Politics

James Lileks writes in today’s Bleat about a recent Kerry supporter that came by asking for his vote:

“Well, it’s a philosophical difference,” she sniffed. She had pegged me as a form of life last seen clilcking the leash off a dog at Abu Ghraib. “I think the money should have gone straight to those people instead of trickling down.” Those last two words were said with an edge.

“But then I wouldn’t have hired them,” I said. “I wouldn’t have new steps. And they wouldn’t have done anything to get the money.”

“Well, what did you do?” she snapped.

“What do you mean?”

“Why should the government have given you the money in the first place?”

“They didn’t give it to me. They just took less of my money.”

That was the last straw. Now she was angry. And the truth came out:

“Well, why is it your money? I think it should be their money.”

Then she left.

And here we see one of the issues that I simply don’t like about the loyal opposition – the concept of whose money we’re talking about here.

It’s my money. And I want to keep it. I don’t get to keep enough of it as it is.

This morning, Ron Bell writes in “A Cry Heard Round the World“:

All this the world saw in Kim Sun-Il’s plight—and more.

It saw that the defense of freedom demands personal sacrifice, while the defense of despotism demands a sacrificial lamb.

It saw that zealotry requires conviction for a cause, while democracy requires just cause for a conviction.

It saw that free men protect ideas they hate, while terrorists hate the idea of free men.

It saw that those who do not value their own lives never respect the lives of others.

True, Kim Sun-Il died desperate and alone, but he did not die unheard.

His appeal for freedom resounded around the world.

And the world will not soon forget what it stands for.

I will not forget….

When I went to bed around 12:15am this morning, Iraq was an occupied nation, under the control of a group of occupying powers, led by the United States.

When I woke up this morning, Iraq was a free and sovereign nation, and coalition forces because an invited foreign army that could be ordered to go home.

And all done two days early – I’m sure the terrorists.. err.. insurgents.. are kicking themselves this morning.

In yesterday’s New York Times, David Brooks writes of Michael Moore:

Like Hemingway, Moore does his boldest thinking while abroad. For example, it was during an interview with the British paper The Mirror that Moore unfurled what is perhaps the central insight of his oeuvre, that Americans are kind of crappy.

“They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet . . . in thrall to conniving, thieving smug [pieces of the human anatomy],” Moore intoned. “We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don’t know about anything that’s happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing.”

It transpires that Europeans are quite excited to hear this supple description of the American mind. And Moore has been kind enough to crisscross the continent, speaking to packed lecture halls, explicating the general vapidity and crassness of his countrymen. “That’s why we’re smiling all the time,” he told a rapturous throng in Munich. “You can see us coming down the street. You know, `Hey! Hi! How’s it going?’ We’ve got that big [expletive] grin on our face all the time because our brains aren’t loaded down.”

Naturally, the people from the continent that brought us Descartes, Kant and Goethe are fascinated by these insights. Moore’s books have sold faster there than at home. No American intellectual is taken so seriously in Europe, save perhaps the great Chomsky.

And this is the guy that the left expects to help lead them to victory over the Republicans this fall?

Today’s Boston Globe has a story about Harvard Professor Roger Porter’s allegation that Clinton made up a story about him in his book My Life:

Porter is aghast at Clinton’s allegation. “It’s not true,” said Porter, a professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. “There was no such phone call.”

Porter said that he had only one conversation about the presidency with Clinton. It occurred in 1989, when Clinton was Arkansas governor and the two men discussed education policy. Porter said he told Clinton that he was more moderate than other Democrats and should consider changing his political affiliation to Republican.

Porter said he cannot fathom why Clinton tells the tale. The two talked briefly at the unveiling at Clinton’s portrait at the White House last week, but the subject didn’t come up because the book had not yet been made public. Clinton and his staff could not be reached for comment. Porter, the author of “Presidential Decision Making,” said in the telephone interview yesterday that he is dumbfounded by Clinton’s allegation. “I don’t know why he would make this story up,” Porter said.

Why should one be suprised? We’re talking about Bill Clinton here.

Robert Alt has written The Liberal’s Creed. Some excerpts:

We believe that soldiers deliberately target women and children;
We believe that the soldiers abuse and kill Iraqis because they are racists;
We support our troops.

We believe that no one should question our statement that we “support our troops;”
We believe that the best thing that could happen for this country would be for Bush to lose in November;
We believe that the best way for Bush to lose in November is for the Iraq effort to go poorly, even if that means that more Iraqis and troops will die;
We believe that most of the troops are minorities and the poor;
We believe that when the word “heroes” is used to describe our troops, it should always be enclosed in scare quotes.

We believe in quagmire.
We believe that when fringe Iraqi groups attack hard targets and are soundly defeated with relatively low Coalition casualties, that this is inescapable evidence of crisis;
We believe that Iraq is Bush’s Vietnam.

We believe that Vietnam is the lens through which all wars should be viewed.
We believe that soldiers in Vietnam were baby killers;
We believe that John Kerry is a hero for his service in Vietnam.

We believe that because John Kerry is a hero, he necessarily has the national security expertise necessary to be commander-in-chief.
We believe that any attempt to question his national security expertise based on his voting record, including his decision to vote against a supplemental bill used to buy the soldiers body armor, is an unfair attack on the patriotism of a hero, who by virtue of this honorific has the expertise to be commander-in-chief.

Reminds me of those repetitive conversations with protesters in the streets of Boston.

Enjoy!