Journalism AC (After-Couric)

Apparently Fox - whose news is sufficiently sensationalized (has Greta van Susteren ever discussed anything but Paris Hilton or murdered/missing white girls?) and whose reality TV shows are even worse - has come up with a harebrained new concept: letting a model do the news. The show, called Anchorwoman (no doubt an homage to Will Ferrell's misogynistic Anchorman), will feature a swimsuit model/WWE actress with no prior journalistic experience doing the local news in Tyler, Texas. Obviously the locals aren't happy. But if Katie Couric, who has experience but no gravitas, can do CBS Evening News whats to keep a bimbo with no experience and no gravitas from doing the local news?

What's priceless is journalists getting steamed over this apparently devaluing their profession. Please. Two words (one?): Rather-gate. Another two (definitely two this time): Paris Hilton. If we're going to make up news or cover bimbos all day long, a reality TV show with a bimbo doing the news isn't anything new. So long as she can read off a teleprompter she's fine.

Ron Paul the Money Man?

Ron Paul, the crazy Texan who entered politics because Nixon took us off the gold standard, is making waves with rumors that his campaign may have raised some $5 million. That would put him where McCain was last quarter and at about half of Giuliani and Romney's then totals. Now my question is who in God's name is crazy enough to donate to this guy? Obviously the same loons who overran LGF's post-debate polls but it doesn't explain who they are! Coming on top of Rasmussen's poll a few weeks ago which showed 35% of Democrats (and 22% of Americans overall) believe Bush knew about 9/11 beforehand, I'm starting to doubt our national sanity.

Though I have nightmares about the infinitesimal chance that Paul becomes the nominee, I think a more like and realistic scenario is that he'll be rejected by the mainstream of the GOP; I have to believe that most of his supporters are cross-over independents and/or moonbat Democrats who can't vote in most GOP primaries, making his defeat more likely. However he'll refuse to accept defeat and pull a Lieberman, running independently and on a platform that would make Ross "Giant Suckin' Sound" Perot sound positively sane. What the hell is wrong with this world?

I'm Not Dead Yet!

Despite everyone's fervent wishes to the contrary (except perhaps for the President and Senator Kennedy), it would appear that the immigration monster is still stirring. Kaus (h/t Instapundit) outlines W's strategy to resuscitate his monster; AFP has Bush saying he'll take a more hands-on/personal role in working with the Senate to pass it. Let me get this straight: a President with a job-approval rating in the low 30s goes to the Hill to harangue a Congress with a job-approval rating equally as low or lower - and we expect this to work? I just wish Congress would do everyone a favor, declare this dead and move quickly to pass a toothy border security bill. With that done, Republicans might be more willing to talk, though I still think there are too many in both parties who are at least somewhat opposed to any guest worker program (i.e. most of those who voted for Dorgan's amendment last week).

And now for something completely different...

Death Penalty Deters?

Recent studies suggest just that! Obviously its opponents disagree, attacking the studies as "flimsy" and published in "second-tier journals" (perhaps top-tier journals wouldn't publish them because they violate liberal orthodoxy?). Still, the findings suggest each execution saves between three and fifteen lives. Read it all.

H-Bomb = Homo Bomb?

Apparently the Pentagon considered developing a "gay bomb," aimed at turning affected individuals gay. Some gay activists latched on and made a hullaballoo, and Jules Crittenden has some fun, analyzing the weapon using "the most progressive, libertarian, gender-orientation accepting, peace-loving standards possible." One offended liberal blamed the Bush administration for the weapon, developed, by the way, in 1994 what's next? Blaming W for don't ask don't tell? The stupidity of such individuals would almost be cute if they couldn't vote...as always, I find WSC's greatest argument against democracy ("a five minute conversation with the average voter") validated.

France Truly Ready for Reform?

Sure they elected conservative, reform-minded, America-loving, tough-on-crime Nicolas Sarkozy president, but it was unclear how serious the French commitment to change was. That commitment was made apparent today with the nation's parliamentary elections. According to the AP, Sarko's UMP (originally, "(Union pour la majorité présidentielle" now "Union pour un Mouvement Populaire") took 46% of the vote; in contrast the Socialists, party of presidential runner-up Segolene Royal, took roughly 36%. Of course, given the absurd complexities of the French electoral system, this is only the first round of parliamentary balloting. But it bodes well for the composition of the new Assemblée nationale, potentially with the UMP having an absolute majority. Obviously that'll help Sarko's reform program.

