Mr Free Market over at Free Market Fairy Tales has done it again, this time delivering us another image of the cross of Saint George emblazoned on an entirely different trio. I'd like to say something witty and original, but I'm brought short due to time considerations. So, I'll steal from the comments section at FMFT:

I am not a rugby fan. However, I am becoming a fan of rugby events.

In order to save this guy on bandwidth, the picture is reproduced here:

From the looks of it, the Anglosphere seems set to keep this rugby cup, because the final game is between England and Australia. The Country Pundit, being easily swayed by such as above, is rooting for England unless the Australians counter with Nicole Kidman or Cate Blanchett.

Also worth reading there is his post on World War I; I don't know much about that war, but I certainly enjoyed reading what he had to say. I think the guy in the painting is supposed to be Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig. A quick peek at the image title confirms this; he was supreme commander of British forces (and maybe more) for a time in the war. Sir Douglas managed to ring up some horrific casualty counts among his own troops, and as such hasn't fared so well in post-war opinion.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 02:32 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 230 words, total size 2 kb.

General Colin Powell isn't my favorite in the Bush Administration. (See Rumsfeld, Donald H.) Sometimes, however, Powell comes through with a home run. This is one of those times.

I was browsing the archive of Free Market Fairy Tales (great blog, by the way) and found Secretary Powell's remark in this post. My reaction was simple: My jaw dropped, then came back up in a tight line, and I lowered my head in response to something that landed deep within whatever part of me responds to overwhelming emotional force in its most simple form. There couldn't possible be a better answer to the Archbishop of Canterbury's question. Sure, one might have some flashy or high-sounding statement of principle or a cutting remark, but what Colin Powell said was direct, to the point, and utterly irrefutable.

What did he say in response to the Archbishop's question about American plans for postwar Iraq and American empire-building?

"Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those who did not return."

Mr Free Market reports that the room in which this took place became "really quiet". As it should have---nothing more neither need have been nor should have been said.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 03:39 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 239 words, total size 2 kb.

The first time I heard the phrase "England's rose", I think it was applied to the late Lady Diana Spencer, ex-Princess of Wales.¹ The next time I heard it was in the context of the British actress Sophie Ward. (She's not all bad looking, but darnit, she defected to the other side!)²

I'm not entirely sure what the term really applies to, but I need an artsy component to excuse what is otherwise an exercise in pure Gallic-bashing and lowbrow celebration of English women and their spirit.

With that disclaimer out of the way, this post comes from what seems to be a relatively new blog based in England, Free Market Fairy Tales. In France & the Rugby World Cup, Mr Free Market tells us a tale about "fine English maidens with the correct outlook on life. I've reproduced the picture in question in order to save him bandwidth and to disseminate this throughout the Anglosphere, all in the interests of cultural exchange. Marvel at their stoic British character as they, clad in diaphanous white, brave the watery precipitation that sends men rushing to ponchos and rain gear! (Either that or wonder just how many sheets to the wind they were before they started. --Ed.) Anyways, affix your gaze upon these women, as they display what Kevin Costner's Robin of Locksley called "English courage". Huh huh huh.

I bet Saint George wouldn't have minded seeing his cross reproduced on these particular maidens.

Tip of the Wisconsin hat to Free Market Fairy Tales for this image.

1 Sounds like I'm talking about a Royal Navy warship to be nitpicking about 'ex-Princess of Wales' or something, but never mind that.

2 The Country Pundit, being a traditionalist and not particular sympathetic to the ridiculous "inclusive language" doctrine forced upon him in undergraduate, considers calling a woman who acts an 'actor' is tantamount to an insult against her femininity.

Miss Ward shares circumstance with Episcopalian Bishop V. Eugene Robinson in that both of them have bailed out of heterosexual marriages and taken up with a homosexual partner. As Robert E. Lee says in The Guns of the South, "Too bad! Oh, too bad!"

Posted by: Country Pundit at 11:47 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 366 words, total size 2 kb.

Everyone knows that the United Kingdom's best and brightest hate the idiot chimp AWOL corporate tool President-select (Hail to the thief!!!!!) Bush, right? RIGHT?

Wrong.

The people over at the The Guardian usually don't produce much of note. (Buggers had the temerity to slam the character of Jean Grey in X-Men 2, don't you know.) However, as President Bush was winging his way across the Atlantic (should've been steaming into Southampton or Liverpool on SS United States) the Guardian up and published letters to the President from Britons.

Some of them are the usual tripe from people who need to be given close-range exposure to a Clue-by-Four. See Harold "I'm sure you'll be having a nice little tea party with your fellow war criminal, Tony Blair. Please wash the cucumber sandwiches down with a glass of blood, with my compliments" Pinter.

Another couple of them are from noteworthy Britons, and they're excerpted here:

It is regrettable that Tony Blair misled you into thinking that he could deliver Mr Schröder, Mr Chirac and Mr Putin to vote for a UN resolution. The PM does, I am afraid, have delusions of grandeur. Unfortunately, the doomed strategy of making weapons of mass destruction the cause of war has discredited the war in the UK. You did better to say frankly that you wanted to remove the Saddam regime which so brutalised its people and destabilised the region.

I beg you to take no notice. The British left intermittently erupts like a pustule upon the buttock of a rather good country. Seventy years ago it opposed mobilisation against Adolf Hitler and worshipped the other genocide, Josef Stalin.

. . . .

Eleven years ago something dreadful happened. Maggie was ousted, Ronald retired, the Berlin wall fell and Gorby abolished communism. All the left's idols fell and its demons retired. For a decade there was nothing really to hate. But thank the Lord for his limitless mercy. Now they can applaud Saddam, Bin Laden, Kim Jong-Il... and hate a God-fearing Texan.

But when the chips are really down, Britain is as always a firm ally, standing alongside the United States in the cause of making the world a safer place. That is what we have done for well over half a century and what we shall continue to do, whatever the chants of the demonstrators. It's called the special relationship.

