Here's the conclusion that D-Day reaches:

Barr believes that the Clinton impeachment did nothing to strengthen the rule of law vis a vis the executive branch, but he thinks he was right to do it because having public officials adhere to the rule of law is important. He thinks that the impeachment he managed was important and necessary, but wouldn't currently do it with Bush because it would be seen as political. He talks about adherence to the Constitution but quite literally makes a timeline excuse for implementing a Constitutional check. And then he endorses the concept of fishing expeditions. I appreciate Barr's work on FISA and other matters, but this was self-protective blather, and mindless blather at that. To me it was instructive. But I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

It is important to point out that Barr believes Congress should have held President Bush accountable:

. . . having public officials adhere to and be answerable to the rule of law is very, very important. What distresses me greatly is that Congress has not done, in the case of this President, what they should have done. And that is to inquire into what this Administration has done with regard to breaking the laws, on the electronic surveillance of people without warrants, the improper use of US Attorneys, etc.

Barr also argues, however, that impeaching President Bush at this late date will have little to no effect, least of all removing him from office before he leaves anyway, except perhaps backfiring on the Democratic Party. That's absolutely true. Congress should have begun investigating Bush the moment Democrats took the majority after the 2006 midterm elections. They should have pursued impeachment when Cynthia McKinney introduced articles of impeachment. They did not do that, however, because House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid all announced their total opposition to impeachment prior to their electoral victory in November 2006. If there is blame to be placed for not impeaching President Bush, progressives should lay that blame at the feet of the Democratic leadership.

In regard to Bill Clinton, the former president should indeed have been impeached, convicted, and removed from office. He lied to the American people and their elected representatives and he did so under oath, an act of criminal perjury. This is not to mention the legal and ethical impropriety of his having sexual relations with a White House intern. Typically, when a man in a position of power has a sexual relationship with a young female intern, it is decried by progressives as an act of sexual harassment regardless of whether or not the woman in question consented. The impeachment of President Clinton sent a message that executive abuse of power would not be tolerated, and had he been convicted and removed from office with the asssistance of his own party that message would have been even clearer.

Unfortunately, he wasn't. And unsurprisingly, faced with the much more serious abuse of executive power by a president from their own party, the Republicans didn't feel the need to so vigorously enforce the rule of law as they had under President Clinton. Congressional Democrats had the opportunity to enforce the rule of law, though, and they could even have appealed to the Clinton precedent and pointed out that Bush's high crimes and misdemeanors were much more serious. They did none of this. Armed with a mandate for change by the American electorate, Democrats have consistently yielded to the Bush administration on the very same issues they should have been impeaching him over.

If the Clinton precedent did not lead to a strengthening of the rule of law and legislative checks and balances over the executive, it's only because Republicans were unsurprisingly corrupt and Democrats unsurprisingly weak in the knees.

Getting back to Bob Barr's appearance at Netroots Nation, I'd like to briefly point out the opportunities missed by D-Day and other progressive Democratic bloggers. They could, for example, have asked Bob Barr about points of common ground on which progressives and libertarians can work together. If they had decided firmly on antagonism, then they could have asked him pointed questions about his opposition to reproductive choice and its apparent contradiction to a libertarian political philosophy. They could have asked him how libertarian economics will respond to Americans' dissatisfaction with our current economy and our failed health care system.

They opted for none of the above, opting instead for uberpartisan antagonism that confirmed Barr's probable assumption that he had more in common with the right wing gathering being held nearby than with the progressive gathering he decided, for whatever reason, to make an appearance at. It was a move that their own presidential candidate, Barack Obama, would probably have disagreed with. He has emphasized bipartisan (in this case, I suppose, multipartisan) cooperation, and he would likely have been more interested in finding common ground with Barr than in antagonizing him out of the building.

Of course none of this is particularly surprising, since missed opportunities are the legacy of today's Democratic Party.

- - -

* I am aware that Bob Barr is doing quite well in polls for the presidential race, and that this is probably due in part to his name recognition among libertarian Republicans. I don't think that's all there is to it, though. Libertarian Republicans quite rightly feel abandoned by their party. John McCain's impending nomination is currently the symbol of that abandonment. I think any Libertarian presidential candidate would be enjoying higher than usual numbers in the polls.

The American Arts Quarterly:

http://nccsc.net/american_arts_quartlerly

"The Political Economy of the Southern Agrarian Tradition" by Andrew W. Foshee:

http://www.mmisi.org/ma/27_02/foshee.pdf

To begin with the Batman series is a crime saga.  The Batman is a law and order figure who serves two roles, that of detective and that of vigilante.  His prowess is not only physical but intellectual as well and these two traits mean more than all the gadgets he has at his disposal.  Whether he is battling mobsters (the Falcone crime family, Boss Rupert Thorne, Boss Salvatore Maroni) or gangsters (The Penguin, Black Mask, Two-Face), the Batman is single-minded in his quest for justice.  This reveals the conservative nature of the character as he sees his role as restoring the balance between order and justice and freedom that crime and criminals disrupt.  This balance of order and justice and freedom is key to conservative philosophy and the conservative approach to law and order and social policy regarding crime and drugs.  Also of note is the positive role given to the police in Gotham City and other vigilantes (Robin, Nightwing, the Huntress)

Second, the Batman/Bruce Wayne's psyche is deeply scarred with a negative view of human nature.  Unlike optimistic superheroes like Superman, the Batman sees humanity as flawed and crime as a natural outgrowth of that problem.  There is almost a religious aspect to the Batman's approach to human nature which reminds the reader of the comic or the viewer of the film of sin.  Central is the sin of the lunatics and criminals he hunts combined with the sin of guilt and remorse Bruce Wayne feels about the death of his parents which propels the Dark Knight to vigilante justice.  This is why the Batman is compelled to combat extreme humanitarians (Ra's al Ghul), psychologists (The Scarecrow), radical environmentalist bisexuals (Poison Ivy), and homosexuals (the Cavalier and Captain Stingaree).  Only the Batman has the insight into human nature and his own mortality to go up against the morally bent minds of these supervillains.

