— Joshua Franklin (@thejoshpit) October 30, 2014
Heh, indeed.™ (Via Twitchy.)
“No one knows what’s going to happen next week, never mind Nov. 4, Peggy Noonan wrote this past Friday. “But it is increasingly reasonable to believe what a grizzled journalistic veteran of the campaign trail said last week in conversation. The election will be a wave for Republicans; the only question is whether it will be a big one or a small one:”
On Nov. 5, Mr. Obama will have to say something that shows he gets it. That shows without saying that he’s humbled, that he isn’t living in a bubble.
Here’s the problem. The qualities required of such a statement—humility, self-awareness, sensitivity to the public mood—are sort of the opposite of what the president brings to the table.
His people are going to have to figure this out.
Republicans in 2006 lost the House and Senate. In a news conference just before 7 p.m. the next day, President George W. Bush said: “Look, this is a close election. If you look at race by race, it was close. The cumulative effect, however, was not too close. It was a thumpin’.” That did the trick, declaring the obvious with an air of chagrin, admitting he’d been wounded, and acknowledging that politics at bottom is combat.
Democrats in 1994 took an even worse pounding. Republicans not only won the Senate and House but did so on the Contract With America. President Clinton responded the next day with a nearly perfect statement: “We were held accountable . . . and I accept my share of responsibility in the result.” He said of the voters’ message: “I got it.” He acknowledged the election had real political meaning, saying the people “still believe government is more often the problem than the solution.” The voters backed “sweeping changes.” He then made a mistake in seeming to claim his election in 1992 was part of the change, and 1994 just a continuation of its spirit. But he backed off under questioning and reporters didn’t press the matter.
What would an Obama White House meeting on What the President Should Say sound like?
Good luck with that; Obama’s horrid and historically illiterate young speechwriters have little to show for their efforts, and as Obama himself has said, “I think I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters. I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m gonna think I’m a better political director than my political director.” But while Obama may have disdain for his inner circle, his hatred of everyone to his right, Republicans and moderate blue collar Democrats alike has been the stuff of legend since 2008.
All of which is a reminder that Republicans should work extra hard over the next week to ensure that at a barely restrained fury is on display from the semi-retired president — and Harry Reid, of course — next Wednesday.
“Regardless of your feelings toward Jimmy Carter, I think we can all agree that his finest act as president was the creation of National CB Radio day. Carter designated October 4, 10/4, as a day to honor the citizens band,” Road and Track notes.
CB radio was hated by elites back in its faddish heyday, of course. Near the end of his mammoth (22,000 words!), otherwise beautifully-written profile of Johnny Carson for the New Yorker in 1978, Kenneth Tynan noted that while Carson was glad millions of America tuned in every night to make him exceedingly wealthy in the limited mass media era of only three national commercial TV channels, he loathed the idea that just anybody could have access to the airwaves as well. And of course, the man writing his profile for the New Yorker* concurred entirely:
Before I go, Carson takes me down to a small gymnasium beneath the module. It is filled with gleaming steel devices, pulleys and springs and counterweights, which, together with tennis, keep the star’s body trim. In one corner stands a drum kit at which Buddy Rich might cast an envious eye. “That’s where I work off my hostilities,” Carson explains. He escorts me to my car, and notices that it is fitted with a citizens-band radio. “I had one of those damned things, but I ripped it out after a couple of weeks,” he says. “I just couldn’t bear it—all those sick anonymous maniacs shooting off their mouths.”
I understand what he means. Most of what you hear on CB radio is either tedious (truck drivers warning one another about speed traps) or banal (schoolgirls exchanging notes on homework), but at its occasional—and illegal—worst it sinks a pipeline to the depths of the American unconscious. Your ears are assaulted by the sound of racism at its most rampant, and by masturbation fantasies that are the aural equivalent of rape. The sleep of reason, to quote Goya’s phrase, brings forth monsters, and the anonymity of CB encourages the monsters to emerge. Not often, of course; but when they do, CB radio becomes the dark underside of a TV talk show. No wonder Carson loathes it.
As Glenn Reynolds wrote back in 2003 at Tech Central Station (where I was also a regular contributor), Weblogs in their early days were often sneeringly compared to CB radio by elitist leftwing outlets such as Columbia Journalism School. Glenn added that while “Citizens’ Band radio gets a bum rap nowadays...CB was a revolution in its time, whose effects are still felt today:”
Before Citizens’ Band was created, you needed a license to be on the air, with almost no exceptions. Radio was seen as Serious Technology For Serious People, nothing for normal folks to fool around with, at least not without government approval. Citizens’ Band put an end to that, not by regulatory design but by popular fiat. Originally, a license was required for Citizens’ Band, too, but masses of people simply broke the law and operated without a license until the FCC was forced to bow to reality. It was a form of mass civil disobedience that accomplished in its sphere what drug-legalization activists have never been able to accomplish in theirs. No small thing.
And it didn’t stop there. Citizens’ Band radio became popular because of widespread resistance to another example of regulatory overreach: the unpopular 55-mile-per-hour speed limit. Actually passed in 1974, but popularly identified with Jimmy Carter’s “moral equivalent of war,” speed limits were for the first time set not for reasons of safety, but for reasons of politics and social engineering. Americans rejected that approach in massive numbers, and entered into a state of more-or-less open rebellion. CB was valuable — as songs like Convoy! and movies like Smokey and the Bandit illustrated — because it allowed citizens to spontaneously organize against what they saw as illegitimate authority.
And it worked: the 55 mile per hour speed limit was repealed. That (plus the gradual introduction of cheap and effective radar detectors, which allowed citizens to watch for speed traps while still listening to their car stereos) gradually ended the Citizens Band revolution.