Europe is bent on constructing in the EU a new nation on the old European pattern: flag-waving, glory-seeking, protectionist, exclusive of other races and creeds and full of touchy amour-propre, to say nothing of naked resentment of the US. This is a world that needs, just as much as it did in 1945, the unique American ability to be at once strong and principled in its global leadership.

Please pledge, Mr President, that under your leadership that proud tradition will be maintained and that the US will never, whatever the provocations from Europe or elsewhere, slip back into the bad old pre-1945 vices of nationalism, unilateralism, autarky and the laws of the jungle.

And a personal favorite:

Are you getting out enough? The world is divided into two groups of people and here I draw no political or social distinctions. I am, of course, referring to those that run and those that do not. When you kindly granted me an interview last year, your first question to me was "Are you still getting out?" I remember the look of puzzlement that settled upon the faces of your inner circle. "Yes, Mr President," I replied, "and I hope you are too." More puzzlement. In fact, I am sure they felt that they were being deliberately excluded from the conversation in some Masonic-type code.

Maintaining your daily running diet will keep your head clear and your mind focused, and will remind you constantly that, as a runner, you have the advantage over others, knowing that the road is often undulating and the gradient and surface uncertain. You will also know, as any runner does, that the session has to be completed and, unlike the bluffers who make up the ranks of the political intelligentsia, you do something on a daily basis that is objectively measured. Good luck and, as they would say in the north of England, "Get the miles in."

Go figure. Some of the responses I've been reading around the world of blogging indicate that the British are actually in favor of the President and aren't a bunch of slobbering toadies to totalitarianism, but one can never be sure with polls. After all, before them come lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Tip of the Wisconsin hat to Glenn Reynolds.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 11:26 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 815 words, total size 5 kb.

Once again, the Country Pundit endeavours to bring you, the gentle reader, the results of his laborious undertaking of an examination into the world of Internet-based tests.

Today's test asked, "Which member of the Bush Administration are you?" As Wreck-Gar said in Transformers: The Movie so many years ago, "...and the answer is..."

You're the warlike Rumsfeld! So simple, so
subtle, so darned...cute. God bless you, Donny!

Which member of the Bush Administration are you?

Tip of the Wisconsin hat to elgato at Swanky Conservative for pointing me in the direction to find this.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 12:49 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 132 words, total size 1 kb.

The people at Right Wing News have published the results of a poll sent to 150 rightists in the blogosphere. The poll asked for the respondents to compile a list of their "Most Interesting Dinner Companions". The top twenty vote-getters:

20) Voltaire (4)
20) Sun Tzu (4)
20) Martin Luther (4)
20) John Locke (4)
20) Rush Limbaugh (4)
20) C.S. Lewis (4)
20) Andrew Jackson (4)
20) F.A. Hayek (4)
20) Milton Friedman (4)
20) Ann Coulter (4)
20) William F. Buckley (4)
20) John Adams (4)
1 Franklin Delano Roosevelt (5)
1 Muhammad (5)
14) Socrates (6)
14) Teddy Roosevelt (6)
14) Julius Caesar (6)
14) George W. Bush (6)
12) George Washington (7)
12) Margret Thatcher (7)
William Shakespeare (9)
Ayn Rand (9)
George Patton (9)
Leonardo Da Vinci (9)
7) Mark Twain (11)
6) Ben Franklin (12)
5) Thomas Jefferson (15)
4) Abraham Lincoln (16)
3) Winston Churchill (1
2) Ronald Reagan (19)
1) Jesus (20)

What?! I wasn't asked to participate? I must register my sincere protest at the non-inclusiveness of this survey and its suspect methodolgy.¹

1 Also known as "the Moynihan objection", since the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan articulated said objection numerous times as one of the ways Washington does business. I don't have the quote in front of me, but he once said something on the order of "Most objections in Washington boil down to this: Why wasn't I asked?"

Tip of the Wisconsin hat to Tyler Cowen at The Volokh Conspiracy for letting me know about this.

TECHNICAL QUERY: When I use the HTML blockquote tag, the entire list compresses to a paragraph, ignoring darned near everything I could throw at it. I didn't try the br tag because I figured that would somehow break the blockquote arrangement. If anyone knows how to get around this, I'd appreciate knowing it.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 10:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 324 words, total size 2 kb.

Several things to celebrate:

1. I'm #1 at Google for "Country Pundit". A chart-topping debut on America's favorite search engine, hooray. Look ma, no brains! (It appears that 16 November 2003 will be the date on which the anniversary of Google recognition will be celebrated.)

2. The Country Pundit has been determined (on the strength of one link) to be a wiggly worm in the ecosystem as established by The Truth Laid Bear.

Hooray. Now, the long mark to respectability begins; today establishment, tomorrow the double digits in readership!

Posted by: Country Pundit at 11:43 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 95 words, total size 1 kb.

The Atlantic Monthly has a new interview with P.J. O'Rourke posted at their site.

Among other things, P.J. talks about the late Michael Kelly, reminisces about Operation DESERT STORM, and describes the (negative) effects of the Saddam government upon the people of Iraq. The perenially indignant need not read the piece, but it's safe for everyone else.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 09:19 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 65 words, total size 1 kb.

1 The "Perennially Indignant?" haha Shall we add the "P.I." to the "P.C?" Of course, "P.J." is neither of those. Good read, thanks.

Posted by: The Politburo Diktat at November 17, 2003 11:49 AM (jNXzj)

2 As much as I'd like to, I can't take credit for "perenially indignant". P.J. himself seems to have coined that in his seminal treatise, Parliament of Whores. The P.I. are probably a subset of the P.C., or at least closely related in some twisted way. Glad you liked the article; any time I can put P.J. forward on the Internet, I've got to. Thanks for the link!

Posted by: The Country Pundit at November 17, 2003 01:56 PM (QUo4+)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

[Reprinted without prior permission but with a TrackBack to allow one of Jonah's military guys to yell at me if he gets mad. Given the subject matter, I just couldn't resist using it, in light of my pro-Old Dominion bias. There has been a single editorial change.]

