Adeimantus RSS Feed
Subscribe to Adeimantus RSS Feed Add Adeimantus RSS Feed to Your My Yahoo Page
Add Adeimantus RSS Feed to Your MSN Page Subscribe to Adeimantus RSS Feed in NewsGator Online

Adeimantus

Conservative Political Commentary

Quote of the Day

Lady Liberty

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.


Tuesday, December 21, 2004

"Twas the Christmas After the Election"
posted by Tom

(C'mon, it's Christmas. You knew one of us had to do this.)

'Twas the Christmas after the election, and all through the White House,
Bushies were celebrating, but in the Blue States Democrats groused;
The election returns were counted with care,
The loss in November left the Dems in despair.

All the limo liberals lay smug in their beds,
With dreams of apocalypse dancing in their heads;
And Michael Moore, wearing his stupid baseball cap, whined at his web site, “This election was a bunch of crap!”

Out of the TV there arose a lot of chatter,
Mainstream liberal media turned its biased eye to the matter.
”The Republicans won everything!” they cried from the tube. ”The country ignored us, can anything be sadder?”

The gloom of media Democrats descended like a black curtain:
”We lost the presidency, the House and the Senate, our party’s hurtin’ for certain.”
Then, what to their wondering eyes should appear,
But exit polls showing moral values decided it this year.

The liberal establishment’s judgment was quick,
It took less than a minute to blame Red State hicks.
More rapid than eagles their opinions they came,
As they pouted, and shouted, and rattled off their losses with shame:

"Poor Daschle! Poor Kerry! Maybe it was the tape by Osama. Whatever, we have to console ourselves with the token Negro, Obama!
From the front porch to the suburban mall!
For Republicans they voted, for Republicans all!"

As checks written by Kennedys do fly,
To the families of young women whose silence they buy,
So into the newscasts and editorials liberal post-mortems flew,
Bemoaning the nightmare of Republicans in power, but dreaming of Hillary in ’08, too.

And then, in a twinkling, and without any proof,
Came the paranoia of the usual goofs.
Bush extended his hand, his second term coming around,
But cries of “Fraud!” from liberal morons came with a bound.

They peppered Bush with slurs from his head to his foot,
”The election returns were tarnished, a page from Karl Rove’s playbook!”
A bundle of shit they flung at the wall,
Hoping mainstream liberal media would take up their call.

Their eyes -- how they bulged! Their theories how many!
They were the usual liberal whack jobs, whose penchant for nonsense was uncanny!
The drool from their mouths was copious in its flow,
Cockamamie conspiracy theories are all that they know.

They found a soul mate in an Olberman named Keith,
The smoke blown out his ass on MSNBC encircled his head like a wreath;
He had the lowest IQ you could find on the telly,
So this schnook is a natural to question the election tally.

He had company among network chumps, he wasn’t by himself,
Tom, Peter and Dan doubted the returns, too, in spite of themselves;
A wink of the eye and a twist of the head,
Told liberal faithful Bush’s victory was something to dread.

Speaking meaningless words, their nightly work,
They read press releases from Moveon.org and the DNC, the usual jerks.
Conservatives shook their heads and laughed,
Wondering how these people could be so daft.

But ‘tis the season to be jolly, of peace, love and joy,
So forget the dirty tactics the lefties employ,
And let them hear you exclaim, ere you bid them good night,
"HAPPY CHRISTMAS, LIBERALS, FROM THE WINNERS ON THE RIGHT!"

posted by Tom | 12/21/2004 02:05:00 PM
Email this link to a friend
Permalink | Comments (1) | Post a Comment | Backlinks

Saturday, December 18, 2004

Psychological Warfare
posted by Bathus

There now exists a considerable faction of conservative critics of the war effort, of which a cadre of apparently disaffected retired military officers forms a large and increasingly irrational part. While some of these conservative critics are political opportunists or self-absorbed attention-seekers, I believe most of them do have their hearts in the right place. Yet too many of even those whose hearts are in the right place have nonetheless become so obsessed with attacking Rumsfeld and the "neocons" that they have lost the capacity to discern how their agitations affect the higher and more pressing concern of sustaining the public will to pursue the war.