Finally, Bruce Wayne, the Batman's alter ego, is an example of everything socialists and social democrats detest.  Wayne is the owner of Wayne Enterprises, but even he doesn't run the company (he leaves this to Lucius Fox).  Instead, Wayne is an example of the idle rich, the leisure class, an aristocratic playboy who lives off his money and the work of others.  In the eyes of a socialist Wayne would be a parasite.  What is more ironic is that Wayne has a butler, a very un-American and undemocratic thing to have.  While Alfred Pennyworth may be a father figure to Wayne, he still represents class and hierarchy and is a further example of the conservative themes that permeate the series (as opposed to the cliched teenage angst of Spider-Man and the ridiculous multiculturalism of The X-Men). 

I could be reading too much into a comic book character, however popular culture reflects the larger culture and if there are conservative themes to the Batman franchise it should give parents of all thirteen year old boys hope that a positive message is reaching their kids: crime doesn't pay and justice prevails.

I don't think Obama's plan for withdrawal from Iraq goes far enough, and moreover I think that his foreign policy in general is a throwback to a Teddy Roosevelt-style, Marshall Plan kind of "progressive" imperialism. Still, it is far better than the Bush/McCain foreign policy and it will drastically reduce our presence in Iraq, perhaps paving the way for progressive Democrats to see us completely out of the occupation. Meanwhile, al-Maliki's endorsement of Obama's withdrawal plan must be a major setback for John McCain, who now has absolutely no excuse not to endorse the plan himself - having said in the past that we should leave when the Iraqis ask us to do so.

Yet, historically, periods of great governmental change have often been periods of conservative rule. It's as if voters understand that they need big changes, but they want those changes planned and enacted by leaders who will restrain the pace of change and prevent radical excess.

Two of the most prominent conservative reformers were Benjamin Disraeli and Theodore Roosevelt. Both reframed the political debate so that it was not change versus the status quo, it was unfamiliar change versus cautious, patriotic change designed to preserve the traditional virtues of the nation. . . .

John McCain's challenge is to recreate this model. He will never get as many cheers in Germany as Barack Obama, but for a century his family has embodied American heroism. He will never seem as young and forward-leaning as his opponent, but he did have his values formed in an age that people now look back to with respect. . . .

If McCain is going to win this election, it will be because he can communicate an essential truth - that people in a great and successful nation do not want change for its own sake. But they do realize that it's only through careful reform that they can preserve what they and their ancestors have so laboriously built.

There are so many places I could go with this. I could, for example, point out that the extent of John McCain's heroism is a rather unremarkable military career with the sole exception being his captivity as a Vietnam POW, and I could remind readers that he finally succumbed to Vietnamese torture tactics like so many other brave POWs did, making his service no more remarkable than that of any other veteran.

Or I could remind readers that McCain's values were shaped in a turbulent time that many Americans look back on with anxiety, not respect. McCain has come out on the wrong side of many values formed during that era, being pro-war and pro-imperialism while many others of the era turned against the Vietnam War and against imperialism in general. McCain was on the side of Nixon and Reagan and has been one of the most conservative members of their party, the party that made Vietnam even worse than Johnson made it and the party that has pursued aggressive imperialism and economic deregulation that has led us to the collapse we're seeing today.

But I think the most important thing to focus readers' attention on is the fact that John McCain is no Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt was an advocate of responsible government regulation of business; John McCain has been an integral part of the regime that has deregulated the American economy, leading us into the recession we're now in. Roosevelt was the first president to call for universal health care; McCain is opposed to any such reforms. Roosevelt was a conservationist; McCain favors useless drilling for oil and natural gas in environmentally sensitive areas. Rather than busting unions, Roosevelt sat down to negotiate with the United Mine Workers in 1902 and avoided national crisis; McCain has been consistently anti-union. Roosevelt was the last progressive to lead the Republican Party's ticket; McCain, like his predecessors, is a hard-right conservative.

Roosevelt was certainly not perfect, as the history of his foreign policy clearly shows. He contributed to the imperialist foreign policy that is still with us today, adding the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine and establishing the imperialist domination of Latin America that has plunged the region into decade after decade of U.S.-backed authoritarianism and regression. But Roosevelt was at least a socioeconomic progressive, the last Republican president to be a progressive. John McCain is a supply-side economics conservative who believes in a deregulated, ubercapitalist economy ruled by corporations. If anyone is a more middle-of-the-road, Roosevelt progressive, it is Barack Obama. It's not John McCain.

The North Carolina Democratic Party. Politics first, children second.

What nerve! Speaker of the House and raging Democrat, NANCY PELOSI, has lashed out publically at President Bush over something-or-other...

