallets. A photo with Ivan the Terrible, for instance, can cost anywhere from 200 rubles (about $3) to 1,000 rubles, depending on the visitor’s negotiating skills.

The dispute between the two leaders of the global proletariat late June ended in a scuffle, according to city officials and other impersonators, exposing the seamier side of capitalism around Moscow’s main tourist site.

Lenin impersonator Igor Gorbunov said the Stalin look-alike, Latif Valiyev, followed him into an underpass near Red Square and jabbed him in the back with an umbrella. Mr. Gorbunov went to a first-aid station before filing a complaint to police. Law enforcement looked into the incident, but Mr. Gorbunov later said he had forgiven Mr. Valiyev and withdrawn his complaint.

Mr. Valiyev denied having a conflict with his fellow dictator—and demanded payment to answer any further questions.

Look-alikes began to appear on Red Square in the mid-1990s as capitalism took hold and Russia opened up to tourists. “Fat Lenin” was the first, according to Sergei Solovyov, a 57-year-old Lenin impersonator, aka “Tall Lenin.” Six Stalins and eight Lenins, mostly known by their nicknames, now work the square.

“White Lenin” has a pale face; “Wooden Lenin” doesn’t say much; “Gay Lenin” stands with an impersonator of the poet Alexander Pushkin; “Drunk Lenin” likes a tipple.

Other famous political figures, such as Tsar Nicholas II, Karl Marx and even a President Barack Obama, have come and gone. But the favorite Bolsheviks have staying power.

“It’s hard work to be on your feet all day,” said Mr. Solovyov. “It’s also morally hard. People shout: ‘Burn in hell! What have you done with Russia?’”

Oh, I'm sure that have quite a few fans, not least of all, American neo-communist looking to earn some bona fides visiting the Lenin mausoleum.

Still more.

Outsiders Surge in New Poll

Especially Republican outsiders. I don't consider Bernie Sanders an outsider. His surge is based in his unabashed socialism, which is catching the Obama disaffecteds.

At WSJ, "Carson, Fiorina, Sanders Gain Ground in Their Parties’ Primary Races, Poll Shows":

Republicans Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina and Democratic Sen. Bernie Sanders have gained significant ground in their parties’ presidential primary races in recent weeks, the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll finds.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and real-estate developer Donald Trump continue to lead the fields for their parties’ nominations. But Mr. Trump is now essentially tied with Mr. Carson, and significant movement has occurred among candidates just behind them. Mr. Carson is backed by 20% of GOP primary voters, compared with 21% for Mr. Trump. Mrs. Fiorina and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, both have 11% support. Other Republicans register single-digit support.

In the prior Journal/NBC News poll, conducted in mid-July, Mr. Carson had only 10% support, compared with 19% for Mr. Trump. The retired neurosurgeon overtakes Mr. Trump in the new survey, conducted Sept. 20-24, when voters’ first choice is combined with their second.

No candidate in the race has enjoyed a swifter ascent than Mrs. Fiorina, who barely registered in the July survey. She has since taken the spotlight in the GOP race after a strong performance in a televised Sept. 16 candidate debate.

Some 28% of Republican primary voters picked her as their first or second choice in the September survey, up from 2% in the July poll.

By contrast, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush lost the most altitude since the prior Journal/NBC News survey.

Some 7% of Republican primary voters named Mr. Bush as their top pick for the GOP nomination, down from 14% in July and 22% in June.

Like Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Bush was an early front-runner whose pedigree and famous last name is proving to be as much of a liability as an asset. The former Florida governor boasts the biggest war chest in the field, but his continued slippage has donors nervous at a time when candidates with little or no experience in politics have stolen the spotlight.

Mr. Bush, however, said on Fox News Sunday that he remains confident he’ll win in New Hampshire, the state that holds the first primary in February. He noted his campaign just began an advertising offensive.

“It is a marathon,” he said. “These polls really don’t matter.”

Still more.

Sunday Cartoons

At Flopping Aces, "Sunday Funnies."



And at Randy's Roundtable, "Friday Nite Funnies," and Theo Spark's, "Cartoon Roundup..."

