Rational Passion

Discuss.

When he's not busy contradicting himself at every turn ("I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views."), Obama's views are pure evil.  Myrhaf explains how Obama's stated beliefs--if he really believes them--are inimical to America.

That's Michael Tomasky, an editor at The American Prospect and Guardian America.  The whole revolting thing is here.  The upshot: Barack Obama should do and say whatever it takes to win because only then can he "do at least some of the good things that will improve people's lives in the country and around the world."  These "good things" are, of course, standard left-liberal nonsense.  It's nice, though, to see someone admit that what I said to phamos818 is true of at least one person: to some left-liberals, winning is everything.  And don't try to tell me that the whole point of winning is to "improve people's lives," and that that makes it okay to compromise.  If you really believe that the way to improve people's lives is through left-liberal nonsense, then advocate for it without compromise or evasion and let the public give you a mandate for it!  Or not.  The fact that left-liberals will not openly state their views gives me hope that my country has not been totally lobotomized.

So says James Lileks in response to his wife, who said WALL-E is "just a movie."  Lileks got plenty of negative feedback for praising the movie.

I think WALL-E was thoroughly delightful, but the friend I went to see it with disagreed.  I can't say it was flawless--just as The Incredibles, which many tried to claim as an "Objectivist movie," wasn't flawless--but it was very, very good.  See also this review by Jennifer Snow, which captures my view of the film just about perfectly.

UPDATE: I "hate, hate, hate liberals"--if by "liberals," one means tree-hugging leftists--and still liked the movie.

From a delightful--and very long--profile of Limbaugh in the New York Times, we get this gem:

"At dinner the night before, Bill O'Reilly’s name came up, and Limbaugh expressed his opinion of the Fox cable king. He hadn’t been sure at the time that he wanted it on the record. But on second thought, 'somebody’s got to say it,' he told me. 'The man is Ted Baxter.'"

Rush is right!  (Link to Ted Baxter at Wikipedia added by me)

Not so much.  More evidence that abstention, not voting for Obama, is the right strategy for defenders of liberty.

"Surely we can agree that no party or political philosophy has a monopoly on patriotism."  So sayeth the Obamessiah.

Um, no we can't.  The political philosophy of laissez-faire capitalism, with government as the protector of individual rights, is patriotic, Mr. Obama.  Political philosophies opposed to it, like, say, yours or Mr. McCain's, aren't.

More reason to loathe--but not fear--an Obama Administration.  When Krauthammer and Krugman agree that this guy may be another Bill Clinton--minus the (apparently) insatiable appetite for sexual gratification--there may be something to it.  Here's hoping!  Bill Clinton is America's greatest living President because he folded like a cheap tent when faced with Republican opposition.

Christopher Hitchens comments less on the death of Tim Russert--which he laments--than on the media's bizarre elevation of Russert to sainthood.  I didn't quite appreciate it at the time given my respect for Russert and desire to see him paid the respect he deserved, but the praisefest on Fox News was a bit much, and while I didn't watch MSNBC, phamos818 suggested it was round the clock "Tim was the greatest" talk there.  It's quite an art to convey genuine respect for Russert while simultaneously treating "The Russert Miracles" with the contempt they deserve, but Hitchens manages it.  Agree or disagree with him on a given issue, Hitchens is a very skilled writer.

An excerpt:

"Not pausing to answer that question, I think this media mythmaking, however tongue-in-cheek some of it may be, helps our understanding of why people are theists. After all, just remember why we mourners of that day were gathered in the first place. One of our friends and colleagues had been struck stone dead by his coronary arteries, in the prime of life, at just the moment when he had been celebrating his son's graduation. He had had everything to look forward to. For my part, I was distressed by all this and sorry about it, which is why I donned a tie and went along to bow my head. But now I read that, because of room-temperature political politeness and the vagaries of the weather, I was supposed to have been grateful for the bereavement? What if it hadn't been an election year? What if the network couldn't have contacted a rock star? What if the sky had been merely sunny or had filled with lightning? Surely our mass media would adopt a tone of polite condescension if it was reporting on such primitive attitudes in the backlands of Alaska or Peru or Congo."

Speaking of the Olbermann crowd:

"As public financing is not a principle dear to me, I am hardly dismayed by Obama's abandonment of it. Nor am I disappointed in the least by his other calculated and cynical repositionings. I have never had any illusions about Obama. I merely note with amazement that his media swooners seem to accept his every policy reversal with an equanimity unseen since the Daily Worker would change the party line overnight -- switching sides in World War II, for example -- whenever the wind from Moscow changed direction.

"The truth about Obama is uncomplicated. He is just a politician (though of unusual skill and ambition). The man who dared say it plainly is the man who knows Obama all too well. 'He does what politicians do,' explained Jeremiah Wright."

Charles Krauthammer is on fire!  Read the whole thing.