Some right-minded analysis is especially interesting (I plead ignorance: I was unaware that Pajamas Media had a correspondent in France); particularly that the "depressed" (61%!) turnout may signal bitter Socialists stayed home.

So what's Sarko going to do with this majority? Ideally, he'll implement major economic reforms - throw out the infamous 35-hour work-week, the generous welfare benefits, the difficulties in terminating employees - and address the violence in the banlieus, perpetrated primarily by disaffected Muslim youth (the surge of car-burnings that breached the US media's veil of silence was hardly exceptional). Whether or not he'll succeed remains to be seen, but this is definitely a move in the right direction.

NYT Newsflash!

There's a war on! Tigerhawk dissects a bit from the Times (all the news that fits) in which they seem to have stumbled over jihadi ideology - someone let their blinders slip - but desperately try and play dumb, digging up some ivory tower-dwelling navel gazing type to liken jihad-related deaths and civilian deaths in Iraq. Or something. His style's far better than mine. Read away. The original Times piece, discussing (I kid you not) "jihadi etiquette" can be found here - it might as well be from the Onion.

(h/t: LGF - here's to hoping they're back up soon)

George Will Abuses Democrats

Today's WaPo has George Will viciously abusing Democrats on their collective economic policy (bad pun); Democratic candidates are rehashing the same old tripe they've been bemoaning for decades, hoping Americans are sufficiently fed up with the GOP to allow them to raise taxes. In addition to abusing their policy notions and setting the record straight on the economic health of the current administration (you wouldn't know the economy's been healthy and growing if you only listened to Democrats and the media), he rightly questions the underlying philosophy (all too infrequently critiqued):

When in the long human story have economic burdens and benefits been "spread evenly"? Does Obama think they should be, even though talents never are? What relationship of "fairness" does he envision between the value received by individuals and the value added by them?

Ouch. Fairness, when defined by the modern left is nefarious as well as a governmental concern. As the Gipper said, "the nine scariest words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help!'"

It's ironic: at a time when parts of the Continent may finally be moving away from their long-cherished and viciously destructive tax-strangled welfare states, Democrats want to implement exactly the sorts of policies that have rendered Old Europe's economies so sclerotic. Hillary as the anti-Thatcher?

I Love The New Criterion

Just throwing that out there. This particular outburst of emotion/warm fuzzies is in response to Roger Kimball's demolition of a new and allegedly "edgy" art exhibit at Bard College, an exhibit, as Kimball so wonderfully puts it, comprised of

"huge images of body parts—yes, those body parts—floating on the walls of a darkened room, minatory videos of men doing things—yes, those things—to each other, or to themselves, all of it presented in the most pretentious fashion possible.

Duke's gorgeous new Nasher Museum hosted a mind-numbingly awful exhibit that might have been called "Tree Hugger's Delight" - but it couldn't hold a candle to this rubbish. Art? Excuse me? But as bad as it is, Kimball borders on the dismissive - the critically dismissive:

the thing to appreciate about “Wrestle,” about the Hessel Museum and the collection of Marieluise Hessel, and about the visual arts at Bard generally is not how innovative, challenging, or unusual they are, but how pedestrian and, sad to say, conventional they are. True, there is a lot of ickiness on view at the Hessel Museum. But it is entirely predictable ickiness. It’s outrage by-the-yard, avant-garde in bulk, smugness for the masses. And this brings me to what I believe is the real significance of institutions like the art museum at Bard, the Hessel collection that fills it, and the surrounding atmosphere of pseudo-avant-garde self-satisfaction. The “arts” at Bard are notable not because they are unusual but because they are so grindingly ordinary...Far from “challenging” or “subverting” the status quo, the 1,700 objects she [Hessel] has accumulated are the status quo. And far from “struggling” with questions about gender or feminism or anything else, she has simply issued a rubber stamp endorsing the dominant clichés of today’s academic art world. “Academic,” in fact, is the mot juste: not in the sense of “scholarly,” but rather in the sense that we speak of “academic art,” stale, conventional, aesthetically nugatory. A wall full of photographs of two girls does nothing to “interrogate” (a favorite term of art- and lit-crit-speak) identity any more than a mutilated doll forces us to reconsider our usual notions of whatever-it-is those odious objects are supposed to make us reconsider. Really, the only thing exhibitions like “Wrestle,” or institutions like the Hessel Museum, challenge is the viewer’s patience.

