Tag: politics

Liberal integrity

Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk desperately tries to cover his backside after the St. Louis Post-Dispatch admitted that it has no evidence that Rush Limbaugh ever made the “divisive” comments that caused him to be dropped from the ownership group bidding for the Rams.

“When posting on the matter on Monday, we made it clear that Limbaugh contends he never said the words.”

That’s Florio’s story now. But that’s also a very misleading characterization of his earlier post on the matter, to say nothing of the intervening posts made in the five days between Monday and Saturday:

During his Monday show, Limbaugh broadly claimed that 15 hours per week of radio programming covering 21 years had been reviewed. (It’s a job that would take more than 16,000 hours, so he apparently has a bunch of employees.) Said Limbaugh, “There is not even an inkling that any words in this quote are accurate.”

But here’s the key — he never directly denied saying the precise words that Burwell assigned to him. Sure, Limbaugh made vague claims of libel and slander, but there should be no ambiguity here. If Burwell attributed a concocted, made up quote to Limbaugh, Limbaugh’s lawyers should be demanding a retraction and a large bag of cash.

Though I’ve got no idea whether Limbaugh said it, Burwell says that Limbaugh said it. And if Limbaugh didn’t say it, he’s got an open-and-shut defamation claim against Burwell, the Post-Dispatch, and anyone else who has attributed that quote to Limbaugh….

Look, either he said it or he didn’t. And in referring to an item from the Post-Dispatch that troubled him because it suggested that he supports slavery, all Limbaugh had to do was read the quote that Bryan Burwell attributed to Limbaugh and say, “Folks, here are the words they say that I said. And I swear to you that I never uttered these words.”

The fact that Limbaugh didn’t do that makes us think that maybe he said it. And we’ll continue to think that maybe Limbaugh said it until Limbaugh either specifically and categorically denies making the remark or successfully sues Burwell and the Post-Dispatch for falsely claiming that Limbaugh made a statement that any fair-minded person would regard as incredibly and patently racist.

I like Pro Football Talk. It’s a good NFL-related site. But, like many of its readers, its ludicrously biased coverage of the affaire Limbaugh has forced me to concur with many other PFT readers who have concluded that its proprietor appears to have the integrity of a player’s agent and the spine of a sea slug. Everyone who knew anything about Limbaugh and the way the left obsessively tracks his show knew there was no chance that he had said anything even remotely similar to what was falsely attributed to him. Read the comments, as it’s obvious that a lot of PFT readers are not inclined to let Florio skate by on this one.

The man owes Limbaugh an unmitigated apology as does the NFL commissioner, Smith from the NFLPA, and a whole host of other media lefties who mindlessly leaped to the attack and in doing so shredded their false claims to objectivity. I rather hope Rush does as Florio originally suggested and follows through in suing those who slandered him.

Rush is right

It’s not actually about the NFL:

As I explained on my radio show, this spectacle is bigger than I am on several levels. There is a contempt in the news business, including the sportswriter community, for conservatives that reflects the blind hatred espoused by Messrs. Sharpton and Jackson. “Racism” is too often their sledgehammer. And it is being used to try to keep citizens who don’t share the left’s agenda from participating in the full array of opportunities this nation otherwise affords each of us. It was on display many years ago in an effort to smear Clarence Thomas with racist stereotypes and keep him off the Supreme Court. More recently, it was employed against patriotic citizens who attended town-hall meetings and tea-party protests.

These intimidation tactics are working and spreading, and they are a cancer on our society.

In the last two years I’ve been subjected to one successful and one unsuccessful attempt to bar me from an opportunity based solely upon my ideological beliefs, which is ironic considering that I am more often in the gatekeeper’s position than I am in the position of one attempting to pass through the gate. As an occasional acquisitions consultant for two publishers, I’ve shot down 10x more book proposals in the last three years than I ever proposed in the entire course of my writing career, let alone had rejected.

My question to those who think it is correct to bar the likes of Rush Limbaugh or me from various opportunities on the basis of our ideological beliefs is this: is it correct for us to bar those who possess ideological beliefs with which we disagree from opportunities that we control? Because if those are the new rules, I don’t have any problem playing that game.

