Likelihood of Success

Ron Coleman’s pretty good blog

Oh, yeah… him

Posted by Ron Coleman on April 26, 2009

Last fall I reluctantly supported John McCain for President.  I wasn’t even sure why at the time, and could mostly focus on why I thought Barack Obama was not up to the task.  But shame on me — there was a reason, and it’s the same issue that made me realize I am a conservative in the first instance.  And the inexcusable Obama “policy” on “torture” — which is merely a political hiccup, a gesture to the left, a classic instance of liberal symbolism as government, that just happens threatens to undermine the ultimate safety and freedom of every one of us — reminds me of it now.

Here comes a long excerpt, but worth it.  Here’s the crux of the matter from last October’s issue of  The Atlantic, and we pick up the article at the end, where Jeffrey Goldberg is discussing McCain with Henry Kissinger:

I pointed out that McCain has changed many of his positions during his candidacy in order, it seems, to better conform to Republican orthodoxy. Kissinger replied: “Under the pressure of a presidential campaign, it’s possible that he will make adjustments. He may deviate from his positions, but he will not like himself for it.”

In my conversations with McCain, however, he never appeared greatly troubled by his shifts and reversals. It’s not difficult to understand why: tax policy, or health care, or even off-shore oil drilling are for him all matters of mere politics, and politics calls for ideological plasticity. It is only in the realm of national defense, and of American honor—two notions that for McCain are thoroughly entwined—that he becomes truly unbending.

Kissinger learned this at their first meeting. “When I was in Vietnam for negotiations on implementing the Paris Agreement, the North Vietnamese prime minister had a dinner—I was leaving the next day—and he said if I wanted to take McCain on my flight, it could be arranged,” he said. “I told him that I won’t take McCain or anyone else on my plane. The prisoner release would have to happen on a schedule previously agreed. Somehow McCain heard about this and months later, at the White House reception for returned prisoners, he said to me, ‘I want to thank you for saving my honor.’ What McCain did not tell me at that time was that he had refused to be released two years earlier unless all were released with him. It was better for him to remain in jail in order to preserve his honor and American honor than to come home on my plane.”

For McCain, the doctrine of preemption clearly falls outside the realm of mere politics, as does the need to “win,” rather than “end,” wars; the safety of America demands that they be fought, and honor demands that they be won.

McCain’s father, Kissinger said, saw the world the same way McCain sees it. “He was a military man, not a diplomat. Both men grasp the notion of consequences.

Consequences.  They are the reason the buck stops in the Oval Office.

The consequences of this lashing out at the previous regime, this post-Vietnamesque attempt to exorcise the hated, manly self, are not going to be “respect for the law” and widespread international warming toward America.  It will, to the contrary, give aid and comfort to those most contemptuous of law, and of our country, and most readily prepared to make every possible effort to destroy both.

That’s it, isn’t it?  Democrats really don’t seem to think about consequences, or at least to weigh them compared to gesture, self-regard and a need to please.

How many chances will we get to escape the consequences of a policy of vanity this time?

Cross-posted on Right-Wing News.

Posted in Narcissus Rex, Oppression, Past is prologue, Sisyphus, Stragety | 1 Comment »

Not in the spirit

Posted by Ron Coleman on April 24, 2009

A little too friendly

A little too friendly

This makes sense to me.  Via Above the Law I found this item on something called “Facebook ghosting”:

One popular Facebook “ghost” was a blond female temptress, the site reports.

The team allegedly would use these fake profiles to get friend-level access to recruits’ information on the site. The thinking there is that if a team official spots a player in Facebook photos smoking dope or partying hard, the team might avoid a bad draft pick and a potential public relations problem.

The fake profiles are called “ghosts” because they disappear soon after they surface.

I wonder if this technique exists in other spheres of recruiting? At law firms? At banks? In other sports?

There’s no hard evidence the NFL ghost-profile incident is part of a trend, said Justin Smith, editor of the blog Inside Facebook, which tracks the social networking site.

It’s not only going on with athletes and prospective employees.  I’m 99% sure that the rash of friend requests that I have recently received from essentially unconnected, untraceable young women claiming to be Christians but looking decidedly, um, different in their mode of dress is part of some attempt to get conservative bloggers of a certain level of prominence (like somewhere above the C-list, I guess) to do and say stupid things for later use.

Quite the dirty trick.  Lucky for me I — well, no, it has nothing to do with luck.  I’m just not stupid.

Careful out there, boys and girls.

UPDATE:  A famous blogger friend passes along this link — all that “principles are for everyone” stuff is for political consumption, don’t you know.  Duping righties is completely cool.  It all depends on the ends!

Posted in Nuvo-Techno, O Mores!, Social networking | Leave a Comment »

Murder out there

Posted by Ron Coleman on April 22, 2009

What’s going on?

How come the last month or two every top story on my Yahoo! AP feed is about random and not-so-random acts of notorious murder?

