A teaser for a book we still
can't show you. But we're
working on it.
We discovered by accident that thanks to the Wayback Machine, a lot of Shuteye Nation is still available
through the infamous Who'sWho Y2000. Only the graphics files are
spotty. But it was always mostly about the writing anyway. So return
with us to those thrilling days of yesteryear when "Bil Clitton" was
still Presdent and Al Bore and George Hubert Walker Chevy Snaffle
Adidas Bush XIV were still campaigning to replace him. A lot of the
links still work, including the ones (indicated by a degree sign; you
know, a tiny superscript circle) to the infamous Glossary, the utterly awful Foreign Gazetteer, and others.
We urge you to take a look -- well, really to plunge in whole hog and
wallow around, for hours --
because it's the best evidence available that our perceptions and
predictions tend to be right, even over a span of ten years. It's also,
if we can be pardoned for some self-promotion, very damn funny.
And it's a damn sight less depressing than today's Drudge Report.
Nobody had heard of Obama back then. Even us. Doesn't that tell you
me you're not thinking about it too.
PLUS 66. When they're out of power, Democrats want to turn every
war into Vietnam. They're always wrong. What turns a war into Vietnam
is Democrats in power. They're the ones who stop trying to win and
who allow our troops to be sacrificed for nothing while they fiddle and
fret and fulminate. Because they're also the ones who don't care at all
about our troops except as props for their posturing. I just got an
email from a sometime contributor I
can't disagree with. I won't name him because I didn't ask permission
to print what he said. (All my contributors know I feel free to post
their emails, but let him identify himself if he wants to.) But here it
I'm still reading Junger's
"War", but it's slow going. It's hard for me
to read a lot of it at once because I can't help thinking that we're
wasting our time in Afghanistan. We shouldn't have troops over there.
Instead, we should drop as much nuclear ordinance as is needed to make
the entire country radioactive for the next 100 years. That will also
take care of the poppy growing problem. Then let more populous arab
nations fight amongst each other for who gets to host the next Taliban
training camp, thus earning the honor of being the next area to glow in
the dark for a century.
Was the decision to nuke Japan, twice,
really any different? We can dick around in the Afghan mountains,
fighting a war of attrition and putting our bravest soldiers at risk
with objectives and ROE that change with every shift in political power
back home. Or we can drop some ordinance one time and not look back. I
got really sad last night reading about how this SSG Rougle died,
possibly executed by a shot through the forehead, when a US position
was overrun. He was seen as a legendary super soldier and one of his
men broke down and started crying in the middle of battle when he
realized Rougle was dead. Then the entire mission changed to trying to
prevent the enemy (nobody even knew where they were or which direction
they went) from reaching a nearby village with the equipment that was
looted off of Rougle's body because they might use it for propaganda,
and once they reached the village they could blend in with the local
population. So you've got howitzers, Apaches, A-10s, and a whole gaggle
of troops on a mountainside scrambling to recover some weapons and NVGs
because if the bad guys make it to the village, we can't risk upsetting
the civilians to get the gear back.
a fucking joke. Nuke them all and keep our military ready for a tougher
threat, like the Chinese. Because as soon as Haji gets a suitcase nuke,
he won't think twice about using it on us.
I have nothing to add.
TOTALLY INNOCENT, THAT'S ME. Yeah, I had some free time for a change. So I skidded across
YouTube. I'm reminded again of how much music I like, even though I
rarely listen anymore. I'm a wanton. I like classical,
listening. Mostly, music is about love. I'm so
easy it's embarrassing. But here's the thing that struck me today.
Lorrie Morgan was married to Keith Whitley. She loved him but he killed
himself anyway. That's not how it's supposed to go. But sometimes life
and art intersect. That's when it hurts the most. Whitley recorded this
just before he died.
. Every once in a while we do a
blog-type blog entry like most people do, taking credit for noticing
what's going on, with nothing personal to add but a wry quip at the
beginning or the end. Call us lazy, but you have no idea how much
effort is involved in scanning the Intertubes for links that are, well,
wry quip material. Especially when the normal IP inclination is toward
a machete, only
in reverse, if you know what I mean. And who cares if you don't?
Be that as it may. I'm doing my best. Think of this as IP's version of
the measured, friendly, bloggery of Instadumb**it. It's just pointing
and wrying for a day. Like the good guys we are
Liberal cable news talker Keith
Olbermann has been benched from NBC's Sunday night NFL broadcasts this
season, according to various reports.
The move, originally reported by SportsByBrooks last week, was
apparently no reflection of his political views, but the gig conflicted
with his daily MSNBC broadcast. Olbermann, 51, had taken an occasional
Friday off to focus on NBC's pre-game show, something his bosses at NBC
News weren't keen on.
