Posted 7/26/2003 06:00:28 PM by Edward Driscoll
ADVANTAGE ED! Back on Monday, July 14, we wrote that Rush Limbaugh will go on ESPN's NFL pre-game show each week...

...and discuss nothing but football. Meanwhile, his detractors will start foaming at the mouth at what an evil, vile, racist, awful, dangerous, psychotic Nazi he is. Sort of a dispersed version of the how James Taranto described what the protests outside the Republican convention in New York will be like.

Paul Zimmerman, the venerable Sports Illustrated writer does precisely that in his column today:

Duncan of Fairfax, Va., wants my thoughts on Rush Limbaugh being added to ESPN's Sunday NFL Countdown. "Personally, I'm getting ready to break out the pitchfork and find me a couple of torches," he writes, "but I suppose I'll have to make do with just not watching the show." Careful about hints of terrorism, Dunc. Not only the FBI, but the Justice Department monitors columns such as these for any hints of terrorist threats. To say nothing of the Department of Agriculture and the Attorney General's Office, which is exactly what I'd like to say about them. Not that I don't agree with everything you've said. I most certainly do. It's funny, on Thursday afternoon I did an interview on ESPN Radio, only because I wanted to present my Limbaugh views right up front. So I ranted and raved for a while about how ABC set the idiot-tone with its Dennis Miller venture. But Miller, while being a footba! ll! ignoramus, at least wasn't mean, in direct contrast to this Limbaugh character, who's not only stupid and nasty, but stupid and nasty at the top of his voice. The pity of it is that I used to enjoy watching Countdown, but of course I won't tune in anymore. And what do you think the radio guy said? Right on cue he came in with, "See that, we're all talking about him." To which I retorted that we talk about murderers, too, and thugs and all manner of aberrant behavior, which doesn't mean that we want to include it as expert commentary on the football scene. I hope to God this is the last reference to Limbaugh that I'll have to make.

So being a conservative radio talk show host is the equivalent of being a murderer, a thug, and someone who engages in "and all manner of aberrant behavior"? Nope, no media bias to see here, move along...

Posted 7/25/2003 12:43:43 AM by Edward Driscoll
AMON'S LAW: Back in November, Dale Amon of Samizdata wrote:

Political Correctness is not a matter of what is said; it is a matter of who says it. The annointed are "allowed" freedoms of speech unavailable to the hoi polloi. Had it been myself...making the same remark, I would be pilloried for it.

The Human Rights Campaign illustrates Amon's Law in action brilliantly, as Andrew Sullivan notes:

Here's the Human Rights Campaign's Winnie Stachelberg's response to a Democratic congressman calling another congresman a "fruitcake" and a "****sucker":

"I think Congressman Stark's use of the word [fruitcake], he probably regrets having used it. I think he meant nothing by it, but I think in the 2003 context, it's probably a poor choice of words. But it's also important to note that Congressman Stark is one of the gay community's staunchest allies."

Translation: bigotry is fine if you vote our way. How will anyone take HRC seriously when they condemn Republican bigotry in the future?

Brent Bozell has some additional examples of Amon's Law in action, and no doubt there are countless more.

Posted 7/24/2003 04:22:34 PM by Edward Driscoll
KEMP FOR GOVERNOR? Matt Drudge had his trademark earthshattering-news-of-the-century gumball light flicking away a little while ago, as he announced:

18:01 ET: Kemp has property in Fillmore, CA and looking into residence, sources tell DRUDGE... 'Feels he could be a consensus candidate,' top source says... wires, newspapers, networks chasing.... MORE... KEMP: former Vice Prediential candidate (Dole) in 1996....former Secretary of HUD for Bush 41....Congressman from Buffalo New York, engineered big Reagan early 80's tax cut... WORLD EXCLUSIVE: JACK KEMP THINKING OF RUN FOR CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR

For what it's worth, I think that while Kemp would make a pretty good governor, and he's generally respected enough, even by the far left, that he'd be tough to slander (unlike Bill Simon). But if there are any televised debates, he'll be easy pickings. Al Gore ran roughshod over him in '96. (Remember Gore's inane "risky tax scheme" mantra? Kemp never even counterpunched. God that was brutal to watch.) If Kemp really does want to be governor, he needs to get into debate and soundbite training with his advisors ASAP--he'll need all the help he can get.

