Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Air America is Pure, Unadulterated, Propaganda

Brian Maloney has been following Air America and reports on Al Franken's "I don't care who I screw as I stash away millions for my imaginary 2008 senate run" leadership of the propped-up radio network. Typically, affiliates pay for radio programs, but in Air America's case the money seems to be flowing the other way. Not to mention the scandal with the Gloria Wise Boys Club.

WSJ.com: Our Right to Security

Debra Burlingame speaks for me too.
- Ms. Burlingame, a former attorney, is the sister of Charles F. "Chic" Burlingame III, the pilot of AA flight 77, which was crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.
"Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never, never--in nothing, great or small, large or petty--never give in, except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never yield to force. Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy."
-Winston Churchill

Walk the Line... the BLY remake

Johnny Cash "crosses the line" (care of Bohemian Like You) and receives previously withheld acclaim. Great stuff.

Why aren't conservatives making more of a stink about this movie about two married men who leave their wives, share a tent together & fall in "love"? I think many simply don't care.

Wikipedia on left-right interpretation

Wikipedia is just overflowing with links and attempts to explain left and right.

Equal outcomes (left) versus consistent processes (right).

Redistribution of wealth and income (left), or acceptance of inequalities as a result of the free market (right).

Whether the government's policy on the economy should be interventionist (left) or laissez-faire (right).

Support for widened lifestyle choices (left), or support for traditional values (right).

Whether the state should prioritise equality (left) or liberty (right). Both the left and the right tend to speak in favor of both equality and liberty - but they have different interpretations.

Whether human nature is more malleable (left) or intrinsic (right).

Whether the government should promote secularism (left) or religious morality (right).

Collectivism (left) versus individualism (right).

Support for internationalism (left), or national interest (right).

Support for the economic interests of the less privileged classes (left) or of the more privileged (right).

Fair outcomes (left) versus fair processes (right).

Specifically, acceptance of the inequalities in wealth and income which result from the free market (right), or redistribution of wealth and income, normally through government intervention funded through taxation (left).

Generally, the political debate is about the extent to which the government should (left) or should not (right) intervene in the economy in order to benefit the relatively poor.

In general, whether the government's policy on the economy should be interventionist (left) or laissez-faire (right).

Preference for a larger and more interventionist government (left) versus a smaller government (right).

Whether the state should prioritise equality (left) or liberty (right).

Whether human nature and society is malleable (left) or fixed (right), or whether human behavior is determined by nurture or nature. This was proposed by Thomas Sowell.

Whether human beings are naturally good and happy, and evil and suffering are the product of an "unfair" society (left), or human beings are naturally bad and unhappy, so evil and suffering are inescapable elements of the human condition (right).

Whether the government should promote secularism (left) or religion (right).

Collectivism (left) versus individualism (right).

A preference for innovation and change (left) or a preference for conservatism and an insistence that innovations must be justified (right).

Different ways of responding to conflict: conversation (left), negotiation (centre), and force (right). This formulation was proposed by the political philosopher Charles Blattberg. (Blattberg 2001, p.20 et.seq.)

Whether law creates and subordinates culture (left), or culture creates and subordinates law (right). This formulation was put forward by US Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

Support for national independence, autonomy and sovereignty, especially for smaller groups (left), as opposed to support for legitimate states and governments (right).

Support for internationalism and cosmopolitan attitudes (left), as against "narrow" national interest (right).


Some interesting food for thought if you're not sure where you fit in.

Labels: ,

Monday, January 30, 2006

No gay cowboys...

High Society. Movie scenes don't get much better than this with Sinatra and Crosby. Add Grace Kelly and Satchmo and you've got a must rent for those that want to turn back the clock a few years for a few hours.


Buy Danish

Free speech and censorship come to a head in Denmark...over cartoons of all things. They're testing the waters. We can't pretend to be surprised down the road.

Kennedy to Bush: "What have you done for me lately?"

Has it really been so long since these two were double-dating at the White House movie theater? I guess pretending that you had to twist Kennedy's arm to spend more on education gets you a year or so, but no more.

Michelle Malkin covers Kennedy losing it today.

KENNEDY: ...All you have to do, Mr. President, is look back into the history. Look back into the history of the judiciary. Look back to the history of the 5th Circuit, that were (sic) making the decisions in the 1950s. Look at the record of Judge Wisdom. Judge Tuttle. Judge Johnson of Alabama. The courage that they demonstrated that said that at last we are going to break down the walls of discrimination in this country, that have gripped this nation for 200 years. Our founding fathers failed the test when they wrote slavery into the Constitution! (He's screaming.)

Abraham Lincoln pointed the way and we passed the 13th, 14th, 15th amendment and had a civil war. But we didn't resolve this issue. It was only 'til we had the courage of those members of what branch of government? Not the US Congress. Not the US Senate. Not the executive. The Judiciary! The 5th Circuit! (Screaming again.)

We're talking now about the Supreme Court. But they are the ones who changed this country inevitably with what we call the march to progress. The march towards knocking down the walls of discrimination that permitted us to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act and public accomodations so people who's skin was not white who could go into restaurants and hotels. Public accomodations. The '65 act for voting. Voting rights. The '68 act. The public accomodations. The 1973 act that said that women are going to treated equally. The Americans with Disabilities Act that said that the disabled are going to be part of the American family.

All of that is part of the march for progress.

And my friends, the one organization, the one institution that protects it is THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES!!! (Screaming at the top of his lungs.)

Too much blood has been shed in those battles. Too much sweat. Too many tears. To. Put. At. Risk. That. March. For. Progress.

(Banging podium. Voice cracking.)

And that is what we are doing (voice quavering) with this nominee. HE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE before this Judiciary Committee that he was committed to the continued march for progress...

After the ridiculous display at the Alito hearings, he's not helping himself much. Although it will be interesting to see if he and Kerry continue to appear as leaders of their party. We'll see if he continues to keep earning points from the far-left fundraising machine.