Oh, and Kill Michelle Malkin!.
[Update: Gateway Pundit has a much better (and funner) video here!]
When I was ten, I wondered about the people who ran around in blue jeans and bare feet, preaching “peace and love” while calling cops “pigs”, calling their parents “bourgeouis” and labeling anyone who disagreed with their style as “clydes,” or “fags” (back then - at least in my neighborhood - you didn’t have to be gay to be called a “fag;” a “fag” was simply an uncool person. When I was ten, I was frequently called a “fag” by people cooler and more peaceful and loving than I).
Now, I’m fifty, and I still wonder about these people who chant, “peace, love, and justice” while behaving in ways that have nothing to do with those words, who live for the shout-down, who have different definitions of privacy, depending on who wants it, and who seem to operate on a philosophy of “free speech for me, not for thee.”
They co-opted and distorted the term “liberal” but their behavior is anything but. There is still this sense of perpetual adolescence.
But give Malkin credit - she’s one cool customer, and a gutsy babe. I don’t know if I could have ignored his provocations without trying raising my hand to umm…gently but soundly push his face out of mine.
Sigh. This is why I stay home.
There is an awful lot of showboating and distracting stuff to keep track of. I’d stick to Pajamas Media for the convention stuff, but if you also want to keep track of regular news and election stories that may have more meaning and impact on your real life while the shenanigans in Denver is covered and over-covered, I’d go with Instapundit, because Glenn Reynolds knows how to pick the juiciest and ripest stories.
And look, amid all the goofball distractions, let’s not forget, people are wrapping explosives around themselves and trying to kill other people.
Me…I’m back at work struggling to write a book review that should have taken me an hour.
August 26th, 2008 at 10:49 am
That was one terrifying video. Michelle Malkin is a brave woman.
August 26th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Unbelieveable! How hypocritical! Grif Jenkins had an interesting moment the other day, too(not as intense or long as Michelle’s): http://griffsnotesdc.blogspot.com/2008/08/protesters-at-dnc.html
August 26th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Speaking of hypocrits, how about all that MLK talk? While the DNC speakers were giving lip service, Alveda King (granddaughter of MLK), AND the “uninvited to speak” Archbishop Chaput, were having a prayer vigil at a local abortion center.
Hmmm, wouldn’t that have been “great unbiased coverage.” I wish I had a photo.
Instead of following Monday night’s opening ceremonies on TV, the archbishop will join Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King, in a prayer vigil against abortion near a Planned Parenthood clinic in Stapleton, a Denver suburb.
August 26th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/08/michelle-malkin-attacked-at-denver.html has lots of links
scary stuff really–when you read the commentary–it seems Michelle doesn’t have the right to be there in some people’s views.
August 26th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
I blogged today on Speaker Pelosi’s dumb comments on Meet the Press and some other aspects of the current convention. As to the treatment of Michelle Malkin - I honestly don’t know why anyone is surprised! The Democratic Party has increasingly attracted people of a rather violent (and unhinged) bent over the past 50 years. Anchoress, I am 66 years old and it’s the worst I’ve ever seen it. There are times when I honestly understand something my late Aunt Zella said when the Pope was shot many years ago - “I have lived too long.” I didn’t understand her reaction then, but I certain do now.
Mind you, there’s a fair amount of lunacy on the right too, but it doesn’t so far seem quite so filled with viciousness and hatred. Let’s hope it never does.
August 26th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Some very excellent coverage of the happenings in Denver is over at “Littlegreenfootballs”
August 26th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Anchoress: I agree that it’s odd how words change meanings over time. When I was in grade school, none of us knew what “fag” meant — we just assumed it meant “wuss” or “sissy”, and went on from there. It’s nowhere near the tortured route that words like “liberal” have taken, but it’s still a thing worth considering.
August 26th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Nasty tacky people whose mothers never taught them any better. As my late mother, may she rest in peace, would have said, “Shut up and sit down!”
August 26th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Do you wonder if any of these individuals have ever met a conservative, worked with one or made friends with one?
This is what happens when a party has a policy that punishes dissent and sequesters itself from those who think differently. It’s regression.