Well, sort of. Because like many fads, Citizens Band didn’t really go away. It just faded from view, and turned into something else.
CB played an inadvertent role in launching the early days of the online world as well. Even as the CB radio craze was fading from the headlines in 1980, CompuServe branded their first chat applications their “CB Simulator:”
CompuServe CB Simulator was the first dedicated online chat service that was widely available to the public. It was developed by a CompuServe executive, Alexander “Sandy” Trevor, and released by CompuServe in 1980.
At that time, most people were familiar with citizens band radio, often abbreviated as CB radio, but multi-user chat and instant messaging were largely unknown. CompuServe CB used the CB radio paradigm to help users understand the new concept. Like CB radio it had 40 “channels” and commands like “tune”, “squelch”, and “monitor.” CompuServe CB quickly became the largest single product on CompuServe despite virtually no marketing. When 40 channels was not enough, additional “bands” were added, such as the “Adult” band.
The first online wedding occurred on CompuServe CB, and worldwide fans organized events to meet in the “real world” people they had met in CB. Compuserve’s CBIG (CB Interest Group) Sysop Chris Dunn (ChrisDos) met his wife Pamela (Zebra3) there in the early 1980s, eventually being featured on the Phil Donahue Show. Later, enhancements to CompuServe CB were made to enable multiplayer games, digital pictures, multimedia, and large conferences. For example, Mick Jagger of the Rolling Stones held the first online multimedia conference using CompuServe CB from London on December 7, 1995.
Dubbing their chat program “CB” was a marketing masterstroke for CompuServe, as it made the applet both immediately understandable and it broadcast to the world that it was user-friendly, no small feat in an era where buying a first personal computer and getting online were both scary propositions for all but the most dedicated early adopters.
I know — I was connecting to CompuServe myself around 1982 and ’83 on my TRS-80 Model I and blazing fast 300 baud Hayes Smartmodem; I joined the online network largely because of the CB brand name, having been involved in CB as well a few years earlier.
The impact of CB radio on the culture was astonishingly deep considering how quickly it flamed out in the pop culture as a fad; it will be fun to look back around 2030 to see how the early Web culture of the late ’90s and early “naughts” plays out.
…Assuming the oceans haven’t “shut down” by then of course, as NBC, with Carson and his cool self-assurance having long left the building, is currently predicting.
*Then home for Pauline “I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theater I can feel them” Kael.
“James A. Traficant Jr., colorful Ohio congressman expelled by House, dies at 73,” the Washington Post reports:
[Traficant], an iconoclastic nine-term Ohio populist in the U.S. House of Representatives who was convicted on corruption charges in 2002, becoming the second member of Congress to be expelled since the Civil War, died Sept. 27 at a hosptial [sic] in Youngstown, Ohio. He was 73.
A family spokeswoman, Heidi Hanni, confirmed his death to reporters. The former congressman was injured in a tractor accident on his farm near Greenford, Ohio, on Tuesday. A former aide told reporters in Ohio that he apparently had a heart attack while driving the tractor, which overturned inside a building and left the former congressman trapped underneath.
Mr. Traficant, a maverick Democrat who found his own path politically and seemingly in everything else, was one of the most deliberately outrageous members of Congress in history. Glib and voluble, he was known for wearing cowboy boots, skinny ties and out-of-date polyester suits and for a bouffant mound of hair that seemed to defy gravity.
Reporters outdid themselves in trying to describe Mr. Traficant’s pompadour — and to determine whether it was real. In the words of the Los Angeles Times, it was a “Planet of the Apes sort of hair helmet” or, as Washingtonian magazine put it, “a creature from Lake Erie before it was cleaned up.”
As the Post goes on to note:
Mr. Traficant, who spent virtually his entire adult life working for the government in one capacity or another, often said he loved America but hated the government. He once admitted that an incendiary comment he made about the “political prostitutes” in Congress was out of line.
“I want to apologize,” he said, “to all the hookers of America for associating them with the United States Congress.”
Heh. The very definition of “a character,” Traficant, via his populist Congressional rants, which always ended with some variation of this phrase (I’m paraphrasing from here), “What kind of craziness is this? Beam me up, Mr. Speaker!”, became perhaps the only Democrat Rush Limbaugh could cotton to during the early days of his national radio show, which brought Traficant’s zaniness to a national audience. RIP.
If he were willing to look more critically at the left, the way he does at the right, Perlstein might give more weight to the visible bridge of Reagan’s stated views. By the mid-1970s, the failures of Great Society liberalism were evident: Despite some popular and meaningful accomplishments like Medicaid, the poorly thought-out War on Poverty was arguably doing more harm than good. Broken welfare and public housing systems were not liberating the urban poor, but trapping a new underclass in a new kind of poverty. Crime, bad schools, and the threat of busing were driving the middle class away from America’s cities. With a top marginal rate of 70 percent kicking in at just over $100,000 for individuals (or around $275,000 in adjusted terms), income taxes were both too high and, with as many as 25 brackets, gratuitously complex. Few people paid 70 percent, of course, but the pursuit of shelters and loopholes was creating pervasive distortion in economic behavior. Delegated regulatory authority empowered unaccountable bureaucrats not only to ignore the economic cost of greater safety, but to set prices for everything from airline tickets to long-distance phone calls. Liberal government had arrived at an impasse that an interest-group-dominated Democratic Party was unable to address.
