Thursday, August 20, 2009

All Girls Named Tonya
(And Other Lessons of a Misspent Youth)

One of my favorite mental exercises is dreaming up titles for books that no publisher in their right mind would ever pay me to write. For example, my history of the 30-year war between neocons and paleocons would be entitled, First, They Came for Mel Bradford. and the story of my 10 years in the newsroom of the Washington Times would be called I've Served My Time in Hell.

Idle minds are the devil's research-and-development department. An early and persistent aversion to doing assigned work -- in college, I always felt a compulsion to read the selections in the Norton Anthology of Literature that the professor did not assign -- led to a habit of dreaming up mischief, some of which mischievous schemes actually came to fruition.

I'm just thankful the Internet and digital cameras had not been invented when I was in middle school. Me and my hoodlum buddies would have cooked up some felonious trouble quicker than you can say, "Hi, I'm Chris Hansen from Dateline NBC."

There can be no doubt that Turner Middle School in 1973 enrolled a few girls who would have been hanging out in the wrong chat rooms, had Internet chat rooms existed in 1973. But me and my hoodlum buddies would have probably scanned in the yearbook photos of Vicky Jones in her cheerleading outfit, created a bogus online profile ("blondchrldrvicky"), and found some way to monetize it, reaping profit from the lascivious interest of old creeps . . . kind of like Dateline NBC does, really.

Vicky Jones is now a respected middle-aged Atlanta businesswoman, no longer known as Vicky Jones, but if you were to ask her today, she'd tell you there were some very bad boys at Turner Middle School back in the day.

When the school band sold candy for a fundraising drive, who stole that candy and re-sold it -- one piece at a time -- to their fellow students?

When one of our hoodlum friends discovered that a local scrap-metal dealer would pay a certain amount per pound for stainless steel, who organized the scheme to pilfer spoons from the school cafeteria?

Hal Coffee ratted me out to Mr. Bell when I came back to science class with both pockets full of spoons. Then I screwed up by telling the assistant principal the name of the scheme's mastermind -- I should have exercised my right to remain silent -- so me and my friend each got a paddling and a week's suspension, and my friend also nearly strangled me for naming him . . . which I shall not now do, as he also is eminently respectable in middle age.

'Noble Savages' -- Not!
We were wicked, you see? I hung around the hoodlums because (a) they were more fun than the nerds, (b) if you've got enough hoodlum buddies, nobody messes with you, no matter how scrawny you are, and (c) Original Sin.

OK, I was a kid from a respectable middle-class home, whose parents spared no effort -- Baptist church, Boy Scouts, music lessons, youth sports, their own stern discipline -- to steer me into the paths of righteousness.

Thanks to parental guidance, I had every opportunity to do right and yet, by the age of 12, I was already a notorious hellion. I nearly didn't graduate high school because of repeated suspensions (e.g., showing up drunk for homeroom) and those four days in April 1977 I spent in the Douglas County Jail (subsequently acquitted at trial, having learned my lesson about the right to remain silent).

So when I got to college and was presented with the naive theories of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and other altruistic philosophers, I recognized that stuff for the dishonest scam it was.

"Noble savages," my right butt-cheek! Somewhere, in one of those unassigned anthology selections I insisted on reading, Mark Twain dispatched rather brusquely with the notion, then prevalent among certain East Coast "reformer" types, that the American Indian (whom political correctness had not yet converted to a "Native American" or, better still, "indigenous peoples") was the embodiment of the natural virtues of humanity unspoiled by the supposedly warping influence of civilization.

The "state of nature," and all that rigamarole, you see. Twain exposed that Rousseauean myth of the Noble Red Man for the hokum it was, describing the reality of the situation with such cold brutality as to make anything I've ever written about David Brooks seem mild by comparison.

A childhood spent in the companionship of hooligans and ne'er-do-wells -- hanging around the kids your mother specifically told you not to hang around with -- sort of spoils a man for Rousseauean myths. An early and direct acquaintance with wickedness makes it difficult to believe that people always act on motives of sincere goodwill.

All Girls Named Tonya, the title of that childhood memoir no publisher will ever pay me to write, derives from a principle of human psychology first postulated by a genuinely evil little bastard who became one of my dope buddies in 10th grade. That title is 67% of what I call Art Hembree's Law:
All Girls Named Tonya Are Sluts.
If your name is Tonya, I apologize on my old friend's behalf, but as a lowlife trying to score some easy action circa 1978-86, I can testify that Hembree's Law proved amazingly reliable.

When I was a freshman in college, I was deeply in love with a sweet brown-eyed girl named Amy, who was still in high school back home. My dad didn't allow me to take a car to college, so one Friday in mid-February 1978 I hitchhiked home -- about 100 miles from my college -- in order to be there for a big date with Amy I'd been dreaming about.

Lithia Springs High School was playing a home basketball game that Friday, and there was going to be a "Valentine's Dance" afterwards. I was a pretty good dancer, and my plan involved taking Amy to the dance, leaving early and . . . well, taking the long way home, so to speak.

A Likely Excuse
Alas, when I called Amy, she told me her mother refused to let her go that night. (Maternal intuition, no doubt.) This infuriated me, as I believed the mom-won't-let-me-go story to be one of those lame excuses girls use to avoid dates with boys they don't really like that much.

In such a mood, then, I got slicked up for the dance, hopped into my '73 VW Bug and went off in search of trouble, which I soon found.

Of course, I did not actually go to the basketball game (lame), and by the time I pulled my Bug into the parking lot off County Line Road, the game had just ended and everybody was on their way to the dance in the cafeteria.

Now, I was never one of those cutie-face boys, but I was lean and funny and had figured out a few things about maximizing whatever advantages came my way. My acne was in remission that weekend, my hair was a cool shag, and my wardrobe was disco-fantastic. So despite the infuriating misfortune of Amy's refusal, I felt like a million bucks when I paid my $2 at the door and strutted into the dance.

No one was dancing. Teenagers are self-conscious and nobody wants to be the first one out on the floor, but I was always bold and shameless. So I grabbed a girl named Lori (one of Amy's best friends) and dragged her onto the floor, where we danced for one song before I went off to chat with some of my old hoodlum buddies I hadn't seen in months.

Out in my VW, an eight-pack of pony Millers was chilling in the February night. Legal drinking age in Georgia at that time was 18, which made for surprisingly easy access to alchohol at far earlier ages. As a 14-year-old freshman playing the part of Pappy Yokum in our high-school production of "Li'l Abner" in spring 1974, I'd arrived at the cast party after consuming at least half a quart of Boone's Farm strawberry wine, and by the time I got there, the seniors had already spiked the punch with PGA. (Violent 2 a.m. wretching ensued.)

Hello, Foxy Lady
Fast-forward to that night in 1978 when, with my eight-pack of cold ponies, I was ready for whatever action came my way at the dance, which didn't take too long. When I went looking for trouble back then, I seldom missed it.

Soon a girl I knew approached me to explain that there was another girl who had seen me dancing, and thought I was cute, and wanted to dance with me. This girl I knew led me over to a gaggle of her friends, amongst whom I espied a girl with bleach-blonde hair in wing-shag "Farrah" style, platform shoes and tight faded jeans.

This blonde displayed two telltale signs that any perceptive 18-year-old horndog in 1978 would have recognized instantly: She wore light-blue eye shadow (ding!) and a black T-shirt with gold-glitter script declaring herself to be a "FOXY LADY." (Ding! Ding! Ding! Like you just hit the slot-machine jackpot, baby.)

As fate would have it, this Foxy Lady was the very girl who had seen me dancing earlier, and who was most grateful for the invitation to join me on the dance floor. We boogied through a funky number (maybe it was "Brick House") and then the DJ played a slow song (maybe "Always and Forever"), and when I danced slow, I danced slowwwwww, with whispered conversation in my partner's ear.

Within five minutes of the end of that slow-dance, Foxy Lady and I were on our way to my VW in the parking lot and perhaps I forgot previously to mention an important fact: Her name was Tonya.

Hembree's Law proved reliable and, after quickly consuming a few of those pony Millers, Tonya and I were parked at the end of a dirt road near the Vulcan rock quarry. The Bug had reclining seats and we were at third base, with a home-run clearly to be anticipated, when an unprecedented thing happened.

I thought about Amy. Somewhere in my cynical young hoodlum soul, a warm ember of conscience still flickered, which now flared up into a most inopportune flame of guilt.

"Ah, maybe I better take you back to the dance," I told the disappointed Tonya, as we zipped up and I cranked the VW for the return trip to school. No, I thought to myself, it wasn't worth blowing my chances with sweet brown-eyed Amy just to score with this other chick, Foxy Lady though she was.

Is there a moral to this story? Is there even a point? asks the exasperated reader. Well . . .
  • Amy found out.
At some point the next week, there was a school assembly, at which Amy found herself seated near Tonya, who happened to be regaling friends with tales of her night of passion with that cute college boy named Stacy.

Douglas County was (and still is) kind of a blue-collar place, so dating a college boy was considered a prestigious thing, which partly explains Tonya's boasting. And boys named Stacy were as rare then as ever, so Amy didn't need any further corroboration to know what I'd been doing the night of the Valentine's Dance.