The New York Post reported NBC officials told reporters that
Olbermann's left-leaning political views had nothing to do with the
move. Olbermann, who rose to the national scene as a co-anchor for
ESPN's "SportsCenter," had been a part of NBC's football broadcast --
termed "Football Night in America" -- in some capacity since 2007.
Olbermann, who was paired with fellow "SportsCenter" expatriate Dan
Patrick, did lace some of his sports takes with politics, including a
minor ribbing of former Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah
Palin. [Ya think?]
Like nobody at NBC noticed that the ratings fell like a rock ("30
Rock"?) when last year's telecasts went to halftime. Right. How smart
does a network executive have to be to detect that pissing off at least half your
audience isn't the best possible move in sports coverage?
DOG BITES MAN: Almost two years
into his presidency, The One is still snivelling
about his predecessor:
AUSTIN, Texas, Aug 9 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama attacked the
economic policies of his Republican predecessor George W. Bush in
Bush's home state on Monday as evidence of the way Republicans would
operate if given power in Nov. 2 U.S. congressional elections.
At a fund-raising event for Democrats in Dallas, where Bush now lives,
Obama said the former president's "disastrous" policies had driven the
U.S. economy into the ground and turned budget surpluses into deficits.
Obama defended his repeated references to Bush's policies, saying they
were necessary to remind Americans of the weak economy he inherited
from Bush in January 2009.
"The policies that crashed the economy, that undercut the middle class,
that mortgaged our future, do we really want to go back to that, or do
we keep moving our country forward?" Obama said at another fund-raising
event in Austin, referring to Bush's eight years as president.
In reminding voters about the policies of the unpopular Bush, Obama is
trying to protect his fellow Democrats' majorities in Congress and
limit anticipated Republican gains.
Good luck with that. Louis XIV tried blaming Louis XIII too. Pretty
sure that didn't work, either. And excuse me, but what's so 'cool'
about this strategy? Did Pacino blame anything on Brando in Godfather II? Maybe he was thinking
of the famous scene in which Brando exploded, "Be a man!" Advice worth
considering, we'd say.
RIFT IN THE GLOBAL MSM: Even
the Brits are noticing that the American mainstream media are a bunch
Obama presidency increasingly resembles a modern-day Ancien Régime: extravagant
and out of touch with the American
What the great French historian Alexis de Tocqueville would make of
today’s Obama administration were he alive today is anyone’s guess. But
I would wager that the author of L’Ancien Régime and Democracy
in America would be less than impressed with the extravagance and
arrogance on display among the White House elites that rule America as
though they had been handed some divine right to govern with impunity.
It is the kind of impunity that has been highlighted on the world stage
this week by Michelle Obama’s hugely costly trip to Spain...
The timing of this lavish European vacation could not have come at a
worse moment, when unemployment in America stands at 10 percent, and
large numbers of Americans are fighting to survive financially in the
wake of the global economic downturn. It sends a message of
indifference, even contempt, for the millions of Americans who are
struggling just to feed their families on a daily basis and pay the
mortgage, while the size of the national debt balloons to Greek-style
While the liberal-dominated US mainstream media have largely ignored
the story, it is all over the blogosphere and talk radio, and will
undoubtedly add to the President’s free falling poll ratings. As much
as the media establishment turn a blind eye to stories like this, which
are major news in the international media, the American public is
increasingly turning to alternative news sources, including the British
press, which has a far less deferential approach towards the White
When Americans "turn to the British press," shouldn't that be a wakeup
call for their betters in the States? Nah. They are the unchanging hope
that went down the drain a long long time ago.
MUSLIM TO THE RIGHT OF BLOOMBERG &
O'REILLY: Just love this
one because O'Reilly is such
an ass. He's so determined to
be the open-minded middle-of-the-road "traditionalist" that he utterly
fails to see when events have passed him by. This is the ONE time I
have seen him nonplussed into breaking his unthinking pose that he's the one who speaks for "the
ROSABUD BACK IN THE NEWS:
Pardon a bit of self-promotion here.
Back in 2000, there was BoomerBible.com and Shuteye
Nation, where we had this to say about someone(s):
Rosabud. Leading real-sized°
TV talk show host. Didn't she used to have a sitcom, where she was fat
and loud and obnoxious to everybody? Well, now she does it on her talk
show, except she's only fat and loud and obnoxious to people who are
of the vast right wing conspiracy°,
because there are so many people out there who need the kind of
[crap] you can only get from
a turd in a pantsuit.