Posted 7/24/2003 02:19:57 PM by Edward Driscoll
MATT JEFFERIES PASSED AWAY: Walter "Matt" Jefferies, the man whose graceful design of the U.S.S. Enterprise for the TV series Star Trek in 1964 was a science fiction landmark, passed away on Monday at age 82. Jefferies was a WWII B-17 aviator who later became a production designer in Hollywood. He worked on shows ranging from Ben Casey to Little House on the Prairie, but he'll forever be known for the original Enterprise, which rests today in the Smithsonian, and has influenced the design of the main spacecraft in each successive version of the show, including the current Enterprise TV series. Besides designing other spacecraft for the original series, Jefferies also designed many of the sets. Jefferies' style on Trek perfectly bridged the gap between Hollywood's pulpy 1950s designs (such as Forbidden Planet and This Island Earth) and the more technologically sophisticated shapes that Stanley Kubrick ushered in with 2001: A Space Odyssey, and George Lucas carried on with his Star Wars movies. Star Trek.com has a tribute page to Jefferies, including a recent videotaped interview, where he explained how the design of the Enterprise, and its famous call sign, NCC-1701, came to be. (Also posted on Blogcritics.)

Posted 7/24/2003 12:42:31 AM by Edward Driscoll
PLUG INTO THE MATRIX: Sitting in for The Professor at his MSNBC blog, Randy Barnett writes, "Since the 2000 election, I have begun to realize for the first time that the Left really and truly lives in a socially constructed world — a world where “truth” is their own construction". Spot on--read the whole thing.

Posted 7/23/2003 10:11:05 PM by Edward Driscoll
VH-1's BEHIND THE TYPEFACE: The humble beginnings, the breakout fame and its accompanying dissipation, and the inevitable soul-saving comeback. We're all familiar with the story arcs of VH-1's Behind the Music. But did you ever wonder what it would be like if they devoted an episode of the series to the history of a typeface, instead of a rock star? No? Fair enough, neither did I. But "Cheshire Dave" did, and he gave us.... VH-1's Behind The Typeface: The Cooper Black Story--complete with a cameo by the Beach Boys, who were instrumental in putting Cooper Black back in the black.

Posted 7/22/2003 04:09:30 PM by Edward Driscoll
BRICKS IN THE WALL: Mamma, don't let your babies grow up to pose for PR shots like these... (Also posted on Blogcritics.)

Posted 7/22/2003 02:26:43 PM by Edward Driscoll
SURPRISE, SURPRISE: "Rock the Vote Betrays 'Non-Partisan' Label".

Posted 7/22/2003 02:15:42 PM by Edward Driscoll
ANDREW SULLIVAN WRITES, "I keep hearing - anecdotally and from forwarded emails, that things are going far better in Iraq than the anti-war media wants you to believe", and quotes an encouraging letter from a G.I. stationed in Iraq. But what's the real story behind those Alice reruns, huh??

Posted 7/22/2003 01:56:45 PM by Edward Driscoll
A FEATURE, NOT A BUG: "Gephardt Attacks Bush Foreign Policy as 'Machismo'" So does that mean Gephardt's promising to give the country the foreign policy of a paintywaist? We tried that already--and look what it got us. UPDATE: If I was Karl Rove, I'd think seriously about printing up posters along these lines....

Posted 7/22/2003 01:39:41 PM by Edward Driscoll
IT'S OPEN MIKE NIGHT at the California Democratic party!

Posted 7/22/2003 01:25:16 PM by Edward Driscoll
JUST LIKE THEIR FATHER: For a brief round up of coverage of just what despicable fellows Saddam's sons were (and God, it's nice to type 'were'), click here. And here. And here. As Susan Konig wrote about 45 minutes ago, "Did a palpable bit of evil just get sucked out of the universe in a strong downward motion? The world feels that much better now." Amen. Now let's find Saddam, and Bin Laden. (Arafat's head on a plate wouldn't be bad either, come to think of it.)