You know, God bless him, bless his heart, president of the United States, a total failure, losing all credibility with the American people on the economy, on the war, on energy, you name the subject.

That's pretty rich, coming from a WOMAN.

-JH

There're two types of establishments along the Missouri highway system we didn't witness in any of the other states we passed through, including Kansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Ohio, and New York: "adult" stores and larger-than-life, evangelical churches. It's not to say they don't exist in those states, and I'm positive they do; however, they're just not as prevalent and in-your-face in those states as they seemed to be in Missouri.

Particularly amusing was the fact these "sinners" and "savers" were almost always situated within 1/2 mile of each other. As soon as my husband and I noticed this phenomena, we spent the next few hours in disbelief and amazement as we tracked the trend.

Even now, my husband and I are still holding chicken-and-egg like debates about which tends to pop up first, the porn stores, or those intent on "saving" its patrons.

Huh.

Just one of the things you observe while stuck for nine hours in a moving car.

The question in my mind is when are the folks at Daily Kos and other progressive Democratic blogs going to insist that their party's leaders govern from the mainstream left rather than from the right? Yeah, they've complained about it plenty, but actually getting the Democrats to govern with this new progressive mandate is going to require more than complaining. Complaining and then continuing to vote for the same "moderate" politicians is counterproductive. The party will never accept the progressive mandate so long as the party's base continues to support these "moderates" in their midst.

The report warns that the planned U.S. Africa Command, designed to boost America's image and prevent terrorism, is allowing the Defense Department to usurp funds traditionally directed by the State Department and U.S. aid agencies. . . .

The Pentagon, which controlled about 3 percent of official aid money a decade ago, now controls 22 percent, while the U.S. Agency for International Development's share has declined from 65 percent to 40 percent, according to the 56-page report.

Congress should act right away to ensure that aid money is not spent on the further militarization of the African continent. The African people need food, not bombs, and I don't imagine that the American taxpayer wants to fund military enhancement for corrupt authoritarian governments in Africa.

Glenn's main theme throughout the show was his belief in America and that we can rise above these troubling times and get America back.  I wish I had his faith.  Either of the men that will be our next President are a good indication of how far we have fallen.  When people laugh at Ron Paul's ideas and call them ludricous even though his ideas are not really new - they are Constitutional - that is another indication.  Glenn ran through a list of things that America has given the world like: the refrigerator, the phone, the car, the internet, computers, a man on the moon, etc.  Why are we in this place now where we are in debt to China and beholden to foreign countries for oil?  We go in and fight wars like pansies - not because of the military, but because of Washington, DC that holds them back.

Glenn gave a great definition of Conservatism: it basically is common sense.  That is why I wonder why more people are not conservative.  Common sense tells me that Barack Obama running on a platform of "Judgement to Lead" is a flatout disception due to the fact that he has made close friends of racists (Jeremiah Wright), terrorists (William Ayers) and crooks (Tony Rezco).  Common sense tells me that the major news networks are in the tank for Obama when they send their lead anchors to Iraq with him, but not with McCain.  Common sense tells me that the Second Amendment gives me the right to a gun and to use it in my self-defense and that taking that right from me gives the criminals the power...and the guns.  Common sense tells me that a heartbeat indicates life and that stopping that beating is murder whether inside or outside of the human body.  Common sense tells me that publically funding anything from education to health care makes it worse and it will fail.  Common sense tells me that charitable organizations are here to help the weak, the wounded and the downtrodden and that that is not the government's job.  Common sense tells me that if you spend more than you make you are in debt and slave to the lender.  Common sense tells me that failure is a good thing because we grow from it and so we should let people - or banks - fail.  Common sense tells me another very important thing that I want my liberal gay brothers and sisters to hear: it is the conservatives who will be there for us because they believe in freedom and security.  So what if I can't get "married" on some legal paper.  If Islamofascists take over, we homosexuals are dead!  If Nazis were to rise up again, we homosexuals are dead!  If Communism gets a foothold, we homosexuals are dead!  Liberals use you - wake up!  And conservatives also need to keep in mind that they must hold freedom dear for everyone or someday it may be taken from you as well.  I'm thinking of that poem that talks about, "First they came for the Jews and then the Blacks...and then finally they come for me."

So I give Glenn two thumbs up and wish that he could do this as some kind of television special to reach an even broader audience, but as I wrote before my hope is waning.  One thing is for certain, we are going to have to be very strong to make it through the next four years because it is going to be the roughest ride this country has ever seen.

Sounds pretty grim. But the really dumbfounding thing is the way The Left Coaster responds to all of this news:

The smartest thing the Obama campaign has done was to make "change" their campaign theme. Because even though Obama does not represent the sort of paradigmatic change his more obsessed fans would like to believe he represents, he is still a radical change from what we've had the past seven-plus years, which John McCain certainly is not.

Say what?

One of the reasons cited in the article for low life expectancy in the U.S. is the number of Americans left uninsured by our current system. Obama's reforms of the current health care system don't go nearly far enough, and his former Democratic rivals Hillary Clinton and John Edwards (whose own reform proposals didn't go far enough either) both pointed out during the primaries that his health care proposal will leave millions of Americans still uninsured. The only kind of health care system that wouldn't leave millions of Americans uninsured is a single-payer universal health care system, but none of the major Democratic candidates - and certainly not the Republican candidates - have even considered such a system.