In the international sphere, similarly, Reagan’s critique of Henry Kissinger’s amoral realpolitik and detente with the Soviet Union was far from preposterous or the worldview of a simpleton. The anger of both conservatives and anti-Communist liberals over Ford’s refusal to meet with Alexander Solzhenitsyn in the summer of 1975 was fully justified—even if they were ultimately proven wrong in their negative view of the Helsinki Accords. Perlstein’s understanding of Reagan is constrained by his tendency to see conservatives as either frightening wackos or cynical manipulators. The one thing he doesn’t do in his new book, infuriatingly, is take conservative political ideas—and, by extension, the people who voted for them—seriously.
An alternative thesis is the one Perlstein seemed to be framing up with his first, shorter, and better book: that the crucial bridge in modern Republican politics was the one leading from Barry Goldwater to Reagan. Nixon was the last important President of the New Deal Era, in the same way that Bill Clinton is best subsumed under the rubric of the Reagan Era. Constraining the federal government was not a significant component of Nixon’s political rhetoric, and he left it bigger, more expensive, and more powerful than he found it. Reagan did not ultimately reduce the size of the federal government in any meaningful sense, but he did diminish its scope and ambitions in ways that continue to resonate and define contemporary Republican politics.
Beyond the plagiarism charges circulating around Perlstein over this book raised initially by Craig Shirley, the conservative author of earlier works on Reagan that Perlstein, to say the least, apparently leaned on rather heavily, Orrin Judd had the best short critique of it. Dubbing him “The Accidental Hagiographer,” Orrin writes:
As you can see here, the premise of this volume is not only hilarious but inflates Ronald Reagan into a mythical hero far moreso than any of the fawning texts we on the right produce : the gnostic reality, known only to the Left, is that America is nothing special and, for one brief shining moment, in the 70s everyone was about to realize that, but Reagan, through the exercise of little more than his personal will, restores the delusion that America is more important than other states.If Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh had given Reagan that much credit for reshaping the world around himself, they’d be dismissed as overenthusiastic cultists. But Reagan looms so large in the mind of the Left that Friend Perlstein can’t see he’s gone far beyond any Reagan fanboy of the right in his claims for the greatness (let’s say we use the term in its value neutral sense) of the Gipper.
Of course, as great as the Gipper ultimately was (and his ghost is still living rent free in Obama’s addled mind) he couldn’t have done it without the left making a complete hash of America in the 1970s, as Weisberg notes above. To paraphrase an old line by P.J. O’Rourke, that’s the one and only reason we should always be grateful to Jimmy Carter.
(Via John Podhoretz.)
Peggy Noonan has a beautifully written encomium to the late Joan Rivers:
She was a Republican, always a surprising thing in show business, and in a New Yorker, but she was one because, as she would tell you, she worked hard, made her money with great effort, and didn’t feel her profits should be unduly taxed. She once said in an interview that if you have 19 children she will pay for the first four but no more. Mostly she just couldn’t tolerate cant and didn’t respond well to political manipulation. She believed in a strong defense because she was a grown-up and understood the world to be a tough house. She loved Margaret Thatcher, who said what Joan believed: The facts of life are conservative. She didn’t do a lot of politics in her shows—politics divides an audience—but she thought a lot about it and talked about it. She was socially liberal in the sense she wanted everyone to find as many available paths to happiness as possible.
* * * * * * *
I last saw her in July. A friend and I met her for lunch at a restaurant she’d chosen in Los Angeles. It was full of tourists. Everyone at the tables recognized her and called out. She felt she owed her fans everything and never ignored or patronized an admirer. She smiled through every picture with every stranger. She was nice—she asked about their families, where they were from, how they liked it here. They absolutely knew she would treat them well and she absolutely did.
The only people who didn’t recognize Joan were the people who ran the restaurant, who said they didn’t have her reservation and asked us to wait in the bar, where waiters bumped into us as they bustled by. Joan didn’t like that, gave them 10 minutes to get their act together, and when they didn’t she left. But she didn’t just leave. She stood outside on the sidewalk, and as cars full of people went by with people calling out, “Joan! We love you!” she would yell back, “Thank you but don’t go to this restaurant, they’re rude! Boycott this restaurant!” My friend said, “Joan, stop it, you’re going to wind up on TMZ.”
“I don’t care,” she said. She felt she was doing a public service.
As Roger Simon — who once pitched a script to Rivers — noted last night, eventually she did wind up on TMZ, as recently as this past July, when she brilliantly batted back their concern-trolling over the Palestinians:
Her comeback to their reference to Selena Gomez’s take (!!??) on the geopolitical realities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was priceless.
Nancy McDermott, a New York-based contributor to England’s Spiked Website asks, “After Joan, who’ll slaughter the sacred cows now?”
Irreverence like Rivers’ has become increasingly rare as comedy has retreated into ideological niches where comics can preach to the choir without giving offence. The political correctness Rivers poked fun at through most of her career has slowly hardened into a climate of conformity in which it is not permissible to say certain things – not even in jest. This shift was not lost on her, and it made her irritable.
Over the past year or so, she seemed to go out of her way to wind up prudes and the press. She upset the PC brigade with her quip about the model Heidi Klum: ‘The last time a German looked this hot was when they were pushing Jews into the ovens.’ In a facetious response to a reporter asking about same-sex couples in the White House, she said, ‘We’ve already got one!’ (because, she quipped, ‘Michelle is a tranny’). Then she refused to condemn Israel for attacking Gaza, and even worse, committed the modern sin of supporting Israel, igniting a Twitterstorm that is raging even now.
Perhaps this is why her death seems like the end of an era.
