Whiskey Fire

The Cyclical Theory of Catastrophic Fuckups

This is pretty great stuff, every word a golden sermon. It is indeed one of the most remarkable documents I have ever seen on this or any Internet, and hence worth reproducing in its entirety. Your gob, I promise, will be well & truly smacked upon reading it.

Believing What We Believe   [John J. Miller]

This morning, the American Enterprise Institute sponsored a forum with President Bush. Rather than deliver prepared remarks, Bush answered a set of questions posed by AEI's Chris DeMuth — the result was something much more interesting than any speech would have been. The full transcript is here. I liked this part of the Q&A, a little tonic for depressed conservatives:

MR. DeMUTH: I have another advice-like question. Political conservatives believe that they're in for a period in the wilderness. (Laughter.) What advice do you have for political conservatives in the years ahead?

THE PRESIDENT: Look at history. I think you're old enough to remember 1964. 1964 was a wipeout for conservatives and Republicans. In my state of Texas, the legislature was 149 Democrats and one Republican. (Laughter.) And there were no Republicans in the state senate. I think there was one elected congressman — Bruce Alger out of Dallas — and John Tower wasn't up for election. I don't know if there were any elected Republicans at the courthouse. And yet in 1966, Republicans and conservatives rebounded, one of whom got elected that year — it was George H.W. Bush, by the way, out of Houston.

And my point is, is that things go in cycles in politics. Now, in order to win, it's important to recruit good candidates who stand on principle. Most Americans believe what we believe — that government ought to be limited and wise, that taxes ought to be low, that we ought to encourage entrepreneurship and small businesses, and that we ought to have a strong national defense.

He said more, especially about the importance of Hispanic voters. But I like this central point: "most Americans believe what we believe." Ramesh has made this case persuasively, with survey data. The quality of candidates will matter and cycles will intervene, but conservatism hasn't lost its ability to connect with voters.

Perhaps a minor point has escaped the Corner monkey who has unpeeled this particular banana for us: namely, that the person who is speaking is George W. Bush.

What can you even say? Snark seems a paltry sort of response. Nelson Muntz does not enter beside Fortinbras, to point and laugh at Hamlet lying Dead & Danish in Horatio's arms. Which is not to say that the catastrophe that is American Conservatism is in any way tragic. It's just mindless, vicious, and horrible: sublime in its awful banality. Or banal awfulness. What's to say?

Oy. Just toss it onto the groaning compost heap of evidence showing that "conservatism" means nothing, nothing at all, except for mindless, tribal spite, vulgar money-grubbing, and interminable, nose-picking malevolence.

Letter to a Profound Conservative Thinker

Dear Michael Kaminsky,

People around the world overwhelmingly hate George W. Bush not because of "anti-Americanism," but for exactly the same reasons Americans themselves overwhelmingly hate him: namely, that he's been a shitty president who has killed a lot of people, green-lighted torture, told a pack of preposterous lies, and fucked up the global economy.

It has nothing to do with them resenting "our earnest assertion of our superior ontological uniqueness," though, certainly, anyone who could bleat out that kind of brainless shit with a straight face really is kind of an asshole.

Love,

Thers

The Facts in the Case of M. Gerson

by va

Edgar Allen Poe has a story about a guy called M. Valdemar, who is hypnotised at the moment of his death so that he is able to narrate it from the other side of consciousness. Like such: "Yes; still asleep—dying." And such: "Yes;—no;—I have been sleeping—and now—now—I am dead." He goes on like this for seven months, when finally it is decided that he must be awakened, even though his awakening will precipitate his final dissolution. The story ends in the following slushy manner:

As I rapidly made the mesmeric passes, amid ejaculations of "dead! dead!" absolutely bursting from the tongue and not from the lips of the sufferer, his whole frame at once—within the space of a single minute, or less, shrunk—crumbled—absolutely rotted away beneath my hands. Upon the bed, before the whole company, there lay a nearly liquid mass of loathsome—of detestable putrescence.

Not unrelatedly, Michael Gerson has an op-ed in the Post, claiming the mantle of eternal righteousness for "compassionate conservatism." For those who are curious, compassionate conservatism is a "conviction" that "government can be a noble enterprise when it applies creative conservative and free-market ideas to the task of helping those in need." Right. Please not to do us any fucking favors, amigo. Gerson ends his decomposition like such:

The moral commitments that underlie compassionate conservatism will not fade with the passing of a political figure, party or ideology, because these beliefs stand in eternal judgment of all ideologies, including conservatism. And no matter how hard you try, you cannot bury what cannot die.