Ironic, you see. Tonya was letting on to her friends that we'd gone all the way, with certain notorious details -- derived from her visit to third base -- which had the effect of providing Amy with entirely superflous corroboration of a tale which, nevertheless, was a lie.
  • Amy broke up with me.
Oh, the bitter recriminations which resulted from that February night! While I was certainly guilty of a sort of infidelity, it was not unfaithfulness in the first degree. And, after hitting the brakes when Tonya was giving me green lights all the way, I had congratulated myself as having done the right thing in the end.

Perhaps I should have done the wrong thing. After everything blew up, I cursed myself for having missed a chance. Had I gone all the way with Tonya, and added a few endearing words to our assignation, perhaps she'd have felt the kind of emotional bond that would have ensured our affair remained a guilty little secret.

Instead, having had but a fleeting grasp of passion -- yes, I was notorious for a reason -- Tonya felt entirely free to boast of the legendary magnificence, so that nothing I could say in my own defense would exculpate me.
  • I blamed Amy.
Odd how an arrogant sinner can never accept responsibility for the consequences of his own sins. Pride and impatience go hand-in-hand, and the Sunday after that February dance, Amy's mother let her come to my house for a dinner that I tried to make as romantic as possible. How easily I might have accepted her Friday night refusal and decided to skip the dance, but . . .

Still, it burned. If she hadn't turned me down, I'd have never been at that dance alone, and Tonya the Foxy Lady would have had to take her chances with some inferior fellow. (Obviously, a girl named Tonya wasn't going to do without on a Friday night.)

Amy's refusal to accept my explanation or give me a second chance seemed entirely unjust, given the extenuating circumstances. For all my disco-hoodlum ways, I genuinely did love her, and this heartbreak was painfully damaging.

Henceforth from that breakup with Amy, it is fair to say, my attitude toward romantic life became tainted by a spirit of vengeance that blinded me to the fact that my female companions might be as deeply in love with me as I had once been in love with sweet brown-eyed Amy. No, they were all just faithless little heartbreakers, undeserving of trust or consideration, no matter how (temporarily) innocent they might be.

Ladies, I did you wrong. And it wasn't Amy's fault or Tonya's fault. Blame only me, and I am without excuse.

Force of Habit
What became of all those broken hearts? Oh, they got over me, I suppose. Surely no man could ever be as special as I imagined myself to be back then. And so I but rarely hear of any of those girls, and Tonya's fate remains a mystery, but what friends have said of Amy racks my conscience. Blame only me.

Youthful habit is a powerful force in life. Now a happily married father of six, those old habits are sublimated (rather than dishonestly denied or, as they say, "repressed") as harmlessly charming flattery. What my arrogant young heart craved, I came to realize in belated maturity, was the praise and admiration of women which my impatient hoodlum passions led me to solicit by the most direct means possible.

Fool! Even old and ugly, I now get abundant admiration by the merest exercise of innocent courtesy.

Oh, yes, and the sequel was most interesting to any student of psychology. In 1988, I brought a lovely young lady to Atlanta for an inexpensive but romantic evening that included visits to meet some of my kinfolk.

Dad was polite and friendly enough, but initially less taken with this latest girlfriend than he had been with her buxom predecessor, green-eyed Christine from Marietta. Aunt Pat was her usual gracious self, making quite a favorable impression on my date.

What I remember most, however, was the reaction of my older brother Kirby, when my date and I visited him at home with his wife and new baby daugther. Leaving his wife to get acquainted with my new girlfriend (they were about the same age), Kirby invited me outside for a smoke.

"Damn, Stacy," he said. "Could you have found a better lookalike for Amy . . .?"

Well, it took me 10 years to find her, and though I really think Mrs. Other McCain is much better-looking, the resemblance was indeed striking, though it never occurred to me until Kirby pointed it out.

Twenty years into our marriage, Mrs. Other McCain -- whom I told all about my misspent youth -- keeps a watchful eye on me, and is always keenly suspicious when I go off to Washington for one of those "events" I must cover from time to time. I assure her she has no need to worry, as I would not impair the magnifent legend by permitting any improper contact with my middle-aged decrepitude.

Ah, but she knows me too well, and Mrs. Other McCain's suspicion is actually quite flattering, as if I were still the Speedo-sporting prime stud she married.

Nevertheless, I'm still mindful of Art Hembree's Law. Even an old guy can never be safe around a girl named Tonya.

* * * * *
Well, as I said, All Girls Named Tonya is another one of those books no publisher would ever pay me to write, but I don't think that little story is entirely worthless. Do you?

Hit the tip jar.

UPDATE: Thanks to all those who have hit the tip jar, and to Melissa Clouthier, who calls this "a slice of genius." (Let's not get started about girls named "Melissa," OK?)

Meanwhile, I got a call Friday from Vicky, who read this and says she sure hopes none of her clients in Atlanta -- who know her as a respectable middle-aged businesswoman -- read Part Two: Don't Start Me Talking.

Some things from the '70s are easily forgotten, but the legendary magnificence is a hereditary trait.

UPDATE II: Part Three: The Disturbing Case of David Copperfield.

Because some people don't have lives . . .

. . . there will be a nationwide Rifftrax screening tonight of the worst movie ever made, Plan 9 From Outer Space. I know this because on Tuesday, discussing the career of Robert Novak, I wrote:
Speaking of "journalism through whiskey," there will be a 7 p.m. Happy Hour event Thursday at the Continental Lounge in Rosslyn, Va. -- just across the Potomac from D.C. -- and if you haven't been personally invited, feel free to show up anyway.
Bloggers, journalists, fat cats, bigwigs, congressional staffers, congressional mistresses, lobbyists, interns, hookers, policy wonks, oppo researchers, "senior administration officials," two-faced backstabbing GOP political operatives -- everyone should consider themselves invited.
To which Joe Marier replied:
I can't make the Continental event, alas; I have tickets to see the Rifftrax show at Tysons Corner.
You might have achieved maximum geekdom if . . . well, NTTAWWT.

So while Joe is sitting in a theater full of guys who spent too much time as children playing with the Gilbert DeLuxe Chemistry Lab they got for their 8th birthdays, I expect to be shooting pool with the guys who cheerfully suffered strange rashes as adolescents . . .

Here's to you, Tonya, wherever you are!

OK, you had me at
'Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders'

Our friends at NewsAlert know how to get a blogger's attention:
Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders
applaud new changes at stadium
That's the headline from a story from the Dallas Morning News, which would involve actual reading, rather than the Pavlovian autonomous nerve reflex must-click-this reaction that every heterosexual man with a Google Reader experienced when he saw that headline . . .

Blogger's Motto: Hits is hits.

Who's behind the anti-Bernanke stories?

Like this one in the New York Times:
In Washington and on Wall Street, it would be a surprise if President Obama did not nominate Mr. Bernanke for a second term, even though he is a Republican and was appointed by President George W. Bush.
But the White House has remained silent. And despite Mr. Bernanke’s credibility in financial circles, both he and the Fed as an institution have come under political fire from lawmakers in both parties over the handling of particular bailouts and the scope of the Fed’s power. . . .
While the White House keeps mum about Mr. Bernanke’s future, the leading Democratic candidates to replace him include Lawrence H. Summers, director of the National Economic Council; Janet L. Yellen, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco; Alan S. Blinder, a Princeton economist and former Fed vice chairman; and Roger Ferguson, another former Fed vice chairman. . . .
You can read the whole thing, but what arouses my curiosity is why the editors of the New York Times felt the need to run this story at this time.

Stories like this don't "just happen" in Washington. Somebody covets the guy's job, either for themselves or one of their allies. The fact that Larry Summers' name is at the top of the list of candidates to replace Bernanke might make Summers the chief suspect.

On the other hand, Summers has enemies in the White House, and the idea may be to kill two birds with one stone: Get Bernanke out of the Fed, and replace him with Summers so as to remove Summers from the Economic Council.

So I suspect Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner (or his friends) of pushing the anti-Bernanke meme to the press. Geithner obviously views Summers and Bernanke as rivals to his influence in the Obama administration's economic policy shop.

Oh, and all the praise for Bernanke in the Times story? Overdone and premature. When you cut the rate to zero, it's easy to look like a genius -- for a while. But what happens when the next wave of foreclosures and bank failures hits? You can't cut the rate lower. At some point, you reach the limits of monetarianism, and we've been at the limit for months now.

Unspeakably wretched

Yesterday, I slammed as spectacularly boring -- to say nothing of its sheer wrongheadedness -- a 5,000-word "Path to Republican Revival" article by Michael Gerson and Peter Wehner published in the September issue of Commentary.

