Thursday, November 26, 2009

Whom You Hire Matters, but How Much?

by Smitty

I think Obama's Parade of Rookies a red herring. If you're driving toward a brick wall, it really doesn't matter whether you're coasting in, or all ahead full-tilt boogie. You smack the wall, the Corvette's modern art, and your name is not Rick Allen.

Consider:Wildly inappropriate for Thnanksgiving, yet still a fine summary: If you listen to fools, the mob rules.

Ed Driscoll quotes Jonah Goldberg, quoting Paul Krugman, emphasis mine:
For years, conservatives and liberals have flirted with the idea of disposing of the fool's errand of bipartisanship. Seeking compromise with partisans across the aisle is a recipe for getting nothing important done.

For liberals, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has been a leader of this school. In 2007, Krugman wrote in Slate magazine that progressives should abandon any pretense at working with Republicans. The "middle ground," he wrote, "doesn't exist — and if Democrats try to find it, they'll squander a huge opportunity. Right now, the stars are aligned for a major change in America's direction. If the Democrats play nice, that opportunity may soon be gone."
Krugman speaks truth. As with malignant cancer, there is no middle ground with this socialism. Anyone calling themself a "Progressive", Democrat or Republican, intentionally or idiotically, supports the destruction of the country. The coward-driven Cloward-Piven Strategy is just such a chaser to FDR's free-basing of the Constitution:

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:
  • The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;
  • The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
  • The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
  • The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
  • The right of every family to a decent home;
  • The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
  • The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
  • The right to a good education.
The lack of a medium like the netty-tubes in 1944 meant that there was much less chance for people to say: "Hey, FDR: 'We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights' is a steaming loaf of crap. Article V, mike foxtrot--have you heard of it?" Krugman echos this anti-Constitutional idiocy: "the stars are aligned for a major change in America's direction".

The stars are aligned for a restoration. It's either the original, Federalist direction, and let the States succeed or fail on their own merits, or unknown economic chaos. There is scant room for compromise with Cloward-Piven. States should follow that road to hell at their discretion, but the country as a whole must reject it.

We come full circle to the inexperienced cabinet question. If the remedies under discussion fail to address the strategic issues, then, tactically, you may as well put Conor Friedersdorf in there.

But, hey, it's thanksgiving. Ending on a downdbeat note is among the few things I ain't goin' to do. I'll leave you with kind of an old clip of Stacy enumerating just a few other things that we ain't.


  1. Granted O's Cabinet selections are largely irrelevant given the course he's on.

    What I thought was interesting, though, was that even Carter and Clinton selected more people w/ private enterprise credentials.

  2. kind of an old clip of Stacy

    Heh. There is a slight resemblance, isn't there? And indeed, I never cared much for Bono or Sting.

    How the heck do keep finding this weird stuff, Smitty? It's like that Cthulu video . . .

  3. Andrew Sullivan debates himself:

    Dissent Of The Day
    A reader writes:

    You said:

    In every post, I made sure readers knew that the investigation was ongoing and we did not yet know the full facts.

    Did you? You said that "we know for certain" that it was "no suicide". Yet the investigators never claimed that; a civilian who witnessed the scene did. Yes, your post indicated that there were still unknowns, but you essentially limited the question to: "Was it drug lords or deranged tea partiers?"

    I must admit that Malkin is onto something here. At the very least, you made a definitive claim ("no suicide") which turned out to be untrue. I'm a little surprised that you haven't owned up to that.

    On the other hand, if a far-right activist had been found hanging from a tree with tea bags duct taped to his body, would she have reacted thoughtfully and soberly, suggesting that it might be suicide? I find that unlikely. As you well know, she doesn't tend to be very thoughtful and sober. Re-read her post from 9/25/09 and imagine if it turned out that Sparkman had been murdered by anti-government terrorists. Sure, just like you didn't say that it necessarily was Southern populist terrorism, she doesn't say it necessarily wasn't. But she wouldn't be looking good right now if things had gone the other way (And why on earth does she bring up George Tiller? Does that not undermine her case?). There's no question that her prose is as Malkinesque as ever, while yours is somewhat more restrained. So that's something.

