Vox Popoli

Derybshire despairs:

Thank God the Moussaoui trial is over. I have never been so embarrassed for my country. The low point of the thing — and a low point for our nation in its accelerating slide to oblivion — was when that U.S. Navy Lieutenenat sniveled and blubbed on the witness stand while Moussaoui jeered at her — quite rightly, in my opinion. I expected Jimmy Carter or Oprah to show up at any minute. An American officer, in uniform, weeping IN THE FACE OF THE ENEMY! She should be court-martialed….

“When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, naturally they will favor the strong horse.”—-Osama bin Laden. Yes, they will. We are doomed, doomed.

I rather doubt that famous battle for the hearts and minds is going all that well.

A good piece on the strange revenant relevance of socialism:

And this leads to the question I want to address, namely, Why isn’t socialism dead?

The Peruvian economist, Hernando de Soto, has argued in his book, The Mystery of Capital, that the failure of the various socialist experiments of the twentieth century has left mankind with only one rational choice about which economic system to go with, namely, capitalism. Socialism, he maintained, has been so discredited that any further attempt to revive it would be sheer irrationality. But if this is the case, which I personally think it is, then why are we witnessing what certainly appears to be a revival of socialist rhetoric and even socialist pseudo-solutions, such as the nationalization of foreign companies?

It is not only a flaw in economics, but most analysis of Man and human endeavor. Many economic formulations begin “assuming a perfectly rational market….” and then proceed into detailed and irrelevant conclusions.

Man is not a rational creature, he is a rationalizing one. This explains a whole host of seeming irrationalities such as why conservative women will vote for Hillary Clinton, why people pay $495 for Microsoft Office, why men date foreigners without green cards, why women who want to get married and have children go to law school and why parents go into debt to send their child to get a Sociology degree.

It also explodes the atheist’s argument against the reality of Man’s free will given by God. Who would knowingly choose Hell? is a question often asked, ignoring the copious evidence set before us every single day by millions of people putting themselves through Hell on Earth.

Socialism will survive its many proven absurdities as long as there is a single fat man on the planet who, when faced with a choice between a candy bar and a piece of jerky, picks up the candy bar.

Jonah Goldberg appears to be waking up to it. Will Hugh Hewitt be next?

When you stand on a clear principle, clearly expressed and understood, you get credit even from those who disagree with you. And to be fair to Bush, he has stuck to principle in defiance of the prevailing winds of opinion on a host of issues. But when it comes to a vast swath of domestic policy, there seems to be no principled boundaries to his thinking. Much like Nixon and other presidents in the Progressive tradition, public policy is driven by pragmatism and do-gooderism rather than classically liberal principles about the role of the state.

I didn’t give Bush credit for his Social Security plan — in part because it failed so miserably, alas. But that plan when put alongside his Medicare plan certainly demonstrates that there is no binding set of rules which govern Bush’s approach to domestic affairs. This creates a trap unique to conservative presidents. If you refuse to “help” the poor with Plan A, but you have no objection to a similarly statist Plan B, critics and friends alike have to look to something other than philosophy to explain your support. Critics will opt towards explanations of cronyism, corruption and hard-heartedness. Friends, over time, will assume political expediency.

Of course, that one principle Dear Jorge has stuck to is his loyalty to transnational globalism. Conservatives should have known he would sell them out at the first opportunity. Perhaps it will make conservatives feel better to look at it this way, they didn’t have much say in governance for the last eight years, but at least they’ll get to bear the blame for them as the country gets handed over to an even more left-wing set.

This demonstrates why it was the height of idiocy for conservatives to rush to embrace a man who was manifestly never one of them. It’s bad enough to be damned for something you did, but it’s even worse to be damned for something you didn’t do.

That this is happening can be seen in the piece to which Goldberg was, in part, responding: “Notwithstanding the fact that the Bush administration has violated every tenet of this strain of conservatism for the last five years, conservatives will not be permitted to distance themselves from this administration — as they are transparently and pitifully trying to do now that Bush’s presidency is failed and is dying a rapid death (see e.g., this characteristically dishonest attempt by Jonah Goldberg to characterize the two failed Republican Presidents – Nixon and Bush – as “liberals” in order to imply that their failure is not a failure of conservatives; funny how we never heard any of that when The Commander had approval ratings in the 60s’. With rare and noble exception, conservatives did not repudiate Bush until very recently. To the contrary, they have vigorously supported and claimed him (while he was popular), and he is their creation. They are and should be stuck with him.

And the critic – Glenn Greenwald – has a point. For all that Jonah points out a few criticisms that have been made of the Bush administration by National Review, (and from my perspective, only Ponnuru’s have been consistent and substantive), it’s telling to note that even now, Goldberg refuses to repudiate Bush or deem his presidency a failure.

That being said, I see nothing dishonest about what Goldberg is writing either. While he’s apparently caught between conservative principles and the seductive appeal of pragmatically embracing the realities of power, he has never been a mindless Bush cheerleader like a number of his NRO colleagues and has been rightfully suspicious of both compassionate conservativism and its crunchy variant from the start.