A fellow journalist sent me an e-mail praising the nail-on-the-head accuracy of my slam on Gerson, a writer who has dullness down to a science. In reply to my friend I wrote:
Did you *try* to read that mess? To whom could it possibly be interesting? JPod screwed the pooch in agreeing to publish it.
Of course, I despise the whole "How to Fix the GOP/Revive Conservatism/Save the World" genre of big-picture political writing, where the writer pompously prescribes his own 12-point plan. Has any such endeavor ever actually resulted in anything useful? It's basically just an excuse for policy wonks to market themselves to potential clients, and is a disservice to readers of whatever publication issues it.
And, naturally, the same themes in suspiciously similar language will crop up next fall in a book with a prominent Republican's name and photo on the cover, and somewhere in the acknowledgements Gerson and Wehner will be mentioned for their "generous assistance."
This phony racket becomes so predictable after a while you get sick of it.
-- RSM
The revolving door in Washington, which gives employment to fraudulent "journalists" like ex-Dem operatives George Stephanopoulos and Chris Matthews, probably doesn't mind a GOP hack like Gerson pretending to be a journalist. But even this system of dubious ethics is subverted when, while masquerading as a WaPo columnist, Gerson so transparently pitches himself as a Republican "strategist," which is what this Commentary article with Wehner really was, a pitch. It's enough to make you throw up a little in your mouth.

Most journalists who write about politics will sooner or later be asked to engage more directly in the political process. It happens, but that's not what I'm complaining about, per se. Jim Pinkerton worked for the 2008 Huckabee campaign and, so far as I can see, emerged from the experience unscathed.

However, there are times when the informed reader can detect in the "journalism" of ex-administration officials the whiff of career marketing, and it rankles.

When Jeanne Kirkpatrick wrote "Dictatorships & Double Standards" for Commentary she did not do so in order to seek the U.N. ambassadorship from Ronald Reagan. Indeed, Kirkpatrick was a Democrat and couldn't possibly have imagined such an outcome.

Thirty years later, however, we've seen how political professionals have learned to game the system, and whenever you see a magazine publish something as awful as this -- really, can anyone reasonably claim that "The Path to Republican Revival" has any merit as journalism? as literature? -- you should trust your instinctive Whiskey Tango Foxtrot reaction.

What bothers me most is that these two former helmsmen from Team Bush, who helped steer the S.S. Republican into the iceberg, now propose to offer sailing lessons to others. These miserable failures had their chance and blew it. They should slink away in shame, rather than being permitted to insult the readers of Commentary with 5,000 tedious words of wrongheaded political/policy analysis.

But, dear God, what wretched writing! I've just attempted, for about the third or fourth time, to read this damned thing -- I printed it out for that purpose -- and keep bursting out in hysterical laughter at the combination of obviousness and leaden phrasing:
Obama’s overreach has created a measure of opportunity for Republicans. The question is whether that opportunity will be grasped. Can Republicans overcome their manifest problems and succeed in preparing themselves for a restoration of public trust, and can they do so not only by appealing to new groups but also by offering compelling answers to pressing public needs?
Herewith, a brief primer. . . .
"Herewith, a brief primer"? Were I the magazine editor to whom a freelancer made the mistake of submitting a piece containing that sentence, I'd be fighting the urge to hunt down that miserable son of bitch and strangle him with my bare hands. In a case like this, a good editor would respond with a curt rejection notice:

You thieving scoundrel:
We pay writers by the word. I've consulted our lawyers, who agree that your effort to get me to pay you for the sentence, "Herewith, a brief primer," constitutes attempted petty larceny by the laws of this state and may also be prosecuted as a federal felony under the mail fraud statutes.
I'm cutting you a break this time, but if you ever again try to swindle me with a cheap scam like this, you'll be buying yourself a one-way ticket to Leavenworth.
Please find another career for which you are suited, as journalism is clearly beyond your abilities.
Sincerely,
The Editor

There may be a shortage of good writers in America, but the editor who agrees to pay for a sentence like "Herewith, a brief primer" is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

The Great Cash-for-Clunkers Mystery

Why would a federal program to give away money keep running out of money?

If you had to think two seconds to figure that out . . . you might be a liberal.

(Hat-tip: Hot Air.)

Perp-walking Ricky Hollywood's mom

Mom's a felon, and her lawyer is a key adviser to her thug son:
Sherry Johnston pleaded guilty Wednesday to one count of possession with intent to deliver the painkiller OxyContin. Five other felony counts were dropped. . . .
She hugged her lawyer, Rex Butler, before being escorted out of the courtroom and taken to a correctional facility where she'll be held until her Nov. 20 sentencing. . . .
Johnston, 42, is the mother of 19-year-old Levi Johnston. He and 18-year-old Bristol Palin were engaged but called the wedding off after their son, Tripp, was born in December. . . .
Q. What do guys in Anchorage call it when they go on a date with Levi Johnston's mom?
A. Taking out the trash.

Maximum geekdom achieved!

Unless there's a Society for Creative Anachronism blog out there, can you really top an online video in which Glenn Reynolds interviews a sci-fi author and discusses, inter alia, "the suckiness of the Starship Troopers movie"?

This is just sad, people. It's what happens when boys whose mothers won't let them play football grow into teenagers who can't dance, then become college students who spend their weekends rolling those weird D&D dice and . . .

Well, you see how this disturbing pattern of pathology ineluctably progresses to the point where grown men actually care about the film adaptations of space fantasy novels.

Am I the only one who sees this whole cluster of behaviors, centered around the telltale abnormal interest in fictionalized distant worlds and/or ancient times, as constituting something that might be called Total Geek Syndrome?

I'm almost exactly the same age as Insty, and I well remember those who succumbed to the geek syndrome. Some of my college buddies got into that SCA thing, where they spent their weekends playfighting with wooden swords in preparation for the much-anticipated "Renaissance Faire."

OK, there were probably more antisocial things that students could do with their leisure hours, but watching my loser buddies waste their weekends on that lame SCA crap sure made me feel a lot better about my own decadent habits of getting drunk and scoring with disco skanks.

Today, of course, geekishness more commonly manifests itself as online role-playing videogames and attending Comic-Con, puerile Battlestar Gallactica fixations, etc., but it's still all part of the same syndrome.

These observations will spark a nature/nuture debate -- are geeks "born that way"? -- and I will predictably stand accused of intolerance for alternative lifestyles. But really, I'm just trying to help.

Somewhere in America at this very moment there is a 13-year-old boy refusing the offer of a Marlboro Red from the neighborhood juvenile delinquent.

"Uh, no thanks . . . I might get in trouble," says the geek-to-be, and seals his fate forever. No ditching school. No disciplinary infractions. No motorcycle accidents. No strange rashes after sneaking out of the house one summer night at age 14 to rendezvous by the laundromat with a girl named Tonya.

That 13-year-old kid confronted with his first chance to smoke a Marlboro is at a fork in the road, you see. One way leads to a leather jacket and an electric guitar, the other leads to a 3.9 GPA and a lifelong Robert Heinlein obsession.

I'm not saying that the geek path is necessarily unworthy, but I do feel it is important that these kids know they have a choice.

Won't you please give generously to help fight Total Geek Syndrome? The kid you save will thank you . . . once that strange rash clears up.

God endorses ObamaCare?

Remember all those liberals who warned that the Religious Right would impose a Taliban-style theocracy in America? They were right!
In a morning conference call with about 1000 rabbis from across the nation, Obama asked for aid: "I am going to need your help in accomplishing necessary reform," the President told the group, according to Rabbi Jack Moline, who tweeted his way through the phoner.
"We are God's partners in matters of life and death," Obama went on to say . . .
Oy vey! (Hat-tip: Weekly Standard.)

Say it ain't so!

Hope for $ale?
Two firms that received $343.3 million to handle advertising for Barack Obama’s White House run last year have profited from his top priority as president by taking on his push for health-care overhaul.
Hope-destroying details from Michelle Malkin, who just learned that Culture of Corruption -- Best. Book. Evah! -- will be at No. 1 on the New York Times bestseller list for the third consecutive week.

Michelle's secret to success? Page 291.

WSJ sings from the open-borders hymnal

Even after its divisive support for John McCain's "comprehensive immigration reform" helped sink Republicans in 2006 by estranging working-class voters from the GOP, the Wall Street Journal keeps plugging away, arguing the economic case for amnesty and open borders.

How many times have I had this discussion with my libertarian friends? Human beings are not commodities, and therefore free-trade rhetoric cannot applied to immigrants as if they were analogous to imported goods.

My 2004 KIA Optima does not burden public schools, does not impose health-care costs on taxpayers, does not require the accommodation of Korean bilingualism.

I grow weary of hearing immigration discussed as if it were a purely economic issue, where the costs and benefits can be calculated by experts applying algorithms to statistics, without regard for the political and cultural realities involved.

In 1965, the year Ted Kennedy pushed the Immigration and Nationality Act into law, we were a nation of 195 million. Today, our population exceeds 300 million, of whom the 2000 Census counted 31 million immigrants; responsible estimates of the number of illegal immigrants range as high as 12 million.

Beginning with the 1965 law, there has been no significant change to U.S. immigration law in the past 44 years that was not approved by Ted Kennedy.

In other words, we have a liberal immigration policy which, as is true of all other liberal policies, has produced disastrous consequences. And, as is so often the case, liberals now insist that the solution to the problems resulting from their own policies is . . . wait for it . . . more liberalism.

For at least 15 years, the editors of the Wall Street Journal have played a perfidious and dishonest role in the debate over this issue, obscuring rather than enlightening, like a squid inking the waters, and heaping opprobrium on any conservative who dares speak blunt truth.

