On a much more positive note
Excellent editorial here by a superb professor, about how the GOP can attract libertarian voters without alienating its base.

Two countries in serious need of a targeted beat-down
1. Nigeria
2. Zimbabwe

Discuss.

Peace on Earth, Good Will to...
The comments on this post seem to have hit a new low in personal-blog commenting.

The very first person to comment is decidedly on crack, but it's the kind of on-crack-ness that needs to be taken seriously. Excerpt:
Let us all take a moment and consider that we are talking about precious human life and all the potential for good thereof. In that light, what might we do to lay down our arms? What might we do to end our mutual hostilities? When will we trade life for life in callous fashion for the last time?

Forgive. That is the final solution, the only option that will actually end the shedding of one anothers blood by the human family.

Yes, forgiveness is one thing we should do, and it WOULD be great if that solved everything. But--criminy--it just doesn't. There's a group of people out there willfully killing civilians, especially women and children. They've done it before, they're doing it now, and they'll keep doing it. Why? Their sympathizers say it's all about Israel pulling out of the West Bank or America somehow being less decadant. But there's more to it than that. They--and they've explicitly said as much, after the Bali bombing and so on--will keep doing exactly what they're doing until the rest of the world converts to Islam.

(See also this charming story about cross-cultural tolerance and the "religion of peace.")

I don't know about you, but I'm not bowing to Allah anytime soon. You can preach "forgiveness" until you're blue in the face but forgiveness isn't what stops murders and murderers; that would be cold, sober police work and brute military strength, depending on the order of magnitude.

And there's one more analogy -- I really hate to use it because it was beaten to death once and now carries a tremendous stigma, but it's still appropriate. Suppose in 1940, instead of making military preparations, Churchill and FDR had insisted that "forgiveness" would be sufficient to stop Hitler. I think you can all imagine the kind of world we'd live in today.

Speaking of which, I don't know if it was intentional or not but I just now noticed the commenter's use of one phrase: Final solution. That's so tasteless it beggars belief.

(Also, I think I understand now why so many high-profile religious figures are persecuted, martyred, and so on: They're so goddamn SMUG about what they believe, or claim to believe.)

What does Ann Landers say when she goofs?
(Wait, is she the dead one? Sorry, I get them mixed up.)

It's only one comment but it's on target. The Daschle-Limbaugh feud has nothing to do with "censorship." Nonetheless, in my gut this feels like a double-standoff-hypocrisy situation, where many people would be on the other side of their opinion if the shoe were on the other foot. Yesterday's Best of the Web compares Daschle to Ari Fleischer.

More on the issue here. They make all the points that need to be made but their own case for Rush's inflammatory statements is much weaker than they make it out to be. If he's really saying all these outrageous things, it wouldn't be hard for one of those watchdog groups to circulate some choice quotes. I haven't seen anything like that in years.

(Full disclosure: I'd probably blow a huge wad of time trying to point out which ones were inaccurate or out of context, just like with those old Quayle quote e-mail forwards.)

The real problem, of course, is that there are some right-wing wackos on the radio, probably saying some ridiculous things. None of them has anywhere near the name-recognition that Rush has. Every now and then he'll offend the right flank and get a bunch of angry e-mail from Free Republic readership. "You freepers," he'll chide them, and go on to whatever.

It's fascinating sometimes to see him blamed for things that his competitors do. He's rude to callers. Um, no, he'll argue vociferously with them and sometimes they'll be mute suspiciously long, but he doesn't insult them or hang up on them. He only lets on the air people who agree with him. Actually he's very self-congratulatory about moving people who disagree up to the front of the list. If you want to hear someone who disagrees with him, the best time to tune in is late in the first hour, when he finally starts taking calls.

(Note: I think most people who call him are idiots, whether they agree with him or not, so I actually prefer his monologues to the caller segments.)

Now that I think of it, a lot of stuff Rush gets blamed for (or used to) is actually more characteristic of Howard Stern.

This morning I almost woke up at 9 a.m. solely to hear Rush Limbaugh
I ended up not, but I almost did. Whenever there's a censorship debate (and not to put too fine a point on it, but that's exactly what this is), I'm always interested in seeing or hearing what got people upset in the first place.

(And I'm not the only one. This is why Eminem has a career.)

The English language also needs a word for the double-hypocrisy "Mexican standoff" situation. It comes up all the time in partisan argument, with "shoe on the other foot" situations both real and hypothetical. In this case: How can I be mad at Daschle when I wasn't upset about the Bill Maher situation? Or, on the flip side, How can person X claim that Bill Maher was censored and not be upset that Daschle is trying to silence Limbaugh?

