(( What did HTML ever do to TPM that calls for such vicious revenge? ))
]]>(A1) (Definitely) sets an edifying example.
(A2) (Maybe) saves a lesser-breed tadpole or two in future.
[B] DRAWBACKS of ditto
(B1) Where (literally) shall Strangeribbit jump TO?
(B2) If no answer found to B1, what becomes of cliché-based Weltordnung?
[C] Department of Blue Sky and Unnatural History
(C1) What would an ostrich do?
(C2) Could today's date have anything to do with this potboiled bologna, perchance?
]]>Obviously the Rev. Jonathan Edwards and Senator Calhoun of SC to begin, with, that gruesome twosome being everyliberal’s idea of ’conservative’ ’intellectuals’ that need not even be shudderquoted all the time.
Beyond that, selection gets a little trickier. General Patton, no doubt, and Generalissimo MacArthur, who dealt in literal blood. And along that line, why not General Grant, considered as a notoriously unsubtle violence pro rather than as POTUS and corruptionist and Venerable Framer of the Party of Grant and Hoover and Goldwater an’ Atwater ’n’ ?
Plus naturally the three heroes of Uncle Bob’s book: [http://tinyurl.com/yjvdemk]
(1) Herr Prof. Dr. William Graham Sumner of Y*L*
(2) Mr. Justice Stephen Johnson Field of the Slaughter House cases (A ¡bingo! for nonanæmia, surely, that one)
(3) Mr. Andrew Carnégie
And then there is John D. Rockefeller in person, obviously, to remind us that there were oil standardizers back before weekly standardisin’ was even dreamed of . What bloodless wimp would wish to spare us "The good Lord gave me my money!" ?
If one single strikin’ly bloody-minded quotation be enough, Dr. Bones, then I believe my own pet candidate would be the Rev. (hon. caus.) Paul Elmer More:
To the civilized man, the rights of property are more important than the right to life.
The Paxton boys?
Wendell Phillips (or whatever other Abolitionist was most militantly extreme)?
Gen. Curtis LeMay?
St. Woodrow of Princeton? ("Force without stint or limit!")
A fun new parlor game, is it not?
Well, I daresay DNA really IS thicker than water.
Healthy days.
]]>Two surveys published in recent days produced astonishing findings about the public's attitude on construction in Jerusalem, findings that should alarm every Jew. In a Haaretz-Dialog poll, 48 percent of the respondents said Israel should continue building in all parts of Jerusalem, even if the price is a rift with the United States, while 41 percent said Israel should stop building in East Jerusalem until the end of negotiations with the Palestinians. Almost identical findings came up in a Mina Tzemach poll, where 46 percent said building in East Jerusalem should be frozen and only 51 percent opposed such a move.
Happy and well settled days.
]]>So young, I mean, that she has yet to notice how futile it is to suggest to anybody past puberty that he may not have grasped the Right/Wrong distinction with infallible accuracy.
(( Plus a little of the Dale Carnegie snake oil wouldn't hurt either. ))
Meanwhile, if you attend to the substance rather than to the good manners, she seems to be presentin' her neoself in a curious way, as bein' one who attends with scrupulous care to the remarks of "absolute, complete fools."
¡Au moins elle est différente!
Happy days.
His genius and character were superficial; his abilities were exercised upon ephemeral objects, and not inspired by lasting or universal ideas. Bute and George III derived their political ideas from The Patriot King. Edmund Burke wrote his Vindication of Natural Society in imitation of Bolingbroke's style, but in refutation of his principles; and in the Reflections on the French Revolution he exclaims, " Who now reads Bolingbroke, who ever read him through? " Burke denies that Bolingbroke's words left "any permanent impression on his mind."]]>
Let Frum find his pasture green and remote.
Just so. And the remoter the better!
In practice, however, decent political grown-ups are presented with a ex-neo who has by no means become an ex-con artist.
"Dear Democrats," implored Princess Cassandra, "PLEASE try not to take any wooden horses!"
Happy days.
]]>
The fancier the analogy, the more strained it is.
Now THERE is an octopus swansong for you, Dr. Bones! Clearly the Herr Prof. Dr. Publicist has a tin ear for rhetoric.
But it doesn't much matter, the message he was struggling to express was merely that he did not care for the direction in which one particular analogy was headed and would have been no better pleased if it had been Scandinavian modern[1] in style rather than Austrian Rococo[2] .
As to mere substance, probably Mr. Poster can take care of himself.