Calling them out won't stop them from continuing their harmful folly. They have shown themselves to be beyond shame. But it is alway important to call things by their right names, and this principle extends to accurately describing as worthless two-faced sons of bitches the editors of the Wall Street Journal.

(Via Memeorandum.)

Oh, for crying out loud, David Frum!

On the occasion of Bob Novak's death, must you still stubbornly defend your errors?
Robert Novak was respected and liked by many, and their memories of him are the memories that deserve hearing today.
But there is one thing about Robert Novak that I have had in mind for some time, and today seems the appropriate moment to say it.
Novak was one of the people I discussed in a still-controversial 2003 article for National Review, “Unpatriotic Conservatives.”
That piece analyzed a group of conservatives so radically alienated from their country that not even the events of 9/11 could rally them to her cause. . . .
OK, I'll stop there and if anyone wants to read the rest, they can. But David, do you not see what was wrong with your 2003 article, and what is even more wrong with your untimely defense of it?

First, you did not "discuss" or "analyze" Novak, Buchanan, et al., you attacked them, and in exactly the same manner that liberals have attacked conservatives as far back as Barry Goldwater or even Joe McCarthy.

You did what a friend of mine calls the "Ransom Note Method," cutting and pasting like a kidnapper gluing together words clipped from magazines. You then presented this assemblage as if it constituted a complete file of the essential facts that told us who these men really were.

Nudge, nudge: "They're all Jew-haters!"

Unfair and unfortunate, especially considering that on the issue which was even then being weighed in the balance -- the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq -- their doubts were ultimately vindicated.

'Cakewalks' Have Consequences
More than 3,000 U.S. troops died to implement that policy, thousands more were wounded, billions of taxpayer dollars were expended and, while the eradication of Saddam's Ba'athist regime was inarguably a good thing, patriotic Americans may reasonably ask, "Was it really worth the cost?"

The domestic political consequences have included the mobilization of a powerful left-wing grassroots movement, the loss of a congressional majority it had taken Republicans 40 years to gain, and the election of the most left-wing Democrat president in our nation's history. As to the foreign-policy results, we can only speculate what mischief may ensue in however many years it takes for American voters to get their bellyful of liberal misrule and regain their traditional good sense. (Assuming, of course, that the Bush-damaged GOP can yet be salvaged as a workable majority coalition, which is at this point a hypothetical proposition.)

For these multiple woes, then, leading advocates of the Iraq invasion must bear responsibility just as, had the invasion turned out to be the "cakewalk" that Ken Adelman notoriously predicted, its advocates would now be fighting over who should get credit for its success.

While future developments might conceivably lead historians to conclude that the Bush administration's policy was altogether wise and beneficial, as matters stand now, the Iraq invasion bids fair to rank as the most tragic folly of imperial overreach since the Athenian expedition to Sicily in 415 B.C.

How, then, can you possibly consider it "appropriate" on the occasion of Novak's death, to attempt to defend your foolish attack on him and others when even many of the most staunch Republican loyalists -- men and women who defended the Bush administration through thick and thin -- now freely admit that Novak, et al., were right all along?

Say what you will, David, but facts are stubborn things, and the facts are not on your side.

Ex-Democrats and GOP Cliques
Let us now leave to future historians to argue the merits of the Iraq invasion, just as Civil War buffs still endlessly argue whether Longstreet or Lee was correct about the tactical situation on July 2, 1863. (Most folks down home derogate Longstreet as a faithless scalawag, but I believe Lee was both sincere and correct when he said he was entirely responsible for that defeat.)

Military considerations aside, then, what of your attempt to smear Novak, along with Buchanan and others both living and dead, with the odious taint of anti-Semitism?

This involves an old intra-Republican feud to which I'd paid little attention before arriving in Washington. Having been a Democrat all my life until 1994 (a story I've told in bits and pieces over the past 18 months, including a thumbnail version at The American Spectator), I little suspected that what I had once dreaded as a mighty Republican monolith was in actuality a middle-school playground of antagonistic cliques.

David Horowitz and Peter Collier have described their own shock, upon leaving their New Left allegiances to support Reagan in the mid-1980s, at discovering the vicious factionalism inside the GOP. To its enemies, the Republican Party inevitably appears to be a carefully managed, well-funded, brutally efficient political machine, staffed entirely by ruthless automatons acting in synchronized lockstep.

This powerful illusion of Republican unity vanishes as soon as, dillusioned by the latest Democratic Party betrayal, the ex-Democrat ventures inside the GOP camp and tries to join up. Immediately, the arriviste finds himself pulled this way and that, urged to pledge his loyalty to one clique, one cause, one ideological posse within the intramural league of Republican rivalries.

Paleo, Neo, Me-o, My-o
Little did I suspect, while yet a Democrat, how bitterly Republicans were torn by Operation Desert Storm. While I thrilled at this brilliant military victory that vanquished the Vietnam Syndrome, from my purely political standpoint as a moderate Democrat, that war had the tragic consequence of destroying the presidential hopes of Sam Nunn.

Meanwhile, unknown to me, the GOP faction led by Buchanan had opposed Desert Storm from the beginning. By the nature of the arguments the Buchanan faction made against that war, they left themselves exposed to the charge of anti-Semitism. We might say, as Antony said of the accusation that Caesar was ambitious, "If it were so, it was a grievous fault, and grievously hath Buchanan answer'd it."

As in every previous and subsequent engagement between the paleocons and neocons, the paleos emerged the embittered losers, while the neos went on to new heights of prestige and influence.

However, allow me now to suggest, David, that in the Babylonian debacle that destroyed Karl Rove's "permanent Republican majority," the neocons have now suffered their Philippi.

You cannot recover from this self-inficted disaster, my friend. Whatever the future holds for the GOP, if the Republicans should recapture their Reaganesque mojo, displace the vaunting Pelosi Democrats and roll onward to new glories, I pray that they will never again commit the errors of Bushism, failing to discern wise counsel from folly merely because the fools were clever enough to accuse the wise of crude bigotry.

Plagiarize Yourself Much?
Your 2003 "Unpatriotic Conservatives" article that defamed Novak and other critics of the Iraq war -- some of them arguable less innocent than Novak -- was not your first exercise in that sort of attack. I am grateful to my friend Daniel McCarthy for having filled the gap in my knowledge on this score:
While at the [Wall Street] Journal, Frum accepted the freelance assignment that would make his name: a 1991 cover story for The American Spectator attacking Pat Buchanan.
The article, "Conservative Bully Boy," described Buchanan as "everything couth conservatives want to escape" and took aim not just at Buchanan himself -- then contemplating a run against George H.W. Bush for the 1992 Republican presidential nomination -- but also at his paleoconservative and libertarian supporters, including Paul Gottfried, Murray Rothbard, and Thomas Fleming, among others. Frum accused Buchanan of "sly Jew-baiting" -- so sly, evidently, that it slipped past Jewish intellectuals Rothbard and Gottfried, but not the ever vigilant Frum. . . .
The hit on Buchanan earned Frum a book deal with The New Republic's imprint at Basic Books; indeed, Frum reused much of his material on Buchanan and the paleos for Dead Right's chapter on "Nationalists."
So, a dozen years before your 2003 National Review cover, you had deployed the same theme in the same situation. When America was at war under a Republican president, you denounced conservative critics of the war in a way calculated to inflict maximum damage on their influence. What could be more damaging than the suspicion of anti-Semitism?

It is worth mentioning here that I have various disagreements with Buchanan and some of his supporters. For starters, I am a philo-Semite so staunchly pro-Israel as to make Netanyahu look like a squish. Also, as was true of Novak, I am a resolute free-marketeer who has no use for tariffs, labor unionism, and other such economic deviations to which the Buchananites are sadly prone. (I admit an uncouth nostalgia for the gold standard, but some Austrian School friends assure me that this is actually quite orthodox.)

Despite these various disagreements, however, I cannot bring myself to say that Buchanan and his followers are evil. Nor, in the grand scheme of things, would I consider their support for the Republican Party a net liability to the GOP. If you take a look at the Tea Party crowds and townhall "angry mobs" now striking terror in Democratic hearts, they look a lot more like Buchananites than Frumians.

All of which is to say, as I look at the conservative movement going forward, I think we have seen an end to the era when populists and traditionalists -- Bradford, Sobran, Brimelow, etc. -- would periodically be scapegoated and purged to maintain the standard of "respectability" necessary to sustain the support of a tiny clique of highbrow elitists.

We Don't Need No Stinkin' Elitists!
No more of that. From here on out -- and I think I speak now for a very broad consensus of conservative opinion -- we're rolling like the Hell's Angels on a Labor Day weekend run to Monterrey. If this flagrant contempt for elite opinion causes panic among the effete snobs at the Wall Street Journal, if it offends the tender sensibilities of gentle souls like Peggy Noonan, David Brooks and Rich Lowry -- well, screw them.

And in an ironic way, David, you have helped make possible the new bad-boy conservatism of the future. Let's list a few names of those you have denounced in recent months:Having done your best to alienate the widest possible swath of conservatives -- thinking that Obama's popularity would justify a purge of those clamorous talk-radio types -- you now deem the occasion of Novak's demise "appropriate" to revisit your old grudge against conservative critics of the Iraq war.