Going to Paradise?

After his death, Osama bin Laden went to paradise. He was greeted by George
Washington, who slapped him across the face and yelled, "How dare you attack the nation I helped conceive!"

Patrick Henry punched him in the nose and shouted, "You wanted to end America's liberty, but you failed."

James Madison appeared, kicked him, and said, "This is why I allowed the
government to provide for the common defense."

Bin Laden was subjected to similar beatings from Edmund Randolph, James Monroe, Thomas Jefferson and 66 other early Americans. As he writhed in pain on the ground, an angel appeared. Bin Laden said, " This was not what I was promised."

The angel replied, "I told you there would be 72 Virginians waiting for you.
What did you think I said?"

Heh heh heh. If I had a scanned image of Calvin laughing evilly while preparing a plan to surprise Hobbes, I'd post it here to illustrate my reaction. This is laugh out loud funny stuff, and I'm grateful to the father who sent it.

Tip of the Wisconsin hat to Argghhh!!! The Home of one of Jonah's Military Guys© for having this wonderful post. As his site states, all copyrights to original material remain with him, and certainly no effort is made by this site to challenge his copyright in any original materials.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 01:01 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 239 words, total size 2 kb.

Donald Lambro of the Washington Times has penned an article dubbed Dixie Democrats consider Dean too liberal to win. He spoke with various Democrat functionaries in the region, asking them about their perceptions of Howard Dean and other issues regarding the success (or lack thereof) the Democrat Party seems to have in the land of cotton.

The article's worth a read on the whole, but I've picked the remarks of two people to comment upon. First up: Representative Susan Westrom of Kentucky, who is the Kentucky State party chairman.

"The rural South is not progressive, as far as social issues. They are deeply faith-based on moral issues. They look critically at anything that can undermine the social fabric of their community," Mrs. Westrom said.

Once upon a time, I'd be willing to bet that this whole country was deeply faith-based on moral issues. The innate denseness of this intellectually-stunted fool shows another reason why Democrats of the new type are continually running into problems in the South, at least to my mind. They go to some MoveOn-sponsored conference, get their head full of "progressive" ideas, and come back to Kentucky, Virginia, or somewhere else, and say "I'm from Washington and I'm here to help, you racist, sexist, homophobic slobs! Now, all your lives are belong to us!" And then they wonder why the Republican Party wins offices it's been shut out of for decades.

Next up is Mississippi State chairman Rickey Cole:

"I understand the point he was trying to make, but I don't know if he knows exactly how tall an order recruiting those voters would actually be,"

He's talking about Howard Dean and his now-infamous statement (apparently retracted) that he wanted to be the candidate for the guys with Confederate flags on their pick-up trucks.² The problem for Democrats is that they've built such a patchwork of single-issue interest groups (i.e. the anti-gun people, the rainbow flag/pink triangle types, the abortionists, et cetera) and have relied on them to such an extent that it is difficult for Democrats to expand into new markets, if you will.

For the Democrats to recapture their once-solid Southern majority, they will need to reject both the unrealistic/unattractive "progressive" wing and retool their Democratic Leadership Council. This will probably happen sooner or later; if Howard Dean digs a big enough hole, it could be as soon as 2005. The question is, "What will happen after that?" From their perspective, Democrats probably need to reverse what they did post-1968, when the nomination process was changed to the point that George McGovern was able to claim their nomination in 1972. (And of course go on to get absolutely crushed by President Nixon, woo hoo.) Tinkering with their primary system might also help. Admittedly, these are all structural reforms , but if properly implemented, that might allow the Democratic establishment (and frankly, the Democratic silent majority) a chance to nominate someone like Richard Gephardt or Joseph Lieberman.

If I was a Democrat, I'd be voting for Lieberman or Gephardt---probably Lieberman. He's about the only one I'd really trust at the helm of the nation. (Gephardt would be survivable and Kerry might not do too much damage---being veteran politicians, they're not going to get too wild. Edwards, being a member of the plaintiff's bar, is immediately suspect. I've already made my displeasure with Clark clear, and I'd never trust Sharpton, Braun, or Kucininch in the Oval Office.)

Anyways. I've rambled enough in this. There's more to say about the Democratic primary structure, but not in this post.

1 Once upon a time, "progress", like many other words, didn't carry with it a sinister tone. The Chesapeake & Ohio Railway even went so far as to incorporate into a major slogan of theirs, "C&O - For Progress". The thing is, they were for a stronger economy, money in their coffers, and better delivery of consumer goods. The C&O wasn't for the Democratic version of "progress", which usually involves a lot of money being spent for no gain (except to public-sector employees' unions and the like), rends asunder the social fabric, and generally trashes whatever it touches. Republicans and everyone else are left holding the bag whilst the Democrat chides us for being whatever the opprobrium of the day is.

2 I wish John Kerry or someone would say that he wanted to be the candidate for the guys with neon light effects on their cars, the guys who have hydraulic kits fitted to make the car bounce. You know, the "bling bling wing" of the Democratic Party. Admittedly, I'd be more interested in seeing if someone could get away with making that kind of statement about anyone else than lower-class white men.

Tip of the Wisconsin hat to the folks at Lucianne.com for bringing this story to my attention.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 07:35 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 895 words, total size 6 kb.

Being an American, I like snappy slogans and faux-intellectual pretentiousness, especially when I get to practice it. This leads me to a maxim I wrote a while back, probably some time after 1999's The Phantom Menace.¹

I had learned that Natalie Portman was of Israeli origin (born 09 June 1981 in Jerusalem) and indeed had visited the place recently after one of those Palestinian not-so-smart bombs had detonated itself in a public place, with attendant civilian casualties. The mental machinery of wiseacrey shuddered to life, and thus uttereth the Pundit:

"Dude. Until the Palestinians can come up with something better [looking] than Natalie Portman, I'm backing the Israelis."