A Daschle fan might say that the threat of violence is exactly what distinguishes the situation. I'd take that and turn it on its ear: Where's the substance behind Daschle's allegations? It's easy to say what he says when nobody actually calls him on it. Has he given any examples of what people say or do to him? For that matter, what incendiary things has Rush supposedly said?

Oh, it's not the words, it's the tone... Right. I call bullshit.

Nitpick
I know the Boondocks is all about how Aaron McGruder (via Huey) perceives life to be rather than how it is, but his latest series bugs me.

I just don't see the racial disparity that he sees. When's the last time a black celebrity did the time for doing the crime? Rae Carruth, maybe, although I don't remember the last time a white celebrity was convicted of murder.

Allen Iverson? Please. My gut impression is that he neither got off easy nor got jobbed. Contrast to Winona Ryder, who I think did get railroaded. My understanding is that a "normal" person, regardless of race, wouldn't have even gone to trial for what she did. Standard operating procedure in L.A. supposedly is a routine plea bargain and a long probation. It's plausible that she got special treatment because her swag cost so much.

As long as O.J. Simpson can get away with murder, nobody has a case for racial bias in celebrity justice.

I, too, aspire to be slammed in print by Molly Ivins
One-upsmanship here (you'll have to scroll down a lot) between Jonah Goldberg and Stephen Hayes.

Man, I also wonder whether Molly Ivins is a total bitch in person. She'd have a hard time topping Mary McGrory. That was easily the most disagreeable person I've ever seen (Institute of Politics luncheon). You think I'm exaggerating to make a partisan point; I'm actually not.

(In all partisan fairness, off the top of my head I'd guess Ann Coulter would be far more likely to act like McGrory in person than Ivins. Molly is probably really nice in person, with just a hint of acid wit. And in all gender fairness, I'm sure male columnists of all stripes can be total buttwads in person. Still, it's hard to be as bitchy in print as Ivins is, nor as bitchy in person as McGrory was.)

Kick him to the curb
I try to cut down on Schadenfreude rather than being a cruel person -- but in some cases it's richly deserved.

Somebody just lost a whole lot of clout in the Senate and despite his best efforts, he ain't getting any of it back. Now that he wants to change sides again, I'm waiting in vain for the usual suspects (weekly magazines and so on) to explain whether this too is some sort of courageous act of conscience.

.sig file fodder
After all, the last thing that belongs in a Christmas show is some dumb story about Jesus's birth.
--Megan McArdle, aka Jane Galt, on the criticisms facing the Rockettes.

Even though the Rockettes can do whatever they want, from a marketing standpoint I do see the Fort Worth guy's point. There is a lot of gratuitous Jesus in life. Then again, expecting a Jesus-free Christmas show is a bit much. Your mileage may vary; I just love the sarcasm though.

Heterosexism Redux
Assume the following: Yahoo! Personals is considering offering a specialized area for gays and lesbians. Such a site might include personal photographs and ads of gays and lesbians, selected content and other features related to the gay and lesbian lifestyle.

Don't they already have "Men seeking Men" and "Women seeking Women"? So I guess the straw poll has to do with "selected content and other features." Yeah, sure. I'll go with:
I would not use this site but think it’s a good thing to offer such a site.

At least in this city it would be. (And after all, isn't most Personals usage local? I guess in theory I could meet a pen pal or a long-distance person.)

Heterosexism
Takes a special topic to hit my trifecta of blogs but this Yahoo! Personals survey (see main blog) is a hoot.

The "Table for Six" thing in particular appears to be designed exclusively for straight people, although they could always do the equivalent with six gay people of the same sex.

(Actually, there would be 15 possible couples from an all-gay Table for Six, compared to nine from a three-and-three straight version. Or, 15 ways to arrange an all-gay Table for Six into three couples, compared to six from a three-and-three straight version.)

In other news, Andrew Sullivan points out that Am I Hot Or Not is coming to TV soon and suggests about what you'd think he would suggest.

DEFUND THE LEFT
Note the e-mail quoted below. (I'm not going to even mess with the formatting, just not worth the time.) Which of these should piss me off most?

1. The fact that I got this junk mail? (From someone who sends me way too much junk mail on a daily basis as it is, mostly jokes of various degrees of humor.)

2. The fact that it's from Bill Moyers, of all people?
-or-
3. The fact that Bill Moyers is, to this day, on the dole?

Public television: Your Tax Dollars At Work. I don't care how many good things PBS does; this shit more than makes up for it.