Alas, no one important to the GOP's future is listening to you now. If your conservative credibility were a bank, David, the FDIC would shut it down. So far as any ability to influence rank-and-file conservative Republicans is concerned, you're as bankrupt as Kathleen Parker.

What really makes your renewed ax-grinding against Novak's ghost so risible, David, is your accusation that Novak and friends were "so radically alienated from their country that not even the events of 9/11 could rally them to her cause."

David: You're Canadian.

Case closed. Court adjourned. You are remanded to the custody of Judge Ann Coulter for sentencing.

UPDATE: My previous discussion of the Frum/Novak/Levin feud has now been front-paged at Hot Air.

UPDATE II: More Novak obituary tributes piling up, including this one from American Spectator editor R. Emmett Tyrrell:
He is one of the most loyal contributors that The American Spectator has ever had. Some who have written for us never let it be known in their bios lest they give offense to polite company. Bob never hid his relationship with us and mentions it often in his stupendously informative memoir, The Prince of Darkness: 50 Years Reporting in Washington. . . . He served on our Board of Directors, never flinching when the government haled us before a grand jury or when and the Clintonistas infiltrated into the media tales of our treasonous behavior. During all this hullabaloo I innocently asked Bob what the mainstream journalists thought of us. The mortar fire was pretty heavy. "They think you're obnoxious," he responded. Gee, Bob have a heart!
He actually did have a heart and a strong conscience. On the one matter that temporarily ended our friendship he was proved wrong or at least sort of wrong. When that became apparent to him he suggested we dine and smoke the peace pipe. He admitted he had been wrong. I insisted that he had only been a bit wrong. Our friendship was renewed. In all my years as an editor I have only known one other acquaintance to come forward and admit to being wrong. And again, Bob was only sort of wrong, but he had the self-confidence to admit error. He also had the intellect and general competence to fall into error rarely.
Read the whole thing. Meanwhile, Mr. Tyrrell's indefatiguable right-hand man, Wlady Pleszczynski, posts this video tribute:

Special note to David Frum: I noticed your most recent e-mail in my inbox but, due to my chronic e-mail overflow (which my intern has promised to fix as soon as he returns from his holiday jaunt to Florida), it was auto-deleted before I had a chance to read it.

Please don't take a non-reply, or the reiteration of my criticisms, as unfriendly gestures. I still want to be your friend, but your relentless ax-grinding against the paleos and populists is passed its sell-by date. I have done what I can to try to persuade my paleo friends to relinquish their own ax-grinding, and intend to do more in that direction.

However, if there is to be a "New Majority" -- a conservatism that can win again, as you say -- it cannot be built on the basis of an elitist disdain for those unruly grassroots activists. Majority coalitions are not built by a process of subtraction, which is what your anti-populist agenda represents. The fact that Bill Kristol continues to say nice things about Sarah Palin should be a warning signal of how badly you're isolating yourself.

I'll be in town Thursday, if you'd like to upbraid me in person for this criticism.

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Things they never write about dead liberals

If tomorrow Eleanor Clift were run down by a bus while crossing K Street -- perish the thought! -- her obituary would not include this sentence:
Though known as a liberal, Clift developed relationships with folks on both sides of the aisle and had sources everywhere.
And yet Lynn Sweet, who proudly counts the departed Robert Novak as a colleague, feels compelled to write this about him:
Though known as a conservative, Novak developed relationships with folks on both sides of the aisle and had sources everywhere.
Why? Are conservative journalists so notoriously partisan in their friendships as to eschew all social interaction with liberals? Was this the habit of, inter alia, William F. Buckley Jr.? Indeed, no, as one of Buckley's best friends was the notoriously wrongheaded liberal economist John Kenneth Galbraith.

So then, as we might more readily believe, is Sweet's telltale sentence yet another case of liberals projecting their own faults on the demonized Other? That is to say -- and I'll drop the just-asking-questions mode to say it directly -- liberal journalists notoriously ostracize any member of their profession who fails to embrace the appropriate ideology. In fact, this habit is not limited to liberal journalists merely, but rather is common among liberals everywhere, who treat conservatism as a sort of moral failing that makes the right-winger socially unacceptable.

For example, you should have seen the fear in the eyes of a certain young Democratic congressional staffer when, a couple of Fridays ago, I spotted her at the Union Pub and approached her cordially as if she were my dearest friend in the world.

Oh, I understand, sweetheart. You don't want your friends to start wondering if you've been accidentally disclosing facts to a conservative reporter. But a good reporter never burns his sources, so far be it from me to suggest that you had anything to do with this little nugget, or that you told me anything useful to my 3,000-word IG-Gate story in the September issue of The American Spectator.

So my dear Democratic friend who is not -- repeat, is not -- leaking sensitive inside information to me, please don't panic when, later this week, I drop by your office to hand you a newly-printed copy of the September issue and thank you for your non-cooperation.

Explain it however you want, darling, but if I get hit by a bus, don't tell anybody that I had "relationships with folks on both sides of the aisle."

"Plausible deniability." IYKWIMAITYD.

Iowahawk Car Porn

by Smitty

When not lighting up the tubey-webs with blistering satire, Iowahawk so often indulges a motor fetish. This particular roundup does include a Red Barchetta, which affords one the opportunity to brush the plush Rush crush:


However, Stacy has some objection to a band who'd simulate a wild ride in a car so directly in a song, omitting the blues he seems to consider essential. No, I don't get it, either.

In the name of blog tranquility, we'll lay down something topical, bluesy, and car-centric:


I should probably not mention my (admittedly brief) experience as a music promoter. My big idea was to have Rush and ZZ-Top on tour--performing each others' material.

Nobody likes my ideas.

'Journalism Through Whiskey'

Not every day I'm quoted by The Economist:
Mr Novak, who died today at age 78, helped invent modern political reporting. He grew up in Illinois and climbed to better and better jobs as "shoe leather" reporters in the sleepy state capitols of Nebraska and Indiana. As one admirer put it today, Mr Novak practicised "journalism through whiskey", befriending and socialising with sources, worrying less about sensational on-the-record quotes than finding out what these people, with their hands on the public treasury, really thought. It resembled British reporting more than the high-minded, Walter Lippman-worshipping "objective" reporting that dominated coverage in America.
Just had a long conversation with Joe Marier, in which I pointed out that Novak and Pat Buchanan were personal friends, and that Buchanan had (obviously) been one of Novak's sources in the Nixon and Reagan administrations. So when David Frum attacked Novak as "unpatriotic" for siding with Buchanan in opposition to the Bush administration's Iraq policy, it was not merely a policy dispute.

A Washington journalist needs sources, including sources he may disagree with politically, and if Sidney Blumenthal invited me to lunch tomorrow, I'd accept the invitation, assuming that Team Hillary had some really good anti-Obama dirt they wanted to inject into the media via the VRWC. (Trust me, Sid: No fingerprints, IYKWIMAITYD.)

Sometimes your sources become your friends. And when your sources and friends are at war with one another, calling each other the nastiest names they can think of, this is painful for a professional practicioner of neutral objectivity like me.

Speaking of "journalism through whiskey," there will be a 7 p.m. Happy Hour event Thursday at the Continental Lounge in Rosslyn, Va. -- just across the Potomac from D.C. -- and if you haven't been personally invited, feel free to show up anyway.

Bloggers, journalists, fat cats, bigwigs, congressional staffers, congressional mistresses, lobbyists, interns, hookers, policy wonks, oppo researchers, "senior administration officials," two-faced backstabbing GOP political operatives -- everyone should consider themselves invited.

Except my creditors. If I owe you money, you are specifically not invited. That would not be ethical.

Also: I don't drink whiskey. I had a traumatic experience at a Christmas party about 10 years ago, and had to part ways with my old buddy Mr. Jack Daniels.

Rose Friedman, R.I.P.

First Novak, and now Milton Friedman's widow, too:
Rose Director Friedman passed away Tuesday, August 18, 2009, in her home in Davis, California, of heart failure. While the exact date of her birth is uncertain, she is believed to have been 98 years old . . .
Brian Doherty has a tribute at Reason magazine. More blog reaction at Memeorandum. Our world is now much poorer for the departure of such giants, on whose shoulders we aspire to stand. Let us hope to be worthy of their rich legacy.