Toss all the arguments about the right to self-determination of peoples, the notion of popular sovereignty, participatory democracies, the theory of the nation-state, all the religious and cultural questions, et cetera. Given that some of the rhetoric in the Palestinian corner usually mentions exterminating all the good people of Israel, I couldn't in good conscience allow such a thing to happen to a gene pool that produced Natalie Portman. It couldn't happen! I therefore articulated the outsider's question of who to support very, very simple: What've you done for my viewing pleasure lately? I was fairly certain that this maxim would go unchallenged for quite a while.

Cometh The Politburo Diktat, a blog that's nastily funny in terms of satire. Basically, it apes the old Soviet style of reporting, grammar, spelling, and so forth. It also has the honor of being the first to challenge (albeit briefly) the Portman doctrine.

In a post entitled Exploiting Ajram, TPD gives us the story of one Nancy Ajram, a pop singer who's getting into trouble with Islamic authorities in Bahrain. Why's she in trouble? The usual: She's decent looking, and doesn't wear a burka. Anyways, I don't care what the Bahrainis do² in regards to this girl; their government likes us and that's what's important.

For a brief moment, this Miss Ajram made me think that the Portman Doctrine would be applied to a different effect, that I might have to await a new Israeli babe to re-examine my political sympathies. Unfortunately for the Palestinians, Miss Ajram is from Lebanon. Until they come up with an eye-catching babe, I'll have a hard time being lobbied for their cause.³

Yeah, yeah, this is a flip post. I don't know a thing about Nancy Ajram past 'she sings' so for all I know, she could be the moral equivalent of Vanessa Redgrave. It's a Saturday and I'm not particularly in the mood to write a sober piece.

1 I refuse as a matter of personal conscience to grant cinematic recognition to the dreadful pictures marketed under guise of 'prequels' to what right-thinking people will consider the best trilogy ever made. Take that, Messrs. Wachowski! (And, by extension, Peter Jackson.)

2 Or did; for all I know she went ahead with the performance. It is difficult to find news about the Middle East when one doesn't speak the languages of the Middle East.

3 Successful candidates will present a portfolio that overrides Miss Portman's record of playing a girl (albeit a really young one and therefore not entered in the 'babe' category) who watched Transformers and liked sniper rifles, along with playing the third-best royal-in-white (behind, in a messy tie, Cate Blanchett's Galadriel and Carrie Fisher's Leia Organa) and who at the same time was an excellent homage to Erin Gray's Colonel Wilma Deering.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 11:01 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 581 words, total size 4 kb.

Although I don't really like digging through left-wing blogs to glean useful information, from time to time I do, and courtesy of Kevin Drum, I found a very-well written statement that sums up, at least on a topical level, much of my misgivings about General W.K. Clark and his campaign. It's a response provided by a guy going by the nom de cyber of Joe Schmoe¹, and it's reproduced here in full, without prior permission or editorial alteration:

Don't assume that simply becuase Clark is a general, he is certain to win any debate on national security policy. Neither Bush nor Cheney, nor any other Republican candidate, is recoil in horror before Clark's stars.

Let's say that Bush debates Clark on national security. First, he is going to be very well prepared for the debate. I realize that Bush is not an outstanding debater, but he'll bone up for this one like crazy. He'll have the finest political minds coaching him for months in advance. Moreover, Bush has been dealing with national security issues every single day for the past four years. He's fully conversant with the issues. Given all of this, it's extremly unlikely that Clark will wipe the floor with Bush. If he's debating Cheney, or Rice, his job will be even harder.

Second, and this is by far the most important point, Clark's theories on national security can be defeated on their merits. Not everyone is going to agree with them. For example, I have heard Clark speak on national security, and I am not impressed. He seems to be mired in a pre-9/11 mindset, as he has advocated approaching terrorism as a law enforcement problem. I also think that he is placing far too confidence in international institutions. This frightens me and, more importantly, makes me mistrustful of Clark. The man obviously knows that our allies have limited capabilities, and an even more limited inclanation to help us, yet he seems to be suggesting that they will shower us with money and troops if only we use a little more diplomatic finnesse. This seems so improbable that it makes me question his veracity.

Third, people might not like Clark. I don't like him. He seems to be a power-hungry, narcissitic government bureaurecrat who is willing to say whatever he has to say to sit behind the big desk in the Oval Office. He reminds me of the vice president of some insurance company who is always kissing up to his superiors, fawning over them at the country club and taking up golf just becuase the boss likes to play, and riding roughshod over his subordinates, always threatening to fire them and holding their performance reviews over their heads like a club. This is not a favorable impression.

Lastly, don't assume that the American public will value the fact that Clark is more articulate than, and may be smarter than, Bush. Intelligence is valued in leaders, but not if it is condescending and mean-spirited. If Clark comes accross as a smirking prick, he'll suffer for it. If his supporters keep saying things like "it's time to put the adults back in charge," he'll suffer for this as well. This kind of personality poltiics won't matter as much in 2004 as it might have in past elections, because the issues facing our nation are serious. However, they will still matter.
Posted by: Joe Schmoe at November 11, 2003 04:08 PM

That, especially the national security issue, is why I don't like Wesley Clark. He places far too much trust in multilateral bodies and consensus politics to be trusted. He's far more willing to trade away our precious national sovereignty in order to bring externals on board, like the French or the Germans. In an age of declining national sovereignty, a President Clark would be too eager to exchange hard-won (with the blood of our soldiers and the treasure of our people) sovereignty for favorable reviews from the French and German governments, along with the similarly-constituted apparat of the European Union and tbe Brussels apparatchiki.