Indeed it does. For a snapshot of the world we now live in, where Very. Serious. People — who once mocked the Moral Majority, described themselves as “hip” and “liberal,” and preached the importance of “tolerance” — race to see who will become the most offended over a sexy comic book cover, check out this new clip by videomaker “Maddox:”
Fortunately, in an ever-changing world of global complexities and contradictions, the New York Times, with its layers and layers of fact-checkers and editors remains a constant — the all-knowing, all-seeing oracle that all of America can reply upon for its news:
— Chuck Mirarchi (@DisneyJournal) September 5, 2014
Of course, if the Times really does believe it’s 1914, and Woodrow Wilson is in the White House, that would explain volumes about their “Progressive” worldview.
“Home Cooking and Civilization” was explored by Jonah Goldberg yesterday in his latest G-File, a summer rerun alas, but a worthy topic nonetheless:
It is hard to fathom all of the trial-and-error that has gone into any great cuisine. Imagine how long it must have taken to come up with the idea that food should be cooked in the first place. How many deaths or vomiting sessions stemming from eating spoiled raw meat led to that discovery? How many mistakes were made – and learned from – in the process of aging and curing meats and fish? How many corpses are long since buried and decomposed thanks to someone working out the technical details of food storage? And then there’s the whole wonderful universe of flavor and technique that defines any truly distinctive cuisine. This much salt, that much paprika. Age the cheese this long for this taste, this much longer for that taste. Cuisines are the manifest product of wars, invasions, famines, revolution, religious awakenings, boom times, and scientific breakthroughs. The culinary lessons learned from these momentous times are humbly recorded, without much commentary, in cookbooks. Put it all together and Julia Child’s Mastering the Art of French Cooking is not merely akin to a time capsule, it’s a memory back-up, an auto-save of a document still being written. At least 99 percent of the things we know are things other people figured out first. Our manners, morals, technology, language, culture come to us on an assembly line that stretches off into prehistory with laborers in animal skins at the front and lab coats at the end.
Even rugged-individualist survivalists living completely alone in the woods somewhere are plugged into a support network of millions of human beings who came before him. Nearly every single thing he does alone in the woods was figured out for him by someone else. He didn’t discover how to start a fire. He probably didn’t forge his own gun or knife, and even if he did, he didn’t learn the techniques for doing so all by himself.
One of the ways we plug into all of this knowledge, how we transfer the data banks of civilization onto the empty barbarian hard drive of humanity, is at the dinner table. We teach our children not to be savages by eating with them and including them in the process of cooking. Food is primal, and by diluting and harnessing the primal urge to eat we start turning barbarians into less-than-barbarians.
Thursday while having lunch alone (my wife was with a client at a deposition), I poked around the YouTube channel on the Roku box, and came across a 2002 speech from Tom Wolfe on urban renewal that I had never seen before, which dovetails perfectly with Jonah’s take on the power of food. Wolfe argues, slightly tongue in cheek, but actually pretty convincingly, that Manhattan’s restaurants are the only thing keeping a number of corporations from leaving the massively over-regulated and over-taxed city. (Scroll to 14:30 if TubeChop doesn’t take you there automatically):
Keeping civilization and America’s greatest city functioning. Food: Is there nothing it can’t do?
(To subscribe to Jonah’s emailed G-File, click here.)
“George W. Bush is very popular in Sub-Saharan Africa. Why? Because of the president emergency program for AIDS relief whether you agree or disagree with a lot of what else he did — and I disagree with a lot of it — I am proud to be an American when I go to Sub-Saharan Africa and people say, ‘I want to thank President Bush and the United States for helping us fight HIV/AIDS.’ We spend a lot of money and a lot of time and effort trying to be influential around the world when I think we would be able to succeed more effectively if we were clearer about who we are and what we stand for and the values that we hold.”
Actually, I’d be really curious to hear which of GWB’s policies that Hillary disagrees with, as Bush #43 was, in many ways, an extension of the Clinton administration* — which made the left’s permanent seething all the more ironic to watch.
* Which Hillary is effectively running against, even as she attempts to conjure up nostalgic memories of that period.
As Mark Steyn writes, “James Garner was one of those actors who was watchable in almost anything, even commercials:”
He had great sexual chemistry, which is why his leading ladies loved working with him. For my money, when it comes to Sixties sex comedies, he was better with Doris Day than Rock Hudson was, and not just for the obvious reason. In Move Over, Darling, Doris and Polly Bergen crank it up a tad too much too soon, and it’s Garner dialing it back and reeling it in who keeps the picture’s contrivances from getting too much. Over a third of a century, he made three movies with Julie Andrews, and made her seem desirable, which is a trick not every leading man could pull off. And, of course, he and Mariette Hartley turned those Seventies/Eighties Polaroid commercials into such mini-masterpieces of effortless charm that most viewers assumed the relationship had to be real. The chemistry was so good Miss Hartley began going around in a T-shirt proclaiming “I am NOT Mrs James Garner.”
He was also one of the few Hollywood leading men of the 1960s to survive and prosper in the awful decade that followed, in which American coastal elites in New York, Washington, and Hollywood all lost their way, producing horrid results for the rest of us. (Talk about déjà vu.) Somehow though, with the Rockford Files, as John Nolte writes in “A Tribute to The Mighty James Garner” at Big Hollywood, Garner, producer Roy Huggins, writer Stephen J. Cannell. and Universal TV managed to capture “lightening in a bottle,” and in an odd way, the 1970s middle American zeitgeist as well.