August 26th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
You know, Anchoress, I must say that those of the conservative persuasion can never seem to get beyond the fringe foolishess of the opposing point of view [there is always fringe foolishness surrounding any point of view] and actually examine what that point of view consists of when stated by the mature and serious proponents of it, rather than its overwrought fringe, or its unthinking fellow travelers that you might have met socially.
There are some mature an serious proponents of the liberal point of view, There are actually a few speaking at the DNC this week, and it seems to me that any fairminded person with a belief in their own intellect and the soundness of their own opinions would be willing take on the opposing view at its best rather than at its worst. If you know your own mind and believe in its capacities what is there to be afraid of in doing so?
I cannot help but think that many conservatives simply do not have sufficient self confidence in their own beliefs when they fail to do this. Speaking personally, I will be very interested to find out what John McCain thinks about, and what he thinks about it, when he speaks to the most sympathetic audience possible at the RNC, directly, and with a minimum of news mediation.
Sound bites are not enough, and his own campaign is so busy trashing the fitness of Barack Obama for the job, that their own candidate remains a mystery: merely a last name and a dignified and white haired face on the screen, with no clue as to what is truly going on behind the face or what the name genuinely stands for.
I should think that conservatives would like to know this too. But they never seem to discuss it or ask about it. And this leads me to think that maybe there is nothing behind the face and nothing that the name stands for. So I want to see for myself.
Even more importantly, I would really like to hear what John McCain says about Barack Obama as a man, and as a fellow Senator. For I have never heard Barack Obama speak of John McCaln with anything less than respect for him as a man, as a fellow Senator, and as someone who sacrificed a great deal for his country. The worst I have ever heard him say is that he disagrees with John McCain’s opinions.
Whatever else Barack Obama may or may not be, that fact alone is the measure of a decent human being, and I wish more of us, including myself, were cut to that measure.
August 27th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Joseph’s post presumes that none of us started our political thought on the left.
Joseph would be incorrect.
August 27th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
No, it does not in the least. It merely presumes that any sensible person who has a political point of view is willing to state its opposite fairly and address a fair statement of it intelligently, without rancor towards others, and with the undertanding that perfectly intelligent people can believe something which you disbelieve, and believe it honestly.
I did this in the comment section of the post “Buster vs. the paying public”. I won’t clog up the bandwidth with a restatement, but I have yet to hear the Anchoress, or anyone else, say that my statement of it was inaccurate or unfair. I did not need to get myself worked up over the transitory ill-will or momentary ill manners among those who disagree with me to do this.
My own views have certainly not changed greatly over the years, but this was because at a very early age I was taught to respect reasoning and test my emotional impulses against it. And I discovered on my own and but little later that reasoning means little in the absence of fact. With these behind you, you do not have to go through a “conversion experience” to the opposite point of view to abandon your youthful errors of reasoning and misinterpretation or ignorance of fact. And you learn that neither reasoning, fact, nor intelligence are the exclusive possession of anyone, whatever their views might happen to be.
August 27th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
I might add to this that knowing your own mind is the first step of being able to think straight with it and thinking straight about your adversary’s mind is the first step toward an adequate grasp of the power of evidence and fact.
August 28th, 2008 at 4:24 am
Joseph, if you want this discussion I can only conclude that you believe that we have either not seen or understood liberalism, which is part of the core of the divide. Modern liberalism does not permit dissent. Just ask Joe Lieberman. Ask Charlie Rangel why he could not speak at the convention.
August 28th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
I do think you have missed my point, but I can briefly address yours. The Anchoress permits dissent by me on this blog. But if she didn’t my right to “free speech” would not be infringed in the least. My right consists of not being muzzled or punished by the law for my speech in public, unless this speech breaks the law for other reasons ["'fire' in a crowded theater, personal libel, intent to defraud, ect.]. Nobody has a “right” to access anybody else’s microphone.
“My microphone is mine” is a property right, not a speech right. And my speech on this blog is a mere permission, revocable without notice. Joe Lieberman and Charlie Rangel are as free to speak as anyone else, no more and no less. They are also free to find or hire their own venues to do so. We may not like the tone or the attitude of the owner of the microphone but, no matter who owns the microphone, if they don’t want you to speak on it, that’s just tough.