Ouch. Just to reiterate: I love TNC.

PS - read the whole article and savor his historical perspective as he destroys modern art.

At Least One Muslim Country Loves America

Bush is currently visiting Albania - the first US president to do so - and has received an enthusiastic welcome. Many in the media, if they could find Albania on a map might be surprised not only because it's a foreign country (they all hate us, right?) but also because it's 70% Muslim. Of course until 1985, Albania was ruled by paranoid, xenophobic Enver Hoxha, a man who might give Kim Jong Il a run for his money if there was a "Least Cuddly World Leader" competition.

I think the warmth of Bush's reception is based on three interrelated factors. First off, Albania's traumatic experience with the "wonders" of Communism are so fresh - and the country still so desperately poor - that unlike elsewhere there is no knee-jerk lefty response; closely-linked is the fact that America is still seen as a force for good in the region. On a personal level, as the article noted, US programs (probably through USAID) are lending to Albanians - microfinance is one of the developing world's greatest weapons against poverty. On a regional level, the US remains a bulwark against Russian meddling, as with Putin's opposition to an independent Kosovo.

The Balkans have always been a playground for Russian imperialist/expansionist efforts. Prior to World War I, this was because Tsarist Russia feared the Ottoman Empire and later because (oftentimes wrapped in the veil of pan-Slav ideology) the declining Ottomans, the "sick man of Europe," was for Russian expansion. Russian and Austria sparred in the region (though not as far west as Albania) too before the Great War, again jockeying for control of former Ottoman possessions. After the Second World War, much of the region fell under communist (though not always Soviet) rule. Thus in a lingering Cold War sense, America is the regional Good Guy; the autocratic resurgence of Putin's Russia isn't likely to change that perception in the immediate future. (In fact, I'm wondering if such attitudes aren't prevalent in many parts of the former USSR).

Heh - two follow-ups

First another Ramirez gem:




Secondly, this quote from some Progressive Loon/Edwards-Lover over at Kos suggests how far from comprehension the Left really is:
"The best way to reduce terrorism

as was so eloquently stated here by another poster who I don't recall....

Stop being a dick to the rest of the world.

The "terrorists" don't hate us because we're free or rich or white or because we drive nice cars or have nice houses or any other bullshit right wing talking points.

They hate us because of what we do around the world.

If America stops being a dick to much of the third world, very few people would be willing to strap on a bomb and blow themselves up in hopes of taking a few of us with them."

So far from the truth as to be comic if ignorance were not so dangerous.

Some Thoughts on John Edwards

It's not hard for me to be disappointed with the majority of the 18 Democrats and Republicans running for President right now. Democrats are hardly paying attention to some of their more thoughtful contenders (Joe Biden); Barack Obama's rhetorical gift is wasted, much as Churchill's would have been if it hadn't been paired with his clear-eyed understanding of the world and history, something Obama obviously lacks. On the right side of the aisle, I'm hard-pressed to be enthused about anyone - especially since many (the majority?) eschew science in favor of creationism - though for what it's worth that does align them with the majority of Americans.

But of everyone running, there is no one I despise as much as John Edwards. He's a smarmy shill, made rich off of frivolous lawsuits, boldly hypocritical and regularly espousing dangerous and/or stupid policies. No wonder the Left fawns all over him.

Let's begin with the hypocritical. For a man whose spent years harping on his ridiculous "Two Americas" theme, he's certainly done a fine job of exemplifying it. He is the anti-poverty crusader who famously paid $400 for a haircut and owns the largest house in Wake County, North Carolina. He is the anti-corporate activist who spent time working for a hedge fund; his excuse of "research" is as pathetic as they come. Why Leftists continue to willingly overlook all of these follies is confounding, until you look at his policies.