>Way back in the 1950's when I first tasted politics and journalism,
>Republicans briefly controlled the White House and Congress. With the
>exception of Joseph McCarthy and his vicious ilk, they were a reasonable
>lot,
>presided over by that giant war hero, Dwight Eisenhower, who was
>conservative
>by temperament and moderate in the use of power.
>
>That brand of Republican is gone. And for the first time in the memory of
>anyone alive, the entire federal government — the Congress, the
>Executive,
>the Judiciary — is united behind a right-wing agenda for which George W.
>Bush
>believes he now has a mandate. That mandate includes the power of the state
>to force pregnant women to give up control over their own lives. It
>includes
>using the taxing power to transfer wealth from working people to the rich.
>It
>includes giving corporations a free hand to eviscerate the environment and
>control the regulatory agencies meant to hold them accountable. And it
>includes secrecy on a scale you cannot imagine. Above all, it means judges
>with a political agenda appointed for life. If you liked the Supreme Court
>that put George W. Bush in the White House, you will swoon over what's
>coming. And if you like God in government, get ready for the Rapture. These
>folks don't even mind you referring to the GOP as the party of God. Why
>else
>would the new House Majority Leader say that the Almighty is using him to
>promote 'a Biblical worldview' in American politics? So it is a heady time
>in
>Washington — a heady time for piety, profits, and military power, all
>joined
>at the hip by ideology and money. Don't forget the money. It came pouring
>into this election, to both parties, from corporate America and others who
>expect the payback. Republicans outraised democrats by $184 million
>dollars.
>And came up with the big prize — monopoly control of the American
>government,
>and the power of the state to turn their ideology into the law of the land.
>Quite a bargain at any price. That's it for this week.For NOW, I'm Bill
>Moyers. Tell us what
>you think.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>© Public Affairs Television. All rights reserved.
>
>

Stephanie Sailor redux
I removed her photo because this page was taking too long to load and because you've all had plenty of time to see it. Time to stop stealing bandwidth from her.

The things you learn
Buried deep in this article: Vince Orza (who lost a Republican guber primary in 1990) changed parties since I left the state. Unless it's a different Vince Orza.

Bolsheviks and Stalinists in a time machine
In response to this trainwreck of a column (doesn't it feel like early-1990s Usenet all over again?), you shouldn't have to think too hard about which party Lenin and Mao would have supported, or what they would think of, say, rent control.

He's even mostly right about the homeland security bill, though his pro-union, anti-big business stance is ridiculous given the problems that we already have with impossible-to-fire federal employees elsewhere. I guess ideological purity matters more to some people than having workers who are actually competent at what they do.

Isn't the real problem with communal showers?
Speaking of Sullivan, he has a lot of posts in a row about gays in the military. Unfortunately, maybe I don't agree with him as much as I thought I did. Excerpt (from a post titled "IN THE SHOWERS"):

When a woman finds me attractive, I'm flattered, even though there's always a little discomfort. But I don't want to beat her up or kill her. So why is that so often the reaction among straight men toward gay men? Is it because they're afraid of being raped? C'mon. Assuming all gay men - or even any - are potential rapists is completely loopy. (And the same people who make this bizarre argument would scoff at a woman who screamed rape if a man looked at her in a sexually interested way.)

Imagine being a woman in a communal shower situation -- at the gym, say. Imagine suddenly realizing that the person next to you was actually a man. I could see where this might be terrifying. (Why it might be terrifying is an exercise for the reader.) Odds are the guy isn't a rapist but he's still a naked guy, who is presumptively (more than 90% chance) attracted to women, and here you are, a naked woman standing a few inches away from him.

The literal problem with this hypothetical is that in a typical communal shower situation, one thing that would alarm a woman about seeing a man is that, by the social mores of that shower room, he probably doesn't belong there. (Most communal shower facilities are still single-sex, right? Transgender issues open up a whole new can of worms that I can't adequately cover.) Do most homophobes (in the literal sense of the term, not the broader definition that some lefties use to tar social conservatives) equate single-sex with single-sexuality? I honestly don't know.

I do know that as of middle school gym classes, I feared and loathed communal showers. Sexual identity had nothing to do with it; as a matter of privacy, communal showers are awful. Are they still necessary? (On submarines, probably yes; in barracks, I'll have to punt.)

Afghanistan: as much of a mess as it was before?
Polly Toynbee has some answers (via Andrew Sullivan).