George Bush, in the middle of a war,
had an all-station news conference to announce how horrible it was for
the safety of America that gay people were getting married in San
Francisco, which pissed me off enough to get on a plane and go get
Israel: What a vile and hideous
country. I have reached the point, after reading today’s news where I
can really no longer support in any way anything having to do with
Israel or its apologists. I know that this means I will most
likely never work in US media again. I have tried to navigate my
way through attempting to be a person of moral courage and a performer
in the US. I have come to the realization that there is just no
way to remain mute on the subject of the horrid oppression by
Israel of its neighbors and workers and have any conscience at all.
Wethink she's still a turd in a pantsuit.
A SERIOUS (but hilarious) PROPOSITION:
What wasn't around
back in 2000 was Greg Gutfeld. We're happy about the progress he
represents. Here's something this normally mosquito-weight scamp
appears to be serious
I’m announcing tonight, that I am planning to build and open the first
gay bar that caters not only to the west, but also Islamic gay men. To
best express my sincere desire for dialogue, the bar will be situated
next to the mosque Park51, in an available commercial space.
This is not a joke. I’ve already spoken to a number of investors, who
have pledged their support in this bipartisan bid for understanding and
As you know, the Muslim faith doesn’t look kindly upon homosexuality,
which is why I’m building this bar. It is an effort to break down
barriers and reduce deadly homophobia in the Islamic world.
The goal, however, is not simply to open a typical gay bar, but one
friendly to men of Islamic faith. An entire floor, for example, will
feature non-alcoholic drinks, since booze is forbidden by the faith.
The bar will be open all day and night, to accommodate men who would
rather keep their sexuality under wraps – but still want to dance.
Bottom line: I hope that the mosque owners will be as open to the bar,
as I am to the new mosque. After all, the belief driving them to open
up their center near Ground Zero, is no different than mine.
My place, however, will have better music.
No, Gutfeld isn't gay. He pants too much in the presence of his female
guests on Redeye for that.
But he's hit on a new idea, I think. Satire acted out, invested in,
made real in an insane reality. Wish I'd thought of it first.
Which is the end of our blog-type blog entry. Except for the footnotes.
Any time you challenge the left anymore, you have to have footnotes. I
have one. I guess that's the minimum.
FOOTNOTE. I suppose there are those who think the
Barney Frank video above merits a post of its own. I disagree. Even if
the whole purpose of this post was to get, finally, to Barney Frank,
that wouldn't make him any more than a footnote in American history.
You can do a LOT of damage without being more than a footnote. To
transcend that status, you have to have some actual stature. You know.
Character. Wisdom. Or at least tragically wrong convictions. You can't
just be the living embodiment of every stereotype associated with the
monolithic identity you choose to inflict on everyone. So here's our
Barney Frank footnote.
THE STEREOTYPE'S STEREOTYPE: So
what do gay men want that we can all agree they might deserve? That
they be freed from the cartoon notion that if they're not effeminate,
victim nonentities, they're shrill, vicious, conniving composites of
all that is worst in both sexes, with the arrogantly predatory
instincts of a male with a grudge and the poisonous, eternal,
criminal resentments of a female scorned. Welcome to Barney Frank. This
choleric, corrupt, delusional, self-ordained Poof Pontiff of the
the worst possible advertisement ever for the cause he purports to
believe in most. He's nothing but a rutting hog with a snarling lisp
and a liar's preference for the pigpen from which he hurls the dung
he's spent his life squeezing into the shape of Massachussetts rhetoric
Yeah. Nobody else will say it. I will. He's the best argument against
gay rights alive on the planet. Compare the gotcha video up top with
from Jonathan Alter's suckbutt paean to Obama, The Promise:
At the Washington Independent Aaron
Weiner highlights another F-bomb festival, this time from a September
2008 meeting that included House Financial Services Chairman Barney
Frank (D - Mass.), Obama, John McCain, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson
and President Bush.
Frank was apparently incensed at Paulson's attempt to stop Democrats
from criticizing the huge plan to bailout the financial sector -- in
fact, it was Republicans who balked, Weiner observes. Here's Frank's
blowup at Paulson:
Barney Frank muscled his way past Harry Reid and started yelling. "F--
you, Hank! F-- you! Blow up this deal? We didn't blow up this deal!
Your guys blew up the deal! You better tell [GOP Rep. Spencer] Bacchus
and the rest of them to get their s-- together!"
Hardly an exception. The public record is stuffed with his vulgarity,
venom, overflowing rage, sense of superiority, and utter, utter
personal and political corruption . (Go here, here, here,
This from a man who should have been tossed out of the Congress for
personal ethics violations long before he betrayed his office in
matters of state.
