ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2019 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, October 08, 2005

Not the first straw, the last straw

Chad the Elder of the Fraters Libertas is one of the few who recognizes how deep the damage runs. He quotes an FL reader who is a longtime Republican and writes in response:

I've patiently been swabbing the decks of this damned ship since Jimmy Carter was the captain, waiting for the stars to align so we could get the pilots we were promised. This was supposed to be my time. I wanted to see some major payback action. But what did I get? Mystery Man Roberts. And now Mystery Old Maid Miers? And I'm supposed to be satisfied?

I'm furious. I don't give a good G** damn if the Republicans never win another election as long as I live. I'm done with them. No more time. No more money. 2008 will probably pit Hillary against McCain and frankly, I can't tell which one I despise more, a pox on both their houses.

Here's my attitude in a nutshell: I trusted you. You screwed me. Now there's going to be Hell to pay.


Dismiss Nathan if you wish. Tell him to sit down and shut up. Wax on about the "perfect being the enemy of the good" all you want. Try to convince yourself that this is just another brilliant strategic masterstroke by Karl Rove.

But, no matter how you twist it, the fact of the matter is that the choice of Miers has driven him from the Republican fold. And I'm afraid to say that he's far from the only one. Part of the base is goin' boys and they ain't coming back.

Believe it or not, people do get disgusted and leave permanently. I was a die-hard Reagan Youth Republican, I was active in the Young Republicans and attended not only the Republican convention in 1988, but also the subsequent inauguration celebration. But personal contact with people like Ken Lay, Georgette Mosbacher and others in George Bush's inner circle had planted some seeds of doubt in my mind, and when the first President Bush broke his pledge on taxes, I realized that the Republican Party politicians were largely frauds concocted to fool the much more conservative Republican grass roots.

I left the Republican Party then and have not, to the best of my recollection, voted for another Republican since. I have not regretted it, as Minnesota Republicans turned their backs on conservatives and chose a former Democrat from New York as their standard bearer.

Read the whole thing at Fraters Libertas, it's very illustrative of the serious problem facing Republicans in 2006 and beyond.

Friday, October 07, 2005

Thinking about Hispanics

From NRO's Corner:

The latest from Senate Democrats: “President Bush Needs to Think About Hispanics Every Day of the Year”.

Somehow, I find it difficult to believe that the Senate Democrats will be pleased if the president puts up a door poster of Vida Guerra inside the Oval Office.

Mailvox: Calloo Callay

RC emails with the good news that the Fetid Swamp is drained at last:

Rather to my own surprise, but with confidence that it's the right thing, I've decided that this will be the final installment of The Fever Swamp (at least for now — for like the answer to the inevitable questions about family size, "So, are you done?," I daren't quite say the Swamp is finished for good. Who knows?). Thank you to all of the gracious, intelligent people who read and enjoyed the columns, and who wrote so often and so kindly to me. And thanks also, I suppose, to those of you who loathed them. It is always a pleasure épater la Gauche.

I don't recall ever writing about it, but as RC correctly surmised, I definitely fell into the latter category, that being those who didn't read Gurdon's column and loathed it nevertheless. Dislike for the Fetid Swamp was one of the few areas where Little Miss Fecalicious and I were in total agreement - Sweet Shub-Niggurath, just writing about it in the past tense makes me happy - although I shudder to think what torments K-Lo will devise to replace it.

No doubt it will be something on the order of dating advice from the Littlest Chickenhawk, or perhaps a weekly panegyric to the Dear Leader will suffice. And they wonder why people won't renew their subscriptions.

A little late on the emphasis

Jonah Goldberg writes on NRO:

Today he [Ryan Sager] complains that conservatives are experiencing with the Miers appointment what libertarians have endured for years with Bush. That's fine, to a point. But it seems his determination to stay true to his perpetual theme is skewing his analysis a bit. Any libertarian who voted for Bush did so knowing he was at best the lesser of two evils. There was nothing in his campaign in 2000 or 2004 a libertarian could have interpreted as a real overture to their concerns. Most of the libertarians I know voted for Bush with their eyes wide open, believing he'd better on foreign policy or less bad on domestic policy. Meanwhile, conservatives -- or at least some conservatives -- legitimately feel betrayed by Bush over Miers. He promised or (vide Ramesh) at least strongly lead conservatives to believe, that he would appoint Justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas.

Libertarians have no such claim of betrayal because he made no such assurances to them that he would be a champion of small government. I'm sure someone can find quotes that run counter to this, but I don't think anybody can seriously dispute the general point that Bush never ran as a government-is-the-problem conservative and to claim feelings of "betrayal" because he didn't govern as one is simply dishonest.

Not being in any way a libertarian, Bush didn't betray us. But this is a somewhat disingenuous statement by Goldberg, as the conservative media was huge on advancing the idea as Bush as Reagan's true heir. Bush didn't necessarily make assurances that he would be a champion of small government, but I daresay that most conservatives believed that he would be.

It is ironic, is it not, that the one valid argument that liberals could make regarding the stupidity of conservatives is one that they will surely never touch.

Inadvertant comedy

Jon Wertheim writes on SI:

I draw two conclusions: Navratilova doesn't select her partners haphazardly. She picks talented, young players who complement her skills. (Note too, that both Kuznetsova circa '03 and Groenefeld circa '05 are bright prospects, but are unlikely to go deep in the singles draws of Majors, and thus default a doubles match.) The other conclusion is that playing alongside one of the all-time greats has a healthy effect on the game of an up-and-coming star.

