Lee on Sep 06 2008 | Filed under: Domestic Politics, Election 2008, Society
How many children does John McCain have? It’s seven including adoptions, but very few seem to know that. Easier question: how many children does Sarah Palin have? Five and I bet you knew that instantly. Welcome to sexism says liberal feminist Linda Keenan, in a profound and important confessional apology to Sarah.
Sphere: Related ContentLee on Sep 03 2008 | Filed under: Domestic Politics, Election 2008, Lee's Page
The title is what Time Magazine labeled New Jersey’s Senator William Warren Barbour in 1940. The expression takes on a better curve for Sarah Palin, but it fits the occasion of a very partisan and frankly rather phenomenal speech tonight (transcript).
I suppose I’m surprised by the surprise in so many media reactions I’m seeing. Then again it’s a reminder that we on the pro-Palin political right have been following Sarah for over a year now, and this sort of thing is still very much an introduction for others.
Michael Crowley for instance calls Palin’s speech “alarmingly strong” and describes emails from liberal colleagues as “panicked.” I think that’s probably an ungenerous assessment. There is afterall a reason so many on the left have been trying to destroy her these past few days. You saw it this evening. Sarah does have a certain magic. Even when she fumbles in a long speech as she can, it tends to amplify her humanity. A characteristic interestingly shared with Barack Obama and almost totally alien to wizened veterans.
The amplitude of the attention and the stress of the experince is of course very new for Sarah, but you’d never know it from looking at her tonight. I realized I’d become a little emotionally invested in this candidate over the course of the week, with its grotesque slander and innuendo campaigns in the press. When the Republican party in assembly gave her a near endless welcoming ovation I kept saying “don’t cry, don’t cry,” which was slightly sexist for Sarah and slightly for my own sad benefit.
Sphere: Related ContentMikeR on Aug 23 2008 | Filed under: MikeR's Page, Uncategorized
The single most important building block of any nation is her families. Destroy that and you can easily lay claim to a nation’s soul.
I agree. I think we have failed to maintain the nuclear family and lost the fundamental building block. Part of the reason so many folks are enticed by government support (socialism – and why the liberal left is making headway today)is that they don’t have strong family ties and are looking to replace that support structure with something.
Read the whole thing. I don’t agree with his last few paragraphs where he gets religious and I am not as pessimistic but I do believe that our families suffer at our own peril.
Sphere: Related ContentLee on Aug 05 2008 | Filed under: Culture, Society
Alan Finch, Helen Finch, Alan Finch the Revenge
Looking over our logs, it’s incredible how much global traffic we get from people searching for information on Alan Finch (August’s #1 ASHC keyword and a top-30 quantity since February). Perhaps a little odd for a blog that tends to focus on American party politics, economic theory and international affairs.
To recap you, Alan is an Australian man who had a double sex-change (first from male to female and then from female to male). He was the subject of a very brief AtW post by myself in February, and thereafter became the source of all this traffic.
Sphere: Related ContentMichaelW on Apr 17 2008 | Filed under: Blogs, Domestic Politics, Foreign affairs, Libertarianism, MichaelW's Page, Military Matters, Notes on the war, Philosophy
There seems to be some confusion on the part of some as to exactly what sort of place ASHC is:
I was rather surprised to read this dubious and scornful appraisal of Michael Yon’s Wallstreet Journal editorial at A Second Hand Conjecture, a heretofore conservative site.
The post Mick Stockinger is referring to was created by Joshua Foust, our resident curmudgeon. Josh took aim at Michael Yon’s apparent advocation for more troops in theater:
This leads us to the most out-of-date aspect of the Senate debate: the argument about the pace of troop withdrawals. Precisely because we have made so much political progress in the past year, rather than talking about force reduction, Congress should be figuring ways and means to increase troop levels. For all our successes, we still do not have enough troops. This makes the fight longer and more lethal for the troops who are fighting.
The title of Yon’s WSJ piece was “Let’s ‘Surge’ Some More.” So the obvious inference was that Yon thinks we should be committing more troops to Iraq as we did with Petraeus’ “surge” last year. Josh took exception with that (in his typical, short-post, snarky way), and he made a valid point: our military is admittedly stretched and strained, to the point that further commitments are not exactly feasible.