Cartoon Credit: Legal Insurrection, "Branco Cartoon – All Options Are on the Table."

Third GOP Debate Sets Off Wave of Anxiety

From Hadas Gold, at Politico, "The prospect of a reduction in the number of candidates on stage is a life-or-death matter for some campaigns":

The uncertain terms of the next Republican debate are setting off a wave of anxiety among middle and bottom tier campaigns, with several lashing out at the Republican National Committee for failing to provide clarity on how many candidates will appear on stage.

The campaigns fear the entry criteria for the Oct. 28 debate is being designed to reduce the number of candidates on stage for the third primetime debate -- a life-or-death matter for White House hopefuls on the bubble.

While the RNC doesn’t set the rules, it does have a voice in working with the networks running the debates. The committee has not said how many candidates will be allowed into the primetime debate, which will be held in Boulder, Colorado, and broadcast on CNBC. Nor are there any indications there will be an undercard event, as there have been in the first two debate showdowns of the primary season.

“With the next debate a month away, it is maddening that the RNC has yet to provide any guidance to campaigns regarding the criteria that they and CNBC plan to use to exclude candidates,” said Curt Anderson, an adviser to Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who appeared in both undercards. In the spin room after CNN recent debate, Jindal spokesperson Gail Gitcho said they already had plans to speak with CNBC in order to keep Jindal on the stage.

Well, it's not just Jindal who's freaking, but keep reading.

Amber Lee's Got Your Low Pressure Forecast

At CBS News 2 Los Angeles:

Watch, "Amber Lee's Weather Forecast (Sept. 27)."

We're Losing the War, Do Something

From Michael Ledeen, at Forbes:

We are living in revolutionary times, but we are burdened with counterrevolutionary leaders. The old order, the bipolar Cold War world, is pretty much gone, but the outlines of a new paradigm have not yet emerged. None of the leaders on “our” side of the world, aside from our president, has any sort of vision for the next stage, the new paradigm, and his vision is based on antipathy for American leadership. He will not challenge the Russian/Iranian/Chinese/North Korean/Cuban etc. war against us.

Ergo things are going to get worse, perhaps very much worse. The pols and pundits could help focus our minds by seeing the war being waged against us, and then figuring out how to win it...

Beautiful Model Nadia Menaz Killed Herself Because She 'feared her devout Muslim parents were going to force her into arranged marriage...'

From Susan Goldberg, at Pajamas, "Muslim Model Hangs Herself to Avoid Arranged Marriage."

And at the Mirror UK, "Model found hanged 'feared her devout Muslim parents were going to force her into arranged marriage'."

And Instapundit quips, "I’d criticize this sort of thing, with the arranged marriages, the honor killings, and so on, but 'that’s their culture'."

‘Birth Tourism’ Booming In Bay Area Despite Fed Crackdown

At CBS News 2 San Francisco, "Word on the street here is that the crackdown down south has pushed many of the operations up north."

Jonathan Papelbon Attacks Bryce Harper in Dugout Fight (VIDEO)

Not good to see, ever.

Watch, at WaPo, "Jonathan Papelbon goes after Bryce Harper in dugout."

Also on Twitter, "Jonathan Papelbon attacking Bryce Harper?"

A Realist Grapples with His Doubts on Intervention in Syria

From the far-left, Israel-bashing Harvard political scientist Stephen Walt, at Foreign Policy, "Could We Have Stopped This Tragedy?":

Unlike neoconservatives, who never admit error no matter how often they are wrong, I spend a fair bit of time thinking about whether my diagnoses of key world events have been off the mark. (For examples of this sort of “self-criticism,” see here, here, and here.) I’ll stand by the vast majority of what I’ve written in my scholarly work and my FP commentary, but I find it useful — indeed, necessary — to occasionally ponder whether I got something wrong and, if so, to try to figure out why.

Case in point: the increasingly awful situation in Syria. Ever since the initial protests broke out, I’ve believed this conflict was not of vital strategic interest to the United States and that overt U.S. intervention was likely to cause more harm than good. What has emerged since then is a relentless and gut-wrenching tragedy, but I’ve uncomfortably concluded that my original judgment was correct. And yet I continue to wonder.