Shortly after coming out, Frank met and
began dating Herb Moses, an
economist and LGBT activist; their relationship lasted for eleven years
until an amicable break-up in July 1998... Moses, who was an executive at Fannie Mae
from 1991 to 1998, was the first partner of an openly gay member of
Congress to receive spousal benefits and the two were considered
"Washington's most powerful and influential gay couple
NEW YORK (CNN) -- Troubled mortgage
giant Fannie Mae planned to pay four
top executives retention bonuses
ranging from $470,000 to $611,000, according to a February SEC
Executive vice presidents Kenneth Bacon, David Hisey, Michael Williams
and Thomas Lund will be receiving bonuses of close to half a million
dollars each. Bacon supervises community development for the company,
Hisey is its deputy chief financial officer, Williams is its COO and
Lund oversees the single-family mortgage business.
By contrast, Fannie Mae CFO David Johnson received no bonus on top of
his salary of $625,000, while CEO Herb Allison received no compensation
or bonuses in 2008 or 2009.
A spokesman for Fannie Mae deferred comment on the bonuses to the
Federal Housing Finance Agency.
The bonuses were necessary to keep Fannie's most experienced executives
working to reverse the effects of the mortgage crisis, FHFA Director
James B. Lockhart told CNN.
But he's escaped all accountability for his turpitude because he's gay,
hostile, and vicious? Sometimes, stereotypes rule. But gays shouldn't
be surprised that straights are still resistant to their demands for
surrender across the board. Who wants to surrender anything to the
Barney Franks of the world? They don't even deserve accommodation. They
deserve to be locked up.
No. We don't -- I don't --
hate gay people. I just hate whores, manipulators, crooks, and bullies
of every stripe. That's not who most gay people are. At all. So let me
leave you with scenes from a movie I genuinely liked, with no
inclination to feel that I was being patronizing. I'd have enjoyed
at that dinner party. Not kidding. Here's some background and
the scene I'll leave you with:
. God bless C-Span. On the same
day this weekend,
the network featured book tour presentations by the authors of The Post-American
Presidency: The Obama
Administration's War on America and Common Nonsense:
Glenn Beck and the
Triumph of Ignorance. I doubt you'll read either, though you
Ayn Rand fans may be more tempted to the former by the fact that one of
its co-authors, Pamela Geller, is the leading light behind
AtlasShrugs.com. She's fun to watch, if a bit more shotgun than rifle,
but I was more intrigued by Alexander Zaitchik, the contemning voice of
the Glenn Beck book. I think it's fair to say he's a lot more
disrespectful to Beck than Geller is to Obama. I found his Amazon
and (some) more elsewhere about his past endeavors, read the "Look
Inside" excerpts, and then examined the Amazon customer reviews of his
first magnum opus.
Which, more than anything else, is what I want to share with you today.
That's why I call it an exercise. Amazon customer reviews are one of my
favorite forms of polling. Not because they're scientific.
Quantitatively, statistically, they mean nothing. Qualitatively, they
mean a lot. The sample always represents those with the strongest
opinions. We get to see how they think, what they regard as evidence
for their opinions, and how cogently, factually, and persuasively they
make their case. When the subject of a book is politics, it's usually
those with the greatest personal, emotional animus regarding a subject
or author who predominate. Curiously, this means that if there is a numbers game of sorts in the
Amazon jungle, it's often the case there are more irrational,
hysterical, dismissible reviews than rational, measured ones.
I know that Beck is controversial on the right as well as the left.
That's why I thought it would be fun to have you look through the
reader reviews. Will they make you more
or less likely to look more
deeply into what it is Beck is actually saying. I'm suggesting you take
in the whole population of reviews presented, but I'm giving you two
right here to get you started: One five-star rave and one one-star pan.
of 154 people found the following review helpful:
***** Portrait of a Dangerous
Lunatic, May 10, 2010
By Terry Sunday (El Paso, Texas United States) - See all my
There's no denying that political discourse in America today is more
rancorous and uncivil than at any previous time in our history. There's
no denying that misinformed talk-show demagogues and their fawning
followers have hijacked key debates about national issues, and drown
out the voices of thoughtful moderates with their strident, ignorant
clamor. And there's no doubt that the broadcast media has played a
major role in amping up the hype over controversial issues in their
endless quest for ratings at the expense of truth, accuracy, balance
"Common Nonsense: Glenn Beck and the Triumph of Ignorance," paints an
appalling portrait of one of the darlings of today's paranoid,
fact-challenged, know-nothing, right-wing political fringe. In this
review, I won't summarize Beck's rise to prominence--I find him too
thoroughly detestable to be worth that unpleasant task. But I will say
that this book chronicles that rise in clear, chilling, footnoted
detail, using primary sources that leave no doubt that this is an
accurate picture of the man. That his racist, bigoted, militaristic,
hyper-religious, fact-free, self-serving bombast has any appeal at all
for any Americans is a sad statement on the extent to which willful
ignorance has today become a virtue. That Beck, and others of his ilk,
continue to draw oblivious, adoring listeners into their hate-filled
fantasy worlds testifies to the immense power of the modern media, a
power that Nazi propaganda minister the late Dr. Josef Goebbels would
envy. That they continue to do so also shows the distressing triumph of
mindless entertainment over factual substance. "Common Nonsense" tells
the story of how this condition came to be, in a highly readable,
fast-paced, compelling, disturbing narrative that would be hard to
believe in some places if it weren't true.