His platform kowtows to environmentalists and to the Democratic strawman of a struggling middle class, among other things. Though he's understandably vague, one cannot read his policies without suspecting that his economic program would be simple: raise taxes. But it's on our national struggle against Islamo-fascism that his rhetoric becomes truly dangerous.

Edwards recently dismissed the War on Terror as a mere "bumper sticker," showing that he is either naively unaware - or willfully ignorant - of the nature of our enemy. His recently released plan for fighting terrorism comprises six major planks:

• Rebalance our force structure for the challenges of the new century
• Ensure our intelligence strategy adheres to proven and effective methods
• Hold regular meetings with top military leadership
• Create a "Marshall Corps" to stabilize weak and failing states
• Rebuild equipment
• Create a National Security Budget

The first of these is the usual Democratic argument that our troops are returning to Iraq with insufficient time home, and presumably that we're ill-equipped for our current mission. Never mind, of course, that our soldiers in World War II rarely got off the line at all, let alone a year home. And if our army is not the force we need for counter-insurgency and nation-building, much of the blame for that can be laid squarely on the shoulders of the Clinton Administration. The nature of our War on Terror, which began far before 9/11, should have been clear to them; they failed, however, to respond accordingly.

His second is, if possible, even more extreme, ridiculously claiming that we cannot do anything that might "give terrorists, or even other nations, an excuse to abandon international law." Johnny Boy, any foe we face in this struggle doesn't give a damn for international law. And as for us, we should comply only so far as it corresponds to our national interest. He also promises to close Gitmo, restore habeas corpus, and ban terror, though he fails to say what will happen to current Gitmo detainees, that habeas isn't really dead, and that American personnel do not torture (unless of course you use the most absurd definitions of torture, as Democrats and the Left do so often); I suppose this means that in the "ticking bomb" scenario, we'll be left to sweet-talk any suspect into cooperating.

As to meeting with military officials: what nonsense. He claims that civil-military relations are strained and retired officers are speaking out as a result, thus necessitating this empty gesture. That the majority of officers remain aligned with the President's policies - with varying degrees of criticism - reduces this to mere rhetoric (not that the rest is anything else).

A "Marshall Corps"? Excuse me? We're effectively creating an Anti-Terror Peace Corps. I suppose we might be able to find 10,000 out of work idealistic ex-hippies to send to foreign countries, but it won't do any good. Such a suggestion suggests a basic misunderstanding of our struggle.

Equipment repair? Filler. Of course things are being used outside of their peacetime usage - this is a war. I have no problem stockpiling additional armored vehicles, helicopters, etc. However, such weapons seem at least partially antithetical to his warm, fuzzy approach to the issue - it's boots on the ground, face to face, not behind inches of steel armor, that will win people over.

A national security budget? Among other things, this means declassifying the Pentagon budget, which should be reason enough to discard it.

Is it clear I despise this man? Is it equally clear that he is utterly incapable of acknowledging the nature of our enemy, and that his plan is uniquely unsuited to face them? Thankfully, if the polls have even a kernel of truth, he has no chance of winning.

Stand by Impeached Men?

Hillary announced her Florida Campaign Co-Chairs today, Reps Debbie Wasserman Schultz and (drum roll) Alcee Hastings. Wait for it...wait for the media outrage...

Nothing.

No complaints from the media about the leading Democratic contender naming an impeached federal judge to be her Florida co-chair? No? Imagine the uproar if a Republican named, say, Mark Foley to be their Florida chair. Hastings has contended in the past that the impeachment was a political hatchet job - something akin to Dollar Bill Jefferson saying he's innocent - but even Democrats have said that the procedure was justified.

(oh and if the blogosphere gets on Hillary's case for this one, I predict we'll hear the Left whining about how vicious and abusive we all are...)

(h/t Taranto/Best of the Web)

Academic Inanity

KC Johnson (over at the peerless Durham-In-Wonderland) continues to blog about the aftermath of the Duke Lacrosse Travesty. Those unlucky enough to be under his microscope today? The "Group of 88," those academics (I use the term in the loosest possible sense of the word, and Johnson's research supports that) who decried the lacrosse case and the whole culture of the university on the tired lines of class/race/gender. Specifically, he highlights the kind of nonsense these people are teaching, often with an aim to brainwash their students. Just to cite a few gems:

Maurice Wallace (African-American Literature): 16 of 40 [It would seem that most Duke students do not respond to the pedagogical approach preferred by Wallace: “I have a responsibility to all of my students—every single one of them—to disabuse them of all of the national, racial, middle-class, gender and sexual myths they’ve been taught to comfort or flatter themselves and, of course, the people who, perhaps unknowingly, miseducated them.”