...that Keith Olbermann is an unprincipled tool.  Hell, I named him worst person in the world--to coin a phrase--almost a year ago.  Thankfully, there are some honest (albeit very, very, very confused) Obama fans like my friend phamos818, who, earlier today, discussed the ways Obama has disappointed her lately.  I think she is the exception to the rule as far as left-liberals go.  And the rule is: they want power and will sacrifice anything to get it.  To take just two famous examples of this, I offer: Bill and Hillary Clinton.  When Bill and Hill were in the White House, with the memorable exception of Christopher Hitchens (who criticized them from the left, mind you), the left almost universally excused every vicious thing the Clintons ever did.  When Obama came along, they began to understand that all those anti-Clinton attacks weren't just the rantings of crackpot right-wingers.  It was a pretty convenient conversion I'd say...

Anyway, here's to all the honest left-liberals out there: you're few, you're far-between, and you're obviously terribly confused people, but it is nice to know that you exist and aren't afraid to challenge the Obamessiah.

It's something white people like.  Stuff White People Like is full of funny stuff.  Here's an excerpt:

"It’s also critical that you avoid the fatal mistake of getting creative and comparing people you don’t like to other evil dictators, such as Joseph Stalin or Fidel Castro. With few exceptions, white people are actually fond of almost any dictator not named Hitler, and your remark that 'this is just like something Mao Zedong would do' will be met with blank stares and possible social alienation. This is because, with the exception of Hitler, oppressive dictators share a passion for many of the things white people love--such as universal health care, conspiracy theories, caring about poor people while being filthy rich, and cool hats. Stick to the script and compare things you don’t like to Hitler, and Hitler alone."

I, for one, don't like any of the things listed--not even cool hats.

(Via Instapundit)

Possibly.

With the Democrats in a good position to sweep this year's elections, Jon Stewart has two ways to avoid annoying his left-leaning audience: keep making fun of the eeevil (though powerless) Republicans or attack the Democrats from the left.  Methinks the Democrats in power will be bad for Stewart.  Of course, the possibility that he'll attack from the right or on grounds of hypocrisy/dishonesty should not be ruled out, but if the audience's reaction to the following attempt at such humor is any indication, the left-leaning audience will tune out.  Obama is their messiah--they are unlikely to accept the idea that, like Bush, he can (and should) be mocked.

(Via Allahpundit.)

Thanks to phamos818 for letting me know.  George Carlin had some nihilistic views, and I don't condone them at all.  But if you could separate out that nihilistic stuff--and some people I respect simply can't--and the (at times) unnecessary vulgarity, his thoughts on religion and language were often hilarious to the point of quotability.  RIP George.

Now for a not-safe-for-work--and often brilliant--discussion of religion by the aforementioned George Carlin.  If you are offended by vulgarity, do not click here.  You have been warned.

I often find that those who are diametrically opposed to me on an issue, whatever their mistakes, at least understand the issue in a way that those who mostly--but not completely--disagree with me don't appreciate.  Thus, in some sense, a hard-core communist understands the battle between capitalism and communism better than a left-liberal social-democratic type does.  All of this is by way of introducing a piece in the leftist monthly The Progressive that calls Obama's politics "neoliberal" (i.e. Bill Clinton-like centrism) and his basic soul as similar to that of Peter Keating.  Obviously, the guy's a leftist, so he has to be taken with a grain of salt, but I found a lot I agreed with in this piece.

noumenalself responds to my previous post in the comments of that post, and I'd like to give his response--and my response to it--a separate post.  noumenalself's words will be in italics throughout.

"I notice you changed it from your original, which in my RSS reader included his saying 'In essence, it is: there is no argument against me, only the politics of fear and division.' You changed it because he didn't say that. And since he didn't, your 'in effect' interpretation is also weakened. Where does he say or imply that *only* proponents of fear and division would oppose him? Surely he thinks that some of his opponents would include these. But do you seriously think he would say or imply that every McCain supporter is such a person?"

No, that's fair.  By the way, to be 100% clear,  I was not saying that Obama said "there is no argument against me" but that that's what his remark could be interpreted to mean.  And that's the interpretation that makes the most sense to me.  But I'm only leaning toward it, not endorsing it without equivocation.  That's why, in addition to cutting out the part I cut out, I added in a part about being open to other interpretations.  But notice that he lumps wholly legitimate concerns about him being "young and inexperienced" with racist fear-mongering.  Reread his own words again.  If his (arguable) youth and inexperience are appeals to fear and division that deserve to be mentioned in the same breath with his "funny name" and skin color, then Obama is, at the very least, flirting with the idea that legitimate criticisms of him are, if not racist, then at the very least illegitimate uses of fear and division.  So perhaps some McCain supporters aren't such people--I'm sure he would concede that.  But that doesn't completely let him off the hook for these remarks.

Check this out:

"'It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy,' Obama told a fundraiser in Jacksonville, Florida. 'We know what kind of campaign they're going to run. They're going to try to make you afraid.'"