Some books self-limit themselves to readers in certain demographic
niches. If you hang on every hateful word of Beck, Hannity and
Limbaugh, you need not waste your money or time on "Common Nonsense."
Make no mistake about it--this is not a complimentary book. If, on the
other hand, you take pride in being open-minded, want to know some of
the story behind modern American demagoguery and seek to get a look at
the thought processes that motivate the knee-jerk radical right, it is
a must-read. I recommend it most highly to every intelligent,
thoughtful American who cares about the nation's future. Dittoheads and
extremist wackos need not apply...
36 of 128 people found the following
* Worthless tripe, June 4, 2010
By _porterhouse "_porterhouse" (Los Angeles, CA) - See all my
This book purports to be an examination of the phenomenon that is Glenn
Beck. It begins with the unquestioned premise that Glenn Beck is,
self-evidently, (1) corrupt, (2) immoral, (3) ignorant, and (4) wrong.
It then moves through most of the principal fallacies in formal logic
in supporting, or "proving", that which it presumes via "examinations"
of central episodes in Beck's life. Character assassination, red
herrings, straw men, you name it, they're all here in plentiful supply.
In fact, they're all that's here.
In the end, all it boils down to is the following:
Beck is wrong because he is wrong.
Beck is a liar because he is a liar.
Beck is corrupt because he is corrupt.
Beck is immoral because he is immoral.
This makes for a highly convincing, enormously satisfying read for
everyone who agrees with the aforementioned premise. In addition to
being a masterstroke of tautology, it is successful as a screed, a
veritable festival of tantrum, a juicy slice of propaganda.
But it makes for a worthless bit of tripe as concerning an honest,
objective examination of the man and his message. This is precisely as
you might expect, given the threat that message poses to the millions
whose very livelihoods depend upon the status quo. The status quo in
which 300 million Americans are pitted against each other as the
massive apparatus of the state is constructed and extended, and in
which the foundations of country are gutted and/or abandoned.
I'm not trying to prejudice you, but if you'd like a bit more info
about the author, go here
Read on. Then tell me what you've learned.
we used to be paranoid too. Back before Mayor Bloomberg set us straight.
We thought there'd be two Osama towers. Just one is supposed to be
Many of you were outraged in 2005 when
the Crescent of Embrace
design was unveiled to be a half-mile wide Islamic shaped crescent:
Left: 2005 publicity shot of the Crescent of Embrace design. Right: typical Islamic crescent and
star, viewed from a similar angle.
Few people know that this giant
crescent actually points to Mecca,
or understand the religious significance of this orientation. A
crescent that points the direction to Mecca is a very familiar
construct in the Islamic world. Because Muslims face Mecca for prayer,
every mosque is built around a Mecca direction indicator called a mihrab.
The classic mihrab is crescent shaped.
3. The Freedom Tower, planned replacement for the demolished World
Trade Center, will ultimately be at least partially financed and run by
The construction of the Freedom Tower,
a 1,776-foot office tower that will be built at Ground Zero is back on
track and the bidding process involves two companies, Durst
Organization and Related Companies.
Fox News legal analyst Peter Johnson reported on the status of this
project on the Fox News program, Fox & Friends Monday morning.
Johnson reported on the financial dealings of Related Companies and its
ties with the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, the Saudi Arabian royal family
and to fifteen financiers based in Dubai.
The partner will invest at least $100 million into the office tower and
4. The Spanish vacation trip over Obama's birthday was actually an
excuse for Mrs. Obama and her daughter to pay a visit to one of the
greatest mosques in the world, the one in Cordoba.
Cordoba is gorgeous, of course. Like
the fashions of Michelle and her daughter. The latter are by noted couturier
Xchristian LaCroix, who designed these outfits befitting the (female) First Family's
obeisance to the Moorish Conquest of Spain.