Allied with them is an online conservative friend of mine who misses no opportunity to disseminate as widely as possible every criticism of the war effort in general and Donald Rumsfeld in particular, no matter from what quarter that criticism arises. My friend's latest find requests our attention to a recent column by liberal pundit Mark Shields, who waxes indignant that:
Because of the incompetence or indifference of this nation's civilian leadership of the war, Americans in Iraq are living with an increased risk of death.

All the official transcripts of White House signing ceremonies for every defense spending bill, all the presidential proclamations for Veterans Day and every prepared statement by the secretary of defense before a congressional committee include the same stock phrase. U.S. troops are invariably referred to as "the best trained, best equipped" ever. Best equipped? To call today's American troops in Iraq the "best equipped" is more than an exaggeration; it is bilge, baloney and cruel.

An America coming out of the Great Depression somehow found the leadership and the will to build and deploy around the globe 2.5 million trucks in the same period of time that the incumbent U.S. government has failed to get 30,000 fully armored vehicles to Iraq.

The Bush administration has appropriated $34.3 billion on a theoretical missile defense system -- which proved again this week to be an expensive dud in its first test in two years, when the "kill vehicle" never got off the ground to intercept the target missile carrying a mock warhead -- but has been able up to now, according to congressional budget authorities, to spend just $2 billion to armor the vehicles of Americans under fire.
How surprising it is that Mark Shields has become a proponent of increased military preparedness!

Well, it would be surprising . . . if one believed Shields cared more about the troops than he does about using their travails to advance his left-wing agenda.

But as with many of those on the left who have lately discovered within themselves an intense interest in armor plating, Shields' fascination with metal arises not from its capacity to protect our troops against IEDs and RPGs, but rather from its utility as a novel camouflage for his leftist goals, of which the intermediate ones include ending the Bush tax cuts and canceling development of a national missile defense. Shields' more immediate motive--which he shares with my online friend--is to unseat Donald Rumsfeld. He pursues that subsidiary strategy of discrediting Rumsfeld in furtherance of a longer-term goal--which my good-hearted online friend does not share, but nonetheless advances--to undermine the public will and confidence to pursue the war.

In that effort to break the nation's will to win, Shields carefully nurtures the unwitting assistance of those like my online conservative friend, who, to borrow a phrase from Milan Kundera, have become "the brilliant allies of their own gravediggers."

Shields' trendy indignation about armor plating is of the same variety as the solicitous concern Ted Koppel pandered for three consecutive evenings this past week on "Nightline," which featured the exploitation of the emotional sufferings of troops returning from Iraq. A blurb now on ABC's website promotes the series thusly:
Wednesday, Dec. 15 through Friday, Dec. 17: "Nightline" investigates the psychological toll of war in a three-part series: "Coming Home: The Invisible Casualties of War."
In case you didn't catch the allusion, recall that "Coming Home" also happens to be the title of a 1979 post-Vietnam anti-war movie about a paraplegic veteran just returned from battle and a nurse who falls in love with him. The film stars none other than Jane Fonda who won an Academy Award for the performance.

Can anyone be so gullible not to see what Koppel and Shields are all about?

The "psychological toll" they most worry about is the one they wish to inflict upon the American will to win. As important as is the matter of our troops' armor, much more so is the matter of our nation's will to win. Beyond all else, the durability of the latter shall decide the outcome of the present war and whether the sacrifices of the warriors, about whom Koppel pretends to care so much, shall have been in vain.

posted by Bathus | 12/18/2004 02:56:00 PM
Email this link to a friend
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post a Comment | Backlinks

Thursday, December 16, 2004

'Tis the season to be a liberal horse's ass
posted by Tom

Here's a heartwarming Christmas tale from the aptly named city of "Bellevue", Washington:

BELLEVUE - You can't miss the Christmas tree in Bellevue City Hall.

"It's decorated with gold balls and gold ribbon," described a city worker.

They don't actually call it a Christmas tree.

"We call it the giving tree because it's meant as a season of giving and that's what it's for," explained Patrice Cole, who just made a donation.