Is El Norte Taqueria still there? It was just a hole in the wall next to a bar some fifteen years ago and I was just wondering if it was still around and if they still made those enormous burritos.

Man, those were good. I’ve eaten plenty of good Mexican food, but that place was tops.

the Lizard Queen will win:

The shocking conclusion of the conservative NEW YORK POST columnist [Jon Podhoretz]:

* “The qualities that made Hillary Clinton such a problematic presidential spouse may also make her just the kind of woman people feel they can trust with the presidency. Namely, she has created an image of herself as unfeminine, an image that connects her to the successful female chief executives in other countries” like Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi and Margaret Thatcher.

*She’s right for the job because the first female president “must not seem overemotional, or flighty, or guided by intuition rather than reason. She must not seem demure or delicate, nor can she seem brassy and sassy. She must not appear to be in a girlish quest of a strong man to help make things right. Above all, she must not seek to excuse any flaws in her conduct by suggesting that they are due to her being a woman—from the natural excuse, like a hormone rush jangling her emotions, to a political excuse, like an unjust society that won’t give the XX chromosome an even break. Just for vulgarity’s sake, let me put it this way: She’s got to be a bitch. And Hillary is a bitch. Her challenge will be to play up her antifeminine qualities without being completely without charm and appeal.”

*Being “widely disliked,” even by many Democrats, will actually help Hillary. “She gains from displaying her hard edge, her cold quality, to neutralize whatever negatives there might be as a result of her gender….The word you’ll hear most often from Hillary defenders and sycophants will be steely.”

To use a sports analogy, the team that wants it more will usually win. And no one wants it more than Hillary Clinton. Optimistic Republicans hope that the Democratic Left will rise up against her moderate positioning, but they forget that the Left completely understands the necessity to lie and that Hillary’s track record of tacking hard left at every opportunity is solid.

There simply isn’t anyone else out there. In addition to the ongoing Republican meltdown and the way in which unelectables such as McCain, Giuliani and Rice are pushed forward, many Republican women will vote for Hillary Clinton simply because she is female.

Never, ever underestimate the tendency of women to embrace their own, even in situations when it is manifestly against their beliefs and personal interests. Notice how quiet the Lizard Queen has been lately. This is a precaution in the event of poor Democratic showings in the fall election, in which case she will present herself as the party’s savior. If the Democrats do well, she will attempt to ride that tide to office by presenting herself as the foremost Democrat in the land.

Heads I win, tails you lose is how she has always played the game.

This is amusing:

Those dumb feminists! At least they don’t believe japanese and chinese sprinters are as fast as….
Claire
05.03.06 – 4:04 pm
IP: 66.199.207.13

Ah, I see you get banned if you ridicule the idiot spacedbunny for her ridiculous japanese sprinter comments! The whole of blogland is laughing at you, Vox.
Kim
05.03.06 – 4:07 pm
IP: 66.199.207.13

Maybe they should start drafting some Japanese running backs – ha. Your wife is getting famous (infamous)
Jimbo
05.03.06 – 4:43 pm
IP: 66.199.207.13

So, not only does Qweerty suffer from reading comprehension problems – Spacebunny merely pointed out the IAAF world rankings that belied Qweerty’s baseless statement some months ago – but he is also obviously as clueless about 100m competition times as he is about IP addresses.

The whole of blogland is laughing, Qweerty/Kim/Claire/Jimbo? If so, you might want to consider the possibility that they are laughing at you.

It’s not the fact that he has an imaginary friend or two that is worrisome. It’s the fact that he has an imaginary girlfriend.

Lady Bracknell writes a lengthy and forthright screed against disabilism:

Start actively fighting for an end to disablism, and you will be knocked back more times than you are successful. You will have to fight the same battles over and over again. Your efforts will often be unappreciated not only by those with whom you are trying to negotiate, but even by some of those on whose behalf you are campaigning. But when it works – on those rare occasions when it actually works – I promise you that you’ll remember why you started doing it in the first place.

Word ’em up, sister. Why, I strike a blow against “treating disabled people in an unequal manner” every time I park my Porsche in a handicapped spot! It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside to know that I am making my own small contribution to society by fighting for equal rights for everyone.

Four NFL sources confirmed the Vikings decided late Monday to part ways with personnel director Fran Foley, a day after he presided over a draft that has been widely criticized for several risky moves in the second round. But according to the sources, Foley’s demise was more attributable to an exaggerated résumé — which he revised April 21 after admitting four embellishments of his early work history — and concerns about his management style.

The Vikings have been nothing but one disaster after another for the last two years. Tice should have been fired a year before he was finally let go, then Scott Linehan could have been promoted and the Vikes would likely retained Daunte and Randy. Instead, we’re back where we were in 1997, with Brad Johnson at quarterback and no Randy, except we don’t have Cris Carter or Jake Reed either.