Novak vs. Frum, Levin vs. Frum, and Casualties of Rhetorical Combat

Today's news about the death of Robert Novak brought to mind my first meeting with Novak in 2002, and subsequent events:
It was Novak's criticism of the Bush administration's Iraq policy, and especially his agreement with Buchanan on that subject, that earned him inclusion in David Frum's notorious 2003 catalog of "Unpatriotic Conservatives."
Since then, Frum has gone on to attack others, including Mark Levin. . . . As a result of the Bush policy -- and the rhetoric that attended the political defense of that policy -- every consideration of the U.S. position in the Middle East became a crude referendum on anti-Semitism, so that all dissenters were suspected of being closet Jew-haters in "unpatriotic" allegiance with terrorists.
This Manichean rhetorical escalation was both unfortunate and unjust, even if some of the dissenters (including Buchanan) had unwisely given their critics ammunition with which to arm accusations of mala fides. When discussions of policy become clouded by such damaging insinuations, when disagreement is cited as evidence of moral inferiority -- can anyone but a child molester be worse than an anti-Semite? -- then honest discussion becomes impossible. . . .
Today, of course, Novak can no longer be harmed by accusations that he, born at Jew, was guilty of aiding and abetting anti-Semites. Whatever his faults and errors, Bob Novak now awaits the judgment of a higher authority than David Frum. Let us pray that Frum will now pause to consider that he, too, shall one day be judged by the same authority.
You can read the whole thing at The American Spectator, and I am grateful to be linked in Ed Driscoll's own Novak tribute, as well as by DaTechguy, Mark Goluskin and Craig Henry.

Last night, I got a message from a veteran conservative communications professional, a friend who on Friday had tried to contact me about Frum's attack on Levin. Over the weekend, my attention had been consumed by other news, and so I had not responded to an earlier e-mail.

In the meantime, however, Dan Riehl had blogged about it, and someone called my attention to Frum's appearance on the Moyers show, and my response to that was actually mentioned on Monday night's show by Levin.

Nothing is more harmful to the legacy of Ronald Reagan than when a conservative, engaged in good-faith discussions of politics and policy, is publicly accused of dangerous malice, immorality or irresponsibility by another who purports similarly to revere the worthy cause to which Reagan dedicated his life.

Frum's attack on Levin was such an occasion, as was his "Unpatriotic Conservatives" article that attacked Novak and others. If a colleague in the conservative cause has erred in judgment, he should certainly expect criticism. Yet Frum has so clearly crossed a line -- and crossed it more than once -- that I wish he would entertain the hypothetical possibility that he has himself made errors of judgment.

Our nation is now in circumstances too desperate for good men to be silent while sincere conservatives like Mark Levin (who did honorable service under Ed Meese in the Reagan administration) are repeatedly and unfairly maligned by others who profess also to be conservatives.

(Cross-posted at the Hot Air Green Room.)

ROBERT NOVAK, R.I.P.

A great reporter has died.

UPDATE 12:11: Chicago Sun-Times:
Chicago Sun-Times columnist Robert Novak, one of the nation’s most influential journalists, who relished his “Prince of Darkness” public persona, died at home here early Tuesday morning after a battle with brain cancer. . . .
UPDATE 12:23: On Fox News, Major Garrett -- a former newspaper man himself -- just talked aobut Novak's excellence at "shoe leather" reporting: The time-consuming business of seeking out face-to-face interviews with sources.

His memoir, The Prince of Darkness, is full of stories about how he did this, meeting quietly at restaurants and bars with people, famous and obscure, who might be able to give him a scoop. People who've never worked as D.C. reporter would be amazed how often it is through casual social acquaintances -- someone you met at a party -- that a reporter gets a scoop.

"Better journalism through whiskey" is an ancient art that Novak once practiced nearly to his own destruction, until he took alarm at his health and swore the stuff off.

UPDATE 12:30: Tim Carney, who worked as an assistant to Novak for years, talks about the great man and his methods:
Bob Novak was, above all, a reporter.
Watching him work was a delightful education in reporting.
In 2004, I was chatting with Novak at a conservative dinner at the Willard Intercontinental in downtown D.C. when Ralph Reed approached. Novak greeted Reed, introduced me, and began trading pleasantries, but within one minute the conversation had somehow become an on-background interview -- I noticed this, but I’m not sure Reed did, because of the subtlety with which Novak deflected any questions back at Reed and steered the conversation away from himself.
It was a remarkable trait to find in a professional pundit so successful and so opinionated: Novak might have been the best listener I’ve ever known. . . .
What Novak was doing with Reed -- using a social encounter to pry out some useful bit of news -- is really the key to understanding why he was so good. The dramatic stuff of "All the President's Men" has given people a mistaken notion of what investigative reporting is really all about. It's actually more mundane than that -- but in some ways, more exciting. To reel in a source like a fish on the line is delicate business.

UPDATE 12:45 p.m.: Also at Human Events, Ken Tomlinson talks about Novak and the "Sonnenfeldt Doctrine," an example of how Novak's reporting impacted Cold War policy. Novak was originally a liberal Republican (that was before liberal Republicans learned to pretend they were conservative) but he always hated Commies.

But hating Commies is not an opinion. To say that communism is evil is to state a neutral, objective fact.

UPDATE 1:10 p.m.: When Novak's brain cancer was reported in July 2008, I wrote:
Early on in his career, Novak's saturnine appearance earned him the "Prince of Darkness" sobriquet. His longtime column partner, Rowland Evans, was a patrician WASP known and loved by Washington insiders, and so it was generally suspected (not altogether unfairly) that Novak was the troublemaker whose inside scoops caused so much embarrassment for the Establishment.
And in that post, I quoted Michelle Malkin's own tribute to Novak:
Novak has had a huge influence on my career. During a college conservative journalists’ confab, he urged us to seek metro newspaper jobs, pay our dues, and try to stay out of Washington for as long as possible. I took the advice to heart and left D.C. after a year as an intern at NBC to take my first newspaper job at the L.A. Daily News and then the Seattle Times.
Very good advice. The problem with a reporter coming to D.C. as a 22-year-old, I think, is that they come to take it for granted and don't appreciate what an honor it is to cover the Major Leagues, so to speak. When your earliest front-page scoops are about city councils and county zoning boards, you develop a better sensibility about the job.

Novak actually started out covering high-school sports as a teenage stringer for his hometown paper. After college and the Army, he eventually hired on with the Associated Press in their Omaha bureau, then transferred to their Indianapolis bureau before finally coming to D.C. at age 26. In Prince of Darkness, he writes:
I was the only AP newsman in Washington less than thirty years old, and there were precious few under 40.
That is to say, to be assigned to Washington was then, as it still should be, a plum job -- a privileged and an honor earned -- and I think that the kid who shows up in D.C. as a 22-year-old fresh out of college doesn't understand that.

More blog reaction at Mememorandum.

Your new hero: Barbara Espinosa

Every revolution begins with one courageous individual, relentlessly dedicated to a cause -- and perhaps written up in my American Spectator column:
Tom's Tavern in Phoenix was "packed to the rafters" Monday morning, Barbara Espinosa told me. "You could hardly move."
The tavern was the scene of a "Health Care Town Hall" event hosted by J.D. Hayworth, the former Arizona Republican congressman who is now a popular talk radio host on KFYI in Phoenix.
President Obama was in town to address the annual convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and Ms. Espinosa was a member of the crowd who marched from Tom's Tavern to the Phoenix Convention Center to welcome the president, carrying signs with slogans like, "Pull the Plug on ObamaCare" and "Marx Was Not a Founding Father."
Had Ms. Espinosa not been in the crowd, I wouldn't have known about the protest. She posted a notice of the Tom's Tavern rally on her blog and, using her cell phone, sent me photos of the protest that I posted on my blog.
Welcome to the Information Age, where somebody's grandma is changing the world one Facebook update at a time. . . .
Read the whole thing. Ms. Espinosa is planning to attend the 9/12 Taxpayer March on DC, so we might have to organize a "Smittypalooza" in her honor. You should add her as your Facebook friend.

Musical lament for a massive failure:
'By the Time Obama Got To Phoenix'

Performed by J.D. Hayworth and the Angry Mob Singers:
By the time I get to Phoenix my plan is dying
I hear the crowds, and House members running for the door
They laugh when we reach the part about cost savin'
Cause they've heard that so many times before . . .
Fisherville Mike has the rest of that tune.

Monday, August 17, 2009

Thug-o-crat A says to thug-o-crat B:

by Smitty

"That crowd is making a mess of things. In my country, we have ways of controlling speech and assembly and keeping the people in line. Sometimes firmly. It is unfortunate, but necessary."

B to A: "Yeah, I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking, either. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess. Unfortunately, I don't enjoy the freedom you do to undertake the required action, alas. Yet"

You just wish it was a joke

by Smitty

Weeps.

Somebody start a pool:
How long before Rich Lowry gets fired?

Accusing Sarah Palin (and her supporters) of "hysteria" over health care?

Once again, as I said two weeks ago, National Review contributes more evidence for the prosecution in the continuing case of Why Rich Lowry Should Have Been Fired No Later Than 2001.

Jonah Goldberg says he doesn't want the top job -- he actually considers Lowry a friend -- but I've warned him he might not have a choice. No matter how loudly paleos and libertarians would howl in fury at Goldberg's elevation, he at least has the necessary thirst for combat against liberals, rather than engaging in a lot of snotty nancy-boy whining about the uncouth Republican rabble.

Replacing Lowry with Goldberg would produce an immediate 47% reduction in the Effete Douchebag Index at National Review. Lowry's stayed too long at the dance, and people are getting sick of NR being the official Mitt/Jeb 2012 campaign journal, repeatedly slagging Palin and the grassroots. We're in the seventh inning, the home team's down by three, the starting pitcher just walked the bases loaded, and I expect to see the manager make his way to the mound and signal to the bullpen any minute now.