It's hard to know if the second quotation immediately followed the first. If not, it makes his point less clear--and it's already open to interpretation.  But if the "Obama told a fundraiser" interruption is merely an interruption, with no ommitted intervening words or sentences, he seems to be saying that Republicans don't have much else to run on except fear and division.  And then he proceeds to lay out just what fear and division consist of.  Look, I'm not trying to gin up support for McCain here.  I just want to be clear on who Obama is.  But as with the "bitter" comment, which was also open to some degree of interpretation, Obama seems to enjoy the idea of lumping opposition to him into "it's the old fear and division that we need to get past in order to experience the hope and change that only I can bring!"

"Of course, he doesn't need to say these things explicitly to have the effect you are describing. I say time will tell. If he begins to make this claim more and more, say when he is under particular pressure on policy questions, then maybe you'll have a point. But you can't make that point on the grounds of this single quotation."

Fair enough.

"Incidentally, inasmuch as I'd like to say that Obama is wrong to accuse people of this kind of response, right-wing pundits and bloggers and email-forwarders aren't helping anything. The postings about his lapel pins and pledge of allegiance behavior are superficial and silly. The hubbub over his name--which I see even on places like the Speicher Forum--are outright childish, no better than the tauntings of a schoolyard bully. And the stories about how he's 'really a Muslim' are blatantly unconscionable, conceding as they do religion's standard of what makes someone 'really' a member of a religious sect. Someone who is 'really' a Muslim in the eyes of Islam shouldn't deign to concede to that standard. We cannot be cowed into our choice of leader on the basis of irrational stone age beliefs."

On this stuff, I fully agree with you.  The problem is that Obama, to the extent he's made the election about his ability to bring "hope" and "change" (with those terms often left undefined), invites people to ask "who is this guy?  what makes him tick?"  And apart from the desire to be President, that's a question I don't have a full answer to myself.  I'm still wondering: is he a left-wing idealist who is also savvy enough as a politician to hide the leftist politics behind vacuous bromides, or is he a power-luster for whom left-wing politics and bromides like "hope" and "change" are merely strategically useful tools for him to use in his quest for the presidency?  I still can't tell for sure, and I have gone back and forth on this, but at the moment I lean toward the latter view.

Last month, I wrote:

"To left-liberals, all criticism of Democrats in general and Obama in particular is racist.  If you think the culture war is bad now, wait until Obama's the nominee."

to which noumenalself replied:

"What reason is there to think that people would be portrayed as racists just for criticizing his policies? Sure some people might say that, but I can't imagine Obama doing it himself. And he would probably criticize anyone who tried to make that criticism. His whole campaign has been as successful as it has only to the extent that he's tried to project a 'post-racial' vision of things, which is part of the reason he denounced Wright. Who knows how much he agrees with that denunciation, but whatever reasons compelled him to voice it would also probably lead him to pursue substantive issues rather than racial ones regarding policy. That doesn't mean I endorse him, but this reason for not doing so strikes me as pretty weak."

Here's Obama last night with some of his campaign donors in Florida:

“'We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid,' Obama said at the fundraiser. 'They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black? He’s got a feisty wife.'

"The crowd of supporters cheered, and Obama added: 'We know the strategy because they’ve already shown their cards. Ultimately I think the American people recognize that old stuff hasn’t moved us forward. That old stuff just divides us.'"

Obama has revealed that he's not above the kind of politics noumenalself  "can't imagine Obama" engaging in.  Obama does not make exactly the point I was making.  But it's similar.  Obama does not say "only a racist could oppose me."  Instead, he says, in effect, "only proponents of fear and division--along many lines, one of which is race--could oppose me."  Perhaps noumenalself reads the statement differently.  Perhaps others do as well.  I'm not arguing that the worst possible interpretation is obviously and inarguably the right one.  But, whatever Obama was getting at, I think it's a bad omen.

UPDATE: This audio confirmation from CNN lends support to my "worst possible interpretation."

This article discusses the state of the airlines.  Long story short: the near-term outlook is bad.  If you have any frequent flier miles, get rid of them ASAP--depending on which airline you have them with, they may not be worth anything by this time next year.

UPDATE: It's been pointed out in the comments that my prediction that Obama was toast has not been borne out.  Of course, we won't know whether McCain will romp over Obama in the general election until November.  That said, an "airlines are toast" prediction is a matter of simple math.  Barring a collapse in the price of oil, which there is no reason whatsoever to expect, the airline industry as a whole is simply not economically viable as currently constituted.  Now, does that mean every airline will go bankrupt and be liquidated?  Not necessarily.  But what it does mean is that, unless you know something nobody else knows about the near-term future price of oil, investing in the airlines--even by hanging on to your frequent flier miles to save up for a big trip in 2010--is not a smart move.

From the Matt Taibbi piece I just linked, we find that Joel Osteen's version of Jebus is actually a proto-capitalist:

"'God wants us to prosper financially, to have plenty of money, to fulfill the destiny He has laid out for us,' Osteen once wrote. This is the revolting, snake-oil-selling dickhead that John McCain actually chose to pimp as number one on his list of inspirational authors. So much for 'go, sell everything you have and give to the poor,' and all that other hippie crap from the New Testament."