5. The International Freedom Center planned for the exact site of
Ground Zero is really a nod to Sharia by U.S. and western hating
leftists who wish to mock 9/11 by memorializing its destroyers. A typical
By the time
they have completed reconfiguring the Ground Zero project's
architecture and content, the place will be absolutely 100 percent
safe. There will no longer be any doubt that however much foreign
insurgents may hate America, it's nothing compared to how much elite
and powerful Americans hate America. This has to be an enormously
effective deterrent to further acts of violence in the city whose most
powerful people lead the world in hatred of this country. That's why
the over-engineered tower described in the piece referenced above will
never be built. It just won't be needed. The whole idea of a single
fake-me-out tower with 50 stories of panic room office bunkers and 50
stories of uninhabited, bomb-repellent gridwork can be tossed in the
trash where it belongs. New Yorkers will be able to go all the way to
the tippy top of the new twin towers design that will soon be unveiled
by Soros and company. What do you think of it
6. The next really big architectural project planned for a major
American city is the new CAIR (Council on American-Islomaic Relations)
headquarters building, which will be built northeast of the
The red-highlighted part is the
planned new construction. It's only an accident that a pentagon also
describes a star. Right?
You can vote in the Comments section. We'll announce the winners and
not proposing a conspiracy here. I'm reminding you all of a tactic.
Isn't that what we keep telling ourselves is wrong with the designation
Terror'? That it substitutes a tactic for an enemy we dare not name?
Well, we should be
mindful of tactics regardless of what kind of war we're in or pretend
we're not in. The tactic is "Keep your friends close, and your enemies
closer." If you're really aggressive, you don't even let your enemies
breathe because you're so close.
I'm from the country. We have a greater critical distance than most of
you. That is, you get too close and we back away or make YOU back away.
What we country folk have noticed about middle easterners. They stand
too close to you in the subway, in line, and in every other situation
too. You city people may be inured to it. You're so close to everyone
every day you create the necessary distance by living your lives
looking at the sidewalk or sucking on
your cellphones. We aren't
inured to it. There isn't anyone in any tavern
or pool hall in south Jersey who doesn't know that the guy who stands
too close to you is preying on you or seeking to dominate you. That's
when we push back. Sometimes very damn hard.
But we're rednecks. You're the quality. Precisely the people we have to
pick up and cart to the hospital after you've misunderstood the body
language in a real-world bar or ballpark.
Final point. We don't spend our days looking at the sidewalk or
muttering into cellphones. Maybe if you could break that habit in
stop being such dim-witted wimp bitches for all the predators who keep
bending you over the barrier and... well, you know.
With all due respect.
Friday, August 06, 2010
got a tribute via email. Matt says it's right. YOU make sense of it.
. It's all
supposed to be over. The
Boomer Bible is supposed to be out of print. It isn't.
supposed to be off the Internet and forgotten. It isn't. And the people
who loved and learned from the book are supposed to have outgrown it
and moved on. They haven't. Instead there's a new Instapunk Forum
devised by the same people who quarrelled unto death in the old
Boomer Bible Forum. The Punks
of Punk City are still roaming South Street. And I
just received a birthday salutation for Harry
from one of the most talented and querulous of the original members. He
said, "Happy Birthday, Harry." He's the one who sent the video
What does this mean? Nothing. Only that Harry is 65 now, ready to
retire into Obamatopia -- if he weren't already in Rio. I got a text
message from him today. It read: STILL HERE. STILL THE ONE YOU'VE BEEN
But that's all I've heard from him. Our last Word from Harry was what
posted on his sixtieth birthday. You be the judge:
From the Psongs Of
2 I have broken you, ignored you, killed you,
3 But you do not fade away; you turn toward me in my
dreams as you never did in fact,
4 And I am not shocked or shamed,
5 But matter of fact;
6 We are the same cup, drunk by different faces.
7 Some are poisoned, some are fed,
8 Some are, of course, indifferent or indignant.
9 I have looked into your cup, you into mine;
10 My liquor is older than yours, and younger.
11 What I see in its liquid skin is the world
12 Me a transparent tattoo on its slippery
13 All evaporating, waiting to be consumed,
14 Pregnant intoxicant mirage.
15 But when I ask you to look,
16 You see you, the shimmering skin of a world
17 And there I am only an unreflected memory of
18 Why, then, do you smile in my dreams?
19 Is that my memory again, my wish, my
20 Or is it the blending, at last, of the dregs
of our final draught?