While he had nothing in common with the character he played, my dad loved James Garner on Rockford, and it’s easy to see why. During that period, when Hollywood was still in its post-Easy Rider “youth phase,” the cool leading men of the 1950s and ‘60s were in short supply: Cary Grant had retired, Sean Connery seemed to vanish in his early post-Bond years, and Steve McQueen’s career was in that fallow period that had begun with the dark grotesqueries of Papillon, and arguably never recovered. You respected Charles Bronson’s characters for their macho toughness and steely brass balls, but no guy really wanted to be Charles Bronson. Which left Garner, who made looking cool easy, unlike McQueen and Paul Newman, each with an ice cold veneer which masked an venomous anger just under the surface. (Arguably in real life, as well.)
As John Nolte – who once featured Rockford’s business card on his Twitter homepage — adds, “Amiable, broad-shouldered, and handsome, Garner spent a half-century easily moving back and forth between television and film roles, a feat very few lead actors have successfully pulled off. Garner was the rare leading man who could spend countless hours in our living rooms without losing the quality that made him a movie star.”
In a phrase that’s applicable less and less to those in show business, James Garner was truly a class act. RIP.
Update: In his obit for Garner, Andrew Klavan writes that no men like the beach bum private eye characters portrayed in the mid-’70s by both Garner and David Janssen in ABC’s then-concurrent Harry O series exist on TV these days. “I don’t say that out of nostalgic grumpiness but as a matter of fact. You cannot pitch a private eye show to the networks. I’ve tried it. You can’t even get in the door.”
“I began by saying that the Obama presidency is unraveling, and that it was a creation of the culture,” Drew adds. “Part of what the culture did to help create this disaster was to lose its faith in the man alone, and put its trust in princes and principalities.”
Offstage, Garner was a cast-in-the-mold Hollywood liberal seeking — whether he knew it consciously or not — authoritarianism, collectivism, and big government. But he was smart enough to portray characters who fought against that authoritarianism, sometimes won along the way, and retained their heart and individuality in the process. And compared to today’s smarmy and chestless Hollywood actors, that was more than enough.
…But only in an attempt to bludgeon it into submission. “It’s time for progressives to reclaim the Constitution,” Dionne writes in the Washington Post, but it’s an entirely disingenuous proposition, making his article a piece with previous recent examples of the left fantasizing about discarding the Constitution. Or as I wrote in January of last year:
“CBS Runs Segment Called ‘Let’s Give Up On The Constitution,’” Big Journalism reports today (warning, link goes to auto-play Charles Osgood video). They’re simply the latest branch of the Obama-media to drop the mask in recent years. “Let’s Give Up on the Constitution,” blared a headline in the New York Times on December 30th, atop a column written by Louis Seidman, the same man featured in CBS’s segment today, who professes to “teach” Constitutional Law at Georgetown University.
Ten days later, Time-Warner-CNN-HBO spokesman Morton Downey Morgan Jr. sneeringly described the Constitution as “your little book,” when handed a copy by guest Ben Shapiro.
Back in January of 2011, when the GOP took back control of the House, the New York Times ran an earlier assault on the Constitution, leading Power Line’s John Hinderaker to ask, “Are Liberals Coming Out of the Closet on the Constitution?”
That was around the same time the Washington’s Post’s Young Ezra Klein admitted on MSNBC that in his opinion, because the Constitution was written “more than 100 years ago,” it was all so confusing to understand.
On July 4th 2011, the cover of Time magazine featured a shredded Constitution and a headline that asked, “Does It Still Matter?”
And as Thomas Friedman infamously wrote in the pages of the Times back in September of 2009:
Watching both the health care and climate/energy debates in Congress, it is hard not to draw the following conclusion: There is only one thing worse than one-party autocracy, and that is one-party democracy, which is what we have in America today.
One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century.
In February of 2013, Glenn Reynolds was interviewed by Russ Roberts, economics professor at George Mason University. Roberts reiterated some of the arguments by Louis Michael Seidman, the author of the Times article positing the jettisoning of the Constitution. When asked if the left’s argument is that “we already ignore the Constitution; it’s not really much of a binding document,” as Roberts paraphrased Seidman, Glenn responded:
REYNOLDS: Oh, well, then I’m free to do whatever I want! And actually, that is a damning admission, because what that really says is: If you believe Seidman’s argument; if you believe that we already ignore the Constitution anyway, then in fact, the government rules by sheer naked force, and nothing else. And if that’s what you believe, then all of this talk of revolution suddenly doesn’t seem so crazy, it seems almost mandatory.
ROBERTS: Well, he would say – well, I won’t speak for him, but some would say that, well, there’s a social contract, we’ve all agreed to kind of play by these rules…
REYNOLDS: Oh really?!
ROBERTS: …of electing officials, and…
REYNOLDS: Well, the rules I agreed to electing these officials are the Constitution. I thought we were going to ignore that. That’s my social contract.
It’s tough for “Progressives” to reclaim something they’ve spent the better part of five years openly attempting to jettison. Let’s give the final word to the man whose billboard is atop this post, a man of a few very carefully words, Calvin Coolidge on July 5th, 1926:
One of Coolidge’s greatest speeches was on the occasion of the Declaration’s 150th anniversary (his 54th birthday). Silent about himself, Coolidge praised the Declaration’s words on human equality, natural rights, and consent of the governed. America was the first nation founded on those principles. July 4, 1776, the day when they were formally expressed, “has come to be regarded as one of the greatest days in history” and “an incomparable event in the history of government.”
For Coolidge, these principles spelled security. They were final. “No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions,” he said. To deny the self-evident truths of the Declaration would take America “backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people.”
These principles provided the foundation for all Americans, whatever their policy preferences or partisan alignments. “Amid all the clash of conflicting interests, amid all the welter of partisan politics,” Coolidge said, “every American can turn for solace and consolation to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States with the assurance and confidence that those two great charters of freedom and justice remain firm and unshaken.”