What on earth is happening?  Why is everyone killing people?

Posted in Heart and spirit | 2 Comments »

Some fantasies are best left unrealized

Posted by Ron Coleman on April 21, 2009

The nuclear option

The nuclear option

In fact, most fantasies are, but especially this one.  A lawyer and partner in an old haunt of mine didn’t just tell her screaming daughters tussling in the back seat she was going to throw them out of the car if they didn’t shut their traps.

She did it.  By the grace of Roz Chast and all else that is unholy in the illustration of parental frustration, Madlyn Primoff of Scarsdale pulled over, tossed (figuratively) her twelve-year-old and ten-year-old daughters onto the pavement in — of all places — White Plains, New York, and drove off:

White Plains police said Primoff ordered the arguing girls out of the car Sunday evening as they were driving home. She left them at Post Road and South Broadway, an area of shops and offices 3 miles from their home, then drove off, the police report said.

In case you ever wondered what would happen if you did follow through with this idea, by the way, she’s in a world of trouble and is barred by a court order from contacting her kids.  They’re not too happy about it either, as you can imagine.

Dr. Richard Gersh, director of psychiatric services at the Jewish Board of Family and Children’s Services in Manhattan, said Primoff’s behavior was not appropriate.

No, not hardly.

This is exactly what I said what happen, by the way, when they threatened to make me a bankruptcy lawyer too.

Posted in Americana, Homo sapiens, Suburbia | Leave a Comment »

Bipartisan? Whew!

Posted by Ron Coleman on April 21, 2009

Obama on show trials of CIA employees:

Mr. Obama, who has been saying that the nation should look ahead rather than focusing on the past, said he is “not suggesting” that a commission be established.

But in response to questions from reporters in the Oval Office, he said, “if and when there needs to be a further accounting,” he hoped that Congress would examine ways to obtain one “in a bipartisan fashion,” from people who are independent and therefore can build credibility with the public.

Regrets, we have a few.

Regrets, we have a few.

The horror.

I’d like to say this is fundamentally a dodge.  It is a dodge — he wants to look ahead, not back, he’s not suggesting, he’s leaving doors open… it is a dodge, and frankly a contemptible one.

But fundamentally it is not a dodge.  Fundamentally it is something much more horrible.  It is the process by which the United States takes on a practice associated with tyrannies and, far from being an endorsement of the rule of law, elevates the assumption to power to the ability to punish the previous regime for “incorrect” — and hence “criminal” — policies.

It is no different from the argument about the supposedly inevitable impeachment of ex-President Bush, also based on supposed crimes arising from torture.  As I wrote on a private list, made up mainly of attorneys, discussing that topic (adapted here), there is a tendency among certain people, and in particular those attracted to a certain pole in political debate, to regard their political choices or philosophical conclusions as the sole “moral” choice.  In fact, (a) criminalization of political disagreement, (2) the use of penal power to punish players in the previous regime, and (3) the adaptation of legislative bodies as proxies to loose the necessary political “justice” when the traditional judicial organs refuse to comply, have historically been popular options for playing out this partisan outrage and sating the desire for “moral” vindication on the politically deviant.

Just not in this country. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Lex scripta, Liberal punks, O Mores!, Oppression | 15 Comments »

Ouch, ouch, ouch. Your Honor.

Posted by Ron Coleman on April 19, 2009

This brilliant pickup by Six Meat Buffet hurts in so many ways.

Posted in Jocularity, Lex scripta | Leave a Comment »

“Mr. Lincoln, call your agent!”

Posted by Ron Coleman on April 17, 2009

“I have been to the mountain and I have secured the rights to the promised land!”

Emancipated, yes, but poorly managed IP-wise

Emancipated, yes, but poorly managed IP-wise

The AP reports that the pimps family of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. got $800,000 for “the use of his words and image” on the national memorial to his memory on the National Mall — another story I’ve been following since the very beginning of my blogging career.

According to financial documents reviewed by The Associated Press, the foundation paid $761,160 in 2007 to Intellectual Properties Management Inc., an entity run by King’s family. Documents also show a “management” fee of $71,700 was paid to the family estate in 2003.

In a statement to the AP, Intellectual Properties Management said the proceeds it receives go to the King Center in Atlanta, where King and his wife, Coretta Scott King, are entombed.

Listen, it’s not a government project or taxpayer money. And evidently the people collecting spare money are happy to see the King “kids” profit from their martyred father’s expensive memory:

Charon Darris, a New York banker and alumnus of Morehouse College, King’s alma mater, said he raised about $1,000 for the memorial project with friends and did not have a problem with the fees.

“I don’t think that’s an unreasonable amount,” he said. “Ultimately, the kids lost their father, the wife lost her husband.”