Occam’s Razor is correct here

The reason Obama hasn’t looked that smart since taking office is because he isn’t:

Are you tired of hearing how “smart” Barack Obama is? I reached my limit over the summer, when The New York Times Magazine quoted Valerie Jarrett, the president’s liaison to Chicago City Hall, declaring, “I mean, he’s really by far smarter than anybody I know.”

Well, as any Chicago schoolboy knows, there are many different kinds of smart. And right now our commander-in-chief is not looking particularly brilliant— at least on the level of substantive politics.

As I said before the election, Obama is far from the genius he is often portrayed as being. There is an absolute ceiling on his IQ of 130, based on his attendance at a high school where students took the PSAT and his failure to achieve any National Merit recognition. I estimate his IQ to be around 116, which is one standard deviation above average, but two standard deviations short of the level loosely described as a genius-level intelligence. (I don’t agree with that definition, by the way; I think genius is far more rare than +3 SD IQs and I think IQ is only one component of genius.)

Intelligence is overrated anyhow. It’s an important factor in accomplishment, but it is by no means the most important one. Focus, determination, connections, and ambition are all more important components of achievement and it’s interesting to contemplate where Obama is probably most gifted considering his relative lack of intelligence.

NFL ownership follies

Forget NBC, Mike Florio appears to be ready for his cameo on MSNBC. Here he attempts to float the idea that Limbaugh scrubbed his transcripts:

And regardless of the debate over whether Limbaugh did or didn’t say things that have been attributed to him but that, as Limbaugh claims, don’t show up in the Limbaugh-generated tapes and transcripts of his show (in this regard, most lawyers know of at least one judges who is very adept at ensuring the official record of in-court statements never includes potentially embarrasing or controversial commens from the man or woman in black), it’s not what he has said in the past that should scare the owners — it’s what he might say in the future.

Right, one of the most popular broadcasters in the world somehow managed to eliminate every recording in which he uttered inflammatory words. This is ludicrous.

The entire episode has been interesting in that it highlights the difference between the toadying sort of individuals whose success stems from successfully crawling their way up the employee ladder versus entrepeneurs who actually create their own success. It’s no surprise that the doorknob chosen by the NFL players would flap his lips on a subject that is none of his business, but Roger Goodell, who is showing more and more signs of being a terrible NFL commissioner, should have known better than to even think about commenting on the prospective ownership of any NFL franchise.

When one considers that the Dolphins are giving away small ownership slices to former methheads in the name of diversity, it’s absurd to that one of America’s most successful businessmen should be preemptively shot down on the off chance that he is foolish enough to invest in what is nothing but a vanity investment in the first place. If the economy goes the way I expect it to, in the not-too-distant future the same people who are presently pontificating on why Limbaugh shouldn’t be permitted to buy an NFL team will be desperately seeking bids from Russian gangsters and Colombian drug lords like the NBA is already doing.

It was amusing to see Peter King lumbering about in attempting to dance around the NFL’s affiliation with Keith Olbermann, who is far more extreme and far less popular than Rush Limbaugh. With classic left-liberal illogic, he declares that it’s just fine for a league-employed commentator to be a political flamethrower who offends millions, but that the league would be damaged if he were to be an owner. This makes no sense, since the league-employed commentator is much more in the face of the public he is offending, but then, that’s par for King’s analytical abilities.

My attitude is that turnabout is fair play. If the Left can do play business thought police, so can the Right, and I’d love to see those owners, whose politics are far more similar to Limbaugh’s than Olbermann’s, take Goodell and every other league employee who was dumb enough to advocate thought-policing to task.

Shut up, she pleaded

Peggy Noonan is more concerned about fraternizing politely with the internal enemy than she is with the fate of the country:

I was once in a small joust with Roger Ailes about violence on television. I was worried about it. He responded, I paraphrase: But there’s comedy all over TV, and I don’t see people breaking out in jokes and laughter on the streets. True, I said, but depictions of violence are different. Violent images excite the unstable. Violent words do, too. This is why, I think, so many people—I include, literally, every person I know, from all walks of life, and all ages—are worried that our elected leaders are not safe, that this overheated era will end in some violent act or acts. Stop reading this and ask whoever’s nearby, “Do you find yourself worrying about President Obama’s safety?” I do not think you are going to get, “No.”

