"It is said today that there is too much partisanship in Washington. Not true. Partisanship is argument based on principle and we need more of it not less of it in this town."
George Will, in his speech last night at the Hillsdale College Center For Constitutional Studies & Citizenship
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Excerpt
"In the twenty months since this administration came to town there has occurred a diminishment of a political brand faster than anything in American history. The American people are awake."
George Will, in his speech last night at the Hillsdale College Center For Constitutional Studies & Citizenship
George Will, in his speech last night at the Hillsdale College Center For Constitutional Studies & Citizenship
Purge
This morning we have but one more example of the need to purge the Republican Party leadership in Congress. Lisa Murkowski, who was appointed to her Alaskan Senate seat by her father, who had held it before her, apparently believes she has a divine right to the seat. Defeated in the Republican primary by Tea Party-backed Joe Miller, she has now decided to run as a write-in candidate. What possible justification is their for her decision? She says it's because she has heard from so many people in Alaska that she must run, but didn't the voters of Alaska just decide who they wanted as their Republican candidate? She makes this decision with full knowledge that being elected on a write-in vote is a near impossibility but could very well hurt Miller's chances in the general election. It is appalling. She's resigned her current Senate leadership positions before she could be fired from them but the Republicans in Congress should go further. She should be told that, if elected, she will not be allowed to caucus with Republicans in the next session. This will help Miller with Republican voters in the general. Lisa Murkowski is a disgrace, but her decision is illuminating to those of us sick of Washington politics; it perfectly displays the entitlement mentality held by so many in Congress, Democrat and Republican. They govern as any aristocratic elite, concerned primarily with the perpetual advancement of their own power and privilege. So blinkered are they by years of existence in the bubble of Washington D.C. they don't even realize that the peasants are in revolt.
Friday, September 17, 2010
My Thoughts On Christine O'Donnell
Who says Christine O'Donnell can't win in Delaware? Most years, I'd agree with that but this is not most years. This is, as I told my wife the other day, the most interesting, and perhaps the most important, political year of my lifetime. Things gave changed. That's what the GOP establishment can't get through their thick heads. 2010 is not like any other year we've experienced; the pushback from ordinary America is real. Whether it is ultimately successful, i.e., whether we get real rollback and real reform in the way business is done in Washington, is still a long shot. But the point is, there's a chance right now.
The main reason I supported Ms. O'Donnell over the RINO Mike Castle is because of something that was pointed out earlier this week: if Mike Castle gives the GOP a 51-49 majority in the Senate, who becomes the most important man in the room? That's right, Mike Castle. And what kind of legislation is going to be passed when he's ready to stand with the Democrats half the time and is demanding watered-down policy the other half? If we get a majority let's use it for real reform. That won't happen with Mike Castle holding every piece of legislation hostage to his spineless agenda.
So, I'm one hundred percent behind the lovely Ms. O'Donnell. Unlike Karl Rove, the epitome of the Washington establishment, the guy behind Bush's "compassionate conservatism" nonsense. Now, I suppose it was fine before the election to talk about Ms. O'Donnell's electability, though even then I thought it unwise (remember Ronald Reagan's commandment, "thou not speak ill of other Republicans"). Some, for instance Charles Krauthammer, whom readers of this blog know I admire as much as any man in America, criticized the political wisdom of those who supported O'Donnell. I suppose that is fair game. But to go after her in the viscous personal way that Rover did after she's won the primary is inexcusable. Rove owes Ms. O'Donnell a personal and public apology. If she does lose in the general we'll never know much the damage inflicted upon her by Karl Rove and others like him did had to do with it.
But I think she has a good shot of winning. We heard the day before that she only had $24,000 to spend during the primary, as opposed to the Democrats $900,000+. Forty-eight hours later she has $1.4 million. And more is pouring in. Christine O'Donnell is a symbol for how strong the anti-establishment mood is in the country and, it seems to me, your view on her candidacy and her win on Tuesday pretty much is a divining rod on where you stand. As for me, she's my girl now. If she wins it will be important not only because it brings the GOP closer to a Senate majority but also because it will be an earthquake beneath feet of these milquetoast Republicans. Maybe then they'll begin to get a sense of what's going on outside the beltway.
Everyone is talking about the Buckley rule, Bill Buckley's famous dictum that he was always for the right-most electable candidate. These very same people seem to have forgotten Buckley's more famous maxim, the motto and purpose of the magazine he founded in 1955, 'to stand athwart history yelling STOP!' We've got a change to yell stop right now - let's not blow it because of internal squabbling. In 2010, Ms. O'Donnell can win, if everyone gets behind her.
The main reason I supported Ms. O'Donnell over the RINO Mike Castle is because of something that was pointed out earlier this week: if Mike Castle gives the GOP a 51-49 majority in the Senate, who becomes the most important man in the room? That's right, Mike Castle. And what kind of legislation is going to be passed when he's ready to stand with the Democrats half the time and is demanding watered-down policy the other half? If we get a majority let's use it for real reform. That won't happen with Mike Castle holding every piece of legislation hostage to his spineless agenda.
So, I'm one hundred percent behind the lovely Ms. O'Donnell. Unlike Karl Rove, the epitome of the Washington establishment, the guy behind Bush's "compassionate conservatism" nonsense. Now, I suppose it was fine before the election to talk about Ms. O'Donnell's electability, though even then I thought it unwise (remember Ronald Reagan's commandment, "thou not speak ill of other Republicans"). Some, for instance Charles Krauthammer, whom readers of this blog know I admire as much as any man in America, criticized the political wisdom of those who supported O'Donnell. I suppose that is fair game. But to go after her in the viscous personal way that Rover did after she's won the primary is inexcusable. Rove owes Ms. O'Donnell a personal and public apology. If she does lose in the general we'll never know much the damage inflicted upon her by Karl Rove and others like him did had to do with it.