To be sure, the Obama administration has not handled Syria well at all.

President Barack Obama erred when he jumped the gun in 2011 and insisted “Assad must go,” locking the United States into a maximalist position and foreclosing potential diplomatic solutions that might have saved thousands of lives. Second, Obama’s 2012 off-the-cuff remark about chemical weapons and “red lines” was a self-inflicted wound that didn’t help the situation and gave opponents a sound bite to use against him. The president wisely backed away from that position, however, and (with Russian help) eventually devised an arrangement that got rid of Assad’s chemical arsenal. This was no small achievement in itself, but the whole episode did not exactly inspire confidence. The administration eventually agreed to start a training program for anti-Assad forces, but did so with neither enthusiasm nor competence.

And consider what has happened since then. More than 200,000 people are now dead — that’s approaching 100 times as many victims as 9/11 — and numerous towns, cities, and villages have been badly damaged, if not destroyed. There are reportedly some 11 million displaced people either internally or out of the country, about half Syria’s original population. A flood of refugees and migrants has landed in Europe, provoking a new challenge to the European Union’s delicate political cohesion and raising the specter of a sharp increase in right-wing xenophobia. The carnage in Syria has also helped fuel the emergence and consolidation of the so-called Islamic State, intensified the Sunni-Shiite split within Islam, and put additional strain on Syria’s other neighbors.

Given all that, is it possible that those who called for swift U.S. intervention several years ago were right all along? If the United States, NATO, the Arab League, or some combination of the above had established a no-fly zone and stood ready to intervene with ground forces, might the Assad regime have fallen quickly and spared Syria and the world this bleak and open-ended disaster? Or might these steps have given outside powers greater leverage over the situation, put some serious teeth into the early diplomatic efforts, and made some sort of brokered political solution more likely?

Maybe.

We cannot replay the past to see where a different course of action would have led, but one cannot rule out a priori the possibility that a prompt, forceful, and committed international response would have produced a better outcome in Syria than what we observe today. If everything had gone just right, we might be viewing a pacified Syria as a big success story, much as proponents of humanitarian intervention now view NATO’s role in the Balkans in the 1990s...

Hmm... Not so easy for Walt to admit that he's wrong.

America's "vital national interests" have certainly been compromised by the administration's Syria disaster. At this point Walt and other leftists can only define "vital national interests" in existential terms, as the very survival of the United States. But that's not a very useful definition, and U.S. foreign policy has long taken a much larger stand on securing vital interests, which has included preventing hostile foreign powers from securing dominant spheres of interest in a region or country, like Russia in Syria.

But keep reading. Walt's not so open to correcting his errors after all.

Kwikset and Baldwin SmartKey Door Locks

At Amazon, Shop Home Improvement - 10-20% Off Select Kwikset and Baldwin SmartKey Door Locks.

Plus, from Katheryn Russell-Brown, The Color of Crime: Racial Hoaxes, White Fear, Black Protectionism, Police Harassment, and Other Macroaggressions.

Russia's Game Plan in Syria Is Simple

From Julia Ioffe, at Foreign Policy, "Stick it to the Americans":

In Monday’s press briefing, coming after a weekend in which Moscow increased its military footprint in Syria seemingly exponentially, White House press secretary Josh Earnest declared that the administration had come no closer to deciphering Moscow’s motives for its stepped-up presence in the area.

The truth is Russia’s motives are not that hard to divine.

The most proximate reason is the fact that Bashar al-Assad, Syria’s embattled, murderous leader, has been losing territory at a rapid pace. In July, he made a rare announcement admitting losses and blaming them on a shortage of manpower. “We are not collapsing,” he said, which is not something regimes that are not collapsing often have to proclaim publicly. Allowing Assad to continue on the same losing trajectory is anathema to Moscow. “Bashar al-Assad is losing; he’s losing one town after another,” said Georgy Mirsky, a vintage Russian Arabist who teaches Middle Eastern conflicts at Moscow’s Higher School of Economics. “If you don’t help Assad, he’ll lose and then the whole world will say Putin lost.” Putin placed his bet on Assad four years ago, Mirsky said, and he hasn’t wavered since. Now he has become a prisoner to that bet and to a certain honor-bound logic. “If you make a bet on a horse and the horse comes in last, then how does it look?” Mirsky explained. “It looks like you don’t understand anything. You will be seen as a loser.”