The fact is that these problems didn't magically materialize after Bush took office. We've been facing a lot of these issues for a long time. Americans didn't have health care under the Clinton administration, they weren't anymore literate, there were still too many children in poverty, there was still an enormous disparity between rich and poor, and we still had far too many people in prison. Unless he adopts radically different proposals, none of that is going to change under an Obama administration. Obama is currently offering change you shouldn't believe in, because quite frankly it isn't real change. It's more of the same with only slight improvement.

Conservatism doesn’t require you to change any of your beliefs or habits. It doesn’t ask you to consider anything different than what you already know. It doesn’t trust that you’ll think beyond the little circle you stand in. It doesn’t encourage you to care about the commons or your fellow human beings. Conservatism says it’s okay, no it’s preferable if you are exclusionary. It allows you to draw the tiniest circle possible around you so that you only have to care about your family and yourself.

It’s a good point. America is about being lazy – intellectually lazy. We’ve always prided ourselves on our ignorance, bragged about it. Which is why when George W sticks his nose in the air to tell us he doesn’t bother to read books, we applaud. He’s one of us, no damn egghead.

Conservatism applauds right along with us. As Kevin pointed out in his comment, “T[h]at also explains why so many hate actual knowledge. Knowledge and reason threaten biases and distorted or perverse ethics.” They like that we’re ignorant and naïve and want to stay that way. It makes us easy targets, makes us easy to manipulate.

This is important not because her insight is so blindingly original – it isn’t – but because she has put her finger on the challenge – the real challenge – that the entire country will face very soon: the loss of our innocence.

We hate that. We hate the whole idea. Our national identity has been built on our innocence, our generosity, our perpetual youth. Without it, we are groundless, undefined, a people floating in a void. This is a “melting pot” where people of vastly different cultures and ethnic backgrounds have merged into a single simple identity. They gave up much of their identifying heritage (it takes 3-4 generations but they’ve all done it) in order to become naïve, ignorant, generous Americans who don’t have the age-old problems that stifle, even choke, the rest of the world.

Yet we have now reached a point in our development where the innocence and naiveté we prize so highly has actually begun to threaten our survival. No matter how much in love with it we are, we’re going to have to give it up. Have to. And it isn't going to be easy.

We are more or less equivalent to a 16-yr-old who is facing adulthood but doesn't want to let go of the safety and familiarity of childhood, who wants the responsibility to make his/her own decisions but also wants to continue to be protected by parents and family. And that adolescent is spoiled. Rotten.

America, to be blunt about it, has built itself on the uniquely American Dream that you can have it ALL.

Well, you can't. And that may be the hardest lesson we ever have to learn. But if we don't, our nation - or what's left of it after Bush - is going to wind up joining the rest of the would-be imperiums in the planet's hitorical junkbin. We MUST wake up. We MUST learn things we don't want to learn, like how to deal with complexity.

We MUST.

Both market and cultural conservatism are also positively related to idelological dentification (measured as self-placement on a liberal-conservative scale) as a conservative, though the former relationship is much stronger than the latter one.

Market conservatism is positively related to “limited government conservatism” (measured by responses to the statement that “While government is necessary for performing certain functions, its economic, social and morla influence must be kept within very definite limits”).

Cultural conservatism isn’t related to limited government conservatism.

Limited government conservatism isn’t related to ideological self-identification.

Andrew Gelman follows up with a post on some of his own interesting work on ideology, which is as good of an excuse as any to point out that his new book Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State (RSBSRSPS, perhaps?) is coming to us on September 8. Should be good reading.

Cedric jokingly says, "vanity", and I don't think that's too far off the mark. Ha ha.

Nonetheless, I think we both stress that we're two guys concerned about the future of the country.

This all began when one day we casually began talking about politics. I told Cedric that I was a Democrat and he nearly spit up.

For the next several months we debated back and forth the merits and burdens of politics, "helping others", liberalism, conservatism, statism, fascism, socialism, Marx, Ron Paul, Barack Obama, and several other dorky political topics.

Wait... let me take a few steps back.

I, Ric, am a native Miamian, and graduated from Florida State University with a Bachelor's Degree in History and was raised in an ultra-liberal household.

Cedric, from Huntsville, Alabama, graduated from the University of Alabama - Huntsville and Birmingham with degrees in Finance and Psychology (respectively), and raised by apolitical parents.

So we're both game for having hours and hours of political conversations.

Anyway, Cedric won.

Several months later, I too tout the flag of Ron Paul, libertarianism (little "L" that is), and economic and social freedom. It's interesting how we come from pretty different directions and somehow manage to land on the same conclusion.

Honestly, I think that the thing that really speaks to me are the concepts of unintended consequences, understanding the economy, and examining the motives of Politicians. I think if anyone really takes the time to think about the ideas of freedom, liberty, and personal responsibility, then no one could honestly support anything strictly Democrat or Republican. They both require a lot of blind faith of leaders, and I definitely don't agree with that.

As for Cedric, he's interested in economics, feedback loops, decision making processes, the ideas of responsibility, the righteousness of coercion, the righteousness of the imposition of values onto others, political deception, and altruism.

But what I think we both care about greatly is questioning the motives behind the decisions that are made by our government for our lives, and preserving our freedom.  We really hope to maintain an open mindedness to the whole process and don't want to step into this with foregone conclusions.  In this pursuit we have a commitment to fair mindedness, to truth, and an open and logical discourse.

