Saturday, January 11, 2003


Andrew Sullivan wishes to ask Susan Sontag: She supported president Clinton's military intervention in the Balkans. He did so without U.N. approval. Yet Bush is acting entirely under U.N. auspices with regard to Iraq. If Bush is an imperialist, why wasn't Clinton?

Exactly. If you can justify bombing Belgrade into rubble -- which is what NATO did -- because of Kosovo, then you can justify anything. There are millions of Serbs who will hate America until the day they die, because of what Clinton did. The bombing of Belgrade also cost us the goodwill of Russia, Serbia's traditional ally. If Russia is not now supporting the U.S. against Iraq, one reason is because of the foolish and unjust bombing of Serbia. Some have called for war crimes trials.

So, yes, absolutely right, Andrew: Nobody who supported the Clinton administration's Balkans policy has any standing to criticize Bush on Iraq.


Ramsey Clark, former stooge of the Lyndon Johnson administration, is now the stooge of Saddam Hussein, a tyrant perhaps even worse than LBJ (if that were possible). RightWingNews concludes that Clark has simply gone nuts. And who are we to argue?

Let's call Michael Savage "mean"!


Few Americans today have ever heard the name of M.E. Bradford (1934-93), who was almost the first nominee for the National Endowment for the Arts in the Reagan administration. A professor at the University of Dallas, Bradford's views on the Constitution were expressed in a series of lectures, collected and published posthumously as Original Intentions: On the Making and Ratification of the United States Constitution (Athens, Ga.: University of Georgia Press, 1993).

Bradford examines the history of the Constitution as a means of determining what the Founders had in mind. In an epilogue, he contrasts those "original intentions" with a very popular, but erroneous, view in which the Constitution itself is sort of an afterthought to the Declaration of Independence. As an example of such "wishful thinking" -- used to justify a powerful, interventionist role for the national government -- Bradford cites Mortimer Adler (1902-2001), the longtime University of Chicago professor credited with popularizing the "Great Books" curriculum.

Whatever Adler's greatness as a philosopher and pedagogue, he had great shortcomings as a constitional scholar, said Bradford:

To attempt to abstract from the Preamble to the Constitution a lever for transforming it into an instrumental document is ... to live without (that is, outside) the law, to invent powers that do not exist. And is also a transparent attempt to import the second paragraph of the Declaration -- as a mandate for national self-creation, refounding -- into our fundamental law. Yet no such action is required by the Preamble. No power is created by it. Rather, it explains what is intended by the rest of the document. A contemporary point of reference for all such nonsense as follows from an activist view of the Preamble and Declaration is Mortimer Adler's We Hold These Truths, a book "about" the Constitution whose weaknesses are specified by its very title. After Adler identifies the Declaration as a "preface" to the Constitution, we know how his argument will tend: that in the end that Declaration will, if allowed, swallow up the Constitution -- except for the Preamble, as ideologically construed. ...

The text of the Constitution proper plays no major role in [Adler's argument]. ... Instead Adler speaks of the Declaration ("the architectural blueprint for the government of the United States"), the Preamble, and (because of its value as a gloss on the Declaration) the Gettysburg Address -- "something like the sacred scriptures of this nation."

Adler is a marvel of obdurate misconception and wishful thinking in We Hold These Truths, going so far in one place as to maintain that "almost all the underlying ideas of the Constitution are to be found in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, in some phrases in Lincoln's Gettysburg Address and [only] here and there in the Constitution itself." These ideas, he says, are "equality, inalienable rights (or human rights), the pursuit of happiness, civil rights (to secure human rights), the consent of the governed, and the dissent of the governed." Adler's analysis would seem so week as to embarass his admirers -- did it not concern equality. No critical thought on that subject is now encouraged. Indeed, it may soon be forbidden.

Exactly so.

Friday, January 10, 2003

TRUE CONFESSIONS. First I spilled about Monica, now Rachel Lucas 'fesses up to actually liking Air Supply. All right, I'll see your quarter and raise ya 50 cents: I like Barry Manilow music. Especially "Weekend in New England."

Thursday, January 09, 2003

COOL. IT WORKED. Got the links in without screwing up the rest of the code. And since nobody is actually reading this stuff yet, I will make a true confession: I think Monica Lewinsky is sexy.

No kidding. Blue eyes, long lashes, cute nose, lovely lips, nice teeth, large breasts and .. "more cushion for the pushin'," as they say. Yeah, she's a tramp and an airhead, not to mention a Democrat, but I guess I'm the only right-winger in America who admires a girl with much back.

BABY BLOGGER BLUES - OK, I know my blog is incredibly lame. I don't know how to do much of anything beyond posting and linking. I've got this template thingy, but when I try to alter the HTML (using my rather limited skills) to add links, etc., it seems to corrupt regions of code that I never even touched! So I will just say, if you visit this blog, please e-mail me at and say hi.
Rachel says Michael Moore's bizarre rant about white "scaredy cats" on the 9-11 jets is evidence of a psychological disorder.

Nah, it's just plain stupidity. Moore was trying to be humorous, suggesting some homies from the hood would not have sat still for the hijackers. Did he seriously believe his rant? I doubt it. This was just a dirtbag leftwinger's lame idea of topical humor. But if Moore did believe his riff, it just shows what a shallow and stupid person he is.

A. The passengers on board the first three flights had no idea that the hijackers were on kamikaze missions. All three of the flights were hijacked roughly simultaneously.

B. The few accounts of these hijackings, received by cell phone from passengers or flight attendants, indicate that the hijackers on each flight demonstrated their intentions by killing at least one person and holding others at knifepoint. The sight of someone lying dead with his or her throat cut had the desired effect of shocking the other passengers and convincing them of the bloodthirsty determination of the hijackers. Also, I believe I read that the hijackers also (falsely) told the passengers that they had bombs. So the hijackers had some important advantages.

C. For two decades or more, Americans have been told that non-resistance is the best response to crime. Michael Moore, I believe, would endorse that advice. Congratulations, Mike: The passengers on three of the 9-11 flights were non-violent in their reaction to the hijackings.

D. On Flight 93, the only 9-11 where the passengers had timely warning of the suicidal intent of the hijackers, the "scaredy cat" white boys -- including Todd "Let's Roll" Beamer -- fought back and succeeded in preventing the jihadis from accomplishing whatever mission they were following.

To reach Michael Moore's idiotic conclusion about the 9-11 passengers, you'd have to be .... a Stupid White Man.

IT'S A FREE COUNTRY and everybody’s entitled to their own opinion. NOT. Derbyshire is absolutely right. Everybody loudly declares that there are racists in America, but nobody (or, almost nobody) will ever admit to actually being a racist. And so the stupid charade goes on until some clumsy idiot says the wrong thing, and then everybody jumps up and down screaming “racist.” Trent Lott is probably no more racist than, say, Hillary Clinton, who refused to send Chelsea to D.C. public schools and then relocated to a 71% white suburb (14% black) of New York. If Hillary had lived in Pascagoula, Mississippi (21% black) you know she’d have sent Chelsea to a seg academy. But Hillary’s got the right (which is to say left) politics, so she could never be accused of racism, even if she were to put on blackface and do a mocking imitation of Al Sharpton in the well of the Senate. And Lott was good enough for Republicans until he made the mistake of complimenting a fellow Republican on a slow news day when Sidney Blumenthal and Thomas Edsall were paying attention. There is a horrible bipartisan hypocrisy on race that nothing, not even the L.A. riots, can seem to disrupt. It is depressing even to think about it.
YES! YES! YES! I am blogging. I got tired of watching everybody else have all the fun, so here I am. Get over it.