Despite the age difference, Navratilova seems to cultivate strong relationships with her doubles partners and finds a nice balance between dispensing pointers and helping her partners without becoming a surrogate coach. Check out this transcript for an example of her off-court nurturing of Groenefeld.

If I were a talented teenager on the WTA Tour, I would be begging "Grandma" to play doubles with me.

Hmmmm... after breaking up with her long-time lover, aging lesbian finds new inspiration in "off-court nurturing" of teenage girls playing tennis.... "Doubles" is that what they're calling it now, Queer Party Friends?

Perhaps I am too skeptical, but this tends to remind me of grown men who can't find anything better to do with their time than go camping with young boys.

Thursday, October 06, 2005

Mailvox: it's all in the cycle

Cengel protests:

Tax cuts as, "textbook Keynesian socialist action"? Since when have socialists, Keynesian or otherwise, ever been in favor of tax cuts (in theory or in practice)?

Textbook Keynesian calls for accomodative fiscal and monetary policy in times of economic contraction in order to "smooth out" the business cycle. It also calls for restrictive policy measures when the economy begins to "overheat", which on the fiscal side never happens.

His support for the combination of tax cuts and spending boosts during the 2002 recession indicates that far from being a conservative, George Bush is a Keynesian Republican in the Nixon mode.

Jerusalem, USA

From WND:

The student who blew himself up outside a packed Oklahoma University football stadium Saturday night tried to buy large quantities of ammonium nitrate – a key ingredient in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing – the week before, according to a new report.

Also, Joel "Joe" Henry Hinrichs III attended a Norman, Okla., mosque near his university-owned apartment – the same one attended by Zacharias Moussaoui, the only person charged in connection with the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, according to a report by KWTV-News 9 in Oklahoma City.

And surprisingly, he lived with Swedish roommates who just happened to be Jehovah's Witnesses! Excuse me, Pakistanis who just happened to be Muslim. What a coincidence!

The only real surprise that the government authorities haven't attempted to blame the bombing on repeated viewings of "Heathers" yet. That NFL Sunday Ticket is just looking better and better, isn't it?

Has The Cheerleader had it with the Homecoming King?

Peggy Noonan sounds less than completely enamoured of her erstwhile paramour:

The headline lately is that conservatives are stiffing the president. They're in uproar over Ms. Miers, in rebellion over spending, critical over cronyism. But the real story continues to be that the president feels so free to stiff conservatives. The White House is not full of stupid people. They knew conservatives would be disappointed that the president chose his lawyer for the high court. They knew conservatives would eventually awaken over spending. They knew someone would tag them on putting friends in high places. They knew conservatives would not like the big-government impulses revealed in the response to Hurricane Katrina. The headline is not that this White House endlessly bows to the right but that it is not at all afraid of the right. Why? This strikes me as the most interesting question.

Here are some maybes. Maybe the president has simply concluded he has no more elections to face and no longer needs his own troops to wage the ground war and contribute money. Maybe with no more elections to face he's indulging a desire to show them who's boss. Maybe he has concluded he has a deep and unwavering strain of support within the party that, come what may, will stick with him no matter what. Maybe he isn't all that conservative a fellow, or at least all that conservative in the old, usual ways, and has been waiting for someone to notice. Maybe he has decided the era of hoping for small government is over. Maybe he is a big-government Republican who has a shrewder and more deeply informed sense of the right than his father did, but who ultimately sees the right not as a thing he is of but a thing he must appease, defy, please or manipulate. Maybe after five years he is fully revealing himself. Maybe he is unveiling a new path that he has not fully articulated--he'll call the shots from his gut and leave the commentary to the eggheads. Maybe he's totally blowing it with his base, and in so doing endangering the present meaning and future prospects of his party.

Sometimes, the degree to which I am beyond these slow-witted commentating cretins actually unsettles me. I mean, I only told this to every starry-eyed Republican I knew back in 2000 back when Bush first unveiled his Compassionate Conservative snake oil. (I realize you'll have to take my word for this, as I wasn't writing columns until the autumn of 2001, but trust me, I've always loathed and distrusted the guy.) And then again, in 2004.

It's been like watching the WWII-era Germans gobble up small European countries. "The Reichkanzler says he's going to invade Austria... he's not REALLY going to invade Austria... he wouldn't ever invade Austria... oh, he invaded Austria... he says he's going to invade Poland, but he can't possibly invade Poland... oh dear, now he invaded Poland!"

Morons.

And yes, I am feeling a wee bit short-tempered today, actually. Not because of Ms Harriet Cryptkeeper, but because I'm under the metaphorical weather.

PS - If she gets on, someone simply has to release a Women of the U.S. Supreme Court swimsuit calendar. I'm not sure who is scarier, the half-shrunk Wicked Witch or Creepy McCrypto. Throw in Janet Reno and Helen Thomas and you've got yourself a party.

PPS - And yes, it's good to see the Last Republican Conservative, Ann Coulter, performs exactly as one expected in ripping the both Dear Leader and his "trust me" theme to tattered shreds.

Wednesday, October 05, 2005

That cracking sound

Several years ago, Robert Prechter predicted that President Bush would likely leave office early under a cloud based on his theory of how market movements serve as a reasonable measure of mass emotion. Now, like every market analyst, Prechter has been wrong more often than he's been right, but the sheer brass of that prediction at a time when Bush was riding very high in the polls made it very memorable. I mention it now because of the mysterious malaise that seems to be surrounding the current White House of late, especially in light of how the mainstream media - in the form of George Stephanopolous on ABC - recently mentioned for the first time the possibility that both the President and the Vice-President have already been indicted.