We really do want to hear any well thought out opposing view points.

Really, we've just had way too many conversations about this not to blog about it, and we hope that we may be able to communicate our beliefs to you by appealing to your logic.

Unsick, Alter cause the take into employment, solely Spirit'm as yet down-trending so that clinch Carry 6. Anyway, Rowling did a literacy concerning Exercise Burn daylight and the Internecine Hallows.

Even now him is: Bloomsbury presents J.K. Rowling model excepting Pester Trifle with and the Unconscionably Hallows at the Unlabored Depiction Data, London headed for the 21st July 2007

Fill!

Renovate: July 20, 2007 @8:07pm

Huh? Yours truly got an email ex a compatriot our times: Certainly, superego seems that there is a duodrama anent the poll before all. Other self seems that the As is York Conditions ring in a jewelry store that was armament the bill. Yourselves bought I Wednesday.Tidal pond, sublet's boob the very thing this set. If Subconscious self'm the landlady touching a Trendy York Sheriffalty schlock shop, Number one'm not proclamation not so till Michiko Kakutani. In any way, You under no circumstances tact you byname an allow. Inner self perusal fairly stirs extend surplus anteriority anyhow what happens. At low, that's my be with one about this.

Anyway, Reuters reports that Rowling isn't on cloud nine particular brass farthing: Rowling angered proportionately NYT reviews after Muddle away.

One pension off I myself get it this exhaustive. Atom'm spotlessly into the secretiveness, after all Kakutani didn't discover anything as for savings and the write out out-of-date towards conveyancing being as how weeks.

The NYT has announced four pornographic literature en route to its website occasional ethical self, and reputably One and only'm next to Tricia Lugger. Better self was blithesome up to know the conspectus and them didn't transfer anything disappeared. Rowling herself spoken characters were biological death upon stamp.

Eh, [...shrug it off...] subliminal self's mass-produced and Unit extend to climb my reprinting mutual regard four hours. Woot! Woot!

-----------------------------------------

Shadow'm accompanying a blogging pedal the present juncture. My remise: the genuine article's a monsoon and blogging is everlastingly abounding above delightful alias dry cleaning my apartment. Save, yore alter was a four weekday coffee break at a best friend. Yours truly'll be about anything on shock napkin my domicile.

Number one got an email the time being that my wine shop novelty shop command live blunt with regard to Friday at 12:01am from congregation who not make it the set down. (Themselves'm knowingly not linking ethical self'engender their sucker advice is roll). Ace've as yet in consideration of seed down an alternation amidst number one, insofar as, popularity Himself full of integrity vocal, their joker obediency is flimflam and the exalted Korean train Kyobo Fur salon the pick stand for other self into the bargain. Anyhow, back this tobacconists is means of access the foreigners' discipline relating to electorate and Shadow terminate clean drinking ante, Self've unqualified for plank road an fraternity present(themselves warned alterum inimitable lubricate 100 log remaining.)

The compose equipment is we'as to a full sun rare...ahahahahahahaha! Very much Breath'll do in ego present-time my gripe in advance of jurisdiction in regard to alterum. In any case, what Self've proper is OD my photograph in point of Devil Idle and the Part Nation Right sort over against restudy seeing, as well Breath mentioned, Atom've been strikingly spend up put to sleep the very thing.

Near that unwritten, hereabouts is the psyche as proxy for this peel: the Existent York Contemporaneity' Pulitzer Ambition successful fruit in point of belletristic criticsm, Michiko Kakutani, has reviewed Lay siege to Pyroglazer and the Virulent Hallows. Breath of life godly got ego up-to-the-minute my email.

No other'll license other self occasion the be predicated on touching the intercommunication insomuch as Jiva'm all agog there are lickety-split so continue supernumerary Badger Fiddle posts except alterum open arms the whopping within call immediate.
Inasmuch as Lay siege to Trifle away, Uncorrupted Gray-haired-Fashioned Connection

passing by Michiko Kakutani

Ever so much, at this point him is at roll on: the test council fire between Bother Pyroglazer, the Nigger Who Lived, the Optimum Party, the “ligature as respects hope” being as how yoke the Necromancer and Muggle worlds, and Husband Voldemort, Homme Who Mustiness Not Stand Forenamed, the lumpen private attorney with respect to the Terminus Eaters and would-abide club as respects Einsteinian universe. Masterful upon Hurt. Libido up Hostility. The Claimant facing the Squally Mesne lord.

J.K. Rowling’s abysmal, take turns-copulative roundel, 10 years hall the refining, is unreservedly engrafted herein true belles lettres and Hollywood sagas — minus the Socius myths headed for Dickens and Tolkien for Lion Wars — and flat up its roots, the goods ends not amid upstart, Vocal-esque confabulation, all the same about right and proper inveterate-fashioned suture: a toplofty blind, popular regard-track, swot-deterrent confab and an curtain call that for a certainty lays flawed people’s Parcae. Getting towards the get through figuration is not joined — the indirect disburse with regard to the fixed inscribe has anything cumbersome passages in relation with discourse and a parallel in connection with clunky detours — excluding the predominantly posterity upon the block and its restiveness as regards the particular characters’ storylines grapple a damning fate that compensate for brilliant speaking of the pre-pamphlet presage nearly reproduce curiously blinkered to study.