There may be considerable merit to Wesley Clark's politico-military ideas and viewpoints on the primacy of diplomacy, but I neither endorse nor recognize these merits at this point in time. Regardless of any objective measure of satisfactions that I have with President Bush, when a subjective scale is applied, he far outdistances every single Democratic candidate. Only Senator Lieberman is even able to remain in the rear view mirror in terms of national security.¹

On a more personal and less noble note, the thing about Clark being a corporate VP who takes up golf because the president likes it is another reason to viscerally dislike the guy. I've seen plenty of people like that in my law school, and I'd prefer to stop those people wherever possible. Bloody sycophants and grovelers; can't stand them.

Go figure. Re-elect the President.

1 Click the "Continue Reading..." link to see another one of Joe's posts that paints him as a Democrat disgusted with the tenor of their side's campaign so far.

2 I've never been fond of the term "homeland security"---I would have preferred that the topic be addressed as "national security". Oh well.

Tip of the pristine USS Wisconsin captain's baseball cap to Matthew Stinson for pointing this out. more...

Posted by: Country Pundit at 09:01 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1072 words, total size 7 kb.

Gore Vidal is the kind of guy who, in the abstract, could use a beating with a Clue by Four. He's worse than the average teenager who can mouth disorganized platitudes about "Bush ist Hitler!" and "No blood for oil!" while smashing windows in Seattle. Why is that? Because Gore Vidal's smart. I can't deny that the guy's intelligent, but darned if he isn't a waste of good brain cells.

Back in 1968, he had a televised near-dustup with William F. Buckley of National Review fame, as the two were covering the Democratic National Convention in Richard J. Daley's Chicago. Both had been hired by ABC to provide commentary, and suffice it to say that the two of them didn't get along, to the point of WFB threatening to punch Vidal's lights out. Luckily, this was caught on camera, and has been preserved for posterity. Click here for some background, along with audio and video of the event.

Comes now Mr. Vidal in the LA Weekly, some sort of rag published ostensibly as a lifestyle magazine for the Los Angeles area. In the course of an interview by Marc Cooper, Mr. Vidal has the following profound thoughts on "the links between our revolutionary past and our imperial present":

Or is this really just one more rather corrupt and foolish Republican administration?

No. We are talking about despotism. I have read not only the first PATRIOT Act but also the second one, which has not yet been totally made public nor approved by Congress and to which there is already great resistance. An American citizen can be fingered as a terrorist, and with what proof? No proof. All you need is the word of the attorney general or maybe the president himself. You can then be locked up without access to a lawyer, and then tried by military tribunal and even executed. Or, in a brand-new wrinkle, you can be exiled, stripped of your citizenship and packed off to another place not even organized as a country — like Tierra del Fuego or some rock in the Pacific. All of this is in the USA PATRIOT Act. The Founding Fathers would have found this to be despotism in spades. And they would have hanged anybody who tried to get this through the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. Hanged.

The Country Pundit has no official position on either of the PATRIOT acts (other than to say that I'm worried about the power of such in the hands of people like Janet Reno and so forth) but I'm pretty darned sure we're not in the hands of a despot. So long as the system of checks and balances survives, with independent coordinate branches of government, I'm not too terribly concerned about the imposition of despotism. Further, I'll leave Judge Kenneth Starr or Theodore Olsen (and throw in Laurence Tribe along with Cass Sunstein for balance) to speculate as to the actions of the Founders in regards to our current executive branch.

Do you not think of Bush and Ashcroft as Americans?

I think of them as an alien army. They have managed to take over everything, and quite in the open. We have a deranged president. We have despotism. We have no due process.

What result if I (or anyone else on the right) were to say that "The Clinton Administration was an alien army"? The mocking laughter would echo from one coast to the other, probably. I realize that Mr. Vidal is probably thinking of "alien" in the traditional sense, i.e. a foreign army like the Red Army or something, but I'll also admit to snickering at the possibility that he thinks space aliens inhabit the White House. Admittedly, I was a fan of Kenneth Johnson's V back when it came out, and I really enjoyed watching the original and follow-up miniseries on DVD recently. Bless you, Warner Brothers.

I'm not competent to discuss whether we've due process or not, but I'm pretty darned sure the President isn't deranged, and I once again refute the 'despot' thing. Merriam-Webster considers the definition of despotism as being "a system of government in which the ruler has unlimited power". As I stated earlier, so long as checks and balances (along with the corresponding separations of power) exists, textbook despotism cannot be found in America. Besides, if the President was all-powerful, wouldn't he just override the Democrats in the Senate and appoint judges at whim? Oh well---reality in liberal analysis quite often is a rare thing.

Is Bush the worst president we’ve ever had?

Well, nobody has ever wrecked the Bill of Rights as he has. Other presidents have dodged around it, but no president before this one has so put the Bill of Rights at risk. No one has proposed preemptive war before. And two countries in a row that have done no harm to us have been bombed.

I'd argue to Mr. Vidal that if you want to discuss 'wrecking' the Bill of Rights, then any list of criminals probably starts not with George W. Bush but rather with Abraham Lincoln or any other President who's gone and put paid to the Tenth Amendment. You want to talk about internments? Three words and one historical example come to mind: Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and the actions taken by the government in regards to people of Japanese heritage after Pearl Harbor. (As an aside, George Takei, who played Captain Hikaru Sulu in Star Trek, has a story on CNN.com about his return to an internment camp where he spent about a year as a child during the war.)

As for Mr. Vidal's raving about pre-emption, I would hope that his haughty moral stance and righteous indignation will be sufficient to prevent any future terrorist attacks on the United States. Somehow, I doubt it. Does anyone out there see Osama bin Laden (or one of his henchlings) quivering in their shoes and refraining from attacks because a 77-year-old writer crab says that pre-emption is bad? Let me put it this way, Mr. Vidal: I'd rather for them to live in fear than Americans. If that requires pre-emption, then so be it.

How do you think the current war in Iraq is going to play out?

I think we will go down the tubes right with it. With each action Bush ever more enrages the Muslims. And there are a billion of them. And sooner or later they will have a Saladin who will pull them together, and they will come after us. And it won’t be pretty.