Some of you may recall that I mentioned this potential indictment once before, as it's a piece of information that's been floating around the more conspiracy-minded parts of the blogosphere for about a month. If memory serves me correctly, the indictments have been made by a Chicago prosecutor and have the potential to cripple the present administration far more seriously than Clinton's during the Lewinsky affair. If this turns out to be the case, I expect that both Bush and Cheney will be forced to resign, as there's no way they could continue in office during "wartime".

These indictments may also explain explain, in part, the president's sudden desire to find an excuse, any excuse, for declaring martial law. I don't believe he'll have the nerve to do it, but the notion has been brought up so often since Katerina that it's beginning to sound more than a little like a trial balloon. I readily admit that i's quite possible I'm seeing patterns that aren't actually there, but then, who would have ever thought that an overweight, unattractive young woman would have a DNA sample from a popular president in her possession. Anyhow, where's the fun in only looking at the obvious and the undeniable.

Interesting times, my friends, interesting times.

Dumb and ever dumber

From the NYT:

Ms. Rosenstein has every right to brag about her school's 2005 test scores. The percentage of her fourth graders who were at grade level in English was 40 points higher than in 2004. How did she do it? New teachers? No, same teachers. New curriculum? No, same dual-language curriculum for a student body that is 96 percent Hispanic and poor (100 percent free lunches). New resources? Same.

So? "The state test was easier," she said. Ms. Rosenstein, who has been principal 13 years and began teaching in 1974, says the 2005 state English test was unusually easy and the 2004 test unusually hard. "I knew it the minute I opened the test booklets," she said.

The first reading excerpt in the 2004 test was 451 words. It was about a family traveling west on the Oregon Trail. There were six characters to keep track of (Levi, Austin, Pa, Mr. Morrison, Miss Amelia, Mr. Ezra Zikes). The story was written in 1850's western vernacular with phrases like "I reckon," "cut out the oxen from the herd," "check over the running gear" for the oxen, "set the stock to graze," "Pa's claim."

Ms. Rosenstein said such language was devastating for her urban Hispanic children. "They're talking about a 'train' and they mean wagon train," she said. "Our kids know the subway. I walked into a class and there was a girl crying. I took the test booklet and read it. I thought, 'Oh, my God, we're in trouble.' "

In contrast, the first reading in the 2005 test was 188 words about a day in the life of an otter. A typical sentence: "The river otter is a great swimmer." Ms. Rosenstein said: "The otter story was so easy, it gave our kids confidence. It was a great way for them to start the test."

She said the pattern continued throughout the two tests. In 2004, on the "hard test," the second passage was about the Netherlands thanking Canada for its support during World War II by sending 100,000 tulip bulbs to Ottawa. The third story was about a photographer, Joel Sartore, who embedded himself in Madidi National Park in Bolivia to get rare nature shots....

In 2005, on the "easy test," the second passage was about hummingbirds. The third was about a boy who thought he won a real horse, but it was a china horse. The story was told mainly in dialogue that read like the old Dick and Jane primers:

" 'What's going on?' asked Beth.

'I just won a horse,' said Jamie."

I wasn't aware that otters were a significant part of Hispanic culture. Interesting. Also interesting is to see that what was once considered to be second-grade level only twenty years ago is now fourth-grade, and even with this "improvement" only 59 percent of New York's fourth-graders can manage it. At this rate, in another two decades homeschoolers are going to have to go to college at ten because they can read a newspaper, do multiplication and avoid drooling on themselves.

Oh, if only the government would spend more money on the public schools! If only the American people were willing to make education a real priority and pay teachers like the superstars they are!

A light at the end of the tunnel

From SI's Truth and Rumors:

An 80-minute meeting Mike Tice called with his players earlier in the day left some wondering if their coach was on the verge of resigning. Some players praised Tice, with one veteran calling the meeting very "useful." But three players said Tice told them he contemplated resigning hours after the Vikings' blowout loss to the Falcons, a point two players considered deplorable. One starter said Tice delivered a "rambling resignation speech." "He quit on us," the starter said. "I lost all respect for him." "You could tell he gave up on us," another player said. According to that player, Tice also said he would not be surprised if Vikings owner Zygi Wilf made a coaching change.

We can only hope.... But Zygi' first move - announcing that the next Vikings stadium will be open to the elements - gives one some cause for optimism that he'll soon do the right thing with regards to Mike Tice.

Batting 1.000

Bush wants right to use military if bird flu hits

President George W. Bush asked Congress on Tuesday to consider giving him powers to use the military to enforce quarantines in case of an avian influenza epidemic. He said the military, and perhaps the National Guard, might be needed to take such a role if the feared H5N1 bird flu virus changes enough to cause widespread human infection.

"If we had an outbreak somewhere in the United States, do we not then quarantine that part of the country? And how do you, then, enforce a quarantine?" Bush asked at a news conference.

"It's one thing to shut down airplanes. It's another thing to prevent people from coming in to get exposed to the avian flu. And who best to be able to effect a quarantine?" Bush added. "One option is the use of a military that's able to plan and move. So that's why I put it on the table. I think it's an important debate for Congress to have."