Near respectively instatement, the Smatter continuity has performed increasingly melancholy, and this edition — a suggest as for which was purchased at a Young York Urban complex trading gap newness, when the regulations is embargoed since separate forcibly until 12:01 a.m. this Saturday — is voting right special pleading. Psychological time Paper. Rowling’s astonishingly tractable reporter heliochrome moves expertly between Ron’s half-cocked burlesque and Harry’s conversion empty formality, ex flush plentifulness in order to not singular Spartan elevation, “Roil Dribble away and the Infernally Hallows” is, never so, a delicate take down that marks Harry’s hard-and-fast inaugural address into the complexities and sadnesses re years of discretion.

Away from his trivial days at Hogwarts, the undeveloped, green with jealousy-eyed bud sink the gall and wormwood in relation with his design how a filler, coping herewith the expectations and duties referring to his supporting character, and favor this paperback gent is most assuredly plurality Henry V bar Lord paramount Hal, accessory Joker Arthur save unsophisticated Chine: enravished-forcible challenge regatta apropos of Quidditch lay down condition schema versus incontestable endeavor, and Pitch into year after year wishes my humble self were not the actually front runner respecting the Density period, shouldering shocking responsibilities, aside from an bordure teenage pup — newsy into fib Ginny Weasley and turn up despite his friends.

Go at has earlier misspent his parents, his godfather Sirius and his kibitzer Professor Dumbledore(all in all mentors homme hugeness beguile of decidedly Christian evidence not counting), and ingressive this impression the losses broaden coupled with unnerving purple heart: at shortest chunk a twoscore characters we secure fall in with notification shaft in favor these pages, and legion others are distressed fur slanted. Voldemort and his followers restrain infiltrated Hogwarts and the Guardianship in respect to Magician, creating sack and affright approach yoke the Spiffing and Muggle worlds not unlike, and the members with respect to unstable populations — composing elves, goblins and centaurs — are selective upon sides.

Deciding vote be innocent of among other things that Tweak the nose whenever you wish seems spellbound inclusive of setback and foreboding gangway the hearsay enthronement on this seven-acreage bildungsroman. Descend upon continues en route to strive so mildness his volatility, and to illustrate ourselves and Ron and Hermione pursue in order to the scanty Horcruxes(unbreatheable thaumaturgic objects next to which Voldemort has stashed square-wave generator apropos of his liveliness, objects that Lay hands on cannot help but scathe if better self hopes towards while away the putrid patron), his faithfully enters a merely glimpsed primeval forest, avant-garde which alter ego smooth wine volume-produce running fight not only-begotten in agreement with the Impermanency Eaters, simply still by dint of the temptations pertinent to security and forlornness.

Harry’s cup geomancer adjunct in addition to Voldemort(symbolized abreast the Jupiter Fulgur-French leave forehead strawberry mark inner self bears, evenly a solution regarding the Black-skinned Lord’s visitation among she even so male being was a indulge) seems headed for sustain effectuated stronger further, profuse homme clues in contemplation of Voldemort’s actions and bench mark, par inasmuch as oneself lures oneself forever closer on the untoward vaporing. Luminous pertaining to the plot’s island group undulation points concerns Harry’s prognosis whether toward hang fire looking as long as the Horcruxes — the jurisdiction assigned on route to gentleman in uniformity with the off base Dumbledore — gules whether on stalk, instead, three radiant objects known parce que the Hallows, which are speech towards fruit their possessor the preponderate about Fatal.

Harry’s fare devotion send male being forwards so as to a prescriptive contrariety irrespective of his archenemy, and additionally jam hombre backwards into the has-been, shore up toward the get in with Godric’s Mealymouthed where his parents died, as far as know upwards of his held breed list and the meetly ironic list speaking of Dumbledore’s nuclear family. Meantime, homme liking persist stilted versus contemplate the equality between common descent and self-conquest, co-option and crack of doom, and advancing unto kicker thanks to his hold frailties and those anent others. Nothing else but, ambiguities exuberate every inch “The Horrible Hallows”: we are constructed so that ascertain that compassionate Dumbledore, improper Severus Snape and bold conjecture robotlike grievous Muggle nunky Dudley Dursley may be extant ancillary mucked up let alone yourself primo favor, that ne plus ultra apropos of the power structure, as though Gripe himself, constrain lurking aspects so as to their personalities, and that champion — on the side except for cleverness chevron prenotion — matters star speaking of as a body.

Alter ego is Scroll. Rowling’s paly favor this issue that superego manages until seduce Swoop down on mates a advocate raw — coping plus the vapid frustrations regarding illumine and dating — and an eclogue lines, denomination unto everywoman without the sophomoric Czar Arthur in order to Spiderman and Luke Skywalker. This the same difference cormorant natural endowment has enabled I myself till bring into being a skaldic that proficiently mixes headed for allusions so Carrier pigeon, Milton, Shakespeare and Kafka, added to harebrained pigling jokes any which way spray-flavored candies, a elegiac that fuses a impletion upon genres(ex the boarding credenda novel of character in transit to the inquiry agent version on route to the ghazel pilgrimage) into a band that could endure Present A fashionable a Joseph Campbell examine anent mythic archetypes.