Coolidge’s speech was made when the first serious attempts by “Progressives” to turn back the clock on the Constitution were made by America’s original Liberal Fascist, Woodrow Wilson, was still within the memory of Americans who suffered under his excesses during World War I.
As Wilson attempted a century ago, E.J. Dionne, Young Ezra Klein, Piers Morgan, and Louis Michael Seidman — along with their man in the White House and his Attorney General — are doing everything they can to similarly cast America into the abyss of nihilism as well.
Update: At Power Line, Steve Hayward deconstructs “Dionne Again, Naturally:”
Unfortunately I don’t have time for a complete fisking of Dionne’s article just at the moment (busy day starting . . . now), but I’ll just bring your attention to its biggest howler. (You’ll want to put down your coffee first and spare the risk to your keyboard.) Dionne quotes Joseph R. Fishkin and William E. Forbath of the University of Texas School of Law:
“Extreme concentrations of economic and political power undermine equal opportunity and equal citizenship,” they write. “In this way, oligarchy is incompatible with, and a threat to, the American constitutional scheme.”
Let’s see: where’s the greatest concentration of economic and political power these days? Yes, that’s right—the Washington Beltway. It’s sucking wealth and power from every other corner of the country. Dionne and his pals are just fine with that. It makes him an oligarch of sorts. And that’s exactly the problem.
Which dovetails perfectly with Bill Whittle’s latest Afterburner, a visit to “Obamadelphia, DC, the New U.S. Capital:”
Fourth of July taught the Baby Boom an important lesson (albeit one we’ve frequently ignored). It’s a given that the stuff of life will blow up in your face, just try not to set it all off at once.
(Originally posted January 17, 2014.)
Pardon the hate speech in the above headline, but our surveys show that 99 percent of our core audience enjoys the Fourth of July; it is for that small majority that this post is written.
Roger L. Simon, our beneficent Maximum Pajamahadeen Emeritus wonders, “Is America in a Pre-Revolutionary State this July 4th?”
As we approach July 4, 2013, is America in a pre-revolutionary state? Are we headed for a Tahrir Square of our own with the attendant mammoth social turmoil, possibly even violence.
Could it happen here?
We are two-thirds of the way into the most incompetent presidency in our history. People everywhere are fed up. Even many of the so-called liberals who propelled Barack Obama into office have stopped defending him in the face of an unprecedented number of scandals coming at us one after the other like hideous monsters in some non-stop computer game.
And now looming is the monster of monsters, ObamaCare, the healthcare reform almost no one wanted and fewer understood.
It will be administered by the Internal Revenue Service, an organization that has been revealed to be a kind of post-modern American Gestapo, asking not just to examine our accounting books but the books we read. What could be more totalitarian than that?
Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal warns the costs of ObamaCare are close to tripling what were promised, and the number of doctors in our country is rapidly diminishing. No more “My son, the doctor!” It doesn’t pay.
And young people most of all will not be able to afford escalating health insurance costs and will end up paying the fine to the IRS, simultaneously bankrupting the health system and enhancing the brutal power of the IRS — all this while unemployment numbers remain near historical highs.
No one knows how many have given up looking for work while crony capitalist friends of the administration enrich themselves on mythological clean-energy projects.
In fact, everywhere we look on this July Fourth sees a great civilization in decline. And much of that decline can be laid at the foot of the incumbent. Especially his own people, African Americans, have suffered. Their unemployment numbers are catastrophic, their real needs ignored while hustlers like Sharpton, Jackson, and, sadly, even the president fan the flames of non-existent racism.
Tahrir Square anyone?
Ironically, if our society enters a revolutionary phase, liberals will find themselves in the role of the Islamists, defending a shopworn and reactionary ideology on religious grounds, because it is only their faith that holds their ideas together at this point.
Hollywood actress and singer Bette Midler is so reactionary these days, she wishes she was a subject of the crown:
Many celebrities are celebrating the Fourth of July by wishing their country a very happy birthday. It’s a day where partisanship is pushed aside for good ol’ fashioned patriotism.
Bette Midler is taking a different approach.
The Parental Guidance star imagines a world in which the U.S. lost the war for its independence, but it’s not like that’s a bad thing. After all, she argues, that would mean we’d finally have socialized medicine.
Wow, who knew after making millions in Hollywood and as a recording artist, Bette Midler had no health insurance?
Roger L. Simon is reporting that legendary director Paul Mazursky, whose career stretches back to working with Stanley Kubrick on Kubrick’s earliest ultra-DIY productions, has passed away. Roger writes:
There are tears in my eyes as I write this because no man had as great a professional effect on me — a professional effect that was deeply personal as well, because collaborating with Paul, as I did on several screenplays, was always an adventure of the most intimate sort, sharing endless stories and emotions that would go into our scripts.
I had seen Paul only yesterday in his hospital bed at Cedars Sinai. (I am grateful to our mutual friend David Freeman for informing me he was there.) He did not look good and I wondered if he would ever get out. I tried to engage him in conversation. It was difficult. Paul, normally the most garrulous of men, could barely talk. But we chatted a bit about Enemies, A Love Story – the most successful movie we co-wrote and he directed — and he reminded me that Isaac Singer, the author of the novel, had liked the film. We also talked of the trip we took together with some friends, trekking in the Himalayas to get as far as we could from the premiere of Scenes from a Mall, a less successful effort.
Paul, of course, made over a dozen fine movies, including Next Stop Greenwich Village, Harry and Tonto, and Down and Out in Beverly Hills. We all have our favorites. But at a time like this I choose to remember Paul the man, not the auteur who has been called, reductively I think, the “West Coast Woody Allen.”