I’m not concerned here with the merits of Josh’s post, but instead with the characterization of ASHC as “a heretofore conservative site.” I understand why Mick (and others) think that, but we should set the record straight. This is not a “conservative” site by any stretch of the imagination. The great majority of us support the war in Iraq, but not based on any sort of conservative principles. Essentially we all believe that winning is possible, and that winning is in the best interests of America. The only difference between Josh and the rest of us on this score is that Josh thinks (and can cogently explain when he wants to) that the war was a mistake and that the costs of continuing it are greater than any perceived benefits. Josh and I fundamentally disagree on this point, but that does not make him “liberal” nor me “conservative.”
Which leads me to the ultimate point: ASHC is not a conservative site. We are an amalgamation of views loosely coalesced around the idea that more freedom is better than less. We each hold different views on what that means, and the sole issue on which we are diametrically opposed is with respect to the war in Iraq. Josh stands alone here on ASHC, but I defy anyone to produce a more intelligent and reasoned voice when it comes to articulating why taking on Iraq was a bad idea. Even as I routinely and vociferously disagree with Josh’s assessments, I appreciate the value that Josh adds to the discussion. In other words, Josh may be wrong, but he makes wrong look as right as anyone possibly could.
In sum, if ASHC is deemed insufficiently “conservative” because of Josh’s posts then so be it. We never claimed that moniker, nor is it one that we’ve ever expressed any interest in holding. Personally, I’m proud to have Josh as a co-blogger precisely because our views conflict. You will often find arguments here opining as to how we are winning in Iraq and the GWOT, and you’ll also see arguments suggesting that Iraq was a huge mistake. That does not make ASHC deficient in any category. It makes us more useful and interesting.
Sphere: Related ContentPeg on Feb 13 2008 | Filed under: Domestic Politics, Economics, Peg's Page
One of my liberal friends routinely rails at me for being such a selfish, uncaring conservative.
When I remind him, though, that he is the one who moved from Minnesota to Florida because he “could not afford the taxes” in his former home state, and I am the one who remains here – I hear mumbling about temperatures and golf. (With temps seemingly stuck in the “your-nose-will-freeze-and-fall-off-your-face-if-you-go-out-for-more-than-three-minutes” range, I’ll give him the temperature argument.)
People do move for weather and sports, for culture and family. Nevertheless, if you look at the data, clearly some percentage of people move because they judge it costs them just too damn much to live in their high tax state.
We invite readers to visit the U-Haul Moving Company Web site (www.uhaul.com), where you can type in a pair of U.S. cities to learn what it costs to move from point A to B. If you want to move, say, from Austin, Texas to Southern California, the moving van will cost you $407 to rent. But if you want to move out of California to Austin, the same van costs $1,831. A move from Dallas to Philadelphia costs $663, versus $2,433 to swap homes in the other direction. The biggest discrepancy we could find was $557 from Nashville, Tennessee to Los Angeles, but the trip costs nearly eight times more, or $4,285, to move to Nashville from L.A.
I’m someone who believes in fiscal responsibility. You need reasonable services to have a pleasant and safe community, and you need some taxation to pay for those services and safety. Politicians should remember these words of wisdom, however:
Sphere: Related ContentOur friends on the left say Americans are willing to pay more taxes to get better government services, but their migration patterns reveal the opposite. Governors would be wise to heed these interstate migration trends as they try to cope with what may be one of the worst years in recent memory for state finances. The people who tend to be the most mobile in American society are the educated and motivated — in other words, the taxpaying class. Tax them too much, and you’ll soon find they aren’t there to tax at all.
Lee on Feb 06 2008 | Filed under: Domestic Politics, Election 2008, Lee's Page
Michael Goldfarb denounced Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives as “disgraceful” today, for their open criticism of John McCain’s record and views. He labels it the result of a psychological condition he and other McCain apologists call “McCain Derangement Syndrome”:
I understand that some conservatives are uneasy about a McCain nomination, that he isn’t their first choice to carry the party’s standard. But there’s something truly unhinged–and at times spectacularly disgraceful–about the response of some on the right to this increasingly likely prospect.
(The Weekly Standard)
I can only echo his editor, Bill Kristol, who after Bush’s hopelessly misguided selection of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court, lamented: “And what elected officials will step forward to begin to lay the groundwork for conservative leadership after Bush?” Apparently no one, since John McCain will be the non-conservative nominee of the Republican party. Far from the silent acquiescence Michael advises, I wish there was as much public indignation and outrage now as there was then. Were there, perhaps we wouldn’t have this problem to begin with.