More at Conservatives4Palin and Riehl World View.

Reader's Digest: Death by Consultants

Reader's Digest plans to
file for US bankruptcy
When I was a kid, the reading fodder at our home consisted chiefly of three things:
  • The Atlanta Journal (the afternoon paper, which had then not yet fully merged with the morning Constitution);
  • The World Book Encyclopedia, which our parents bought as a Christmas gift for us kids when I was 7, and which I had read in nearly its entirety by the time I was 12; and
  • The Reader's Digest.
Most people probably don't remember what a glorious, important, exciting magazine Reader's Digest used to be. When I was 8, 9, 10 years old, Reader's Digest would have articles about the Vietnam War, great "true crime" stories, historical features, profiles of major newsmakers and entertainers, jokes, cartoons, recipes -- just everything you could imagine.

The basic idea was that each month's issue would include 30 articles -- an article a day, a diet of literacy for the ordinary person who couldn't subscribe to dozens of magazines, but who, via Reader's Digest, could keep himself informed, enlightened and, yes, entertained.

There was a true variety of content and, in my role a top Hayekian public intellectual, I would be remiss if I didn't mention that Reader's Digest famously helped make The Road to Serfdom a nationwide bestseller by publishing a condensed version that went through several printings in its own right.

Just the most wonderful thing you could imagine for a kid to have in the house back in the day. There was no cable TV or Internet, and many an idle hour was spent poring over those thick little magazines. Mom kept them collected in stacks on the bottom shelves of coffee tables and end tables. Sometimes, scouring around for something to read, I'd go into the stack and read articles from five, six, seven years previous -- just fascinating stuff, really.

What a sad dessicated thing the Reader's Digest had become in recent years, a steep decline for which I blame consultants. The publishing industry -- newspapers, magazines, books -- is plagued with these overpaid "experts" who collect fat fees to give bad advice.

Whatever his advice, the one thing the publishing consultant will never tell an editor this:
"Hey, you've got a pretty good [magazine/newspaper/book company], so basically, you should just 'dance with the one that brung ya.' Circulation and sales might be a little bit slow lately, but your basic content is pretty good. Maybe you could add more photos or try some snappier cover layouts, or develop a new marketing campaign. But in terms of the basic product you're delivering to your readers, that's great. Focus on maintaining quality and high standards, and you'll be fine."

If you're ever working for a publisher and you get a memo from the executive suite telling you that they've hired a consulting company to "refocus our brand," etc., you should put in your two-week notice immediately. If the folks in the executive suite don't know how to run their own company . . .

UPDATE: Wow, strong reaction in the comments -- welcome Instapundit readers. One commenter questioned the extent of the role of consultants in the decline of Reader's Digest. We don't know the full answer, but one of our commenters who used to work in their D.C. bureau had some interesting observations about their switch to a celeb-focused lightweight approach in recent years.

One of the things I've noticed over the years is that journalists can be divided into two classes: (a) those who spend their time reading publishing-industry trade journals, trying to spot new trends, and (b) good journalists.

In every newsroom there are worthless drones who waste hours of company time sitting in their cubicles reading useless crap like Editor & Publisher or the monthly ASNE newsletter. Keeping up on "industry trends," you see -- a convenient substitute for doing actual work. Is it any wonder that the main "industry trend" is the worst gotterdammerung in publishing since Guttenberg invented moveable type?

UPDATE II: Thanks to the anonymous commenter who found at least one consultant's fingerprints on this story -- which is certainly not to say that this particular consulting firm did anything wrong or that their services are not valuable.

Rather, it merely demonstrates how the hiring of consulting firms so often serves as an indicator-light on the company dashboard, a potential signal of managerial incompetence. If your IT despartment can't do its own system upgrade and your graphics department can't handle a page redesign -- so that your bosses are always hiring outsiders to do such things -- it's not exactly a hallmark of a well-run publishing concern.

But hey, don't believe me. It's not like I have experience with the publishing industry or clueless management . . .

When in doubt, blame Mark Levin

David Frum was interviewed Friday on PBS's "Bill Moyers Journal" and was asked:
"You describe yourself as a calm conservative. But you have certainly aroused those to your right in the Republican Party. You know, talk show hosts like Mark Levin have come after you saying you're kneecapping your own. What about that?"
To which Frum replied:
"Look, a lot of the conservative movement in this country is conducting itself in a way that is tremendously destructive. Both of the basic constitutional compact of the requirements of good faith and of their own good sense. I mean, when you were going on the air and calling the President of the United States a Nazi as Rush Limbaugh has repeatedly done. When Mark Levin -- you mentioned him - he said the President of the United States is literally at war with the American people. And then people begin, unsurprisingly, showing up at rallies with guns. It's just outrageous. It is dangerous. It's dangerous for the whole constitutional system."
Really, David. Was that necessary? Talk radio is "dangerous for the whole constitutional system"? Like you're the second coming of James Madison?

And while we're at it: How come Bill Moyers and Jim Lehrer never ask Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin to come on their shows? Am I the only person who gets tired of seeing these third-person references to famous people who, I suppose, would be available for interviews when they are slanderously accused of fomenting assassination attempts?

Headline of the Day Month Year Century

Black Man Pleads Guilty
to Posing as Obama-Hating
White Supremacist on Facebook
This is what annoys me about New Media. It took me years of hard work to develop a notorious reputation as an Obama-hating white supremacist. These kids -- Dyron L. Hart is a mere lad of 20 -- think they can jump online and become a hatemongering sensation overnight. And they don't realize that impersonating a bigot is a federal offense.

Where's the respect? Where's the tradition? I got no problem with college kids trying to bring some fake-Facebook diversity to the Obama-hating movement, but they need to acknowledge the fact that they stand on the shoulders of giants . . .

(Via Instapundit.)

'Angry mob' awaits Obama in Phoenix
UPDATE: LIVE PHOTOS!

BUMPED 11:45 a.m. ET: Barbara Espinosa is sending photos from Phoenix via her Blackberry:

A friendly historical reminder about the American founding. And notice the yellow sign at right: "Obama's New Motto: How Can I Fool Them Today?" Except I don't think it's exactly new . . .

Notice that this lady is in a wheelchair. You may look at her and say, "Oh, look -- a patriotic American exercising her First Amendment right to free speech!" But that just goes to show you what an evil racist you are. (BTW, thanks to Jimmie Bise for the linkage.)

An unidentified hottie in front of the KFYI radio booth displays her opposition to ObamaCare, as well as her nice legs. In Barbara's last message, she reported that it's 100 degrees in Phoenix today, so if the Tea Party ladies are dressed for the weather . . . We're understanding. We care.

Beth Straley displays her "Birther" pride. I am on record in opposition to Birtherism, although co-blogger Smitty is moderate on that issue. Still, you've got to love that one bumper sticker on Ms. Straley's sign:

"Kenya Called. They Want Their Marxist Back."
If that's not worth a "Heh," I don't know from "Heh."


A friendly Phoenix welcome for our Commander-in-Chief. Please note the yellow Gadsden Flag in the right background of the photo.

(ORIGINAL POST) 11:13 a.m. ET: My new BFF, American Freedom blogger Barbara Espinosa of Arizona, informs me that the Arizona Tea Party Patriots are rallying this morning in Phoenix, where President Obama is due to address the annual convention of the VFW.

KFYI's J.D. Hayworth has live coverage of the rally at Tom's Tavern. Rumors that Barbara Espinosa has gotten a Gadsden Flag tattoo have not yet been confirmed.

Kathleen Sebelius is a total douchebag

No. Wait a minute. No responsible journalist would write such a headline about the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

I misspoke.

Sorry about that, Madame Secretary. You understand.

Sunday, August 16, 2009

OK, so you waved the religious symbol at the vampire...

by Smitty

Let Freedom Ring sounds a healthy note of caution regarding the purported death of the public option (emphasis mine).
"I think there will be a competitor to private insurers," Sebelius said. "That's really the essential part, is you don't turn over the whole new marketplace to private insurance companies and trust them to do the right thing."
  • If private insurers were engaging in anti-competitive practices, wouldn't that be a Sherman Anti-trust Act violation?
  • What's this "new marketplace" doo-dad? When I hear the M word, I think actual competition and capitalism.
  • "trust them"? I don't even trust my understanding of anything coming out of this administration. Obama's policies are like having the word inconceivable stretched across an...inconceivable number of reams of paper:

LFR continues:
If we want to win this debate, it's important that we highlight the Democrats' next attempt at single-payer. It's also important that we insist that H.R. 3200 be scrapped, along with the Baucus bill and the Kennedy-Dodd legislation. The premise for the Democrats' health care reform legislation has been faulty from the outset.
Amateurs talk about tactics. Professionals talk about logistics. Buffy talks about getting it done.


While I don't dispute there is a tactical battle against The Congress That Shall Live in Infamy which must be fought, keep in mind that this is an ideological struggle for the soul of these 50 States United. Your enemy hates you, despises your love of liberty, and will cheerfully appear to concede semantic firefights in the name of its ultimate goal. Yes, the vampire has been chased off. It is undead. It can wait.