      

WAKE UP, Michael Gerson! You have been deluded! WAKE THE FUCK UP!!11!

 

Above: Does wisdom perhaps appear on the earth as a raven which is inspired by the smell of carrion?

Nights

Last week of the semester -- plz do not xpect too much posting...

UPDATE.

Caroline Kennedy. Meh.

Chuck D for NY senator.

I'm an NY resident. I want Chuck D as my senator, if it's a choice between Caro K & Chuck D. And why isn't it?

I actually think Chuck D would be an excellent Senator.

Shoe-Thrower Subject to Imprisonment, Perhaps Torture

(Cross-posted at FDL)

Over the past several years I've said a lot of things about President George W. Bush, few of them publishable anywhere except online, and even by blog-standards I've, um, pushed the envelope. So maybe I'm the wrong person to be calling for this. But I'm going to anyhow.

Mr. President, please publicly forgive Muntadhar al-Zeidi for throwing shoes at you, and please state, unequivocally, that the Iraqi journalist should not face charges or endure official harassment for his actions. If American values mean anything at all, this is the right thing to do.

According to press reports, al-Zeidi is currently being held by the Iraqi government in an undisclosed location. He faces quite serious, if as yet unspecified charges:

An Iraqi lawyer said Zaidi risked a miminum [sic] of two years in prison if he is prosecuted for insulting a visiting head of state, but could face a 15-year term if he is charged with attempted murder.

In the United States, "insulting a visiting head of state" is not a crime. Nor should it be. Throwing a shoe could certainly be illegal, and hustling a shoe-thrower out of a press conference would certainly be understandable. But pressing charges?

We value vigorous dissent in this country. So much so, that even when objects are publicly hurled at controversial speakers, we do not necessarily prosecute, and if we do, we do not consider the "insult" the specific crime at issue. Property damage as a result of such an incident might be a felony, but never an "insult."

According to al-Zeidi's brother, the journalist

"might serve two years in prison or pay a fine for insulting a president of foreign country unless Mr. Bush withdrew the case. “If they manage to imprison Muntader, there are millions of him all over Iraq and the Arab world,” Maythem al-Zaidi said.

There are indeed. For political reasons, forgiving this man would be nothing but beneficial. It would show that Americans can be tolerant. It would show that Americans are not vengeful. And it would show that we do not consider "insults" to be a matter for imprisonment: we do not hold one set of beliefs and values for ourselves, and another set for others. But this man, a citizen of Baghdad, makes the case better than I ever could:

Dr. Lutfi Al-Obusi, a 58-year-old political science professor, said: “I disagree with [the shoe-throwing] because that is opposite of our Muslim and Arabic traditions. Because Mr. Bush was here to say bye for Iraq and Iraqis. And in the same time Bush is president of the U.S. and he called for the liberation and freedom. So I hope Mr. Bush will forgive Mr. Muntader al-Zaidi for what happened. And if Mr. Bush will not approve for releasing Mr. Muntader al-Zaidi that will create big problem."

President Bush, you need to avoid this "big problem." Do this one thing, this one small thing, for the sake of peace. Forgive Muntadhar al-Zeidi and call for his immediate release, and call for him to be protected against all forms of official harassment.

Do this ONE right thing before you leave.

UPDATE. Reports indicate that al-Zeidi may have been tortured. Via FDL:

Urgent appeals for Al Zaida's safety should be made by phone to the White House - 202-456-1111 and the Iraqi Embassy - (202) 742-1600.

Living Upside Down

Shorter Entire Right-Wing Blogosphere:

The Iraqis do not realize it, but in their culture, throwing shoes at someone is a sign of affection and love, even worship.

BT has some good stuff about noted imbecile Jules Crittenden's take on the shoe-throwing. But as usual, Dan Riehl is the most comical conservative of them all.

Let the libs scoff. The fact remains that today an American President can address the government of Iraq and one unhinged journalist can show his disagreement and disrespect. Not long ago an idiot who did such a thing to a visiting leader of whom Saddam approved would have been taken out and shot.