And while I’m glad that they managed to grab Tavaris Jackson, whom Phil Simms held in high regard, I would have preferred that they trade up to grab Jay Cutler. Unfortunately, Mike Shanahan appears to be operating at a rather higher level than the Vikings current brain trust.

Caitlin Flanagan confesses her sin against the female fascists in Time:

I am a 44-year-old woman who grew up in Berkeley who has never once voted for a Republican, or crossed a picket line, or failed to send in a small check when the Doctors Without Borders envelope showed up. I believe that we should not have invaded Iraq, that we should have signed the Kyoto treaty, that the Starr Report was, in part, the result of a vast right-wing conspiracy. I believe that poverty is our most pressing issue and that we should be pouring money and energy into its eradication. I believe that allowing migrant women and children to die of thirst in American deserts is a moral transgression that will stain us forever.

But despite all that, there is apparently no room for me in the Democratic Party. In fact, I have spent much of the past week on a forced march to the G.O.P…..

Here’s why they’re after me: I have made a lifestyle choice that they can’t stand, and I’m not cowering in the closet because of it. I’m out, and I’m proud. I am a happy member of an exceedingly “traditional” family. I’m in charge of the house and the kids, my husband is in charge of the finances and the car maintenance, and we all go to church every Sunday.

Of course, this also explains why the Republicans are moving left as well. The good news is they can theoretically embrace a numerical majority of the voting populace. The bad news is that they are no longer a right-wing party.

It is something for young feminist college girls to consider, in the unlikely event that they ever bothers to question their beliefs. If those who have instilled equalitarian beliefs in young women are so viciously opposed to traditional morality, marriage and children, is adherence to those beliefs more likely or less likely to allow those women to live lives that are compatible with the three?

The Baseball Savant refuses to limit himself to MLB:

To say that the USA didn’t medal is an indictment of something is preposterous. You are talking about a US team that didn’t feature Shaquille O’Neal, Kevin Garnett, Jason Kidd, Vince Carter, Elton Brand, Jermaine O’Neal, Ron Artest, Vince Carter, Richard Hamilton, Gilbert Arenus, Rasheed Wallace, Chauncey Billups or Tracy McGrady. To say the 2004 Olympic Team is a representation of USA Basketball is insane at the highest level. Not only that, but you also have to factor in the notion that this team was made up primarily of players coming out of the NBA season that practiced a week before the season against foreign teams playing with each other forever is nuts.

The European players that made it to the NBA are great no doubt, but would you take Yao over Shaq? [Vox – No] Dirk over Tim or Kevin? [Yes, right now] Nash over Kidd? [No] Diaw over Vinsanity? [Seven days a week and twice on TNT] I’m not saying the US shouldn’t have won the Gold Medal. They should have, but making a blanket statement about the NBA is nuts.

I think when the Dream Team 1 featured guys like Bird, Jordan, Magic, Malone, Stockton, etc. we showed the world just how amazing our basketball can be. To say that a team full of American guys couldn’t medal, while true in fact, is nuts.

It’s like saying Trent Dilfer is better than Peyton Manning because he’s wearing a ring.

First, I didn’t say they couldn’t medal, I said they DIDN’T medal, which was an obvious mistake since they took the bronze. (I was thinking of the 2002 World Championships when they finished sixth.) To argue that Shaq, KG and Kidd weren’t at the Olympics is somewhat disingenous, considering that Tim Duncan, AI, Shaun Marion, Lebron, Carmelo, Dwayne Wade and Carmelo were all there. Considering that neither Kidd nor KG have won anything in the NBA and that Shaq commits an offensive foul every time he touches the ball, I don’t think it’s possible to argue that the USA has maintained the basketball supremacy it once possessed.

Basketball is a team game, but the NBA variant is more of a two-man game. The Detroit Pistons have demonstrated that the team concept can still work there, but it’s interesting to note that they have had success without the Superstar+1 format that has been considered necessary since the end of the Bird-Magic era and with a team comprised mostly of cast-offs from other teams. Two of those Pistons you mentioned above weren’t even invited to join that Olympic squad because they weren’t considered good enough.

There is every indication that merely collecting the best players is no way to build a team. Real Madrid tried that with its galacticos strategy, but despite having half of the FIFA European Footballers of the Year of the last decade playing for them – Zidane, Figo, Beckham, Ronaldo, Owen – they’ve only won two of the last eight La Liga titles.

Sure, there were other problems, such as Larry Brown being spectacularly ill-suited to coach a team of favorites, especially a team with three young stars-in-the-making. But to deny that nations such as Argentina, Lithuania and Italy have made serious steps towards catching up with the USA in basketball is as silly as those Europeans who still think of the US national team as an easy opponent in the World Cup.

(That being said, Italy, Ghana and the Czech Republic is a tough, tough draw. Group A or Group B would have much easier, especially now that Wayne Rooney is out.)