Myself, I'd object that to invent or discover a "principle of insurance (for the unhealthy)" tacitly assumes that we have already skated rapidly over the thin ice of a not impossible "principle of medical attention" for the unhealthy.
Furthermore, the Herr Prof. Dok. is excessively and needlessly alarmed about the defense of his client: nobody in Congress voted against the bill out of holier-than-thou leftism, did she?
"The blogs bark, the caravan moves on."
Happy days.
___
[1] http://tinyurl.com/yjv5tnf
The G.O.P. geniuses only want to play speculation games like "Investment Society" and "Commission, commission, who's got my commission?"
They have no particular use for a secure society -- one in which the Bad Poor are not at risk the way they so richly deserve to be, that is. Yet do the geniuses have anythin' positively AGAINST it? Uncle Scrooge won't be significantly richer because Tiny Tim dies outside the operating room, or significantly more self-esteemin' after the man Cratchitt goes to the workhouse, now, will he?
(( I'm half listening to Dr. Limbaugh explain how President Summers and Mr. Obáma are DELIBERATELY conspiring to destroy American Civ. and so it is possible I lean over backwards not to return that sort of favor. ))
The ideal arrangement would be to allow Scrooge and Warbucks to play with all those S.S.A. IOU's in some way that does not involve them extractin’ any real meat-and-potatos value from them. Not being an economist, I have no idea what the details would be like. But surely if ‘we’ can invent collateralised debt obligations &c. &c., this one ought to be a piece of cake?
***
If worst comes to worst, we might let The Squid get a small proportion of blood mixed with her tomato sauce: up to a point, it is perfectly reasonsable to pay Danegeld if it really does get rid of the [expletive deleted] Danes for a reasonable interval.
***
Happy days.
]]>
Including the act of talking about other folks’ balcony-based tackiness. Let's leave all that to the Kiddie Selfservative Movement, shall we?
]]>Happy days.
]]>Healthy days.
Or if the Russians decided suddenly to take back beautiful downtown Wasilla?
Or . . . .
Anyway, 'ally' is an inaccurate expression of the tail-dog relationship in question. It may be best to think back to the 1917-1918 troubles and consider that M. de Nétanyahou et Cie. graciously allow the United States of America to call ourselves "an Associated Power."
‘Alliance’ proper would imply an equality of contracting parties. There can be no question of that when the T. A. folks are at least as much superior to ourselves as President Wilson was to those greedy, self-servicing Old Euros.
Happy days.
]]>
Happy days.
]]>There is a linkage between Iran’s ability to compete for the position as true defender of the Islamic faith and the controversial settlements, and on the other front, there must not be a connection between the fragile coalition Obama is building to try and achieve health care reform and the state of the US-Israel relationship.
Does ‘must’ mean (1) that Mr. Publicist has examined the evidence scrupulously and grasped the logical implications of things, or only (2) that he dearly wishes nobody makes any such connection as that one?
From the way he continues, it sure looks like (2).
But if so, one should distinguish further: is the Deplorable Connection (2a) that militant extremist Republicans (with certain accomplices) "withdraw or withhold support for health care reform because of loyalty first to Israel," or merely (2b) that, Obamacare having collapsed for unrelated reasons, the Hyperzionistical faction will try to take incidental advantage for ends of their own?
Mr. P. seems to think (2a), but surely (2b) is far more likely?
Perhaps it does make sense, sort of, that those who oppose Health should stand up against Peace as well, yet that analysis is maybe just a tad oversimplified.
As for Neocomrade D. Schenker, his position is, after all, not particularly neoteric: Prince Bismarck, that notorious Old Euro socialiser of medicine, advised us long ago that children and drunkards and Uncle Sam are not to be held accountable for the consequences of their actions. (I quote from memory.)
Healthy days.
]]>
This publicist seems to bend the G&G envelope almost to the point of "two wrongs make a right." That is, he starts with The L*bby (Pat. Pend.) brazenly intervenin’ in our domestic affairs and proposes to return their kind neofavour tit for tat. Or maybe doubled, redoubled and vulnerable.
That plan might be OK as politics, if not morality, provided it actually worked, but one definitely ought to insist that it work as close to permanently as possible. Toppling M. de Nétanyahou and installing a government full of "cosmopolitan and secular" folks who still crave the fleshpots of Old Europe would not be worth much if it only lasts a few months and then turns out to be the last such government ever.
I don't know enough to be sure that the situation is like that, but it looks to me as if it might be.
Please advise.