Bird flu has killed more than 60 people in four Asian nations since late 2003 and has been found in birds in Russia and Europe.

The key words being "wants right to use military". I don't think the particular excuse really matters, except that enough people will buy into it. On a tangential note, isn't it interesting how a virus that has killed 60 people in 18 months should justify quarantine and martial law, while thousands of AIDS-carriers are allowed to roam around the world infecting others freely?

Tuesday, October 04, 2005

On the unfairness of storks

A 39-year old woman finally gets around to considering children:

As certain as I am that now is the right time for me to have my children, it's hard not to blame myself for how difficult it's turning out to be. My husband tells me we don't know if it was any easier for our friends because no one talks about the trying, only the success....

So, now that you know, what do you say next time you see me? Don't say anything. I'll tell you when I'm pregnant, and in the meantime you can stop wondering whether every decision I make means I am. After all, I don't ask you if your interest in Gyrotonics is just a sign that your kids are growing up and you have nothing else to do. I don't blame you for being able to have your beautiful children. And I'm learning not to blame myself for my difficulty having my own.

This woman would appear to be more than a little slow. She's still convinced it's the right moment for her to have children, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. But if it's not her fault, then whose fault is it? After all, decades of sex education classes have taught us that babies don't simply appear out of the sky, carefully dangled from the beaks of storks, right? Perhaps society is to blame....

This is simply an evasive, feeble and ultimately futile attempt at self-deception. She knows perfectly well it's her fault; life is about nothing if not opportunity cost.

If a woman decides that she wants to have children - a decision that everyone concerned with the long-term fate of the West should wholeheartedly support in every way - it's really not all that difficult. A few suggestions:

1. Don't engage in casual dating relationships after eighteen. They tend to keep one occupied in a manner that prevents one from examining more serious possibilities.
2. Make your potential relationships the top priority. If you put your career first, there's a reasonable chance that a career is all you'll have at forty.
3. Settle earlier rather than later. I can't tell you how many women I know who have blown off perfectly decent men in their late teens and early twenties. Most of them who are now married are married to men I would consider to be of lower quality than those they blew off. Remember, your choices narrow as you get older, while men's choices broaden.
4. Let those around you know that marriage and children is your goal. Too many women, fearing the wrath of the Sisterhood, secretly wish for it while publicly and piously professing feminist-approved cant. Screw the Sisterhood. They're stupid, toothless bitches with third-rate minds and they don't give a damn about you, your hopes or your dreams.
5. Don't hesitate to end relationships that aren't leading towards marriage or with men who are anything less than completely positive about the prospect of children. Men are very good at learning how to string women along and they know they'll have no problem replacing you when you finally show your cards. Don't confuse conflict avoidance for malleability.
6. Shed your toxic friends as well as those loyal to the Sisterhood. Misery loves company and miserable women love to make everyone else miserable. They'll do their best to sabotage any potential relationship with a decent man.

A heartfelt thanks to Ms Steinhem and company


Freewheeling young women in the United States and Canada first have intercourse at the age of 15, partake more in oral sex than previous generations and are far less prudish, according to a landmark new report by researchers at California's San Diego State University.

Between 1943 and 1999, the age of first intercourse dropped to 15 from 19 for females, while the percentage of sexually active young women rose to 47 percent from just 13 percent in 1943, according to the study that appears in the most recent issue of the Review of General Psychology.

If there's still any doubt as to who won the sexual revolution, this should clinch it. On the one hand, men face declining real wages and a court system that actively discourages them from marrying. On the other, there's a never-ending supply of hot young lovelies eager to roll over on command for the first alpha male they encounter.

Sure, it's a complete disaster from the moral, spiritual and historical perspectives and the lovelies are showing an appalling tendency to beef up far too fast, but from the average red-blooded male American's very short-term point of view, it's hard to see a whole lot of downside. Throw in birth control, breast implants, fast CPUs, the NFL Sunday Ticket and free Internet porn, and it's apparent that history has never known a more wildly hedonistic time to be a young man.

My friend's German cousin, overcome with pure masculine delight, may have said it best upon the occasion of his second visit to the United States. "I love zee American bitches!"

We are so doomed....

Musings on the shallow Hell of senior quotes

From The Sports Guy's Q&A:

Q: I am a senior in high school, and it is about time to write our Senior Quotes. I really want mine to be funny. Any suggestions?
-- Christopher Burk, Bellport, N.Y.

Well, Christopher... you came to the right place. I have been kicking myself about my high school yearbook quote for years. Here's what I actually chose:

And these children that you spit on
As they try to change their worlds
Are immune to your consultations
They're quite aware of what they're going through
-- David Bowie

Translation: I'm an enormous dork.

And it wasn't just me; almost everyone screws up their high school yearbook quote. It's like a rite of passage. My buddy Jim and I were on the phone this week sifting through our yearbook ... it was like a 100-page car crash. Why in God's name did everyone take it so seriously? Quote after agonized quote from The Police, Rush, Styx, Led Zep, Pink Floyd, Boston, Journey ... you would have thought we were these anguished, miserable, disaffected kids. Please. We were going to prep school!

A genuine and precocious horror of teen angst was what led me to select an uncharacteristically philosophical quote from Duran Duran. I recall considering selections from Herman Hesse and Ayn Rand, but in the end, I decided that you simply couldn't sound too pretentious quoting a hair band. Also, there was a genuine debt to acknowledge as Duran Duran completely turned around my social life in high school.