With apologies to Hillaire Belloc in regards to a response to Mr. Vidal's tripe, "Whatever happens we have got/the Department of Defense and they have not." Certainly the image of Saladin is a powerful one; he's probably the most-well known Islamic warrior outside of rarified academic circles. I think (off-hand) he's probably one of their most successful military commanders, and probably deserves a level of professional admiration. However, not every Islamic is an Islamist. Not every man and woman who pray to Mecca five times daily is willing to mount up and "make mine Mistel" when they board an airliner.

Mr. Vidal's analysis confuses anger with action. Is there a lot of anger against the United States? This is almost certainly true. The important question is, "How much of that anger translates into action?" Based upon what I've seen, the answer is, "Not much." If, every time an Islamic cursed the name of America, harm was done to us, then yes, we'd be in trouble. But it's not. The relative few among the Islamic world who're stupid enough to march off to arms against America generally don't do so well. In fact, they tend to get slaughtered on the whole.

WFB missed a good opportunity in 1968.

The full article is available (for an unknown duration) by clicking here.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 01:52 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1318 words, total size 8 kb.

Thanks to the good guys at Boots and Sabers for alerting me to this story in The Onion that neatly summarizes one of the deeply-held fears that many bloggers probably have, namely discovery of the blog by someone who doesn't need to know.¹

In a turn of events the 30-year-old characterized as "horrifying," Kevin Widmar announced Tuesday that his mother Lillian has discovered his weblog.

. . .

Upon receipt of the e-mail, Widmar mentally raced through the contents of his blog. He immediately thought of several dozen posts in which he mentioned drinking, drug use, casual sex, and other behavior likely to alarm his mother.

"I don't have one of those sites that's a big tell-all about one-night stands and wild parties," Widmar said. "I mostly write about the animation I like or little things that happen to me and my friends. But there are definitely things in there that I wouldn't, well, write home to Mom about."

Fortunately for Widmar, Lillian's comments about the site indicate that she has not delved deeply into its contents.

. . .

As of press time, Widmar had not decided whether to shut PlanetKevin down.

I'd been looking for an excuse to link to Boots and Sabers for a while, and this is that excuse. Owen and Jed regularly pontificate on law, firearms, a certain heiress and her recorded tryst, technology, and the military, all while being rather enthusiastic about bonfires. It must be a Texas thing.

A coordinate post at Tiger: Raggin' & Rantin' said that the greatest fear he had was having no one read what he wrote. Given my generally paranoid disposition, I can state that I share in his fears---and also worry that someone might actually read it. Talk about your fear and loathing in the blogosphere.

1 I know the Onion is fiction. Given the nature of blogging, and the often refreshing candor with which many bloggers write, I think the reaction of the fictitious blogger is realistic. Or so I would think.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 10:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 346 words, total size 2 kb.

I'm currently slogging through a paper on the differences between the merger approval mechanisms of the United States and the European Union. If anyone's got some whiz-bang resources for EU "competition" regulation, policy, and procedure, I'd love to hear from you. Likewise, any information readers think might be useful for the American side of things would be appreciated.

I've already raided the European Union's official site(s), so that's a good start. At the same time, I'd appreciate more information, so I can get the right answer instead of a politicized rant about the evils of Brussels. As much fun as that might be, the relevant professor would not look kindly upon such a work.

Just use the 'contact' link off to the right if you've got anything. Thanks!

Posted by: Country Pundit at 11:58 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 134 words, total size 1 kb.

The Volokh Conspiracy has some really good posts over the last little bit in regards to Judaism and Communism, courtesy of Professors Volokh and Bernstein. For the sake of permalinks, click here, here, and here. The discussion arose from a story out of Germany that stirred the pot on the notion of Jews and the introduction of Communism to Russia, and corresponding "class guilt" for that.

This whole notion seems to stem from unfortunate circumstances of history in Russia, and the socio-political climate there about a century ago. Professor Volokh says he has a sense that many in the Communist movement were Jews, and I've got the same sense. Now, as to the reason for that, the Pundit has a theory which Professor Bernstein might support, and it's one I've kicked around for a few years: "Of course the Jews of the Russian Empire would be involved in Communism. Think about why they would have been. It's not so much that Judaism is automatically collectivist and Communist, but more that Communism's actions would have been attractive to Jewish people of a political slant. It's the early part of the 20th century, and you're Jewish. The official policy of the Romanov government in your direction can be summed up by saying, "Ohmigod, you killed Jesus! You bastards!"¹ Pogroms and other lesser forms of discrimination abound, and the czar thinks you're a traitorous bunch. Basically, you're the scapegoat for whatever goes wrong in the Russian Empire.

Are you going to join the local branch of the Romanov Party, or are you going to kick some butt? Answer: You're going to kick some butt. From the perspective of an oppressed minority, the Bolsheviks offered some hope. They had a (on the face of it) seemingly decent plan (Peace! Land! Bread!)² and they were willing to take drastic measures to get their plan implemented. Who wouldn't sign on with that? While Lenin was alive, one could theoretically think that Trotsky (nee Lev Davidovich Bronstein) might be the heir apparent and that'd be great, 'cause he was also nominally Jewish and might just avoid sending the troops on raids to the local Jewish village.

Of course, all this turned to ashes when Stalin came to power, because Uncle Joe was just as bad as the little corporal of Austria when it came to disliking the chosen people of God. The difference between them seems to have been that Hitler focused on the Jews (about 46% or so of the casualties of the various National Socialist extermination programs were Jewish, if you use the generally accepted 6 and 13 million figures) whereas Stalin had no focus at all. (Kill 'em all! Let Marx sort 'em out.)³

The whole history of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia is an interesting thing to look at, because many of the evils of the 20th century can be traced back to Moscow under the hammer & sickle in one form or another. Luckily for us, the Soviet Union quit and Beijing seems content to suck the money out of the West instead of fomenting revolution abroad. (The sound you hear is me knocking on wood.)