I could give up sleeping,
2 But for the alarm of morning,
3 Which wants to surprise us awake,
4 With a brand new ancient lesson.
5 Every morning is everywhere,
6 The center of being undraped and unafraid,
7 On display for its satellites.
8 When I was in Rio, I flung open the broad
horizon built upon my balcony,
9 And I squinted the darkness away.
10 Today I roll out under the roof of morning,
11 Trusting a sun I can’t see,
12 Imagining the boastful light above the
trusses and timbers and shingles of our conceits,
13 But I do not dare to look at the blush of
14 That pink behind we all must show,
15 In impotent flight.
16 Darkness always loses courage in the end,
17 And dawn wins every day.
18 So must I,
19 But more slowly now than then,
20 When I was young.
We're guessing he's still with us. Swallowing his ire. He never once
used a teleprompter. But, Lord, he looked good in a suit. Halleluiah.
Word is, Harry had this guy 'disappeared' from his ordinary life because he was so damned good. We hear his days now consist of rum and string bikinis. In Rio. Where we will all meet one day. Later.
No, he's not Psmith.
It takes a while to become a deerhound.
Phases, don't you know. At the moment he's an Ent. Legs like oak
saplings powered by a baby's brain. He just had his first physical at
the vet. Five months old and fifty pounds. (Yes, yes, yes, they loved
him at the vet's office... especially the doc who tried to save Psmith.
Enough said.) But he's still a baby, albeit a baby with only three
housebreaking accidents to his name in a month. And a fairly long list
of chewing casualties. Because he's just a baby with molars coming in.
He likes everything that squeaks.
He's already learned some commands: NO!!!; Drop it; Down; HEY!; I MEAN
RIGHT NOW, MISTER; and Sit. See?
He's a good boy. He loves his greyhounds. He kisses them good morning
every day. He hates it when his mom goes off to work.You know. Life is
wonderful, but it would be even better if mom were here with me all the
time. That kind of thing.
Yeah. No red-eye. Never could figure
that out. It's a deerhound thing.
But when it's just the two of us, me typing and him chewing and
squeaking everything in sight, we get to be grave Scots, on top of the
universe. The way Scots always are.
Thursday, August 05, 2010
Just a reminder of how the nation
voted in 2008. We're the blue. They're the yellow
and brown. It WASN'T really a landslide.
We really are allowed to push back with all the breadth of
I read this
post by "Professor Bainbridge" yesterday. Thought about commenting
on it and decided against. Its centerpiece is a list of the reasons why
an eminent conservative law professor is embarrassed to be a conservative
Here's the list, consisting of a conveniently Letterman-like ten items:
1. A poorly educated
ex-sportwriter [sic[ who served half
of one term of an [sic] minor state governorship is prominently
featured as a -- if not the -- leading prospect for the GOP's 2012
2. Tom Tancredo calling President Obama “the greatest
threat to the United States today" and arguing that he be impeached.
Bad public policy is not a high crime nor a misdemeanor, and the casual
assertion that pursuing liberal policies--however misguided--is an
impeachable offense is just nuts.
3. Similar nonsense from former Ford-Reagan treasury
department officials Ernest Christian and Gary Robbins, who IBD column
was [sic[, as Doug Marconis observed, "a wildly exaggerated attack on
President Obama’s record in office." Actually, it's more foaming at the
4. As Doug also observed, "The GOP controlled Congress
from 1994 to 2006: Combine neocon warfare spending with entitlements,
farm subsidies, education, water projects and you end up with a GOP
welfare/warfare state driving the federal spending machine." Indeed,
"when the GOP took control of Congress in 1994, and the White House in
2000, the desire to use the levers of power to create “compassionate
conservatism” won our [sic] over any semblance of fiscal conservatism.
Instead of tax cuts and spending cuts, we got tax cuts along with a
trillion dollar entitlement program, a massive expansion of the Federal
Government’s role in education, and two wars. That’s not fiscal
conservatism [sic] it is, as others have said, fiscal insanity." Yet,
today's GOP still has not articulated a message of real fiscal
5. Thanks to the Tea Party, the Nevada GOP has probably
pissed away a historic chance to out=st [sic] Harry Reid. See also
Charlie Crist in Florida, Rand Paul in Kentucky, and so on. Whatever
happened to not letting perfection be the enemy of the good?
6. The anti-science and anti-intellectualism that pervade
7. Trying to pretend Afghanistan is Obama's war.
10. The substitution of mouth-foaming, spittle-blasting,
rabble-rousing talk radio for reasoned debate. Michael Savage, Glenn
Beck, Hugh Hewitt, and even Rush Limbaugh are not exactly putting on
Firing Line. Whatever happened to smart, well-read, articulate leaders
like Buckley, Neuhaus, Kirk, Jack Kent, Goldwater, and, yes, even
Ronald Reagan? [Even Ronald
Reagan? How tolerant of you, Professor. Hugh Hewitt is a
"spittle-blaster" and Glenn Beck doesn't read? Really?]