Returning to my point very briefly, none of this has anything to do with what either a liberal or a conservative thinks about what the government should or should not do. If anyone out there is contending that somebody else’s legal public speech should be stopped by the police, I have not heard them.
["The Anchoress permits dissent by me on this blog." - Why wouldn't I? I am not threatened by your world-view. I don't know too many center-right blogs who delete opposing viewpoints. The same cannot be said of some other sites, though. All the "shutting up" I see occurring, and the move to shut people up seems to be growing, is coming from the other side, not this one. - admin]
August 28th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Joseph, you identify John McCain as a white haired candidate that you don’t know what he stands for even though it’s been clear he is for national security. If you don’t agree, that is wonderful. I don’t understand what the problem is for you.
You said that you wanted a civil discussion. The answer is that I was being civil; I was also being honest. If you are convinced that you are right, that is fabulous. Why aren’t you happy?
You infer that the Anchoress would silence you if she disagreed. She’s just said that you are free to say what you want.
You just don’t have control over the reaction and that is what is so foreign.
My disagreement with you is not taking away your microphone. That’s the disconnect. You say what you want and you don’t get the reaction you want. That’s not taking anyone’s microphone.
However, the Democrats in the House have made clear that they want to regulate the microphones of talk radio and Fox News.
[Actually, Mrs. Pelosi and Mrs. Feinstein have made it clear that they want to also regulate the microphones of their collegues in the house and the senate - admin]
August 28th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
May I ask if you have conservative friends?
August 28th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Good point.
August 28th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
My foremost conservative friend is the Anchoress herself, and I am quite proud to claim her as such. And, no, I don’t expect her to trounce me for what I say here. But the point still is that I am here only by permission and not by right, just as if I were visiting in her home. And as to John McCain the man, what I suspect is this–that he is far more a classic conservative in the intellectual mold of the National Review writers that I grew up reading and less that of the “values voters” of our own day or of the neo-con intellectuals of the Weekly Standard. I also suspect he is not really comfortable, as many Americans are not comfortable, with public expression of his religious beliefs.
I think it is probably an inadequate understanding of these things that has lead to talk of his being a “maverick”. Actually I’m fairly mystified at the unquestioned assumption of his “foreign affairs experience” and of all sorts of other things about him. He certainly has much seniority of service on the Armed Services Committee, but none on the Foreign Affairs Committee [where Barack Obama is a member], and only a very recent ex officio status on the Select Intelligence Committee. Where did this “experience” come from?
But I have to say that, so far, these are only speculations of mine about him. His campaign has certainly not pushed him to the fore to tell us what he is all about and I don’t think members of the press understand the history of conservatism [either post-William Buckley or post-Ronald Reagan] well enough to ask the questions I would like him to answer. This is why I want to see him in a major speaking venue with a sympathetic crowd. I doubt I’ll vote for him, but I am genuinely interested in him, and I wish more Americans were–since they might end up electing him President.
If I were to describe what I would consider the worst possible result of this election, it would be a McCain victory as a result of an electorate voting against Obama without bothering to vote for McCain. It is simply too much buying a pig in a poke. It would be equally worse if a majority voted against McCain rather than for Obama, but I hardly think that likely, and I don’t think the Obama campaign is attempting to manufacture that result, probably because they don’t think it likely either.
So I want to know about him, and I want to confront the best of what he has to say about why he should be President and what his Party has to offer the country. I don’t see why I should ask for anything less.
[His campaign has certainly not pushed him to the fore to tell us what he is all about and I don’t think members of the press understand...enough to ask the questions I would like him to answer. This is why I want to see him in a major speaking venue with a sympathetic crowd. I doubt I’ll vote for him, but I am genuinely interested in him, and I wish more Americans were–since they might end up electing him President...So I want to know about him, and I want to confront the best of what he has to say about why he should be President and what his Party has to offer the country. I don’t see why I should ask for anything less.
You do realize, do you not, Joseph, that what you have written about McCain is precisely what many of us are writing about Obama. We do not know him, and the press does not seem interested in presenting very much about him, besides, "he's great!". Why should we not ask for more, as well? - admin]
August 28th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
LOL
Vote for Obamacus at the Colloseum.