Russia has always supported Assad, but that support now seems to be inadequate to stanch the bleeding. To avoid looking like a loser who bet on the wrong horse — which, incidentally, Putin has done a lot of in the Middle East — Putin simply has to put more on the scale to maintain the same equilibrium.

Why prop up Assad? Some commentators have pointed to what they see as a burgeoning Russian influence in the region, but many in Moscow see it differently. This talk is “slightly exaggerated,” said Fyodor Lukyanov, editor of Russia in Global Affairs, who is no Kremlin critic. “Russia doesn’t have many opportunities in the region, and Syria is a unique case.” Russia, he said, is simply stepping into the void left behind by American waffling and a lack of clarity in its Syria policy. “The growth of Russian influence is directly proportional to the decline of American influence in the region,” Lukyanov explained. “The United States lost its mission so maybe the other regional powers see Russia as bad and unpleasant, but they also see that it acts clearly and consistently.” And yet, Lukyanov said, Russia’s expanded horizon for action in the region “is all thanks to Syria. It all starts and ends in Syria.”

Other, more hard-line voices in Moscow are gloating over this role reversal, however exaggerated or mild...

Keep reading.

We're Sorry for Producing Our Cisgendered Son

From Brandon Morse, at the Federalist.

Man Sets Gas Pump on Fire While Trying to Kill Spyder with Cigarette Lighter (VIDEO)

At Right Wing News, "Brilliant! Man Sets Gas Pump and Car Ablaze Trying to Fry Spider with Lighter [Video]."

Here's a YouTube clip, "Man starts massive fire at gas station while trying to kill spider."

Video Shows Vicious Attack on 83-Year-Old Man in Santa Ana

Obama's America.

From Preston Phillips, at ABC News 10 San Diego, "Please RETWEET this video. Santa Ana, #California PD need help finding person who beat up elderly man on walk Friday."

(Also, "Video of Random Attack on 83 Year Old Man in a Parking Lot.")

Actually, the suspect has been apprehended. At the Los Angeles Times, "Suspect arrested for attack on 83-year-old man in Santa Ana."

'We must abandon almost everything we thought we knew about the goods of progress, happiness and growth...'

I'm reading Adbusters, just as a lesson and reminder of who the enemy is.

Frankly, they're everywhere. The leftist culture has metastasized. It's seeped into the unconscious of the up and coming generations, to the point that young people and their unreconstructed '60s rejects are actively opposed to the preservation of society and culture. And I mean preservation of the society and culture that has generated the highest levels of freedom and prosperity the world has ever known. The radical left of today's cultural Marxist social justice warriors, Democrat pajama boys, and the boot-licking enablers in the Obama-loving media will not stop until the "fundamental transformation" promised five days before election '08 has been achieved.

As you hear every four years, this next presidential election is the most important ever, the most important in our country's history. Just think how much better off we'd be had Barack Obama lost reelection in 2012. It's going to take decades to reverse the damage, which is why stopping the Democrat collectivists in 2016 has become a truly existential proposition.

From Kalle Lasn, publisher and editor of Adbusters, "Thought Control":

Unbridled neocon capitalism has been riding the back of humankind without opposition for nearly two generations now. It has provided no answer yet and it has no answer for the most pressing threat of the future, namely climate change. We economics students and heterodox economists must rise up in universities everywhere and demand a shift in the theoretical foundations of economic science. We must abandon almost everything we thought we knew about the goods of progress, happiness and growth. We have to re-imagine industry, nutrition, communication, transportation, housing and money and pioneer a new kind of economics, a bionomics, a psychonomics, an ecological economics that is up to the job of managing our planetary household.

— From Meme Wars: The Creative Destruction of Neoclassical Economics.

