Please tell me it’s true…

Peggy Noonan declares the Dems liberated from the Clintons, thanks to the ridiculous lie about the Bosnia visit. Dear Lord, tell me it’s true.

If the Democrats really are stepping up to cast off these demons, it’s PARTY TIME! If making up crap until you get called out on it is no longer the left’s modus operandi, I need to rethink my allegiances. Let’s dig up Ed Muskie and Hubert H and suit them up… I’m feeling very BLUE!

(If you read nothing else in Peggy Noonan’s piece, do not miss the GI Joe satire at the end of it. Priceless!)

Advertisements

The Charity Gap: What Does It Mean?

When it comes to translating political positions to moral ones, I’m as transparent as they come.  I have some qualms with the standard righty portfolio of views, but general I find plain vanilla lefties distasteful.  They almost always strike me either as straightforwardly selfish, hypocritical (views vs. actual life practices), or borderline “character deformed” to use Scott Peck’s terminology.  (The extremes on either side, by the way, are horrifying, and I’m not talking about “Minister” Farrakan or David Duke here.)

And since I’m lazy, I really want to take George Will’s article and conclude that the charity gap is clear evidence that, in general, righties are better people than lefties.  And the explanation that lefties believe it’s the job of government to be charitable, taking them off the hook, is hollow — the guy who takes the biggest pieces of pizza without hesitation is not exhonorated by explaining that he has to look after himself first because he can’t count on anyone else to do it.  That’s what being a selfish asshole is.

I’m the first to admit that as a huge fan of simplicity I often miss the subtleties, and what better place than Reasonableminds.org to go to for instruction on the complex nature of being a cheap bastard.

Have a read, and tell the crowd what your take is!

David Mamet: Reasonable Mind or Liberal Traitor?

Ok, so there are two kinds of people in this world. The first (e.g. Granulous) does things, like setting up this blog, having carefully considered opinions, making simple topics unnecessarily complicated, and trying to get the second kind of people (e.g. me) involved.

The second kind of people don’t do things. We are basically vultures who feed on what’s easily available and have strong yet unconsidered opinions, and we bitch about the general state of affairs with no real intention to do anything about it.

But like David Mamet below, I digress.

So here I am, doing Granulous’ bidding, feeding his blog. I do read things here and there, looking for wisdom, and I feel like I really found some in, of all places, the Village Voice. David Mamet outs himself as a failed “brain-dead liberal”, finally succumbing to his inner voice of reason.

And sure, I get cheap, obvious pleasure when any lefty throws in the towel, but Mamet’s “conversion” is a more thoughtful, mitigated shuffle toward the middle. If you read the commentary around the Internet from the left, you’ll find him painted as a full-blown traitor. But I don’t think it’s that simple.

But you decide for yourself. Read the rest of this entry »

Justice and the Press

Reasonable Minds readers already know what I think about the proposals in Congress for a “reporter’s shield” law, but the Wall Street Journal was good enough to publish an op-ed I submitted on that subject.

Journal readers, if you found this blog for the first time as a result of today’s op-ed, welcome and please look around. You can find more on the various versions of the shield bill here, here, and here.

Eliot Spitzer and the Gospel of Matthew

I had not planned to write anything about the flame-out of Eliot Spitzer, largely because Schadenfreude is one of those things that tastes so good you know it must be bad for you. But as we move through the wave of “why would he do this?” articles, like this one in yesterday’s Washington Post, I wonder if we are overlooking one important factor, an explanation we might draw from the Gospel of Matthew, as unlikely as that seems. The answer is: Read the rest of this entry »

Bush and Congress: Left of McGovern

How irresponsible are we as a nation? Here’s one indicator: There is now a bipartisan consensus in favor of a level of government paternalism that goes too far for George McGovern. Read the rest of this entry »

What’s a Catholic Voter to Do? (Part I)

A few weeks ago, a friend asked me, “When are you going to write something on the blog about how Catholics are supposed to vote?” We had a brief but thoughtful discussion about it, noting that the question is hard to answer because it is partly about objective morality and partly about practical considerations that depend on the options actually available. And when one looks at those “options actually available,” the question seems almost moot: Exactly which candidate are we supposed to vote for if we are not permitted to vote for anyone whose views are at odds with Catholic teaching? But it is a fascinating topic, and a well-crafted blog post about it might count as “views you can use.” For now, though, I’m still thinking.

In the meantime, another friend calls my attention to a recent piece by Douglas Kmiec, first published I-don’t-know-where and later posted on the Mirror of Justice blog by Michael Perry. It’s not a systematic analysis of the extent to which our votes should be influenced by our religious beliefs; it’s not even a systematic analysis of Catholic teaching on that score. Read the rest of this entry »