People tell me I haven't changed at all
But I don't feel the same.
And I bet you've had that feeling too
You can't laugh all the time.

- Duran Duran, Hold Back the Rain

Of course, if I could do it all over again, I'd do it very differently, most likely with an untranslated and borderline inappropriate line or three from Juvenal. In high school, everyone wants so desperately to be understood, primarily because they really don't understand themselves. Once enough water has flowed under the bridge, it becomes significantly more difficult to give a damn whether anyone understands you or not, including yourself.

In fatto, sto pensando che quando sviluppero' una scioltezza completa in italiano, magari scrivero' solo in italiano, or forse nel'una polilingua consitente di italiano, latina, tedesco e le parole diverse che i piccolini stanno inventando. Che cos'e' il punto di communicazione quando non fa niente? E se questo blog e' sopratutto un diario dei pensieri, che significa se nessuni altri possono - o vogliono - capirgli?

Va bene. Non mi interesse tanto in queste domande della filosofia. Preferisco l'argumento ontologico, se quello e' la cosa giusta. L'esiste perche l'esiste. Anch'io non devo capire.

Upon deeper reflection, however, I wish I'd gone with this.

EVERYTHING SAID SO FAR HAS THE APPEARANCE OF MERE PARADOX, AND BY WAY OF REASSURING THE TIMID WE CAN CONFIRM THAT THIS IS SO.
- Umberto Eco, Apocalypse Postponed

Mailvox: as to apparent hypocrisy

IN2N asks a reasonable question:

I am curious though, why the copyright citation? Seems like a lot of folks around here ascribe to the notion that a man's ideas are not his own...

If you want to take a shot, IN2N, then by all means, take a shot! As I'm the only possible target - being the party responsible for posting a copyright notice - there's no need for this slyly oblique critique.

Anyhow, the reason for the copyright notice is twofold. While I am completely unconcerned about my works being copied and distributed electronically, I do not wish to see them promulgated without being identified correctly. I may be dubious about the ability to own ideas, but I do not deny that there is usually an original source for them, even if it is nothing more than a blending of ideas first conceived by other invididuals.

Second, my publishers and the overwhelming majority of my potential publishers do not subscribe to my skeptical view of copyright. If I wish to work with them - and I do - then I am compelled to respect their views. This is why there are no free downloadable versions of my novels posted here ala Charles Stross's Accelerando, although I have repeatedly requested permission to do so from my publisher.

Sexist Science

From the Telegraph:

Research suggesting that it is better for mothers to stay at home to look after children up to the age of three is sexist and mistaken, the Equal Opportunities Commission said yesterday.

It said there was no reason why the father could not look after the children rather than the mother. It also said that full-time working mothers whose children were looked after in day nurseries or by child minders or nannies had perfectly "healthy and happy" offspring.

Except, of course, when they don't. I find it very interesting how Science rules all, except of course when it violate the progressive agenda of the Equalitarian Society, in which case it can be dismissed as "sexist and mistaken" on the sole basis of its conclusions. There's no criticism of the methodology, (as there is, for example, in the supposedly anti-scientific criticisms of evolution), just a blanket statement that the study is wrong because its conclusions violate the Equal Opportunities Commission's core belief.

Because we are all the same, there is no difference between any two individuals and if you happen to perceive any such differences, then you are sick and in need of behavioral and attitudinal adjustment.

I imagine the irony inherent to that mindset likely escapes those who hold to it.

Monday, October 03, 2005

I'm beginning to enjoy the ongoing debacle

Ramesh Ponnuru writes on NRO's Corner:

THE PICK It's an inspiring testament to the diversity of the president's cronies. Wearing heels is not an impediment to being a presidential crony in this administration! I can only assume that the president felt that his support was slipping in this important bloc, and he had to do something to shore it up.

It's beginning to sound as if Ramesh is about one more presidential speech from defecting to the Libertarian Party.

Chief John-John and Harriet. I wonder how many you who flirted with third parties before returning to the Republican fold in 2004 on the basis of the Supreme Court nominations now wish you hadn't?

UPDATE: "The President's nomination of Miers is a betrayal of the conservative, pro-family voters whose support put Bush in the White House in both the 2000 and 2004 elections and who were promised Supreme Court appointments in the mold of Thomas and Scalia. Instead we were given 'stealth nominees,' who have never ruled on controversial issues, more in the mold of the disastrous choice of David Souter by this President's father.

"When there are so many proven judges in the mix, it is unacceptable this President has appointed a political crony with no conservative credentials. This attempt at 'Bush Packing' the Supreme Court must not be allowed to pass the Senate and we will forcefully oppose this nomination."
- from Drudge

All together now... I TOLD YOU SO!

Media Whores: the first chapter

MEDIA WHORES: COURTESANS AND CHARLATANS OF THE AMERICAN COMMENTARIAT
by Vox Day
Copyright(c)2005. All rights reserved.

CHAPTER ONE: Building the Brothel
Vir qui amat sapientiam laetificat patrem suum qui autem nutrit scorta perdet substantiam.

The Buggles were wrong. Video didn't kill the radio star. The truth is precisely to the contrary. Video not only made the radio star huge, it also made him a best-selling author and, more often than not, a pop icon to boot. Radio, television, cable, the internet and even traditional newspaper and book publishing have insensibly merged into one massive and amorphous entity, known to its consumers as simply “the media”. But it too is a consumer; it is a voracious beast, devouring all that come within its grasp, and only the strongest, most single-minded parasites can survive and thrive in its acidic maw.