'Go Vegan' Animal Rights Protest March in Hollywood (VIDEO)

At CBS News 2 Los Angeles:



And check the "#GoVegan" hashtag on Twitter. It's a very short step from these "activists" to animal liberation terrorists (who show no hesitation to taking human life in the name of "animal rights").

Closer Huston Street Injured in Angels Spectacular Walk-Off Win Against Mariners at Anaheim Stadium

What a game, seriously.

And as with any spectacular drama, it had extreme highs and lows.

Mike Trout's historic catch, robbing the Mariners' Jesus Montero of a home run in the fourth inning, was simply unbelievable.

But closer Huston Street was hurt bad the ninth inning. Thank goodness David Freese came up and smacked a walk-off home run on the first swing in the bottom of the inning, better for the team to go tend to Street and rest after holding their spot 1/2 game out of a wildcard berth.

At the Los Angeles Times, "Huston Street's injury is a grim note in Angels' dramatic win":

Mike Trout is not easily impressed with himself. Saturday night, he could not help himself. When he returned to Earth, he mouthed several words, including this one: Wow.

Trout made one of the most spectacular catches of this or any other year, pushing himself several feet above the outfield wall to electrify Angel Stadium and rejuvenate the home team.

The catch might live forever on “SportsCenter.” On this night, however, the catch was not the most important development for the Angels, or the decisive play.

In the top of the ninth inning, they lost closer Huston Street to injury. In the bottom of the ninth, David Freese hit a walk-off home run, lifting the Angels to an emotional 3-2 victory over the Seattle Mariners.

The Angels remained one-half game behind the Houston Astros for the final spot in the American League wild-card race. The Angels have eight games left.

It appears unlikely that Street could pitch in any of those games. Manager Mike Scioscia said Street has a groin injury that is “not good.” Scioscia did not put a timetable on a recovery, but Street sat out 13 days because of a groin injury in July.

Joe Smith, the setup man, normally would replace Street as closer. Smith is out with a sprained ankle, and the Angels are uncertain whether he can return before the regular season ends.

However, in the wake of Street's injury, Smith said he might try to throw off a mound Sunday and accelerate his return.

Street, scurrying to back up a base on a routine ground ball, got off the mound cleanly, then took an awkward step and collapsed. He got up and tried to walk off the field on his own but had to be helped back to the dugout. That could leave rookie Trevor Gott as the closer, although Scioscia said he would try a committee approach.

If not for Trout's catch, the Angels would have been staring at a four-run deficit and Felix Hernandez on the mound. But Trout's wondrous feat kept the deficit at one run — and, two innings later, C.J. Cron tied the score with a home run.

Freese, a World Series hero for the St. Louis Cardinals, won the game in the ninth with the first walk-off home run of his career — regular season, that is.

The outlook did not look promising for the home team before Trout donned his cape.

Keep reading.

'I don't trust the UN on free speech issues. You shouldn't either...'

At Popehat, "A Few Comments on the UN Broadband Commission's 'Cyber Violence Against Women and Girls' Report":

I don't trust the UN on free speech issues. You shouldn't either. In a world where Iran wins a seat on the UN's Commission on the Status of Women, people who care about women's rights should also be skeptical. Pro-censorship forces continually pressure the UN for international laws and norms restricting speech — for instance by demanding laws outlawing blasphemy. Allow me some unabashed American exceptionalism: that's a bad thing. The United States' vigorous approach to protecting free speech and rejecting blasphemy laws is good, and foreign norms that encourage blasphemy laws often used to persecute religious and ethnic minorities are bad.

Read it all at that top link, and note the update.

Hat Tip: Instapundit.

BONUS: See Time, FWIW, "U.N. Says Cyber Violence Is Equivalent to Physical Violence Against Women."

Birthday Reading: The War That Forged a Nation

My mom's visiting for my birthday weekend. We're going out to dinner at Ruby's a little later.

Meanwhile, mom gave me a copy of James McPherson's, The War That Forged a Nation: Why the Civil War Still Matters. I've already read a couple of chapters. It's great!