The tree is adorned with requests for gifts from needy families. It generates nearly $25,000 dollars worth of donations. So, you might be surprised that Sidney Stock would look at this tree and say, "I resent it."

Sidney and Jennifer Stock are atheists. They asked the city council to remove the tree because it represents Christmas which is a Christian holiday.

Stock says city hall should "Act as a place where everybody feels welcome. It is impossible for everybody's religious belief to be displayed and non-religious belief to be displayed, so therefore, no religious beliefs be displayed."

The courts already sided with the city on this one.

Barbara Ramey, spokesperson for the city explained. "Courts have ruled that Christmas trees are actually a secular symbol so given that, we are within the court precedents set on this issue," says Ramey.

The Stocks complained after a city worker told them the tree makes him feel out of place, and if he says so, he fears for his job.

The couple's already gotten hate filled phone calls, but they speak out anyway, because they believe many people feel the way they do but stay silent.

"There are a lot of people who've come to this country, maybe have been here for years, who don't feel freedom to say anything," says Jennifer Stock. "So we feel we're saying it for those people. Not just for ourselves."

The city doesn't plan to take the tree down and expects it will go up again next year. They can also expect to hear from the Stocks. Sidney Stock points out that to bring about change, you have to stir the pot.

"I try and be aware of injustice and inequality when it effects anybody or everybody," he says. "Certainly this is something that has been a problem for as long as I can remember."
I'm sure we can all identify with Mr. Stock's overwhelming need to "feel welcome" at City Hall. I know that whenever I have to go into a municipal building, those bureaucratic drones behind the counter better make me feel welcome or I won't renew my license or pay fines or property taxes.

For whom do you think the Stocks voted? Huh? Come on, take a guess. In the words of "Bluto" Blutarksy, "It don't cost nothin'."

What I find sillier than the (Birken)Stocks' PC idiocy is the city's attempt to out-PC them, as reflected in the spokesperson's obsequious assurance that "Courts have ruled that Christmas trees are actually a secular symbol ..." In other words, Mr. and Mrs. Stock, the fact you're utter morons seeking publicity and it scares the shit out of everyone in this city that you folks are not in padded rooms making quilts out of your bellybutton lint, we respect your right to be sollipsistic lunatics, but also want to assure you that the courts have said we're allowed to help the poor with this secular symbol, the CHRISTmas tree.

And you wonder why conservatives are pro-gun ownership. Somebody's got to protect us from these idiots. The government sure won't.

Anyway, Mr. and Mrs. Atheist Stock's previous attempt to uphold the separation of church and state occurred when their child came home from Bellevue's Madalyn Murray O'Hare Public School crying that the kids in her class were talking about "Godzilla" movies.

The ACLU suit is still pending as I write this.

posted by Tom | 12/16/2004 01:22:00 PM
Email this link to a friend
Permalink | Comments (5) | Post a Comment | Backlinks

Wednesday, December 08, 2004

You Can Take Your Diverse Lifestyles and Stuff Them Up Your Toleration Hole
posted by Bathus

In his latest column, "The New Red-Diaper Babies," the New York Times' David Brooks has dreamed up a new age sounding name--natalism--for a phenomenon James Taranto had long ago and much more thoroughly described as the "Roe Effect." (See e.g., "Birds Do It, Bees Do It, Even GOPs Do It" or "Quantifying the Roe Effect".)

In a nutshell, Taranto's theory of the Roe Effect notes that, by aborting tens of millions of their own offspring, liberals have earned themselves a place on the Endangered Species List:
We base this [theory] on two assumptions. First, that liberal and Democratic women are more likely to have abortions. Second, that children's political views tend to reflect those of their parents--not exactly, of course, and not in every case, but on average. Thus abortion depletes the next generation of liberals and eventually makes the population more conservative. We call this the Roe effect, after Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court's 1973 decision that established a constitutional right to abortion.
In its fundamental observations, Brook's natalism theory is pretty much the exact mirror image of Taranto's Roe Effect. The Roe Effect emphasizes how abortion contributes to a declining liberal birthrate, while Brooks' "natalism" (a less threatening name for essentially the same theory) maintains a polite silence on the impact of abortion and instead emphasizes the fact that conservative voters tend to have more children than liberals:
You can see surprising political correlations. As Steve Sailer pointed out in The American Conservative, George Bush carried the 19 states with the highest white fertility rates, and 25 of the top 26. John Kerry won the 16 states with the lowest rates.