    But then again, you did give her a Malkin Award for her over-the-top conclusion to that post, adding: "Many of the details she pooh-poohs have now been confirmed." However, the details were on her side....

    So you declared that it wasn't suicide. You said that details had been confirmed that had not, in fact, been confirmed. I don't think Malkin's behavior here is exactly commendable, but I don't read her; I read you. Thus, I hold you to account. I think an admission of error and perhaps an apology are in order.

    Michael Moyhnihan concurs. I should have been more forthright on reflection. My reader writes:

    At the very least, you made a definitive claim ("no suicide") which turned out to be untrue. I'm a little surprised that you haven't owned up to that.

    Well I did write that

    I clearly suspected foul play and believed it wasn't suicide ...

    which seems to me to be "owning up." But burying that in the last paragraph was too sheepish. I should have made that my first point, written that I "wrote" not "believed" it wasn't suicide and been more upfront about this error (which was not, however, a definitive statement as to who I thought killed Sparkman) and then gone on to show how I did insist in every post that we still didn't know the full facts. Given the polarization around this kind of story, I guess I feel my repetition of our insufficient knowledge while airing my general disbelief that this could have been suicide (and let's face it: that's by far the likeliest inference at first and second blush) was sufficient.

    While that might be fine for Malkin, it should not be fine enough for the Dish. I should have conceded that error more forthrightly and less defensively. For stating it wasn't a suicide, based on eye-witness accounts and my own common sense, I apologize. It was premature. For directly accusing far right extremists, as opposed to thinking it was a worrying possibility, I plead not guilty. Because I didn't.

    Permalink :: Trackback (0) :: Sphere It! ::
    Share This

  4. Sullivan's dissents of the day are like watching Gollum debate himself in Lord of the Rings.

    Andrew needs at least two place settings on Thanksgiving because his personalities squabble over the hemp stuffing (it is medicinal so it is okay).


    Thanks to Smitty I have just discovered that my personal Blog Teacher, {it's like having a personal trainer with brains} is a musical star, a song and dance man. I shoulda asked him to teach me to sing and dance, OH! what a duo we would make, him brains, me beauty. Sounds like Me Tarzen He Jane it has quite a ring to it.
    What a dilemma is "The Other McCain" the one in the yellow turtle neck, cause he's damn good looking! Or the blonde in drag, it's a smittypalooza question?
    Honey the world is going to rock to the music of the south. It's going to be everywhere and I'm in for royalities.
    Love it headed to post on Facebook, Google and Newsvine Later

  6. Black Sabbath... ahh the memories... The Mob Rules is a great song that I came to know in the "Heavy Metal" animation movie, many eons ago. And it's so true.... if you listen to fools....

    By the way, Ronnie Dio, who sings on this one, has just been diagnosed with stomach cancer, so let's hope/pray/expect he gets a speedy recovery.

    Anyway, here's to wish you a happy Thanksgiving from a faithful reader and post leech from Argentina !

    Gratuitous, funny, and clever (although a bit NSFW) link to my blog here. One million hits or bust !

  7. Stalker in Chief Andrew Sullivan pledges to fight Sarah Palin forever:

    Why I Worry
    And why I will not relent on Palin and the danger she represents:

    "The energy that actually shapes the world springs from emotions -- racial pride, leader-worship, religious belief, love of war -- which liberal intellectuals mechanically write off as anachronisms, and which they have usually destroyed so completely in themselves as to have lost all power of action ... [H.G. Wells] was, and still is, quite incapable of understanding that nationalism, religious bigotry and feudal loyalty are far more powerful forces than what he himself would describe as sanity."

    And we appease or ignore those forces at our peril.

    Permalink :: TrackBacks (0) ::
    Share This

    I fear one day we will be discussing Andrew Sullivan's danger signs as we are doing now with Nidal Hassan.