1 It's worth noting that "official Russian thought" was that Moscow, Petrograd, or maybe Russia itself constituted the "third Rome" (with Constantinople being the second) which would last as the eternal holy city or something. I can't make this stuff up; Nicholas II's correspondence often makes your stomach churn 'cause you know this guy's not playing with a full deck. Moreover, the deck he is playing with has a bunch of pinochle cards shuffled in, and that's never good. If only Kerensky could have succeeded!

2 Not as catchy as "Democracy Whiskey Sexy", but one makes do with what one has.

3 Admittedly, Stalin towards the end of his life was reported to have been gearing up for another round of terror; the "Doctors' Plot" period of ~1948-1953 is or was thought to have been the stepping-off point for anti-Semitic purges in the Soviet Union. At any rate, as far as "the Jewish question" goes, Stalin=Hitler and it goes to show you that the Eastern Front of the Great Patriotic War (snicker snicker) was more about ideological sibling rivalry than it was good versus evil. More like the younger Evil brother picking a fight with the older Evil brother, if you will.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 08:42 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 732 words, total size 5 kb.

While working on the update for the Halliburton post, I came across an ad at Slate which caught my eye and then drew my ire. The ad, which I'll upload later today once I get FTP access, is for some sort of electronic forum featuring Episcopalian Bishop John Shelby Spong. There will be no link, because I don't want to give any additional traffic to this loon. As Han Solo might've said, "Trust me."

The name of Spong is enough to draw cheers in some circles and snarls of revulsion in others. The Sunday school class I attended prior to graduation from college certainly had people who knew the name of Spong, and they weren't particularly pleased with him. Suffice it to say that Bishop Spong (this may be an inaccurate title; I'm a Methodist and we don't get wrapped up in all this quasi-Romish folderol in terms of titles) is more than likely an avid supporter of V. Eugene Robinson's advancement in the Episcopal hierarchy. (The Country Pundit is not, for a variety of reasons.)

The ad's money quote asks, "ARE THE TEN COMMANDMENTS STILL RELEVANT?" I'm from a small Southern town, hence the name 'Country Pundit'. I'm not used to sitting around pondering the relevancy of the Decalogue, but rather pondering just how I'm going to bring my actions into compliance with its contents. So, after I wiped a Tea Leoni-ish look of bewilderment (I saw it once on an ad for her NBC program back in the 1990s; can't find a shot of it) I decided to read the ad and click the link. My next reaction was to scoff: "You'd just as soon ask whether gravity was still relevant."

The ad promises "NEW CHRISTIANITY FOR A NEW WORLD" as "Bishop Spong Explores Biblical Truth in our Modern World". Pardon me for asking the obvious, but what new world? Did we colonize Mars or something when I was asleep in my carrel at school earlier? Furthermore, other than the fact that we're 1900-odd years away from the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, what exactly is so very different about our world that the denizens of the first century A.D. wouldn't understand after a bit of catch-up? Barbarians at the gate, a savage hatred of Christians among the upper class, and the army sent hither and yon defending the national interest. The more things change, the more they stay the same. It would seem that the single most important constant here is mankind. Yep, mankind. The same craven, fallen creature that departed the Garden of Eden a long time ago after noshing on the fruit of the Tree of Life. (See the book of Genesis, chapter 3.) The only way that that changes (for Gentiles, that is) is through the redemptive and life-transforming grace available for free through Jesus Christ. I consider it of minor significance that I don't see the name of "John Spong" listed anywhere in my copy of the King James Version or my battered New International Version.

Anyways, Spong's particular straw man is 'fundamentalism'. You know, wherein Christians hijack airliners and fly them into large buildings. Wait, that's Islamist fundamentalism. Sorry; the way most of the Left talks, America has more to fear from a bunch of devoted Christians than it does a cell of Islamist kamikaze pilots. 'Fundamentalism' is probably described as "disagreement with Bishop Spong" so that means that much of Africa and its Anglicans are "fundamentalists", along with the Southern Baptist Convention, the Roman Catholic Church which recognizes the authority of Rome and the Pope, me, and millions of other people who don't go around tinkering with a divinely-inspired book to create "progressive Christianity".

Here's the kicker, under "PRAISE FOR BISHOP SPONG": “…Spong provides enlightened reading for people who no longer believe in the God of Sunday school and are looking for something else to give their lives meaning.” This comes from the San Francisco Chronicle. Huh? If you no longer believe in the God of Sunday school, you do need to see a preacher man, but I think you'd need to go towards God, not into someone who I'd describe as a servant of the very devil of Hell.

To wrap up an irate post, I'll say this: It's a sign of Western civilizational superiority that Spong hasn't been killed by an angry mob on the orders of a bearded half-blind cleric who sits in judgment in a court of life and death that has no sanction of the governed. However, the Coulterish streak in me wants desperately to dare Bishop Spong to pull this kind of a stunt on al-Jazeera, where he promises a "NEW ISLAM FOR THE NEW WORLD", and await the response. John, I wouldn't plan on showing my face for the next 25 years or so. He can take comfort in the fact that Episcopalians don't issue fatwas, although I'm tempted to ask Rowan Williams to make an exception.

At any rate, the Christian church has endured many things over the course of two thousand years, and I suppose it will weather Spong and his heresy. This will, of course, irritate Spong, V. Eugene Robinson, and the Purple Pundit Who Shall Not Be Named, but go figure. My religious forebears faced down Nero and others, and some nitwit bishop doesn't match that kind of threat.

UPDATE: I promised the ad, and here it is:

Posted by: Country Pundit at 12:54 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 907 words, total size 5 kb.

Yes, there is substantive content---stop laughing---in this blog. However, this post isn't one of them. As stated before, I like taking anything that tells you something about yourself. Sometimes those results aren't pretty. This entry revolves around the author whose fiction I most resemble, or something thereabouts:

Anne Rice is writing your life. Go you goth girl, go.

Which Author's Fiction are You?