The Federal government is overpowered at the moment. Tell me what we're doing to put a stake in the heart of the horror and yank its fangs.

Maureen Dowd: 'Obsessed? Me? Just Because I Haven't Written Anyhing Except Anti-Palin Columns Since Sept. 2008?'

Which, as Mark Finkelstein points out, might as well be the headline on MoDo's latest Rorshach test:
At the moment, what [Palin] wants to do is tap into her visceral talent for aerial-shooting her favorite human prey: cerebral Ivy League Democrats.
Just as she was able to stir up the mob against Barack Obama on the trail, now she is fanning the flames against another Harvard smarty-pants -- Dr. Zeke Emanuel, a White House health care adviser and the older brother of Rahmbo.
She took a forum, Facebook, more commonly used by kids hooking up and cyberstalking, and with one catchy phrase, several footnotes and a zesty disregard for facts, managed to hijack the health care debate from Mr. Obama.
Sarahcuda knows, from her brush with Barry on the campaign trail, that he is vulnerable on matters that demand a visceral and muscular response rather than a logical and book-learned one. Mr. Obama was charming and informed at his town hall in Montana on Friday, but he’s going to need some sustained passion, a clear plan and a narrative as gripping as Palin’s I-see-dead-people scenario. . . .
Read the whole thing, especially if you are a psychologist who might render some sort of learned opinion about whatever has caused Dowd to devote her dotage to this quest to destroy Palin, like mad Ahab hunting Moby Dick.

It's insane -- and trust me, I have more direct experience in the field of insanity than most psychologists. However, when I engage in lunatic self-parody, at least I understand that I am making myself the subject of the story. MoDo shows no such self-awareness, apparently believing that she can devote column after column to her idee fixe without calling into question whether she is revealing more about herself than about her putative subject.

There, but for the grace of God . . .

DIAGNOSTIC UPDATE: Weasel Zippers suggests, "When you look up bitter, elitist, jealous douchebags in the dictionary Maureen Dowd's decrepit mug should be front and center." And our esteemed colleague Dr. Kill, recalling the recent medical analysis of Ms. Dowd's condition, somberly observes:
Oh oh, sounds like someone's out of peanut butter.
Either that or her German shepherd ran away -- an altogether understandable Pavlovian response to Ms. Dowd's particular stimuli. Research by epidemiologists (commisioned under an NIH grant managed by the McCain Institute For Advanced Vaginology) suggests that exposure to Ms. Dowd's gaping, arid, malodorous vajayjay produces a 37 percent increased likelihood of victims developing an acute case of Raging Faggotosis. NTTAWWT.

Remember, folks: Bad Nookie Is No Laughing Matter.

DIAGNOSTIC UPDATE II: Thanks to Sister Toldjah for bringing to the attention of Institute researchers the latest commentary on another tragic case study:
"I don't know exactly what about me threatens them (Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter and Co.) so much, other than that people are listening to me," she writes in her latest cranium-inflating missive to the kids on the Internets. She brags that she has twice as many followers on Twitter as Malkin. "And trust me, Twitter is more of an indication of where young people are than books published." Books are so for old people!
Meghan is building a "look at me, I'm such a hip badass" platform, lobbing insults at pundits to prove she's just as edgy as her father. . .
Obviously, this further confirms the numerous reports in the Institute's archives (including one submitted by a Columbia University sophomore who was the last Teke pledge in line at a November 2003 all-night kegger) that the patient we call "Meaghan M." was already showing clear symptoms of intermediate-stage BNS in the first semester of her freshman year.

Rule 5 Sunday

by Smitty

Rule 5 Sunday is once again upon us. Great roundup, as we seem to have more participation from the ladies and some of the big names in the blogosphere. Let us pause for refreshment in positive things.
  • Reader Cindy suggests we start with Emily West as a palate cleanser. This blog concurs in an ow-that-pebble-hurts kind of way.
  • Late for the International BikiniFest, Engadget does something with 15 bikini models and wiring to make a synthesizer. I don't know how he kept a straight face, either.
  • Mallika Sherawat appears to have been slightly late for the bikini-synthesizer gig, but makes up for it by being stunning.
  • The Instapundit, to whom we never hesitate to direct more traffic when we can, links a Life Magazine collection of celebrities in bikinis. Three Beers Later had gone flat by the time the entry arrived, alas.
  • Daphne, at Jaded Heaven, admits a brunette bias.
  • Vodkapundit links a clip of bikini-clad women reading the script to Star Wars. I'm not sure if the absinthe is working for you, Steven.
  • Chad at the KURU Lounge suggested Jana Defi. We can agree on this much: Jana is a healthy lady.
  • The Troglodarity Department feels it is time to bring back Britney. And Carrie Prejean. We're also treated to Sophie Milman. Have you ever wanted to be a microphone? Me neither, until I saw that clip.
  • Morgan Freeberg presents Meghan Fox in a clip that is new to me, but may have offended some already in its potty-mouthed hyperbole. Troglopundit linked it too, and his comment function is about an order of magnitude less painful than Freeberg's.
  • Powerline is finally seeking that special traffic boost that only Rule 5 can give. Here is some serious reporting on the Miss Universe Pageant. Follow-up posted here. Again, the Miss Universe Pageant refused to let Stacy McCain be a judge, so I guess he's boycotting.
  • In sports news, Dennis the Peasant has a Rule -5 example. I'll admit: I find that picture strange, yet compelling for some reason. Psychoanalyze me in the comments.
  • Dustbury contributes Nadja Auermann, for those who admire the leg as a special art form.
  • Ed Driscoll at Viral Footage linked The Onion's tweaking of PETA. Ed Driscoll.
  • Obi's Sister goes hi-brow (NTTAWWT) with a montage of silver screen heroes set to Bach #3 for the ladies. That wasn't me, either, playing the Bach, though I should really practice on the pipes and post a clip. Browbeat me, readers.
  • Paco favors the clarinet over the violin in suggesting Ginny Simms
  • Jeffords quotes a woman in lingerie sitting on a piano amidst roses as saying "Mel Gibson is a visionary". Trust Jeffords. He is a professional.
  • In health news, the WyBlog examines the Ratched future of nursing under Obamacare, and comes up with some attractive alternatives.
  • The Classic Liberal continues the health care thread with a study in Avril Lavigne. The swerve into energy policy at the end was a bit of a mind frak. It will require several more reviews to determine whether or not it works.
  • Staunch Rule 5 aficionado Bob Belvedere has several entries, a testament to his shamelessness. Here is Stella Stevens. There was a study in Suzanne Pleshette. He also recommends Julie Christie.
And how can we ignore the temptation from the last caption to squeeze in the fruit of another YouTube clip?


That concludes us send updates, cheers and jeers to Smitty. Peace, out.

Update:
Now that we've made sure the Myers has been fed (they shut down the buffet in his wake), let us attend to the correspondence.

The evil women of Pittsburgh

When I decided to make a mad dash to Pittsburgh yesterday for the RightOnline conference, I knew it would be unwise to make the trip alone. The conference was held at the Sheraton Station Square Hotel in the city's westside riverfront district -- notorious for its liquor, dancing and wicked women.

So I brought along my 16-year-old son, James, not only to remind me that -- in the words of Mr. Potato Head in Toy Story 2 -- I'm a married spud, but also so that he might see for himself the sorry fate that awaits those who stray from the path of righteousness.

While I had attempted to warn him about the infamous women of Pittsburgh, young James was still shocked at the utter shamelessness of these big-city hussies. The poor lad stared, visibly filled with feelings of pity and horror by the sad spectacle of vixens, tramps, sluts and outright harlots brazenly strolling down West Station Square Drive, all gussied up in their tight dresses, dyed hair, gaudy jewelry, even lipstick and other such sinful things.

"Gosh, Pa, I never saw the likes of them in Hagerstown," James said, as one gaggle of these tawdry strumpets strutted past, smelling of whiskey and cheap perfume.

"Yes, I know, son," I answered, shaking my head sadly. "Now you undestand why all those decent upstanding Republican ladyfolks left town the minute the conference ended, rather than to risk being seen down here by the river after dark. Bad enough during the day, but if word ever was to get around that they'd been here at night, people might think they were . . . liberal."

"Yeah," James said, astonished by the sight of a woman sashaying past us in tight short-shorts and high heels. "Maybe even . . . progressive."

"Hush, boy. Your mama would wash your mouth out with lye soap if she heard you use such shameful language," I said. "Even about a woman who is so obviously . . . a Democrat."

It was then that I shared with the lad a famous poem inspired by the fallen women of Pittsburgh:
You wouldn't read my letter if I wrote you
You asked me not to call you on the phone
But there's something I'm wanting to tell you
So I wrote it in the words of this song

I didn't know God made honky tonk angels
I might have known you'd never make a wife
You gave up the only one that ever loved you
And went back to the wild side of life

The glamor of the gay night life has lured you
To the places where the wine and liquor flows
Where you wait to be anybody's baby
And forget the truest love you'll ever know

I didn't know God made honky tonk angels
I might have known you'd never make a wife
You gave up the only one that ever loved you
And went back to the wild side of life