Who are we to say what’s reasonable? I’m sure Darris is not the kind of person who would ever say, “We’re tired of hearing about the Holocaust!” and understands that once something awful happens to you, you’re pretty much good to bank on it — literally — for life.

Really, not an unreasonable amount at all.

Posted in Gelt, Heart and spirit | Leave a Comment »

On the shore

Posted by Ron Coleman on April 17, 2009

The Sages teach that after the crossing of the “Red Sea” the Israelites watched the riches of Egypt, borne by their frenzied pursuers who now slept forever in the watery depths, wash up on the shore.  They gathered up this wealth before being urged by Moses, who had loftier things in mind, to turn their back on Egypt in every sense and continue forward on their journey to a new and greater destiny.  While the rabbinical sources do not by and large criticize the Israelites for taking belated payment for centuries of brutal servitude and oppression, it does seem clear that there is something about their inability to shake their attachment to the “fleshpots of Egypt” that remains problematic.

Well, I got back to my Egypt, not at Ramses or Pithom but on 34th Street, after the final two festival days of Passover, and after what was really two weeks consumed by comprable lofty ambitions.  And, well… let’s just say while it has all the earmarks of the above experience — drowning; “riches” strewn all about; spiritual confusion — I am, ultimately, still here, and on the correct side of the Sea, at least!

There’s plenty of sorting to do, and I don’t think I will get 40 years to do it.  But on the other hand, I remain hopeful that, unlike that particular group of my ancestors, I will get to personally enter the Promised Land…

Posted in Faith and Works, Heart and spirit, Jocularity | Leave a Comment »

Socialismesque?

Posted by Ron Coleman on April 13, 2009

Remember this big-deal post?  It got Instalanched and everything, and I was written off by many an otherwise friendly right-winger for it:

Just as we remember it: Socialism, fundamentally, is premised on the non-private ownership of at least some of the means of production. Obviously at best the only argument you can make for Obama-as-socialist, based on the sound bite quoted above, is that he is a “social democrat,” i.e., one who “propose[s] selective nationalization of key national industries in mixed economies combined with tax-funded welfare programs.”

So: What industry did Barack Obama propose to nationalize in his remarks, or in any remarks?

None. He proposed none, and in all probability he never will.

Harry Truman — now there was a socialist. He tried to nationalize the entire steel industry. But what would conservatives give today for a world full of Democrats like Truman?

People, you don’t have to be a socialist to be “dangerous” as a matter of economics, budget, tax policy, or, for that matter, liberty. But if you want healthy economies, balanced budgets, fair taxes — and liberty — you have to know your political economy, and you have to know who is and who isn’t a Red, if only to maintain your own credibility as loyal opposition.

Well, now Instapundit quotes the following from Jonathan Macey, which challenges my premise (not by name) considerably:

To socialize the American economy, it is not necessary to nationalize every business in the United States. All it requires is to put the corporations that control the finances of all of the companies in the economy under government control. And that is what is happening now. . . .

The initial forceful injection of capital into hundreds of financial institutions, however, is another story. It is the first step in an ongoing process to socialize American finance. When this process is complete, every company in the U.S. that needs capital will first have to curry favor with some federal agency or politician. Solid business plans and prospects for growth and profitability will be far less important than diversity plans and political connections.

We’re at the start of an unprecedented foray by the federal government into the governance of private-sector companies. . . .

Is he really describing socialism, though? Or just plain lousy, or maybe even catastrophic, over-regulation of the financial sector?

I don’t see socialism here.  Disaster?  Tragedy?  Whatever.  Red October?  Not quite.  Enlighten me if I’m wrong.

Posted in Gelt, Oppression, Politics and Poker | 6 Comments »

Meat me halfway

Posted by Ron Coleman on April 13, 2009

Aaron Morris:

I’ve always considered vegetarianism to be an eating disorder in many. And while I haven’t yet convinced the American Psychiatric Association to include vegetarianism in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), I now have research to support that vegetarianism is a strong indicator of a possible eating disorder.

Stay with me and I’ll explain.

A recent dietary study was led by nutritionist Ramona Robinson-O’Brien, an assistant professor at the College of Saint Benedict and Saint John’s University in Minnesota. The study concluded that adolescent and young adult vegetarians were four times more likely than their meat-eating peers to binge eat and engage in extreme weight-control measures such as taking laxatives and forcing themselves to vomit. The study further concluded that teenage vegetarians as well as young experimenters — those who try it but abandon it — may be at higher risk for other eating disorders compared with their peers.

The study authors suggest that parents and doctors should be extra vigilant when teens suddenly become vegetarians. Although teens may say they’re trying to protect animals, they may actually be trying to camouflage some unhealthy eating behaviors.

It’s a little lean for my taste  — plenty of non-teens are vegetarians, and some of them are not nut cases, from what I can tell — but I like the cut of his argument.  Well done!

Posted in Heart and spirit, Jocularity, Scientificus | Leave a Comment »