Posted 7/22/2003 01:21:15 PM by Edward Driscoll
MEANWHILE, the Iraqi Mission in Manhattan has been liberated.

Posted 7/22/2003 01:05:46 PM by Edward Driscoll
SYNCHRONICITY: According to a senior American general, Saddam Hussein's sons Odai and Qusai were killed in a six-hour firefight earlier today. Meanwhile, in an appropriate display of Jungian synchronicity, the Eiffel Tower caught on fire. UPDATE: Here's more synchronicity. UPDATE: John Hawkins, in between Snoopy dances, has some thoughts. As does James Taranto (sans Snoopy, though).

Posted 7/22/2003 11:00:15 AM by Edward Driscoll
THE DOWNWARD SPIRAL: Theodore Dalrymple looks at the decline of both England, and the West's art, and morality in the 20th century:

When exactly did this downward cultural spiral begin, this loss of tact and refinement and understanding that some things should not be said or directly represented? When did we no longer appreciate that to dignify certain modes of behavior, manners, and ways of being with artistic representation was implicitly to glorify and promote them? There is, as Adam Smith said, a deal of ruin in a nation: and this truth applies as much to a nation's culture as to its economy. The work of cultural destruction, while often swifter, easier, and more self-conscious than that of construction, is not the work of a moment. Rome wasn't destroyed in a day. In 1914, for example, Bernard Shaw caused a sensation by giving Eliza Doolittle the words "Not bloody likely!" to utter on the London stage. Of course, the sensation that this now-innocuous, even innocent exclamation created depended wholly for its effect upon the convention that it flouted: but those who were outraged by it (and who have generally been regarded as ridiculous in subsequent accounts of the incident) instinctively understood that sensation doesn't strike in the same place twice, and that anyone wanting to create an equivalent in the future would have to go far beyond "not bloody likely." A logic and a convention of convention-breaking was established, so that within a few decades it was difficult to produce any sensation at all except by the most extreme means. If there was a single event in our recent cultural history that established literal-minded crudity as the ideal of artistic endeavor, however, it was the celebrated 1960 trial of Penguin Books for the publication of an obscene book, the unexpurgated version of D. H. Lawrence's Lady Chatterley's Lover. The trial posed the question of whether cultural tact and restraint would crumble in the absence of legal sanctions. For, as the much derided prosecutor in the case, Mervyn Griffith-Jones, understood only too well, and specifically advised the government of the day, if the publication of Lady Chatterley?’s Lover went legally unchallenged, or if the case were lost, it would in effect be the end of the law of obscenity. To adapt slightly Dostoyevsky's famous dictum about the moral consequences of the nonexistence of God, if Lady Chatterley's Lover were published, everything could be published.

I'm currently reading (and very much enjoying) Thomas S. Hibbs' 1999 book, Shows About Nothing, which analyzes Nietzsche's prophesies concerning nihilism, and then illustrates how they apply to the pop-culture world of TV and the movies in the 1990s. Dalrymple's article flows very nicely into Hibbs' book, and both illustrate just how far our culture has defined deviancy down (to coin a phrase) over the last 40 years.

Posted 7/21/2003 08:17:36 PM by Edward Driscoll
QUOTE OF THE DAY: "I don't think of myself as a classic conservative," says Dennis Miller. "I think of myself as a pragmatist. And these days, pragmatism falls into the conservative camp. We have to depend on ourselves in this country right now because we can't depend on anyone else. We are simultaneously the most loved, hated, feared, and respected nation on this planet. In short, we're Frank Sinatra. And Sinatra didn't become Sinatra playing down for punks outside the Fontainebleau [Hotel]." (Via The Brothers Judd Blog.)