Some conservatives feel umbrage when this is said. “The left equates criticism with violence in order to squelch dissent.” In some cases that of course will be true. But this isn’t debate, it’s more like incitement. And it comes from both right and left. Democracy cannot healthily endure without free and unfettered debate. It’s our job to watch, critique and question, and, being us, to do it in colorful terms. But knowing where the line is, matters. Seeing clearly the lay of the land, knowing the facts of the country and your countrymen, matters.

Which gets us back to Safire and Cronkite and Novak and the rest. They knew where the line was. They were tough guys who got in big fights, but they had a sense of responsibility towards the country, and towards its culture. They, actually, were protective toward it. They made mistakes, but they were solid.

This is an astounding glimpse into the mind of a Washington conservative, which is to say someone who is nothing more than a left-wing accomodationist. The Washington elite actually thinks that the average American gives a damn about the lives of their elected officials, when I’ll bet that not more than a third would even bother to piss on them if they were on fire. And another third would spray gasoline instead. Like many Americans, I regret that AGW/CC is a sham, as I think the nation would be much better off with Washington and New York City deep underwater.

And citing Cronkite as some sort of defender of the country is monstrously false, considering that the man was a strong advocate of ending American sovereignty in favor of global dictatorship. I don’t know if Noonan is poorly informed or a sell-out, but either way, her call for national unity and etiquette merits nothing but a pair of silent, but eloquent fingers.

Too freaking funny

What on Earth can the Nobel committee possibly be thinking? The man hasn’t even closed Guantanamo Bay or ended either of the two military occupations he promised to end!

OSLO/WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for offering the world hope and striving for nuclear disarmament in a surprise award that drew both warm praise and sharp criticism. The bestowal of one of the world’s top accolades on a president less than nine months in office, who has yet to score a major foreign policy success, was greeted with gasps of astonishment from journalists at the announcement in Oslo.

As I said, this administration is seriously outperforming its comedic potential. I wonder what their rationale for it will be… for excellence in presidenting while black? First Arafat, then Krugman, now Obama. At this rate, it won’t be long before they’ll be giving out Nobel Prizes en masse to minority kids who manage to graduate from public high school.

But at least this teaches us one thing. As Parrothead Al suggested, JaMarcus Russell has got to be a shoe-in for NFL MVP now. And it may even lay the foundation for a unique opportunity in political governance! If the Eurofascists manage to finish ramming the European ConstitutionLisbon Treaty down the throats of the Europeans who didn’t vote for it sometime in the next three years, the European Commission could then select Obama to be the President of the European Union as well as the United States.

WND strikes again

Color me very impressed. Last year, Jack Cashill’s textual analysis of Dreams From My Father, Obama’s purported autobiography, led him to conclude it was written by Bill Ayers. Last week, a new Obama biography by Christopher Anderson appeared to support that claim, and now Bill Ayers reportedly confirmed it to Ann Leary of Back Yard Conservative.

“That’s what I do, education,” he said. “You shouldn’t believe everything you hear about me… You know nothing about me.”

To which she responded, “I said, I know plenty–I’m from Chicago, a conservative blogger, and I’ll post this.”

I bet his heart skipped a beat on that one.

But he didn’t scowl, and didn’t run off as he has been known to do. Instead, unprompted, he blurted out: “I wrote ‘Dreams From My Father… Michelle asked me to.” Then he added “And if you can prove it we can split the royalties.”

Anne responded, “Stop pulling my leg!”

But he repeated insistently, “I wrote it, the wording was similar [to Ayers’ other writing.]”

Anne responded, “I believe you probably heavily edited it.”

Ayers stated firmly, “I wrote it.”

Anne ended the conversation by saying “why would I believe you? You’re a liar.”

I don’t know if Ayers wrote it or not, but I’m entirely confident that Obama didn’t. Very few politicians and public figures write their own books, and Obama is far too much of an empty suit to have written the two that have his name on them. The only thing that’s credible about it is the narcissism involved in “writing” two autobiographies when he hadn’t accomplished a damn thing.

George Will slaps around the Obamas

And he does so with all the deep contempt of a genuine wordsmith for a cheap charlatan:

In the Niagara of words spoken and written about the Obamas’ trip to Copenhagen, too few have been devoted to the words they spoke there. Their separate speeches to the International Olympic Committee were so dreadful, and in such a characteristic way, that they might be symptomatic of something that has serious implications for American governance.