August 28th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
BTW McCain knew the answer of when the unborn should be protected. Obama said that it was above his paygrade.
McCain advocated the surge and it worked.
McCain advocated caution in dealing with the Russians and events proved him right. When McCain answered the invasion of Georgia, eventually, after several iterations, Obama came to a similar conclusion.
If you contend that it is not by experience that he knows these things, then it must be wisdom.
August 28th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
I can’t say what astonishes me the most. Here I sit on the comment page of a blog where the constant complaint is how much more coverage Democrats get than Republicans and you are mystified about Obama? I guess it must be so since upstream a little saveliberty is calling the man Caligula [of all things!] Did you watch the speech he gave on race after the Rev, Wright affair? Was not his English plain enough? Did you not watch him speak in Berlin? Were you in any doubt after about what he would like the European powers to do in Afganistan? When he has said repeatedly that the most important capacity anyone brings to the job of President is that of good judgment, did you think that he did not know what the words “good judgment” meant? When he has said repeatedly that as President he would not under any circumstances accept a nuclear armed Iran, did you think that he had no idea where Iran was and why they are dangerous? Did you watch the Saddleback forum? Are you unconvinced by it that Obama believes in God or that he is unaware of why he has spent all those hours in a church?
Well, gee….I wonder what you seek.
I know what I seek from John McCain. I won’t bore you with all of it, but here are a few key questions I would ask him, knowing that he is a conservative and a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee: Will you continue to fund expanded military operations and more modern and increasingly expensive military equipment solely with borrowed money and no increase in taxes? Do you think America’s military readiness is currently sufficient to fight a third major war alongside the two we now have? Do you think it is a good idea to keep the current lengthy tours of duty that are commonly demanded of our soldiers, and, particularly, the part-time soldiers of our State National Guards? Do you think that we should continue to use the Guards and Reserves as the logistical backbone of the regular services?
I know what answers I would give, but I wouldn’t expect him to give the same answers. I would however expect to understand the answers that he gave and not be puzzled by the fact that I have different ones. He is, after all, a conservative, right?
August 29th, 2008 at 12:14 am
Come Joseph, you know as well as we do that Obama’s coverage is 7 x greater than McCains, with zero substance.
August 29th, 2008 at 10:34 am
All a candidate can do is speak and all a candidate can ask of an audience is listen and examine what he says. Listening to the man is not the same thing as listening to newspeople gassing off about him, or watching his television commercials, or his opponent’s.
Nothing in my previous post refers to anything except what Obama himself has said under circumstances where he had to say something specific about what he thinks or what he would or would not do. No spin, no gassing, just what the man has to say. We saw the same thing last night: there was gassing before and gassing afterward, but when the man was behind the lectern what you had was him, with a minimum of mediation, talking about what he thinks and what he would or would not do. You might not like what he had to say, you might not agree with what he had to say, but he did say something that could be listened to and can be thought about. Nobody can tell you anything more about themselves than that.
This is exactly what I am looking forward to seeing with John McCain. And, as I have said, I wish more people were looking forward to it.
There has been more gassing off about Obama, certainly, though I would put the figure at about 3x rather than 7x. But I read the raw wire reports as well as the “political coverage” and when McCain or his campaign has actually done something specific that can be reported, it has been dutifully reported, even though, most of the time, what he has done has been “dog bites man” and not “man bites dog”. And when his people pull out the stops with a high-budget, slick production value commercial attacking Obama, it gets the free airtime, at least on the cable networks, that is more than its due as real news. And it gets gassed about, too.
In fact, when I look at the political coverage, I see newspeople desperately scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to find something to gas off about with McCain or his campaign. They are chronically reduced to speculation about what the candidate might be ["He's a maverick." "No he's not." "Everybody says he's a maverick." "Only his press releases say he's a maverick."], or what the campaign might do ["They might steal Obama's thunder." "They might make inroads with disaffected Hillary Clinton supporters."], or what McCain himself might do [?????].
At the RNC McCain will finally have to do something. He will have to speak, by himself, when he accepts the nomination, and we can compare him to Obama, speaking by himself, when he accepted the nomination.
In the end, that’s all that really matters. The gassing is just gas and the gassers are just gasbags.