Kim Curtis (Ecological Crisis and Political Theory): 18 of 30 [The class explores the “ethical, political, economic, aesthetic, social, and technological approaches to contemporary ecological crisis,” though how Kim Curtis, of all people, can teach others about “ethics” is not clear.]

Wahneema Lubiano (Social Facts and Narrative: “Story telling as it establishes, relies on, and transforms socially recognized categories of [naturally] gender, class, race, sexual orientation, and region): 13 of 18

BS doesn't begin to do all of this justice. In laying all of this out, Johnson devastates the fallacious argument that the Group of 88 are popular; 'scuse me? Popular and under half-full? Mind you I've taken some incredible courses that were under-enrolled, but most of the truly great classes I've had at Duke have been over-enrolled! He also rightly points out that the reason for some of these somewhat respectable enrollment numbers may not be "quality of instruction;" when all you have to do is parrot your professor's neomarxist gobdleygook to get an A, many students will be there for the wrong reason (it's also reasonable to assume that these students don't entirely buy into the nonsense their professors peddle).

Check out the full post here.

Morning Amusement

Tunagate, Dollar Bill Jefferson, her own son being hired by shady, Clinton-connected InfoUSA, a failure to pass any sort of ethics reform. Thanks to Ramirez for pointing out the obvious...




















PS - how dumb does Jefferson have to be plead not guilty. How much more guilty can you get? A NoLa-born friend of mine and I have a running debate over whether pols from the Crescent City or Chicago are more corrupt; I finally have to concede defeat.

Updates

So I've spent some time tonight watching old Bond movies and working on the blog. The only new features of any note are: you can now subscribe via email! if you're using a feed reader (including the simple Google Reader) - click "Subscribe in a Reader" on the bottom to simply add it to your reader and get updated every time I post; hopefully that will be more frequently. So basically, that's the two of note. I've also been tagging or retagging posts so my Technorati cloud (if it ever gets working) can more accurately provide a sense of my musings.

Book Review: South Park Conservatives

Brian Anderson's South Park Conservatives: The Revolt Against Liberal Media Bias is a gem of a book; short, to the point, and leaving its reader (so long as you're right of center) with a renewed sense of hope. Starting with the same premise as so many other authors (Bernard Goldberg comes to mind), Anderson lambasts the hopelessly biased media. Rathergate is only one count of many in his indictment.

He is also, fitting for a fellow who is the editor of City Journal, willing to look at the disturbing degree to which modern liberalism is inherently illiberal. These are the people who whole-heartedly buy into Marcuse's doctrine of "liberating tolerance" and Rawls's argument that political debate must only take into account "reasonable" doctrines; both thinkers' constructs obviously have no place for conservatism or conservative principles. Thus liberal attempts to depict Republicans and conservatives as racist, misogynistic and homophobic bigots is part of their own internal effort to throw conservatism out of the bounds of "reasonableness." This is also, of course, a liberalism with a penchant for ironic Orwellianism and double speak, and the unspoken rule that free speech ends if you don't agree with them. See the treatment at Columbia of the Minutemen (or closer to home, the treatment at Duke of David Horowitz). Further this is the group that refuses to see bias in anyone that agrees with them; thus they can justify calling Dan Rather objective while working themselves into a lather over anyone who airs a conservative perspective. By extension, this is why Democrats are making noises about reinstating the "Fairness Doctrine" (itself an Orwellian misnomer) - because only those that disagree with them are biased and in need of balancing.

But whereas this is as far as many go, Anderson rightly points out that things are changing. Quickly. Sure liberals still hold on to the Big 3 (whose viewership is plummeting) and many major newspapers, to say nothing of large swathes of the academe. But technological revolutions have given rise to a new media - talk radio, cable news, the internet - where Republicans are either a major force or effectively dominate. Rush and O'Reilly are the face of this new media. And they're not just disseminating the conservative message like never before, they (and especially the blogs) are holding the mainstream media accountable, calling BS when (often) appropriate, and forcing them to cover stories that would otherwise be ignored as incompatible with the liberal meta-narrative.