While it stinks for it to have happened, anyway you measure it, that's a sign of progress and a tribute to the sacrifice of our fine men and women in uniform. Iraqis have freedoms they could have never dreamed of under Saddam. And President Bush is the man most to thank for that.

"Thank you for my dead relatives. Here, have a shoe. Have two! No, really, I insist."

Stoopid Kids!

-By Jake T. Snake

So I open up the local newspaper last week and I see this gannett article that has suddenly popped up virtually everywhere. These kind of articles in the mainstream media always make me a little nervous, so I track down the abstract(the article hasn't actually been published yet). I include this below for your edification.

Socioeconomic Disparities Affect Prefrontal Function in Children

 By Kishiyama MM, Boyce WT, Jimenez AM, Perry LM, Knight RT. 

Social inequalities have profound effects on the physical and mental health of children.     Children from low socioeconomic (SES) backgrounds perform below children from higher SES backgrounds on tests of intelligence and academic achievement, and recent findings indicate that low SES (LSES) children are impaired on behavioral measures of prefrontal function. However, the influence of socioeconomic disparity on direct measures of neural activity is unknown. Here, we provide electrophysiological evidence indicating that prefrontal function is altered in LSES children. We found that prefrontal-dependent electrophysiological measures of attention were reduced in LSES compared to high SES (HSES) children in a pattern similar to that observed in patients with lateral prefrontal cortex (PFC) damage. These findings provide neurophysiological evidence that social inequalities are associated with alterations in PFC function in LSES children. There are a number of factors associated with LSES rearing conditions that may have contributed to these results such as greater levels of stress and lack of access to cognitively stimulating materials and experiences. Targeting specific prefrontal processes affected by socioeconomic disparity could be helpful in developing intervention programs for LSES children.

The research is also discussed here, here and here.

I could write for days about this article, but I won't do that to any of you, because I like you. These type of discoveries always lead to the inevitable nature versus nurture debate which is a false bifurcation of the world. The right will use this research to prove that poor kids are just born that way and that trying to intervene to ameliorate these effects is useless anyway. Those of a more progressive stripe will argue for more intervention and programs to undo the damage done by environmental factors. I fall squarely in the second camp. Let me explain why.

What would you say if I told you that we have proof that the functioning, the neural pathways, the chemical responses and even the structure of the brain can be altered by experience, both positively and negatively? If I told you that mental illness can be a result of environmental factors, rather than biologically predetermined at the moment of conception? We have this proof. All we need to do is look at the veterans returning from combat who are experiencing post traumatic stress disorder. The experience of war has changed them mentally and physically and altered the way their minds and bodies work. We know that people with PTSD exhibit structural changes in their brains and changes in brain functioning, that they have elevated pulse rates, blood pressure and other changes in physical functioning. Interestingly, one of the hypotheses brought forward for the differences in poor kids brain function is stress and exposure to the resulting stress hormones in daily life, akin in some ways to our combat veterans.

The brain has almost limitless plasticity and ability to evolve and adapt to the context it is in to survive. Even PTSD is an appropriate adaptation if it helps you to survive in a particular context. The brain prioritizes and spends its resources on those functions most vital to survival. If that happens to be old brain stuff, rather than executive functions well as far as our brains are concerned it is better to survive, even if you haven't successfully memorized thos vocabulary words for this week's class.

I have worked with these children and the situation is even more dire, because when they are found to have problems with impulse control (an executive function) for example, a diagnosis of attention deficit problems is made and we begin medicating them adding more chemicals (usually stimulants) to a brain already awash in stress hormones.  One of the other characteristics of those suffering from post traumatic stress disorder is high levels of anxiety best exemplified in what is known as an elevated startle response. These are the folks who end up on the ceiling after you tap them on the shoulder to say hello. Let us consider for a moment what we would be creating if a child was dealing with PTSD symptoms, was already wound very tightly and our solution was to give them an amphetamine.

The truth is that we all receive a genetic inheritance that presents a spectrum of possibilities. Biology is not destiny. We can provide a rich environment that maximizes the possibilities that children have or we can continue to sacrifice the next generation, because we have a significant investment in punishing their parents for having the audacity to be poor. Much like with health insurance, there are workable models out there that demonstrate how to provide for the greater good rather than remaining social darwinists. I fear that we lack the will and resolve to help our fellow human beings, even when they are children.