Posted 7/21/2003 04:29:40 PM by Edward Driscoll
THE "BUSH LIED" MEME: Steven Den Beste thoroughly debunks it in a long, detailed essay, adding:

The new refrain is "Bush lied about the reason for attacking Iraq. He claimed that Iraq tried to purchase Uranium from Africa, and that wasn't true." Therefore... only they don't proceed with the "therefore" because their unspoken therefore is "therefore we shouldn't have attacked Iraq; we should have pursued other approaches and left Saddam in power." And they don't want to formally say that, since Saddam was a monster and the people of Iraq are incalculably better off now without him. But those making these arguments don't care about the plight of the people of Iraq, or indeed the plight of impoverished people anywhere else, except in very abstract terms. The dirty little secret of those on the far left making these arguments is that for all their claims of compassion for the downtrodden of the world, they are primarily motivated by hatred of Western culture, especially as manifested in the United States, rather than by love of the people of the rest of the world. [Emphasis mine--Ed] Which is why they don't like to talk about how awful it actually was in Iraq before we invaded, because they argued at the time, and implicitly are arguing now, that the status quo there should have been maintained.

Meanwhile, James Taranto adds:

Democrats are complaining that the national-security justifications for liberating Iraq were phony. They're wrong, of course, but if they actually believe what they're saying, they should be all the more supportive of the war. "By their own political principles, the less threat Iraq posed to the United States, the more reason there was to wage humanitarian war," notes Wolfson. "So, just who is deceiving whom?"

As Mark Steyn recently wrote:

Intelligence is a hit-and-miss business. In 1998, when Bill Clinton launched mid-Monica cruise-missile attacks on Afghanistan and the Sudan, he hit a Khartoum aspirin factory and missed Osama bin Laden. The claims that the aspirin factory was producing nerve gas and was an al-Qa’eda front proved to be untrue. Does that mean Clinton lied to us? I mean, apart from about Gennifer, Monica, and which part of the party of the first part’s enumerated parts came into contact with part of the party of the second part’s enumerated parts. Or was it just that the intelligence was lousy? The intel bureaucracy got the Sudanese aspirin factory wrong, failed to spot 9/11 coming, and insisted it was impossible for any American to penetrate bin Laden’s network, only to have Johnnie bin Joss-Stick from hippy-dippy Marin County on a self-discovery jaunt round the region stroll into the cave and be sharing the executive latrine with the A-list jihadi within 20 minutes. So, if you’re the President and the same intelligence bureaucrats who got all the above wrong say the Brits are way off the mark, there’s nothing going on with Saddam and Africa, what do you do? Do you say, ‘Hey, even a stopped clock is right twice a day’? Or do you make the reasonable assumption that, given what you’ve learnt about the state of your humint (human intelligence) in the CIA, is it likely they’ve got much of a clue about what’s going on in French Africa? Isn’t this one of those deals where the Brits and the shifty French are more plugged in? But here’s a much more pertinent question than whether BUSH LIED!!!!!!!!!!!!!: how loopy are the Democrats? One reason why the President, in defiance of last week’s Spectator, is all but certain to win re-election is the descent into madness of his opponents. They’ve let post-impeachment, post-chad-dangling bitterness unhinge them to the point where, given a choice between investigating the intelligence lapses that led to 9/11 and the intelligence lapses that led to a victorious war in Iraq, they stampede for the latter. Iraq was a brilliant campaign fought with minimal casualties, 11 September was a humiliating failure by government to fulfill its primary role of national defence. But Democrats who complained that Bush was too slow to act on doubtful intelligence re 9/11 now profess to be horrified that he was too quick to act on doubtful intelligence re Iraq. This is not a serious party.

Exactly.

Posted 7/21/2003 11:29:52 AM by Edward Driscoll
SURVEY SAYSSSSS! "Bloggers Select The 20 Greatest Figures In American History". Thanks to John Hawkins for including us among the bloggers invited to respond.

Posted 7/20/2003 05:49:44 PM by Edward Driscoll
AS GLENN WOULD SAY, "Oh, that left-wing media." That's vile stuff. I can't believe the Los Angeles Times' editors would approve such a cartoon. (I downloaded a copy, just in case the LA Times pulls it.) UPDATE: Jonah Goldberg has some thoughts about the cartoon, as well as the horrific photograph it was based on. UPDATE: Speaking of political cartoons, the Professor's found a doozy. UPDATE: Orrin Judd also has some thoughts on it. And be sure to read the comments as well. My take? I think anytime a cartoonist draws someone about to get a .45 in the skull--particularly a politician--he's violated some corollary of Godwin's Law. Given the natural assumption that the majority of people have towards the direction of media bias, it's an astonishingly stupid cartoon.