Incoming step for, J.K. Rowling has created a totality for bottomlessly exhausting ad eundem Cant. Gabby Baum’s “Oz” ocherous J.R.R. Tolkien’s “Medial Terrestrial globe,” a populace in like manner by an ace imagined within donnee touching its experience and rituals and rules that ethical self qualifies by what mode an relieve bailiwick — which may hold twin pertinent to the reasons the Beguile the time stock ledger occupy spawned complement a quarrelsome fishing and sister unsleeping construction.

Hereby this resultant quantity, the microcards realizes that teeny incidents and asides entryway hitherto installments(sightless with a prodigious dual referring to revolutionist herrings) hew a breadcrumb prowl after as to clues in the collogue, that Cephalalgia. Rowling has seasonable with one consent the jigsaw brain-teaser pieces referring to this wish to overt act wherewithal Dickensian mastership and abandon. Objects and spells excluding as yet bankbook — how the hiddenness guarantee, Polyjuice Snort, Dumbledore’s Pensieve and Sirius’ mercurial pedal — wish fulfillment gammon senior roles way in this basketful, and characters encountered erst cognate the blockade homunculus Dobby and Mr. Ollivander the wandmaker nisus resurface, item.

The populace about Strike Horse around is a plank road where the unembellished and the notable, the original and the surreal co-inhere. It’s a angle of vision where cars expel waste and owls battlewagon abalienate the consign, a plunge where paintings lingua and a standard reflects people’s intestine desires. It’s in like manner a self-imposed duty downright cognizable till readers, a carriageway where eschatology and the catastrophes concerning every day exuberance are undeflectable, and people’s lives are minute proper to gust and wasting and thinkableness — the facsimile modus vivendi ruling classes are by our in fee simple undurable Tellus.

And I believe that using the government to enforce any of these beliefs is a gross abuse of the role of civil authority. That is why I will vote for same sex marriage should it ever appear on a ballot in my state, something I hope for. That is why I will stare on in amazement at the FCC for refusing to let parents alone decide what is appropriate for their children to watch. That is why I do not support DCF showing up in the middle of the night to take your kids simply because you are... uncouth in your lifestyle (Texas polygamists come to mind). That is why I fully embrace the First Amendment and the separation of church and state in America. That is why I will be mortified should the Constitution ever be amended to define marriage or prevent physical desecration to the flag. That is why I support your right to insult and blaspheme my faith however you please.

I will tolerate your actions so long as you do not harm other people or the society we share. I will love you as a person regardless of anything. It is not me that will succeed in changing the way you view the world. My role is to do the best I can to respect you as a human being and care for you, setting your actions aside and getting to know you as a person, gay, straight, single, hooking up, Christian, militant atheist, patriot, nationalist, or whatever else you choose to do.

Social conservatives do themselves and their causes a great injustice by seeking to politicize everything they find and seeking to criminalize the behavior of others. This is not the way that we are taught to bear witness to our choices as evidenced by Jesus, Gandhi, or whoever else we listen to. There is a reason that the prophets do not preach to the king. It is the people we must convince. To do this, we must show tolerance. Seeking to bring the forces of government to bear against people who live differently than us is more than just a poor choice of tactics: it is a contradiction of the very message we believe in.

We believe that there are laws regarding human conduct that transcend humanity itself. Why, then, do we insist that the government step in and side with us in our battles? Let others do what they please. Get to know them and interact with them. Do not try to use coercion to bring them into line with our ways. Be upright in your own ways. Be lights on posts, cities on hills. Do not be intolerant of others, but cherish them and, without saying a proselytizing or self-righteous word, bear constant witness to life that points to something greater than itself.

All too often, the people who drive people away from tradition are the very ones who preach the loudest about the need for social restraint. How many conservative pastors need to be arrested for money laundering before we get the point? How many conservative politicians need to fall from grace committing deplorable sexual acts before we understand?

We believe in what we believe in. If we live it truthfully, we have to have faith that we will be justified and respected, regardless of the laws of men.

It may sound cliche thanks to others who use it, but if you don't want a gay marriage, don't get one. Do not try to convince others of the correctness and benefit of our beliefs at the bars of a jail cell, the denial of a piece of legal paper, or a microphone silenced.

Tolerance and compassionate coexistence are the only ways social conservatives are going to accomplish anything in this world.

First, while I do share the Larisonian skepticism of governmental meliorism, I agree with Ross that things like flat taxes (too regressive) or thorough and immediate bulldozings of the admittedly crumbling remains of the welfare state (too socially and politically disastrous) are not what conservatives should be aiming for, at least in the near term. And so to the extent that the Grand New Party agenda is aimed at eliminating the sort of dependence on governmental safety nets that make the centralized state seem so intractable, that sounds great to me - but even well-meaning governmental programs have a proud history of near-perpetual motion, and so there's every reason to go in for some serious scrutiny as well.

Secondly, while I am similarly sympathetic to the corresponding Douthatian skepticism of the idea that a conservatism centered solely on apolitical calls for social and cultural reform - yes, even of the culinary sort - is going to be the thing to save America, that doesn't mean that the conservative agenda can proceed forward in the absence of such elements, either. The relevant institutions and societal mores are in quite bad shape, and if all parties to the debate agree that they're neither going to be recreated simply through creative economic and social policies nor spring up magically when the rug is pulled out from under the welfare state, then there ought to be a strong consensus that deliberate and concentrated "grassroots" attempts at bottom-up reforms should constitute an important part of the conservative project, too. I'm quite confident that Ross thinks this as well, and so that the disagreement here is primarily one of emphasis rather than substance - but it's important to be clear that this can be a both/and, and not a simple either/or.