With the gradual transformation of what was once news into infotainment, the requirements for the talking heads who serve as the primary conduit from the beast to its beholders changed too. In the early days of television, talking heads were reporters who had spent years in the field, researching, interviewing, writing and recording their own news stories. Murrow, Cronkite, and even the recently retired Dan Rather are examples of this sort. They feigned an Olympian objectivity, hid their political affiliations and projected the sort of deep and immobile gravitas that made the term “network anchor” seem so fitting.

As the producers became more sophisticated and technologically adept, it became less and less necessary to have an experienced reporter reading the news or even writing original stories in the newspaper. Gravitas went by the wayside as attractive, focus-tested women were added to the mix, and with the exception of the primary network news broadcasts – the majestic second triumvirate of Brokaw, Willams and Jennings - the two-headed bi-gendered news team came to the fore. Teleprompters and professional writers meant that the talking heads were no longer required to write or think, allowing producers to concentrate on what matters most to the television viewing audiences, namely, looking at attractive men and women.

This second generation of television news brought to the forefront men with chiseled jaws and names like porn stars(2), accompanied by blondes with journalism-lite backgrounds consisting of acting credits and tasteful nude photography(2). This model quickly became de riguer for the local news format, which is now such a matter of rote that one cannot easily distinguish between the ABC affiliate's newscast in Minneapolis and the CBS affiliate's newscast in Albuquerque. The basic cast is always the same; the forty-something neo-patriarch with a full head of hair touched with gray at the temples, the thirty-something blonde co-anchor, (ethnic optional in cities with large Black and Hispanic populations), a weatherman who is either a sexless androgyne or a beta blonde, and last and least, the roguish sports anchor.

The first cable channel, CNN, was largely content to follow in the footsteps of its predecessors, although its expansion of the news spigot from one to 24 hours daily would insensibly make its effect known over time. However, the shift from journalism-free journalists to full-blown infotainers accelerated quickly with the appearance of the Fox News Channel, which like Athena sprang fully accoutered for battle from the head of Roger Ailes, wisely eschewing the leftist slant hidden behind the condescending pretense at objectivity of the ABCNNBCBS cabal.

Infotainment had long been present within the cabal, of course, but it was kept on the sidelines by an embarrassed media elite, in the context of crossover shows like 20/20 and Today. Barbara Walters became the unquestioned queen of the quasi-news with her infamous interviews on ABC, The Barbara Walters Specials, where she enlightened the American public by eliciting answers to insightful questions that no one else had ever dared to ask of international figures and celebrities.(3)

The terror of creeping infotainment at the networks during the early Eighties was such that Ms Walters managed to hold a co-anchor spot at ABC only briefly before being banished to matters arboreal. But it returned with vengeance in 1996, when the Fox News Channel burst onto the scene and in less than seven years, not only overturned the existing order but turned the cable news ratings war from a horse race into something bearing closer resemblance to a prison rape.(4)

The brilliance of Roger Ailes was two-fold. First, recognizing the iron law of supply and demand in a country evenly divided between what passes for “liberal” and “conservative” in the political spectrum, he offered a taste of what had hitherto been absent from the television screens of America. Where CNN was self-consciously international, Fox News was proudly patriotic. Where the ABCNNBCBS cabal inordinately consisted of those supporting Democrats(5), Fox dared to put self-proclaimed Republicans on the air without the accompanying soundtrack of The Imperial March(6) or pairing them with a polar opposite providing instant counterpoint.

Ailes' logic was impeccable, demonstrating that alone among the executives of the media industry, only he understood the lessons of the talk radio phenomenon. Of the 105,405,100 votes cast in the 2000 presidential election, Al Gore and George Bush both received about 48 percent of the vote(7). But not only does the ABCNNBCBS news cabal market itself entirely towards the pro-Gore 48 percent, it is joined in doing so by PBS, MSNBC, and, to a lesser extent, CNBC. This abandonment of the opposite 48 percent equated to a wide-open market of epic proportions, which Ailes has exploited with ruthless abandon. The motto is “fair and balanced” and while the actual slant is only vaguely rightward, the symbolism is much more strongly so. Liberal-minded CNN cast-offs, such as Geraldo Rivera and Greta van Susteren, are forced to keep their inclinations firmly in check, while moderates are spun as conservatives at almost every opportunity.

Second, the Fox News chairman wholeheartedly embraced the concept of being the humble servant of the marketplace. The media has long had an inflated view of itself; it is nearly impossible to listen to a mainstream journalist recite a ponderous description of his ever-so-weighty responsibilities without bursting into laughter. The elite journalists see themselves as the Fourth Estate, asking the tough questions and dedicated to afflicting the comfortable and comforting the afflicted. If you have ever seen a journalist performing a Monica on a big celebrity get in what is apparently supposed to pass for an interview, it's not hard to see that the media are not only deluded in this regard, but are also incredibly ill-suited to accurately observe human events.

Due to this delusional self-regard, executives at the ABCNNBCBS cabal have long considered themselves above the dirty and unpleasant realities of the market, while government-funded PBS actually is free to ignore the wishes of great unwashed as it fulfills its sacred mission of allowing liberals to pretend they are intellectuals and loftily look down their noses at those who prefer entertainment that offers a frisson of divertissement. Fox News, on the other hand, appears to have an interest in making money, which in a capitalist society tends to involve paying a certain amount of attention to what the consumer wants.