Why didn't I comment yesterday? Because I found out about it from Jonah
Goldberg, who referenced it in passing after having penned an excellent
column about the silliness of the latest snob wave (is there some
recurrent loony tide at work here?) waxing nostalgic about William F.
Buckley and Irving Kristol as estimable conservatives compared to thugs
like Andrew Breitbart and dolts like Sarah Palin. Additionally, a
majority of Professor Bainbridge's own commenters had chewed his
charges and cheap shots apart one mouthful at a time. He had his
champions, of course, but they were either self-professed
non-conservatives (er, independents and moderates) or
self-congratulating intellectuals of the sort who believe nobody who
works for a living listens to Rush Limbaugh but lefty note-takers(!)
The Professor is too
high and mighty to respond to his commenters, and he had also closed
the post to further comments by the time I first saw it. Enough said.
Why bother? Goldberg's
summation was really kind of perfect -- a dismissive and diminuendo
coda to the Corner post announcing his column:
Meanwhile, Doc Bainbridge was much more
taken with David’s piece and offers ten reasons why he finds
conservatives and/or Republicans embarrassing these days. I find the
list to be pretty unpersuasive.
So I didn't bother. Except that I woke up this morning thinking about
it. Something about it was bothering me.
Something that nobody else had quite said. But what? I worked through
half a dozen permutations of how I could respond, but Goldberg's
example was an excellent governor. Whatever the right answer was, it
couldn't involve a huge amount of effort. The piece wasn't deserving of
much effort. Which is when it hit me.
What was pissing me off was that this guy presents himself as an
intellectual, a teacher, a meticulous thinker. This post exhibited none
of that. Even more than its snide and preemptive tone, the piece struck
me for its extraordinary carelessness. He wasn't in the classroom,
explaining and edifying his audience. He was grading a test on the fly,
and a multiple-choice or true-false test at that. One whose questions
he hadn't even shown to the people who were failing it with angry red
pencil exes in the margin. Anti-science and anti-intellectualism?
Nativist? Without a shred of evidence offered about any of these
charges? Please. It's a professorial meltdown: "Nobody read the
assignment from my book. F's all around." He's so angry and hasty he
can't even proofread his tirade. He proved my reading of his tone in his
response to the pushback he earned:
Much of the right side of the
blogosphere through [SIC!] a collective hissy fit over my post about
how its [sic] becoming embarrassing to be associated with the
conservative movement. Much of it was stiff [sic] and nonsense. Most of
it served just to prove my point about the add [sic] combination of
viciousness and vacuity pervasive in today's right. As an old-fashioned
conservative whose role models were people like Buckley, Kirk, [even]
Reagan, Kemp, and their ilk, I find it off-putting, at best. But I've
got too much on my plate to respond item by item. (having three book
contracts hanging over one's head may not focus the mind quite so much
as the prospect of being hanged, but it's a close second.)
Excuse me? Who's having the hissy fit here? Oh, that's right. The eminence grise who's "got too much
on my plate to respond item by item." [No wonder, Even your original
items weren't exactly spelled out item by item, if spelled correctly at
Sorry, Professor Brainbridge. This was an obviously (very) slapdash
effort that deserved to be attacked, whether there's any substance
underlying your spleen or not. When a man who expects to be respected
based on his credentials and position tosses off a post unsupported by
anything but his credentials
and position, he's being a bully. There's no light here. Only the
frantically dark energy we've come to expect from the totalitarians of
the left. "I know better; you're all fools."
Blogging may be a sideline with the illuminati who presume to do it for
the betterment of their inferiors. But it's not to be done lightly,
no matter who you are. If you're not going to expend the effort to make
your points instead of merely assert them from the high pulpit of your
office, don't do it at all. Nobody's the wiser for arrogant,
typo-riddled pronouncements unalloyed to explanations or thoughful
argumentation. A tantrum is a tantrum, whether the child throwing it
(or should that be throughing it?) is a prodigy or an ignorant brat.
Because it's impossible to tell the difference. We rightwing morons can get that level of illumination at Ace of Spades, only without the condescension.
Understand me. I'm not accusing Bainbridge of being wrong. He hasn't
provided enough evidence to judge, one way or the other. I'm accusing
him of being profoundly negligent. As a blogger. If and when he gets
around to making an argument, I'll take it apart. Until then, he's just
a bombastic academic who dashed off a dumb post without thinking about
I've taken enough heat and abuse for attempting the courtesy of
informing other bloggers when I've criticized them here. Besides, I
have the hiccups after typing all thos [sic]s. If any of you want to
let the good professor know about this post, feel free. Because we all
are still free to be conservatives in whatever manner we choose. Don't