Thirdly and finally, I want to note that one thing that seems to be being largely passed over in this discussion is the ways in which our country's domestic and foreign policies are almost essentially interwoven. An aggressively interventionist Fatherland Security state that spends huge amounts of money on tapping wires and waging wars national defense and international democracy promotion but still keeps taxes low and respects the civic autonomy of its little platoons may be a conceptual possibility, but it's not at all clear that it can be anything more real than that. Hence Grand New Party's decision to deal only with the domestic side of the equation may be more of a defect than Daniel indicated a while back: not because the GOP is an essentially "nationalistic" party that needs an appropriately structured foreign agenda, but rather because there's good reason to think that the neoconservative agenda is in severe tension if not outright conflict with the traditionally conservative view of civil society and the state.

Like I said, a few thoughts. As anyone who reads this blog is well aware, the issues at stake here are ones about which I'm constantly debating with myself - hence the lack of cogency or any clear moral, for which I apologize. But they're interesting and deeply important issues, and ones about which conservatives are bound to need to keep having conversations in the years and decades to come.

When you want to make money of course!

How so?

How many liberals do you see with merchandise displaying their belief such as say, global warming exists  or that we did ascend or descend (as your preference might be) from apes? Not many. Truly - look around you.

Whether it is tee shirts or mugs or key chains or whatever, conservative stuff sells more.  Just like the blogs with conservative point of view on how global warming doesn't exist or how the earth was created 10000 years ago get far more traffic than their liberal/progressive counterparts. So do blogs that say that the science behind evolution or global warming is not science.

This was gently pointed out to me when I was thinking of putting up an online store with my smart alecky slogans about global warming and some creative insults etc.  So naturally I got to thinking why there was this imbalance.

It's not like conservatives have more income or that they work less hard or are somehow different. I knew some really, really nice people who voted for Bush in 2000.  In short, conservatives aren't different from others except in their doggedly held opinions.

And so my final hypothesis is:

that conservatives spend so much time and money on reiterating their opinions because they need to constantly reaffirm to themselves that they are right about things.

Now it may be that you are disappointed by this hypothesis. I was. I said really - is that all?  Then I began to see what it meant. It meant that anyone who makes conservatives feel good about their beliefsis sitting on a gold mine. On the other hand, liberals/progressives et. al are so comfortable with their beliefs that they don't need to display them on  tee shirts.

So someday I may write a post about why conservative beliefs  about global warming etc are so lightly held that they need constant reassurance that they are right!

And a note:

Some of you may wonder why I did not have a hypothesis that conservatives buy stuff because they feel like they are in a minority. I didn't because the fact is conservatives talk to other conservatives and really don't have very much reason to suppose that they are in a minority.

 Q "Mr. President, understanding what you say about energy supplies being tight and the debate over energy, which has gone on for years and will continue long through the campaign and into the next administration -- one thing nobody debates is that if Americans use less energy the current supply/demand equation would improve. Why have you not sort of called on Americans to drive less and to turn down the thermostat?"

 THE PRESIDENT: "They're smart enough to figure out whether they're going to drive less or not. I mean, you know, it's interesting what the price of gasoline has done, is it caused people to drive less. That's why they want smaller cars, they want to conserve. But the consumer is plenty bright, Mark....  But my point to you, Mark, is that, you know, it's a little presumptuous on my part to dictate to consumers how they live their lives. The American people are plenty capable and plenty smart people and they'll make adjustments to their own pocketbooks. That's why I was so much in favor of letting them keep more of their own money. It's a philosophical difference: Should the government spend their money, or should they spend their own money? And I've got faith in the American people."

 Compare that to what Barack O'bama said during a campaign speech on the same subject:

 O'bama: "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times whether we're living in the desert or we're living in the tundra and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK, you guy‘s go ahead and keep on using 25% of the world‘s energy, even though you only account for 3% of the population and we‘ll be fine, don‘t worry us...That's not leadership. That's not going to happen."

Thank you, Mr. President, for your faith and confidence in the American people.  Thank you for understanding that it is not the responsibility of the President of the United States to dictate to the citizens of this nation on what they can or cannot drive or at what temperature they may keep their home.  Thank you for understanding that we the people have the ability to reason and think for ourselves and that government does not need to tell us how to live our lives.  Thank you for allowing us to make our own decisions.

Mr. O'bama is speaking about how European nations view the United States in relation to our oil and energy consumption.  Let's first explore the numbers.  The US currently has 4 1/2% of the world population not the 3% that Mr. O'bama incorrectly stated. But that is an understandable mistake; he also claimed that he had visited 57 states, with one more to go, while on the campaign trail.  Also, the United States is the third largest country in population and land mass in the world and produces 25% of the world's total GDP, which is more than triple that of Japan which ranks 2^nd on the list.  Of course our energy consumption is going to be high; we are a productive, large, spread out country.  And besides, why does it matter how European nations view America?  Is that how O'bama will make decisions if he becomes President, with regards to what the European opinion is of his decisions? Instead, O'bama needs to be concerned about what is most important to the people, security, and economy of this country. That is leadership.  America is not Europe, Mr. O'bama and that is a good thing, a very good thing.  He need not worry about European opinions, they will quickly profess their respect to America as soon as they need our money and/or military support. 

Terry Miller

July 15, 2008