I remember especially the many breakfasts we all had together — writers, directors, what we used to call “visiting firemen” — at L.A.’s Farmers Market. “The table,” as it was also called, became something of minor legend, even making it into a BBC documentary on Hollywood in the 1990s. But it would have been nothing without Paul. He was the star attraction, the major domo. This was because of Paul’s fame but also because he was an all-time great storyteller, regaling us with tales of the comedy writers’ room in the early days of television, of great artists he had worked with like Stanley Kubrick and Peter Sellers.
Often he would repeat his stories — as the best storytellers often do — and we would roll our eyes. But the truth is we wanted to hear them again. They became something of a ritual. I want to hear them again now, more than ever.
PJTV subscribers can watch Roger and his video sparring partner Lionel Chetwynd share some of the old stories with Mazursky in this 2009 edition of Poliwood.
Noah Rothman at Hot Air on the Left’s meltdown over the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision:
I imagine the horrified shrieks that rose from the streets outside the Supreme Court on Monday as the decision in the Hobby Lobby case began to filter out into the crowd of liberal observers was reminiscent of those poor souls who watched helplessly as the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire claimed the lives of 146 young, female garment workers.
In fact, the similarities are eerie. It seems that liberal commentators have convinced themselves that, just as was the case in 1911, the courts and the country have deemed women to be of lesser value than their male counterparts. The distinction between these two eras, of course, is that while that argument could be supported in 1911, it exists only in the heads of progressives in 2014.
Read on for former VH-1 VJ John Fugelsang to tweet that “Scalia Law is a lot like Sharia Law” and MSNBC-Comcast spokesman Jimmy Williams to add, “What Hobby Lobby means is there are now two separate classes of women in America: those who work for privately-owned corps and everyone else.” [Update: Nice rhyme from a former VJ, but as Sonny Bunch of the Washington Free Beacon tweets in response, "Alito wrote the decision."]
Today’s Supreme Court ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby’s religious freedom to resist the Obamacare contraceptive coverage mandate upheld the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
RFRA passed in 1993 with overwhelming bipartisan support. It was sponsored by Democrat N.Y. Sen. Charles Schumer and earned the votes of leading lib dinosaurs including Harry Reid, Dianne Feinstein, Patty Murray, and Barbara Boxer.
In 1993, the left still had majority control of the White House, the Senate, and Congress, before losing the latter two houses the following year as part of Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America revolution.
“The left loses their minds over Hobby Lobby decision,’ Noah Rothman wrote in his headline at Hot Air; to be fair, he really only needed the first five words of his sentence, as the left loses its minds and gets itself into a collective rage every day about something — that’s simply what it does. Or as Glenn Reynolds wrote today on the Hobby Lobby decision, “They must always have a Great Evil to crusade against, because only crusading against a Great Evil can excuse their own actions. Meanwhile, here’s a debunking of the Hobby Lobby talking points, from Ann Althouse.”
Which is why — however you feel about birth control, religious objections to it, and for-profit corporations that find a way to be religious — it’s not bad for Hobby Lobby to win.
But if it does, the “worst decision” will instantly plunge us into war-on-women, election-year politics.
Why can’t I just plunge into my 4th-of-July swimming pool?, you might ask.
No. The internet will never allow you to go back to your summer holiday week as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.
Heh — nice Michelle O. callback.
In 2010, P.J. O’Rourke wrote, “This is not an election on November 2. This is a restraining order.” We’ll need another one against the left this fall as well, as their anger will once again ratchet up exponentially between now and November.
— Sonny Bunch (@SonnyBunch) June 30, 2014
“Chuck Noll, the Hall of Fame coach who won a record four Super Bowl titles with the Pittsburgh Steelers, died Friday night at his home. He was 82,” AP reports:
The Allegheny County Medical Examiner said Noll died of natural causes.
Noll transformed the Steelers from a long-standing joke into one of the NFL’s pre-eminent powers, becoming the only coach to win four Super Bowls. He was a demanding figure who did not make close friends with his players, yet was a successful and motivating leader.
The Steelers won the four Super Bowls over six seasons (1974, 1975, 1978 and 1979), an unprecedented run that made Pittsburgh one of the NFL’s marquee franchises, one that breathed life into a struggling, blue-collar city.
”He was one of the great coaches of the game,” Steelers owner Dan Rooney once said. ”He ranks up there with (George) Halas, (Tom) Landry and (Curly) Lambeau.”
In 1974, Noll’s Steelers assembled what was arguably “The greatest draft class in NFL history,” when they added in one fell swoop, Lynn Swann, Jack Lambert, John Stallworth, and Mike Webster. All four would become NFL Hall of Famers and household names among NFL fans, as Noll’s Steelers became the dominant team of the 1970s.
RIP, Chuck Noll.
The question in this race is how large Cantor’s margin of victory will be. If he wins by more than 20 points, it will likely quell rumblings about his popularity back home. If Brat falls within 10 points of the seven-term congressman, it could stoke them.
—The Washington Post, 11:10 AM before being tossed down the Memory Hole sometime tonight.
Likely, very early tonight.
But then, as John Podhoretz writes at Commentary, “Interesting things can happen in politics. Very interesting things. Right now the only sure thing, supposedly, is that Hillary Clinton will sail through the Democratic primaries unopposed. The would-be candidate we all saw last night embarrassing herself in an interview with Diane Sawyer should not be considered an inevitability. Eric Cantor’s reelection was an inevitability too.”
“House Majority Leader Eric Cantor loses GOP primary to tea party challenger Dave Brat in Va.,” AP is reporting at ABC News.