But I think she has a good shot of winning. We heard the day before that she only had $24,000 to spend during the primary, as opposed to the Democrats $900,000+. Forty-eight hours later she has $1.4 million. And more is pouring in. Christine O'Donnell is a symbol for how strong the anti-establishment mood is in the country and, it seems to me, your view on her candidacy and her win on Tuesday pretty much is a divining rod on where you stand. As for me, she's my girl now. If she wins it will be important not only because it brings the GOP closer to a Senate majority but also because it will be an earthquake beneath feet of these milquetoast Republicans. Maybe then they'll begin to get a sense of what's going on outside the beltway.
Everyone is talking about the Buckley rule, Bill Buckley's famous dictum that he was always for the right-most electable candidate. These very same people seem to have forgotten Buckley's more famous maxim, the motto and purpose of the magazine he founded in 1955, 'to stand athwart history yelling STOP!' We've got a change to yell stop right now - let's not blow it because of internal squabbling. In 2010, Ms. O'Donnell can win, if everyone gets behind her.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
The Browning Version
I wasn't thinking of this question while I was watching The Browning Version last night, at least it wasn't in the forefront of my mind, but given the post immediately below, let me ask: how many of today's youth could take pleasure in such a subtly stirring movie as this? Very few, I think. Nothing explodes, there are no car chases or laser guns or aliens or super-heroes. It's in black and white, set at a post-war English boy's school, and takes a few scenes to get going. It has the thinnest of plots because so little actually happens on the screen. It's a quiet movie, consisting simply of people talking in different settings throughout a twenty-four hour period; words are said, motives revealed, realizations occur. It's a character study of a man who has failed himself and his students. He realizes, for the first time and on his last day on the job, the extent to which he is disliked. Michael Redgrave plays the lead role of schoolmaster Andrew Crocker-Harris and he is superb. It's hard to imagine anyone bringing more to the role. I'd go on but it would be hard to talk about without spoilers. Simply put, if you love a good story well-told, see The Browning Version.
Manufactured Personalities
A favorite theme of mine since I began this blog is the utter ignorance today's generation has for the past, especially the arts. They know nothing beyond the latest craze. I'd never heard of Lady Gaga until a few months ago (and I've still yet to hear any of her music) but she seems to be constantly in the news these days - she's this summer's craze. And she'll fade without much fanfare once the next craze comes along to replace her. Popular music long ago became a venue for children and it seems to become more infantilized with each passing year.
Camille Paglia, one of our more interesting social critics, picks up on some of my complaints in her column in the London Sunday Times magazine. I often disagree with Paglia but when she is right she is a pleasure to read because the woman holds nothing back. Her impressions of this particular Gaga moment are well worth reading in full but allow me to quote this passage:
This passage perfectly expresses my fears that we are raising a generation who are immune to the beauty and power of real art, that many of today's youth respond not to true emotional expression but rather to technology. I've blogged about the ignorance of today's generation to the glories of the past many times, even the great popular artists only a generation or two removed, and I wrote a long essay chronically my impressions about the damage technology is doing to character of the young. Clearly, this cultural decay has not gone unnoticed by Paglia. She calls Lady Gaga a "manufactured personality" but that's the public Gaga. What's she like in private? Is there even a personality there? Or is she as vapid as many in her fan base? What happens with this year's passing sensation matters little to me. The tragedy is that with each year those enamored with the sensation seem more of a neutered herd who think alike, dress alike, and talk alike; who cannot recognize real art or true beauty; who have no connection to the past, or reverence for tradition, or regard for history; who are stripped bare of the necessary tools to function as members of a cooperative society. This isn't just a problem for art. It's a problem for democracy.
Camille Paglia, one of our more interesting social critics, picks up on some of my complaints in her column in the London Sunday Times magazine. I often disagree with Paglia but when she is right she is a pleasure to read because the woman holds nothing back. Her impressions of this particular Gaga moment are well worth reading in full but allow me to quote this passage:
....[m]ost of her worshippers seem to have had little or no contact with such powerful performers as Tina Turner or Janis Joplin, with their huge personalities and deep wells of passion.
Generation Gaga doesn’t identify with powerful vocal styles because their own voices have atrophied: they communicate mutely via a constant stream of atomised, telegraphic text messages. Gaga’s flat affect doesn’t bother them because they’re not attuned to facial expressions.
Gaga's fans are marooned in a global technocracy of fancy gadgets but emotional poverty. Borderlines have been blurred between public and private: reality TV shows multiply, cell phone conversations blare everywhere; secrets are heedlessly blabbed on Facebook and Twitter. Hence, Gaga gratuitously natters on about her vagina…
This passage perfectly expresses my fears that we are raising a generation who are immune to the beauty and power of real art, that many of today's youth respond not to true emotional expression but rather to technology. I've blogged about the ignorance of today's generation to the glories of the past many times, even the great popular artists only a generation or two removed, and I wrote a long essay chronically my impressions about the damage technology is doing to character of the young. Clearly, this cultural decay has not gone unnoticed by Paglia. She calls Lady Gaga a "manufactured personality" but that's the public Gaga. What's she like in private? Is there even a personality there? Or is she as vapid as many in her fan base? What happens with this year's passing sensation matters little to me. The tragedy is that with each year those enamored with the sensation seem more of a neutered herd who think alike, dress alike, and talk alike; who cannot recognize real art or true beauty; who have no connection to the past, or reverence for tradition, or regard for history; who are stripped bare of the necessary tools to function as members of a cooperative society. This isn't just a problem for art. It's a problem for democracy.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)