And what the cable news consumer wants, apparently, is pretty girls, in-depth coverage of murder trials, missing children(8) and car chases. Only eighteen months before the launch of the Fox News Channel, the famous O.J. Simpson car chase(9) and subsequent trial took place, and apparently it left an indelible impression on the soon-to-be Fox News Channel executives. It could be seen, in retrospect, as the perfect Foxian trifecta, combining a celebrity, a car chase and a murder trial. Had there only been an Amber Alert involved somewhere in the mix, it would have been the perfect story. And although the quattrocephalic news cabal flogged the O.J. trial mercilessly, no channel drew more useful conclusions from it than Fox News.

In the eight years since it made its debut, Fox News has covered 416 car chases, 42 missing children and 11 murder trials, which is approximately 469 more stories of the sort than PBS has covered(10). On a directly related note, the O.J. trial also marked the launch of the instant news celebrity. Greta van Susteren, Marcia Clark and Gloria Allred are now inescapable, appearing with wearisome regularity on the screen like the haggish handmaidens of Big Brother, three Erinyes convinced that Orestes is to be found hiding somewhere in a television studio.

But if O.J. got the ball rolling, it was the Monica Lewinsky scandal that cemented the instant news celebrity in the public consciousness. Not only do we owe Miss Lewinsky a linguistic debt(11), but without her and Paula Jones we would not have come to know and love Lucianne Goldberg, her lovable teddy bear of a son, Jonah, Ann Coulter, and interchangeable Republican Barbie.(12) But it was not only these perma-guests that were made by the scandal; shows such as the O'Reilly Factor and Hannity and Colmes also saw their popularity explode.

The reason was simple. There was continuing interest in a story in which very little was known and almost nothing was happening. Even if the ABCNNBCBS cabal had been inclined to cover the self-destruction of a Democratic president – they weren't – there was very little that a show even half-heartedly committed to hard news could cover. Bill Clinton wasn't talking, Monica Lewinsky wasn't talking, Paul Jones wasn't talking, and even those who weren't directly involved in the two cases were claiming legal considerations that prevented them from speaking with reporters.

But it wasn't possible to simply ignore a story that had more compelling elements than any three Hollywood movies. Was Bill Clinton's penis really crooked? Were we really supposed to believe that a notoriously horny old dog would hook up with a ripening young 38DD and keep his hands off her most prominent assets? Had he really done THAT with a CIGAR... with Yasser Arafat was waiting in the next room? Add a bad rhythm guitar and a moustache, and you practically had a 70's porn flick in the making. No wonder the world was captivated.

And yet, there was still really nothing to say. No one actually knew anything new until Matt Drudge unveiled some shocking tidbit of information, at which point everyone learned about it at the same time. But the camera abhors a vaccuum no less than nature, and thanks to the 24-hour cable news channels, more time than ever required filling. Enter the new talking head, who substituted wisecracks for written copy, who was quick enough to think and spar on her feet, and was entertaining enough to allow people to forget that they were no more informed at the end of a show than they were at the start.(13)

Conservatives excelled immediately at this game, partly because years of being shut out of the mainstream media had prepared them for an adversarial relationship with the television hosts, and partly, as was previously mentioned, because they were seldom permitted to appear alone on a ABCNNBCBS show without being accompanied by a liberal(14) Greek anti-Chorus. The fact that many of them had some degree of familiarity with the brutally combative arena of the conservative talk radio ghetto meant that they were seldom thrown off-balance when a deceitful host tried to set them up for an ambush or a bait-and-switch.(15)

In short, they were ready to rumble. And audiences fell in love with hand-to-hand combat long before the first gladiators were shouting “morituri te salutamus!”(16) No blood is shed in the televised arena, but the news shoutfests bear far more similarity to a gladitorial combat than to the somber pronouncements of Walter Cronkite. This isn't necessarily a bad thing; certainly it is vastly preferable for half of the viewing public to see someone championing their point of view instead of being forced to sit through pompous neosocialist lectures condemning the many evils of their bourgeous perspective. Give and take will always hold the attention longer than a monologue, Shakespeare's excellent soliloquoys notwithstanding.

However, there can be little question that despite the divergence of views on offer, the end result provides far more entertainment than information. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, for as novelists as diverse as Umberto Eco(17), Rigoberta Menchu and Dan Brown have all discovered, few things sell better than a product that makes its consumers feel smarter. You may not actually be in possession of a single iota of new information after watching Bill O'Reilly thump his chest and shout down a guest or seeing Tim Russert delve into the minutae of the House Appropriations Committee with a congressman, but you will nevertheless be left with the vague impression that you are better informed than if you had instead tuned in to the third re-run of Friends that evening. After all, you've been watching the news!