“Cantor internal poll claims 34-point lead over primary opponent Brat,” the Washington Post reported on Friday.
PJM’s new one-stop primary Website, The Grid notes that AP has called VA for Brat and adds, “This is a shock, and must be chalked up primarily to Cantor showing unreliability on comprehensive immigration reform. He lost the trust of the voters in VA-07. And he has paid for it.”
Kudos to my fellow PJM colleague David Steinberg, who spotted Cantor’s woes early and often over the past several months. Click over to David’s column at PJM for flashbacks.
A very different AP — Allahpundit — breaks out the legendary Hot Air Humpbot to celebrate Brat’s win over the pro-amnesty Cantor. And speaking of celebrating:
— jimgeraghty (@jimgeraghty) June 10, 2014
Rand Simberg, frequent contributor to PJ Media.com and a former project manager at Rockwell International Corporation, stops by today to discuss his recent book, Safe Is Not An Option: Overcoming The Futile Obsession With Getting Everyone Back Alive That Is Killing Our Expansion Into Space.
As Rand explains, the culture of NASA is much more sclerotic than its 1960s-vintage “Right Stuff” era, in which the feats that put Man on the Moon in the space of a decade could never be repeated today. These days, as Rand notes, instead of treating astronauts like the military test pilots being assigned to orbit the earth, NASA considers them as being akin to “national treasures,” as science fiction writer Jerry Pournelle once wrote.
Will commercial manned spaceflight pick up where NASA has left off? In contrast to moribund NASA, Simberg describes commercial spaceflight as “fairly vibrant.” And considering the saber rattling going on from Russia, who are threatening to cut off access to the International Space Station via their ancient Soyuz rockets, that’s a good thing.
In the meantime, as Rand notes at his book’s Website, “Safety Cannot Be The Highest Priority In NASA Spaceflight,” if you agree, visit his site and sign his petition “to send Congress a message and try to fix the NASA authorization bill.”
But first, check out our 11 minute interview, during which Rand will discuss:
● His forecast for the next decade of human spaceflight, from both the private and government sectors.
● The final post-mortem on the now-retired Space Shuttle.
● Is NASA making a mistake with its proposed successor?
● When did NASA win the Space Race? (Hint, it wasn’t Apollo 11.)
● Do today’s NASA staffers see the agency as being superior to current private space efforts?
● What’s going on with Michael Mann’s lawsuit against him?
● How will the public and U.S. government react when the first person is killed during a commercial spaceflight?
And much more. Click here to listen:
(11 minutes, 21 seconds long; 10.4 MB file size. Want to download instead of streaming? Right click here to download this interview to your hard drive. Or right click here to download the 3.25 MB lo-fi edition.)
If the above Flash audio player is not be compatible with your browser, click on the video player below, or click here to be taken directly to YouTube, for an audio-only YouTube clip. Between one of those versions, you should find a format that plays on your system.
Transcript of our interview begins on the following page; for our many previous podcasts, start here and keep scrolling.
Starting in 2009, Google began running the above 80X70 pixel image on their homepage. As I wrote at this time last year, try not to be blown away by the majesty and the power of what the finest team of design artists, working for the most powerful Website on the planet have at last unveiled, particularly since that’s it above, full size, on Google’s splashpage today.
It took a while for the image to finally appear; it wasn’t visible before 9:30 to 10:30 or so this morning Pacific time. At the start of the day, Google was simply had its usual workaday minimalist splash screen, as Jim Hoft noted early this morning at Gateway Pundit:
Google frequently decorates its logo to celebrate various holidays and special events.
Last year Google honored Cesar Chavez on Easter Sunday.
Last week Google celebrated the 40th Anniversary of the Rubik’s Cube.
But Memorial Day this year drew a blank.
As Jim notes, in sharp contradistinction to Google’s tiny postage-stamp sized patriotism, Bing had the following handsome, yet appropriately somber image today:
“I’m a professor at the Citadel; it’s a military college in South Carolina, which is a very conservative college to begin with. And my students had no idea what conservatism was. Some thought it was being religious; others thought it was being a member of the Republican Party; and I can go on from there,” author, professor, and Fox News contributor Mallory Factor tells me during our latest interview. “So I decided on putting together a course on what conservatism is, where it came from, how it came about, what are its pillars. And I found out that I knew very little about it.”
However, Factor knew 17 people, all of whom had lectured on conservatism at the Citadel, who knew quite a bit about the topic, and asked them to contribute the essays that make up the new book, Big Tent: The Story of the Conservative Revolution–As Told by the Thinkers and Doers Who Made It Happen. Such people who make conservatism happen as Michael Barone, Newt Gingrich, Ed Meese, Rand Paul, Donald Rumsfeld, frequent PJTV contributor Yaron Brook, Phyllis Schlafly, and others.
During our interview, Mallory will discuss:
● How the philosophy of conservatism was born.
● How William F. Buckley crafted a post-World War II, Cold War vision of conservatism.
● How neoconservatism began.
● How do the various strains of social conservatism, neoconservatism and libertarian conservatism coexist?
● Which vision of conservatism will ultimately prevail for the foreseeable future?
And much more. Click here to listen:
(13 minutes, 9 seconds long; 12 MB file size. Want to download instead of streaming? Right click here to download this interview to your hard drive. Or right click here to download the 3.76 MB lo-fi edition.)
If the above Flash audio player is not be compatible with your browser, click on the video player below, or click here to be taken directly to YouTube, for an audio-only YouTube clip. Between one of those versions, you should find a format that plays on your system.
Transcript of our interview begins on the following page; for our many previous podcasts, start here and keep scrolling.