He also suggests that times are changing on campuses around the country as conservative principles, journals, College Republicans chapters, etc. are flourishing. He's quick to point out that the faculty, overwhelmingly liberal, still hold the high ground, but that conservatism is no longer invisible on campuses. Some of his interviewees suggest that this is the result of liberal indoctrination, a sort of classroom blowback; universities also act as a sort of ideological forge where faced with liberal nonsense in all its absurd glory, students embrace and refine their conservative principles.

But what Anderson doesn't point out is that these very instruments of conservative campus revival also suggest that liberals are doomed to another generation of failure. The modern Republican revolution - 1994 to the present (?) - has been grounded in ideas, in alternatives to tired Democratic policies (no matter how you frame it, tax and spend is still tax and spend, and cut and run is still cut and run!); the next generation of conservative activists are already getting introduced to that culture of innovation. Their liberal counterparts , in contrast, are too often picketing against some new "injustice" or soaking up the latest drivel of race/gender/class studies - nice if you're seeking a career in navel-gazing, but absolutely insufficient if you're going to shape the future of the nation.

Finally, the title itself points to an entertainment industry that is in places reacting viciously to the PC nonsense and condescension that characterize the Left as a whole and especially its Hollywood incarnation. Leading the charge here is Comedy Central's South Park - not so much conservative as anti-liberal, gleefully destroying liberal idols and mocking liberals such as Al Gore, Rob Reiner, and Michael Moore. Priceless stuff really.

South Park Conservatives isn't an equally intellectual counterpoint to Bloom's Closing of the American Mind; it isn't meant to be. Rather, it chronicles some critical evolutions in the media and suggests that incessant griping about liberalism's chokehold on the MSM is overwrought, that it is in many ways a colossus with clay feet. It's got a message, but it's light enough to be a beach read. Go forth and enjoy.

Check it out on Amazon

[Posted on Amazon as well, FYI]

Day By Day

So I finally got around to adding Day by Day, or what somone accurately called "the conservative Doonesbury." But aesthetically, I'm not sure what I think of it here. Thoughts?

Israel willing to trade security for..."peace"

By which I mean the Golan Heights to Syria for a Syrian promise of peace. Whatever exactly that means. And really, as this article makes clear, it's largely Olmert considering the deal, with widespread dissent by other parties. Olmert isn't so naive as to seek unconditional peace - Syria must sever its ties with Iran and Hezbollah - but they are conditions that the Syrians have little chance of actually living up to. Sadly we've apparently midwifed this deal, as Bush gave Olmert the go-ahead for negotiations last month. While I think any strategy to isolate Iran by splitting Syria from it is an interesting idea, doing so at the cost of Israeli security is dangerous and shortsighted. Most interesting quote:

Meanwhile, a Ma'ariv-TNS poll showed that only 10% of Israelis supported a full withdrawal from the Golan, 40% were in favor of a partial withdrawal and 44% were opposed to any withdrawal. The poll also showed that despite recent peace overtures from Damascus, 74% of Israelis did not trust Assad.

Obviously this deal won't be easily closed.

Another SCOTUS Confirmation?

White House is making noises (from ABC) about another Supreme Court nomination, raising questions about whether or not Stevens or Ginsberg may be retiring. I don't see Ginsberg retiring under a Republican president; Stevens also isn't likely but is 87 (?) and thus may not be around much longer regardless. If either does step down, their calculus may be that a retirement with a Democratic Senate is palatable. However (and assuming there are 60 votes for cloture), with Landrieu (LA), Pryor (AR), Johnson (SD) and Baucus (MT) up for reelection (as well as Lieberman), the Republicans may just have the necessary votes. On the other side of the equation, Sununu (NH), Snowe (ME) and Smith (OR) may all be Republicans looking to display their independence and moderation. But on some level, a Bush failure here would be beneficial: bringing Democratic intransigence into focus and rallying the base, as well as acting as a proving ground for Republican presidential candidates and opening Democrats running for reelection to criticism for their actions. Anyways, losing one of those two would make a better court regardless of replacement.