It's still quite a dysfunctional place but it could be much, much worse.

As for Iraq, it will fall prey to competing Islamic militants if and only if the U.S. (post-Saddam) steps back and lets it happen. One of the biggest reasons for the U.S. to do so would be because of all the people complaining about whatever it is that imperialism is supposed to lead to.

Fiercely pro-American -- or at least pro-democracy -- sentiment is imminent. In Iran it's already there; heaven knows if we'll actually lift a finger to support it. (We didn't do a thing for the students in Tiananmen Square in 1989, and so that one opportunity is largely forgotten. Then again, one failure isn't so bad in the same year that the Berlin Wall fell.) Elsewhere in the Middle East you'll see it for two reasons:

Some will come out of the woodwork because people love freedom; others will change their colors and their chants because people respect power.

Quote of the day
What is a ''women's issue'' anyway? To some, it might be the sacred constitutional right to avail oneself of a partial-birth abortion. But to others it might be the war on terror. After all, if there's one single issue that distinguishes Western values from Islamofascism, it's the treatment of women. Imagine being forbidden by law to go to school or leave the house unaccompanied. Imagine the state deciding what clothes you can wear. Imagine being prevented by law from feeling sunlight on your face. I'd say voting for people who liberate women from theocratic fascism is a women's issue.
--Mark Steyn

In general I believe in the right to free association
Though I'm not sure what to think of this comment (copied and pasted from this post) other than to present it as amusing irony...

Quoth Gary Utter:
Back in the 70's I belonged to a gym. It was "men only". The members went there to work out, and that's what they did. They came in in old clothes, sweated, swore, farted, swore, belched, swore, told filthy jokes, swore, and generally behaved like men do with no women around. The place was a dump, celing tiles missing, water stains on a couple of walls, stained and worn carpet, etc. But the equipment was in good shape. This was a working mans gym. Blue collar guys and a few college students, no rich folks, no movers and shakers, just regular guys.

The gym got sued by a woman who felt that it was discrimination that SHE couldn't participate. The owners caved instantly.

Within a year, the place was closed. The men were no longer comfortable there, they couldn't go in and relax and work out, they were required by thier genes to react to the women. They cleaned up thier language, cleaned up thier outfits, cleaned up their habits and generally stopped acting like "guys". Nobody was having a good time and male membership dropped off radically. Meanwhile, female membership was never all that big, women didn't like the ambience of the place, with the dirty carpets and missing ceiling tiles, etc.

Ballys bought the gym, remodeled, and marketed it to yuppies, business was okay, but nothing special. After a couple of years, they sold out to another chain, who immediately turned the gym into an "Athletic Club For Women".

Yup, you got it, a women ONLY gym. Business is booming, but those blue collar guys who used to hang out there have no place to go now. Hey, it's only fair, right? You just can't exclude women, because they are EQUAL. Men, on the other hand, are not as equal as women. (sigh)

Guess what? They won't let Howell Raines in either
More folly from the NY Times (the link is actually to ESPN picking up wirefeed on it).

I'll shut up and give a "me too!" to this entire post but especially to this paragraph:
Fourth, and most importantly, if integrating the Augusta National is a major item on the feminist agenda, then stick a fork in the movement: it's done. We've achieved our goals and should disband. CBS or no CBS, the club has 300 members. We're talking about a trivial wrong done to a handful of supperrich women who could afford to, or be asked to, join the Augusta National. If this is the most important cause Martha Burk can find, it's time to acknowlege that feminism has done its work and turn to something more pressing, like the plight of Russian orphans or Rwandan refugees.

The women of Marin
Astute comment from an Instapundit reader...

Why I would support the death penalty for minors
As much as I think visible remorse is overrated (kind of a dog-and-pony show), there's at least a minimum threshold. This guy has none.

Wait: Technically I guess I can't support the death penalty. Or can I?

Let's put it this way: I think the death penalty should be "safe, legal, and rare." I'll settle for medium rare.

(Flippancy aside, this is one thing that really gets me about a particular anti-anti-abortion argument. I know a lot of people think it's not so bad if you kill a creature who hasn't been around long enough to be truly aware -- hasn't really lived, so to speak. But almost by definition, any creature who is that much of a newbie is also innocent; human beings will never again be as innocent as they are around that stage. Compare this debate to death penalty debates and apparently that leaves people are people who have no problem with killing a creature like that yet will rally against killing a cold-blooded murderer. It's an asinine set of positions, state actions or no. Even the "pro-death" position is at least consistent; and its adherents tend to have a sense of humor about it.)