In The New Republic Online, Joel Kotkin and William Frey observe, "Democrats swept the largely childless cities - true blue locales like San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, Boston and Manhattan have the lowest percentages of children in the nation - but generally had poor showings in those places where families are settling down, notably the Sun Belt cities, exurbs and outer suburbs of older metropolitan areas."
These statistics are highly interesting, undeniably important, and will provide diverting work to secure the careers of hundreds of otherwise useless, bored, and unimaginative graduate students in contemporary political science departments across this great land for at least another decade. Perhaps one of them could address the nagging question of why liberals don't really seem to like children. But the portion of Brooks' column that inspired me to sit back down at the keyboard after a long hiatus was something rather less momentous that I noticed in his three closing paragraphs, especially the penultimate one:
Natalists are associated with red America, but they're not launching a jihad. The differences between them and people on the other side of the cultural or political divide are differences of degree, not kind. . . .

. . . .Like most Americans, they wonder how we can be tolerant of diverse lifestyles while still preserving the family institutions that are under threat.

What they cherish, like most Americans, is the self-sacrificial love shown by parents. People who have enough kids for a basketball team are too busy to fight a culture war.
Now we all know that the main reason the Times hired Brooks was for him to serve as a token conservative voice in the cacophony of that liberal choir.

But the thing is, Brooks is not a conservative.

First of all, a real conservative, unlike Brooks, would never, ever, not in a million light years, write the cloying euphemism "tolerating diverse lifestyles," except as a most extreme form of sarcasm.

And no real conservative would ever be so mushy-headed to posit the particular tone of wonderment that Brooks attributes to "most Americans": "They wonder how we can be tolerant of diverse lifestyles while still preserving the family institutions that are under threat."

But more to the point of substance: Notice how the mild-mannered Mr. Brooks slyly tries to nudge the reader toward believing that in the minds of "most Americans" a concern for being "tolerant of diverse lifestyles" is somehow equal to a concern for "preserving family institutions." Yes, in Brooks' own mind, "tolerating diverse lifestyles" does indeed deserve consideration equal to that given to "preserving family institutions."

But that's not the way a real conservative thinks.

If presented a conflict between "tolerating diverse lifestyles" and "preserving family institutions," a real conservative wouldn't agonize over it the way Brooks pretends to. A real conservative would tell you, in two seconds, "To hell with 'diverse lifestyles'." After making that point clear from the start, if a real conservative thought you capable of receiving rational argument, he then would go on to explain patiently why, in the hierarchy of social goods, tolerating gay marriage, uh I mean "diverse lifestyles," can't rank anywhere near preserving family institutions. (But if a real conservative thought you incapable of reasoned discourse, he would tell you that you could take your "diverse lifestyles" and stuff them up your toleration hole.)

If the recent sweep of votes banning homosexual marriage, uh, I mean "diverse lifestyles," is any indication, "most Americans" aren't at all troubled by Brooks' dilemma, but instead agree whole-heartedly with the real conservatives.

But maybe I'm misinterpreting Brooks when he suggests that "most Americans" worry about how to "be tolerant of diverse lifestyles while still preserving the family institutions." Maybe the proper interpretation of the thing he's thinking "most Americans wonder" about is: "How the hell can we be so foolish to be contemplating even further undermining our fundamental social arrangements just to pander to the selfish demands of sodomites, uh, I mean 'practitioners of diverse lifestyles,' when our family institutions are already going to hell in a handcart?" If that's what Brooks meant, well then, I owe him an apology. But if, as I suspect, Brooks' real question in his own mind is, "How can we find a good way to convince those uneducated breeders to give in and accept homosexual marriage?" in that case, the New York Times needs to find a new token conservative.

posted by Bathus | 12/08/2004 02:00:00 AM
Email this link to a friend
Permalink | Comments (9) | Post a Comment | Backlinks