Clash of the Morons

Dan Riehl and Jonah Goldberg are having a blogfight. Bitter words have been flung that cannot be called back: "elitist," "delicate flower," "jerk." The one believes the other has "been breathing into a paper bag too much." The other calls the one a limp-wristed fag with a non-ergonomic keyboard, even though "one would assume Goldberg's wrists are strong from holding the door open for Kathleen Parker at NRO, as I would imagine he does." Oooh, burn. (Kathleen Parker, you see, hates Christian Conservatives because of her sexual inadequacies.)

I believe it starts here, with Dan Riehl taking confused exception to a typically bovine Jonah Goldberg post. Dan Riehl seems to think that Jonah Goldberg is a taxpayer-hating, effete elitist who should be ashamed of himself for using the term "ass-clown," because that is "a word which shouldn't even be on NRO imo." Presumably this is because "ass-clown" is too effete, elitist, and offensive to blue-collar taxpayer sensibilities. Jonah Goldberg should perhaps have instead employed a more properly proletarian epithet, such as, for example, "butt-munch."

Dan Riehl's blistering denunciation came as such a shock to Jonah Goldberg, he almost swallowed his cud. Fortunately his inbox flows over with clever rejoinders. Burping with mild vituperation, Jonah Goldberg copies, giggles softly, and pastes: a "reader" responds to Dan Riehl! As it emerges, it is not Jonah Goldberg, but Dan Riehl, who is the "elitist"! It's a switcheroo! Jonah Goldberg clicks "publish," a new profundity is dispatched to the blogosphere, and Jonah Goldberg's pinky returns to its nostril.

And... it goes on from there, chiefly in the "I know you are but what am I" vein. There's not much to this squabble except the entertainment value, which doesn't last long. But it is instructive I suppose to note that when "conservatives" are compelled by circumstances to contemplate something other than how much they hate liberals -- like, say, the question "how come the country hates us?" -- this is pretty much what you get. "Conservatism," stripped down, is nothing more than a delivery mechanism for self-righteous sneering at people you don't like. It's a "philosophy" that works well enough on the Internet, but is perhaps inadequate for, I don't know, running the country or similar enterprises.

The Hedgehog and the Host

by Molly Ivors

I find it hard to get too worked up by the Blagojevich scandal. It's crass, sure. Meat-cleavery. Like someone trying to thread a needle with an oven mitt on. Or seduce a debutane with a cow's tongue. Or perform calligraphy with a sea sponge. You get the idea.

Of course, it was genuinely entertaining watching the tightly-wound Regis boy Patrick Fitgerald try to repeat the Deadwood-style language of Blago and his wife. Young men trained by the Jesuits often zestfully embrace profanity, of course (two shining examples being right here on this blog: both Thers and va did their Jebbie time), but Fitz appeared to believe he was reading the Blago transcripts to his grandmother and her bridge club, or possibly to the Society for the Propogation of the Faith Annual Turkey Party and Purity Ball.

Still, I think Fitzgerald is missing the main point here: Blago needs a jail cell, certainly, but before that happens, we really need to apportion blame. Not to Obama: his hands are clean, as evidenced by his designation in the naughty column by Blagojevich himself.

Personally, I think it's abundantly clear that Blagojevich is taking orders from the hedgehog on his head. As a host organism, then, Blagojevich is merely a victim, Professor Quirrell-style, of the clearly evil insectivore attached to his brain.

I saw we let Alice have a crack at him. Or Wolcott (either the Vanity Fair one or the Deadwood one, I'm not picky). It's time to get creative with justice, people!
 

I Write Music for Soundtracks Now

Did you know that No Quarter does movie reviews? Well, they do. Look, see, a rhinoceros does a headstand! Which is to say, you get lines like this:

The incomparable Vincent D’Onofrio is Pooh-Bear, a gak dealer who lost his nose as a result of his drug habit.

And this is obviously the greatest sentence ever written on this or any other Internet.

I am in love.

(Observe, especially, the coda: "h/t to OBAMA IS A FRAUD for this recommendation." If I were writing a parody, I would have rejected that as too mean, and hence not credible. Shows what I know. This is the good stuff, people.)