Picture omitted because I'd prefer not to get billed for the costs of replacing a lot of keyboards ruined by vomit. Viewing all possible results, I think I would like to have gotten either William Faulkner or Robert A. Heinlein. I could understand maybe Tom Wolfe or Hunter S. Thompson, but Anne Rice?! I mean, I've seen & read Interview with the Vampire, enjoying them both, but darned if I'm some morbid black-wearing pansy who mopes about writing stupid poetry about the sweet embrace of death. (You're a khaki-and-blue-wearing wiseacre who lays about, writing stupid blog entries. -Ed.)

Anyways. I promise (and hold me to this!) that I won't do more than one of the test-result entries per day at most. I'm sure the readers would rather hear my ruminations on why Rumsfeld rules or something, and I'm also sure that in the grand scheme of things, nobody cares.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 06:44 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 220 words, total size 1 kb.

Many people, by now, have heard about the perfidy of Richard B. Cheney who went from soliciting government contracts at Halliburton to awarding government contracts to Halliburton.

Well, I had fervently wanted to believe that this sort of thing wasn't true, that Americans were better than that, and that we wouldn't just go and beat the stuffing out of some country merely to give a services company in Texas something to do. Call it me being subject to needing a 'moral cause' to fight for, something that Richard Nixon outlined as being quintessentially American.¹

At any rate, I continued to hope that the ravings of the anti-corporatist Left weren't true. Lo and behold, David Brooks delivereth me from concern and returneth me to my prior heights of scorn, mockery, and sneering. In his latest broadcast from behind enemy lines (i.e. the occupied city of New York), Mr. Brooks has the following to say:

The problem with the story is that it's almost entirely untrue. As Daniel Drezner recently established in Slate, there is no statistically significant correlation between the companies that made big campaign contributions and the companies that have won reconstruction contracts.

The most persuasive rebuttals have come from people who actually know something about the government procurement process.

...

The fact is that unlike the Congressional pork barrel machine, the federal procurement system is a highly structured process, which is largely insulated from crass political pressures. The idea that a Bush political appointee can parachute down and persuade a large group of civil servants to risk their careers by steering business to a big donor is the stuff of fantasy novels, not reality.

...

But answering these questions would mean coming up with a positive vision of how to better proceed with our reconstruction efforts. Instead the Democratic presidential candidates are content simply to repeat demagogic and misleading applause lines.

The lesson of this Halliburton business is that some parts of our government really do make their decisions on the merits. And just because a story makes you popular doesn't make it true.

A few comments:
1. Neener neener, Dennis Kucininch; the Child Mayor of Cincinnati gets it wrong. Again. This is a recurring theme here.
2. Maybe the Left thinks the civil service bureaucracy is rife with Republican subversion, but I'd be more willing to bet that the progeny of the Great Society and the Clinton Administration are ready, willing, and able to throw a monkey wrench in any such scheme. It's difficult to imagine that someone wouldn't get the word out to somebody "on the outside", namely Henry Waxman, or a member of the Fourth Estate, who would gladly skewer the Bush Administration if there were any factual basis. And no, Paul Krugman doesn't count. I said 'factual basis' for a reason, you know. (Perhaps you should have said 'rooted in reality, give or take a few dimensions. It is Krugman that you're talking about. -Ed.)
3. Mr. Brooks continues to be useful in his op-ed position, and perhaps he'll pull Safire back to his old roots. Like the slow replication of Smith, soon the New York Times will be ours! (Cue the evil laughter.)

Therefore, all is good and well in the Republic, at least until Dennis Kucininch needs another applause line. Is it just me, or does he look like the guy who was chronically getting his lunch money taken from him in elementary school?

1 Not to imply that I'm not capable of supporting military action solely out of a cold-blooded calculation of the national interest, mind you. I just like having something to toss out to the audience that doesn't make me sound like Fail-Safe's Professor Groeteschele; call it 'HAL-9000 with a human face'. I can't hide behind a wickedly sinister accent like Doctor Kissinger, so verbal comedy has to suffice. HAK, you lucky devil.

Click-of-the-tongue-and-point-of-the-finger to Kevin Patrick at Blogs for Bush for pointing this article out.

UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds provides his usual level of service and sets me on the road to a more complete entry. Check his post here to view his post, which set me on the road to finding the following:

The Daniel Drezner Slate piece Mr. Brooks references can be found here. Mr. Drezner has further commentary upon the issue at his personal blog. Click here for further details. Boy, is it fun to drive a series of nails into the coffin of that particular meme., and with a pneumatically-powered nail gun. (Shades of Lethal Weapon 2 or the original Quake by id Software!)

At any rate, even if there is some smoke here, any potential concerns ought to be swept away. It's only normal that friends of any Administration get a wee little preferential boost when compared to a company that, being otherwise equal, didn't write a check to the campaign. If that sort of thing offends one's moral conscience, I can't help that. It is the very nature of politics. Duh. Deal. I've got a personally-acceptable level of favoritism, and what I seem to understand from Messrs. Drezner & Brooks as fact doesn't approach that level.

"This isn't the corruption you're looking for. You can go about your business. Move along, move along..."

Posted by: Country Pundit at 03:57 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 877 words, total size 6 kb.

Check your calendars, ladies and gentlemen: Today is Veterans' Day.

I don't have some eloquent Buckleyian elocution put to pixels to offer today, but I can say this: To every man or woman who's ever carried a rifle, swabbed a deck, or strapped into an airplane, thank you for going out to face the enemies of the United States of America. It's the sacrifices of people like you who let me sit back here in Virginia and fumble my way through law school.

Special thanks go to my dad, who once upon a time worked on tanks and assorted armored vehicles somewhere out in Texas and Oklahoma. I'm pretty sure he wasn't thinking about building a future for his son at the time, but he wound up doing it.

If you're like me and have never served a day in the military, find a veteran today and thank them for their service. America has been the better for their presence, and we owe them a debt that may not be repayable.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 07:44 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 175 words, total size 1 kb.