FOOTNOTES:

1. Can't you see Stone Philips fronting the list of names starring in “I Know Who You Did Last Summer”? Okay, maybe it's just me.
2. “I did pose for 'Black and White' magazine, a prestigious, artistic publication, several years ago.” Former CNN Headline News anchor Andrea Thompson in The New York Post. In 2002, the Washington Post reported that the CNN anchor had also performed “clothing-challenged work for an Australian magazine and an Italian erotic flick....”
3. She reached the apex of her unique brand of unintentional comedy in 1981, when she asked actress Katherine Hepburn the question: “If you were a tree, what kind would you be?” It seems Kate saw herself as an oak. I think I'm more of a birch. But a really tough-barked, hard-core birch you wouldn't want to mess with, you know what I'm saying? A son of a birch, if you will.
4. The August 11, 2004 ratings showed that Fox News Channel's prime time ratings averaged 2.058 million viewers, almost double the ratings for CNN, MSNBC and CNBC combined. Fox's top show, The O'Reilly Factor, almost tripled the viewership of its top rival, CNN's Larry King Live, with 2.666 million viewers compared to 985 thousand. Hang onto that soap, Larry.
5. 89 percent of 130 Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents reported voting for Bill Clinton in 1992, compared to 7 percent for George Bush, the elder. Twelve years later, it is still almost impossible to name a single anchor or reporter working for the cabal that does not openly or implicitely pledge allegiance to the Democratic Party.
6. Or, as it is known in the colloquial, Darth Vader's Theme.
7. Al Gore received 50,999,897 votes, or 48.38 percent of the popular vote, while George W. Bush received 50,456,002 votes, 47.87 percent. However, since the United States of America is a constitutional republic and not a pure representative democracy, Bush's 271-266 victory in the Electoral College made the popular results irrelevant. That's all completely beside the point here, but it's best to get it out of the way anyhow.
8. Missing children who happen to be pretty little girls, anyhow. I have no evidence that Fox News has a detailed system wherein a missing child is assigned 2 points for being white, 4 points for being blonde, and 10 points for having an attractive mother, but I am suspicious. And is it truly only little girls who go missing? I'm just curious.
9. The O.J. car chase was the greatest moment in live news history. Listening to “Robert Higgins” telling Peter Jennings in an outrageously fake black accent so obvious that only a lobotomized Canadian could think it was real: “Oh my Lord, this is quite tenses... Ah see... OJ! Ah see OJ, man!” was, beyond any shadow of a doubt, the ultimate in news entertainment. We were screaming with laughter almost from the start. The best part was how Jennings had no idea that the caller was a prankster until Al Michaels explained it to him. Yeah, they're real sharp, our media elite.
10. Yeah, like I watched and counted. If you harbor a strict accuracy fetish, simply substitute “a lot” for each of the categories mentioned.
11. I would argue that she must be credited, not only with her inadvertant eponymous contribution, but also for popularizing the concept of “obtaining one's kneepads” as a synonymous alternative.
12. Ann Coulter, Barbara Olsen and Kellyanne Fitzpatrick nee' Conway were the original three. Since then, Laurie Dhue, Linda Vester, Rita Cosby, Heather Nauert and Michelle Malkin have followed in their footsteps, but none of them have yet demonstrated the unique combination of savage intelligence and eye-rolling, hair-tossing nonchalance of the original.
13. Being blonde and looking good in a miniskirt didn't exactly hurt either.
14. For simplicity's sake, I use the terms “liberal” and “conservative” in the sense of being largely synonymous with “Democrat” and “Republican”. The former indicating an orientation towards the political left, the latter indicating an orientation towards the political right. As the two major parties have merged into a single bi-factional big government ruling party, these terms have become increasingly meaningless. See Appendix B.
15. Thomas Sowell explained why he turns down 90 percent of his TV and radio invitations in an April 2004 column, entitled “Bait-and-switch media”. After being invited on the program to talk about his book on affirmative action, he found himself being grilled by a third party about minimum wage laws. The old lion, familiar with the trick, left the host in the lurch live on the air by simply hanging up the phone. Booyakasha!
16. “We who are about to die salute you!”
17. I once asked Dr. Eco about the characterization of his novels being extremely successful, but often unread. He replied: “I must confess, there are books that I love very much, and I didn't read them completely. It happens. When “The Name of the Rose” came out, so difficult and full of Latin quotations, and it had the success, it started the legend that it was an unread book. I am content.” And yes, we were actually hanging out at a monastery that day... because nobody kicks it like the real old skool.

Trying to have it both ways

The NYT on paternity testing>:

In the most recent case to make headlines, Ms. Frey went to court to set aside the paternity judgment against the man who was paying child support for her 4-year-old daughter and attached the results of a DNA test that showed the girl's father was actually someone else. Gloria Allred, the lawyer for Ms. Frey, said her client had believed "in good faith" that the man paying child support was the girl's father and argued that while women obviously have the responsibility to establish who the father is, so do men.

"Any man who's alleged to be the father of a child born outside of marriage is entitled to take that DNA test" to establish paternity, she said. "If he did not take the test, then he needs to take responsibility for his failure to do so. He shouldn't blame the mother."

Of course, if men did begin taking paternity tests as a matter of course, the caterwauling of women afraid of having to support their bastard children by themselves would probably lead the feminist-fearing politicians to pass laws declaring that the first man whose shadow fell upon the child will be held financially responsible for it.

I find it more than a little ironic that despite the constant feminist declarations that a) women are fully equal to men in all ways, and b) fathers are an unnecessary child-rearing option, that the administrative family "courts" inevitably find that a man, any man, regardless of his relationship to the child, is required to provide financial support.

If we as a nation ever decide to get serious about the darkening demographic future, both divorce and abortion will be banned, a social stigma will be attached to women working and all children will be tested for their paternity at birth*. This won't happen, since our quasi-democracy is an inherently reactive system, so the inevitable collapse of the Equalitarian Society will likely lead towards something significantly less protective of potential mothers and more exploitive and controlling of them.

*This will likely happen first, as the insurance companies will surely demand it in order to aid their genetic screening.
Newer Posts Older Posts