I would also remind those McCain defenders who are urging a tactical silence for political purposes, that deep conservative opposition to McCain was not a secret until Rush Limbaugh weighed in on the subject last week. The Democratic opposition was not under the impression that conservatives loved the man, and it would not have been possible to conceal a lengthy history of dissent against him within the party. Nor is the current criticism being leveled against him (that he is not conservative), anything the Democrats could possibly use to their advantage, as they’re even less so.
I might also ask more generally, how it is somehow acceptable to urge conservatives to forfeit their views, but not to demand that the candidate they are supposed to elect to represent them, forfeit his own instead? We do not represent John McCain, he wishes to represent us. If he doesn’t represent us, then we should say so. For silence is the one thing no representative democracy can tolerate or long survive.
Sphere: Related ContentLee on Jan 31 2008 | Filed under: Around the Web
Arnold has to govern liberal California, Rudy had to govern liberal NYC and McCain…McCain is from Arizona. So what exactly is his excuse for his dramatic shift to the Left over time? Lest you think he has one, here’s a very good interview from Kudlow & Company with Arizona Senator Jon Kyl, who is championing the cause of slashing corporate taxes to induce growth, while his colleague McCain rants about the evils of big business. Just some info in case you’ve ever wondered if like Arnold and Rudy, McCain’s liberal positions are induced by electability concerns in demographically fluid Arizona. Kyl has managed to remain staunchly conservative for years while being easily reelected. On a media note, Kyl’s 2006 reelection is often described as “narrow” by the press. 53-43 isn’t narrow.
H/T: Larry Kudlow
Sphere: Related ContentPeg on Jan 31 2008 | Filed under: Culture, Foreign affairs, Peg's Page, Religion and theology, Society
My liberal friends think I’m a conservative. My conservative friends think I’m a liberal. Frankly – there is truth in the assessment of both groups. Depending upon the issue, you can honestly label me with both.
One issue that continues to gnaw at me is that of equal rights for gay people. Again – I am bothered by positions by both conservatives and liberals on this topic! Too many conservatives either do not appreciate the burdens that gay folks must experience today, despite improvement in recent years. Others are out and out homophobes. On the liberal side, too many seem unaware of the relationship between the battle against radical Islam and the fight for equality for gay people.
Bruce Bawer has a column which highlights these points. Whether your general philosophy is of a conservative bent or a liberal one – please read this and take it to heart. Have more consideration for your gay neighbor. If you already do – then please realize that his rights are under terrible threat in societies that you consider to be “enlightened.”
Sphere: Related ContentEurope is on its way down the road of Islamization, and it’s reached a point along that road at which gay people’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is being directly challenged, both by knife-wielding bullies on the street and by taxpayer-funded thugs whose organizations already enjoy quasi-governmental authority. Sharia law may still be an alien concept to some Westerners, but it’s staring gay Europeans right in the face – and pointing toward a chilling future for all free people. Pim Fortuyn saw all this coming years ago; most of today’s European leaders still refuse to see it even though it’s right before their eyes.
Lee on Jan 21 2008 | Filed under: Domestic Politics, Election 2008, Lee's Page
(photo: Marc Nozell)
Matt Stoller at OpenLeft has a pretty interesting observation about the swing of the self-described “very liberal” constituency from Obama to Hillary over the course of the primaries:
In Iowa, Obama beat Clinton by 16 points among those who consider themselves as ‘very liberal’. In New Hampshire, they were even. And now in Nevada, Clinton simply destroyed Obama within that block by 16 points. In other words, while it’s not entirely clear who ‘won’ Nevada, whatever that means, had Obama run even with Clinton among those who describe themselves as ‘very liberal’, he would have soundly defeated her at the caucuses outright instead of having to play delegate games.
(OpenLeft via Corrente)
Matt goes on to make the argument that Obama’s recent praise of the Reagan legacy was the catalyst for Obama’s defeat. Overall Matt’s grinding old ideological axes a bit too hard here, given that this would clearly fail to answer how the trend he identified managed to precede Obama’s remarks on Reagan. But he is onto something at the margins. It would be interesting if Obama was losing the “very liberals” as Matt notes, among the aging and still resentful leftists who were adults during the Reagan era.
Sphere: Related Content
The View From the Bluff: Lance’s Economic and Finance Blog
Multinational Force-Iraq
QandO
Marginal Revolution
Robby’s Last FM Journal
The Volokh Conspiracy
Get rewarded at leading casinos.