Both Obamas gave heartfelt speeches about . . . themselves. Although the working of the committee’s mind is murky, it could reasonably have rejected Chicago’s bid for the 2016 Games on aesthetic grounds — unless narcissism has suddenly become an Olympic sport.

What is going to do Obama in is not the fact that his political ideology is evil, though it is, or that his economic ideology is hopeless, though it is too. It’s not the disinterest in all things martial. It’s not even the widespread doubts about his legitimacy that most threaten him. The reason that the American people who previously adored him are beginning to turn on him is that the man has repeatedly shown himself to be a very unpresidential pretentious ass.

I always thought the man was a lightweight laughingstock and very much appreciate the way in which his administration is actually managing to outperform its comedic potential. By the end of his first – and likely, only – term, I expect a majority of the American people will agree with me.

Umberto Eco on the end of democracy

Big Chilly once told me that he greatly respected how I often use my
public platform for mysterious and seemingly nonsensical purposes. In
that light, it gives me great pleasure to present more of that for which
no one is asking, a translation of an article by Umberto Eco which
appeared on June 25th in L’espresso: Apparire piu come essere.
 

To appear more than to be

Sixty-four years before Christ, Marcus Tullius Cicero, already a
celebrated orator but the epitome of a New Man, estranged from the
nobility, decided to declare himself a candidate for Consul. His
brother, Quintus Tullius, wrote for him a manual in which he was
instructed how to make an impression. In the front of the current
Italian edition, (Manuele del candidato – Istruzioni per vincere le elezioni, editore Manni, 8 euros),
are comments by Luca Canali, in which he lucidly describes the
histoical circumstances and the personalities of that campaign. Furio
Colombo writes the introduction, with a reflective essay on the First
Republic.

In fact, there are many similarities between our Second Republic and
this Roman Republic, in the virtues, (very small), as well as the
defects. The example of Rome, over the course of more than two
millenia, has continued to hold much influence on many successive
visions of the State. As Colombo records, the antique model of the
Roman Republic inspired the authors of the Federalist Papers, which
delineated the fundamental lines of the American Constitution. They saw
in Rome, more than in Athens, the example of what was truly a democracy
of the people. In their pragmatic realism, the neocons around Bush
were inspired by the image of imperial Rome and many of their actual
political discussions gave recourse to the idea of an empire, that of a
“Pax Americana” which makes explicit reference to the ideology of the
“Pax Romana”.

I must note that the image of electoral competition that emerges in
the 20 pages of Quintus is of extremely small virtue compared to that
which had inspired the federalists of the 18th century. Quintus does
not seem to even consider the possibility of a political man who boldly
confronts the electorate in the face of dissent with a courageous
project, with the hope of conquering the voters on the powerful strength
of a utopian idea. As Canali also notes, totally absent from these
pages is any notion of debating ideas; instead, there is recommendation
to never expose oneself on any political issue, so as to avoid making
enemies. The candidate envisioned by Quintus must only be sure to
appear fascinating, doing favors and other self-promotion, never saying
no to anyone but leaving everyone with the impression he will do what
they want. The memory of the electorate is short, and before long they
will forget old promises….

At the end of the letter we ask: but is democracy truly only this, a
form of conquering the public favor that is founded on nothing but
appearances and a strategy of deceit? It is certainly so, and it cannot
be differently if this system, (which, as Churchill said, is imperfect,
but is less imperfect than all the others), allows one to arrive at
power only through consensus and not through force and violence. But we
must not forget that these instructions for a political campaign were
written at moment when Roman democracy was already in crisis.

It was not long after when Caesar definitively took power with the
assistance of his legions, and with his life Marcus Tullius paid the
passage from a regime founded on consensus to a regime founded on the
fist of the State. But one cannot avoid the thought that Roman
democracy had begun to die when its politicians understood that they no
longer had to be serious about their policies but had only to engineer
the obtaining of the sympathies of those we might well call television
viewers.

This demonstrates that there is truly nothing new under the sun. In
our modern arrogance, we believe that we are different, that our
pseudo-democracy, (as false in every way to the democratic ideal as was
its Roman predecessor), is a light illuminating all mankind. Quintus
Tullius might easily have been Dick Morris or Karl Rove, advising
hollow-suited frauds such as Bill Clinton and George Bush.

The laws of history are not as easily discerned as the laws of
physics, but they are every bit as inexorable. Eco gives us one more
reason to believe that we are living in the last days of the American
Republic.